[Guide] My challange to the community: Calculate TR's UP weapons with this

I have a much simpler suggestion:

1) Make all weapons able to be reverse engineered and replicated by each faction.

2) Observe results.

Science, *****.

Do you know what TL;DR means?

Well, the TMG-50 is the best sounding TR LMG. And I like the way it handles. Sure the EM-6 fires a bit faster, but the TMG feels better to use. It's like a better flare (fav VS LMG) since it doesn't have to pay the no bullet drop tax.

Your Cone-Of-Fire increases with... Recoil.

It has a different reason. I was looking for a COF decrease statistic, and this recoil decrease statistic seemed to fit the bill perfectly. Why bother looking for something more when you've thought you found the exact statistic you were looking for? But considering this sentence, I will have to admit I was wrong.

I actually read portions of it, but I hadn't read all of it. And my "uneducated position" is still 15 times as educated as 99% of the other posts out there. And I've never been one to neglect additional evidence, but I hadn't got the time to read through the entire thing at my previous post, and I hadn't found reason at that time to look further. You yourself only came with this definitive sentence later as well, so you must have glossed over it before too, or not found it useful to say at the time.

I made a mistake on one part of the recoil mechanics, not the entire thing. I'll change my excel sheet tomorrow when I got time to properly reflect recoil.
Still, horizontal recoil is barely anything. On the GD-7F you have recoil in both directions, and it works very well to keep it a CQC weapon and diminish it's long range capabilities. But with any other weapon the recoil is hardly a problem. I have yet to find a weapon that has so much horizontal+vertical recoil that you actually feel it's effect.

Well I'm so sorry if horizontal and vertical recoil barely add anything to the game if they aren't randomised.

Ofcourse it's not 1 and 0! Thats the whole point of the thread! Everyone just shouts it's one's and zero's but nobody, not you, not me, not anybody, has actually proven any of it. My goal is to create something that can, if you can help me improve what I made, I welcome it, but don't be surprised if I don't just accept anything, or not read every word written somewhere when there is no cause to look further.

So...
My weapon has a horizontal and vertical recoil. I fire the weapon, It's "randomised increments" send it invariably to the top right, so I counter it with a movement to the bottom left... and my weapon stays very well on target. It worked with every single weapon I used in the VR room so far (and outside it as well), with the exception of the randomised weapons that have the reticle move left and right. How is that not counterable? You can't account for all recoil, sure, but on average you will counter the exact same recoil every time.

They don't just list starter weapons, I actually see tons of comparisons between anything but starter weapons.

It didn't say anywhere, and it's not as simple as that.

This glosses over the fact that TTK is variable at different ranges. TTK and DPS are both very good ways to give an indication about a certain weapon, but why change from DPS to TTK just for the sake of it?

And here's bloom : bullets to kill ratio (which I haven't ignored you just don't read carefully) -

125 tier: 8 bullets to kill * .5 bloom = 4.0

143 tier: 7 * .5 = 3.5

167 tier: 6 * .6 = 3.6

200 tier: 5 * .7 = 3.5

Of course that's @ max damage, at longer ranges bullets to kill varies depending on distance due to having different drop-off ranges as I just noted. Overall bloom is not crippling high damage tiers, it's not even a notable disadvantage really.

I also didn't ignore starting CoFs, as I said 167 > 143 for starting CoF, with 200 dmg being best while stationary(0.0) and slightly worse while moving(.32 vs. .3).[/quote]

But that still doesn't include ROF. If it takes you 5 shots to kill someone but also twice as long to fire all 5 shots than a 7-shot kill, and taking into account that you won't be hitting 100% of your bullets and having to use trigger discipline over an extended time, a high ROF weapon has the potential to be better. A low ROF has also chance to be better, it all depends on all the rest of the stats.

In fact, I just checked Oracle Of Death, and when comparing some random weapons most of them were pretty damn close to eachother in KPU at least. It's by no means representative, but it does go to show: just ROF and low weapon damage do not make or break the weapon in and off itself.
Which leaves the question wide open: does the TR have worse weapons for pro players or not? I have yet to see any proof from anyone to prove that. I was hoping to prove it with this, but I apparently was too hasty in putting it together and mistook a stat.

Recoil that can randomly happen in 2 direction is harder to control then recoil that only happens in one direction. You always know the right way to reset your gun when it's only in one direction the recoil can happen in.

It's the reason TR get more bullets. It's assumed they will miss more because of heavy random direction horizontal recoil.

This is utter ********. Horizontal recoil is quite possible the defining stat for a weapons suitability for long range. The reason is that horizontal recoil is scrutinized is it CANT be compensated for where as vertical recoil can.

