Login

russian armor

Why should a Panzer IV be able to take on a Jackson?

15 Aug 2020, 06:53 AM
#41
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 583

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Aug 2020, 04:38 AMCODGUY


Then why bother nerfing the armor? I mean, the faction already had the worst cost-benefit ratio for it's units by far, so why make them worse and cost more? It's consistent pattern with USF.


Only 2 axis units really benefited from this nerf. The panzer 4 and the puma. The main reason for the nerf was so that if an axis player successfully managed to sneak a panzer 4 in and dove on the jackson, he couldn't be screwed by a 10% chance to bounce his shot. As for the puma, well you don't really want to be trading fire with a puma against a jackson in general- not really a significant change here.
15 Aug 2020, 07:19 AM
#42
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3743 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Aug 2020, 04:38 AMCODGUY


Then why bother nerfing the armor? I mean, the faction already had the worst cost-benefit ratio for it's units by far, so why make them worse and cost more? It's consistent pattern with USF.


What USF units fall under this category? Because I literally cannot think of a stock unit that qualifies here from major tier.
17 Aug 2020, 14:29 PM
#43
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2634 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Aug 2020, 04:38 AMCODGUY


Then why bother nerfing the armor? I mean, the faction already had the worst cost-benefit ratio for it's units by far, so why make them worse and cost more? It's consistent pattern with USF.


Because the change was mostly focused on the P4, which already has 20 less range than the Jackson

With the Jackson's mobility and it's range advantage, your armour doesn't need the ability to deflect a P4 shot. It's not that complicated of a change
17 Aug 2020, 14:50 PM
#44
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 215

Honestly its still a stupid change. Most of the time PIV is misses, because of the move penalties.

I mean it might have been neede but presenting it as "THE FIX" makes it look funny. Probably now some individuals would say "SEE JACKSON ARMOR WAS NERFED, NOTHING WRONG WITH IT".

But hey, PIV wont deflect at max range frontally against jackson now, yay. Not like its the worst scenario situation you can put your PIV but still.
17 Aug 2020, 15:10 PM
#45
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2634 | Subs: 1

I mean it might have been neede but presenting it as "THE FIX" makes it look funny.


Who presented it this way? The changelog just says:
M36 Jackson

In order to make the Jackson slightly more vulnerable to medium tanks when caught out of position, its armor has be decreased.

What does "THE FIX" even mean? That just seems like an arbitrary term you just made up

Codguy is complaining that the nerf was too much, not that it was a sufficient fix

17 Aug 2020, 16:34 PM
#46
avatar of Fire and Terror

Posts: 248

I actually suggested the change, not as balance change, but more QOL. I just thought small adjustments that have minimal side effects should be implemented for a better user experience.

There might be some other issues with the jackson but these will require strong testing and resources, hence i only suggested a small change in the hope it might actually be implemented (and it did) :).
17 Aug 2020, 20:05 PM
#47
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 215


In order to make the Jackson slightly more vulnerable to medium tanks when caught out of position, its armor has be decreased.

What does "THE FIX" even mean? That just seems like an arbitrary term you just made up



Because Armor is not the reason Jackson is not being vulnerable. If jackson is caught out of the possition it would either die or run away.

With PIV you want to get as close as possible and possible circle around, you never ever want to engage jackson frontally at such ranges where it can bounce.

Its a change to remove very rare and uncommon RNG. Pointless overall change if you ask me, not to mention considering cost of the jackson it might have diserve the chance to bounce ones in a full moon in his upperhand invirement.
17 Aug 2020, 22:44 PM
#48
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2634 | Subs: 1



Because Armor is not the reason Jackson is not being vulnerable. If jackson is caught out of the possition it would either die or run away.

With PIV you want to get as close as possible and possible circle around, you never ever want to engage jackson frontally at such ranges where it can bounce.

Its a change to remove very rare and uncommon RNG. Pointless overall change if you ask me, not to mention considering cost of the jackson it might have diserve the chance to bounce ones in a full moon in his upperhand invirement.


Okay? This has nothing to do with your last comment, you said it was presented as "The Fix". It wasn't, it was simply done to get rid of something that shouldn't have been happening in the first place

Of course it's rare, everyone knows this. The point was that there was no reason for there to be ANY chance of it, no matter how small. It's an easy change to fix a small nuisance
18 Aug 2020, 00:14 AM
#49
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 215



Okay? This has nothing to do with your last comment, you said it was presented as "The Fix". It wasn't, it was simply done to get rid of something that shouldn't have been happening in the first place

Of course it's rare, everyone knows this. The point was that there was no reason for there to be ANY chance of it, no matter how small. It's an easy change to fix a small nuisance


Notes says

"In order to make the Jackson slightly more vulnerable to medium tanks when caught out of position, its armor has be decreased."

And I said its not a fix neither any significant change to address perfomance and vulnerable of Jackson against TDs.

Thats why I said its not the fix of jackson vs medium match up.

If the notes were saying "We want to remove chance of the bounce, to remove un-intentional RNG" then it would be a different story.
18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AM
#50
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 787

Honestly its still a stupid change. Most of the time PIV is misses, because of the move penalties.

I mean it might have been neede but presenting it as "THE FIX" makes it look funny. Probably now some individuals would say "SEE JACKSON ARMOR WAS NERFED, NOTHING WRONG WITH IT".

But hey, PIV wont deflect at max range frontally against jackson now, yay. Not like its the worst scenario situation you can put your PIV but still.


Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not
18 Aug 2020, 05:12 AM
#51
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3743 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY


Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not


??
18 Aug 2020, 06:12 AM
#52
avatar of dk828315

Posts: 86

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY


Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not

???
18 Aug 2020, 06:42 AM
#53
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 373

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY


Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not


Tell me more about this Elefant AI. I must have loaded the wrong ammo or forgot to build the MG or something.
18 Aug 2020, 09:42 AM
#54
avatar of A table

Posts: 238

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY
If it were a good against infantry like the Elefant


:huhsign:
18 Aug 2020, 10:23 AM
#55
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 4443

Elefant has a hull mg doesn't it? OP AI confirmed.
18 Aug 2020, 10:42 AM
#56
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 1328 | Subs: 1

Not quite sure, but I think he lost a Conscript squad to his own IL bomb strike after T34-ram comboing the Elefant.

That squad wipe could technically be attributed to the Elefant.
18 Aug 2020, 15:48 PM
#57
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2634 | Subs: 1



Notes says

"In order to make the Jackson slightly more vulnerable to medium tanks when caught out of position, its armor has be decreased."

And I said its not a fix neither any significant change to address perfomance and vulnerable of Jackson against TDs.

Thats why I said its not the fix of jackson vs medium match up.

If the notes were saying "We want to remove chance of the bounce, to remove un-intentional RNG" then it would be a different story.


You're arguing semantics. I don't know why your talking about the Jackson vs TDs, the change was specifically meant to impact medium tanks. Nothing else. It was not advertised as a major fix
18 Aug 2020, 17:05 PM
#58
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 215



You're arguing semantics. I don't know why your talking about the Jackson vs TDs, the change was specifically meant to impact medium tanks. Nothing else. It was not advertised as a major fix


I meant mediums, ye. My mistake.

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 04:14 AMCODGUY


Oh I forgot, only mightly German AFVs are supposed to be allowed to bounce shots. How dare a USF unit be able to do that.

The idea that the Jackson needed ANY nerfing is so laughable. It only serves ONE task, how dare it be good at that. If it were a good against infantry like the Panther, King Tiger, Panzer IV, Jagtiger, Elefant, I could see how it might be a problem and need a nerf but it's not


Yes, death to all german. Ave Allies.
18 Aug 2020, 20:21 PM
#59
avatar of DAZ187

Posts: 454

if you lose your jackson to a p4 its most probably your own fault
18 Aug 2020, 22:36 PM
#60
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 787

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Aug 2020, 09:42 AMA table


:huhsign:


Whatever they've got like a thousand heavily armored good against everything units so it's hard to keep track.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
ML3: Finals Weekend

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag T.R. FIRE AND TERROR
  • Soviets flag B-Sky-IIRevolutionII
uploaded by B-Sky-IIRevolutionII

Board Info

229 users are online: 3 members and 226 guests
aerafield, Yukiko, kathyorona9
61 posts in the last 24h
671 posts in the last week
2224 posts in the last month
Registered members: 22632
Welcome our newest member, kathyorona9
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM