Is NC underpowered or harder to learn?

That's not how data works lol. You divide the collected kills by the number of users and the time used to get kills per hour, the number of people using a weapon does not influence its performance, rather, it can only statistically INCREASE THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA

Really, I posted about it early, despite what poeple think about the SAW, it's under performing, in fact its the worst performing LMG in the game of any faction, time used and population is factored for, and noobs were excluded form the data by using players over level 40. I've posted the data too many times to automatically slap it on here unless requested. the Carv and Orion on the other hand are statistically close to their faction's best performing LMG. Get off the SAW argument, data has disproven you. there is no longer an argument to be made.

You lost me when you started excluding data. I've taken a much deeper view of it. And while its a good decent set of data your findings compared to other weapons don't look at several factors. One example is who they faced? If your facing a population problem your numbers skew. While I applaud your effort, I do see serious flaws with your conclusions. Another factor is what level shield were they using etc etc etc.

And using data that is obviously skewed at high levels which you count. I can go on , but I usually charge 400 an hour for that type of work.

Your assumptions are negated by the large sample size, you can assume that whoever is playing is using "the average gear" The data is statistically sound simply by the number of people it was collected from. If they're on the high end as much as the low, by nature of normality.

When I started, I started all three factions. I got the fastest kills with TR's starter weapons, an uncerted SAW really isn't a good noob weapon since it gets used in CQC where it's weak. I like the Anchor better, but have little luck with a similarly certed Ursa for some reason. Maybe it's the sound.

Mmm.... yeah, the default LMG has trouble at close range, low rate of fire plus high spread makes it barely hit
Anchor costs 1000 Certs, expensive, but looking at this, would a GD-22S work similarly? it seems to have some descend Accuracy and the rate of fire seems somewhat nice, kinda like a cheaper anchor, maybe fitted with a laser sight it would be somewhat decent for CQC?

only on thing in this game as easy to use and have biggest ROF than Minimi (MCG) is SMG (Sub machine gun - with 9mm rounds wich is only for hurt but if u see the carabines or lmg´s this type of guns use much more biggest rounds with biggest top and is made for kill someone. I dont know btw why SMG have 856 ROF and MCG have only 800. Yey and why MCG have 0,9 or 1 sec delay than starts fire?! Do u fire from Minigun? just try it.

NC6 Gauss Rifle is medium gun but, when u attach it with forward grip u get best stabilized weapon and her COF starts by 30 or 45 round.

Yea the SAW is among the best weapons for mid-long range and among the worst for close range.
The GD-22S is certaintly better at close range due to better hipfire accuracy, but it's not ideal, since damage output is sort of low and it doesn't have access to advanced laser sight. The Anchor is supposedly the best CQC LMG. Try it out in the VR room.

Yes, it's more VTOL than jet fighter. The ESFs have a steep learning curve, so you will suck for a while until you finally get it. There are some youtube videos about how to hover/dogfight/reverse manuveur etc. Rotary and AB are very good for dogfighting, but you need to learn to hover fight (AB are useful for that as well)

The GR-22 for the Medic is a high ROF assault rifle that kills quickly, very suited for close range with the laser sight. You will need to learn a little trigger discipline since it fires off its mag very quickly.

Actually, most of the differences for NS weapons are within the margin of error. You should also be looking at kills instead of score, since that isn't affected by population bonuses.

The. What is the calculated statistical significance and standard of error +\- for your data set.

Again you people make claims without backing it up with the data. You manipulate the data and pull the low numbers off while keeping the high ones and expect simple and unsubstantiated numbers to draw conclusions like they are some kind of god fact.

You are spinning a web of lies around numbers without pointing to the data and your calculations.

Lets start, shall we?

You claim that the saw underperforms. Which is an incorrect statement.

The only thing you can claim is that users with the saw do die more than the other factions and don't kill as often based on a dataset that includes only data above br40. Now by using only data above 40 (maybe not you but all you nc sound alike on the forums) you cut more of your data set out to what someone already claimed was skewed.

Without deeper data understanding, ie avg level diff, how many assists were involved (like how many times did an nc die and no assist points were awarded, etc etc etc.

