What's wrong with the gatekeeper [showcase] in under a minute

Oh, but you, a hardcore GK apologist is not biased in your arguments at all?
Enforcer is more relevant because it's the direct counterpart, which means the comparison is what affects the relative balance of the mech the most.

Not everybody and their mother are running lancers in Vanu, praise the sun. Fractures are not so accurate and if I am not mistaken are hardcapped in their range. Lancers and fractures are not mobile either, so you are not going to face them much in case of fast moving frontlines unlike prowlers and harassers, which are par for the course. Daltons from the sky ceiling are not as annoying as the TB runs and I don't recall the last time I had it happen to me.

GK is on every other TR vehicle and the desert becomes outright unplayable. It's so much pleasure to get anywhere close to the Abandoned Offices and be blasted by tanks deployed near the Mao ammo tower on the tech plant plateau. It's only the TR who are able to participate in Tawrich fights by parking their **** on cliffs 4 nodes away, near the Scarred Mesa skydock.
F that imbalanced bullsh!t. Faction flavor my hairy ***.

Implementation is totally relevant because it's the implementation that plays the game, not labels. Artificial label you slap on top of a toy doesn't matter.
******** argument like this could be used to justify let's say old PPA. "Hurr durr you got your AI secondary, we got ours, the degree and implementation are completely irrelevant, you just need to git gud, while we laugh all the way to the bank sniping spawns from inaccessible mountaintops 300m away, which you cannot do".
Stacking the TR with easy mode monkey toys which at the same time belong to the best performers in each category of the weapon classes across the whole skill spectrum is not "faction flavor", it's mental rtardation ruining the balance of the game.

It's not a long range weapon, especially in practice, given it's trivially outgunned by HUNDREDS of ******* meters by GK by anybody with a pulse. Even without the GK in the game, it could be considered midlongish, but when you apply the GK metric, which the TR do en masse with gusto, its midrange at best given the spectrum of engagement ranges that actually happen. Let's not forget it's also trivially outsniped by paced sarons.

Gee, if only the TR were willing to cooperate in leveling the playing field. If I am firing at ranges 300m but the TR are doing so at 500m with ease by the virtue of having a pulse, it's me who gets the **** end of the stick here at no fault of my own, unless you are going to blame me for showing up to fight in long LoS terrain.

Hey DBG, remember the patch where you added the CoF bloom to the Saron and increased the drop on the enforcer? Hey DBG, remember when you said the reason those nerfs were put in place was because "You didn't want tank secondaries being too effective at long range?". Hey DBG, remember when you put in the Gatekeeper and ignored the thousands of complaints saying that it was too effective at range? Hey DBG, remember when you actually finally "nerfed" the GK and barely touched it's effectiveness out to render range?

How about you actually stick with some consistency with your game design. You don't want tank secondaries to be so effective at range and you nerf the saron and enforcer, yet bring in a weapon like the GK that is FAR more effective than either ever were. You then adjust it and barely touch the one thing everyone is telling you is the reason why it's unbalanced?

If you don't want salty vets telling new players that the game is being poorly run, horribly designed and frustrating to play, how about you do stuff to fix obviously broken **** like the GK. One thing that will change my tune will be fixing **** like the GK, dildar, claymore and strikers ignoring stealth, and that's just for a start.

GK is not op .... so please do not continue to cry. she was already heavily nerfed .. what can you nerf the further? until it is useless? NO THANKS.
Saron is not nerfed .. but it is also very strong. which has the the TR for a long range weapon except the GK? CORRECT nothing.


thread can be closed .. anyway pointless.

I don't know how it is with NC vs TR tank battles, but for VS the GK has practically speaking removed tank battles from the game. One on one or large-scale, doesn't matter, the GK-effect is simply too pronounced. There is absolutely no use trying to go up against an equal tank force, since a much better option is to find a hill or equivalent and spawn in as HAs with Lancers. During low pop hours the best bet (destroying TR Prowlers and Harassers) is taking to the air (IMHO the GK has actually led to an increase in VS pilots, which by itself is a happy thing).

In my opinion the whole "OP - not OP - something else is more OP - who got better stuff in the upgrade"-discussion is meaningless, but the effect the Gatekeeper has had on the game is not. I have nothing else against taking out Prowlers and Harassers with X number of respawned Heavies with a Lancer, but it is a lot more boring and a lot less interesting than what a large tank battle is. And actually still is against the NC.

