Why VS win all alerts ?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Eroulca, Sep 7, 2019.

  1. Demigan

    They do have more gunners per Magrider, but they do not specifically wait for those gunners. Since the stats show they are pulled at similar amounts per player there is a similar amount of planning going into it.
    The Magrider does get more gunners, in fact they get so many gunners that every Magrider should have one and a small portion of extra gunner in its gunseat all the time. We know that not every Magrider is always gunned and we also know that the only way for Magriders to have more gunners than guns is to have players exit and someone else jump in.

    Combine those two points, what do you get? Magriders are much more enjoyable to gun for than the other 2 MBT's. The Prowler especially shows a lower amount of gunners due to its main gun stealing kills. So why is the Magrider gunseat so much more attractive? Well there are only two reasons I can think off: it is more powerful and the MBT its based on offers more for gunners than the other two (like enjoyment). Planning and teamwork are out of the question as we would see that back in NS weapon stats.
  2. adamts01

    Auto shotguns on server smashes?

    I'm talking about A2A ESF. All factions have effective A2G.
  3. pnkdth

    The conclusions you reach are entirely based on assumptions.

    The only thing we can say with any certainty is that VS will have their MBTs fully crewed a good deal more often than other factions. The top guns performance is in general very close to each other so there is not much to suggest they're more powerful on the Maggie either. I question the relevance of the NS weapons since the claim VS have made about why they prefer to fully crew their MBT is not something which is repeated elsewhere. Furthermore, how do you correlate planning/teamwork with NS weapon performance.
  4. Skraggz

    I'd argue that PPA is the worst of the three, however all 3 are obnoxiously good at what they do.
  5. InexoraVC

    You're still trying to prove your point that Magrider is OP and it offers more for a gunner or for a pilot. Than ... for example ... Vanguard :) I already know your POV :)
    As I told you before few times - go and play few days/weeks as a Vanu. Try to liberate few continents. Lets play together in a vehicle squad if you want.

    From my POV the main NC's problem is individualism/egoism. When I play for them, I almost never or very rarely get a gunner for my Vanguard. I say "I need a gunner" many times, I try to stay near deployed Sunderers and find gunner there. No gunners found :)
    Vanguard's Mjolnir is a decent gun. As well as Halberd. Not worse than Saron or Vanu's Halberd. Why NCs don't want to be a gunners ? Maybe they think that they are very tough ? Do they consider it less self-respecting to be a crew member? I really dont understand it because it is obvious that 2/2 Vanguard will have a HUGE advantage over other 1/2 MBTs.

    And what about playing as a Vanu ? Right opposite. My Magrider has a 2/2 crew ~80% of vehicle session time. 2 hours ago @Hossin with random Saron gunner we have recieved 20k XP in 25 min and killed a lot of MBTs (TR mostly). After being killed by Vulcan Harrasser I found the new gunner for my Mag in 1 minute.
    I mostly use Halberd and Saron, not Aphelion (because 99% of players don't know how to use it correctly). So I think they are equal to Mjolnir and Vanguard's Halberd. I see no advantages of Vanu's top guns over NC's.

    So I think that the main problem of NCs is that they do not want to take measures to increase their own effectiveness, but instead only complain about the shortcomings of the developers of the game. And I'm really sorry about that.
    And planning and teamwork are the keys to success.

    Do not take my message as aggression. Keep calm and respawn! :)

    P.S. sorry my english mistakes...it is very late here
  6. Campagne

    Argument from fallacy fallacy. This rabbit hole goes deep. :p Anyways, there is no false dichotomy being presented, at least not by me. The VS-teamwork link argument being presented is akin to me saying the VS win more because their players tend to eat more pickles than anyone else. Unverifiable and completely illogical. Clearly due to the random nature of populations, pickle consumption is normally distributed among all players. :p

    Regardless, a dichotomy requires there to be a choice. I'm not suggesting more than one broad option, I'm arguing why the presented claim is just objectively wrong and supplying one of my own.

    Secondly, regarding the single cause you yourself already point out I credit more than one thing and on top of that, the single thing is a broad generalization for the purposes of packing it into an argument. I've suggested the possibility as both infantry and vehicles, whether because of inherent mechanics, usefulness of mechanics and weapon types, inherent balance of some weapons, or the basis of flat inferiority for the majority if not all of the NC's ES vehicles and vehicle equipment. A single overarching cause caused by many smaller parts adding up together.

    Ironically, suggesting the VS win more solely because they are more organized and prone to teamwork is a single cause fallacy. A faulty generalization at that.

    There is no such thing as "faction culture" when individuals from any faction can and do transfer across to other factions, when all players regardless of faction can able to communicate freely, and when the factions exist over various servers across the world. Server culture maybe, but not faction culture.

    Player skills are independent of social factors, as is equipment. All other factors are normally distributed across a population, especially things like factors concerning playstyle and play time.

    A fact is an objective truth which can be proven or verified and describes the world as it is. Baseless assertions such as "both [the] VS/TR have been known as having the best organisation" are not fact. There is no evidence of this, no reason to believe this, nothing to suggest it is true in the slightest degree. Show me a citation of a peer-reviewed academic cross-sectional longitudinal study of inter-player communications and cooperation relative to chosen faction. That still wouldn't make it fact because we'd obviously need more than just a single study but it sure would do leaps and bounds for the argument, wouldn't it? Quite frankly the claim is just looking for what supports it and ignoring all the signs telling us it's barking up the wrong tree.

    Can you list any examples of another team-based competitive with persistent factions MMO where one faction dominates/fails to such a significant degree? Even just one example where identical equipment exists for both factions and the losing team carries some stigma or bad reputation? Again though, this still wouldn't be very much proof as it'd be circumstantial at best.

    As per usual server smashes are not indicative of standard gameplay conditions. For one thing populations are considerably smaller and are comprised of almost exclusively veteran players. Some equipment is used more, less and not at all. There are arbitrary rules that all factions benefit from and are penalized with. As a result there are a small number of exclusively experienced players with a slightly reduced arsenal whom have both the skills and experience to use and know when to use specialized and skill-based/demanding weapons more effectively. NC vets will use more versatile weapons more commonly than SAWs but those who do will do so much better than the average player can, all while facing less or even no threats of different types seen on live.

    If anything, server smashes help demonstrate my point that the NC's arsenal is not well suited to the game. Regardless, it is evidence of nothing and is downright detrimental to mention as evidence for condition which only appear on live servers and no where else.

    I'm afraid I just cannot agree that any social factor has any influence on the overall game or gameplay under the given circumstances. Especially not when there is a very real difference in ES equipment available to each faction.

    Sorry, that turned into a bit of a wall. :p
  7. Campagne

    Just cause I didn't see anyone else say it: The tests should have been recorded. This helps demonstrate the legitimacy of the claims, helps to put it into a more digestible context, and shows the viewer exactly how well each tank performed in each trial and how close of a match it really was.

    We can already run the numbers and do a theoretical engagement based on calculated TTKs for a simplified analysis. This would already tell us more and would leave no room for error.

    Not to mention the poster has a clear bias. It would help everyone if he had actually provided proof or even just any numbers at all.
    • Up x 1
  8. adamts01

    Hardly. If the Vanguard was outplayed and took a salvo to the side then turned and popped a shield, the Vanguard would still win. That ambush isn't an ideal situation for a Vanguard by any measure. So what's the Prowler's magic saving grace? Speed? Not when a Racer Vanguard goes 75 and a Racer Prowler goes 78.
  9. Demigan

    You are still assuming its a slugfest with 100% accuracy.

    Lets consider the most commonly used vehicle tactic: pop up attacks. You hide behind cover, drive out, fire until damaged and then hide behind cover to repair up. You can only win by miscalculation of your opponent or when you manage to have enough health left for driving up to the opponent to finish them off.

    The Vanguard has to expose more of himself before his turret is visible, it has a slower acceleration making it take longer, it has less DPS in that moment where it does fire compared to the Prowlers two shots, it has a longer time necessary to get back into cover, it has more health to survive this but also a longer repairtime. In the case it needs to rush the enemy position it has a slower turn ratio meaning it takes longer to point the front the right way and you are longer in the slowed movement of a turning fase. This all means the Prowler has an easier time avoiding damage, dealing out damage, has more leniency to jump behind cover when damaged, is repaired to full faster and has a better chance to finish the Vanguard by rushing it.
    And hey, the Prowler does beat the Vanguard in KPH, VKPH and KDR. I wonder why... well because the Prowler is the superior tank ofcourse. Since I did the calculations for MBT vs MBT combat of the Vanguard and Prowler, where the Prowler was king by the way, the Vanguard has gotten nerfs and the Prowler only buffs. It doesnt take much imagination what would have happened to those numbers if Oracle Of Death was still available.

