Why are harassers in the game?

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

I gotta say, even though i still think harassers are too agile and mobile for what they can do, i found a very good way of getting these annoying buggers down:

3-man basilisk sunderers.

Those are generally pretty awesome, and with just 4 certs invested (2x first zoom, 2x ammo) you allready have a valid counter against any harasser, given you find two gunners.

It's almost like the counter to a two man team is to get yourself set up in an equal or larger team.
Hooray for teamwork!

[SGOniell]

Originally Posted by maradine

Vulcan-H and Saron-H are pretty close as per last balance pass. NC are the only ones with a solid weapons complaint where harassers are concerned. This has been a public service announcement.

thankyou! Somebody from another faction notices how we get shafted. I don't want a big-ass shotgun on my vehicles. I hate that thing. I hate the reaver's shotgun too. I feel the enforcer is nice, the vanu's gear is probably pretty balanced, and the terran's are just ridiculous. That vulcan shreds tanks, and infantry with equal contempt. That, plus whatever that gatling cannon on your mosquito is annoy the hell out of me.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by SGOniell

...That, plus whatever that gatling cannon on your mosquito is annoy the hell out of me.

If I'm thinking of the correct weapon, it's just about the same thing as your Air Hammer.

[SGOniell]

If you're talking about that stupid shotgun, its not really a comparison. That m14 (finally able to look it up) has a higher rate of fire as well as a longer range. Accuracy stats are also greater.

I think its safe to say that most NC hate these shotgun weapons.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by SGOniell

If you're talking about that stupid shotgun, its not really a comparison. That m14 (finally able to look it up) has a higher rate of fire as well as a longer range. Accuracy stats are also greater.

I think its safe to say that most NC hate these shotgun weapons.

Is it an exact copy? No. Will either one fuck up infantry? Yes.

[AThreatToYou]

Originally Posted by SGOniell

If you're talking about that stupid shotgun, its not really a comparison. That m14 (finally able to look it up) has a higher rate of fire as well as a longer range. Accuracy stats are also greater.

I think its safe to say that most NC hate these shotgun weapons.

IIRC the air hammer isn't something to hate
it sucks against infantry, though.

the M14 is...

[SGOniell]

Originally Posted by bpostal

Is it an exact copy? No. Will either one fuck up infantry? Yes.

The point I'm making is that they have similar damage profiles, whilst one remains effective at long range, and it has a higher damage "flowrate".(If you're an engineer, think volume or mass flow rate). In other words, it puts out more damage from a longer effective range in a shorter amount of time more accurately, and with less reloads. Its not even close to a fair comparison.

Any NC here actually want that shotgun thing?

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by SGOniell

The point I'm making is that they have similar damage profiles, whilst one remains effective at long range, and it has a higher damage "flowrate".(If you're an engineer, think volume or mass flow rate). In other words, it puts out more damage from a longer effective range in a shorter amount of time more accurately, and with less reloads. Its not even close to a fair comparison.

Any NC here actually want that shotgun thing?

Both attach to aircraft, both kill infantry in short order so that one magazine is overkill for an infantryman. I'm failing to see the major differences.

[SGOniell]

Am I really going to have to do the math? Basically, up close the m30, provided it can hit every single pellet on the same target (which it doesn't), would result in slightly more total damage than the m14. But, its more likely for you to miss several of the pellets, resulting in far less damage output. Provided 5 of 8 pellets hit their target, you'd do 78,750 damage per minute factoring in reloads. Compare this to the m14, where it doesn't have to worry about spread. At a comparable range, it'd result in a far higher damage output. If your accuracy was 80% (figuring stationary target for all of these calculations by the way), you're damage output would be 84,000, though its likely that at these close ranges your accuracy would be higher. Now, when you go to medium ranges, and to the longer ranges the m14 is capable of, the m30 sees a significant total damage fall off. The m14 in comparison doesn't. Why? Because of spread. It severely limits the m30's usefulness compared to the m14.

Expanding further, a reaver then has to be much closer to its target for the m30 to be effective, which in turn results in a higher likelyhood of being shot down, reducing lifespan. A mosquito equipped with the m14 can stay out of as dangerous situations with its weapon while maintaining excellent damage output at those ranges. Its less likely to be destroyed by infantry.

Thus, a mosquito with the m14 is a far superior weapon when compared to a reaver with an m30.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by SGOniell

Am I really going to have to do the math? Basically, up close the m30, provided it can hit every single pellet on the same target (which it doesn't), would result in slightly more total damage than the m14. But, its more likely for you to miss several of the pellets, resulting in far less damage output. Provided 5 of 8 pellets hit their target, you'd do 78,750 damage per minute factoring in reloads. Compare this to the m14, where it doesn't have to worry about spread. At a comparable range, it'd result in a far higher damage output. If your accuracy was 80% (figuring stationary target for all of these calculations by the way), you're damage output would be 84,000, though its likely that at these close ranges your accuracy would be higher. Now, when you go to medium ranges, and to the longer ranges the m14 is capable of, the m30 sees a significant total damage fall off. The m14 in comparison doesn't. Why? Because of spread. It severely limits the m30's usefulness compared to the m14.

Expanding further, a reaver then has to be much closer to its target for the m30 to be effective, which in turn results in a higher likelyhood of being shot down, reducing lifespan. A mosquito equipped with the m14 can stay out of as dangerous situations with its weapon while maintaining excellent damage output at those ranges. Its less likely to be destroyed by infantry.

Thus, a mosquito with the m14 is a far superior weapon when compared to a reaver with an m30.

So it's just about range? IDK about you, but from the little flying I do, my limiting factor is render distance, not damage dropoff or COF.
From my perspective, the end result is the same: Dead infantry.

[SGOniell]

If you're having render distance issues when using these sort of weapons there's a problem. Considering they're made for infantry work you should be pretty close. Render distance isn't an issue on my machine. For those without such problems, damage falloff and effective ranges make considerable difference. Its like being able to see the enemy but not kill them, and when you flip the situation, the enemy can see you and ably kill you from that farther range.