Are these your characters?

https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428174054425021249/stats

https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428011263282961265/stats

If so what are you doing lecturing the TR community on the subject of accuracy when yours is around 17%? Most individuals who have a grasp of the inner workings of gunplay are at or above 30%.

No, it doesn't. Recoil and cone of fire have only ONE thing in common - the crosshair. Center of the CoF is in the center of the crosshair, which is being kicked around by recoil. CoF size has nothing to do with recoil.

Oh really?

This sentence seems to summarize your entire argument pretty well.

Right, you don't know anything, so you just assumed everyone functions the same way. I wrote the definitive sentence after I told you where you could have found it for yourself, but since you didn't bother, I've done you the courtesy.

And this is why people are saying TR weapons are worse at range, because horizontal recoil diminishes ranged capabilities, and for some reason TR weapons have more horizontal recoil, while doing less damage per shot, so they're at double disadvantage.

Because it's not something that can be easily proved with just raw numbers and calculations. Nobody can shoot like a robot, suppressing 100% of both horizontal and vertical recoil, while shooting in precisely optimized bursts while keeping the crosshair on the target and accounting for bullet drop and bullet travel time. It's just impossible.

Weapon usage stats aren't conclusive, because they don't show the range at which the kill occurred.

But there is a method we could use.
Generally, the less horizontal recoil the weapon has, the easier it is to keep on target, while less vertical recoil makes it easier to concentrate on bullet travel time / bullet drop instead of compensating for recoil.

I'm not about to explain the whole PS2 recoil mechanics to you here. I have laid out a step-by-step explanation in my guide, with pretty pictures and all.

So it all comes down to muscle memory and preference then, since what the author considers harder is subjective. I have no problem tracking targets with these weapons.

Also, T5 AMC forward grip is the only weapon in the game which reduce both the arc and recoil by -33%/-33%. Cougar gets the 2nd highest tier(-25%/-25%) only shared with a handful of carbines(both Trac-5 and Solstice variants, and the Razor). Pulsar C by contrast gains no benefit at all in reducing its arc but gets its recoil reduced by 33%.

So what happends here is, first the compensator reduce the horizontal recoil, then the grip reduce both the arc(and therefore lessen the effect of deviation) and recoil. In essence, the distance I need to compensate for is lesser than weapons with purely horizontal recoil since I have two attachments which reduce the distance I need to compensate for. This in combination with a low 1st shot multiplier means very accurate, and quite long, bursts.

I'm simply so used to it by now, it is just something I do. If you think I am wrong, or someone else does, fine.

Some good links to the effects of forward grips/HVA/SPA. Attachments work quite different depending on the weapon.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/2lf294/data_analysis_forward_grip_benefit/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/2lwmc5/data_analysis_high_velocity_ammo/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/2mm84x/data_analysis_soft_point_ammo/

That's actually a common myth.

These picture illustrates two different recoil patterns, one has no recoil angle (aka "balanced" or "unbiased" horizontal recoil).
The other one has a positive recoil angle (aka "horizontal recoil biased to the right"), which actually has nothing to do with horizontal recoil.

The first pattern can kick your crosshair to top left or top right (extreme cases).
The second pattern can kick your crosshair to top, or bottom right.

Either way, the overall direction will be unpredictable.

oh sh*t, this thread is so full of weapon infos that
1) I realized I know **** about weapon mechanics
2)I want to use the MCG and never look back to other guns

1. You conveniently forget that T5 AMC is the weapon with highest horizontal recoil that has advanced forward grip available, except for the Zenith.
Even with increased effect from AFG, T5 AMC has more horizontal recoil than Pulsar C:
Pulsar C: 0.1173
T5 AMC: 0.134
2. The whole "arc" argument is paper thin, I have yet to see anyone conclusively explain how EXACTLY horizontal recoil tolerance (aka "arc") works. I've done extensive testing myself and I couldn't conclusively determine anything. Whatever HRT does, it's pretty removed from the actual gameplay, and hence - whatever effect forward grip may do to HRT.

1. Two different tiers of weapons. T5 AMC also have a low vertical recoil, and with the improved to both recoil and arc with its AFG, the jump with each shot from point A to B is more reliable and quite easy to compensate for. Especially with a compensator(though the weapon is quite easy to control without it). Again, with the Cougar, it has a lower vertical recoil value and only marginally higher horizontal recoil. Gotta look at the whole package when looking at weapons.

2. Arc is explained in the link provided in my previous post.

Am I saying this makes T5 AMC and Cougar vastly superior, nope, I'm saying they're on par with other weapons of their class, and that it comes down to learning the recoil pattern. If you think it is harder to lead moving targets, fine, I don't. It is a part of muscle memory at this point.

Initially, I commented your post talking about T5 AMC in general. Now I've read back a few posts between you and Paperlamp and realized you're one of those deluded people who thinks "single direction recoil" is a thing.

