[Suggestion] TR now severly lacking in anti-magrider weapons

You should never not be using Pounders

I do like my comets, still saving up for vortexes but comets are quite effective at dual role to some degree due to decent splash and damage. Not great but you're not super weak.

The issue I see is that as a whole the tr weapons on infantry and max lack power projection beyond the close mid area while vanu and nc can project their power fairly far overall. This presents a problem. Gen 1 av max weapons seem more geared toward av close and mid with the ability to kind of threaten infantry a little (not a lot just a little, although the nc ones are weakest here, followed by comets in the 2nd place and pounders obviously winning in the av against infantry realm) but you look at Ravens vs fractures vs vortexes and you see a definite odd place, fractures cannot threaten effectively at even the moderate distances compared to the others, which very much does put them at a disadvantage given they still pay the "don't hurt infantry" price vortexes do for example.

I never mentioned it would be completely balanced, it could be if we discuss the idea further but something could certainly be done to give the fractures a bit more range and bring them more in line with the role vortex and raven (it's brothers effectivly) play.

I mention mag and fire rate or velocity/fall off because either would fit nicely with tr but obviously numbers would need tweaked around. I at no point would expect like a double mag and fire rate with same damage for example. Give me a little credit =p. I would rather see parity in role with flavor of faction not flavor of he month OP gun.

Even if fractures in at close range, why have two close range av weapons when they already have pounders? It is like the NC syndrome with shotguns, how many shotguns does a faction need? It is poor design if all of the weapons fill the same roles and effectiveness range and the like.

When used solo? Sure.

But a group of perfect-accuracy long-range AV users is able to kill any vehicle within range, often beyond render distance despite the supposed fix.

Use C4, Profit.

Against a Magrider? Ever try to plant 2 C4 on one of those things when they're floating around almost at random in four different directions without any real telltale to which direction they're going? You're lucky they don't just run you over by sheer accident.

That's the issue you want to weaken something that is literally only a threat in groups and to only armor. Snipers would be a very simple counter to this as they have to aim down sights while charging for 3 seconds...while remaining fairly stationary. There are probably a fair amount of infiltrators who would salivate at knowing there was a big group doing exactly that. Are the sniper rifles now op because they could completely counter that?

Nerfing weapons because a coordinated group can use them effectively for the purpose they were designed for is silly. Tactical play would say that scouting and communication would counter this as well by identifying the threat and then countering via sniping or some low flying good air pilots to sweep them out.

Given that the HA is losing most all of hit ability to threaten close in vehicles or maxes effectively and single shot damage potential to gain a armor sniper rifle that is ONLY effective with groups...seems like it was already balanced in a way to make it require using it properly to be effective.

Pounders will eat tanks alive if they're within 100m.

This thread is a bit pointless since Strikers were the least of a Magrider's worries. G2G lock-ons were just better for that since the Magrider could just block line of sight and reduce the number of rockets they would take. Strikers were really only OP against air for some time.

• What I'm NOT saying: "Because this weapon was once overpowered in groups, it should forever more be severely underpowered solo and barely balanced in groups."
• What I AM saying: "Long-range perfect-accuracy AV weapons (and vehicle AI weapons) are fundamentally a risky thing in a massive game, and should be rebalanced to be shorter-ranged, and improved at that range to maintain a balanced effectiveness."

If it wasn't for their range, there wouldn't be a problem (nobody is criticizing an organized squad of ~7 decimator users who run up near vehicles to all fire on them, because you can actually see that force -- they render on your screen because they're not being shot from extreme range.)

Because too many people complained that it would be OP hitting targets behind cover. But with its current CoF, I very much doubt that would be a major issue at any kind of real range.

Lancers hitting things from beyond render range = OK

Phoenix's hitting things behind all sorts of cover = OK

Striker with ANY amount of ground homing = THE MOST UNBALANCED THING EVER!!!


Face it. TR cannot get nice things compared to the other Empires. The TR motto is "tried and true technology" which means we get upscaled normal weapons rather than weapons with unique features....

The problem with upscaled normal weapons is they get nerfed within a week. The entire TR design motto is basically just asking to be nerfed as you can't offer something that out-competes another item in the same category. The Old Striker which has nothing special going for it other than being an Annihilator is doing better than the Phoenix or Lancer which both offer unique abilities? Too bad, Nerf the Striker ASAP.

Because the right arm is given free by default on 3 of those weapons. This can skew the data, since new players would bring out a Max with an AV weapon on the right arm and not use it for its intended role of AV. Unfortunately, the data source does not give Q4 VKPH, as this would somewhat negate that issue.

Honestly, Pounders are in a good place. They may suck at AV compared to the rest, but they make up for that in other areas to be more of a general tool. I think that is a good trade off. However, Ravens are the best AV and the second best AI weapon out of the lot. I am actually finding it hard to see what the actual trade off is here.

Then there are Fractures. Only marginally better at AV than the Pounders, but suck at anything else. Really is just a pointless weapon at the moment.

Sure, like, 6 shot ESFs why don't you?

But this would (should?) affect all factions in the same matter. And if not than it could be an issue worth to look into.

However, that was not my point because the first-gen AV guns have similar relative performance over the left hand and right hand variants. But between the second gen AV weapons some deviations exist which make VS MAX performance look either better or worse than it's really the case, depending which "side" of the MAX you pick resp. ignore. Ergo, we should draw the complete picture.

Face it. TR actually have some nice weapons, the same as the other two factions.

Everybody assumed it was the case and many people never bothered to look again. But alas, we were cheated.

I though that the advantage of the agility tank was to be hard to hit, in exchange for lowest burst cannon damage, worst cannon drop, lowest speed, low armor?

Er. The whining about the Pheonix on the forums got it nerfed into the ground (deservedly so, honestly). And tons of people have been calling for a range nerf on the Lancer because of the shooting beyond Render Range thing (same with the Vortexes, honestly). Where have you been?

alternate fire modes are like removing another weapon to make profit off of from the store and putting it into one gun.

they should instead make another striker that has the original lock on so players can go buy that one and switch between them based on what they feel is best for the situation.

Nice weapons don't mean that a faction should lack some tool for parity with other faction roles and abilities. They need not do it AS WELL AS the faction or the same way but they should not be completely lacking.

That'd be like saying that because NC have so many shotguns we should start nerfing anything that is good beyond 15 meters for their weapons.