On the Subject of PTS NC MAXes

Translation in progress...
Translation:

"TR and VS can finally utterly stomp the MAX in every single scenario, instead of requiring more than 10m range. Let's hope I can make people say it's OK to keep it like this so we can 'test' it in live, knowing full well the NC MAX will be absolute garbage and I'll have an easy time murdering everything".

Translation ends.

makes me wonder why i bothered giving you stats if you are going to straight up ignore them.
and then have the nerve to talk about stats proving me wrong?!

i told you that they deal less damage at every range, you didn't believe me and asked me for stats,
i posted the stats proving that they deal less damage at every range,
and your response is "well they're still gonna be the best!"

LESS damage at every range than TR and VS,
less accuracy than TR and VS,
a fraction of the sustained fire as TR and VS,
and you still think it should go live,
you people are bias as fk.

time to own up and admit that you know that it is a colossal overnerf and you want it anyway.

If it were me making these exact changes, I would use them to see who we can't trust for feedback on the forums. Then post the actual new stats and see what the reaction of the more trudtworthy people would be.

I doubt DBG did that, but seeing how DBG has gone off the deep end based on the bias of people before they should have used something like this to make sure they didnt make that mistake again.

First we have this by you:
"here is the TTK (both arms) vs infantry in CQC (within 8m)
fastest first:
Instant - Scatter cannon (all pellets required)"

Then we have this by you:
"i told you that they deal less damage at every range, you didn't believe me and asked me for stats,
i posted the stats proving that they deal less damage at every range,"

And, Liewec, you somehow think both posts get along well. In my reality they don't. But hey, your twisted reality seems to suggest something different. ;-)

You call it an overnerf...but you called NC MAX balanced before(just like Demigan and opposing every live stat for like 2 years). And you think the 2 statements above fit together. So I say: Let's see on live servers and gather some real gameplay stats with those changes before we buy into YOUR reality. ;-)
I still think that instagibbing heavies and C4-Fairies will still rule the battlefield.

Good job ignoring the max v max CQC stats, in which every NC weapons was at the bottom of the list,
Behind things like blushifts and mercys....(the lower damage, long range options for TR and VS)
An NC max with hacksaws, the "high dps option" is outgunned in cqc by a freaking Mercy max...
Go ahead, try spinning that into balance.

For all the years that I have mained NC, in both PS1 and PS2, I have felt bad about certain things and therefore avoided using them.
I'm not a fan of shotguns, I feel that mechanically they are very very difficult to balance and in terms of gameplay are not fun to play against.
My only MAX builds are AA and AV, I don't use them for AI because "That's not fun for anyone". Well now I will, I will play these new AI balanced MAXes extensively and every time someone complains that I killed them I will simply ignore them because if I killed you with these new numbers then I could have killed you with anything and therefore you deserved it.
And when people are still calling for further nerfs we will know for certain that it has nothing to do with balance or numbers.

at the beginning he says it all

I'm sorry but "rock paper scissors balance" is both a terrible way to manage it and is the opposite of combined arms.

Combined arms is the deliberate interaction of two or more branches of the army to complement each other. That's how it's done. Rock paper scissors is not that. If the enemy has all infantry, then you can beat them with one single group of another arm. This is then held up as "well then the infantry complements itself by adding another arm that beats that arm, and then the other group grabs their counter and so we have all groups on the field!". But this does not happen in-game due to what he already mentioned: Infantry fights inside bases, vehicles fight outside. The game does it's best to segregate these arms in many cases because some arms are so weak against the others that they can't compete unless they are segregated, and when they are segregated "combined" arms falls apart!

You know what's combined arms? Infantry that spots and targets enemies for an airstrike.
You know what's also combined arms? An aircraft that spots and targets enemies for infantry to engage. They can both perform the same role but from their respective position! By allowing each arm to do the exact same tasks (scouting, attacking a particular arm) but do so from their unique vantagepoint and allowing those tasks to become easier by having another arm nearby you can create combined arms.

But what is often missed is that combined arms is nothing more than teamwork, and that this type of teamwork works just as well for within the arm.
Looking at real-life, an attack helicopter can use combined arms by having some infantry paint a target for it so it can pop up and attack with minimal exposure. But that same attack helicopter can make use of a faster, smaller and more stealthy scout helicopter to do it's scouting as well! A good form of teamplay won't just make the individual arms of the faction work together, it'll allow each individual unit within each arm to play together with his own arm and that of other arms!

And that's where the focus needs to be! Every single unit needs to be looked at, and given a role that allows it to work together with any other unit in the game. And each of these roles needs to be important and unique enough that any unit would applaude the existance of any other type of unit nearby for the advantages it brings. Yes, a tank should even applaude having an infiltrator when he's being attacked by aircraft, and vice versa.

In a game that features asymmetrical encounters with an infinite number of variations, talk of balance can only be self-serving.

First 24 seconds.

Fun fact: on PTS a TR MAX with onslaughts can kill 2 maxes in CQC in less time than a grinder max can kill a single max!
(Onslaughts achieve 2 max kills in 12.25 seconds, Grinders take 12.5 seconds for a single max kill.)
So bringing twice as many might not cut it when you do less than half of the cqc damage with your shotguns! XD

The best NC max shotguns kill maxes 2 seconds slower than the worst TR and VS max weapons in CQC.
Balance!

