lol, this video doesn't demonstrate much of anything. Just your basic kills you could get on any weapon system
tbh i've never heard anyone complain about the other factions LMGs, they're about the one thing everyone can agree NC have best (and the situational scatmax) it's the rest of NC gear that sucks if i could get all of the station cash i've blown on nerfed NC gear back i'd switch to TR in a heartbeat.
Low DPS, huh. Only the 750 RoF 143 weapons have faster TTK. The 167's all have worse TTK than the Gauss SAW. The CARV, Orion, and MSW-R beat it, but by a fairly small margin: 0.04 seconds at close range and 0.08 seconds at long range, assuming 100% accuracy for both weapons. The Gauss SAW beats every other LMG, aside from those 3. Meanwhile, the Gauss SAW combines very close to best-in-class lethality with incredible accuracy. Lets compare it to the other stocks, since those are the only weapons of similar theoretical lethality to put it next to. The Gauss SAW has the least vertical recoil-over-time, 8.3% less than the CARV or Orion. It also has far less horizontal recoil over time, which is the hardest thing to compensate for. In this respect, it has 48% less horizontal recoil-over-time than the CARV and 42% less horizontal recoil-over-time than the Orion. Note that horizontal recoil is largely random and the most difficult to manually compensate for, so the Gauss SAW has less random drift by an enormous margin (the others have nearly two-fold more). Recoil-over-time is important in that it corresponds to how much you need to manually adjust your aim. It's essentially the speed at which you drift off the initial point of aim, and thus the speed at which you use your mouse to compensate. The Gauss SAW thus objectively requires the least amount of manual aim adjustment to stay on target. This is assuming no mods. There is also recoil-during-kill, which is important. This tells us how much recoil a person is likely to have to compensate for while actually scoring a kill. The Gauss SAW will always have the lowest horizontal RDK regardless of level of accuracy, since it has the greatest per-shot damage and lowest per-shot horizontal recoil. The Gauss SAW thus objectively has the least amount of horizontal recoil to compensate for while killing targets. Vertical recoil is slightly more complicated. Here's a chart. RDK 100% accuracy: (Point-Blank/Beyond Point-Blank) Gauss SAW: ( 3.1075 / 3.675 ) Orion: ( 3.2 / 3.6 ) CARV: ( 3.26 / 3.66 ) RDK 50% accuracy beyond first shot: Gauss SAW: ( 5.3075 / 6.4075 ) Orion: ( 6.4 / 7.2 ) CARV: ( 6.46 / 7.26 ) RDK 25% accuracy beyond first shot: Gauss SAW: ( 9.7075 / 11.9075 ) Orion: ( 10.4 / 12 ) CARV: ( 10.46 / 12.46) Thus, for highly-skilled players, the Gauss SAW has essentially the same recoil-during-kill, as the differences here are less than 0.1. As overall skill drops, the Guass SAW actually begins to develop a noticeable advantage. Contrary to popular belief, when speaking specifically of total recoil compensation needed over the course of a kill, the Gauss SAW actually requires the least from low-skilled players, not the most. The final factor to consider is bloom-over-time and CoF-during-kill. The Gauss SAW has the least bloom-over-time by a very small margin, though this factor is less important unless you're making extremely long bursts (suppressive fire, or perhaps more accurately, spray and pray). CoF-during-kill is best expressed as a line, but lacking the ability to display those here, we'll simply use numbers to indicate starting point and ending point, with the understanding that the connection between them is linear. CDK is very important because, to an even greater degree than horizontal-recoil, it is a non-controllable factor in accuracy. As always, we are assuming the first shot lands, a safe assumption given the mechanics of this game. Gauss SAW CDK ADS Standing/Moving: 100% accuracy: Point-blank: 0-0.35 / 0.5-0.78 Ranged: 0-0.42 / 0.5-0.92 50% accuracy: Point-blank: 0-0.63 / 0.5-1.03 Ranged: 0-0.77 / 0.5-1.27 25% accuracy: Point-blank: 0-1.19 / 0.5-1.59 Ranged: 0-1.47 / 0.5-1.97 CARV: 100% accuracy: Point-blank: 0.1-0.45 / 0.4-0.75 Ranged: 0.1-0.5 / 0.4-0.8 50% accuracy: Point-blank: 0.1-0.75 / 0.4-1.05 Ranged: 0.1-0.85 / 0.4-1.15 25%: accuracy: Point-blank: 0.1-1.35 / 0.4-1.65 Ranged: 0.1-1.55 / 0.4-1.85 I did not include the Orion because its figures are nearly identical to the CARV. Subtract 0.05 from the moving numbers, if you wish to know the exact Orion numbers. These results are mixed. At point-blank range, the SAW consistently outperforms the CARV, but CoF is largely irrelevant at this range. At range, the SAW is the better performer while standing still, while the CARV and Orion have better performance while moving. In all of these situations, differences are not large, so I would say that CoF characteristics are neither a major strength or weakness of the SAW, compared to the other starters. The only major difference is the SAW's starting standing ADS CoF of 0. This gives the SAW superb accuracy at extreme range when firing single shots or even 2-3 round bursts. Hipfire is not particularly good on the SAW. I'm too tired to add the detailed figures for this, at this point. Suffice it to say that the CARV is really about as bad with hipfire as the SAW, in terms of CoF. The Orion is better by a noticeable margin, with CoF's tigher by roughly 0.6ish over kills at various accuracies. Looking at everything in totality, you'll notice that a lot of these numbers are very close. So the Gauss SAW, by most objective measures, is not really an unstoppable juggernaught. But when the key numbers are examined, the SAW does have one or two enormous advantages and no major weaknesses. It can project enormous firepower at any range, nearly as much as the CARV and Orion, while having potentially much higher accuracy. The figures I showed, after all, were stock LMG's. So the Gauss SAW _starts_ with the best recoil profile, and it _then_ gets a compensator and advanced foregrip. The CARV, Orion, and MSW-R all get neither of those attachments. So the actual gaps at highest performance are even larger. The SAW's characteristics for horizontal recoil, in particular, are exceptional, which is very important, since it can't easily be compensated for.
I honest don't care about the Carv. I could give two ***** about the Orion (which is a good gun). Why? Low damage, high RoF LMGs (and ARs and Carbines) have gone the way of the dinosaur. Semi auto shotguns, full auto shotguns, first and second generation SMGs, and now first and second generation pump shot guns are all superior weapons in the situations you will use a high RoF LMG/AR/Carbine. VS & TR need more options for mid to long range.
Ok? Maybe you should make a thread about that, then. Not sure why I needed to know that. Lots of fine theory, there. If the SAW had such enormous advantages, shouldn't SAW users be getting more kills than Carv/Orion users?
So why did you make this video are you saying If i use the orion or the carv I can't get kills as fast as you? You are fighting horrible players that have no awareness ?
THe CARV does blow chunks. I was trying to reroll TR again.....the gun just plain sucks. CARV is inaccurate and not at all deadly....deleted the TR dude again within like 5 minutes....CARV has nothing on the NC6.
Whats the sense of this thread, that the SAW gets nerfed??? I hope not everyone has to deal with their factions traits
We have access to every single number, straight from the game, that goes into small arms mechanics. It isn't some stoned-out hippie sensing a weapon's mystical karmic aura, it's straight-forward numeric comparison. The CARV is objectively inferior in virtually every single category, and being slightly good at one thing that's not even valuable by itself does not make up for a steaming pile of awful in everything else. You might explain why you choose to prefer vaguely generic statistics gathered in a haphazard manner prone to no less than three major sampling errors. The "performance data" that you put so much stock in would have us believe that the Manticore is the second best small-arms weapon in the game. That should be enough, by itself, to make you question the validity of such statistics. Even if those statistics -were- more useful metrics gathered in more discretely analyzable ways, they would still not be a good balance tool, because game design should never focus solely on averages. You need to take in account not just the mean, but also the median, mode, standard deviation, maximum and minimum. If something is grossly dominant in the hands of a few, and utterly terrible in the hands of most, that thing is a major game design problem on both ends of the spectrum, regardless of how very vanilla a simple average comparison might look. Further, such design presents the threat of player migration. If Faction X is newbie-friendly, easy to acclimate to but with a low maximum performance, while Faction Y has harder acclimation but a higher maximum performance, then what you inevitably wind up with is all the players migrating from Faction X to Faction Y as their experience with the game increases and the lower cap becomes a more prominent shackle upon their own performance. Thus, you wind up with a faction full of newbies against a faction full of veterans, and that failure hasn't just been missed by attention to averages, it's been directly caused by it.
That's how you can tell it's a VS player. Low damage per shot + small magazine size + fast reload speed = obsessive reloading disorder.
Balance for ya. NC get I good mid-late game LMG, the Vanu Orion is pretty good, and the CARV is trash. The TMG is the best (and only) option TR get.
And they say VS weapons have no recoil? You gotta be kidding me. I hope OP just has very good recoil control, because my Flare would be bouncing all over the place.
You're still just speculating about how a certain gun will perform in the game. If you want more detailed statistics, that's fair. You're also welcome to do some yourself. But just dismissing statistics in favour of theoretical speculation is silly. Oh, and don't compare the performance of weapons with very different usage patterns (e.g. pistols vs LMGs). I thought that much would be obvious.
Personally I never complained about the gun, I don't think it's a good choice for the NC starter weapon, and it's not my default weapon of choice, but I certainly don't think it's a bad weapon. I don't think it's earned the title of "God" Saw as others have suggested either. However I'm confused as to what that vid was supposed to be showing? I mean every thing you did in that vid you could do with pretty much any LMG in the game from all factions from what I've seen.
Nonsense you balance based on in game performance not the paper numbers. Paper numbers are adjusted according to statistics not the other way around I would think this is obvious.
