NC low win-rate - where is the balance?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Trizadd, May 1, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ObsidianSoul

    Then please, tell them why their claims of "VANU OP HAXX" are so ridiculous as well. Because I really really really don't want DBG to once again nerf something from us to appease the smurf children, because they aren't winning enough alerts. I had hoped NC favoritism had gone with Higby.

    Yes it is very wrong. Especially in an alert. It only makes sense if you have the lowest population and have no chance of winning, and thus are only in it for the fun. But in any other case, focusing on only one faction because they're easier is a sure way to lose an alert.

    And no. If NC dies almost exclusively from TR that does not mean they don't fight Mags. LOL. It means they win against Mags most of the time. And in my experience that is very true. Check the map next time in an alert. Count how many magriders are there. Mags are good for lonewolves and good tank pilots for sneaking behind enemy tanks, but again, toe-to-toe with any other tank, they usually lose. Much more so when facing against harassers. Unlike Vanguards or Prowlers, Magriders can not swivel their main gun. They have to turn the entire tank around to follow their targets making them very easy prey for fast moving vehicles.
  2. Slandebande

    That's odd, I generally attack the TR when on my NC and VS, in fact, I have 60% TR kills and only 40% of the other faction. On my TR I have a pretty even 50/50 distribution (actually 51% VS / 49% NC). I prefer to hunt Prowlers over the other 2 MBTs by far. Perhaps my many many hours in Prowlers give me an advantage, hard to say.

    Be careful only looking at the Vehicle Death stats. For instance, there are about 40% less Magriders compared to Prowlers, meaning it would be crazy if the Magriders were killing just as many Vanguards as the Prowler is. I also hope you are including secondary weapons in this statement, because otherwise it is VERY biased towards the TR (the NC to a lesser extent).

    And I personally find Prowlers MUCH easier to fight/destroy compared to Magriders/Vanguards.

    You really should try all the three MBTs before making judgements upon them. If not only just to give yourself additional strategies for fighting against them. Out of curiosity, have you spent any time in a Prowler?

    Speak for yourself, or at least do some research before claiming such things. Yes, the NC are using a higher proportion of Halberds compared to the TR/VS overall, but that doesn't mean they are the only faction using them. For the record, ~45% of the NC Vanguards equipping an AV-weapon (Halberd/Mjolnir/Enforcer) equip the Halberd, whereas ~21% of the VS use the Halberd and ~19% for the TR. So while yes, the NC are using the Halberd more often, but what is REALLY interesting about these numbers, when you look a bit deeper, is that the average BR of the various weapons being used is drastically different. I'll list the average BR's in the following form for each faction (CQC-AV / Halberd / long-range AV):
    • TR: (57,1 / 66,1 / 54,6)
    • VS: (62,2 / 73,8 / 62,7)
    • NC: (49,6 / 65,8 / 56,7)
    So, while more people use the non-Halberd variants, it would seem that most experienced tank crews largely prefer using the Halberd, which supports my statements that it is by FAR not a bad weapon, and actually superior in the right hands. It seems most of the statistic is made up of low-BR people using the "incorrect" weapon from a learning point-of-view (in the sense that they would be better off learning to use the Halberd). And these very same people are the majority coming onto the forums and start whining about their particular ES-AV weapon being bad. Guess what? They are all pretty bad compared to the Halberd :D Do you seriously believe that the ONLY reason for people using the Halberd over the Enforcer can be that the Enforcer is bad? It couldn't possibly just be because the Halberd is THAT good right? Well, I guess it can.

    Fun fact, more NC use the Enforcer over the Halberd, so it can't be THAT bad! I don't disagree that the Enforcer could use some love though!

    Let me first say that no one really refuted my remarks about needing more data in order to make/draw conclusions based solely upon overall alert win-rate.

    Furthermore, that's not really my "job" so-to-speak. But I can promise you that I will react to people claiming the Magrider is blatantly OP, and demand they can prove it with statistics and data. So far I haven't really seen that. It should be noted that I'm mostly a tanking sort-of-guy so I don't really respond to all the infantry-weapon debates much since that isn't my area of expertise.

