NC already have the buff

[biertrappist]

I liked NC the best. I liked their reason for fighting, and the harder hitting weapons sounded like my play style.

Kevin Moyer Dev

http://www.planetside2.com/news/dev-spotlight-kevin-moyer-2012

[SKYeXile]

while its probably that NC weapons will be over powered because of their hard hitting alpha and most of their shit was in PS1...DO WE REALLY NEED A THREAD ABOUT THIS NOW?

[biertrappist]

Having played PS1 for a few years first as NC then as VS, its important to listen what the devs are saying.

Now? Hmmm a dev posts the NC have harder hitting weapons and you just hope it isn't a big deal? I ask to enquire. If it's not a buff explain the relationship to the MCG & Lasher.

By raising the question, I hope rather to be told by devs what the trade off is. Do for example VS get accuracy and the TR rate of fire.

Perhaps devs might explain how they factor damage.

Point is, it is legitimate to ask what is meant by this. Frankly, the NC had the loudest voice in PS1 and generally got what they wanted. Let's recall the Lasher debacle.

So far from being alarmist I'm seeking an understanding from the devs why it shouldn't be considered a buff.

[Malorn]

That's not a buff; it's the empire characteristic.

NC have high damage-per-shot & high armor
VS have accuracy and mobility
TR have speed & damage throughput

[PlaceboCyanide]

An unbalanced game is a soon to be unpopular game. SOE knows this, they will strive to balance the game the best they can. I think they're doing a good job so far sticking to the balance of PS1. Will NC have harder hitting weapons and more armor? yes, but that is only part of the story. Not everything can be put in a bar graph at this point in time of development. Maybe we'll see that NC come up short when it comes to their AOE weapons -- where the Vanu will shine... and will carry less ammo and be empty long before the Terrans.

tl;dr - Wait until beta before you judge too harshly

[SKYeXile]

Having played PS1 for a few years first as NC then as VS, its important to listen what the devs are saying.

Now? Hmmm a dev posts the NC have harder hitting weapons and you just hope it isn't a big deal? I ask to enquire. If it's not a buff explain the relationship to the MCG & Lasher.

By raising the question, I hope rather to be told by devs what the trade off is. Do for example VS get accuracy and the TR rate of fire.

Perhaps devs might explain how they factor damage.

Point is, it is legitimate to ask what is meant by this. Frankly, the NC had the loudest voice in PS1 and generally got what they wanted. Let's recall the Lasher debacle.

So far from being alarmist I'm seeking an understanding from the devs why it shouldn't be considered a buff.
having played PS1 you will know that all NC weapons hit harder than their NC and TR counterparts.

as for the relation between the lasher and the MCG, they're both HA and their packets go awol all the time?

[Erendil]

Having played PS1 for a few years first as NC then as VS, its important to listen what the devs are saying.

Now? Hmmm a dev posts the NC have harder hitting weapons and you just hope it isn't a big deal? I ask to enquire. If it's not a buff explain the relationship to the MCG & Lasher.

By raising the question, I hope rather to be told by devs what the trade off is. Do for example VS get accuracy and the TR rate of fire.

Perhaps devs might explain how they factor damage.

Point is, it is legitimate to ask what is meant by this. Frankly, the NC had the loudest voice in PS1 and generally got what they wanted. Let's recall the Lasher debacle.

So far from being alarmist I'm seeking an understanding from the devs why it shouldn't be considered a buff.

They've already told us this. A couple of times.

Generally-speaking:

NC weapons do more damage on a per shot basis but fire the slowest. Their vehicles move the slowest but have the most armour.
TR weapons do the least amount of damage per shot, but have the highest RoF. Their vehicles move the fastest. Their armour seems to be about on par with VS (more than VS on their MBT, less than VS on their ES Fighter).
VS weapons are in the middle in terms of damage per shot and RoF. Same thing with their vehicles top speed, although they are the most maneuverable and most accurate.

If it helps, in an earlier thread I did a breakdown of general weapon characteristics for each empire based on a graph published in a recent PC Gamer UK article. I took the High/Medium/Low stats on their graph and replaced the color codes they gave us with grades A/B/C. I also added damage degradation as well based on what we know.

