HESH spam

The point about the launcher is that you're actually hitting what you intend to hit. Air being nimble and elusive to pilots that know how to dodge rockets, a weapon that tracks them is generally better than one that could track a tank. It is why the ES AA launchers are recommended amoung all heavy assault mains to buy first if you're just starting out and short on certs.

You're still killing it as fast as a lightning would. As per these vehicle resistance stats here
Infantry launchers and tank shells have the same resistance value against sunderers.

This seems more like sunderers are simply tanky over launchers are bad.

1. That seems clearly evident to me.
2. Why do you even try to contest launchers are bad if you don't play heavy often and don't understand the nuances of infantry vs vehicle gameplay.
3. Annihilator got a DPS buff with it's reduced reload time and reduced locking time. I think you're just being nit picky.

There's nothing wrong with people bing AFK or not doing something for their resources, what's wrong is that people somehow make these resources to be some rare element that is hard to get and therefore a tank bought with resources should be an unstoppable behemoth "because tanks are unstoppable behemoths in real life", which is also wrong.

This used to be the case. Killing more increased your resource gain. This was removed to prevent snowballing, for example an HE Prowler had a very very easy time regaining all it's resources.

Infantry does give two craps about being killed, that's why these threads are made with unreasonable requests to nerf tanks while they should be asking for infantry buffs.
Also your tank vs air problem is a seperate one about bad G2A weapons and how 99% of the viable loadouts cannot properly defend against aircraft.

Which is why I took 30 seconds to get back into fighting range as a standard, and 1 and a half minute of jockeying for position which can be considered fighting.

at 50km/h and assuming the next base is 300m away before you get in reasonable range it takes 21 seconds to get there. This isn't unreasonable to assume as each hexagonal cell on the map is 200m from edge to edge (about 230 from farthest point to point, just tested this out in-game) and most bases are edge to edge about 2 hexes away from eachother. Some of the longest roads on Indar that took you through a base (say you just captured it) to the next one took 5 hexes, or 1000m. That can be done in 72 seconds or 1min12sec. That's a far cry from the "several minutes" that's paraded around. Considering most vehicles can go faster than 50km/h but would need to accelerate first it's not an unreasonable assumption.

From previous posts where such things were researched or datamined. I'm then using assumptions on those numbers, such as 2 minutes survival for infantry = about 30 seconds of travel time.

You clearly didn't understand it.

Say a tank has an average lifespan of 9 minutes. This means that on average every player can regain the resources he put in and there's virtually no risk in taking a tank. So it's maximum effectiveness vs skill required ratio would be about the same as infantry.

If the tank's average lifespan is 6 minutes, there's still 3 minutes left unaccounted for. But if you manage to kill about 6 people you've wasted those 3 minutes of time on the enemy side, which compensates the missing 3 minutes you still need to regain. Due to the lower skill to operate a tank and get kills, this is a pretty fair way of calculating it. Ofcourse, this calculation doesn't take into account the effect a tank has on the battlefield. A HESH tank (or AP for that matter) firing into a main road of a base will have a massive effect on the infantry, and many will take detours (take more time) to get to their destination while avoiding the tank and simultaneously having less avenues of attack on the enemy infantry.

You are smarter than this, use that brain of yours.

Time is a resource, you said it yourself. If we're judging in resources, putting a guy down a tank constantly with a lib costs a lot of time. Just pointing out that 9 or 7 minutes is generally long enough to cap a base.

I meant infantry but whatever.

If it only takes 3 infantry to destroy one ESF with a single coordinated strike then how can people really complain about air? Because they're often doing it solo. "Oh it takes 3 rockets to kill an ESF! I'll die way before then!" Yea, that's why you get 2 other people to help. Again, teamwork. 0 nanites takes out 350 nanites. Simple.

No clue what you mean by "jockeying" but frankly if you're in the fight, you're making certs, to influencing the base control, that should be the standard, 30 seconds is generally the most you'll come to that. With some fights simply walking out and already being in combat.

PS2 does not follow normal metrics (otherwise we're all 10 foot elephant people), I suggest you actually time how long it takes to pull a tank from one base to the other.

If you're going to use said data, you need to actually cite it, I've been using dasan fall and ps2 fisu as the staples.

Clearly, you're not making it understandable.

That's a pretty big say. Considering you didn't cite anything about average tank lifespand data, I'm calling ********, which since that's the linchpin of the segment here, is also faulty. Since you cannot prove that the average span of a tank is 9 minutes then it's unreasonable to tie it to infantry effectiveness. Also if the skill to effectiveness ratio is about the same as infantry then there would be no need to change either. Seems like a backstep right there.

How exactly do you equate 6 people as 3 minutes wasted. How exactly are you opting for medics not instantly reviving them which takes less than a second. Why would infantry just be randomly out in the open, for bad bases like aurora mats and cross roads to a degree I could imagine this but most bases are pretty closed off to tanks.

Even if infantry are circumvented from walking directly from spawn into the main fight there are beacons and light assaults and infiltrators that can easily either use the main paths or fly over buildings generally resulting in a quicker time to get back into the fight. Also the tank isn't making certs by having people avoid him or damaging infantry like infantry can make certs damaging vehicles. Where exactly is the compensation for this? Only getting certs punishing the people that take those pathways? So if no one confronts him he makes no certs. Incredibly fun.

