[Vehicle] The Magrider is complete garbage

vulnerable? dude i have seen a single mag rider take on multiple enemy tanks unless you speak of the noobs that try to drive then the resutls are obvious,and when somebody choses to sneak up it will be from a side where they can actually escape and obviously that side will have much less enemies i have seen with my own eyes magriders do a lot of damage and this post is nothing like what i have witnessed in the battlefield all these years

You dont seem to understand a single thing. You think i would be able to speak from any kind of expereince if i just sit behind a rock and shoot? You dont make any certs that way. I am very aggressive and the rival allows me to be more aggressive than i could ever be with a racer. And besides, if you had actually used rival you would understand how much the turn speed, traction and reverse does for you. But you dont so you just sit here trying to blab about the racer being good.

Why don't I understand a single thing?

As Slandeblade also pointed out, you can be more aggressive and use more intricate tactics using the speed of the Vanguard than trying to upgrade it's pathetic maneuverability. Especially since your increased maneuverability will rarely ever pay off against an opponent.

Besides that, I used to use maxed Rival chassis, but once I picked level 1 Racer I already found that it was superior, then I upgraded it further. It offers the perfect mix of aggressive tactics as well as more stealthy combat or careful attacks, while Rival is just a defensive patch when you screwed up or misjudged your approach, and even then it's not an incredibly good defensive patch because the Vanguard already doesn't suffer much from being flanked unless it's in the rear.



Now since we are comparing phalluses anyway, how about a comparison of stats?
http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/player/AxiomExotic
http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/player/Demigan

You did 79 hours in the Vanguard
I did 73 hours in the Vanguard

In that time I auraxed the Vanguard AP and Vanguard HEAT and got better scores. Now I might have less vehicles killed total on my AP gun, I have also used it much less since I also auraxed the Vanguard HEAT. And it shows, my VKPH is 24.8 while yours is 16.4. Despite that, I've also killed more infantry during this time with a higher KPH (34,3 vs your 19.6). So I'm better (much better) at killing infantry and hunting down vehicles at the same time.
But that's not all, I also auraxed the Vanguard HEAT. My Vanguard HEAT has a VKPH of 11.8, which isn't stellar compared to your Vanguard AP's 16.4, but it also means that you are closer to my Vanguard HEAT than my Vanguard AP. Aside from that the Vanguard HEAT was the first weapon I used even through the early large AOE days, and I've gotten so much experience in the meantime that the KPH on my Vanguard AP is actually higher than my Vanguard HEAT. If I were to pick it up today I would probably manage to eke out a similar VKPH with the Vanguard HEAT as you can with the Vanguard AP.

My total vehicle kills in the Vanguard is just 60 shy of the amount you have, even though I have used and auraxed the Vanguard HEAT and you played 6 hours more than me in the Vanguard.
Even the total VKDR I win: 4.4 for me and 3.2 for you. KDR? 7.7 for me and 3.8 for you.
Even with the Enforcer and Halberd thrown in, however unfair it is since neither of us have a lot of time or kill in those, I still win.

The only things you are ahead of me is the Enforcer and Halberd accuracy, but since you don't really get results with that extra accuracy it doesn't matter.
So yeah, between the two of us I'm the better Vanguard player and it shows. You might have more time, but you don't have the skill.

As an aside, for the leader of an armored division why don't you have anything in the Lightning?The Lightning might lose on many statistical fronts from MBT's, but with competence and skill they can be made powerful tools that rival the importance on the battlefield of MBT's.

I am still working on certing my lightning but i havent gotten around to it yet. And besides, i bought the ap within the first 50 or so hours of me playing the game and thats why i havent got as much progress on it as you have, because i didnt have prior experience on the game. Secondly, i have tried using the racer at max rank. And it just cant compete with the rival. The measely speed boost does nothing for me and i am far more effective with the rival. If you are playing on cobalt, id love to crush your pesky magrider someday.

