Top 5 Vanguard Myths... with Numbers!

Unfortunately that website lacks some very important numbers, like AVKPH, accuracy, and KDR. The DA stats site is more complete.

People who do this with a Vanguard are called "noobs". No one uses that tactic! One Heavy already turns the tide against you even with a shield. The risk of being C4red, there being mines, there being other tanks is too great. Unless you round a corner and are already standing against them no one in their right mind would try to drive up to you! No one is going to "come straight at you". Just think about how tough it is for a Vanguard to escape 2 or 3 Heavies even after you destroy an enemy tank. Magriders can hoverstrafe or afterburn away while Prowlers are faster in backing up and got multiple shots to deal with them. Vanguards can't easily escape them and can barely kill them unless you are an ace in shooting. Even an Ace takes 10,5 seconds to kill them with maximum reload certed.
No one is just going to turn their shield on! There's strategy and speculation to think off, when it's profitable to use the shield or not.
So what you are saying is complete ********. I'm sure that someone once did that, but only new players might do that in a drunken haze of power. If you got one extra Prowler/Magrider/AV toting infantry you can already scrap the Vanguard if he tries to rush you. It's a dumb, suicidal tactic that has one chance of you being the victor (there is only the tank) and every other option means that you are screwed.

And most engagements are about multiple tanks anyway! Assuming there's no one else but the enemy tank is the biggest, most moronic thing you can do in a game this size!

You do if you know you are going to win. Why wouldn't you. Forcing your enemy into a no win battle is not a bad thing.

You just have to keep the battle so you know you both won't miss, cause the math ends up in you winning. The ability to totally dominate this kind of battle should have a cost which is been weaker in longer engagements

It happens all the time.

But you don't know if you are going to win! If you see an enemy for the first time you don't know if he's alone, if there's maybe some other guys hidden somewhere, if there's a tank heading towards his position as you speak.

The math does say that with a shield you should win. The actual real-life statistics over the last month across all servers show that this math doesn't work out, and these stats have been saying this for a long time... People use cover, there's infantry, other tanks and aircraft mucking up the pristine 1v1 fight. The first strike matters, positioning matters. A Prowler can drive passed a Vanguard after it shot, within 4 seconds it's possible to have your chassis passed the Vanguard and be half-turned. You get shots at the Vanguard back while he still hits you in the side. Now the whole math is in favor of the high DPS better positioned Prowler, even though the Vanguard has a shield.
Magrider? You can afterburn over the Vanguard after a shot and be turned around before the Vanguard has his turret even turned at you. Again you get rear shots completely messing with the math.

Yes, you do win. The other tank will not do enough damage to destroy you before you CAN destroy him.

If you can't win 1vs1, in a engament where you run into each other a range you know you can land your first shot you don't know what you are doing yet.

OH BOY, STATS IN A VACUUM!

Thanks for bringing these stats to the forum. Now lets do something about the Vanguard:
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/vanguard-revamp-ideas.200799/page-7

I've lost track of how many times I've seen VG drivers do this. Sometimes even the best ones out there.
They charge at the enemy because they see one, maybe two. More often than not they pay for it by dying if the "victims" are at all competent.

There's a term for that kind of play: over-extension. To call that "good play" is foolish at best.

The vacuum of the actual live game, everything it contains and thousands of players... yeah.

I prefer to call it a calculated risk

if I see one magrider limping off while trying to retreat from me, I will pursue unless I know there's more back there

If there were many tanks coming and it's 3 vs 1 you were already dead

...

What part of "current in-game statistics do not support anything you say" do you not understand? The Vanguard might win mathematically, but it underperforms.
Let's just get an example: we could get a weapon dealing 4000 damage and 8 second reload. Due to damage reduction you won't be able to OHK a tank and it has a raw DPS of 500. So it should win of the 497 DPS Magrider, right?
Absolutely not. 8 seconds reload is far too much. The Magrider has too much time to outmaneuver you, because position matters in this game. This screws up mathematics, as you now would need to put strict and unrealistic requirements to the battle: both teams must agree not to move or do anything else like go for quick repairs during reload.

Mathematics is all great and dandy, but this game doesn't consist out of 1v1 tank battles. It's a mix-and-match of air, infantry and various tanks. Every single one plays a role. The Vanguard has been proven by the statistics to be underperforming compared to the other two tanks. a 1v1 battle has nothing to do with this. The Vanguard underperforms in vehicle kills, any vehicle kills, and also underperforms in kills overall.

So again, 1v1 mathematics do not hold a candle to the complex entity that this game is. You can try to explain certain statistics with it, but your mathematics do not in any way represent the reality that happens in game.

/facepalm

If I could simplify Demigan's points for you...

He is claiming that there are many other factors that affect the outcome of tank battles beyond DPS and armor. While on paper the outcome might be one way, but in practice the outcome is a different way.

At the end of the day, which is more important: how something works on paper or how something works in practice? On paper the Vanguard might work, but in practice it's a poorly performing tank.

Seems like Oracle provides KPH, VKPH, and Air KPH now. So maybe Oracle isn't completely useless now (although 90% of the stats on the site are useless popularity-driven nonsense.)

Keep in mind accuracy isn't a meaningful stat, because if you give a player two weapons (one accurate, one not) then they're going to end up with pretty similar accuracy overall because the player will learn to only use the inaccurate weapon in CQC and use the accurate one at very long range, which will naturally make the accuracies quite similar.

I know and I never said that wasn't true.

I said, in 1vs1 you can catch many tanks with your I-win button but that comes at a cost of being weaker in more long term engagements with more units.

That can't set it up so they can totally dominate 1vs1 then have no downsides. In a long term battle prowlers fire power becomes better after the vanguards burn their shields and both side repair.

I love stat threads, BECAUSE it does not reflect in game situations.

• Was the target flanked?
• Was the target missing shots?
• Was the target on a hill?
• Was the target a pro pilot?
• did the target have help?

The list goes on and on

Because why would you use that??

If you are looking at balance, You assume the players would have equal skill and an equal engagement.

There is no value in comparing a Pro-MLG player with a pistol to a total FPS noob with a LMG.

Oh wow.........

Ya know what, screw it. Screw asymentrical balance. Screw faction traits, screw everything

Make all tanks have no bullet drop
All Main cannons do the same damage across ALL factions
make all secondaries do the same damage but have different names.
Make all tanks move the exact same speed
Because "muh MLG"

Make it happen SOE

oh wow is right.

I can kill noobs with a pistol. Does that make the pistol better then a LMG??

No you need compare a equal fighting.