I stand corrected by the Harasser - Page 6

Belhade · 2013-06-17, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

That's just not right. If you're in a Harrasser, you should shit in your pants when facing a MBT, not going head-to-head with it.

Make the MBT crewed and that will happen.

Baneblade · 2013-06-17, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Then I hear the argument that Harassers need to be a strong as a tank against MBT's because of being 2+ seeded.

Where is this argument? I'd like to take a shit all over it.

Belhade · 2013-06-17, 07:20 PM

Yeah, not sure where all these "arguments" he's taking up are coming from. Hell, I'd never even *heard* of Planetside before playing PS2.

Effective · 2013-06-17, 09:03 PM

This thread is still going? Just no

Figment · 2013-06-18, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Small arms fire is a joke atm against Harassers so no argument here.

Consider Newskis' consideration: like small arms against aircraft, people don't pepper them en mass, but rather run. That's why it's not effective. I've killed a couple with my squad of three that way. A single mine helped.

Then I hear the argument that Harassers need to be a strong as a tank against MBT's because of being 2+ seeded. That's the wrong argumentation imo. In the first place it's a specialized light vehicle so it should behave like a specialized light vehicle, not like a tank with a mobilty and repair bonus. It should be strong against MBT's only because it relies on mobility and speed, while mounting fairly decent guns. Right now that's not the case, the Harasser has uber composite armor and extremely quick repairs on the move as well and that's where the imbalances start to come in.

I don't think you understand the concept of unit strengths and weaknesses trade-off IN A SANDBOX MMO. This is a RTS quality of the game. When you have a unit with a crew of three, it should be an alternative to the use of another crew of three over multiple or one other units.

The Lightning however, is a single player unit, so it should have the effectiveness of a third of those players. A combat ready unit in a MMO must be balanced around the minimal amount of players it requires to operate.

Otherwise you get alternatives that are far heavier in weight per player.

Which would mean there'd be an overabundance of those in game, because it'd be the only way to win. That's why we have had so many rocket pod ESFs when it was even more overpowered than it is now and why Flak has had to be given buffs.

Note that this doesn't per se go for counters, but when there's significant role overlap and the only difference is playstyle, then yes, a solo unit would be underpowered compared to an alternative playstyle that requires more players.

What the Harasser should be is a specialized glass canon: A high skill vehicle that becomes very effective with a good dedicated driver but can only survive fights on speed and manoeuvrability, not on invincible armour/quick repair combo's.

It is. It's opposition isn't balanced for the same number of players, so therefore they are effectively weaker.

Then I hear all sorts of arguments about the current single crew mbt not working or the whole vehicle system not working for that matter. I guess it comes all to personal preference then, because some balancing and resourcing issues aside, I actually like the current system. It doesn't feel "broken" to me at all. And I don't hear too many people complaining about crewed mbt's tbh, aside from a few PS1 vets in this forum. Turning it into a PS1 system would probably result in a lot more complaints.

NO OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T THINK IT'S BAD BECAUSE YOU WANT IT.

FFS ROLFSKI YOU ARE BIASED. You are reading selectively and you haven't even tried to count the amount in favour against the amount against in these threads. You represent about 10% of the people posting in these threads. The survey I conducted showed that 95% wouldn't mind a PS1 system and that 2/3s outright prefered it, where the origin game of those players didn't matter (didn't skew the results since for EVERY GROUP the results were pretty much the same).

The funniest thing is that the people with the strongest support for the split in controls, were the BF players: their majority wanted a 3 crew split tank, where PS1 players prefered 2 crew split tank.

typhaon · 2013-06-18, 07:28 AM

Let's cut some of the BS...

The Harasser's power is from the crew of 2... it's access to deadly weapons that become uber-deadly when combined with the unbelievable speed/agility/traction... along with surprising durability.

It needs some re-working. Reduce the durability. I hit one of these things with 2 AP rounds from a Vanguard main cannon. Whatever that equals in damage, that should be enough to blow up one.

I also think it could stand to have slightly less powerful versions of its weapons.

typhaon · 2013-06-18, 07:30 AM

Cutting through some of the BS...

The Harasser's power comes from its crew of 2, its access to very deadly weapons... weapons that become uber-deadly when combined with the crazy mobility and surprisingly sturdy durability.

Yeah... you can throw a 3rd guy on the back for a bit more performance, but it's not like you can't go cause utter havoc with just you and a bud.

MrMak · 2013-06-18, 07:32 AM

The Composite armor should reeeeealy be less effective agaisnt direct hits from AV weapons. Small arms, flak guns, heck even HE rounds I can understand.

But a specialised Armor piercing round should go through that like through butter.

So here is how I see it.

It shoudl maintain it's current effectivness against small arms, flak (bursters, skyguards), heavy machine guns (Basilisk, Walker, AI Phalanx) and HIgh explosive munitions such as HE cannons, Bulldogs etc.

Have a significantly lesser effect on HEAT weapns (HEAT tank cannons, Hand held Rocket launchers, Rocket Pods etc.)

Not do squat against armor piercing weapons (AP tank cannons, Shredder, Dalton, AV Phalanx etc). In fact, these should do extra damagel like they do to tanks.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-06-18, 07:36 AM

A 150mm AP round should insta kill a harasser like it kills an esf. This is a really big bullet designed to kill hardened armor and a harasser should be shattered by it.

Figment · 2013-06-18, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

A 150mm AP round should insta kill a harasser like it kills an esf. This is a really big bullet designed to kill hardened armor and a harasser should be shattered by it.

___o

Are you nuts?

Wahooo · 2013-06-18, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by MrMak

The Composite armor should reeeeealy be less effective agaisnt direct hits from AV weapons. Small arms, flak guns, heck even HE rounds I can understand.

But a specialised Armor piercing round should go through that like through butter.

So here is how I see it.

It shoudl maintain it's current effectivness against small arms, flak (bursters, skyguards), heavy machine guns (Basilisk, Walker, AI Phalanx) and HIgh explosive munitions such as HE cannons, Bulldogs etc.

Have a significantly lesser effect on HEAT weapns (HEAT tank cannons, Hand held Rocket launchers, Rocket Pods etc.)

Not do squat against armor piercing weapons (AP tank cannons, Shredder, Dalton, AV Phalanx etc). In fact, these should do extra damagel like they do to tanks.

I would agree with this entirely.
I'm also not sure they deserve the main AP guns that MBTs get as secondary weapons. They are NS platforms, if they were limited to the weapons the Sundy can choose from, they'd still be beast at farming infantry and harassing tanks but not be such a major threat to tanks.

Phreec · 2013-06-18, 01:55 PM

They're far too robust for the agility and weapons they also possess. They should be more like evasive glass cannons as they're buggies.

Rolfski · 2013-06-18, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Consider Newskis' consideration: like small arms against aircraft, people don't pepper them en mass, but rather run. That's why it's not effective.

Go to the test room yourself before blindly copying other ones opinions: It took me around 290 standard bullets at point blank range to take out a composite armor Harasser. That's more than enough for any decent driver to survive any small arms fire, focused or not.

I don't think you understand the concept of unit strengths and weaknesses trade-off IN A SANDBOX MMO. This is a RTS quality of the game. When you have a unit with a crew of three, it should be an alternative to the use of another crew of three over multiple or one other units.

The Lightning however, is a single player unit, so it should have the effectiveness of a third of those players. A combat ready unit in a MMO must be balanced around the minimal amount of players it requires to operate.

You completely miss-interpreter this whole concept. A single Harasser doesn't need to be as strong as two Lightnings or two MBT's. It can in fact be completely weak against a single one of them as long as it has unique qualities the others lack. It can actually be designed to be no counter at all against tanks but an unique counter to other units and that is exactly why this whole dedicated driver argument in this discussion is used in the wrong way.

A tank with a Heat or AP round on it should be designed to make short work of a Harrasser, composite armor or not. It's designed that way.
An AV Harasser should be designed to only take on a tank if it stays mobile enough to prevent getting hit in the first place. With composite armor it's just too tanky for that.

The survey I conducted showed that 95% wouldn't mind a PS1 system and that 2/3s outright prefered it, where the origin game of those players didn't matter (didn't skew the results since for EVERY GROUP the results were pretty much the same).

Don't let your obsession to get a point across distort you by thinking that any of your so called surveys are a representative opinion of the actual player base. The vast majority of the actual player base doesn't come to a forum and when they do, this one is probably not the one they will come to.

Figment · 2013-06-18, 02:45 PM

Ehr... Composite armour is meant to be less susceptible to small arms... so yeah?

Every spec is a strength of weakness. Hull armour is just one form of the word "strength". You'll find I didn't contort or misinterpret that.

You however, fail to comprehend that there are different groups to balance with one another based on manpower.

See, if you want to balance the Lightning against a buggy... you would balance it as a sort of equal against the ATV and ESF. Not the three crew buggy. (And yes, the ATV is beyond utter crap, that's not the point).

I like that you don't know where the survey was posted, but do know that it is biased by definition. Reddit and PS2 and PSU. So are you going to theorycraft what other players want or hold your own? Because I'm fed up with people that complain about non-representativeness of a poll with more than 200 responses and then yammer about "what the majority of players actually want" or where they do or do not go without having anything to back it up.

I'm quite certain it's okay to extrapolate that poll to a much larger mass of players because of the consistency of the trends in the results.

typhaon · 2013-06-19, 01:12 AM

I have to agree with the comment about adjusting the Harasser's armor values vs. different weapons.

I've hit a harasser before with 2 AP rounds from a Vanguard main gun... and had it keep on rolling.

In my eyes... 1 should've left it smoking and on the run... the 2nd should've easily finished it off.

Also worth mentioning as another plus is the ease with which harassers extract themselves from battle and quickly repair to full. Other vehicles can do this... but none so easily as the harasser.