We need to have a hard look at the balance of the AI-MAXs.

This.

And this.

Honestly, aside from NC AI max being too good at it's indoor role, and vanu AI having too much range, MAXs are in a good place in their designed role of indoor defence.

They're also as stated the only realistic counter to HA's + their silly shield, and not even that great of one when you take into account the AV grenades, the dumbfires, the ability to simply blob up and mass-LMG, or get a LA lackey to drop C4.

That's only true though within 0-8m, outside of 8m only a Grinder/Grinder MAX with extended mags might 2 mag a normal MAX (it wouldn't kill a KA5 MAX at that range).

And if you want to look at my calculated % firing/%reloading time you can see just how little time NC AI MAX spend firing and how long they spend reloading compared to equiverlent TR/VS AI MAX weapons.

NC AI MAXs are certain the best at 0-8m, but then they give up 8-50m for that, as well as %firing/%reloading, kills per mag etc.

It is IMO no coincidence that it is the Mutilator then Mercy that are the two most used TR AI MAX weapons, not the Onslaught which has the lowest 0-8m TTK.

Not very long, type fast and remember!

That's not true though really, TR AI MAXs will get many more infantry kills per 2 mags than an NC AI MAX is ever likely to do, and they can do it from much longer ranges. Which is likely why TR players use Mutilators and Mercys much more than Onslaughts (and more than any NC AI MAX weapon is used by NC - except the default left SC).

People say this, but how exactly are you defining this?

VS and TR AI MAXs out-dps, out-TTK from 8m onwards (the TTK difference is 0.36s or 0.13s with headshots - within 0-8m).
VS and TR AI MAXs out-% firing time and % reloading time and kills per mag at any range.


Now say we nerfed NC AI MAXs so they were the equal of TR/VS AI MAXs at 0-8m.

All that means is 0-8m NC/VS/TR AI MAX are then equal & 8-50m+ TR/VS AI MAXs are MUCH better than NC AI MAXs.... is that balanced?

Insults just show you have no counter argument.

Easy. Right arm data only is Grinder/Grinder and Mattocks/Mattocks. No one would buy the off arm and them mismatch.

The updated data is:

What I created is a theorem based off a logical fallacy that I earlier introduced:QuatinFact: Grinders have 92.8% KPH of Mattocks.Grinders range: 0-8mMattocks range: 0-8m and 8m+
Therefore, 0-8m combat accounts for 89.2% of all KPH. This is the proof I've shown you 3 pages ago. You have been so dense in your own arguments that you still have not addressed this conclusion or understand that I'm deriving this conclusion from your logic that Grinders represent 0-8m combat

Why should I care?

My original point of contention is Section #1. How does the difference between left/right arm for Scattercannon relate to the fact that you made assumptions based off a 1% delta on statistical data, which I proved above has a month to month variation of 1%?

Section #1:
I don't agree with you.

The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month. Lastly, you can't even explain the anomalies in the statistics that you quote.
Quatin
It also doesn't matter, because any way you look at it, the 2 arm average delta is minimal. So minimal that making the following claim is preposterous:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinde

The % delta is so small that month to month variation changes the rankings.

“As we've seen the Q4 aKPH for both arms is:

Mattock: 37.94

SC: 35.12

Grinder: 34.06”

“Q4 aKPH for the month of January:

Mattock: 39.78

Grinder: 36.33

SC: 36.10”

This is a fact. Making assumptions based off data that can very well be in the margin of error is asinine.

You brought up NW before I challenged you to segregate combo data from arm pair data, so we know the last sentence is a lie. You are neglecting NW when it doesn't suit your agenda.

Goretzu
Completely wrong, because it doesn't "insta-kill" all targets, NW5 (I think NW3 in fact) is enough to survive against a Mattock (with slugs

Most everything else that we've discussed is independent of NW/Grenade belt and etc. The data is also independent of combo data being mixed up with pair data. I've recalculated most of them and the validity of the argument still stands even if you take the right arm data instead. The right arm data can be assumed as the paired data, because no one would buy the off-arm and still play mismatched.

Therefore, all other variations are taken account for, except your assumptions on COMBO data.

You have failed.

Quatin
Identify where I compared a weapon based off "perfect accuracy" and then to "aim being off by a small margin", before post #182. Which is where this sub-topic started when I called you out on making equal accuracy a caveat.
The quotations you have listed are from post #210. After the fact when you introduced "mismatched accuracy" into the discussion. We talked about accuracy conditions, because YOU introduced right before post #182. You are now claiming that it was assumed all along. Provide proof BEFORE post #182 where "mismatched/perfect/off by small margin" and etc. could have been in the context of discussion.

You have made a claim with no proof:
Goretzu
Biolabs are the closest over all fighting in PS2 and the room sizes are pretty much standard,

Provide proof.

I will make the same "proofless" counter-claim.

Biolabs are NOT the representation of general point fighting in PS2. Most bases including Amp stations have capture points contained within video #2.

Define the criteria and the 2 points in which it changed. The only thing I can think of that you are referring to is the 0.0s TTK. The 0.0s TTK has been explicitly listed in the quote you made, therefore it has not changed.

Quatin
Since all NC AI arms can have 0.0s TTK, they are all superior CQC weapons. All other stats such as magazine size and spread are just player preferences. Therefore, the spread between KPH performance of the different NC AI arms is only a few %.

Indeed this is quite interesting, because not only that, but NC players prefer the WORST PERFORMING NC AI WEAPONS!!!!

Why? (Rhetorical question, not asking)

It's listed first row of the quote you made:

Quatin
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.

Off the top of my head. You are not accounting for COST AVAILABILITY. Not all players have access to all weapons, therefore they play with what they have. You are not accounting for PLAYSTYLE. Some players want to farm XP (range) and some want to rush points (high alpha).

You cannot practically use headshot data due to the argument I made last page:

Quatin
Since you think TR AI guns are Carbines, you don't realize that they in fact have a fixed CoF. Therefore, aiming at the head means most of your shots are going to miss unless your cone covers their entire head. People who actually play TR MAX, aim for center mass

Your "perfect aim" TTK numbers are no longer valid, because the CoF bloom + weapon CoF will be larger than the players head. That 0.13s is an invented number.

Once again:
Quatin
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.

I reject your "point of view". I can append any data we have discussed to exclude COMBO data by simply rejecting the statistics for the default arm.

What are you going to do to segregate only COMBO data from the statistics?

This propaganda again. Most MAX engagements happen in close range. Which is why 2 people have made the same statement Garmus made. It doesn't even have to be 0-8m, because according to the youtube video you posted:

Terrain render distance set to 15m to illustrate the outer limit at which an NC MAX can win a MAX duel. ScatterMAXs without extended mags need to be within 10m to beat TR or VS MAXs.

You can be effective to 15m and guaranteed dominant at 8m. More elaboration from the first youtube comment:

Im sorry just no, I agree they need to be within 10-15m but they only need to be there for like 2seconds. A TR/VS MAX must keep range for alot longer to kill the NC MAX. MAX excel at close range thats what they are for, building rushes etc, the NC MAX is just much better at that job.

Which just shows that popular opinion sways against you. NC MAX dominate building rushes. Which is where most points are.

