Are PTS vehicle changes coming to live servers any soon?

Pretty much the title. I know they expect people to play on PTS and find some bugs and ballance issues so they could ignore them while adding these changes to live... They even put down the PTS for better experience and easier bug finding. Right, that could be a little unfair from me, I think I actually like the vehicle changes. And I miss them.

There is a lot of changes that were made, including the new sundy weapons, which silently disappeared. Anyone knows why?

i'm mixed, some things i like, others are absolutely insane,
like HE being competitive to AP for tank fights, mental!
if it goes live like that then i hope you're ready for HE spam from every tank!

Any major changes to gun accuracy?

Just what the game needs, a Sundy repair ball with even more powerful weapons. I'm glad that those new Sundy weapons quietly vanished.

they should have moved them to lightning.

I've just started playing around with the vehicle game (learning how not to crash stock lightnings into rocks and trees and ditches atm) and cannot wait for combined arms to come out so I know reliably what to cert into. Some very helpful responses to my earlier post could still hold good after CA, like pointing out the popularity of fire supression, racer chassis etc. but also, advice to wait for a bit makes sense.

I hope they aren't coming any time soon. HE spam. All secondary turrets nerfed and Halberd killed. Harasser will have lower ttk against everything and will need 3+ direct hits with Halberd to kill infantry so jumping out and shooting with your pistol will be a better choice than shooting rockets which is a joke imo.

It's far from as cut-and-clear as that.

The PTS changes give a far more varied loadout and usage to the AP, HEAT and HE(SH) weapons than it does now. Currently the only factors that are different are AOE and damage output against vehicles per shot. With the change the projectile velocity, AOE, damage per shot and reload will all differ. AP will still be supreme in vehicle combat. It's going to have the highest chance of hitting targets and because it's got the same DPS (more or less, I calculated it and it really depends on which faction you are which weapon deals the most DPS) but the slowest reload it'll end up the best weapon for pop-up attacks that everyone does right now because it'll lose the least DPS while you don't have a LOS to your target.

HEAT and HE(SH) will simply be viable options for tankers to actually use, rather than the "AP or go home" mentality that reigns now. And with the reload changes the HEAT and HE(SH) will be better at taking on infantry than AP is even if you only use bodyshots. This is much much better then the current situation.

but what i'm saying is that HE will still be MASSIVELY more effective against infantry, with 2 shot AoE kills in a large area,
while AP will still suck against infantry, and only have a very slight advantage in tank v tank situations,
it has velocity sure, but if you can lead shots then velocity isn't too amazing, especially when you're aiming at a blooming big, slow moving tank.

one is great against tanks but awful against infantry,
the other is great against tanks and great against infantry,
is there really a choice?

i totally agree with you that currently it is "AP or go home"
but i feel with these changes it is the same thing but with HE.

Actually it might still be AP or go home, all other shells besides hesh will have a 500 damage within 1 meter out to 3 meters for 50 damage. Heat could maybe be a more viable option, but quite frankly, hesh is not going to get much out of fighting tanks more, most of the time you had to land a direct hit anyhow, infantry generally don't let you have a second shot, so most people simply learn how to hit a target directly with AP, HE being slower isn't going to shake the meta.

personaly i am fine with the main cannon changes ... means more tanks are involved in actual tankcombat than just infantry farming .. and AP iirc has still alpha, speed and rangeadvantage over the other 2 ...

i doubt it, all the changes will do is reduce how many kills the farmers get and affect their ability to compensate for drop, if the changes are too much for some they will just change their farm machine to something else, instead of tanks you'll be getting farmed by libs instead.

farmers will always farm.

I'm looking forward to the changes. I like when they shake things up. I am hoping it will come out early July combined with some nice Daybreak membership/cash/depot sales and specials.

There is and still are a ton more AP tanks than HE, tanks are not involved with tank combat 24/7 because there is little reason to actually be in a tank, fyi.

And? Players will always play, I can't stop them from playing.
Why is it suddenly justified when a heavy main kills 50 people in a biolab in 5 minutes and is suddenly bad soon as a lib does the same thing.

Seriously, why do people only see tanks as bad for infantry, no **** they kill you, they're supposed to kill you, you're supposed to counter with something else if it's hindering your progress, but everyone always says the other guy will do it, I don't have to, that's the only time vehicles actually win, when you don't do anything to them. (Well that and the vehicle user is actually good at the game, because contrary to belief it's actually hard being a vehicle main and actually making it worth the time)

if that causes the farmtool/s in question to be changed to be not as obnoxious i am fine with that ..

hesh and heat are more effective against pmb´s beside maybe turrets .... so in that case they are not just an anti ai tool ... and even if i used a default vanguard and magrider to imo fair effect even if outnumbered .. ultimately just a matter if you realy wan to spend those 1000 certs for that gun

it isn't justified, the problem is the devs listen to those players that want an infantry only game and nerf vehicles rather then tell the whiners to man up, fight and destory the vehicles any way they can instead of almost all the time nerfing vehicles, any buff vehicles get seem to just happen to get nerfed in the future as well.

velocity of tank gun normalization is on the chopping block, not to mention their nerfs of gatekeeper and pending changes to it again to a burst fire weapon because people complained about being pelted at long range with low damage and being destoryed themselves because they didn't take cover and advance from cover to cover.

the devs need to realize infantry is not the end all be all, most time may be spent as infantry overall but that is because infantry is the base unit everyone starts out as, vehicles cost resources when you are out you are infantry, if a game has vehicles and the targets of those vehicles are not even trying to counter them it's not a balance problem it's a problem with the victims refusing to adapt and play it the way it is intended to be played.

For some aspects I hope it will come sooner. But some stuff needs to be fixed, like Hornets against aircrafts. One Hornet takes 80% of ESF's HP. And far more affective against Liberators than current A2A missiles.

It is justified, because of context.

The Heavy has the potential to do that, but only in an environment that's heavily in his favor and supported by allies to close the gap and prevent flanking opportunities and make sure the enemy will have to move through a killingfield. But overall in the game there's a more-or-less equal chance for infantry to win if they engage each other, because that Heavy isn't immune to most weapons and capable of almost guaranteed surviving of at least one dedicated weapon firing at it.
In the meantime the Liberator is immune to most weapons in the game, can stay out of the elevation range of most weapons that can actually damage it and the actual "dedicated" weapons to destroy it need to work together to actually down it even if it's a 1/3 without a single weapon or option to deal with ground targets. This is completely unfair as a fully dedicated weapons platform prepared and ready for a Lib will in all likelyhood still lose, and if even that will lose then think about how anyone without dedicated weapons and loadouts against a Lib will feel when engaged by one. You are practically helpless, your only option to sit in a building and wait for them to go away or pray that someone else protects you with what is basically a pre-nerfed weapon, if you can hide in a building at all because there's practically 0 cover for vehicles to be found adequate against a Lib. It pains me to call things like the Skyguard a "dedicated G2A weapon" because it's basically a wet paper towel launcher. "oh but the wet paper towel has a large chance of hitting!"...

A bullcrap answer. There isn't always a way to move from cover to cover, in fact it's pretty much absent in most cases. Just look at the entire Crown area, any base within 3 lattice links will have very little cover for vehicles. And that overpowers weapons with high accuracy. Keep in mind that the "low damage Gatekeeper" is almost on-par with the Enforcer, but with better hit-chance and less punishment for misses.
And it's completely skewed if one team gets a weapon that forces players to move from cover to cover, while the opposing two sides don't. We know what happens then: Harrassers and Prowlers on hills, pelting everything that dares show their face with rockets until they either fall back again or die with little to no resistance. And if you finally do come within reliable range of your target you are already at a health disadvantage, and in all likelyhood if you somehow are about to win the battle the opposing side can easily hop behind the hill's ridge, repair up and then try again.

The vehicle players need to realize that game design needs to take all the players into account. This means that regardless of what just blew your head off, you should have the feeling that there is something you could have done. There are too little viable AV options for infantry (basically there's only two: AV mines and C4, and one of those is only really useable by one class and only if they manage to get on top of the tank without being detected). You can say "you have to try and counter them" but there's practically no direct-combat weapon available for infantry. Heavy rocketlaunchers are just about the only weapon capable of engaging a tank that's also engaging them, and Heavy rocketlaunchers are pitiful weak things. It's the most used and available AV weapon in the game, and it barely shows up in the amount of vehicle kills it gets.
I don't like nerfing vehicles, I would prefer to buff infantry AV immensely and buff tanks afterwards as well, then remove all the restrictions that currently side-line vehicles from most fights and let players duke it out in a pretty fair engagement. But as long as the developers don't do that, it's better to nerf vehicles so they don't completely overpower infantry (and yes they do, if you can't do that in a vehicle you should definitely L2P).

If you buff infantry to the point they can reliably solo tanks or planes then you completely remove tanks & planes from the game, as there is never any need to pull a AP tank to kill Farming sundie if infantry can do it just as well for free.

While it would be easy to design improved infantry AV in such a way that planes and vehicles would become obsolete, thats far from the only option.
For example, you could first assume the balance is designed to take the average amount of players into account so vehicles arent auto-killed whenever a few infantry engage them. Secondly you could assume the weapons have their downsides. For example by putting all effective infantry AV weapons in the utility slot and letting them cost resources. That limits the amount of AV power every infantry can have and has drawbacks when you fail at destroying the enemy as it cost you resources for the attempt.
In the meantime buffing vehicles could be anything from new AI weapons like co-ax canons and variations on the Viper auto-canon (anything from more explosions to high-speed non-explosive slugs) all the way to abilities to flush infantry from behind cover or EMP attacks to weaken them etc.
That example would make vehicles have the edge and potential to quickly murder large groups of infantry, but with a much higher risk that the infantry could murder you right back. But in the end both parties have resources at stake.