The much needed changes for TR LMG's

[maradine]

Not really. I get more embarrassing things than that in my breakfast cereal.

The numbers are controlled for popularity by uniques. This has been separately correlated (albeit briefly) in another thread to ps2-stats kph. If you want to make a skill-based argument for the kpu discrepancy - ie, that once newbs move from their starting gun, they go straight for the MCG, and then on to something more interesting later in their skill life, I think that's a valid point. Once I control for BR, I think we can peel that layer back and find out.

If, on the other hand, you're just arguing because this model doesn't account for your previously held belief, I don't know what to say to you. I don't play TR. I don't care very much about your numbers. By extension, I don't really care about you. Believe whatever you like - I'm not here to change your mind if you feel strongly about it. I apologize for stepping into your TR gun thread and won't do so again.

[Rolfski]

I would like some feedback about the proposed changes please. Are very clear and specific roles for guns welcome at all (like TR LMG's in this topic) and if yes, would you agree with the direction proposed?

This topic got down-voted on reddit but I'm having a hard time understanding why. Guess I wasn't clear enough about all factions needing these changes but the question still stands: Why would you invest in guns if they all performed the same with only minor differences? Just to get multiple Auraxium medals? For me, that doesn't cut it. I prefer very clear, specific roles for guns but maybe I'm a minority.

[Canaris]

Originally Posted by Falcon_br

The tr has only 2 lmg.
Tmg-50 for long range.
Msw-r for close range.

End of discussion, all the others are not worth to get it, 100 certs the msw-r and 500 the tmg-50.
I have all of then (not the m32 bull because it is pointless) and they just plain suck bad, I can get some kills with the rhino, but I still like the msw-r and the tmg-50 more.
The t9 carv since the nerf, you can't hit more then two bullets in the same target in the same burst unless you have a foregrip on it. It is just bad, real bad.
I made a Vanu on the test server, I really can't believe they have all that variety of lmg while we only got two real options. They even have a lmg with the same status as the msw-r, but with 0,75 move speed while ads! And it is not the best in the VS arsenal!

except the TMG-50 doesn't excel at long range as it supposed to due to the crazy jumping recoil of the gun even when firing short controlled bursts, the Carv & Carv-S are more accurate at distance shooting even with their nerf.
The TMG-50 is a very decent mid range gun, it does not do what it says on the tin however.

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by maradine

Not really. I get more embarrassing things than that in my breakfast cereal.

The numbers are controlled for popularity by uniques. This has been separately correlated (albeit briefly) in another thread to ps2-stats kph. If you want to make a skill-based argument for the kpu discrepancy - ie, that once newbs move from their starting gun, they go straight for the MCG, and then on to something more interesting later in their skill life, I think that's a valid point. Once I control for BR, I think we can peel that layer back and find out.

If, on the other hand, you're just arguing because this model doesn't account for your previously held belief, I don't know what to say to you. I don't play TR. I don't care very much about your numbers. By extension, I don't really care about you. Believe whatever you like - I'm not here to change your mind if you feel strongly about it. I apologize for stepping into your TR gun thread and won't do so again.

So it took you 2 paragraphs to basically say - that your numbers dont tell much with respect to how you tried to use them, because they dont normalize a non-random variable.

[Varsam]

Originally Posted by Canaris

except the TMG-50 doesn't excel at long range as it supposed to due to the crazy jumping recoil of the gun even when firing short controlled bursts, the Carv & Carv-S are more accurate at distance shooting even with their nerf.
The TMG-50 is a very decent mid range gun, it does not do what it says on the tin however.

In that case, there is no such thing as a long range LMG (or any automatic weapon for that matter). They all have recoil and bloom. The point is that it's still better than most at long range combat. Just because something is better suited for long range engagements doesn't mean it should be EZ mode.

[mrmrmrj]

As someone who plays primarily as NC, I have to call bullshit on the claim that TR has no good long range LMGs. TR gets more headshots with LMGs on me that I ever get with my NC6 SAW or VS ever gets on me. That implies they are the most accurate. I love the TMG 50. I find it much easier to get mid to long range kills than my fully certed NC6 Gauss SAW. And the TMG 50 is better at close range.

[exohkay]

I think TR LMG's are underwhelming, and they do need a bit of diversification, just like the NC vehicles (especially the vanguard) could use a bit of a change.

Currently TR weaponry looks and sounds identical, and it feels pretty bland to use. I don't enjoy playing TR HA, except for the striker.

I think the data that has come out will be useful (CHEERS ORACLE OF DEATH) in exposing areas that could be changed/diversified.

Balance is a two way street, and if the TR weaponry is brought into line, I would expect certain other areas that are outperforming (read TR vehicle weaponry) be brought into line with the NC/VS options.

[MGP]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Ive been using the MCG lately.


Who cares abut other LMGs when you have that beast?
90% of the time it probably the best gun in the whole game that anyone could hope to be holding.

Pffft. MCG is a P.O.S. Anything you can do with MCG i can do better with LMG. MCG don't have a single advantage over LMGs.

[Adenn]

The CARV is actually a great starting gun. Good for short range and capable at midrange thanks to the sheer amount of bullets it throws at the enemy. Lacks at long range, but that's to be expected from a bullet hose.
The huge swap time is the only thing that makes no sense whatsoever, it's just annoyingly slow.

The CARV-S needs something to make it more than a crappy SVA-88. Advanced grip would do the trick and make it better at range than the CARV while still being worse than a T16 or TMG-50. The 0.45 recoil is perfectly manageable thanks to the low fsr.

The MSW-R is fine as it is. It trades the 0.75x movement multiplier for an advanced laser. Great for close but still capable at medium range, just like the CARV.

The TMG-50 jumps around like a maniac for no reason, but otherwise it's solid and good for long range. A buff to bullet speed would be nice, but unneeded.

The T32 Bull is a mid-short range lmg oriented towards accuracy and mobility. A mix of the MSW-R and the T16. I think that this could just use a larger ammo pool, it runs out incredibly quickly for a lmg.

The T16 Rhino is dedicated for midrange and accurate fire (.2 recoil with advanced grip) and is one of the best guns we have. Giving it access to a 2x reflex is the only thing i'd do.

In the end, TR LMGs are a bit lacking in variety (no real bullet hoses with crappy damage and huge rof), but the ones we have aren't as similar as you seem to think.

I pretty much agree with that guy. The proposed changes won't hurt, but I don't think they aren't really necessary either.

[exohkay]

Much like the VS Weaponry - a change to sound would be appropriate.

Perhaps the statistics that the oracle has pulled could be related to the TR tendency to stick in vehicles, as their vehicle weapons outperform the equivalent NC/VS ones?