[Suggestion] Scrap the Spur, and Buff the Vektor

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Gundem, May 24, 2016.

  1. Gundem

    For a long time, we've known that the Vektor was "meh". Most Liberator pilots use the Tank Buster not because it's inherently OP, but because it's the only option the Liberator has with some viability. Personally, I would love to use the Vektor, and I know other pilots would too, but in it's current state it simply is not compatible with the chassis it's mounted too.

    Statistically, there is actually a lot of good reason to use it. It's basically a Basilisk on araxium infused steroids, with more damage, better RoF, increased drop-off range and a huge magazine with upgrades to ensure maximum damage output.

    The problem is, the Liberator's not exactly a "Graceful" aircraft. Trying to put your nosegun on a small, moving target isn't really the Liberator's Forte, and because of this the Vektor is basically wasted space on a Liberator. It's objectively worse then the Tank Buster because you can't actually use it, not for reasons of damage.

    Now, on the other side of the spectrum of badness, we've got the Spur. The story of the Spur can be basically boiled down to "We wanted free-look on the Vektor, Higby wanted another yacht, we got the Spur".

    Back when the Liberator was getting a balance pass, it was proposed that the Vektor get the mechanic that actually previously existed on Liberator noseguns in beta, the ability to free-aim. At the time, this seemed like the perfect buff for it, eliminating the one major constraint that held it back by allowing the sluggish chassis to actually hit targets with a medium-range nosegun.

    It was at this time that SOE realized they could cash out on this, and whipped up a quick sprite, made some animations and sounds, and we had the Spur dropped onto our doorstep like the ugly orphaned child it is.

    The Spur is a sort of "Jack of all trades, master of none", except that it's actually **** at any role and is still a waste of space. Unlike the Vektor, which at least deals decent damage when you get your nosegun on target, the Spur has pathetic damage and a tiny magazine, so as to ensure that you will only mildly annoy anything that you attack before you are viciously torn out of the sky by a Vanguard 600 meters away because you were hovering in place like a particularly fat, stupid pigeon.

    • Basically, the issue is that the Spur and the Vektor need their mechanics swapped. Sort of. The Vektor needs the ability to freelook, but if both the Spur and Vektor could freelook, it devalues the Spur. So, I think the Spur is in need of an overhaul. The Vektor would be fine if it could freelook, perhaps even warrant a small nerf. On the other hand, the Spur would need an entire overhaul, to keep it's viability, but to allow it to remain unique in it's role, which is supposedly anti-Infantry. I would propose that we change it into an anti-infantry Tank Buster.
    Basically, I envision it as a Banshee with the accuracy of a drunken Vulcan, and the splash damage of the Marauder. Unless you close to Decimator range, you won't be raking in kills, but what it would lack in precision killing power, it would make up for in the ability to spread a lot of damage over a medium sized area.
    With such a design, it would reward pilots who coordinate strafe runs against Infantry with a belly gunner, and punish the 1/3 pilots by forcing them into Decimator range to secure kills. With infantry only rendering out to 300 meters, a Liberator cannot pummel helpless infantry from a distance, increasing the skill requirement of the pilot and allowing it's targets to retaliate.
    As for specific numbers, I refrain from posting. I can't pretend to know the battlefield impact of such weapon systems, and thus I can't pretend to know how much damage or RoF they would need to achieve relative balance.
    Please take note that this is not the thread to discuss balance relative to the Liberator. If you would like to discuss balance pertaining to the chassis as a whole, please make your own thread on it, and do not pollute my thread.
    • Up x 2
  2. Gundem

    Bump for primetime pls
  3. EPIC389

    I'm not a pilot. But anything that reduces me from getting ganked by the gankbuster/dalton combo is happy by me

    No i'm not in a tank, i'm a freaking infiltrator for gods sake
  4. LodeTria

    Instead they should just buff the spur vs air units massively but make it rubbish vs ground, and then nerf the TB's A2A damage instead because we all know that gun is too viable for everything.
  5. PatateMystere

    I agree but, i would not allow a complete free look to the vektor. Only a free look in, basicly, the front glass of the cockpit. So, small angle correction but not too much (and i dont think it's necessary to have wide angle)
    If you pay attention to the position of the nose gun on the aircraft, the field of view should be pretty much the same as the valkyrie gunner.

