Next Patch: Fix the vehicle game

That's good math -- and I like numbers. However, you are limiting the context of these numbers significantly making that argument pretty much bull..stuff...

By not addressing multiple things --

1. The lib is in position to hit with the tank buster before the skyguard starts firing. This omission is so blatant it borders on ridiculousness. Unless a lib sneaks up on a lightning they take x amount of time to position. Considering you can see liberators hundreds of meters away, you have a lot of time to fire on the lib before he gets within what I will deem Number 2 (see below) and during that time the lib is getting shot. Why are vulcans possibly OP? Because the harasser can EASILY get into CQC out of no where. Can libs? Nope. You see em coming.

2. Range. See 1, but add "and get close for that matter." The tank buster is a close range weapon. Distance matters to damage. So said lib has to be nose down to the ground and close as hell to even attempt to unload a clip. Libs do not hover when perpendicular to the ground like scythes do. Even the best pilot is going to be losing altitude when aiming. Libs do not DO tricks like that easily as they are super bottom heavy. Aiming down at a lightning for any length of time is difficult as you are DAMN close to the ground when you are IN the tank busters optimum range! Keeping him in the reticule is harder. Doing the above and reloading to do it again is wild. Doing all of the above while BLIND (skyguard = base AA turrets. Explosions block our view) is worse.

3. And forward momentum as well. See 2 and add " needs to make a second pass 95% of the time." During which the lib has to turn around (can't do that fast at low altitudes, slow turns only at low altitude, or gain altitude to do a fast turn, or turn fast while low to the ground and crash. As mentioned earlier, libs are super bottom heavy. Any fast turns they make drops altitude a bunch) and reacquire the lightning and start the whole process again. During which the lightning is hitting the lib.

4. Meanwhile the lightning can MOVE while doing this (towards the liberator instead of away completely screws said lib as you'll go under it) The horrible horrible context that you dropped and I had to re-introduce which makes libs taking skyguard lightnings all of a sudden way not as easy as you want everyone to believe -- that's all assuming the lightning can't even move. Another glaring omission from your part.

5. Visibility. You see libs before they see tanks unless you are looking the wrong way and they are lucky enough to be looking the right way, while close enough for you to render. End of story Unless the lightning is fighting ground troops, they begin the engagement the vast majority of the time.

ADD TO THAT everything I said only applied to 1 lightning. Add a second lightning (2v2 people) and then that lib will lose every time.

Oh and its harder for the lib to do all of the above than the lightning. You guys are on much more stable platforms that only have to move in 2 dimensions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So while your math is accurate if there is a liberator parked on the ground, with the tank buster 20 meters away from, and pointed strait at, a lightning who is also parked and they both start shooting at the same time...your excellent math is, in fact, a number trick to twist context. It does not work in real application. I am not saying you are purposely trying to trick anyone, I am saying you have fooled yourself. Or maybe you should go work for Fox News. Spin Doctors make a lot of money there for using facts to lie.



Semi-TL;DR: Fun side note -- fun number trick to show how twisting context with math creates ridiculous statements.

You are 10 meters away from a door. To walk out the door you have to walk 10 meters to get to it. To walk 10 meters you must first walk halfway (5 meters). So you walk 5 meters. You are halfway there! 5 meters to go.

To walk 5 meters you must first walk halfway (2.5) meters. You walk 2.5 meters. You are halfway there! 2.5 meters to go.

To walk 2.5 meters you must first walk halfway.... and so on and so on.

And mathematically speaking you can't walk halfway because the numbers just split in half infinitely. Called "Xeno's Paradox" this lead the philosopher who came up with it to determine that motion is an illusion and nothing actually moves.

He completely forgot that, thanks to context, our concept of the halfway mark does not reset when you move. This lack of thinking contextually lead to the above bolded assertion that people will laugh about in any philosophical college course for centuries to come.

tl;dr: That's what you are doing with raw math and a complete lack of context. Taking fire/reload times COMPLETELY WITHOUT ENGAGEMENT TIMES and creating completely misleading numbers. I do not like it when people use intelligence to perpetuate bullpucky.

Colors added to make easier to read (that's a lot of text.)

/drops mic. Goes and gets a celebratory beer.

