Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by bwiin, Feb 6, 2014.

  1. xArchAngelx

    Its easy..just create a TR character and use their weapons. Then make a NC or VS character and see the BETTER differences.
    • Up x 2
  2. axiom537

    Well that seems fact based. This is obviously the best method for weapon balance. Who needs to look at hard data based on a weapons actual performance...Usage statistics, KPU who needs it, when all we need is xarchangelx, to log in try a weapon for a few minutes and then tell us if it needs buffed or nerfed...
  3. xArchAngelx are funny. I like you. See, here is the thing you and your little friend Aegie keep forgetting. Those "statistics" that you are referring to only account if you hit with all rounds. It may look nice and balanced on paper, but you both fail to realize that with both the massive vertical recoil and horizontal recoil that the TR faction have, makes it completely different in game. Where the NC and VS have more manageable recoil, the TR have to play "guess-a-direction" with the made up Horizontal recoil that SOE has decided to grace us with. (Horizontal recoil does not exist). The TR are supposed to be the military faction. We are the main group that the NC and VS were "evolved" from. Why do they have better weapons than us? How come we don't have 200dmg variables? Why is it that our faction trait is to have the fastest firing weapons, but the VS and NC both have faster firing weapons?
    • Up x 2
  4. Akeita

    Because we "evolved", obviously, LOL. We make better weapon, based on your weapon
    • Up x 2
  5. xArchAngelx

    HAHAH..i like you too.
    • Up x 1
  6. General3334

    So then all we have to do is take the Recoil into account. All we have to do is get the recoil for each gun, and determine how often a player will hit a target. Certainly it can't be all that complex to preform tests to determine this so we can get this on paper?
  7. WyrdHarper

    Ya got spunk kid.
    • Up x 1
  8. axiom537

    You should probably just quit, take your ball and go home. You have an opinion, it's not based on any data or facts, hell I'm not even sure its based on game experience, but that doesn't matter you are convinced the grass is greener on the other side and that all that maters, so I will leave you to your unsubstantiated opinions and call it a day. As Mark Twain once said do not argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
  9. Akeita

    You already got beaten to dead :eek:
    • Up x 2
  10. Masterofm

    I think we all know the answer to that question. Magical elves. The small kind.
  11. xArchAngelx

    First off, I do have game experience. You see my signature...thats my game info. I know its hard for you to click it and read it, but thats okay. I will look past your fallacy. It has nothing to do with "the grass is greener". I know this will be hard to click and read, but seriously, this page has pictures.

    If you go to that webpage it will list the KPH, which means kills per hour in case you couldn't figure it out. It will show that out of all our weapons, the NC and VS hold the majority of better stats. I think the only ones we have that are slighty better, are the RAMS, TAR, and Fractures.

    I do have to thank you though.. Thank you for calling yourself an idiot and saving me the trouble. Have a nice day.
  12. Ender

    Please skip to the 1:10:00 mark for the start of the assault on Xelas Bio Lab The fight was 50/50 51/49 the entire time with both sides at 48+. You can definitely cap a bio lab with 50/50.
    • Up x 1
  13. Aegie

    Yes, I've done this and my stats with my TR character with far fewer hours invested in learning the weapon and far fewer certs invested in the weapons only confirmed this expectation. Moreover, this ignores the problem that the person is a constant in this equation hence why it is important to look at overall averages. Your experience may very well differ and thus the only way to adjust for this is to examine how the population is performing. Ergo, you simply cannot ignore the metrics that are derived from the population of players. Months ago, I was utterly disheartened by my ability with Trac5+foregrip+3.5x scope, however, ultimately, this means nothing because there is no way to know whether this said something about me or something about the system without considering those metrics derived from the population of players.

    The argument you present can be easily refuted by looking at pre- post- PU2 metrics. While the only ones I have seen are based on KPU and this is flawed, KPU is flawed in predictable and adjustable downsides but these metrics still show, for instance, that TR leads in carbines.

    Highest performing NC carbine = GD-7F (a TR trait weapon by the way, and no one should disagree with that) still under performs compared to the Lynx- and this is post PU2. Post PU2, the AMC still out performs the AXC-11 in KPU- this is a fact. There is no disagreeing with this without showing a figure that contradicts- perhaps the figures are different now, for some reason, but Oracle clearly shows that post PU2 AMC still has a better KPU than post PU2 AXC-11. I grant that KPU is not perfect but no single metric is perfect.