    Or, you know, that there are much less Magriders out there, so for them to be able to top the tallies would require them to kill crazy amounts of MBTs, coupled with the primary weapons of the Prowler being more effective at landing the killing blow (due to the aforementioned power-distributions). There are somewhere around ~66% more Prowlers than Magriders, meaning the Magriders would have to be killing 66% more Vanguards (on a per tank basis) compared to the Prowlers. That would imply a MASSIVE imbalance.

    Let's look at the overall numbers of who kills Vanguards shall we? 22523 Vanguards (10,05%) die every month do the P2-AP, whereas 10117 (4,52%) die to the Supernova FPC. Let's multiply the second number by 1,66 = 7,5%, already giving us a number much closer. Then we have to take into account that the Magrider is the tank most dependant on a secondary weapon for its overall damage output (meaning the secondary weapon has a much higher chance of landing the killing blow, due to power-distributions etc). I wouldn't say the numbers indicate the Prowler is massively overperforming in that regard, rather that the Magrider *might* be underperforming slightly when it comes to killing MBTs (but then it most likely makes up for it killing other vehicles, due to having a higher VKPH and VKPU etc).

    Magriders might be slightly more vulnerable to being jumped by Harassers, but on the other hand, they are much more effective at actually ambushing them and chasing them down. The Magrider also has an easier time escaping from a Harasser due to being able to match their speed for a couple of seconds and being much more maneuverable.
  3. rahte


    I agree that it is easier to compare Prowler to Vanguards, than comparing Margie's to anything else.

    About the bias that favours TR? The same bias have many other statistics ;)

    Like I said. I'm making those stats for relatively short time, so it is to soon to have any resoults whasoever, and even at the end I think that it will show general tendency rahter than exact number. One more thing: they will have to be made for long time (another thing: starting region on continent can have some influence as well, and only long term stats will matter). I think at the end they will follow Vehicle Death Stats in general tendency. I do agree that statistics can be missleading, but they can show tendencies.

    In previous posts You said that Playtime statistic can be really missleading as well, and it also show survivability. I do agree with that. It shows both of them at once and it is hard to tell which one.



    Yes I did. I have 2 characters in NC and 1 in TR. I play mostly Prowler. On the other hand I find Vanguards much more easier to kill. Magraiders usually run away before I finnish them.

    How often do you play Vanguard?



    Right now uninformed reader will have impresion that all experienced player in all factions play with Halberds.

    Let's take a look at stats:

    Monthly Weapon Stats. Avg Uniques. I did not include other weapons to not to blur Halberd/Empire Specific Weapon usage relation. Also the all % shown are refering to Halberd/Empire Specific Weapon usage relation and do not include % of usage Helbard and Empire Specific Weapon in general number of uniques (on the other hand it would be good to place them as well. on the other hand that could blureentire picture of Helbard/ Empire Specific Weapon relation). All % has been calculated by taking all users of Helbard and Empire Specific Weapon as 100% and then showing distribution in % between them.

    All Ranks (Gatekeeper Saron Enforcer/Helbard) (total no. of users of both weapons) (distribution in %):

    TR: 1105 / 337 1442 77% / 23%
    VS: 858 / 289 1147 75% / 25%
    NC: 695 / 639 1334 52% / 48%

    Q4 Ranks 76-100 (Gatekeeper Saron Enforcer/Helbard) (total no. of users of both weapons) (distribution in %):

    TR: 302 / 115 417 72% / 28%
    VS: 303 / 123 426 71% / 29%
    NC: 201 / 227 428 47% / 53%

    BR 100 (Gatekeeper Saron Enforcer/Helbard) (total no. of users of both weapons) (distribution in %):

    TR: 140 / 59 199 70% / 30%
    VS: 160 / 75 235 68% / 32%
    NC: 101 / 128 229 44% / 56%


    You say rank. I say: certs and station cash as well. It is odd that you havent taken the most important part in the game in order to buy new equipment under your consideration in making theory about relation of experience to buying Halbard.

    NC is the only fraction that preference to Helbard almost match and on higher ranks excedes Fraction Specific AV weapon. Moreover within last year using of Enforcer drastically droped. If you will take a look on another fractions you will noticed different tendency. Basically it +/- constant in favour of fraction specific equipment.



