The TR problem is deeply related to its faction trait

I think that would not be a good idea. You would be more or less enforcing the old crap joke of Vanu = easy mode, TR = mid, NC = hard.

Starters who cared only about performance would bias into Vanu because their guns would be easy to use. But as soon as they learned gun control they would leave and move to NC who would be the best fraction for higher skilled players who got the high damage and could handle the weapons. If two equally high skilled players battled with their fractions equivalent weapons the Vanu would be stuffed as the easy handling would count for nothing and the low damage would shaft them.

TR high ROF?

Every faction is competitive in that department (but NC HA) since ll have access to high RPM weapons (BR carnage; HV-45; VX6-7; Serpent;GD-7F;Orion)

Advantage of TR? 10 more rounds 143(compared to 143 damage tier)// 5 more round 143 (compared to 167 damage tier) in them AR/Carabines.

Drawbacks?

Much longer reload; higher horizontal recoil.

Does it worth it?

Only if you're in very close range; otherwise, other weapons are better all rounder (slightly slower TTK for much better accuracy aka better hit ratio and better TTK at headshots & range)

TR weapons have the lowest skill floor and the lowest skill ceiling. Same for them maxes utility & MBT:

They're easyer to use, but good players does it better with NC/VS weapons that are more rewarding.

Good, it is more faction diversity then what we have now. Everyone wants every faction to be hte same and yet different. We want variety and yet we want copy paste factions cuz "balance". It should be a matter of who wants what traits. Do you want hard mode, high damage high recoil, good accuracy? Moderate damage, moderate recoil, moderate accuracy? Or low damage(through high drop off), low recoil, high accuracy?

My idea for low VS damage isnt through making thier guns 100dmg vs TR 143 and NC 167, but through higher drop off numbers.

While NC are 200 and 167@15m-143@85/100m
TR being 143@10m-125@65-75m
VS would be like 143@10m-125@50m.

But their highly controllable guns with average RoF, somewhere between 680-725 would come with high accuracy, and low recoil, allowing them to place a large portion of thier bullets on target easier then either NC or TR. It would place VS kinda average at range, through low damage output, but high hit rate, then mid range they would still get good hit rate, but other factions would begin to beable to effectively shoot back, then in short, the TR would start to shine a bit better, putting thier dakka to work, while the NC would be having to overcome recoil to put hte smack down on.

... I'm sorry, have you ever played VS? 1 good LMG, 1 good AR, 1 good sidearm ETC ETC

I've tried to stay out of these arguments but recent exploration bids me to throw my experiences into the mix. I'm an immensely loyal TR player, BR 100, purchased and used every TR and NS weapon.

I committed heresy and started up an NC character in order to try to put into perspective the meaning of faction differences. In short, I found I am much more rewarded using NC weapons (thus having more fun) and perform better. The endless barrage of 'maths' given by all sides supporting the idea that TR are on the same keel as NC just doesn't translate in my experience.

Accuracy: I play shooters to point at someone and kill them. The enjoyment I feel getting a kill because the game simply elected to send my rounds at the target at random (horizontal recoil) is significantly less than 'earning' my kill with solid aiming. The (sometimes) lower RPM of some NC guns combined with less horizontal recoil meant that I am able to put round into targets more consistently. The combination of having a more stable weapon platform means that I am better able to correct my aim in full auto, able to seek head shots while engage with a higher degree of success. Being able to get headshots multiplies the higher damage tier of NC guns, better improving my TTK. In addition, dropping targets already somewhat damaged became a good deal easier as I found it easier to land the first few rounds on a target, dealing a good deal of damage 'up front'. Similarly, engaging higher BR players seemed a bit easier. If you are catching your opponent unaware at medium range (the range I most often engage at), I found it better to deal as much damage as I could 'up front' since many times, that high skill player will quickly find cover possibly heal up. As TR, hitting a player that first time meant I made him aware of my attack and attempting to follow up with follow on shots before he gets to cover and heals is a challenge.

CQC: I get it, TR weapons, on average, tend towards better TTK's than their counterparts. However, if I know I'm going to be in a CQC, I'll often pull a shotgun, which all have about the same performance. The range of selection with shotguns, in and of themselves, comes with some range differences allowing you a fine measure of weapon selection. When optics for pistols hit the server, players will be able to maintain some form of flexibility in engagement ranges with pistols and shotguns. Having better performance in CQC for guns outside of shotguns for me is not a big boon.

