The EM1 gets a lot of praise, and the Anchor is called terrible at mid ranges... but I don't see why, both have the same first shot recoil, and the Anchor's followup recoil is predictable, unlike the EM1 which goes to the right and left. The Anchor has a much lower CoF while staying still and lower hipfire CoF as well, and both guns can equip an advanced laser. The Anchor also does more damage per bullet, another perk for mid ranges, AND has higher dps.
EM1 is not very good at what it is supposed to do. They buff hip fire and give it a 100 round mag and fast reload then nerf the rof so it is 100 rpm slower then the other guys 143 damage guns. The Anchor is better but honestly you are better off just putting a laser on the EM6.
Most weapons are side-grades. So it's all a matter of personal preference. It's like in an MMORPG, the theory crafters figure 'this' is the best build, so everyone copy pastes it to their characters. I know I do a lot better with the 50 mag LMGs. I actually like the one direction recoil since it's predictable and so you can compensate for it and keep on target. I never got used to large mags and spray and pray combat so I usually operate with carefully aimed bursts, and keeping my mag topped off. I currently use the GD-22S but have trialed the Anchor and it's on my list of future purchases for the faster RoF and even quicker reloads.
Considering all but one of the TR LMGs (with 577RPM) and 2 of the VS LMGs (with 577 and 550 RPM) do 143 damage, I wouldn't complain on the damage part. But yes, the RPM is an issue, because it leaves NC with no high ROF option in the LMG pool, it's a mid ROF weapon by TR and VS standards and considering VS have 3 high ROF options, one of which is their starter as do the TR, that leaves NC with less options than VS and TR... which is BS. They should either strip the advanced laser sight capability off and give it 750RPM or leave it on and give it 698 RPM, NC should have a high ROF option.
Many take the Anchor over the EM1. And vice versa. Personally, I've used both but preffer EM1 for my CQC style of play. Both guns are underpar in CQC compared to MSW-R and pretty much any VS LMG though ( Yes, I've even used Flare for CQC on my VS char and had a higher K/D with it then any NC lmg, go figure).
Any VS LMG? Lol, pull the other one, great you did well with the Flare, maybe pew pew just agrees with you better than pop pop or rattle rattle, but the Flare is not a CQC weapon, sure you can use it as one, but don't give me some "LOL ALL VS WEAPONS ARE OP BECAUSE PEW PEW" BS. TR has more CQC options than us, hell, there's only 1 gun they have that isn't good for CQC, the rest are either usable or great, we basically have Orion and Pulsar LSW and if you can manage recoil and deal with flinch, SVA-88. Getting sick of this VS is easy mode BS for infantry weapons, only thing we have that is unarguably OP is the Magrider, yes even the Scythe is fine, if you disagree learn to fly and then you might realise the Scythe has massive, massive issues of it's own.
Exactly, it's not, that was my point. That even a non-CQC VS LMG performs better then the best CQC LMGs NC has to offer... And that was my first char btw, I was still learning the maps/guns/mechanics and everything else while playing solo too. So a total PS2 noob, runing around in buildings with a Flare and still winning shootouts..
So a gun that has a worse COF, higher recoil and the same damage value as the Anchor performed better than the Anchor in CQC? Not doubting it happened, just doubting that it proves that it's better than the Anchor is CQC. Only advantage it has on the Anchor is double the mag size, but then you look at the EM6 and oh dear, pretty much identical except the EM6 has a higher ROF. I'm not denying you did well with the Flare, I'm denying that it proves anything. Hell I've done well with the Flare, I've done well with a stock SAW, does that prove that the SAW is fine for CQC? Nope. I could say that I do better when playing with my MSW-R than my Orion in CQC, that's true, I do, but I can't say that makes it the better CQC option, because it isn't statistically other than hip-fire using the advanced laser sight the Orion is the same as or better than the MSW-R.
