HESH spam

I had to ***** for like a week straight about this in yell before one of them finally fixed that ****. Of all the vehicle changes that drove people away, the screwed up physics / traction / speed change was the one that really put the nail in the coffin for most of us. I know I dipped after I couldn't get a sunderer up a small hill anymore, and if I did I'd flip over nothing going down the otherside... I mean you'd think it'd be common sense you can't leave vehicles like that in a game where half your players enjoy vehicles. Idk

Speaking of vehicle changes, upon returning I see my harasser says it's going faster... but it feels like I'm driving an underpowered golf cart now. It's not nearly as much fun as it was to drive a few months ago.

Yes, so in terms of Liberator vs Tank you could look at how fair the situation is. But it has little to no bearing on infantry vs tank discussions.

I used the Prowler as an example, infantry could snowball too. In early game C4 was more powerful and proper use with lots of kills/vehicle kills could rapidly replenish your explosives despite the slower income of those days especially when not having lots of territory.

Well it only takes one Skyguard to go up against a Valk or ESF. So all MBT's, Lightnings, Harassers, Flashes and Sunderers regardless of their configuration should be able to deal with aircraft no problem! /s

Here's another one: A sniper can OHK infantry with a headshot in CQC. So snipers can kill all infantry as fast as it's ROF allows and snipers to dominate!

As with the sniper, this kind of situation is mitigated because there's requirements. A sniper needs a headshot and to zoom in with a low ROF weapon and high zoom. The 3 infantry that can destroy 1 ESF require:

• communication such as squad microphones
• to be a specific class, HA
• to be holding a specific weapon, G2A lock on
• To be standing out in the open (cover gives too high a likelyhood the missile will suicide)
• To stand out in the open, the HA's need to know in advance an aircraft is around, disengage from any fight they were attending, find the likeliest area that gives them a view of the sky as the ESF is in their airspace and make sure this same open area is within friendly hands and not in view of snipers
• to have nothing cross the path of the intended target, any infiltrator or even the tiniest twig that passes one of the HA's view resets the lock-on. This means the individual HA's need to either make themselves sniper-bait by standing still or need to move and have a likelyhood of crossing eachother's path
• The ESF should not dive and cause the missiles to self-destruct on the ground
• It has to be an ESF (there's other aircraft in the game)

That's a lot of requirements to deal with an ESF, in the meantime the ESF is the most lone-wolf vehicle in the game that doesn't require any teamwork to be effective and kill 3 HA's with lock-ons or operate in their area.
The same counts for just about any G2A weapon. It's requirements make the weapon unwieldly or it has other faults like DPS limitations in order to allow aircraft to always escape, hence the term "deterrence".

Jockeying for position: Trying to get the upper hand in combat. This can be a flank, superior cover, or if you have a long/medium/short range weapon that your enemy is within that range, preferably while your enemies weapon isn't at it's ideal range, or anything else that isn't direct combat but that you perform to win combat.

Place a waypoint, stand above it. PS2 calculates your position according to about the middle of your character. Stand on a waypoint and you'll see 1m at it's closest. 2m tall super-soldiers would be pretty accurate.

I've also used both those sites, and others. But you haven't really named any data have you? Except the 10 foot elephant people which is wrong.

Also tanks in PS2 seem relatively accurate in terms of size, for fantasy tanks that is. A Sunderer is 10m in length for example, put the Prowler next to it and it's far too broad but it's length would do well for a real-life tank, despite it being cheap as dirt and it's ammo costing nothing.

It's a fairly simple concept, if it wasn't understandable it's not exactly my problem.

Good god, I give an example and you treat it as fact? I already mentioned that the average lifespan is around 6 minutes for MBT's didn't I? Why on earth would I suddenly go "it's nine minutes" then? Try and keep up!

30 seconds*6=180 seconds=3 minutes.

Ah, the "I'll just ignore stuff" route. Reviving takes less than a second, but what's the average time you lie on the ground before a Medic revives you? Then the average time before someone accepts it? You can't just go "it takes less than a second all the time" because that would mean Medics instantly teleport towards you and revive you. Should we also start looking at how many revives cause the revivee to instantly die again and the total time wasted of revive+kill+respawn? All in all it's safer to say that Medic revives would offer a marginal advantage in dead time where you are either dead or traveling.

Considering you are still talking about my "a tank shoots into a base's main road" and we are talking infantry paths here, it should be obvious the infantry isn't randomly out in the open. The infantry is traveling through the base and the tank is firing into the base and affecting the battle.

Hence using the average lifespan of infantry in general, rather than individualized times for each class seperately. This means that an LA that gets quickly back into the fight has just as much effect on the lifespan as a plodding HA that needs to walk through every nook and cranny to get to his objective.

We weren't talking certs, we were talking resources.

But if you do want to bring up certs: Even if vehicles do have a lower cert gain than infantry, the lowered skill requirement to achieve it makes up for it.

You didn't do anything of the sort, you just stated "no it's not" and did some misreading of the info I gave you. Also tanks are effective on average.

Nope, you are not.

Why should I anymore? I've done that for the first what, 3 or 4 years of the game? You know what happens when I do that? People do the equivalent of "NANANANNANANANA" with their hands in their ears or deliberately nitpick with misinterpretations. In the meantime those same people who ask for links to data provide none, case in point.

The infantry game is the best part of PS2. It's got a lot of features other games just don't offer, and allows for masters in different skills like COF control, trigger discipline, recoil control, knowing your weapons damage model and average accuracy at different distances etc.

If the vehicle game and especially the air game were brought up to par of the infantry game in terms of skill floor, ceiling and amount of skills that can be mastered to be effective a broader amount of player would enjoy it

It doesn't have to match it, but it does need to fit.

For example, 90% of viable vehicle loadouts offer nothing against aircraft, and it's simply not fun to be killed by an ESF, Liberator or the now ever increasing threat of a 2/6 Valk that just hangs above you and kills you without you having any way to protect yourself. Being 100% reliant on friendlies for G2A/A2A protection isn't good either, because the G2A people have nothing to do while no air is around and will quit their G2A job soon enough and the A2A people is a cesspit because it's a badly designed system. Ergo: Make sure it fits the game. Just the option for vehicles to defend themselves through the use of self-created cover (like an effective smoke-screen) would already help.

Hence again: Make sure it all fits with eachother. The things that are complained about is mostly when there is little viable ways you can do to protect yourself or retaliate. Like a HESH tank shooting you.

But why don't we let rocket launchers and AV-turrets do what they are supposed to do then? Like destroying vehicles or something? Ah wait, you did noit think that far...=P

You aren't posting it for "their" sake. You're posting it for the sake of thread participants who haven't the benefit of perusing your exhaustive posting history or who can't recall every facet of it and haven't decided on their own position in the matter.

It has a lot going on at once; but, I wouldn't say that it's completely skill dependent, nor is its attraction best described as "complexity." You could put half of the gunplay out of mind and still make ends meet a good deal of the time. It's like driving. Even though you are acutely aware that there's a lot going on, you don't really have a full picture of the sum-total universe of yourself, the car, and the road at all times. Only though diligent attention-management do you formulate enough of an idea what you're doing that you don't cause a disaster, but that's still only a rather narrow band. The majority of players don't perceive the complexity beyond the playstyle they enjoy and, as frequently noted, complain about the compelxities they don't understand or find appealing.

Considering the common complaints with how the air game has exceptional skill requirements locking some people away from it as it already exists, but how almost every attempt to penetrate that shroud for new players has dulled over time, backfired, or received exceptional backlash, causing pilots to leave the air game anyway, I wouldn't buy too much into the merits of communicative skill on the way it's worded alone. If you have a working example of some other feature in this game that switched from low-complexity to high-complexity and gained widespread acceptance for it, that's different.

And as I have already pointed out they deal much less damage over time while leaving their users vulnerable while the opponent has a number of huge advantages over them. But let's say infantry launchers did deal more damage faster than tanks. They'd be glass cannons but would still lack the firepower to make up for the glass aspect.

Hey, I'm fine with infantry needing teamwork to succeed. But not when it takes literally zero skill, effort, coordination, or cooperation/teamwork of any kind to spawn, pilot, and gun vehicles and their weapons. Nanites shouldn't completely remove the need for skill or teamwork, so why should they require this from their enemies? But even if it did, resource-costing AV equipment once again solves the issue.

I'm not saying the numbers are wrong. But the numbers don't give a flying **** about balance or subjective interpretations or logical presentations of the data. The numbers aren't ever going to be listed out clearly in a straightforward pattern when dealing with a system as complex as PS2. Suffice to say, we're all just guessing but none of us know and can't know with any particular certainty. We have to look at the numbers and estimate why certain patterns have emerged. I'm arguing you're not understanding the data and are simply seeing patterns which support your claims.

10 whole players, wow. In statistics a sample is considered to be "large" (and thus assumed to be normally distributed) when the sample size is greater than or equal to 30, though personally that seems WAY too small in my opinion. Working with some of the data sets I was given in university, I laugh at mere 30.

