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

Hopefully I put this image in right...
Well if it doesn't show up, for point 1.what I gathered was that instead of it being a perfect diagonal line, it bounces around making a random zigzag in the general direction of the recoil angle? And for point 2. There is a small zone around the recoil angle where your bullets will land, and the size of the zone is increased based on how much recoil there is?
I know nothing about this games mechanics lol. Thanks for the reply, I'll check out your gunplay guide!

Sort of.

Not exactly.
There are two mechanics in PlanetSide 2 that reduce weapons' accuracy:
1) Recoil
2) Cone of fire

They are completely unrelated to each other, their only common thing is that center of the cone of fire is in the center of the crosshair, which is being kicked around by recoil.

Cone of fire is indeed the zone where your bullets will land, the longer you shoot without pause, the larger the cone of fire will get. When you stop shooting, cone of fire will return to original size.

Oh, ok. Thanks!

Actually there is corelation between DPS and dmg tier TTK difference. If 2 guns have same DPS, but one has higher dmg tier, the higher damage tier weapon with have faster TTK compared to lower damage weapon. So by that corelation, if in this instance Pulsar C has higher DPS and higher DMG tier, there can be little doubt, that it has lower TTK and by fair margin.

Meanwhile I just shot like a whole bunch of people in the face in a video game...

You kidding? Have you seen VanuLabs example video about HRT? Or as I call it, Horizontal DRIFT.

Thing is, Hrec in itself isn't that big of a thing, that's why something like Cycler or MSW-R are better at medium range than Carv, since they have almost two times less drift.

Drift (cause I like the term more than HRT) determines the max angle your crosshair can literally drift away from center of the screen while shooting.
Let's take "pre-buff" Carv as one of examples (since FG-less Carv after the latest buff is actually a nerf and nobody should be asking the Hrec "buff" that was given Carv to be given to Butcher) with the 0.225 Hrec and 0.9 drift. With those stats Carv can bounce 4 times into one direction before it has a guaranteed one bounce into other direction.


It doesn't seem to mean much, but at same time, it determined how many times gun can bounce into one direction. In engagements at 25-50 meters, where theoretically you could still go full auto, drift will **** you up more than Hrec itself.

I've seen the video, I know the theory behind HRT. Like I said, the issue is that tests do not confirm the theory. I've done some tests, and they have not shown anything conclusive.
And that video doesn't really share the details. The less the HRT is, the better - that's pretty much the only thing we know for sure. Though, again, my tests show that high HRT doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

Longer drift - more RNG chance to miss - less chance to hit. Since RNG in itself is a bad thing unless you can counter it for huge benefits, yes drift is a bad thing for a weapon and is a negative stat.

Once again - yes, that's how HRT SUPPOSEDLY works, but I haven't seen any proof it actually does work that way, and I was unable to to create such a proof myself.

For god's sake, since when it became too hard to click on a damn link?

If you still think you know how HRT works, I welcome you to try to prove it.

In my experiments I use DXtory to record the portion of the screen around the crosshair, go to VR, equip the weapon I'm testing with 4x simple crosshair scope, aim at one of the intersections of the VR power lines on the horizon, and record a sequence of long bursts. Then I watch the video frame by frame and re-create the recoil pattern on paper, and then analyze it. This way I'm sure that I'm seeing what really happens and not what I want/expect to see.

Yes, because I didn't see a damn link.

After auraxiuming Carv twice, yes I still think that's the way drift works. Howerver, I can't prove it my laptop is not good enough to record at 60 fps tests, nor would I perform such tests in VR honestly. Something about recoil in it feels off to me, weapons feel way more accurate than on the field.
Nor, honestly I don't have the time to get 1000 clips out of a single weapon.

I made this post before but my post got destroyed before I could post it.

I'm not talking about vertical recoil am I? Also, while you can't compensate for individual bullets of horizontal recoil, you can compensate for the average difference. If you look at Iridar's Eridani video you can see that even at 50m distance, the horizontal recoil moves the reticule a maximum of 1m (look at the 1 by 1 meter blocks at the back).
Why is this not a problem? Because of the COF.