Well, when the same player playing the same style has very different stats when playing different factions, how do we explain that? I'm not talking about trialing a gun, I played my first ever PS2 char (VS) up to BR20+. It's deleted now because I had to make room for other chars on the same account but it's not only the K/D, it was the general feel I had with all their guns. I felt more powerfull and not even slightly worried to barge in a room that is being caped. I can't afford that kind of noobish playing with my NC chars, at all. So how else do you want me to characterize the VS guns other then easiest to use? which is just the nice way of saying they are way way better then anything NC and TR has to offer.. I've noticed that in this game comparing guns on spreadsheets and comparing them in game through practice show two very different stories.
That's usually because the spreadsheets don't have all the stats.. things like attachment effectiveness, bloom rate, cone of fire, ads/hipfire multipliers, muzzle velocity and recoil patterns aren't really shown in the paper math.
Easier =/= Better. That's a logical fallacy, the conclusion does not follow from your basis without a break in logic. Shotguns are EASY to use while sniper rifles are HARD to use, that does not in turn make the sniper useless or the shotgun in need of nerfs. Difficulty and Superiority are two completely separate things that can be balanced independently of each other. VS have low recoil, high velocity, more move speed bonuses, good initial accuracy, and no bullet drop. They're the EASY faction that makes gun usage as simple and straightforward as possible at the cost of damage falloff and specialization, it's ideal for players who are new to or terrible at shooters. TR has actual recoil, bullet drop, and worse accuracy but suffers no damage penalties, in some cases can spam more bullets, and has specialized role weapons that match their attachments. It's the MEDIUM faction for players familiar with shooters who aren't very good at them. NC has challenging recoil, higher damage, lower ROF, the lowest bloom per second, and the best accuracy. It's the HARD faction for players who value aim and skill over bullet spam and rewards accurate aim with shorter TTKs to those who can handle it. Using fewer, more accurate bullets to kill also raises clip efficiency, reducing the need to reload. There is no question at all that VS weapons are blantantly easy to use, but that's not the same as saying that all of their weapons are innately better. That's subjective to the person actually using them. A skilled player gets more kills and better KD playing NC than he does on VS or TR because of efficiency, accuracy, and threat range.
No, NC should not have a High Rof gun, you want High roF guns, go VS or TR. NC should be the hammer nation, the hit like a brick. The other guys do the bullet hose, NC just beats you down. Nc should have good Damage and good accuracy as they do. The other nations should have good RoF...they do....We dont need to go mixing the nations together into one big unidentifiable conglomeration of nothing. The EM1 should be left as it is, but increase the dmg to 155-131 or something. Tiny bit higher then it is now, while still maintaining its faster RoF. NC should never have a gun on par with the TR or VS in RoF...I think its stupid they have the GD22, 800RpM.... Meanwhile, on the TR side of the house. The T16 should have its RoF increased to like 675 RpM up from its like 652 while maintaining its better accuracy. The T9 CARV should have its overall accuracy reduced just a smidge but increased RoF to 775. TMG-50, it's dmg should be dropped from 167-143 to like 153-129 and have its RoF increased to like 650RpM . IDk enough about VS to say anything...
