That's what I'm saying; a -20 armor change would (essentially) be a change in name only. From a gameplay perspective the change would be so minor that it wouldn't matter. It would be "symbolic", much like the +5 fuel cost change a while ago. I doubt anything thought that made a difference, either.
I've literally seen p4 deflections off Jackson armor change a game. I benefited from it. My 160 hp vet 3 Jackson was retreating from killing a JP4. His teammates p4 came in fired a shot which deflected. He missed his next shot and couldn't chase any further
10 minutes later I kill a Tiger ACE with that vet 3 Jackson. Yes you can say he got bad luck, but I really don't think the m36 has any business deflecting ANY p4 shots, no matter how rare
They did, back when they were OP - and no one would've accepted WStuka-incendiary as a counter. Sure, it's a thing that exists, but it's not really viable.
What's not viable? Hitting a Jackson with aimed shot? Why? Self-spotting makes it very viable
Killing the Jackson with that Puma is another thing sure. But I'm not saying it needs to be able to do that....
Yea, and like I've said several times now, the puma still wouldn't win against an M36. It would only be in bizarre scenarios where it would win, similar to how a T70 can technically beat a KT.
Yeah and what I've been trying to tell you is that you can stop talking about this. At zero point did anyone need this explained to them... I haven't been saying to make Puma into a Jackson killer. I still have no clue why you keep talking about it |
But then what's the point? A 20 armor reduction really won't do anything outside of looking like a nerf. It would be like arguing for a +10fuel cost on the Tiger(s) - and only a +10 fuel cost. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but no one is ever going to notice it.
It's literally in the first post of the enture thread. Get rid of p4 deflections
Why the hell are we making balance decisions based on what things looked like? What?
Btw, Relic increased the Jacksons cost by 5 fuel last year. Not even 10. 5 effing fuel. So debate the philosophy on small changes with them if you must
A deterrent based on a muni-heavy, vet-locked ability isn't a deterrent. It's similar the WStuka's incendiary barrage being great deterrent to UKF emplacements. It's true, but it's niche.
Except for the fact that no one uses emplacements and you'll see the Jackson almost every single game. When a unit is that common, any little thing you can use against it counts and is helpful
This change wouldn't result in the Puma countering the M36, except cases so extraordinary that the USF player deserved to lose the M36:
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
Puma moving acc: 0.5 -> 0.6
This change would result in the Puma putting up a decent fight against a moderately damaged (480/640hp) M36, but it would still only 'win' 50% of the time:
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
Puma moving acc: 0.5 -> 0.75
Puma far acc : 0.025 -> 0.029
That 2nd change would also make the puma horrendously OP.
I didn't say I wanted to Puma to win a fight against the Jackson. I just want it to be able to fight it slightly better
The Jackson is too good but it is also the crutch of USF. Making large changes to it hasn't really gone so well for us so far |
It wouldn't even do that for the puma - that's the problem. While nerfing the armor down to 110 gives the P4 a 100% pen chance, it changes the puma from 61.5% to 72.7% at max range. Even for the P4, you're only going increasing its chance to pen by 4% (close) and 15% (far).
This is such a minor change that most players probably wouldn't even notice it, except for reading the notes and saying "huh, they slightly nerfed the M36".
Yes I agree it's a minor change. That's literally the best way to tweak balance
If you read the original post of this fucking thread you will see the entire topic the OP wanted to discuss was a specific minor change
I see the Jackson deflect a p4 shot like once a month. Of course it's not going to be a huge change, the point is to make it even less likely. One shot can effect a game, if we can reduce that from happening that's a good idea in my book
Not every change has to be the fucking cure to cancer
That's not a deterrent, that's a "go away for less than 15 seconds in exchange for 45 muni".
Yeah being fired from a unit that costs almost half the fuel of the Jackson... And if it keeps the Jackson from diving in, that's deterrence.
The change your proposing (M36 front armor to 110) doesn't even do that. For that to happen, we'd need to drop the M36's armor to 80, or buff the Puma's pen to 110. A 110 armor M36 is only penned by a puma 72.7% of the time at max range.
Where are you getting "my" number of 110 from? Drop it to 100 even, now it's an 80% chance at max range. That's reliable enough for me for an armored car
Accuracy is where it gets finicky, I agree
I'm not. Because it wouldn't.
What? |
No, you're still missing the point. Even with all of these insane changes and scenarios, the puma is still only 50% effective. 50% success isn't a counter, it's a coin flip. It means that when we're outside of these scenarios, the puma's actual efficiency will be much, much lower.
No I'm not. Nerfing the Jacksons armor isn't an insane change. It would barely effect gameplay outside of Puma and P4, that's the genesis of this entire conversation
Getting the Puma to work even as a vague deterrent against the M36 requires such an incredible buff (or nerf to the M36) that it'll make one of the two completely imbalanced - that's how incredibly large the power difference between the two is.
It literally already works as a vague deterrent. A Jackson with a locked turret has to back off. That qualifies as "vague" fucking deterrence, especially if the OKW player has literally anything else in the area
I will say one last time: You are setting a way higher standard than I am seeking from the Puma. I just want it to reliably penetrate the Jackson at any range, at the least. If we can change more, great, if not, oh well
I am not expecting a light tank that you can build in potentially your first tech building, to be able to chase down and kill a tank destroyer locked behind mjr tech. Why are you talking to me like that's what I'm asking... |
Because we're already making a ton of compromises and conditions to even get this far.
1. We've nerfed the M36 armor from 130 to 110
2. We let the M36 be take a single Pak40 hit (so it's at 480hp)
3. We've hit the M36 with the Puma's Vet 1 ability (which means a vet 1 puma)
4. We're not using the M36's vet 1 ability, that forces the Puma to retreat after 1 hit
5. We're assuming that the USF player has no other methods in which it can scare off the Puma (another tank, ATG, mines, etc.)
6. We're assuming the M36 doesn't fire (or hit) a single shot, despite the Puma's Vet 1 turret lock only lasting 15 seconds
No you assumed all of that in a scenario where you decided the result needed to be the Jackson killed in order for it to be a success. I'm not saying that
I'm literally just saying "let's make the Puma slightly better, and the Jackson slightly worse." You are talking about making the Puma THE main counter against the Jackson. I don't think that's possible either
I've haven't come even close to saying "let's make the Puma be able to kill the Jackson", but for some reason that's the argument you're pushing against. I really don't get it
We should be taking about balance in the forms of small adjustments over time. Not overhauling units like Relic did when they changed the m36
|
Even if the M36 never fired, you're still looking at a 60-80 second "chase" time (60 if the M36 has been hit once by a Pak40), which is going to be nigh-impossible considering the Puma's HP and armor.
Again I'm just asking why does the Puma have to kill the Jackson in order to be a success? Since when does it mean you lost just because you didn't kill something? If you use that vet 1 ability, the Jackson is gonna back off
I don't want to buff the Puma to reliably kill Jackson's. I want to tweak a few things so it can contribute to fighting it more easily. "Time to kill" scenarios can only tell you so much
It's possible, but I can't think of a time when an old change (2+ years) has been reverted because the core reasoning for the change was flawed. And as others have said, it would make Axis heavies (or panthers) extremely oppressive against USF.
They haven't reverted full groups of changes like the one from the notes you just shared, but they definitely go back partially. Look at the comet. Was OP, got wildly overnerfed, and recently they fixed the overnerfing
|
Snipped for space
Can we stop ignoring the Puma's vet 1 ability? We are literally talking about the puma vs a turreted vehicle, and it has a turret lock ability. That can completely swing a fight against a Jackson and you left it out completely from this analysis
HVAP can certainly change puma to a 2-shot kill, but the reset on the aim/cooldown could fuck it up since the Puma has smoke to break contact and a sight range advantage
Accuracy is the only point that I think is trouble. Could increase the target size of Jackson since most people already think it needs some nerfs against everything anyway. The armor nerf should happen regardless just to at least eliminate the rare p4 deflections
Considering the M36 was changed back in December 2017 for this exact reason, lowering the RoF and Increase damage isn't really an option.
Why? Is it not possible Relic made a mistake? I feel like its pretty common, especially when a unit receives so many changes at once |
I think a large problem with the old crit system was that it was perma crit which required a complete withdrawal to repair. It might be less extreme if they are temporary debuff instead of semi permanent critical. More along the lines of wounded crew than destroyed components
Yeah I think the rare gun-loader injured crit is still in the game somewhere. Arty cover from tac support on brit causes that one iirc |
And all of them are just a shadow on compared to the original Company of Heroes. And this is quite expected - the original Company of Heroes copied the plots and scenes of such films as: "Saving Private Rain", "Brothers in Arms", "The Bridge is Too Far". And they did it qualitatively with an interesting continuation. And as expected, both Company of Heroes 2 campaigns turned out bad, if we take the terrible film as a basis and continue it awfully. When the game is pursued by cheapness and rush.
Band of Brothers too right? I mean the title of the game is from a quote from the guy who was the CO of Easy Company (the company depicted in Band of Brothers for those who havent seen) |
You pay for T2-building, so 222 is cheaper. It doesn't arrives that earlier than T70, doesn't is an argument T70 ouperforms as hell.
Have you ever played the soviets? Like once?
You know t3 by itself is more expensive than bp1+t2 building right?
Dude make your own thread for once, you clearly have a lot of thoughts on the game you want to share. Just stop hijacking threads with them... |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
