PTS Update - Sept. 18, 2020...WTF is this: Harasser nanite cost from 150 to 300?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by karlooo, Sep 19, 2020.

  1. karlooo

    A couple of months ago I made a topic complaining about the Harasser. There were no number comparisons, proof. I just said it's annoying to deal with because visually it's an improvised buggy and in game it's a light tank.
    This have received so many likes, which may show that most of the players are not fans of the Harasser playstyle.

    Maybe a good step forward would be removing the stabilizer on the Harasser top gun. This way the buggy won't be able to fire pinpoint accurate shots while in motion, or like most ppl use it, driving like psychos.
    And as simple as that, it is now a cheap improvised buggy, instead of a toxic, annoying Light tank that is indirectly tougher than an MBT because of its size and mobility.
  2. Twin Suns

    meh. It's a cheese vehicle built for trolling. No real skill required since it's built like a brick $ hit house. Very forgiving to use, tanky as he// and can take tanks on 1v1. It has no fear since it's so cheap to pull anyways. All reward and no risk sums it up perfectly.
    • Up x 5
  3. Johannes Kaiser

    Well, being more expensive it probably will see a bit less use now. Though the stabilizer removal would also be neat.
    Still, I'll wait and see what happens with this one.
    • Up x 2
  4. Campagne

    I'd much rather have seen them balance the harasser rather than double the cost.

    Does a 300-nanite Halberd harasser sound good? What about a 300-nanite Enforcer harasser, or a 300-nanite Canister/Mauarder/PPA harasser?

    A 300-nanite Vulcan harasser still does. :cool:
    • Up x 1
  5. Liewec123

    a long time overdue!

    now time to make the rumble seat 360 degrees!
    • Up x 2
  6. Demigan

    Its ridiculous. We HAD a good balance before when Harassers werent as tanky and easy to repair. But hey instead of reverting to a mostly balanced system we'll just make it much more expensive and hope that it JUST nails the spot.
    • Up x 2
  7. CephalopodNME

    Good, maybe this will reduce the number of Vulcan Harrassers we have to deal with.
  8. iller

    Dedicated Harrasser crews will just build Player Terminals to pull theirs from instead and nothing will fundamentally change.

    Personally I find trying to hit a Harrasser with any kind of real damage to be an interesting and challenging mini game. It's one of the only threats out there aside from the Bastion where you CAN'T just roll C4 fairy and throw it at the problem till it goes away. We need more stuff like this not less.

    Though I do think one thing that ALWAYS should have been an option against them, is the A2A lockons having a special exception to be able to lock onto Harasser. Those missiles literally have no use in this game other than team-composition Liberator hunting so they might as well get 1 other little niche to justify their existence
    • Up x 2
  9. JibbaJabba

    With memberships and boosts and whatnot, we're not short on nanites. They have never really slowed down the deployment of anything since we went from the armor/air/infantry resource system to the single nanite system.

    This means that a dedicated harasser crew running membership and boosts can no longer pull vehicles every 1.5 minutes. They now pull them every 3 minutes.

    Still won't fix the vulcan. :p
    • Up x 1
  10. OneShadowWarrior

    They made them overpowered and it’s a short term fix, once they went down the road of making rear armor weak on tanks it became a major exploit.

    Tanks actually don’t have rear weak armor, this isn’t WW2. Actually, it’s the hatches and topside that have lesser armor.
  11. ObiVanuKenobi

    Sounds like something someone who has never ever used a Harasser would say.

    Highest skill ceiling ground vehicle imo, heavily relies on teamwork, outmaneuvering your opponent. Exploits bad aim and bad situational awareness. Useless 1v1 against a skilled MBT except if you do the c4 backseat trick but it's not easy to pull off and most pro tankers will see it coming. Completely destroys noobs though because of high mobility.
    • Up x 1
  12. Demigan

    Tanks do have weak rear-armor in modern days. It isnt economical to create full armor coverage on a vehicle designed to fight something in front of it. It adds so much to the weight and reduces its mobility, and especially the modern MBT relies on specifically on its mobility first and its armor second.

    Take a look at the Abrahams for example:
    Go to "design" and then "armor".

    While it does not list specific thicknesses for the rear of the turret, it does every time specifically mention that it is front armor. It also mentions side-armor specifically and separately from front armor, while rear-armor isnt mentioned. Although I did hear of one instance of a 30mm auto-canon having a friendly fire accident at almost point-blank on the rear and destroying the engine, that same 30mm would never even penetrate the front at point-blank if it fired an entire magazine. This is why the A-10's 30mm canon is still relevant, since rear and top armor are often similar in thickness as there is less threat from it.

    Also they only upgraded the rear-armor for a short while before realizing how much it dumbed down the tank game. It always has been the weakest armor side in the game.
    • Up x 1
  13. SirPanfried

    Yeah this whole thing is a slap on the wrist for decent harasser crews. Rather than nerf harassers outright, maybe giving more options to counter them may be a better option, especially for infantry. Like, I dont know, making rocket launchers more than a glorified t-shirt gun or reverting the explosive bolt nerf that I'm pretty sure nobody asked for.
    • Up x 3
  14. OneShadowWarrior

    You mean max suits with AV or infantry with all there AV weapon choices to have stuff that worked? That makes to much sense!

    I crack up at how AP tanks can pick off air but not take down Air with dedicated AA or get into the battlefield with the Main Battle Tanks and Lightnings and not do there job.

    Things are just way out of synch, often whacky.
    • Up x 3
  15. TRspy007

    lol wishful thinking dude.

    Increasing the cost just means you can't chainpull them. You'll maybe be able to pull a maximum of 3 close together before you're actually affected by the cost increase.

    Now is that a problem? Well, the whole point of cheese is to cheese. Do I even have to look at my nanites before I pull again after I bailed out of my ESF at the end of my A2G stomping spree? Is nanites something I consider after I die on a harasser run?

    Lol, no of course not. The whole point of these things are to get easy kills, with something so forgiving that even the most unskilled of the unskilled can get an easy streak. Think what happens when you finally die during a harasser or a2g run. Why do you die?
    • You simply gotten so many kills you don't even care anymore what happens, you start to overextend, or just decide to kamikaze
    • You got unlucky. Maybe flipped over, charged straight into some armor zerg or got a player angry who actually knows how to fly, or has a buddy to run a harasser with and outskilled you.
    In any case, when you finally die, you have enough nanites to pull again - and we're not even factoring boosts, membership or ASP discounts.
    Yeah, I don't really think increasing the cost of harassers is fully addressing the issue. Considering its arguably the best ground vehicle in the game, pricing it as such is a good start. However, based on the new price and the name, I believe it would still require a nerf in either repair speed and health or simply damage output. The fact something this agile can 1 clip tanks and turbo away is a bit cheesy, especially when it can tank 3-4 MBT shots while doing so. I'd say reverting it to it's previous state would be nice.
    • Up x 1
  16. TRspy007


    there's no reason why a composite esf can tank my kraken shot and buzz off.

    additionally, there's no reason why normal esfs should be able to resist dedicated "AA" weapons to the degree they do.

    I have never encountered a dude with an auraxed AA weapon.

    I do however encounter auraxed a2g farming weapons all the time.

    Also lol at how hornet missiles and liberators just obliterate anything in like 2-3 shots
    • Up x 1
  17. Twin Suns

    C'mon man. 150 nanites? Everyone has used it. *rim shot*

    Skilled? LOL. Its the most forgiving ground vehicle ever.

    Can turbo escape over a mountain ;), has the mobility of a cheetah, it laughs at rockets fired its way, can tank hits with ease and has more of a superior steady aiming platform than any L. Tank or MBT.'s the epitome of a Cheese vehicle.
    • Up x 2
  18. Kanil

    Completely agree. I don't understand why people think the Harasser is good. It's a viable enough choice for vulturing off the hard work of other, more capable vehicles, but actually winning 1v1 fights? It's just not very strong.

    That's not even considering that it requires two crew to use. 2 man MBT vs a Lightning is really rough, two Lightnings vs one Lightning is difficult as well, fighting two infantry on your own is usually a losing proposition. Killing two guys in a Harasser with my Lightning? Do it all the time.

    ... and yet half the playerbase seems to think it's a god vehicle. I dunno, I just don't find them that scary.
    • Up x 2
  19. karlooo

    I think the Harasser wasn't reworked and instead was given a cost increase cause probably Wrel believes some players specialize in the Harasser use. But it's nonsense because you can't specialize in vehicle combat....It's all about damage and numbers, it requires a team effort.
    If Wrel wants the Harasser to stay as it is, then the driver shouldn't be allowed to drive in third person view.
    The third person driving is what's the main problem. It's gives too much overview, stable camera. Making driving so easy that the driver is then able to make some absolutely stupid, unpredictable moves....In conclusion making it nearly impossible to hit - annoying, cancer vehicle.
  20. Liewec123

    the only downside of the price hike is that i'll lose my 2nd favourite (after striker) form of cheap AA.
    pulling a throw away walker harasser to deal with pesky air has been pretty effective over the years.
    now i'll just have to hope that NC and VS get some actual AA options.
    • Up x 4

Share This Page