Higby on Magriders

[typhaon]

Originally Posted by maradine

Fuel economy.

Great. Can you please assign me to the empire that controls the oil!?!?

[maradine]

Originally Posted by typhaon

Great. Can you please assign me to the empire that controls the oil!?!?

Far as I can tell, that would be our true overlords and masters, Nanite Systems.

[Xaine]

Originally Posted by Chewy

And your opinion of the matters of K/D ratio having meaning in PS2 makes what you say about game mechanics moot.

Not at all.

Simple logic suggests that a better understanding of game mechanics leads to you being more successful at the game. For example, killing and not being killed.

The more understanding you have of something, the better at it you become.

A Lawyer who wins more cases than other Lawyers, probably understands the law better. No?

Originally Posted by Bear

You are correct, it's unfair for me to lump all the VS players into one giant basket. For that I apologize. There are some great VS players who don't mind slugging it out, who manage not to spend all their free time crying about how imbalanced they are. They also have the guts to get out of their tank and actually make an effort to cap a base, rather that just sitting on a hillside spamming rounds into a spawn room door.

I'm fully responsible for charging into places I shouldn't go and sticking my nose around corners and getting it shot off. However, I'm much rather spend my time on the ground. For me, this game is about the firefight and I've never given my K/D ratio a second thought. If I was concerned about my K/D ratio, I'd be playing VS and I'd never leave my Magrider.

If that's your measure of how good a player is, then so be it, guilty as charged.

I don't think that at all, honestly. Despite what I said.

This isn't a team deathmatch game, this is a control point game.

However, you saying then entire VS faction cries about stuff is just mindbogglingly ignorant and/or stupid.

So I thought I'd treat you to a similar response.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Xaine

The more understanding you have of something, the better at it you become.

A Lawyer who wins more cases than other Lawyers, probably understands the law better. No?

Doesn't necessarily translate into a higher K/D. I could argue that those with lower K/Ds but higher scores understand what the game is supposed to be about more so than those who understand how to farm more effectively. I could also argue that those who fly galaxies and get shafted when it comes to both kills and xp gain aren't necessarily any less knowledgeable about the game or any less skilled.

No, not necessarily.

[Rothnang]

The reality is that even after the patch if you fit your vehicle to kill as much infantry as possible you will get significantly better XP than if you fit it for an anti armor role.

That's simply how this game works at this point. Most people who play in an outfit or are more goal focused than grinding focused will prefer to pull anti armor weapons because they make a bigger impact on the battlefield. Killing infantry does absolutely nothing to stop infantry, only killing Sunderers does. If you want raw XP though, farm away.

[Kerrec]

If role #1 for armor is to counter enemy armor, then that is what you balance for FIRST.

Then you adjust secondary roles as you can, without affecting role #1.

If Prowlers are slaughtering infantry left and right in a disproportionate amount relative to other armor, I'm sure they'll get balanced as that data becomes available. As in, now that they can compete in their primary role, you can start "nerfing" their secondary role. Trying to do both at the same time causes people to get all up in a fuss. Baby steps, small incremental changes, etc... People complain when too much is done at once, and people complain when that not enough is done at once.

So which camp are you?

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by Xaine

Not at all.

Simple logic suggests that a better understanding of game mechanics leads to you being more successful at the game. For example, killing and not being killed.

The more understanding you have of something, the better at it you become.

A Lawyer who wins more cases than other Lawyers, probably understands the law better. No?



I don't think that at all, honestly. Despite what I said.

This isn't a team deathmatch game, this is a control point game.

However, you saying then entire VS faction cries about stuff is just mindbogglingly ignorant and/or stupid.

So I thought I'd treat you to a similar response.

My reading of this looks like you're arguing both sides of the coin. First you say that being the better killer can give better insights to the games mechanics. Then you go to say the PS2 isn't a Team Deathmatch but a control the control point game (a king of the hill type that doesn't focus on killing).

I'll agree that a lawyer who wins more most likely knows the law better and that better killers know how to kill better. But as you said, PS2 isn't a Deathmatch game but a control and deny game.

Being the better killer doesn't help all that much in control and deny games. Focusing on killing often leads to "losing" PS2 by having all your land taken. The Crown a perfect example. That's a place where K/D rules but offers no value map wise, Id even give the Crown a negative value for land control. The Crown can hold off VAST numbers of forces for hours on end but it's a magnet to everyone around it. I have yet to see the owners of a contested Crown keep land for long. Very often that faction will end up with its WG and maybe 1-2 other outposts before the Crown flips. Then I keep seeing pop numbers drop once pup players see everything lost and if an outfit doesn't make a good push then that faction is done for the night on that cont.

Killers are needed I will agree to that, but in no way as much as most think. And CERTAINLY not as much as in a twitch game (COD). Click my stats and you can see that I am no killer, but a person that is willing to take a bullet and make a stand. That is by choice. It wouldn't be hard for me to focus on K/D and get it to 2+ by stopping to be a support player and going for HA or use vehicles. I already bought most of the farming weapons and Im just waiting for the next 2-3x SC sale for more. But Im happy being the guy doing bitch work by keeping everyone around me supplied with ammo, fully repaired, and at 100% HP. Im the guy you see covering resupply/health stations, up a MAXes ass, or the AA MAX keeping the skies clear. My main loadouts for lightning and MAX is AA then AV and AI last. My job is to make the killers better at the cost of myself if needed.

Even the Devs said that K/D isn't what they wanted PS2 to be about. PS2 is about the combined efforts of everyone to take over the planet. Killers are only a very small part of that effort and are almost never the ones to lead. If killer leads then focus is always on the fight at hand to the point of tunnel vision and are then blinded to all else. That is why Kings never went into the battle field and Generals stayed away from the fronts. They are needed to be kings and generals, not killers.

In fact Id like to see another leader rank DEEP in the cert tree. One that controls many platoons but gives up all weapons for a command station and gets XP based on how his platoons do. Think of the commander in Nuclear Dawn. In that game the CO sits in base and can't defend himself if a sneaky bastard gets inside his station.

[typhaon]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

If role #1 for armor is to counter enemy armor, then that is what you balance for FIRST.

Then you adjust secondary roles as you can, without affecting role #1.

If Prowlers are slaughtering infantry left and right in a disproportionate amount relative to other armor, I'm sure they'll get balanced as that data becomes available. As in, now that they can compete in their primary role, you can start "nerfing" their secondary role. Trying to do both at the same time causes people to get all up in a fuss. Baby steps, small incremental changes, etc... People complain when too much is done at once, and people complain when that not enough is done at once.

So which camp are you?

You're assuming the role of all MBT has to be the same.

And in the case of what's going on with the Prowler... I think it's essentially the same thing that is allowing it to be the strongest in MBT vs. MBT combat and wreck infantry.

I'm a big fan of asymmetric balance. It's interesting. It gives the game character. I could totally buy the Prowler being the very best at farming infantry.... IF, it was the weakest at battling other armor. Maybe NC is the best in armor vs. armor fights... but the weakest at farming... and VS sits right in the middle of both.

It's just that right now, it feels like the Prowler is just the best at slaying everything... and I was irked because I don't think when we all first heard the change numbers, it was too hard to predict.

[superseohyun]

Originally Posted by typhaon

You're assuming the role of all MBT has to be the same.

And in the case of what's going on with the Prowler... I think it's essentially the same thing that is allowing it to be the strongest in MBT vs. MBT combat and wreck infantry.

I'm a big fan of asymmetric balance. It's interesting. It gives the game character. I could totally buy the Prowler being the very best at farming infantry.... IF, it was the weakest at battling other armor. Maybe NC is the best in armor vs. armor fights... but the weakest at farming... and VS sits right in the middle of both.

It's just that right now, it feels like the Prowler is just the best at slaying everything... and I was irked because I don't think when we all first heard the change numbers, it was too hard to predict.

it probably hasnt reached the outrageous relative K/D number pre-patch Mags were getting so devs havnt put their hands on it.
well, even if it does, see how long it took for the Mags nerf? dont expect prowlers big nerf anytime soon...

[Mordelicius]

Yep. The Prowlers would need a nerf.

As i've mentioned on other threads, it currently has the highest tank dps, the fastest infantry killer by far and survivable on special ability to boot. So, high dps, and high survavibility. Something has got to give.

- They should lower the survivability on the Prowler on anchored mod
- They should reduce the splash damage/radius of Prowler HE (it's killing all the occupants of the new spawn room)
- If they aren't going to lower the survivability of Prowler on anchor mode, they should significantly reduce its infantry killing power because a Prowler on anchor mode with engineer(s) on the back can hold very long.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Yep. The Prowlers would need a nerf.

As i've mentioned on other threads, it currently has the highest tank dps, the fastest infantry killer by far and survivable on special ability to boot. So, high dps, and high survavibility. Something has got to give.

- They should lower the survivability on the Prowler on anchored mod
- They should reduce the splash damage/radius of Prowler HE (it's killing all the occupants of the new spawn room)
- If they aren't going to lower the survivability of Prowler on anchor mode, they should significantly reduce its infantry killing power because a Prowler on anchor mode with engineer(s) on the back can hold very long.

How does it have more surviveability when in anchored mode?

Originally Posted by typhaon

I'm a big fan of asymmetric balance. It's interesting. It gives the game character. I could totally buy the Prowler being the very best at farming infantry.... IF, it was the weakest at battling other armor. Maybe NC is the best in armor vs. armor fights... but the weakest at farming... and VS sits right in the middle of both.

I would be fine with that IF that had been the design choice from the beginning and if they had then given the TR something else to combat enemy armor with.
I can see the Prowler being the overall best MBT atm. No idea why they didn't just cut the indirect damage in half per shot, if the spreadsheet is correct in this respect.

[Rothnang]

Technically it has less survivability while in anchored mode because it can't rotate its hull when under attack from behind.

In reality however, since the tank doesn't have to be in anchored mode to fight there is really no downside to anchored mode at all.

If you find yourself in a situation where you don't need to move and you can safely use anchored mode you get double damage. The other tanks can find themselves in exactly the same situation, and get nothing. If you can't find a safe way to go to anchored mode you just don't, and your tank is still on par with the others.

If the Magburner worked the same way Anchored mode works it'd simply be a toggle that makes the Magrider move twice as fast but it can't shoot while doing so. While not being able to shoot may seem like a downside, you wouldn't ever use the ability when you have to shoot, so it really isn't a downside, it's just a bonus you get whenever you don't need to shoot, the same way that the Prowler gets a bonus whenever it doesn't need to move.

It's a pseudo-downside that looks like it's a big sacrifice to get something extra, but in reality you aren't sacrificing anything, it's just a big bonus you get whenever you find yourself in a situation where the thing you are sacrificing isn't important and the thing you are gaining is.

The only way anchored mode would have a real downside is if your tank couldn't fight without being in anchored mode. Then suddenly there would be a dependence on creating the right conditions to use it, and enemies could put you in hot water by denying you the opportunity - but that isn't the case, your tank is perfectly capable without anchoring, so the downside to anchoring is never a serious inconvenience where you need to anchor, but your also need to move. That situation doesn't exist for Prowlers, the worst it ever gets is want to anchor, but need to move.

[ChipMHazard]

I would agree with that assesment. Some strange balancing in that respect, since the active use of one's special ability should be part of the balancing to encourage players utilizing the MBT's speciality i.e. Magriders having moblity, Vanguards having durability, Prowlers having... Uhm, different conflicting specialities.
I don't think it's any secret that I would rather have them just make a new special ability that lends itself more towards speed, utilizing its speed while on the move and getting close to enemy armour, if that's what they want the Prowler to be about.

[Rothnang]

I personally think the specials should just be built into the tanks from the getgo instead of being slotted.

That would make the Utility slot a real choice.

Slots that present no good choice really suck, and Utility is guilty of that on just about every single vehicle.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

I personally think the specials should just be built into the tanks from the getgo instead of being slotted.

That would make the Utility slot a real choice.

Slots that present no good choice really suck, and Utility is guilty of that on just about every single vehicle.

Aye, I agree.