Adaptability: I have 11 or so slots open for all classes, allowing me to arrange loadouts based on expected engagement ranges (Long Range to CQC). Although the TR arsenal allows for some of the needed weapon distinctiveness, it's heavily truncated compared to the arsenal of the NC where the distinction between weapons based on ideal weapon range seems to be much better structured.

Maxes: NC maxes seem to be better thought out. As TR, I desperately want lockdown to be worthwhile but I'm frequently disappointed outside of using it in dual brusters (which btw is incredible). Maxes excel in extreme CQC and NC just win here hands down. Combine with the fact that I can choose slug ammo on my Max loadout means that I am able to adapt to a type of engagement (there is no counterpart option for TR). Moreover, the AV options seem more practical in their intended role as AV. As TR, I learned that engaging a lightning or tank as a MAX meant that I had to deal my damage to them quickly and find cover as their ability to kill me out in the open is extremely in their favor, thus you need to deal a considerable amount of damage to your target as quickly as possible. At short range, aiming pounders is a hassle and on a moving vehicle, almost impossible. With Fractures, the ideal engagement range is long but the damage dealt is relatively low, allowing your target to move when they are first hit, making subsequent hits harder. Anchoring down is a death sentence. Any vehicle driver worth their salt will take fracture hits long enough to line up their cannon on a stationary target. The fracture MAX will lose this engagement often. With NC, I found the high alpha damage, again, suitable for the AV MAX role. Being able to send dumbfire missile with high alpha damage at my target and get behind cover greatly improves survivability and application of the intended role.

Vehicles: Not surprisingly, I found NC vehicles to be refreshing and enjoyable. Whether using the Vanguard or Reaver, my opponents usually struggled to survive once I had committed to an engagement. When I decide when to engage, having a high alpha damage assures that I start the battle in my favor,.

Ugh, apologizes for the long post. I suppose my TL DR message is: anyone can use statistics to prove that statistics statistically are meaningless. Don't just look at TTK's under optimal settings, go out and play, test things for yourself.

That's not that much, really. When it takes 7 shots to kill a non-nanoweave target, you get 1.5 extra kills per mag. When was the last time you went through an entire mag without reloading, anyways? I know that I constantly make use of the short reloads, largely negating the extra rounds.

I disagree. But then, I played other factions...

I'm sorry, but you lost your credibility for me there. Just to be sure I tried it again just now and all vertical and horizontal recoil creates the same pattern over and over. The Bull and CARV barely had any horizontal recoil anyway, and the MSW-R had some. But when I wanted I could keep that reticle on my enemy without any hickups because you need to counter the exact same recoil again and again. Seriously, the "horizontal/vertical recoil" stuff barely means anything in this game. I don't understand why anyone complains about it or marks it as "bad". Sure, it will have some effect on your accuracy, but for me it's non-existant. When people started talking about the "increase of horizontal recoil" I first had to find out it was there so easy is it to counter it.

This is your experience, but guess what: The TR and NC in general have the same accuracy, or the NC has better starting accuracy but worse bloom per shot. So in sustained fire the TR wins (higher ROF). Many people seem to be ignorant of trigger discipline. The TR needs it just as much as the NC. With the NC you should stop firing at your 4rth bullet due to bloom at almost any range, unless you are at a range where sustained fire is possible.
Maybe you've been using the more unbalanced weapons such as the Anchor for the NC. It's known they have too good properties which means they need a nerf. Try weapons that are NC balanced and come back to me.

Finally! Yes, this is one of the advantages of the NC weapons. Just like TR weapons have an advantage in higher ROF and better close-quarters capabilities and/or spray&pray.

Although this is what NC weapons are probably better at, it also sounds like you don't use the proper trigger discipline to keep TR weapons accurate.

This also heavily depends on your playingstyle. Shotguns have a much shorter CQC range than Carbines. And while I agree with you that shotguns rock, most people take high ROF carbines over shotguns due to their extended short range.

Maybe it's me, but all I see is "good at close-range", "good at mid-range", "good at long-range", "a mix between two of these". Most weapons are simply long+mid or short+mid range.

wait what? The TR MAX in it's standard, no certs form is more beastly and easy to use that the certed NC MAX's I have. Sure, a Mattock MAX is awesome especially when you get to CQC, but if it's not MAX vs MAX the TR MAX can engage short and mid range targets with ease and incredible power.
Do you ever see NC AI MAX's out in the open? No, you don't. Do you see TR MAX's out in the open? Yes, definitely a yes. I see them a lot in the open, while I almost never see friendly NC MAX's out in the open, and when they are in the open they use Falcons or Ravens. TR MAX's offer much more for the mid and long range fights. Also for clearing rooms the ammo capacity and the easy mode "hold trigger and look at your enemy" helps a lot.
TR MAX's have limited AV capabilities compared to the NC, true, but they make up for that with the added AI capabilities their AV weapons have. Wielding a Pounder+any chaingun on a MAX is an awesome combination and gets me kill after kill every time.

Use it for mid-range as well. And for CQC when you don't fight other MAX's the TR MAX has better power to clear entire hallways than the NC MAX.

I'm a bad A2A pilot, but with an uncerted Mozzie I could much easier get aircraft kills, almost 1,5 aircraft kills to one where in a Reaver I get maybe 1 kill every two deaths.
The "high alpha damage" doesn't really matter here due to similar DPS and the accuracy differences being small enough to discount.

And even a BR100 can be wrong, as well as experiences between different players vary extensively.

i have to agree
TR's problem is their faction trait of LMG sized Magazins.
whenever i get 2 kills with my 3500DPM Eclipse i laugh how bad TR must be to complain about their inability to get basic kills with 5800DPM

MSW-R and Carv have about same h-rec, while Carv has 0.375 more drift. And yes it does impact a lot of combat in range, but at the range it impacts, you should be using your RL to fend off vehicles, not infantry.
And no, Hrec does mean something it's part of gun control and accuracy rating. With bloom, h and v recoil, drift, FSR all that impacting your aim all parts are very important.

That's called Alpha damage. And TR RoF main bonus is not about it being only better at CQC, but also through RoF more forgiving for misses.

Emm, no mossie has actually issues in the sky, it's just for longest time, they were able to stay in them and learned to fly better. Vortek/Reaver Rush is term created for something notable that Reaver can do better.
Sure, mossie is better for new players to fly anyways, but it doesn't make it a better platform for better skilled ones.

True, but BR100 can also have more insight through experience about their faction.

Are you insinuating that I don't play other factions? Beause I DO, and people who assume I don't are mistaking my opinion, biased as it may be, for random spurting. Which, as far as I'm aware, it is not.

Nah, just pulling your tooth. Been away from forumside enough to forget how I like to do things. So I start from this ****, then snark, then insults, then ban again.

And still, bullcrap on your list. Beamer, Manticore and now even Spiker all are good sidearms. Cerberus is meh, but only due to Rebel being at that time meh too.
SVA-88 is a good LMG, good enough to rival Anchor in performance metrics. Terminus and HV-45 that's 2 assault rifles at least.
And you do have good carbines no contest.

Everything is important, but not in equal parts. If the horizontal and/or the vertical recoil had been completely random this would be a real big issue. But it's not, it's the same kind of recoil ever time again. Players hamper their own aim 15 times worse by simply strafing. You get a sideways movement you need to counter with a variable curve depending on the strafe movement of your enemy. This is a 3-dimensional way of thinking to keep your reticule on-target, while vertical and horizontal recoil are always the same movement in a 2-dimensional plane. So again: horizontal and vertical recoil barely matter in this game, the effects are too small even with sustained fire to feel. the starting bloom with the rest of the bloom however are a big and important part in aiming, countered with trigger discipline.

The way I always understood "Alpha damage" was that it's the first damage dealt in the first moments of the battle. CQC has just as much to do with alpha damage as long-range combat has.
Now NC has a higher alpha damage per bullet but in the first moments the TR has a higher DPS. This higher DPS is the alpha damage in the first moment of a fight. If your alpha damage is 600 hp before your enemy even returns fire, while the NC deals 400 hp damage before their enemy returns fire, the TR have a higher alpha damage. Which due to the high ROF they can do in CQC.

