And yeah that was absolutely wrong conclusion. Just numbers play. As well as k/d ratio corresponds the skill level.
All of them, hence why I actually have an unbiased view on issues like these, as opposed to most others.
How exactly is the Orion better? I hope you're not using player stats for this, since those will be massively skewed by all the farmers that use the Orion regularly. Even if it was, it'd hardly make a difference, as new players don't suddenly improve significantly with different guns. Learning basics like aiming, awareness, map knowledge, etc have infinitely bigger effect on one's success than a slightly different gun (which is what the Orion is to the CARV).
Ok so the VS are equally skilled in all Lightning weapons compared to the NC and TR. But they magically pull extra skill out of their buttholes the moment they touch a Magrider? How come they cant show superior skill wih a Lightning? Still you are suffering a heavy bias. Regardless of you simply accepting the bias of other players or just dont realize that listening to purely your friends is a terrible way to see the world unbiased you keep upholding an eroneous view. A famous example of your type of bias was a reporter who proclaimed that the votes for presidency were wrong because her associates and friends voted way differently than the voting results showed. She did not realize that because they were her associates and friends they had already been selected by background and social status, tainting her "sample" of voters.
You can't calculate this on MBTs pulled when we have definitive evidence VS will fully crew, i.e. use twice as many players per MBT than the other factions, at a higher rate than the other factions. Having a 2/2 Magrider is going to be a big advantage (especially versus the TR who pull/use a lot more 1/2 MBTs). We can ask ourselves why or how long they crew them 2/2 all day long but begging the question does not mean we need to consider it without evidence. Not to mention that in order to get closer to this answer you'd have to ask VS players and, well, would you trust that source even if they were telling the truth? Honestly?
I went back through the thread to find any sort of useful empirical evidence, instead of just more anecdotal evidence, as you say. The only things I found were the same old "Betelgeuse is the best LMG because it has the best usage stats" argument (which fortunately doesn't become any more true just because it gets repeated 500 times); some ridiculous and completely unfounded claim based on a ton of assumptions, that "Organized play isn't half as powerful as you make it out to be and equipment is easily 80% or more of an influence on the numbers" (something that any semi-experienced squad/platoon leader or Force Commander will immediately and rightfully refute); and yet another post proclaiming that Nanoweave is the devil and it screws NC over the most. While points 1 and 2 are obviously ridiculous, at least point 3 has some logic to it that I can agree with. While NC weapons with low ROF and higher susceptibility to Nanoweave resistances make it harder to use those guns, the more experienced player ends up with the most versatile arsenal in the game in terms of damage models and engagement range capabilities. The NC do not suffer of the annoying redundancy syndrome like TR and VS, where a good portion of guns outside of the meta options are virtually useless or straight up inferior to said meta options. At the risk of creating yet another back-and-forth with walls of text, one more paragraph about these sort of discussions related to PS2. There is a reason why veterans and the ""informed community"" will present things as fact without going through the effort of digging up a small thesis of empirical evidence every time. The combined experience of hundreds of players over hundreds of thousands of hours is simply sufficient to figure out the not-so-complicated processes and aspects in PS2. The game looks confusing to outsiders, but once played for a couple of hundred hours, how the game works becomes easily observable. Now of course not everyone comes to the same conclusions, but when the most experienced, most skilled and most active group of players in the entire community reaches a consensus on issues as dividing as faction balance or similar, there's little room for error. Sure, empirical evidence for all these topics would be awesome, but it's 1. neither worth the effort and 2. nor always possible to assemble all the needed data just to prove something that is already public knowledge through the combined experience of veteran players. Seven years of playtime, containing countless alerts on live servers as well as many hundred competitive events in a controlled environment offer a huge amount of information on just how things work in PS2. The issue is that this data is only accessible to those that have actually participated in these situations/events, and those just so happen to be that group of veteran players I mentioned earlier.
"The Orion isn't a good weapon because it's only good for murdering everything in a farm". Good one! JibbeJabba did the same thing. He argued that the Betelgeuse was used for farming but the Orion was the weapon they picked for capturing bases. But I'll ask you the same question he didn't answer: How can a weapon that is great for farming not be good for the capturing of bases? Also can you even prove that most of those stats come from farming? How much do those farmers get, how many farmers are there so you can see the weight they have on the stats compared to the non-farmers? You don't know do you? And yes it does matter to have a better gun. The Orion is much easier to learn and be good at as a newbie than the SAW. How can you even think this isn't important?
