Top 5 Vanguard Myths... with Numbers!

Let me help you out.


Apply Forumside BullHigby Translator

Settings : Forumside BullHigby To English

Data does not prove fact.

Volume of complaints does.

I'm not trying to hate on you but listen for just a second okay because this is why I feel that this arguement is pointless:

• "Well the DA Stats show that the vanguard kills 2.3 less enemies per hour" NO! Shove those kinds of statements back up your *** because a game is not built on whatever the statistics say you dont play PS2 a certain way because your "statistics show" what is good and what is bad and this comment is made for all factions and players in general
• Every tank has a certain advantage to the other I have not realized that till recently when I got it through my skull which a lot of people need to do for example: Vanguard= Accuracy + Power / Magrider= Mobility + Accuracy / Prowler= Tank magazine size + Power-ish (don't use prowler enough to know)
• When your able to hit an "I WIN" button your speed does not mean crap here is why: let's start off with the fact that there is never a vanguard alone rarely do I see this. 2. You can basically be immune to damage for 6 seconds and that's 2 AP tank rounds right there which is a little more than half the health of a Magrider. 3. Again, a game is built on experience and playstyle and the people you play with so the "survivability" of the tank does not mean it's terrible because obviously Vanguards die the fastest because they are focused on more as a target because of the fact that they are dangerous so the AKDR number is bascially invalid

in

in my humble opinion, your may differ, a lot of this is bogus because of kph, also some of these make no sense. just because a tank gets more kph doesn't always make it the worst. here is the thing. the lightning, funilliy enough, is more heavily armored frontally then a ******* prowler and vangaurd and coupled with the iwin shield, surviving is one thing it does very well, except for when some idiot rushes forward to far and cannot retreat. I do agree however, it needs to get a damage buff to bring it more into line with destroying tanks.

Magrider kills an average of 17 vehicles per life with the AP gun? something is fishy here.....

Btw in tank vs tank, KPH hour mean nothing.

Im sure most people like me dont valiantly fight to the death against a Vanguard.

When an enemy AP Vanguard leaps out of the trees and charges me down popping its shields I am already aware I have lost. I dont fight (i cant even hurt it) so i hop out and redeploy.

Im sure alot of other people do that too because you cant beat an IWIN shield (unless you can escape), the end result is known before the battle even begins and because of that, the Vanguard doesnt claim me as a kill.
This would affect your stats. The Vanguard won, its better, but the stats wont tell you that because I didnt die.

I just wanted to say that direct KDR on a tank weapon from DA is completely meaningless. Although I might loose 4 tanks in a row doesn't mean I was in any of them when they blew.

Also, if you ask OoD be sure it's vehicle deaths, Not player deaths.

You do realize that you are talking about 8s right (oops i ment 6 now) ? Even if the shooter is an excellent marksman he can only land 2 shots on your prowler. The problem with all of you TR is that you take for granted that Vanguards ALWAYS have secondary gunners on them with AV rockets and that will always be an issue. Just like you never compare abilities & tank features.......
Bottom line if anyone would sit down and compare tank specs and didn't take for granted that all tanks have gunners things would be a hell of a lot different when also comparing abilities.

I agree but why are you telling me this?

A two shot headstart is all a Vanguard needs.
The Vanguard only needs to win, even with just a scrap of health, for it to be a victory. 2 shells is more than enough to tip the balance.

If an Anchored Prowler with AP shells couldn't bring the current shield down and destroy the Vanguard in 6.5s i would agree....However now it can so the 2 shots "headstart" mean nothing. The Vanguard now needs 3x3.5s at max reload to fire 4 AP rounds and destroy a Prowler. That's 10.5s for anyone that doesn't know how to count. An AP Anchored Prowler without a gunner now needs 6.5s to bring down the shield and destroy a Vanguard (used to need 8s prior to the nerf, proven again with youtube recordings).
Want to explain to me how the Prowler loses against the slow moving Vanguard when it needs 6.5s while the Vanguard needs 10.5s ? Without secondary gunners of course for both sides. Purely 1 vs 1.

Because thats 6.5 seconds plus 6 seconds shield time, or 12.5 seconds all up.
Destroying the shield doesnt also destroy the Vanguard. you need to take both down.
I have to take the shield down first (which takes 5 seconds, then 6.5 to destroy the tank.
So thats 11.5 secinds consdering I destroy the shield before it normally expires.
10.5 seonds is faster.

I suggest you check my vids on youtube (follow the speed vids i posted early) to see that it will not take more than 7s for a AP ANCHORED prowler to take out both the shield and the vanguard itself.

Oh, here are more fun STATS! The kind that points out Prowler is the best MBT because CANNONS! And now it went to ANOTHER WHOLE LEVEL! "VG is UP".

Mmmmm'Kay.

Yeah, I know right? Statistics are funny like that. They can totally teach you things that you never realized before. Or correct misguided beliefs that stem from personal anecdotes or secondhand hearsay, right?

But hey, if you don't like statistics you can always just go on making up things that are totally divorced from the reality that statistics capture. Seems like that's good enough for SOE to start buffing/nerfing things, just based on whining instead of evidence.

I mean it's a winning strategy, why change it?

The Van has never performed well though, comparatively.

It has performed a bit worse and a lot worse (when the shield was bugged) and never significantly better.

The current nerft isn't a huge one, but it is certainly a nerf and won't see the Van performing better comparatively.

If any tank needs a nerfing it's the magrider.

I don't like doing global judgement but...
TR and VS players have probably been accustomed the have the upper hand (not talking about faction pop) for too long now (one year and a half) and I honestly think that both factions hates to see NC at equal foot after all this time.

Dying has no meaning to Infantry. Losing a tank means you provide that much less of an impact (force multiplier) and you're possibly down resources/time until the next. It works fine if you employ the tank to be a disposable tool, like a mine, and, under that kind of mindset, it may not matter the uptime so long as something gets accomplished. To others, the MBT is a important fixture of the combat over-all, such that going eye-for-eye and knocking some teeth out in the process is not valid except in the most desparate of situations.

And that is the issue at the heart of these threads, tanks as a fixture rather than a disposable. Advancing the line is not the question. The question is why does the MBT that is so psychologically dreadful to its opponents and has both the better alpha damage, better resistances, and better sustained-damage AV secondary a lightweight when it comes to its rewards reaped from the battlefield, even against the targets that it sets itself up to be most suited to engage, or when compared to the reaped rewards of said target using a comparative loadout.

And my supposition is that the shield creates conflicting, potentially self-defeating mindsets for both the operator and the target, such that the reaction to the Vanguard in general, whether or not employing the shield, impacts its performance in quantitative ways. Statistics have shown the actual functionality of the shield is not a major issue. One side gives up and that leads to either a loss or a no-kill. If the weakest link of the Vanguard - its speed - is the issue, then the problem is a tendency to stumble too deeply in(to) overwhelming conditions.

Because lack of mobility is the worst thing you can have in this game, and high mobility is the best.

ZOE MAXes took 30% more damage from all sources and yet died less than all non-ZOE MAXes for this very reason

Which is a problem because speed is the trade-off for what should be the Vanguard's strengths, and you don't even lose a tremendous speed in any direction but reversing. Perhaps the issue, then, is not raw speed but hill climbing. I recall reading somewhere that the Vanguard is like a Reaver - not good at climbing but goes down really fast. (I don't think it was trying to be humorous about that.)

I've also advocated for a subtle improvement to top reverse speed in the past.

I think the lack of reliable hull-down positions in the terrain also hurts, as those might be the kind of situations where the Vanguard would excel at over-land combat.

Any improvements to mobility will just make the Vanguard a sh*tty Prowler. Can juke around but has to stop to fire and has way less damage per reload.

The Shield was the Vanguard's stand-in for mobility. A Magrider can go invincible for 8 seconds by strafing behind cover, but a Vanguard's just gotta sit there. Kill the shield off and well

specify anchored next time then.
I spent the whole time thinking it was just tank vs tank. not anchored

then yes i can agree with you now.