    I'm not opposed to the idea that TR weapons are under performing, rather, I am opposed to the idea that TR weapons are under performing if no real evidence can be presented.

    This is what I have said time and time again and people get enraged because they keep hearing the same thing but the same thing is still true. The case for NC trait weapons (i.e. slow ROF high damage per shot) was made over a wide span of time, repeatedly, with convergent evidence from various performance metrics- none of which were based on one player's personal experience or stats.

    Thing is, early on, I felt something was off based on my previous experience with FPS games. As a scientist, I was not satisfied with this as some kind of conclusion and asked the question is this a regular experience that is demonstrable with data collected from all players. In this case, that happened to be the case and, while it took SOE way too long to address the issue, it was no surprise that they made the changes they made. Why? Well, because you could look at the data, from various metrics, and see that weapons suited for hipfire CQC, especially those with the .75 ADS movement multiplier, were outperforming all other weapons.

    I do not know what more to say and honestly I am just as tired continuing to explain this as people are tired of hearing it.

    Fact of the matter is, if you want to show imbalance, then you need to show imbalance. This can be done, in the end it is only a matter of science (odd, I know, coming from someone who no longer mains a VS). By that I mean that, if there is an imbalance it will reveal itself in convergent evidence across performance metrics. Show me these and I guarantee that I will support your position. Why? Because I do not want an imbalanced game and I have never in my life been the kind of person to disregard good argument and sound facts in the face of what feels good.

    I agree vehemently that certain things were screwed in PU2. Take the Vulcan, for instance. I even posted prior to PU2 that the Vulcan was a special case and that the developers were likely to make a mistake. Why? Because Vulcan was over performing on the harasser and under performing on the Prowler- ergo, the performance of that weapon was directly related to the platform and, IMO, for obvious reasons (harasser was able to get into and out of the situations that exploited the Vulcan's power whereas the Prowler, by definition, could not).

    I'm not anti-TR by any means and I support very much the idea that 1) certain things like the Vulcan need due diligence and 2) VS and NC have at least 1 carbine that mimics (to a certain extent) the TR (keep in mind that they, relatively, under perform the counterpart) and hence it is only fair that either a) they remove/change these so they do not mimic TR or b) allow TR a similar carbine that mimics VS/NC (though, to be fair, it should perform a little worse, just like VS/NC counterparts). Only thing is, the AMC (the long distance TR carbine) always did and still does out perform the AXC-11, at least in KPU (the only metric I have yet to see compare pre- and post- PU2 on any objective performance measure).

    TLDR: Make a real case and I will support you 100%, continue with this kind of shallowness and it is just depressing.
    • Up x 4
  14. LordCreepy

    Was it 50/50 while you held the gen room? and did you cap C or some randoms.
    If you try to pull this on Miller you usually end up holding the gen room for 5-15mins while the defender pop will slowly rise from 50% to 60-65% and push you out eventually.
  15. AdmiralArcher

    no its not.......we have alaska....which is nearly the same size as the continental united states......ALL of europe would fit nicely on top of the continental United States
  16. Thardus

    You have got to be joking. When was the last time you actually looked at a globe?
    • Up x 2
  17. Clapeyron

    You seem like a reasonable person and you use reasonable arguments but you do seem to have a real bias against the TR.
    There were cases where TR has been OP yes, but in no way were they OP across the board and in no way are they on the top across the boards now.
    I also agree that the "balance" isn't way off as it is now, BUT the only thing TR currently have that is unarguably the best is the Pounders, and I expect them to be nerfed any day now.
    All ES weapons that the TR have are watered down versions of the NS ones, vulcan/marauder/striker =<basilisk/fury/annihilator
    And YES we CAN bring in the AI secondaries into discussion because the marauder is just as viable as the canister is (not at all since the fury is better than both, and tanks don't use AI secondaries anyways)

    TR's faction specific ability is anchor mode... think about it, it is an ability which makes a mobile unit completely stationary... For such an ability to be valid it needs to be OP in a number of collateral areas, and that has made the prowler into a camper van, parked outside spawn rooms.
    while both NC/VS have abilities which makes for FUN gameplay, even if result wise the balance is quite OK in that aspect.

    then we have the infantry weapons, which for TR are spray cans... again not terrible weapons but really uninspiring to use, and they DID suffer more from the NW nerf. So even if balance isn't way off it feels sooo much more unrewarding to squeeze of rounds with a TR carbine than a hard hitting NC one or a (near) laser accurate VS one.
    (yes assault rifles are still mainly TR's domain)

    So you're right there wasn't MANY buffs for the others but the neutering of the TR is a buff in comparison to the other teams, and it happened in really unsatisfying areas for the TR.

    so a re-cap: only entities of the TR which are the best right now are Pounders, barely 1 close range AR, and the stock prowler (compared to stock NC/VS mbt)
    neither are areas which are fun, and it has produced lower a TR population.

