Vangard & Prowler Buffs Incoming via @mhigby - Page 2

capiqu · 2013-01-28, 06:28 PM

Oh YEAH!!

Mietz · 2013-01-28, 09:33 PM

I fail to see why the Prowler needs a buff, its perfectly fine.

All it needs is centered guns, but thats a bugfix not a buff.

Tatwi · 2013-01-28, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by robocpf1

Calling it now, Prowler gets a transform ability to turn it into a battle mech.

For this I would play the game again, especially if it was like a Transformer in the original series and it would mysteriously end up large enough to stomp on two magriders so I could use them like a pair of comfy fuzzy slippers. Epic, worth it.

DarkMesa · 2013-01-29, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

"The Prowler will now fire angry badgers from its main cannons instead of shells."

Calling it now, it will be honey badgers and they will be OP.

Canaris · 2013-01-29, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by DarkMesa

Calling it now, it will be honey badgers and they will be OP.

honey badger doesn't give a fuck if he's OP

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-29, 05:48 AM

Sigh

phungus · 2013-01-29, 06:35 AM

Cool. Hope they buff anchor mode some to make it viably compete with smoke.

JesNC · 2013-01-29, 08:32 AM

I'm looking forward to what's in store for the Vanguard.

If they're really buffing the projectile velocity and maybe even the mobility a little bit I could see me using one after all. But if they turn it into some kind of turtle-meets-sitting-duck monstrosity - as a few people keep suggesting on the forums - I'll continue driving my lightning.

MBTs are characterized by mobility and firepower. Currently, the Vanguard just doesn't make up for its deficit in the first by its advantage in the latter.

mcFlaw · 2013-01-29, 08:37 AM

Yeah, a buff to anchored mode would be welcome. It's way too idiosyncratic to be so underpowered and unused as it is now.

It wouldn't take much imho. Just have it reduce recoil between the two shots in addition to its current reload boost.
Makes sense from an engineering standpoint as well.

Figment · 2013-01-29, 08:53 AM

...

Why can't they just go with driver =/= gunner and weak Magrider driver gun and armour advantages based on a crew of three (Prowler and Vanguard) vs a crew of two (Magrider)? :/

JesNC · 2013-01-29, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

...

Why can't they just go with driver =/= gunner and weak Magrider driver gun and armour advantages based on a crew of three (Prowler and Vanguard) vs a crew of two (Magrider)? :/

Because...

...it's in the works. They won't back down on solo operated MBTs, no need to still complain about it 6 months later. But it seems like they'll give us the choice.

Figment · 2013-01-29, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by JesNC

Because...

...it's in the works. They won't back down on solo operated MBTs, no need to still complain about it 6 months later. But it seems like they'll give us the choice.

Irrelevant. As long as the solo versions are there, there's no point to adding them. It's impossible to add more powerful units anyway, because the current MBTs are already omnipotent.

If they're made more powerful in terms of firepower, which is what they refered to, then the game is even more pointless to play. If they're made more powerful in endurance, three crew MBTs would under the current insta-switch weapons deal simply become used as two crew vehicles with more armour once more and lack balance with solo-MBTs, yet make camping even easier. I cannot ever accept their plans on these matters, nor should anyone else with a sane analytical mind, because there's no sense behind it and it won't improve gameplay the way they try to "address" the issue.

There won't be "options" to play proper tank combat and it'll continue to impact infantry combat in an extremely negative way, only because they want to appeal to unethical, anti-social, self-entitled, solo-lamers by giving them "fun" at the expense of everyone else. Sorry, but I cannot ever accept nor respect that decision.

Making a problem worse is not solving the problem!

The reason to complain has not changed and as long as the reason to complain has not changed, one has sufficient reason to keep complaining about it. Even if it takes 25 years. The same goes for BFRs, just because they've been in for x months after they were released, doesn't mean you should stop complaining about something that's been implemented in a horrendous fashion.

The game is horrendously imbalanced and frustrating to the point I'm finding it hard NOT to log out after 5 minutes of playing, because of the out of control vehicle concentrations vs equal sized groups who cannot even consider pulling their own vehicles due to the sheer difference in numbers and the current firepower/endurance "balance".

Baneblade · 2013-01-29, 11:26 AM

Solo MBTs are a worse problem than Liberators.

Mietz · 2013-01-29, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Irrelevant. As long as the solo versions are there, there's no point to adding them. It's impossible to add more powerful units anyway, because the current MBTs are already omnipotent.

If they're made more powerful in terms of firepower, which is what they refered to, then the game is even more pointless to play. If they're made more powerful in endurance, three crew MBTs would under the current insta-switch weapons deal simply become used as two crew vehicles with more armour once more and lack balance with solo-MBTs, yet make camping even easier. I cannot ever accept their plans on these matters, nor should anyone else with a sane analytical mind, because there's no sense behind it and it won't improve gameplay the way they try to "address" the issue.

There won't be "options" to play proper tank combat and it'll continue to impact infantry combat in an extremely negative way, only because they want to appeal to unethical, anti-social, self-entitled, solo-lamers by giving them "fun" at the expense of everyone else. Sorry, but I cannot ever accept nor respect that decision.

I.e. The Liberator Effect