The NC6 Gauss SAW, T9 CARV and the Orion - Replacing myth with facts

This is completely off-topic, but the idea of firing a second shot before you're affected by the recoil of the first is _usually_ garbage, both from a physics and marksmanship standpoint. Note that I'm talking a manportable weapon fired in the standing or kneeling. With the exception of weapons specifically designed for it (typically one person per fire team or equivalent subunit has such a weapon), automatic fire in general is discouraged by first-world militaries today. Even burst fire from standard assault rifles is generally a waste of ammunition and ineffective in combat.

The only time the two-shot concept is ever useful is if you design a weapon around it. A few weapons designers have toyed with this concept, and one such weapon has been successfully built. Well, there might be more. I only know of one.

The idea is to take a weapon which is accurate at very long ranges but capable of automatic fire, typically an assault rifle, and offer a special two-round burst mode. These bursts are typically fired at an incredible rate of fire, and these weapons are designed to dampen recoil to a greater degree than normal. What you can end up with is a weapon which, in the hands of a skilled shooter and at ranges well below its maximum accurate range, will reliably land both shots in very close to the exact same place. The AN-94, for example, does this. In semi, it's a fairly standard assault rifle, accurate to the usual ranges (500ish yards). In burst mode, it fires 2 rounds that will "double penetrate" at ranges of about 50-100 yards.

There is actually major utility to be found in such a weapon system, primarily because it has a lot of potential to defeat body armor. With most modern armor systems today, once the armor has been struck by fire, it has been compromised and is typically replaced at the next available opportunity (supplies willing, of course). The protection of the entire suit drops significantly, and the protection in that specific point is typically diminished to near zero. This is true even if the armor is not penetrated. So a second shot striking the same point has a much greater chance to penetrate armor and deal significant damage.

Of course, the AN 94 is mostly just a curiousity. It's super complicated on the inside and a nightmare to maintain. To give one example, the M16 is a remarkably simple rifle. Any chimp can be taught to break it down in 30 seconds and poke at it with a cleaning rag and some CLP. Because of the bolt, though, you need to clean it probably more than five times per day in most theaters to keep it operating reliably. The AN-94 would probably require twice as much maintenance, and it would be ten times harder to teach people to pull it apart. Lets not even talk about the cost. Those kinds of logistics problems generally relegate weapons to dustbin status. Such weapons might occasionally be used by special operators on request (this one won't be), but they'd never see wide production or distribution.

The advanced laser sight makes a big difference compared to other LMG.

But at the end of the day if an LMG was the best hip fire weapon in the game it would be pretty disgusting and another example of heavyside 2 at work.

I do find it funny that in personal testing SMG are better at suppressive fire at range with a 4x scope than most TR LMG and all Carbines though. Hailstorm has pretty nice recoil so the very low damage isn't such a hardship since you can hit with it.

TR - omg laz0rs and gauss guns op nerf
NC - omg laz0rs and tr spraypray guns op nerf
VS - omg non laz0r guns op nerf

Anyone see a trend here?

Overall I feel like the Hailstorm is superior to the MSW-R. The lower damage is offset very effectively by the higher RoF and generally better CoFs. Not to mention it has more ammo per mag than an LMG. >_< If we're just comparing the MSW-R to other LMGs (that tr has) then yeah, it your best choice for hipfire, that still doesn't make it a 'good' choice, though.

Killing all those people in that zerg because they come by the boatload = more points.

1 Zerg out ghost capping is not going to be getting all of the experience from killing/repairing/healing + the bonus xp from the various achievements now built into the game + spotting bonus etc etc etc.


Nobody really needs to see any special stats other than what is on the chart. They just need to read between the lines of what takes place on a regular basis with an aggressive smaller force taking on a much bigger force. Or a much bigger force doing mostly ghost capping with very little to shoot at or be shot at by.

More players means less work to be done by each individual, or just simply a big group as I have recently been involved in when playing NC on Waterson, fighting maybe 1 or 2 opposing VS. Score per hour was a measly 5k.


I switched back over to Mattherson to play TR against a 50 percent population of NC on Amerish, 17k per hour, was repairing, shooting, running, getting killed and getting kills, killing menaces, getting critical assists, medic with a shot gun, Heavy with loads of targets to shoot that are dumb enough to stand in each others firing lines.. .+ that OH SO SWEET 30 + percent incentive to continue playing the underdog!

Needless to say, Zerg = boring ..

Defending against larger force = scoring ..
Even after all that though it's still a measly 400/500 more points than NC.

What those charts fail to show is the fact that a zerg scores less per player than a smaller defending/attacking force given the bounty of targets/heals/revives/repairs needed to stay in battle.

Stop whining you are faction ..

Bape, I don't think English is doing you well.

I also think you're a little angry.

It was a figure of speech.

there is pros and cons on each weapon , saw/orion/t9carv are pretty well balanced at the moment and it would BEYOND STUPID move from sony to start tinkering them again.

+1

They already tinkered with the TR weapons nerfing them because of flinch. Then they fix flinch making it a non issue but leaving TR weapons nerfed. Then SOE added shotguns making CQC their realm which in effect makes LMG's focused on CQC useless when facing shotguns or if you own one yourself. Now the ONLY LMG's that matter are those which can take out target at medium and long range fast with as low recoil as possible.

The LMG's are not balanced. The TMG-50 is considered the best TR LMG yet its worse then some of the middle ground LMG's of other factions. Just because in your opinion you think they are balanced does not mean they are. I would say its stupid to nerf weapons based on a broken game mechanic then fix the mechanic after leaving in the nerfs. I would say its stupid to give one faction more attachment options for their Guns then another faction. I would say its stupid to not have a balanced selection of guns of a certain type for various ranges then is on par with the other factions.

The Gun stats say TR LMG's are over all weaker in comparison to the other factions. This is especially true given how the game has changed. No faction wants TR LMG's but plenty consider NC LMG's to be a great selection with VS having a number of good ones themselves.

Flawed stats are more then any of you TR have. Carv has the best score and k/d per hour of all LMG if I remember correctly.

This game forum is the worst I have ever encountered and I will bet will be the worst I will see in my lifetime.

Crybabies whining about tiny differences. Over and over and over again. I haven't played this game in a month I come here to see whats up and all I find are the same whining tearful threads.

Whining about what? Im telling the TR to stop whining about his faction im not whining about my faction please learn to read before telling me my English is bad LOL?

"They already tinkered with the TR weapons nerfing them because of flinch".

and they were right to do so ,EVEN if players like you would like to keep that "edge"


"Just because in your opinion you think they are balanced does not mean they are"

and just cos you think "flinch" was fair and balanched it does mean that it was fair and balanched.

Didn't see a reply between this post and the last one at my time of posting, but figured I'd throw a reply to the wolves.

Comparing the two, and the saw for that matter, making it the default 3, is just not a fair comparison to either gun.
This has been mentioned elsewhere, but apparently it needs repeating.

Don't compare them.
Besides being starting guns, they're geared to different things, close(Orion), mid(CARV) and long(SAW).

An equally silly comparison would be to compare the full-auto scout rifle with bolt action sniper rifles.
It's an extreme example, but honestly, that's what you're doing here.

Is the CARV bad? No I 'personally' don't think it's bad. But it's not as good as it once was, that is true.
Is it worse off than it was in the past? Yes(duh), and for a good reason.
Was it over-nerfed? Maybe a smidge, but for ***** sake, talking about holding a needless grudge.

Yes I'm calling you petty.


Oh and if you want to compare weapons, seriously, compare those geared towards the same role(short/mid/long).
Taking these 3 just because they're the starting weapons really seems like an excuse to complain about a nerf that was a smidge too harsh, but not gamebreaking.