Rambling aside, take a larger sample size of a random group of players before it could even be considered significant. Prefably much greater than 30 though begrudgingly that would suffice. (Or don't, the fun stops here. Seriously, I hate significance testing.)

Don't forget that people generally only use launchers when attacking vehicles. Most players don't an won't run around with them all the time, which leads to an artificially higher number of kills compared to usage times. Any time spent driving a tank counts towards the usage for the main cannon even if they're not doing anything.

Again, flawed in the sense that they don't tell us exactly how the "world" exists, merely averages of all recorded values and extremes. Until we gain access to the raw data of the thousands of individual data points data points it's up to logic and reasoning with a whole heap of estimations. The numbers aren't hard, they merely suggest patterns and trends. Sorry, a bit unclear to just say "flawed," that one's on me.

Haha, oh boy, you're in for a fun read with this post.

there are viable ways to defend yourself, if you can't survive a confrontation with a hesh tank use cover to avoid los, if you want to remove the threat altogether use teamwork with AV options to remove the threat, try sneaking with C4 as a LA or pull your own vehicle.

the problem isn't the lack of options the problem is people refusing to take any options that involve any decent amount of teamwork or time to use, the game is soley focused on farming kills and certs any method that involves a few minutes of not earning certs to organize or position is not desired by most of the playerbase.

as a result the hesh tanks people are crying about don't get destroyed, with the change to AP coming in i expect more HESH tanks to start dying and less infantry deaths to splash damage, but all some infantry players see from the change is them getting killed more by direct hits when they try to rambo c4 a tank in any situation.

vehicle play does require skill, tanks are a force multiplier you exchange resources for more speed, armor and firepower, you should need teamwork to take one down if you refuse to or don't pull a vehicle yourself.

people who only play infantry and don't tank at all, only see themselves dying to tanks, they don't see how the tanks position and react to threats, they don't see the tactics tankers use against each other etc.

tanking is skillful just like infantry play, expecting an infantryman to beat a tank solo at range is unrealistic and unbalanced a force multiplier is useless if the lowest and most common unit type can easily destory it solo.

Fine with me...but then make it cost something and not handle it out for free resources. You want to win by one clicking without of risking to die...and you wonder that your victims don't like it? Boring force multipliers for free just don't work.

You do know it's just battlefield with longer kill times right? Planetsides "uniqueness" isn't even.
Take a look at this: http://vnvclan.com/oldsite/files/public/1300705581_3_FT0_weapons.png
Seems kinda familiar right.

it is a cost, every nanite you use on a vehicle is a nanite you can't use on something else, if you spend 450 on an MBT that's what at least 4-5 grenades or C4 the player can't use.

the resource system is there as a spam limiter and infantry are less affected by it then tanks, you only lose those consumables when you actually deploy them, hell you can grab them and save them until your nanites are full again, for a tanker to have a tank and have full resources he has to be lucky enough or skilled enough to live for about 6 minutes (assuming member) or about 8+ minutes as a non member.

if tanks were truely free you could chain pull them no matter how many you lost in 1-3 minutes, except you can't hence they are not 'free'. resources take time to aquire, if a tanker runs out of resources he can only play infantry until he gets enough back to pull another vehicle. all you see is the time the vehicles are up and fighting, you don't notice the times they are out of resources.

infantry however ARE free, no matter how many times you die in a minute you can ALWAYS respawn and keep going as infantry, vehicles can't.

tanks do risk dying merely by being there, infantry are easy to hide in terrain all it takes is people wanting to kill the tank, if the entire defending force is so focused on the infantry fight that they ignore vehicles that's on them.

No, I'm just mentioning one of the various counters a tank has to deal with along with the comparison of what you think is oppressive but not really verses something that actually is oppressive that you are always completely helpless against.

Where the hell did you even get this? I never said this.

Except when it comes to heavies. In which they kill as fast as their gun rechambers which is on average slower than a heavy killing you.

No, snipers are mitigated because there are counters already in place to ensure people cannot just bolt baby. I've had hilarious interactions with good bolt babies that would peek a corner, brain me, I live and I rush that corner to engage while getting some counter shots off and then they would desperately medkit to safety while I gunned them down.

The thing about locks is that if locks ever get out of hand ESFs also need a way to avoid them, positioning is important in flying too, using a piece of cover to guard against rockets is fair, same way to use buildings and cover to avoid air.

My point is, you are effective against ESFs. If ESFs have to take countermeasures against heavies, that means heavies are actually a threat. The only place where is this a problem is when you have only 1 guy in the hex and that's you against that ESF however even then you can play infils and simply move to the point unseen.
If you are up against 2 people in the hex, well you're already at a disadvantage however that doesn't mean that the guy in the ESF can see the infil. In fact he would be more of a threat being infantry than being an ESF imo.
If it's 3, you should be getting backup at that point.

That is taking additional time for an advantageous position, that is not getting back into the fight through the quickest means possible. If someone pegs you down while you are doing this, you took a risk, you lost, simple.

planetmans are 2.5 meters tall approximately. Oh actually you got me there, they aren't 10 foot tall, they're 8.
However, I have pull stats from dasanfall and ps2 fisu, I'm not going to pull the page up every single time I mention it, because I can just link you the site to do it yourself. And how exactly have I not pulled data from these sites, or do you not read any altercations I have with campy.

Communication is not what's being said, but what is being understood by both parties.
Ah so assuming it's a simple message must mean it's my fault. Well I thought my message was simple, yet you're clearly not understanding it. Or choosing not you. Either one.

Certainly seems like your problem if you're trying to convince me.

Because your first claim that the average tank had a 9 minute lifespand didn't make sense either. Where exactly are you getting this data? Or are you just inferring nothing.

If you're going to peg me for ignoring things, maybe not put in so much fluff?
The point is, medics do revive people. it's far shorter than walking back. So even if you do get that stray kill on someone, if they are in a relatively safe place, the most you've delayed them is a second before they get back up if a medic is near.

Not many bases can be fired into period, fewer can be fired into and be effective, and even fewer than that are bases like aurora that players, including myself because I'm not a heartless monster that only wants to play with hesh (which is sarcasm mind you, I haven't touched it since I auraxed it) and shell hapless infantry. My point is there's no consistency here. To say that infantry will always be in the main road of a base when they don't need to be is rather a dumb assumption, the same way it is to assume that all bases are as bad as aurora.

Alright, where's the data for this, or are we just inferring on your terms again.
Because assuming that a heavy has to use every bit of cover along the way to the point is just as bad as assuming that a light assault is instantly on the point the moment he spawns.

It's the main reward of the game, if we are talking about effectiveness, we talk about rewards too.

I highly doubt it takes more skill to be a stalker cloaky boi to press three and shoot at a wall to get certs or stand on the point while cloaked.

People don't pull vehicles for certs is my point, they pull them for fun. If they are not effective with them, they basically pulled them for nothing.

What supports that claim.

You really REALLY, ought to cite data if you are going to contend this.

"Let's say infantry launchers did deal more damage to tanks than other tanks. They'd be glass cannons but still lack firepower to make up for being glass"? Excuse me? You just said let's imagine if they did more damage to tanks faster than tanks did and then you call that not enough firepower? You're telling me that even though they can deal more damage to tanks than tanks can to other tanks that this is still not enough? Also HOW, how exactly have you proven they deal less damage to tanks than main turrets do to other tanks. I saw no math, no data being pulled, no ******* nothing. You didn't prove anything, you just said you did.

Oh wait here it is, I assume this is what you're talking about

http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/Vehicle_armor_and_damage_resistance#Damage_resistance

Notice infantry rocketlaunchers, tank shells, and light anti-vehicle, they are all the same resistance value of 0%. Meaning exactly what you take from the launcher and shell is exactly what you put into the game. I've pointed out that these shells have often worse reload times than some launchers and in the case of lock times that's largely dependent on the vehicle's loadout but guaranteeing a shell that hits like a tank to hit a tank from 300 meters while the tank has to hit something the size of a pin at long range as a trade, well that's largely unfair.
It's why I'm also glad they are nerfing direct hits from flak armor, so that even if they do land that one hit on you, they can expect you to be dead while they get to cover. Quite frankly, this was ********, from the heavy side of things, my favorite side.

All resource AV equipment does is fill a powergap that balances the game with vehicles. If every infantryman could easily solve a tank by throwing a launcher at him and doing half his HP in damage who the **** would ever want to pull a vehicle against two heavies.
Also how exactly is a lock heavy not literally 0 skill, effort, coordination or require cooperation/teamwork. You don't need a soflam to lock aircraft, you just need the right launcher, sure, you need some allied damage more often than not to kill things but that doesn't stop you from getting certs through straight damage or getting kill assists.

Nanites do not remove teamwork, you still need infantry to cap the point or kill infantry in cover, you still need infantry in most cases to help with aircraft or if you have a flak turret you need infantry to support your damage in a tank fight.
The only real outlier when it comes to this is ESFs, but this isn't a thread about ESFs, this is about hesh, hesh has clear weaknesses.

Also tanks require some skill to position and aim, locks, do not.

