Stop playing statistics numbers or tests in a vacuum and start playing the game and you will see that the T-34-76 sucks.
It's classic vipper. You should know by now that there is no such thing as a underpowered allied unit. There are only underappreciated allied units. The only way to fix that is to nerf all of the other units from the underappreciated unit's tier until people use the underappreciated unit.
I actually think the T34/76 is fine in 2v2's or less. The T34/85 should be the stock tank for 4v4's. It's bizarre that Soviets have their 1942 units while axis have their 1945 units. But it's also bizarre that the ISU was somehow considered in scope but the JT and Elephant are not. I also think the feedback from anyone who plays Soviets in 4v4 is going to be really negative for this patch. |
I dont understand why you are complaining about it, considering you will be able to face upgraded axis inf with 7th grade faster then before.
No, the 100/20 upgrade is in the live game. The only thing they did was eliminate the auto-unlock at T4 and tried to spin it by saying that they're giving us a choice. If they were wanting to make it better, they'd move it to being something that could be unlocked after T1 or T2 was built. As it is, it's a straight nerf. |
|
We are decoupling this upgrade from tech. Our focus with this upgrade will be to make this a worthwhile choice for the player when deciding whether they want to rush for tanks or focus on a stronger infantry game.
How does was a triple nerf to cons make something a worthwhile choice? This patch is looking shittier by the minute.
You're not adding anything, and for those of us that use cons as a utility unit, this just makes them another 100/20 more expensive.
|
Heavy artillery (105MM,152mm,203mm,Sexton, and Priest) should limited to one like heavy tanks. This go a long way to help break up the Arty spam meta of 3v3 and 4v4
You could probably throw in rocket arty to this list (Calliope, Walking Stuka, Katy, etc). |
I agree with this bit. I feel like emplacements and trenches should be tankier against AP weapons and weaker to HE weapons. A high velocity chunk of metal won't do as much damage to a dirt wall as a big explosion.
This change makes trenches worthless once the first TD (which now stands for Trench Destroyer) hits the field. It seems like another really odd change like nerfing the ISU. There haven't really been any threads about trenches in the balance section since the invisible UKF-only shields were demolished. |
Regarding the v2 Scott change:
Why so much focus on the barrage?
USF already has a mortar and the PaK Howie, another mortar-like unit is gratuitous. If it is supposed to be the replacement for rocket artillery, a swap of Calliope and Scott would fit better.
And USF also has a doctrinal mortar carrier already.
Overall a mini-Brummbar like function would fit way, way better in terms of unit diversity.
These changes make it too similar to the MHT. I'd rather they gave the barrage a decent range like 120-135. The 80 range makes it just another mortar.
I do like the idea of switching the Calliope and the Scott. That would make the USF better in team games. |
Since you ask I will explain.
I simply placed a PTRS Penal and AT PF in sandbags set them invincible a and drove a PzIV and T-34/76 to them.
If one want in game examples one can watch the games themachince has linked and everyone can play the preview mode and get his own perceptive.
Thank you for your perceptive.
For those of us who've tried to use Penals in the live version, we aren't worried that a few small buffs will make them OP, even if the changes are all buffs instead of nerfs. Penals in the live version are expensive to buy, leading to slow starts, and expensive to reinforce, causing a players to be starved for manpower. The PTRS's are currently just good for sound effects versus late game armor, but don't really damage anything, while leading to a lot of bleed while trying. |
remove the Mg upgrade on panther can be an option to off set further buff
No, if they buffed the AOE of the main gun and removed the MG, you'd have something like the Comet which was a worse balancing problem. Buffing the range of the main gun would make it too good against Allied TD's. |
I thought it was at most 15 range, but i guess it's just visually confusing at first if you look the distance within the end of the barrel and the Katyusha.
I'm not used to guessing range but the video certainly looked like it was nearly point-blank. Sander's explanation makes sense though.
Of all the things in the patch, I think the small buff to the Panther's accuracy is one of the ones that will cause the least problem. Maps like Red Ball are going to be nearly an auto-loss as Allies if the game goes past 25 minutes. Jaeger Armor isn't getting touched, but inexplicably the ISU is. Throw in Panzerfusiliers being part of Breakthough (so that the long range TD's are firing first every time), plus the LEFH winning the arty battle versus the ML20, and finally top it off with nerfs to the Jackson and SU85 nerfs and Red Ball will be an axis-dominated shitshow. |
It wasn't considered moving. It's at like 15ish range, maybe 18. But at that range it shouldn't miss that.
The Panther has 6% at close range. The Katy's size is 20, so I'm pretty sure that means it has a 120% chance to hit. It looked like you purposely stopped the Panther so I'd vote for bug in this case.
The Jackson, SU-85, and ISU nerfs are really going to hurt the allies late game, on a patch where it didn't seem unbalanced.
A lot of times the Panther does seem mediocre for its price, but I think I'd rather have a buff to its MG's. |
Relic Entertainment