    I agree on the explosive bullet spur (or defiance). Maybe slower fire rate and damages close to fury grenades.
  6. Jake the Dog

    The real problem with these weapons (the other lib noseguns) is that they're all not inherently bad. Its just that the TB is just that good. If they gave you an effective AI weapon or a nose cannon would you use it over a TB if it meant you had longer range firepower but MUCH higher TTK or increased AI farming potential? Look at the MBTs for example, people only pull AP, why? Because in skilled hands its much more devastating, things like splash damage are inconsequential compared to skilled and accurate gunnery. People will pull what gives them the most killing potential. Its rare that you'll see my tanks without an AV loadout.

    You know what I think would satisfy us ground plebs indirectly? Realistic flight physics...
  7. Gundem

    I promise you, the Tank Buster isn't all it's cracked up to be. There is a reason that MBT cannons are among the top causes of death for Liberators. The fast TTK of the Tank Buster is a double-edged sword that only truly shines against incompetent or otherwise distracted opponents. It also hardly even registers on aircraft sources of death, so it's not really that universal either. It's good at killing tanks in close range, and any competent aircraft can easily avoid it.

    Nerfing the Tank Buster will not solve any of the Liberators problems. The Vektor and Spur do not fulfill the role of AV, it is suicidal to try and fight ground with them. I have my personal thoughts on the balance of the Tank Buster, but really, this isn't the thread to discuss it.

    But, whether or not the Tank Buster is OP is NOT justification to leave the Vektor and the Spur in the abysmal state they are now. In fact, if the Vektor and Spur(And subsequently other Liberator AI) were buffed to competitive status, and the usage of the Tank Buster remained the same, it still would not be justification for a Tank Buster nerf, because all that trend shows is that most Liberator pilots prefer to hunt vehicles, not that somehow the lack of desire to fight infantry or air means that the Tank Buster is too strong. That would be like saying the AP cannons are too strong against tanks because they score better at killing tanks then the HE or HEAT cannons do.

    On the note of "Realistic" flight mechanics... Sure, I'll take that. If my Dalton can 1-shot your tank as well, because as far as I know, a 150mm AP cannon would obliterate the most advanced armor on the most modern tank in a single shot.
    • Up x 1
  8. thebigbortishbort

    i like the sound of explosive rounds for the spur and a general buff to these nose guns (minus the tb obv) Might make the free aim less of a gimmic if you could aim further than the windows , make the cockpit transparent or something rather to actually see where the gun can see.

    another thing they could cash on is that defiance nose gun that never made it in , from what i can gather it was somewhat like a nose mounted higher velocity bulldog , 10/10.
  9. Jake the Dog

    I don't think I stated I wanted a TB nerf, I despise the lib with a deep and utter passion and think it needs a redesign, but I understand the role it plays. I just don't like that some of the best weapons in the game for their purposes and more the TB/Dalton/walker are all on a single highly mobile platform.

    One of my friends used to tell me they should've made the lib a bomber and thrown the dalton zephyr as an option for the galaxy (but would require angling the galaxy's side downwards. Similar to the C130 spectre gunships. I think it would've been better personally but its way too late in the game for a redesign.

    I guess my question for you is this: would you take a lib nose gun that was either something like a upgraded CAS-14 or a longer range nose cannon over the TB. They each serve roles, the CAS-14 (lib variant) would be meh against tanks and aircraft but chew threw infantry? Or would you take a long range semi-auto cannon with roughly double or even triple the tankbusters TTK?

    I ask because from what I see is that people will almost always take the DPS route. I do it on my tanks all the time with the close range av. Pardon me though if I'm being too cynical I'm a wee bit tired atm.
  10. Jake the Dog

    It honestly would take alot of convincing to undo my hatred of liberators... and hornet missiles for that matter...
  11. Jawarisin

    You're wrong here. The whole reason it's not used is damage reasons.

    I have (and any other decent liberator pilot) no problem landing shots pin point precise with the vector. It just doesn't do any damage. The tankbuster has a huge burst, and because the liberator is such a frail aircraft, this huge burst is what you need. It allows you to hit and run.

    Anyways, just wanted to say you're wrong here. Aiming with it is not the problem. Take it from someone who has no problem shooting down running infantry with it: damage's the problem.
  12. PatateMystere

    Please share.

    In real world, top armor of a tank is the weak spot. Specially the top of the turret. It can pretty much stand only versus artillery shrapnels. It's as weak as the rear armor.
  13. PatateMystere

    One strange thing: Tankbuster looks like a gatling gun and vektor does have double barrel. However, Vektor fires like a machine gun and tankbuster shot two bullets at the time.

    I would better see the tank buster working as the vulcan maybe with a little spin up. Flaten the bullets trajectories but a huge drop of damage too reduce range. And the Vektor shoot two bullets at the time.

    Speaking of strange, the shredder quadra rotary gun got less RPM than actual rotary guns.

    Why most of the pilots run with TB+ Dalton? Because of burst damage. It require to get closer, more risks but lot more rewarding.

    Lets see every weapons statistics:

    • TB= Best burst. Best TTK at close range, 1200 RPM and 3.5 sec reload time. (600 RPM x2 shots at the time)
    • Vektor= Best damage per bullet any range. Pin point accurate but lower RPM (400). This gun is made for sustained fire. But 4 sec reload time.
    • Spur= 451 RPM, little bit better than vektor but worst damages and free look aim. 4 sec reload.
    Including belly guns:
    • Dalton= best damage per shot any range. This weapon is made for long range but the damage per shot allows close range burst damage. Reload time 2.5 sec.
    • Shredder= best TTK at close range (less than 100m). Strangely pin point accurate. 2 sec reload time.
    I think that, too better balance the weapons, you have too consider the use of each weapon as a complete loadout: nose + belly gun. Balancing the nose gun would require to balance AV belly guns as well.
    So we can see that TB and Shredder can be compared to shotguns. Dalton and Vektor, to LMG/Sniper rifle. And spur to.... to spur.
    The way I see things to balance the nose gun is to give more impact to the belly gun and improve every nose guns special role.
    • TB= It got the maximum damage and best reload time. Make it more punishing at close range: increase reload time. Lets say: bring the reload time to 4 sec. Best TTK before shredder. Reduce a bit damage so it got best TTK after Shredder. Basicly give the gun the shredder damages. (250 close -143 long)
    • Vektor= Make it more viable in sustained and accurate fire. So reduce the reload time to 2 sec. Or maybe give it a heat mechanic. Basicly this gun should be able to shoot almost continuously. The idea of giving some "free look" option is still viable with those changes. Not complete free look, but give it some angle. For example a 60° cone.
    • Spur= Give it anti infantry purpose is a good idea but here is another one: instead of free look. Give the weapon a close range lock on mechanic. Give the gun, the ability to lock on ground and air target. 200m range (maybe less) 1.5 sec lock on time. Once locked the Spur starts shooting at the target but the pilot has to keep it in a 120° cone in front of him.
    On belly guns:
    • Increase dalton long range capability but reduce close range damage. I don't think that increase reload time could be a good idea. I see 2 solutions: Make the damage of the dalton shell increase with distance of the target. Basicly it could be nice to have it linked to the altitude of the aircraft. (Newton gun! Gravity is my friend). Or, second option, make the round acceleration constant. So it travels faster with time. (Both option can be applied: the shell travels faster and faster so the damage increase with it (logic: E =1/2 mV²). example: 1000 at 0m - 2000 at 200m. 250m/s at 0m to 500m/s at 200m.
    • Shredder got the best TTK after tankbuster at close range. Just make the shredder best TTK before TB.Introduce some spread to have the weapon focused on close range. And increase close range damage. Basicly give the gun the TB damages (334 close - 143 long)
  14. Sulsa

    I bought the spur about a year ago and tried and tried to use it effectively.
    I think I have a few infantry kills with it and maybe one vehicle kill ever.
    Thing is, I love the mechanic and what it adds to the Lib. Sitting a ways back and hover sniping with it is a fun challenge but it is so frustrating the way it is handicapped.

    How it goes: The way the gun is, to fire and stay on target long enough, you can't be moving. To not be moving, you need to hover. To hover you need to be perfectly horizontal. To see ground targets while horizontal you need to be very low. When you are very low and not moving your belly gun can't see and you are an easy target for anything.

    I have tried and tried to use my spur as a viable option. Please DBG, make it more effective!
  15. Kristan

    To effectively use Spur free look camera it better have that kind of window that will let see through your cockpit.

  16. Gundem

    I don't really have any problem aiming it either, at least towards ground targets.

    ESF's on the other hand, they can move so quickly that keeping your nose on target is a different story, though your increased experience over mine may be a factor. I also tend to use extremely low DPI settings for infantry accuracy, and I don't usually bother to set it higher for aircraft. Anyway, on to the topic.

    My intention was to make the Vektor more of the "A2A" nosegun for the Liberator. Not designed to take the role of the Tank Buster, but to allow pilots to take a more anti-aircraft oriented role.

    To me, that seems like the perfect design for the Vektor. Emphasize one role, but allow it to actually engage targets outside those it was intended for.

    Now, against ground targets I agree it's DPS is still abysmal for how fragile the Liberator is. But, with A2A in mind, buffing it's damage output to make it effective against ground targets would make it absurd against any aircraft. You could possibly solve this by giving Liberators, ESF's and possibility Galaxy's extra resistance to the Vektor, but that would also require making a brand new resistance table for it, which I assume would be a pain in the *** on the Devs part. But I guess it's as the saying goes, "No pain, no gain". On the flip-side, it might make the Vektor too good, giving it "Jack of all trades, Master of everything" syndrome.

    The problem with most of those suggestions is that they neuter the Liberator in the one aspect it excels in, burst DPS.

    People may think that it's unfair for the Liberator to have the highest DPS guns in the game, but in all their foaming at the mouth they like to forget that it's actually a rather squishy vehicle, in part because it has low resistance to most weapons, and in part because, being an aircraft, you have roughly a 600 meter bubble in which ground targets can see and engage you.

    Without the high burst damage it has, the Liberator would become obsolete(More then it currently is), as 99% of the time you would get focused down before you could kill a single tank.

    Honestly, I'd be fine with a reload speed nerf and a spin-up time(As long as it was an actual spin-up, not some ******** ramp up on the RoF) for the Tank Buster, if it would appease the ground peasants, maybe even let the Tank Buster have a small range buff in exchange. But reducing it's burst DPS kills the purpose of it, and in the current status of the game, it's used because of that trait and that trait alone.

    According to my dad, who works on military vehicles like the B2 and the AC/130, a 150mm AP cannon can destroy basically any ground vehicle from any angle in a single shot, even the Abrams, the pinnacle of armored vehicles. If not flat out destroy, it will penetrate the armor and do severe damage to it's internals.
  17. PatateMystere

    I agree on the burst advantage of the lib. That's the point of this vehicule.
    My proposal specially on the tank buster and belly guns, is to make the belly gun, the stronger gun. I really think that the belly gun should be the main weapon.
    Nose weaken the target, belly gun exterminate it. I could use a tank buster with longer TTK. Still works against lonely tanks from behind but in bigger fights, only weaken the target an give more importance to the belly gunner.

    About the 150mm gun, it depend on the ammunition basicly. The weapon here is the ammunition, not the gun. The gun is just the way to carry the ammo at the target properly. Most of the time, the bigger, the stronger.
    Artillery is using 150mm guns but it's using canister rounds. It won't kill the crew in the tank. The top armor is basicly design to sustain this kind of threat. (I'm designing armor IRL :) )
  18. LaughingDead

    Tankbuster is a close range AV nosegun.
    Spur is a mobile light anti ESF nosegun.
    Vektor is a gun inbetween the two.

    If anything, I'd like the tankbusters weaknesses to be a bit more noticeable, but the spray and damage profile is consistent with the intention of being a close range shredder.

    Spur kicks in ESFs teeth but I feel that the camera should be more freelook from the actual gun than the cockpit, since ESFs stay FAR away from the actual nosegun the spurs advantage is sorely lacking up to its potential.

    Vektor has a slightly higher damage profile and higher values in the utility catagory, being better than spur in dps and farther reaching with its damage than the buster, it's a simple inbetween gun.

    Why remove any of it?
  19. Jake the Dog

    Take your inner sphere crap and shove it! For Kerensky!
    I'm an artilleryman IRL who deals in m777 155mm howitzers. If you get steel on steel I seriously doubt the crews survival with the standard HE (most common ammo type) round.

    Was thinking about our previous discussions, what if the skyguard had a large increase in damage but a MASSIVE cone of fire. On top of that set flak rounds to burst within 50m of target not necessarily doing any or full damage but just to rattle the air around a bit. The purpose of such a thing would be to protect armor formations from TB/hornet runs while not necessarily blocking air out of the area as it would shred targets at ranges within 100m and past that you'd have much less capability. Flak that explodes around aircraft closer than 10m would deal damage to the aircraft at around half or so.

    I honestly think it'd be kinda cool to see the sky filled with fire and explosions as you make your approach.
  20. Jawarisin

    That would remove all skills from the equasion. Not only that, but even worst is - despite not being effective at range, people would use it at range anyways. And it would just make it an extreme pain in the ***. Imagine your tank is constantly being pelted by a basilisk NO MATER where you go. That's how aircrafts would feel.

    I'd go with bullets that have decreased damage over distance, and make the distance really short instead. Potentially having a low velocity too. But remember that a skyguard already kills an esf in 4 seconds. That's quite fast already considering it feels like ~3 seconds for the esf (delay).

    I don't really know how I'd implement something like that, nor do I think it's really needed, but if it is, flak is definetly the wrong way to go. I agree it would look awesome; but it would also make life miserable for anybody in the air - everywhere.