Just say thx DGB for the next nerv.

i don`t know what you can nerv in future, but i know DGB will find something to nerv.

oh ya, and i thing new weapon will come out this year too.
no balance, no bugbash, no stable gameplay, just nervs and new weapons, this is really all, what the devs do the last years.........
buff and nerv
buff and nerv


I'm curious when the maggy gets nerved again

Next up...
VS no bullet drop was too powerful and now only works for 20 meters. To balance this huge advantage VS weapons cause half damage within 20meters.
Bolt-action sniper rifles will now have no HS modifier at all and will have their ROF reduced to make them more viable in CQC.
HA Shield makes you take double damage while also blinding the user.
The combat medic's revive grenade now creates zombies because the zombie survival genre is awesome and popular.

sshhh! stop giving them ideas! XD

Honestly, I'm none too fond of the PTS changes for one single reason. I don't care about the infantry TTK or range, I dont use maxes for that. No, if I'm pulling a skillsuit I have one goal in mind: shove my Hacksaws down an enemy MAXes throat and send him off to meet his maker. On current live servers, I can rip apart an enemy MAX and try to fight my way out of the pile of infantry around him. But on the PTS it's a whole different story. I got a buddy of mine and we tested out my NC MAX against an average TR MAX build. The result was clear: even with straight headshots, the NC MAX was pitifully outclassed. Most of the time the TR MAX reached about half health, no repair used, by the time the NC MAX had blown its repair and eventually died.

I can understand the NC max feeling "unfair" as it is right now. You run into a room and get blasted to ribbons by the big hulking death suit standing there. I wont get into the whole "it's useless at range" argument because let's face it, no one is willing to consider that a possibility. No, my issue is solely with the reduced effectiveness against maxes. My buddy and I were 1v1ing. Imagine trying to fight an outfit like Pale on Connery, who like to bring a couple squads worth of MAXes and engies in order to fight three exasperated NC. As it is now, there's a chance to fight them with maxes. Once NC have their maxes backhanded into the nerf pit, what's to stop that platoon of the enemys finest cheese? Archers got nerfed a while back because MAX players didn't like having a hard counter. Sustained fire from heavies with launchers might do something if the maxes aren't being sucked off by their swarm of engies. Vehicles can only do so much, especially in enclosed bases, and usually they're sundy-hunting or dealing with enemy armor. And both the TR and VS maxes can lay down enough fire to drop an encroaching C4 fairy. With a group of maxes there's pretty much no chance of getting that brick in and setting it off before getting melted.

TL;DR: If you're gonna bend the NC MAX over and give it a rough seeing-to, at least give the nerfed shotguns extra damage against maxes so they won't be completely useless. Again, this is coming from someone who rarely pulls a MAX and would rather see the Archer made into a more significant threat again but knows that would never happen.

Yep max vs max in cqc (where you'd expect the shotgun max with no range and no sustained fire to rule)
Every NC max shotgun is outgunned by every VS and TR MAX weapon in the game.
Max ttks in cqc (within 8m):
4,880ms - Onslaught
4,935ms - Nebula
5,250ms - Heavy Cycler
5,250ms - Mutilator
5,340ms - Cosmos
5,350ms - Quasar
5,640ms - Mercy
5,740ms - Blueshift
7,000ms - Scattercannon
7,522ms - Hacksaw
12,165ms - Mattock
12,500ms - Grinder

I can't believe they even thought this was an idea worthy of going to PTS, let alone be considered for Live.
I don't usually call people stupid, but one of them intentionally decided
that the shotguns with no range and no sustained fire should be the weakest cqc weapons in a max fight...
I can't think of a better word than STUPID for that moron, zero apologies.

I can't stop laughing about this post. You are not thinking for a second that you get exactly where the other faction MAXes are for YEARS already? That was okay as long as it only happened to them. No even more so...you guys dared to complain about your absolutely imba MAX not having even more range than it already had. You could switch on your darn shield, close ANY range, shoot the MAX and back off again...and called that balanced(Hint: if you can do it and the others can't...it's NOT balanced!). You could (and DID countless times!!) cheese your way into ANY control point and it was impossible to get in there for your opponent then cause you one shot EVERY infantry getting past that door. I have seen countless NC MAX crashes doing just that...but only very few TR or VS ones(and most of them failed due to C4 fairies).

I don't know what server you play on but you're out of your mind if you think that NC are the only ones who MAX crash. Again, jump on Hong Connery. Go fight Pale or TWC2, then try to tell me "Waahh, NC max crashes!"

On the subject of the shield, yes. NC maxes have a single-direction riot shield that does, in fact, run out of energy under sustained fire (something the maxes of both enemy factions are very good at btw). When your weapons are effective ONLY at cqc, you need a gap closer. As for your complaint on balance, by your logic every VS heat based weapon is unbalanced. By your logic the Prowler's rof ability is unbalanced. The Magriders mobility is unbalanced. The Lasher being able to hit guys in cover is unbalanced. Need I continue, or do you get my point?

Yes, NC MAXes dominate in CQC. What people can't seem to get through their heads is that you can't fight a heavily armored CQC weapon in CQC as a squishy and expect to win. And yes, the max has the shield, but a flanking attack makes that shield useless. Two heavies attacking from different doorways will absolutely destroy that cqc max. Or, alternatively, wait for his shield to go up then lay into him with small arms, then when the shield drops pop rockets into him.

I'm pretty terrible as TR, can't seem to grasp their weapons, but even I can take on an NC max as a TR. If I can do it, you have no excuse for not being able to do it. No, this whole max debate is just more "It HuRt My KdR sO iT mUsT bE oP." It's just like people whining about the Betelgeuse (aka the slightly crappier Orion with a heat mechanic.).