K/D All servers all factions.(repost from reddit).

Here are the metric I've seen used to date, in order (least useful first

• WDS score was the absolute worse metric for measuring empire weapon balance. Despite having almost nothing to do with weapons balance, it's used painfully often as "proof" of one empire having worse weapons. WDS predominantly measures empire population and strategic decision-making, and weapon balance is an incredibly minor factor.
• Empire K/D (what this thread discusses) is a valid metric, but actually a step backwards from better metrics players have already come up with.
• Kills Per Unique (KPU) by weapon type has been a much better stat, because it begins to point the finger at what specific elements of an empire are actually imbalanced. The major shortcoming is that if I use a weapon and stop using it, then whether or not that weapon is actually effective I've been counted as a Unique but with very few Kills (lowering the overall metric globally.) So this metric can end up getting twisted a bit by weird little events like that.
• Average KPH by weapon is the best stat to date. This metric solves the previous problem, since it measures usage time ("per hour") instead of unique users. While you have to keep in mind certain facts (like how long-ranged LMGs will naturally have a lower KPH than short-ranged ones), as long as you're comparing two weapons of similar role this metric is fantastic for showing the relative balance of those weapons.

I love that the OP started his thread with data-based evidence. That's great.

But what I'd rather see is more usage of the metrics which have better resolution of the actual problem. Empire K/D is a very low resolution picture of balance, and basically tells us nothing about what's actually wrong. Especially since Das Anfall has apparently opened up registration to anyone now, it would be great to see people discuss their stats more often because they have some great ones (I mentioned average KPH, but they also have hidden gems like Average Weapon Accuracy.)

Then in the future I'd love to see players take metrics even further, like figuring out a way to bucket players by skill (low/med/high) and dig into whether certain weapons do unusually better or worse at the extreme ends. Average KPH gives us reasonably good resolution of the problem, but there are probably even better ways to slice the data.

SOE could help too, by improving tracking. If I'm in a vehicle, don't log time spent for me being an engineer and using my engineer weapon, because that skews the data for how much I'm actually using those things. This is why Das Anfall shows ridiculously low stats for weapons which I'm sure have pretty high KPH like the Gauss Compact S.

i guess i just didnt have the luck to try the VS weapons that do not have drop.

and had the luck to use the only TR/NC weapons that do not have drop

Buff our ES weapons and the problem is solved.

Whilst population will undoubtedly have a high contributing factor to the outcome there is no way that you can say that weapon balance is incredibly minor, that's just an assumption on your part with no evidence. If all populations were generally equal and the strategic decision making was roughly equal, i.e pretty non existant on public servers ( the most likely case) then weapon balance would be a factor in deciding the outcome. The faction with the lesser equipment would lose on every server.

The fact that NC didn't win, even on servers where we had a general population advantage, means its more than just population. To be honest though, I cant even remember whether there was a server where we had a general population advantage, so if you can back up your claims with population figures then please, by all means do, as I would be interested to see them...genuinely!

Pretty sure all TR/NC weapons have drop unless you know something I don't. Not sure about which of the VS' do though. I heard something about the semi auto sniper rifles but I can't say personally whether that's the case or not.

Pick whatever empire you feel has the best weapons. If that empire has medium pop (not the best) and my empire has the lowest pop, but I lead a zerg outfit to fight your empire every signle day, you will lose every alert and you would lose WDS.

Think back on the last 20 battles you fought. Now if you were paying attention you'll notice that the overwhelming majority of those battles were won or lost due to local population (which is a combination of global population and where players decided to fight (player decisions)). The same thing happened day-in, day-out during WDS to determine the overall territory winner based on the results of all those individual battles where local pop decided things. (Alternatively, pay attention to the next 20 battles you fight and realize that it's consistently local population as the #1 factor, followed by player decisions as #2 (which empire brought or killed more sunderers; which empire vehicle-zerged when it was important to do so; etc) Weapon balance is a very weak factor by comparison.)

So you are saying NC is always out popped even on servers where they are the majority? This means the other side is tag teaming them and you have to ask why? You can see the performance didn't really change based on population.

All you need to know about population variation is that it didn't affect NC.

Going off of the KPH, according to that website, the SVA-88 has the highest out of all the LMGs, and the Orion has the highest KPH of all the starting faction LMGs.

The movespeed bonus, coupled with the terrible hit registration and latency of this game makes them the best guns in the game. This isn't balanced.

What you say has no relevance to my point, I'm not disputing that population makes a difference, I never said weapon balance was a bigger factor than population, I also never disputed fights are won by numbers, we know zergs are the best way to take a base. My point was that you cant make a statement that weapon balance is incredibly minor and present it as fact, when its basically just 'in your opinion' with no facts to back it up.

As I said, if populations are generally equal, and strategic choices are generally equal (which on a public server they will be, i.e pretty non existent) then weapon balance 'will' be a deciding factor. So, until you are able to prove to what extent population was the controlling factor, your claim that weapon balance being 'incredibly minor' in the outcome of the WDS is a meaningless opinion with no facts to support it.

In addition, local populations do not determine who wins the WDS, local populations are only relevant to that one single battle. If you have the lowest pop on the server, you can go around in one big zerg and win every single fight, but whilst you're taking that one base another 3 are being taken off you by the other factions with more players.

