Higby on Tank Balance

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by BruTaL

Prowlers are siege tanks not tanks that fight in the front lines hence in numbers,"strength in numbers" tr motto right.

They are what now? Siege tanks? Since when are they "siege tanks"? (You've been playing too much Starcraft if you think that's a proper specification.)
Of course they are front line tanks, they are main battle tanks (or medium depending on whom you ask).

Their motto is “Loyalty until Death, Strength in Unity!”

What exactly is it that makes you think that the Prowler is supposed to be fielded in greater numbers? It's identical cost? It's identical crew complement? If you were actually correct then the Prowler would cost less and only require one person to actually use fully, as in being able to use both the secondary and primary at once. Otherwise there is no possible way that there would ever be fielded more Prowlers than Magriders and Vanguards, barring a significant population imbalance.

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

Considering that the TR have the best infantry in the game, units like the Prowler and the TR MAX have lockdowns to support the advance of that infantry. Having established a beachhead, so to speak, having 2~4 Prowlers in lockdown mode are a nightmare to deal with if they have the territory advantage. All those shells hurt a lot.

Once the infantry + some armour has advanced, the LD prowlers unlock and move up. This is an interesting ability, but VERY situational. I would suggest people to cert it but not use it in the same way the Magburner/Vanguard Shield should be used. LD turns the Prowler the best support/suppressive fire tank compared to the other two.

Were they made with that specific role in mind? I don't remember anyone claiming that was the role they were supposed to fill: That of infantry support.

"The Prowler makes up for it's vs tank shortcomings quite a bit with infantry farming, but on a tank vs. tank basis it is very weak. We don't really want people to feel like they HAVE to roll vs infantry loadouts with tanks to be useful, but the current state of the prowler makes that seem like the only real useful role for it. These changes (along with the previous HE nerfs) are hopefully going to encourage a lot more tank vs tank combat from each empire."

"[...]due largely to the Prowler's higher capacity for farming infantry, but again, we want to make sure tanks are tuned around combat with other tanks, not combat with infantry, and large changes were and are warranted to bring them into line."


What's important to note here is that while that may be the way the tank is often used, it's not what they had in mind.

I don't see how the Prowler is anymore of a infantry support tank (by design) than either the Vanguard or Magrider, besides of course being more effective at killing enemy infantry (that however seems to have been a side effect and not its role by design). I should also note that infantry support tanks are characterized by their lack of heavy armament, thick armor and thus slower speed, which is irrelevant because of their role and having to stick close to infantry. The Prowler doesn't have the thickest armor, deals the same damage as the Vanguard and it's the fastest tank.

I'm also rather certain that when the TR MAX gets its lockdown ability then we won't be seeing any of them, besides the AA variants, actually use the ability out in the open to provide cover. A stationary MAX is for the most part a dead MAX.
Prowlers using lockdown are also extremely easy targets for anything aerial.

Yes it can be used effectively under the right circumstances and in the right situations, which is also the crux of the matter.
Again I don't get what the devs want the Prowler to do.

[superseohyun]

Originally Posted by BruTaL

Prowlers are siege tanks not tanks that fight in the front lines hence in numbers,"strength in numbers" tr motto right.

if prowler is a siege tank then its absolutely horrible game design unless they give TR anther MBT. If they want players from all factions to have fun in tank battle, they cant just give one faction a siege tank and call it a day.

its like give one faction a bomber and the other two factions fighter. Its not fun.

[PeanutMF]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

have no drop to contend with

ಠ_ಠ

I like the Magrider (but use the lightning more, I only jump in a Mag when I there will be two people crewing it) however acknowledge that is superior to other tanks (much because of other tank's shortcomings like awful traction and no turret stabilisation).

However this is just wrong, unless you are talking about the Saron (not Sauron btw, we aren't carrying the Dark Lord of Mordor around with us guys); the main cannon on a Magrider has projectile drop, only the Saron does not.

Having tried the (default) Vanguard I loved the extra frontal armour, but the acceleration was complete balls; it's far more crippled than either other faction's acceleration rate, feels like it goes far beyond just being a regular NC disadvantage.

The the lack of turret stabilisation is most noticeable on the Prowler, since it's going much faster most of the time compared to the Vanguard. However both of them need it badly (as well as the lightning), and sliding around is annoying as hell.

If SOE give the tanks a decent amount of turret stabilisation I would be interested to see if the effective/practical DPS of the Prowler jumps dramatically after this 25% damage buff.

[BruTaL]

Typical,games like battlefield has made people think tanks are only meant to battle other tanks.Think for a moment why do you think the prowler as the biggest splash damage and anchor mode?

It's not like the only way to kill other tanks is by using tanks, i can see the vision the devs had with each tank but some gamers just don't see it,they think it's all about just running in there and then dieing and start raging.

Look,up close the magrider would lose to the vanguard with it's armor and shield,it would also lose to the prowler with it's rof and vulcan.The only reason why the magrider has a higher k/d is because it's mostly used at range.Just learn to use your strengths and weaknesses,where's the fun in this game if everything is the same?

We could sit here and argue all day,some people just need to learn.

[PeanutMF]

Originally Posted by BruTaL

Typical,games like battlefield has made people think tanks are only meant to battle other tanks.

I agree.

If tanks were made to fight other tanks, then what was the purpose of making them in the first place?

This is probably what makes the Vanguard overall the weakest tank (imo) since it's mediocre at anti-infantry and its anti-tank ability is still bested by the magrider at all ranges except close up.

If you manage to destroy all the opposing armour in the area with a Vanguard you can't support your infantry as well as you could in a Mag or a Prowler.

While with a Prowler destroying the opposing armour in the area might be more difficult, but you will be laughing all the way to the bank with mopping up the infantry afterwards.

And to be frank I'm okay with the Vanguard being rather bad at killing infantry compared to the other tanks, but it needs to be better in other areas.

[BruTaL]

Originally Posted by PeanutMF

I agree.

If tanks were made to fight other tanks, then what was the purpose of making them in the first place?

This is probably what makes the Vanguard overall the weakest tank (imo) since it's mediocre at anti-infantry and its anti-tank ability is still bested by the magrider at all ranges except close up.

If you manage to destroy all the opposing armour in the area with a Vanguard you can't support your infantry as well as you could in a Mag or a Prowler.

While with a Prowler destroying the opposing armour in the area might be more difficult, but you will be laughing all the way to the bank with mopping up the infantry afterwards.

And to be frank I'm okay with the Vanguard being rather bad at killing infantry compared to the other tanks, but it needs to be better in other areas.

I think the vanguard needs a speed buff.

[PeanutMF]

Originally Posted by BruTaL

I think the vanguard needs a speed buff.

The Vanguard already has a top speed greater than the Magrider discounting the Magburner, it just has really bad acceleration.

[raw]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

The problem with the mag IS its maneuverability. No other tank can always point its front ( Armor ) towards a target seemingly regardless of terrain.

The magrider can't ignore terrain when aiming, its most affected by terrain of all tanks.

What are these posts supposed to be, an entry into the badpost lottery?

This is probably what makes the Vanguard overall the weakest tank (imo) since it's mediocre at anti-infantry and its anti-tank ability is still bested by the magrider at all ranges except close up.

Yes, this thread seems to be about the monthly bad post lottery. Excsuse me while I look for a thread with substance.

[Fear The Amish]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Of course it is, it allowed them to do almost whatever they wanted.



That above is pretty hard to argue with right now. They have to try and change some things.

alright i see alot of arguments both back and forth... but i wanna put a few things in perspective....

1.) Speed: the magriders speed is the slowest. now some of you will point out MAGBURNER!! OMG WTF!! yes mag burn is nice but in only a few instance's remember it has no turret so to use magburn to get away you have to point your ASS at the enemy... (lets all think about that for a second...)

2.) Front mounted gun: while yes this is a plus giving the most heavily armor place frontal positioning but let me ask you something have you actually LOOKED at a mag... the sides actually are still in the front because of that crescent shape learn how to kill them and shoot on the side. also this front mounted gun means stuff that Vannies/Prowlers use as cover we are stuck shooting it.

3.) Damage: we have the least damage out of any MBT in the game

4.) Round: our bullets are giant blobs of plasma. what this means is any time we fire a shot its a big giant SHOOT ME! sign.

lets be honest amongst our selves here as veterans and skilled players. Mag's just like any other tank have things they are better at then others. Do they deserve a nerf? i honestly don't know what could be nerfed on them that wouldn't cripple them and make them useless. Do other tanks need a buff? yes i think that the vannie/prowler both need some form of stabilizer.

P.S hamma i mean no disrespect but i honestly have to say i am actually a little disappointed in you because instead of responding to his points you act like a Official forum pubbie. Yes the mag rider can go all over the place but it has nothing to do with hover height. It has everything to do with Magburner + momentum + careful testing of position. This will not effect a magriders ability to get in crazy places. All it will do is make driving them in general a pain in the ass.

[ffffff]

Originally Posted by Fear The Amish

2.) Front mounted gun: while yes this is a plus giving the most heavily armor place frontal positioning but let me ask you something have you actually LOOKED at a mag... the sides actually are still in the front because of that crescent shape learn how to kill them and shoot on the side. also this front mounted gun means stuff that Vannies/Prowlers use as cover we are stuck shooting it

Locational damage is an orientation comparison, not a hitbox check. For the purposes of locational bonuses, if you're facing the opponent you're only going to take frontal damage from him, no matter where he hits you.


To contribute to the argument:
There's always going to be a lot of denial about just how big the utility & reliability that hovering provides is. It's unfortunately huge, to the point that if MBTs were about equally potent, the Magrider would seem anemically armed (or it's opponents way over-gunned) - which makes a diplomatic solution to nerfs/buffs kind of hard. This is the real problem with asymmetry, it requires some tough decision-making and you to evaluate some not-so-easily quantified stuff, like the ability to traverse all terrain.

Right now, the Magrider is just an almost-symmetric MBT in the weapon department with a massive utility ability that the other two MBTs just don't even remotely have. That's as close to having it all as you can get.

Quite frankly I was expecting to see the less-hover + dropless 300m/s Enforcer approach and just to see a shift to Magriders using Rival Chassis and still coming out on top more than anyone else. Welp.

The good news at least is that MBT combat is subject to a lot of equalizers (okay, mostly the Annihilator) so it doesn't really throw the game off too bad that objectively-better MBTs exist.

[Rago]

Originally Posted by Hamma

They are not fine as they are

Solution: Remove the Magrider!

-If you see this Guy in a Galaxy, be sure to shoot it Down

The MAG has it´s cons , you may not believe it but thats how it is, its made for fight from the Distance, how soe made it ATM,thats the Situation.


Its not that Easy to hit with the Saron, especially when the Tank is moving, its good on mid distance ,when you play with low sense its okay,..

When i get into close Combat with a TR Prowler or a NC Vanguard, most of the Time we do not survive.

From the Distance i have the movement of it wich makes the win, often.

Create a VS char try it yourself !(To be honest i suggest everybody to play different factions, just to get the better eye on it)
ImHo Every faction is not bad you just have to get used to it.I say.


Me myself hate Gravity or changes on "the feeling" of Weapons, because im play with feeling.And Changing the Weapons make me to learn that weapon again, just to mention it.

To be honest, im happy that this change has a kind of "Delay".
And its not the Vs Kids Yelling.

@fffff

I often see Skilled TR Prowlers shooting my Back, which makes the Mag die Fast, even poiniting with the Front Gun, on or to them.(talking about mid distance and close distance, which forces me to use the Mag most of the time, if possible , from the Distance)

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by BruTaL

Typical,games like battlefield has made people think tanks are only meant to battle other tanks.Think for a moment why do you think the prowler as the biggest splash damage and anchor mode?

It's not like the only way to kill other tanks is by using tanks, i can see the vision the devs had with each tank but some gamers just don't see it,they think it's all about just running in there and then dieing and start raging.

Look,up close the magrider would lose to the vanguard with it's armor and shield,it would also lose to the prowler with it's rof and vulcan.The only reason why the magrider has a higher k/d is because it's mostly used at range.Just learn to use your strengths and weaknesses,where's the fun in this game if everything is the same?

We could sit here and argue all day,some people just need to learn.

Uh-huh. Statements like the ones that Higby has made is what makes be think that the MBTs are meant to primarily fight each other, or rather their primary role is to defeat enemy armor, that does not mean that they will not fulfill, or otherwise support in, other roles like that of anti-infantry. Also the HEAT rounds have the same splash area, the Vanguard's AP and both the Magrider and Prowler have the same HE splash. They all deal the same indirect damage. So you're basing your argument on a faulty basis.

Please do explain how us "gamers" are unable to understand the primary goal of the MBT, which is to deal with enemy armor? What exactly does primary role have have to do with "but some gamers just don't see it,they think it's all about just running in there and then dieing and start raging." Since it's primarily longe range engagements that people are complaining about, when it comes to balance between the three MBTS. Seems like just a silly straw man argument.

Please don't start using the old and tired "learn to play" arugment. It is bs in this argument since all MBTs HAVE to be able to compete against each other in longer range engagements, unless they radically change the way the tanks work (for example revamp the Prowler for nothing but close combat). As evident by Higby's statements.

Yes, some poeple need to learn the MBT's primary role. Again please do stop it with the "learn to play" arguments.

Originally Posted by PeanutMF

I agree.

If tanks were made to fight other tanks, then what was the purpose of making them in the first place?

This is probably what makes the Vanguard overall the weakest tank (imo) since it's mediocre at anti-infantry and its anti-tank ability is still bested by the magrider at all ranges except close up.

If you manage to destroy all the opposing armour in the area with a Vanguard you can't support your infantry as well as you could in a Mag or a Prowler.

While with a Prowler destroying the opposing armour in the area might be more difficult, but you will be laughing all the way to the bank with mopping up the infantry afterwards.

And to be frank I'm okay with the Vanguard being rather bad at killing infantry compared to the other tanks, but it needs to be better in other areas.

What a silly question? They were of course made to be the backbone in any groundbased engagement. That does not mean that, that is all they are good for. Again, this is an misinterpretation.

All MBTs are more than capable of dealing with infantry. The only real reason as to why the Prowler is better at killing infantry is because of its dual barrels. When other MBTs fire at infantry it's just overkill, when Prowlers fire it's less overkill times 2, as in you can apply the max damage across a larger area faster than any other MBT. Why do you think that they want to change The Vanguard's long range capabilities against the Magrider?

Not as well as the Prowler perhaps, but the Magrider and Vanguard are basicly equal in this area. The Saron certainly make it far easier to snipe infantry, good thing it's getting a nerf then.

Which is not the point of the Prowler.

"[...]due largely to the Prowler's higher capacity for farming infantry, but again, we want to make sure tanks are tuned around combat with other tanks, not combat with infantry, and large changes were and are warranted to bring them into line."

It's not bad at killing infantry.

[Mietz]

I like how some people think that the Magrider is this penultimate tank that is godlike on the battlefield and if you ever drove a Mag you wouldn't ever want to go back to any other tank.

My counter argument: Me

I played Vanu for all of beta and two weeks of launch with a heavy emphasis on the Magrider. My friends started playing TR so I switched, I now main TR which has double BR to my Vanu toon and I still focus on tanking.

I love the Prowler and I don't feel like going back to the Magrider.

The Prowler is a great tank and I love driving it.

If forced to chose I would stick with the Prowler and never get into the Magrider ever again.

[superseohyun]

Originally Posted by Mietz

I like how some people think that the Magrider is this penultimate tank that is godlike on the battlefield and if you ever drove a Mag you wouldn't ever want to go back to any other tank.

My counter argument: Me

I played Vanu for all of beta and two weeks of launch with a heavy emphasis on the Magrider. My friends started playing TR so I switched, I now main TR which has double BR to my Vanu toon and I still focus on tanking.

I love the Prowler and I don't feel like going back to the Magrider.

The Prowler is a great tank and I love driving it.

If forced to chose I would stick with the Prowler and never get into the Magrider ever again.

really？ your argument is your personal experience?

anyway, prowler indeed is a great tank.like higby said, prowler only perform slightly under MAG when you take anti-infantry into consideration. It just sucks as a MBT.

i think the vanguard need the most buff. It cant deal with MAG where most tank fight take place, and cant deal with infantry nearly as good as a prowler.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by superseohyun

really？ your argument is your personal experience?

Yes, really, because the argument isn't aimed at the objective numbers but the perception people are talking about.

anyway, prowler indeed is a great tank.like higby said, prowler only perform slightly under MAG when you take anti-infantry into consideration. It just sucks as a MBT.

How does this sentence make any sense?
Its a great tank, except its a bad tank?

The game is asymmetrical, not every tank needs to do the same thing. If the Prowler is the best AI tank (which it isn't exclusively from my experience) so be it, no problem.