If you're guna buff a TR guns ROF then it should be the MSW-R not the Carv, the Carv is meant to be more of an all rounder, why it's their starting weapon (I'd argue the EM6 should be NCs starter not the SAW, sure the SAW is the most NC, but it's hard to use especially for a lvl 1 trying to learn the game with no certs to put into grips etc... nerf the Carvs accuracy and you get the same problem, level 1 guy starts playing TR and has to use a gun that sprays **** all over the place. As for the ROF, TR should always have more high ROF options than VS, VS should have more than NC, but that doesn't mean NC should have none, what's wrong with giving people the option if they want to take it? If you play NC and don't want to use the high ROF options then fine, don't, doesn't mean you need to deprive other NC players of something they like or feel like need. What's wrong with TR and VS having one or two NC like options in the Flares and TMG-50s and Pulsar Cs? Man... you'e like a gun N@zi (apparently you can't say **** =/)
My only thing I hate when games claim that a given nation has a certain paradigm then through the years they begin to meld the nations together until you cant really tell one nation from another past the uniforms. Its pretty much like that in World oF Tanks atm. USA Paradigm was Moderate Acc, decent aimtimes, good RoF, fairly fast, moderate to weak armor avg dmg. USSR Bad Acc, bad aim time, slow RoF, slow and sluggish, great armor, great dmg. German Great acc, good aim time, moderate-good RoF, slow and sluggish, decent-good armor, low-avg dmg Now the Soviets share alot of hte US and German paradigms of good aim time and good acc, while still maintaining their good armor, speed and high dmg. The US has adopted some of the USSR's poor aim times and slow *** roF while still maintaining their poor armor while still maintaining their avg to poor dmg values. The Germans, they lost their good roF through a series of nerfs, so now the game has turned into almost every nation just being a big conglomerate of 6 different nations that are so similar its no fun to even play the game. Only difference anymore is the tank model and color. The stats are pretty much all the same now. I dont want PS2 to end up like that. Let the national diversity remain. Keep the NC 99% High Dmg, moderate Recoil, slow RoF Keep TR 99% Low Dmg, (improve the recoil), improve the RoF, improve the CoF spread. Keep VS the same as well. I dont want to much Nation crossing... If the EM1 and Anchor are the NC's TR Equivalent, I want them to still retain some shadow of the NC. Give them a mix of TR RoF with NC RoF, like 620 RpM but increase the Dmg above that of the TR to more mirror the NC's high dmg values to like 155-132 for EM1 and Anchor. It isnt as fast as even the lowest TR actual gun, but it also isnt as hgih dmg as the Main Stream NC 167-143. Meanwhile, in the TR, the TMG-50, let it be somewhere between 143-127 and the 167 of the NC, but lower then the lowest NC guns, while being fast like the TR. So, here is what I mean EM1 620RpM 158@10m-135@70m I would give it worse CoF and acc, making it more a CQC gun then a med gun. TMG-50 645RpM 152@10m-130@70m I would improve it's CoF and make it more along the lines of the Gauss SAW's mid to long range acc. Right now, the EM1 is not really a good CQC gun, I cant imagine having the TR dmg with NC Rof makes for a very good gun. Meanwhile, I used the TMG50, its a bad excuse for a TR NC knockoff...it fires to slow and is to inaccurate and unreliable at range.
The numbers 143, 167, 200 are there for a reason: they are the lowest numbers that add up to 7,6 and 5 shots to kill on non-nanoweave characters. Increasing damage to say 151, will only make a difference against targets with nanoweave 1. For everyone else, TTK stays the same. Slightly increasing damage, while it might seem like a difference it really does nothing worthwhile. Incidentally, this is also likely the reason behind the seemingly huge dmg increases on the prowler in the next patch: it needs to be that big to lower shots to kill by 2 on enemy MBTs.
No matter faction, I always go for 50 or 75 round LMG's... faster reloads, and I almost never need more rds than that anyways... However reloading at 60rds left with a 100rd lmg see's me far to often still reloading when another enemy comes around the corner.
That's one of the nice things about the EM1. It reloads FAST for a 100 round magazine, and only half a second slower than the Anchor's 50-rounder.
This is why the EM1 is such a trash weapon compared to its similar counter parts in other factions, b/c it sacrifices so many stats to have a fast reload time on a 100 round weapon. That's just overkill and it being a worthwhile perk would be incredibly situational. Compare it to the Polaris for instance, the EM1 does nothing better than it, other than reload faster.... on a, once again, 100 round weapon.
That's not true at all. Most NC weapons have higher bloom per second and greater CoFs. Source: PS2 Weapon Data Sheets DEC12 Game Patch 1 - Google Docs It's ironic that you answer one logical fallacy with another. Requiring one faction to have much more skill to achieve a marginally better/worse efficacy is NOT balance and that's why the K/D ratios that Higby mentioned are substantially lower for the NC than other factions (that part is obviously MY opinion). While less educated users are condemning Higby for using statistics to make balance decisions, his methodology is quite sound given that the sample size for that measurement is extreme enough for many different statistical tests. On topic: Most people can't aim too well, so the higher ammo pool and lower reload per bullet count compensates them along with the lower bloom per shot (and recoil). For people who can aim and compensate recoil better, the Anchor comes out on the top of the NCs CQC arsenal.