The possible reasons were already beaten to death over this forum. If put together all those (very small) usaly differences tend to pile up. Just a small example.

NC starter weapons are tailored for long/med range combat. Resulting in sub par performance in CQB and replacements are expensive(1000 cert range usualy excluding upgrades) to get comparable results. In same time most infantry combat is CQB/med range. Even more since SOE introduced SMG for infiltrators. I have replaced almost all my starter gear on my NC char with our NC dedicated CQB guns and way more offen than on TR/VS i have those moments when i know i would kill that guy if i only had 5 more rounds or slightly more accurate gun.

If NC had better anti-max or anti-vehicle options than rockets i would not be supprised if we would see threads: "Kicked from plattoon for no reason by xxx." The reply would be you were a HA with a SAW come back once you have a CQB weapon noob. NC stock HA is just draging its team down 50% of time. 90% if you exclude dealing with Max/Vehicles.

So you're purposefully turning a good cqc/close-mid range weapon into a water pistol because you get no bullet drop? As a BR79 VS I only ever suppress my SMGs and FASRs. It feels kinda cool to suppress weapons but ultimately unless everyone around does the same it is pointless, and on my medic I am very very rarely on my own.

It sounds great, in theory, but in reality you're going to be frustrated by having to lead a lot even at mid range, bullet drop or not.

* * *

NC need cheaper options for CQC and less specialised weapons as default(NC6 SAW).

I'd like to know something from those who say its a L2P issue.

Why is it then when I actually play TR or VS to run tests and fight non-NC (fighting TR as VS and vice versa), my KDR is 2-3x higher? Uncerted at that.

When I made a Vanu and an NC, my KD went up easy and fast, nothing like when I started with my TR. So, Taemien, what you're experiencing is having become better at PS2, combined with VS equipment being easier to handle. What time I've spent fighting as VS, all I did was point and click. That's all.

TR's equipment is a bit easier to use(More bullets means you can afford to spray and miss) than NC's, as well... And a lot less practical as for instance we have no MBT shield or MAX shield. Yeah, the only Faction I don't get nor can I consider "Balanced" with the other 2 is the VS. Easy AND practical, MBT/Harasser turrets are fine, MBT strafes and Boosts, Scythe handles best(Though I'll still take Reavers over them), ZOE and so on.

I pull out the Corvus for anything other than close range.

This tallys with my thoughts too. Why it happens I'll leave to someone cleverer.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. I'm saying WDS is strongly influenced by many factors, but that weapon balance is one of the least impactful of those factors.

Literally like 20-100 bases exchange hands for every one battle that I witness weapons imbalance actually being the deciding factor. What happens the other 95-99% of the time? You win because you brought more local pop or made better loadout choices. So on a base-by-base scale weapon balance is very rarely the deciding factor. And when you zoom out to the strategic scale you just have to witness how and where empires are deploying to know that those decisions mean a lot more to territory control than weapon balance ever does (including mistakes like either underdog attacking the other.)

Thing is, the number of players actually initiating those conflicts isn't a huge amount, and all it takes is an organized zerg outfit leader sending players to the right locations consistently to dramatically change territory control. Add to that the significant influence of ghost-capping at night.

So between all those factors, WDS has very little to do with weapons balance and players need to stop making the mistake of thinking it does. And why would you? We have far better stats for measuring actual weapons imbalances! Use those instead!

More expensive CQC weapons = less real CQC weapons pulled = worse CQC performance = worse overall performance.

Because there isn't tons of casual free players (most of players) ready to spend 1000 certs into SMGs, shotguns, GD-7F, Anchor and jackhammer.

That's how i feel it on my NC alt and deal with 167/600 weapons wich are less performing at closest ranges.

My post has nothing to do with WDS.

I've described the evidence behind my opinion repeatedly in several threads.

More importantly, I point out to players who disagree that you can simply watch how your next 20 (or however many) battles go, and see what factors actually lead to bases changing hands. You'll realize over time that gosh, weapon balance is very rarely the reason, and that 95-99% of the time it's local pop or player decisions (loadouts, vehicles, decisions to push for a point or hold a gen room, etc.)

Don't take my word for it, observe this happening every single day in-game. A lot of factors contribute to territory gain/loss, and weapons balance is extremely low on the list. (Although I forgot to mention warpgate rotation also plays a pretty significant role; I'm sure if we had stats on avg territory control by gate owner, it would paint a pretty clear imbalance for at least Indar, if not the other two.)

The decisions made are very long-lasting too. A single player leading a Connery TR platoon can make one decision to attack the NC (fellow underdog) and it will plunge both sides into at least 30 minutes of fighting, dragging many players from both factions into the fights. Meanwhile the VS will make many free caps as a result of this one player forcing an underdog vs. underdog situation. And before you know it, it's 3 hours later and that single decision to attack another underdog has resulted in 65% VS territory control. (This is another "don't take my word for it, pay attention while you play" sort of thing too, assuming you play for long enough session lengths to notice the full effects of platoon leader decisions.)

XD Just imagining that....

Question: If i shoot 10 shotgun rounds at emenys, but from each round only one or two pellets hit, does it give you 100%accuracy stats for those 10 shots? Or is it calculated down to the percentage of pellets hits?

I know that probably wouldn't explain NC's high accuracy overall, but would at least contribute, if you think about how many bullets the average TR Max spams in a fight...