    Speak for yourself, at least do some research before claiming such things and be carefull in overinterpretating statistics. Have you asked every single player in every single fraction why he/she is using Helbard? (I have to remind you that Helbard is not fraction specific and it is avaible for station cash, and more experienced players are more likely to invest in their game. I will not even mention individual preferences.)

    Let's do the class from licentia poetica another time ok?

    Do you really believe that only in NC Enforcer is that good that players so massively choose other things? Cmon...

    I will not give myself a credit to interpretate why 25% players in VS and TR using Helbard. I just say that difference in relation of users of Empire Specific Weapon and Helbard among VS and TR between between players of all ranks and players of higher ranks are all more or less withing statistical error.



    Could be. On the other hand in VS and TR they are whinning how bad their ES-AV is and still choosing them over Helbard. In case of NC players complain about empire specific weapon and then switch to another one. You have to judge for your self which one is more valid.

    You just have to try it. Just create NC character, invest some certs in Vanguard and compere Enforcer and Helbard by yourself.


    Basing only on alert-wining statistis would be misuse, but we do not use solely that statistic anymore.

    I feel the same. No one really noticed my remarks about dmg/min of vanguard and prowlers main weaponry or MAX weaponry.


    • Up x 2
  4. rahte

    EDIT! It should be:

    I will not give myself a credit to interpretate why ~15% players in VS and TR using Helbard. I just say that difference in relation of users of Empire Specific Weapon and Helbard among VS and TR between between players of all ranks and players of higher ranks are all more or less withing statistical error.
  5. Noppa

    Me personally use on;
    NC , Halberd cos it is more versatile than Enforcer(before the change i used Enforcer all the time).
    TR, Halberd cos well u know.
    VS, Saron cos it is the better than Halberd.
  6. LaughingDead

    Nice post.
  7. DeathbyGotcha

    The biggest problem with NC not winning alerts is leadership it doesn't matter how much you nurf guns or anything else NC attract people that focus on freedom and not following anyone. It is hard to have an tactical team when no one listens to orders I watch as NC constantly loses alerts that they should have won.
  8. Slandebande

    1/2 I had to split up the post in 2 parts due to the 20,000 character limit on posts.

    Aye only looking at primary weapons, is terrible, as it cannot prove anything conclusive, other than the Prowlers primary weapons are the strongest (in a vacuum). Similarly, only looking at the stats of the secondary weapons is equally bad, as those stats would be very biased towards the Magrider. My point was mostly that looking at isolated data-sets ís VERY risky, as there are great inherent risks of bias that HAVE to be considered before using such numbers become viable. Many people do not realize this, and simply show the statistics of the primary weapons and conclude solely based on that.

    I'm a numbers kind of guy when it comes to arguments, so I'm excited to see what you are working on :)

    I agree that some form of time-span is needed in order to weed out statistical noise, just be careful you aren't going "too far" back in time, since you risk including statistics based on a situation different from the one we are currently in (like nerfs/buffs happening, meta changing etc).

    I completely agree, the most important thing (and what I'm trying to get through, but not really to you, but rather anyone else reading this) is that such things are exactly that, tendencies, and shouldn't be taken for anything other than that. So many people use the single statistics and conclude based upon them, without even commenting upon the numbers. And most ration people know that correlation =/= causation (as it sounds like you know as well :))! My posts aren't always aimed solely at the person I'm replying to, but rather anyone reading the discussion. I'm glad that it sounds like we are on the same page regarding use (and abuse) of data :)

    Hehe, there are of course many different potential reasons as to why our experiences differ, so anything further here will simply be guesses. First of all, I started my "career" as TR, ending up spending something along 450 hours in a Prowler (at least 90% of the time driving). I was ranked 1/2 for the Prowler AP for a long time (trading places once in a while with another TR on the same server I was on, Miller), meaning my experience using the Prowler is extensive, which I suspect helps me greatly when dealing with them. I simply know what they are thinking and what they want to do in 9/10 situations as it comes naturally to me. I of course also know all about their weakness', as I had the pleasure of dueling some of the finest tankers out there back in the day. I've since then spent another ~200 hours in the Prowler, totalling me at 650 hours or so, give or take (haven't checked in a while to be honest).

