On faction flavor and hard numbers [Graphs]

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Rune, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. Bape

    What i want to know is who created the data? If it from Sony then ok but if it from some random player that tried all guns then all the data is irrelevant.
  2. Rune

    Thank you for pointing this out, and I realize I should have mentioned this in my original post. This was a choice I made to highlight the difference between the factions rather than the total amount. I tried to have all graphs start at 0, but I wanted to make the difference stand out a little more hehe.

    You are completely right tho, this is a common way to manipulate statistics to hide the true numbers. Hopefully this didn't come across as a way to hide an agenda.
  3. Rune

    If you check out the link i refer to you can see this data is pulled from the game files.
  4. Xonal

    Um, how exactly in your head are you thinking people arrive at the numbers? that they shoot at a wall for a few clips and say "hmm, CoF feels like 0.65 to me!"?
    • Up x 2
  5. Corruptlol

    this is by far the baddest faction comparsion ever ...
    get over to reddit and take a look at real data analayses ...

    the point is clear .. u can t kill if u can t hit **** with extrem recoil ... tr > vs > nc .. thats it ...
    • Up x 1
  6. Xae

    If you adjust the Bloom/Recoil for the Slower NC ROF they have the lowest Recoil/Bloom. Please adjust your graphs to show the more meaningful Bloom/Recoil per second/minute instead of the amount per bullet, which leaves off a major part of the story.

    Look at the LMGs in particular, they are almost identical in spread and recoil, once you adjust for Rate of Fire.

    Gauss Saw: .07 CoF Bloom per shot, 500 RPM = 35 "Blooms" per minute
    Orion LMG: .05 CoF Bloom per shot, 750 RPM = 37.5 "Blooms" per minute
    Carv LMG: .05 CoF Bloom per shot, 750 RPM = 37.5 "Blooms" per minute

    Guass: .55 Vertical Recoil, .175 Horizontal Recoil, 500 RPM = 275 Vertical, 85.5 Horizontal Recoil.
    Orion/Carv: .4 Vertical Recoil, .2 Horizontal Recoil, 750 RPM = 300 Vertical, 150 Horizontal Recoil.

    Net "Accuracy":
    Gauss: 35 BPM/ 360 Recoil
    Orion/Carv: 37.5 BPM, 450 Recoil
    The Gauss SAW is the most accurate base LMG, at least according to the math.
    • Up x 1
  7. Novmiech

    To be honest this was my first suspicion o_O but it seems that you more or less mis-represented each faction equally - you over exagerated TR's DPS, NC's damage per bullet, and Vanu's low ADS bloom - so if you are running an agenda; I don't know who it is for LoL:D and thank you for honesty in reporting. /Salute!

    Just the same - new charts please <3
  8. Dornez

    You know if SOE would just come forward and release this info themselves it would be a lot better than 30 different people releasing 30 different sets of numbers and causing so much unrest on the forums.

    Doesn't matter how much data you mine up, no one wants to admit that their faction has a clear advantage over the others unless the devs themselves release the true numbers.
  9. Xae

    Everyone is using the same best set of raw data the developers release.
  10. BengalTiger

    It's also the hardest to use.

    Same story with the Prowler tank- it's the underdog in direct combat, but it could easily flank anyone except Lightnings, making it very lethal in the right hands against opponents that don't get into a wide formation before the battle starts.
  11. Novmiech

    Another part of the story that is left out is at least something I was considering today - is human ability to make corrections based to magnitude and frequency, and which is more difficult to account for.

    Just for the sake of discussion - lets agree - NC = large, slower (less frequent) recoil. VS/TR = small, faster (more frequent recoil).
    Let us also assume the net recoil value is exactly the same.

    Now let us play a game where we try to keep an object (reticle) in a designated area (target).

    To play this game our object will be a ball - and our target will be a circle drawn on the ground. I will move the ball out of the circle, you will move it back in.

    In the first scenario I will move the ball 1 foot from the circle every second.
    In the second scenario I will move the ball 10 feet from the circle every 10 seconds.

    I think most would agree that in the first scenario is much easier to keep the ball in the circle for the most amount of time- you can make small regular adjustments, where the second requires sporadic large and violent adjustments with greater possibility for over correction as well, not to mention the perception of "downtime" or lag between movements - where no amount of focus or precision can help.

    I know this is a crude and not wholly accurate analogy - but its the best solution I could come up with to answer my own question of "Why do I suck with the Gauss Saw?" - and is in lesser degrees true of any high recoil / low RoF weapon - of course being more NC than the other factions.
    • Up x 1
  12. Dornez

    They didn't release anything. All these numbers are coming form people saying "We got it directly from the game files"

    Reminds me of a saying "I can take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed" Same concept. Devs need to publicly release this data.
  13. Novmiech

    Other than this being wildly incorrect - please don't bring up tanks in a thread clearly dedicated to infantry weapons.
  14. Xae

    No, I don't agree because that is wrong.