The game is clearly not imbalanced per se, since a correctly situated VS infantry squad/platoon can quite easily destroy a large TR tank force in no time (especially when defending/ambushing) , regardless of Gatekeepers. Been there, done that many times. But I am still missing the tank battles against TR.

Lately I've started to use the Aphelion more, mainly as a "nuisance" factor. It is actually an awesome weapon close up (especially if you get behind enemy vehicles), but not quite so good at distance. "Close up" is seldom a factor in play against TR anymore (the GK just racks up enough hits during long/medium range). But boy does a correctly fired Aphelion (in bursts, with the "charged shot" well aimed) generate irritation and response. Something like 10 shots falling about anywhere, then the charged straight shot hitting target, 60 rounds in the mag, 600-700+ on board. Lots of irritation, which promotes enemy stupidity and distraction + the occasional vehicle kill (even at range). So I have somewhat mellowed concerning the GK. Still don't like the effect it has had on tank battles ...

Is that what I am? Then why am I not denying the GK needs to be changed (specifically made harder to use and be much harder to effectively use at range), and perhaps increased synergy with tanking-playstyles (which would typically also mean a slight reduction in effective range)? Feel free to explain that logic, I'm really curious to see your answer on that one

Also, what are you then? You are the one jumping at my reply (to someone elses post), making claims/points that are completely irrelevant to the post I was replying to. You just wanted to get it off your chest, regardless of where it ended up. That you feel like you have to resort to personal attacks to make your point, isn't exactly helping your case

Thank god, or we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion over all the "NERF LANCER" threads.

Doesn't change the fact that it is a general bug, not something specifically related to the GK. I specifically answered someone claiming it was ONLY caused by the GK. Your opinions of the other weapons is completely irrelevant. YOU are the one that replied completely out of context to my reply I have no obligation (nor interest) to comment on the usage of those weapons, as it is completely off-topic.

Also, I'm honestly not scared of moving Prowlers, since their main cannons cannot reliably keep up their DPS. GK-H's DPS output is so low (especially over range) that they aren't a threat at all, unless they come close (and a competent MBT clearly has the advantage in such a scenario).

Did you even read the post I was replying to? It honestly sounds like you didn't and just took this as an excuse to vent some steam, as it really IS completely irrelevant to the post I replied to. He specifically asked WHY the TR were given a weapon such as the GK. I simply gave him a response from a design point-of-view. The implementation (i.e. balance) of such a weapon, is another topic completely.

Sometimes I'm honestly amazed at the amount of bullsheet you can spew in one sitting I'll repeat myself, feel free to check the post I was replying to initially, and then come back and tell me how your comments are in any way relevant to the reply I gave him.

But it has a longer range than say, the Vulcan eh? So, from a design point-of-view the TR needed a weapon with an effective range longer than the Vulcan, whereas the NC/VS needed weapons which excelled at CQC-ranges. That you think the Enforcer needs some love is not something I disagree with, but that is another discussion.

First off, let me say that engaging enemies at distances of around 500m is generally a good indicator of the crew being bad. If you are sucessful in taking out your targets at such distances, then congratulations, your targets are (also) bad

Secondly, I've never hidden the fact that I'm for changing the GK (in fact I've stated so over and over in numerous threads), but I guess you just ignore all that and continue to claim I'm a "GK apologist" etc. Namecalling has always been SUCH an effective way to participate in a mature discussion, well done matey In fact, I've left out most of your "irrelevant" flavor text, but you still stand out as someone who has something against me personally (please explain why) AND someone who is incredibly toxic.

Really? That's not my experience at all, and when the TR Prowlers DO actually set-up in such places, I can pretty easily force them back. But then again, I can actually hit stationary targets (generally on the first shot) at ranges upwards of 500-600m. I guess hitting stationary targets is too much to ask for Doesn't change the fact that is is irrelevant to my post which you replied to.

It always has been, the Lancer is crazy when used properly. You don't even need that many HA's to stop a complete armor zerg.

Air has always been the most efficient option for practically everything in low-pop fights. Hasn't changed since launch.

I still find my Magrider to be just as effective, in fact I love fighting against the GK's, because my entire play-style (especially when fighting Prowlers) is centered around not fighting to the Prowlers strengths (i.e. don't stay exposed all the time). The exact same thing works wonders against the GK, as it does against Prowlers in general. To keep it short, I'm a flanker (I don't participate in the large tank fights from the front very often for numerous reasons, but rather from the flanks).

