"VS OP" Why?

None of what you said is relevant or even important to my point. Only thing I was trying to prove was that people were aware back then that the primary of the Magrider was not good (I mean a basic understanding of numbers should be enough) and that its secondary was awesome. I did. I do not give a **** about what people defended or not, that's just noise. You probably find more but the search function on these forum seem to be broken since sometimes I cannot seem to get results from earlier than 2015 yet when I search again I get threads from 2013 but only a few.

(and the numbers in my previous thread was death by accidental suicide, realised I forgot to add that bit!)

My point is that bad representation of statistics is no good way to judge a weapon or vehicle. There's also threads about what topgun for the Vanguard to use, is that an indication for how the NC knows how to use topguns?

Besides that you are trying to claim a strange point, namely that because the VS "knew" that their primary was "crap" (just like they knew the PPA wasnt good I swear!) That they carried this knowledge and culture to have more gunners for their Magrider for years.
On top of that this knowledge would easily translate into other vehicle gunner seats, which we just dont see happening.

We know for a fact VS primary had the worst DPS and secondary guns were awesome. The only strange part here is how hard it is for you to accept that VS used their MBT how it was designed. I mean, we might as well start doubting all NC MAX users when they claimed they were not effective outdoors because that's just what them sneaky NC players want us to believe. I mean could look at the design of the weapon and how it was used but nah, let's just bury our heads in the sand instead.

I can assure you this is a P.C. thing. All of the factions win at a regular rate here on PS4. There are times when T.R. and N.C. will flood but thanks to the boosts that were given, I feel the faction can hold its own against the others. The other factions weapons are still better to me; buuut hey, I can use Vanu without breathing a sigh of despair at thought of having to put everything I have into a battle that I know I am going to lose, just to keep positive on the ratio scales. Also I am mainly N.S.O. now. All trash all the time.... No benefits..... Again.... I LOVE IT!

What is so hard to understand that, besides the idea that the VS "just understood their design" being a pretty ridiculous statement, its just virtually impossible for this idea to be carried all the way to today?
Its not as if the design of other vehicles or MBT's was any different. Why would the VS be so massively ultra-selective with just their Magrider, but not see the "design" of their NS vehicles? Its like having someone great at driving a car, but if you put the same person in a car 1 weightclass higher with the exact same controls they suddenly cant find the steeringwheel. It makes no sense for them not to carry this exact same skillset over to any other vehicle.
Then everyone gets GPS, but after several years of this both the old veterans who learned to do without and the one's who were taught with GPS all are equally capable of finding their way without a loss of their navigation skill?

Its nonsensical to think that everything would stay the same even if all the reasons to keep doing it are gone. Even more nonsensical is it to assume that the VS learn it "out of necessity", but the TR and NC do not even though they are outmatched when going 1/2 versus 2/2. Why would an entire faction react one way, while in the same situation the other two do not? Especially considering how the VS do not seem to have a magic superior skillset somewhere on their person when you look at the overall stats of NS weapons between all 3 factions.

I'm a little late to the party but let me just say this:

When I pulled and laid out all the topgun usage per capita statistics, the VS Magrider's pulled more topguns of all types compared to both the NC & TR. This includes AI topguns, which notably are almost or are literally incapable of damaging enemy armour.

They did and they do. Why would TR, for instance, use two players to get a secondary gunner when the primary cannon was so good? Might as well pull two tanks instead to maximise efficiency. Once again, vehicle/weapon design dictate behaviour. You don't need superior skill, magic, or organisation to explain it.

The more recent data Botji shared also showed that VS do not use secondary weapons as much as they used to anymore, which makes sense given the changes over time. Just takes time to override the so-called collective wisdom of the community, it is hard to teach an old dog how to sit.

Yes the TR used less secondary gunners because the Primary was so good. This caused it to get more kills than it's gunner, making it less fun to gun for it and they left.
However, when that turned around with for example the Vulcan when it was OP enough to be used on Prowlers or the early versions of the Gatekeeper we saw an immediate rise in the secondary gunners on Prowlers. The speed of these changes can also be observed with the VS. When the Lancer stopped being an ultra-OP weapon the amount of uses dropped, you rarely see any Lancer nests nowadays even though they would still be incredibly effective. The VS adapted immediately despite their early culture saying it was effective, and they lost that "skill" the moment they required similar skill to get kills with such tactics as the NC did with their Phoenixes. Similarly the L-PPA and PPA when they were nerfed were dropped hard... And yet even though we've seen active pushback against using the PPA at all on Magriders, some calling it as lethal as a disco lightshow, by the time Campagne did the numbers there were still more AI topguns in use on the Magriders than on the other two factions.

