HESH spam

Honestly, I'd advise the ones complaining about HE to actually try using it and get great results with it since mostly everyone suggests it's such a easy weapon to use and the resources for the tank is not a problem since you can chain pull as much as you like anyway.

"If you were serious about fighting back against vehicles, you would use the tools available more often, regardless of how they annoy vehicle users when they work, regardless of how they diverge from your current activities." That's the current direction of argumentive pursuit. Completely opposite of that, some players have suggested a complete rejection of cross-domain anti-vehicular combat on top of a franchise-uncharacteristic shrug of responsibility for tactical shortcomings. While not representative of all opponent opinions, that is why I do not find entertaining the suggestion anything but frivolous.

There's a difference between the desire to fight back against a threat and wanting to forget that the threat is even there. I personally draw that line between those two as how invested you present yourself in wanting to deal with an issue. A person who not only puts exceptional effort into dismantling a problem that is currently plaguing himself but also prepares to deal with the potential for the resurgence of that same problem represents a person I would say definitely wants to deal with an issue. If you were really given this option of "better infantry AV," would you yourself put more effort into combatting vehicles, not just whatever is the current annoyance but in preparation of future ones that would desire to annoy?

Don't get too presumptuous. Anything works wonders against targets that don't try to fight in any sufficient way.

That is no argument I've ever made. Let me make my stance as clear as I can: Infantry-based anti-vehicle weapons are all too often ineffective, dangerous and risky, and difficult to use at any kind of range. When they do hit, they do not kill in the majority of scenarios. Thus, I advocate for infantry AV strong enough to be capable of killing enemy vehicles before they can retreat and repair and without requiring multiple infantry to all drop what they're doing to focus-fire a single vehicle.

To counter the argument "vehicles cost resources and therefore should cost resources to kill them," I have also supported nanite costs for these weapons though I do not personally see it as necessary.

Don't think I never attack vehicles, I attack everything and anything. Problem is I won't go way out of my way to pick a fight with an enemy superior to me in every "physical" way when there are any infantry around at all. It's not worth my time as I have stated before. It would be a more practical and realistic option for me and others however, if the weapons available would actually kill with a decent success rate given skill.

Misrepresenting this argument claiming "infantry just aren't bothering to attack and instead just complain" is dishonest and wrong. As I said previously, everyone should die and die often.

That'd make it kill faster than every tank cannon then, since not even main guns can do that. Might as well delete AP guns if you wanna do that, would be quicker, more efficient and more effective to just pull infantry instead. What your asking for is Dalton equip-able on infantry lol. Enjoy having no fights at all because all the sunderers are dead in 2 seconds.

I was quoting you for the quote but I wasn't naming names or calling you out in particular.

It's not that I don't have my own opinions about what stronger Infantry AV should exist either but we've been in these current doldrums for years now. If I had to set a clock to Demigan, it's maybe three years since he started pitching the stronger Infantry AV option. Could be four, but I don't recall specifics. Despite that, the momentum is glacial and the developerment team certainly is not receptive. While my own theories about that are not worth starting a third argument in this thread, I feel it's healthier for the game going forward that we thrust players into active anti-vehicular roles, even as substandard as you may think them. The fact that this topic recurs with the same story - "doing infantry stuff when a vehicle blindsided me and the fight was ruined from that alone" - suggests that we might not even be advising or establishing proper gameplay habits.

You misunderstand. I mean to say the weapons should be strong enough and have the range to kill an enemy who has taken a fair amount of damage during or before he attempts to increase the distance between him and the attackers to the point of effective invulnerability. I.E. if the tank's at half heath and he starts backing off he should still die to a skilled opponent before he can leave the effective range or break line of sight with a distant piece of cover.

Sundies should be protected by infantry anyways.

Ah, OK, my mistake.

I don't really agree. If infantry AV weapons won't be changed, added, or otherwise improved against vehicles then vehicle must be changed in some way. Currently it just takes too much time and effort for very little profit and a marginal impact. For new players it's assisted suicide.

I suppose it's a tough balancing situation. Vehicles shouldn't just be left alone to farm but infantry can't really take them out effectively or efficiently. If the developers won't add new weapons they'll have to tweak existing ones, in my opinion.

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/july-30-2018-pts-update.250012/

Take a look at this test server update. All HESH cannons get 800 maximum splash damage (Vanguard gets 850), and the inner blast radius raised from 1m to 2m. More reliable damage in exchange for losing the splash OHK.