If you're letting the opponent attack your weakest point, then you're getting outplayed and deserve to die.

I really feel that AP Lightnings have an advantage over a Vulcan Harasser in 1v1 combat and come at a cost of half the manpower, and none of the teamwork.

I will concede that the Harasser's speed allows it to more easily force a 2v1 engagement than other vehicles, but I still kill more Vulcan Harassers than I die to them... in my one man lone wolf tank.

How is a vehicle that costs 350 weak compared to one that costs 450? This cost can be counted as for the additional pilot giving it almost double the offensive power but even then the MBTs have way more advantages over Lightnings (which only cost 22% less):
- more health
- a way stronger special ability (youre looking at shield/anchor vs goddamn fire suppression)
- more AV nade/mine & lib gun resistance
- more damage on their base weaponry (not counting the turret at all) and honestly while were at it i dont know who thought it was a good idea to give the prowler the least reload time and two shots that together deal almost 1.5x the damage of a magriders fpc (+ higher muzzle velocity)

Well, i dont know if it is you, but you are the kind of guy im actually farming these days, anchored prowlers, sitting in packs and tunnel-shelling a base. Honestly im even a bit afraid to go into NC territory because their tanks dont put themselves at a severe disadvantage and their ability can be used reactively.
But yeah, farming BR 10 Viper Lightnings gotta be fun, huh.

Sadly i cannot edit the post.

Getting close isnt actually this difficult in this game. If the map was like flatland i would aggree but it isnt. The Harasser has easy ways to get close, he can abuse the terrain and has his ridiculous turbo boost (btw another vehicle slot where one ability far outweights any other, is this good balancing?). There is basically no mountain steep enough to not climb it with the Harasser.
And just because one weapon didnt get nerfed while all the others did... that isnt good game design.

So then please give me back my lolpods cause flying is hard. Wtf argument is that? Oh no, piloting a vehicle in 3 dimensions is harder than in 2, who had thought about that. Sorry, but Liberators are literally the vehicle in the game that is the LEAST OK. Awareness wont help me if the liberator sees me from miles away because, you know, he is flying and stuff. There is literally no counterplay against liberators except from several skyguards, multiple base turrets or skilled ESFs.

Ye, no, cant take you seriously anymore. Whoever is driving without an archer has no right to complain.

Well, it is interesting though how i gunned once or twice with a half-decent liberator pilot, missed a LOT of dalton shots (because honestly it was the first aircraft i had ever gunned for) and we still killed about 10-12 tanks from a massive tank zerg with skyguards and thelike. Just because i am not the best player that doesnt mean that i cannot talk about the balance, especially if i have to see how many BAD liberator pilots are still having the edge over me just because they have the stronger vehicle and i have no counterplay.

If there were no Flashbangs, Smokes and thelike in CS:GO, Liberators would be the AWP.

Only with the difference, that i need about 130 shots to kill a lib (dont know the exact amount) which is 2 magazines and i have a lower damage than a vulcun, ye its still not nearly the same. But as you say it, actually it should be.
So please DBG allow me to kill heavy enemy aircraft with half my magazine as a skyguard. What about ESF? Just leave them as it stands. Thx.

I suppose youre one of those pilots just hovering in the air, trying to line up their rocket pods and NOT seeing that the thing on the ground there is actually a skyguard? I love those guys, it takes them half their healthbar before they realize. Freekills for me.
Jokes aside, thats your own fault.

13 seconds of TTK difference is plenty enough to position yourself + libs can abuse terrain just like harassers, AND you can always just turn around and escape if you take too much damage which is basically like a safety net for kids.

Luckily the tank buster fires extremely fast, 3 seconds to empty your entire magazine. Btw the skyguard has a ridiculousely low accuracy, meaning even if you lead your target correctly at higher ranges at least half of your shots are going to miss thanks to CoF.

Or he just hovers there for a second, while the dalton reloads (which most of the libs are doing, if you are going for a second turn that just means you dont want your gunner to get the kill).

Would be nice if he wouldnt, right? 700 vs 450 nanites is completly balanced.
And no, they dont cause there are not just skyguards on the ground.

The problem is that the lib has an insane safety-net which is his way too high HP, higher than goddamn MBTs (AND THAT ARE TANKS!!!) + the ability to kill air, ground AND infantry with ease while being airborne which allows them to abuse terrain. Btw, this is not mentioning the afterburner which is of course balanced on a flying TANK!.