VS
Accuracy = A
Recoil (Burst Fire) = A
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = A
Rate of Fire = B
Damage Per Shot = B
Damage over Range (Degradation) = C


TR
Accuracy = B
Recoil (Burst Fire) = A
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = C
Rate of Fire = A
Damage Per Shot = C
Damage over Range (Degradation) = B


NC
Accuracy = B
Recoil (Burst Fire) = C
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = A
Rate of Fire = C
Damage Per Shot = A
Damage over Range (Degradation) = B
__________________

[biertrappist]

An unbalanced game is a soon to be unpopular game. SOE knows this, they will strive to balance the game the best they can. I think they're doing a good job so far sticking to the balance of PS1. Will NC have harder hitting weapons and more armor? yes, but that is only part of the story. Not everything can be put in a bar graph at this point in time of development. Maybe we'll see that NC come up short when it comes to their AOE weapons -- where the Vanu will shine... and will carry less ammo and be empty long before the Terrans.

tl;dr - Wait until beta before you judge too harshly


It's a quotation from a dev, not my supposition.

PS1 lost a lot of players precisely because it became unbalanced. The NC voice complaining about the lasher absolutely was an example of braying hard enough for long enough to get what you want. The schisms that caused in PS1.

Hence my point inquiring from devs - i.e. hoping they will put the comment in context.

Whether one calls it a buff or OP the outcome is the same in such an instance Malorn.

I repeat that it was a dev's comment about "harder hitting weapons" - I have every right to query that comment, precisely as it implies a relatively greater advantage.

So let the dev give the context, explain factoring if he may. But don't deny the right to query it as a buff / OP weapon if that is a reasonable conclusion to draw from a dev's stated comment.

Thank you Erendil, that seems nicely reducted and explanative.

[Saieno]

They've already told us this....(blah blah)

I'm not actually quoting anything specific but I noticed your signature and finally thought I would say something lol.

Because it's a Magrider and how they move, you would have full 360 degree rotation already because of the hovering mechanic. Moving the main turret up would just make it look awkward in my opinion. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to look one way and travel in another without a problem like the other tanks do, it'll just look a bit different from the outside perspective.

To kinda keep this on topic, I like your colored chart you made :D

[Malorn]

If it helps, in an earlier thread I did a breakdown of general weapon characteristics for each empire based on a graph published in a recent PC Gamer UK article. I took the High/Medium/Low stats on their graph and replaced the color codes they gave us with grades A/B/C. I also added damage degradation as well based on what we know.


You should really use High/Med/Low because the A/B/C grade implies how good something is. "A" in recoil is not good; it's bad. It was confusing to me looking at the TR/NC because they appeared to be incorrect - they weren't its just the A/B/C thing wasn't a good mapping.

Here's the conversion
VS
Accuracy = High
Recoil (Burst Fire) = High
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High
Rate of Fire = Med
Damage Per Shot = Med
Damage over Range (Degradation) = Low


TR
Accuracy = Med
Recoil (Burst Fire) = High
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = Low
Rate of Fire = High
Damage Per Shot = Low
Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med


NC
Accuracy = Med
Recoil (Burst Fire) = Low
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High
Rate of Fire = Low
Damage Per Shot = High
Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med

[Infektion]

Ahem... Why isn't this topic closed?

[Malorn]

Because people may actually not understand that a harder hitting weapon doesn't mean an empire is unbalanced.

[Trolltaxi]

This time we will be able to tinker with the weapons a bit to bend the empire theme - I don't know how much that will mean, will it be possible to turn my TR Cycler into a TR Gauss and the like...

[Erendil]

I'm not actually quoting anything specific but I noticed your signature and finally thought I would say something lol.

Because it's a Magrider and how they move, you would have full 360 degree rotation already because of the hovering mechanic. Moving the main turret up would just make it look awkward in my opinion. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to look one way and travel in another without a problem like the other tanks do, it'll just look a bit different from the outside perspective.