Your bullets go into a random area within your COF (from Iridar's site), this means that as long as your enemy is within your COF you have a chance to hit him. The chance to hit him is equal to the surface area your enemy occupies compared to the total surface area.
If you have 100% of an enemy in your COF it stops mattering if you aim at the head or toes, there is equal chance the bullets will land on the head, stomach, toes or anywhere else within the COF.

Please check my weapon stats. You'll see that my actual weapon accuracy for any weapon is a minimum of 17%, in fact, most weapons are above 30%. This means that the average of my accuracy can't possibly be 17% as that requires me to have accuracy ratings below 17% as well, this means that the stat you see on the front page is wrong. It could be that it counts the 0% accuracy of my repair guns for some reason.
This counts for both my characters.

Or you could read a site such as this: http://twowordbird.com/articles/csgo-recoil-mechanics/
Here they incorporate the COF (they call it the "inaccuracy") into recoil.
Here is how recoil is defined for me, and is collaborated by other sites as well: Any system that decreases your accuracy after firing a shot is a recoil mechanic. An example would be the game Renegade, it doesn't have vertical or horizontal recoil, the gun stays perfectly centered no matter how many shots you fire. Recoil is simulated by having a only a COF, which tries to make it look like the player's character cannot keep the gun perfectly steady after firing a shot. This being an arcady game the COF was set and did not grow or decrease, but it was there and refferred to as... recoil.

Being abusive does not help your point.
Do you go about your work saying: "hey, I found every piece of evidence and information that seems to have a connection to the subject, now i'm going to look through 15 more pages that weren't referred to just to see if there's something more there"? I looked at everything that you mentioned at the time, I didn't go and read the entire thing.

Yeah, I just tried it out in the VR room with a Carv with 4x scope. Funny thing, but in 4-shot bursts on a 50m target my cursor remained very much so on the target, while a lot of bullets impacted besides the enemy... which is caused by the COF. So while the horizontal recoil was controllable in both unloading the entire magazine as well as burst-firing, it was the COF that caused the misses even when the reticule was on-target... so regardless of horizontal recoil, the COF grows faster and causes bullets to impact besides the target.

I got two tests in the video's below if you really want. One is with multiple weapons but iron sights, one with just the CARV and a 4x scope.

Yes! Exactly! But COF determines the accuracy a ton more!

And this would matter if this was a CSGO discussion, but since it isn't, I don't see how that's relevant. Same words can mean completely different things in different communities.

But it helps me to cope. Talking to people like you is hard for me.

Actually, yeah. That's how I go about my work. I may not go to fifteen different sources if I found everything I need in the first one, but I'll make sure to actually study and understand at least one source. Being thorough is a not a bad thing.

Why do you make me repeat everything? Sigh. The CoF among different weapons is balanced in such a way, that CoF grows roughly the same amount per point of damage. With all other things being equal, the CoF mechanics are the same for all weapons.
Except all other things are not equal; TR ranged weapons have much higher horizontal recoil per point of damage ratio, and worse starting CoF.

I find this very interesting. Vertical recoil can be very large indeed, due to the recoil angle this could mean that the sum of horizontal and vertical recoil give a much larger horizontal movement than just horizontal movement. The difference being that vertical recoil is the exact same and can be countered easily, while horizontal recoil will on average jump around your initial aim position. This can be seen in one of my video's where i don't counter anything, the gun recoils upwards, but the aim stays in more or less in line with the bias.

CSGO recoil has nothing to do with PS2 recoil AFAIK. In GO weapons have predetermined pattern that adds random variance where the bullet goes around the pattern depending on the weapon (more expensive weapons have less RNG) and whether you're crouched, standing or moving. In PS2 the recoil recoil is just the direction in which your crosshair moves while cone of fire is the randomness that increases with each bullet fired in full auto. You can correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I understood it after skimming through the thread.

