Primarily because your opinion is as worthless as mine when it comes to personal taste in the weapons. The weapons themselves balance out no matter what individual point you say. It all comes out in the wash. And, once again, the Merc is a basic weapon and the Jag is a paid for weapon. It is effing ******** to compare the two to begin with. They balance out both in specs and in cost. The point I've been pressing all this time is statements like: Aren't helpful. Seriously in this very thread I just got done driving a point into someone else's head that NC GD-7F wasn't superior to the Lynx just because of a higher RoF. Damn strait I'm not going to let some BS like "Jag is king lol!" run rampant in the forums either. About the only thing that the Jag has in abundance is faster ADS movement, and more bullets. I'm still waiting for a proper explanation on how this can be useful. And yes I did test both weapons on their upward recoil and they were about the same after exactly 30 rounds. The point is not where they end up but the rate of climb. After 30 rounds they were about the same height. The Merc fires slower then the Jag but has a greater kick per shot. So how are they roughly the same height? They have the same recovery and the Merc fires slower, this means that the Merc climb is proportionately slower then the Jag which results in an easier to manage recoil. Simple rule of thumb, slower weapons are always easier to manage recoil. Always. Between the two, the Merc is the more accurate, and has access to foregrip as well. Difference is, the Merc doesn't really need it, you can pop a laser on there and be just as good. The reason for the Merc's 4 point increase in recoil is specifically meant to compensate for it's slower RoF, otherwise the thing would barely raise at all. On paper the Jag seems to be more accurate. In practice however, the Merc tends to be more accurate with the stock model. Personally I notice little difference between the two, if any. And, as I've said before, if you can't notice a difference with the naked eye, there isn't a significant enough of a difference to affect battlefield performance. It takes a lot more then .025 to affect an actual firefight.
The Jag has rounds per mag and total ammo pool in abundance, not just the ADS movement. It's also got better hip fire CoF. And significantly higher RoF resulting in a bit higher TTK as well. Merc's upward CoF sends 30 rounds up slightly higher than the Jag sends 40 rounds up, I did a full clip not 30 vs. 40, yet the Jaguar's upward climb was still a bit smaller. I get the same results repeating this from the same spot, at the same wall. Which makes sense because the Merc simply has more vertical recoil. I'm not sure how you think recoil recovery works, not an expert on it myself, but it's clearly not compensating for that recoil significantly more than the Jag's does. Slower weapons are also not easier to manage recoil. Recoil is more smooth with higher RoF, it's more jumpy with slower RoF. So actually, on paper, the Merc is more accurate(other than when hip firing). In practice, the Jag ends up not technically more accurate, but so much easier to handle it may as well be. It's the opposite of what you claim. I could understand people liking the Merc if they spent the time to really master its recoil, and if they didn't have to use it much in CQC, but the Jag is a better all around weapon since it will still excel at the Merc's ideal range(Merc will only be significantly more effective at ranges carbines just aren't that effective at regardless) while being notably superior to it at closer ranges. And it's ammo will last you longer.
Bottom line it seems 70% of people posting on these forum that are strictly NC players are martyrs and whiners. Also with the grass is greener, and always with the "poor us...everyones toys are better *sniff* ". It gets old.
Not me, I see this crap from everyone. If it really was one sided, then that would suggest that some form of balance needs to take place. I think that spreadsheet site is the worst thing to happen to PS2 forumside since... Well since forumside. People look at the base value of numbers and have no clue how to interpret them, but spewing about back and fourth helps them feel like they know something important, or that they are intelligent. I am quite happy that the differences between weapon types and variety are large enough that each empire doesn't have a single go to weapon like the HA weapons in PS1. DEVs did an excellent job balancing the weapon types and play styles. Too bad all 3 empires feel virtually the same with minor differences here and there.
Really? I usually see NC poor us, threads. I guess if you add the Scatmax nerf threads, it might be even? Dunno. I dont mind the stats info, but you cant compare base numbers with "in game" gameplay. Too many variables, and too many situational battles, and of course player preferences. When people try to use stats only to try and prove or disprove something is better/worse than another, it dumb. I dont agree the 3 factions feel the same. I use a different playstyle depending on VS/TR/NC. Then again, maybe I do it on purpose to change things up. The only thing on my wishlist is a change to the T5-AMC to give TR a higher dmg lower rpm/ammo alternative....just to have options.
See I actually like the T5 AMC. At least a little from what I've used of it so far. It's not meant to be our long range carbine, we don't have one. It's our medium range sprayer, equal to the NC Razor. It's a decent weapon but I think too many people try to use it for something it was simply not meant to be used for. And by "the same" I mean all 3 empires fire bullets, or bullet like projectiles. They could have done a lot to improve the theme and feel of the game by including a better range of themes to make each empire stand out.
According to me, the walls of math I've done, the hours spent in VR testing, and the stats on the spreadsheet. Yes.
