NC +.000001% Damage - "Use Your Advantage"

Wait, are you suggesting that the video of beta gameplay two months ago is the example?

With SAW you start missing after second shot, and with Carv - after fourth. Something like that. Depends on distance ofc. Yeah in the long run SAW CoF is better over time, but in reality - it worse.
So with SAW you forced to shot by 2-3 shot bursts or it became unefficient.

1.0 for every infantry weapon at this time. There are some 0.5 and 0.0 multipliers out there, looks like vehicle weapons or things not-yet-in.

That's incorrect, here's the math:

The SAW's default ADS CoF is 0.0. Carv is 0.1.
0.07 0.15
0.14 0.20
0.21 0.25
0.28 0.30
0.35 0.35

At the 6th shot the Carv and SAW have the same CoF. Assuming 100% accuracy, the SAW's target is now dead. And this is just shot-for-shot. If you look at it over time and the NC and TR progress at nearly identical rates. (0.0004 recoil per shotsecond difference). With actual human accuracy factored, by the time both targets are dead, the NC's CoF is still 7% smaller than the TR.

You can notice it when it's TR vs NC. The TR infantry weapons have a 15-20% advantage. I can encounter a heavy assault and despite getting most of my bullets on target he will often drop me. The guns are better.

Should have said average damage per shot really. So if for instance one would have two guns where one fires two shots and the other three shots in the same time span, (0 + 1) / 2 => 0.5 average, (1 + 1 + 0) / 3 => 0.667 average. But yeah, you got the point.

As long as they're balanced correctly (taking that into account), of course.

As you demonstrated, the TTK of a Carv is lower in your example, but your calculation does not include chance of getting headshots. The slightly lower TTK, despite being close already gives the TR a greater window of opportunity to turn the tables around than NC have. But the accuracy argument I disagree with. The NC do not have an accuracy advantage, but an accuracy disadvantage due to the burst length and hitboxes. When you fire almost double the shots, the chance of headshots at same accuracy must also increase (in this case you fire 1.4x more shots each with the supposed same 25% accuracy).


Hence I feel one of the most important things that you neglected to mention is the ease of creating a string of headshots. With a lower recoil increment, this is significantly easier to achieve and that's one of the reasons several friends of mine (with far more time on TR and VS) have noted that it's a lot easier to kill with TR and VS if you have good aim.

You note it's 1.4, but in reality both must use burst fire, in which case if you both fire bursts of three shots, the nc are at 0.21 and the TR at 0.15 and in bursts of 4 you have 0.28 and 0.20 respectively. Basically, the NC must burst in three where TR burst in four and still the TR retain a higher accuracy. When NC burst 4, TR can burst 6 with the same-ish accuracy. Chances of chaining headshots thus increase for the TR, since they fire more shots at relatively equal accuracy.

It also doesn't include range. At range that 0.05 vs 0.07 increment is felt much more harshly: Pythagoras and trigonometry say that at larger angle differences at range the vertical (and horizontal) distance travelled are larger. That reduces accuracy at range and that's going to be felt.

read this thread and you have an example of the variables being controlled, and no, I didn't say they didn't exist i said there weren't too many to control and thus come up with accurate evidence, you need to understand that you don't base your games balance around variables that change so frequently from situation to situation, you balance it around equal opportunity and particular overarching situations (such as range and movement), how all those other variables interact is what we call the game, without it we'd be playing scissors paper rock.

and yes actually, you do need to show it's balanced if you want to make the claim that it is. it's not good enough to hide behind the "you brought it up first" ******** argument and double standards, you're making a claim and so are we, I've shown you at least one example that backs my claim and you've shown none, burden of proof applies equally to anybody making a claim.

to start with, that is an assumption, if you claimed an object didn't exist after someone told you it did than you are assuming he's lying despite your obvious lack of information on the topic, when an astronomer told me we revolved around the sun i wouldn't assume he's a lying bastard who know nothing about his field of work, I would go looking for further evidence to support or deny his claim (actually that's a lie because I don't care about whether we revolve around the sun).

anything to do with the statistics on the gun that can't be controlled by the player, that's at least 4 of the top of my head, base Damage, RoF, reload, range drop off, oh hey, what about the NERFS, that's a variable as well, which reminds me, do you have any evidence that supports your claim that it ISN'T the cause?

on second thoughts, forget about it, I've seen enough pointless circle jerk arguments in my time to see that you'll either never understand why you're wrong and an ***(umption maker) or at least never admit it (god forbid you look a fool over the internet), have a good day and try to keep further points on topic (and no this stupid argument isn't on topic because it's gone beyond why the NC weapons are statistically and practically UP/OP/Balanced and into a crappy debate about how you're making assumptions and un-backed claims and being hypocritical about it)

of controlled variables yes.

Strange, I seem to gravitate to the sidegrades that are higher-damage, slower fire rate. Maybe I should've been NC

Yah... ...

So what weapon were you using? What weapon was he using? What distance? Close quarters? Who got the first shot? Was he moving? Were you moving? Did he have sights? Di you have sights? Any frame drops? Any network lag? Did he have nanoweve armor? Did you have nanoweave armor?
I can go on for ages but to sum it up:

Just because someone drops you faster it doesn't mean that the gun the other guy was using is better. There are so many things that decide the outcome of a battle and to say that "His gun is better than mine" in a game where there are no "better guns" is just you trying to convince yourself that you aren't bad, not saying you are.

I want to know what the hell NC are good at. It's not armor, the Magriders tear us up. It's not infantry, the TR tear us up. It's not planes, the VR tear us up.

