[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Erendil

I'm pretty sure that having a "high recoil" means the VS get a qualitative value rating of "High," not that the recoil itself is high. This is supported by this Planetside2.com Empire Brief on the VS, where they state:



I believe the Devs have also stated elsewhere that VS weapons in general have less recoil. Which makes sense for energy-based weapons.

As for TR/NC recoil, it makes no sense to me that a weapon with higher kinetic energy per shot would have less recoil in short bursts.

They way I see it, the NC weapons have the most/worst initial recoil since their higher KE rounds would produce more recoil even in single shot mode. However, their RoF is slow enough that they can almost completely recover from the recoil after each shot, so over time their recoil doesn't get much worse over more sustained fire

The TR OTOH, have lower KE rounds and so have less kick on the first couple of shots, but their RoF is fast enough that they can't recover from their smaller recoil after each shot, so over time it accumulates and the cumulative effect gets worse the longer you fire.

I dunno, either of our lines of reasoning could be correct on TR/NC recoil. I'm at work right now, but when I get home I'll post the exact wording on the PCGUK graph since it wasn't exactly clear.

That's fair enough on the VS point of having low recoil. When you referenced the empire brief that seems to point to high=good as the correct interpretation. It also plays into accuracy theme of the empire.

However on the NC/TR thing I disagree. NC in PS1 had the same design philosophy. Take the Gauss for example - high damage round, low RoF, but when you tapped it and treated it like a semi-auto it was extremely accurate. If you held down the shots it bloomed very quickly into ridiculous recoil. That is consistent with the magazine's description of "low burst, high sustained". Also in the article itself the author says

I could rack up an easy kill at medium range with my New Conglomerate Gauss rifle but after about two seconds my ironsights would hiccup 45 degrees and I'd be completely off target.

That doesn't sound to me like the recoil is bad at first with the gauss and then gets better - its just the opposite. It starts good and then quickly gets worse. It looks like the Gauss is similar to PS1's Gauss in terms of recoil/accuracy.

If the TR were designed to have high rate of fire and sustained dps then it makes sense that they would be equipped handle going full auto on someone and not have recoil cause all their shots to miss. Thus low sustained recoil. Also makes conceptual sense as they train for sustained fire so they learn to control the recoil and compensate as they fire. The first initial shots might be off off because they're used to compensating for recoil (bad shooter habit I know but lets suspend disbelief on that one) but then as they ease into it they gain control and stability while the bullets are flying. Then you end up with mechanics like the LMGs in BFBC2 and BF2142 which started out with poor recoil but tightened as they continued firing.

The accuracy indicator in the chart also lists NC's accuracy as being "High start, quickly falls off" and the TR accuracy as "Medium, with less drop off than NC"

Seems like the author of the chart either wasn't consistent with using high/low or was given an older chart and things have since changed. Something's off about it. That or they may have misrepresented the VS recoil.