Bottom line is the data is incomplete for the claims that the saw is underperforming, your comparing kdr and points per hour on a small and filtered dataset. Besides a skewed kdr and no situational variables to speak of, your arguments of up saw do not hold water. I'm sorry but I don't see it, and it hasn't been explained in detail. Just saying look at the sheet does nothing since its skewed and incomplete anyway.

Unless you can back your claim with an explanation of how you got to your conclusion and explain how you used each number , them there really is nothing else you can claim except saw users died more.

I want to believe but you really have to prove your point and bit lay baseless claims.

The data doesn't really back that the SAW is over- or underperforming. If anything, the data suggests that the SAW, CARV and Orion are very balanced performance-wise. The apparent differences in score and kills for the default LMGs are for the most part trivial and within the margin of error.

You think I've done that? it's ALL players BR40+ with ALL PIECES OF DATA. it's you who has decided to be insulting and accusational. And yes, that's exactly what I claim. If the people using it aren't getting kills it obviously isn't functioning effectively. It's not filtered, at all, you've just made that up. Situational variables are negligible since their effects spread across all weapons, so they effect both sides of the argument equally.
Because of the sample size, (EVERY PLAYER OVER LEVEL 40 WITH THE WEAPON) you can assume normality, that all out of the ordinary situations have become normalized, and are now incapable of scewing the data. Situations like being overwhelmed are represented as often as being the one outnumbering others, ad lucky deaths happen as often as lucky kills. That's statistics.
The kills/hour score naturally gives you a measure of how much that weapon is killing, the score per hour shows how much soldiers do while holding the weapon including objectives. By eliminating low battle ranks we eliminate the outliers of inexperience, giving a slice of average player data rather than letting the data be dragged down by low level players. This makes sense given the SAW is a default gun, so it would be impacted heavily by removing the lower level data, in a good way. It went up by about 2 kills/hour when that change was made, the carv also increased in score, by about 1.
Based on the seriously low kill/hour stat of the SAW compared to other NC weapons, I can conclude that NC is not the culprit. Note that the EM6, anchor, and EM1 are at or about 15 kills/hour, where the SAW is at 9. These numbers are consistent with other faction LMG's.
Looking at the TR and VS weapons, The defaults are all low, in the area of 9-10 KPH, so we can now assume that it is the default weapons that are being brought down, so we isolate those 3 weapons to figure out how to properly compare them. Based on the graph of that data, I make the claim that the SAW is underperforming, up until level 50 as of the attachment patch. After level 50, the scores level and the weapon is in line with others. This suggests that the weapon is very difficult to use effectively compared to the other default weapons, which is likely the cause of its score being below where it should be, and the weapons under powered scores.
The cause of the default guns being underscored hasn't been found yet, which is why I'm not comparing it to other not default LMG's

Correct (sort of). The data for high BR characters is so sparse that deviation like what we see in the LMG graph is to be expected. The only thing I would conclude from that data is that they're pretty balanced.

You will always be able to come up with something else that hasn't been accounted for. In lieu of better options, go with Occam's razor and pick the one with least assumptions, (e.g. that if two different weapons differ significantly in performance it is due to differences in the weapons.)

Agreed and at this point there isn't enough difference between the numbers to say for certain it is up or something is op.

As an aside I would love to see the average distance per kill / death. I think those numbers would be telling.

The data would be a lot more interesting if you had sets from servers with different population distribution. If you used Miller or another server with TR pop dominance, I'd bet you'd see TR getting the lowest score per hour and VS/NC being higher but relatively even.

EM-6, Anchor, or GD-22S

I got the GD-22S, played with it for a while and I think it seems pretty cool,
The recoil is not as horrible and I think I can kind of defend in close range, of course, dodging gets tough, and need ADS for medium range, but I think close range seems fine enough, possibly better when I get the certs for the laser pointer attachment for movement and evasion in CQC?

That was exactly my point, the SAW argument holds no ground as the data shows its balanced, if not by some chance underpowered. By no means is it "the best" or broken