    Later on I made a NC and a VS, in order to try out the MBTs of the other factions. I've since (off the top of my head) racked up ~135 hours in Vanguards, and ~160 hours in Magriders, but as of late, I've barely been using my Prowler. I haven't had much time to play much during the last couple of months due to various personal stuff, and since I prefer the Magrider so much lately, it's been around 1 or 1½ months since I've used a Vanguard (nothing has really changed since then though when it comes to tanks).

    Now, there are other reasons of course, one could be play-style. My style of tanking revovles around flanking maneuvers, and generally NOT staying with the main zerg. I prefer to hunt/duel the enemies experienced MBT crews, locate important Sundies screened from my dllies main zerg (often via terrain), Stealth Sundies, Harasser-packs, enemy outfit vehicle-convoys etc, which requires me/we to stay isolated from most of our allies. This is where a potential difference really kicks in. Imagine I'm flanking an enemy armor postion, with 3 enemy MBTs all firing away in another direction at my allies. When I'm in position and I start unloading, there's going to be different reactions from the different tanks (of course everyone is different, but general tendencies here):

    Flanking Prowlers: I'll open to their rear, dumping over 50% of their HP in a single salvo. The crew notices this, and knows that the next salvo is going to kill them no matter what, since even if they can un-anchor instantly, they still need to accelerate. The most likely scenario is the crew bailing, possibly leaving you 1 less combatant after only 1 salvo (unlikely I know, the most likely scenario is that you still having finish it off), but still, it WILL be finished off without being much of a threat. Now, this happens rather quickly, and odds are the crew is going to be trying to redeploy in order to quickly get into a new tank (or escape your wrath :mad:).

    Flanking Magriders: Let's move on to Magriders. Yada yada yada - 50% of their HP is dumped. The crew notices this, and the driver tries to bail using Magburn. This will likely take him into the field of view of his fellow Magriders, who are going to see a smoking Magrider seemingly fleeing their position. They are at least going to be curious, and will most likely turn to investigate. Furthermore, in order to secure your kill on the Magrider, you will have to give chase, most likely through it's 2 friends. You will have taken 1 out (temporarily), which still leaves you with 2 MBTs turning towards you, with a third one off repairing somewhere (we can also say the 3rd is dead due to fire-power of the Prowler, no biggie, as there are still 2 MBTs turning towards you).

    Flanking Vanguards: Let's move on to Vanguards. Yada yada yada - 50% of their HP is dumped. The crew notices this, and their since they are in a Vanguard, their instinctive reaction is going to be turning their tank and activating Shield. In this situation you are left with 2 choices: try to out-DPS the Shield, which takes additional time compared to the other 2 MBTs, or ducking into cover waiting out the Shield (still adding 6 seconds to the TTK). Once the Vanguard turns around, they are most likely going to spot you and start returning fire, which is a clear signal to his allies that you are nearby (they can most likely see you on the minimap as well), resulting in you suddenly being in a 3v1 very quickly. That extra time it takes to take out the first Vanguard is crucial when you are outnumbered, as flanking maneuvers relies on taking out enemies quickly before they can react and alert their allies who will swarm/overwhelm you.

    A brief summary (or what I'm trying to get across) is that destroying Vanguards more often than not simply requires MUCH more effort, and they are incredibly dangerous to engage when outnumbered, as a single one of them practically always has the option of simply rushing you and enabling Shield, rendering you dead. Magriders can be elusive and will at times require you to totally commit to a chase in order to take them down (meshes pretty well with your own experience). Prowlers? They simply die, but I guess my experience knowing WHEN to take the fight with them helps immensely here.

    But of course, if one is sitting at 300m firing at Vanguards out of cover, they are going to be easy to kill, since the ones you are killing from such ranges, are most likely the bad ones. And those bad ones are in the least maneuverable tank, meaning they will have a hard time getting away. The reason I'm claiming they will be bad ones, is that tanks at 300+m away generally aren't that dangerous for experienced crews.

