Does the Prowler really need a nerf? - Page 2

Rothnang · 2013-03-01, 03:41 AM

So, when will we see Higby admit that his whole "All the tanks are balanced now, everyone who disagrees can't accept facts" thing was out of line and insulting to everyone who saw this coming?

Phreec · 2013-03-01, 03:42 AM

Only tweak the Prowler could use is halving its current splashdamage. Both shots dealing the same damage as other tanks' slower reloading rounds is just ridiculous.

Gatekeeper · 2013-03-01, 04:40 AM

Nerfing Prowlers vs infantry seems like a no-brainer to me. Before the tank balance pass they were the strongest tank vs infantry, but weaker vs tanks than the Mag. Now they're stronger vs tanks than the Mag - and still the strongest vs infantry. That's not really balance, now is it?

Seems to me that a nerf vs infantry (to the point where it's level with the Van and Mag) is entirely reasonable now. As VS infantry I get killed by Prowlers a lot more than by Vans, something in the order of 2:1 or 3:1.

Twido · 2013-03-01, 04:41 AM

You were brave to post this on the official forums, I had a quick look at that thread and retreated back here!

I also am not 100% sure if they need a nerf or not and wouldn't want to make that call without seeing more official data. When the prowler got it's buffs, my instinct was that it was a little too much. But then again those buffs didn't effect the thing that most people complain about (killing infantry) so maybe I was wrong. Having said that, I won't complain if we get a bit of a nerf so long as they don't over do it, two prowler shots should be more powerful than one shot from a single barreled tank.

What does suprise me is that there arn't more NC players asking for buffs, we know from the stats that they lose out in tank vs tank and I strongly believe that they have the worst tank vs infantry as well.

ringring · 2013-03-01, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

TR Prowler desperately need a nerf.

Their splash damage kills everything inside a spawnroom. Not only that. It has the highest survivability and dps on anchor mode (can't have both) simply because they destroy any ground opposition.

If they don't fix this soon, it will be "Magrider redux".

A lot of Vanu got used to OP Magriders as the norm. When it got nerfed, a 1:1 k/d was not acceptable to them. This is really a question of when will it get nerfed.

Isn't that spawnroom issue more of a spawnroom issue rather than a prowler issue?

I'm in two minds about a nerf to the prowler. On the one hand the tank to tank balance seems about right. I know the magrider is still the better long range tank for instance.

But regarding it's anti-infantry effectiveness there are 3 iissues to bear in mind.
1. A Darwininian failing on behalf of squishies - don't go head to head with tanks.
2. Base/outpost design. While I like the spawnroom changes they haven't worked. As in other areas the job has been half-finished. They are still as campable as before, you just have to choose to put your tank in a different spot. TI Alloy in particular needs a revamp and by the way a propos of nothing in particular the Crown is boring.
3. Splash damage from HEAT and HE - I won't comment I don't know the figures. I do know from comments from within my outfit that HE as insane at somewhere like TI Alloys.

JesNC · 2013-03-01, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Twido

What does suprise me is that there arn't more NC players asking for buffs, we know from the stats that they lose out in tank vs tank and I strongly believe that they have the worst tank vs infantry as well.

From what I could gather, based on personal experience and talking to outfit members, is that many, if not most NC have forsaken their MBT. There's only a single dedicated MBT driver in my outfit and me personally, I only pull a Vanguard if the Lightning is on cooldown.

And you don't need a buff for something you don't even use. It's kinda sad really, the Vanny was one of my favourite vehicles back in 2004.

Ironside · 2013-03-01, 05:55 AM

redesign bases and this shit won't happen, they won't of course, they will nerf the prowler instead

Assist · 2013-03-01, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Pella

250 Kills in the space of 15 minutes. My video shows about 5mins of my hugely skillfull play and camping.

Yet i still dont feel it needs a nerf.

Do you think the Magrider needed a nerf?

Figment · 2013-03-01, 06:14 AM

@bloodworth: point 2 vs point 1. The goal of defending forces you into the open, most players don't even bother with it anymore and I can't say I blame them quitting fights and the game over it. That isn't darwinian though since it would suggest the problem lies with the player who intends to even participate in the game on anything other than siege level. The problem here isn't the player, but the game forcing the player to handle siege units during an insertion period (CC captured by infantry and only infantry being available to fight both types and air at once, while having to cross 130m at times through a crossfire of high rate of fire HE instakill shells, which in the case of the Prowler is clearly more dangerous.

I mean we were fighting BRTD's entire platoon at Camp Connery yesterday (facing 20 tanks, couple AMSes and a dozen infantry or so) with 5-6 people and killed more than half their tanks. Eventhough they had 10% influence, we had no time to even consider dealing with the infantry till the last 2 minutes of the capture. Had we been able to concentrate on the infantry throughout and not been forced to run all over the compound to protect three points two of which under constant tank spam, they wouldn't have had it this easy. With all due respect for BRTD, but they don't win by skill... They get too lazy and reliant on overwhelming numbers and spam to develop their skills. That same thing is sadly true for a lot of opposition.

Point 3 I'd say needs work: halfing damage certainly, though all tanks could probably use a bigger fall off in damage towards the explosion's max radius. Cover is often useless against HE shells, which is in part an issue with design due to a splashable wall being too close to the cover, but in part because the splash simply is huge.

But they really need to do something against screenshake. During a Prowler barrage your aim is horrendous to the point of ridicule.

Baneblade · 2013-03-01, 06:16 AM

The Prowler doesn't need a nerf. HE needs a nerf... and along with that, ESF rockets. Tanks should need to use their secondary weapon to engage infantry effectively.

