Switched to VS, NC everything is a joke

If you can't take out a mag or prowler with 8 seconds plus your normal health then you really shouldn't be using tanks. I'm not exactly the best tank user in the world and even I could do that. LOL I'd happily trade our awful magburner for your shield.

A quick reminder for everyone who brings up certain statistics and tries to prove his arguments with it is in my sig.

Exactly. LOL

• True, although in the case of the Vanguard, the 8 seconds shield means that the Vanguard will survive the two double reloads needed to kill it (3 shots from both primary and secondary). Basically by the time the shield expires and if the Magrider has no place to hide, the Vanguard will need one single shot from either guns to kill it (by shooting all this time on the front armor), while the Magrider will still need two double shots to the rear to take out the Vanguard.
  The Prowler will go down with two double shots in the rear armor. The funny bit about the Prowler is that a lockdown Prowler shooting at the front of the Magrider will kill it faster than the Magrider shooting at the rear of the Prowler. So that's something else to keep in mind. Still, Prowlers are a lot easier to kill when ambushed.
• MAX shields are definitely useful for pushing, covering while reloading and peeking completely safely over a door or other opening. Lockdown is pretty much a death sentence for everything except some limited anti-air, while ZOE is just a button you push when you want to lose 30% of your health for 15 seconds. Charge has indeed more practical uses for all MAXes and ended up being less situational than any of the empire specific abilities, unfortunately.
• I'll let you in a secret. All camos wash out during night and the only way to fight is through IR/NV (and pray there are not many infiltrators around). Not to mention that a camo that is similar to the buildings and environment conceals you better at night. And lets not forget daytime, where Vanu stick out far better than any other faction.

Oh one good example of NC bias when it comes to statistics would be the pre-nerf Phoenix. They were on here claiming their cherry-picked stats show that the OHK infantry-farming rocket wasn't OP at all. It was just our imaginations when we would get slaughtered by Phoenix spam. LOL Then what happened? Oh I guess SOE looked at it and agreed it was OP so it got nerfed. Never trust a faction to admit that their own weapons may be OP because most people just aren't that honest.

Er... what have I "cherry picked" what exactly?

I replied to your examples.......... if your examples are bad examples (because they don't show NC being better) then that is your fault, nothing to do with "cherry picking" or anything else.

NC performance was last in every single possible measure for over a year, now it isn't, now it is closer to balance.

Average KPU does help with things like popularity, but you can't have it both ways.

On the one hand you're saying statitics are meaningless.

Yet on the other you're using the stats to say the Jackhammer is OPd.

Which is it?

Which is a nonsense, really.
You can paint a false picture with bad or false statisitics..... but the problem with that is that people like me then come along and point out what is wrong!

Data is data though, there's nothing untrue about that (in fact data is perhaps the only truth in existance), when treated correctly.

No you make broad generalist sweeping claims....... and I take them to bits, because they are BASELESS. Again that is not "cherry picking" that is presenting the truth.

You make claims about TTK which were patently false, you said "The NC MAX has by FAR the fastest TTK in CQC of any MAX in game. The other MAXs aren't even close".

Which is completely false, there's a 0.3 second TTK difference on infantry, and against other MAXs there's a more than 4.0 second TTK difference in standard vs standard MAXs or KA5 MAXs against the NC, with 3 out of 4 NC AI weapon (75% of NC weapons).

That's not "cherry picking" that's just how it is.

It's basic maths.

Are you saying NC are now more skilled on average?

Same could have been said about the TR in their 6 months of dominance, but the still had the best stats overall (as they still do in many areas) as well as the most population.

Again though average KPU tends to factor a lot of that out anyway.

Well most people would move, not sit stationary trading blows, but never the less even with the shield the Vanguard is still slightly the worst performing tank.

Remove that shield and Vanguard needs a series of baseline buffs.

It was OP'd (anyone that played PS1 could have told you a OSK would be) it was also nerfed within 48 hours of going Live.

Nothing in PS2 has been nerfed faster, not even close to that fast.

TR Carbines (in general) and Strikers and Prowlers and Harrassers and Mozzys (admittedly the Striker helped all of those) were all overperforming by way more than NC MAXs currently are.

Currently the NC is still underperforming by those stats in most areas (just not by as much), except for in AI MAXs.

So if you beleive those stats are 100% then the NC is still much worse off than the TR or VS.

The Lancer was nerfed before it was even coded, that is faster then the Pheonix

No, Vixy here firmly believes that VS has all the most skilled players in the world. Thus, in her opinion the factions will only truly be balanced when the VS consistently overperform as befits their 1337 skillz. Likewise she believes that NC has all the worst players, and thus are only balanced when they are pulling dead last in the stats.

Because apparently skilled players like purple or something.

AV mines and the ejection seat for my ESF are the two best investments I ever made.

Being able to actually do something about that Sun-D over the hill is just so... so... wonderful.

I just love all the people who bring up these silly statistics tropes because all it really does it point out how little they actually know about statistics and math in general.

It is like the creationist who looks at carbon dating as if it is voodoo or claims it is completely irrelevant or incorrect because it is not 100% precise.

Coming onto a game forum and talking about "truth" like some armchair philosopher should really embarrass people and I have to wonder why it does not.

In 8 pages now of this thread I have not seen a single shred of evidence of anything.

The only pre- post- PU2 comparison data that I am aware of shows that NC are still last in the same categories that they were previously, just not by as much as previously. Merli0n posted it a few weeks back so you can easily find it if you type that handle into the search bar.

Bottom line, this is a completely predictable response in every regard when you let one faction fester in a state of imbalance for a long time before trying to bring better overall balance.

All the players on the other factions who have an over inflated sense of self think it is unfair because it hurts the ego to see performance decrease and it is laughably textbook that a typical response would be to avoid the realization that they were not as good as they thought they were.

These are, by and large, the same people who will not be interested in looking for the actual facts and figures and will be quick to dismiss them precisely because they are afraid these figures will challenge their belief. Not unlike religious fanatics really.

It's funny... I enjoy my NC alt more than my VS at the moment... Dont see how I could ever go back...

Actually, I would be interested in hearing any discussion in reference to the statistics you listed above. Looks like the NC and VS in AI roles are almost dead even on performance, which is awesome. The question is why is the TR AI Max about 8% behind them in performance, is it a short term anomaly? is it enough of a difference that might need to be addressed? Is it insignificant and not necessary to be addressed? or do the TR make up for that AI killing advantage in another area, thus we can ignore, this small difference?

It doesn't matter if you play NC, TR or VS, if you are interested in balance, then the first thing you do is listen to the players playing these factions and take note of their experiences. The next step is to look at the data and see if you can quantify those experiences from actual hard data, looking for trends or patterns, that support or contradict those experiences, then we can decide the best way to balance any weapons, vehicle or faction.

If you have a better method for determining balance I am all ears.

Well, clearly from this thread you can see that many people think a better method for determining balance is personal opinion.

These are also the same people who are unable to enjoy games because they dissect them to such an extreme that when they die all they see is the number values that were afflicted on them and how the number values they inflicted didn't match up and thus means without a doubt, in concert with their now personal experience which equates to irrefutable mountains of evidence, that their weapon is underpowered and immediate and extreme action must be taken.

So TR attracts american "people" because they want to emulate Europeans?

NC used to have the Air Hammer, which made the Reaver interesting

But then it was nerfed, so it's no longer interesting

OK so by your own words, we can both agree, your method of determining balance is worthless. That is why we look at the numbers, because they do not lie...