If I do engage Prowlers from the front, (and just when engaging them in general) you have to be able to play around the DPS-advantage the Prowler has by taking advantage of your mobilty (and accuracy whilst moving). This doesn't involve continually strafing without cover, but rather strafing/reversing in/out of cover during the reloads of my FPC/Halberd. This enables me to keep up my highest theoretical DPS, whilst the Prowlers DPS advantage is greatly mitigated (and the GK is reduced to barely doing any damage) due to the relatively low exposure time. My favorite kind of cover to use for this, are rolling hills where you can pop up --> fire --> back down --> strafe (out of their sight so they won't know exactly where you pop up again) --> pop up --> fire. Rinse and repeat as neccesary.

Exactly like the Vulcan, except the Aphelion is much more effective than the Vulcan against infantry and at range.

I generally don't have problems closing the distance against Prowlers, but I also always do it from the flanks, instead of right infront of their field-of-view. I actually find it to be easier, since the gunners are more likely to be occupied firing at some distant target, compared to a Halberd gunner for instance (a Halberd gunner has plenty of time between reloads to do a 180 or 360 swirvel with the turret).

I'm not against making the GK harder to use, as that is my main concern with the weapon. I won't personally be using it (barring gunner requests) until/if it gets changed to synergize with the most effective tank-dúel stratagies.

They needed something but did they need GK specifically? Why is the NC anything locked below/at halberd range, but deploskillcharriots have: easy mode main, huge - and I mean HUGE - DPS, and now a pixel accurate secondary with more than decent DPS on its own?

Extreme AV range of which GK is prime example is cancer. It doesn't promote engaging gameplay, it does promote mindnumbing ******** but with 1 side having something to show for it. This is a game, I don't want to sit behind the rock to repair repeatedly, suppressed by a bunch of ****tards I can barely see but nuking my *** in 3 seconds flat from a hex away if I try to move.

Says you, a halberd tryhard living in some kind of an mlg bubble or whatever you are.
I don't care if the crews are bad, because there is 0 skill related penalty for using GK and the GK produces leaps and bounds better outputs at extreme ranges while you calculate it as acc*nominal_dps in most skill brackets.

The rock bottom barrier to entry to GK combined with unparalleled ease of use means that tons of people do it, at near zero risk, farming everybody that overextends (and by overextending I mean leaving cover 3m too far). Reaping rewards while risking almost nothing sounds pretty smart to me.

The problem here is badness ceased to be relevant, but only for one faction.

Yes you are an apologist, because you write whole paragraphs how GK is fine because the TR needed it and it's only a l2p issue and then every 3 posts you write a single tiny disclaimer that you wouldn't mind toning it down a bit.

Do you think that people have a childhood trauma caused by the Sesame Street and now something against letters G, A, T, E, K, E, E, P, E, R? Or the fact that the TR have a secondary with a longer range than a vulcan? Get a clue. The only thing that makes people rage is it's pants-on-head rtarded IMPLEMENTATION having outrageously OP muzzle velocity, no glaringly weak spots at rock bottom skill floor required to use it, for fuxx sake.

Do you realize that any change is going to be a nerf? Effectively decreased ease of use = nerf, decreased effective DPS at range = nerf. Whatever would be done to put GK in line, it would be a nerf. Rose by another name and ****. You speak as if you just wanted to avoid the NERF word for the sake of it, maybe because nerfing is unmanly and a sign of a sh!tter unable to git gud or whatever.

MLGness comes out of you. I do realize that you don't give a tiniest bit of **** about low/mid tier tankers who melt in GK fire in a way that would never happen if they faced the NC or the VS. The lowbie tankers have gear gap already, they have no business facing easy mode, borderline uncounterable ******** on top of that.

Get a clue about what is a median and/or average skill and how infuriatingly hard it is to face a pixel accurate weapon outgunning you by hundreds of meters. Ease of use translates to effectiveness which scaled up to player populations translate to a very real advantage that is hard to overcome at cost parity. GK = farmfest for the TR any time they own the north.

When low/midskilled people refuse to pull tanks against the TR to have them blasted from a hex away, filling them with the feeling of powerlessness, that means that people who do are outnumbered right off the bat and it matters even less how unskilled GK mouthbreathers are.

You mean you fly over mountains inaccessible to anybody else except harassers to come from unexpected angles? Care to describe how to do that reliably in a clumsy vanguard? The game balance doesn't start and end on your personal magrider experiences, you know?

Vanguards pretty much have no choice but to come from the direction that is to be expected by everybody, right in front of the firing squad, with a shield that goes down in 1s to concentrated deplofire. If there is no cover every 20m to slowly work your way through you are done, and hard. Even then, the cover can get triangulated and the TR having effective range counted in hexes have plenty opportunity to find spots to do so.

1/10

How to fix the GK problem

Options

A) Balance it around the Halberd (you know the other long range option, this will require some serious nerfs to the GK's CoF, bloom/recoil, projectile speed (reduce it to 300ms) etc so that the average range is not 500m but rather 200m or so.
B) Buff the hell out of the Saron (remove the CoF, reduce bloom, increase velocity to 450ms). Buff the hell out of the Enforcer (same deal as the Saron, along with reduced drop. Then do the same to the Halberd and to a lesser extent the Basilisk...

So which is the easiest and needs the least amount of dev time?

given it's all numbers in a spreadsheet, isn't it equally easy?

That said, from the gameplay perspective, option B would be extremely bad due to the scalability issues. We definitely don't need even longer engagement ranges naturally emerging from increased lethality. We'd get even more static lines, with more gap inbetween, exchanging fire till cows come home. There would be even less incentive to push through the no mans land and nobody would get anywhere.

No they most likely didn't, as the implementation leeds something to be desired. I've never denied the GK needs to be changed though, and the implementation itself wasn't what I commented upon. Remember, YOU are the one that chose to post a response to my reply to another user, so YOU are required to stay on topic No point in my post touched upon my feelings about the GK, but rather answered "questions" he had.

I don't know why you are asking me, as we both know that neither you or me know the answer Maybe the devs intend the Vanguard to be the CQC-brawler tank? Before you make (yet another) off-topic assault on me, take note, I'm not saying that is my opinion at all, just giving an example of an idea they (the devs) could be harboring.

That's odd, that isn't my experience playing against the TR. We must be playing completely different games eh? But then again, I don't try to rush Prowlers head-on from the front like some random zergling. I actually employ tactics/strategy to my actions, and try to think about best possible routes of attack etc.

That right, resort to personal attacks when you have no other valid arguments Great argumentation there matey.

"Leaps and bounds better outputs" doesn't neccesarily imply they are being effective at all, just that they are more effective than other options. I'm not personally deeming Prowlers sitting at 500m to be effective at accomplishing much other than farming noobs (which doesn't really impact fights). It's the more experienced enemies moving around the flanks that generally actively influence the fights.

I seriously have no idea why you keep bringing this up. I have never denied the GK needs to be made harder to use. Can you stop sounding like a broken record spewing toxic waste all the time please? It's really getting tiring reading the same things over and over, when I'm not really disagreeing with them You just keep repeating it like you cannot comprehend what I'm writing or something (not saying that is the case, I just REALLY don't know why you keep writing this).

I simply wrote the TR needed a weapon with longer range than the Vulcan (which they got). Where did I write it was a L2P issue? Show me, or apologize for putting words in my mouth. Also, where did I say the GK is fine in its current implementation? Once again, show me, or apologize for putting words in my mouth. I didn't do any of the things you claim make me an apologist.

You still haven't answered what YOU are, jumping into a discussion about another topic (reasons for implementation etc) and making it a balance discussion. Also proceeds to use spew profanities, resort to name-calling, personal insults etc. That sounds like some butt-hurtery to me

It is? If you lowered RPM and upped damage/shot it would nerf it for bad/inexperienced gunners, but would actually improve it for the more experienced people, via increased synergy with typical tanking styles (amongst experienced users). Just an example of something both being a nerf and a buff (hence something I would deem a "change" to keep it neutral).

Lowering velocity (and perhaps adding a bit of increased projectile gravity/drop) makes it harder to use for rookies, but experienced users are going to be able to use it just fine still, meaning it isn't a nerf from their point-of-view. THAT is what I'm intending. But you completely ignoring my points is nothing new of course, but it is getting tiring

Let me elaborate using YOUR Words then (although I've written this so many times, sigh): I want the GK to be nerfed (happy? ) in the hands of rookie users, since it is being spammed too much by them. I don't want it nerfed in the hands of experienced users (since there are other options that are superior to use in most cases), and I would like it to be a viable option for that class as well. Of course, personal opinions can differ, but generally the Halberd is the most effective (and all-round) weapon in the entire MBT-arsenal.