Can you please tell me what kind of "issues" you are talking about? I've heard several people claim about these issues, but they are never concrete in what these are. The best someone came up with was "lower damage per bullet". The DPS of a Vortec Reaver is markedly better: 4000 DPS vs the Mozzie's 3333 1/3 DPS at CQC, and 2625 DPS for the reaver and 2313 DPS for the Mozzie. The Mozzie has more ammo and total damage per magazine, however, and is more favorable for misses. This marks it, as you say, as a newby aircraft.
Add in the fact that it's more maneuverable and has a smaller hitbox from most sides, and it already gets very competitive with a box with wings and only a markedly stronger DPS at long range. So that's one negative for the aircraft and a bunch of positives.

Yes, so why is he talking about NC being so much better? I've played TR and NC, mostly NC I have to admit, but whenever I play TR I feel the weapons are easy and smooth. I fire a bunch of potshots at enemies and suddenly I manage to get 2 headshots and a kill without warning, where with NC weapons I would damage a bit, then move closer to get a proper shot off.

I disagree. There is a lot of potential in TR whens when you realise how to work with their weapon mechanics. During my time with my TR character I've realised the key to mid range with TR is burst control. Most TR weapons have a very low first shot multiplier which means burst firing is going to be more accurate. The key is to figure out how many bullets you can fire with X or Y weapon before you need a second burst, and so on.

I often bring up the Cycler TRV these days, in part because it is my favourite TR weapon, and also because it is the perfect example of the above. At 845RPM it has a lot of bite, and most instictively want to put the Adv Laser Sight on it. I'd say this is wrong. I use a 1xReflex, Forward grip, and SPA. You give up some of that hipfire but it is a small trade-off because with a grip this weapon is all of the suddenly transformed in a competent mid range weapon. I mean, I've managed to keep an accuracy of 28-29% with this baby, and its brutal.
For some odd reason the same is true for the Lynx, ie, it is easy to handle in ADS(even without a grip).

It isn't an easy weapon to use but that's also why I disagree with what you say about the skill ceiling. When you master this thing you are able to make full use of the extra magazine size. Same is true for the TAR I guess, but like the HV-45 and GR-22, that one has a painfully long reload.

I'm an all faction kind of guy, and having played a good amount of all three I've picked up not only what X faction has but Y faction does not, but also what I have when I play X instead of the other two. It may sound like I'm repeating myself there but the point I'm making is, stop longing for the stuff you don't have.

I have no doubt you know your TR stuff, seeing as you are a BR100, but at the same time I see so many TR players failing to realise what makes their weapons good. Even experienced players.

Irrelevant. If a weapon is good or not has no point in an argument in the overall lineup variation. Any preference to any weapon being "good" or not is entirely opinionated.

I think overall TR is the "most balanced" faction. And none of the facts stated by the OP are based in facts from game data. It doesn't matter that more bullets means more increments of recoil, because higher damage bullets have much more recoil per bullet. When they make weapons for the game they don't just arbitrarily shift stats around.

Still an extra kill before short reload.

I don't use it all the time. I'm a reload maniac. I reload constantly. When I need those rounds though, I'm always glad there there (whenever I don't need them, I'm cursing the slower reload )

Beamer is a downgrade with slightly more accuracy, Maticaore is literally worse than the Mag-shot in every way and yeah, the Spiker's cool. REALLY cool. 1 godo sidearm.

Terminus is a good AR and it's not a clone. HV-45 is a clone. I was talking abut unique things, but I suppose you have a point.

SVA-88 is decent, but the Orion is a good LMG. Again, you have a point.

Beamer is a perfect weapon for people who oversample lot's of stuff and is not a downgrade at ******* all.

Manticore vs Mag-Shot only difference is 50 m/s muzzle velocity for no drop, which is only difference, so bull****ing crap.

HV-45 has half the recoil angle GR-22 has and is an iteration. Clones are shotguns, this is far from being a damn clone.

Issue that Orion is not just good, it's so good that it makes everything else seem like crap. It's a perfect weapon for what it does. And it's probably a weapon for most common engagement ranges. Sure some LMGs could use some buffs, SVA-88 doesn't deserve either drift or H-rec it has, Pulsar LSW needs better moving accuracy, Flare needs H-rec buff for longest damn time, that or RPM buff. But SVA-88 performance shows that it's a good weapon

It may just be me, but if I can't kill a target with ten rounds, the rest of my mag won't change the outcome. (Madcuzbad here) It just doesn't seem like a decent ability.