Here's the slo-mo video of firing Eridani SX-5, with 4x scope for better view on the crosshair movements.



Eridani has 0.3/0.392 horizontal recoil, 0.2 vertical and 20/20 recoil angle. Now tell me, does that recoil looks "single directional" to you?

You can clearly see on the video, that recoil kicks either slightly left + hard up, or it kicks hard right, almost without upwards pull.

The reason for this is because Eridani's recoil pattern looks like this:


With the recoil angle affecting both horizontal and vertical recoils. "Horizontal recoil bias" does not exist, it is a wrong, derelict term from the archaic age.

You could, of course, call, the "horizontal recoil" any move along the X plane, and any move along vertical plane "vertical recoil", but that explanation would be much more convoluted for no benefit, as the logic behind is the same.

Fine, let's look at the whole package. T5 AMC shoots faster, meaning it's subjected to its recoil more often. Your move.

I'm not sure where you got the "T5 AMC 33% arc reduction", I'm using the attachment spreadsheet with datamined values (or pulled from the API?), and it says that T5 AMC and Cougar have the same HRT, before and after forward grip. But again, HRT debate is meaningless, we don't know how it works, and forward grip's effect on it is unproven.

Yes, I've read it. There is explanation - which is similar to my current working theory about HRT - but there is no proof. Tests I have done did not seem to confirm the mathematical calculations in that post.

And what exactly is T5 AMC's weapon class? "Bad in CQC, not as good at range as competition"? What is its mythical niche where it will beat a weapon supposedly more dedicated to ranged combat?

T5 AMC is worse at range than Pulsar C / Mercenary / Cougar / Razor / Pretty much any 167 damage carbine save for Bandit, and for zero benefit in CQC. The only advantage T5 AMC has is best in class velocity, which makes it a bit more suppressor-friendly, that's it.

I'd add that Razor has same velocity as T5 AMC if we factor in HVA.

But yeah, T5 AMC needs a more clear purpose.

I think all 143 @ 652 weapons deserve a buff. For T5 AMC it could come in form of a RoF bump to 698, then it will fulfill more or less the same role as Mercenary and Solstice.

Or the Horizontal Recoil buff to 0.15 or something, so it will still need more bullets to kill than 167 damage weapon, but at least they will be easier to hit.

Or the minimum damage bump from 112 to 125, AR-tier, but that would be pretty controversial with all other carbines.

It's not that T5 AMC deserves a specific buff, all 143 "ranged" weapons need some love, and all carbines in general need buffs to make them either less penalized at ranged combat, or more preferred for CQC combat, so they would either be not so much weaker than ARs at range, or much more powerful at CQC than ARs.

Ok...

So the Eridani. You pick a SMG, the weapon class which probably is the most random in its deviation. However, your little example shoots itself in the foot when you fit a forward grip on in. Suddenly you get a much smoother recoil upwards to the right, and it is quite easily compensated for. Obviously you can't use it as a long range weapon but it is a friggin' SMG.

Only time he struggles is at very long range. He was able to use it with a 6x scope.



In a nutshell, the T5 AMC is a very solid mid range carbine with easy to handle recoil. If you can't use it well, it's on you.

Yes, I chose Eridani because it has the highest horizontal recoil, so it's easier to see how recoil works using it as an example.

You've seen the video, but you didn't see what I was trying to show you. I'm not trying to confirm an established fact that SMGs suck at range, I'm conclusively proving that Recoil Angle affects both horizontal and vertical recoil, destroying the term "biased horizontal recoil", and disproving the myth that "horizontal recoil can have only one direction, thus being entirely predictable".

It's not about whether T5 AMC is good or not, it's about the fact that it's worse than its competition - which is what this thread is about: TR ranged weapons are underpowered, as in "less powerful than competition".

Ah, then I think we've had a bit of a misunderstanding from the start. I would never say it is entirely predicatable but I think the Eridani creates a misleading example, just as I would if someone would use the Sirius as an example for weapons with vertical recoil.

I wouldn't mind a buff or change to the T5 AMC though, as prefer the Cougar over the T5 AMC.

So if you have recoil that goes up and to the right like a backslash

The horizontal recoil also goes vertically a little as well as horizontally? I didn't really understand the image you provided.

Basically, yes. There are two major points about horizontal recoil only a few people seem to grasp:
1) For all weapons, horizontal recoil functions the same - it produces a random shaking, uncontrollable and unpredictable jitter along the axis which is perpendicular to vertical recoil's axis.
2) Both horizontal and vertical recoil are affected by recoil angle, and - in case of variable recoil angle that most CQC weapons have - this negatively affects the stability of the recoil pattern.

This is just a summary, I have a detailed explanation of all of that in recoil mechanics section of my gunplay guide, link is in my signature.