Which is why I (again, I'm repeating myself) want the weapon to be made harder to use in the hands of inexperienced people. I won't go into it any further, as I've already explained my point. If you want further elaboration, be specific.

LOL Playing to the Magriders strengths isn't solely based upon scaling high mountains (far from it in fact). But I'm sure someone who has barely spent any time in a Magrider knows better than me right? For once I'd like to resort to a L2P thing, IF you are of the aforementioned opinion about the Magriders strengths. Many oldschool VS tankers would be cringe by seeing such a comment (although I doubt they are following this thread).

That's odd, I have no problems playing my Vanguard as a flanker, and from what I've heard of the top VG tankers, they use their Vanguards as Stealth flankers as well. Acting like the Vanguard cannot flank doesn't make it a fact, and it CERTAINLY isn't only used for bullrushes straight into the front-lines of the enemies The people you see doing that, are the ones that never "got gud", most likely due to them relying on the Shield too much for them to have an incentive to break away from the pack and learn a thing or two about tanking. The good ones, are the ones you (as in you personally, since you seem to think they can only rush into front lines) don't see, as they are out of your LoS flanking the enemies, taking out important targets while you are being nigh-useless on the frontlines.

Before I'm going to take this ANY further, please make sure the following questions are answered in your reply. Otherwise I'm just going to ignore you, since you then won't seem capable of keeping up a rational discussion.

• Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over when I'm not disagreeing?
• Where did I say the GK is fine?
  • Show me
• Where did I write it was a L2P issue?
  • Show me
• Why did you butt into my replies to someone else about something that isn't relevant to your points?
  • Do you think spewing profanities, resorting to name-calling, personal insults etc is good for a discussion?
  • What about actually sticking to the topic being discussed and not going off on a tangent?
• Why do you think the Vanguard can only come from the front?
  • If you want to you are free to join me for a session in my Vanguard on Cobalt. I'm a bit rusty as I haven't played as much during the last year, but I feel confident I can open your eyes to VG-flanking (assuming you are a decent gunner of course).
• Why do you think the only thing the Magrider has going for it is being able to traverse mountains?
  • Same goes for the Magrider (also on Cobalt). I'm sure I can show you that using the Magrider isn't only about scaling high cliffs.
  • I can also let you try out a fully-certed GK on my TR (Miller) on either a Prowler or Harasser if you want to try it out in practice for yourself. It honestly sounds like you need experience using the other factions stuff (no offense intended, I stuck to TR for a long time myself).

I forgot to add something to this train of thought. The nerfs I'm trying to avoid, are the ones that will ruin the weapon for both inexperienced users AND experienced users. Something along the lines of adding increased CoF and/or bloom. That would ensure no competent tank crew would ever use the weapon since not even skill would be able to make up for the sub-par stats.

Funny, I also do this. Specifically target anything with a Gatekeeper and especially GK-prowlers. Even beyond the point of tactical reason (or sanity). I even sneak long distances just to be able to blow up Prowlers sitting and GK'ing everything from 2 km's out. Makes me feel warm and cuddly inside. The very best thing is blowing them up again, when they arrive back with their newly spawned tank.

Have to admit I learned this "technique" fighting NC back when Hossin opened. VS had Esamir, so half-price Magriders. But in this fight NC had some insanely talented LA's blowing up tank after tank, even though we were over-popping the fight I probably lost 10 Maggies to explosives in around 30 minutes.

Hi, and sorry for jumping into the discussion. But in my opinion this one of the options to balance out the Gatekeeper. It is the pinpoint accuracy out to the end of the universe that generates that OP feel, coupled with the explosive damage and general damage output.

It wouldn't have to be by much, since CoF and bloom is a mathematical function of CoF/bloom vs size of target (the enemy tank). And it wouldn't even have to be a CoF/bloom nerf (since you correctly state that this would turn experienced players from the weapon, no-one with skill would like to use a tool with built-in bad precision), you could get the same effect (longer distance - less damage) either by adding a fitting amount of recoil (which would actually function as "CoF/bloom correctable by skill", like with hand-held weapons). Or you could drop the projectile speed (to half ). Or you could have the GK damage deteriorate over the total distance fired, making using the Gatekeeper over looong distances still possible, but with a steady drop in damage as the range increases.

My personal suggestion would however be to drastically limit the mag size for the Gatekeeper, removing the option of current sustained fire (due to reload pauses). The Magrider's Saron HRB has a mag size of 6 and per-shot damage of 284, giving it a max damage of 1700 per magazine with a 3 sec. reload time (which goes down to 2.5 sec if fully upgraded). If I remember correctly (don't remember this exactly) the Gatekeeper has a mag size of 30 and a 170 per-shot damage, which makes a total of 5000+ damage per magazine. The reload time is "only" 1.7 seconds (which drops to 1.2 sec fully upgraded). Both weapons fire "straight", but the Saron only if you apply at least a 0.5 sec pause between every shot (the Saron is semi-auto, the GK fully automatic). Any rational comparison shows that the GK can dish out a LOT more damage (even disregarding that it additionally has much better indirect damage and 50% higher projectile speed). However, you could balance the weapons without changing any functionality by limiting the GK mag size to about the same amount of potential damage (that is a mag size of 10, almost exactly), and by increasing the reload speed with 1 second.

Currently there is no other weapon that measures up to the Gatekeeper at range. And it is this good at range against both hard targets and infantry, at the press of a button. In a large-scale tank battle I would personally use something with more oomph, but as a general use secondary gun it is currently unrivalled, basically in a class of it's own. I can't even fathom what the devs were thinking, maybe the TR was in a slump and needed a crutch?

Despite all this I am not sure if it has had an actual effect on game RESULTS (that is, that TR would have become more successful due to the GK), but it most certainly has had an effect on game PLAY. And, in my humble opinion, not in a good way. The "OP or not OP"-part of the discussion is uninteresting, but tank & vehicle play was more fun before the GK. So was trying to repel tanks from bases with guns (now you just have multiple Prowlers setting up with Gatekeepers 1 km away, and immediately spamming any gun you repair back to life). I actually even think the GK is detrimental to TR, since it promotes a "passive and from safe distance"-playstyle for new(er) players, but to be successful as a faction your tankers need to be much more than mobile long-range gun platforms.

No problem, it's always nice to have an additional face/voice in a discussion. Especially one that seems like being capable of staying on-topic

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the GK was pretty accurate at long-range (perhaps a bit shorter range than it has currently), if only it was harder to use and therefore required a skilled gunner to be able to actually land the shots reliably.

Aye I'm not much for Bloom at least, but a slightly increased CoF wouldn't be out of line. A 10% increase in CoF would reduce the effective range (where accuracy is good without corrections/luck) by approximately 10%. Combining it with Bloom (or recoil) would make it very random though.

Aye I agree that recoil is actually a valid option, in hindsigt I didn't express myself clearly enough. It was the combination of an increased CoF/Bloom coupled with additional recoil which would give the weapon a very "random" feel, which would turn me off using the weapon.

I know that the value you mentioned is only an example, but cutting it to half is a bit excessive in my opinion I would reduce it to something similar to 300-350 m/s, but also give the projectile additional gravity/drop (be careful of addition of increased projectile gravity in conjunction with increased recoil). It would automatically make the weapon harder to use in inexperienced hands (increased amount of lead, correction for drop etc). Lower the fire-rate while we are at it, meaning the rookies have a harder time landing a good percentage of their shots, while vets will have the option of a weapon synergizing more with tank combat in PS2. I'm not going to be using the GK much personally with its current fire-model at least, but then again, I'm not just sitting on some mountain far away farming plebs

Keep in mind the time it takes to actually put out all that damage is vastly different for those weapons (and depending on the situation when it comes to the Saron). I'm also in favor of giving the Saron/Enforcer a bit of additional effective range. In my opinion the Enforcer needs to be able to hit more reliably, whereas the Saron shouldn't be punished as harshly over range. The Sarons CQC-abilities should be nerfed at the same time, due to the Aphelion occupying that niche now.

It's not a bad idea, and I think it could work. The weapon would still be very easy to use for rookies though, The DPS is going to be vastly reduced though, meaning it relies on its accuracy to compete. I would consider it difficult to determine an outcome of such a change, personally, but it would "nerf" the GK's CQC potential (due to vastly lower overall DPS), which I think is a good outcome. There should be clear distinctions between the effectiveness of CQC weaponry and ranged-AV weaponry in situations favoring one or the other.

