NC LMGs or "is the Promise really good?"

The shots to kill and raw damage values over range give context to the TTK counts and support the other spreadsheets.

The data isn't supposed to be shocking, it's supposed to provide an accurate comparison in TTK amongst the NC's LMGs. It does this well, allowing for an easy comparison in raw theoretical DPS & TTK.

All data is relevant in stats.

Precisely. All data.

2/3rds of the data posted are useless by themselves for determining DPS or TTK because it flat out ignore rate of fire. You know that other fundamentally important stats when calculating DPS and TTK?

Well, rate of fire doesn't change over distance like damage and therefore STK & TTK does. They are constants and it is assumed to be known. Easy enough to find if one doesn't already.

The STK could be any number from 10 to 100. It does not matter without ROF + DMG model.
The damage could be any number between 10 to 100. Without ROF it is a meaningless statistic.
Then there is recoil + recoil pattern + tolerance, etc etc. To put it mildly, you are putting forth an exceptionally incomplete picture.

This is why it is so funny to see you guys using this seriously as if it means something.

Before todays patch it was an oxymoron gun where recoil and cone of fire bloom contradicted one another as you held the trigger down. Now it's surprisingly decent, I'm loving these new lmg changes.

I see the Promise got buffed in the recoil department. (Alongside the Maw for some stupid reason but whatevez).

The changes however minor just further invalidate the entire mechanic of decreasing recoil amid sustained fire. The entire mechanic is as pointless as ever.

As I said, the rate of fire is known and is listed plainly. (698RPM) The in-game stats page doesn't indicate damage at ranges between it's two ends or theoretical TTK.

Theoretical engagements are always incomplete, that's just the nature of things. If we wanted a more realistic engagement projectile velocity, health & resistance modifiers, the presence of headshots, and imperfect accuracy due to bloom and recoil could be suggested, but would not account for every possible engagement, quite far from it.

We could not possibly estimate with certainty how a weapon will kick, what the bloom pattern will be, the individual accuracies of both players, the presence of cover or uneven ground, or a whole host of other factors such as rate of movement if moving at all, even magazine size.

You're ignoring one of the best sets of data we could possibly accept because you're asking for the Moon on a stick. And as I said, RoF remains constant and placing it on a speadsheet would be pointless.

mate seriously.
the promise now has less recoil for per shot than the Watchman. and thats just the starting recoil. it now reaches mininum variance in FOUR shots. The only LMG that has less first shot recoil than the promise is the Rhino because that has a 1x multiplier to it's 0.3 vertical recoil. to top it off it still has rank 1 accuracy under 143 damage LMGs.

and ofcourse the Meow got a buff to it's recoil. it had more vertical recoil per shot than the Gauss SAW (with compensator) after 2 shots. now it has less ADS Accuracy, lower vertical recoil, higher horizontal recoil, slightly more ammo and slightly longer reload compared to the anchor turning it basically into a SMG'ed Anchor. i now consider it to truly be the VS Anchor.

oh and Damage per bullet and Shots to kill are the same number, just from a different side. making a seperate spreadshot for both is silly and pointless.

Made your butt sore after only one line, must be a new record.

We're still not here to discuss the Maw. Go make your own thread and stop trying to hijack this one.

Sure, shots to kill can easily be extrapolated from the raw damage per shot, but the spreadsheet allows for an easier comparison between STK of the various LMGs.

new stats afterall. and while i realize that none of the NC in this thread are interested in hearing the stats because they contradict their whining i can still make the effort that SOME truth can be found in this thread.
and i wasn't the one who started talking about the Meow...

Even a theoretical engagement has to consider ROF.

We're actually on the same page on this. My entire issue with this is that taking something so blatantly obvious which is not even data from the game, theoretical or otherwise, it is a copy/paste from stats. It wouldn't be an issue if he hadn't graded them, i.e. treating one as better than the other.

I fully accept ROF on its own is not relevant to list. Same is true for bullets to kill and damage model. Might as well start listing off reload speed or whatever as well and pointlessly grade them in terms of reload speed.

Funnily enough, with the "data" posted here the SAW/GODSAW looks like the best LMGs for NC.

They do, how else could we have a theoretical TTK without incorporating RoF? Or am I not understanding what you mean? Like adding the RoFs to the spreadsheet under the guns? I don't think I understand the point you are making about RoF here.

Well in a sense they are better or worse than the others. Obviously there's a lot more to a weapon than just one raw stat, but when looking at that one stat in particular when comparing options some are superior to others. This is quite fair when it comes down to TTK, in my opinion.

For example, stats-wise the EM1 is a good gun, but it can't kill fast enough to be considered better than the other short(er)-range LMGs. The higher DPS is effectively more important than the background stats are in the majority of engagement scenarios.

I would argue a weapon's ability to kill and kill quickly is simply the most important factor in determining what makes it "good." Not quite pointless, at least not as arbitrary as something random like reload speed might be.

Before nanoweave & co. the two SAWs technically are the best in theory.

