Top 5 Vanguard Myths... with Numbers!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by ColonelChingles, Apr 16, 2014.

  1. Yasa


    I don't have to prove myself right. I just need to prove that you are wrong. That's the whole point of argument. It is not my job to come up with a better solution. It is very legitimate, and not at all hypocritical (I don't think you know what this word means) to critique your argument. Scientists do this all the time. They test hypotheses, without having to come up with a new one.

    I can argue that the sky is purple. Then all u have to do is counter argue that the sky ISN'T PURPLE to prove me wrong. You do not have to argue that the sky is specifically blue. That's just the way scholarly debate works.

    Anyways, the fact that it is impossible to prove ceteris paribus or all other things equal, is, a legitimate counter argument that at the very least, weakens your argument. I even gave relevant analogies so that it is easier to visualise the fallacy of your argument.

    One rifle may be consistently missing more than another, but if the rifles have different uses and counters, then it is not a good point of comparison.
  2. Kriegson


    First off, you can stop using "big words" without any actual relevance to the argument to try and sound smart, it just makes you look pretentious.
    The whole "Scientists can critcise something.." is used with data, often from existing theories and tests to discount something. Not just wearing a lab coat and saying "Yeah well that's not possible!" you would point to existing factors that indicate what they're saying is false, ergo providing evidence and argument against someone else's argument.

    I'm sure minds far more brilliant than yours or mine are rolling in their grave at the concept of "I don't have to prove I'm right, just that you are wrong [and I don't need evidence to do it]." Debate and scientific debate are two entirely different things. Debate can be about many things, theology, social concepts, things that don't have much data and exist largely in the mind.
    Scientific debate makes use of scientific process, which largely consists of analysis and quantification of data. Comparison of that data, and use of that data to create theories on which consensus or criticism is born.

    The only bit that's OT:
    "uses and counters" have no relevance to a weapon being an absolute failure in comparison to its counterparts. If there are more counters and less uses to a weapon, causing it to underperform, then that weapon is suffering is it not?
    • Up x 1
  3. Yeahy

    And once you get to the 13th page....the conversation goes to hell.
  4. Kriegson

    The entire thing started back in april in response to the vanguard shield nerfs. Just been necrod due to controversy once again and it has a great set of data to refer to.

    Doesn't do much to resolve the usual bickering though. Doesn't matter what evidence you have, some people just want to remain ignorant.
    • Up x 2
  5. RenegadeHelios

    This is what I don't understand.

    Maggie pilots say the Vanguard is perfectly fine and balanced, while they have a 45/1 K/D combat record against Vanguards.

    Half of the Vanguard community thinks that the Vanguard is underpowered because the shield can't save them half the time.

    The other half of the Vanguard community just wants a fair fight.

    (Prowler pilots just do whatever the heck they want.)



    Why can't we just find a neutral point and stick to it so the Vanguard actually becomes combat effective? Nobody can deny that the Maggie is the most survivable tank out there - that attribute allows it to factor into battles far more than any other tank.

    Prowlers have speed and mobility as well, but function as better suppressive fire. Helps for team support and clearing out fields of vehicles. It's balanced between all respects, essentially - defense, mobility, fire rate, and subsequently, damage.

    The Vanguard can't get out of the way of stuff, it can't really maneuver around the field, but it has this defensive ability that is a Hail Mary - if it can't remove the threat in the amount of time the shield is up, they're probably dead.

    And, half the time, smart players on the other side of the equation will just maneuver around until the shield's down, DPS'ing the tank.

    What's wrong with a fair fight? Give the Vanguard some better combat ability, whether it's a bit more maneuverability or something similar. If anything, the Vanguard needs a buff. The other two tanks have much higher survivability due to maneuverability, even in the simplest sense. >.>

    (also subtle attempt to stop the QQ and bring the topic back on topic)
    • Up x 2
  6. Kriegson

    Yet again, I'd suggest a directional shield similar to the AEGIS in function. Recharges when not in use, extends from barrel. Maybe cannot fire while active? But it can be toggled quickly to "Block" a shot...though latency could cause issues here just as it does for the AEGIS proper.

    That aside. they have done quite a bit for its mobility, at least in a straight line, but more may need to be done to make it effective otherwise. Consider you shouldn't HAVE to use the shield as a crutch for a ****** tank -_-
  7. Moukassin

    This was very interesting, thanks for sharing this
  8. Yasa


    1) I don't use 'big words'. You are just projecting your expectations.
    2) I provided analogies to your argument, that you have yet to address.
    3) I really don't have to prove that I am right to prove that you are wrong. That's just how logic works. Let me repeat myself:
    You say that 'the sky is purple'
    I just need to prove that the sky is not purple.
    I do not need to prove that the sky is blue, or any other specific colour in order for you to be wrong.
    The negation of p can be a lot of things.

    4) I agree that debate can be about many things, but all intelligible debate follows similar rules of arguments.
    5) I am criticising your data as being fallible, or irrelevant to your conclusion or hypothesis; that player stats is an accurate reflection of the quality of a vehicle.
    6) If something has less uses, it does not necessarily mean that it is under performing. Please elaborate.

    Numbered so that you may address each point easily.
  9. Bananenweizen

    The thing is, you didn't prove that poorly performance of the Vanguard which we see in the actual statistics isn't caused by the Vanguard being worse than Prowler/Magrider for itself. You just showed some other possible explanations for this phenomena.

    But possible is not likely or probable. And this is the point: do you have any indications or arguments that the alternative explanations are "better" than that of Kriegson? If not than all your words is just empty polemics.
    • Up x 1
  10. Yasa


    Yes exactly, OP says that ONLY player stats NECESSARILY reflect the quality of a vehicle.
    I just need to explain that player statistics does not necessarily reflect the quality of a vehicle to weaken his argument.
    I think I did argue that all other things need to be equal in order to compare the vehicles, the factions have different AV capabilities and that the vehicles fulfill different roles and therefore have different methods of playing.

    Another analogy:
    Which gun is better, the AK47 and variants, or the M4? The AK47 is more popular and has more kills. Can you even compare them?
  11. ColonelChingles

    The ultimate purpose of any weapon in PS2 is to kill the enemy. A weapon that fails to kill the enemy is not as good a weapon as one that succeeds to kill the enemy.

    It does not matter that different factions have different playstyles; regardless of the playstyles each should be equally effective at killing enemies. For example, if one faction specializes in long-range combat and another faction specializes in extreme CQB, that's fine so long as overall each faction is equally effective at killing the enemy. But if one playstyle is just plain more effective at killing the enemy, then that's a design flaw that needs to be changed.

    This is irrelevant to the particular stats used. This is because the stats here are Kills Per Hour, which is a standardized statistic that simply looks at weapons per hour of usage.

    So a much more accurate analogy:
    Which gun is better, the AK47 and variants of the M4? To answer this we randomly select thousands of soldiers and equip some with AKs and some with M4s. We then proceed to track over thousands of days the performance of each soldier under a variety of realistic combat conditions. After this study we average out the kills per hour that soldiers got with each weapon. We find that one outperforms the other by a significant margin, and so we conclude that under realistic combat conditions one weapons is more effective at killing soldiers than another weapon.
    • Up x 1
  12. Flag

    Actually, we don't know for sure.
    What we do know is that SOE claimed the Vanguard generally lives longer than the Mag and Prowler, although the 'why' was left out.
    • Up x 1
  13. Kriegson

    Ironically this could range from the time it takes to get to an actual fight, to those who pull vanguards generally waiting for support rather than rushing right out.

    Not saying it is, but that stating a tank lives longer without reasoning is like saying cows live longer in some places rather than others, neglecting to mention they are sacred in India.
    • Up x 1
  14. Jetlag

    SOE (Higgles) also claimed that Vanu will only use OP weapons, and no one used that nonsense as a legitimate argument...

    Right?
  15. Demigan

    Hehe, I'm working with the scientific method for my work all the time.

    A scientist works as follows:
    He finds an area of research that we want an answer to. In this case what color the sky is (somehow we can get an advantage in knowing).

