So I got the Auraxium Medal on the AC-X11...

Discussion in 'Light Assault' started by DiHorizon, Jun 7, 2013.

  1. CanadianAttackBeaver

    The Razor is, by far, the better long-range option of the NC carbines. Higher capacity, faster reload, better bullet velocity, tighter bloom and less recoil make it a far more effective weapon at range than the AC-X11.

    And the Razor does have a semi-auto mode, despite it not being listed on the gun spec tab.
  2. angryratt

    Wolfwood82 speaking: This isn't rocket science. The ACX is a dedicated medium range carbine, that's what you've been trying to say this whole time. That being the case, it can't get 5 extra rounds because yes it becomes more adaptable to CQC/short range. Yes it's CoF helps curb it's use in CQC, but not by much since CQC/short range doesn't exactly need a tight CoF. And it's CoF is only effective because of it's severely limited magazine size.

    Whether it's painted as a medium or long range carbine, my argument has remained the same. 5 extra rounds would OP it by increasing it's effective field size to include short/CQC range. Not sure why you just can't accept the fact that my core argument has never changed in that regard. Gotta keep pressing on with the "yew changd yer miend sew convenentleh!". Since my core argument has never once changed, I no longer have a motive for "randomly changing my opinion". Thus I am fully allowed to be a blind idiot and still my initial point is valid and yet to be refuted. So there. :p

    It being quite squarely dedicated to medium range combat puts it in the same position the SMGs are in. 1 range increment where it's actually effective makes it very hard to use effectively. It's dedicated to 25m-50m combat range and has been balanced completely around that small area. You have a KPM of 3 except for the last 5m of that zone. This is the core problem with the weapon, and isn't likely to change since every empire has a black sheep carbine that no one likes for some mysterious reason (T5 AMC being the TR's, not positive on the VS side).

    Higher bullet velocity makes it more lethal beyond that 50m mark where velocity makes a difference. Same reason why you can't just increase the minimum damage to 167@65m, the minimum damage helps keep it balanced against long range carbines.

    Faster reload wouldn't do eff all for the weapon. So even considering this as a "viable option" is kinda pointless. Core problem won't be solved and people will be right back here complaining about it.

    Yes I have used the GD-7F. I've also used the Serpent, Lynx, Jaguar, VX6-7, Reaper, Pulsar C, and a number of other carbines/shotguns/SMGs/LMGs. Extensively. I stand by my statement, CQC combat (less then 10m) is extremely difficult for carbines/smgs because of the exaggerated movement you face off against. Higher accuracy weapons are actually hindered by it, but all standard bullet weapons suffer the same problems. You have to have perfect accuracy or an aim bot thanks to ping/speed of movement. A toe to toe firefight with anyone worth their salt as infantry is going to be a challenge with any carbine/smg. CQC oriented or otherwise. Higher damage weapons actually hold a serious advantage over weaker weapons at this range because every hit counts, and higher damage weapons hit harder, so they count more. Why do you think shotguns are so effective in CQC?

    1. My core argument never changed. Regardless of range, 5 more rounds increases it's effective field of range to include CQC/short range combat.
    2. It's CoF helps curb it's CQC effectiveness, however this is only because the weapon has such a limited magazine size to begin with.
    3. Higher bullet velocity also expands it's range to include long range combat. Since you have the Reaper, there is no need for this.
    4. Raising the minimum damage to 167@65m has the same effect as point 3. It isn't needed given the weapon's balance point.
    5. Increasing the reload speed won't fix the core problem people are having with the weapon. People will be back complaining about it within days of a patch, so even contemplating this "fix" is pointless.
    6. The core problem with the weapon is that it is dedicated to medium range and can veer into long or short with attachments/ammo. Most other carbines have more then one effective range increment. The T5 AMC has a similar problem being dedicated to long range with the ability to veer into medium with some attachments.
    7. I do not compare a weapon with 1 other weapon. I compare it with everything I could conceivably see going against it. This means I won't compare a NC weapon with another NC weapon, or a TR with another TR weapon.
  3. CanadianAttackBeaver

    1. The only thing consistent in your bullsh*t is that you are against an increase to the magazine size.
    • You originally argued the AC-X11 was a "sniper-carbine" (seriously), and that we were better off using it to take single shots against targets (who likely have better long range weapons) and that the AC-X11 wasn't a CQC as demonstrated by it's low DPS (which is only slightly behind the Merc and Gauss Burst).
    • You then went off that the AC-X11 has "more damage then every other carbine at any range" which I showed to be a completely worthless advantage at anything beyond 10 metres.
    • You spewed nonsense over the design of the weapon as a long-range option and then you flipped your argument against the magazine size increase on the basis that the AC-X11 is actually a mid-range weapon. If that's your idea of consistency, then good luck with future arguments, chump.
    5 more rounds does nothing to improve the weapon's performance outside the niche it currently excels at. The CoF and RoF will still limit the effectiveness of the gun at any range. The TTK of the AC-X11 (regardless which calculation you use) is on par with the other carbines; clearly the lower RoF is made up for with the higher damage the gun hits for, but this is balanced by the weapon's CoF. 5 more rounds does nothing to mitigate these balance features. Given the prevalence of level 5 nanoweave, a low RoF and large CoF are actually disproportionately negative balancing features when used together.

    2. The CQC effectiveness is curbed by both the CoF and RoF. Insinuating the CoF is an effective balancing aspect because of the small magazine is ridiculous. Having more bullets to spray in a wide cone is not going to improve the killing effectiveness of the weapon given the likelihood of missing and the rate of fire.

    3. Higher bullet velocity does nothing to mitigate the impact of the CoF and RoF of this weapon. The Reapers is a completely different class of weapon so no, I don't "have the Reaper" and therefore there is, potentially, a need for this.

    4. I never advocated raising the minimum damage, and I don't support this fix.

    5. The AC-X11 received a significant buff to its reload times, and no, there wasn't a flood of people complaining about it.

    6. HV ammo makes the gun kick like a mule, which is exacerbated by the CoF, RoF and small magazine. There are no attachments that make the AC-X11 a viable option at range or CQC, despite your claims to the contrary.

    7. I've compared the AC-X11 across every carbine and SMG available to an Engineer or Light Assault; its performance is lacking.

    I've quantitatively proved you to be full of sh*t and here you are backpedaling of what you've said before.

    If you want to present a subjective opinion that you don't agree with me based on your experience with the weapon, go ahead; I can't argue with that. But we all know you don't have experience with the AC-X11, and I've amply demonstrated that your analysis of the weapon is flawed.

    We all see how completely full of garbage you are. You don't have any experience with the weapon, nor do you have the intelligence, education or experience to properly analyze it. If you want to keep arguing, I'm happy to; I've had a harder time debating my 5 year old nephew about who could beat up Superman.
  4. Frazzle

    I've been using the Reaper for weeks and didn't realize it has a single shot mode :) Thanks for the clarification.

    Higher capacity, faster reload, less bloom and less recoil are more beneficial to medium/short ranges. At long range, you fire one shot at a time (if you known what you are doing), and don't fire again until the crosshair goes back to rest.

    I've got over 24 hours logged into the Reaper and in my hands, it doesn't even compare to the AC-X11 at long range. The instant I get auraxium with the Razor, it is going to be shelved. Looking forward to the Mercanary and GD-7F.
  5. CanadianAttackBeaver

    You're welcome! You wrote Reaper, but I assume you meant Razor. I actually find with the Razor I can triple tap shots at long range targets; with the AC-X11 I can maybe land a double tap

    There is another carbine with semi-auto capabilities that isn't listed on its weapon stats tab. Off the top of my head I think it was the Mercenary; I'm not sure why it isn't listed for either of these weapons.
  6. Wolfwood82

    -sigh- Thanks for proving another point. That simply using a weapon doesn't make you an expert about it.
    Man, I'm not going to argue about it anymore.

    I tried being nice, cooling my head, and explaining things rationally. But you seem stuck on the idea that this is a ***** waving contest. I officially doubt your claim to having any kind of college degree. And if you have one.... Well so does George Bush Jr. Not impressive.

    The weapon is balanced the way it is. It sucks yes, but the T5 is in the same boat and neither of these weapons appear to be due for a major overhaul any time soon. The simple fact is they are dedicated to roles much like the shotgun, but lack the same "perks" (that being undisputed masters at their focus point) and quite frankly other weapons are just as good at those ranges and more versatile to boot.

    Have fun whining.
  7. CanadianAttackBeaver

    Oh, you tried being nice about it after acting like a complete piece of sh*t first? Why, did your meds finally kick in?

    Piss off, troll; I've demonstrated what a complete and utter clown you are with your flip flopping around on the arguments you make, let alone the childishly simplistic analysis you provided.

    Oh and it's official now! Wolfwood doubts the education level claimed by people who demonstrate a superior level of analytical ability.

    Guess what clown, I actually provided something of value to the analysis of these weapons. The only person whining here is the little b*tch that got embarrassed due to their simple minded analysis & conclusions; namely, you.
    • Up x 1
  8. HeadshotVictim

    why do you even answer to his posts?
    I tend to read every post, but wolfwoods now.
    He pops up everytime AC-X11 is metioned. He has rarely something to say at other topics - this guy just rambles around in LA forum to bomb AC-X11 treads where ever he can find them.
    Just ignore him and continue your (hopefully fruitful) discussion.

    It is interesting that mostly every AC-X11 thread boils down to 3 things:
    ->25 rounds would be OP
    ->50 m/s bullet speed would be balance
    ->Razor is way better at the moment

    HVA: in my opinion HVA is the most useless ammo available. It only gives you 10% bullet speed (wow...) and a pretty remarkeble higher recoil. The range when the min damage is reached is also a few meters further, but most times it doesn't matter if you hit someone with 148 or 143 is a 7 hit kill anyway. Just the last shot is 5 points of dmg more overkill.

    let's just hope that the AC-X11 gets a little bullet velocity buff (not too much, since certain people will start crying into his pillow for weeks when that happens). Not too high so it is still a carbine and not a disguised AR, but a little more would be cool. (And make it worth using the weapon.)

    People will always like some weapons more than others. There are people out there liking AC-X11, there are people liking the Razor, there is wolfwood and there are a lot of people who don't know which weapon to choose.
    Conens is in most cases (as far as I can see in the various threads) that the bullet speed is considered to be too low for a low RoF weapon without usable hipfire abilities
    • Up x 1
  9. TeknoBug

    The Reaper is BETTER than the AC-X11.
    • Up x 1
  10. HerpTheDerp

    Reaper is the dedicated long range NC AR.
    Razor is the dedicated long range NC carbine.

    It's not the same thing.

    Ways in which AC-X11 beats Razor as a long range gun:

    - damage(Razor has normal - read, crappy - carbine damage dropoff)
    - recoil(yes, with Adv. grip AC-X11 will have less recoil)
    - recoil pattern(Razor pulls to the right)
    - CoF(AC-X11 has unmoving ADS CoF of 0 - rather unbeatable)

    Only advantage of Razor at distance is the higher bullet speed.

    Increasing the mag size of AC-X11 doesn't matter in CQC. How would it? It already has terrible hipfire accuracy and it will be made even worse by the compensator, and it doesn't get the "extra" DPS of dedicated CQC guns like GD-7F.
    • Up x 1
  11. Frazzle

    Agreed. I meant razor. Brain fart.
  12. Frazzle

    Extensive use of something may not make you an expert with it, but consistently performing at a high level with a weapon over a long period of time probably does. Check my stats, Frylthee on Waterson. Forming strong opinions on weapons, without spending much of any time using them, is truly bizzare. Defending those opinions so aggressively says a lot more about you than it does the weapons themselves.
    • Up x 1
  13. CanadianAttackBeaver

    If you look at the damage drop off of the AC-X11, it has the highest percentage drop off of any of the NC carbines (29% vs 22% -25%). The only carbines in the entire game that have worse drop off are the Pulsar C (33%) and the other Vanu carbines at 30%.
    The damage of the AC-X11 is a factor only out to about 50 metres; after that range the gun's other characteristics limit its long range viability.

    I completely agree. Being able to spray and pray with 5 extra rounds, given the hipfire accuracy and rate of fire, would hardly make the AC-X11 a "beast" in CQC, despite what some other fools claim.
  14. Wolfwood82

    To be absolutely honest, I don't form strong opinions about a weapon. I don't really care. I know the weapon isn't likely to see a change in the near future to anything that was requested so far. I know this because I was in beta when the weapon went from 30 rounds, to 25 rounds, to 20 rounds. I saw exactly what a 25 round AC-X11 does. Beaver seems to think I'm guessing, but no. And it's not the first blind assumption he's made about me.

    All this and other threads like this do is create whine fits where people come together, sob on each others shoulders, and pretend to know what they are talking about. The arguments they give are typical, they stick to their "strong point" fight like starved wolverines, even find every possible way they can to discredit those they disagree with.

    The whole "I have auraxium" thing is one way of doing this. This is an elitist statement that says "I know what I'm talking about, so unless you have a pretty purple ribbon, you better not challenge my statement". My very first post to Beaver when he started HIS thread flat out said "25 rounds would make it too versatile and give it better CQC capabilities". I'll even quote it right here.

    Yes a lot of my initial post was based on misconceptions I had about the weapon. Those misconceptions were based on general opinion I picked up from NC posters. However I made my case and this is the response I got.

    He insults me by asking if I read his post (which I did), pushes the idea that it's a "medium to long range carbine" (remember that NC poster opinion I mentioned earlier?), and then continues pressing his point about DPM. Clearly has no clue what it means to snipe, and follows his "strong point" by an attempt to discredit my statement by exploiting what he thought was the weakest part. The "sniper carbine" comment.

    I was not questioning his statement about the DPM. I simply said 5 more rounds would make it too versatile and steer it outside it's original range of effectiveness.

    After that the argument between us kind of explodes. I got pissed and probably threw some insults out there (I typically try to keep a cool head, but I have a temper and I know it). He didn't help the situation much when he started whining about me "changing my opinion" about it being a medium range weapon. Never mind the fact that by that point he was absolutely insistent that it was a medium range carbine which is contrary to his initial "medium to long range" argument.

    All he has proven from this post on:

    Was that he was looking for a fight. He thought he did a lot of ground work for a solid argument, had nothing to back up an attack on his statement that he did not for see, and fought like a cornered rat ever since. Virtually every post he made was meant to try discrediting others who disagreed with his statement.

    So I ask you, who is the one who has such a strong opinion about A weapon? A major part of our beef with each other is based on mutual misunderstanding. However, I try my damnedest to understand the other person I end up arguing with. It is hard, I probably have Asperger's syndrome (a higher form of autism). However, much as I want to, the first thing I do is not flat out insult someone by asking if they read my post. Or ask someone if they are too stupid to "actually counter with a valid criticism".

    So yeah, by now I give up. He won't see reason, I'm tired of his groupies like HeadshotVictim (who's never actually said a single intelligent thing on the forums, and likes to use his trade mark @so-and-so so they don't get a little alert saying "derp quoted your post" and actually defend their statement) who blindly say "wow yer smart!". And I'm incredibly, unfathomably, totally, inexcusably tired of "I have auraxium!!!!!111one, I know more about it then you do! The DEVs were ******** and wrong and this makes no sense!".

    Strong opinion about a weapon? Not my problem. Strong opinion about the questionable intelligence of forum posters who get all aggressive and hormonal about a discussion over a pixelated image that pew pews? Yeah guilty as charged.
  15. CanadianAttackBeaver

    Seriously Wolfwood; piss off. Your opinion and contributions to this discussion are worthless.

    I responded like that to Skin who offered a smart-a$$ reply to my analysis rather than actually discuss what was presented.

    The initial analysis where I calculated kills per magazine based on decreasing maximum damage shots landed is completely unrealistic based on what we see in game; I admitted that. However, what a weighted average analysis like this does is allow us to see approximately what damage we are doing when the kills per magazine number changes. It also allows us to graph out this curve. Bear in mind I did this analysis before the weapon stats tabs were implemented and confirmed the linear drop-off in damage that weapons experience. When I graphed kills per magazine based off the actual damage at different ranges, given the confirmed linearity, the kills per magazine curves were virtually identical. Then again, if you had a shred of analytical ability you would have figured this out.

    Nobody is supporting me because of some blind, sycophantic need to pick sides; they support what I've said because they agree with what I've presented.

    If you feel the need to write an entire post defending your behaviour, rather than discuss the topic at hand, then that speaks volumes about your behaviour more so than any insult I can hurl your way.

    PS. Here's a life lesson, chump. I've got experience with a developmentally disabled adult in my life; if you are self-aware of your limited ability to interact on an adult level, then you cannot use that as an excuse for your behaviour. It may explain why you act the way you do, but it sure as hell isn't an excuse for it.
    • Up x 1
  16. HeadshotVictim

    I like your way of argumentation and your analysis. I (almost) completely agree with your posts. (I think I may be allowed to have at least a little bit of opinion, since I have Aurax on AC-X11, Sweeper, GD-7F and only 85 kill missing on Compact Gauss S.)

    What makes you a tad more sympathtic is, that you show a certain forum member that he is an idiot :p
  17. HerpTheDerp

    The % will be higher because the base damage is higher. Who cares about the percentages? Just look at the raw values.

    Merc: 167@10m, 125@75m
    AC-X11: 200@10m, 143@85m
    Gauss Rifle: 167@10m, 143@75m

    AC-X11, a carbine, beats even an assault rifle in damage retention!
  18. CanadianAttackBeaver

    And I'm happy to hear the opinion of people that actually have experience with the weapons! There are factors that spreadsheet analysis won't capture. The Razor is a good example of this; it doesn't look great when compared to the other gun on paper, but in-game it works well.
  19. TeknoBug

    *AHEM* You should be doing this
    AC-X11: 200@10m, 143@85m
    Reaper DMR: 200@10m, 167@85m

    Beats even an assault rifle in damage retention?
  20. CanadianAttackBeaver

    Well, to be fair, at 75 metres, the AC-X11 is doing 151 damage; 8 more than the Gauss Rifle. And the direct comparison is the Reaper DMR who does 167 damage at 85 metres. So, yes, the AC-X11 does to more damage at a specific range against a specific weapon but when compared against its direct upgrade, it doesn't.

    And a percent change calculation is a valid way of comparing drop off.

    The higher base damage of the AC-X11 actually lends itself to a lower % dropoff. The size of the % change is determined by the difference of maximum to minimum damage divided by the maximum damage. A higher base damage gives you a higher denominator = smaller final result.

    ((Max - Min) / Max) * 100%

    AC-X11: ((200 - 143) / 200) * 100% = 28.5%
    Mercenary: ((167 - 125) / 167) * 100% = 25.1%

    The Mercenary would have to drop off to 119 damage to have an equivalent damage dropoff as the AC-X11.