Login

russian armor

Re-balance Allied TDs penetration values

PAGES (9)down
26 Oct 2019, 23:50 PM
#121
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 1681

Oh look another pls nerf alies TDs thread its seriosly getting boring. Game is really in a good state right now but if u guys really wonna destroy it again then pls go on

Then lets play a game.

Lets buff axis superheavy TDs and let the community decide if that is fair enough.
Because allied OP TD can only be balanced by axis OP TD with your mindset
27 Oct 2019, 00:08 AM
#122
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 663

Ok. Having read all the above I feel there should be tank destroyer category for tanks with damage inflicted as the % of health of the hit tank (light vehicles excluded). This would be so much easier to balance.
27 Oct 2019, 00:14 AM
#123
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4002

Ok. Having read all the above I feel there should be tank destroyer category for tanks with damage inflicted as the % of health of the hit tank (light vehicles excluded). This would be so much easier to balance.
just so u know, increasing damage to 200 and reducing the reload would achieve the same thing as it would still need 4 shoot to kill a medium 640 hp tank but 1 less for panther and anything above
27 Oct 2019, 00:26 AM
#124
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 663

just so u know, increasing damage to 200 and reducing the reload would achieve the same thing as it would still need 4 shoot to kill a medium 640 hp tank but 1 less for panther and anything above

I'm not sure. It would not change much. The problem remains. Either you are too good at killing mediums but ok at killing heavies OR bad at killing heavies and rational at killing mediums. It is not related to how much damage you deal or how often. If you balance it agains heavies it won't be good against mediums and the other way around. The only solution would be to make it say 5 or 4vor maybe 6 shots kill any tank by a TD. Each shot is the number equal to say 1/5 1/6 etc of the target's health. Depending on a TD it would be more or fewer shots. A Jackson could be say 4~5 shooter. Stug say 6 shooter etc.
27 Oct 2019, 00:28 AM
#125
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 798

just so u know, increasing damage to 200 and reducing the reload would achieve the same thing as it would still need 4 shoot to kill a medium 640 hp tank but 1 less for panther and anything above

but that would fuck up snares though, 3 shots + snare = ded
27 Oct 2019, 14:05 PM
#126
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2731

The OP's suggestion of standardising all the TDs to 260/240/220 is sensible tbh.

If it's apparently fine for the Firefly, it's definitely fine for the Jackson.

ddd
27 Oct 2019, 17:39 PM
#127
avatar of ddd

Posts: 522 | Subs: 1

Standardise nondoctrinal tanks selection too. Give usf something similar to comet, churchill or panther non doc. If you are so smart go all the way.
27 Oct 2019, 18:51 PM
#128
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2731

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 17:39 PMddd
Standardise nondoctrinal tanks selection too. Give usf something similar to comet, churchill or panther non doc. If you are so smart go all the way.


I fail to see what this has to do with the penetration on tank destroyers.

If they have have the same penetration, it's easier to balance enemy armour values around it.

Personally, I think tying penetration to veterancy is a bad idea in the first place.
27 Oct 2019, 18:54 PM
#129
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 13796 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 18:51 PMLago
Personally, I think tying penetration to veterancy is a bad idea in the first place.

Penetration was chosen, because alternative was rate of fire that would diminish meds or damage per shot, which would again put meds on disadvantage as well as make it so panther takes 1 shot less.

Pen does absolutely nothing against meds and only a little against panthers, so its mostly and pretty much only useful vs heavies and up.
ddd
27 Oct 2019, 19:02 PM
#130
avatar of ddd

Posts: 522 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 18:51 PMLago


I fail to see what this has to do with the penetration on tank destroyers.

If they have have the same penetration, it's easier to balance enemy armour values around it.

Personally, I think tying penetration to veterancy is a bad idea in the first place.


You fail to see how durable tanks with super high armor and HP on one side force tank destroyers with high penetration and range on other side? Great, you are just like relic who thought giving usf shit tanks and forcing them to use things like p47 loiter to deal with armor was a good idea. Thankfuly we moved on from that genius design philosophy.
27 Oct 2019, 19:21 PM
#131
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 921

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 19:02 PMddd


You fail to see how durable tanks with super high armor and HP on one side force tank destroyers with high penetration and range on other side? Great, you are just like relic who thought giving usf shit tanks and forcing them to use things like p47 loiter to deal with armor was a good idea. Thankfuly we moved on from that genius design philosophy.


You are correct in that heavy armour on one side forces high pen on the other, with the current system. I think instead of nerfing one side or he other the system should be changed. If you add deflection damage into the equation, the time to kill decreases and you don’t need as much penetration. This has a beneficial side effect on mediums that were penned every time before, so you’re making them more viable while keeping super heavies from being too oppressive.
27 Oct 2019, 19:34 PM
#132
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2731

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 19:02 PMddd
You fail to see how durable tanks with super high armor and HP on one side force tank destroyers with high penetration and range on other side? Great, you are just like relic who thought giving usf shit tanks and forcing them to use things like p47 loiter to deal with armor was a good idea. Thankfuly we moved on from that genius design philosophy.


If the armour on heavy tanks is too high, lower it.

Tank destroyer penetration is currently all over the place. If you standardise it to the Firefly, it becomes much easier to tune heavy tank armour values.

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 18:54 PMKatitof
Penetration was chosen, because alternative was rate of fire that would diminish meds or damage per shot, which would again put meds on disadvantage as well as make it so panther takes 1 shot less.

