If the developer who came up with the brilliant idea to buff the Vulcan to be the equivalent to an Orbital Strike got fired, could we reverse his decision? I mean if he isn't good enough to work with the company anymore, it's time to draw the consequences, isn't it? Wouldn't it be logical to reverse the bad decisions by incompetent people?
i do not know what your job is but if you get fired tomorrow will your boss undo everything you did and you can't be serous by thinking its an one man decision what will the game look like if all the devs did what they wanted
I would think, if a Dev did that it would be like graffiti, vandalism in one way. NC just live with vandalism everyday, it's not my game, it's everyone's.
Look, it is actually quite simple. Bad decision-making is the single and only reason for the downfall of this game. If you want to turn this trend around you need to reverse bad decisions. There is no way around it. Actually this game needs a full-scale relaunch. Maybe they should cover it up and call it "expansion". One thing is sure though: The Vulcan-change was absolutely uncalled for. They just introduced a choice into the game that simply dominates everything and only gave it to one empire. VS and NC ground vehicles basically got nerfed/hard-countered without any sort of compensation at all and that many years after launch. It's not that they forgot to add it from Beta.
The only thing the change did was to make the vulcan a bit more competative in a head on fight. A fight that an AP lightning win in most cases might I add. The rear one clipping was possible before but at a HUGE risk. With the tightened COF this risk was reduced slightly but still require you to basically be nose to **** with the tank you want to bring down. To be honest, a competant vanguard with a secondary gunner is one of the most difficult things to take out as a vulcan harasser. Unless you are engaged or have used your shield It's a 90% chance that the harasser will lose. Considering that an Enforcer + AP hit take all but a sliver of health from a harasser. There's one thing I think can be toned down, and that's the vulcans AA capability. Even though duels with aircraft is damn fun to play I must say that we deal a bit to much damage in that department. Recently I have had a chance to test both a fully tooled Saron and Enforcer harasser... not to the same extent as a vulcan. But out of the 3 I'd say the Saron come out on top due to it's vercitality.
but the Vulcan isn't super OP... Its good at what it does, maybe a tad strong against infantry, but theres more important things they can focus on. Like adding new stuff. I like new stuff.
Hmm if a AP Vang + Enforcer, the biggest prob for an harasser+ vulcan, than something is Wrong with that game..... 450 Nanites vs 175....
Well, the vulcan harasser is designed to engage vehicles. Those would usually be Harassers, Lightnings, MBTs and Sunderers Lightning Ap = 3 ap shots required to kill a harasser. Lightning lose if ambushed from behind 99% of the time but can manage to get 2 hits which is around 60-70% of the harassers total health. This is turned into a ~75% chance to win if engaging the harasser head on. Viper = primarily designed to take out infantry, doesn't have much to say even in a head on fight. But will leave you with at least 50% damage Skyguard = Can be a bit annoying to engage head on but is usually easy to take out. Harassers Enforcer = 50/50 depending on who get the jump on he other. Saron = The Saron is horrible to face and requires an ambush to make sure it is taken out. Often with alot of damage sustained Halberd = Unless the gunner is skilled and the terrain messes with you this is usally a sure kill, but with heavy damage Sunderer with 2 active gunners Fury battlebus = It's a beast and requires a lot of open ground to deal with. Bassilisk battlebus/Shielded = You don't get this down unless you bug out, repair and come back. If they manage to get one engineer repairing it's just not going down. 0-1 gunners = A sure kill for the harasser unless it's shielded and repaired by 2+ engineers Vanguard Enforcer = Can be taken down without much problem if ambushed with their shield down, if piloted by an average player. A competent player reacts and more or less one shot a harasser even in an ambush. If the competent player has shield they'll pop it and swivel and suddenly the harasser loses it's edge. Halberd = Same as above but requires a slightly better secondary gunner No secondary = Most likely a loss for the vanguard unless they can use the terrain and pop shield long enough to hit two shots Magrider Saron = Is dangerous due to the precision of the saron, but not to the same extent as the enforcer. Lone magriders don't stand much of a chance if ambushed unless it's very competent pilot who can perform the 180 swivel maneuver. Best way to survive is to ride in a pack, which most magriders on Cobalt do. Halberd = Performs even worse than a mag armed with a saron but can deliver a nasty punch if piloted correctly. No secondary = Free certs for the Harasser Both MBTs can't be engaged head on without a sure loss. So the usual target order for us is Lone lightnings, Harassers, Deployed unguarded sunderers, Lone driving sunderers, Lone MBTs, Engaged MBTs with friends. Notice that "lone" is a quite common word. We don't engage things that we know will cause us trouble. That's what you guys are complaining about. We are performing the role as a harasser, taking out stragglers and wounded prey. Avoid becoming this and you've neutralized the Vulcan. That said, I think the vehicle game require rebalancing in terms of resources and level design. The resource gap between a harasser and a lightning for example is too big in my eyes.