Is the SAW good? Yes, but outside of long range it's not better than the alternatives.
Is the Orion good? Yes, but -only- in CQC.
Is the CARV stuck between the two extremes? Yes it is. But that doesn't make it bad. It may look bland, but it's not bad.
Edit:
I'll go as far and say the CARV is the most versatile of the 3, which seems to be the norm for LMGs geared towards mid range.

/edit
And before you decide to cry "VS EZ MODE" at me, I maintain an NC and TR alt to get a feel for how the factions are different.
With the SAW and CARV being stock weapons, this did lead to them being used a fair bit.

Throw insults all you want at least i get my facts straight. The SVA-88 has the best score/hour and K/D ratio of all LMG's. The TMG-50 which is often considered the best TR weapon has middle of the road k/d / score. Either way player stats are flawed in so many ways that its stupid to use them as a indicater of that weapons medium to long range effectiveness or over all effectiveness combined with attachments. Especially when we are talking about weapon accuracy, effectiveness at range, recoil and damage drop off at range as in the game there isn't that much consistent long range combat to improve your score with that weapon.

The lack of longer range combat means you won't see much of a score improvement even when carrying the best long medium/long range lmg's or best all around lmg's because you will often be switching out to your CQC weapon or in a noobs case bringing your default LMG to a shotgun fight. (which brings that LMG's score down)

The only reason threads go down hill on these forums is your not allowed to debate faction differences or point out where a faction could use a slight improvement without a bunch of posters jumping in with the wrong facts/figures while ignoring the stats that are set in stone. Certain players don't want to ever admit their faction has ANYTHING good about it as they firmly believe that their faction is the weakest or that everything is balance. This comes from NC players most of all. It's like admitting they have anything worth using is against their belief system even when the gun stats clearly state it. It's more of a religious opinion then a factual one.

The stats + attachments say the saw is a great LMG. So is the EM6 and Orion. Players from every faction say that them weapons are great. No one from the other factions talk about TR LMG's as we have nothing with better stats or attachments. The differences over all might be minor because most combat is at short to medium range but for anyone looking for the most competitive long range LMG's they won't find it anywhere near TR.

It's worth debating gun stats instead of debating nerfs in the other threads raging across the forums. No one thinks any LMG's should be nerfed. The only thing players like myself or the OP would want is more gun attachments to address the minor ranged balance difference and maybe a balance pass on the recoil stats for TR LMG's. Either that or just bring out LMG's for all factions that fill in gaps where that factions LMG's currently fall short.

As a casual player of all three factions, I have to say that the Gauss SAW is amazing at almost all engagement ranges (just not at shotgun range). It's shining feature is the long time between reloads, because of 100 shots @ 200 dmg each = theoretically 20 dead infantry per reload (or more with head shots). Find a good spot to hose the enemy: profit.
But as an Alpha Squad member, I also get the EM6 (I think that's what it's called) as a bonus unlock, and that gun seems even more accurate than the Gauss SAW (with ADS upgrades), so I use it for long range engagements, like on Esamir, and a 75 round mag is excellent.
The Orion is delightfully accurate (and sounds like a laser rifle), but I only seem able to drop about two enemies per mag (50 shots) before having to reload.
I love the CARV for having the option of a suppressor as it seems to lengthen my chances for a kill streak because I don't draw as much attention when I'm positioned well. The TMG-50 is fantastic for it's highly efficient 1 or 2-shot mode at long range.
ALL THESE LMGs are FUN.

Does no one play the game anymore? I picked up a MSW-R on my alt and it handled really nice, was lots of fun and easy to use. If I can find a server where NC isnt total over populated I'll try out their stuff.

The MSW-R is the only TR LMG i recommend to anyone anymore (that said, only with ADV laser and HS/NV, and i only really started using it religiously recently). That said, its only good at close/medium range, can't hit anything reliably at SAW ranges.

Only the SAW can SAW unless it EM-6.