That's funny, I'm arguing that you don't see the patterns that support my claims and the 0 patterns that support any of your claims.
Numbers are kind of how you keep track of things. If there were no numbers, how exactly could you say anything was OP? Just because it felt bad? Is that why you're saying we shouldn't care about the numbers all of a sudden, even though you were with me on using data up until now?

Again, I said it was a small sample size but the only amount of time I was willing to put into it. You're welcome to challenge it, hell you can even try to make it a biased graph. If you could find people dying to hesh even more than 1% I'd be impressed. Even if they were all BR 10s that just started the game at a sunderer being spawn farmed.

Again, you're laughing at the sample size but you're not even arguing what I've found, you're not challenging it, you're just saying it's too small, I'm saying you should make a larger sample size yourself so that way you can be sure I wasn't biased in my findings. I figured that was fair.

Then why did you include infantry when comparing the two if launchers are generally used against vehicles. That seemed like unnecessary fluff that you wanted to include.
Unlike grenades, infantry will have launchers out in advance when fighting vehicles and reloading and locking, we can count on the statistics to be accurate if demigan is accurate in his claims that it doesn't take nearly as long as people think to drive to a base and start killing.

Well then, that gives more reason to rely on ps2 fisu for more solid data.

Well there's also this bit of solid data
https://i.imgur.com/sXxSuh6.png
That was a post given out by wrel
Adding all the hesh types, subtracting infantry deaths from vehicle kills (as usual case being that you kill the driver as well, which is being generous because most vehicles have more than one person in them), dividing by the hours in a month, it came out to all MBT hesh types only killing 157 people per hour on all servers. Or if you really want to be nit picky, 227 kills per hour.
Seems like a big number right?
Well wrong.

See now, this took a bit of backtracking but I got this post
https://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/1whk2i/postpu02_oracle_of_death_stats/
By an outer dated oracle tracker.

Now sure, this wasn't when hesh was buffed to do more AV damage, but I'm not going to compare AV damage, I'm comparing infantry weapons.
Now if you look at the data within the reddit post, specifically ARs (because that one had the most consistent to a month and I didn't feel like doing more math than I had to) the ARs within this small span of 2 weeks from september into october had over 4 thousand kills, per hour, specifically, 4192 kills per hour, within JUST ARs. Now some of you might be thinking "Oh well we have fewer players now than before" YES! I concur, so I did the research on steam charts, checking both months to be roughtly 3100 players on average per month, to our 1700 now. About 45% less players total (which is sad) so putting that into play, doing the math, we're approximately 1893 AR kills per hour if the class trends continued.
Note, this is JUST ARs, not LMGs, not carbines, not maxes, not pistols, not knives or snipers, just ARs and they vastly, already, overtake all MBT hesh for kills per hour. Suffice to say, unless everyone had 0 kills per hour with lmgs carbines and any other weapon other than hesh, it's pretty safe to say that the figures I posted about Ps2 fisu about only 1% of players dying to hesh actually seem pretty plausible.

For some people that are nit picky about the original MBT kill chart, that was posted may of this year, which had approximately the same amount of average players, losing out by only 60 people. So the averages are about the same.

There are some discrepancies in the data ofc:
Factors include
1. Important dates within that month of september 2014
2. popular streamers skewing the data slightly.
3. Wrel's data could have been pulled from a good or bad month for MBTs
4. Not accounting literally any other weapon
and so on.

But with the smaller discrepancies, in the data, we can still estimate that out of just the AR kills, for the 2 weeks the data was recorded and not the full month that the MBTs were recorded, hesh could only come as close to 21% of AR's kills.

This does not include:
Carbines, LMGs, or any other weapon. Carbines being used by two classes as primaries and LMGs as a more popular class, we can assume that the amount of infantry kills are far far higher than the number of MBT kills with hesh combined.

If my math is wrong, please do point it out, make revisions and check yourself. I cannot' prove without a doubt that hesh is always going to be 1% of the cause of death for players but I can certainly prove that it is an incredibly insignificant number that the prospect of calling it spammed is stupid.

No need to be a dike.


Again, if you are willing to disprove the figures I've presented, do so, I will appreciate a logical conclusion instead of saying all data is false because you have nothing to back on except "feels".

ITT:
Too much

Go play planetside and settle this like men!

Yes, what would you expect? One can instantly kill the other while it would take about a minute for the inverse. More than enough glass but not enough cannon. I don't feel that it\s really necessary to state the obvious but here we go again.

For simplicity I've only looked at the lightning and non-ES rocket launchers. This is what the thread tends to focus on and is universally applicable, though I daresay none of the ESRLs are particularly effective against tanks.

• Lightning tank cannons:
  • AP -- 3s reload, 2.7s at max reload
  • HEAT -- 2s reload, 1.7s at max reload
  • HE -- 3s reload, 2.625s at max reload
• Rocket Launchers:
  • Shrike/ML-7/S1 -- 3.43s reload
  • AF-22 Crow/M9 SKEP Launcher/Hades VSH4 -- 4s reload, ~5s lock-on time (ground only)
  • Hawk GD-68/ASP-30 Grounder/Nemesis VSH9 -- 3.43s reload, ~5 lock-on time (air only)
  • NS Decimator -- 5.7s reload
  • NS Annihilator -- 3s reload, 1.2s lock-on time (ground and air, lock-only)
  • NS-R3 Swarm -- 4s reload, 1.2s lock-on time (ground and air, lock-only)
  • NSX Masamune -- 4s reload

*Lock-on times according to http://iridar.net/, all before stealth.

As you can clearly see while infantry rocket launchers do deal the same or higher damage per shot, they have a noticeably lower rate of fire due to having universally longer reloads on lock-on times on top of that. They deal more damage but deal it slower than tank cannons can.

Resistances wise, against everything but galaxies they are the same or worse as tank cannons.

In my opinion vehicles should be treated as alternate playstyles and not force-multipliers. But regardless you're jumping the gun again. No one in this entire thread has ever suggested any values for such weapons. I have also explicitly stated multiple times such weapons as advocated by myself would be dumbfire-only, and that of our current launchers lock-ons are very weak.

Oh boy, one cert every 5 air deterrence ticks? Oh, how about a cert every 2-3 assists? Talk about rewarding. /s

Not really. Tanks don't have to be concerned about capturing (non-vehicle) points any more than anyone else and can damage enemy infantry behind cover as is. But why would they even rely on allies to kill someone they can't even see? The only time infantry is a real threat is when they have direct line of sight outside of mines or lobbing C4 over a wall. And if a tanker is relying on his infantry allies to protect him from C4 he is an idiot who already has a brick stuck to him as we type.

Lock-ons don't require aim, but they do need positioning. Can't be in a suicidal spot, they'll be noticed and killed during the lock-on process by anything and everything. Can't be too close to cover or obstacles either, the rockets are more than happy to end their miserable lives as soon as the possibly can. Also cannot have anything to break the lock. And has to be in an effective range where the target can't just back up and break the lock through distance.

Well we're clearly at an impasse them, because from my perspective you're ignoring all logic and blindly picking out trends formed by different reasons and failing to support them. Allow to me reiterate and say the numbers require interpretation, they do not tell us exactly what we want to know. We have to work for the information. This by no means translates to "the numbers are wrong" or that "we shouldn't care about them." Just not to take them at first value without looking at why such trends have emerged. If an example would help, a clear case of this is the default weapons. I'm sure I don't have to explain too greatly why the data doesn't represent what one might expect of the weapons if they weren't the defaults. But moreso, the patterns are universal and consistent.

See, the great thing about stats is that while I could just as easily point out how pathetically insignificant a whole ten cases are out of the thousands of players is, and just how easily cherry-picked those cases may be, I already know the data is effectively worthless for our purposes and that it can be legitimately invalidated for significance testing. This is because our sample size is not "large" nor is it based entirely in theory. Therefore I cannot make the assumption that the data is normally distributed due to the low probability of that occurring in a small sample and that the data would always yield biased results.

I laugh at thirty because it's impractical and unrealistic. But only ten is just not a valid data set outside of a theoretical existence.

Comparing launcher V. KPU to a couple of tank cannons. Launchers will only be out if players are actively fighting vehicles or MAXes. Tanks don't always drive straight to the nearest base and sometimes have to roam around for a base they can farm at if the enemy is zerging too hard or if the fight has lead to a biolab or some such base.

That's a bit better but gives no details. Doesn't tell us the frequency, use times, vehicles pulled, the number of unique users, all that jazz.

A lot of pilots simply bail when the vehicle is low. LAs jump out of ESFs and engineers hop out of harassers before they burn down. It's all messy and the data doesn't show us that either.

PU02 was a long time ago. That's when the "Sniper 'Buff'" was added, years ago now. A lot has been changed since then. Also, under "MBT Primary Performance," the information we're interested in, I see total kills but not total vehicle kills. It also shows a large increase in average kills per user, though that's likely due to the very small number of users. Like I said, very old data. Not relevant to us anymore, those weapons aren't the same as they are now.

Ah yes, the good old "infantry kills more infantry than tanks do" argument. The obvious answer to that is there are vastly more infantry running around inside places where vehicles cannot go. Obviously they're killing more infantry. Other infantry even attempt to intercept them, the whole point of infantry combat is to find other infantry.

And there's no need to be a pr!ck but I don't see anyone trying to break the mould here. Might as well have some fun at least.

I got to lift my arm here. Well, at least if I would care for my KDR. 2 heavies? No problem. One dies before my tank goes boom, the second I catch off guard when jumping out. 2 kills on my side...none on theirs. Still a force multiplier. Granted it would be much more challenging than farming these days...and challenge is not what tankers want, right? They need to win a 1 vs 2 for sure and at leats have decent chances in a 1vs3...cause it is their god given right.

No, a lock heavy does not need any skill. Neither does it need any skill to kill a lock heavy(since he is standing there in the open for several seconds). Increase the speed of rocket launchers, increase the damage...and get rid of lockon. Make it skillbased but then darn deadly. Fine by me.
I know that pilots will be similar pissed about such OHKs by rocket launchers as they are pissed about quick kills by vanguard and prowler(hardly ever happens with magrider. VS faction specific trait to be especially vulnerable vs air, I guess) today. OHKs suck for the receiving end. No matter if it's a decimator to the face, a C4, a sniper bullet, a tank round, a dalton...or anything else.

I don't think it'll have a lot of effect. For example, I deliberately botched my calculations of the Starfall in one post and said it did double the DPS of the Fury because I knew the other guy(s) hadn't done a single shred of math and probably wouldn't (and it had the desired effect, only an extreme difference in raw numbers would have convinced the guy and it did shut him up). I repeated it in a few threads and no one challenged it, not a single person (well, Movoza did, a single person whohoo!). If people refuse to look it up when the information is readily available from several sources, why would they suddenly want to look at a source now? Hell, I posted half the numbers in that same post and just by looking at the numbers you could see that double the DPS wouldn't be possible.

Read these forums, the people who actually do the math or try to prove it with backed up data are special snowflakes in the middle of a desert. Everyone else just makes up what they want with the data available, and try to warp it into their own benefit as best as possible. It's why almost every discussion is about one aspect, like this one: "HE IS OP!", but the problem isn't the HE, it's the tank as a whole and the lack of viable options that's the problem. Nothing is a singular problem and it can all be approached from multiple angles. A Liberator vs tanks wouldn't be OP if the G2A weapons were capable of shredding the Lib just as fast whenever it has the tanks within it's effective range. But it takes a ridiculous amount of G2A to protect the ground units, so there's complaints.

That's the beauty of it! The infantry gameplay consists out of several relatively simple skills, but add them all together and it becomes complex enough that mastering all facets isn't easy but translating skills from other games will get you somewhere. Tanks and aircraft don't have that, it's either very difficult like shooting and driving in rough terrain (except with the Magrider ofcourse) or very easy once you've learned the basics like doing A2G attacks with aircraft.

This is because aircraft have two complexities: The flight controls are different from most games which makes it harder to learn and once learned you have to face the mountain that is the hover+RM maneuver skill, which incidentally also uses and inverted skill-curve compared to the rest of the game meaning that if you have halfway the skill of your opponent you have 10% of his power rather than the +/- 75% that normal skillcurves give you (easy to learn, hard to master is key and uses such skillcurves). This is vastly different from the skill requirements for infantry.

The way aircraft were handled in updates was also a stab in the back most of the time. It either promoted cheesiness like mobbing enemies or it was supposed to help newbies and completely annihilated them, the engagement radar for example that veterans avoided with stealth and subsequently had a nice engagement radar which told them "pop, here's a newb for you, free certs for you!". This didn't have anything to do with complexities but simply the bad handling of the air-game as a whole for the sake of some special snowflakes who like the status-quo of them beating everything without regard for the game as a whole.

TTK's are extremely important and change the game drastically.

Battlefield games have shorter TTK's, which means that simply spraying and praying gets you a win more often, which means high-rof weapons have a higher power. It also means that it's easier for a flank to succeed, or for a single player to lay waste to a bunch of players.

The higher you make that TTK, the more you need to milk the skills of the game. Eventually it becomes a DPS match, which is pretty much what vehicles represent only they don't have as much mechanics to worry about. In such a DPS match it becomes more likely that the superior player wins as even a flank won't automatically get you a win. It also means that having more players can make it harder and harder for the opponent to win a fight.