    Aye that is a risk I didn't consider, thank you for pointing it out :) One of my (many) faults is that I sometimes expect too much of people, in the sense that I stated the numbers were averages, implying that of course there a people of every rank using the weapons, I simply pointed out a tendency. Another point though, is that, just because you are BR100, doesn't mean you are an experienced tanker, but they are also part of the statistics, which should also be considered. I'll stand by that most experienced tank crews will default to the Halberd for most situations, although the Saron is pretty darn effective in certain scenarios (most notably point-defense against Harassers). At least it is safe to say, that the more experienced a player is, the higher the likelihood they are going to be using the Halberd over the other weapons, compared to less experienced people.

    I admit I didn't take that into consideration, I tend to expect people to think like me (which is of course a mistake :p) in that they are going to be using the most effective weapon, not the "easiest" one to obtain. By easiest I of course mean it is easier to buy it for cash for all 3 factions at once than buying it three times with certs. I don't personally believe the fraction to be THAT significant, but it should of course be considered. Thank you for pointing it out.

    I would personally have included the CQC-ES-AV weapons, mostly for completeness sake (perhaps for a seperate table), especially to include the factor of "new weapon blindness", in that more people might be using the new weapons for fun, rather than effectivess. The numbers most likely wouldn't be changed that much, but there is a significant share of TR/VS using the CQC-ES-AV weapon.

    I haven't looked at the tendency I'm afraid, but I'll take your word for it. I don't know exactly when the Enforcer was changed to have the projectile gravity it has now, but I would suspect that would have something to do with it. Another aspect to consider when on the topic of secondary popularity, is that the ES-weapons are most likely more "interesting" for many people playing different factions, whereas the Halberd is the "same-old, same-old", so-to-speak. How large that factor is, I have no idea :(
  9. Slandebande

    2/2

    I'm sorry, in hindsight it came of as a bit too harsh but I wanted to put forth my objection upon the following statement you made:

    If that isn't a generalistic statement (at least without additional information, I don't know what is. That's what prompted my rather harsh reply. That being said, I still apologize for the harsh tone I used :oops:

    Not everyone in person, but I have been reading the tank-related posts for many years, including the posts of many other experienced tankers out there. That is what I base my experience on. I also didn't say every single experienced tank crew, but rather "most" experienced tank crews "largely prefer" the Halberd. Which isn't that bold of a statement considering the numbers, in my opinion, at least combined with my experience with the other tankers.

    If most of the experienced tankers think like me, they won't be taking the "cheap" way out, but rather what they think is the most effective. Not everyone might do it, but I suspect many of the tank-enthusiasts will do exactly that.

    Not at all, I've even admitted that the Enforcer could use some love. But you stated the NC were the only faction to use the Halberd, which is what I objected to.

    There is the risk of statistical error/noise yes, but I would also argue that a difference (percentage-point wise) of 23% - 30% IS pretty significant (TR BR100 Halberd usage), although the sample size is something that optimally would be larger. Similarly with the VS BR100s using the Halberd (25% - 32%).

    To be fair, it is very risky basing anything worthwhile on whine-requests, especially regarding Planetside 2 in my experience. People are simply NOT doing any research and just stating their gut feelings, without investing 2 seconds into either learning, or simply becoming better. If they cannot put forth reasonable arguments for their case (other than gut feelings), I will tend to not lend much weight towards their particular opinion.

    This game is rather special in that you will regularly see people complaining that every single one of the MBTs are underpowered / overpowered :D Needless to say, many of them are going to be wrong, as they cannot all be right. Therefore it is safe to assume that the amount of complaints should be taken with a grain of salt, and evaluate whether the complaints are actually based upon valid arguments.

    Oh don't worry, I have actually used it. I find it completely fine for fighting against Prowlers (even at extreme ranges), as they are generally stationary, and within normal tanking engagements (within 200m or so against non-Harassers). But I can totally see people with less experience than me having issues, especially against moving targets. I do agree that it could definitely use some love though :)

    Which is why I'm not responding to those arguments ;)

    Sadly, it happens often when people have no response supporting their argument (I can't say I'm completely innocent myself of course, although I try!).

    The reason I've not written additional comments to it, is that the data is first of all only relevant for primary weapons (I also want secondary weapons included generally), as well as it is not something I've been disagreeing with, in the sense that it is the reason I don't want people to only look at primary-weapon statistics.

