Fellow NCs...and you TRs, lets show VS support- SOE, unnerf Saron! Lets do something good

Well if equipment is going to be balanced to do more damage to a Vanguard because the Vanguard is tougher, what's the point in making it tougher in the first place? Does this mean the Vanguard can have its HEAT/AP reloads down down to 60% of what they are now?

Use a damn AI gun if it's so hard

I might have mistyped, but what I meant to say was that the Vanguard either 1) needs to be made even tougher to counter the higher DPS of the Prowler (as it stands now the Prowler has an advantage in TTK because the Vanguard is not strong enough) or 2) needs to have its DPS increased to lower its TTK against the Prowler.

Either one, or a little bit of both would work.

For instance, right now the Vanguard has a 68% frontal damage resist. Each 1250 damage AP Prowler shell is reduced by this to 400 damage, then increased by 18% (Vanguard's vulnerability to AP) to 472 damage. The Prowler fires the first shell, waits 0.5 seconds, fires the second shell, and then spends 2.5 seconds reloading. This results in 944 damage against the Vanguard's 4,000 HP pool in 3 seconds. After 4 salvos the Vanguard is left with 224 HP, so the next single shell from the Prowler kills the Vanguard. TTK from the first shell fired is 12 seconds.

Whereas an AP Vanguard must take 16 seconds to destroy a Prowler from the front. This gap in TTK is where the problem is.

So let's say we tried to solve this problem by increasing the armor of the Vanguard to increase the Prowler's TTK. Ideally we want it to be as close to 16 seconds as possible. So if we had the Prowler fire 6 salvos to kill, that should result in a TTK of 15.5 seconds. So each salvo would have to do about 670 damage, meaning 335 damage per shell. If we remove the 18% AP damage modifier then that would be about 284 damage. 284 out of the original 1250 damage means that the Vanguard's frontal armor would have to be around 77%.

Doing that in reverse... 1250 shell becomes 287.5 damage... with AP modifier becomes 339.25 damage... double that for two cannon becomes 678.5 damage per 3 seconds. After 5 salvos 3392.5 damage has been taken by the Vanguard, and 15 seconds have passed since the first shell was fired. The Prowler fires another shot, and this climbs up to 3731.75 damage. The Prowler waits half a second, fires the second shot, and damage goes up to 4071, killing the Vanguard. Hence a TTK of 15.5 seconds. Does the Prowler still win? Mathematically yes, but now the tanks' TTKs are close enough where it becomes a contest of skill and not fate.

The other way we could solve the problem would be by lowering the Vanguard's TTK through increased damage and/or faster reloads. Currently the Vanguard needs 5 shells to kill a Prowler from the front, and with 4 second reloads it takes 16 seconds to kill the Prowler. Naturally if you kept the reload speed then it makes sense to only require 4 shells to kill the Prowler, with a TTK of 12 seconds (equal to the Prowler's TTK against the Vanguard).

So each Vanguard shell would have to do at least 1,000 effective damage against the Prowler, after directional and damage type resists are accounted for. So if we take 1,001 damage, remove the Prowler's 20% vulnerability to AP damage, add in the Prowler's 63% frontal damage resist, we arrive at the conclusion that the Vanguard AP cannon must do 2255 damage (up from the current 2075 damage). This would reduce the Vanguard's TTK against the Prowler to 12 seconds.

In conclusion, either buffing the Vanguard's frontal armor to resist 77% of all damage (up from 68%) or increasing the damage of the AP cannon to 2255 damage (up from 2075) would result in equal or near-equal TTKs against an AP Prowler of similar level.

Exactly my sentiment. I do not understand why all these players are arguing that an AV weapon should be easy to use as an AI weapon (try the vulcan?), when the VS already have the PPA, which is arguably the best ES AI secondary with its large projectile size and seemingly-endless magazine (it is probably also one of the best anti-AV MANA turret weapons as well). The only somewhat "do-it-all" AV secondary is the halberd, which is of course rightfully available to all factions.

The AV capability of the saron has not been touched. Right now it is still perfectly fine—if not better—compared to both the current vulcan and the enforcer as an AV weapon.

You don't seem to understand the issue here.

Yes, true, if I wanted to go make Infantryside pay dearly for deciding to launch the very Planetside2.exe application, I'd run a PC+PPA Combo.

But I'm not farming all the lin long day, I'm hunting tanks.

You see, what we want is for the AV Secondaries to be passable against infantry. While understanding that realism aside, it's an AV weapon, in a game like PS2 there is no place for Rock-Paper Scissors balance. Every weapon needs to have some capability to fend for itself. Weapons that are not versatile at all are hardly ever used.

Take for example the Cobalt. A fairly decent AI Weapon, that lacks the ability to damage armor whatsoever. No-one uses it because it does not mop the floor with squishies. You sacrifice any AV potential at all in exchange for a mediocre AI weapon.

The same goes for the Walker and Ranger. Mediocre AA deterring power in exchange for any AI/AV power is not a good trade off by any means, and therefore no one in their right mind uses them. If the Walker was closer to a Basilisk clone with maybe 15% less DPS then the Basilisk, and the Ranger had a direct hit splash that was fairly effective against infantry, the usage of those weapons would skyrocket. But SOE continues to pigeonhole every vehicle weapon in the game.

I'd say you're the one who doesn't get it.

SOE just told you to pick one. ... You won't be punishing the Infantry very long if they pull Tanks too while your AV damage is crap
You're trying to have it both ways and you don't seem to get that.

I agree with you though the problem with this is, that it makes your tank very situational. Some gunners only get in my tank if they see I roll with AT secondaries.
It would bhe great if there was a way to change the tanks loadout after deployment somehow...

SOE should make the mag have a defined "preferable range", like the vannie has in QCQ and the prowler has at long range. The mag performs well at medium range, is useless but doesn't die at long range range, and is meh in QCQ. Once they give it a arange where it actually out-performs other tanks, they can give it the appropriate stats for the saron. The nerfe was uncalled for, as was the Enforcer nerf. The vulcan still needs fixing IMO.

"Yeah because unlike the Vulcan, the Saron really needs a buff -_-"

Your toy will be fine soon... maybe...

I don't think I've ever seen ANYONE argue against that.... makes ya wonder what's taking sony so long to Roadmap it.

What? lol
No one said you had to pick a straight AI/AI setup. Not all AV secondaries have to be "passable" against infantry, especially when you already have the flexible MBT main cannons to make up for any shortcomings in AP/AI/(AA). If you want to melt tanks, go ahead and equip saron/FPC. If you want to maintain the ability to destroy infantry, then mount a PPA instead of a saron and keep the FPC for AV work. Or use a basilisk to do it all. MBT setups with their secondaries are flexible by nature.

All I'm hearing you say right now is that X secondary is not good enough at what it does, while suggesting that an AV weapon like the saron should be decent at AI such that you would have no reason whatsoever to use the current kobalt (WHICH, by the way, can damage light armor and now has the angles to engage ESF almost as a walker could). That does not tie into the saron's AV performance at all. And buffing everything up as you mentioned so that they are not "mediocre" will simply skew "statistics" or make those weapons perform significantly better such that everything becomes a balancing nightmare, unless you want SOE to head in that direction.

Twisting my words to try and make your point?

Pft, I'm done with this. I'd love to have an honest discussion, but not if you pull crap like this. What I posted is what I posted, clear as day. If you have to warp that to make your point, then I have no reason to discuss with you.

Saron needed a nerf. End of story.

So being able to down at least 1 infantry per reload using just the saron is not good enough for you. OK.

There's probably a pretty good reason why they're only targeting the saron's AI capabilities and ignoring that of the halberd's/vulcan's/enforcer's, yeah?

Nope, now you are resorting to strawman. I want every other AV weapon to have some AI potential. It's also why I want the AI weapons to have some AV potential, and AA weapons to have some of one or the other.