As well, flak armor loses tank shell resistance, so infantry can no longer survive an AP round. A skillful shot is rewarded regardless of the target's loadout.

These are all good changes, in my opinion.

depends on the situation and wether the other side has their **** together, but every nanite someone spends on vehicles is still less nanites they can't spend on something else and unlike infantry the cost and risk of wasting those resources is all upfront, infantry stuff only is lost when they use or attempt to use (like deploying c4 then dying before you can detonate it or a mine being shot and exploded with no effect not long after being deployed.)

infantry's strength is numbers, vehicle's strength is speed and armor.

if you want to kill a vehicle quickly you have teamwork (which many lack) or pulling a vehicle. it's not the tanker's fault if nobody tries to even contest their presence.

tanks can only dominate when you refuse to counter them and you are oversimplifying, a coordinated group of players can setup a good anti tank nest, infantry are reviveable remember? aim enough launchers at one target and it will die, coordinated focus fire will kill tanks fast, a coordianted group will beat a random group anyday.

the more people that are in tanks, the less people there are fighting for control of the bases and that is what really matters, which is why i've never seen one side have as many tanks as the other side has infantry, it's more effective to have more infantry then vehicles for capture and it's better for the vehicle users, too many vehicles crimps their ability to dodge and path.

if you want a good example remember when striker nests for AA were a thing or lancers squads at +300m those shredded vehicles, now you can basically do the same thing just not from such a range against vehicles. every time a ha dies to a tank at range you can revive him, as many times as it takes to destory the tanks or get them to move off to another fight if your server pop supports it.

also sometimes no matter how good you do the other side outplays you, part of stopping vehicles is pulling some on your own side to contest the outskirts of the base, if they are shelling so hard you can't fight them out from the base then redeploy down the line and form a counter attack.

tanks literally have no role outside 1)killing vehicles 2)killing infantry, there aren't enough vehicle capture points to make a difference and the fact infantry can cap them reduces the desirability to hold the points with vehicles.

i don't complain about C4, it's more productive to complain when they impact the ability of tanks to actually defend themselves against close range attack (like the silly direct hit ohk shell resist on flak armor), this time they actually listened to tankers and are going to remove it on test server.

they should coordinate to take down a single tank, because they picked the weakest unit type to engage a stronger type which costs upfront resources and is always vulnerable and that same 4 man squad? they can target an destory another tank, you can call that economic use of numbers.

if infantry really want vehicles overall to target them less then instead of nerf crying all the time, they should start offering suggestions on how to give vehicles roles to engage in that will see them go for those objectives instead of just sitting there not killing the fight by picking off a few infantry here and there.

tanks don't sit on a hill shelling because they enjoy it, they do it because the only alternative for their gameplay is killing the fight by killing the sundies in which case everyone gets screwed.

when i pull a tank i want tank warfare not a shelling fest, but there isn't enough overall interest in pulling tanks to keep the vehicle fights going, eventually one side runs out of resources with their skilled vehicle users and the winner sets in and starts shelling.

without sustainable other objectives for tanks, whenever the enemy vehicle presence is destoryed completely the shelling of infantry begins.

What exactly is wrong with people being AFK or not doing something they don't want to do, or do you want to back pedal and tell me that's nothing like not wanting to kill tanks. I might even concede that people that do well with infantry should be allowed to pull more vehicles. Also even if you regenerate resources while driving that's still a long time to keep yourself alive against things like libs and ESFs where as infantry don't really give two ***** about getting killed by either and just respawn, a tank actually needs the air to be clear enough to operate or completely lose every vehicle they send and wait 9 minutes pouring themselves a drink to play again, where as infantry mains can just die after a 20 killstreak or a 0 killstreak and get right back out there.

That's assuming infantry takes 2 minutes to get to the point with nothing inbetween. I don't know about you, but I've NEVER heard of a base where it took 2 minutes of walking time to get from a sunderer on the edge of a no deploy zone (or at least reasonable sunderers not out in an open field in which they should be destroyed for being stupid) to get to the point, far fewer seconds spent getting into a fight.

This is also not taking into account how long a tank actually needs to get into a fight. in which it actually DOES take several minutes to drive to a base, but we're gonna forget all about that, ya know keeping a guy out of a fight, or if it's an MBT you keep 2 people out of a fight for several minutes. It's why tanks have to actually be ******* worth it.

And this is where I get to my point, where the **** are you getting any of your numbers. Your entire argument in this post is all heresay and feels.

