Why VS win all alerts ?

Well, it's a good thing that we are looking at the overall population then, isn't it? Longitudinally, even. Every player who has ever joined any faction is a valid data point for our purposes of determining player-type composition of each faction.

Again, there is no such thing in PS2. No one is a specialist, everyone can do everything with no restrictions past initial cert costs.

The rest is just you moving the goal posts. Traditionally one would just assume all player movement between factions is equal given the lack of accessible information to verify this, so the differences are considered null. We see players when acting as VS exhibit the same or very similar combat skills as on other factions, suggesting player skills are not a legitimate factor in differences of victory totals.

This leaves one primary overarching explanation: The differences are caused solely/primarily/predominately due to differences in the effectiveness of empire-specific equipment.

There is no justification for a social factor, nor any evidence to suggest the possibility.

It's the most noticable thing in PS2, after a 2 years break it feels really weird. Map locking ratios were more fair back then.
Now at least in cobalt maps are always locked by vanu.
Dunno how but developers have to balance factions. In one server NC can be bad and VS can be good, but why in all servers?
If it's same in all servers then it's not about players but about the faction power balance itself.
It's not fun when you play knowing that your faction is gonna lose. And Daybreak developers should really think objective. Vehicles and top guns really make difference imo.

That's just ridiculous. Teamwork is hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean it can't be a determining factor in victory. "teamwork is OP" is actually a pretty common phrase around here. So now we're completely throwing out a possibility necsuse it's hard to quantify? So the alternative must be right? That's nonsense.

A comparable scenario is the Vanguard vs the Magrider. On paper there's zero way a Mag should stand a chance against another MBT, but in practice they statistically do just fine. Why? Because dodging skills are hard to quantify, and Vanguard damage against a Mag is entirely up to player skill. This is also exactly why the Reaver is either the worst or best ESF depending on who's flying it. You can't only look at things mathematically.

I did not read all the old post .. but the subject concerns me ... I only play TR .. Why VS always wins? They will answer you: because all the good players play for the SV and all the others are bad ... that seems to me a little simplistic and partisan ... no? if VS wins so much it's because: 1- Tr and NC do not like fighting them. Why ? because they are too strong ... why? because their weapons are too much to others ... 2- I play TR .. so I can have an opinion on fighting VS or NC. I can tell you that there is a HUGE difference !! I think this superiority of VS is killing the game .. it has become ridiculous. but of course if you play the VS side you will be against me ... because it's me who can not play mmm?

This game needs a new development and design team.

Funny to see the lines you cut.

Teamwork is one of those things were it either exists or it doesn't. In PS2 for the most part it doesn't. Regardless, once again players are not locked into a faction and join each faction randomly. Any and all cooperation is going to be A: small in scale and B: randomly distributed throughout the population. And since we know the population is to be considered normal, we can very safely assume the amount of teamwork is normally distributed as well. It isn't just thrown out because it's hard to quantify, it's assumed to have a null impact because of the population's normal distribution. In real-world examples of these types of assumptions the data reflects the expected outcome due to the laws of probability.

Teamwork can be a factor in local victories but does not have a significant impact on overall victories. What is nonsense is just claiming it has a majorly notice, measurable impact on alert victories for exactly one faction across all servers across the world despite being repeatedly told exactly why that is clearly bull****. Insanity!

Eh, no not really. The Vanguard relies solely on its ability to soak damage to the face while the Magrider utilizes its extreme mobility to use terrain to its advantage and flank from unique angles as well as dodge shells from range. As time has progressed the Vanguard has only gotten worse while the Magrider has only gotten better. The Vanguard's sole advantages of armour resistance and shield have been reduced dramatically (resistance down to flat HP requiring extra time to heal, invulnerability for 8s down to 6s/7s to 8s of directional damage resistance, requiring full health to be effective) while the Magrider has received a reload (read: DPS) buff and further increases to mobility.

The Reaver is just a sh!tty fatass brick with wings that requires the same or higher accuracy as the opponent does but is by far the largest target of the three ESFs and is the most punishing for missed shots. If not for the noseguns it would have no real redeeming qualities and has been shown to underperform compared to both enemy ESFs.

However we are coming close to seeing things in the same light for once. The planets must have aligned as you typed. SAWs require more skill to use than Orions yet don't reward skill any more than the EZPZ Orion does. Weapons like the SAW aren't well suited for PS2's general gameplay while weapons like the Orion are especially pertinent to PS2. The Orion isn't OP and the SAW isn't UP, but it's better to have more Orions than SAWs. It's "entirely up to player skill" but much like a Reaver verses a Mossie or Scythe the vast majority of players will do better with an Orion under all circumstances purely because it is better suited to live gameplay.

And lastly, it's fallacious to believe an objective claim can be made without the use of math or science to verify. The claim being made, that the VS are just naturally more team-based and cooperative, is a bare assertion fallacy. It is a claim that is presented as true without support, provided purely by speculation poorly dressed as logical thought with any ground in reality. To be blunt, I'm running out of ways to say how baseless the claim is.

So now teamwork in an MMO doesn't matter?.... OK. There's nowhere to go from here if that's your belief.

OK.. There you go again ranting about something you clearly don't know anything about, and going against damn near every top pilot... Just like you're lecturing me about how I'm wrong about the military when I actually served... You're quite a dissapointment.

Massively Multiplayer Online game. Battle royal, anyone? MMOs aren't inherently team-based nor do they even require cooperation. How many MMOs can be fully played completely alone? You're just pulling straws out of your *** because you have no argument.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me the Reaver isn't a fatass brick with incredibly high accuracy requirements. Prove it.

I'm lecturing you on the dangers of perception bias and telling you why a single incident with little relation to you outside of your control is not an indicator of anything you have tried to claim thus far. If you genuinely believe that, you're too far gone. Reality exists outside of the mind, don't look at it thinking you know what's really happening around you. This is what math and sciences are for, determining what is and what is not.

Oh, also Ad hominem fallacy. You're attacking me and not my position. Again.

Having a significantly higher DPS on the Prowler means nothing? Or having two shots to determine the range in long-range fights means nothing? The combination of speed and maneuverability means nothing? (even though the Lightning and Harasser show how valuable both are?).
What serious edge would the NC have? They have the lowest DPS on their tank, they might be fast but don't have the maneuverability to really use it effectively and the performance stats back up that the Vanguard is just barely capable of keeping up with the other two tanks despite having more health and arguably the best MBT ability in the game, although Barrage does have solid points. Both the Magrider and Prowler now have auto-granted abilities (Afterburner and Anchor) while the Vanguard has...? You could say extra health, but the extra health was there as "base ability" for the other two getting better maneuverability/speed/DPS advantages.

False dichotomy + single cause fallacy (or at best extreme bias towards equipment being sole/predominant cause).

The social factor extends further than just faction perception based on personality because it also will determine the initial (and growing) faction culture/perception. Player skill/equipment will be under the effect of team play + time spent online + outfits (and which type) + are they playing for personal goals versus faction goals + do they play efficiently or do they remain in their favourite class (even though you can play everything it is very common to find a preference and 'main' a class or vehicle)? When do they play? There are loads more factors to consider. We're not bots, after all, and when all these factors are considered there's also no match-making and on top of that the players are moving individually across a large map and might not even meet (and not at the right time).

Facts are both VS/TR have been known as having the best organisation (and ESPECIALLY outfit cooperation) while NC got known as the opposite, as a TK faction and eventually the meme faction who's just here for a good time, Yeee-haaaaaaw! Even if someone is clueless at the start they'll figure it out in-game or when looking for an outfit. In other MMOs, for example, it has been incredibly hard for the losing faction to recover once the snowball has started rolling in the winning factions direction. It is quite remarkable for PS2 to have two factions actually staying relatively close to each other on a global level but at the same time it needs to be said that on a server-level one of the two tend to pull away from the other. I bring this up since if one server is skewed too much in the favour of one faction it might, unfairly, paint the wrong picture overall.

Equipment-wise I think it is fair to say we can see a distinct difference in NC's performance on community events versus on live servers. Being "the jack of all trades" on live seem to be more favourable than being more specialised (not to say all NC gear is specialised) but the default LMGs is a good comparison and would also affect the perception of new players. I mean, sure, the Anchor/em6 is a competitive option but first you have to get it and second you have to know you should get it. Not to mention the SAW itself is unique in more ways than one among LMGs. Since the HA has been such a large part of the PS2 meta this is a factor which cannot be ignored. The recent NC MAX nerf is another (but much too recent to take into account historically).

In other words, I think the truth lies within all of these factors and to throw out any of them out would be irresponsible. The both of you have good points yet as with all of us have certain biases and ideas on which factors are more or less important.

Did you read hrough those tests? I admit the situation was purely tank vs tank, so it didn't take in to account live situations like being attacked by infantry or air, but it was pretty incredible how the Vanguard so obscenely dominated the Prowler. It's worth a read.

I think the biggest difference between events and live is the lack of noobs in events. You mentioned the Gauss Saw, and another perfect example is the Reaver being the best ESF in capable hands but the worst ESF for average players. And if I remember correctly, NC still dominated competitions even though Maxes were limited to gorgons. If they were allowed to use shotguns during the past 6 years then NC would be completely unstoppable. I do think skill is fairly balanced faction vs faction, but there's no denying that noobs on VS with unstable ammo and easy to use guns will beat noobs on NC with their 167/200 guns, especially considering nanoweave and HA shields. I've heard the argument that balanced fights are won by vets with kill streaks, but there's a serious advantage to your pawns wiping out the enemy pawns in large fights. All that said I still think that equipment maybe accounts for only 1/3 of NC's problems.

True, the NC was pretty much the meta for much of the Lane/Server Smash (VS staying in there as a decent 2nd choice till eventually it was NC/TR/VS, in that order). I mean, some servers chose NC specifically to deny the Miller airforce the Reaver. This is what I was going for with grouping VS/TR as more of jack of all trades-factions which play a bit better for the average player, emphasis on a bit though.

Because you are not on PS4's Genudine Server. There? N.C. or T.R. win unless we fight like rabid dogs dying of heatstroke for a droplet of water before we are pulled into the gates of hell for all eternity. That kind of drive is legendary and hard to come by.... Also, that comment about Wrel liking V.S. more is not true. The last few times I encountered Wrel, he was roaming the lands in a Sunderer, flying T.R.'s banner. If he does like Vanu, he has had a funny way of showing it... *Looks at garage full of worthless junk*

Play on Miller server, Pop VS average 28%.

Screen for today :
http://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=19/37/clg6.png

Always NC and TR win all the alerts.

I just went through the entire thread and found no link or mention to tank vs tank tests beyond this one that was semi-clear.

Now what tests are you talking about, and did they use a fair representation of skills as well as an average battlefield? I bet it didnt. So how about we use objective data from tests continuously conducted in the game by the players themselves... hey the Prowler is better overall than the Vanguard! Weird eh? Its a bit like all those Magrider people complaining for years their Magrider is clearly inferior and the moment I actually do the math is the first time we suddenly see them throw around things likr "yah but we only pull when we gots gunner", which is false considering on a per-player basis they pull about the exact same amount of Magriders.

Believe it or not, the Prowler is superior to the Vanguard.

Wouldn't that actually verify VS do pull 2/2 magriders almost all the time though since if they pull their Maggie at the same rate per player as the other factions yet have a 1:2+ ratio for their top gunners, whereas the same ratio of pri/top gun on the other faction are lower? I mean, if you wish to use MBT/player you also need to use a similar way of presenting data, i.e. the ratio instead of raw numbers, for the top gunners... Otherwise you get some seriously skewed data since both NC and TR pull about 5000+ more MBTs each.

I'm very sorry. I seem to have posted the wrong link.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.re...zbsm/prowler_vs_vanguard_tests_its_laughable/

*Raises eyebrows* I have never know N.C.'s Maxes to be limited to Gorgons.... Mine have always rocked an auto shotgun... this has to be a P.C. thing.... However no, Reavers are/were the best period, even in a newbies hands. That shotgun fires in a perfect spread up close it is like a baby Duster and this is a horrifying thing to say for someone on the other end of one. I remember first starting out being chased relentlessly by Reavers. The walls of bullets produced by Hammers were an absolute nightmare to evade... And they were horrible shots....

So the test is as follows:
We pit a Vanguard and Prowler against each other with for the most part equal loadouts. But we remove the elements of maneuverability (Prowler advantage), speed (Prowler), accuracy at various ranges (Prowler), use of cover (depends on the situation but both tanks can look for cover that suits them) and a reason to win the contest (no incentive to win, even an incentive to lose and show their MBT needs buffs).

What remains is a DPS race against the most tanky MBT in the game in an ideal situation for that vehicle most of the time. Thats not exactly a fair comparison.

If you do want to selectively pick skillsets and pit them against each other then they should have done the following:

- pick several battlefields where both factions start at their own base and their goal is to destroy the enemy.
- vehicles are given a loadout and pulled by an independent party and given to the contestants.
- there are two rounds per contest, in the second round the teams get the vehicles of the opposing side.
- there are several categories. 1v1, 5v5 (or however many you want), and one where two or three Lightnings support their respective faction (and one with Sunderers and Harassers if you can, gonna be a lot of ways a battle can be fought). Each category is done with specific loadout sets. The last category the teams are allowed to set the vehicle completely to their specifications. This category could have sub-categories involving a certain amount of certs the player is allowed to throw in their vehicle.
- the winners of the contest get a prize, DBG coins for example, as incentive to give it all they've got.
- winners mean they obliterate the opposition, or force them to flee beyond a predetermined boundry.

Just looking at the bulletpoint outlining the categories, the test shown is pretty minor.