Oh *** you. Seriously we posted the Voidwell stats to prove that the Betelgeuse was superior for example, and before that we've always used Oracle Of Death to analyse it and prove it. This hasn't magically changed. And stop tauting the "infomed community" which is just your way of saying "everyone agreeing with me". I could say "hey everybody, the informed community agrees with me" but does it have any value in this discusion whatsoever? No ofcourse not because it's a meaningless comment unless you can magically produce these people and the proof you need for their claims.
We have evidence that the VS pulls just as many MBT's per player as the other two factions. The fact that more players are willing to gun for that same amount of MBT's per player shows that gunning for the Magrider is more fun and effective. However we also see that these players leave the gun, otherwise it would be impossible for there to be more gunners than pilots (and it could also be that Magrider pilots have more to gain from switching to their gunseat during play padding the numbers). Unfortunately we don't have the actual numbers for the average time in the gun seat for each faction which would be much better. Additionally as I said to Inex the VS are equally skilled with the NS vehicle weapons like all Lightning guns. Yet when they touch a Magrider they magically pull some skill from somewhere and suddenly are better than everyone else, but then forget that skill the moment they return to a Lightning gun? That's nonsense in the literal sense of the word! The only explanation for the Magrider being better is that it is a better platform. This can even be tested. If you say "ah but the Lightning does not have a gunseat to improve it's capabilities" then we would need to look at other gunseat vehicles. If the VS truly were superior at coordinating people to join their vehicles (which is the usual argument the VS gives) then we would see this across all VS vehicles. Which we don't see. The VS does not have a significantly higher turret usage across other vehicles besides the Magrider. Funny that.
That's conjecture. All we can say for sure is that VS pull/use their MBTs 2/2 more often than NC and much more often than TR. I do not think it is so much skill as it is an increased frequency of being crewed 2/2 more often being true + the added benefits of having another player around (longevity if engineer or added offensive punch of HA). In its basest of form, two guns is better than one. A much better comparison is the Liberator. It is common pool and similar to the Magrider it is a vehicle known for its strong secondary gun. We can also see similar patterns in the stats as the Magrider. Uniques: https://voidwell.com/ps2/oracle?sta...,5220&startDate=2019-05-24&endDate=2019-11-24 Now if this is because of effectiveness or whatever, the point is we can observe similar patterns in vehicles which function in a similar fashion (in this case, mediocre primary + strong secondary). Obviously not a perfect comparison but I'd say it is better than comparing it to a lightning which behaves/works very differently.
You dont see that you are supplying proof to my point? The VS is more often the lowest with uniques on the secondary of the Liberator if you look at your link. This means we have to wuestion: why does the Magrider have so many more gunners then? Possible answers: They are more skilled in leadership&teamwork to get players to gun for them. This doesnt fly however due to this only happening with the Magrider and not other vehicles. The pilot of a Magrider is encouraged for some reason to get into the gunner seat, padding the actual amount of gunners. The Magrider is simply superior and more fun to gun for. No matter which way you turn, all "conjecture" that holds water says that it is because of the equipment, not the players, that we see such performance on the Magrider. Yes even the fact that it MIGHT score better because it has more gunners (but we cant tell if those gunners are actually gunning more often during tank battles and we know for certain they leave the turret for someone else!) is just because of the equipment, not the players or their skills. Or would you say that a vehicle that encourages a gunner to take the seat to be an inferior vehicle?
Poor Dem is running all over doing vast research and providing data, and hard facts, And people just come back with "nope! Not listening, vanu aren't OP because I said so!" XD I argue with creationists for a hobby, so i feel your pain Dem!
In this case most of the work was done by Campagne. But yeah it's a bit weird that they ask me to come with proof for "conjecture" while they have almost none themselves. I do have to comment on this bit. I fairly recently did some research for the Carbines and created a number for Bloom Per Second. If I remember correctly it's not the damage model+ROF that determines the accuracy, but rather it's designation of being a short, mid- or long-range weapon. That said it does coincide that many high-damage weapons also are mid- or long-range and thus have "worse" bloom (and compensate this in part through things like lower starting COF). The fact that the 167 damage model also has the highest damage falloff over range (but still does the same DPS with it's minimum range as a lower damage higher ROF counterpart) doesn't help the NC either.
