Upcoming building stuff

oh, suddenly your magical chart has vanished? allow me to reincarnate it, along with your arguments against yourself.

your own words, in 15 minutes a HE prowler scored half of the kills that a heavy did for an entire day.

And was that HA really playing for 24 hours straight?

On July 30, 2014 (the closest date for which we have data), the SVA-88 was used for a total of 426.61 hours. There were 777 SVA-88 users. This meant that on average each SVA-88 user was using it for 32.9 minutes.

So the data shows that for July 30, 2014:
A HE Prowler playing for 16 minutes would get 11 kills. This is 0.69 kills per minute.
A SVA-88 HA playing for 33 minutes would get 21 kills. This is 0.64 kills per minute.

Like I said, the HE Prowler is marginally more effective than the SVA-88. But the thing is that you can pick up a free SVA-88 and still be 92.8% as effective as an HE Prowler. That is strong evidence that the HE Prowler was far from overperforming.

I think you need to go back to school and reenroll in magical chart reading 101.

obviously its not one heavy, its the average from all of them over 24 hours.
and on average in that 24 hours they killed less than the small handful of prowlers killed in 35 minutes.

Again, you're misinterpreting the data. You know how I found that the tanks were being used for 15.5 minutes? The same methodology is used to find out how long SVA-88 players played. And they did not play for 24 hours.

Your error is that you multiplied the kills from the tank by 2.1875 and kept the kills by the HAs the same. In 35 minutes a HA using a SVA-88 would have killed more people as well.

Again, once you even out the usage time, the HA is 92.8% as effective as the guy who paid 450 nanites for a HE Prowler.

If you put a person in a HE Prowler and set him loose, on average after 1 minute he will have achieved 0.69 kills. In 35 minutes he will have achieved ~24 kills.
If you give a person a SVA-88 and set him loose, on average after 1 minute he will have achieved 0.64 kills. In 35 minutes he will have achieved ~22 kills.

0.64/0.69 = 92.8%, hence the conclusion that a person with a LMG is 92.8% as effective as a person with twin 120mm tank cannons. Practically speaking, after 35 minutes of play the HE Prowler will only have killed two more people than the SVA-88 HA.

I hope you're beginning to understand how terribly weak HE was. And that's the HE Prowler, which doesn't even include a look at the poor HE Vanguard.

there is no talking sense to you chingles when it comes to tanks,
even when it is your own data, you expect tanks to be some mad doomsday machine,
and that will never and should never happen.

I live in hope that they will finish what was started.

You don't like it when the stats prove you wrong, do you?

You realize he's using your own stats against you and proving YOU wrong, right? you're at the point where you're getting defensive and starting to use cheesy techniques like winky faces and such to make it look like you're "winning" an argument online...

Again, the stats clearly show that prior to the HE nerf, a SVA-88 was only 92.8% as effective as an HE Prowler calculated as kills per time of usage.

Liewec clearly misinterpreted the stats to try and assume that while the HE Prowler was being used for 15.5 minutes, the SVA-88 was being used for 24 hours. This was incorrect because the SVA-88 was being used for ~33 minutes, not 24 hours. This drastically changes the effectiveness calculations as I've explained above.

He's using my own stats against me... incorrectly, which is why his conclusion is erroneous. It looks like I am "winning" the arguement because, well, I am.

The ION cannon is gonna be like a giant spit fire,
I'm disappointed

the stats were against you as i've repeated 3 times now.
regardless, let this end.

Only because you very oddly applied a 35 minute limitation to HE Prowlers and a 24 hour duration for the SVA-88. I would highly question why you decided to put one filter on the HE Prowler data but didn't apply an equivalent filter to the SVA-88 data.

Oh what am I saying. Of course I know why. Because you wanted to make the HE Prowler look like it was overperforming.

Hence your conclusion:
The average HE Prowler kills 11 people per day. The average HE Prowler plays for 16 minutes per day.
The average SVA-88 player kills 21 people per day.
OMG! So if you just doubled the time that a HE Prowler plays then you will kill more people than a SVA-88 player kills in a day!

I've highlighted the flaw in your analysis in red to make it obvious. You failed to apply that same criteria to the SVA-88. What your analysis should have been:

The average HE Prowler kills 11 people per day. The average HE Prowler plays for 16 minutes per day. This means the HE Prowler gets 0.69 kills per minute.
The average SVA-88 player kills 21 people per day. The average SVA-88 player plays for 33 minutes per day. This means the SVA-88 gets 0.64 kills per minute.
OMG! So if you divide the SVA-88 kills per minute by the HE Prowler kills per minute, you find that the SVA-88 is 92.8% as effective as the HE Prowler!

I'm not going to let this end until you admit that:
1) Your reasoning and interpretation of the statistics was wrong.
2) A HE Prowler is only 7.2% more effective than a friggin LMG.
3) HE was nerfed for no good reason apart to satisfy infantry-centric players who had nothing to complain about in the first place.

you're arguing with yourself...

YOU chose to compare the SVA kills of all of the heavies for the entire day with the 253 people who pulled prowler for 15 minutes.
and YOU showed that those 253 prowlers in 35 minutes would have more kills than all of the SVA heavies killed over the 24 hour period, these are your stats not mine...

feel free to tell us how many heavies were using SVA and we can work out how many kills they got in 15 minutes.
but i'm willing to bet you won't want to do that.

What... on earth...

THOSE SVA HEAVIES WERE NOT PLAYING FOR 24 HOURS. They were playing for, on average, ~33 minutes.

You are attempting to inflate the HE Prowler statistics while trying to minimize the SVA-88 stats. Comparing apples to oranges.

If you were attempting to be fair, you would be looking at how many kills each person netted
IN AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF PLAYING TIME.

That means 1 minute of HE Prowlering compared to 1 minute of SVA-88ing. Or 1 hour of HE Prowlers compared to 1 hour of SVA-88s.

But trying to pretend that the SVA-88 HAs were playing for a whole 24 hours while the HE Prowlers were only playing for 15.5 minutes is downright wrong. It's disgusting how you keep this up. Disingenuous. Either you're really, really stupid or you're simply refusing to look at this data with a fair glance.

So shut up and listen up.

All data is from July 30, 2014, prior to the HE nerfs.

There were 777 SVA-88 players who played a total of 426.61 hours. This meant that each SVA-88 player used the SVA-88 for 32.9 minutes on average. (32.9*60/777=32.9)

There were 253 Prowler HE players who played a total of 65.53 hours. This meant that each Prowler HE player used the Prowler HE for 15.5 minutes. (65.53*60/253=15.5)

You follow so far knucklehead?

Now on July 30, 2014 the SVA-88 players got 16,631 kills. Because there were 777 SVA-88 players, this meant that each SVA-88 player got 21.4 kills. (16,631/777=21.4)

In that same day, the Prowler HE players got 2,823 kills. Because there were 253 Prowler HE players, this meant that each Prowler HE player got 11.2 kills. (2,823/253=11.2)

Now I could be as dumb as you and say, "Hey look, the SVA-88s killed more per day! LMGs OP PLZ NERF NAO" But we both know what's wrong with that... because we did not correct for time played. We want to measure 1 minute of HE Prowlers against 1 minute of SVA-88s.

I've colour-coded this so even a Neanderthal could follow along. Which might be too much credit, but you at least know how to type. The point is to arrive at a unit rate (6th grade math, but maybe you could use a refresher), and to compare two equivalent unit rates. The unit rate we will be looking at is kills per minute.

The SVA-88 player got 21.4 kills in 32.9 minutes. This means that the SVA-88 player got 0.65 kills per minute. (21.4/32.9=0.65)

The Prowler HE player got 11.2 kills in 15.5 minutes. This means that the Prowler HE player got 0.72 kills per minute. (11.2/15.5=0.72)

The numbers may be slightly different than before because I'm not rounding this time.

Anyhow, I hope you've managed to make it this far before going back to huffing glue. Maybe the pretty colours kept your attention for a bit longer than normal I hope.

Now we see that the Prowler HE gets more kills per minute than the SVA-88. Which is expected, because one is a 450 nanite tank and the other is a free infantry player. But how much of a difference? To find that, we will find a percent effectiveness by dividing the two unit rates.

0.65/0.72= 90.3%

That is to say, using an SVA-88 is 90.3% as effective as using a HE Prowler in terms of getting kills per amount of time used. You could use the SVA-88 for a minute (or an hour, or a day, or a year) and get 90.3% of the kills a HE Prowler would get in the same time. This means that if the HE Prowler killed 10 in a minute, you got to kill 9 in a minute. If the HE Prowler killed 100 in an hour, you got to kill 90 in an hour.

This means that the HE Prowler was not overperforming relative to other options. If you're paying an extra 450 nanites to just kill 9.7% (100%-90.3%=9.7%) more effectively than someone who does not have to pay anything, that is hardly overperforming. In fact, I would say that it would be heavily underperforming.

Thus because the HE Prowler was underperforming prior to the HE nerfs, it needed a buff, not a nerf. QED.

Chingles, if you're going to base your entire argument on the fact that an MBT costs nanites, you shouldn't ignore all of the advantages you gain from that investment to focus only on killing power.

If all you want is to compare the Prowler's HE killing power to an SVA-88, then nanites do not matter. Both cost 1000 certs, that is their price.

What you get for the nanites is the MBT that the HE cannon comes attached to, and all the perks it grants over infantry:

- Increased mobility
- Increased protection and durability
- Immunity to small arms, frag grenades, all forms of CC grenades, anti-infantry mounted weaponry ( MANA turrets, Xiphos turrets, Kobalts, etc... )
- Greatly increased effective range
- Top gun included in the package, gives a whole bunch more varied advantages depending on your choice of weapon
- Far less dying compared to infantry play
- Comes with built-in cupholder.


Now, this makes that 450 nanite deal seem more than fair.
However, really, it's not like you had to DO anything to get those nanites. Justifying a weapon or a platform's power simply based on nanite cost isn't the best way to go about doing things because nanites are not used to measure power, but simply to limit the spam of power multipliers. Do you really think you deserve a far more powerful HE cannon simply because you sat on your rear for 9 minutes to let your nanite pool pile up?
And let 's be honest, the average competent tanker's life is more than 9 minutes, meaning your 450 cost is replenished by the time your tank dies and you want a new one.

you know what, i wondered why you cherrypicked SVA out of all possible guns, it seems like an odd choice...
i decided to check out the kill charts for myself...now i know why you picked SVA.
gauss saw 8.3, meh
carv 9.0, meh
orion 11.0, meh
(i checked out the others which all linger between 9 and 15...)
...
SVA 21.4, WTF

SVA was freakishly doing TWICE as good as the other LMGs...
so sad that your bias nature causes you to cherrypick the gun that you thought would prove your point and it is still not beating HE prowlers...
i wonder how long it took you to cherrypick the SVA as your shining example, how many "that sucks" "that sucks" "that sucks" did you get through before you found the only gun which you thought gave your argument any kind of merit...
were you hoping we wouldn't check why you picked such an odd choice?

you understand now that choosing something that is freakishly performing twice as well as its counterparts offers you no kind of ground to stand on.
if you want to compare LMGs go ahead, compare the average KPU, it will likely be around 11-12.

Yet of course the Prowler comes with a slew of disadvantages. Namely a lack of mobility and the inability to significantly affect the outcome of any base fight.

On balance, the disadvantages of a tank outweigh the advantages. This is why in competitive play tanks are all but abandoned, and even in casual platoon play tanks are only rarely used.

You'd have a point if tanks were even moderately popular, but as it stands despite the advantages of tanks players are quite familiar with the many disadvantages of tanks. And because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, few people play as tanks.

Huh... and how does the HE Prowler stack compared to other HE weapons? I'll give you a hint... people weren't complaining about the Vanguard HE cannon (although it got nerfed anyways).

I simply picked the best LMG because we were comparing it to the best HE MBT weapon, were we not? What would be disingenuous is to pick the standard infantry weapons that any BR0 spawns in with and doesn't know how to use.

I mean just think about it, my simpleminded friend. Could I compare the performance of the default Gauss SAW with the SAW S? Of course not, because the Gauss SAW has been used by every nubling in the game, whereas a person had to at least pay certs (or cash) to get the SAW S. We expect the SAW S to perform better because of skill, not just the characteristics of the weapon (which are pretty close the the Gauss SAW).

Likewise, it's downright ridiculous to try and compare the default LMGs to a certed HE weapon. A more apt comparison would be starter LMGs and HEAT.

This is why comparing the HE Prowler to the SVA-88 makes sense... because both are high-tier weapons. Comprende? In fact your comparison between a certed weapon and default LMGs shows your incredible bias (or lack of reasoning capacity, or possibly both). I'm good as gold, you're tarnished scrap metal.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize killing sunderers and suppressing spawn rooms, doorways and windows was useless. I must have imagined all the tanks doing it literally all the time.

The reason why tanks, and ground vehicles in general, are rarely used in both casual and "competitive" play is because commanders prefer using the simple redeployside playstyle rather than trying to actually come up with a plan of attack.
The whole command structure for Server Smash doesn't allow for individual squad leaders or platoon leaders to decide to put people in tanks because the force commander might send them across the map at any moment without warning. It's flawed and inefficient and there's a reason Emerald gets its rear kicked in any time it faces off against an opponent that actually bothers to mobilize ground vehicles for both offense and defense.
Who would have guessed, dropping a few squads of infantry in the middle of a few armored vehicles packing anti-infantry weapons doesn't really yield any results except increasing the casualty count.

You'd have a point if tanks weren't literally everywhere at almost any given time. Any time someone's losing a base, generally it's because of one of two reaons;
- The winning force outnumbers the losing force.
- The winning force has vehicles in the base and the losing force can't deal with them.
Sometimes both.

What relevance is there to a casualty count? The winner of a fight in PS2 isn't based on KDR or the number of opposing infantry killed... it's about who can take a point.

In PS2, killing infantry has no consequence because infantry are free and there are unlimited numbers of them. The only value infantry has is being in the right spot at the right time, which is very easily done due to redeployside.

Thus, you can drop an entire Galaxy worth of HA's and take out the enemy Sunderer. Even if the entire squad of HAs die, no matter. They were free, whereas the Sunderer they took out was not. Really the only drawback to sending out the HAs was that those infantry would not be fighting near the point, but crippling enemy reinforcements is worth a temporary squad less.

And if you really want to get fancy, a Light Assault can easily take out a HE MBT with C4. Especially if dropped out of a Valk.