    The ultimate point is: in game in real combat we can clearly see the Prowler outperforming the Vanguard. Tests that do not mimic these conditions should be disregarded, at best they can be used to try and track down what elements make the Prowler perform better in the field.
  10. Demigan

    I have logical arguments to back it up. It would be a massive coincidence if the VS pulled just as many Magriders on a per-player basis as the other two if they only pulled one with a Gunner available. Since they have more gunners than guns it is also a fact that players leave the gunseat as well.

    Lets look at the opposite side then: is the argument that all Magriders are mostly pulled due to teamwork and organizing gunners an assumption? Yes it is, and it is one that is very hard to believe due to how many Magriders are pulled per player.

    So what reasons are left for players to both occupy and leave Magrider turrets? Fun, effectiveness and...? What else? They might be assunptions, but they are a LIMITED SET of assumptions. All the rest of the options cannot be assumed, and we can use occams razor to determine the most likely cause. In this case it is likely a combination of enjoyment and effectiveness. I've been playing VS more often lately and I only have to pull a Magrider and someone jumps in the gun.
    As a sidenote I've also been trying to lead the much celebrated VS teamwork in squads and platoons but so far they have been the most nightmarish people to play with, no communication not even a "screw that", dump down a beacon and they spread out more and that kind of thing. Could have been a fluke, but with half a dozen tries so far it starts looking a lot like that VS teamwork idea is once again a dud.
  11. DarkStarAnubis

    I swear I love you.

    Little quiz for you and Demigan: can you name in this thread a couple of other people who have as well a clear bias and provide no proof and number in their Wall of Text?

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    P. S. I read that Reddit post. They provided some number and details.
    • Up x 1
  12. Campagne

    Doin' it for you, bby. <3

    I presume you're suggesting myself, given your subsequent comments. :p

    Believe me, I'd love to actually post the statistical probability of VS containing all or the vast majority of team-oriented players down to the thousandth decimal point x10-y but I simply can't. Not only do I lack the majority of the data required to make the calculations, I also lack the mathematical skill required to even being to process the numbers. I've completed multiple university math courses including two specifically on statistics, but that calculation is still way above my level. I'm not going for a friggin' doctorate in statistics here man!

    At the very least a few things can be considered null and the population can be considered normal. I could determine the probability of any given player randomly joining any given faction, but exactly how could I define what constitutes as "team-oriented" and how on Earth could I even measure that in the population? That'd be a bell curve on its own! I don't even know if anyone could determine the literal probability of the claim. All we know is that it's obviously extraordinarily tiny.

    The Redditor posted the previously known top speeds for the two MBTs with racer chassis and a couple of what appear to be mostly random health values without going into deal for each test performed. That'd be like saying in 10 tests performed the Cyclone beat the Gladius and indicating nothing else. We can easily determine the numbers ourselves without having to stand and shoot each other and we'd learn more through theory any way! Posting "Test X: [qualifier Y] Result: Vanguard" is pretty meaningless.

    And of course I'm obligated to point out the distinct lack of any information or evidence provided by you on behalf of your own claims. Not to mention I'm basing my argument and position in math while you base yours on personal feelings. You call me the pot? You're so black Anish Kapoor is calling up his lawyers for copyright infringement on Vantablack.
    • Up x 1
  13. Demigan

    I have played a few weeks as Vanu, that is part of what I'm basing everything on. Also I'm not going to play together with someone who says things like this:

    The Mjolnir is the worst performing topgun for MBT's in the game. But now a thank you for bringing this to my attention again:

    The VS Halberd. The VS score the exact same as the other two factions with NS weapons. The Halberd on the VS Harasser for example scores the about same as those on the other two. But place that same Halberd on the Magrider and suddenly it performs better than the other two factions.
    What changed? Nothing but the platform. We can be 100% certain that any changes to stats when comparing the Halberd on the Harasser and MBT is solely based on the platform it's based on. We also know that the stats of a Vanguard with Halberd are of one with gunner. You could argue that the NC and TR use less gunners than the VS, but if that were significant enough then the VS Harasser Halberd would also see a significant increase in performance.

    So what are we left with? A Halberd that is superior the moment it's mounted on the Magrider. How can that be with everything else eliminated? Well because the Magrider is a superior platform to place the Halberd on. That makes it more powerful and more enjoyable to gun for, and players will want to enter your tank, explaining the higher amount of gunners for Magriders and why other factions have less want to be gunners.


    Yes, but does the 2/2 Vanguard get the same mileage as the 2/2 Magrider? What does the gunner get for gunning for a Vanguard? Well less than for a Magrider, as should be obvious by now. Why make a Vanguard 2/2 when it is less enjoyable and effective for the gunner to do so? He's got better options, so he'll not enter your tank.
    Also just for reference, most Vanguards are 2/2. It is acted as if the Vanguard (and Prowler) are more often 1/2 than 2/2, which is untrue.
  14. DarkStarAnubis

    Ciao Campagne,

    In my defence I can state do not write WoTs and I said my remarks were subjectives lacking any stats!

    I am working however on those numbers and there is some truth in the statement "VS weapons are better" but it is a case by case: the Orion, Betelgeuse and Maw perform better of their counterparties, exactly like the Anchor is the CQC queen.

    Stay tuned...
  15. pnkdth

    I'm able to hold different ideas as to why things look the way they look. Meanwhile you finish every single point you make with "this is what you could present but LOL NOPE I will ignore it anyways, PSYCHE, BRO." I do have experience with researching and forming communities though (both on- and offline) and there are plenty of studies within the field but I do appreciate the warning that you would just discard it anyways thus won't waste my time.

    You do present a logical argument and you present plausible explanations. The Magrider, however, is a unique vehicle so it would be logical to assume unique variables. Historically, the primary of the Maggie has been quite weak in comparison whereas the top gun has been quite powerful (to overpowered) which foster a certain type of behaviour. In this case, you'd want to crew the top gun because the primary gun tends to not be up to snuff. Similarly, when we've talked about MAX units you've presented the argument that NC use their MAX in a certain way because it, too, is unique. This has also resulted in doubts and scrutiny by opposing factions even though everyone who has played as an NC MAX knowns you do not use it in a similar manner as the other two (who functions very similarly, which much like the MBTs do for NC/TR and where the Maggie is unique).

    True, there are assumptions which are more plausible than others. Effectiveness and fun is undoubtably high up there but even so I find the rather unique habit to be intriguing. Especially when you look at the top gun performance which remarkably balanced across the factions + the VS top guns which used to be all the rage have been rebalanced. It could certainly be that it is just more fun to to top gun a Maggie but at the same time the difference in pri/top is large + the historical baggage.

    I am assuming/speculating too, but just like the effectiveness/fun-factor I do not think we can ignore the effects of something like how the Maggie has been designed (weak pri/strong top) anymore than how TR's Prowler has been used with its primary being the main draw to pull one. Especially since it has been true for VS players up until CAI and MBT changes.
    • Up x 2
  16. InexoraVC

    Thank you very much.

    Now I have a proof that at least one NC player consider it less self-respecting to be a crew member :) And prefers to write another wall of text instead.
    If you have a low tanking skill Keep calm and Respawn! :)
  17. Demigan

    Thank you for a good argument.

    The NC MAX and Magrider are both unique, but I think there is a difference. The NC MAX has a much more limited range of where and why it is pulled, but the Magrider isnt as limited. Aside from the "we cant do anything at range, we cant do anything in CQC, we cant do anything at all" arguments that permeate just about every faction for some reason I havent seen anyone proclaim that Magriders are exclusive to a particular area. We see them pulled in open North Indar and Esamir but also in claustrofobic area's like Hossin or mountainous Amerish. They also have virtually the same pull ratio on a per-player basis, so the same amount of thought and deliberation has to go into using the Magrider over other vehicles as the TR and NC do for their MBT, and in the end the terrain people fight over is so evenly distributed and matters so little that it makes no real difference in the pull rates.
    That is why I think the Magriser, while unique, is still similar enough compared to the other two MBT's to not influence the stats as much one way or another beyond the actual capabilities.

    As for its design, the primary gun of the Magrider has already been leveled with the other two (and in fact was never more than a few DPS points away from the Vanguard) and its muzzle velocity and projectile gravity have long ago been equalized with that of the Prowler. The secondary guns are still strong, but how strong exactly cant be determined with ease. As we can see with the Halberd the Magrider is simply a superior vehicle to mount it on, so why wouldnt a Saron be better on the Magrider compared to a cross-faction Prowler or Vanguard with a Saron on top?

    So I have to orginize a playsession with someone who thinks the Magrider is bad and then proceeds to proclaim how easy it was racking up kills with a gunned Magrider? I dont consider it less self-respecting to be a crew member, I consider it less self respecting to be YOUR crewmember.
    Also I've long ago made it clear that there is nothing to gain from such playsessions. If it goes well then the Magrider is good? Or is that somehow a mystical reason its bad? If it goes badly, is it because you suck or because the Magrider sucks? Does a single playsession matter compared to the hundreds of playsessions played every day?

    As for my skill, even before the CAI update when the Lightning HESH gun was considered too weak to use against vehicles I scored as well with it against tanks as other players did with the Lightning AP gun. So rather than proclaim I'm bad for no reason could you, you know, offer an actual argument?
    • Up x 1
  18. Exileant

    :eek: That, right there, is what I am talking about. The Airhammer was supposed to be Anti infantry but you can use it on ANYTHING. It works particularly well against other fighters. The P.P.C. can only get away with shooting infantry well. :( It cannot even be used on vehicles to good effect anymore. And it certainly is not smart to try to use them on aircraft.... ;) I do it for fun, but it is weak even against E.S.F. And often I am forced to retreat because I am unable to keep a steady damage pace. :confused: Something (a projectile) that big and that slow moving should knock out an E.S.F. in like 3 to 5 hits. o_O On vehicles it should act like single shot rocket pod. :( T.R. is the same as N.C. Versatile. Their A.I. weapon is a monster against E.S.F.'s armor. In fact, the only downfall I see to using it over the A.A. cannon is the noise it makes. The second you shoot it, EVERYONE knows you are in the area. :eek: Your target dies, if you are a decent pilot, but now you spend years of your life running until someone else becomes the target. V.S. lacks that kind of versatility. Our weapons are often designed with one single purpose... :( There is no Easter eggs with regard to tips and tricks that make learning weapons fun on our faction. Either you get good at how it was meant to be used, or you forget it all together.
  19. Campagne

    You can hold all the ideas you wish but if most of them are wrong it doesn't really help anything. :p

    I'm doing a fancy literary device called "emphasis." I'm adding weight and significance to a point by repeating it to communicate its importance and value.

    If you could actually provide a single piece of evidence it'd go a long way and I promise I'd actually consider it if it were legitimate, but a single study is not comprehensive enough to consider fact as an industry standard. This protects us from bad studies and studies which start with the conclusion and work backwards, like the one study suggesting vaccines cause autism. Every other study disagrees and it is therefore much more likely vaccines do not cause autism.

    Refusal to provide evidence is a failure to support an argument. Even if I would just ignore it (quite like how some people have been ignoring me...) it would still exist for others to see and act upon.
  20. adamts01

    This is outdated. By almost a year. The Banshee had its direct damage halved. As you said, it was as effective as an AA gun if you were close enough and could land hits with its low velocity. The Air Hammer is still decent, but nowhere near what it used to be. The PPA actually deals better dps against vehicles, as well as substantially better sustained dps than the Banshee. But, like you said, it's hard to land hits against ESF. Overall the Banshee is the best against point targets at range, the Air Hammer is by far the best against point targets up close, especially Burster Maxes, and the PPA is the best against vehicles and groups of infantry.

    I HATE the balance of these guns. I'd much rather see nerfed splash damage and the direct damage of the old Banshee. Basically make them bottom tier AA guns with a little splash to kill infantry, but remove their insane farming ability.

Share This Page