Empire Specific Atributes

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

In order to win a tank battle you have to have air support or distractions ? ..... yeah hell no.

Because, yeah, that's exactly what I said.

No, I was just commenting that battles don't happen in a vacuum. Not the ones that matter, anyways.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Because, yeah, that's exactly what I said.

No, I was just commenting that battles don't happen in a vacuum. Not the ones that matter, anyways.

That IS essentially what you said. If you are comparing vehicles then you compare them in a vacuum

3 man prowler vs 2 man vanguard

or 2 - 3 man prowlers vs 3 - 2 man vanguards.

Its easier to just keep all vehicles 2 man or make them all three man. Rather than commenting on battlefield conditions.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

That IS essentially what you said. If you are comparing vehicles then you compare them in a vacuum

3 man prowler vs 2 man vanguard

or 2 - 3 man prowlers vs 3 - 2 man vanguards.

Its easier to just keep all vehicles 2 man or make them all three man. Rather than commenting on battlefield conditions.

I think when you're comparing tansk you need to take into account the empires strengths and weaknesses in weapons as a whole. But I agree...get rid of the 2/3man stuff and make them all the same.

[kaffis]

I'm not saying it won't be easier to balance if we get rid of the variable crew size across empires.

I'm just saying that the prowler takes way more flak for its balance than it deserves, because outside factors in normal battlefield conditions makes the discrete gunner positions valuable, and all the comparisons that try to pit single-vehicle type engagements against each other ignore that strength.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by kaffis

I'm not saying it won't be easier to balance if we get rid of the variable crew size across empires.

I'm just saying that the prowler takes way more flak for its balance than it deserves, because outside factors in normal battlefield conditions makes the discrete gunner positions valuable, and all the comparisons that try to pit single-vehicle type engagements against each other ignore that strength.

A moot point as it was always a struggle to actually get that gun manned

[Bags]

No one wants to gun the chaingun on the prowler is the biggest problem. It's boring compared to the main canon.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Bags

No one wants to gun the chaingun on the prowler is the biggest problem. It's boring compared to the main canon.

Boring? No thats not the problem. It was weak. That third player could jump in a lightning and do the exact same job the chaingun would have with an additional 75mm

So to fix this they need to put a lightning turret on top of the prowler turret

[Bags]

It was boring because it was weak.

And this is true.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by Bags

It was boring because it was weak.

And this is true.

Actually the more I thought about it the more I was ok with a lighting turret being on top of the prowler one.

MAMMOTH TANK GOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[kaffis]

Well, it *is* tall enough, I suppose.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Well, it *is* tall enough, I suppose.

Hmm maybe as a more practical (and aesthetic ) extra gun the turret should be in the front of the tank on a 90-120 degree mount so the gunner or driver had access to a lightning turret with a forward firing arc while the main gun and coax are operated by the main gunner.

[p0intman]

as an nc, i do not see the problem.

infact i prefer the raider over the thunderer.

[Ranik Ortega]

Originally Posted by p0intman

as an nc, i do not see the problem.

infact i prefer the raider over the thunderer.

You are a bizarre man indeed.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Ranik Ortega

You are a bizarre man indeed.

I don't see why that should be the case.

As an NC, my most memorable PS evening was when my outfit didn't have a bunch of guys on, but were able to jack 3 prowlers. We hared around behind enemy lines and near the front line, causing havok all night with hit and run strikes.

It could be that it was the sheer novelty of a Prowler vs. a Vanguard, but we had a lot of fun. The handling was different, and as one of the gunners (we switched off over the course of the night), I had a TON of fun with the main gun at one point -- the arc was different enough from a VG that we were able to shell the doors of a base from outside the walls (the Prowler's arc drops off much more steeply) in a position that a Vanguard wouldn't have been able to hit. Any one of the 9 guys that evening has stories to tell of that night.

Could we have done similar feats Vanguards? Yeah, probably. Might've ended sooner, though. The machine gun saved our bacon a few times.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Bags

It was boring because it was weak.

Weak against armor but it tears reavers and mossies apart. And, yes, that 3rd body could get into a lightning and then get rocket strafed or hit a single mine or die to one of a hundred other tiny deaths because it was a 4 tracked coffin.

People don't like the support gun because they believe it is weak, not because it actually is weak. Perception always trumps reality. In this lies the Prowler's true weakness. Bad press plus a gun that didn't use big numbers to stroke egos. The vehicle is great on paper and in reality, especially in a large field, mixed arms scenarios, but players are too stupid and selfish to take advantage of it.

"Teamwork? Not in my FPS." - The Western Gamer's Creed