Raw Weapon Data via Higby

[Hamma]

I know this is probably posted somewhere and most have probably already seen it (I blame my new job) but if not Higby posted a bunch of pretty cool data screenshots yesterday.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/410952212005658624

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/410904834057842688

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/410900825737687040

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/410893872324038656

[ChipMHazard]

I'm mostly surprised at Higby's statement of surprise, unless I'm mistaken as to the reason why he was surprised.

(I know the following only applies to BR100s)
The data for the most part fits my own thoughts and experience with the game, although there are a few things I was suprised to see.

I would have thought that SMGs were more popular across all classes than they are, obviously the people using them are very proficiency with them. I wasn't surprised to see that the infils are the main users, only real competitive choice if you want full auto capabilities.
I know the NC are mostly about shotguns, but I didn't think that the Jackhammer was so popular
I would have thought that more people used shotguns, but then again this simply shows how often a weapon is used and shotguns are situational weapons. Effective when actually used.


Most BR100 players will opt for the best close-medium range option they can find. Versatility is the name of the game. The GR-22 is a good example of this. Great up close, but not as versatile as the Carnage.

I wonder why they showed us the BR100s' weapon trends and not the whole playerbases.

[Ghoest9]

I wonder why they showed us the BR100s' weapon trends and not the whole playerbases.


Well besides the advantages of removing noobs and clueless people from the data base.
BR 100s are much likely than other players to have access to a wide variety of weapons so you are more likely to be seeing what people choose when all options are open to them.


EDIT: I forgot to mention the obvious reason.

The average kill xp rates with NC weapons are probably much worse than Vanu and TR so they show the top end where skill and experience hide the differences.

[ChipMHazard]

Well besides the advantages of removing noobs and clueless people from the data base.
BR 100s are much likely than other players to have access to a wide variety of weapons so you are more likely to be seeing what people choose when all options are open to them.

Good point.

[Snoopy]

The average kill xp rates with NC weapons are probably much worse than Vanu and TR so they show the top end where skill and experience hide the differences.

NC so hard done by :cry:

[DirtyBird]

No Engineer data Higby?

With the access to more weapons at BR100 its also a good time to get a few extra auraxium medals.

[Falcon_br]

Looks like we need to nerf the jackhammer, or make the mcg good again.
Also, the people use the lasher more then I thought and get an horrible spm with it.
Also, looks like I was right when I told VS heavy weapons are the best heavy weapons on the game.

[ChipMHazard]

Looks like we need to nerf the jackhammer, or make the mcg good again.


Popularity =/= Quality. I don't see how this data shows that the Jackhammer is too good and the MCG isn't good enough.

From what I can see the VS LMGs are the most effective in the hands of BR100s.

[Falcon_br]

Popularity =/= Quality. I don't see how this data shows that the Jackhammer is too good and the MCG isn't good enough.

From what I can see the VS LMGs are the most effective in the hands of BR100s.

I am talking about SPM of those weapon on BR 100 players.
The MCG got a spm lower them almost all VS HMG!
Not even BR 100 players can make it effective!
That is not a problem to the jackhammer.
VS HMG need to be nerfed badly, I always said that.
I also always said the T9 carv was the only viable choice for a TR HA, the msw-r close to second, I was perfectly right.
While we only have two viable weapons to the TR HA, the VS got 4, the NC got 3 and the best close range weapon of the game, the jackhammer. No BR 100 is a match in close range to a NC with a jackhammer. (Use stun grenade).
Two weapon for the TR HA while the other two have 4 is bullshit.
Increasing reload time to nerf the two .75 move ads overpowered VS HMG is not the solution we need right now.

[Emperor Newt]

What I see is that versatility is king and that "niche" weapons are (mostly) neglected even by BR100s who do not even have to care about their cert gain anymore. Some more Lashers here and there would really help a lot but nobody uses it because you get horrible SPM with it and less SPM mostly means getting killed more often then you make kills.So thanks to the ... "wonderful" progression system which almost exclusively centers around getting kills. Seriously, who thought this would be a good idea in the first place?

Also that for most people it's a waste of money to spend sc (or even certs) on many infantry weapons as you wont be using them much anyway. I notice that myself. More then 50% of the stuff I bought is rarely ever used. In the end it comes down to maybe two to three weapons per class. The rest is negligible. Many of them are not bad (well, some are. and reducing the price after people already bought it is not a fix, soe) but you are simply gimping yourself too much in too many situations to carry that gun around much and the situations where you can reach high SPM with those are too few in between to justify the purchase.

PS: Do we know about the time-frame the data was gathered?

[ChipMHazard]

I am talking about SPM of those weapon on BR 100 players.
The MCG got a spm lower them almost all VS HMG!
Not even BR 100 players can make it effective!
That is not a problem to the jackhammer.
VS HMG need to be nerfed badly, I always said that.
I also always said the T9 carv was the only viable choice for a TR HA, the msw-r close to second, I was perfectly right.
While we only have two viable weapons to the TR HA, the VS got 4, the NC got 3 and the best close range weapon of the game, the jackhammer. No BR 100 is a match in close range to a NC with a jackhammer. (Use stun grenade).
Increasing reload time to nerf the two .75 move ads overpowered VS HMG is not the solution we need right now.



SPM alone doesn't mean much.
So? Could simply be because not that many skilled BR100 like to use the MCG. I don't personally like the MCG myself since it doesn't really have a role besides just being an alternative to LMGs.
It's still effective. The data doesn't suggest it being ineffective in any shape or form. Because something might be less effective than other options doesn't mean that it's ineffective.
The Jackhammer has the benefit of being one of the best, if not the best, shotgun which makes it highly effective under the right circumstances. We all know how NC love their shotguns in bases that favor CQC. So in that sense yes, the Jackhammer is better than the MCG since that is in no way near the top of it's class. If you want to argue that heavy weapons should be the top of their class then I could get behind that, sure.
They and all other .075 weapons are going to get nerfed and along with the general LMG nerf it might be enough to bring them in line with other LMG. I do agree that the VS have the best LMGs, but I don't agree that they need to be nerfed hard.
Most certainly not the only viable choice, every single LMG is viable. Some are just more versatile/effective than others. I think you might be confusing viable with competitive. At which point I would be more inclined to agree with you.
Again we have plenty of viable choices, the VS just have 2 better choices than either TR/NC. Then again TR have the TAR and TRV. Each faction have their own 0.75 weapons. The Jackhammer is the most versatile shotgun. The base design in many places just plain favors shotguns, not to mention the TTK.
Maybe not, we'll see. Personally I would rather see each faction having the same 0.75 weapon options. Giving each faction it's own category of 0.75 weapons just seems rather arbitrary. I don't really see it as being a good way to make the factions more distinct from each other.

[Falcon_br]

SPM alone doesn't mean much.
So? Could simply be because not that many skilled BR100 like to use the MCG. I don't personally like the MCG myself since it doesn't really have a role besides just being an alternative to LMGs.
It's still effective. The data doesn't suggest it being ineffective in any shape or form. Because something might be less effective than other options doesn't mean that it's ineffective.
The Jackhammer has the benefit of being one of the best, if not the best, shotgun which makes it highly effective under the right circumstances. We all know how NC love their shotguns in bases that favor CQC. So in that sense yes, the Jackhammer is better than the MCG since that is in no way near the top of it's class. If you want to argue that heavy weapons should be the top of their class then I could get behind that, sure.
They and all other .075 weapons are going to get nerfed and along with the general LMG nerf it might be enough to bring them in line with other LMG. I do agree that the VS have the best LMGs, but I don't agree that they need to be nerfed hard.
Most certainly not the only viable choice, every single LMG is viable. Some are just more versatile/effective than others. I think you might be confusing viable with competitive. At which point I would be more inclined to agree with you.
Again we have plenty of viable choices, the VS just have 2 better choices than either TR/NC. Then again TR have the TAR and TRV. Each faction have their own 0.75 weapons. The Jackhammer is the most versatile shotgun. The base design in many places just plain favors shotguns, not to mention the TTK.
Maybe not, we'll see. Personally I would rather see each faction having the same 0.75 weapon options. Giving each faction it's own category of 0.75 weapons just seems rather arbitrary. I don't really see it as being a good way to make the factions more distinct from each other.


If you don't think spm alone is enough, I have already made direct weapon stats comparative and the weapons with better stats are clear with better spm.
That's why I don't see future on MLG unless they all use NS weapons. It is clear that the TR is on disadvantage on all HA weapons.
While we must use the t9 carv on all situations, the NC and the VS have better options for close and long range, even to all purpose!
You can't be a competitive HA TR player and use something else then the t9 carv, unless you want a negative K/D.
I never saw a competitive streamer TR player that plays with HA, they all play with Mosquitos, or medics.
I don't get what you are talking about the TAR, the data is clear when the carnage BR is more used with better spm.

[ringring]

A little prior to this, by some days or so, Higby also talked about weapons that didn't perform well for the new and noobish but performed extremely well for the skilled and experienced.

[ChipMHazard]

If you don't think spm alone is enough, I have already made direct weapon stats comparative and the weapons with better stats are clear with better spm.

SPM alone doesn't mean much since a weapon that has a high SPM yet low popularity simply shows how effective the few players using it are. Doesn't show how effective the weapon itself is, since the sample size is too small.

That's why I don't see future on MLG unless they all use NS weapons. It is clear that the TR is on disadvantage on all HA weapons.

They mentioned a long time ago that NS infantry weapons would be used, unless they've changed that without me noticing.

While we must use the t9 carv on all situations, the NC and the VS have better options for close and long range, even to all purpose!
You can't be a competitive HA TR player and use something else then the t9 carv, unless you want a negative K/D.

No we don't. The MSW-R is basicly the same weapon, but with a smaller magazine size and faster reload. And you can use other weapons and still stay competitive, at least during normal play. Don't confuse popularity with effectiveness.
The part about getting a negative K/D if using anything but the CARV is just nonsense. Personal skill is still the most important part, no infantry weapon is powerful enough to negate that. Except perhaps for OHK weapons.
I don't disagree that the CARV and in extention the MSW-R are in the top of the TR LMG tree, but I do disagree with the notion that we TR are so far behind when compared to the NC/VS.

I never saw a competitive streamer TR player that plays with HA, they all play with Mosquitos, or medics.

So? Correlation does not imply causation. Buzzcut comes to mind as a former competitive streamer that played as a HA.

I don't get what you are talking about the TAR, the data is clear when the carnage BR is more used with better spm.

The Carnage is in fact not used as often as the TAR. The TAR is performing better when compared to how much it is used. The Carnage's SPM doesn't follow its popularity to the same degree that the TAR's does.

Edit: A very good point and people have uhm pointed out. The grafs show SPM which basicly just shows how effective players are while using a specific weapon, not nessecarily how effective a specific weapon is. Maradine's Oracle was better at showing that by far.

[Obstruction]

i think there is too much qualifying information missing from this to draw the conclusions being argued about.

specifically, you can't know what activities the spm in question is coming from.

just think about how people play the game and what they really do at any given time. there is no way to know what they are doing, or why, at the time of a given sample.

even a general trend of all players over all time is not going to be conclusive data, because spm varies from doing nothing on any class with any weapon, to gaining 2-3 times the average infantry killing spm through other activities including abilities, traps, vehicles, and turrets. it also varies player to player, and hour to hour, based on server pop, region pop, member status, alert status, and whether or not they generally defend or assault.

you may think those things sort of magically cancel each other out, so you can just look at the thing you want, and have a neat little picture. but, it isn't really that easy. because science. there's a reason people with white coats and clipboards wear white coats, and carry clipboards. that reason is science.

even if you take a large sample where almost all other influences than class and weapon are made equal, and are also certain that during the sample all classes are focusing only on being effective with that weapon at roughly equal weapon/class skill, you still have to do control samples in different fighting environments, because weapons perform differently in small and large conflicts, vary in effectiveness by ranges required at a given conflict, and vary in effectiveness against enemy weapon/class combinations and load outs.

you could probably draw an alright picture of weapon/class effectiveness if you did a large series of experiments with controlled groups of generally equal players. however, i think a sample of BR100 is just picking a small group with far too much variance in weapon/class skill level, since you can reach BR100 in so many ways other than the listed weapon/classes.

it would be better to pick from middle of the road players with a given range of hours at various weapon/classes and then have them participate in controlled environments and sample that way. then you could sort of start talking about what is better here or there, and used by whom.

[Wahooo]

Increasing reload time to nerf the two .75 move ads overpowered VS HMG is not the solution we need right now.

Frankly this is the only part that I can agree with or support.

Having MOAR weapons that apparently function at a high level? Just pick the good one or the one you like?

There is so much detail missing from these graphs. They are interesting, but at the same time there is more they DON"T say than they do.

As far as balancing the .75 move ADS? I don't recall, I think it was igladyoumad that made a post about it many months ago and I think it got glossed over because, well he complains about a lot. Simply put though HA with an HMG should just not have that kind of movement and increasing reload time to attempt at balance is a laughable excuse.

[maradine]

pimp:

[Badjuju]

Popularity =/= Quality. I don't see how this data shows that the Jackhammer is too good and the MCG isn't good enough.

From what I can see the VS LMGs are the most effective in the hands of BR100s.

Yea, surprisingly allot of players wielding VS LMGs, or any .75 weapons for that matter, do not take full advantage of the strafing speed. Higher BRs seem to understand the capabilities those weapons and strafe like mad men. What i was surprised to see was how the vs LMGs overall did very well, not just their prized ones. Med guns for VS fell short to NC and TR though, but we knew that already (Carnage will be a beast with nano changes btw).

It would be nice to see this data for a wider range of character ranks. Say 50-100. The point that higher level characters are more likely to have unlocked more weapons is well made, however a player not unlocking a weapon does not skew the data for that weapon.

My concern is how accurate some of the data is with what may be a relatively small sample size, particularly on the less popular weapons where a few outliers can really skew the data if the sample size for that weapon is small. The larger the sample size the better the data will be every time.

Not only that, but higher BRs tend to be verry efficient with whatever they use and generally are better players (opinion based off personal experience) I'm not sure if they represent the general player base who may be struggling with specific weapons Comparatively. If that was the case, I'm not sure what is better. Do you look at data from better players that show the full potential of weapons, or do you look at the data that represents what the average player is capable of doing with that weapon? Again this is under the assumption that higher BRs were often better players who leveled up quicker because of it.

Overall though the data is great to see and seems to fit how I feel about the weapons which are more popular. The one thing we need to be careful of is comparing score per hour between weapons of different niches. For example the jackhammer has a high score per hour because it is a close combat weapon used in fast paced environments with lots of targets (You see this with allot of weapons in that niche). It looks to out perform many LMGs from every faction, however I'd consider it a less effective weapon overall. You just don't tend to rack in kills as fast in longer engagements. Two different groups of weapons with two different niches.

Wow what was ment to be a quick comment turned into a wall of text, ill stop rambling :p.

[Badjuju]

If you don't think spm alone is enough, I have already made direct weapon stats comparative and the weapons with better stats are clear with better spm.
That's why I don't see future on MLG unless they all use NS weapons. It is clear that the TR is on disadvantage on all HA weapons.
While we must use the t9 carv on all situations, the NC and the VS have better options for close and long range, even to all purpose!
You can't be a competitive HA TR player and use something else then the t9 carv, unless you want a negative K/D.
I never saw a competitive streamer TR player that plays with HA, they all play with Mosquitos, or medics.
I don't get what you are talking about the TAR, the data is clear when the carnage BR is more used with better spm.

We have in outfit scrims on test server all the time playing every faction, and faction never dictates who wins the match. Ill agree that VS LMGs are the best in the game but the difference isnt enough to dictate who is winning fire fights. The player who shot better in any given engagement wins every time. VS on the other hand are lacking In the assault rifle department. The HV-45 blooms very quickly and isn't quite as effective in hammering in those head shots. Even then, the difference isn't substantial. I'm not going to argue that changes shouldn't be made, balance seems to be and should be an ongoing process, but balance is close enough that you can win with any faction in this game.

Also, the biggest factor in winning by a long shot is team work. Every faction has very capable weapons for every engagement with every class. But even if they didn't, a strong well coordinated push with shitty weapons is going to beat a sub par defense with amazing weapons every time.

Like I said we've skimmed amongst ourselves often, pitting different factions against each other and there has never been a time where faction dictated the outcome. It's all about team work and strategy. Using NS weapons would take away from what the game is all about and provide for boring comp if you ask me.

We also have plenty of players who play heavy as their primary class on TR. Just because they aren't one of the few people who stream doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Assist]

SPM isn't a very good indication of a specific weapons quality. SPM is a better indication of a players quality, or an outfits quality.

All this shows is that BR100's are able to aim well with all the weapons.

[Artalion]

I decided to dive into the medic data. I do data analysis for a living, so I immediately plugged all the raw data into excel and began looking for patterns. SOE, this is pro-bono.

A word on comparisons: I looked mostly at the equipment percentage. SPM would be meaningless because we are looking at all equipable weapons, regardless of type.

A word on math: I love it, but I realize that most people do not. So the format I'm going to use is this: Math first, then English. For those that are interested, statistics will be given in this format: Stat: (NC, TR, VS).

Math: Onto the graphs. I ran a number of regressions, before finding that a logarithmic regression best fit the data. NC users fit the logarithmic curve best, while VS fit the least. TR came in the middle. (R^2=.9565,.8835,.7905) I also ran correlations between the various equip rates between the empire. I found a strong correlation between the data: VS & NC= .9176, TR & VS= .9768, and NC & TR = .9759.

Translation: I found that the NC tends to be more diverse in their choice of primary weapons than the TR and VS. Even so, each empire seems to overwhelmingly favor a particular primary weapon over other weapons. This pattern is consistent across all empires.

Math: I went on to add more information, including the gun names and type. I then ran a comparison to see if the order of gun usage was related to type. Using a weighted average, I found that NC weapon types matched TR and VS with .8856 and .9018 respectively, while TR matched VS with a value of .9112. Values were still higher when I compared the first ten weapons. (.9075, .9736, .9547). (Note: To make the comparisons valid; I combined guns with cosmetic differences.)

Translation: Since the graphs looked so similar, I wanted to know if the weapons that were being used were also similar. They are.

Math: I now wanted to measure how diverse the faction weapon use was. To do this, I calculated the difference between each weapon, then added the differences. I found that differences were (22.09, 30.43, 35.41) The lower the number, the more diverse the weapon use is.

I went a step further and grouped them by type; to see what the differences in use were, by weapon type.

When I looked at Assault Rifle differences, I got the following sums: (21.88, 30.25, 34.58)

When I looked at Shotgun differences, I got the following sums: (2.46, 1.89, 3.34)

When I looked at SMG differences, I got the following sums: (1.62,.68, 3.12)

Translation: When it comes to choosing between different SMG's and different shotguns, there isn't much of a difference in terms of choice. The low differences between their frequency of use compared to other alternatives, suggests that SMG's and Shotguns are well balanced against each other.

The same can not be said for Assault Rifles. There are clear favorites here, weapons that are used more frequently than other weapons of the same type.

Final Conclusions (English): It looks like the various empires are well balanced against each other. The bigger problem is that there is a wide disparity between how frequently the assault rifles are used.

There are some possibilities that might explain the disparity.

The first is that the majority of PS2 battles favor specific types of engagements which cater more to situations where those particular weapons would be an asset.

This isn't convincing because PS2 battles can vary widely from location to location. Furthermore, it wouldn't explain disparities between factions. NC Assault Rifles have less disparity than TR weapons of a similar type.

The second is cost. Certain weapons cost certs and money, and not everyone has them, hence less weapon use.

This isn't convincing either, because our population consists of BR 100 players. Players in this particular group are heavily invested in the game, if not financially, then certainly in play time. They have had ample time and opportunity to unlock any of these weapons. If they haven't unlocked them by now, then there may be a very good reason for it.

Which leaves us with the possibility that the weapons themselves are not well balanced with respect to their counterparts. The nature of how to fix them is beyond the scope of my analysis. However, I can point out the weapons in particular that are furthest from the average use.

NC
Carnage BR (Standard Deviation 1.71)
Gauss Rifle Burst (Std. Dev.: -1.57)

TR
TAR (Std. Dev. 2.02)
T1B Cycler (Std. Dev. -1.22)

VS
H-V45 (Std. Dev. 2.16)

[BeyondNinja]

Maybe not, we'll see. Personally I would rather see each faction having the same 0.75 weapon options. Giving each faction it's own category of 0.75 weapons just seems rather arbitrary. I don't really see it as being a good way to make the factions more distinct from each other.


THIS ^

Ignoring SMGs and Shotguns cos they're common, the 0.75x ADS weapons are the most popular in every category, for all factions.

I agree that SPM doesn't really show much, because the difference between say, the Jackhammer and MCG is less than the difference between the TR and NC battlerifles...


It is however evident from the data that CQC-focused automatic weapons are the most popular for each category but what I think the data shows best is that for certain categories a faction feels 'pigeonholed' into choosing a single weapon. Best examples are the GD-7F for NC carbines, and the H-V45 for the VS medic, and to a lesser extent the Jaguar carbine and TAR AR for the TR.

From this I would postulate that the first 2 weapons need viable alternatives for CQC (other than shotguns and SMGs) and the TAR and Jaguar may need to have their alternatives (the TRV and Lynx) adjusted as evidently their pros aren't widely seen to overcome their cons compared to the TAR and Jaguar.

[Ghoest9]

There is WAY too much moving while shooting in general in PS2. And its way too effective.

Have you ever shot real guns? Moving while shooting works really really badly unless you are at almost point blank range. Forward movement offers a big penalty. Lateral movement ti a total joke.

If you had to do it you would want a small low recoil high cycle rate weapon that you could basically use like hose and its still for close range.
I Idea of using Assault rifles and even much worse LMGs while moving is totally stupid.

[BlaxicanX]

Any argument that starts with "have you every shot real guns" is doomed to fail.

I totally agree about LMG's though. If I had my way, they would be almost totally unusable if fired while moving, especially from the hip.

That said, there is overall game balance to consider. Call of Duty uses a gun gun system where SMG's have the best accuracy while hip-firing and firing on the move, while LMG's have shit hipfire and fire on the move accuracy. The result of that is almost no one uses LMG's, while SMG's tend to be king. With Battlefield, the only reason people use LMG's is because of the suppression mechanics (which I think are fucking awesome, btw).

Considering "suppression fire" doesn't really exist in Planetside, I'm dubious of how useful LMG's would be if they were made extremely unwieldy in short-range combat.

[Falcon_br]

Any argument that starts with "have you every shot real guns" is doomed to fail.

I totally agree about LMG's though. If I had my way, they would be almost totally unusable if fired while moving, especially from the hip.

That said, there is overall game balance to consider. Call of Duty uses a gun gun system where SMG's have the best accuracy while hip-firing and firing on the move, while LMG's have shit hipfire and fire on the move accuracy. The result of that is almost no one uses LMG's, while SMG's tend to be king. With Battlefield, the only reason people use LMG's is because of the suppression mechanics (which I think are fucking awesome, btw).

Considering "suppression fire" doesn't really exist in Planetside, I'm dubious of how useful LMG's would be if they were made extremely unwieldy in short-range combat.

I must agree with you.
But in a game of PS-2 proporsion, if they place suspression fire on it, in every big firefight you wont be able do advance or hit anything because of all the suspression you are going to receive!
Also, the small damage of the game makes even suspressive fire pointless, because if you try to pin down someone, you accuracy will go off and he can just pop up and kill you, I just advice suspression fire on my outfit if you have another person aiming at the target.

[ChipMHazard]

SPM isn't a very good indication of a specific weapons quality. SPM is a better indication of a players quality, or an outfits quality.

I would most certainly agree when it comes to engineers and medics.

[Ghoest9]

Any argument that starts with "have you every shot real guns" is doomed to fail.

I totally agree about LMG's though. If I had my way, they would be almost totally unusable if fired while moving, especially from the hip.

That said, there is overall game balance to consider. Call of Duty uses a gun gun system where SMG's have the best accuracy while hip-firing and firing on the move, while LMG's have shit hipfire and fire on the move accuracy. The result of that is almost no one uses LMG's, while SMG's tend to be king. With Battlefield, the only reason people use LMG's is because of the suppression mechanics (which I think are fucking awesome, btw).

Considering "suppression fire" doesn't really exist in Planetside, I'm dubious of how useful LMG's would be if they were made extremely unwieldy in short-range combat.

I hardly see what its a bad argument.

Its just the nature of human bodies and how they work. For the most part the game is at its best when technology is unrealistic and awesome but humans physically function more or less like real extremely athletic people.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think the most important part of these graphs is the spm. From what I am seeing is that generally the nc and tr infantry wepons are scoring close to the same while the vs weapons are overperforming.

I wish we could reorder these charts for spm.

[Badjuju]

There is WAY too much moving while shooting in general in PS2. And its way too effective.

Have you ever shot real guns? Moving while shooting works really really badly unless you are at almost point blank range. Forward movement offers a big penalty. Lateral movement ti a total joke.

If you had to do it you would want a small low recoil high cycle rate weapon that you could basically use like hose and its still for close range.
I Idea of using Assault rifles and even much worse LMGs while moving is totally stupid.

Many find that playstile fun which is mos important.

For the sake of argument though, if youve ever been in the military you are trained to shoot on the move. You use skeletal support over musle to keep your uperbody as rigid as possible while movement and fluidity is controlled by your lower body. Staying still allows you to reach reach extreme ranges such as 300 meters standing to 600 meters while prone using ironsights of an m16, something every marine accoplishes in boot camp.

Mlitary assault rifles are also buit to accomade fring while on the move which is integral in performing assaults. SMGs even more so. Broom sticks, bullpup designs and all kind of other features are examples of advancements that impove a weapons capabilities to be fired on the move.

Sure there is more movement in planetside but one its a game not reality, and two one bullet doesnt kill you. If one bullet killed then you would be stopping or limiting your movement for that well placed shot. However it takes loads of bullets thus people move to reduce the amount of incoming fire you take.

If everyone had to stand still and fire a half a magazine at each other the ame would be boring as hell from my perspective. Movement keeps the game fluid well paced for ttk. Not only that but it demands more shooting skill. Shooting a still target for an extended time is rather effortless. If it was a very low ttk then you have that twitch factor but thats not the case.

I think the movement/shooting mechanics were done right. Slowing them would bog the game down imo.

[Ghoest9]

For the sake of argument though, if youve ever been in the military you are trained to shoot on the move. You use skeletal support over musle to keep your uperbody as rigid as possible while movement and fluidity is controlled by your lower body. Staying still allows you to reach reach extreme ranges such as 300 meters standing to 600 meters while prone using ironsights of an m16, something every marine accoplishes in boot camp.

Mlitary assault rifles are also buit to accomade fring while on the move which is integral in performing assaults. SMGs even more so. Broom sticks, bullpup designs and all kind of other features are examples of advancements that impove a weapons capabilities to be fired on the move.

Sure there is more movement in planetside but one its a game not reality, and two one bullet doesnt kill you. If one bullet killed then you would be stopping or limiting your movement for that well placed shot. However it takes loads of bullets thus people move to reduce the amount of incoming fire you take.

If everyone had to stand still and fire a half a magazine at each other the ame would be boring as hell from my perspective. Movement keeps the game fluid well paced for ttk. Not only that but it demands more shooting skill. Shooting a still target for an extended time is rather effortless. If it was a very low ttk then you have that twitch factor but thats not the case.

I think the movement/shooting mechanics were done right. Slowing them would bog the game down imo.


It took you 4 paragraphs to avoid mentioning that the military does not want you to fire while moving laterally - which is what I specifically addressed.


You might hit someone across a room while moving laterally - otherwise its a horrible idea.



As for moving forward or backwards while firing - yes you can do it for useful effect - the but the loss of accuracy is huge. The idea of .75 speed while doing it is absurd and the though of hip firing beyond room length is silly.

[War Barney]

Any argument that starts with "have you every shot real guns" is doomed to fail.

I totally agree about LMG's though. If I had my way, they would be almost totally unusable if fired while moving, especially from the hip.

That said, there is overall game balance to consider. Call of Duty uses a gun gun system where SMG's have the best accuracy while hip-firing and firing on the move, while LMG's have shit hipfire and fire on the move accuracy. The result of that is almost no one uses LMG's, while SMG's tend to be king. With Battlefield, the only reason people use LMG's is because of the suppression mechanics (which I think are fucking awesome, btw).

Considering "suppression fire" doesn't really exist in Planetside, I'm dubious of how useful LMG's would be if they were made extremely unwieldy in short-range combat.

They are working on the hipfire of LMGs apparently and I'm hoping this will means that ALL LMGs need ADS to work properly, right now playing as a NC I ADS all the time anyway as even our most accurate hipfire LMG wont hit much if you hipfire it, but when I switch to my VS I never ADS with the orion as its just not needed. If they screw it up and just make NC LMGs impossible to use hipfiring while VS still can I'm going to go insane.

As for SMGs being king, that is a major issue I can see happening with this new change, LMGs are going to be useless in close range fightings as a SMG will often kill you before you even have time to aim down the sight (especially when its a infiltrator who often kills you before you can turn around when they come out of stealth). This change to hip-fire needs to be coupled with a increase in damage for LMGs so they can stay competitive, otherwise I'll most likely just switch over to SMGs and ignore LMGs.

As for suppression, it would be nice to see some kind of suppression mechanic, I guess you could say there is one as the whole idea of suppression is that you shoot at a location making sure people don't want to move as they'll get shot, sadly the huge amount of exits to places combined with infiltrators sneaking out with a SMG and LAs flying off the roof means suppression is all but impossible.

The only real way to solve this I could see would be to lower the rof of LMGs but up the damage so each shot hitting you is a worry so people would be scared of getting hit by a LMG but so that they aren't OP as hell. Lower rof with more damage would also allow for more constant suppression as people would be able to keep firing.

[Snoopy]

Yeah.... no