NC already have the buff - Page 2

Nax · 2012-04-20, 02:24 AM

Then join them, rebel scum.

Grognard · 2012-04-20, 02:26 AM

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

Originally Posted by Malorn

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 · 2012-04-20, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Originally Posted by SOE

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** · 2012-04-20, 02:43 AM

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 · 2012-04-20, 02:44 AM

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

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

Erendil · 2012-04-20, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 2012-04-20, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2012-04-20, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Erendil

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?

Erendil · 2012-04-20, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

**Malorn** · 2012-04-20, 03:02 AM

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.

PlaceboCyanide · 2012-04-20, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by Erendil

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 · 2012-04-20, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

Originally Posted by PlaceboCyanide

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** · 2012-04-20, 03:50 AM

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 · 2012-04-20, 04:02 AM

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 · 2012-04-20, 06:08 AM

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!