NC weapons finally hit hard

[boogy]

I've noticed lately that NC weapons are hitting hard. I'm getting insta-gibbed by a lot of their guns now. I was one of the biggest proponents for an NC buff and I think whatever happened they got it. I'm not sure if you NC guys feel it on your end but I sure feel your bullets now. TR guns, not a fan of the recent nerf.

[Nolerhn]

I dunno if they 'finally' hit hard or not, but I will say I've always FEARED running into NC at close quarters (even in PS1). I know they have longer range weapons, but when some of your faction specific weapons are jackhammers and scatter MAX's, I generally panic when I run into any yellow and blue guy around a corner lol.

[KaskaMatej]

Did I miss any NC weapons buff? Last I checked, they haven't changed their weapons significantly.

Maybe OP just started to aim?

[Beerbeer]

I'll take the carv over any nc weapon any day of the week. Not that I use them much anymore, but the carv just owns. I actually got some attachments on mine finally, reflex sight and laser sight. The thing is a beast.

[WarbirdTD]

The majority of NC weapons have been superb since launch, the 1 possible exception being the Gauss Rifle (without attachments). Everything else was balanced extremely well. However, there are is a vocal group amongst the NC that are COMPLETELY AWFUL PLAYERS and are of the opinion that their guns should be better in any circumstance at any range. You could give them instagib CQC weapons, yet they would still complain. The devs MUST NOT listen to these morons if they wish to keep a balanced game. Hell, talk to some of the good or even decent NC players. I'm sure they'll tell you the best guns in their arsenal (AF-19, GD-7F, GR-22S, Gauss SAW, EM6, Anchor, Hacksaw MAX) and how to use them.

[Beerbeer]

Well, there are an equal amount of morons who haven't played both empires beyond br10.

[boogy]

Did I miss any NC weapons buff? Last I checked, they haven't changed their weapons significantly.

Maybe OP just started to aim?

No I didn't just start to aim. I don't play NC. My observation is from fighting NC. They're a lot tougher now. Still not as tough as VS, but close. The change was in the patch where they also nerfed the TR. It could be a combo of my weapons being nerfed and them being buffed. Some of their weapons I believe, the Gauss weapons had a buff.

I've also given up on the TR heavy. It just can't hang anymore against the VS infantry. Even with the new Bull LMG (I have a sneaking suspicion it was stealth nerfed) no longer does it for me.

I go engineer with the Jaguar and Tank Mines. Does a better job than the Heavy at everything other than anti-air. The heavy rocket launchers are a joke.

[Bags]

I've always found VS / Tr weapons to be superior because of ease of use tbh.

[boogy]

I'm sure they'll tell you the best guns in their arsenal (AF-19, GD-7F, GR-22S, Gauss SAW, EM6, Anchor, Hacksaw MAX) and how to use them.

Yeah I felt that all they needed to do was buff the gauss saw and call it a day. The EM6 and AF-19 destroy me all the time. Their Max is just plain OP and needs a range or damage nerf.

[ChipMHazard]

I've always found VS / Tr weapons to be superior because of ease of use tbh.

That and a faster rate of fire that can really f... up an enemies day with the aim jerking caused by getting hit.

Regarding NC weapons suddenly starting to hit harder. Unless they a actually come out and announce a buff I'm going to have to pass it off you simply feeling like they've been buffed. Might just be that you've been going up against some more skilled NC, they really are deadly use you learn to use them.

I guess it is possible that they performed a ninja buff, but I doubt they would do it without announcing it.

[The Messenger]

Lately, it does feel like some of the weapons are hitting harder but this could be improvments over the netcode. Most of the time when people are instagibbed, it's due to latency; not the weapons. The damge on client side is about half a second behind what the information the server is getting. So when a player feels like they were instagibbed, the person that shot them actually had to fire half a mag or more. This is why most people think other faction weapons are more powerful. This is also the reason why people see themselves getting killed when they "just" make it around a corner.

And FYI, the jackhammer is still crap, the mauler has better stats. Not that I'm complaining, I love the mauler with a scope and slugs. Due to the lag, I can put two shots into people before they respond. And if that doesn't kill them, the third shot will.

[boogy]

I guess it is possible that they performed a ninja buff, but I doubt they would do it without announcing it.

The buff was in the update patch notes. The projectile speed was increased on the Gauss and Gauss S. They've also been doing ninja nerfs (not sure about buffs) as seen from the data extracted from some game files.

[Beerbeer]

I just read on the main forums the nc weapons got a recoil buff.

Haven't tested it myself yet, but for anyone who played nc, this was long overdue IMO. It's funny how things we perceive sometimes proves true, even without data.

[boogy]

I just read on the main forums the nc weapons got a recoil buff.

Haven't tested it myself yet, but for anyone who played nc, this was long overdue IMO. It's funny how things we perceive sometimes proves true, even without data.

Dying a lot more and watch your k/d plummet are pretty good signs something is going on.

[ChipMHazard]

I haven't seen any recent, within last few days, patches that changed anything regarding weapons.

[boogy]

I haven't seen any recent, within a day or two, patches that changed anything regarding weapons.

Oh nothing recent, sorry. I was waiting a bit to see how things played out before judging whether or not the improvements to their weapons did the trick.

[ChipMHazard]

Oh nothing recent, sorry. I was waiting a bit to see how things played out before judging whether or not the improvements to their weapons did the trick.

Oh, ok. Makes sense then, was curious as to what recent change could have prompted this thread, heh.

[Wahooo]

LOL guns... who gets out of their tank?

Fixed that for you.;)

[Kracken]

I've always found VS / Tr weapons to be superior because of ease of use tbh.

My KD is way higher on my Vanu and TR characters, if you're into that sort of thing. The rate of fire/ability to actually hit your targets of most of the TR and Vanu weapons make the "greater" NC damage useless imo.

[Graywolves]

They made NC weapons more accurate and TR weapons less accurate a couple weeks.

The patch notes used wording such as "slower firing LMGs were given a slight increase to accuracy while moving." or something along those lines.



Don't think it was necessary but I'm not bothered by it.

[KaskaMatej]

My observation is from fighting NC. They're a lot tougher now. Still not as tough as VS, but close. The change was in the patch where they also nerfed the TR.

If you don't have any objective data, just subjective, I will give you real changes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuOojvNLMApVdEtIU1NKenEzNzZOSWNaanFqSUVxLW c&f=true&noheader=true&gid=22

[Juryrig]

If you don't have any objective data, just subjective, I will give you real changes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuOojvNLMApVdEtIU1NKenEzNzZOSWNaanFqSUVxLW c&f=true&noheader=true&gid=22

That's really helpful, thanks.

Are these stats extracted form the game files?

I'd given up on my NC as my Vanu was just so much more fun to play ('cos I'm crap and it's easier) I need to go back and try again :D

[KaskaMatej]

That's really helpful, thanks.

Are these stats extracted form the game files?

Yes.

[Ghoest9]

Anyone who thinks NC is particularly powerful is deluded.

The devs seems to have closed the gap an many weapons though. Some require bursting - which is fine but hatrd for some players.
And the especially slow firing NC weapons still have a bit of shake lock compared to other guns when both players are shooting at each other but mostly its close even.

[Beerbeer]

Recoil has and always will be a wildcard in regards to gun balancing.

It's too subjective to balance with just because some people can control it better than others and consequently, changes to this mechanic will widely swing overall balance across the entire population, with good shooters benefitting no matter what, but the average gunner taking big hits or big gains one way or the other.

The only characteristics that can be balanced equally IMO, without any player skill involved, are damage per bullet and rof, which can equate to an overall average damage per second. That's why I believe NC guns are just so hit or miss (no pun intended) as the devs use recoil as a heavy balancing mechanism for this empire, more than any others.

[Bierno]

I am a VS player with 4.4 KDR and I avoid NC players now...
They didnt really do anything to them, just people are learning how to shoot their gun finally. I just go after the TR Zerg since i play Waterson.

Last night and this morning been crappy to play Planetside 2 tho. It feel everybody are using Tank and Aircraft. Must be the 3x Station Cash + 15% weapon sale...

I really wish Planetside 2 was more focus on infantry battles and not this Tankside 2 shit
hopefully there will be new zones content that more citysapes/biolab etc so i dont have to deal with random HE tank and rocketpods

Lack of AA/AV lately

[Electrofreak]

However, there are is a vocal group amongst the NC that are COMPLETELY AWFUL PLAYERS and are of the opinion that their guns should be better in any circumstance at any range.

What a ridiculously ignorant statement. Every faction has an equal number of completely awful players. There isn't some sort of factor that prompts bad players to pick the blue and yellow guys.

The reality is that NC weapons accuracy when firing tend to degrade than faster than comparable TR and VS weapons and this requires them to be fired in shorter bursts. The problem is that this isn't well explained to NC players who are left wondering why they lose in engagements at equal range where both players fire at full auto.

And in specific circumstances, firing in bursts isn't always an option when your opponent can land those 7-8 bullets needed for a kill without having to burst fire.

NC weapons are thus situational.

At longer ranges, they perform well as they hit harder than usual and can be single-shot fired with good accuracy.

At medium ranges, they suffer as they quickly become inaccurate and require burst firing in situations where the opponent can burst fire for longer. While mathematically this can seem balanced as they tend to have more damage per bullet, it means that if the RNG chooses to send a bullet astray of the target, it's less forgiving than the weapons wielded by the opposition.

At short ranges they generally perform fairly well again, as the inaccuracy is often less of an issue, particularly when hip-fired. In situations where both players are aiming for the head however, the medium range scenario can apply.

So NC players need to take care to handle their weapons differently in different situations moreso than the TR and VS weapons which are a bit more forgiving in MOST circumstances. This hardly makes NC players terrible. :rolleyes:

EDIT - And in before the "butbutbut X weapon for the NC is different", yes, some weapons like the GD-7 are an exception; in that case more of an anomaly, and it showcases my point because of how many people use that weapon instead of the alternatives. In my post I speak in general terms about NC weapons as a whole. Also understand that I've only played sporadically in the last week or two and so I can't speak with authority regarding any recent changes.

[Daliahita]

I really wish Planetside 2 was more focus on infantry battles and not this Tankside 2 shit
hopefully there will be new zones content that more citysapes/biolab etc so i dont have to deal with random HE tank and rocketpods

Lack of AA/AV lately

Agreed! But I do believe there are enough Bio Labs. We don't have a vehicle problem on Jaeger, but I do hear a lot of stuff about Waterson. Most of the people who complain about vehicle balance come from there, and I guess I don't understand their complaints that well for that reason.

[WarbirdTD]

EDIT - And in before the "butbutbut X weapon for the NC is different", yes, some weapons like the GD-7 are an exception; in that case more of an anomaly, and it showcases my point because of how many people use that weapon instead of the alternatives. In my post I speak in general terms about NC weapons as a whole. Also understand that I've only played sporadically in the last week or two and so I can't speak with authority regarding any recent changes.
So this is your disclaimer? So that I should feel bad about tearing your post apart because you have no idea what you're talking about? And you don't want to talk about individual weapons, but just "in general terms about NC weapons as a whole," otherwise it proves your point... What? What if ALL stock NC weapons (AF-19, Gauss SAW, Gauss Rifle) are harder hitting AND more accurate at range? That would mean, "in general terms", that you are wrong.
What a ridiculously ignorant statement. Every faction has an equal number of completely awful players.
Nope, not gonna help you. The statement was that a group of NC players that were bad were ALSO very vocal, NOT that all (or even most) NC players are bad and therefore whiners. Haven't caught Abaddon or Str8dumpin complaining about weapon balance here. Thanks for completely missing the boat on this one and calling me ignorant. Do you see 15 threads on PSU whining about TR having more recoil AND lower damage per bullet? No, they're probably busy figuring out which guns to use to combat the NC. Speaking of,
NC weapons are thus situational.

At longer ranges, they perform well as they hit harder than usual and can be single-shot fired with good accuracy.

At medium ranges, they suffer as they quickly become inaccurate and require burst firing in situations where the opponent can burst fire for longer. While mathematically this can seem balanced as they tend to have more damage per bullet, it means that if the RNG chooses to send a bullet astray of the target, it's less forgiving than the weapons wielded by the opposition.

At short ranges they generally perform fairly well again, as the inaccuracy is often less of an issue, particularly when hip-fired. In situations where both players are aiming for the head however, the medium range scenario can apply.
At longer ranges, carbines and LMGs should be a non-issue. That should be the realm of sniper rifles, scout rifles, and maybe medic rifles. The fact that an AF-19 or a Solstice even has a chance to compete with a scout rifle is a problem. Single-fire on a Gauss SAW from that range is less viable, but still possible.
At medium ranges, your RNG argument doesn't hold up, because your recoil is predictable. You wont have bullets going "left, center, right-up, high-right, (pause to regain control), refire" because you don't have TR guns (our horizontal recoil for most guns means that, under fire, our recoil goes up and to the right). Stock NC weapons, on the other hand, make a nearly straight vertical line at short and medium range, requiring a subtle downwards adjustment with your mouse. Yes, you might have to stop firing for half a second to regain control (because we're not Vanu).
At short range, NC weapon performance is far and away better, not "fairly well." They own, and the reason that they own is because of the increased damage per bullet and minimal recoil while hip-firing, even without modifications, meaning that you can build for medium-long range and still be competitive at short. Most TR players on the other hand are trying to find either weapons that are good at medium range (TMG-50) OR weapons that excel in short range hip-fire scenarios(CARV-S or MSW-R).
So NC players need to take care to handle their weapons differently in different situations moreso than the TR and VS weapons which are a bit more forgiving in MOST circumstances.
This is true simply because their guns are competitive in all different situations (thus making them imbalanced to begin with). You find me a single stock TR weapon that is superior in all of these same scenarios, and I'll be shocked.

[RSphil]

the Nc weapons have always hit hard its just they are crap with the spread. it needs toning down still. all other weapons have less damage but high ROF to make up for less dmg which is fine my only problem every one elses weapons are accurate and NC suck on rapid fire, even short bursts they are still bad which makes makes all other faction weapons superior imo. they need accuracy tweaking a little more

[Electrofreak]

idiotic rant

You really are ignorant if you honestly think that the NC community was bitching about nothing.

Yes, I was speaking in general terms about the way NC weapons work. Obviously you don't get how recoil and weapon bloom works, or damage over time. In case you didn't realize, NC weapons may have more damage per bullet, but they fire slower, so they're not just a WIN button. Add in worse accuracy and the result is a weapon that has to be burst-fired to be used effectively.

Fact: NC weapons AS A WHOLE have 20%+ higher bloom rate when firing than TR or VS weapons do. Their recoil may be primarily vertical (lots of TR and VS weapons have vertical recoil, including most LMGs), but it's also higher on average than TR or VS weapons, and when that RNG for bloom throws your bullets everywhere, there's nothing controllable about that. The really only thing NC have is lower first-shot recoil, which is why I pointed out their relative effectiveness at longer ranges when on single-fire. And, as you pointed out, at ranges such as those, you're better off with a longer range weapon than a carbine or LMG anyhow.

Before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe you should actually look at some actual weapon values. I'm just going to leave this for you here. Educate yourself: this is from the last patch so the values should be current.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuOojvNLMApVdEtIU1NKenEzNzZOSWNaanFqSUVxLW c&type=view&gid=12&f=true&colid0=16&filterstr0=TR&colid1=17&filterstr1=LMG&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250

[ShadetheDruid]

Whether the really good players can use NC weapons well is irrelevent.

The problem is while a newbie can pick up and play with TR or VS weapons right away with no issues (up until the limit of their skill anyway), NC weapons give them a lot of trouble and puts them off investing in an NC character.

For every skilled player using the Gauss SAW to good effect, there's 10 newbies who either give up, or have to pay a bunch of certs/SC to get a useable weapon. Neither TR or VS have this issue.

[WarbirdTD]

You're either a very good troll or a massive idiot, but the jury's still out on that one. I see you have a link to a page that I used WHEN WRITING MY POST. "Actually," I'm pretty sure that I "actually" looked at those "actual" stats when I was responding to your tripe. You want to "actually" get in game and do some "actual" combat, you know, just to "actually" see how your piss-poor analysis works in the game? Or are you content to sit on less than 3 days of gameplay and less than a thousand kills to accompany your "research?"

@Shade, I don't see how you could reach this conclusion without any definitive evidence of new NC quitting in droves. Link to that please?

[Palerion]

Lol well, I'm strictly an LA player, and I love NC carbines. They do feel great as of late. The same goes for VS carbines, I love them. But I'm a TR player.

Apparently TR carbines, along side the Carv nerf, recieved their own little recoil nerf. They feel too recoil heavy, with not enough power to make up for the freaking annoying kick. It seems as though the tables have turned, and the formerly overpowered faction has become the one faction whose weapons, at least for light assault, suck. Not to mention they all look the same and sound like crap.

[Beerbeer]

Warbird, I think we're all entitled to our opinions. I know they don't always align, but don't insult everyone you don't agree with.

I really don't have a stake in the matter in regards to nerfing or preserving an advantage or edge, perceived or real, as I play multiple empires. Regardless, it is what we "believe" it is, and we agree to disagree. However, I tend to agree that the NC pop--on the servers I play on at least--have been shrinking with respect to the other empires during prime time. Whether this is due to an "imbalance," well, I don't know.

In fact, I don't believe anyone outside of Sony has good data on anything, but we will never see that data. So until hell freezes over, no one can say for certain one way or the other.

[Electrofreak]

You're either a very good troll or a massive idiot, but the jury's still out on that one. I see you have a link to a page that I used WHEN WRITING MY POST. "Actually," I'm pretty sure that I "actually" looked at those "actual" stats when I was responding to your tripe. You want to "actually" get in game and do some "actual" combat, you know, just to "actually" see how your piss-poor analysis works in the game? Or are you content to sit on less than 3 days of gameplay and less than a thousand kills to accompany your "research?"

@Shade, I don't see how you could reach this conclusion without any definitive evidence of new NC quitting in droves. Link to that please?

Sorry bro, dealing with a medical problem has been cutting down on my game time, but thanks for that. So let me ask you this, if you "actually" looked at the stats, how can you possibly post the blatantly biased crap you do? You carefully avoided answering my responses while focusing on making attacks on my character and my game time and kill count (which is hardly relevant as I play primarily AMS support anyhow).

Come back when you can respond like an adult instead of sputtering insults like a child. Until then, answering posts like the above is a waste of my time.

[KaskaMatej]

In fact, I don't believe anyone outside of Sony has good data on anything, but we will never see that data. So until hell freezes over, no one can say for certain one way or the other.

Believe it or not, if you will, but this data ( LINK (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuOojvNLMApVdEtIU1NKenEzNzZOSWNaanFqSUVxLW c&type=view&gid=12&f=true&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250) ) is data-mined directly from game files.

It is as good as you get, it might be even better than what SOE has (which we might never know).

[WarbirdTD]

Palerion, the main problem with the TR weapons after the nerf is the first shot recoil multiplier, in addition to our recoil/rate of fire mixture. Instead of just changing the NC weapon characteristics and seeing how that worked out, they also nerfed the TR weapons, and it is certainly noticeable from a balance perspective.

NC weapons in competent hands (most will figure out how a weapon handles after a few fights) are relatively easy to correct for vertical recoil and a small first-shot kick, while the weapon damage delivers a ton of damage on target. TR weapons (the TRAC-5 specifically), by contrast have a strong kick to start off with and keep a higher than normal rate of fire going. In my opinion, this makes the TRAC-5 harder to handle and therefore more likely for a TR player to feather the trigger to keep the majority of bullets on target, which is definitely needed because they are doing less damage per bullet at the average engagement range.

Since this latest balance pass, I feel like the TR weapons should have been buffed to about 150@10m to account for the first-shot kick, in order to match the Time-to-kill of guns like the AF-19 (167@10m), GD-7F (143@10m and 845rpm with only a 2x kick? come on), and AC-X11 (200!?!@10m). My feeling right now is that our best gun to compete with the NC is the T5 AMC with the Advanced Forward Grip, or the TRAC-5 S (but good luck with the recoil). They'll still beat you at most ranges, but hey, it's the best we can do right now. Against the VS, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. The Solstice SF and Solstice seem to simply be easier across the board compared to the T5 AMC or TRAC-5 S, so it will be personal preference there.

So the question is this.. is it balanced for the NC to have a recoil penalty and a minimal RoF penalty against our decreased damage and surprising first-shot kick? While it may seem like I'm picking the fly shit out of the pepper here, a first person shooter is really about the .1 or .2 seconds in which you died and the enemy didn't. It's all about the small tweaks, and when your balance guys nerf one and buff the other in the same patch, it's too easy to screw up balance.

[Palerion]

And is this issue being addressed to SOE? Is anyone complaining? Is SOE listening? I don't see why so much hell is raised over the underpowered NC weapons but nobody seems to mind this. It amazes me how well I can do with VS or NC weapons, then I go back to my TR guy, get the drop on someone, miss too many shots because of the ridiculous recoil, and he gets away. I had been wondering why it took 20 shots of my clip to kill a guy lately, eventually I discovered how many of them were missing. I hope someone speaks up.

[Electrofreak]

Palerion, the main problem with the TR weapons after the nerf is the first shot recoil multiplier, in addition to our recoil/rate of fire mixture. Instead of just changing the NC weapon characteristics and seeing how that worked out, they also nerfed the TR weapons, and it is certainly noticeable from a balance perspective.

NC weapons in competent hands (most will figure out how a weapon handles after a few fights) are relatively easy to correct for vertical recoil and a small first-shot kick, while the weapon damage delivers a ton of damage on target. TR weapons (the TRAC-5 specifically), by contrast have a strong kick to start off with and keep a higher than normal rate of fire going. In my opinion, this makes the TRAC-5 harder to handle and therefore more likely for a TR player to feather the trigger to keep the majority of bullets on target, which is definitely needed because they are doing less damage per bullet at the average engagement range.

Since this latest balance pass, I feel like the TR weapons should have been buffed to about 150@10m to account for the first-shot kick, in order to match the Time-to-kill of guns like the AF-19 (167@10m), GD-7F (143@10m and 845rpm with only a 2x kick? come on), and AC-X11 (200!?!@10m). My feeling right now is that our best gun to compete with the NC is the T5 AMC with the Advanced Forward Grip, or the TRAC-5 S (but good luck with the recoil). They'll still beat you at most ranges, but hey, it's the best we can do right now. Against the VS, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. The Solstice SF and Solstice seem to simply be easier across the board compared to the T5 AMC or TRAC-5 S, so it will be personal preference there.

So the question is this.. is it balanced for the NC to have a recoil penalty and a minimal RoF penalty against our decreased damage and surprising first-shot kick? While it may seem like I'm picking the fly shit out of the pepper here, a first person shooter is really about the .1 or .2 seconds in which you died and the enemy didn't. It's all about the small tweaks, and when your balance guys nerf one and buff the other in the same patch, it's too easy to screw up balance.

Wow, a legitimate response, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Warbird, the TR have a higher first-shot recoil kick, but the NC have a higher CoF bloom rate (20% moreso), and as you have reminded us several times, recoil is controllable (to an extent). Unfortunately, an NC player has no way of addressing the increased bloom to keep bullets on the target short of burst-firing more frequently than other empires would, and this reduces effective damage per second except at absolutely point-blank ranges. This can make mid-range combat difficult.

So I'll concede your point on first-shot recoil kick. Yes, after your first shot, your weapons take a significant jump, but in a fairly predictable manner, and the bloom rate on the weapon is slower. We've been discussing primarily carbines, but if we move the discussion to ARs, as I'm sure you're aware as you've "actually" looked at the statistics, TR have more vertical-recoil-only weapons than the NC do. So really, that recoil discussion can be pulled in any direction.

My interest is addressing the CoF bloom issue as that RNG is not really fun for anyone firing a weapon. I really believe that all weapons in a class, regardless of faction should have the approximately the same CoF bloom rates. With fire rate, bullet damage, recoil pattern, clip size, and first-round kickback recoil values, there's still plenty of room to differentiate weapons.

Let's face a reality; most NC who have the option and have spent some time with the majority of their weapon options carry either a GD-7 carbine, GR-22 AR, or EM1 LMG. Why is this? The GD-7 and GR-22 are each one of only 2 weapons in each class that have a CoF bloom rate comparable to the majority of TR or VS weapons, and the EM1 is the only weapon in its class with an TR/VS bloom rate. This, coupled with an unusually high rate of fire, make them versatile.

So the problem here is that the 3 undisputed kings of NC infantry weapons all share the same feature; low CoF bloom rate, high rate of fire, and low bullet damage. This sounds a lot like a certain other empire's weapons, doesn't it?

As stated, I think that the higher CoF bloom rate on other NC weapons should be reduced to match the 0.05 ADS / 0.1 Hip Fire spread per bullet the other factions enjoy and then the rate of fire lowered slightly on the GD-7, GR-22, and EM1. As I said in my original post, weapons like these are really an anomaly and don't really fit with the NC weapon flavor. Trust me, I love those bullet hoses, but it feels wrong.

There needs to be a reason to use the other NC weapons. I think that bloom rate should be a value that is variable based upon class of weapon, not empire, as it's a roll of the dice that effectively negates player skill.

Alright, I've got presents to wrap now that my kid is asleep.

[WarbirdTD]

Electro, let's clear the air here. You called my original post ignorant (because I shouldn't ever disagree with the squeaky wheel, right?) and quoted me out of context in your first post on the thread. I took exception to it and responded in kind. The second part of my second post was explaining why your definition of situational and mine don't coincide. A weapon is not "situational" because it is serviceable in all situations, while being better at long and short ranges. A weapon is situational because it can only be used in a certain situation. You discarded that response as well, and this time you even called me an idiot. Believe it or not, that kind of behavior is likely to illicit an "Is this guy just trolling me or is he serious?" response.
If you don't want personal attacks to occur in a thread, you should probably heed your own advice.

In regards to the content of your post, it is my opinion (after testing the weapons quite a lot) that your remark about me posting "blatantly biased crap" is pretty unfair. Let's compare notes about the Gauss SAW and the TMG-50, which I believe to be TR's best answer to the SAW, due to it having the best damage out of all of our LMGs. However, the TTK seems to still be imbalanced. Both have negligible horizontal recoil with the correct attachments, but that's about where the comparison ends. The question is whether .1 less recoil, .15 less kick, and 77 more rpm is a good trade-off for 33 less damage per bullet (@10m). Remember the effect that combining a higher rate of fire with your recoil and kick has, wherein every time you fire, you need to correct for recoil. Therefore, higher rate of fire naturally means more of a chance for inaccuracy. I think, in terms of ease of control, higher RoF + slightly less kick + less recoil = lower RoF + slightly more kick + more recoil, in this particular case. And thus, the accuracy between the guns should be almost exactly equal, right? And that means, if my thought process is correct, that our best hope for beating the NC in close quarters does a glaring 33 less damage-per-bullet, and gets 25 less rounds in its clip for its trouble.

These are the kinds of inconsistencies that I'm talking about, and a lot of TR are upset with. More proof? Check out the NC carbines that have superior RoF or do damage that would be more consistent with LMGs. The GD-7F has the fastest RoF (845 rpm; tied with Serpent) available to the Carbine group (TR's fastest is 800 rpm). The AC-X11 has 200 damage @10m, meaning it does just as much as the Gauss SAW or the Reaper DMR. The TR have exactly zero guns available that do 200 damage per shot, yet the NC have 200 damage guns for medic, LA, Engi, and HA? Something's wrong here, and not every playstyle is being met.

[Palerion]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I feel like SOE keeps switching it up, always making sure to leave one faction underpowered for one reason or another. I don't know why when I look at the stats, but it seems like the GD-7F is so much easier to control than the LC2 Lynx, even with its higher rate of fire. It simply doesn't seem right, and when I look at the stats I don't get it, but when I play with the two weapons, it is very apparent. NC's bloom needs to be dropped obviously, and... I don't know what, but something needs to be done about the TR's weapons. They just seem lacking when compared to the other factions' armaments.

[Electrofreak]

Electro, let's clear the air here. You called my original post ignorant (because I shouldn't ever disagree with the squeaky wheel, right?) and quoted me out of context in your first post on the thread. I took exception to it and responded in kind. The second part of my second post was explaining why your definition of situational and mine don't coincide. A weapon is not "situational" because it is serviceable in all situations, while being better at long and short ranges. A weapon is situational because it can only be used in a certain situation. You discarded that response as well, and this time you even called me an idiot. Believe it or not, that kind of behavior is likely to illicit an "Is this guy just trolling me or is he serious?" response.
If you don't want personal attacks to occur in a thread, you should probably heed your own advice.

In regards to the content of your post, it is my opinion (after testing the weapons quite a lot) that your remark about me posting "blatantly biased crap" is pretty unfair. Let's compare notes about the Gauss SAW and the TMG-50, which I believe to be TR's best answer to the SAW, due to it having the best damage out of all of our LMGs. However, the TTK seems to still be imbalanced. Both have negligible horizontal recoil with the correct attachments, but that's about where the comparison ends. The question is whether .1 less recoil, .15 less kick, and 77 more rpm is a good trade-off for 33 less damage per bullet (@10m). Remember the effect that combining a higher rate of fire with your recoil and kick has, wherein every time you fire, you need to correct for recoil. Therefore, higher rate of fire naturally means more of a chance for inaccuracy. I think, in terms of ease of control, higher RoF + slightly less kick + less recoil = lower RoF + slightly more kick + more recoil, in this particular case. And thus, the accuracy between the guns should be almost exactly equal, right? And that means, if my thought process is correct, that our best hope for beating the NC in close quarters does a glaring 33 less damage-per-bullet, and gets 25 less rounds in its clip for its trouble.

These are the kinds of inconsistencies that I'm talking about, and a lot of TR are upset with. More proof? Check out the NC carbines that have superior RoF or do damage that would be more consistent with LMGs. The GD-7F has the fastest RoF (845 rpm; tied with Serpent) available to the Carbine group (TR's fastest is 800 rpm). The AC-X11 has 200 damage @10m, meaning it does just as much as the Gauss SAW or the Reaper DMR. The TR have exactly zero guns available that do 200 damage per shot, yet the NC have 200 damage guns for medic, LA, Engi, and HA? Something's wrong here, and not every playstyle is being met.

I responded to a statement by you that seemed to indicate that you felt that the NC faction had a lot of bad players that liked to complain on the forums. You seem to indicate I took that out of context but that's how I read it. If it's not what you meant, than fine, but that's how I read it and that's why I called you ignorant. Blanket statements like that are common from idiots and trolls (to use your own words) because they have this false impression that their faction really is somehow superior to the other factions in skill.

You tore into my post because I was speaking about the way NC weapons in general, and honestly, reading your responses that aren't just a string of insults, seems to tell me that you and I have different concepts of what long, medium, and short range in combat really are. I consider short range to be essentially point-blank, as in, if you put your cross-hairs center-mass on a target, and hip fire, it'll be dead before the bloom is large enough to mean anything. Medium range are the ranges where you'd prefer to ADS your target if possible. Long range is where your second bullet will essentially never strike the target and you have to fire single-fire and recover from recoil before firing again.

Very little combat with carbines and the like happens at long ranges because it's just not optimal. Usually there's something closer to shoot. How often do you really have to single fire your carbine or AR to make shots land? At point-blank range, most NC weapons do well, as their Achilles heel currently, accuracy, is less of an issue. But the reality is that most combat occurs at medium range, and at short range it's pretty much just a matter of who starts firing first. So there's a problem there... if 10% of combat situations occur at long range, 60 percent at medium range, and 30% at short range, how is being reasonably effective at long or short ranges a real benefit in the majority of combat scenarios, particularly when the short range scenarios tend to primarily go to the player with the best reaction speed? Again, I'm talking about NC weapons, not the GD-7, so hold your tongue, I'll get to that. Also, when I said their weapons are situational, I meant that you have to use it differently in different situations, not that it was only effective in certain situations.


Your point regarding bloom being per bullet is a fair one, and reminds me that I should edit my previous post about using flat bloom rates to accommodate, as my goal would be to have weapons within a class bloom at the same rate so the RNG doesn't apply more to one empire than the other.

There's a reason I didn't want into gun X vs gun Y. There are a million combinations and anyone can make fairly arbitrary comparisons to "prove" any one gun is better than the other. But fine, I'll play. The TMG-50 takes 6 rounds to kill. The Gauss SAW takes 5 rounds to kill. The TMG fires 15% faster, takes 20% more bullets to kill. Gauss SAW TTK is 520 ms, the TMG-50 has a 480 ms TTK. This is where I would point out that the TR has a 480 ms TTK LMG, the MSW-R, which is actually your empire's "answer" to the SAW.

However, I should also point out that while the TMG-50 is the slowest-firing, heaviest-hitting weapon of the TR LMGs, it's not meant to be a direct competitor of the SAW. It falls 40 ms behind in TTK at point-blank, but has less vertical recoil, less first-shot recoil, and a whopping 2 seconds faster reload time (kind of important when we're talking about point-blank combat). Reality check; most people have ping times higher than 40 ms.

It seems a far trade-up to me. If you want pure TTK at 10m, you've got a gun for that in your arsenal. If you want something that packs more of a punch while you try to go for headshots in close quarters combat or pop off rounds at distant targets, you've got that too.




Which brings me to my next point, some of the inconsistencies you describe. If you're looking for an argument from me on that one, you won't have it. I called those guns anomalies from the start and you seem only to agree. I'm not sure why we have carbines that fire faster than any TR carbines with good TTK times. I carry the GD-7 on almost all my loadouts because I can plink away with it at range reasonably well but also dish out a hailstorm at closer ranges. Higby said back in Beta that empires would get weapons with characteristics that strayed into the territory of what other empires specialized in, but would never best those empires in their specialty.

So in short, the NC and VS should not have carbines that fire faster than any TR carbine, and there are legitimate examples too. NC have max bullet damage, TR have max fire rate, VS have max accuracy. Honestly, the TMG-50 is an example of how it should be, and other weapons including the GD-7 should follow suit.


And for the record, I described your rant as idiotic, your statement as an ignorant one, and in response again I said that you must indeed be ignorant if you stand by your statement. I did not actually call you an idiot as you complain, though you called me one. It's petty to have to split hairs on something like this, but your statement wasn't entirely accurate.

So, do you understand why I put that disclaimer at the bottom of my other thread? I was commenting on how NC weapons in general (not the anomaly weapons) are unforgiving unless they are properly burst-fired, because you don't send as many bullets down range and the accuracy is worse than equivalent weapons from other empires. If you lose that RNG lottery and one or two of those bullets miss, you're probably gonna die. It's a safer bet to go with a bullet hose that's more accurate. The NC are resorting to using freak outliers because the weapons actually designed around our design philosophy have glaring problems and are not very versatile or easy to use because of accuracy problems.

[Electrofreak]

Electro, let's clear the air here. You called my original post ignorant (because I shouldn't ever disagree with the squeaky wheel, right?) and quoted me out of context in your first post on the thread. I took exception to it and responded in kind. The second part of my second post was explaining why your definition of situational and mine don't coincide. A weapon is not "situational" because it is serviceable in all situations, while being better at long and short ranges. A weapon is situational because it can only be used in a certain situation. You discarded that response as well, and this time you even called me an idiot. Believe it or not, that kind of behavior is likely to illicit an "Is this guy just trolling me or is he serious?" response.
If you don't want personal attacks to occur in a thread, you should probably heed your own advice.

In regards to the content of your post, it is my opinion (after testing the weapons quite a lot) that your remark about me posting "blatantly biased crap" is pretty unfair. Let's compare notes about the Gauss SAW and the TMG-50, which I believe to be TR's best answer to the SAW, due to it having the best damage out of all of our LMGs. However, the TTK seems to still be imbalanced. Both have negligible horizontal recoil with the correct attachments, but that's about where the comparison ends. The question is whether .1 less recoil, .15 less kick, and 77 more rpm is a good trade-off for 33 less damage per bullet (@10m). Remember the effect that combining a higher rate of fire with your recoil and kick has, wherein every time you fire, you need to correct for recoil. Therefore, higher rate of fire naturally means more of a chance for inaccuracy. I think, in terms of ease of control, higher RoF + slightly less kick + less recoil = lower RoF + slightly more kick + more recoil, in this particular case. And thus, the accuracy between the guns should be almost exactly equal, right? And that means, if my thought process is correct, that our best hope for beating the NC in close quarters does a glaring 33 less damage-per-bullet, and gets 25 less rounds in its clip for its trouble.

These are the kinds of inconsistencies that I'm talking about, and a lot of TR are upset with. More proof? Check out the NC carbines that have superior RoF or do damage that would be more consistent with LMGs. The GD-7F has the fastest RoF (845 rpm; tied with Serpent) available to the Carbine group (TR's fastest is 800 rpm). The AC-X11 has 200 damage @10m, meaning it does just as much as the Gauss SAW or the Reaper DMR. The TR have exactly zero guns available that do 200 damage per shot, yet the NC have 200 damage guns for medic, LA, Engi, and HA? Something's wrong here, and not every playstyle is being met.

I responded to a statement by you that seemed to indicate that you felt that the NC faction had a lot of bad players that liked to complain on the forums. You seem to indicate I took that out of context but that's how I read it. If it's not what you meant, than fine, but that's how I read it and that's why I called you ignorant. Blanket statements like that are common from idiots and trolls (to use your own words) because they have this false impression that their faction really is somehow superior to the other factions in skill.

You tore into my post because I was speaking about the way NC weapons in general, and honestly, reading your responses that aren't just a string of insults, seems to tell me that you and I have different concepts of what long, medium, and short range in combat really are. I consider short range to be essentially point-blank, as in, if you put your cross-hairs center-mass on a target, and hip fire, it'll be dead before the bloom is large enough to mean anything. Medium range are the ranges where you'd prefer to ADS your target if possible. Long range is where your second bullet will essentially never strike the target and you have to fire single-fire and recover from recoil before firing again.

Very little combat with carbines and the like happens at long ranges because it's just not optimal. Usually there's something closer to shoot. How often do you really have to single fire your carbine or AR to make shots land? At point-blank range, most NC weapons do well, as their Achilles heel currently, accuracy, is less of an issue. But the reality is that most combat occurs at medium range, and at short range it's pretty much just a matter of who starts firing first. So there's a problem there... if 10% of combat situations occur at long range, 60 percent at medium range, and 30% at short range, how is being reasonably effective at long or short ranges a real benefit in the majority of combat scenarios, particularly when the short range scenarios tend to primarily go to the player with the best reaction speed? Again, I'm talking about NC weapons, not the GD-7, so hold your tongue, I'll get to that. Also, when I said their weapons are situational, I meant that you have to use it differently in different situations, not that it was only effective in certain situations.


Your point regarding bloom being per bullet is a fair one, and reminds me that I should edit my previous post about using flat bloom rates to accommodate, as my goal would be to have weapons within a class bloom at the same rate so the RNG doesn't apply more to one empire than the other.

There's a reason I didn't want into gun X vs gun Y. There are a million combinations and anyone can make fairly arbitrary comparisons to "prove" any one gun is better than the other. But fine, I'll play. The TMG-50 takes 6 rounds to kill. The Gauss SAW takes 5 rounds to kill. The TMG fires 15% faster, takes 20% more bullets to kill. Gauss SAW TTK is 520 ms, the TMG-50 has a 480 ms TTK. This is where I would point out that the TR has a 480 ms TTK LMG, the MSW-R, which is actually your empire's "answer" to the SAW.

However, I should also point out that while the TMG-50 is the slowest-firing, heaviest-hitting weapon of the TR LMGs, it's not meant to be a direct competitor of the SAW. It falls 40 ms behind in TTK at point-blank, but has less vertical recoil, less first-shot recoil, and a whopping 2 seconds faster reload time (kind of important when we're talking about point-blank combat). Reality check; most people have ping times higher than 40 ms.

It seems a far trade-up to me. If you want pure TTK at 10m, you've got a gun for that in your arsenal. If you want something that packs more of a punch while you try to go for headshots in close quarters combat or pop off rounds at distant targets, you've got that too.




Which brings me to my next point, some of the inconsistencies you describe. If you're looking for an argument from me on that one, you won't have it. I called those guns anomalies from the start and you seem only to agree. I'm not sure why we have carbines that fire faster than any TR carbines with good TTK times. I carry the GD-7 on almost all my loadouts because I can plink away with it at range reasonably well but also dish out a hailstorm at closer ranges. Higby said back in Beta that empires would get weapons with characteristics that strayed into the territory of what other empires specialized in, but would never best those empires in their specialty.

So in short, the NC and VS should not have carbines that fire faster than any TR carbine, and there are legitimate examples too. NC have max bullet damage, TR have max fire rate, VS have max accuracy. Honestly, the TMG-50 is an example of how it should be, and other weapons including the GD-7 should follow suit.


And for the record, I described your rant as idiotic, your statement as an ignorant one, and in response again I said that you must indeed be ignorant if you stand by your statement. I did not actually call you an idiot as you complain, though you called me one. It's petty to have to split hairs on something like this, but your statement wasn't entirely accurate.

So, do you understand why I put that disclaimer at the bottom of my other thread? I was commenting on how NC weapons in general (not the anomaly weapons) are unforgiving unless they are properly burst-fired, because you don't send as many bullets down range and the accuracy is worse than equivalent weapons from other empires. If you lose that RNG lottery and one or two of those bullets miss, you're probably gonna die. It's a safer bet to go with a bullet hose that's more accurate. The NC are resorting to using freak outliers because the weapons actually designed around our design philosophy have glaring problems and are not very versatile or easy to use because of accuracy problems. I can't say I entirely agree with SOE's solution of nerfing the TR weapons while simultaneously buffing the NC weapons, but it's fairly obvious that NC weapons (again, as a whole) needed some help.


With that, I think I've made my point. You can agree or disagree, but either way, I'm done with this thread.