I see that youre a lib pilot, and you just want to defend yourself which is fine. But you have to look at it from the other side of the coin once in a while.

Plenty of Liberators are able to sneak up on tanks and skyguards.. due to limited view angles I can not see everything..
while firing on one target, a Lib can easily sneak up on you.. and then you'r dead in a few seconds.

Yes, some Libs you can see coming from a mile away.. others come out of nowhere

As many others have pointed out, only really poor pilots go flying high in the middle of the sky. Good pilots will fly "nap of the earth", taking advantage of cover to mask their approach. That's why the short mathematical TTK applies, because it's these pilots that will get you.

Even if a Skyguard faces a poor pilot, because of the ridiculous survivability of the Liberator chassis generally this doesn't even result in a Liberator death. The Liberator has at least 19 seconds to pull out of range or get behind cover... an eternity when it comes to vehicle combat. And of course those figures are assuming 100% accuracy... which simply doesn't happen at range or with an evasive pilot due to the Skyguard's slow projectile speed and crazy CoF.

The only times when a Skyguard is lethal to a Liberator is when there happens to be multiple Skyguards working together against a lone Liberator. Yet this makes for a poor counter because if you need to spend more manpower and resources to take down an opposing unit, you're not really countering it. Just out-popping it.

At some point though even if it's a 60-40 win against Harassers, that's still a bit too much in favor of the Harasser.

The Harasser overall needs to be made much less durable against AP rounds. Harassers have a 3 shot kill versus the 100mm Python...which is the exact same 3 shot kill which another Lightning would take to the rear!

For a little buggy the Harasser carries far too much armor.

Why?

I mean, if a Vulcan Harasser wins against an AP Lightning only 40% of the time, why would you pull a Vulcan Harasser? Why would you go through all the work of finding a gunner, just so you can be at a disadvantage against every ground vehicle that isn't a Flash? You could get a Lightning instead, which would preform better, and provide your team with another pair of boots on the ground.

Yup. Hug the ground, sneak over a mountain. I've snuck up on plenty of lightnings. But it goes both ways. I'll make a strafing run (with the aforementioned tank buster) on a sundy planning to unload my clip and have my zephyr or dalton or duster finish it off.

And a skyguard lightning will round a rock 100 meters away and start hitting me. Or the main cannon on any tank. Whatever they got going. Either way -- I have to run.

Which is the point to my post. The OP responded with a purely non contextual situation on pure math. Completely ignoring context. And asserting that lightnings have no recourse vs libs and will be killed everytime. As said before -- assuming both vehicles are in optimum and facing each other and start firing at the same time --- sure no contest lib is going to win. The terrain and situation is going to favor one or the other. I am asserting that the skyguard is a good tool that you can use.

I am not denying that Libs can and will sneak up on tanks and smash them apart. I am saying that tanks also also sneak up and smash libs. And that the skyguard hurts a lot more than you guys seem to want to admit. (Motion is an illusion.) It's a good option that forces libs to abandon infantry/sundy bombardment at low to mid altitudes and start playing hide and seek with the tanks. Because, as several, of you have mentioned and I can confirm as I do it myself -- libs will try to sneak up on your tanks. Reason being -- we have to or get shot down by skyguards. If you can force us to have to devote our time and energy to sneaking up on your tank or die then obviously you have the right tool for the job.

And then it becomes a game of cat and mouse and skill and whatnot.

Unless the lib bombs daltons from low orbit -- in which case you'll need to call in the esf force -- but that is a whole separate discussion.

I am a very good lib pilot. And I have come across some very skilled lightning drivers. And there have been some pretty awesome fights between us. Use a skyguard in more open terrains. Get good at moving while shooting that thing. You will be surprised at how often you force a liberator away (or if it is being harrassed by esfs kill it)

Lol sarcasm. Good laugh.

But what he said.

I never quite could understand why pilots seem to think that they are somehow exempt from using cover. You know... the thing that everyone else has to do to survive.

If an infantryman runs out in the middle of the open and beelines for the enemy spawn, they'll probably make it 50m at most before being gunned down.
If a tank rolls over the open fields towards an enemy base, they'll attract fire from all directions... not to mention mines and C4.