    NC has LESS Recoil and LESS Bloom.

    The Guass Saw is objectively more accurate than the CARV or Orion.
  15. Antivide

    In practice it is inferior to the CARV and the Orion. That accuracy doesn't mean anything when you die before it comes into action.

    Same TTK at close range, then at medium and long range the SAW loses out in every aspect to the CARV and the Orion.

    It's best to cross reference this data with the data from the PS2 Sub-Reddit. At least until SOE is done trying to optimize their game, as balance seems to be a secondary focus right now.
  16. Novmiech

    I'm fairly certain that as reported it has more recoil (0.400 > 0.307) - and more bloom per shot (0.062 > 0.050), with a lower rate of fire . Which makes my comparison accurate enough for simple analogy. Maybe you are just looking at charts and numbers from a different game?

    I'm also not sure if you think that typing certain WORDS in all CAPS is somehow making you more persuasive? It is not.
  17. Xae

    Uhg, have I wondered into a 40K Roleplaying Thread?

    "Reality Proves Nothing" seems to be the motto.

    The words are in caps because I wasn't sure you are able to read correctly, since you clearly missed the statement in the first post that the SAW is more Accurate in all regards. Clearly the problem is in comprehension, since you noticed but did not actually process the information.

    The SAW is more accurate than the Orion or Carv. That is a fact.

    Novmiech, I did the math in my post. The SAW has both less recoil and less bloom.

    The SAW does ~7% less damage raw and has higher damage factoring in reloads. In exchange it is more accurate.
    Were you expecting the NC weapons to be more accurate and have higher damage. The chart on reddit does not include accuracy.
  18. Ireul

    This all means I was right about NC being hopelessly outgunned and an automatic loser in any 1v1 sitaution against anyone but fellow NC.

    Thanks for the post, I'm off to create that imbalanced Terran.

    Ok, I created it, and see now that even the default weapons are automatic win, thank you.
  19. Novmiech

    Your math is based off of recoil per minute - something you, and you alone - made sound very important and critical to this discussion when it is not at all.

    When has anyone ever referred to "recoil" as meaning amount of force exerted over X-duration time? Never - that's when. Recoil and the relevant factor being how you cope with it has always been and will always be on a per round and between round basis.

    By your logic; Bob fires off a single round from his Thompson Contender breach loaded .308 (yes - the rifle round) pistol. Jim fires off all 15 rounds from his 9mm Beretta 92F.

    If you walked up to the two men and asked them "which of your weapons has more recoil" they would both universally agree that the 9mm has more recoil on the basis that it did in fact exert more net newton / joules and the Thompson is thus the easier to shoot pistol?

    Now that's someone trying to push an agenda.
  20. Xae

    Recoil over a period of time is a much better metric than recoil per round, ignoring the rounds per minute fired.

    If Over a minute is too much do it over 5 seconds or 10 seconds, it won't drastically change the results.

    Here, I'll even do the math for you.

    Gauss Saw: .07 CoF Bloom per shot, 500 RPM = 35 "Blooms" per minute
    Orion LMG: .05 CoF Bloom per shot, 750 RPM = 37.5 "Blooms" per minute
    Carv LMG: .05 CoF Bloom per shot, 750 RPM = 37.5 "Blooms" per minute

    Guass: .55 Vertical Recoil, .175 Horizontal Recoil, 500 RPM = 275 Vertical, 85.5 Horizontal Recoil.
    Orion/Carv: .4 Vertical Recoil, .2 Horizontal Recoil, 750 RPM = 300 Vertical, 150 Horizontal Recoil.

    SAW: .07 COF Bloom per Round, 8 Rounds in the first second = .56 Bloom
    Carv/Orion: 05 COF Bloom per Round, 12 Rounds in the first second = .6 Bloom

    .56 is "less than" .6

    The SAW has less Bloom

    SAW: .55 Vertical Recoil, .175 Horizontal Recoil x 8 = 4.4V, 1.5H Recoil
    Carv/Orion: .4 Vertical Recoil, .2 Horizontal Recoil x12 = 4.8V, 2.5H Recoil

    4.4 is "less than" 4.8
    1.5 is "less than" 2.5

    The SAW is still more accurate in every measurable way.

    Recoil per bullet ONLY matters if you fire 2 bullets at a time. Recoil per burst is a much better metric. Also, under your "reasoning" an MG-42 would have "less recoil" than a 50cal, because only the first round matters.

    I'm not pushing an agenda, I'm pushing "facts".

    You are denying facts because they do not agree with your worldview. You should be adjusting your world view instead of attacking the person presenting information you do not want.
    • Up x 1