That doesn't really support your current theory that the VS used their AV topguns more because they keep learning it to new players because in the passed it was like that. We see them discourage using the PPA instead, and even to this day the VS have a high rate of PPA users compared to the other factions:
https://voidwell.com/ps2/oracle?sta...,4007&startDate=2020-01-30&endDate=2020-10-24

This isn't because they learned it from others or they organize better on the Magrider alone, this is because the way the Magrider operates and where it can go. This makes it a far better and more enjoyable platform to gun for.
The same counts for the AV topguns. The Magrider is simply a great platform to gun for in how it moves around, the same as with the Harasser. Here's an example:
https://voidwell.com/ps2/oracle?sta...,6120&startDate=2020-07-04&endDate=2020-10-24

Notice how the only Halberd topgun that sometimes comes close to the same statistics as the Harasser, is the only tank that can act more like a Harasser. Similarly the VKPH of the Magrider is similar to the Harassers (which is on average lower): It pays more for a Magrider to sometimes take the long route before engaging combat than it does for the more in-your-face Prowler and Vanguard who don't get those options as easily.

We can even go farther: If you look at the Vulcan you can see how just the right platform matters. The Prowler is a great long-ranged tank, and the Vulcan is often not used in such situations. Meanwhile on the Harasser this easy to use and powerful gun is an important thorn in the game's side.


Let's put it like this: You've only proven that the players used to have some reason to use a secondary (while ignoring the other two did so as well), but that reason is gone and you haven't provided any argument that can be backed up that proves the VS have kept this culture of more secondary gunners up. In fact we can see in the game that the VS change along with the rest of the game whenever something changes such as with Lancer squads disappearing when they were nerfed or the PPA not being used half as much after it's nerf. So what reason could remain other than "the Magrider is a far better platform to gun for"?

I'm not asking for the Magrider to be nerfed nor am I asking for the Prowler and Vanguard to be buffed, I'm asking for similar features and mechanics that make the Magrider more fun to gun for and play with to be added to the Vanguard and Prowler as well, without assuming magical in-game cultures of more secondary gunners being the culprit of the Magrider not being the terrible waste of time the VS make it out to be (not necessarily you).

Worth mentioning that from those numbers we also found that 9 of 10 Magriders will be AV specialised (based on uniques for primaries/secondaries). VS had more secondary uniques than primary uniques which either suggest, 1) same crew on rotation, 2) more gunners with higher circulation of gunners. In practical terms it was probably a mix of those two options. The result would be the same though, VS have been a faction which used much more fully crewed MBTs than the other two.

That in a nutshell is the basis for my entire argument, just change it to secondary for VS. Comparing the data from Champagne and Botji there has been a clear reduction in amount of 2/2 Maggies. Still quite a bit more of them rolling around but every since the CAI update the VS primary isn't as bad anymore (you will still lose a straight up fight any of the other MBTs since the Prowler will outDPS you and the Vanguard will outlast you). In practical terms though, the Maggie won't (or shouldn't) just sit there and take it.

100% behind changes to the Vanguard/Prowler and vehicles overall which focus on handling/feel/abilities.

I assumed you meant it was just that players were still using the secondary turret just because they learned it from earlier, but now you seem to align more with what I'm saying in that the topguns are also more useful overall.

We really need some numbers on the amount of time that gunners actually spend in the gunseat. As far as I can see that circulation can be both a boon and a problem. If gunners spend only a short amount of time in the gunseat as the Magrider has more downtime that they find boring you increase the situations where the Magrider is 1/2 in combat as he's without a gunner at that point. On the other hand if the total time spend in the gunseat is larger than the other two factions you still have two options: 1 is that there is a higher amount of teamwork (which is practically impossible as that skill would also be used elsewhere) and 2 is that the gunseat is much more enjoyable to gun for. (or 3, all of the above).

That said, what kind of abilities, handling and features would you suggest without bashing in the Magrider's advantages? It would be rather annoying for the VS to suddenly have to deal with Vanguards that can climb steep surfaces and get in the same flanks (although a lower maneuverability would mean the Magrider could practically get a free kill if they avoid direct frontal combat). We need to maintain and expand on asymetrical balance, rather than reduce it while we try to improve all 3 MBT's.

