[Vehicle] Harraser too OP!!!

Wrong. I drive an AP-Vanguard AV/AV 2/2 alot and i've had plenty of direct hits on a Harasser only to see them
skyrocket away to safely and smoking like a lokomotive - but alive. 2 AP-rounds will kill a Harasser IF they don't repair
between shots, but 1AP1Halberd will not kill them.

And good luck getting that 2nd shot on the Harasser if he's boosting away zigzagging randomly...

Uhm, how's he wrong? Everything about his post is spot on. If you don't let them shoot the rear of your Lightning, you will win the fight and they will be forced to run or die. That's totally correct.

So yeah, a one man solo tank can handle a two man teamwork mandated vehicle just fine... Harasser OP indeed!

It depends on the relative accuracies of each vehicle. It also matters that the Harasser can dictate engagements.

The Vulcan-H is incredibly forgiving about missing shots... whereas one miss with the Lightning's AP cannon and you've likely lost. And of course the Harasser is all about evading damage instead of tanking it.

There's also the matter that if the Harasser thinks the fight is not going in its favor, the Harasser can leave the area, repair, and come back for another go. If a Lightning feels that it might lose the fight, the Lightning cannot disengage from the Harasser.

Essentially the Harasser can keep trying to get the Lightning to miss without much danger to itself. And when that Lightning does miss (which it will eventually), then there's nothing the Lightning can do to prevent the loss.

Harassers need to be much less durable... 1 AP shot should set it on fire whereas 2 ought to outright kill it. It is one of these after all:

Oh, I guess this totally explains why my two man Flash should totally stand an equal chance when going up against a two man MBT or two man Harasser. Please go on and tell me about how vehicles are balanced not by their logical roles, but simply by how many people I can cram into the backseat.

I'd totally agree with this... if I'm running full speed, and end up running into the harasser attacking me, we shouldn't just be bouncing off of each other. The harasser should be taking significant damage (while the tank takes minimal damage, if any)... but no, the harasser can shove around the tank and block it all it wants to as if it has the same mass and durability as another tank would.

The harasser's defense, as properly pointed out, is its quickness and ability to evade being hit. Being light and quick also comes with being vulnerable.

-- Smoov

Yes, of course. However in his given example, he assumes 100% accuracy. Seeing as how you only have 3 shots, it's not unreasonable to sometimes hit all of them.

Firstly, the Flash only requires one person to drive the vehicle and man all it's weapons. It isn't really a "two man vehicle", in the same sense that a Harasser isn't a three man vehicle (it's 2,) and a Sunderer isn't a twelve man vehicle (it's 3.)

Secondly, a Flash with a rumble seat heavy can kill a full health MBT in about two seconds. A Fury mag, dumbfire, and AV grenade/crossbow bolt (former easier, latter faster) destroys 'em. But it's extremely hard to pull off, so it turns out teamwork is OP, who knew?

Thirdly, the only limit on a team is their continental population. There is literally nothing stopping you from pulling 200 Lightnings (or whatever the popcap is these days,) meanwhile you could only theoretically field 100 Harassers (if you wanted them to drive and shoot at the same time.) The only team balance that exists at the moment is continental population, so it seems reasonable to me to at least consider crew requirements when balancing vehicles.

It doesn't help your position in the argument to flat out lie. Pretty much everyone here knows they die in 3 AP rounds, or 2 + a few small arms bullets. Do I *feel* that is still too rugged for the cost? Yeah, so no need for mis-information.

Okay. harrasser was nerfed. it has halberd that cant OHK infantry( i heard that not corroborated) and is weak
if you don't like harrasser then shoot it. I use harrassers all the time in RCN6 and we have to run a lot. ap tanks require a sneaky back stab to kill. I don't really think the harrasser does much in zerg fights unless we get a pack together.

TLR It's not OP, its a flip of the coin for profit and lots of risk. Fix turboing over mines though and fix c4 bug on moving vehicles.

Harassers need to have their armor nerfed back to what it was, it taking 2 VG AP rounds and still living is ********.

Just because I don't display my stats from my other accounts doesn't mean I don't play them. I have a VS and a NC, I just don't use them as much as my TR. Also, it's **** against infantry, so there you go. Get a few heavy assault and MAXs and you're good to go.

Well here's a counter. Instead of nerfing the weapons, why don't we increase the cost. Also, you act like the other three fill no roles what so ever.

It is when by the second shot the Harasser can simply choose to disengage, and there's not much a Lightning can do to keep up.

Making it a 2 shot kill with one shot being incredibly dangerous means that the Harasser would definitely need to make a choice on whether they want to stay or go. It is much more probable for a Lightning to make 2 shots than 3 after all.

1/2 Harassers are very much a thing (just as 1/2 Liberators and 1/2 MBTs are). What essentially happens is that with a 1/2 Harasser you lose mobility, but instead become a stationary turret. This would be balanced if Harassers were actually fragile, but because they have no weak points instead it's not much of a loss.

I mean a Harasser has a natural 4% resistance to AP shells, compared to the Lightning's 20% vulnerability to AP shells. Why is that even a thing? How is a Harasser less vulnerable to AP shells than an actual tank?

It's also absurd how the rear armor of a Lightning is actually lower than the rear armor of a Harasser (32% versus 39%). Or that the Harasser gets an additional 8% to armor resistance from all angles if it uses Composite Armor, whereas there's nothing the Lightning can do to cover its rear.

So we wind up with the ridiculous scenario where a glorified go-kart has a greater resistance to AP damage than parts of an actual tank (39%*4%*8% compared to 32%*-20%). Essentially while an AP round to the rear of a Composite 4 Harasser would do 862 damage, the same AP round to the rear of any Lightning would do 1,305.6 damage, meaning that the Harasser has an extra 33% damage resistance as compared to a tank!

This is why Harassers definitely need a HP/armor nerf to make them into the fragile glass cannons that they ought to be.

Liberators were also glass cannons and still are. Look what happened to them.
I feel lots of the harasser hate is because of the vulcan. It's common knowledge that reducing the mag size to require all shots to the rear to get kill is the way to go.

Liberators charging my Skyguard say differently. Liberators are hardly glass cannons, considering that they have 5,000 HP (25% more than an MBT and 66% more than a Lightning).

All aircraft should be extremely fragile to AA, but hit like a ton of bricks. That's what most aircraft are... hardly armored at all and if something does mess up while you're high off the ground you're in big trouble.

Zealous.Overdrive.Engine.

A revivable, transportable, highly agile, extremely mobile, and terribly powerful weapon's platform that can go anyhere, follow you everywhere.

You can hide inside from the OP Libs when they are. You can hide from the ESF's. You could hide from the tanks, you can hide from the Harasser - even destroy it with gun-fire. IF you manage to kill the ZOE the other 50 ZOE's will make sure he will soon enough be revived.

And soon they will be in the next base, completely outnumbering their non-MAX fellows, let alone the enemy infantry.

There is no escape from it, and for several months in a row nothing is done to curtail it. In the end, a heavy-handed, hard-end nerf was needed to stop it. PS2 lost more players than ever in the ZOEpocaplyse, and you, a VS player, a *VANU PLAYER*, dare to whine about the Vulcan Harasser today?

Vulcan Harassers are OP? Surely, but at least you can hide from them, and the Vulcan Harassers are not completely and utterly broken, as the ZOE was.

Your right to complain about something being "the most overpowered thing in PS2 history" ended, like any VS player's right to complain about that ended, when the ZOEpocalypse was a fact.

No vehicle will ever trump something that could follow you anywhere on the map except your warp-gate, and could be revived infinitely by medics should you manage for a few moments to stop it.

At the very least Harassers have a hard tim getting to points and can't be revived once you C4 it.

Personally, I liked the idea that was floated around a couple of months back that the chaingun get changed into a close in anti-infantry weapon and the Marauder be made into a vehicle mounted Fracture with better damage; that way all three empires would essentially have parity on the harassers.

They really need to lower the nanite cost on Lightnings though; most of their weapons have been heavily nerfed and they cannot reasonably expect to stand against an even slightly competent harasser crew, which is silly given the nanite cost difference between them.

1 lightning AP to burning is a bit much, it'd be better at doing 51% damage so the 2hko is still preserved but not making the harasser almost useless. It would also make Fire Suppression much less valuable on the harasser. Lowering it that hard would also make it a 1hko vs MBTs which would make it almost useless at closer range harassment. It'd only be good for long range sniping with such bad resistances which (in my opinion) is a boring play style.

How would armour factor into this though? Would you take a 3hko if the harasser would made slower because of the armour? So a Racer harasser with armour would go about 85 max rather than 100+ it is now.

Also lightnings should cost 250 nanites.

tl;dr I drive alone and expect to take on enemies without any help and if I can't that means they should be nerfed more than they already have.

You can't cert into teamwork.

You do realize that the Harasser has less HP than the Lightning, right? I mean, 'cause that's kinda relevant to TTK discussions and everything.

Pretty much the only time a Lightning will die faster than a Harasser is when the Lightning is getting shot in the rear and the Harasser has composite, that is to say the best case scenario for the Harasser is slightly better than the worse case scenario for the Lightning. Even then, it's still not always better, depending upon the weapon system used -- a Fury will one clip a Harasser and won't even set a Lightning on fire, for example (not to mention the Lightning's complete immunity to small arms.)

Also, it takes two people compared to your Lightning's one, and if it's a 1/2 Harasser, then it can't flank you and get those juicy rear shots.

You're really not convincing me that it's grossly overpowered. Or even that it's superior to the Lightning.

Harassers have to much armor to begin with, giving theirs speed and ability to equip stealth, they can pop in an out with out fear, 3 lightning ap rounds should should be enough to kill one considering how dificult it is to hit them wile on move, how ever i agree that the main issue is the vulcan, that thing can rip of apart a full health lightning before the lighting driver have the chance to even pull his 3rd shot, it is just a too strong weapon for that platform.