Goretzu
Not very long, type fast and remember!

That's very apparent. Most of Goretzu's post is copy/paste and he often goes on tangential runs about whatever random thought he's having. Which cuts down on time spent, because he doesn't have to read the topic he's responding to.

It takes me an hourish to respond, because I do like to read through what's been written. The board is dying and there's not too many threads to go through anyways.

It is entirely true. Almost every single person in this thread has said the exact same thing. You are the only one arguing otherwise.

NC MAX are designed for high alpha damage, which directly translates to killing.

TR MAX are designed for sustained damage.

Taking the damage per mag of a TR MAX and pretending you can apply it in the same manner as a NC MAX with 0.0s TTK is laughable.

He's defining it like how every player has been in this thread. 0.0s TTK.

You're trying to overcome 0.0s TTK with %reload time and % firing time? No one believes you. At least no one who actually plays PS2.

So it's OK for maxes (not just NC) to be stupidly OP because you can't handle heavies. wow.

I'll trade hacksaws for mercies any day. I wish I could engage targets longer with fully-automatic fire at farther ranges. None of the NC MAX weapons let us to do that unlike TR/VS MAX weapons.

Insults just show you have no counter-argument.

Please provide concrete proof of this “the above statement is backed by no proof. It is an opinion. You are making baseless arguments and getting called out on it”.


Clearly some people will (and do) run Grinder/SC (or SC/Grinder) and some will run Mattock/SC (or SC/Mattock) etc. and you “calculation” makes no account for this reality.
SC/Grinder especially as the SC-Left is default and the Grinder-Right was cheap, but the Grinder-Left too as that was a free survey weapon.
I see plenty of people running Grinder/Falcon, Grinder/Raven, Grinder/Flak Cannon and Grinder/Hacksaw, Grinder/SC each day – so not exactly “no one”!



So as we have seen either you're “calculation” is wrong from my point of view; because it results in the Blitz SMG and Longshot Sniper Rifle having a “75% shared killing range” (whether it was the Longshot at 0-50m or the Blitz killing in the 100-300m you never did decide!).

Or your “calculation” is wrong from your point of view because you've taken absolutely no account of Grinder/not Grinder and Mattock/not Mattock.
As you say: “provide proof that your KPH data is not [100% Grinders/SCor Mattock/Falcons]. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof. You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.”
(Hoist with your own petard!)

Why should you care?

Because your whole argument is built upon the false premise that SC and Mattock being “too close” in value to matter, but of course this isn't strictly true...... because that only appears when the two arms are put together, because the SC-Left arm is way off the SC-Right.


Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right armMattock= 2.18SC= 6.05Grinder= 0.45Hacksaw= 0.99


The other NC AI MAX weapons Left and Right performance is much more similar (which is unsurprising for identical weapons), yet the SC-Left and SC-Right are very different.
It doesn't actually matter what the reason is (the only reason we can think of is that it is because it is a default weapon, of course) because whatever the reason is when you combine them together it produces an uncertain result.

Indeed in that instance you were claiming that NC AI MAX weapons “insta-kill” all targets, as we can see they don't.

However if we take your point of view into account:
Quatin: “you are attempting to create combo data from the average. You would need to separate out the combo statistics from the average. Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% dual Pounders and dual Heavy cyclers. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof. You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.”

So unless you can fully account for differences in type of armour NW/Flak/ASG and levels of armour 1-5 and things like HA shield type or Inf cloak type (or Medic AoE regen or regen shield).... which you have not.

Then basically by your point of view everything in this thread is “invalid” going by your point of view! (again I take the view that on large data sets things average out across the factions).

“You have made a claim with no proof”, please provide concrete proof of this “the above statement is backed by no proof. It is an opinion. You are making baseless arguments and getting called out on it”!

You are just making wild and unsubstantiated assumptions here, ones that are clearly incorrect as some people DO in fact use mismatched weapons all the time, as you say:


Quatin: [I am] not accounting for COST AVAILABILITY. Not all players have access to all weapons, therefore they play with what they have. You are not accounting for PLAYSTYLE. Some players want to farm XP (range) and some want to rush points (high alpha).


Some players will (and do) play with what they have due to lack of certs, and some players will (and so) play with what they have because the prefer running a Grinder/Mattock or Grinder/Raven or whatever. That petard, eh?


From my point of view this is averaged out across such large data sets across the factions, but from your point of view you have too account for this reality! (which you have not - you have failed)

As you have claimed changing the criteria and adding caveats is the sign of a weak/invalid/lost argument...... and yet this is what you are doing now! You have failed.

The evidence that it is a very good idea NOT too assume that other assume equal accuracy (or indeed equal effect of cover) is shown here:

Which apparently only happens for some weapons!

Which again only apparently happens for some weapons!

Yes, yes we are..... but clearly that needs to be stated!

So you're now agreeing with me that in fact most bases (like Amp stations) have Capture Points where the engagement range is way outside the 0-8m range! You have failed.

Those videos both clearly show what is in fact 0-8m range and that even in a Biolab MAX Crash (which we have agreed is likely the tightest Capture Point-wise) the engagement ranges are almost entirely at 8m+.

I am arguing specifically what exactly?

Changing the criteria AND now adding caveats!

So what you're saying there is that when you say “quatin: TTK dominates all other stats” it is wrong (and you have failed).


Although that still doesn't explain NC AI MAX weapons
Q4 aKPH of Left and Right:
Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9


Because the best ranged weapons by far for NC AI MAXs are Mattocks with Slugs, yet they are used the least. Conversely Hacksaws are used the most and are the worst at range, and indeed not even the best at 0-8m either now (Grinders are). Hacksaws are arguably the easiest to use, I guess, albeit less effectively.

I can honestly only assume you have never actually used a TR MAX in the 0-8m range, at that range is it perfectly possible to 100% headshot as the CoF is smaller than an infantryman’s head hit-box.


Certainly if you walk into a room with Onslaughts blazing and close at walking speed to an infantryman than yes, bloom would have an effect, however just as much the Infantryman would be long dead before you ever got close to 8m! (and you'd be busy killing your 4th or 5th instead)


But if you are doing what you claim NC AI MAXs “do” (which we have seen from the videos they actually do not), which is close to within 0-8m and then open fire, you can certainly 100% headshot with an Onslaught.

Again it is not my point of view, it is your point of view:


Quatin: Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% dual Pounders and dual Heavy cyclers. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.
you are attempting to create combo data from the average. You would need to separate out the combo statistics from the average
Off the top of my head. You are not accounting for COST AVAILABILITY. Not all players have access to all weapons, therefore they play with what they have. You are not accounting for PLAYSTYLE. Some players want to farm XP (range) and some want to rush points (high alpha).


My point of view is different (as I have explained), I'm just pointing out that some might say it was “hypocrisy” to chop and change your argument completely from moment to moment as you are doing here.

So the entire TR player base is “lying” now? I knew you'd say that eventually!


Average hours used:
Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6


Do all these people NOT “actually play”? Have I some how manage to convince the entire TR player base with my “lies” to use Mutilators and Mercys rather than Onslaughts? (which have the better TTK)


Quite clearly ALL these TR players (whom I'm pretty sure are not my minions that I rule with an iron fist) believe me.... or at least believe that: “quatin: TTK dominates all other stats” is completely and utterly false.


Because IF they did then the Onslaught would be by far the most used TR AI MAX weapon (and it is not).

You know when you use “sources” to try and back up your arguments (“youtube comments” are “concrete evidence” now? I'll have to get the online dictionaries to update themselves with that then! ) you really should check they are still correct (or indeed they were ever correct).


That video was made in February 2013, before BOTH sets of NC AI MAX nerfs!


Since that video was made and since those “youtube comments” (“concrete evidence” that it is! ) were made NC AI MAX have massively changed – and by changed I mean are entirely LESS POWERFUL!


In those days the MAX vs MAX range for an NC AI MAX to win was 10m, at 15m you'd lose with the other MAX still having much of their health (here is a video clearly demonstrating this), but after the dual set of nerfs it is now 8m (and has been for a long time now).


Honestly if you have to rely on “youtube comments” as “evidence” to back up your arguments you're in trouble, but if you have to use “youtube comments” from Feb 2013 long before the dual set of mass nerfs to NC AI MAXs to back up your “arguments”.......


…..really I just don't know what to say. You have epic failed?

This is why I wish they'd seriously rebalance MAXs in general and most specifically AI MAX to be more like PS1 MAXs: high toughness and decent DPS.

Which in a very rough and ready sense would be something like doubling current AI MAX toughness but reducing current AI MAX DPS by somewhere around 50-66%.

This is pretty much how I feel. The PS1 MAXs were in no way ridiculous, especially when it came to AI capabilities. While they were formidable, it was more so because they were able to soak tons of damage and not necessarily because they were walking death machines. Which they were, but no where near like the ones in PS2. I think giving them more health/damage resistance and less damage output would be great. Though I do think their ESWs should be buffed across the board. Not necessarily to have increased damage, but more effective over all.

Like with PS1, the NC/VS max both had homing AA weapons, where as the TR had flak. But they also had the lockdown ability, which in PS1 was absolutely awesome, IMO. So they weren't useless or overpowering.

Either way, yeah. TBH, I just think TTK across everything should be increased. but thats for a different topic, lol.

7505 - AF-34 Mattock-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 64.54
16024 - AF-34 Mattock-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 70.98

90% of playtime hours overlap. Therefore 90% of Mattock KPH is for dual arms.


7507 - AF-23 Grinder-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 108.00
16026 - AF-23 Grinder-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 144.39

75% of playtime hours overlap. Therefore 75% of Grinder KPH is for dual arms.

My challenge did not imply that you need to prove to the last .1% of accountability, that is entirely your own invention. Revising previous KPH data with the above change does not change the validity of the arguments, because for the most part (75%+) it is correct. However, making assumptions on COMBO arm performance, which is less than 25% of the data set by using the entire data set is a fallacy.

I have clearly stated the context in which the comparison is valid. Since you are ignoring context, I can likewise make the same claim:

Quatin
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.

So which is it.
1) Your claims of range to KPH is absolutely wrong.
2) Tempest SMG has a longer range than NC GAUSS SAW.

[/quote]
Why should you care?

Because your whole argument is built upon the false premise that SC and Mattock being “too close” in value to matter, but of course this isn't strictly true...... because that only appears when the two arms are put together, because the SC-Left arm is way off the SC-Right.

Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right armMattock= 2.18SC= 6.05Grinder= 0.45Hacksaw= 0.99

The other NC AI MAX weapons Left and Right performance is much more similar (which is unsurprising for identical weapons), yet the SC-Left and SC-Right are very different.
It doesn't actually matter what the reason is (the only reason we can think of is that it is because it is a default weapon, of course) because whatever the reason is when you combine them together it produces an uncertain result.
[/quote]

YOU are the one who created the false premise.Below is the exact quote where you initiated the comparison and explicitly stated to combine the Left & Right values.

Goretzu
Firstly the statement is absolutely correct Scattercannons do outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH as we can see from the combined Left&Right values:
Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0

Quatin
The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month. Lastly, you can't even explain the anomalies in the statistics that you quote.

Is an observation of YOUR data in which YOU defined the method of calculation.

Most everything else that we've discussed is independent of NW/Grenade belt and etc. Whatever that remains can be revised with the adjustments above and still won't affect the validity of the arguments, because KPH data is comprised mostly of paired arm data.

Therefore, all other variations are taken account for, except your assumptions on COMBO data.

That is not entirely the truth. Your caveats are not just minor annotations. They completely contradict the previous argument.

Goretzu
In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot, damage per second, damage per mag and % firing and % reload times.

Goretzu
In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy,

Goretzu
Indeed and there is no caveat, so I'm glad we have finally agreed that there is no absolutely contradiction between my statements, other than one assumes equal accuracy and the other specifically states it, both being 100% correct.

You declare that the first statement assumes equal accuracy and the 2nd statement states it. Therefore accuracy is not in contention. Which leaves

CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than=CoF and Spread do not make any difference

A contradiction.

Actually, you are the one who fixates on 0-8m. NC Maxes are effective all the way out to 15m as demonstrated in the video.

Therefore, my original statement goes unchallenged.
Quatin
The problem is NC MAX excel in the 2 areas where MAX units are most useful. Rush points. Destroy vehicles

Don't know what you're even arguing? What were you referring to in:
Goretzu
That's not true though really

Define the criteria and the caveats that are being added.

0.0s TTK dominates all other states is completely correct. However, it is in the context of weapon performance. Your mistake in correlating weapon performance to weapon hour usage is defined below:

Quatin: Off the top of my head. You are not accounting for COST AVAILABILITY. Not all players have access to all weapons, therefore they play with what they have. You are not accounting for PLAYSTYLE. Some players want to farm XP (range) and some want to rush points (high alpha).

I can honestly only assume you have never actually used a TR MAX in the 0-8m range, at that range it is impossible to 100% headshot as the CoF is twice as large as the infantryman's head hit-box. Not only that, each shot has a bloom of 0.05, making it far worse.

Confusing my with your?

Goretzu
My point of view is that in such large data sets such things tend to average out across the players and the faction.

I separated mine above. It is time for you to separate yours.

Copying quotes from different conversations in an attempt to create a strawman argument? I knew you'd say that eventually.

The actual response to the above was listed on the last page:

There are 2 arguments:

1) No TR AI weapon has 0.0s TTK.

NC AI arms operate under the concept of high alpha damage or pretty much killing. You would therefore use the weapon that gives you the most range while retaining as much killing power. Since all NC AI arms have the 0.0s TTK, players would gravitate to the Mattocks with the longest range.

All TR AI guns operate under the concept of sustained DPS. The lowest delta to NC arms is 0.36s, which is the difference between the worst pistol and the best CQC carbine and therefore trying to play the high alpha damage role with a TR arm would be playing to its weakness. Therefore, most players gravitate to Mercies.

2) You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection. For example:

Since you claim most MAX game play is 8m+ why do NC players prefer the closest range weapons?

Hacksaw-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 132.39
Hacksaw-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 151.32
Grinder-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 108.11
Grinder-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 144.50
Mattock-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 64.45
Mattock-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 70.91

Actually. GU11 buffed NC MAX AI 8m-15m performance.

http://imgur.com/a/RwbM2/noscript

Making the following youtube comment that you are referring to even more true.
Im sorry just no, I agree they need to be within 10-15m but they only need to be there for like 2seconds. A TR/VS MAX must keep range for alot longer to kill the NC MAX. MAX excel at close range thats what they are for, building rushes etc, the NC MAX is just much better at that job.

Even in the video you posted. It clearly depicts Grinder MAX out dueling TR MAX at 10m and not the 8m you claim.

…..really I just don't know what to say. You have epic failed?

Again that is a completely baseless assumption, it is quite possible 99% of Left Grinder is being played with something other than a Right Grinder.
Simply comparing the two played times is NOT “concrete proof” that they are used together.


As you yourself say:
Quatin: Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% [singleMattock/Grinder and something other than paired Mattock/Grinder]. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.

You have failed.

You have clearly stated why your “calculation” is invalid too:

Quatin: Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% [singleMattock/Grinder and something other than paired Mattock/Grinder]. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.


So which is it valid or invalid? (according to you)


Of course either way it remains invalid in the context of saying that a Blitz SMG and Longshot Sniper Rifle share 75% of their killing range.

So you now agree that if the SC data is being pulled by being a default, which we agree it is:
Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm
Mattock= 2.18
SC= 6.05
Grinder= 0.45
Hacksaw= 0.99

If we then adjusted for any Default bias then it would actually look more like this:

Mattock 38.7
SC 37.1
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9

which makes interesting results, I'm sure you agree.

Please provide concrete proof of this “the above statement is backed by no proof. It is an opinion. You are making baseless arguments and getting called out on it”.

There is no “concrete proof” to suggest aKPH date is “comprised mostly of pair arm data” literally none. By all means if you have “concrete proof” provide it otherwise what you are saying is simply baseless opinion.

Suggesting NW (or Flak) has no possible influence on aKPH score is clearly incorrect and wrong.
My view would be it would average out across such a large data sets, but your view (clearly stated) requires it to be taken into account for any validity:

Quatin: Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% [Flak1 and no NW]. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.

That is entirely the truth, both statements are 100% correct and say exactly the same thing.
The only difference is whether we assume or state equal accuracy.


As we can see stating it is by far the better option (and equal cover):

Quatin: We're assuming equal accuracy?
Yes we are - although it is clearly more sensible to state it given:
Quatin: If your aim is off by a small margin, you miss
Equal accuracy, remember!
Quatin: If your target is behind any cover shin high you miss
Ok equal cover too!

I know what I'm arguing, put clearly you don't or you'd be able to state it wouldn't you!

The video from Feb 2013 before BOTH sets of NC AI MAX nerfs! Even the dual Grinder with extended mags doesn't win at 15m! Furthermore since then the minimum and maximum damage ranges have been nerfed reducing effectiveness in ALL NC AI MAX weapons by 15m!

As we can clearly see from these graphs:
http://imgur.com/a/RwbM2/noscript

Nope it is still completely incorrect as this video clearly demonstrates that in MAX Crashes almost ALL combat occurs in the 8m+ range!
And this video clearly demonstrates how close even 15m really is and how big almost all rooms are comparatively!
Neither video is “lying”.

Ah changing criteria and adding caveats a sure sign of a failing argument!

Where is the evidence of this? Please provide concrete proof of this “the above statement is backed by no proof. It is an opinion. You are making baseless arguments and getting called out on it”.
All actual evidence points to the opposite as we can see below.

Except that is clearly the entire TRs “mistake”, as if then knew that “Quatin: TTK dominates all other stats” as you claim they all be using the Onslaught.


But they are not:
Average hours used:
Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6

No it is not!
You are clearly confusing the MAX reticule with the CoF size! As any vaguely experienced MAX user would know it is NOT the same thing!
At 0-8m even with the Onslaught (never mind Mercy) it is perfectly possible to 100% headshot an infantryman


Failed you have.

Nope!
My point of view:
Goretzu: My point of view is that in such large data sets such things tend to average out across the players and the faction.


Your point of view, you have to account for everything for it to be valid:
Quatin: Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% dual Pounders and dual Heavy cyclers. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.
you are attempting to create combo data from the average. You would need to separate out the combo statistics from the average
Off the top of my head. You are not accounting for COST AVAILABILITY. Not all players have access to all weapons, therefore they play with what they have. You are not accounting for PLAYSTYLE. Some players want to farm XP (range) and some want to rush points (high alpha)
Mine is sensible and correct, yours means nothing in this thread has any meaning!

So then you are saying that myself and the entire TR player base is correct and that: “quatin: TTK dominates all other stats” is patently false.

Then as now the Grinder was the best MAX vs MAX NC AI MAX, in those days (Jan 2013 in that video) the Dual Grinder (with extended mags) was the only NC AI MAX capable of winning at 10m, SC, Hacksaws and Mattocks all lost.


Since Jan 2013 there have been two sets of NC AI MAX nerfs (yes, nerfs) that seriously reduced all NC AI MAXs prowess from the time shown in that video.
The Hacksaw got hit the hardest (likely because it was the one complained about the most and was most deadly to other MAXs in the 0-8m range (even then the Hacksaw lost to other AI MAXs at 8-9m range, and clearly lost by 10m).
But the Grinder got hit too, bring all winning ranges down to 8m, not 10m.


Given I have spend much of this thread arguing that the dual Grinders MAX vs MAX ability in the 0-8m is a big boon to it and you have argued it is no boon at all...... it is quite funny to see you have finally come around to my point of view (although probably without realising it!).

This was one of two sets of NC AI MAX nerfs after that February 2013 video (or the Jan 2013 one) and as we can clearly see from the patch notes it was an overall nerf, as they increased the damage ranges marginally, but nerfed minimum damage (and all but mattocks maximum damage too) damage. The graphs (if you know how to read them, anyway) clearly show this as well.



How can you possibly claim a nerf was actually a buff!

I see, another attempt to argue semantics by quoting out of context. Here's the full quote to show everyone through your feeble attempt:

Goretzu
NC DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 46.92
TR DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 45.42
VS DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 39.90
TR DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 31.09
VS DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 28.80
NC DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 26.64
As we can clearly see it would seem that there is some factor of “works effectively very easily as well” in play here as in general KPH the TR default MAX is 1st (not “the worst” as you claim!) and in Q4 aKPH it is 2nd (again not “the worst” as you claim!).

Quatin
Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% dual Pounders and dual Heavy cyclers. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.

You made a label of NC DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH with data that includes all weapon KPH. It is an egregious misrepresentation or outright lie on what the data actually is comprised of.

My challenge of :
Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% dual Pounders and dual Heavy cyclers

Is not to say that you must account for absolute accountability of each percentage, but a challenge of what could be wrong with your data. Your data could be 100% Dual Pounder and 100% dual Heavy Cyclers. You offered no evidence of segregating them. Therefore it is invalid, because:

MAX game play is clearly dominated by paired arms. Game play on youtube demonstrate this fact:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=planetside 2 max

This is palpable and concrete evidence. This is certainly more than anything you have provided.

Your wrong interpretation of quotes taken out of context is no proof.

You even admit that it's out of context:
Of course either way it remains invalid in the context of saying that a Blitz SMG and Longshot Sniper Rifle share 75% of their killing range.

Why mention it then? To troll?

Before we move onto that. Are we in agreement that your first statement is a based off a "false premise" and therefore wrong?

Goretzu
Firstly the statement is absolutely correct Scattercannons do outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH as we can see from the combined Left&Right values:
Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0

Goretzu
Because your whole argument is built upon the false premise that SC and Mattock being “too close” in value to matter,

You are just inventing quotes that I did not even write.

I can do it to:
Goretzu
In the 0-8m range [Flak1 and no NW] do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy,

No need to talk about it. You said it makes no difference.

Let's assume equal accuracy then, because you have stated it:

Goretzu
In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot, damage per second, damage per mag and % firing and % reload times assuming for the same level of accuracy,

Goretzu
In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy,

CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than=CoF and Spread do not make any difference

A contradiction.

I know exactly what I'm discussing. You have no clue, because you're asking.
Goretzu
I am arguing specifically what exactly?

The graph clearly shows NC MAX were buffed ~8m-15m.

The videos are only examples of all use cases, not a representation of what happens in game. Fact proven that both occur only in a Biolab.

The criteria never changed. You changed the context.

We were discussing NC AI MAX weapons and you decided to compare them to SMGs and Longshots.

A sign of a failing argument.

Commonality of top performing weapons: 0.0s TTK

35,09 8,71 0,08 0,02 AF-34 Mattock-Right
33,16 6,69 0,08 0,02 NCM1 Scattercannon-Right
32,45 8,53 0,08 0,02 AF-34 Mattock-Left
28,99 6,08 0,09 0,02 AF-23 Grinder-Right
27,46 6,91 0,11 0,03 Quasar VM1-Right
27,43 6,31 0,08 0,02 AF-23 Grinder-Left
27,42 7,23 0,07 0,02 AF-41 Hacksaw-Right
27,11 7,21 0,09 0,03 Nebular VM20-Right
27,01 7,13 0,10 0,03 Blueshift VM5-Right
26,99 7,28 0,10 0,03 Blueshift VM5-Left
26,82 7,29 0,07 0,02 AF-41 Hacksaw-Left
26,47 7,46 0,10 0,03 Nebular VM20-Left
26,47 6,76 0,12 0,03 M6 Onslaught-Right
26,18 6,32 0,13 0,03 Cosmos VM3-Right
25,49 6,90 0,10 0,03 M6 Onslaught-Left
24,63 5,42 0,14 0,03 M1 Heavy Cycler-Right
23,65 6,21 0,11 0,03 MRC3 Mercy-Left
23,57 6,03 0,12 0,03 MRC3 Mercy-Right
23,36 5,55 0,13 0,03 M2 Mutilator-Right
23,19 6,17 0,11 0,03 Cosmos VM3-Left
21,33 5,45 0,12 0,03 M2 Mutilator-Left
19,17 4,54 0,13 0,03 Quasar VM1-Left
17,75 3,83 0,09 0,02 NCM1 Scattercannon-Left
17,57 3,89 0,12 0,03 M1 Heavy Cycler-Left

The actual quote is 0.0s TTK dominates all other stats.

Of which none of the weapons above have.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Before I prove you utterly wrong with concrete evidence, show us your proof that the CoF covers a head hitbox at 8m. We all know you have none, but it's amusing to see you try.

Goretzu
My point of view is that in such large data sets such things tend to average out across the players and the faction.
Quatin
I reject your "point of view". I can append any data we have discussed to exclude COMBO data by simply rejecting the statistics for the default arm.What are you going to do to segregate only COMBO data from the statistics?
Goretzu
Again it is not my point of view, it is your point of view:
Quatin
Confusing my with your?

I reject your point of view that you can use total KPH data to make assumptions on COMBO data. Certain things can average out, but not COMBO arm data, because I have proven that a large percentage of the KPH data is paired arm data.

So you now agree that myself and the entire NC player base is correct and that : "Goretzu: 0-8m range isn't that important" is patently false.

Hacksaw-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 132.39
Hacksaw-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 151.32
Grinder-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 108.11
Grinder-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 144.50
Mattock-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 64.45
Mattock-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 70.91

GU11 Update buffed mid range ~(8-15m) of all NC MAX weapons except Mattocks, which relatively stayed the same.
http://imgur.com/a/RwbM2/noscript

Maximum damage range increased from 5 to 8 meters
Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters
Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters

Can't even read what you write? Those are buffs. The effect is then graphed out below. NC MAX clearly received a buff in mid range ~(8-15m) of all NC MAX weapons except Mattocks, which relatively stayed the same.
http://imgur.com/a/RwbM2/noscript

Insults just show you have no valid counter-argument.

And that data clearly shows your claim of:
“Quatin:Heavy Cycler/Pounder is the worst default MAX combo, because pounders have the most amount of drop on any 1st gen AV weapon.”


Is totally and utterly incorrect, as clealry the TR Default MAX is NOT the worst, it is 1st and 2nd and if factor in SC/SC into those figures (as you suggested) it may well be 1st and 1st.
Either way it is most definitely NOT “the worst default MAX combo”.

No that remains completely correct.


However as we have seen if you wish to start claiming that they are too close for that to be correct then we have to account for left/right differences, which as we can see are large in the Scattercannon:
Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99


Then when we account for that difference (almost certainly caused by it being the Default – as neither of us can think of another reason that sensible accounts for the difference) we get:

Mattock 38.7
SC 37.1
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9

So whichever way you look at it Scattercannons do outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH.

No I do not agree, look at weapon performance:
Mattock 38.7
SC 37.1
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9

NC players prefer the lowest performing NC AI MAX weapon, which isn't even as good in 0-8m as the Grinder or indeed the Scattercannon and it has exactly the same infantry TTK as them at that range.

So even NC AI MAX players seem to prefer something over TTK or they wouldn't be mostly using the worst performing NC AI MAX weapon.

Er... yes you did:
“Quatin: Most everything else that we've discussed is independent of NW/Grenade belt and etc. Therefore, all other variations are taken account for, except your assumptions on COMBO data “

Your claim simply is not true. Nanoweave levels most definitely DO affect aKPH and for you to suggest they don't is incorrect and wrong.
My view would be it would average out across such a large data sets, but your view (clearly stated) requires it to be taken into account for any validity.

Either you accept my view or you accept your view, you cannot have a disingenuous chimera position where you have BOTH and change your argument to suit every paragraph, as some may suggest that would be “hypocrisy”.

Changing criteria and adding caveats – what did you say about that? “Quatin: A sign of a failing argument.”

You are attempting to create combo data from the average. You would need to separate out the combo statistics from the average.

Please provide concrete proof of this “the above statement is backed by no proof. It is an opinion. You are making baseless arguments and getting called out on it”.
Concrete proof exists. It is by definition: constituting an actual thing or instance; real

Provide concrete proof that your KPH data is not 100% single Mattock/Grinder and something other than paired Mattock/Grinder. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof. You are NOT accounting for ALL variables within weapon selection.

There is no “concrete proof” presented to suggest aKPH date is “comprised mostly of pair arm data” or “MAX game play is clearly dominated by paired arms” literally none. By all means if you have “concrete proof” please provide it otherwise what you are saying is simply baseless opinion.



Therefore your “calculation” remains invalid and wrong, as you have clearly stated why your “calculation” is invalid:

Quatin: Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% [single Mattock/Grinder and something other than paired Mattock/Grinder]. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.


Therefore, as you say, “Quatin: ignoring the KPH contribution of [none dual combos] in [AI MAXs] is invalid”, which makes it totally invalid from your point of view.

Indeed I know you do, which is why you also believe your “calculation” is wrong for this very same reason.
Your “calculation” data could be 100% Mattock/SC and 100% Grinder/Falcon or anything else! You offered no concrete evidence of segregating them.

Because your “calculation” is invalid and wrong for the reasons above (according to you).

But it still remains completely wrong and invalid in the completely separate context that your “calculation” claims that a Blitz SMG and Longshot Sniper Rifle share 75% of their killing range.

When we are talking about your “calculation” it is completely relevant to talk about ALL the ways it is invalid and wrong.

I just applied your exact “calculation” that you used on Grinders and Mattocks to Blitz and Longshots and it showed how utterly incorrect and wrong it was.

Then, of course, you started attacking your own “calculation” and claiming it was invalid because it made absolutely NO account for non-dual paired Grinders and Mattocks!

They both remain 100% correct and un-contradictory (as they are the same and both would be true or false – both are true, of course), the only difference is whether you assume or state equal accuracy.
As we can see stating it (and equal cover) is probably the better option:

Quatin: We're assuming equal accuracy?
Yes we are - although it is clearly more sensible to state it given:
Quatin: If your aim is off by a small margin, you miss
Equal accuracy, remember!
Quatin: If your target is behind any cover shin high you miss
Ok equal cover too!

If you knew, then you'd say, so you clearly don't!

As we've agreed in other bases the 0-8m range is even less important as engagement range for capture points generally starts even further out than in a Biolab.

And in a biolab MAX crash we can see that very little combat occurs within the 0-8m range whislt most combat occurs in the 8-30m range.

Furthermore we can see exactly how close a range 0-15m is, never mind 0-8m!

No it was not! It was:

No mention of 0.0s TTKs at all..... changing the criteria and adding caveats is apparently “Quatin: A sign of a failing argument.”

You have failed.


As we can clearly see TR players do not think “TTK dominates all other stats” as they really do not prefer the Onslaught:
Average hours used:
Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6


TR players clearly seem to prefer:
- better CoF
- better damage per mag
- better %firing and %reloading times


over raw TTK potential.
So most TR players would clearly seem to agree with me that TTK is not everything!

When you find yourself in a hole, it is generally best to stop digging.
Thinking that the TR MAX reticule mirrors CoF is an easy mistake to make if you don't use MAXs much, however trying to prove it “correct” is simply an argument you cannot win (because it is completely false).
At 0-8m the Onslaught can pretty easily 100% headshot IF you have a good enough aim, the CoF size to head hit box size at that range makes it perfectly possible, at longer ranges it isn't going to happen, but then by those ranges the Onslaughts average body shot TTK moves into its own, leaving NC AI MAXs behind.

They weren't as we can clearly see from these graphs:
http://imgur.com/a/RwbM2/noscript

For those with trouble reading graphs the patch notes show it even more clearly:
NC MAX NCM1 Scattercannon and NC MAX AF-23 Grinder

• Maximum damage reduced from 134 to 130
• Minimum damage reduced from 60 to 50
• Maximum damage range increased from 5 to 8 meters

NC MAX AF-34 Mattock

• Minimum damage reduced from 90 to 70
• Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters
• Minimum damage range increased from 28 to 30 meters

NC MAX AF-41 Hacksaw

• Maximum damage reduced from 134 to 125
• Minimum damage reduced from 50 to 45
• Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters

As we can see a significant nerf, one of two sets of blanket nerfs to hit the NC AI MAXs between when those videos where takeing (Jan & Feb 2013) and now.


Furthermore “the video” is from Jan 2013 before BOTH sets of NC AI MAX nerfs! Even then the dual Grinder with extended mags doesn't win at 15m! Since then, as we can see above. the minimum and maximum damage ranges have been nerfed reducing effectiveness in ALL NC AI MAX weapons by 15m!

Here is a list (I think comprehensive, there may be some nerfs missing there have been SUCH A LOT) of the changes between those videos in Jan/Feb 2013 and now:


Slug Ammunition

• Now reaches minimum damage at 40 meters, reduced from 65 meters.

NC Scattercannon

• Rate of fire slowed down to 180 RPM.
• Projectile speed slowed down to 300 m/s.
• Magazine capacity lowered to 6.
• Short reload time slowed down to 3800 MS.
• Long reload time slowed down to 3000 MS.

NC Mattock

• Rate of fire slowed down to 180 RPM.
• Projectile speed slowed down to 400 m/s.
• Magazine capacity lowered to 6.
• Short reload time slowed down to 3800 MS.
• Long reload time slowed down to 3000 MS.
• Spread accuracy improved and is now at 2.5 degrees.

NC Hacksaw

• Rate of fire slowed down to 209 RPM.
• Projectile speed slowed down to 300 m/s.
• Magazine capacity lowered to 6.
• Minimum damage lowered to 50 per pellet.

NC Grinder

• Rate of fire slowed down to 180 RPM.
• Projectile speed slowed down to 275 m/s.
• Magazine capacity lowered to 8.
• Short reload time slowed down to 4300 MS.
• Long reload time slowed down to 3400 MS.

NC MAX NCM1 Scattercannon and NC MAX AF-23 Grinder

• Maximum damage reduced from 134 to 130
• Minimum damage reduced from 60 to 50
• Maximum damage range increased from 5 to 8 meters

NC MAX AF-34 Mattock

• Minimum damage reduced from 90 to 70
• Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters
• Minimum damage range increased from 28 to 30 meters

NC MAX AF-41 Hacksaw

• Maximum damage reduced from 134 to 125
• Minimum damage reduced from 50 to 45
• Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters

As we can see NC AI MAX have definitely NOT been “buffed” between Jan/Feb 2013 and now!

Insults just show you have no valid counter-argument.

That data is clearly invalid as you have agreed. You would need to segregate combo data from pair data.

MAX game play is clearly dominated by paired arms. Game play on youtube demonstrate this fact:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=planetside 2 max

This is palpable and concrete evidence. This is certainly more than anything you have provided.

You're evading the question. The topic does not involve the separation of left and right arm data, because you excluded them.

Goretzu
Firstly the statement is absolutely correct Scattercannons do outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH as we can see from the combined Left&Right values:

You explicitly defined it with combined Left&Right values. Not separate Left&Right values.

Therefore, in reference to the above quote, the counter argument is:
Quatin
The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month.

Something as in another variable within weapon selection?

Which I stated 3 quotes ago in reference to your attempts to use weapon play hours as a measure of weapon effectiveness. I'm glad you now agree.

2) You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.

That's not the quote you accused me of writing. That one is below, I actually read what's written. You're not going to get such childish remarks past me.
Quatin: Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% [Flak1 and no NW]. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.

Here's where your logic breaks down. NW applies to all KPH data. IE Left scattercannon & any other right arm.

"Left Scattercannon and Right Falcon" KPH applies only to the specific subset of data that is Left Scattercannon and Right Falcon KPH. For example, I will also create a data set with your method of everything will "average out across such a large data sets".

Q4 KPH Left Falcon + Right Raven: 21.39
Q4 KPH Right Falcon + Left Raven: 24.96

Equipping Falcons on the left arm and Ravens on the right arm, you are 15% less efficient than equipping Falcons on the right arm and Ravens on the left arm.

Q4 VKPH Left Comet + Right Vortex: 7
Q4 VKPH Right Comet + Left Vortex: 5.42

Left Comet + Right Vortex will get you 23% more vehicle kills than Right Comet + Left Vortex

Nothing has changed. Your attempt to take sentences out of context and deform the meaning has failed.

concrete

adjective
1.
constituting an actual thing or instance; real:
a concrete proof of his sincerity.
Game play samples are concrete evidence. They are a real artifact. The youtube list I showed demonstrates MAX use with paired weapons and across a large sample size with the # of videos. Therefore, the conclusion is drawn that Q4 MAX weapons are used in pairs.
You are trying to use the phrase "absolute" evidence.

Well then by extension, your "calculation" is invalid and wrong for the reasons below (according to you).

But it still remains completely wrong and invalid in the completely separate context that your “calculation” claims that a Tempest SMG has more range than a Gauss Saw.

You changed the context. We were discussing NC AI MAX weapons and you decided to compare them to SMGs and Longshots.
By that methodology, your argument concludes that Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.

Let's assume equal accuracy then, because you have stated it:

Goretzu
In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot, damage per second, damage per mag and % firing and % reload times assuming for the same level of accuracy,

Goretzu
In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy,

CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than=CoF and Spread do not make any difference

A contradiction.

Which I did, but you have no clue, because you're asking.
Goretzu
I am arguing specifically what exactly?

A we've agreed earlier. 0-8m is the most important range of engagement and the vast majority of capture points are within them.

Taking quotes out of context again? What do you call that?
Goretzu
You have failed.

I'm glad you agree that TTK dominates all other stats. Enough to the point where you can withdraw the following statement as an argument:
Goretzu
the Onslaught very much is a great CQC weapon, just it doesn't have a 0.0s TTK.
No one is fooled by it. Attempting to justify a 0.0s TTK with all the minor statistics is fool hardy.

No mention of 0.0s TTK? It's only referenced TWICE in the same paragraph.

As we can clearly see NC players do not think “Goretzu: 0-8m range isn't that important” as they really do prefer weapons that operate best in 0-8m.

Hacksaw-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 132.39
Hacksaw-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 151.32
Grinder-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 108.11
Grinder-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 144.50
Mattock-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 64.45
Mattock-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 70.91


NC players clearly seem to prefer:
- Better 0-8m killing power

When you get cornered, it's best not to pee yourself as that makes the situation worse. By delaying the inevitable, you are only going to make the humiliation more severe.

Have you not learned from:
Goretzu
I've never lied anywhere unlike yourself when you said that the site had a totalled running average, which (of course) it doesn't it has a daily average (i.e. each data point) which you supposedly collated into convenient results.

It is very easy to define the CoF and then compare it to the head hit box. You CLEARLY have not done so, or else you would not make patently false statements about it. Go ahead and complete this task and show me the CoF on an Onslaught covering a head hitbox at 8m.

Maximum damage range increased from 5 to 8 meters
Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters
Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters

Can't even read what you write? Those are buffs. The effect is then graphed out below. NC MAX clearly received a buff in mid range ~(8-15m) of all NC MAX weapons except Mattocks, which relatively stayed the same.
http://imgur.com/a/RwbM2/noscript

NC MAX clearly received a buff in mid range ~(8-15m) of all NC MAX weapons except Mattocks, which relatively stayed the same.

http://imgur.com/a/RwbM2/noscript

Insults just show you have no vaild counter-argument!

NC DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 46.92
TR DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 45.42
VS DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 39.90
TR DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 31.09
VS DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 28.80
NC DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 26.64

Shows clearly that you TR Default MAX statement below is totally false:

“Quatin:Heavy Cycler/Pounder is the worst default MAX combo, because pounders have the most amount of drop on any 1st gen AV weapon.”

It is the 1st and 2nd best Default MAX performance-wise, and as you mention if we factor in SC/SC then it is quite possibley the 1st and 1st Default MAX.

Please provide concrete proof of this “the above statement is backed by no proof. It is an opinion. You are making baseless arguments and getting called out on it”.

Concrete proof exists. It is by definition: constituting an actual thing or instance; real

That data is clearly invalid as you have agreed. You would need to segregate combo data from pair data. The above analysis is complete rubbish. How do you separate the amount of KPH in the statistics that are in fact a AI/AI combo and not 99% AI/AV and AI/AA? Provide proof that the KPH data is not 100% Pounders/Heavy cyclers. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof. You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.


So we're back to accepting averages across large data sets (my point of view) or everything is meaningless as you cannot provide concrete proof about MAX arms pairing or not pairing for that matter.

This is my very point.


1) Either you take my point of view that the combined Q4 aKPH are valid and do in fact show that SC outperform Grinders.
Q4 aKPH of Left and Right:
Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9
In which case I am correct.


2) Or you take your point of view in which case you have to account for the large SC Left and SC Right difference and produce difference figures......... however they also show SC outperform Grinders!
Difference in arm performance:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99

Q4 aKPH adjusted for SC Default:
Mattock 38.7
SC 37.1
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9
In which case I am still correct.


It doesn't make any real difference as either way shows SC>Grinder as I have said.

Indeed which yet again proves: “quatin: TTK dominates all other stats”
Is in fact totally incorrect.

Er... yes it is:

Quatin: Most everything else that we've discussed is independent of NW/Grenade belt and etc. Therefore, all other variations are taken account for, except your assumptions on COMBO data
Me: Suggesting NW (or Flak) has no possible influence on aKPH score is clearly incorrect and wrong. My view would be it would average out across such a large data sets, but your view (clearly stated) requires it to be taken into account for any validity
Quatin: You are just inventing quotes that I did not even write.


So first you accuse me of “inventing” quotes (which I clearly did not) and now you say it wasn't the “right” quote. Fortunately I know what I am talking about!


Your claim simply is not true. Nanoweave levels most definitely DO affect aKPH and for you to suggest they don't is incorrect and wrong.
My view would be it would average out across such a large data sets, but your view (clearly stated) requires it to be taken into account for any validity.

Either you accept my view or you accept your view, you cannot have a disingenuous chimera position where you have BOTH and change your argument to suit every paragraph, as some may suggest that would be “hypocrisy”.

Again it is your logic not mine, I'm just happily applying it to your own arguments.

NW has several different levels, and indeed can be NOT NW (i.e. something else, Flak or whatever) so it does not apply to all aKPH data any more than any weapon arm applies to “all KPH data”.

They both remain 100% correct and un-contradictory (as they are the same and both would be true or false – both are true, of course), the only difference is whether you assume or state equal accuracy.
As we can see stating it (and equal cover) is probably the better option:

Quatin: We're assuming equal accuracy?
Yes we are - although it is clearly more sensible to state it given:
Quatin: If your aim is off by a small margin, you miss
Equal accuracy, remember!
Quatin: If your target is behind any cover shin high you miss
Ok equal cover too!

Nothing changes except the criteria and the caveats you added.

Just to be clear here you are now specifically claiming that gameplay videos are in fact “concrete evidence”?


Videos like this one clearly showing that in a MAX Crash almost all combat occurs in the 8-30m range?
Or
Videos showing how exceedingly close a 15m range (nearly twice that of an 8m range) is and how almost all room are bigger than that range?

In which case I thank you for finally agreeing to my points!

(Personally I completely and utterly disagree that videos somehow magically “show” that all MAXs use paired weapons however)

As we have clearly seen your claim that “the NC6 SAW is better than the Tempest SMG in 0-8m” is completely false:
NC6 SAW 1666 DPS - Infantry TTK 0.60s - % firing time 61% - % reloading time 39% - damage per mag20000 – damage per shot 200
Tempest SMG 1815 DPS - Infantry TTK 0.55s - % firing time 51% - % reloading time 49% - damage per mag 5845 - damage per shot 167


Are you really still trying to claim that you think the NC6 SAW is the better 0-8m weapon?

The context remains exactly the same, and the results do to, and the results clearly “show” that a Blitz SMG and a Longshot Sniper Rifle share “75% killing range”!

So either you believe that a Blitz and Longshot Sniper Rifle DO share “75% killing range” or you believe your “calculation” is totally wrong.



However either way your “calculation” remain wrong by your own logic because you have make no account of:
Quatin: Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% [single Mattock/Grinder and something other than paired Mattock/Grinder]. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.
You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection.
Therefore, as you say, “Quatin: ignoring the KPH contribution of [none dual combos] in [AI MAXs] is invalid”, which makes your “calculation” totally invalid from your point of view.

Your “calculation” data could be 100% Mattock/SC and 100% Grinder/Falcon or anything else! You offered no concrete evidence of segregating them!

Where? (link it by all means)

Not only have we NOT agreed that, but you've now clearly said that in you opinion youtube videos are in fact “concrete evidence”!
Quatin: Game play on youtube demonstrate this fact:This is palpable and concrete evidence.

So clearly by your own admission this is “concrete evidence” that in a MAX Crash almost all combat occurs in the 8-30m range!

And this is “concrete evidence” showing how close 15m range and how almost all room are bigger than that, never mind just 8m range!

So just to be clear are you now agreeing with me and arguing that TTK is NOT all?

Because the Onslaught (which we were discussing as we can clearly see) has never had a 0.0s TTK, just a 0.36s on or a 0.13s one with headshots?
And Mutilators and Mercys most definitely DO NOT have a 0.0s TTK either!

Or are you now agreeing with me that a 0.36s/0.13s TTK is functionally the same as a 0.0s one?

Except for the reality that both Grinders AND Scattercannons have more 0-8m killing power!

As we can clearly see from the performance statistics!

Unless you are now claiming that Hacksaws are somehow betterthan Grinder and SC at longer 8m+ range?


And as we can clearly see TR players still do not think “TTK dominates all other stats” as they really do not prefer the Onslaught:
Average hours used:
Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6


TR players clearly seem to prefer:
- better CoF
- better damage per mag
- better %firing and %reloading times

over raw TTK potential.

So you're saying you are cornered and thinking about peeing yourself? Fair enough.
As I said it is an easy mistake for someone new to MAXs to make, thinking that the TR MAX reticule equals CoF, but in reality it does not. The Onslaught can potentially 100% headshot in the 0-8m range, if you have a good enough aim, giving a potential TTK of just 0.13s!

Again between those videos in Jan/Feb 2013 and now the NC AI MAX had ALL these nerfs:


Slug Ammunition

• Now reaches minimum damage at 40 meters, reduced from 65 meters.

NC Scattercannon

• Rate of fire slowed down to 180 RPM.
• Projectile speed slowed down to 300 m/s.
• Magazine capacity lowered to 6.
• Short reload time slowed down to 3800 MS.
• Long reload time slowed down to 3000 MS.

NC Mattock

• Rate of fire slowed down to 180 RPM.
• Projectile speed slowed down to 400 m/s.
• Magazine capacity lowered to 6.
• Short reload time slowed down to 3800 MS.
• Long reload time slowed down to 3000 MS.
• Spread accuracy improved and is now at 2.5 degrees.

NC Hacksaw

• Rate of fire slowed down to 209 RPM.
• Projectile speed slowed down to 300 m/s.
• Magazine capacity lowered to 6.
• Minimum damage lowered to 50 per pellet.

NC Grinder

• Rate of fire slowed down to 180 RPM.
• Projectile speed slowed down to 275 m/s.
• Magazine capacity lowered to 8.
• Short reload time slowed down to 4300 MS.
• Long reload time slowed down to 3400 MS.

NC MAX NCM1 Scattercannon and NC MAX AF-23 Grinder

• Maximum damage reduced from 134 to 130
• Minimum damage reduced from 60 to 50
• Maximum damage range increased from 5 to 8 meters

NC MAX AF-34 Mattock

• Minimum damage reduced from 90 to 70
• Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters
• Minimum damage range increased from 28 to 30 meters

NC MAX AF-41 Hacksaw

• Maximum damage reduced from 134 to 125
• Minimum damage reduced from 50 to 45
• Maximum damage range increased from 8 to 10 meters

In no way was the NC AI MAX buffed between Jan/Feb 2013 and now, it is weaker in every single way now compare to then!

Look, another bad whining about HA in an AI-MAX thread. The HA balance wars are pretty much over; you guys have nothing now that the .75x is getting nerfed because you can't aim and all you bad aimers did is cry to SOE and then DBG. HA is perfectly fine, the AI MAX is ridiculously overpowered with how easy it is to spam. 10,000 effective HP, with AI weapons almost as good as regular infantry weapons is stupid. Stop whining about the heavy and get good at the game. I'm gonna laugh when the .75x ads change goes live and you people still get destroyed by heavies that are moving through jello.

U salty bro?

HA's are the Infantryside counter to MAX suits.
If anything I've just argued for their existence, don't be comin' at me like I'm tugging on momma DB's apron strings grassing on HA.
If as a heavy you cant take out a MAX, then if I may borrow the broad jist of your post, "git gud".

Don't be rewarding my act of generosity by being the only guy not to spend the past 2 years complaining about HA with yo sour spittin'.

Take a break bruh, you been on here too long.

Looks like I was a bit too tough on your stroke ridden brain. It's pretty evident that you derped out in that post, hahaha. I can take out MAXes just fine, it was just entertaining reading your whine post. Killing MAXes as HA is way tougher than killing HA as any other infantry class. So again, get good at the game and stop being salty because you are a less than 3 ivi kdr ****lord. Also, stop typing like an autist sperglord who is trying to act tough by using ebonics in his ****post. You are not only a terrible player, but a serious waste of life as well.

"If anything I've just argued for their existence, don't be comin' at me like I'm tugging on momma DB's apron strings grassing on HA."

LOLOL I am dying. This takes the cake as the most edgy ****post ever. Congrats, the only recognition you have gotten in your life is for being a pathetic edgy loser from a better player than you.

Hehe.

But why you so mad though?