    I don't want the TR to be OP, I want them to be spcial and/or fun to play.

    TL;DR some gameplay whining from a TR player.
    • Up x 5
  18. Serafine

    That is because TR had a HUGE numbers advantage in the past, and now that they do not have it anymore they figure out that they can't fight properly when underpopped (which is something NC and VS veterans on most servers are very used to).

    Also some of their most ridiculous tools got nerfed (like the monkey Striker which effectively made all vehicles and aircraft explode by just looking at them, and the supersonic pinpoint artillery sniper mode on the anchored prowler) which the munchkins within the TR made quit or defect to another faction.
  19. Aegie

    Thank you for such a polite reply.

    I try to acknowledge my bias and I champion quite of few TR causes and have for some time.

    For instance, I was among those who, pre-PU2, was trying to caution the devs in terms of changes to the Vulcan and, since PU2 I have repeatedly said that they need to go back and try again because the Vulcan, especially on the Prowler, is under performing.

    I recognized prior to PU2 that VS lead (by a fair margin) in LMGs and that TR were last.

    If I gave the impression that TR was leagues ahead in everything then my apologies, but honestly the list was very long and that is why I generalized. Basically, VS had ZOE and a fair advantage in LMGs, NC had a slight edge in SMGs, and TR lead in just about every thing else- you can go back and look for the figures if you want. Now, the lead they had may not have been gigantic in every case but it was a long list and this was for simplification.

    Now what we have, for instance, is that TR still appears to lead in Carbines yet when you look at some of the forum posts you would think they were as bad as the NC used to be (e.g. dead last in the class by a relatively wide margin with every single counter part being outperformed by both VS and TR). You still see a lot of complaints about the GD-7F yet I have never once see someone post a metric that does not show it trailing the Lynx- there is also a surprising lack of mentioning in terms of the Serpent (the VS carbine with 845RPM). Whenever this comes up its "NC has the highest ROF carbine". No, they don't- they tie with VS but people rarely mention this and I have to wonder why.

    I can get behind just about any cause out there- provided there is good reason.

    I support the idea that, overall and relative to VS/NC, the TR arsenal lacks diversity and that they should address this- I have posted this numerous times.

    The idea that I'm biased against TR, IMO, is not so well founded and I think that reaction has more to do with psychology than absolute fact. Fact is, the game overall was not well balanced for a long time and this was not just my opinion but was regularly supported by the data. I analyze data for a living. For a long time you could look at the performance metrics and see some regular trends- the largest of these was that weapons oriented towards CQC (e.g. high ROF, low damage, good hipfire, etc.) were consistently out performing the longer range counter parts. Even post PU2 you can see that the best carbine for NC is the GD-7F- not NC traits. That was evidence that there was something about the game, overall, that tended to favor those types. Hence why the changes in PU2 and why balance has been, overall, improved.

    I'm not anti-TR, like I said, I can and often do champion TR causes- another one is having more rounds in LMGs (an area where TR has never been OP). The issue is that I am pro-balance and for a long time the figures showed that certain things were being favored and, through no ones fault really, those types tended to be more TR style (e.g. high ROF, low damage, good hip fire, etc.). So when I started to talk about this over a year ago (back when we had the old flinch) it was mostly TR that took notice and TR that flamed me because the implication was that the play style favored by TR weapons was also, somewhat, favored by the game mechanics.

    TLDR: Its not about factions but facts- I can get behind any balance cause that is supported by evidence.
    • Up x 3
  20. CaptainYamerica

    You missed the TR Waterson domination for about a year there it seemed. They could simply face-roll Libzerg their way to victory at any given time for the longest time. Still lot's of good players on TR on Waterson, but a lot of trash talking nuubtards in that mix as well now.

    I still think they are the "go to" faction on Waterson, just not as dominate as they once were. Once the fourth factioners jump back on their gravy train, it'll turn the TR back around.