You entire argument hinges on how effective is the tank, on average, it's not that effective if we're going by your logic, you completely ignored medics and never cited any data to prove otherwise.

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about, we aren't basing these arguments on hard evidence at this point, it's all conjecture while I'm the only one actually flipping through data sheets and balance changes and actually pointing out the fallacies in these nerfs.

I am

Unfortunately this argument doesn't necessarily hold water. There is literally nothing stopping everyone on an entire server from all pulling lightnings all at the same time and duking it out like infantry 2.0. Sure it has a time cost upfront but as discussed elsewhere in this tread that doesn't really matter ad certainly has no impact on an initial pull from full nanites.

Eh, no. Bad for gameplay. Spending a free resource doesn't make you some elite unit capable for fending off all but the most overwhelming odds. If infantry could spend resources on properly lethal AV weapons would they still need "teamwork?" Nanites killing nanites after all.

Tanks can always dominate infantry because they have every single meaningful advantage over them. They have greater range, higher health and mobility, resistance to most main weapons, higher firepower, and shorter TTKs on infantry and longer TTKs against them. Revivable? What does that matter? Firstly there must a willing and able medic nearby, and secondly said medic must be safe enough to revive the fallen without being killed or having their ally just stand and be shot back down. Meaningless "advantage" in this situation. And what would stop the tanks from just coming back? If they somehow manage to die it would take a few minutes tops.

I have, too many times. With enough vehicles a group of players almost don't need infantry in the right/wrong bases. As long as one side can't reach the distant points through all the spam it can sit empty for the duration of the fight.

Maybe if there were 10 lancers all focus-firing. But then where's your infantry support? This is a combined arms game after all. Strikers, eh. Version 1.0 when it was broken and OP as **** yeah, but that's moreso because it was just plain overpowered and compounded by rockets which could pass through all terrain and ignored stealth and flares/smoke. The current Striker 2.0, maybe. Only against air though, which again unless there were quite a few strikers focus-firing at the same thing. Otherwise a scythe could just swoop down for impact kills or PPA them all to death in seconds. Also only works for TR and no one else. And yet, I do recall having seen plenty of vehicles around regardless.

Let me just stick there here, again.

|
Well funnily enough most people pulling tanks aren't fighting for the objective anyways, so it makes no difference. Same could also be said for heavy assaults. They can't support in any way, all they do is kill and farm and we see loads of them too.

If infantry couldn't capture vehicle points they would have to have indestructible, universal vehicle terminals build into the base of the point. I don't see that happening any time soon and I'm not even sure that would be possible to implement.

On the rare occurrence it happens? The 1 in 20 players with C4, full health and shields, and Flak? C4 shouldn't ever be killing any tanks or mobile sundies. There is very little excue for that. Even if the sole infantry survives a direct AP shell (which apparently will no longer be possible) you could just back up/drive off or just shoot him again. Or get out and shoot him once or twice in the chest.

Again, tanks cost nothing but what I would describe as the only truly infinite and free resource in existence. And again, spending this free resource doesn't magically make you some upper class player where everyone else must communicate and cooperate to kill you. You are vouching for one of the most imbalanced system one could possibly have in PS2.

That's hilarious, "tanks don't sit on a hill shelling because they enjoy it." Of course they do, why would anyone do that if they didn't enjoy a steady stream of easy kills? If it wasn't fun people wouldn't choose to do it when they play a game for fun. How could you even pretend there was ever any other reason?

Well, then go find some tanks! Go find a friendly base being shelled and fight the attackers tanks. If you really want to fight tanks and not shell infantry, you can easily find tanks to fight.

Yeah right. Anyone who has ever used a lock-on launcher of any kind in their current states knows what a joke it is to call them effective. Not only do they have terrible DPS and low direct damage, they also have lock-on times which are massively increased by the ever-popular stealth defense option and are nullified by the utility options of flares or IR smoke. Two direct counters, a hard and soft, both of which can be equiped at the same time on any and every vehicle for a weapon with a low DPS to begin with, and you're saying their effective?

If they were, one would not see anything but them.

If the game pandered to infantry, why would this thread even exist? Don't be foolish.

I didn't even mention the words "lock," "on," or "lock-on."

I desire dumbfires with decent velocities and tolerable drop. Strong damage with fair reloads allows for a skill-dependent weapon with a practical range limit where the ease of use restricts the possible lethality as range grows. Very powerful up close, lethal at mid-long range (compared to other dumbfires) and damaging at longer ranges.

I don't even like lock-ons, I've killed more ESFs with my fairly new Decimator than I've done in the same amount of time with a Hawk. I killed more tanks and MAXes with it than actual air with the Hawk too.

Perhaps. As I said, I've no issue getting direct hit with similar weapons of varies drops and velocities, and I imagine most players don't either. If the weapon could OHK without actually even hitting the target it's not exactly a difficult weapon to use. And if this game has taught us all anything, it's that the most powerful weapons are easy to use, and the most overpowered are easy and strong.

I haven't really played much PS2 this month. Life doesn't like it when I spend to much time away. Also been playing other games and stuff.

Congratulations, you have a bias on the other side of the fence. Together we make a yin yang.

To be fair, I haven't done any sharpshooting in a long time. Railjack literally killed all the enjoyment I got out of it, and I fear I would be too rusty to pick it back up again with my dear Longshot like the good old days. Still have a few other directives I can do first anyway.

I have advocated for a change of the HA status quo in the past.

My argument is exactly the same as it has been over the previous pages: Vehicles are too strong against infantry even with dedicated-AV roles while dedicated-AV infantry are still too ineffective. Vehicles require substantially less skill to operate against infantry and reap greater rewards despite this. Overall many vehicle weapons and most main weapons are too universally effective, leading to a majority of AI-oriented loadouts fighting other vehicles without detriment.

I have proposed that either vehicle weapons lose some multi-role effectiveness such as to the point where AP is notably superior to HE when fighting other armour, that vehicles and vehicle weapons require a fairly reasonable degree of skill to operate competently in accordance to the immense rewards they can earn in a brief time, and/or that infantry is given powerful, skill-based, resource-costing AV weapons and equipment capable of killing enemy vehicles rather than just forcing them off.

This argument is independent of the weapons and user experiences. As you yourself have demonstrated, HE doesn't kill me much and I don't use it. I don't get killed by it because I actively avoid it. I know the weapon(s) the mechanics fairly well as is.

HE doesn't necessarily have to be nerf'd, nor have I directly stated it was OP. However, a nerf as I've described above would be appropriate, in my opinion. For the record, the PTS HE nerf is acceptable by my standards but not entirely perfect.

I should think it obvious that HE is an extremely simple and easy to use weapon. Kinda blatant that a weapon which consistently kills without ever actually hitting a single shot is quite point-and-click. There isn't much else I can really accredit to evidence of this claim as far as user performance stats go.

I suppose the difference between the average KDR of the lightning's Python cannons across each faction compared to the BR100 KDR of the same weapons suggests this is accurate.

The differences are all roughly ~2.0 K/D for each of the Python main cannons. However, when comparing other weapons such as the Zephyr directly below it, the Kobalts, and Walkers especially one can see the more difficult and aim-dependent weapons before significantly better in the hands of established veterans. Of course there may be and likely are a number of other factors influencing the data in some or many ways, but thus is the nature of such a data set.

If you're telling me HE cannons are skill-dependent weapons though, I honestly don't know what to say to you.

As a former AV tank driver who'se basically quit these days what happens when you do this is that all the vehicles dry up on any front due the player-bases apathy for pulling them. You either then spend the time driving/redeploying to the other faction to maybe fight some of the other factions vehicles for abit or you just kill defenseless sunderers which gets boring after awhile and infantry plebs cry that you "end the fight" and that ****.

It was easier to trek in a harasser but the problem still remains, Aircraft are even faster but the "lack of content" if you will is even more extreme.

< Uses all manners of launchers, thinks they're effective, get's results that are satisfactory.
I don't know how long you've been playing the game but stealth was the top meta because launchers were effective. ESFs randomly losing a third of their HP made them less effective in self defense nosegun fights. It's also why launcher range was nerfed but stealth increasing lockon time was also nerfed. Even then, I still made a pretty number of aircraft kills in this meta.

Flares are still used, smoke was made more effective because of the low pickrate, but for the most part, what generally kills aircraft is other aircraft. No one really focuses aircraft as much as other aircraft because that's what people pull them for. Infantry is incredibly lax when it comes to air deterrence, by the time you really need flares to stop lockons, you really ought to leave because that's when people pull skyguards in which air has no defense slot for.

Are you kidding me? If you give a cat some food, odds are it will beg you for more the next day. Infantry is pampered with a lot of these DPS buffs even though people want to call them nerfs when they don't look at the big picture. Losing 100 meters of lockon range sounds significant except in return you have almost a 20% dps increase in the reload reduction times and for those 100 meters lost, it generally didn't matter because you didn't even render for vehicles past 300. Change was made so that it was tolerable to not be dunked on rockets that hit like tank shells by ants (infantry in the distance) that could simply look in your direction and let the rockets do the work.

I have good news for you, that's exactly what we have.

Ok, so? That doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't like using hesh either, but I have to acknowledge the possible ramifications of it. The thing is I can easily defend hesh with statistics. It's not an overperforming weapon. You can't however defend that it isn't.
Lockons however have compatible stats on VKPH with actual tanks. I mean, proof is in the pudding there. You may not like them but that doesn't mean they aren't effective, unless you can prove otherwise.

By that definition lockons would be the strongest because they hit like tank shells, have comparible DPS to other vehicles and are basically look at a guy and let the rocket hit them.

That really doesn't invalidate anything I have said does it.

Can you really prove this? "Obviously this vehicle can hurt everything so obviously it must be OP!" doesn't really stick. AP still carries more vehicle kills per hour, you're still at a disadvantage when it comes to fighting other vehicles. Infantry still have viable options for killing vehicles if not, pulling their own to deal with them more effectively.

All this would do, is make it impossible for attackers to get anywhere. Because if sunderers could pop quickly just from someone being remotely able to hit a small corner of it, then you would need so much overpop it wouldn't be fun for anyonw.
Also, I have good news for you, hesh isn't good for everything! You cannot hit air with it, you lose a substantial portion of dps if you use it against vehicles and infantry can still **** block with flak! Infantry is not the defenseless puppies you make them out to be, I for one am not a defenseless puppy.

And yet you never have used it. If less than .1% of your deaths can be contributed to being shot at it a few times and then rarely ever again, then it must be an incredibly easy weapon to avoid and therefore not OP. Ah but there's gotta be that one guy right? How bout this, bring me a player of at least lvl 30 in rank that has died to hesh an unreasonable amount of times and I'll concede every single argument I make about hesh.

"It doesn't have to be nerfed, it just has to be harder to use because I think it's too easy to use despite having no experience with it". I mean....k.

Then what exactly is the argument now? Ok so now it's ok to be easy, but it- ugh I don't even.
Just for the love of god, make your stance clear. Here I'll start: I feel like people are overly biased towards hesh being the top farmer of the game even though the statistics are supporting the converse of this claim and any sort of nerf is unfairly biased for those whom think it's OP. I think all claims about the use of hesh that it's not hard enough to use for the rewards is kin to not comparing how many more certs you could earn simply reviving people, putting shield bubbles down and putting ammo packs down with little to no effort involved. Even flipping a control point rewards 3 certs by itself which is akin to 7.5 kills for standing or sitting somewhere while cloaked for approximately 5 seconds... Fantastic.

So now we're backing up in saying that the data was incomparable? Sorry, that still doesn't support your argument, pointing out that there may be other factors doesn't prove that hesh is a far easier weapon to use or that it should be reworked into a harder platform.

I don't believe I ever said they were an overtly hard to use weapon, I simply claimed they weren't as rewarding as people claimed they were. In fact I believe I said that lockons were simply less skillful than hesh, as hesh requires at least some aiming skills such as compensating for drop at unusual angles and leading a target to get them into an optimal splash area. A 2 meter kill zone sounds big but in planetside metrics, that's barely bigger than one planetmans and not as tall (which is astounding as we are all 8 foot tall people. Which I suppose would be the norm because people get bigger over the generations but I still question it). Lockons only requirements are that you look at a vehicle for a designated amount of time and for you to be within 300 or 350 meters, this does not sound like an overly complicated weapon to use, however no one bashes it because newbies need an easier time to cope with vehicles in the game, no one is arguing that, however making them more deadly for the lack of skill involved is unreasonable to ask for how little you actually put into it.

This is more or less the exact reason I advocate more vehicle content for vehicle users. The game has become so staunch against vehicles in the core gameplay that there really isn't any reason to pull them over just sunderers because people just quit because they're under represented.

If by "results" you mean forcing an enemy to retreat in a game driven by kills, then yes you could say they get "results." Though you might be satisfied by that I most certainly am not.

Hahaha, no. Stealth was never the most popular choice because of lock-on launchers. Stealth on vehicles allows them to flank opponents and deal that sweet, juicy engine damage. On sundies it leads to cloaks, and up until recently on air it made them invisible to radars which made them mandatory for dog fighting. While it no longer eliminates them from radar it does shorten the distance in which they are tracked. The fact that it also boosts ESF A2G power and to a lesser extent vehicle-infantry power is a nice little benefit.

ESFs losing health to ground then dying to air is part of combined arms. Two separate domains working together.

Flares are good for when ya' just don't feel like taking any damage at all. Also good for locating the enemy but launching flares just before impact, as the missiles ill appear on the minimap from the moment they are fired until they collide or timeout. Skyguards are dedicated AA vehicles which are weak **** against everything else. Not even all that strong against air to begin with provided there's a hundred meters between the barrel and the air. They are already insufficient against Liberators and more than one ESFat a time, there isn't really a legitimate need for an anti-skyguard defensive slot.

They are nerfs against everything but deployed sunderers. They may have a slightly higher theoretical DPS, but in practice this translates to an extra rocket. In turn, this means more time spent aiming, more time spent locking, more time spent exposed, and less kills on anything with a driver or a gun. This is a nerf. In the past I've said the CAI RL "buffs" should have gone in the opposite direction: Longer reloads for more damage. AKA easier and more successful ambushes as infantry while giving the enemy less opportunities to OHK the attackers.

Again, lock-ons are very weak. According to Dasanfall they consistently kill less players and vehicles than dumbfires do. Colour me suprised. /s

I bloody well wish it so! But as is we have weak with OK velocity and OK gravity, weak with OK velocity and no gravity, and strong with terrible velocity and strong gravity. Give infantry weapons which have range and firepower with a skill requirement and farming will drop while actual combined arms gameplay will rise.

I never said they don't exist. Careful, you're going full Prudentia here.

You can defend it with statistics but the stats are flawed. They're all up for interpretation, as is the unfortunate nature of statistics in general. I can't defend that it isn't overperforming? Good thing I'm not trying to. But you'll recall I already did defend my claim it was.

Lock-ons also have way higher number of users. There are a huge number of potential factors that go into the numbers at work here. You can't just look at one stat and ignore the numbers it's directly dependent on. In my opinion just looking at the real world TTK compared to other launchers already shows they're not nearly as effective, but as I stated above according to Dasanfall they're also generally worse across the board.

They do have higher damage values, yes. However they deal less damage overall due to having differing resistances and lower DPSes. --Reloads and lock times.

No, having a bias comes with having knowledge of any given subject. We both play this game and so so each have a biased opinion of it. It's obvious and there's no need for anyone to rag on someone else because of it.

Seriously, watch out! If your strawman gets much bigger the Prudentia will sense it and come crashing in to tell us how great the Gladius is and how the Promise is "the most accurate LMG in the game."

But for real, a tank shell will deal better damage to basically anything with greater ease while holding the passive benefits of armour. Do I really have to keep quoting myself here?

|
If infantry have to pull a tank to fight a tank, why don't tanks have to play as infantry to kill infantry? And don't tell me it's because the tank spent resources, we've been over that.

Not a real argument. If infantry can hit a sundy with a dumbfire from anywhere safe enough to do so the sunndy's driver is the one to blame. HE does suffer a tad bit against air, but not much more than HEAT. Tank cannons aren't even meant for AA though, so I'd say it's pretty decent anyway. The DPS loss is marginal, (a previous talking point in this thread), and Flak armour is very uncommon while still not being a 100% guarantee of survival. I hope you're not implying I make myself helpless. You already proved that to be false on my behalf.

As I've said multiple times now I don't need to have used it to understand the weapon. If you played around with a SAW, then played around with an AC-X11, would you not be reasonably able to extrapolate what a Reaper DMR is like given the two similar weapons on either end of the scale? Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of a claim, it merely sets the scene and justifies a reason to investigate a claim. Don't concede over something easily fabricated.

OR!!! Infantry can have useful AV weapons. Don't forget that bit. One OR the other.

It's OK to be easy, but not OK to be powerful and easy. Characteristically many of the most overpowered equipment has been very easy to use. ZOE, lol-pods, Striker 1.0, Gatekeeper, PPA, Canis... The list goes on.

Certs are just one way to be rewarded. The game favours kills most of all. Kills for the medals, for directives both class-based and weapons, even what many players judge each other on. You yourself judged me by looking at the number of kills I've gotten with my weapons and HE cannons. It's all about the kills, certs just make it happen in different ways.

Naw, I'm just covering my *** because the statistician inside me knows how righteously F****D data sets can be. Here's an easy example: As the sales of ice cream rise, so does the local murder rate. The two are likely connected to atmospheric temperature as the hotter it gets the more uncomfortable and irritable people get. Some seek refuge in ice cream, others lose their tempers. Probably. No one can actually say for certain as sure as we might all be that there isn't a secret ice cream-based murder-cult out there with a firm grip on the entire civilized globe.

Suffice to say I stand by my interpretation of the data but I'm not omniscient.

Eh, fair enough. Though that is a part of my argument which you are disagreeing with.

HE does require more skill than a lock-on but that's not saying much. As for a splash radius, while yeah two meters is small if any other weapon hit within two meters it would be considered a miss. Again, this is what made the at-release Canis overpowered and why so many players hate fighting the Soldier Soaker; Misses still hit allowing for an otherwise unrealistically high accuracy without actually requiring the skill to hit.

Hey, if you want some skill-based AV weapons you know who to talk to. It's Demigan.

This should be a giant banner above the desks of anyone in charge of balance at Daybreak.

There should also be a disclaimer that there is such a thing as too easy to use, such as air-locks, and too powerful in the best hands, like a 2x head shot multiplier on automatic rifles, especially since this game has nanoweave and overshields that cover the body.

Well, I won't reply to the rest cause you just keep repeating yourself and your opinions...and that's all it is: Biased opinions.

However, to claim that there are too few vehicle fights going on cause vehicles are too weak got to be a bad joke. The truth is that tankers do not want to fight other tankers cause then they may get killed...and it often ends in some boring long range battle where the overpop wins. Most tankers have always been only good at one thing: Farming infantry. If they have to deal with other vehicles they run or quit.

I'm basically going to skip over the, long passed out effort of a retort nightmare, you want more powerful AV weaponry, but I've already pointed out, launchers do the same amount of damage as tank shells already, to have even more powerful weapons is to simply trump tanks by yourself. This is not what planetside should be about. It should be about teamwork, a failure to cooperate is simply a failure to play the game. If you do not want to fight tanks, fine, your stats clearly prove that hesh is either not common or you rarely get killed by it which is to say avoidable.

If you want to claim the stats on dasanfall are wrong, you cannot simply claim these are right and these are wrong, all of the data has the same prerequisites to be cataloged, therefore you cannot claim that launchers are not effective if the data is skewed, you cannot claim that hesh is too effective if the data is wrong. It is not a two way street.


Since the thread is about hesh spam, with the only reliable data by your claim that dasanfall is too skewed for fact, then we can go with average player over the course of their career, dying to hesh. Since so far I've looked up about o, 10 people, didn't feel like devoting more time to a sample size than that, the results were astonishing, the average was less than 1% deaths to hesh. The real outlier was a BR 30 that actually died to it 1.5% of the time. Go figure.

Actually, the have comparable VEHICLE KILLS PER HOUR TO MAIN TANK TURRETS. If the number is inflated because more people use them then the number should be higher, not lower. Also towards how rockets work, it generally takes multiple people to take down a good tanker, on average 2-3, which means this does not include how much damage the team did, lowering the score because only one person gets the kill, airgo: Since this is how launchers function, the VKPH is greatly deflated as well as diluted with people that have inexperience fighting vehicles.
I never said they killed more people than tanks, I said they killed about the same amount of vehicles per hour, but again, if you're going to base that on dasanfall when the stats are flawed, why even bother?

Well the viper was performing to approximately the same degree as hesh only down by 4 points. If it really was the dilution of time or amount of users, then the number ought to be a lot lower, you say the weapon is ****, pure opinion but ok, we'll roll with that and that's where the 4 point difference comes from? I just want you to understand how this works here.

You either say that the data from dasanfall is wrong and/or too skewed for usage in an argument or too open to interpretation, in which we go by ps2 fisu in which sample size of how many deaths are actually hesh is an easier determining factor, so far I've gotten less than 1% as the average out of a sample size of 10 selected at random, low BRs and high BRs, if you wish to challenge that you are welcome to, but the point is that there is no hesh spam, there was never a reason to nerf it in the first place, it's purely a feel bad weapon, this is my evidence that supports it, so you're welcome to accept it, or you can disprove it with your own, or you can say I'm wrong, I'm a big scary boogie man and you don't have to prove anything except how you feel about it.

So please, I'm a knowledge seeker, another ******* paragraph about how "oh the data is skewed, o it feels bad, too easy to use" without any evidence to back it up would be a waste of my time to look at anymore. You are welcome to be wrong, but this is all the data I've gathered thus far, your interpretations of data still contradict one another, if you feel otherwise, explain.

What exactly have you done to disprove that? I mean, look at the game, vehicles are either drastically underpulled despite having "infinite resources for free" or they aren't pulled because people don't want to play them.

.......

I'm sorry, this is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Like seriously.
If this statement was true then there would not be more AP kills in total in this chart here

This was a stat drop by wrel from total kills between may 1st and 31st. The stats were, granted, 2 months ago, including the prowler changes in which barrage became a thing, but even then, the odds of that helping hesh more than AP would be far fetched at best.

Your assumption that tanks only farm infantry is stupid, you are stupid, you are not supporting any of these claims with data, and the exact kind of people I dislike, only going off gut feels instead of hard evidence.
BUT HEY! If you wanna say that most tanks only farm infantry, you can tell them that they're stupid for not picking hesh. Maybe next time you wanna think before you say something? I mean most vehicle mains advocate actual vehicle content to be included in the game, most of it isn't even infantry based I mean, ****, look at half of chingles work, most of it didn't even involve an AI focus, there was only one tank that was focused around that called the husk that actually separated the MBTs into two different tank types for different gameplay focuses. That was kickass.

BUT NAH, most tankers just wanna farm infantry. k. /s

First we should check what you have done to prove them. So far I only see your opinion why it is like that and you claim that as facts. But those aren't facts. It's just your opinion that you repeat over and over again while ignoring that there may be other reasons for all that as well as stated numerous times in this thread.

That people don't pull ground vehicles(which by the way ain't true at all) may have many reasons: They are boring, they are not intuitive(for noobs) but don't need skill either(for experienced players), they feel clunky or spongy, they ruin the fun for everyone(cause they are not well balanced), they need quite number of certs if you want to compete with other tankers, they often need more than 1 player, most players play this game for large scale infantry battles(and not to shoot at each other from the horizon, drive behind the next hill, repair, start over again, If you want tanks then World of Tanks might be the better choice for you). Just to name a few.
That it is because they are too weak is a far fetched assumption by you. But you might be right to a certain degree: More players would surely play them if they would have even more of an "I win"-button included...it just would be even less fun for anyone else in the game.


Did you read the post by LodeTria? I made the same experience. Once one of those tank zergs hits on an enemy tank zerg the fight is over pretty soon. People don't seem to like tank vs tank fights. Farming infantry is where the easy certs are. It's always been like that. Calling me stupid will not change that.

Ah, my bad.
Dasanfall
Ps2 Fisu

Those are the sites I am pulling my data from, you are welcome to look at it.
Now as for "there may be other reasons for all that as well blah blah blah" unless you can prove it, I've refuted it. There are 2 things, stats and logic. If you want to convince me that those reasons are actually valid, then you need either one of those. However, you cannot just say "tankers only care about farming infantry" when I've just presented evidence from a developer of the game that proves otherwise. If you want to convince me, pick either.

Again, most of those are OPINIONS, the exact thing you're trying to claim I'm doing. Now if I removed everything that was an opinion and only left the facts in your post:

Wow. I actually thought there was more in there. Also need is rather subjective but I'll let that one side because most do require multiple people to perform optimally.
Review:

Opinion

Opinion again.

While I do agree they feel clunky, that's still an opinion converse to someone who thinks they feel fine.

Again, opinion. While sure, it's not fun to to be insta-gibbed from range, nothing stops people from pulling sniper rifles. There's no honor code here, this isn't even a reason, this is just an opinion.

Actually, since most people don't have tanks certed out they generally do fine. You don't need to have all the bells and whistles to be competitive, at most you really only need 100 certs to buy the first level of vanguard shield or barrage, beyond that, it's pretty freestyle. And the devs are making the stock heat actually deal more damage over time over the AP variants, so you are on level ground with full AP setups.
I do agree they take a lot of certs to max out, they don't need many to start killing other tanks(if at all).

Again, I could find the same thing with battlefield with 64 player servers. You mean to tell me because it's free and has large scale battles. If you want to prove this with a reddit poll then by all means, but until then you basically pulled this out of no where. How exactly would you know what the entire playerbase wants? Hell I don't even know what the NC wants to do most of the time.

Isn't the hesh supposed to be an "I-win" button against infantry? That's what this thread has made it out to be. And if you're refering to the vanguard, again, worst performing tank at all levels of play. Even with the supposed "I-win" button. If you want proof, again, dasanfall and the chart I gave you prior.

No, I called you stupid because it was a stupid thing to blurt out without thinking.

I just gave you evidence, within the link in my previous post, that people are fighting and killing vehicles. There is a vkph for a reason.

OR MAYBE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF LIMITING FACTOR THAT MADE IT SO THAT TANKS WERE NOT CHAINPULLED FOR MULTIPLE TANK FIGHTS. Maybe just maybe that's why vehicle zergs end so quickly?

Point is, there is barely any vehicle content, vehicle players are part of the playerbase too and should be treated as part of the playerbase. Or maybe you would rather have 0 tanks and it all be infantry and sunderers. That seems equally as stupid.

i couldn't have put it better myself how to undercut their argument that vehicles are 'free', if they were truely free if you lost 2 MBTs in the space of 4 minutes due to bad luck you'd be able to pull a third one, except you can't hence they are not free.

part of problem is that infantry has been too pandered to and as a result vehicles have been nerfed over 'feels' in the past rather then careful checking of actual usage stats, the august (2016?) tank gun nerf is a good example, nothing was wrong and they got changed.

Boring slug fests, often relying on population, is the reason tanks don't like fighting tanks. They're simple and boring dps races. Double tank canon damage and armor will start fighting armor again. Same goes for Harassers. Double their top gun damage and halve or 1/3 their health and they'll become fun again. Making maneuvering and battlefield awareness more important than top gun choice and numbers will get tanks fighting each other again. They basically need to copy what makes infantry gameplay so much fun. Exactly the same as what they need to do in the air, and ground to air for that matter.

I would have to agree with Pacster and adamts take on the feel of playing a tank, you can all push your figures, but have you ever bothered to do a qualitative study on how the feel of the tank is to play? and those who play it, hell most of them know they are slightly overpowered. Sometimes people reach such and such a KDA that is acceptable to them and then they start playing to that standard, I do this subconciously a lot of the time too. If I'm playing really bad, I pick my focus up because I was probably not really trying and I do better. But in a tank I just stroll through and very little does phase me, I don't claim to be a god that can swat an ESF out of the air but hey its just too boring to play tanks to that level for me. It has that infinite feeling that you're a child playing gunbound and hell when I was a little kid, I played the **** out of that game, I got to become a wand rank which is super high and I was like 9 at the time. You begin to learn every angle and every bit of power that your projectile takes to travel X distance and it is really such a linear skill, but it was turn based so there was no level of reactionary skill and there was amples of time to take a move and strategy was limiting so I don't believe any person could achieve satisfaction out of that game past the point of mastering it. The whole game point in a game is about satisfying that dopamine concentration in your brain, you cannot get enough of it, and your ego will tell you that you're on a level play field, if you are not doing well. Lets forget that a tank takes 7 shells and can just walk behind a rock and repair for one moment, while if an infantry gets shelled, then takes cover has a high probability another infantry will run around the corner and put one bullet in the head.

I'm still going to have to disagree on the hole headshot thing because I think with the head being a smaller hitbox and the nature of cone of fire and just that it is possible to miss more bullets ever with your reticle being dead center. That and I think people aren't using nanoweave as religeously as they used to, theres actually some really good uses in grenade bandoolier. I think traditionally people are more likely to go for body shots in CQC and in more distant duels the theoretical TTK is blown out by all the missed bullets to often be quite a lengthy battle of 3-4 bursts fired. Also leads to smaller bursting or head -> body placement of shots. It's just a mechanism the game needed and is in any successful skill based f2p shooter.

My performance went through the roof, my roof anyway, when I switched to lower damage but more accurate guns and religiously for head shots. I even managed to get a suspicious level on some of my newer weapons. I 100% agree that head shots should be rewarded, but I think this game takes it just a touch too far. It really is night and day once you commit to it with the right weapons (NS series mostly).

Anyway, on the topic of tank vs tank, it just feels like a spreadsheet-warrior game, compared to infantry fights where a good position can be infinitely more rewarding. If two tanks are even half aware then they'll face off and see who wins the dps race, or crawl I should say.

I think that tanks and air should dominate infantry outside of cqb. Weak close range infantry rockets are half of the problem. The other huge issue is that the vehicle game isn't enticing enough to keep it populated, which means one side or the other doesn't have enemy vehicles to deal with and can farm away. Too many people see farming as an infantry vs vehicle problem, when it's equally a vehicle vs vehicle problem.

You might want to link to those posts or the data because all that people can read in this thread are the assumptions.

That's why I frequently tell people to pursue a more standard Infantry shooting game if that this their only goal. A focus on nothing but Infantry play is wasting the potential of this franchise's main premise; and, a hostile perpsective on the other half (or third or two-thirds) of the game suggests a selfish desire to make the game what you want it to be, not what it promises to be.

Vehicle play does not have to match Infantry play. Aircraft play does not have to pace with either of the other two domains either. I keep saying that people need to accept that one will have need to get out of his vehicle at some point just as much some other player has to accept that he'll need to get into his vehicle at some other point. The whole infantry-main or vehicle-main or pilot-main fixation is a curse and the desire to promote the aspects of one kind of gameplay over the other is even worse because we boil down to a "my experience is more important than yours" debate and that's basically a shouting match (with or without all caps).

But it can be cathartic.

Near instantaneous and relatively unfettered spawns leading to continuous and contiguous battle flows? (Imagine if spawn downtime was a minute a pop and the checkpoint was far away from the action.)

Now that, I have some common ground with.
1. I agree that the game hurts newbies the most through the headshot only meta. Nano-weave exacerbates the problem.
2. The vehicle game should definitely be improved. There are a few scenarios in which a single tap from a basilisk can mean the death or life of a tank, but the amount of time it takes just for one tank to kill another is almost exhasusting.
3. There really is no incentive to patrol and protect your sunderers. Even if you're possibly the sole reason that the fight is still going, the only people you really benefit are the infantry, which in general don't protect you from aircraft with lockons, often don't support you in turn because they are in the base and don't make you any more certs than simply being one of those infantry would throwing down ammo packs.

I don't agree that infantry rockets are weak, they are a team synergistic weapon, should be treated as such.

1. I have 38 days in vehicles on record. I sell myself to be a rounded player. I do a little bit of everything so I can be a fair call on what is what. Sure, I do not MAIN tanks, but I have 4 days in both the lightning and 4 days in the vanguard, 3 days in the prowler and 4 days in the maggy. Counting over my sessions on VS and TR lightnings, I probably have more like 6 days in the lightning. Does that make me biased? Well I'd hope not because I have over 150 days playing infantry (cut vehicles out of total playtime those wondering). So yea. I have experience in all the tanks. You really want to contend that?

2. I've had friends leave because they thought the vehicle game was never going to get better. They had hoped that vehicle only points would be fun vehicle battles, that there would possibly new content, new weapons, new additions, new changes, PHYSICS CHANGES THAT DIDN'T MAKE THEM FLIP ON PEBBLES. But no. Those changes didn't come. The ironic thing is, most of them actually did abhor hesh. They would never use it, said that they prefered to fight other tanks, CAI ****** up things for THOSE players too. But nah, I suppose all the infantryside cares about is removing vehicles from the game. More and more changes made to oust them out of every fight, ya know? **** them right? How dare they use a tank and use it to possibly have the potential of farming infantry with their pure AP loadouts.

Also real salt in the wound, they were also buyers of vehicle cosmetics and armors, voicing out their opinion, but nah, ****em.

3. If you're going to limit everything to a KDR cap, then we can start nerfing the battlegoose, because clearly it's KDR is too high. Vehicles are supposed to do what they're meant to do. The same where you build a mans to either dominate close quarters with a serpent or GD or lynx, a tank is supposed to suppress infantry with a hesh cannon if it's in the proper position. But just LIKE infantry, you're vulnerable to long range guns at said ranges right? That's how it works with tanks. The shells are slower, require more leading, AP rounds simply do more damage per shot, heat rounds are slow but also pack larger dps over time. Same way you couldn't kill multiple people in rapid succession with a low damage per round gun like the lynx, heat can churn out damage.

But people don't want to see the numbers, the results, the evidence. It feels bad and therefore must be nerfed. Same thing with orbitals (granted that was mostly a bug), same thing with fury, same thing with shotguns, same thing with C4 and now same thing with hesh, even though I've proven without a doubt that hesh is not spammed, average player dies to it less than 1% of the time, it is comparable for infantry kills per hour with some infantry primaries and that threads like these are completely overblown.

Wanna contend with feels? Well to me, it certainly sucks to be killed by a lib from out of no where as a tank. I guess we nerf libs against ground armor right? /s

Pretty much 100% this. But most importantly:

I'm not an unreasonable man, but if there's no evidence to prove me wrong I'm going to keep saying exactly what I've found.

(also ty)