This is how the vanguard shield should look.

Ah, I misunderstood,

Let's do a simple test.
Stock Vanguard vs Stock Magrider vs Stock Prowler. Each MBT has stock secondary ES AV weapon. According to you, which one get it easier in global encounter? (or according to the terrain type)
Which chassis is passively advantaged?
We can perhaps start from here and if we find any MBT better than the others, we can easily realise that the ES utility have to provide more advantage to the lowest performance MBT than the more natively effective chassis.
From here, do players/SOE accept that a worse MBT chassis has access to a more effectiveES utility to close the gap?
According to you, is it a good way to rebalance everything?

Still don't speak about versatility AI/AV, just AV.

Sorry for my english.

Forget stock tanks.
Use certed ones.

Using this criteria, the magrider would need the best Es utility. Completely stock, it's by far the worst thing out there, mainly because it simply can't kill stuff with the primary.

I assure you this is a constructive approach. I do my best, really.
Flag, can you estimate the balance between stock MBT chassis? After that we can establish what can be done for rebalancing stuff.

Qaz, do you think this is just a binary answer we need here?! Be more constructive and open mind.

I like it, but I do think it needs to be a little wider. It should curve slightly around the edges (from any angle) but the tank should also lose some speed, similar to how the MAX shield works. Make it so it can't be destroyed though.


I actually really like this idea. You could do some cool tank phalanx kind of things, and protect infantry with it.

I also like how it doesn't protect the top, so positioning is critical. This would give the Mag-rider a serious advantage in certain situations. It also encourages team play. Since the more Vanguards you have together, the more coverage you have.

I'd like it to be like the Aegis. You can toggle it on or off, but there's a mild cool down once you turn it off. This would stop people from spamming it on/off so they can block shots but ignore the movement degradation.

Just a really good idea!

That defeats the purpose of the test. Theoretically Stock MBT's should in a 1v1 environment should have a 50% survival rate against equally skilled players making the use of local environment. If this is not true for whatever reason then balancing must occur to bring it closer.

I disregard stock tanks because the people that use them are for the most part not yet privy to the knowledge on how to use them properly.
People who do know, with the exception of when people roll alts, and then only for a short time, they will spend certs, and suddenly comparing the stock tank is meaningless.

It's not that I mind you doing the experiment, but it's not relevant to the situations you find in game on the live servers.

See, that's the thing I'm trying to point out. The Stock MBT's should be like this, after that the results get harder to quantify due to certs and weapons. But basically if the Stock tanks a balanced or very close to it then the Vangaurd shield can be changed.

Also I like Wrel's idea of having every MBT have the unique thing by default.

I +1'd this for how hilariously ridiculous the picture is.

I'd honestly side with Sherman, for more than just statistical/in-game reasons. I'll start with the Ethos Pathos and Logos of your post before I get to actual in-game things. And don't tell me that they're unrelated, because I know you'll want to. This idea was posted to persuade the Devs that the current Vanguard shield is OP and needs to be changed in to the suggested model, thus making Ethos, Pathos, and Logos relevant.

Your Ethos: Ethos is credibility. You're a BR99 Vanu on Waterson, from your Player profile (www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428010618036088721). This can tell us a couple of things. Waterson's least successful faction is its' VS. Thus, being the most unlucky faction, you're more likely to think the other factions need balancing to bring them to your level. But on the plus side, it tells us you're versed with the game, as you have 60 total days played, with a million points under your belt with your magrider. So, with Ethos being the most important factor in creating a basis to trust that you know some things, you're good.

Pathos: Pathos is your emotional connection to those you're trying to connect to. One of the only reasons this opinion/suggestion was even brought to life and continues to be discussed, is because your fellow Non-NCs also had problems with the shield, thus creating an emotional bond with your associates. Even though you managed to reach your Vanu and TR brethren, you straight up disregarded anyone who said otherwise, and even went as far as to block someone. This is called running. Someone opposes you, and you don't like it, because there's no way you're wrong. Obviously, the shields need nerfing, because vanguards always manage to burst through lines and ruin entire offenses with 8 seconds of shielding. As far as your Pathos goes, you managed to attract the like minded, but completely disregarded, and even insulted those who said no. If this idea never goes through (and it more than likely won't), this is one reason it won't. If a degrading mind makes an idea, who's to say the idea isn't also just degrading? And I don't care if you make excuses as to why (and I know you will anyway) I'm wrong. If there's one thing creators hate, it's using ideas from a lesser mind, and very often a lesser mind, to them, is argumentative to the point of lacking empathy, and has no real concern for opposite opinions. Simply put, If you want someone to incorporate your idea, it's not a good idea to be an *** to a person who's giving input.