Aye, going into a large fight with all sorts of targets, where you aren't planning on flanking much alone I wouldn't say the GK is a bad choice, especially if you plan on picking up random gunners. For breaking off from the zerg (my normal playstyle) I would still prefer, say, a Halberd over the GK, for a variety of reasons.

I've been courious about this exact same thing for a long time (and not only when it comes to PS2 actually). Sometimes (often) it seems like the devs are completely distanced from the game itself, and the changes they make are implemented regardless of community feedback (or not even shown at all prior to implementation). I'm pretty sure they believed the TR needed a long-range ES-AV weapon, whereas the NC/VS needed CQC ES-AV weapons. The implementation of the GK is a bit silly, most due to the projectile speed / lack of drop combined with sustained fire. That they then also gave it decent DPS is a bit silly in my book.

Aye every time people complained about a single weapon making a faction win I always cringed. I can also see how the GK has had an effect on a lot of people, especially the people not used to countering the Prowler itself (countering the GK is remarkably similar to countering a Prowler), and the people that aren't experienced/focused enough to keep their surroundings in mind (where the nearest cover is, checking "obvious" Prowler spots, etc). I have personally been having an easier time since the GK was released, as I feel like I don't have to do anything drastically different compared to previously. Going into flat, open terrain has ALWAYS been incredibly dangerous, and not because of tanks, but rather because of infantry-AV and aircraft having a clear LoS on you, meaning you are much easier to spot for them to come back and ambush soon after.

Before people say "aircraft cannot ambush you in open terrain due to AA", that is BS.

Couldn't agree more. Just look at the swaths of NC-players complaining about the Vanguard being useless, not being able to flank, etc etc. Meanwhile, the NC tankers that actually practiced tanking maneuvers and learned not to solely rely on the Shield to win battles, are true forces to be reckoned with. The same is arguably true for the Prowler (in that the artilleri-style isn't promoting sound tanking strategies), but the Prowler is more effective in the hands of rookies, and it is a better farming machine (not better at impacting fights in my opinion though), so the stats aren't reflecting the frustrations of the average-Joe just zerging about.

I left out a couple of snippets here and there from your post, since I feared that my reply would become too massive (I have a tendency to make somewhat long posts ).[/QUOTE]

wow spandax cry day?
first the "buff VS nerf TR" thread and now this (again)

the gatekeeper is fine as it is now. how come TR is the only Faction that isn't allowed to have long range AV options? (fractures suck striker is terrible at long range against both ground and air vehicles but somewhat usefull at midrange against air etc...)

VS .. the easiest Faction of all is also the most crying Faction of all ... kinda funny xD
you already got the Vulcan clone and now you want our Gatekeeper? hell no VS bad dog... bad dog!

No, no, no, and No...
If every faction had 'the same arsenal' there wouldn't be any need for more than 1 faction. We'd all be the same. How flipping boring would that be? Three factions with the exact same 'Empire Specific' base weaponry?... egad...
Why are people unable to accept that each faction has weapon characteristics unique to their own faction?
Why do people not have enough curiosity, ambition, or self-determination to learn how to counter a faction weapon different from your own faction?

On somewhat of a side note this reminds me of why I detest the idea of "class balance"... good lord how boring and unambitious.... no need for classes at all then, we'll all just stand in a circle whacking each other on the head, and no one will die, because we're all 'balanced'...... ughh....

The TTK for the GK is not exactly what an unbiased person would consider 'quick'...

i couldn't say it any better.

each faction has their strenghts and weaknesses. ppl need to understand that ... you can't use a prawler or mag like a vengard and vice versa . they have different traits and are used differently because of that. none is better then the other. they are just different.

GK heavily nerfed ? Got to say that the nerf was the gentlest in Planetside history (Prowler variant).

I'm not complaining, some of the nerfs have been ridiculous (witness PPA) but when I pulled my GK Prowler post-nerf, I actually thought that the patch didn't change it at all. After a while I realised that it wasn't quite as easy to hit air but could still do all of its old extreme range tricks with aplomb.

Can't speak for the Harasser version - but that is still pulled more often than Saron and Enforcer combined, so I guess it isn't that bad...