Aphelion VEX-4 Too Powerful.

The aphelion and gatekeeper are different weapon classes.

Aphelion - Vulcan
Saron - GK

Because the Sunderer should be able to steam roll a tank....... or a well driven Harasser.

Let me tell you something, OP: There are many other weapons out there that kill Sundies much quicker than the Aphelion.

I declare this thread done.

Lol VS whine about Vulcan and Gatekeeper and then think their weapons are fine.
#NerfTheVS

Two infantry killing a max takes strategy. A person killing a max has to use either repeated rockets, c4, or a coordinated rocket or archer attack with a friend. In a harasser, it doesn't require the same planning. A 2/2 harasser is flatly more powerful than a lightning. I have no problem with a harasser using strategy to beat a lightning, like firing at one from a distance with a saron (gatekeeper I don't respect.) but when a harasser can 1v1 a lightning on equal terms and win, and a lightning needs to use strategy to beat a harasser, we have a problem.

To be fair -- Vulcan and Aphelion are a tad too high on DPS -- but to single out this one over the other....
LOLOLOLOLOL. With Vulcan still a better weapon we see this!

I don't think I can laugh any harder. I'll just have you reply to yourself....

Like I said, if the VS secondaries were any worse, the Magrider wouldn't stand a chance.

VS already is statistically more likely to have more 2/2 AP tanks, yet we only score equal with the Vanguard which often has 1/2 and Basilisk gunners.

The weird thing is that many of the old Harasser weapons were weaker than their MBT-counterparts.

Halberd- 1,000 damage
Halberd-H- 800 damage

Enforcer- 500 damage
Enforcer-H- 450 damage

Saron- 284 damage
Saron-H- 250 damage

Really the only significant exception to this rule was the Vulcan/Vulcan-H, which had the same maximum damage within 10m. Sure there was a bigger difference at range, but the Vulcans were not ranged weapons to begin with.

But the new weapons have made the Harasser more powerful compared to the MBT secondaries. The Mjolnir and the Aphelion are identical to their MBT counterparts, while the Gatekeeper-H is only 10 damage less than the MBT version (170 versus 160).

What this shows is the power-creep of the Harasser. It's generally gotten better over time, probably because it is well-suited to the CQB AV weapons so that's what sells. I mean when was the last time MBTs got a significantly new weapon that was well suited to them (not counting the TR's Gatekeeper I guess)?

AP? Armor Piercing? Or Anti- Personnel? I am a bit confused on which acronym is getting tossed around where.

Primary Weapon Daily Usage
Prowler- 712.7 hours
Vanguard- 554.7 hours
Magrider- 459.3 hours

Secondary Weapon Daily Usage
Prowler- 282.6 hours
Vanguard- 243.1 hours
Magrider- 224.4 hours

% Time 2/2 Tank
Magrider- 48.9%
Vanguard- 43.8%
Prowler- 39.7%

So really the Vanguard only has 5.1% less 2/2 usage than the VS... that's actually not too much of a difference. I don't think the VS are using 2/2 Magriders as much as you think, nor are the NC running around in 1/2 Vanguards as much as you think either.

There have been attempts at trying to throw together numbers to magic up some "AP only" calculation, but all those methods are statistically faulty (ie people assuming that one weapon is always paired with a set of others). As far as I know there is no reliable way to come to figuring out rates of 2/2 AP MBT usage.

If you want to explore how often and what ratios AP tanks are pulled:

AP Daily Usage
Prowler- 361.9 hours (50.8% of all primary weapon usage)
Vanguard- 337.8 hours (60.9% of all primary weapon usage)
Magrider- 268.3 hours (58.4% of all primary weapon usage)

This shows that Vanguards are most likely to be AP, though the difference between the Vanguard and Magrider is not very significant either. I'd say that just as with 2/2 usage rates, AP usage rates seem to be about the same.

HE Daily Usage
Prowler- 60.1 hours (8.4% of all primary weapon usage)
Magrider- 43.5 hours (9.5% of all primary weapon usage)
Vanguard- 40.7 hours (7.3% of all primary weapon usage)

On the other hand, the Magrider is the most likely to be HE, and the Vanguard the least likely to be so. I'm actually surprised that Magriders farm more than Prowlers do, but what do you know.

Overall, we can say that the NC aren't really that difference from the VS in terms of 2/2 usage or AP. Maybe 2-3 years ago your misconception might have been more true, but at least data from the last 30 days does not support your conclusion.

Hahaha

the Aphelion is total sheet.
Compared to the Vulcan it is/has

- as accurate
- lower dps (even when bursting perfectly, gunners need skill and even when, you don't get an advantage over the Vulcan)
- smaller magazine
- smaller ammo capacity
- worse AI abilities
- harder to use (esp. in stress situations)
+ has no bullet drop

AP = Armor Piercing
AI = Anti Infantry (and in terms of tank weapons: = HE = High Explosive = a lot of splash)

If thats the case then I don't think this would apply.

