Prowler not bad?

[Krinsath]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

Tacticaly the Prowlers can own. One on one they get stomped.

While were on the target what about magrider primary? PUT AN ARC ON THE POS AND INCREASE DAMAGE. Fucking tanks are NOT AA GUNS. They are NOT SNIPERS. Dont give me any energy doesnt drop bull. Look at the flail shell. Its energy and it drops.

Actually, energy doesn't drop...it dissipates (sp?)...the Mag's gun is mean, but it really can't take down moving aircraft reliably. If you're standing still in an aircraft near where enemy MBTs are operating...well, you deserve to be shot down. Just like the cloaker who uses surge when a sniper is in the area deserves to get one-shotted.

The Mag does a mediocre job against armor, air and infantry...doesn't do a GREAT job against any of them. That sounds like a rather versatile unit...if only the VS were about flexibility....

[Eldanesh]

Originally Posted by Cryptica

I will agree the prowler does suck in reality. In concept its cool. I mean, you can have your chaingun firing at one guy and the cannon at another. That's neat. Unfourtunately, in reality, that bonus is almost 100% defeated by its slow speed, lack of manuverability, and poor armor (relatively speaking). My first idea to improve it would be one of two things. 1) Make it faster than the van. A lot of people have said this, and I think it makes sense. 2) Increase the RoF on both the cannon and the guns. I mean really, the TR are supposedly all about massive RoF, right? Why not make it so the cannon fires like 2 shots per second? That would be neat. It's slightly faster than the Lightning tanks cannon, which fires around 1 to 1.5 per second, if my estimations are right.

Again, I think it would be really cool to have van and prowler the SAME speed, just because they are different empires, why does one hafta be faster? The van's heavy armor weighs it down just as much as the prowler's heavier guns.

Why not make it so the cannon fires like 2 shots per second? That would be neat.

Well, for one it already tears up EVERYTHING firing at the speed it does right now, in a straight out firefight, standing still, it will kill a van faster. Also, how does firing 100mm shells faster than a lightning sound balenced?

That 3rd gunner seat should not be required, but an asset if you can find a gunner, 100mm can fire 12mm if there is no 12mm gunner.

[Incompetent]

I agree with Eldanesh, it's no so much bad as... inefficient. If they matched it's speed with the Vanguard and slaved the twelve to the main gunner when it's unmanned I think the battle tanks would be extremely well balanced.

edit: I would hate for them to take out the twelve gunner completely though. It's a generally helpful thing to have around especially if you put a column commander in there, since then he doesn't have to worry about driving or concentrating on gunning, but can still contribute fire. Not to mention the fact that a column always has space to let a few standed guys in.

[Lartnev]

If they matched it's speed with the Vanguard and slaved the twelve to the main gunner when it's unmanned

That would only work if you made the guns go at half the RoF or something, else you'd never get a 3rd gunner.

The Magrider is the dogs danglies at range. It also makes mince meat out of buggies and lightnings because it can actually hit them, even at medium to long distance. It also puts off reavers and can have a good shot at libs, gals and lodestars. Mag gunners complain that it takes 3 shots to kill infantry. Personally I feel it's a small price to pay.

[Doop]

Pffft. It's not that the Prowler's bad, it's just if it runs into a Mag or Vanguard, it gets served.

[Lartnev]

At close range it'll beat a magrider hands down.

[Doop]

True enough, but when a Magrider gets close range to a Prowler, if the driver knows jackshit about driving, he'll make a run for it at low health. Meh, overall, the Prowler just fucking sucks for a tank. If the Vanguard is supposed to be the strongest, and the Magrider's supposed to be the fastest, then the Prowler should have the most armor or something. And no, the Vanguard has more armor.

[Eldanesh]

Prowler has DPS and TTK, vna has highest samage per shot wiht most armor, prowler has med armor and highest damage output, should be same speed.

[JakeLogan]

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is dropping the damage output and increasing the rof on the main guns. Besides as in my earlier argument if you go to get a prowler from the vehicle pad and read the paragraph describing it it says "The prowler has the most armor for a main battle tank" if they are gonna leave it like this it should at least be true......

[Krinsath]

*cough*

http://planetside.station.sony.com/howto/vehicles.jsp

Originally Posted by PlanetSide Manual Writers

The PROWLER is the largest main battle tank. Having the most armor for a tank and a 360-degree capable turret with dual 100mm heavy cannons, the Prowler is certainly able to devastate many targets in short order. The secondary gunner is able to control a dual rotary chaingun, which is a small turret atop the primary turret. Naturally the sheer size, weight and firepower of this tank makes it slower than any of the main battle tanks.

Seems that the Devs need to keep their word and give the Prowler the Vanguard's armor...or at the very least change their own website.

[worldvengence]

i vote just swich the armor and be done with it, that would fix alot of the problem, cause if ur in a big enough battle, u actually got ppl fighting for Prowler gunner positions

[Kaymon]

So you're saying that my in game experiences in this game are all lab tests? Of course the damn tanks are going to move, but the Prowler is far nicer to you if you miss a shot. The next shell is well on its way before you realize it. (Go back to rate of fire) Yes, both the Vanguard and the Prowler are going to move around, but that only gives them an equal chance to miss. From there it all boils down to the crew skills.

[Krinsath]

Originally Posted by Kaymon

Yes, both the Vanguard and the Prowler are going to move around, but that only gives them an equal chance to miss.

Which is EXACTLY where that 33% bigger thing becomes a problem.

Your in-game experiences do mean something, but by your own admission, you skew the results slightly by being a good crew. Who can really say what the comparable quality of the crew facing you was? The ones you beat handily may have had a gunner on a 56k, or someone who paniced...too many factors to really sit down and say "yes the Prowler is fine" or "No, the Prowler is broken". A good Prowler crew will beat a bad, probably even an average Vanguard crew. What about good on good? That's where the measurements need to be taken.

The drop in Terran armor, combined with many comments across several outfits about frustrations with the TR vehicles, means that there needs to be an examination of the tank...in depth and comprehensive and not based on player experiences. That's what is being asked for, suggestions are being offered from their standpoints. The Devs are never under any obligation to buff or nerf anything, but we the players need to bring possible issues to their attention. The Prowler IS a possible issue, as is the Marauder...as are MAXes in general. If you don't mention things, they never get looked at.

[Kaymon]

Originally Posted by Krinsath

Who can really say what the comparable quality of the crew facing you was? The ones you beat handily may have had a gunner on a 56k, or someone who paniced...too many factors to really sit down and say "yes the Prowler is fine" or "No, the Prowler is broken". A good Prowler crew will beat a bad, probably even an average Vanguard crew. What about good on good? That's where the measurements need to be taken.

I suppose you're right. After all, a few months driving a Prowler means I probably only ran into second rate, panicky, 56k gunners. I never said I didn't lose sometimes.

If you don't mention things, they never get looked at.

And if you're the only one mentioning things, they probably don't.

[Krinsath]

Originally Posted by Kaymon

I suppose you're right. After all, a few months driving a Prowler means I probably only ran into second rate, panicky, 56k gunners. I never said I didn't lose sometimes.

Again, you have no knowledge of the actual quality of the crews. You may have been fortunate to assemble an elite crew, and may yourself be an elite driver. You may only engage in Prowler squads/platoons. There are so many random variables that skew results that it is impossible to say what the general trend is. That's why you as an individual are largely discounted, just like my ability to slice through Prowlers like a hot knife through butter in a Vanguard is largely discounted...because 1 proves jack squat. That's why we need to actually examine a wide variety of factors in meaningful amounts to see what the real trend is. I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong, however, you seem completely unwilling to concede that fact and that is why I keep arguing with you about it.

Originally Posted by Kaymon

And if you're the only one mentioning things, they probably don't.

I've seen many posts and comments about the general impotence of TR vehicles. They just don't feel it's worth putting up with people who would rather defend the status quo than find out for certain to get things looked at. Conversely, their morale is quite low at this point, and they stop caring about PS and cancel their subs. This in turn hurts PS, especially as they're not around to voice their complaints. PS dies a result. What harm could possibly come from examining performance in a scientific manner? You seem to be acting like it would be the absolute end of the world...

There's also a very high and mighty "holier-than-thou" tone to your posts, which is probably making me more confrontational in my own posts. If you're not trying to do that, then I apologize for anything that may be construed as a personal attack. If that is what you're doing, then you sir, are an ass.