Yet... somehow... it is seen as unusual that aircraft, the lightweight fragile things that they ought to be, will use cover. When pilots do use cover, they see it as some sort of extraordinary skill instead of a given.

In a nutshell, that's one of the problems that is wrong with pilots in the game. That sense of entitlement is really what has resulted in overpowered airframes instead of ones that have to be extremely cautious in use.

On another note about how Vulcan-Hs (and maybe the Harasser as a whole) needs nerfs...

Vehicle Kills Per Hour
Vulcan-H: 22.19
TR AP Python: 13.29

So the Vulcan on average gets a 67% increase in anti-vehicle effectiveness over the Lightning's AP cannon... which again is fairly ridiculous for a vehicle that is meant to harass. And that's less than half the price of a Lightning.

Additionally Vulcan-Hs account for more Lightning deaths across all factions than almost all weapons except for MBT AP cannons, C4, and tank mines (I started making a list of all the things that accounted for less kills, but that list was getting too long).

If you break it down by faction, it is quickly obvious that for the TR that in the top 24 causes of Lightning death, not a single Harasser weapon makes that list. Yet for the VS it is the 7th leading cause of death and for the NC it ranks 6th (even outpacing VS AT mines).

Sure this is caused by an abundance of TR Vulcan Harassers running about, but you do start to scratch your head about why that's the case and why the NC and VS aren't flocking to their ESAV Harasser options.

You are thinking way too much in one direction. What if (and i know this sounds crazy) the Harasser is actually meant to harass vehicles?! Just like the Skyguard, supporting their troops and not focused on killing but rather weakening or picking off low targets? I really dont think the Harasser should've access to AP subturrets in the first place, buff the Basilisk a bit and then you can go Harass with Fury, Basilisk, Kobalt and the ES variants. Or severely lower the damage of the AP weapons on the Harasser (and this doesnt just go for the Vulcun but for the Halberd, Saron & Enforcer aswell). Make this 150 (btw this is less than half of a Lightning!) cert vehicle a support platform for your tanks just like the Skyguard is for AA.
At the moment the Harasser is - as was already pointed out - basically a tank. It takes 3 shots from an AP lightning (lower this to 2 please) to kill the Harasser, a vehicle that does not just have access to Turbo Boost but has higher top speed than Lightnings aswell.

And as it goes for Liberators: Let me Oneshot them with AP Lightnings and any other tank (2-shot for the Prowler). If the Lib pilot is stupid enough to fly that low that i can hit him with my AP i deserve that kill. Seriousely.

Well you have the *****-button, called boost. Lightnings dont. If you sneak up on them they are dead. If tanks manage to hit you you can just boost away, rep and come back. Balanced.

When? Ok, we are still talking about 1 Lib and 1 Lightning, even if im sneaking up on your lib it still takes me some 19 seconds to kill you. If i was able to kill you within 9 seconds that would be more balanced tbh because then you would actually have to have SKILL to fly this aircraft as opposed to just being able to fly away once danger presents itself.

They should really lower the Libs health by 2k. May i remind you that libs still have more health than MBTs and those are ****** TANKS who are forced to drive on the GROUND. Actually libs with daltons are kinda like flying Prowlers with Vulcuns, one kinda-ranged weapon and a melee no-skill-spam weapon.

Ok so because we are still just discussing about stuff and there has not been an actual idea how to improve things, here are my ideas:
Harassers:
Lower their health to the point where an AP Lightning can kill them with two shots and make boosters a utility item that takes up a slot. The passive cert line of the boosters should then be replaced by an upgrade-system with the best upgrade recharging the boosters in 22 seconds. In addition to that, lower the magazine size of the Vulcun to 60 and reduce the RPM by ~10%.

This would on the one hand force Harassers to decide between Boosters and the other utility items (99% of ppl will still take boosters tho) and on the other hand make them way less tanky and make composite armor a nessecay option if they want to play aggressively. Taking composite armor of course strips away the ability to sneak up on enemies but allowing the flash to survive 2 Python AP hits.

Liberators:
Reduce their health by 0.5-1.5k and give them an insane minus-resistance to all sorts of AP shells (Lightning, Prowler, Magrider, Vanguard, not the subturrets). Composite Armor again allows them to survive a tank shell but two will still kill it.

This will force the Liberator to play around the upper angle of an AP turret where it cant be hit but gives the Vehicle driver the ability to counter the oneshot-combo immediatly by abusing terrain to get the right angle. And libs flying in open space will just be Darwin'd-out.

The GAU-8 is cool and all, but even firing DU it hasn't been a viable way of stopping tanks since the T-55. Right now it's only good against soft targets.

Why are you worried about balance when there are so many game changing issues that need fixing NOW:

• No damage sounds when in a vehicle. Not knowing what is hitting you and from where really limits your ability to react correctly.
• Double reload - Doesn't happen often but if your relying on that final shot to win it's a PITA.
• Tank mines not rendering with EOD hud. Another insta death that shouldn't have happened.
• Magrider spinning on exit. This happens nearly EVERY time you exit the mag. You either get in and stop it or risk decapitation. No time for that sh*t if you need immediate repair.

Once they get that done perhaps they could take a look at:

• Vulcan harassers taking half your health before you can even turn around and engage
• Libs taking 2 AP rounds to the face and still managing take out an MBT and fly away
• The pathetic state of the PPA
• 50/50 chance of running over enemies in a Magrider (friendlies get an auto 100% chance)
• The list goes on....

Then you completely misunderstand my feelings (and I am sure many other pilot's feelings) on the matter.

We consider terrain and cover as part of the game. We love it too. The game would be BORING if terrain wasn't varied and interesting. I don't think we should be exempt from using cover -- I look at learning to use the terrain as THE SINGLE largest indicator of whether people are skilled pilots or just farming weapons. What I was saying in that post is that skyguards are good enough to force us to use cover or die. Burster Maxes are good enough to force us to use cover or die. AA turrets are good enough to force us to use cover or die. A GOOD tanker with a good gunner is good enough to force us to use cover or die. Sometimes a damn good battle bus can force us to use cover or die.

If we DIDN'T have to use cover -- then yes I would say aircraft are over powered. But we do. We get smashed by AA left and right if we don't play smart -- just like ground troops get smashed by aircraft if they aren't careful.

I thought that was the point of the whole game...

And sometimes -- the terrain simply does not favor the plane. Sometimes it doesn't favor the tank. Again. I thought was the point.

I will say this -- main tank AP rounds should wreck libs. 2 should drop one unless they are running max composite armor in which case it should just be on fire. However, skyguards are badass - don't kid yourself.

If you concede that pilots do regularly take advantage of terrain to close with and destroy the enemy at close range, then you cannot at the same time complain that the Skyguard has a range advantage over the TB because pilots negate that by using terrain.

Hence the Liberator's extremely low TTK against Skyguards is indeed a valid complaint against them and the Skyguard needs to have a massive DPS buff. The fact that the Skyguard can engage enemy aircraft at range should be irrelevant to a Skyguard DPS buff because, as you say, pilots regularly take advantage of terrain anyhow. At the very least a Skyguard should be able to kill a Liberator within 6.5 seconds out to 800m, because that's how quickly a Liberator can kill a Skyguard.

I'm not complaining about the skyguard at all. I am saying you tankers should use it more. It's better than you give it credit for. I do not feel in any way that it is OP. I never once said it was broken or unfair. I never once talked about buffing or nerfing the Skyguard. I think it sits JUST about right with what it can do. Maybe give em more ammo total so they don't have to go reload as often.

However, take the bolded part. THAT is absolutely ridiculous. Saying a tank with only 1 person and less nanite cost should be able to use something that takes less skill to kill something that costs more nanites, takes multiple people and coordination, and takes more skill -- and do it at literally 1600% the range.. I don't even need to argue it with you because DBG would never make that change. The chance that they read this thread (especially considering the arguments and walls of text) is pretty darn low -- but if one of them did I would bet my computer that they are chuckling at it. I had high hopes for how rational you might be from your first posts...

It seems to me like you guys are working off of some very pre-conceived notions about what I, and many other rational pilots, are talking about. Sure some people are going herk jerk whine about stuff that kills them a few times in a row -- the good pilots won't. We figure out a way to combat it. Hopefully the good tankers are the same...