Hardly new, the recoil values changed a bit. The weapons are still largely the same, just a bit easier on the crosshairs.

No one is interested in the entirely unrelated VS Maw when trying to discuss the NC-specific LMGs. Go make a thread about the Maw if you so fancy, I'm sure plenty of "NC" would be more than happy to hear what you'd have say. Prominent NC player me included.

Actually, yes, you were the one who brought up the Maw in the first place.

Page 2.

The data is nearly useless. Example: The anchor does 3 shot kills out to 15m with SPA. That's nice clean data.

Well, that's great except in the game it's a bit more messy. The range in an engagement won't be static. It may move from 20m to 10m during half a clip. Some shots are going to land body, some head, some will miss completely because of flinch from gun X (where X is a whole bag of variables in itself) and there may be a reload that doesn't make sense during an individual engagement because of some unrelated engagement that occurred just prior.

At some point theory needs to be set aside and empirical outcomes need to be seen.

With the promise this is particularly important. The Bloom/CoF being artificially constrained makes the weapon feel much different than another weapon with otherwise equal stats.

I hated the gun on paper. Love it in game.

And if that data is solely from use the rifle in VR, without any additional data on the subject..
It's just as useless.

Data at least is solid.
It's not based on "what feels better" but what is directly better.
It is best to use both data from the charts, from the tables, from the direct sources, and pair it with the in-"person" collection data.

You can also love a gun on Paper, and hate it in Game.
Que every Shotgun basically.
Or the Dynamo.

So rather than suggest all non-subjective outside of game data is thrown away in favor of firing the gun in person..
Perhaps state the value of data from all sources, when used properly?

i am positively impressed by your ability to always prove you are even dumber than i thought... thats not even the same line of conversation...

using ALL data tells us that the promise is the most accurate143 damage LMG in the game with virtually no recoil, average DPS but extreme ease of use thanks to the removal of the need to burst fire the weapon, resulting in much higher DPS at 20m+ distances.
The issue is not that "the feeling" of the weapon and "the data" of the weapon are contradicting. it's that you are ignoring both.

That's since I just went for the first Maw reference.
Page 1 has VS LMG's being brought into a discussion between NC LMGs vs NC LMGs -- by you specifically.
Which is like asking why VS doesn't wield TR Prowler cannons on their magrider, as if it was an Option.

I haven't actually been in the argumentative war in the last 3 pages.
I literally have only said, that excluding Data charts for firing a weapon in VR, is in poor taste.
That's all I have been on this thread - Showing your mentions, and that sentence.

So, I can't be ignoring both when I've never been in this thread's argument.
Entirely different people.

you and campagne are so interchangebly it's hard to keep track.
And as i said on the third page:
This SHOULD be a balance discussion.
Balance means you put to things against each other and can value them as equal.
Therefor you and campagnes rabbid screaming that the promise is a terrible gun but shouldn't be compared to other guns is just straight up hilarious.

The promise CAN and MUST be compared to it's most closely related brothers: the Pulsar LSW, the SVA88 and the Carv-S.
And has the Pulsar LSW AND the SVA88 AND the Carv-S are considered to be pretty normal, balanced guns that comparision becomes even easier.
And that comparision simply results in the promise being more accurate, having less recoil both horiontal and vertical than those other 3.
It has the same ammo but 0.1 slower reload as the CARV S.
it has 3575 morr DPM than the vanu versions, but still a slower reload.
it has less attachment options than the Carv S but the SPRW and Ammo feeder attachments still allow it decent customizability to longer range fighting or more sustained fights.

All of these things you'd realize if you used the gun yourself for once.

He has an Icon, I do not.
He has been in this thread strictly, and has a Sig.
You bring up VS Weapons as to why an NC weapon is better than an NC weapon..

Promise can not be compared to VS & TR weapons, when the entire comparison is about it vs NC's options.
The question is which NC LMG to use.. not which NC LMG to use over VS or TR LMG's..

When you ask VS which CQC weapon to use, do you say "CARV, and GDT", or do you pick from the list of VS guns they can actually use?
This isn't a thread about VS & TR LMGs vs NC LMGs.
This is about NC vs NC, in which to use: NC can't use a VS gun, they pick between NC guns or NS guns.

So anything about a VS gun being superior, inferior, or indentical is worthless, when That isn't an option.
Which makes the NC pick the Promise over their other NC LMGs? Certainly not a Pulsar's stats compared to it.
Why? As a Pulsar isn't an option, in the question of which NC LMG to use.

Just like the Gauss Saw isn't a VS or TR option for Long-range, nor considered in asking "Which ES gun to use for Long-range as a specific empire"
They pick and compare their own Guns to their own guns.

As a Carv being equal or worse, or superior to another gun, has no value, when the Carv isn't an option to begin with.

so what you are saying is:
it's irrelevant if the Promise is a gun that is balanced in regards to the whole game.
it is only important for NC if it is more powerful than anything else NC have access to?

i'm just sitting here utterly stunned how utterly stupid you are and how little you understand of balance...