Login

russian armor

Jackson nerf

PAGES (7)down
26 Apr 2018, 15:54 PM
#61
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

If necessary, keep both. Ideally though:
-Jackson goes doctrinal, M10 becomes stock. Jackson returns to old glass cannon design.
-M10 price returned to 80 (?)
-M1 AP shells become a toggle with lower ROF, but high pen to fill in for the Jackson against super-heavies. No muni cost, just a cooldown.
-Possibly soft changes to the M20 or Stuart for other soft AT options later in the game.

The M10 primarily functions as your anti-medium, but its AP shells would allow it to temporarily fight beefier tanks, as opposed to the current do-all all the time Jackson. M1s would be your main counter to heavies and the AP change prevents the US from hemorrhaging munis every time a Panther says hi. If that doesn't work due to scope, USF's split teching or not being strong enough, then yeah put the Jackson back in to have a dynamic similar to the EFA TDs.
26 Apr 2018, 16:15 PM
#62
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3596 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 15:35 PMLago
Fairly sure he meant make M10 nondoc without locking the M36 behind a commander. Replacing the Jackson with the Wolverine would leave you with exactly the same problem as before: one tank destroyer having to fill all the vehicular AT needs of the faction.


Nop I was right. :nahnah:
26 Apr 2018, 16:16 PM
#63
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 16:15 PMEsxile


Nop I was right. :nahnah:


Seems so. :(
26 Apr 2018, 16:32 PM
#64
avatar of Rocket

Posts: 728

I actually made an account to discuss this, with the patch british and american armour will be in a pretty pathetic position.

The reason we see centuar and Jackson every game because the allies have nothing else. Comet, Cromewell, m10 were all nerfed without any real price decrease. so they suck, the USF for the longest time just had to rely on OP Cali or pershing every game because of useless old jackson. Meanwhile PIV and panther have seen small power creep with AI buffs and cost decreases.

Brits are fucked unless you feed them a stream of muni for tulips, because the FF just gets overrun the minute the enemy has two stugs and dies.

Only lategame chance USF will have next patch is cheesing OP Pershing and E8 commander every game. So the balance team has basically limited strategies even more.

God damn relic



Persh only really, e8s work in 1v1 but 2v2 an up e8s are shit too they just insta die or snare spammed and give you no AI from the main gun anymore just like comet making them expensive not great at anything "generalist". Next patch nail in coffin for allies and we can go back to tiger kt ele and Jt(JT has no or ultra limited counter play already) having zero counter play again which is what they really want anyway its easier for them to have to micro only one tank.
26 Apr 2018, 16:45 PM
#65
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515

Why the Jackson was ever changed from the glass cannon design to the current one is beyond me. The Jackson was a terrific and powerful tank, that was so easy to get Vet-3 on due to how easy it is to micro a tank destroyer in CoH2 (a-move, and u key to retreat)... So sad that it ever got changed.

If they reverted it back to old self, I'd say that's best. Why they are making the Jackson into an extremely expensive M10 is beyond me.
26 Apr 2018, 17:45 PM
#66
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

I wouldn't use a Doctrinal Jackson if it had 480 HP again.
And it was a call-in, not locked behind the Major, it would be like the M10 age again but worse.
26 Apr 2018, 19:58 PM
#67
avatar of swordfisch

Posts: 138



comet lost its long range a while back. It's only 45 now. It's far from being the british' best anti-tank weapon.

The panther only have 50 range.


Panther (((only))) has 50 range you say, well what use is the Jackson when it will be within 5 range of that with paper thin armour and zero AI?

Panther, comet and jackson should all be elite armour options with a unique flavor. Panther blends armour, AI and speed. Comet blends less armour and range with better AI. And Jackson should be on the other end of the scale with 10 more range than panther but same health.

With the return of shrek spam next patch you can say goodbye to US AT now the new panther is neatly sheilded by cheap shrek blobs.

Jackson will struggle to get into range and explode like tommy cookers, your idea of a "skirmisher" tank does not fit the US faction at all. They need a solid AT vehicle that has the HP and range to deal with panthers or tigers, not a sissy "skirmisher" that provides another kill notch to shrek PGrens as it blows up in a single volly.
26 Apr 2018, 23:27 PM
#68
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Panther, comet and jackson should all be elite armour options with a unique flavor. Panther blends armour, AI and speed. Comet blends less armour and range with better AI. And Jackson should be on the other end of the scale with 10 more range than panther but same health.


Ahem. REEEE.


With the return of shrek spam next patch you can say goodbye to US AT now the new panther is neatly sheilded by cheap shrek blobs.


The limiting factor on PanzerGrenadier's schrecks has always been manpower. Schreck spam was an OKW phenomena. It was all about the manpower (and vet) of volks. PGrens do not have either benefit. Though they may end up getting smoke which is... interesting.

I would be quite shocked to see if somehow Pgren schreck blobs become viable over 20 munitions and a 15% increase in far accuracy.

Jackson will struggle to get into range and explode like tommy cookers, your idea of a "skirmisher" tank does not fit the US faction at all. They need a solid AT vehicle that has the HP and range to deal with panthers or tigers, not a sissy "skirmisher" that provides another kill notch to shrek PGrens as it blows up in a single volly.


That'd be three Pgren squads upgraded with schrecks not missing. Six schreck hits to kill a Jackson, incidentally. Up from 4 prior to last patch.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that from your own words it doesn't seem like it's the Panthers or Tigers you're worried about threatening the Jackson (Tank Destroyer)... But infantry.

I think there's a Tin Can for that. ;)
27 Apr 2018, 01:38 AM
#69
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Ahem. REEEE.



The limiting factor on PanzerGrenadier's schrecks has always been manpower. Schreck spam was an OKW phenomena. It was all about the manpower (and vet) of volks. PGrens do not have either benefit. Though they may end up getting smoke which is... interesting.

I would be quite shocked to see if somehow Pgren schreck blobs become viable over 20 munitions and a 15% increase in far accuracy.



That'd be three Pgren squads upgraded with schrecks not missing. Six schreck hits to kill a Jackson, incidentally. Up from 4 prior to last patch.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that from your own words it doesn't seem like it's the Panthers or Tigers you're worried about threatening the Jackson (Tank Destroyer)... But infantry.

I think there's a Tin Can for that. ;)


I dont think you understand. My rifle blob might have to retreat if i attack mived them into an mg42 so then my TD spam wont have any support and i DID NOT pay for WFA so i woyld have use combined arms. Infantry to fight infantry and TDs to fight tanks. If they are using infantry to fight my tanks its IMBA and i dont care if its 1000mp and 300mu i should be able to get away.
27 Apr 2018, 02:35 AM
#70
avatar of Kermitjames

Posts: 34



I'm sorry but I won't discuss such ridiculous claims with people who never uploaded a replay nor have their playercard linked :snfPeter:

Gives me this suspicion you are one of these 4 digit rank one-side-only players



Enough of this card crap I have 1,000+ hours and my card is bare. I play pvp and custom games with friends always have always will. The player card should not immediately judge whether the persons opinion is invalidated. Listen to his words and argument instead of a virtual card that isn’t always reliable.

Irl just because your older or have a degree doesn’t make u better then everyone else. Experience for the most part trumps all.
27 Apr 2018, 03:40 AM
#71
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



Panther (((only))) has 50 range you say, well what use is the Jackson when it will be within 5 range of that with paper thin armour and zero AI?


yes, 5 meter isn't enough. 55 meter range with 640 hp is a poor compromise.



Jackson will struggle to get into range and explode like tommy cookers, your idea of a "skirmisher" tank does not fit the US faction at all. They need a solid AT vehicle that has the HP and range to deal with panthers or tigers, not a sissy "skirmisher" that provides another kill notch to shrek PGrens as it blows up in a single volly.


US tank destroyer were not meant for going toe to toe with german big cat. Their armor was comparatively thin with 38mm at 55 degree . Their open top turret give them good visibility but exposed the crew to danger.

Everything on the m36 scream "skirmisher".

making the jackson the brawler also completely trivialize the sherman.

the sherman should be the brawler, with jackson providing long range support.

27 Apr 2018, 08:34 AM
#73
avatar of aerafield

Posts: 2977 | Subs: 3



Enough of this card crap I have 1,000+ hours and my card is bare. I play pvp and custom games with friends always have always will. The player card should not immediately judge whether the persons opinion is invalidated. Listen to his words and argument instead of a virtual card that isn’t always reliable.

Irl just because your older or have a degree doesn’t make u better then everyone else. Experience for the most part trumps all.


Fact is, a playercard is -apart from watching an actual match of said person- the best indicator about a person's skill in the modes (1v1-4v4) this person is playing. And ofc it is extremely important in balance discussions.

Why on earth would you balance the game around a skill level where 99% of the issues have nothing to do with unit imbalance, but just lack of knowledge and lack of micro instead?! "Imbalance" is just being used as an excuse for horrible micro and strategies a lot there.
27 Apr 2018, 08:47 AM
#74
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



Fact is, a playercard is -apart from watching an actual match of said person- the best indicator about a person's skill in the modes (1v1-4v4) this person is playing. And ofc it is extremely important in balance discussions.

Why on earth would you balance the game around a skill level where 99% of the issues have nothing to do with unit imbalance, but just lack of knowledge and lack of micro instead?! "Imbalance" is just being used as an excuse for horrible micro and strategies a lot there.

No it is not.

The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position.

Using a completely random example:

SU-76's XP value is too low weather is it VonIvan who makes the claim or Helsche87. (names are chosen to serve as an example, nothing personal with either player).
27 Apr 2018, 10:13 AM
#75
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 08:47 AMVipper

No it is not.

The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position.

Using a completely random example:

SU-76's XP value is too low weather is it VonIvan who makes the claim or Helsche87. (names are chosen to serve as an example, nothing personal with either player).


"The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position."

Of course it does. People's balance opinions are usually informed by their ingame experiences. At very low levels the MG42 absurdly powerful: players don't know how to flank them effectively so their main weakness (fixed firing arc) doesn't come into play. It's as if all enemy MGs have 360 degree firing arcs.

If they're the type of player that's inclined to believe the game is unfair instead of believing they're not playing optimally then that experience will lead them to conclude the MG42 is obscenely overpowered.

Take your specific example,

"SU-76's XP value is too low"

Take a player that's bad with the SU-76. When they use it they don't react fast enough to enemy AT and it dies. As a result they play overcautiously and it never really kills anything. As a result, they respond to your opinion with "No, the SU-76/M vets up too slowly." How do you prove them wrong?
27 Apr 2018, 10:21 AM
#76
avatar of CartoonVillain

Posts: 474

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 10:13 AMLago


"The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position."

Of course it does. People's balance opinions are usually informed by their ingame experiences. At very low levels the MG42 absurdly powerful: players don't know how to flank them effectively so their main weakness (fixed firing arc) doesn't come into play. It's as if all enemy MGs have 360 degree firing arcs.

If they're the type of player that's inclined to believe the game is unfair instead of believing they're not playing optimally then that experience will lead them to conclude the MG42 is obscenely overpowered.

Take your specific example,

"SU-76's XP value is too low"

Take a player that's bad with the SU-76. When they use it they don't react fast enough to enemy AT and it dies. As a result they play overcautiously and it never really kills anything. As a result, they respond to your opinion with "No, the SU-76/M vets up too slowly." How do you prove them wrong?


Yes and no. Of course, you are less likely to have the "right" opinion if you play exclusively against the AI for example, but the opinion needs to be evaluated on the merits of the arguments, not on the player's ladder rank. In real life this is called a strawman argument and is a well-known logical fallacy.

In other words, if a player that exclusively plays against AI has the exact same opinion about balance than a top 10 ladder player, is his opinion right or wrong?
27 Apr 2018, 10:22 AM
#77
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 08:47 AMVipper

No it is not.

The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position.

Using a completely random example:

SU-76's XP value is too low weather is it VonIvan who makes the claim or Helsche87. (names are chosen to serve as an example, nothing personal with either player).


Obviously, but if you are(using completely random, but not rare example), say rank 1200 brit, your opinion is that tommies and brens underperform. And VonIvan says they overperform.
Now, which opinion should we disregard here?

Who's opinion should we listen to? Ullumulu or HelpingHans?
Are you still so sure about opinion not having anything to do with ladder rank?
Or have you confused objective fact with personal opinion that just happened to overlap in your example?

See, the thing with opinions is, it does not need to overlap with actual facts and the lower your rank is, the bigger probability that your opinion is completely false and a result of you simply not knowing how to play the game, which is the case of about 90% of balance opinions stated as facts around here.

27 Apr 2018, 10:29 AM
#78
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Yes and no. Of course, you are less likely to have the "right" opinion if you play exclusively against the AI for example, but the opinion needs to be evaluated on the merits of the arguments, not on the player's ladder rank. In real life this is called a strawman argument and is a well-known logical fallacy.

In other words, if a player that exclusively plays against AI has the exact same opinion about balance than a top 10 ladder player, is his opinion right or wrong?"


In real life this is called a strawman argument and is a well-known logical fallacy.

A strawman argument is when you create the opposing argument you disprove. You're thinking of ad hominem.


"In other words, if a player that exclusively plays against AI has the exact same opinion about balance than a top 10 ladder player, is his opinion right or wrong?"

Who knows? The top player could also have misjudged a unit. But is it not fair to say that the top 10 ladder player is more likely to accurately assess a unit than the AI-only player?


"but the opinion needs to be evaluated on the merits of the arguments, not on the player's ladder rank."
This is the critical part I'm getting at.

If your argument at no point relies on trust in your skill level then your skill level (and therefore playercard) is irrelevant.

I see such arguments very rarely.
27 Apr 2018, 10:44 AM
#79
avatar of CartoonVillain

Posts: 474

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 10:29 AMLago


In real life this is called a strawman argument and is a well-known logical fallacy.

A strawman argument is when you create the opposing argument you disprove. You're thinking of ad hominem.



A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.


It probably falls under both actually, depending how you classify "player A is not entitled to have an opinion because player A is not a highly ranked player". It is both an attack on the person's credibility, as well as a refutal of the "Player A is entitled to an opinion" argument, which is not what is being discussed.
27 Apr 2018, 10:50 AM
#80
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

Invissed a post for flame. Whilst I share the sentiment, let's not try to actively make this community smaller.
PAGES (7)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
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

269 users are online: 2 members and 267 guests
nigo, MajorBloodnok
9 posts in the last 24h
35 posts in the last week
89 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44640
Welcome our newest member, meryanna
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM