Why nurf prowler?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Parsa, Oct 28, 2017.

  1. Pelojian

    you can say that literally of any weapon, lets not forget infantry have many more times the viable cover from vehicles of all types. a sniper rifle bullet would kill you just as dead as an AP round, only the rifle bullet travels faster.

    in any situation where you would be one shot killed by a direct hit by AP, you'll now be killed by direct hit or splash damage of HE because there's not enough difference in HE's AV performance to AP, to run AP over HE.

    an AV machinegun on a real tank will shred infantry easily in that way it made some sense that AV focused weapons had the ability to work as AI for close range defense, but no sense to heavy armor vulnerable to most AI weapons.

    AP may have been favored but there was still a usefulness for HEAT and HE, now AP isn't worth pulling at all and HEAT? maybe if you want the damage bonus on enemy PMBs.
    • Up x 1
  2. LordKrelas

    And there is a reason, there is cover from vehicles on every base.
    A sniper rifle, is fired by a squishy target that requires equal or less damage to kill.
    A tank shell is fired with less need to correct for distance, by a heavily armored much faster target.

    In any situation where the AP is firing at an infantry target, the Tank should have either an AI Top-gun, infantry support or some proper means of AI assistance, as the tank is specializing in Anti-armor.
    This brings a slight reliance on other vehicles & weapons, to account for a slight weakness due to the specialization.
    This forces combined arms...

    A proper real-world rocket-launcher will pierce a tank's hull, and explode inside it, killing the operators.
    A single incendiary charge, can cause the tank's crew to burn to death, and the ammunition inside to detonate.
    A single bullet in the intake of a fighter will cause the plane to lose the engine, possibly throw the internal blade shards into the fuselage, causing severe damage, and possibly an explosion.

    It makes no sense, that infantry AV is requiring numerous shots on a tank with a severe range limitation.
    As well, it makes no sense that a single engineer can repair a tank from a flaming mess with a single tool over & over again.

    So shall we step away from reality-only-when-handy to one-side?

    Why use AI, if AV does it well enough, and is the sole thing to handle vehicle targets which are more dangerous in general.
    Why? As AV mystically can't do the job near equal or better in less or equal time, meaning the AV vehicle is actually not also an AI vehicle - nor equal to one.
    Combined Arms; You kill one threat type well, while the other kills another.
    One covers for the weakness of the other, and vice versa.

    Welcome to the concept of Combined weapon systems.
    Sure, they made one cannon once again better due to duality.
    But hell, least AI in the top-guns is no longer useless in general practice compared to AV top-guns.

    They need more work, but it's a better start than AV-over-All.
    • Up x 2
  3. TR5L4Y3R


    one c4 = one use only ever

    mbt = reloadable and reapirable thus useable till destruction or till you got bored ..

    "Why would something that costs 0 nanites be stronger or equal to something that costs 450? How is it even comparable?"

    it´s a rocketlauncher .. rocketlaunchers are supposed to kill the infantry inside the vehicle, are they not? ..



    "So in your opinion hitting an infantryman in the head with a tank shell without getting a kill makes sense?"
    does having to hit a vehicle with multiple rockets to finaly bring it down make sense to you?

    it´s all a matter of ballance and fairness .. you basicaly ask that once infantry is outside of a base they are at the mercy of any vehicle with AV capability .. with having next to no chance to retaliete much less any chance to retreat ..
    just take the engineer WHO MUST BE outside to support allied vehicles .. how am i supposed as engineer to help tanks (much less having fun doing that) when i get oneshotted whenever i get spotted by an enemy tank?
    do you expect me to constatly respawn, run back to the front to get oneshotted again just so i keep doing the tast i am supposed to do?
    games are meant to be fun ... not frustrating .. make a task frustrating and people cease to do said task (or worst leave the game entirely) ..
    and then everyone else complains why there are no engineers helping with repairs ..
    it doesn´t even matter if i get my self a tank or any other vehicle the moment i am out because i have to rep something ..

    again you already have a tool that drastically increases your surviveability .. and you ask to drastically lower the survivability on those that fight against you .. how is that fair?
  4. ColonelChingles

    That is absolutely ridiculous and shows the lack of understanding of modern combined arms warfare.

    Take your typical rocket launchers. The RPG-7 (found pretty much everywhere) and the AT4 in some Western armies. Neither are particularly good against even slightly outdated MBTs. They lack the penetration to go through the frontal (and mostly sides) of modern tanks.

    [IMG]

    Add to this the introduction of explosive reactive armour (ERA), which essentially disrupts the ability of a HEAT warhead to function by exploding it (essentially fighting fire with fire). To defeat ERA you would need tandem warheads, which drastically increase the weight and expense of such infantry weapons. Generally only ATGMs or heavy RPGs have this ability at all.

    [IMG]

    The recent development of active protection systems (APSs) since the 1970s have further limited the ability of infantry to face tanks using rockets and missiles. They work by destroying an approaching rocket or missile before it even has a chance to hit the tank. The only real way to break this system is to fire multiple rockets or missiles at the same time or come up with a "triple warhead" design (absurdly heavy like the RPG-30).

    So no, infantry do not have ready tools to defeat modern tanks. Proof of that comes to us from 2014 with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israelis fielded Merkava IV tanks with ERA and Trophy APSs. The Palestinians had top-of-the-line Kornet ATGMs and RPG-29s. The result? Out of hundreds of rockets and missiles the Palestinians fired, not a single Israeli tank was destroyed. In 15 cases, the only ones where the APS decided there was a danger, incoming projectiles were destroyed.

    As for the "incendiary charges", that makes no sense at all. Unless somehow it is thrown into the tank itself (thus bypassing armour), there is no way that an incendiary charge would work. Even in the case of an engine fire, those can by put out by automatic systems or from the outside. And they most certainly would not cause an ammunition detonation (generally stored in protected racks). Only in very isolated and rare cases have tanks been lost through engine fires (an older M1 tank during the second Iraq war comes to mind, but that was penetrated from the rear by an SPG-9).

    In short, there is no basis in reality of infantry being as effective against tanks as they are in PS2. That is all the evidence anyone needs to conclude that this game is unfairly balanced in favour of infantry (and that doesn't even get to the neutering of tank armaments)!
  5. TR5L4Y3R



    realy who cares about all this though regarding gameballance?
    this is not a simulation game .. it is not meant to simulate modern warfare and how tanks, planes and infantry perform in reality ..
    this is a game for the casual player .. as such gameballance is done with that in mind .. making infantry vs vehiclefights fair for both sides .. if we go by realworld performance in which according to you infantry may have no chance then what point would there be in ever playing infantry at all unless in area were vehicles can´t reach you?
    • Up x 2
  6. ColonelChingles

    No. Infantry rockets and missiles are quickly becoming obsolete as evidenced by recent conflicts. Most rocket launchers nowadays are used to kill other infantry, not tanks.

    No. Infantry should not be doing damage to tanks at all from the frontal and side arcs. C4 should just scratch paint. AV grenades are a WWII relic that were even made obsolete then. And crossbows... FRIGGIN CROSSBOWS? LIKE SERIOUSLY? HOW MUCH MORE CAN YOU POSSIBLY BABY INFANTRYSIDE PLAYERS BY GIVING THEM A TINY ITTY BITTY CROSSBOW THAT CAN PENETRATE THE ARMOUR OF AN MBT.

    Ahem.

    Anyhow, infantry should need to either ambush tanks from the top/rear arcs, or failing that call in their own combined arms (air, artillery, tanks) to fight off the tanks. On the other hand, they play a critical role in directing the heavier arms to the proper targets. Base fights should look like this:

    [IMG]

    Infantry #1: Take cover! We're taking small arms fire from that building on the left!
    Infantry #2: Alright, get that tank that was attached to us to move up!
    Infantry #1: Tank! Fourth building down the street on the left, second floor.
    Tank: I see it, engaging.
    Enemy Infantry in building: *dies wonderfully*
    Infantry #2: Yea, I think that got them all. Squad, advance!
  7. TR5L4Y3R


    yea in short i disagree with you .. as said before in your response to krelas this Is NOT a simulationgame ..
    go play ARMA or operation flashpoint then instead ..
    • Up x 2
  8. ObiVanuKenobi

    You could try not standing still. You know... one of the most basic things.
  9. TR5L4Y3R

    ... damn didn´t think about that with all those allied tanks keep moving around ...


    ... so in other words you have no propper answer but just want your powerfantasy .. got it ..
  10. ColonelChingles

    Because this is supposed to be a combined arms game. That means you need all elements of arms to participate for an efficient and successful battle.

    Let me put it this way:
    If infantry are free
    If infantry can be spawned anywhere and easily transported/redeployed
    AND
    If infantry are just as powerful as expensive, strategically slower vehicles

    Then who would ever play vehicles?

    And that's the main problem that PS2 has. In competitive play, vehicles simply aren't worth it. You're probably not experienced enough to remember back to when we had Server Smashes of organised competitive play, but there really were only three vehicles even worth getting: Sunderers (because they spawn infantry), Galaxies (because they carry infantry), and ESFs. ESFs were the only real combat vehicle used in serious numbers, and that was because they didn't have the usual drawbacks of other vehicles.

    Proof? Consider this recent alert on Emerald.
    Orion- 616 kills
    Prowler infantry kills- 189

    You have a single LMG killing over three times the infantry than all Prowler weapons (including secondaries) combined.

    Or how about...
    Orion- 616 kills
    All three factions Lightning infantry kills- 427

    So even if we combined the anti-infantry power of all three factions' Lightnings, we would still not equal the killing power of a single VS LMG.

    And finally...
    Total Kills- 18,953
    All Tank Kills- 1,548

    Tanks can only account for 8.2% of all PS2 kills, even when a good portion of these are killing other vehicles.

    It would be a joke to call that "balanced". If we wanted equal parity (33% kills from infantry, 33% kills from ground vehicles, 33% kills from air vehicles), we would need to buff vehicles considerably.
  11. Campagne

    "How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man!?"

    Simply put, there are more infantry weapons in fights than there are prowlers and lightnings. The Orion is a default weapon and is highly regarded as one of the best LMGs in the game. It is the most popular weapon for the most popular class, go figure there would be a lot of kills with it.
    • Up x 1
  12. TR5L4Y3R



    people play whatever they consider "FUN" to play .. i for instance don´t play vehicles even if they are more effective as infantry in certain areas
    the problem witth vehicles is outside of inbetweenbasefights they have no impact in capturing terrain (good for defense though) .. for the most part infantry is what captures terrain and bases .. and that´s why you generally have more infantry vs infantry going on and accorrdingly high kills from infantry weapons ..
    still does that justify infantry to be hoplessly incapable to defend itself against vehicles? i think not ..
    as i stated before .. and just put yourself in that situation you are in a inbetween bases battlescenario were both sides try to push the other side back to their base .. because this is the scenario were vehicles are more prominent ..
    as pure infantry (not using vehicles of their own) .. only the HA with rocketlaunchers can do some damage against vehicles by default
    engineers are primarily focused on repairing vehicles and maxes .. maybe occasionaly tickle a tank with the archer because the av turret ain´t worth a damn because standing in it for even a second to long gets you a tankround (or a sniperround) to the face
    .. medics basicaly can´t do jack but revieve engineers and HA´s
    and infills can´t do even less than jack against vehicles but are forced to fight against infantry ..
    other than that both medics and infill may as just play with their thumps ..
    and LA just do suicideruns until their nanites are used up ..

    if you want more vehicleplay than the solution would be for vehilces to be able to capture more territory not just dominate fights outside of bases where infantry gets dumped down to cannonfodderlevels .. because hey it sure is fun to try and repair stuff while getting consistently blown appart .. why should only the vehicle user have fun outside of the base?

    i disagree on vehicles being not worth it .. they are an incredible forcemultiplyer when used well being able to severly halt a captureattemt or stop it .. and aggainst PMB´s they are a must ..
    • Up x 1
  13. TR5L4Y3R



    also speaking of combined arms ..
    since the idea of it is to combine the options available to you that are specialised in specific areas ..
    if you make vehicles so that they are powerfull at both killing vehicles and killing infantry then how should playing infantry be viable
    when vehicles can do almost anything infantry was supposed to do?
    in that case you are reducing the elements you can combine with ..
    • Up x 1
  14. ObiVanuKenobi

    Infantry can redeploy anywhere, 10 sec respawn time, no resource cost, can go inside buildings (good luck attacking a bio-lab with tanks), can capture points, overload generators, instakill tanks with c4, instakill non-shield sunderers.
    Anyways it's pointless arguing with you if you play only infantry and never use vehicles, you just don't see both sides and make false assumptions.
  15. LordKrelas

    Not accurate in the practical sense, not to mention Vehicles can spawn at any base.
    Resources regenerate, and infantry consumables cost nanites.

    Entering buildings, isn't exactly the end-all either.
    if vehicles could enter a Bio-lab, it would be Vehicles or swarm upon swarm.

    Capture points exist for vehicles, hopefully more.
    Generators are for the vehicle shields or the defensive barriers... a reason to actually have infantry help the tank.

    C-4 is overrated in the description it is given with "instant kill", as a tank could do the same with any shell at a greater distance for free.
    Tank shells don't cost nanites per shot fired, C-4 Does.

    As well, C-4 is an attempt.

    It's pointless to argue with people whom can't handle infantry not being mauled by all types of vehicles.
    "To hell with Combined-Arms, if the AV tank can not maul infantry easily..."
    This is the general message.

    It's combined-arms, when the AV tank murders infantry effortlessly, needing those infantry to have tanks...
    When does the tank need infantry?
    Generators, Vehicle Shields, most capture points? So the infantry is, just a consumable sent off to allow the Tank to kill.
    No actual reliance, beyond non-combat tasks outside of point capture - Which if all were vehicle-capable would be better with a tank than a squishy infantryman.

    And yet, infantry-only forces whom apparently have no need for tanks...
    As they Do not manage to leave bases, There is no foot-zerg that overpowers everything else.
    As that foot-zerg basically dies at the exterior of any base, via any AI vehicle, and previously any AV vehicle.
    Which also kills off any vehicle it pleases.

    The Tank needs no help, against anything but air.
    Infantry needs help against everything.
    Air needs none at all.

    Combined arms? One-sided reliance, in most matters.
    Irony.
    • Up x 2
  16. ObiVanuKenobi

    Infantry doesn't need tanks, i guess you have never heard of server smash but i'm not surprised. Basically it's a competetive event on a separate server by organized outfits where the goal is having most territory within a certain time limit. You could say it's similar to an alert on live servers except all players are coordinated. And guess what? Tanks are almost never used there, only infantry and aircraft. A well organized squad won't get a bunch of tanks to push for the next base, leader will already have a beacon or Valkyrie there and skip the pointless open field battle.
    Sure, on live servers you have a bunch of newbs who think running on foot to the next base is a good idea but just because some people are stupid doesn't mean tanks are op.
    • Up x 1
  17. TR5L4Y3R

    no, only in friendly bases and sundereres or wereever you´ll be send for instantaction


    requires 2 bricks, apearantly even for harrassars now too and sunderers still require a additional full rockletsalvo or 2 so no instakill on those unless engineer with access to more bricks ..

    i play both sides just that i play vehicles less because i don´t like farming infantry with vehicles that much and instead go AV because i like to blow stuff up ..
    what about you though do you play infantry against vehicles?
    because i just could make the assumtion that you are biased then as well and make false assumtions ..
  18. LordKrelas

    Server smash involve field battles, or sieges?
    How about engaging an enemy , and pushing to their base in the next hex over?
    Defense & elimination of sunderers?

    Tanks.
    Infantry don't need tanks indoors, the same as Tanks don't need infantry outside.
    As well, every single Tank can operate with incredible power at longer ranges - This by nature of itself, means time.

    Aircraft can be everywhere, and have the most power in one single unit, and for cheap.
    As it's a limited population, with a time limit: Aircraft means no Tanks, since they have no cover, and no ability to devote the majority of their limited forces to ineffective AA.
    Infantry can take cover, making them last longer by virtue of having a place to hide.

    It's not that infantry are better than Tanks.
    It's aircraft makes tanks unusable with equal numbers, when aircraft are around.
    As Tanks have No cover from aircraft.

    Isn't that ******* magical? Equal numbers, with how AA is, means No tanks due to lack of cover.
    Server Smash magically has no sane reason to use tanks, and it's... Due to aircraft not infantry.
    Yet infantry are blamed, for the literal lack of proper AA which in turn makes tanks pointless in such an environment.
    Remove Aircraft, and you'll see tanks in Server Smash, as they're won't be ESFs & Libs nuking them hard.

    That's kinda the point sherlock
    - The moment infantry leave the base, they are fodder for tanks, due to lacking massive amounts of cover.
    Never said they were OP, did state they aren't weak nor dependent on infantry.
    Combined-arms by infantry needing tanks to engage tanks, but tanks needing nothing to engage anything but perhaps aircraft..
    Which infantry can not do either.
  19. LodeTria


    Time & manpower are the two assets that should not be wasted in SS. If your team manages to repel or capture a base, they should be put into galaxys or beacon deploy to the next base, not pull tanks and waste time driving to the next base.

    Field fights & sieges do not happen in Server Smash as the outside of bases is useless. The goal is to capture as much territory as possible, not wank about in the fields doing nothing. Any group that isn't Air should be in bases the vast majority of the time, always pushing or holding points or destroying any sunderers placed with infantry/MAXes. Tanks are slow, costly & easily countered in the places SS matters, which is bases. This is why they are a joke on SS, and seeing one always got called out by the hosts.

    Remember, SS is highly co-ordinated so things like AMP station bus holds are common. Everyone has beacons so losing a sunderer isn't as bad as live and you can actually call for over-pop and possibly loose bases because of it. You need to be highly mobile and be able to lane switch if the force commander calls for it, something tanks are terrible at. Tanks are also highly vulnerable in bases should they get in there, you're better either using the tankiness of the sundie or the evasion of the harasser.
    • Up x 1
  20. ObiVanuKenobi

    Beacons can be anywhere, Valkyries can be anywhere, Galaxies can be anywhere.
    You trigger the C-4, vehicle blows up with 0 time to react, all damage is done instantly. Sunderer requires 1 salvo from rocklet rifle but that extra 1 sec won't make a difference.

    698 vehicle kills with c-4, 558 with c-4 arx, 1524 with tank mines, 532 with ML-7, 377 with Striker.
    I think i can say yes. But mostly i ignore tanks when playing infantry, if you have any situational awareness they're not a threat, can't even remember the last time i was killed by a tank while playing infantry.
    • Up x 1