You have auraxed only the Vanguard AP in the same time I auraxed both the Vanguard AP and Vanguard HEAT.

Just for comparison:
You spend 71.1 hours in the Vanguard AP and got it Auraxium.
I spend 31.3 hours in the Vanguard AP and got it Auraxium.
I also spend 29.2 hours in the Vanguard HEAT and got it Auraxium. Now you have gotten enough kills and vehicle kills on the Vanguard AP to aurax it twice, but since I've done it on both the Vanguard AP and the Vanguard HEAT in less time total than you did on just the Vanguard AP and I got better stats I would say there's no contest.

Considering your playstyle I can say that yes, Racer isn't for you because you stick with a single early tactic. You do what the average player does most of the time: Sit behind a rock, pop-up, trade shots, get some repairs, repeat. You don't need speed because you don't use anything useful, you don't need Rival either except for compensating for mistakes you made in positioning your chassis.
You did say something about being aggressive, and boy do you need speed for that. You might feel that Rival helps you, but it probably doesn't do it as much as you think it does. I think I have the skill and experience to prove it, having not only auraxed the Vanguard AP+HEAT in shorter time with better stats but also the Lightning AP (again with more VKPH+KPH than your Vanguard AP, I can beat you in a Lightning!), the Lightning Viper and the Lightning Skyguard.
Now here's a shocker I hadn't expected, I'm close to auraxiuming my Lightning HEAT, and I got almost the same VKPH on a freaking Lightning HEAT as you have on the Vanguard AP! I can almost beat your scores with a Lightning HEAT! And you still don't think my word about how to tank is worth anything?

Why don't you take my word? I have everything to prove that I know it better than you do, yet you even dare say that I don't understand a single thing? What gives? Is your ego really so big that you can't handle just saying "hey you might be right, let's try it out for more than 2 seconds"?

just wanted to say i actually switched to TR recently because i couldnt stand the mag rider now i have an MBT thats worth having

yes i read all the posts saying that maggie requires time to learn but screw that **** i prefer easy to learn hard to master over hard to learn harder to master

lol it was too hard so you quit and went to tr..

cool. hope i get to butt hump your prowler soon

are you legitimately upset that i changed factions ? holy ****.

also ofcourse you will theres a high chance you will, afterall you got like what ? 1000 hours in the game and i got maybe 50 so far

upset? no sir, i think its funny. you were offered suggestions, offered direct help, and instead you gave up. prob best you hadnt come gun or drove for me. we get blown up once and youd bail

nah that aint me, people wont give me a ride most of the time because they see my free camo and automatically think im a noob, so i've yet to be a gunner of a tanker in this game to begin with
either that or their vehicle is locked.
but i still play vanu now and then
its just that i prefer a tracked tank in this particular game
as my OP says im a guy who LOVED the first hover tank he drove because you could pinpoint infantry and kill them
here the tank movement is clunky especially the gun movement aka micro movements... they're impossible to do
im sure this was made to give the tanks a "realistic movement behaviour"

Going by the stats

KPH HE KPU
TR 50.03, 16.78
VS 42.55, 16.74
NC 44.5, 13.3

KPH HEAT KPU
TR 20.47, 5.9
VS 15.66, 4.74
NC 16.31, 4.41

KPH AP KPU
TR 23.82, 9.64
VS 17.97, 8.37
NC 17.79, 7.57

Secondary weapons
TR GK 17.74, 3.7
Saron 21.13, 4.56
Enforcer 19.06, 3.78

Vulcan 17.9, 2.78
Aphelion 17.74, 3.7
Mjolnir 14.36, 1.92

Oh and AI weapons
Marauder 75.5, 5.6
PPA 40.02, 3.18
Canister 71.18, 5.61

Looking at the above stats

Main guns
HE TR needs to be nerfed
Heat TR needs to be nerfed
AV TR needs to be nerfed

Secondary
AV ranged Saron needs a nerf (remove the spam mode and cof bloom, then reduce the drop on the Enforcer)
AV close Mjolnir needs a buff
AI Marauder and Canister either need to be hit repeatedly with the nerf bat and thoroughly destroyed or SOE DBG need to reverse some all of the nerfs on the PPA (hint damage degradation is your friend restore it to the pre nerf status and add DD to it so to stop long range spammage).

What's frustrating is that the vales for each weapon are are just numbers in table and can be easily adjusted (so sayeth Higby).

If numbers are not balancing after a month, tweak and re-examine. Don't just leave as OP / UP for years on end!

To me this is more important than time spent on other in game garbage.

Why did you list the KPH, rather than the VKPH? KPH has it's place, but we aren't just talking AI weapons here, we are talking AV weapons mostly, right?

Why are you so adamant about insisting i just sit behind rocks trading shots? And no, you would never be able to kill me in a lightning, i know now you are just trash talking me if you actually believe what you just said. What does it matter how fast you auraxiumed weapons? I dont play this game to just get as many kills as possible, i play to have fun and thats why i may not have as much progress as you. Why would i care about pulling a lightning when a mbt can do everything a lightning can do except the anti-air?

I meant "in the same situation I can do better in a Lightning than you can in a Vanguard", that's how I beat you.

You yourself admitted to that strategy, you did mention something about aggressiveness but you never explained exactly what you do when you are aggressive.
Regardless, my accuracy is pretty close to what you have, so pure aiming skill can't be the cause of the huge discrepancy in our stats. This means that my tactics must be superior since I get better results with less hits in less time.

I also play this game to have fun, but I have fun by using strategy and tactics as much as by murdering my enemies.
But we weren't discussing how much fun we were having or how we were having fun, we were discussing who got the biggest phallus by being better at strategy. You doubted that I was any good, even exclaiming I didn't know anything. Yet everything points to me knowing better. I do it faster, I get better results.

As for why you should take a Lightning. Well why should you pull a MBT if a Lightning can do everything the MBT can? It's the same "argument". However you should pick different weapons and playstyles because it improves your capabilities. It forces you to come out of your comfort zone and get better. Make a weapon or vehicle work despite it's shortcomings. It's one of the reasons why I have so many different weapons aurax on both vehicles and infantry (well mainly the LA), because each weapon needs to be used differently. This can be incredibly frustrating and there are weapons that are obviously weaker than just about any other weapon even after extended use, but that only means you can't let your weapon do the work and have to do it yourself: Flank your opponent, surprise them, play your enemy, use the environment, use the way most people react to predict or even cause their movement in a certain direction.

And I have to tell you, you really should start using the Lightning. The Lightning, unlike the Vanguard, can't compensate with a shield or high DPS. The Lightning is smaller, has a low profile, is fast and maneuverable and can be kicked to the curb by any MBT when it's just trading shots. But if you play to it's strengths, use that smaller frame, use that speed, use it's maneuverability and get tactical with it you can easily go toe-to-toe with MBT's. But the strategies you use with a Lightning can also be applied to the Vanguard, with a few changes ofcourse since the Vanguard is slower and easier to hit.
Since you never really used the Lightning (or so it seems) you never learned to use things beyond the most rudimentary of tactics. Just pick an AP Lightning, throw max Racer on it and try it out. You'll probably get your faced stomped in a couple of times before you adjust to it, but if you stick with it you could find the Lightning AP much more preferable than any other. I still go back to it whenever I have an excuse to kick butt, and I rather take an AP Lightning than an AP Vanguard!

What makes you think i dont do this? I can do this much better when using a rival chassis and no i dont like the lightning i dont find it as useful.

Because if you did, our stats would be a lot closer. Alternatively, the methods you use to surprise, play your enemy, use the environment etc are inferior to what I'm using. So either way: Listen to what I have to say and use it to your advantage. Become better with the advice I give you. Rival chassis is not the way to go for any of these tactics, not with the Vanguard, not with the Lightning, not with the Prowler. PS2 is a large-scale game where you can go immense distances to get that juicy advantage. In fights you rarely depend on your turn-ratio with these tanks, and it'll more often than not be of little use to you. Yet that speed can get you an advantage in many ways during many maneuvers. It can reduce the chance you get seen, it can reduce the time your enemy has to react to your maneuver, it can increase your chance of getting close in time or getting away, it can increase the chance that you get where you wanted in time.

WHY must you act as if your "oh rival sucks get the racer it can do all the things you do with rival but somehow better" as if your ******* tactic is the only correct one and i cant do it simply because i use the rival? You have offered me no useful advice in all your posts to me and i do not understand why i keep coming back here to argue with you, and i would ask you to kindly cease this argument and i will as well. c: See ya around buddy

Because PS2 vehicle abilities aren't designed around balance. Just like the Hover frame trumps the Dogfighting frame in just about each and every way because the added maneuverability doesn't weigh up against the Hover fight and Reverse maneuver techniques in A2A combat, and the Hover frame also has better A2G capabilities.
The Rival chassis just doesn't offer enough maneuverability to give an advantage. Taking into account all the strategies and maneuvers that are useful in the game, Rival rarely ever does something for you. In the meantime Racer actually does. From Hill climbing to escaping attention to stabbing people in the back faster, Racer does it for you.

"use different vehicles and weapons and you'll improve, use Racer since it has more use in the game". That's pretty solid advice.

Just try it, use the Lightning AP and you'll be kicking more butt with the Vanguard in no time!

Everyone has their own preference, and i respect your opinion, but, I use Rival, and have for about the last 700 hours in my Vanguard (931 hours total).
I flank, i suprise, i use terrain to my advantage, I fail to see how Racer helps with this over Rival at all tbh, unless your talking getting there faster, but far more important when im fighting other vehicles is my maneuvering, which despite what you say, is drastically increased using Rival. Not only is your traversing speed increased when stationary, but when moving at speed you have much increased traction in your turn, aswel as improved brakes, see below.

With Rival i can stop when i see mines, cant with Racer, and combined with server lag its a guaranteed death if your moving at speed as you cant turn to save yourself either. If you're moving slow enough to stop / avoid mines then Racer is a complete waste of time as you're not using it.

Rival's reverse speed is more of a % increase than the Racers front speed last time i checked, Racer in reverse is slower than an infantry (although Racer did get a reverse speed buff some time ago so maybe thats not quite accurate any more, will have to retest).

When flanking i also tend to run into more than 1 vehicle, Rival helps with this as you can more easily keep your tough side facing the incoming damage, even at times rotating the hull as each opponent reloads.
Then theres harassers and mags who love to try and stay on my ****, they cant do it when Rival is attached, they try, o do they try, but fail every time.

Thanks to 'gear shifting' as its become known for some reason, the acceleration diff is not as bad as it should be.

From someone who regularly runs tank squads, including tanks both Racer and Rival equipped, i very rarely find myself thinking 'damn i wish i had more speed now' speed just doesnt equate to much for me when my tank is a large target thats easy to hit whatever speed its moving. And i rarely fund myself or my other Rival users falling behind the Racer equivalents enough to be a problem.

Having used both chassis extensively i vastly prefer Rival over Racer, as for me there are more benefits to Rival than Racer once i reach my fighting position. And id rather increase my chances of survival in a fight than rush to get to my death a little quicker.
There is only 1 vehicle on the game that has a slower top speed than a Vanguard, so even with Racer your chances of outrunning some1 who wants your blood is very low, if not non existant.

So with Rival i get:

• Increased turn speed when moving
• Increased turn speed when stationery
• increased brake power
• increased reverse speed
• Increased reverse torque (decided to include this for hill climbing reasons)

With Racer i get:

• Increased forward top speed
• Increased forward torque (decided to include this for hill climbing reasons)
• Increased forward acceleration

No brainer for my playstyle.