I'd also like to add I haven't had really any issues in this game with shooting at longer ranges with any weapon except Blitz which just starts throwing bullets in random directions after 10 or so rounds in full auto. I've read people complain about SVA's horizontal recoil but honestly I can't tell it's mattered at all.

I haven't seen any consensus of the Planetside community as to what recoil is. A lot of people here seem to understand me perfectly when I talk about COF and it's recoil, meaning it's bloom. And you do too, you even know that it's just a matter of definition. You knew perfectly how I defined it and still manage to spew out that "it has nothing to do with eachother" while you also confirm here that yes, it has something to do with recoil.

Now I am thorough as well, usually. But at some point I stop and look at what I got, did I achieve all the information? Yes? Then I move on. And I did.

Allright, I'll just go ahead and assume you did the calculations right on that, you seem to know your stuff about it.
Then we still got the following schematic:

TR COF = NC/VS COF per point of damage
TR horizontal recoil is bigger than NC/VS per point of damage
Vertical recoil can be discounted as it's always the same recoil, a bigger recoil only warrants a faster counter to control the weapon, but it can be anticipated on and countered perfectly.
TR weapons on average (from some random samples I did in a previous thread) have a higher DPS
We discount inter-weapon mechanics that make them better for different situations, such as longer reload being offset by bigger magazines etc.

Now in CQC the horizontal recoil doesn't matter that much, if at all. So your have the full advantage of your DPS.
As the target gets further away, the horizontal recoil's effects will increase and will cause a lower DPS. You can make a nice graph of this showing the DPS of TR, NC and VS at CQC and as the range increases if we have the data.
Now the real question: at which point does the DPS of TR fall below the DPS that the VS and NC can cash out?
Then we can cross-reference this to possible ranged data, how far a distance on average and enemy was killed on by others. The game tracks this somewhere to determine if someone can be awarded a marksman ribbon.

And then you can really tell "Yes, Horizontal recoil has enough of an effect on TR to make it worse for pro players". There are probably some other methods as well, but I had set my sights on a solution as given in the first post.
what was that again about not reading through a post...?

Now please, if you wish to help, please do. I welcome it. I want to find out if TR's weapons really need a boost somewhere, or that they require some niche-weapons to be able to better fight at range. You can provide information, methods to find out what we want to know, numbers, anything. Just don't debase others when your point doesn't come across on the first try.
this "people like me" is one of the few that can admit a mistake on these forums, and here's one I made: not immidiately turning our argument to improve the data we need.

No, I did not understand. "CoF's recoil" sounds like "dry water" to me.

I don't believe you. Because your inattention to details is what derailed you to write the following.

People who complain about TR weapons are talking about RANGED TR weapons, the 143 @ 652 ones, specifically T5 AMC, T16 Rhino, T32 Bull and to some extent NS-11C. They don't have high DPS. In fact, they have lower DPS than 167 @ 600 weapons, yet they are still less capable at range.

143 @ 698 weapons have the same DPS as 167 @ 600 weapons, yet even they are much worse at range, as they have even worse recoil than 143 @ 652 weapons for no real advantage.

regardless of your research prowess, the complete lack of open mindedness is a big problem.

You didn't take the time to understand what was written there did you?

Oh really? Then why aren't people actually talking about it? All they say is "TR weapons are UP", they rarely specify weapons, and if they do they pick random weapons. There might be a select few who push this towards ranged weapons, but that's just it, they are a select few. The gross amount of people complains that the TR weapons overall are simply UP "cos horizontal recoil".
Ofcourse, if the T5 AMC, T16 Rhino, T32 Bull and the NS-11C are all worse off solely due to horizontal recoil, they should be balanced. But are you sure they have nothing, nothing at all, that makes them better in some other aspect than other faction's their weapons?

I'm sure.
Higher RoF arguable makes them a bit preferable for CQC, just as lower RoF, higher damage makes 167 damage weapon more preferable for ranged combat. But the higher horizontal recoil 143 damage weapons get isn't compensated in any way, and their damage degradation is stronger.

Wat.

That gun is BS accurate. If you find this one lacking, I don't know what to say...