So is the Prowler going to suck like it did in PS1? - Page 9

Fortress · 2012-03-16, 04:39 PM

Are you serious?

Prowler perfect TTK on Vanguard (100m guns only):
4500/300 damage = 15 hits (clipsize: 20) => 15 * 1 second rof = Doesn't matter because Reavers kill everything.

Vanguard perfect TTK on Prowler (150mm gun):
4000/450 = 8.9 ~ 9 shells (clipsize: 10) => 9* 2 seconds rof = Doesn't matter because Reavers kill everything.

Magrider perfect TTK on Prowler (Railbeam only):
4000/215 = 18.6 ~ 19 shells (clipsize: 25) => 19 * 1 second rof = Doesn't matter because Reavers kill everything.
Prowler perfect TTK on Magrider (100 mm only):
3500/300 = 11.67 ~ 12 shells (clipsize: 20) => 12 * 1 second rof = Doesn't matter because Reavers kill everything.

Figment · 2012-03-16, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Yeah. Scale it up. 1v1 battles are irrelevant. You are not applying force of numbers to a game where 1v1 battles weren't the norm.

Okay, shortest TTKs win in those situations.

Hm.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Prowler perfect TTK on Vanguard (100m guns only):
4500/300 damage = 15 hits (clipsize: 20) => 15 * 1 second rof = 15 seconds

Vanguard perfect TTK on Prowler (150mm gun):
4000/450 = 8.9 ~ 9 shells (clipsize: 10) => 9* 2 seconds rof = 18 seconds

Magrider perfect TTK on Prowler (Railbeam only):
4000/215 = 18.6 ~ 19 shells (clipsize: 25) => 19 * 1 second rof = 19 seconds

Prowler perfect TTK on Magrider (100 mm only):
3500/300 = 11.67 ~ 12 shells (clipsize: 20) => 12 * 1 second rof = 12 seconds

So. Questions?

Congratulations, you've established that the TR are the empire with the highest sustained dps. Unfortunately that wasn't the issue.

Versatility, accuracy, speed, profile - these are all important, because they change the slugfest you describe in your math to a very different picture.

Like the magrider scenario. A half decent magrider crew would sit back and plink away while strafing and landing nearly perfect shots on the prowler's large and slow profile, while the prowler rounds would have a significantly higher miss rate, turning your TTK argument into a worthless and moot point.

The vanguard scenario is similar, a smart vanguard would do hit-and-run on the slower to accelerate prowler. And again, the large profile of the prowler makes it an easy target to do this. The hit-and run up and over hills and trees counters the vanguard's low dps and maximizes its advantage of armor and damage-per-shot.

So...questions?

Figment · 2012-03-16, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Congratulations, you've established that the TR are the empire with the highest sustained dps. Unfortunately that wasn't the issue.

Yes it was. Read the previous page: it was claimed the 15mm was supposedly needed to outdamage the Vanguard. Note that, as usual, no context was given for this claim.

Concede a point like a gentleman. But no, there are a few in here who simply won't admit they were utterly and verifiably wrong.

Yes yes you want to change the subject and evade the point. Geez, you lot are almost worse than debating zealots.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Yes it was. Read the previous page: it was claimed the 15mm was supposedly needed to outdamage the Vanguard.

No it wasn't, read the original post of this topic. I plainly state that it had the highest dps of all the tanks. That wasn't why it was bad, nor are DPS and TTK the only relevant factors.

Case-in-point: the Magrider, which had the lowest armor and the lowest dps with just the main gun. By using your theoretical number crunching the magrider is clearly the worst tank, losing to both the prowler and the vanguard by significant margins in the TTK-department.

Except that it wasn't. As others acknowledged, it was "king".

It was king for its agility, its accuracy, it's profile, and it's versatility (it could snipe aircraft with the main gun, and leverage the driver gun up front for vastly increased dps in close quarters - more dps than the prowler with a single gunner).

Skitrel · 2012-03-16, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Okay, shortest TTKs win in those situations.

Hm.

When you consider the crew per tank, in a 60vs60 crew battle one side gets 20 tanks while the other gets 30.

Per volley the side with 30 does FAR better than the side with 20, and takes less damage because the hits they're taking are spread across far more vehicles too, the small side starts losing tanks first and then loses more at an ever increasing rate.

Scale matters. The off balance is not in the number of tanks on the field, it's in the number of people required to balance said battle. you would need 25 prowlers to balance against 30 Vanguards. That's extra men though. Men that could be doing something else in the war effort. It is an off balance.

The balance of a game relies on number of players fighting one another.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-16, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

No it wasn't, read the original post of this topic. I plainly state that it had the highest dps of all the tanks. That wasn't why it was bad, nor are DPS and TTK the only relevant factors.

Case-in-point: the Magrider, which had the lowest armor and the lowest dps with just the main gun. By using your theoretical number crunching the magrider is clearly the worst tank, losing to both the prowler and the vanguard by significant margins in the TTK-department.

Except that it wasn't. As others acknowledged, it was "king".

It was king for its agility, its accuracy, it's profile, and it's versatility (it could snipe aircraft with the main gun, and leverage the driver gun up front for vastly increased dps in close quarters - more dps than the prowler with a single gunner).

My issue is that you said it sucked, which it absolutely, did not.

Fortress · 2012-03-16, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

When you consider the crew per tank, in a 60vs60 crew battle one side gets 20 tanks while the other gets 30.

Per volley the side with 30 does FAR better than the side with 20, and takes less damage because the hits they're taking are spread across far more vehicles too, the small side starts losing tanks first and then loses more at an ever increasing rate.

Scale matters.

His stats were using the Prowler's 100mm guns only. It's 30 vs 30.

And God do I hate defending Figment.

Figment · 2012-03-16, 05:01 PM

I can do scenarios too. 30 Prowlers, enemies have no Tech Plant.

Completely irrelevant points Skitrel because you can just as easily draft scenarios to the advantage of TR.

@Malorn: not every post is about you in a debate with a lot of folks. I was replying to Buzz and his buddy. They were plain dead wrong, arrogantly asked for evidence and they got it in their face.

You can easily draft scenarios where the Prowler was at a disadvantage, sure. But if that's all you do you completely skew the picture. If a Vanguard were to miss two shots, he would have to reload while the Prowler got five more shots before reload. Gunner quality determines the outcome between these tanks more than the tank themselves.

BuzzCutPsycho · 2012-03-16, 05:25 PM

Figment stopped being a factor in this debate when he said the Thunderer was inaccurate.

Figment · 2012-03-16, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

Figment stopped being a factor in this debate when he said the Thunderer was inaccurate.

Opposite is true. Thunderer is only somewhat accurate within 30-80m of target. It's not a sniper.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

My issue is that you said it sucked, which it absolutely, did not.

I would have written "Kinda sorta good" but "suck" was more concise and accurate when compared to the other two tanks.

Figment · 2012-03-16, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I would have written "Kinda sorta good" but "suck" was more concise and accurate when compared to the other two tanks.

`Yes, that covers the exact same load.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-16, 05:39 PM

Also as numbers increase it is alpha-strike, not dps, that matters.

Case in point, in EVE Goonswarm changed their standard fleet ship to the Malestrom and rigged it for maximum alpha strike damage and passive tanking. In a large enough number, those Maelstroms could one-shot a ship and greatly increase the efficiency of a fleet battle.

And for context, the Maelstrom's design is effectively that of the Vanguard - high damage, low rate of fire and overall low dps. But when you have a lot of them all firing at the same target, rate of fire becomes irrelevant because it only takes one volley to destroy a ship. They'd call targets, and each person fired one volley, then moved to the next target. They knew by sheer numbers that one volley per person in the fleet was enough to destroy almost any ship.

Same is true with large tank battles in PS. If a group of vanguards can drop a prowler in one-2 volleys then rate of fire really becomes irrelevant and Alpha Strike vs Effective Hitpoints becomes the factor, both of which are strenghts of the Vanguard in PS1 and PS2.

As the numbers increase dps becomes less relevant as alpha strike becomes king, but accuracy is his queen.

So again, as things scale upwards, it is the Vanguard that gets the most benefit, especially if the prowler has weaker armor. That just means it requires fewer vanguards to achieve the critical mass for 1-shot or 2-shotting tanks.

Figment · 2012-03-16, 06:00 PM

That's all fine and you definitely have a point there, but the outcome of such slugfests with such small TTK differences is generally the most efficient group (best gunners/drivers) and the context. In space, you can't really hide behind anything except asteroids or moons, so in EVE, yes...

And effectively though, going by alpha strike, you just argued that the Prowler is much better than the Magrider.

So shouldn't this topic be about the Magrider's horrible alpha strike?

Or isn't it true that terrain and range, maneuvring and gunner quality are far more important to determine the outcome of the actual battle? And there the Prowler was definitely not always the worst tank and no, it definitely did not need its full crew complement in these situations.