NC +.000001% Damage - "Use Your Advantage"

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Spartan 117, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. I'll hold you up to the same standard. You have no evidence either and you speculate not even based on experience about the quality of someone else's aim.

    That's questionable argumentation at the very least.
  2. OH, I almost forgot!

    PERCEPTION.

    this is something less related to the statistics of the weapons and why they are actually a little UP, but more to do with why they FEEL UP as well. when you fire a slower weapon you need higher feedback, you need bigger sounds and more obvious kick (in the animation more-so than the coding), because while it may very well BE more powerful there are breaks between each shot that create a feedback gap of the weapon, with a fast weapon you have fewer of these so it feels like a more steady more powerful stream of damage, with slower weapons it makes each shot feel weak because you're sitting there counting them out (well... not counting but certainly noticing). IMO the feedback of most weapons in the game already is a little underwhelming (although it's definitely a significant improvement if you can see the shots connect with a surface like a wall) and it certainly doesn't get better with the NC.
  3. It happens quite often, and it happens because when you get hit you get that "bump" on your aim, and combined with the massive recoil of the NC weapons, it gets more or less impossible to hit the attacker.
  4. Occam's Razor supports the idea with the least amount of assumptions. I'm suppose to assume you had these experiences? I'm suppose to assume that numerous times you died because of a slight nerf you had?

    And my claim is supported by logic. These nerfs and boosts are only the main variables in a perfect system like I suggested. There are numerous other variables in game that people do not take into consideration, yet I'm to believe it's because of the slight nerfs and buffs each faction has because you say it is?
  5. you would make the same assumptions as him them? he assumes that the changed variables are what instigated the result, you assume that it's one of all the other variables that has caused it, either way Occams razor is **** because taking any argument based on assumption is stupid, yours or his.
  6. I'm not assuming anything? I said that there are too many variables to rightfully claim the slight nerfs and buffs are the cause. If that's an assumption, science must be doing it wrong then.
  7. I've got plenty of feedback, problem is, I can't do anything with it since the gun doesn't hit where I aim it after compensating for the previous shot.

    The following is just to illustrate the effect of low accuracy, low rof, high damage vs medium accuracy, high rof, low damage. It is therefore not to be taken as me posting direct evidence of any current TTK differences.

    Take this test between NC and TR MAX (from beta, two months ago, mind you). It kinda illustrates the point of having less accurate weapons that per shot (or pellet) are supposed to hit harder, but miss a lot, while facing a high rate of fire, low damage, but more accurate opponent.



    If you're not firing and/or not hitting, it's a bit hard to do damage, isn't it? (Note, they did the same tests with various ways of utilising cover and again TR won every scenario, NC MAXes were only better at really close range fights facing regular infantry).

    That's what lack of accuracy does: it heavily increases the practical TTK required. Now, if the weapons are balanced, these TTK differences should be barely noticable both in theory and practice. In game currently, they are very noticable in practical situations.
    • Up x 1

  8. firstly, there aren't too many variables, there is in his situation, but you can re-create the situation with other variables being as closely controlled as possible to get accurate results, and they tend to agree with the idea that NC is a little UP (at least all the ones I've seen that are currently valid), so that part wasn't an assumption, you were just plain wrong.

    secondly:
    this is called an assumption, and I do believe that is you making it, don't be a hypocrite.

    lastly... well I don't have a third point but I felt weird not having a third and last point.
  9. Despite that being factually inaccurate (misses don't make per-shot damage go down) I know what you're trying to say. Missing individual shots when you have a low RoF and high DpShot feels bad. However, except in cases of extremely low shot count or high disparity between shot counts, "miss a lot" doesn't change relative damage over time. It's like in generic fantasy MMOs where people believe that 2h users have to have a higher accuracy to get the same dps as dual wielders due to less swings. As sample sizes increase beyond a very bare minimum, the functional difference falls off almost immediately.

    Basically, if a NC and TR miss 75% of their shots (Higby's older numbers showed an appalling 25% accuracy with LMGs), both the NC and TR do 25% of their potential DPS.

    SAW - 5 STK - 20 shots at 25% accuracy - 2.4 seconds fire time
    Carv - 7 STK - 28 shots at 25% accuracy - 2.24 seconds fire time

    It matches up with the 7% DPS bonus that Carv/Orion have over SAW.

    Something interesting:
    SAW base CoF ADS is 0 w/ 0.07 increment. After 20 shots, that's 1.4.
    Carv base CoF ADS is 0.1 w/ 0.05 increment. After 28 shots, that's 1.5.

    Difference? 7% CoF accuracy (unlike Recoil, something the player can't negate) in favor of the SAW.

    ---

    This is also why Bolt vs Semi-Auto rifles plays out like it does. Bolts are amazing if you don't miss whereas the Semis are more forgiving. At extremely low fire rates, the "miss a lot" idea plays out but when you're in the 500+ spm range, it's well past mattering.
  10. I would take any amount of recoil to do the damage of some other weapons. I can control the weapons recoil, I can't make my weapon cause more damage.
  11. Please provide where you got this data, because I can also as easily say that I've seen videos where variables are closely controlled, and they tend to agree that NC is a little OP. Also, there's numerous variables. Amount of health/shields, upgrades, who saw the other first, who shot the other first, how skillful the player is, how many other enemies/allies are nearby, cover, type of weapon, distance, is the enemy staying still or moving, are you staying still or moving, etc.
  12. NC default LMG sucks(Too much COF for LMG). I think this is where all this whine is coming from, cause majority of players playing HA. So. Buy yourself EM1 if you love TR that much, cause that gun has almost the same stats as default TR lmg. But I'd rather go with EM6 or Saw S.

    But. NC default assault rifle(gauss) is awesome.
    And carabine is very good.
    Yeah you cant kill someone with gauss rifle if you go full auto on him at 100m+ But neither VS or TR can(They just have somewhat higher chance to do so if there is like 10 more people shooting this poor guy)
    And if you are shooting in short burst - it kills very fast and is very ammo-efficient.
  13. I don't recall saying there weren't numerous other variables, only that you were assuming it was one of them.

    oh and I'm not gonna go forum diving for threads to show you every conclusive test I've seen, but there is an example in this thread of one, would you kindly show me one that supports your malformed argument?
  14. A lot of the issues that experienced NC players have isn't the recoil, it's the CoF bloom. However, a lot of the time, the bloom is being taken in weird contexts, too. Poorly matched fire durations and the like. CoF's important as there's no amount of being good that you can do to fix it other than not firing.
  15. Also in response to this, I made my "assumption" through the idea that these two are the main factors that encompass all the ingame variables. You're unlucky if the enemy sees/shoots you first, they have a large group shooting at you, etc. Also you're unskilled if the enemy is more skilled than you, you miss a lot (this can fall under unlucky category I suppose as well), you're slow on the trigger, don't utilize cover, etc.

    Not really an "assumption" so not really a hypocrite. You just didn't see my reasoning which I will admit was a mistake on my part.
  16. With the exception of base CoF while moving in standing ADS, the SAW is equal to or better than the Carv. While it does have a higher bloom-per-shot, it's RoF is less and that bloom (as shown above) increases slower. Of the three, the SAW is in the middle and the Carv is the worst. That being said, they're all close enough that it won't change who wins unless everyone starts firing at the exact same time and, even then, DPS balances out the TR and NC weapons. VS, in a few, mobile ADS cases, has a totally imperceptible advantage.

    It's all there in the docs. Just need to read them and apply a little math wizardry.
  17. you're assuming that in the situations he mentioned that he was unlucky and less skilled, it doesn't matter how you slice and dice it, you made an assumption and you can't bulls*** logic your way out of it, you assumed that variables you didn't know or have access to were the cause, he assumed that so and so was the cause with access to ALL the involved variables, obviously they are discounted regardless because it was an uncontrolled environment, but please do tell me how your un-informed assumption was an less an assumption than his informed assumption.
  18. You said there weren't too many variables in the very first sentence of your previous post. And my argument is that there are too many variables to sufficiently conclude that the nerfs make the NC UP. That's basic logic. By simply naming numerous other variables I've sufficiently proved my point. If you wish to show me a video of all the other variables controlled, I would gladly watch it, and recognize that the OP has a point in saying that NC is UP, but until then I don't have to do anything. The object is to make the game balanced, and I don't have to go and prove the game is balanced, you have to prove the game is imbalanced.
  19. Find me one variable that does not encompass the two ideas that he was either unlucky or unskilled. It's like if I claimed an object either exists or doesn't exist. That is not an assumption.
  20. that max video is interesting, given how hard the scattermaxes poop over everything in actual gameplay.

    i dont know if they are op but they sure as fearsome. ;)

    Does anyone know the headshot multiplier? I still think headshots are the NC secret weapon.

Share This Page