Also a balanced system by your logic would mean that a tank would kill far FAR more people to disrupt a fight to replace the time the player has spent out of the fight and the resources that it cost to pull the tank, in a "Balanced" system you would be keeping infantry out for several minutes, not several seconds. But they don't, at least not with an average KDR of 10 (best case scenario being a hesh lightning). On average if were going by your logic, they only keep infantry out of the fight for 1 minute with the accumulated kills on average before death. If we added another 10-30 seconds getting into a fight, then- WOW oh my, hesh tanks are actually underpowered by your logic! We need to make them 200 resource cost for the amount of killing they actually do. Actually, second thought, need to make them cheaper than that because they take time to actually get to the objectives.

Your argument (or circle jerk post here, more like) is completely ********.

I mean, they kinda already do.
The stryke, M7, blah default launchers all have a damage model of 725 at all ranges with a reload speed of 3.43s
Python AP or lightning AP has a damage model 650 at all ranges with a reload speed of 3s without reload speed upgrades that at most bring it to 2.7.

The only turrets that can come close to out DPSing these launchers are the MBT turrets and even then the vanguard actually loses out to it's own default rocket launcher by a few bits of dps.

The only real thing you're paying for with the resources you put into a tank are the HP bar and the amount of ammo you can have. EDIT: Woops, and the velocity, which is important too, but even then, tank shells fly at the speed of wet noodles, launchers can lock.

Also the annihilator has a damage model of 650 and reload speed of 3 seconds. Vanguard heat has a damage model of 600 and a reload speed of 3s.

I mean, I don't say that the vanguard is the worst tank for no reason.

Annhilator, lockon range: 350 aircraft, 300 ground vehicles, damage model: as above, better than vanguard heat.

This is the result of years of infantry pandering AND STILL WANTING MORE.

Also I would not call a lockon skilled, no one ******* would. Asking for even more ways for infantry to fight tanks on "fair" terms is like a mouse should be able to take on a cat and win. Or 3 mice. That's stupid for multiple reasons.

Difference between a bias and clear lack of any experience of using the tank itself.

For example, if I pulled my father, or brother into my room to give a detailed review of hesh, they couldn't, they don't play the game, you've barely ever died to hesh (barely as in less than 5 deaths) in the last month and yet claim it's OP and should be nerfed, or it's too easy to use and should be nerfed. Either way, it's stupid, you don't have any experience using it and yet you claim it's easy.

Me though? Auraxed my lightning long time ago.
I auraxed my hesh, soon as I did, I stopped using it. It was simply bad even after the update that made it more effective towards vehicles. It's bad. My first aurax on the lightning though, was AP, then I got tank kills, then I got viper kills after the update (which was a great buff imo against vehicles).

But that isn't to say I don't have infantry experience handling it either.
I've auraxed every single one of my classes except the engineer (even though I love my LMG shotgun engie, hate using turrets), auraxed all my SMGs, all my LMGs, all my carbines, I auraxed two launchers getting a third up being the annihilator, which can literally only kill vehicles and the people in them. I'm currently working on my sniper rifles oh but I'm sure you'd know all about that, being that's your top weapon of use.

But mines the airhammer, ironically, I think air is still in a bad spot when it comes to counters. I think the airhammer kills infantry well and that's about it. If we're looking at this from a balance standpoint, that's pretty fair since you are limiting yourself to only killing infantry with your specialized weapon, infantry however never have this problem as heavies are generally the bane of everything, maxes, other infantry and the AV class to use, can perform all of this all at the same time.

So what am saying is what exactly is your argument if it's all on one side of the engagement pool and you've rarely been killed by it. If we're going statistically, you cannot even pretend that it's OP, you've only died to it 135 times out of your entire runthrough of 31 thousand deaths. That's literally less than 1%, that's less than .5%, that's less than .1%, your entire argument is bouldercrap.

Here, since you're advocating it should be nerfed, why don't you prove hesh is OP, it is your claim that it should be nerfed, why? If it's too easy to use, how would you prove that? What statistics support your argument?

Can a post be more biased than this one? You try to disconnect damage from survivability, which does only work in case of OHKs(cause if you can kill the enemy before he can fire back then survivability matters much less). Tanks do survive multiple hits...infantry can't survive a single hit. That's why starfall or cloaked fury does not have the impact on the game that some people feared it would have. They can neither OHK nor survive a hit.

Did tanks get nerfed? Yeah, bit nothing compared to how AV got nerfed(every single tool, from range, to c4 timers, to mines). It's ridiculous how weak our AV tools are tease days. As a result less people use them, which results in tanks becoming even more of a problem again(there was a time before the AV-nerfs when tanks have been in a good place).

Decreasing the Hesh-damage while increasing the the splash radius will make OHKs less of a problem...the shelling from hills by multople tanks will likely get worse tho. I don't see a real nerf in this.

You act as if you don't know what the context is.

Lode said that launchers would do more damage than tank turrets if they were made more damaging, I said that they already do.

You want to call hard numbers bias? I'm simply pointing out what's in the ******* game. You act as if infantry shouldn't be dying to tanks 1v1 when they have a higher DPS against tanks than tanks do, isn't that completely ******* stupid? Is it not?

You can also lock tanks from 300 meters, tanks have a shell that STILL travels slower than most pistols, if he hits you with something 1/4th the speed of a sniper rifle, then he ******* deserves that kill, if you let the rocket do most of the work and let it guide all the way to him, why the **** would you ever deserve that kill in one hit?

You're also trying to kill something that's bigger than you and easier to hit, something that someone put resources into pullling, time into driving it over, tons of certs to make it viable, that has a clear role in the game, that can't even be used in 90% of the important parts of the game, can barely be used on an entire continent except for killing others of it's type.

You're telling me That AV got nerfed? Son, I played AV heavy from day one, through CAI, for one, no they got a dps BUFF. Prove to me otherwise with actual data and then we'll talk.
But that really doesn't matter, wanna know why? Because I'm talking about what rockets can do now. You're talking about how tanks wronged you as a little boy so you have to become forum batman lurking in the shadows using whatever out of your futility belt to squelch reasonable people.

This is a hesh rework. It was never a nerf. There is no data you could present me that hesh was ever OP to begin with, because it doesn't exist, because it isn't OP.

Again: Resources DO NOT MATTER! They are free, you get plenty of them! You do not deserve anything better just cause it costs resources. Resources are just there to limit the numbers a bit BECAUSE spamming that stuff ruins the game. That's all.

I don't think that it needs much longer to drive a tank to the next base then it needs for infantry to run from the spawn to the other side of a base either. It's not like you only get killed near spawnroom as infantry. Fake argument...=P

A stock MBT is already quite good at farming. You can make it even better with some certs put into it...but it's not like you get an AV-engi(mines, protection, AV-turret, Archer, repair tool for AV-turret) without investing a ton of certs either.

I can lock nothing, cause a shell travels much faster than the time I need to lockon. That's the reality...at least if the tanker knows where I am/spawn(which usually is the spawn room...since cloakers can't carry any serious AV weapons). I can say that I got killed more often as infantry trying to use a lockon than I actually hit someone with a lockon(let alone killed someone with it). Granted that I don't use them very often cause, well, they just don't kill(enemy goes behind next hill, repairs, comes back, kills me) and hence don't feel rewarding at all.

Son? How old are you? 60? You wear your nose way too high.

Sonny boy, if resources didn't matter they wouldn't put them in the game as a limiter. I mean if you really want to make that argument, infantry are completely free so you don't mind dying.

Spawn room, spawn room, spawn room. Ok, there are not that many bases in which tanks can easily aim at the spawn room, even if they could, you have a line of sight to them in which to lock, if not then go around the many other entrances of the spawn, if you are THAT hardlocked then you need to pull a tank from another base to combat them because you have effectively lost.

It shouldn't be that hard to get the concept that even if you are spawn locked, this is not an arena shooter, quit thinking it is. You do not just break out in a moment of triumphant glory, you ******* call in reinforcements to equal the odds. Infantry should not and I repeat should not be able to handle everything that the game can throw at them by themselves. It is why we have classes, it's why we have different weapons, reload speeds, optimal engagement ranges, we have 3 different flavors of tank turret (that are incredibly boring mind you) 12 different topguns, aircraft, several different aircraft weapons, we have so many of these different tools because you need a little thing called Teamwork in which you use a different variety of tools in order to support yourself.

The thing is with infantry becoming more and more adept at 1v1ing tanks, tanks slowly lose more and more power until they have no place in the game and it's all aircraft, that get mobbed by lockons and flak maxes.

Oh, but they dominate small fights you say? No problem! Simply pull a tank and remove said tank from the situation! Or an ESF with hornets. They have a lot of different counters.

Oh wait, I missed a spot.

.......

Son, there are only a few of bases in which it takes a shorter amount of time to pull a tank and get into the fight again than infantry walking to the point.

Tell you what, go to an amp station, tell me how long it takes for you to walk to the point from spawn, then pull a tank from a base over and drive it into the amp station, how effective are you going to be there now. Wait 7-9 minutes to pull another tank.

Okay, you make a point out of calling me son? Pretty childish...but go ahead. =)

I actually don't mind dying, that's why my KPD is below 1. What I mind is dying without a chance to fight back. That SUCKS. It sucks to die to a OHK by a sniper, and it sucks even more to die to an OHK by a tank(cause those you can't kill as easily as a sniper).

There are still many bases where tanks can either aim at the spawn room or some other place that infantry has to cross to get to a capture point...
And yes, I know AMP stations where you need less than 20 seconds to get to a hill from where you can shoot into the AMP station area.

Infantry should not be able to handle anything the game throws at you? But vehicles should(I at least know nothing that vehicles can't do when it comes to killing something)? Seriously, you have been the ones that have been whining ALL over the forum when AV-turrets could shoot you before you could shoot them. That was the only thing you couldn't handle yourself...and even that was a joke cause before an AV-turret could reload you have been in range to shoot as well(so you actually could have handled it, but you rather came here and cried). Didn't stop you from complaining and complaing and complaining untill the AV-turret was nerfed into the ground. You guys are spoiled brats that believe that you have to be able to kill several other players without of giving them a serious chance...some god given right cause you pay with "resources". Your skill doesn't matter.

And you think tanks won't be used in case they would be weaker than now? I don't think so. They are still faster than running...and even if they were EXACTLY as weak as infantry, you could still jump out and fight after your vehicle is dead. So you basicly buy a second life(and better range) with free resources.
You want teamwork? Fine. But not just to take down tanks. Tanks should need teamwork too. How about you needing one player that has to do the reloading of your gun? Nah, that would be boring...and you would always need a second player. Teamwork should only be mandatory on the other side of the fence. You want to be a killer as solo player...and get even more dangerous with a second player. Pretty egoistic point of view...

90% of infantry combat is getting the drop on someone else.

I think you are greatly over estimating exactly where and when tanks can shoot at you. There is a reason air AI has a far greater KDR than any tank weapons.

I doubt it, even so, a single or even two amp stations does not mean all. It certainly doesn't mean the ones that are commonly fought at either.

Everything and anything are two entirely different words. Maybe try not to skim over my post.
Everything would mean that I am trying to disavow infantry for killing certain things, Anything would mean they couldn't kill each other. Son, you need to take some English classes...again.

How many gun seats do you actually think a vehicle has? There's only one vehicle that can be equipped for everything and that's the lib, even ESFs have to have and half with killing infantry with pods or killing tanks with pods. But this isn't about air, this is about tanks. Let me ask you, can you handle aircraft, infantry and other tanks with just hesh? Or a skyguard? Ranger MBTs have limits too, they generally aren't much with just the main turret.

My main point is that a heavy pretty much has everything he needs to kill whatever he needs to. He has an LMG for infantry, medics for healing, ammo for days and with ammo printer, a rocket launcher that can lock to air, dumbfire for tanks and maxes.
Tanks can either be killing other tanks with a higher dps than a heavy launcher, have a top gun to shoot aircraft or a topgun to shoot infantry, or get out and shoot them yourself which for me personally is always the better option.

Asking for infantry to handle anything a tank can throw at them is completely unreasonable. Asking for MBTs to be able to fight libs while they're directly above them is also unreasonable. Asking for skyguards to melt MBTs is also unreasonable. Asking ESFs to be able to- ok the analogy breaks down there but you get the picture.

This thread is about crying about how hesh is farming your patokie, there's a difference between being killed by something that literally is not rendering and something that you can see and hear and SEE.

Also you're trying to point me as a tank main, I am not, I play everything, infantry far more than anything else, if anything I'd be an infantry main, an infantry main pissed at people not looking at the statistics about how effective are vehicles actually and everyone giving in to "it feels bad to get shot at".

If we're not considering time a resource, then everything is exactly as free as everything else, but guess what, time is what makes the game go round. Killing a tank and preventing him from not pulling another one is a large portion of time spent doing something, well supposedly lesser but truth is infantry generally does more than what tanks do.
I don't consider it a second life when I'm generally being ****** by another tank in an open field, even best case scenario that's unrealistic.

What exactly is on top of an MBT. Is it a beanie hat? How bout what's below a liberator? Is it a dick? How bout what's on top of a sunderer. I don't think you can call those nipples. How bout a harasser? I've ran out of cleaver names to call different seats but you get the picture.

Teamwork is built in, LITERALLY BUILT IN the ******* vehicles. The only vehicles that don't require a gunner or have a seat in which to support the vehicle itself are the lightning and the ESF. Everything else is a team play vehicle and even then lightnings don't get much done by themselves as I've pointed out prior. It makes me think you either completely ignore the vehicle game or are too far up your *** to see it.

90%? Show me that statistic please. Or did you just made that up?

I never said that air ain't about as much of a problem as tanks. The only difference is that you need a bit more skill for air so there are way less farmers. But those that are around are exactly as annoying and hard to fight against(they are more vulnerable, but therefor they tend to bail out and you are stuck with whatever serious AA weapon you pulled...the serious ones are usually vehicles, Maxes...or striker in case of TR).

What you doubt does not matter to me. I never said it's all. You said I shall pick an AMP station. I did....you lost. End of story.
Well, at least unless I misunderstood you due to my bad english. I meant everything, anything was mistake. Happens. Sorry.
Exchange anything with everything and my argument still stands strong. So maybe you should not try to avoid it by telling me how bad I am in my third language. Thanks.

About the rest: Yes, you can deal with anything with just Hesh(well, at least if you ain't a magrider...cause in that case fighting air is a serious challenge). That's why people complain about Hesh for quite some time now.
At least much better than an infiltrator can deal with a tank OR air.
I use skyguards regularly. They are okay when it comes to dealing with small vehicles and infantry. They suck against tanks. Still better than an infiltrator tho. Actually their TTK is likely not much longer than that of dedicated infantry(except C4, mines or MAXES)...while still being better protected.

Right, as a vehicle driver you got all that PLUS you can jump out and do all that what the heavy can do according to you(VS heavys don't have lockon and dumbire at the same time as far as I know).
Again, you do all that while protected. Even if infantry would be as diverse and deadly with one loaout as a tank, they would still be pretty much unprotected(and slower, but therefor a smaller target) compared to the tank.

Asking for infantry to be able to handle everything a tank can throw on them is completely unreasonable? Why? I mean, it's great that you claim that...but I want to have a reason, you know? I mean, you guys complained all over the place whenever you had to deal with something that you had problems to handle...but for infantry that's completely unreasonable? Same right for everyone? Not with you! Given your proclaimed age you still think that women have to stay in the kitchen, right? =)

Nah, there is no difference if it renders and is too far away to be seriously attacked...or if it does not render. Well, one difference is there...you can see where the shell that kills you is comming from(although in terms of AV-turrets they did not kill with 2 let alone with one shot). ;-)

When you are killed by an other tank? but that is an other TANK. If it was an infantry player he would have died already before taking you out...and even if he manages to melt you down you still got a second life where you are on equal level(actually superior level cause he likely got the wrong tool in his hands or needs lucky decimator shot) with him and got a second chance to kill him. In such a scnario you only don't have a second chance if you get c4ed or run over mines and get insta killed...but you got the tools to avoid most of that easily.

That about the second player in an MBT etc. IS MY point. You get a second player and you become even more deadly. It's not like a second player is NEEDED to kill anything...it's a valuable bonus. If you want to kill a vehicle as infantry tho a second player is usually MANDATORY.. often even a third.
Even the magrider doesn't need a second player...and that is the only MBT where the main gun is likely weaker than the secondary. You can switch seats on top of that. I have seen one player librators using daltons with deadly precision....and a harasser without a second player may have to stand still while shooting but is still much better protected than infantry and you can still jump out.
If you want to fight vehicles as infantry you either need distraction by other players as target dummies(which is teamwork) to get close...or several players shooting at the vehicle at the same time(teamwork too). Again, that is MANDATORY. It's not an option. As an infantry player you stand NO chance in a 1vs1 against any equally skilled vehicle driver...even if he does NOT jump out(which would make it even more loopsided). And all you got to justify it is "but vehciles cost free resources". Wow...impressive.

All Empire flavour G2G and G2A lock-ons can dumb-fire if they wish.

Is Nemesis a serious option for VS these days? I mean, I dont play heavy often and last year it was still either decimator or lancer(for very long ranges. Better than nothing.) or annihilator(since most still got it from pre-nerf times and it's a lock-on against air AND ground). Just tried it and 9(!!!) shots vs a sundy don't seem to be worth buying it. Might be better than nerfed annihilator and lancer but I think I'd rather go with decimator and hope for some luck vs. air.