Logos: Logos is the logic in what you say. This will tie in to the game because we will need to use statistics and facts to make logic a variable. Although you used "skill" and rare occurrences as a mode of justifying your arguments, you failed to apply it to the other faction-specific MBTs, and when someone else mentioned the possibility of another faction's MBT, you told them they were wrong, and continued to give reasons why the shield was so overpowered and didn't relate to any other entity in the game. You can't just say something is much better than the competition without giving both its' upsides and downsides. Concession is what this is called. Example: "It is true that the Vanu look silly in spandex, but we can all agree that it both serves for great butt jokes and technically gives better movement." Example of an argument similar to yours: "The Railjack has such huge damage output and muzzle velocity, so it's obviously due for a nerf." You considered certain parts and left out huge critical facts. The shield lasts for 8 seconds after spending over a thousand certs on it, and can only be activated every once-in-awhile. I'm sorry, but this game is about knowing time and place. If you're going 1v1 against a Vanguard, you're doing it wrong. This is indicated in the future ramp-up time for the HA shield. The devs have even stated that it's about knowing when and where you should activate special abilities. To build on that, if your entire offense is ruined by 1 vanguard with an 8 second shield taking out a sundy, that's not called being OP, that's called bad planning. The main mistake is: Giving the vanguard enough wiggle room to be near enough to your SINGLE SUNDY (another mistake, you should be pulling 2+ sundies) to activate an 8 second shield and managing to blow it up. And don't you dare tell me the vanguard had enough time to blow up multiple sundies with suicide runs, and it be an often enough occurrence for it to actually be something worth nerfing.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos hold each-other up and persuasion cannot be measured without them. For anyone to believe you, you need Ethos, to be credible. . For anyone to believe you, you need Pathos, you have to connect on a person to person basis. For anyone to believe you, you need Logos, your information needs to true, unbiased, factual, and if it can be proven wrong, you need to be able to back it up. You met Ethos, as you are a long-time player. You, however, did not meet either Pathos or Logos completely. You were able to connect to those who agree, which is simple, but you were unable to connect with those who thought different, and even went out of your way to avoid them. This weakened your case. You provided some truth, but avoided the whole truth, and even neglected to provide legitimate comparisons to the other MBTs. This also weakened your argument.

People who make poor arguments, but meet Ethos, Pathos, and Logos always prevail against people who can argue, but cannot meet all 3 of those factors.


Now, on to my own opinion on the matter.

I feel like the shield would need some sort of nerf or change to a directional shield, but I look at the other faction's MBTs and change that opinion.

The Vanguard has limited mobility, as it is the meatiest of the MBTs. It has probably the hardest hitting cannons, and can take the most damage, especially when you add in the shield. But again. it has hardly any versatility. Sure it can turn fast, but what does that matter when it can just turn its' cannon at the same measurable pace that that other factions can.

The Magrider is the most mobile, but isn't the best on damage input. It's incredibly versatile, as it can climb just about anything that isn't a vertical wall, and when put in the right hands, can easily become a flying saucer.

The Prowler is kinda the in-between. It can take more damage than the magrider, but is not as mobile. It is more mobile than the vanguard, but can't take the beating the vanguard can take. The firepower is where the prowler excels, though. With dual cannons, it can dish out more damage per clip, and the user is twice as likely to hit a target. On top of that, an experienced Prowler operator knows the time and place to lock down the prowler, which gives damage, shots fired in an amount of time, a decreased reload timer, but makes the prowler immobile.

Each MBT has its' ups and downs. Even though the Vanguard has great armor, it is easily shot, as it is bigger and slower. Even though the Magrider is fast, it has little armor. Even though the prowler has great firepower, it's also slower than the magrider, and doesn't have the armor that the vanguard has.

As said earlier, I know people are going to try to argue everything I say, and will likely even ignore the post. Original posters that get this from me always say I'm wrong, and don't bother to say why, or even bother to read the whole post. But I do urge you to respond, OP. But if you're just going to throw out false facts and tell me why I'm wrong, consider this: Do leaders of countries persuade people to vote for them because they ignore people with legitimate input? Do they tell people that they're correct because they said so? Did Martin Luther King Jr. become so influential by saying that black folks were obviously superior? No. MLK became huge because he believed that even those who had mistreated his people for centuries should be equal. This is called empathy.

Empathy- the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

This means that even though you could be right, you should consider other opinions, feelings, or thoughts. Just because you so strongly believe you are correct, doesn't mean you are.

tl;dr You aren't persuasive, and you need to read why, and stop expecting everything to be shortened for you in life. Read a book. It helps you be more persuasive.

I agree with Corrh. OP you really are bad at convincing people.