The Vanguard needs something though, but I'm not sure what to buff about it without making it the new FOTMBT.

Twido · 2013-03-01, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

I mean we were fighting BRTD's entire platoon at Camp Connery yesterday (facing 20 tanks, couple AMSes and a dozen infantry or so) with 5-6 people and killed more than half their tanks. Eventhough they had 10% influence, we had no time to even consider dealing with the infantry till the last 2 minutes of the capture. Had we been able to concentrate on the infantry throughout and not been forced to run all over the compound to protect three points two of which under constant tank spam, they wouldn't have had it this easy. With all due respect for BRTD, but they don't win by skill... They get too lazy and reliant on overwhelming numbers and spam to develop their skills. That same thing is sadly true for a lot of opposition.

So given that this is a thread about whether the prowler needs a nerf and you say that you and your four friends destroyed half of an armoured column dispite being outnumbered by approximately five to one (infantry and tanks), are you saying the prowler should be buffed?

Sledgecrushr · 2013-03-01, 07:21 AM

The prowler doesnt need a nerf. The prowlers HE turret needs a nerf.

Figment · 2013-03-01, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Twido

So given that this is a thread about whether the prowler needs a nerf and you say that you and your four friends destroyed half of an armoured column dispite being outnumbered by approximately five to one (infantry and tanks), are you saying the prowler should be buffed?

You do realise how long it took to kill them, how dumb they were to even lose three and how many lives that cost us and that in the end we were doomed to lose?

No? Hmm? We're simply better individual players (as in, forced to be more creative, not even necessarily better players by definition (!)), but we can't beat that firepower and endurance, it is simply too much effort and the end result is null, because if we hadn't killed our own vehicle terms, they'd have gotten new tanks by the end of the fight. So even the applied attrition was absolutely useless by the time they reached the next capture point.

What we did to beat them was AVOID any and all fighting (pretty much leaving when they turned up) and ghost far away regions further south which they couldn't respond to, while they continued ghosting the north of Indar till they bled dry.

So much fun to NOT fight in a war game. Isn't it?

Or are you just going to point out that numbers have the "right to win", as a number of zergfits are currently claiming? In fact to the point of arrogance and cocky behaviour that their numbers win.

They call it "organisation". Yes randomly swarming and swamping an outpost with so many tanks that you can't see the ground anymore and ordering 20 tanks to simply bombard the spawnpoint non-stop so people can't aim and randomly die to unaimed fire is clearly pure organisation and skill.

Sorry, but what exactly is your point? That you didn't get the point?

In general tanks need to require dedicated drivers. Seat switching IMO failed to improve the game play as well. It only provides convenience to the tanker and removes a chance to fight back from the opposition.

The same can be said about ESFs and most other TTKs, which still kill so quickly that you can't fight back. That includes the current HE design, but I only use HEAT and AP and it's almost just as easy to get a direct hit on infantry.

IMO the main reason why this game might fail in the end is because there is a taboo on fighting back at something. Without the possibility of resistance people will avoid resisting and avoid defensive confrontations. And without resistance there's no struggle to satisfy you, so it becomes a boring dance of ghosting. Is that how you want the game to end up?

There are very good reasons people stay to fight at The Crown as they are guaranteed of a fairly even fight and a good chance of kills in either direction. That it's a useless Hamburger Hill in the process is irrelevant since they see there's no point to trying to conquer and hold the rest either: you'll fail at that anyway. So why even bother trying?

There are some fundamental flaws here that link a lot of different systems with one another and it's a shame that it's too complex a picture for most (especially new) players to comprehend. Worse is that most players are out for themselves and not for a system wide balance and "fair play" where they don't like it that an opponent has a chance to beat them. Too many people seem to be under the impression they're fighting PvE Mobs instead of other players and that whatever the conditions those players will choose to be grinded for their cert gain by pretending the opposition could do the same thing as they do: farm, grind and exploit and throw objective gameplay to the wind.

The game is too exhausting for certain groups. To make an analogy, when in the natural world the herbivors die out, the carnivors will follow. Currently the game is well underway of removing the groups that sustain the farmers and zergs by providing targets and resistance.

Ghoest9 · 2013-03-01, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Twido

What does suprise me is that there arn't more NC players asking for buffs, we know from the stats that they lose out in tank vs tank and I strongly believe that they have the worst tank vs infantry as well.

Most NC feel that given SOEs design philosophy for the Vanguard that buffs wont make it better for any of the stuff that helps you earn lots of certs.

Improving what its good at wont really make it any more attractive.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-01, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Chewy

That splash damage is murder, add in that prowlers have the most ammo and the amount of farm they can do is a wonder to see. Even with all of that if one goes unsupported for to long then it dies rather fast. So unless it's at a great distance then they don't last.

To me it's more than just ammo counts for framing weapons, it's mag sizes and reload times. Look at the Zepher, it can put 6 HE rounds out before reloading. That doesn't sound right to me, wouldn't that be something of a major safety issue to have so many high explosive rounds in one place?

To be honest Id like to see ammo counts, mag sizes, and reload times go to HE being the lowest ammo and highest reload, then HEAT in the middle, and finally AT/AP rounds with the highest ammo counts and fastest reloads. Their all shape charges with different heads at the end of the day, Im just wondering why the heavily farm-able and easy(ier) to hit with versions tend to be the ones with the most ammo.

While I do agree with you about both Zephyrs and the HE design choices. Truth be told I would rather have them remove HE rounds from the MBTs all together and leave that to the Lightning.
I wouldn't even mind MBTs being able to carry both HEAT and AP rounds, as long as the amount of HEAT rounds were very limited. I think that the anti infantry aspect of the MBTs should mainly be handled by the secondary gun.