Login

russian armor

Pershing vs Tiger. Shouldn't Pershing be buffed?

PAGES (21)down
28 May 2021, 05:27 AM
#301
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3125 | Subs: 1


side note, what about swapping rangers for ass engineers? then the pershing commander has more built in repairs, and importantly critical repairs for the pershing

Like the idea a lot in concept, but it definitely makes the commander weaker overall. Helps the pershing at the expense of the commander, which already isn't super popular atm
28 May 2021, 10:41 AM
#302
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 118


The purpose of this patch is to create an as large amount of middle ground (good/viable) commanders as possible to increase commander diversity. Not to create more top meta commanders. Heavy Cav is already nice and comfortable in the middle being 4th most popular in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 and it's getting a few nice buffs too (3 medium-small Pershing buffs, cheaper offmap smoke, Rangers will get a small buff). And some heavy meta commanders like Mechanized are being nerfed. And it being picked less than Urban Assault in teamgames for example has less to do with Heavy Cav itself and more with the Calliope being a necessary tool that more people prefer. There's no need to turn the Pershing into some kind of monster just to make it the number one pick. We're trying to move away from number one picks.


Come on Sander, counting the CP reduction as a buff? Didn't all the heavy tanks get this CP reduction Okw tiger, OST tiger so how exactly is it a special buff for Pershing where it can gain a benefit over its counterparts, pretty stupid counting this as a buff? 2nd buff +10% speed is for pershing but the Tigers got a buff too! I guess it was 10% reduced scatter so there you go it wasn't a buff only to pershing but all the heavies instead Tiger got a buff that will help it in attacking units unlike Pershing's buff that will not improve its performance against Infantry or Armor. 3rd buff 800 HP with 15% damage reduction so this was supposed to help it repair faster, still you would have only 1 rear echlon squad repairing your pershing, highly unlikely anyone will make two. I don't know but I guess Rear echlons are the worst squad at repairing in this game so I guess this would only help in repairing but not in Pershing taking a fight. The thread here is about getting pershing to be a game changer like the tiger which can bounce shots frontally from anything made by the allies except I guess the 17 pounder. Out of all the 'BUFFS' to the pershing you claim, none of it help the Pershing in improving its fighting, repair speed enables it to get faster to the frontline, +10% speed helps it rush out or dive faster but not the actual fighting against armor or infantry!! Even the CA is getting nerfed this patch.

For the stats page I selected top 200 and for 3v3 and 4v4 found a big difference of 80 matches from 5th position Heavr Armor to 3rd position armor and that is from a total of 276 games I guess. But before going into stats I would geniunely like to ask you, if you play USF automatch and find anyone of Aerafield, Sturmpanther, Helping Hans against you on your lane would you really go for Heavy Cavalry? I would like to see you try atleast so maybe if I am doing something wrong, it would help me.
28 May 2021, 11:35 AM
#303
avatar of Geblobt

Posts: 154

jump backJump back to quoted post28 May 2021, 10:41 AMSumi



For the stats page I selected top 200 and for 3v3 and 4v4 found a big difference of 80 matches from 5th position Heavr Armor to 3rd position armor and that is from a total of 276 games I guess. But before going into stats I would geniunely like to ask you, if you play USF automatch and find anyone of Aerafield, Sturmpanther, Helping Hans against you on your lane would you really go for Heavy Cavalry? I would like to see you try atleast so maybe if I am doing something wrong, it would help me.


Heavy tanks arent particularly good in 3vs3/4vs4. Tiger, Kingtiger, IS2, Pershing, Churchill. Doesnt matter which heavy tank you build, most of the time it will be subpar to other options you have (unless the Heavy is completely broken ofc). Thats why most Ostheer player choose Elefant, most OKW players choose Jagdtiger and Usf player favor either Calliope or Priest. Thats just how it is. Even if you make the Pershing like the Tiger stats wise it wont change much. Rocket arty is still way better than an expensive, slow range 45 Heavy.
28 May 2021, 12:31 PM
#304
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2309 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post28 May 2021, 10:41 AMSumi

While I can understand that you see the buffs it got as "not enough", in my opinion you are not giving really good arguments for it.

It doesn't matter which buffs the other heavies and which ones the Tiger in particular got. You can use other heavies as a "benchmark" for comparison but only if you assume that your benchmark is decently balanced or if the comparison is useful in some other way. But how does the general power level of the Tiger in OST correspond to the general power level of the Pershing in USF? Hard to determine, yet it would be important for your points, since the power level is what you're actually talking about.

You criticize that USF can build only one RE in a viable build, which is not enough to repair the current Pershing? Balance team then did exactly the right thing: Make repairs with one RE quicker. What is your point on this?
Heavies in general might come a bit too late? Pershing goes to CP11? Looks like the correct call from balance team. It doesn't matter that the Tiger gets the same buff, they're not meant for a 1v1 shoot out. Unless you wan't to say that a CP11 Tiger were OP, but that again has nothing to do with the Pershing. Or you say that the Pershing is still too late at CP11, which in turn has nothing to do with the Tiger.

As to your last point: Sander literally posted a screen showing he played heavy cav recently and still is top 10. I trust him enough to not fake this, so yes he apparently did exactly what you were asking for and I assume he even picked it vs good players.
28 May 2021, 14:58 PM
#305
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5214


Like the idea a lot in concept, but it definitely makes the commander weaker overall. Helps the pershing at the expense of the commander, which already isn't super popular atm

It'll weaken the late game but buff the early game. I think it would even out rhe commander which imo, is worthwhile to it being a bit weaker. Rangers are good but they are not interesting nor do they really compliment the commander. Smoke+ass engies could be really fun and the repairs are self explainitory. I see a lot of potential - even if that potential is net worse than rangers
28 May 2021, 22:02 PM
#306
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3125 | Subs: 1


It'll weaken the late game but buff the early game. I think it would even out rhe commander which imo, is worthwhile to it being a bit weaker. Rangers are good but they are not interesting nor do they really compliment the commander. Smoke+ass engies could be really fun and the repairs are self explainitory. I see a lot of potential - even if that potential is net worse than rangers

It's just that now that leaves us with only 1 commander with rangers, and that commander happens to be the most popular one atm. In team games at least, can't speak for 1v1. Urban defense is really really strong

Biggest problem for the Pershing is it's lack of necessity. Calliope fills a massive gap for US, Pershing does not. That change makes urban defense an even better choice over heavy cav than it already is
29 May 2021, 03:39 AM
#307
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5214


It's just that now that leaves us with only 1 commander with rangers, and that commander happens to be the most popular one atm. In team games at least, can't speak for 1v1. Urban defense is really really strong

nothing wrong with there only being 1 commander with rangers. Before the most recent ranger commander there was only 1. Like I said they are good, but boring so I personally don't care for them (always prefer interesting mechanics than raw power)

Biggest problem for the Pershing is it's lack of necessity. Calliope fills a massive gap for US, Pershing does not. That change makes urban defense an even better choice over heavy cav than it already is
that's good though, that there is no necessity for the Pershing I mean. It means faction design works to a degree if usf doesn't NEED a meat shield. That the calliope is in demand simy means a better alternative to rockets needs to be found. But I digress, Pershing was ALWAYS a labor of love commander where you pick it because you WANT it not because you NEED it. That's fine imo. Even if partisans is a "bad" commander it's a fun commander for example. It doesn't matter if the commander is top tier, just that it works well with itself and it's faction. I feel there is more to gain from having the commander more cohesive than simply a few good abilities stapled together. The goal of a commander should be flavor, not simply strength.
29 May 2021, 09:22 AM
#308
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 964



EDIT: I'm talking about 3v3+ modes.

I know that you are not biased so that only leaves, and I'm sorry, but severely misguided. There is nothing wrong with only 1 ranger commander? I on the other hand like the rangers in USF. Gives the raw power aspect through a commander that does not need a huge muni dump overall like all other USF units do. If you make every unit be some sort of USF gimmick, then USF will be a boring faction. Look, all my units are weak compared to axis counterparts but they have abilities that go BRRRRR. And sometimes that BRRRR is awesome (scott smoke, M20 mines, captain On Me..), other times it's severely situational and prone to error (pershing skill shot, echelon suppressed fire, AT gun hvap).

[[ before you go commenting how AT gun HVAP is great. Overall it is, but that first shot is important and unless you know that there is a tank coming, you won't preemptively pop the hvap ]]

Your vision is to make every USF unit a muni dump? What are the reasons that USF can NOT have DOCTRINAL power units?

Arguments I will give in favor of USF having doctrinal units that are as you say "Power units":

More variety in the gameplay:

Power units don't usually have a lot of flexibility so you reinforce that flexibility by stock supporting units.
Example: Pershing and CA (my problem is that CA does not justify Pershing's weaknesses and costs a lot until the very late game where you have a lot of munis, but that is another thread....)

Teamgame units:

Axis winrate in teamgames and the general easier grasp of their style of play proves this. In 1v1s, USF is great because of all their stock versatile options (A bit put off by the fact that mech is #1 pick BY FAR), and in teamgames their winrate falls flat mainly because you do not need a unit with 20 abilities. Teamgames mostly relies on how well you control your units on a tighter space (eg. a VP lane based on where you spawn). There are a lot more sources of danger in 3v3+ so on a tighter space you need units that you can rely on and not having to TAB between them like a madman to use all the abilities so that they can stand their ground.
Power units relieve that problem. You know that you can leave your KT parked there and pay attention to something else, because even if it does get assaulted, it has enough hp/armour to stand the ground and plenty of time to retreat.
My argument then is that doctrinal power units would give USF more teamgame staying power. And if you make more commanders, then you won't see every f****** game a Calliope commander. Only time when you don't need to go for the Calliope if it's playing against braindeads (non braindead people know that if no calliope, you can overwhelm USF with numbers alone, especially if no rifle mines).

Allowing more commanders:

Sort of a continuation of the previous argument. You can design commanders around power units much more easily than around "pure versatility". I'd even argue that the "USF is versatile" has gone down the drain long ago through updates and patches. The only shtick they have now is the repair crews and strong mainline upgradable infantry (read: BARs on rifles, zooks on echelons if you value winning).
The game went from pure asymmetrical chaosgame to a predictable symmetrical game through cookie-cutting and "more in line with" arguments. And you can't argue that. It's self evident through CTRL-F "in line" search through the update notes on Updates forum. I just went through the updates just finding the "in line" words. 41 total on pages 4,5,6. That's only counting "in line". I'd shudder to think to go through the notes to see all the cookie cutting changes that have occurred to water down units and "rework" them.
29 May 2021, 13:54 PM
#309
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3125 | Subs: 1

nothing wrong with there only being 1 commander with rangers. Before the most recent ranger commander there was only 1. Like I said they are good, but boring so I personally don't care for them (always prefer interesting mechanics than raw power)

Yeah it's not about their being just 1 one ranger commander. It's about the specific commander that would still have them, which happens to already be a dominant choice over heavy cav

I agree rangers are boring. I wish more people played that way and picked non-boring commanders rather than exclusively what seems to be the highest power level. I like to think that's the way I roll at least 50% of the time if not more


that's good though, that there is no necessity for the Pershing I mean. It means faction design works to a degree if usf doesn't NEED a meat shield

Ideally sure because this is how every commander should work. Probably too late for it but a significantly weakened stock calliope would solve many issues imo. Obvi gives you an issue for those 2 doctrines but it indirectly buffs all the others
21 Jun 2021, 02:44 AM
#310
avatar of theekvn

Posts: 148

New M26 is still overprice as fuck. that all :bananadance:
21 Jun 2021, 05:45 AM
#311
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1489

They cost pretty much the same (630mp + 230fuel vs 640mp + 230fuel), but tiger has been spotted many times in ML, and none(AFAIK) of the Pershing on field. And I believe there is a good reason to it.

Pershing's stat is simply not worth it after the last nerf.

1) Armor & health
Tiger: 1040 health + 300 armor
Pershing: 960 health + 270 armor

Even Panther & Brummbarr has same (or higher after vetted) armor than "HEAVY" tank that costs 230fuel.

2) gun
Pershing has pen. of +20 on every range. And deals better in AI. But Tiger shoots faster.
How fast? Combined with 1), Tiger vet.3 wins over Pershing vet.3 in any range. Even vet.0 Tiger has 50:50 on vet3 Pershing.

3) vet
Pershing / Tiger
vet1: acceleration + 30% / Blitzkrieg
vet2: turret rotation + 20% + unlock grenade / range +5 + accuracy + 20% + turret rotation +30%
vet3: accuracy + 20% + reload -30% / reload - 30% + rotation + 20% + max. speed + 20% + acceleration + 20%

This TBH is just way in favor of Tiger. It gets range +5 while Pershing gets to throw grenade....
Really revamp needs to be done here in the Pershing's favor.

Overall, Pershing is inferior in all ways except for the AI a little.
As I've mentioned, Vet3 Pershing lose to the vet0 Tiger.

I haven't seen Pershing commander in any mode recently. Any thoughts on this topic?

No,
Ostheer doesn't have 60 range TDs.
OKW doesn't have 60 range ATGs.
AEF has both.
21 Jun 2021, 06:40 AM
#312
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92


No,
Ostheer doesn't have 60 range TDs.
OKW doesn't have 60 range ATGs.
AEF has both.


Would you mind elaborating on the significance of this for this thread? Or is it random facts day?
21 Jun 2021, 07:07 AM
#313
avatar of LMAO

Posts: 162

people don't want a better brits combo of frontline tank + fast tank destroyer
21 Jun 2021, 07:54 AM
#314
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1489


No,
Ostheer doesn't have 60 range TDs.
OKW doesn't have 60 range ATGs.
AEF has both.

OK, why are Rifles so much more powerful than grens and volks cause MG42.
Why are OST and OKW elite infantry so much worse than Allied one cause MG42.

So in that Very same reason Pershing should not be any closer to tiger due to 60 Range Ultra Mobile Turreted TD like the Jackson.
21 Jun 2021, 08:03 AM
#315
avatar of redfox

Posts: 92


Why are OST and OKW elite infantry so much worse than Allied one cause MG42.



Where did you get that from or when did you make that up?


So in that Very same reason Pershing should not be any closer to tiger due to 60 Range Ultra Mobile Turreted TD like the Jackson.


I dont understand how allied AT has anything to do with Allies paying the same and getting a worse tank than axis for that money. Axis have by far enough AT options to fend a Pershing off, do you want me to list them for you? I dont even see an argument here, it's ridiculous.
21 Jun 2021, 08:57 AM
#316
avatar of theekvn

Posts: 148

sure, USF has only 1 60 range TD to fight against :
- 50 range TD Stug 3 with the highest DPS for it costs, vet 1 stun shot,
- medium tank Pz4 valiants that can drive and win it with PROPER mirco.
- Fast, armed to the teeth, highest HP pool of non doc medium tank Panther that can 100% eat M36 like breakfast and zip away.
- Strong all round Heavy tank Tiger could punch through the line.
- " I win " King Tiger somehow can bounce HVAP because RNG ?.
- 60 range TD which is underrated because Panther can do it job with less mirco tax. Hey, Panther + MG pintle kills inf too.
Now USF player had to combine with proper "heavy tank" price tag and still lose against them.
M36 + M26 still lost to those things for the same amount of fuel, ammo, manpower and yet mirco tax.



21 Jun 2021, 10:27 AM
#318
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 11978 | Subs: 1

Can we pls stop the BS about the MOD teams being biased? It is really not helpful.

In the end of the day only Relic is responble for the patches.
21 Jun 2021, 10:30 AM
#319
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1489

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 08:03 AMredfox



Where did you get that from or when did you make that up?



I dont understand how allied AT has anything to do with Allies paying the same and getting a worse tank than axis for that money. Axis have by far enough AT options to fend a Pershing off, do you want me to list them for you? I dont even see an argument here, it's ridiculous.


It's tit for tat m8. Aliied don't get to have tanks that can go against axis tanks the same way axis infantry don't get to go against allied ones.
21 Jun 2021, 11:14 AM
#320
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3152 | Subs: 1



It's tit for tat m8. Aliied don't get to have tanks that can go against axis tanks the same way axis infantry don't get to go against allied ones.


But we all agree with you in fact, as you stated gren which cost 240mp are inferior to riflemen (280mp) because of the HMG42. Then following the same logic Pershing's price should be cut to match its current performance in comparison with the Tiger.
PAGES (21)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 36
United States 81
Korea, Republic Of 17
unknown 5
Germany 1

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

Board Info

105 users are online: 105 guests
50 posts in the last 24h
481 posts in the last week
3345 posts in the last month
Registered members: 23106
Welcome our newest member, FALLstudios
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM