Stats stats stats and stats ! NC hardmode version 2

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Scientific Method = Generate Hypothesis > Observe reality (i.e. collect data) > Analyze said observations. You call it a "preconceived conclusion" simply because it does not conform to your preconceived conclusions.

you were going good until you compared three totally different weapon groups, compare acx-11 to pulsar C and T5 AMC.

There may be an issue with how those overall aggregates were created- why not double check?

The base data from each weapon class is directly from the API- I've only checked the sums and aggregates that appear within categories but I will try to start more rigorous analysis soon and should be able to see.

Moreover, not so sure that it is all that meaningful to aggregate across so many disparate categories- it is far better to look within weapon categories and compare because weapons in the same categories should be performing similarly.

? This stat KPU, is defined as kills per user and while it is true that something like the Striker can lead to discrepancies (if we assume it makes it much more difficult to get kills for non-TR while piloting a vehicle) we would conclude from that that the values for NC should be higher than they already are and these values do not show the kinds of discrepancies we see when we look at ES weapons that have the faction traits.

I wouldn't say overpowered. The other factions have a buy-in barrier for superior sniper rifles. NC just happens to get it by default. I'd also bet that some TR and VS players play on NC alts to play around with the BASR before buying one on their home faction.

Why would you take a weapon which is unique to the NC statwise to draw comparison against others? Then you only go and make things even worse by comparing it with the Jaguar!? The ACX is a long range weapon, like the Pulsar C, like the AMC, except it's balanced around 200 damage instead of 163 for the Pulsar C and 143 for the AMC (although it's debatable whether the AMC should even be counted in this class). The Jaguar is a fast firing short range weapon...

Why the need for such an apples to oranges comparison?

It's a preconceived conclusion when you introduce obvious bias into your data collection and handling.

This spreadsheet is bull****. If you look at the KPU, you will see that the NC steadily outperform the TR. Dude, you just showed that compared to the TR, the NC are better.

? ACX-11, Jaguar and Serpent are all Carbines and therefore all in the same weapon group.

All carbines should, in theory, be performing equally well (with the possible exception of the low BR users of the default weapons because this overall KPU will get pulled in the direction of the performance of players who are very very new to the game).

That is, unless you are advocating for a pay 2 win model or one where, within weapon categories, some weapons should be outperforming the crap out of others.

I have not yet had an opportunity to roll up my sleeves and do some rigorous analysis- you know, comparing within-weapon variance to between weapon variance (ANOVA) or structural equation modeling to see how the weapon stats combine to create the latent variable of "weapon value" and how this related to KPU. I hope to get to this soon.

You claim that this is not a valid comparison because they are different weapon groups but they simply are not- they are all carbines. Moreover, I do not think it is a coincidence that we see this large a discrepancy when comparing a slow ROF, high damage per shot, low mag ammo weapons to weapons with high ROF and low damage per shot- this is a big part of what the NC have been talking about all along (i.e. that the devs place too much weight on damage per shot and not enough weight on ROF).

Look within the weapon categories and double check the sums and averages- I think there is an issue with how the overall aggregates were created.

uhhh...first of all OP your KPU stats don't seem to be saying what you think they say. Even where the NC trails the margins are small and someone has to be last.

Second of all the only thing you're going to accomplish is getting the NC6 nerfed at long range to compensate for a short range buff and I'm going to cry like a baby all over this forum if that happens.

They are all different types of carbines is what he means. The ACX-11, T5 AMC, and Pulsar C are all the long range "sniping carbines" for each faction, so they have less effectiveness at closer ranges. The Jaguar is a close range, high ROF carbine more comparable to the NC's GD-7F.

So what's the Razor?

Such an apples and oranges comparison? They are all carbines!

You are basically saying, "its okay that this weapons is 35% greater than that one because it does not have NC traits".

Where is the obvious bias into the data collection and handling? They are all carbines, ACX-11 is the "flagship" NC carbine (i.e. the carbine that most reflects NC characteristics) the Jaguar is the "flagship" TR carbine (i.e. the carbine that most reflects the TR characteristics)- what are you missing here? You do realize that we can also draw an aggregate, overall, from all the carbines and I can still make this case right?

Argue the case and not the person- you calling me biased has not bearing on the data whatsoever and says much more about you than you may think.

better than the acx-11

If you want the TR and VS's "flagship carbines" its not those two, its the lynx and the vx6-7, but really you compare like to like roles. You don't compare mosquito A2AM with reaver breaker pods, you don't compare vangaurd HE to magrider AP.

Okay, I get this but they are all carbines and effectively, what you are saying here, is that I cannot compare the NC flagship carbine (i.e. the carbine with the most NC characteristics) to the flagship TR carbine (i.e. the carbine with the most TR characteristics) because clearly the TR type carbine is going to be surperior.

What I find most humorous is that this is precisely what I have been saying is the problem with NC all along- the developers weigh damage per shot to greatly and ROF (and mag ammo and DPS) too little; hence, iconic NC weaponry (i.e NC weaponry that is high damage per shot and low ROF) is inferior.

You want to compare the GD-7F to the Jaguar, that's fine GD-7F = 11.00; Jaguar = 14.06; yeah, it is less of a difference but the Jaguar still out does the GD-7F by 22%.

We can do this too and still see discrepancies; GD-7F performs 78% as well as Jaguar. So?

Basically what you are saying here is confirming what I have been saying all along is the problem- the developers weigh damage per shot too greatly and ROF (and mag ammo and DPS) too little such that weapons that display NC characteristics will be inferior to weapons that display TR characteristics. What, exactly, about this are you not understanding?

GD-7F vs jag is a fine comparison, and it is clearly unbalanced, though the jaguar is the best carbine anyways so everything is unbalanced next to it. I'd contrast this with the lynx, serpent and vx6-7 for a collection of the close range guns.

because they have entirely different ******* roles. long range guns always score less because less combat occurs at those ranges, if you want something to complain about your faction traits its that, not that their stat weighing is wrong.
NC have on average more and better long range weaponry, they suffer because of range compression not because the guns suck.

Of course you would.

Why not sum across all six ES carbines? We get TR = 11.60 > VS = 10.62 > NC = 9.85; or, overall NC are at 84% effectiveness compared to TR and 93% effectiveness compared to VS. NC still last and go figure it is precisely because of the NC trait weapons- this is exactly what I have been saying all along. TR>VS>NC in the majority of ES infantry weaponry cases because TR has highest ROF, amost ammo per mag and greatest DPS, NC tends to have lowest ROF, least ammo per mag and lowest DPS with VS in the middle- go figure that the data conforms exactly to that expectation.