Pen does absolutely nothing against meds and only a little against panthers, so its mostly and pretty much only useful vs heavies and up.


Or do something different with the veterancy entirely. Improve their defence or utility instead.
ddd
27 Oct 2019, 19:50 PM
#133
avatar of ddd

Posts: 522 | Subs: 1

You are asking for standardisation just after they nerfed armor on pershing to 270 for no good reason. Are these threads about discussing real game changes that can be realisticaly applied or just trolling?
27 Oct 2019, 19:53 PM
#134
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2731

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 19:50 PMddd
You are asking for standardisation just after they nerfed armor on pershing to 270 for no good reason. Are these threads about discussing real game changes that can be realisticaly applied or just trolling?


No, we just don't see balancing the game as a contest between each person's pet faction.

You clearly do, else you wouldn't have brought up the completely non-sequitur Pershing that has nothing to do with this discussion.
27 Oct 2019, 19:54 PM
#135
avatar of DerbyHat

Posts: 1026 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 19:50 PMddd
You are asking for standardisation just after they nerfed armor on pershing to 270 for no good reason.


10% less armor for 20% more health sounds like a good deal to me. It still has the best gun of any heavy.
27 Oct 2019, 19:55 PM
#136
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 921



10% less armor for 20% more health sounds like a good deal to me. It still has the best gun of any heavy.


Is this the direction we’re headed? Removal of armour entirely and 1990 rts style health bars?

Why does armour have to be meaningless, I don’t understand.
27 Oct 2019, 20:07 PM
#137
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 13796 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 19:34 PMLago
Or do something different with the veterancy entirely. Improve their defence or utility instead.

Oh yeah, lets make them even harder to destroy, so JP4 isn't a counter to them anymore and flanks on them do not result in their destruction, also allowing forward chases to a point, that'll work out just fine :snfPeter:

Also, these are completely one dimensional units with singular role - kill vehicles.
What kind of utility you can imagine they should have to support their role? More self spotting? More FF like tulip stuns? JP4 dimension shift camo?

There really isn't much that can be done to them. And also, there isn't really any need to do anything to them.

As long as meta will be about getting tigers and panthers instead of regular meds, you will see allied TDs instead of meds, because that's the only unit capable of reliably fighting them.

Reee-ing from axis players about their heavies being countered by their counters isn't really enough justification for a change - modders know that, hence not much is happening for TDs for their performance - they simply do their job.
ddd
27 Oct 2019, 20:17 PM
#138
avatar of ddd

Posts: 522 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 19:53 PMLago


No, we just don't see balancing the game as a contest between each person's pet faction.

You clearly do, else you wouldn't have brought up the completely non-sequitur Pershing that has nothing to do with this discussion.


Or maybe you are just too emotional, calm down. You want to standardise tank destroyers when heavy tanks are getting changes to differentiate them more. That makes 0 sense.

And since you seem to be a huge fan of my faction usage, i played 99% axis this last month, hope you are happy about it.

27 Oct 2019, 20:26 PM
#139
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2731



Is this the direction we’re headed? Removal of armour entirely and 1990 rts style health bars?

Why does armour have to be meaningless, I don’t understand.


The penetration system breaks down above medium tanks.

It works well below medium tanks because the swing in penetration between tiers is so big: a Stuart's all but impervious to a 222 at range, small arms barely scratch the 222. Armour is actual, proper protection.

With mediums up, bad penetration chances are 60%, 70%, that sort of thing. Armour becomes a pretty unreliable defence: your Pershing might bounce for days or it might evaporate in moments. As the vehicle's player you have to plan for the worst case scenario and vice versa for the opponent, so you get vehicles that suck for both sides.

Therefore, the balance direction for vehicles over 250 armour continually shifts from armour to health: health is consistent and predictable.

The only alternative system I can think of is to drive armour up instead of down: giving heavy tanks like the Tiger and IS-2 about 900 frontal armour but only 720 HP.

Tank destroyers would almost certainly need switchable rounds, deflection damage or batshit penetration in that case.
27 Oct 2019, 20:27 PM
#140
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 921

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2019, 20:26 PMLago


The penetration system breaks down above medium tanks.

It works well below medium tanks because the swing in penetration between tiers is so big: a Stuart's all but impervious to a 222 at range, small arms barely scratch the 222. Armour is actual, proper protection.

With mediums up, bad penetration chances are 60%, 70%, that sort of thing. Armour becomes a pretty unreliable defence: your Pershing might bounce for days or it might evaporate in moments. As the vehicle's player you have to plan for the worst case scenario and vice versa for the opponent, so you get vehicles that suck for both sides.

Therefore, the balance direction for vehicles over 250 armour continually shifts from armour to health: health is consistent and predictable.

The only alternative system I can think of is to drive armour up instead of down: giving heavy tanks like the Tiger and IS-2 about 900 frontal armour but only 720 HP.

Tank destroyers would almost certainly need switchable rounds or deflection damage in that case.


My vote is on deflection damage. Hopefully more people adopt this stance.
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag N1cko
  • Oberkommando West flag Scotch1
  • Soviets flag Frosty
  • Soviets flag Beatricks Swire
uploaded by Frost

Board Info

140 users are online: 7 members and 133 guests
Yukiko, rqd, serg_codmod, uwiruf, Stug life , Vykraznar, Raggs
198 posts in the last 24h
1161 posts in the last week
5133 posts in the last month
Registered members: 69197
Welcome our newest member, uwiruf
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM