VS weapon selection/arsenal need major buff/balance pass. 85% of VS arsenal selection is inferior

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Mystogan, Feb 26, 2015.

  1. Hatesphere

    Love the Corvus, it is a medium range killer, so many hate tells accusing me of hacking would I managed to string 3 headshot kills on a group of newbs who thought it was a good idea to run straight at a medic.
  2. maxkeiser

    Vanu weapons are absolutely fine as they are. No changes required (and I've been using them since beta).

    I never feel outgunned or at a disadvantage. The different faction weapons all have there pros and cons.
  3. sindz

    So have I and they are not fine. While they still work in game and yes, they will still get you kills they are simply inferior to what other factions have available, except for the handful that is competitive. And while the difference is not night and day, the VS arsenal is simply lackluster and exactly the same as NS weaponry in most cases, tho NS > VS cause of the extra 5 bullets.
  4. Littleman

    Vanu weapons are fine but boring. I abuse the no-bullet-drop trait by slamming a silencer into every barrel (of course, I do that for NC and TR too...) but ultimately, the only thing that really stands out are their lowered recoils and super fast reload times, but these traits alone don't feel very "Vanu." Vanu is that broken piece of equipment called the lasher (seriously, 75 round magazines!?) The PPA. Gimmicky $#!% that works and fundamentally changes the way both the player and their foes approach one another.

    Back in the days of PS1 *waves cane* the VS Pulsar had two firing modes, anti-infantry and anti-vehicle. I don't think we'll see that particular gimmick return, but that's the sort of thing VS weaponry should have been modeled around from the start. Instead of swapping from full auto to single shot, swapping firing modes on the VS1 Pulsar should have done something gutsy like going from standard fire to a mod that costs 2 rounds per shot but punches through 1m of solid material (for 143 damage per shot.) Or even just 1.5x damage at the cost of two rounds per shot without sacrificing RPM. Something that suggested these guys had methods of adapting to a situation on the fly, but it was generally less efficient than a tool dedicated to the job. That was the VS way.

    Now... the VS have middling automatics that don't suck but don't stand out either. The Orion only stands out by virtue of its .75x ADS. It's pretty forgettable otherwise.
  5. Kociboss

    I actually agree with this thread, however your reason can be applied to any empire.

    There are always only a handful of good/above average weapons while the rest are garbage.

    Take TR for example. MSW-R and then...What else? lol
    • Up x 3
  6. Auzor

    I largely agree; particularly on Pulsar LSW <<< SVA.
    There is one exception: suppose you want a flash supressor, or a full supressor.
    The Pulsar LSW has far lower vertical recoil than the SVA-88 without a compensator..
    it also has less horizontal shake

    Suggestion: Both the Pulsar and the SVA are "conflicted".
    SVA-88: it has HVA. Sooo.. it's a long range LMG? It has a rather mild FSRM.
    Oh, it has bad horizontal recoil, 0.75 ADS, and very good hipfire. (For LMG's).

    Pulsar LSW: well, slightly lower velocity & no HVA; a high FSRM, angular pull, faster reload.. this is the "short range" weapon, right?
    Well.. slightly worse hipfire than SVA-88, no 0.75 ADS.

    SVA can stay largely as is; I don't like the 0.75 ADS LMG, when most carbines are 0.5 but fine. You don't get SPA, and HVA is removed; FSRM increased to 1.85.

    Pulsar LSW:
    50 round mag, access to HVA, reload speeds: 2.5s short; 3.5s long. (faster short reload than MSW-R; longer long reload. Slower fast reload than GD-22-S; faster long reload. All faster reload than Orion :) )

    Lower the FSRM a bit (2.45-> 2); and give the Pulsar and the Ursa 0.35 ADS moving accuracy.
    Tadaa; a Pulsar LSW that is "kinda" like a GD-22-S, but still VS flavor. It also makes the Pulsar different from the SVA-88; firerate, different accuracy and horizontal recoil should also keep it quite different from the Orion..
    now, this would "traditionally" mean the VS carries less damage around than NC again. Consider the Pulsar LSW to carry around an extra mag, for a total of 300 rounds instead of 250.
    Note that it still has an angular pull; this should stay, or it gets another downside in another statistic.

    0.35 ADS: bloom/shot is 0.05 anyway; so it is always "1 shot more accurate" than other 143 dmg LMG's used moving ADS.
    VS currently has no 0.35 LMG's.... it's not like I'm handing out 0.35 to the VS CQC weapons, like the MSW-R or Anchor have.
  7. Xind

    I'm reading a lot about peoples issues and a common theme I keep seeing is the 30 vs 40 rounds in Carbines and Assault Rifles.

    Is this really that big a problem? Personally, I think DPM is a worthless statistic that exists in the same static/perfect environment that DPS does. But how would people feel if TRs extra magazine advantage was only 5 instead of 10, either by nerfing TR or buffing VS/NC?
  8. ATRA_Wampa-One

    If you look at damage per magazine across all weapon damage tiers you'll notice a pattern.

    200x30=6000 (NC only)
    167x35=5845 (TR only)
    143x40=5720 (TR only)
    167x30=5010 (Only 2 VS &TR AR/Carbines)
    143x35=5005 (NS only)
    125x40=5000 (TR only)
    200x24=4800 (NC only, they use to be 20 rounds but were given 4 extra for free about 6 months after launch)
    143x30=4290 (All but 2 VS AR/Carbines and 3 NC AR/Carbines)

    So the problem isn't TR getting 40 rounds with their 143 damage AR/Carbines, it's that approximately 5000 damage per magazine is the standard which requires 34% accuracy to drop a shielded HA as opposed to the almost 40% accuracy that all but 2 VS AR/Carbines requires. Now consider that VS AR/Carbines are on average only 1-2% more accurate than TR/NC weapons, in addition to having lower DPS than those same TR/NC weapons and this is why most VS consider our damage per magazine a raw deal.

    Of course if you wanted to nerf the TR's rounds per magazine to 35 you would also have to nerf the 200 damage weapons back to a 20 round magazine and 167 damage weapons to 25 rounds to bring them inline with what the VS has on all but 2 of their AR/Carbine choices.
    • Up x 6
  9. Xind

    Excellent post.

    So then I supposed the question is since VS is the only faction that reliably falls under the 5000 mark would buffing their magazine sizes (and adding 1 to NC 200 damage Mag sizes) infringe too deeply on TRs faction trait? Because it seems like the only real option would be to buff them up to the NS weapons level at 35 rounds/mag. And I suppose if NS weapons didn't exist (which would be my prefence) that placement between TR and NC would actually make a lot of sense for VS.
    • Up x 1
  10. Ronin Oni

    What is this??

    EVERYONE knows VS is EZ-Mode faction!

    Our hitscan,no drop, auto-lock infantry weapons will destroy everyone!
    • Up x 2
  11. ATRA_Wampa-One

    Realistically the 200 damage weapons are pretty much fine as is since they are some of the most accurate weapons in the game combined with doing 66/114 more damage per headshot than 167/143 damage rounds.

    Furthermore, if you look at the maximum DPS for 167 AR/Carbines (Bandit@1759) the comparable ROF for 143 damage weapons would be 738, so even if only the sub 750 ROF 143 damage weapons were buffed with an extra 5 rounds it would be a huge help while keeping the "good" VS weapons like the Serpent, Terminus, VX6-7, H-V45 would stay balanced the way they are now. Of course, the NC would not see a benefit from this buff as all their 143 damage weapons are above the 750 ROF threshold, but ROF has played a factor in damage per magazine when you look at weapons like the TROSS and Cougar so I absolutely think it should play a factor here as well. Keeping this "buff" to only affect sub 750 ROF weapons would actually make a much more clear separation between TR and VS weapons as well.

    Also, NS weapons are all accurate 0.75 ADS low ROF which is their niche and one which they excel at, and buffing 143 weapons (even only the sub 750 ROF ones) wouldn't encroach on their niche at all.
    • Up x 1
  12. Xind

    Even as someone that fiercely despises how morbidly overpowered VS is...adding a magazine buff to generally under utilized weapons to bring them closer to on par seems pretty reasonable.
  13. ATRA_Wampa-One

    We're not OP, TR and NC just think we have OP weapons since they're always killed with the same 5-6. The thing is, those weapons aren't OP, the rest of our arsenal is just sub-par so we're forced to use those 5-6 weapons which causes us to get very, very good with those select weapons, or we have to force ourselves to become better with those sub-par weapons which then translates into becoming even better with those 5-6 weapons you're so use to being killed with which makes people think they're OP.

    To use a car analogy, it's like if you had to get better to be able to compete on the track against built cars with a beater, the second you get a built car everyone says you're OP.
  14. MikeyGeeMan

    Isn't vs ez mode enough?

    If you can get neck and head shots its easy kills.

    Cool night camp, hard to see with dark muted colors...no reflector on your armor that says shoot me.

    And the most versatile weapons.

    Lolpods, the laser beamy Av weapon, rocks. So does the plasma ball thingy, I seen it used very effectively.

    No vs just needs a few very very minor tweaks to be done till we get new weapons.

    This last patch did wonders..
  15. Xind

    But doesn't that mean you can't really ever see buffs? VS already performs staggeringly well with "sub-par" equipment. So if they recieved buffs with all their "hard mode" skill training, won't that just ruin the balance of the game even further?

    Personally, I see LMGs as the greatest area of contention and while the Anchor is sickeningly good it doesn't strike me as OP the same way VS LMGs do. (Which could in part be due to the fact that NC utilizes are variety of LMGs so it's not 100% guys using Anchors, the way it feels like everyone and their mother has an Orion.) And as far as the TR are concerned, it's pretty much Carv or go home.
    • Up x 2
  16. Ballto21

    I have yet to see a valid reason the orion is overpowered.

    Bulletdrop making it better than the other two at range? Higher horizontal jitter than the CARV by 0.13, SAW higher damage and more controllable ROF.

    0.75 ADS? Not at all a big issue. If you have trouble tracking a 0.75 ADS heavy i feel bad for you if you fight anyone with an SMG, or anyone who uses hipfire as youre at 100% speed hipfiring. Use a NS-1FM if you want, better stats than the orion across the board.

    Faster reload? It has 50% the ammo of the CARV and SAW. And its a 50% faster reload. Not seeing the issue here.

    I cant see anything that actually makes it infinitely better. Its just the only LMG we use out of the three that are actually worth it, being Orion, SVA-88, and that other one (Flare? I dont play heavy much and i just grab the Orion when i do.) Beetlejuice doesnt count as its a directive weapon, thus very few people own it anyway.
  17. ATRA_Wampa-One

    The majority of our equipment is sub-par, but the rest (those 5-6 weapons everyone always seems to get killed with) are actually really good but it's our "hard mode skill training" that pushes them into borderline OPness. If the rest of our arsenal was brought up a bit it would actually cut down on the amount of "hard mode skill training", which I think people should be in favor of.

    Also, for the most part LMG's are in a great place across all factions. NC is fairing the best with the widest selection and no real duds (maybe the EM1) while TR and VS have a good mix but could use some minor tweaks here and there. On VS the Flare, Ursa, and Pulsar LSW need to get looked at, and on TR the TMG-50 and T-16 could use some love as well.
  18. Xind

    I'm not sure how giving someone who has mastered something to the point where it's OP, more options which would in any way reduce how those things that were already OP are viewed or used. Even if you give an underwhelming gun a solid buff, people won't choose it over something they already think is worlds better, so I hazard to think how much improvement would actually be necessary.

    Having Auraxed the TMG-50...I can say it has no where to go without directly stepping on the EM6. It's an okay weapon, but it's definitely off faction and those are usually pretty mediocre...which is kind of the same place the Flare and Ursa are in. Although I do kind of think those two could have more tweaks to differentiate them. Always thought it was odd VS had two 167 LMGs.
  19. MikeyGeeMan

    .75 ads is a HUGE advantage in client side hit detection. Of your able to move out faster then before you render on the other perslns screen you have milliseconds more to act. With high ttk weapons that is not an advantage but sub second ttks it becomes a very good benefit coming out of cover shooting.

    And its a default weapon so the entire faction gets that benefit out of the gate.
    • Up x 4
  20. HadesR

    Honestly ..

    IMO the day to day overall balance is pretty good across all factions.
    So Rather than the constant merry-go-round of Buff / nerf / buff / nerf / buff / nerf tweaks and re-tweaks and re-re-tweaks ...

    I'd rather they spent time on other factors such as RR, Missions , Depth ..

    That's not to say tweaks are not needed eventually .. Just atm they are not to bad as to be important ..