Simply because if 2/2 AV Pri AVSec (less confusable acronyms people!) are common on any one faction they will be common on any faction to 'stay even' in terms of armor vs armor battles. The difference would be minimal. However, if AV weapons were removed as secondaries from MBTs across all factions then the statistics would remain relatively the same (with regards to each other). In the case you listed the Mag would be approximately the same place in tank on tank battles that they are now.

I think Chingles is going a bit convoluted with his statistics there (he has a history of trying to twist stats as much as he can to suit his narrative.) We don't know his way of figuring 2/2 tank usage ratio (and since he doesn't explain or back up those numbers I can only guess it is a extrapolation of the percentage difference between secondary usage and primary usage? Not a bad idea but purely speculation and not at all reliable. Of course he may have another way of figuring it and it's totally on point.)

But in this case if you look at the simple usage statistics of MBT secondaries for the last 30 days Chingles isn't too far off.

Instead of typing it out I'll just link it: http://ps2oraclestats.com/monthlystats/

Select MBT secondaries, ALL BRs, and then click Avg Playtime to sort most to least used.

Add up the total playtime of the top 3 MBT secondaries.

TR -> 247.5
NC -> 223.6
VS-> 202.6

So unless my way of secondary usage reasoning is WAY off -- seems like VS use secondary weapons less than the other two factions (with NC being halfway between TR and VS.)

This is just pure usage though -- not an argument relating to effectiveness. I don't really think you can make the assertion that VS use 2/2 more often. I would be super interested in how Chingles figures the percent of tanks that are 1/2 or 2/2.

Regardless -- I don't see how any of this affects the argument about Vanu tank viability.

Disagree. I think this weapon is as close as it gets to being a perfect fit. If there was a time when no real complaints about a fairly new weapon. This would be the time. Sorry folks they got it right this time.
Now i would like to comment on the up-armored dune buggy. In short leave it Alone! However the price does not seem to be high enough. Add 75 to 100 on the cost. Or 50 so they do not have anything to cry about. As it is that 3 seat vehicle has that box of chocolates factor. I do see how dam fast one of those can really make the VA think about pulling a battle bus instead of a magrider. And thats with 2/3. Now that rumble seat can hold incredible versatility. Most just do not see how that 3rd seat really puts the dune buggy ahead of most of vehicals.

Tested in VR at 50 meters.

Aphelion:
1-clips sundies with 5 rounds left.
11.5 second TTK if burst 4 times or more. 14 seconds with reload if holding down mouse button (holding down mouse button actually does output about the same DPS, but ONLY if reload is not factored in).

Vulcan:
1 and 1/2 clips sundies.
13 second TTK. 10.5 if factoring out reload.

This effectively means vulcan has higher DPS without reload, and Aphelion does 50%+ more damage per mag if bursted. Aphelion is also not punished (in fact rewarded) for having to stop shooting in the middle of a clip, whereas Vulcan is because of that spin-up.

Hey, my stats are fairly strong. Unlike the little mistake you made below.

Anyhow, the data is from the same source you used, the Oracle. The most basic way of figuring out 2/2 tank usage is to take the hours of secondary usage and divide by hours of primary usage. This gets you a theoretical percentage of 2/2 usage.

I say "theoretical" because of course it's not perfect. For starters, it assumes that there is no seat-switching, as you'd have the same person being counted twice. There's no real way to avoid this issue and to neutralize seat-switching stats. But all in all I don't think it's too common for MBTs to switch seats that often.

For example, on average there were 459.3 hours of Magrider primary usage in the past 30 days. There were also 224.4 hours of Magrider secondary usage in the same time period. 224.4/459.3 gives 48.9%, which suggests that at most 48.9% of the time there is someone behind the primary weapons and the secondary weapon of a Magrider.

That's an incorrect conclusion because the VS just have less time in tanks overall (most likely from just having lower population overall, as less people means less tanks). This is why you need to take into account MBT primaries to see how relative to the primaries the secondaries stack up.

The error you made was like this. Say the NC use tanks for 100 hours while the VS only use tanks for 50 hours. Additionally, the NC have 50 hours behind the secondary weapon while the VS only have 40 hours.

In your analysis, you would mistakenly conclude that the NC use secondaries more. This is correct in total hours, but not as a product of overall tank usage and population. Controlling for tank usage, you would actually see that the NC only have 50% 2/2 usage and the VS have 80%.

I explain my methodology above. Same one to figure out rates of Liberator 1/3 usage (secondary+tertiary weapon usage divided by primary weapon usage).