To kinda keep this on topic, I like your colored chart you made :D

RE: the Mag, yep, you're right that the hover allows it to rotate the whole tank like a turret would. But it needs to be able to do so fast enough to be comparable to Vannie/Prowler turret. And it also needs to be able to strafe and move in reverse at about the same speed it can move forward otherwise it'll be at a disadvantage when flanking, strafing past opponents, and retreating.

Since the Mag is the VS's primary ground assault vehicle, if the Devs don't design it to compensate well enough for the fixed cannon it could severely gimp the entire empire. But I have confidence that they can build the Mag to be a fairly competitive MBT using a fixed-forward cannon. My sig is there as much to keep the issue in everyone's mind as it is to show my own personal preference for its design. I get quite a number of comments about it, which tells me my ploy is working. :D

Oh, and thanks on the chart compliment. :cool:

You should really use High/Med/Low because the A/B/C grade implies how good something is. "A" in recoil is not good; it's bad. It was confusing to me looking at the TR/NC because they appeared to be incorrect - they weren't its just the A/B/C thing wasn't a good mapping.

Actually I chose A/B/C specifically because it gives you a quality/desirability rating and tells you how good it is. So "A" in recoil means it has the most desirable amount of recoil - i.e. the least amount of recoil and most controllable by the firer.

Using "High" was what the PCGUK article did and it caused more confusion among people on these boards. The article's graph had high/medium/low corresponding to the colors red/orange/yellow. So for example it showed the NC having "high/red" damage per shot, but it also showed the VS had "high/red" recoil.

That was confusing for many because we know from other sources that NC have the highest damage per shot which corresponds with the high/red setting, but the VS have the least amount of recoil, but yet the graph said it was "high." But what is "high" recoil? Does it mean it has a high amount of recoil? Or that it's "high" quality of recoil - i.e. not very much?

That made people wonder for every setting if "high" meant "a high amount of" or if it meant "high quality."

The values of High/Med/Low can be easily interpreted to mean either a quantitative measurement of amplitude or a qualitative one of desirability, and the PCGUK graph used those meanings interchangeably. OTOH Grades A/B/C for most people generally mean only qualitative desirability, so there's less room for misinterpretation.


EDIT: incidentally, which TR/NC values on my graph appeared to be incorrect for you? Was it recoil or something else?

[Malorn]

NC have the best recoil in short controlled bursts.
TR have recoil that starts out high but gets better the longer they shoot (like LMGs in BF2142 and BFBC2)

That makes sense given the NC have hard-hitting weapons, they need to do burst fire. Makes sense for TR also since they are designed for high RoF and damage throughput.

Its hard to say what "high" implies for VS recoil but it seems to imply a large amount of recoil. Was there some dev post or twitter clarifying that?

To me High recoil means it moves a lot. Low recoil means less of an effect.

[Nax]

Then join them, rebel scum.

[Grognard]

Ok, so correct me if I have this wrong, but I am attempting to "rate" the ratings, empire-wide, to get an over all "score"... Ill use your quote, and mark my understanding in bracket/bold off to the left. Then at the end sum up for a score.

Good = 3
Decent = 2
Bad = 1

You should really use High/Med/Low because the A/B/C grade implies how good something is. "A" in recoil is not good; it's bad.

Here's the conversion:
VS
[3] Accuracy = High
[1] Recoil (Burst Fire) = High (High recoil is bad)
[1] Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High (same as above)
[2] Rate of Fire = Med
[2] Damage Per Shot = Med
[1] Damage over Range (Degradation) = Low (low damage is bad)
VS get 10 points


TR
[2] Accuracy = Med
[1] Recoil (Burst Fire) = High (High recoil is bad)
[3] Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = Low (...but this is good)
[3] Rate of Fire = High
[1] Damage Per Shot = Low (bad...)
[2] Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med
TR gets 12 points



NC
[2] Accuracy = Med
[3] Recoil (Burst Fire) = Low (Low recoil is a good thing)
[1] Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High (...not so good)
[1] Rate of Fire = Low
[3] Damage Per Shot = High
[2] Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med
NC get 12 points





So, VS10, TR12, NC12, unless I missed something.

Edit: First order of business for me, is to sidegrade into getting recoil under control, since VS weapons may be frustrating... Especially since accuracy should be most helpful at range, but where damage is the least. I wonder how long it takes for the recoil to trump the accuracy... will be interesting. I think I will need to gravitate to an "NC-style Pusar"...

[Erendil]

NC have the best recoil in short controlled bursts.
TR have recoil that starts out high but gets better the longer they shoot (like LMGs in BF2142 and BFBC2)

That makes sense given the NC have hard-hitting weapons, they need to do burst fire. Makes sense for TR also since they are designed for high RoF and damage throughput.

Its hard to say what "high" implies for VS recoil but it seems to imply a large amount of recoil. Was there some dev post or twitter clarifying that?

To me High recoil means it moves a lot. Low recoil means less of an effect.

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 (http://www.planetside2.com/news/nov22empirebriefVS), where they state:

The Beamer is extremely accurate and produces little to no recoil. All V.S. weapons benefit from the lack of a concussive round.

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.

[Malorn]

It might be misleading, because in the article there's only 1 measure for "recoil" and NC and TR both had "Medium" recoil, while VS had "high" recoil, but NC and TR recoil was further clarified by the burst/sustained difference. They were illustrating that while they had medium recoil they had different recoil characteristics. So the raw count from above is double-counting recoil.

If you put NC and TR both at "2" for recoil, and eliminated the extra recoil slot then your numbers become VS 9, TR 10, NC 10. If you take "Damage degradation" out of the picture (because NC and TR have bullet-drop while VS do not), then you get 8, 8, 8.

But this doesn't take things into consideration like maneuverability & speed, so there's more factors than simply appear in the PC gamer picture. I think that picture was just meant to illustrate the empire differences and not be an exact measurement. Still it's pretty close if you do put measurement on it.

[Grognard]

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 (http://www.planetside2.com/news/nov22empirebriefVS)


This is very good to hear, hope its correct, and makes more sense to me anyway...

[Erendil]

Ok, so correct me if I have this wrong, but I am attempting to "rate" the ratings, empire-wide, to get an over all "score"... Ill use your quote, and mark my understanding in bracket/bold off to the left. Then at the end sum up for a score.

Good = 3
Decent = 2
Bad = 1




So, VS10, TR12, NC12, unless I missed something.

Edit: First order of business for me, is to sidegrade into getting recoil under control, since VS weapons may be frustrating... Especially since accuracy should be most helpful at range, but where damage is the least. I wonder how long it takes for the recoil to trump the accuracy... will be interesting. I think I will need to gravitate to an "NC-style Pusar"...


If you try my graph and use the following values:

A = 3 points
B = 2 points
C = 1 point

You get the following:

VS = 14
TR = 12
NC = 12

I guess it all depends on how to interpret the recoil ratings.

I'm more inclined to believe my graph since it makes no sense to give energy weapons the worst recoil. They should have next to none since their projectiles have little to no mass and rely instead on things like heat-transfer from high-energy particle/plasma, etc to damage their targets. Plus the PS2 official site explicitly stated the Beamer anyway has little to no recoil.

[Grognard]

It might be misleading, because in the article there's only 1 measure for "recoil" and NC and TR both had "Medium" recoil, while VS had "high" recoil, but NC and TR recoil was further clarified by the burst/sustained difference. They were illustrating that while they had medium recoil they had different recoil characteristics. So the raw count from above is double-counting recoil.

If you put NC and TR both at "2" for recoil, and eliminated the extra recoil slot then your numbers become VS 9, TR 10, NC 10. If you take "Damage degradation" out of the picture (because NC and TR have bullet-drop while VS do not), then you get 8, 8, 8.

But this doesn't take things into consideration like maneuverability & speed, so there's more factors than simply appear in the PC gamer picture. I think that picture was just meant to illustrate the empire differences and not be an exact measurement. Still it's pretty close if you do put measurement on it.

Excellent, was hoping that the empires were more balanced than it seemed. No bullet drop I agree deserves the nod to get the triple 8s. Good deal.

[Grognard]

VS = 14
TR = 12
NC = 12

I guess it all depends on how to interpret the recoil ratings.

I'm more inclined to believe my graph since it makes no sense to give energy weapons the worst recoil. They should have next to none since their projectiles have little to no mass and rely instead on things like heat-transfer from high-energy particle/plasma, etc to damage their targets. Plus the PS2 official site explicitly stated the Beamer anyway has little to no recoil.

Well, its going to be an interesting beta... supposed to start tomorrow or something right?:huh: :D

[Erendil]

It might be misleading, because in the article there's only 1 measure for "recoil" and NC and TR both had "Medium" recoil, while VS had "high" recoil, but NC and TR recoil was further clarified by the burst/sustained difference. They were illustrating that while they had medium recoil they had different recoil characteristics. So the raw count from above is double-counting recoil.

If you put NC and TR both at "2" for recoil, and eliminated the extra recoil slot then your numbers become VS 9, TR 10, NC 10. If you take "Damage degradation" out of the picture (because NC and TR have bullet-drop while VS do not), then you get 8, 8, 8.

But this doesn't take things into consideration like maneuverability & speed, so there's more factors than simply appear in the PC gamer picture. I think that picture was just meant to illustrate the empire differences and not be an exact measurement. Still it's pretty close if you do put measurement on it.

Yep, all very good points. The only real point of contention for me is the recoil values which we'll probably really only know once we actually use the weapons. As you know there was no recoil per se in PS1, but MA rifles anyway had all sorts of variables for CoF behavior, like standing vs crouching, moving or standing still, if you were taking damage, CoF expansion vs contraction rates, MAX CoF, etc.

Damnit I want Beta to start! :cry:

[Malorn]

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 (http://www.planetside2.com/news/nov22empirebriefVS), 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.

[PlaceboCyanide]

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

1st - balance
2nd - not always

felt recoil depends on more factors than the cartridge.
Muzzlebreaks
Recoil Pads
Heavier weapons
firearm action

Hell maybe they just use rubberized grips. In the end it doesn't matter because game balance comes first.;)

[Erendil]

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".

That was only true on the Gauss if you were standing. When crouched, however, it was the only ESMA that could fire full-auto through its entire clip w/o getting overall CoF expansion because it's CoF contraction rate was so high that it almost completely reset ofter every shot. Both the Pulsar and Cycler required you to pause partway through the clip to recover your CoF. And the Gauss also had the smallest Maximum CoF when crouched as well. Both of which point to a better sustained-fire capability.

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.

Yeah that statement did seem to contradict what it looked like the graph was saying. You're right that does coincide with the PS1 Gauss's standing CoF bahvior anyway. :p

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"

Good points. I think you might be right on this one re: TR/NC. It certainly would make more sense from an Empire philosophy standpoint, and TBH I didn't factor in the "soldier training" angle.

And now that I think of it, IIRC US Army soldiers in the Vietnam Era were trained for firing long bursts and not accurate single-shot fire, since the Army back then had a similar "wall of lead" philosophy. From a lore perspective we could certainly apply that to TR training which would account for inaccurate single-shot/short burst fire but improved sustained fire.

To extend the analogy I guess that would make the NC US Marines, where controlled rifle marksmanship comes first. :cool: And from a lore perspective NC soldiers would probably want to conserve ammo since they probably don't have it stockpiled like the TR war machine would. :cool:

EDIT: Actually Redcoats & Pennsylvania Riflemen would probably be better comparisons for TR & NC, respectively. ;)

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.

Yeah the chart is weird. Hence my attempts at remaking it. :D

1st - balance
2nd - not always

felt recoil depends on more factors than the cartridge.
Muzzlebreaks
Recoil Pads
Heavier weapons
firearm action

Hell maybe they just use rubberized grips. In the end it doesn't matter because game balance comes first.;)

Yep, I know there are lots of other factors that can determine recoil. And yes, gameplay > realism.

[Malorn]

I dont' remember the precise differences between gauss crouched vs standing compared to other empires. I do know that the Cycler was the best MA until Pulsar 2.0. We had guys very very good at using the Gauss, but they were unstoppable with a Cycler. And to be fair about the COF bloom, the Gauss had far less capacity than the Cycler and less than the Pulsar so it may not have bloomed as much because it ran out of ammo first!

The cycler definitely had less recoil effect, but it may have bloomed greater after a long time - I always fired them in bursts unless someone was right in my face so I dunno.

Another aspect of the recoil is that if they want to create that empire feel for the TR to be just massive walls of lead then the weapons characteristics would encourage it. Better sustained recoil control than burst would encourage them to fire long bursts and not short bursts. The result would be a TR army that sprays bullets everywhere they go putting down heavy suppressive fire. While the NC are more conservative with a style that promotes accurate bursts, hit-and-run, and doesn't waste ammo. As you point out the NC are guerrillas and scavengers so they wouldn't likely waste ammo while the TR would have a seemingly endless supply.

[Stew]

Every factions have a buff ... Depending on ur playstyle and conditions .. sometime when lag go on having faster sspread guns are really usefull especially if the DPM is almost the same !

In some situation having more precision is a advantage and also in some situation having more stopping power is rewarding as long as the DPM stay almost equal for all 3 empire thing will be fair and great !

Everything will depend on ur Own playstyle everyones likes different guns for many differents reason !

Recently we were in a MAG (ps3) clan and almost everyones have a different favorite guns for me the best guns was the hollis A3 dor wallmart it was the gotha elite for spaz it was the apex for delta it was the R-553 for ADN it was the atac2000 ! Every single ones of us prefere mostly many differents guns because ours playstyles arent the same !

Same for planetside so the best is choosing the team who fit the best ur gamestyle ! And also art style!
always depend on how you wanna play spray and prey fast and furious slow and bad ass mobile and versatile ?

[Shogun]

grass is always greener on the far side syndrome.

the vs with their overpowered medium range no-aim-no-friendlyfire heavy assault weapon were always whining about the jackhammer, completely ignoring that it was only usefull at point blank and wouldn´t even tickle enemys at a few meters of range.

the concept of tradeoffs never reached the purpleminded. if it´s overpowered, it should be vs exclusive! after all, we are the advanced alien faction and all others should get inferiour weapons. just stupid.

if you don´t like your factions set of possible playstyles, change to the other faction!

[Stew]

grass is always greener on the far side syndrome.

the vs with their overpowered medium range no-aim-no-friendlyfire heavy assault weapon were always whining about the jackhammer, completely ignoring that it was only usefull at point blank and wouldn´t even tickle enemys at a few meters of range.

the concept of tradeoffs never reached the purpleminded. if it´s overpowered, it should be vs exclusive! after all, we are the advanced alien faction and all others should get inferiour weapons. just stupid.

if you don´t like your factions set of possible playstyles, change to the other faction!

I support this post !

[Tamas]

So? TR got RoF VS got accuracy. They already said you can make TR weapons hit hard but slower and VS to fire faster but less accurate (just 2 examples).

What matters is actual DPS (calculating damage per shot, rate of fire and how many shots actually hit the target).

It works likes this in all games and it's mostly balanced. Perhaps wait for beta before we go - LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE (those who played ME3 know what I mean).

[Xyntech]

grass is always greener on the far side syndrome.

the vs with their overpowered medium range no-aim-no-friendlyfire heavy assault weapon were always whining about the jackhammer, completely ignoring that it was only usefull at point blank and wouldn´t even tickle enemys at a few meters of range.

the concept of tradeoffs never reached the purpleminded. if it´s overpowered, it should be vs exclusive! after all, we are the advanced alien faction and all others should get inferiour weapons. just stupid.

if you don´t like your factions set of possible playstyles, change to the other faction!

I liked how the VS played, and the empires were rarely so imbalanced that it was a big problem, but due to the nature of base fights it was very common for the Jackhammer to dominate base fights, and the Vanguards high splash damage was clearly the best MBT for spamming tower doors. Right there you have the other two empires at somewhat of a disadvantage in relationship to attacking and defending the only two capture point types in the entire game.

Again though, never was that big an issue, and the fact that base designs seem to be a lot better made this time around should mean PS2 has no repeat of this situation.

There just were too many things locked in with PS1 that could never change and would forever be slightly broken and we had to just live with. It seems like PS2 will have a lot more options for the devs to tinker with, so if the NC are balanced, great. If they are a little overpowered, tweak either them or something else (base layouts for example). If they are underpowered, buff them or change something else to help them.

While I have no doubt the community will always be bitching about some perceived imbalance, real or fictional, there will be times when things have to be tweaked for the sake of improving the overall experience. Hopefully the devs will be quick to respond to large issues and slow to react to minor issues. Also, hopefully they will be on the ball enough to never release something like Lasher 2.0 without more testing and taking into account more variables, fun as I may have had with it :P

[Shogun]

so nc had a doorspammer tank, but vs didn´t even need to bring a tank, they had a doorspammer ha weapon.

it was balanced quite good in the beginning but was screwed up by the devs reacting to fast to whining.
i hope they will balance only based on data this time. and if they gave a unconventional counter to something "overpowered" and one empire is just too stupid to find or use it, then let them whine until one of them finds the hidden countertactic instead of nerfing the first thing.

[Kilmoran]

I liked NC the best. I liked their reason for fighting, and the harder hitting weapons sounded like my play style.

Kevin Moyer Dev

http://www.planetside2.com/news/dev-spotlight-kevin-moyer-2012

Isn't this... 9 year old common knowledge?

[Verruna]

..Troll thread with 3 pages?

[Mezorin]

The problem with inter empire differences didn't come from "harder hitting" verses "accuracy", they came the fact that weapons were in entirely different categories all together.

For instance, the Jack Hammer verses MCG verses Lasher. The MCG is akin to machine gun, and the lasher was, well the lasher but still more of a fire support weapon. The jack hammer was a close quarter shotgun. One of these things is not like the other. Frankly, I like how the new heavy assault class will have medium range machine guns, and close quarter room clearers for all three empires. Everyone gets their short range, and everyone gets their medium range, and we're all happy.


And yes, you maybe right, Verruna. I thought this issue was already said and done to begin with. Of course, this would not be Planetside without "Nerf the jackhammer!" turning up before it even exists :)

[jollytraveller]

I liked how the VS played, and the empires were rarely so imbalanced that it was a big problem, but due to the nature of base fights it was very common for the Jackhammer to dominate base fights, and the Vanguards high splash damage was clearly the best MBT for spamming tower doors. Right there you have the other two empires at somewhat of a disadvantage in relationship to attacking and defending the only two capture point types in the entire game.

The Prowler is a far, far better door camper than the Vanguard. Both tanks can 1-shot kill yet the Prowler has twice the rate of fire. Granted the Vanguard is also good at camping doors but to say it's the best is farcical.

Secondly, whilst I have no particular issue with the JH I never really understand these comments about it dominating in base fights. Yes, it does dominate at point blank range, but in order to close to that range you have to nearly always pass though the sweet spot for your opponents HA, and if you don't then the NME is woefully mis-placed in the base. Trying to run down a corridor in a base with your JH against corner camping Lashers and MCG's is NOT easy, or advisable.

What people really mean is that the JH is extremely good during a base defense and frankly that could be said about any of the HA's. Any remotely decent HA player knows how to defend each base and each corner to the best of their HA's ability.

Trying to assault a base with a JH can be horrible. When I play my TR and VS, the most fun to be had is defending a base against the NC. You can massacre them if you know what you are doing. Until they get the Scat MAX's that is..........

[Rbstr]

You can make a case for high alpha being overpowered when looked at in conjunction with shots-to-kill as opposed to simple DPS.

Lets say dudes have 10hp and two guns: one does 5 damage at each second. one does 3 damage every half second. 5dps vs 6dps
The higher alpha gun will kill you on two hits, comprising 1 second of getting hit. The other needs 4 hits which means he needs 1.5 seconds to kill you. A 7 DPS gun which did all of its damage every second as well wouldn't be any better than the 5dps gun.
Obviously this averages out with larger HP values, but it's important to remember: Averages don't always tell the whole story.

[Eyeklops]

I liked NC the best. I liked their reason for fighting, and the harder hitting weapons sounded like my play style.

Kevin Moyer Dev

http://www.planetside2.com/news/dev-spotlight-kevin-moyer-2012

So...umm..yea..your right. NC have Higby, the creative director, so I am sure NC will have the buff. But we, VS, have T-Ray, the art director, so we have the look. TR must know somebody too because they got the bullet.

[Fenrod]

I think TR are all alone this time. Is there any VIP who supports our cause ?

[Malorn]

I think TR are all alone this time. Is there any VIP who supports our cause ?

If I understand correctly, Dan Binter, Josh Hackney, and Josh Sanchez are our TR brosefs on the dev team.

The rest are all a bunch of NC bandwagon jumpers and VS princesses.

Though I think there are at least a few artists who like TR. I can't think of any other reason why the TR would look so awesome.

[Shlomoshun]

Just thinking back to Surgyjacknewbs all over the place, takes me back.

Having been into PS1 early, but left early, long before they started killing it, I always thought the biggest problem as a VS was no valid places to take advantage of our mobility. We were at our best in open territory, but none of the important fighting took place there, so basically war in the open areas was avoided. I'm very much excited by the current goal of making war fun and valuable at all locations, not just towers and bases.

[Xyntech]

The Prowler is a far, far better door camper than the Vanguard. Both tanks can 1-shot kill yet the Prowler has twice the rate of fire. Granted the Vanguard is also good at camping doors but to say it's the best is farcical.

Both tanks were good for camping, but rate of fire was rarely a concern. The Vanguards larger and deadlier splash damage was where I was heading with the comparison. Made it that much easier to die to stray shots whenever a tower door would open.

Trying to assault a base with a JH can be horrible. When I play my TR and VS, the most fun to be had is defending a base against the NC. You can massacre them if you know what you are doing. Until they get the Scat MAX's that is..........

Perhaps now, but I still have memories of surgile strongly etched in my mind. JH's are still great up close and used to be the absolute final word. PS1's bases just aren't designed well. It's not so much that they were designed to favor one weapon or another, so much as they failed to be well balanced to accommodate a wide range of combat within them.

The three empires were well balanced in theory, but the practical geography of Planetside made for certain problems. It seems like the level designers for PS2 are a little better versed in how important map design is to having a balanced game. That and class systems should take care of any imbalances a lot easier.

[Hermes]

There was huge whining, crying and witchhunts from all factions over balance in PS1.

Claiming that one side had it all their own way is just picking arguments - this is either a weird troll attempt or you haven't picked your toys up after chucking them out of the pram 7 years ago. :lol:


We've had all these arguments over and over. Lets wait till beta before we fire up some new ones? I've got my caps lock key ready to go NEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRFFFFFFF

:)

[Blackwolf]

You should really use High/Med/Low because the A/B/C grade implies how good something is. "A" in recoil is not good; it's bad. It was confusing to me looking at the TR/NC because they appeared to be incorrect - they weren't its just the A/B/C thing wasn't a good mapping.


I understood his just fine, yours makes less sense to me.

The MCG unloaded 13 rounds before it's CoF started blooming (unless the soldier got hit), that to me is an example of an A burst fire rating. Yours says TR have a "high" for burst fire recoil, implying that it's bad when it's exactly the opposite. On average the TR weaponry had better burst fire values then the other two empires. The Cycler shot 6 rounds before affecting the CoF while the Pulsar shot 4 and the Gauss an impressive 3. The Lasher and JH bloomed on the first shot, but the JH fired so slowly that it's CoF was almost closed before the next shot and the Lasher recovered it's aim better then the MCG but still over time the CoF bloomed more then the JH.