[RANT] PTS Changes

Greetings, people. I'm relatively calm person and don't usulally rant at all, but upcoming PTS patch really got on my nerves. Specifically LMG and AR nerfs.
1) When you nefing something's damage (or increase HP of infantry, like with aux shield) you'll hurt NC the most (because every additional bullet to kill is more inforgiving to them). At the same time VS is punished slightly less, but they already have low damage-per-mag, so it will cause some inconvinience to VS too. And then TR... they already have spare bullets, and their RPM makes "impact factor" of this patch less noticable.
2) I haven't seen any person complaining about AR's overperforming. More so medics aren't very popular in PS2 and these nerfs are just unnessesary. If anything, VS ARs need slight buff, because (let's be honest) outside of H-V45 and Terminus VS ARs suck. +5 to mag size of their non-CQC ARs would have been a good way of increasing their perfomance without making them OP.
3) Have you ever seen people complaining, that LMGs are OP at the distance? Me - not. But there are a LOT of complains about heavies overperforming in CQC 1v1 fights. If you are going to nerf LMGs, nerf their CQC potential. 143 DMG LMGs have to have RPM less or equal to 698 (and not 750), because of the shields, that HAs posseses.
4) Cyclone/Tempest Nerfs... Why they are nerfing SMGs, that are already too wobly (compared to their counterparts)? Sure NC SMGs are good, but do they really need that nerf?
5) SABR-13 and TRAP-M1 buffs are well deserved, but TR is already overbuffed faction. I agree, that underperforming stuff has to be buff, but why do you refuse to nerf the things, that are overperforming. Mainly - Prowler. GK recieved acceleration mechanic, but it isn't the projectile velocity, that makes GK overperforming. The main problem is the drop - it is almost nonexistent. Paired with high mag size, high fire rate and blazingly fast reload time, GK is true essence of hatred by a lot of non TR players.
But I wasn't talking only about GK. The main cannon is IMO broken as well (though some TR "loyalists" would kill me for saying that.). It not only has the most damage per mag, but also the swiftest reload of any MBT primaries. Anchormode makes it even more ridiculous (and it has no cooldown) and just unfair not only to non-TR MBTs, but to evey other type of unit in the game (you know, that thing melts sunderers in a few seconds. And with twin cannon, if you miss the 1st shot shooting at infantry, you always have "another try"). If anything, anchormode should be removed, and swaped with overcharge - basically the same thing, but leaves the tank mobile and lasts for 6 secons and has a cooldown of 1 min (like vanguard's shield). Basic reload time should be increased as well.

Of course it is "PTS patch and everything is subject to change", although usually everything goes live with little/without any changes. But I really hope AR/LMG nerfs would be rejected by the community and they won't hit live. Discuss.

1) Two words for ya- horizontal recoil. You know, that kick in the dick randomized shake that can't be compensated for? Yeah, TR has the highest horizontal recoil values out of the three factions. While it isn't too big a problem in cqc, at range it is definitely noticeable and detrimental. So while technically our higher fire rates and magazine capacities make missing shots less critical, the stupid high horiz recoil makes it so you'll artificially miss more shots than you should.

2) This one has two parts so I'll have to split it.

2a. I don't think ARs deserve to be nerfed either.
2b. Corvus got buffed according to the patch notes. Rate of fire went from 526 to 550. Not bad considering how ridiculously accurate that thing is. Pulsar isn't too bad either and the Equinox burst is a straight up headshot machine. Only AR in the Vanu arsenal I think could use some love is the CME.

3) I think they went overboard with the LMG range nerf too. I can understand bumping the drop-off by another tier for the cqc LMGs. So MSWR, Anchor, Orion and Goose to put them in line with cqc weapons from other categories, but all LMGs? Even the general purpose ones like Carv, SAW, EM6 and SVA-88? I'm struggling to see the logic. Also to your point LMGs don't need a cqc nerf imo.

4) That nerf is necessary. Not SMGs in general, but Cyclone is particular. That thing is way too versatile and has way too much reach for an SMG.
It has SMG level (very low) recoil with a 167 damage profile.
Because of that 167 damage profile and the fast fire rate, when chaining headshots it has the fastest time-to-kill out of any automatic in the game.
Also because of the high damage profile and low recoil, it can reach out and touch people at ridiculous ranges for an SMG. I've dropped people at 50 meters or more away with a Cyclone Heavy. Rage tells were priceless.

Point is, they're trying to nerf it's capability at range. It's still gonna be good ol' keklone up close but no more cqc beast and capable ranged weapon in the same package.

5) Tanks aren't my thing but on paper this seems like a pretty significant nerf. The acceleration will require more leading your targets and aiming skill (and I use the word very loosely, we're talking GK after all) from the operator. Somebody more qualified in vehicles than me should chime in on this though.

AR nerfs
SABR buff

I've been tagged while dodging heavies at +75 meters so many times I can't even guess at the number. +100m headshots, even counting for lag comp it's almost a gib. Are they legit? I don't know, but the weapons sure do reach out.

That said, I wouldn't have ever called for a nerf.

Like everything else, it will just take time to learn the new leading mechanics.

I might actually pull the GK again to see how it performs, since even pre-nerf I mostly kept it on the shelf in favor of the halberd unless it was situationally useful.

I was talking about the general way devs are changing things - via nerfing damage, or buffing HP (just like with Aux Shield). Just wanted to point out, that this way that "balancing" impacts the faction differently.

I'm using my Tempest as a driver's PDW. It's a great weapon, but IDK if it is OP.
Also, Armistice has a very fast TTK too, but it's stats remain untouched.

Anyways, Cyclone nerf indeed may be deserved. But AR nerf - doesn't.

P.S. Just noticed some grammar mistakes in the original post, but for some reason I can't edit it.

The point with 2 damage tier drop off is to put all weapon at the same scale.
Now the MAX/MIN damage range will be revelant on AR and LMG. (only the MAX damage range did matter).

I'm lazzy to do the maths, but the middle damage tier isn't nerfed so hard : they are also increasing the min damge range.

Note they're also buffing scout rifle : stop using your CQC LMG/AR and use BR if you're aiming at a long range target.

I get where you're coming from but I don't think it does. NC gets screwed because landing an extra shot with their low fire rate hurts time-to-kill, VS gets screwed because landing an extra shot lowers the amount of targets they can kill with their already low damage-per-magazine, TR gets screwed because landing an extra shot while the weapon rattles all over the screen means missing an extra 3.

Long story short, adding an extra bullet to kill sucks for everyone involved.

Armistice can't hit the broadside of a barn at range though, and even if it could, the low damage profile renders the hits meaningless anyway. Cyclone is different. It has a similar TTK to the Armistice in cqc (faster TTK if going for headshots) but is accurate enough and has enough damage to also be used at range.

The nerf, I think, is to limit Cyclone's range. Up close and even at close-medium ish range (25-30m or so) it should still be your trusted PDW.

100% with you on that one.

Here is the data on new vs old weapon damage over range.

My summery after reading the doc is that number of shots to kill will remain the same up to 40 meters even for weapons that are the most severely affected. In another words, virtually no change in cqc combat effectiveness. Given that the majority of combat happen in point rooms, I doubt these changes will have a significant impact.

wait what ? they remove charge from the max ?

http://1.bp.************/-KHvGKN4z3TA/ThZxVXY_jHI/AAAAAAAAAug/1Om_ic-V5Oc/s1600/DarthVaderNooo.jpg

You know... not every fight is CQC. And if those changes won't "have a significant impact", then why nerfing ARs/LMGs in the first place!?

Cyclone absolutely needed a nerf. Easily my favorite weapon in the game. Too much upside and not enough downside. Not sure how anyone could think otherwise, that thing was a beast like the mp5 in cod4.

Not for the target. Think outside the box.

Horizontal recoil was the worst of the 3, leading to more shots missed, however this was a minor downside in CQC when you can shove the gun down the opposing players throat. I believe it also had the worst vertical recoil.

I disagree that it needed a nerf, but the devs don't think so. But again same devs that believed that PPA needed to be worse than saron in terms of AI and ZoE into the ground, not to mention the damage ranges which brings a whole lot of confusion, so who's to say their credibility isn't bad this time?

Cyclone is one of the best SMGs in the game, no doubt. But does this fact make it OP? IDK, there are much more imbalanced things in the game, imo.
Personally, I think that nerfing Cyclone would be the same as nerfing Repeater: Is it the best in it's class? Absolutely! Do we really need to nerf it? Probably not.

Cyclone and Anchor is being nerfed.
NC heavies will lose CQC capabilities more than before. Overall, NC is being nerfed at range-combat which was their general specialty.
Of course for some guy who's gonna say like "You may land headshots", but not everyone can land headshots with ease.

Every patch note is fine other than AR/LMG(including cyclone) changes.