I think they feed each other, 1) from having been a part of how VS use their MBT since day one, 2) changes up until more recent time has not be extreme enough to warrant a large change in behaviour (as shown in the gradual shift in the data away from overwhelmingly usage of secondary weapons yet still significantly more than NC/TR). Apparently VS has an average of higher BR players in their tanks so perhaps that's influencing the slower rate ("this is the way we've always done it, ye youn' uns' know nothin'").

As for what should be done, I think we should look to the Harasser for handling and weapon stabilisation. Naturally the MBTs shouldn't be as nimble as the Harasser but should have proper suspension. The latter to make it feel like you're piloting a high tech modern tank with proper targeting systems. Weapons should enhance how NC/TR are already using them, for NC they could get a "reverse" saron with a charger mechanic (alpha damage at slow firing but worse when mag dumping). TR, effectively being artillery pieces should get a mortar-thing with some other cool mechanic like minor AOE/cluster bomb effect. Just thought of them now, I am sure there are tons more tankers out there with stronger opinions than mine on this.

Well really the numbers also said that 11/10 magriders have a gunner. It's not the most accurate way to quantify in this way because there is no hard limiter or permanence in the presence or type of secondary weapon and gunner.

Just pointing about saying the magrider having more gunners doesn't mean it needs them more, only that they have more.

Which is why I mentioned there had to be a circulation of users or that the same crew used different weapons + we didn't need that data to figure out why since anyone could easily deduce that the primary was meh while the secondary was awesome (and still is). The data in this case simply shows a known behaviour because everyone knew the Magrider needed them more (similar to how TR didn't bother much with secondaries since their main cannon did the heavy lifting). What would be remarkable though, would be to see each faction actively and stubbornly play against their strengths and maximise their weaknesses. For such a claim, I would require some serious evidence.

For example, if you have three MBTs with one having the least amount of armour + worst DPS on its primary while dangling stronger secondaries in front of players we really shouldn't be surprised nor act as if we couldn't possibly know why VS players acted the way they did. It holds about the same mystery as to how the NC figured out their MAX was best used at close range. We might not have any data on engagement range with the NC MAX but we can make an educated guess based on its weapons.

To be perfectly clear though, I'm not saying the Maggie is bad. It is just different and the way it is used reflects it (especially in the past).

Feels stupid to attempt this again since I know it will just flow over everyone and we will be back to "But more gunners have to mean the tank is better or just more fun to gun in and I base this on the fact the tank has more gunners in the stats!" in no time, all these points being ignored for why just the Magrider has more gunners.

1. Fixed main gun
You can not look around as the driver without turning the entire tank. Gunner can look around without turning the entire tank.

2. Sub par DPS and health/tankyness compared to other MBTs
Perhaps the best way to describe the Magriders advantage is 'guerrilla tactics', get into a advantageous position and hit as hard as you can then use that advantage to win the fight. Prowlers win by DPS, Vanguards win by ME BRICK WALL.

3. The whole Magrider gimmick
Magriders move around and dodges, their ability does not only affect their main gun like the Prowler and unlike the Vanguard there is very much to gain from having any extra damage. Vanguards with the shield are almost impossible to kill while the shield is up unless there are 3+ tanks shooting at it and I mean, what tank doesnt die at that point? A Magrider wants to stay in combat/out in the open dodging shots as little as possible, more damage = less time in combat/out in the open.

3.5 A Magrider and damage
This shows the difference between a 1/2 Magrider and a 2/2 Magrider using Halberd/Saron(100% accuracy).
Peek a corner/hill and instead of 1845-2205 damage you do 1125 damage with only the FPC. Flank behind someone and instead of 2768-3308 damage you do 1688 damage with only the FPC.

A Magrider wants to stay in combat/out in the open dodging shots as little as possible, more damage = less time in combat/out in the open. Its copy-paste from above because its worth reading again so it perhaps sticks.

Magriders effectiveness scales very well with higher damage, it enhances EVERYTHING a Magrider does because it wants to and needs to push its advantage as hard and fast as possible when it can since it will lose the advantage if the enemy is given time. Same as the copy-paste above only other words but yeah, 3rd times the charm or whatever.

... Magrider FPC is basically a Lightning AP, shouldnt really need any other of the above reasons for why Magriders wants gunners but they are there as well, the real question should not be why Magriders have a higher % of gunners but why the heck not almost 100% of Magriders are crewed? They really suffer badly without one and you could kinda just drive a Lightning instead and have the luxury of a turret

This is true, but simply saying 9/10 magriders had an AV turret equipped isn't strictly accurate and doesn't acknowledge any actual differences. if 11/10 had any topgun clearly 9/10 must be an inflated value as well. However there is no such evidence not using AV turrets on a magrider is "playing against its strengths."

Magriders have the same health and armour as the Prowler, not the least. They also have a higher DPS on their main cannon than the Vanguard. The numbers did not support VS using topguns to make up for AV weaknesses when the magrider also saw double to over triple the number of AI topguns compared to the other two MBTs.

NC MAXes are best used in short range because everything about their design is short-ranged. If we ignore for a moment that pretty much everything happens in shorter ranges and is better up close because of damage drop and projectile velocities, the lack of proper aiming on any MAX weapon combined with the inherent spread and low damage per pellet MAX shotguns couldn't be used outside of short range. If more than just a few pellets miss in a cone larger than a torso at the wrong range it simply doesn't need to be argued.

The magrider doesn't have any massive combat weaknesses. It's not weaker than either tank in both aspects as you mistakenly claim. The strength is in the mobility. If it had the same DPS as the prowler or the same health as the vanguard it would be flat out better. This mobility lends itself to gunners, but it does not rely on them as one can see from having a considerably larger number of non-AV topgun usage.

It shows differences since we've observed vast differences. Furthermore, if we entertain certain unknowns we have to apply them across the board, i.e. if VS switch out gunners or whatever then we should assume the same for the other factions meaning we're still be stuck with the same numbers again.

I was slightly mistaken, since CAI the AP Primary gun has 4 DPS more than the Vanguard and other two have the same (joint the least HP). Point still stands though, most MBT players probably aren't able to dodge shots, always pop up on a hill, or perform a masterful flank when being constantly outnumbered or being limited by terrain.

A good way to describe the Maggie is, it is the worst "MBT" but a very good vehicle. Since it isn't an MBT which can outlast the others in a straight up engagement a 2/2 crew adds the most survivability and higher chance of success. Everything we should be seeing is reflected back in the data. In an optimal world I'd like to see this in all factions, fully crewed vehicles and a more interesting vehicle meta, that is.

Does this mean everything is perfect where it is, nope, but I've already mentioned that in a few post up!

It shows absolutely no difference and on its own heavily implies something that just isn't true. Normally we'd have to assume this but when can easily see this was not found to be so, the VS used more topguns across the board regardless of type, indicating a notable difference somewhere. If the difference was small or non-existent we could assume the same behaviours but it's not.

"Slightly" is generous when you knowingly stated blatantly false information. Sure the magrider is worse than a vanguard or prowler in a vacuum 1v1 where both parties just sit there at point blank, but we know this does not reflect realistic conditions.

It is an MBT. You can use it to face-tank other vehicles with ease, including other tanks that have been damaged and lightnings. There is no reason at all to believe the benefit of a gunner is uniquely superior to that of a vanguard or prowler. A Halberd will be identical across each tank. And of course, the magrider saw a significantly larger percentage of AI weapons which would have little to no impact on vehicle combat.

It's by no means a perfect indicator but it absolutely does not support the notion that magriders are inherently worse.

Sounds like the perfect reason to drive around with a secondary gunner.

On Sunday our outfit stole a few reclaimed Maggies for fun. We were able to traverse inside an Amp Station - where other MBTs couldn't go thanks to waist-high obstructions - dodged the hell out of incoming fire - which other MBTs can't do - and had a lot of fun - way more than with our default Vanguard.
Maybe not OP, but definitely both useful and fun. And seriously, while I do have a VS char, I haven't played that char a lot and I am by no means a Mag pro, a Mag noob, more like it, but I could dodge 4 consecutive incoming shots that would have hit me flat in any other tank; add to that several others that were not consecutive. And I'm talking Python shells, base AV turrets and HA rockets, you know, the stuff that actually hurts when it starts adding up, for examply by taking four hits in a short timeframe.

Yes. However this is of course not at all exclusive to the magrider.