Which is where the second important trait besides TTK comes in: How easy is it to hit your target on average? If we halved the infantry size and hitbox it would suddenly be harder to hit eachother at many ranges, and skilled players have a higher chance of winning against groups of enemies as they can dodge fire but accurately hit their opponents anyway (larger ammo capacity weapons also become more important). If we doubled the infantry size and hitbox then it wouldn't be too hard to win the combat for the group of players and it might become nigh impossible even for a skilled player to get a single kill as it's too hard to out-DPS a group of average players (kind of where flak is vs aircraft, only the DPS isn't as good compared to the aircraft speed).

Hehehe

Maybe the largest post I’ve ever seen on these forums.

Thank you captain.

We don't need more skill based weaponry when it comes to vehicle interaction. We certainly don't need to remove lockons. The lockons are for the players that team up and have a harder time fighting vehicles because they are new, cutting them out from another section of the game is... I don't even have a word for it. I mean, ESFs are hard to fly as is, this is just nail in the coffin. As much as I hate fighting lockon squads they are a necessary evil, but in those terms, we don't need nanite based weaponry, deci is what you go for if you really need more damage.

I never said "Rocket launchers have far more dps thank tank shells" I said "Rocket launchers already have comparable dps to tanks". Some rocket launchers actually out dps lightning turrets, such as the default dumbfires actually outdpsing lightning's python AP and in the unfortunate case of the vanguard, some of their weapons as well which is why it's also getting a buff next patch as someone actually took notice and made a thread about it so it was clear to everyone that this was ********.

I'm just pointing out here, if you want rockets to cost nanites,they need to actually cost something meaningful after all, if 450 nanites is relatively cheap and can mean almost nothing because you're driving then the same can be said about infantry simply fighting because they are actually making certs killing or supporting other infantry without using nanites. They would also have to be more powerful than the decimator to be worth it, the decimator itself does 975 direct damage to most ground vehicles (important ones being the sundi, lightning and MBT), meaning that from the back of a tank you already do 1950 alpha damage, this is more than a third of a prowler or magriders HP to be exact, 2/5ths, to ask for more damage than this would mean you could two shot an MBT from the back. This would only exacerbate the problem of tanks shelling from range. Nerfing tank AI shells would simply make tanks only want to run AP and end every fight ever by killing sunderers or direct hit infantry with shells. Even if infantry weren't aiming for the back of a tank, decimators already take 1/5th of your HP from the front, from one heavy, this isn't accounting for multiple heavies in which it would be even harder to keep a sunderer alive to a fight because not only will tanks want nothing to do with that but also tanks will only target whatever armor is around since the lack of vehicle content is still very evident.

Either way this is not fun for the vehicle driver or the infantry.

But I'm a reasonable man, say you were to have nanite based launchers, what would be the stats? Rather, I'd like to know what your standpoint on how effective should launchers be against tanks.

Ok then prove to me how exactly is hesh spammed, because if you're calling all the data I've presented thus far faulty what exactly puts you on the god throne of all that is right? What's the magical amount of vehicles that makes it a spam?

At that point, tanks would be far more prevalent, you would never have a sunderer, to be fair to tanks as a playstyle you would require that tanks can be consistently regularly played otherwise with the downsizing of a force multiplier without the removal of limiters you would be shafting tanks for no other reason to shaft tanks.

Ah yes, that's exactly my point. Infantry are in places vehicles cannot reach, vehicle players can't even hope to attain the amount of certs an infantry main can.

If you're going to factor in how effective is a tank, you need to also put in the reward system as a sense of motivation. There's only a few people that I can think of off the top of my head that actually play tanks because they enjoy tanks. If tanks are actually contributing to the fight then they should be rewarded as well. Even if you fire a lock at an ESF you're still rewarded 50exp base for your time shooting the ESF, you are motivated to be more of a team player over striding for kills. Maybe even just a sundi guard bonus for killing a tank that was approaching the sundi for actually spending the time guarding the bus as a team player. After all, if you don't want tanks to actually participate in the actual infantry fight, then you need to reward them in other ways. It's simple carrot and stick, stick only makes players mad and leave the game, carrot motivates people to actually help in the ways you want them to.

Surprised demi hasn't responded to this, he's usually the advid forum warrior so just in case I'm fixing some mistakes I made in this.

Edited portions are bolded, formatted to fix discrepancies and better show my point of view on the matter.

Having the ability to apply the same DPS as the main guns of the tanks does not mean that the balance is OK. RLs basically have a much greater need for the skill of whoever is holding this RL, while the use of tank guns does not require a significant amount of skill. If the RLs had the same projectile flight speed as the tank`s projectiles, the problem wouldn't be so big. Sometimes a small group of heavy assaults can not destroy a single tank due to the fact that with each hit of the projectile firepower of the squad falls significantly, which is not a problem for vehicles.
Vehicles should dominate the open spaces between the bases, not the bases themselves.