Do you care to backup that statement with some relevant stats? And by that, I don't just mean listing stats for primary weapons (1/2) and only listing total amount of infantry kills for example. Look at the tank as an entire package, compare it to the other two packages, and then return with your findings.

Here is the thing you aren't considering. Drop is a function of projectile gravity per time, meaning gravity excerts a certain amount of downward force per second. That implies that if a given projectile spends more time in the air than another, it will have more time to be affected by gravity. Thus is can be concluded that by reducing the average velocity of the projectile (via the acceleration mechanic), the drop is also increased.

The reason you've believed the drop to be almost nonexistant is due to the velocity rendering it almost negligable, despite the projectile gravity itself not being much greater for the Halberd compared to the GK.

The main issue with the GK has also been the ease of use for rookies, which allows them to be somewhat competitive with higher skilled people. The changes proposed will make it harder to use for them, while not affecting experienced users as much, as they are more used to acceleration mechanics (from the Halberd, Enforcer etc.), and most such users will have been using the Halberd over the GK anyways.

I know we are all different and all, but I personally I love fighting against the GK. Mainly due to the inherent weakness it shares with the Prowlers primary weapons, namely the reliance on sustained fire. I find it pretty easy to take advantage of such a reliance and thereby greatly reduce the effective DPS of both the GK and the Prowlers primary weapons.

What if I said DPS isn't the only factor relevant for balancing MBTs? If both the GK and the Prowler itself is blatantly OP, then surely it shows in the statistics and you can easily back it up with hard data right?

Anchor is also the only ability which restricts your movement while active, AND requires you to be at a complete standstill for it to even be ABLE to activate. Meaning you often cannot use it in situations going sour, and using it for defensive purposes relies on your enemies to be incompetent. Whereas with the Vanguard/Magrider, the ES abilities can often be used not just offensively, but also defensively to make an escape, or similar maneuvers. Sure, Anchor is great for farming rookies that cannot fire back, but once you are up against enemies that actually have 2 cents for brain-cells it becomes harder to use effectively to impact the larger fights (hint: That won't happen if you sit at 300+m or within a friendly zerg with your Anchor).

One thing you are forgetting is the fact that the Prowler is the only tank where an infantry wearing Flak can survive a direct hit from any of the primary weapons, and still live. Meaning, if you are fighting against infantry wearing Flak, it is VERY difficult to kill them, as as soon as you hit them once, they duck down into cover again. Not saying one is better than the other, but, just like before, you are focusing on one aspect, whilst completely forgetting other just as relevant aspects.

Yes please! That, or reworking Anchor to give less benefit to the primary weapons, but also effect the secondary weapons as well. I've been advocating a rework of Anchor for literally years, as I find it sub-par in its current iteration unless all you want to do is be useless to your faction and farm noobs at 300+m.

I disagree, but mostly because I didn't see you give any reasoning for it, so I have nothing to agree with.

Right, but know that most encounters with enemy will happen at close range will the average player choose a CQC weapon or a range weapon? The only situation where a long range weapon is viable is in an open field fight where you know for sure the engagement will be long. However at that range you will really be more effective in a vehicle or playing a sniper. So, as I said, the impact will not be significant, most players will still use the same cqc weapons, I know I will.

As for why nerf when not much is going to change? Beats me, Wrel had me scratching my head too on this one. Perhaps he enjoys open field infantry fights ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OK, Prowler is:
- Superior tank for CQC
- Superior tank for long ranges
- The least penalizing for misses
- Has the highest movement speed

Hm, I didn't think about that. Just checked it on PTS, it's indeed weaker. I guess I owe an apology for my previous statement.

Sure, but it is the main factor. Every tank can flank and kill from behind, but in similar conditions prowler just wins.

Did that long time ago.

Those 300m+ prowlers usually result enemy armour coloumn's death, with no chances to figth back.

Well, not every infanty unit wears flak, so this "disadvantage" is very situational. Refire time of the prowler is too quick to finish them anyways.

Well, at least we both have something to agree with.
Anyways, Prowler wasnt the main topic of this thread (I just used it as an example of things that should be changed). The main topic was those AR/LMG changes.

And what about the players, that enjoys playing with med-long range ARs (my favourite AR is the Tross. This patch hits it the most)? To hell with them?

A Vanguard in my opinion is a better boxer.

I'll give you point 2 but it should be basically impossible to hit a Magrider at long ranges unless he is asleep.

I'm ambivalent on point three.

Yes, the fastest in a straight line. But that doesn't account for terrain where the Maggie shines and the prowler gets stuck in geometry.