Does the Prowler really need a nerf?

[Assist]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

The Prowler doesn't need a nerf. HE needs a nerf... and along with that, ESF rockets. Tanks should need to use their secondary weapon to engage infantry effectively.

The Vanguard needs something though, but I'm not sure what to buff about it without making it the new FOTMBT.

The Vanguard still has to double clutch shift through like 10 gears to get moving right? If they want to make the Vanguard distinct from the Prowler it's really not that hard, make it tougher to take down. Give it more health/armor. That's what it's supposed to be so why wouldn't they? It's easier to balance by additions than it is by subtractions.

I also disagree that the Prowler doesn't need nerfed. If they thought the Magrider needed to be nerfed I don't see how anyone can say that Prowler doesn't need nerfed. Whatever cannon the HEAT is, that's what the problem is. They basically get a VS VPC/PC all in one since they get double shots. If they want to leave the Prowler as it is than give us back our Magrider and make the Vanguard into what it is supposed to be, a beast of a tank. It's what they should of done in the first place, but everyone screamed nerf and I think finally people are realizing it wasn't the right move to balancing MBT's. Make each one unique so that they're all interesting rather than making them all mundane.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by Figment

@bloodworth: point 2 vs point 1. The goal of defending forces you into the open, most players don't even bother with it anymore and I can't say I blame them quitting fights and the game over it. That isn't darwinian though since it would suggest the problem lies with the player who intends to even participate in the game on anything other than siege level. The problem here isn't the player, but the game forcing the player to handle siege units during an insertion period (CC captured by infantry and only infantry being available to fight both types and air at once, while having to cross 130m at times through a crossfire of high rate of fire HE instakill shells, which in the case of the Prowler is clearly more dangerous.

I agree with your point of base design forcing infantry directly into the line of sight of vehicle spam. Which is a result of SOE's base design philosophy. A philosophy, along with their view on aircraft hard counters, that I personally disagree with.

I will choose to ignore the rest of your post(s), because it's all conjecture and personal opinion. I'm not going to drag my outfit's name through the mud just because you feel like it.

[Figment]

Understandable, I'll send you a PM though.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Figment

You do realise how long it took to kill them, how dumb they were to even lose three and how many lives that cost us and that in the end we were doomed to lose?

No? Hmm? We're simply better individual players (as in, forced to be more creative, not even necessarily better players by definition (!)), but we can't beat that firepower and endurance, it is simply too much effort and the end result is null, because if we hadn't killed our own vehicle terms, they'd have gotten new tanks by the end of the fight. So even the applied attrition was absolutely useless by the time they reached the next capture point.

What we did to beat them was AVOID any and all fighting (pretty much leaving when they turned up) and ghost far away regions further south which they couldn't respond to, while they continued ghosting the north of Indar till they bled dry.

So much fun to NOT fight in a war game. Isn't it?





Or are you just going to point out that numbers have the "right to win", as a number of zergfits are currently claiming? In fact to the point of arrogance and cocky behaviour that their numbers win.

They call it "organisation". Yes randomly swarming and swamping an outpost with so many tanks that you can't see the ground anymore and ordering 20 tanks to simply bombard the spawnpoint non-stop so people can't aim and randomly die to unaimed fire is clearly pure organisation and skill.


Sorry, but what exactly is your point? That you didn't get the point?


In general tanks need to require dedicated drivers. Seat switching IMO failed to improve the game play as well. It only provides convenience to the tanker and removes a chance to fight back from the opposition.

The same can be said about ESFs and most other TTKs, which still kill so quickly that you can't fight back. That includes the current HE design, but I only use HEAT and AP and it's almost just as easy to get a direct hit on infantry.






IMO the main reason why this game might fail in the end is because there is a taboo on fighting back at something. Without the possibility of resistance people will avoid resisting and avoid defensive confrontations. And without resistance there's no struggle to satisfy you, so it becomes a boring dance of ghosting. Is that how you want the game to end up?

There are very good reasons people stay to fight at The Crown as they are guaranteed of a fairly even fight and a good chance of kills in either direction. That it's a useless Hamburger Hill in the process is irrelevant since they see there's no point to trying to conquer and hold the rest either: you'll fail at that anyway. So why even bother trying?


There are some fundamental flaws here that link a lot of different systems with one another and it's a shame that it's too complex a picture for most (especially new) players to comprehend. Worse is that most players are out for themselves and not for a system wide balance and "fair play" where they don't like it that an opponent has a chance to beat them. Too many people seem to be under the impression they're fighting PvE Mobs instead of other players and that whatever the conditions those players will choose to be grinded for their cert gain by pretending the opposition could do the same thing as they do: farm, grind and exploit and throw objective gameplay to the wind.

The game is too exhausting for certain groups. To make an analogy, when in the natural world the herbivors die out, the carnivors will follow. Currently the game is well underway of removing the groups that sustain the farmers and zergs by providing targets and resistance.

Well written. I just had to repost because it really makes sense to me.

[Twido]

Originally Posted by Figment

Sorry, but what exactly is your point? That you didn't get the point?

My point was merely to point out the hipocracy of complaining about how powerful something is at the same time as saying you defy the odds and beat it anyway because your awsome.

The thing is, I agree with a lot of what your saying about tanks and the game in general it is just that you spoil it my feeling the need to slag off other players and brandish your e-peen.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Figment

@bloodworth: point 2 vs point 1. The goal of defending forces you into the open, most players don't even bother with it anymore and I can't say I blame them quitting fights and the game over it. That isn't darwinian though since it would suggest the problem lies with the player who intends to even participate in the game on anything other than siege level. The problem here isn't the player, but the game forcing the player to handle siege units during an insertion period (CC captured by infantry and only infantry being available to fight both types and air at once, while having to cross 130m at times through a crossfire of high rate of fire HE instakill shells, which in the case of the Prowler is clearly more dangerous.

I mean we were fighting BRTD's entire platoon at Camp Connery yesterday (facing 20 tanks, couple AMSes and a dozen infantry or so) with 5-6 people and killed more than half their tanks. Eventhough they had 10% influence, we had no time to even consider dealing with the infantry till the last 2 minutes of the capture. Had we been able to concentrate on the infantry throughout and not been forced to run all over the compound to protect three points two of which under constant tank spam, they wouldn't have had it this easy. With all due respect for BRTD, but they don't win by skill... They get too lazy and reliant on overwhelming numbers and spam to develop their skills. That same thing is sadly true for a lot of opposition.


Point 3 I'd say needs work: halfing damage certainly, though all tanks could probably use a bigger fall off in damage towards the explosion's max radius. Cover is often useless against HE shells, which is in part an issue with design due to a splashable wall being too close to the cover, but in part because the splash simply is huge.



But they really need to do something against screenshake. During a Prowler barrage your aim is horrendous to the point of ridicule.

I Am confused.

I have not posted in this thread To my Knowledge. What are you responding to? However, yes, Base design is a major factor for most problems in this game, I have been saying that since beta. You are bringing up points I have gone over 1,000 times, so it looks like you are responding to a post I made....

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Twido

My point was merely to point out the hipocracy of complaining about how powerful something is at the same time as saying you defy the odds and beat it anyway because your awsome.

That's not hypocritical if you're defying the odds due to poor usage. It in fact examplifies that even extraordinary play (or poor performance of the assailing party) doesn't make a difference.

How's it hypocritical? They're not invulnerable. Nobody claims they're invulnerable.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I Am confused.

I have not posted in this thread To my Knowledge.

What are you responding to?

Oh sorry, got you mixed up with Hillfort for a second there.

(TR all look alike, just like the Chinese!)

[Chaff]

.
I prefer the idea of buffing Vanny armor (a tad more). It's pretty good now, though.

Only nerf HE in all MBT. Gameplay would probably be better if 2ndary gun was necessary for closer to 1/2 the MBT's softie kills. Not sure if leaving HE strong in Lightnings is good for game weapon spamming issue(s).

I prefer Air-to-Air mechanics in-game that don't leave much room for air to spam infantry. Same goes for armor. I'd prefer a game where mechanics encourage armor vs armor, and not so much infantry spammage. Easy kills are not good when they become this prevelent through-out the game.

I play all 3 empires & have never felt overly superior in any MBT - besides the Mag - prior to the recent nerfs it got. I don't want them watered down any more. I like them different. I think MBT are reasonably balanced 1-v-1. There must be uniqueness to ea empire MBT, or we will homoginaize the game to where there can be no interest to it. There needs to be compelling differences to ea empire to encourage interest & loyalty.

The overall Low-POP of VS doesn't seem to be getting the attention it should. I know the element of Jerk-de-Soleil Rainbow Coalition Spandex has to work against them somewhat, but they do have cool weapons & tech. Sounds lame, but either the color scheme, spandex, or the "alien" look of their gear is too far "out there" for most of the gaming population. Methinks the game also needs to really look at ways to help balance game Empire POP more (per server, not per cont so much).
.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Figment

Oh sorry, got you mixed up with Hillfort for a second there.

(TR all look alike, just like the Chinese!)

Aha!

Yes, I agree with you about the design forcing players to leave the safe areas.

Ultimately it's the same old outpost and base issues that we've been talking about since August.

The devs have made changes, many of which seem fine and yet the players once the players adjust the problem remains.

These days I hardly ever get out of my tank even on pain of excommunication and when I do have to do it I run into a cloaker with an SMG which is a lot less fun than sitting and going spam spam spam....

[Varsam]

Originally Posted by Figment

(TR all look alike, just like the Chinese!)

That's bad form. No need for racism.

[MrMak]

One thing is also players dont realy take advantage of base design. For instance i STILL see verry few people utilising the tunnel system in Amp Stations and Tech Plants. Heck using the extra exits from the Biolab spawn seems to be too much for some people.

Also some of the small post GU2 spanw rooms seem to have too many windows and dors pluged up. I understand when its pluged up so it doesnt have a direct line of sight on the controll point or the only road leading into the base but in some outposts it seems like its too much. Perhaps the anti air roofs shpoould be higher but with angled shields stil lgiving the same protection to people near the edges of the "mid floor". Right now they often helps vehicles with high explosive weaponry.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Varsam

That's bad form. No need for racism.

Frogs also all look alike, but do you hear the french complain?



(You need to learn to not confuse racism with mild nationality jokes. It's people like you that get offended by Top Gear of all things.)

[Varsam]

Originally Posted by Figment

Frogs also all look alike, but do you hear the french complain?



(You need to learn to not confuse racism with mild nationality jokes. It's people like you that get offended by Top Gear of all things.)

You need to learn that what you consider "mild" may not be so to everyone. It's people like you that perpetuate cultural stereotypes and ignorance.

[AnotherBrother]

I read a Higby post, he wants the TR tanks to do the same damage to infantry with 1 reload so that it is in-line with the other 2 MBT's