the Gatekeepr needs a buff

It actually can be aimed & fired at aircraft.
Very little actually works against aircraft in terms of lethal.

And the Mj (thank mercy for the smaller term), needs to be just as accurate.. at closer-range.
So advantage to the thing needing every burst? No... not really.

Open field: more common than you think.
As is, keeping distance from the opponent.

Vulcan is able to be used without a steep cliff to hit at a distance.. MJ arcs basically out of the barrels...
Bassie is a much shorter ranged middle-of-the-road weapon.
GateKeeper is a long-range AV weapon..

And Harassers are smaller versions of the MBT top guns.
So that the long-range AV isn't as useful on the vehicle lacking the amplifying qualities of a Prowler isn't shocking..
Let alone compared to the Vulcan.

... Vulcan is a infantry mauling chaingun.
MJ is a close-quarters burst-firing arc'ing weapon, that isn't aim to hit: It's aim up to hit next to you..

So yeah good luck hitting that trooper with an MJ over a Vulcan.
Vulcan which also is better at AV, the intended ******* role of both weapons.

The Vulcan used to be pretty decent against aircraft, should air-craft be stupid enough to get within firing angles of it. No-one cried because if you was getting hit by a vulcan as an aircraft you were just bad and deserved it.

CAI with it's ****e balancing nerfed the resistance type so now it's pretty wank vs aircraft.

That's informative.
And damn right scary a bit - and yes they deserved that.
Infantry didn't, but aircraft certainly did.

So it got worse after CAI, at AA duty.
This figures.
Comic, but figures.

I strongly disagree regarding infantry. Spread is bad enough that you're not killing them at anything past spitting distance. It takes 8+ direct hits to kill one, and the splash is close to meaningless, mostly good for keeping a running driver from redeploying while you pick him apart. I'm not complaining, I think it's pretty well balanced as far as its close range anti-armor role is concerned, I just think the Vulcan is better at that role and more well rounded. I just can't fathom how TR players are calling it OP.

Same Way prowlers drive into a Vanguard, expecting to win a face-tanking contest.
- Which means, driving into the sole effective range of the MJ, with their vehicle, expecting to win flawlessly...
If I had to guess.

ESF just lost a lot of chaingun resistance. The Tankbuster went from 2 full clips to kill an ESF back down to 1. The Vulcan might be decent again.

Most of the Vehicle vs Vehicle balanced got trashed with CAI with their "lengthening TTK" ideals. The only things that got straight buffs were, ironically, infantry farming guns whilst AV stuff got slammed into the ground in AI, AV and AA duty. Something no-one asked for but they went ahead anyways, despite everyone saying it was a bad idea. Yet here we are with HE being just as good as AP for Av work.

I've basically given up at using the gatekeeper, it was a fine long range deterrent weapon before, now it's just rubbish.
Also the mjolnir seems quite OP recently, was it tweaked or something?

Also was one of the very few TR safe and realistic AV options besides using tanks.
As vanu have their semi hitscan rocket launchers and NC have the guided missiles.
But i guess the devs had to hear their cries and added everything TR had plus those AV weapons TR don't really have.

Vulcan isn't very good right now, still the TR's best top gun by a large margin, but that does a better job highlighting how unbelievably dog**** our other options are.

You think the current top guns are long ranged ? Even the Basilisk has been nerfed hard compared to release. It used to have max damage range of over 150m and good burst fire accuracy.

The basilisk should get better imo as its not used alot and its a waste to throw it as i liked it a few years ago

lol

The TR deserved the nerf on the I-WIN Gatekeeper.
It could shoot from any distance with virtually no drop and had not visible tracers so there was no way of telling where the firing was coming from until you were dead.

The TR still have the Vulcan which was the go-to before the Gatekeeper came out and that thing still shreds armor like a hot knife through butter.

Deal with it.
We had to deal with it.

I think it's in a good place. It's the easiest gun in the game to use and it's decent against everything. It was my go to gun on my Harasser be for the Mjolnir buff.

On the Vulcan, I spent about 2 hours gunning a Vulcan Harasser last night, it's without question better against infantry at medium range, is so much easier to use than the Mj. The Mj has a definite advantage against Sunderers, as it can lob shots over terrain and the Sundy is large enough for that spread not to matter, but I really don't think it's OP. The Gatekeeper does need a buff, and the Halberd as well. I'd rather have a damage buff to the Halberd so it can OHK infantry, but I'd settle for a faster reload and double the splash.

Now go spend two hours gunning for an Aphelion Harasser. Halberds need a buff, the GK needs something but it has to be slight tuning. We can't have the prowler with the vulcan and a GK equivalent Saron.

I like the implication here that having two decent top guns would be game-breaking. As if a prowler could equip both at once and be an unholy terror to behold.

Every gun should be viable. So yes, I think the TR should have a Saron equivalent, so should the NC.

Well that sure doesn't sound much like a planetside game to me anymore than. And on top of that there are many things that are still not equivalent or useful to make that a reality. The fact that the synergy that would give the TR armor meta game when the other factions don't have equivalents is funny people think this would be fine. The NC still doesn't have a long range top gun secondary and the Vanu's mbt primaries aren't equivalent to the other factions.

Did you go use the Aphelion for 2 hours now too? Three way faction games need the factions to be different to some degree and all this game has become is three starting to be sameish factions because people want equivalent. I'm glad I played in the golden days of this game because if people want equivalent it's not the reason why I played the first planetside to this one. What's the point of having three different factions if everyone wants equivalent? This might as well of been a 1v1 faction game than if that's the case diversity is why people play planetside and equivalent doesn't have diversity.

I think we don't necessarily disagree, but are hung up on terminology. I don't mean that the Gatekeeper should be a carbon copy of the Saron, just that each should be equally useful at doing whatever it is that they do. The Vulcan/Mjolnir is a perfect example, they're both great top guns that do a similar job extremely well, with a faction specific flair. I've only used the Aphelion a few times as I can't stomach the way VS does things on Connery, so I'll refrain from making balance suggestions on that gun, though it seems to be doing its job well enough.

I wish devs would comment as well and take part in these discussions
We need them to react to these kind of question to keep this game alive(its been alot of time active and i dont want this game to die as kerbal space program when the devs completely lost interest and stopped commenting and discussing with the community)