    Now you argue as a hypothesis that the sky is purple. And to you it is! Because when you do scientific research to the subject you'll find that what constitutes as "red" here can be "orange" somewhere else. The boarders where people define something as red differentiates between different cultures and places, although we are generally pretty close.
    So the hypothisis "the sky is purple" could potentially hold up somewhere else. But the hypothesis "the sky is red" doesn't hold up unless it's sunset/dawn.
    Let's say we've eliminated red as a hypothesis. Are the scientists done? No, they have proven their initial hypothesis was wrong so they keep searching. They haven't found a real answer yet.
    What have the scientists found? They found that the definition they used for colors was off. So they went deeper and said "let's look at what defines our colors". They found that colors are lightwaves that move at different frequencies. So they went away from color and said "between 430 and 490 terahertz we define a color as blue". The color blue was now defined and while cultures might view it as differently, they now had one unified datapoint where something was blue.
    Now they measured the lightwaves of the sky and said "yes, it's blue". Their research was complete...
    Until someone came by and said "but the sky changes color. It can be blue, grey, red, orange, purple, black at night and in case of northlights even green!"
    So they checked the lightwaves frequencies and by god! the man/woman was right! How'd this happen? Well, they knew something about the sun and how light scatters in our atmosphere... so they had to define what the "sky" was. They defined the sky to be the atmosphere where the lightparticles collided and were refracted towards the earth.
    This still was inconclusive, as every color could do that. So they found out that the thing we call "sky" is in fact any color, depending on how the sun refracts the light. This changes during the course of a day.

    All that for the simple question "what color is the sky".


    Let's look at your discussion:
    Your discussion is more like the discussion of global warming. There are two sides of scientists, one side tries to prove that global warming is true (scientists A), the other side tries to deny it (scientists B). Their reasons and motivations are irrelevant, we must assume all parties are looking for the truth.
    Scientists A trying to prove global warming say "hey, we got this data here that proves global warming".
    Now Scientists B trying to disprove the existence of global warming will look at the methods used by the first scientists. They will try to see if the data they collected is accurate and will tell us something about global warming, as in complex scientific research you might think you've found the answer but are actually looking at data showing normal global heating, which the earth would have done anyway.
    simultaneously with checking the method's accuracy they will see about the reproducibility of the method. Can someone else get the same results with the same method? It could have been a fluke that they got the data to prove global warming.

    Imagine that the method was wrong somewhere. Did this disprove the hypothesis of "there is global warming"? No, it did not. It proved that the method was wrong.
    Unless Scientists B prove that global warming doesn't exist the hypothesis could still be true. We haven't seen data disproving global warming yet have we?

    Yasa, even if you did disprove Kriegson (although your method was flawed) you still owe us proof that the opposite is true.
  16. Kriegson

    Orion sees the highest usage. Hell check the latest server smash stats. That said they feel that Orion is the baseline and the rest of the LMG's are garbage, not sure if that's the case but if Orion is overperforming that's basically true.

    In fact, you basically see the Orion and PPA in every engagement, which are largely superior to their alternate faction counterparts, so there is some truth to it.
  17. Yeahy

    Well you could say the same for NC smg's and TR assault rifles, as well as weapons such as the banshee, rocketpods in general, and he weapons.
    All factions have solid weapons in at least one category, and frankly, all factions abuse them.
  18. Kriegson

    True, but recent server smash stats (Looking for it...) basically showed Orion was head and shoulders in usage/kills by a couple hundred above any other VS weapon., while TR had an outstanding weapon by about 50 units and the next up were 3 or 4 guns with pretty similar usage rates (Carv, MCG, Bull?)

    Likewise there's not a particularly abusable AI option for NC and TR compared to the VS PPA which is powerful and versatile, so it sees a lot more usage in comparison, etc.

    What you say is true but ultimately I feel there is some justification for his comment.
    • Up x 1
  19. RenegadeHelios


    Like Krieg said, it could possibly be because it takes it longer to get into the fight, longer to engage an enemy, and most decent players are highly defensive with it.... So they rarely venture out to push the line. Because they know that they'd get slaughtered. .-.

    The Maggie, with its maneuverability, has greater potential to dodge shots and has greater potential to push the line, due to agility.

    Survivability means nothing if you can't do anything in the fight.

    I can get a wraith flash, sit on a hill, and have longer survivability than the average Vanguard. Am I doing anything with it, however?
  20. Shadoiex

    The vanguard surely isn't better. To be honest, I perform better in a stock maggie than I do with a decked out vanguard. It's about how you play, and whether or not you know tanking.