    I agree that with both tanks firing at the same time (and the Prowler being deployed before the fight starts), the Prowler wins. If the fight is a bit more realistic, the Vanguard can still easily win using the Shield. I know, since I've done it numerous times. Furthermore, if the Vanguard can force the Prowler to un-Anchor, it greatly increases its chances, meaning that using Anchor isn't always a sure-win. The shield also definitely plays a role in the scenarios I mentioned a couple of paragraphs above (the flanking scenarios).

    While that is nice for people who need multiple shots, it isn't always that great of a benefit. It can especially be annoying in the sense that firing on hull-down enemies at range can be difficult due to the recoil and the precision needed to land such shots, combined with the rate of fire. If you are slowing your rate-of-fire, you are giving up a large portion of your advantage (which you need, due to being stationary).

    Furthermore, having to land 2 shots (and simultaneously having a shorter reload) can be annoying when chasing enemy targets (especially in not completely-flat terrain). Imagine giving chase to an enemy vehicle with the sights bouncing regularly. The Prowler has to be able to get 2 firing opportunities (½ a second apart) every 2½ seconds or so, whereas the Vanguard/Magrider only has to get a firing opportunity every 3½ seconds or so. While for inexperienced people just spraying your shots would be the best idea, it isn't the same for experienced tankers. I would much prefer having to shoot less, giving me more time to maneuver correctly and properly line up my shots.

    The lack of alpha also hurts when it comes to AA (against ESFs, which are the most abundant aircraft by far), in the sense that you need to land 2 shots in quick succession, or the ESF will simply FS and afterburn away taking evasive action. With the other two, a hit is a kill (albeit the Magrider can have issues getting the angle at times of course, but that is a different story).

    The Prowler also generally relies on sustained fire (more-so with Anchor and the GK). Such a thing can be negated/exploited pretty easily by experienced enemies, in the sense that staying in the line of fire of a Prowler should be avoided when not firing, in order to limit its advantage. It's more-or-less the same when engaging Vanguards, in that you want to bait the Shield, and then hide while it runs out. Here, on the other hand, you simply want to "wait out" your own reload. Staying exposed in plain view is generally also just a dangerous thing, since you are going to be a target for not only the enemy tank you are engaging, but possibly all its allies as well.

    Furthermore, the reliance on sustained-fire allows enemies to easily zero-in on your exact location (and what armanents you are using), once more even more-so with GK + Anchor. The visual projectiles alone are a dead giveaway, but especially the audio-queues have alerted me to the presence of nearby enemies countless times alone (and especially Prowlers), and is one of the main reasons I rarely play with music on.

    Lastly, sustained fire completely negates perhaps THE most important defensive slot for tanks, namely Vehicle Stealth, in the sense that a Magrider/Vanguard with the Halberd would appear (on average) around once every 2-3 seconds (due to Halberd having shorter reload than the primaries) and only be exposed for a ½ a second. The Prowler on the other hand is a giant big red blimp on your minimap, visible the entire time while firing, due to the aforementioned reliance on sustained fire.

    There are 100% other reasons, but I'm getting a bit tired. I can make a more comprehensive list (and explanation) if deemed neccesary.

    I'd change the wording in that they are better at "farming" infantry, in the sense that they are good against un-prepared enemies. Once the enemies start using Flak (decently certed) it starts becoming tedious, as you then have to land 2 direct-hits to take out a SINGLE infantry. If you combine it with AV-wielding infantry in situations where you cannot splash them (quite often if they aren't stupid), it is very annoying to try to defend yourself. Just saying.

    Aye, they are better if the Harassers decide to stay in your field of view, but they are much worse at actually chasing them down compared to the Magrider, which should also be considered. The Prowler can often shrug them off with the DPS, but they will often struggle to finish them off, as the Harassers know the DPS of the Prowler, and that it cannot chase reliably. The Magrider on the other hand can keep up with them shortly (enough for an additional salvo/volley) as well as being much better at firing on the move (which you have to in order to finish most Harassers).