As for effectiveness, VKPH and KPH are usually good indicators. You might weight them by usage time percentages within their weapon category (ex: Vanguard AP VKPH*60% usage). In general if a person has to spend less time to kill more things, that is often a sign of effectiveness, barring weird statistical problems like ESF secondaries or pistols.

I want to see a Video of a Harasser one clipping another vehicle. Preferably from the target's point of view. I really would. Because I didn't realize that 45% constituted heavy armor. Being as the Harasser itself has 39%, 47% with composite armor.

I know for a fact a Harasser cannot one clip a tank, even from the rear. Now lets put a crew in the tank and watch the harasser go up in flames before half that vulcan or aphelion clip gets out.

Oh wait.. people like to single main Sunderers and MBT's... There's a problem. Getting 2v1'd.

Uh, Aphelion has a spin up too. If you were paying attention at all during your test, you would have heard that.

Pew, pew, pew pew pew pewpewpewpewpewpew.

Perhaps the stats have changed since the ES secondary update. But let me tell you a tale, long-since passed down by the Magriders of old.

There once was an epic discussion, one that the whole forumside believed would determine the fate of the MBT balance as a whole. Back before the Vanguard shield was bugged, and the Saron was an upgrade of the Halbread, it was long-debated as to which tank was the best. The TR, wisely enough, remained silent, while the VS and NC argued on in heated discussions that were waged across all the forums...

In this time, it was discovered that the Magrider had a secondary gunner more often then the Prowlers of Vanguard, yet in AV performance it only slightly out-scored Vanguards(Prowlers still dominated, for obvious reasons).



So, back to seriousness now. Whatever the stats say, take a look at the actual vehicle stats for a moment.

In what world does a 1/2 Magrider win against a 1/2 Vanguard or Prowler?

Let's take a look at the consolidated, condensed list of reasons as to why the Magrider is an inferior chassis.

Abysmally low DPS.

No armor advantage.

No active combat ability.

No passive combat ability, since it's strafe is useless inside 300 meters(500 for Lockdown Prowlers[it's a very long story, trust me, you aim at center mass and a magrider can't strafe to dodge. Basically maths])

Massive profile

Must turn it's entire chassis to aim

Low velocity



All of these factors effect MBT vs MBT Performance. Vanguards can pop shield and survive up to 10 AP rounds from the front with front armor. Prowlers can Lockdown for the ability to kill an AP Magrider, even if it's using HE rounds. With AP, it can kill an AP Magrider that's getting rear shots.

So, the stats may have changed, but if you deny that the Magrider is a poor tank chassis, you are either delusional or have an agenda(Not talking about you, Bravo).

And so help me if you try and counter this with "butt, muh flanking" I will find you and I will slap you. Vanguards and Prowlers are just as capable of flanking as the Magrider(Okay, maybe a lil bit less. Still no excuse!), and they bring all their advantages along with them as well. And still retain their head-on 1v1 abilities.

In a game where there are no immutable physical laws and an infinite number of scenarios, talk of weapon performance is nonsense.

Be a player: figure out how to beat what you don't like, and profit.

Be a crybully: humiliate yourself on public forums begging for mercy.

The choice should be easy.

I've been meaning to get on your metaphysical level(Comparatively speaking) for some time. Here's my stab at it.

True, there are no immutable laws. The game can be edited and modified, but only to the extent that our technology and the core logic of the game foundations can allow.

That being said, in order to remain profitable, the game must attract players. If players perceive something as unfair or unbalanced, and it causes the game to loose revenue, then the devs must change that or face bankruptcy. This is a player driven game, and therefore the players are the primary determining factor in game balance.

That also being said, like the concept of time, we can create artificial guidelines that assist us in creating a game that is more universally acceptable. Just because the game is malleable doesn't mean it should be completely sandbox. If we had players running around with noclip super speed instakills just because the game can be edited, doesn't mean they should. Or would it be a wise decision to introduce a gun that instakills every enemy on the server, because the game has no set of immutable rules. As I said, there is a practical level of order that must be achieved in order to have player retention. Players have certain expectations for a game that, if not met, will make them angry, or even leave altogether.

So, in the vein of artificial guidelines, we can create a basis upon which we place the scale of balance on. We expect all weapons to be "sidegrades", in that they posses advantages that make them favorable in some situations, but disadvantages that make them unfavorable in others. Jack-of-all-trades, master of none philosophy for starter weapons.

As for MBT balance, we can pick out some basic fundamental traits that we can call our basis of balance. For example, tanks should take a certain number of AT weapon hits to be destroyed, and this should be dependent on which side the impact was received from. This is one of the fundimental basics of PS2 tank combat, which we can use as a general guideline.


And as to whether or not any of the tanks in PS2 stray too far from these basics is what we discuss here today. If we all suddenly achieved nirvana and ascended, that wouldn't matter. But in our carnal state, we desire for perceived balance within the game and it's digital format.