Surely the NC has something it's best at??

Even though I did not make that claim as simplified as you put it, it would be a very simple assumption to make that the fact that "when weapons are worse, you are less effective with it than people with more effective weapons", you might die faster. So considering that's a singular assumption, I don't see how you can make less assumptions other than making none.

In which case you don't have any hypothesis.

You assume a perfect system (lol!) and you make assumptions about "numerous other variables", while ignoring the high chance that numerous other variables are influenced by the simpler assumption that there's a slight imbalance in weaponry... For instance, you assume an entire empire by default utilises less skill...

Since occam's razor supports the idea with least amount of assumptions and least wild assumptions...

You pwned yourself. Well done.


Slight imbalance is the most logical.

Fair points, but I have played a fair amount of FPS over the years. I'm not a bad player. 2.7-ish KDR in PS 2 the last time I checked. I play mostly heavy assault. With TR heavy assault, I have had numerous occaisions when I get my shield up, get my bullets on target and he wins. Did everything right, but he just has higher DPS, lower TTK.

Hell, even the TR engineers and medics can take a NC heavy down if they get a tiny jump. VS engineers and medics are no threat if I have a shield ready (the way it should be).

The TR weapons have a pretty large advantage over NC. On Briggs and Connery you often see VS and TR dominating maps. NC much much less often and usually only when we have a higher population.

You can't hit harder when you can't hit anything.
There are variables: fps, ping time and even when an army hitting more, with less power, its easier to kill than an army hitting less with more power. Well, I like NC at all, but also have a TR as my secondary char. Stronger tank isn't an excuse for a whole weaker infantary.

I've seen no evidence from you that shows the current nerfs to NC are so drastic as to make them have a disadvantage against other factions.

And I need not to show it's balanced. Not because "you brought it up first" (your words, I never said that", not because of a double standard, because I do not need to prove there is not a teacup (imbalance) rotating around the sun (game).

Again, you're not fully understanding what I'm saying. I'm not making a claim the the item doesn't exist, I'm making a claim that is EITHER exists OR does not exist (AKA it's either him being unlucky or being unskillful). I'm not claiming he is unlucky, I'm not claiming he is unskillful, I'm claiming it is one of those two because those are the only options.

Even if it WAS the nerfs, that variable would fall under him being unlucky, because it would be unlucky for him to pick and play as a faction that had enough nerfs to put him at a disadvantage against other factions. So sure, that fact that he is either unskilled or unlucky probably was unnecessary, but it wasn't an assumption and it sure did prove you are hellbent on trying to make me look like I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I have enough integrity to say no, I have no evidence to say I have evidence that suggests that these nerfs are not the cause, but I also have enough critical thinking skills to say there are numerous other variables and factors that come into play that numerous NC players refuse to recognize, instead jumping on the bandwagon, creating a million threads saying that NC need to be buffed in order to compete.

If you get a string of headshots, NC would probably require less headshots to win yes. If headshots and bodyshots of Bolt Drivers are anything to go by, a headshot with a bolt driver kills instantly through shields and health of a cloaker, while dealing (iirc!) about full shield + 25ish% health damage with a bodyshot. So I'd say the impact is quite significant. Around a factor 1.5~1.6 in the above case?


It is however questionable if it is comparable to the frequency of TR headshots. Would be interesting to have access to the database, though that's not the whole story. For all we know most NC kills could happen at extremely close range during defense, while being pinned down constantly. :/ Statistics and theoretical balance doesn't always mean a lot if they don't have context.

(Note: not claiming NC only defend in pinned down positions! Just providing context disclaimer. ).

Just a question everyone should answer so we get some stats, since SOE didn't publish them since end of august : what's your accuracy?
Mine have gone from around 30% in Sept beta (when NC were max buffed) to around 20% (20- for LMG, 20+ if not 22, I'll have to double check, on AR) since release.

Actually they are mostly TR and Vanu.....

And then you have to make an assumption that the combination of your buffs/nerfs combination are worse than the other two faction buff/nerfs. And I'm sure there are other assumption your "single" assumption leads to. I wasn't trying to make a hypothesis, but if you need one "There are too many variables in play to pin point one variable as the cause for imbalance in real personal in game experience. (real as in just playing the game, not conducting experimentation like shown in the earlier video)"

I never assumed a perfect system. I stated in the ingame system, there are too many variables and one would need to try to create constants if they want to show that the nerfs are the true variable in question. That's experimentation 101. I'll tell you what I do assume though, I assume that the people making the threads about NC being UP do not represent the whole NC community, and so anything I say about the people claiming that NC is too nerfed is not directed at the whole NC community.

Please, chaps (NC, TR, VS alike), check your best rifles accuracy in your stats panel and report them there (with weapon name attached). This would give some ground to comparison.

You're now confusing assumption with observation. I've already made that observation, otherwise I wouldn't be looking for a reason...

You should really read back what you type.

Okay, in that case you're not representative of the entire TR community, nor are the people that claim it is fine as is and NC are whining.

Pointless point is pointless.

Very pointless.


What is interesting is the observation made by everyone that only NC are "whining". Which is saying something. If we're not representative of the entire NC community, then you'd have "non-representatives" of the TR community whining approximately equally much. The same would be true for VS. In reality though, only NC are "whining" (and are subsequently told to not represent their community).

Weird huh? Chances are something is off and that if observations accross the board show it's only one empire complaining, that it's then not the fault of the players of that empire. That seems to escape your keen senses of observation though.

Then again, you seem to have an agenda to not take any complaints serious and are mostly looking for reasons to dismiss the complainer, rather than the complaints. :/