    Against ESFS: In a vacumm I would agree, but combined with the Prowler main cannons, I once again prefer the Halberd (personal preference of course), in the sense that it gives you 50% increased chance of landing the "2-shot-KO" before the ESF starts evasive maneuvers and pops FS. I'd prefer that scenario to having to land follow-up shots with the GK after the ESF uses FS and start being evasive.

    Against Libs/Gals: I would say the GK definitely has the advantage here.

    Note: I'm not saying it is neccesarily BAD, just that there are definitely reasons for why having 2 shots isn't 100% a bonus.
    • Up x 1
  10. 3Hedgehogs

    Using the best tactics for each tank, knowing their strong and weak sides is important and for sure gives You an edge in tank combat. But it does not change the biggest difference: Prowler has more than double DPS of Vanguard. It's not a little stronger.

    I have nothing against Anchor mode - it has advantages and disadvantages. Even double shot and fast reload which grind infantry at insane rate are somewhat ok and may be balanced by other MBT's special abilities.

    Vanguard shield can be used once per combat, so can be used magburner. But 2,5x DPS works all the time and gives upper hand against every tank, sundy, galaxy and construction.

    Please, be so kind to tell me how this particular advantage is balanced, apart from Vanguard's +7% HP.
  11. Insignus

    Your concerns regarding the NC will be resolved by the Armor update, as you see, the true issue is that the current Camo has allowed the NC to only be generally monochromatically blue, never blue and red.

    This means that they all wear blue helmets, and as such, they have no means of identifying who their leader is. As smurfs, they rely upon color shifts to identify Papa Smurf during firefights. Thus, they approach all fights in a generally disorganized fashion.

    As we all know, in SmurfVillage, all smurfs are incompetent outside of their given certs. This means they tackle problems used siloed logic and blinkered vision, until the end of the Alert, when Papa Smurf shows up and convinces them to work together, and to stop using solo phoenixes and single file vanguards. They also refer to all objects as "Smurf" which is ancient Auraxian for "Shotgun".

    This means that they approach all tactical scenarios as a do or die CQB murder fest, generally conceding assaults if they can't get into a close range fight, a lattice cutoff fight, or a farm fight.

    This is why the NC always fights the TR, as well. They're either attempting to steal the red hats, so that one of them can become papa smurf, or they are attracted to the Red in the first place. We don't know.


    Interestingly, the smurf village analogy can be applied to an innumerable number of well-intentioned but arguably ineffectual, blue themed, human institutions that are ultimately dominated by a Red, White, and Blue father figure that reserves massive amounts of power, regardless of its need, relevance, or interest at a given point in time. That we often do resolve the episode in question is something you can treat as important according to your politics, which I don't care about.

    [IMG]

    CERA! HERE COME THE SMURFS!

    Sorry, I just felt you all needed to laugh, or at least have a break from SUPER SERIOUS SKUB WAR
  12. Slandebande

    I completely agree, spending time in each MBT gives you a much greater insight into what they are individually capable of, which conversely also helps you predict and fight them in combat. Sadly (to me) the Prowlers strength isn't something I personally find that effective, in that it is great for farming (and generally as long as the enemy isn't shooting at you), but it's weakness' are rather easily exploited by competent enemies. Also coupled with the fact that I'm not a fan of the double-barreled main cannon, for numerous reasons.

    I personally have a great deal against Anchor, but I guess that is for another discussion. My issues aren't with the strength of the ability, but rather (amongst other concerns) the implications such an ability has on the mentality of the tankers, lessing incentive (and making it more boring) to gun for a Prowler as well as the ability massively skewing the statistics of the various weapons (which many people for some reason refuse to acknowledge, yet they still use the data as an argument).

    You shouldn't really compare only the ES abilities on their own, as that is only a single aspect of the entire package. If you really want to, the Vanguard Shield is by FAR the most effective on the battlefield, which is also reflected in the stats. It's pretty much accepted that the Vanguard is the worst stock tank (except perhaps for AA-duties :D), especially for farming (which heavily influences the stats). So how can the Vanguard still remain competitive stats-wise you ask? The answer is simple, Shield.

    Aye once more it's rather nice for farming plebs, but I would prefer the other main cannons if I wanted to defend myself from serious AV-infantry. One key point is the fact that if they are wearing high Flak, they will require 2 direct hits with the Prowler primary weapons to kill, which means they are practically impossible to kill in practice. It's actually a recurring theme with the Prowler, it's great for killing the unprepared/inexperienced, but as soon as **** gets serious it really has issues compared to the other two MBTs in my opinion.

    The P2-120 also has a slight advantage over Libs/Gals compared to the Vanguard/Magrider, but I highly prefer both the Vanguard and the Magrider (yes, the Magrider) for shooting down ESFs, especially if I don't have a competent gunner available (for the good old AP + Halberd 2-shot).

    The Magburn can actually be used twice with a full tank (each with half the boost). Additionally, Magburn can be used before having recharged fully (unlike the Shield), as it only requires 50% fuel for activation. It is also the only ES-ability to be useful outside of combat. Besides, Magburn can be used to ram ESFs out of the skies, what more do you want? :D Magburn is also an excellent tool for finishing your targets (could be by rushing in and Magburning away quickly, or perhaps using ½ a Magburn fuel-tank to give chase, and the other ½ to make your escape. Magriders are by far the scariest to face (when they are ready for you) as a Harasser, due to it being much more difficult to escape a competent Magrider driver.

    An aspect of the Shield you are completely ignoring, is the threat of the Shield itself. That threat alone is enough to keep many targets from simply charging at you blindly, unless they heavily outnumber you (and even then, if they aren't coordinated, they are likely to have doubts/hesitation). The Shield can also be used defensively in situations the other 2 tanks would've simply died. It's not all so clear-cut as you are seemingly trying to make it seem like by saying "this is 1-time use, this is 1-time use and this is used all the time".

    Well, first of all, consider that the tank balance isn't solely achieved by DPS-differences and armor/HP-differences, but rather by numerous other factors. Such things could be (but are not limited to): Tank shapes, sizes, maneuverability, ES-secondary weapons, ES abilities varying in strength/utility, etc etc.

    Also, you (and many others) find the Prowlers primary weapons double-barreled mechanic to be a blessing, I consider it a boon, as I prefer the single-shot variants of the other MBTs.
  13. DQCraze

    From what Ive seen the NC also has the lowest ranked player base, that could be the problem.
  14. Pinkpuff

    The problem with NC on Emerald is that they almost exclusively attack TR while ignoring VS and then inevitably lose their ***** to VS. Voodoo and Phoenix outfits are notorious for this and are solely responsible for both the poor NC win rate and the spectacular VS win rate.
  15. rahte


    Why do You think they have lowest ranked players? Because NC have worst equipment in the game and they quit. NC is also the fraction that have more new recruits than other two..... and as a resoult You have lowest ranked player base.

    Even from my group of friends, and we like to play together from as long as I remember, half of it decided to leave PlanetSide because they didnt enjoyed the approche to game balance.

    As far as I noticed there is nothing what can be done with this one. Developers just decided that they do not want to make money :)
    Battlefield franchise lost a lot from their player base just because of it. Do You think that PlanetSide is different? New players do not stay and old go away. How do you think it is gonna end? Prosperous like World of Tanks? The funiest thing is that WoT is 2 years OLDER than Planetside :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D ..... even the lastest patches shows that they do not care about game balance.... so what I can say.



    This is what I was saying before. VS and TR prefere attack NC than each other. The reason is that it is easiest. They attack the opponent which cannot hit back..... the game is more enjoyable, can have higher kill streakes etc.
  16. Partl

    Meh, meh, meh... dunno what else i could say about it. NC = crybaby
  17. rahte

    I am not interested in Your opinion.
  18. Newlife1025

    Nc would actually do good if a majority werent cabooses (red vs blue) and teamkillers, and we had some good coordination. And maby easier to handle recoil.
  19. Newlife1025

    I hate fighting vanu... especially at night. I had to buy night vision optics just for them. Also, they tend to kill me from unbelievable ranges.
  20. Newlife1025

    Nc really just needs coordination. Ive been in a base where nc was under popped 75/25 and we held our ground. The game chose to kick me to another base, but when i git back... we deove out the TR. We have good players, but they're just drowned out by alk the team killers and scrubs.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.