Prowler not bad? - Page 3

Eldanesh · 2004-03-20, 12:07 PM

Speed is the best way to fix this imo, making it faster, but still on par with van. Giving it the best armor AND gun is not the right solution.

Kaymon · 2004-03-20, 12:08 PM

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.

JakeLogan · 2004-03-20, 01:06 PM

I wish the prowler had a firing arc like the vans. thats part of the problem the firing arc on the prowler is insane. the magrider's gun I under stand it's a rail gun. the vanguard ok nice firing arc. but then the prowler's firing arc is just stupid. is this the future or WW2?

Kaymon · 2004-03-20, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by JakeLogan

is this the future or WW2?

Whenever I hear that I try to remember that the Terran Republic ruled uncontested for over a millenia. Weapons development comes to a standstill when you have nobody to fight.

JakeLogan · 2004-03-20, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kaymon

Whenever I hear that I try to remember that the Terran Republic ruled uncontested for over a millenia. Weapons development comes to a standstill when you have nobody to fight.

WE have tanks today that shoot a rifled round over a mile I think weapons development comes to a stand still it doesn't regress to 60 years before.

EDIT: Also if weapons research came to a standstill? how did the VS and NC get their weapons?

Krinsath · 2004-03-20, 01:35 PM

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.

worldvengence · 2004-03-20, 01:51 PM

i still say more armor for the prowler, the speed is not an issue..it is big, and so it is slow, it compensates for it in the RoF...but still i feel the Van and the Prowl should be EQUALLY armored.

Kaymon · 2004-03-20, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by JakeLogan

WE have tanks today that shoot a rifled round over a mile I think weapons development comes to a stand still it doesn't regress to 60 years before.

Ever hear of the cold war? Or Korea, Vietnam, ect? The US has had plenty of reasons to keep up weapons development. And I think the reason we don't have MBT's that can fire a round up to a mile is something we call "balance"

EDIT: Also if weapons research came to a standstill? how did the VS and NC get their weapons?

The Vanu Soverignty weapons were developed by reverse engineering the Vanu artifacts left behind. (Ever notice the whole alien theme they have?) The NC weapon descriptions call them 'modified heavy weaponry'. They developed their own weapons once the war started.

Just because research comes to a standstill doesn't mean it can't start up again.

Kaymon · 2004-03-20, 02:15 PM

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 · 2004-03-20, 02:32 PM

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.

JakeLogan · 2004-03-20, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kaymon

Ever hear of the cold war? Or Korea, Vietnam, ect? The US has had plenty of reasons to keep up weapons development. And I think the reason we don't have MBT's that can fire a round up to a mile is something we call "balance"

While balance is needed and a tank firing round over a mile would be to strong that still doesn't make a good argument for the reason you have to aim 10 feet above a target when it's only 50 feet away. While thats not totally acurate you should understand my argument. The firing arc is to extreme.

Kaymon · 2004-03-20, 02:45 PM

Hey, if I intended a holier-than-thou attitude, it would be glaring. I can see your points though. All we have are estimated numbers and too many diffrent variables, and for that reason if we keep this up, we'll only be butting heads. I'm going to let my opinion rest on the matter.

Kaymon · 2004-03-20, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by JakeLogan

While balance is needed and a tank firing round over a mile would be to strong that still doesn't make a good argument for the reason you have to aim 10 feet above a target when it's only 50 feet away. While thats not totally acurate you should understand my argument. The firing arc is to extreme.

What I never got is why a smaller shell had more of an arc in the first place. While the devs may be good at making games, their knowledge of the laws of physics seems a bit lackluster.

Krinsath · 2004-03-20, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Kaymon

What I never got is why a smaller shell had more of an arc in the first place. While the devs may be good at making games, their knowledge of the laws of physics seems a bit lackluster.

The only explanation I can think of is that the NC packed so much gunpowder (or whatever propellant they use) that it just goes that fast so there's not much arc...the NC are a little big boom happy.

I guess the relative height of the Prowler guns might be another factor...but yeah, really bizarre physics there.

worldvengence · 2004-03-20, 03:48 PM

Kaymon! Double post, u should be ashamed WTFROFLBAN

"Double Post Nazi"