On the topic of the vanguard I am on board with having it act like how the HA shield works where when it's shot at then it takes damage and can go down quickly, however making it a directional shield seems pointless to me.

Then again, because players who know what they're doing aren't using stock tanks, balancing them around that is a giant waste of time.

Also, while Wrel has a lot of good points, he's no tanker. And I'm fairly certain he knows that too.

I don't need to convince you of anything, the concept speaks for itself. Do you really need someone to sit next to you and explain how this shield will work?

I like my shield, though I want that railgun as well...yes please.


And id be all for the Vanguard shield being like a 60% resist shield if it kept its 8second timer and the reload of the tank increased to 3.5s for all the guns down from the like 4 it is.

And slightly buff its turning a tiny smidge.

Obviously it doesn't speak for itself if you have so many people rejecting it, and it not being part of the PS2 Road-map. No, I don't need you to tell me how it works. I know how it's supposed to work, and as far as nerfing goes, this is a bad idea. You might as well make the double barrel on the Prowler prone to jamming, and the magburners on the magrider have a possibility of combusting leading to the magrider losing half health. Just because you whine about something that you don't know how to deal with doesn't mean the devs need to go with it. And here is where you'd fall in to a trap. If you were to argue with me, it's because you're trying to prove a point, and thus trying to convince someone that you're right and I'm wrong. So don't give me some "I'm not trying to convince". Your "This is how" statement isn't you conversing with the devs. A "This is how" statement is meant to be the prerequisite to a persuasive position.

But anyway, if you don't need to convince myself or Brutus, why argue? Just for the sake of arguing? Just because you feel like this idea is your baby and you need to protect it? Sorry, but this idea is you trying to convince us that this shield is needed, and that's that. If you can't tell that convincing and presenting an idea based on a "This is how" statement are basically that same thing, then you should figure that out before belittling people. The devs were hired because of their intelligence and ability to take an idea and bloom it. If I can see that you need an attitude adjustment before your idea should even be considered, then the Devs will also see it. Sorry, but at this point, I would almost guarantee this idea isn't going through. Argue all you want, but I've seen brilliant ideas presented by someone with a cool temper that never got implemented too many times. If you have this many people saying an idea is bad, and a horrible temper from the OP to top it off, it isn't happening.

Again with the lack of empathy and failure to meet Pathos. If you want to be taken seriously by the Devs (who you want to implement your idea), being a sarcastic little **** won't help you. PRESENTING YOUR CASE, AND ACTING LIKE AN APPRECIATIVE PERSON WILL HELP YOU.


Now, from here, you could keep being a hot-headed, closed-in player, or you can consider others' ideas instead of making them seem smaller than yourself. I honestly don't care which, but if I leave this post off with the above paragraph, I would have no constructive criticism, and that helps nobody.

And many more people are accepting it. How's that working out for you? Besides, I only need one dev to accept it so have fun with that.

For the dev's benefit, not yours. Why don't you ask yourself why you're here arguing? Are you angry this could be the end of your full coverage god mode shield? You think you're the first NC to defend it? I'm tired of explaining myself. The godmode shield needs to go.

This would be even more painful to deal with, especially when it confronts you. You just lower your turret and BOOM, infinite nanite shield! Ever try to kill an Engineer with your tank when its facing you in a AI Turret? Yea, no.. not a good idea, unless if it was WAY smaller, otherwise, no.

Smaller? What, you want us trying to catch shells with a Frisbee?



Because that will interact so well with client-side hit detection.

I still say that if you want a directional shield, the best way to go about it is to make it large enough to completely cover the front, stick out enough on the sides for some infantry to hide behind or to overlap with a neighboring tank (for shield wall formations), and curve it back enough to cover a decent chunk of the sides/top.

Then give it an energy-based HP pool so enemies can overload it with shooting, and project it far enough forward that a brave enemy can facehug/sidescrape you to get inside it (and thus completely negate it even if they can't get behind you).

There you go, a design that retains a capacity for significantly helping a Vanguard (and its team) while having enough counterplay to justify improved uptime.


Speaking of which, it would be nice if the MAX Aegis was made slightly wider than the MAX itself (and tall enough to completely cover it when crouching) specifically so they can form shield walls. Though I suppose it might be possible to exploit lack of unit collision for MAXes to pull this off even in its current state...

Man that's a really well thought concept. I like it. Despite all the vitriol you're receiving, know that there are some who agree with you.
One thing though, I could see the shield a bit larger, as to cover the sides completely. And or putting some edges, to help covering the front more. Still, the directional concept is lovely.

But hey, let's be honest, it still looks like a I wind shield. Ok it's late I'm going to sleep now