Indeed, it is remarkable how everything needs proof/evidence until we start talking about NC. Then everybody knows how NC MAX are used, when, where, and exactly in what manner. Anyone questioning this is obviously wrong and should just see common sense. NC were just superior to all factions in using MAX units because naturally only they know how to use their MAX perfectly. Then everything just makes sense because, you know, you guys play that faction and you do not want to hear some VS/TR player tell you why X or Y is the case. Ah well, I suppose we never ever should look more closely on stats or understand context. Glad we can all agree NC MAX units deserved the nerf. It is the hard data/evidence that matters, after all. For the record I think the nerf was BS but only because I was able to look past the hard data/performance stats. It is quite remarkable how all those all facts become quite soft, the "vast research" become inconclusive or not good enough, the data is suddenly incomplete, then we need more questions to be asked. So ask yourself this, why do you think you are more often convinced by positions which are favourable for NC and unfavourable for VS? I found them quite varied depending on where I looked. I never claimed it be an exact match or expected it be and it would have been very surprising if it was. I also there are more alternatives to choose from such as: The Magrider have had a weak primary gun + strong secondary gun since beta and then for years before CAI happened which has influenced how VS use their MBT. This conclusion does not exclude the possibility of the Magrider being too good nor does reinforce the idea it is somehow a weak MBT (it just functions differently).
Bloom is actually tied directly to damage per shot with very few exceptions being anything different (such as the Orion). There is also the fairly consistent trend of high damage weapons having lower initial CoFs and larger strafing CoFs with lower damage models being a bit more uniform, though this is not always the case. Weapon range seems to be a side effect more than anything. In my opinion, bloom per second isn't a very useful stat and is a bit misleading. Weapons don't fire at the same rates nor do they bloom constantly, rather they bloom in steps as shots are fired. Bloom per shot is also much easier to apply to actual combat scenarios by simply looking at the bloom after X number of shots, while bloom per second has to be compared to theoretical TTKs first. Anyways, the numbers for carbines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewzPkA3jq75hkUABi5zldQ-0tn14GiuiHfYBuWt4kx0/edit?usp=sharing Going through the numbers we can see the trend still remains mostly constant. High DMG/low RoF weapons have bloom tied to damage regardless of RoF and are universally more accurate when stationary compared to low DMG/high RoF weapons after the same amount of damage has been dealt. Likewise, high DMG/lowRoF weapons are universally less accurate when strafing when compared to low DMG/high RoF guns. The carbines are almost constantly more accurate while stationary and less accurate on the move as compared to the next damage tier below each respective weapon. There are only a handful of guns with lower accuracy after equal damage as the next damage tier above them.
Even if that were true it wouldn't change anything about the discussion we are having. We aren't talking about the overnerfed MAX's we are talking about potential winrates based on equipment. Weren't you of the opinion that equipment didn't matter? So why would the NC MAX matter then? You did this as well with the Server Smash. You proclaim that equipment doesn't matter, but also say that since one of the final Server Smashes was won by the NC suddenly the NC faction as a whole cannot complain about their equipment and that it would be a nightmare if the NC equipment had been buffed? Ignoring ofcourse that we are asking mostly for the NC weapons to be beginner friendly and more equal to their counterparts on the other two factions. I found that overall the VS wasn't scoring any better. Since we are talking about just gunseats I took the liberty of actually including gunseats instead of main guns: https://voidwell.com/ps2/oracle?sta...,5496&startDate=2019-05-24&endDate=2019-11-24 The VS has a few peaks, but is mostly either equal or below the other two factions. This is in stark contrast to the Magrider gunseats which have much more players in the seat. Since this is an event happening exclusively to the Magrider we can safely say that it is because of the Magrider that we see more people in the gunseat, not because of the players. In other words it's because of the equipment. Why would more people choose to gun for the Magrider if it's purely about equipment? Can you tell me that?
It is relevant since the argument is exactly the same. Person X says NC MAX is too good, Person Y says "no, it is actually just because NC use the MAX where it is the most effective and we have to use slugs to extend our range." Person X invoke the need for evidence but Person Y knows he cannot provide it. It is especially hard to prove the use of buckshot/slugs which is in this case your "it would be helpful if we knew how long they use the secondary weapon." It is a question with, for now, an unknowable answer and it is question which wants us to accept the validity of the premise, i.e. the claim that this is important, despite having no answer. In both cases it could be important but since it is unknowable it is unhelpful. Which parts of these conclusions lead you to believe I think gear is not relevant? (copied from previous replies I made). "For me it is a combination of gear + player meta + outfits/leadership." "TL;DR: Number of players matter, how you use them matter, and also equipment matter. The more organisation/leadership you have the less equipment matter, the more individualistic environment you have the more equipment matters." In every single Magrider discussion I've argued that past design of the Maggie has influenced their habits. These days it is much more streamlined yet the behaviour persists (which is the most interesting part). It is entirely unique in this aspect and while the Liberator is the closest proxy but it is imperfect because there are no ES gear to influence its usage. My problem was how your originally framed the performance data by 'per MBT' since it is quite clear one faction is dedicating more players per MBT than the other factions. We should expect deviations and an upward curve in performance. As for the SAW versus Orion/CARV, yepp, that one has perplexed the community since the start. Well, not since the start since for a time in beta that thing was a bloody beast. Even so, the GD-22S or EM6 would have made a lot more sense (especially the latter since then it would follow the 167/600 of the Gauss Rifle/Merc). The BG also have too few downsides. Ammo should be around 35-40 or get lowered down to 698RPM. I guess you could make the argument that it is "situational" but not really if you play around its strengths.
This is the important part. We might not know the exact answer about the Magrider, but we can narrow it down. The remaining answers all revolve around the Magrider simply being superior no matter which way you turn. Because you've promoted the idea that the equipment is less relevant. Also since the examples you gave of the Server Smash do not correspond to the actual winrates of the factions at that point it isn't really useable. How can this be? In the earliest days the Magrider users would deliberately lock their vehicle or use other means to prevent allies from entering just so they could use it themselves. The PPA and Saron were so good there was enough reason to pull a Magrider just for those. The Magrider's gun did suffer from a higher projectile drop, but it's DPS was close enough to the Vanguard not to matter. This means you have to ask: How did the trend arrive that more players would gun for the Magrider than the Vanguard or Prowler? The Prowler is easy, it's main gun used to be so obnoxiously powerful that the topgunners could score less kills and most of the options aside from the Halberd were closer range. But the Vanguard? It's combination of speed and maneuverability made it the weakest vehicle. It's extra health (or resistance early on) did not outweigh the Prowler's DPS or the Magriders dodging capabilities (The slope of the Magrider means that aiming dead-center gives you a hitbox size only 1/2 to 1/3rd of the midsection hitbox size causing much more misses). So the Vanguard has just as much reason, if not more, to get gunners into it's gunseat. So both the Vanguard and Magrider had reasons to get more gunners. Yet the Magrider did get them but the Vanguard didn't. Why? The answer has to lie in the equipment: The Magrider topguns are more enjoyable and/or powerful to gun for, and possibly the Magrider is simply a better platform to mount turrets on due to it's movement capabilities. Example with the MBT Halberd: https://voidwell.com/ps2/oracle?sta...,4015&startDate=2016-07-07&endDate=2019-11-25 Less Halberd usage per player on the VS https://voidwell.com/ps2/oracle?sta...,4015&startDate=2016-07-07&endDate=2019-11-25 Almost always more infantry kills per VS Halberd user. But infantry kills on an AV weapon isn't that important ofcourse. https://voidwell.com/ps2/oracle?sta...,4015&startDate=2016-07-07&endDate=2019-11-25 A significant advantage in vehicle kills for the Halberd using VS on the Magrider. And again I have to remind you: WIth NS equipment like Lightning guns the VS isn't superior in any way. You could proclaim again that this is a factor of more players gunning for the Magrider. But the key here is that these stats are only gained when the gunseat is in use because they are all topgun weapons. Additionally the VS scores better against infantry. This is a sign that tells us that it's the platform it's mounted on. This is because you could claim "ah but the Magrider has more 1/2 targets to kill thus the scores are higher" when talking about just the topguns but you can't do the same whent talking about infantry. Conclusion once again: It's the superiority of the equipment (what it's mounted on and it's firepower) that draws more gunners to the Magrider. Even in a legacy system causing more players to gun for the Magrider that first jolt of players wanting to join has to come from the power and enjoyability to gun for a Magrider as opposed to doing so for the Vanguard or Prowler. Why would that be a problem? Can't this be a rolling advantage? The Magrider topguns are slightly better due to the platform it's mounted on and potentially the extra firepower. More successes causes more players to join the Magrider topgun seat. More wins are accumulated because of this tendency, and more players join the Magrider. This causes the small difference to grow into a large difference. Now we need to find a way to equalize it. The Magrider no matter which way you turn is doing superior to the other two factions. Like I also said in the MAX and Vanguard shield discussions: Even if it's actually balanced, we need to change it (not nerf or buff necessarily!) so that we see things balance out. I've proposed before to make the gunseat more enjoyable for players by adding abilities. The driver has to drive, gun and activate abilities, the gunner just sits there and shoots occasionally while being driven around. That gunner has time and unused skill and buttons that could be used in a variety of ways. This can then be used to make gunning more fun for all factions and even out discrepancies between the factions. This doesn't have to be a direct-damage ability but could be things like scandevices, shared access to some of the abilities of the vehicle (so the driver could potentially use the topgun ability if he's going solo or the gunner could activate the tank ability if the driver is busy), ability to change ammo type to prepare it for different targets or ranges, access to smoke, temporary deployable cover and more. With any luck this can offer enough ES advantages without directly improving firepower that all MBT's see their gunseats used more or less the same and also even out the balance discrepancies between the 3 factions. Hey common ground! Yey!
