Posts: 2358
Oh look another pls nerf alies TDs thread its seriosly getting boring. Game is really in a good state right now but if u guys really wonna destroy it again then pls go on
Posts: 1351
Posts: 4474
Ok. Having read all the above I feel there should be tank destroyer category for tanks with damage inflicted as the % of health of the hit tank (light vehicles excluded). This would be so much easier to balance.just so u know, increasing damage to 200 and reducing the reload would achieve the same thing as it would still need 4 shoot to kill a medium 640 hp tank but 1 less for panther and anything above
Katitof-2018
Posts: 1351
just so u know, increasing damage to 200 and reducing the reload would achieve the same thing as it would still need 4 shoot to kill a medium 640 hp tank but 1 less for panther and anything above
Posts: 930
just so u know, increasing damage to 200 and reducing the reload would achieve the same thing as it would still need 4 shoot to kill a medium 640 hp tank but 1 less for panther and anything above
Posts: 3260
Posts: 528 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3260
Standardise nondoctrinal tanks selection too. Give usf something similar to comet, churchill or panther non doc. If you are so smart go all the way.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Personally, I think tying penetration to veterancy is a bad idea in the first place.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 528 | Subs: 1
I fail to see what this has to do with the penetration on tank destroyers.
If they have have the same penetration, it's easier to balance enemy armour values around it.
Personally, I think tying penetration to veterancy is a bad idea in the first place.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
You fail to see how durable tanks with super high armor and HP on one side force tank destroyers with high penetration and range on other side? Great, you are just like relic who thought giving usf shit tanks and forcing them to use things like p47 loiter to deal with armor was a good idea. Thankfuly we moved on from that genius design philosophy.
Posts: 3260
You fail to see how durable tanks with super high armor and HP on one side force tank destroyers with high penetration and range on other side? Great, you are just like relic who thought giving usf shit tanks and forcing them to use things like p47 loiter to deal with armor was a good idea. Thankfuly we moved on from that genius design philosophy.
Penetration was chosen, because alternative was rate of fire that would diminish meds or damage per shot, which would again put meds on disadvantage as well as make it so panther takes 1 shot less.
Pen does absolutely nothing against meds and only a little against panthers, so its mostly and pretty much only useful vs heavies and up.
Posts: 528 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3260
You are asking for standardisation just after they nerfed armor on pershing to 270 for no good reason. Are these threads about discussing real game changes that can be realisticaly applied or just trolling?
Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3
You are asking for standardisation just after they nerfed armor on pershing to 270 for no good reason.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
10% less armor for 20% more health sounds like a good deal to me. It still has the best gun of any heavy.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Or do something different with the veterancy entirely. Improve their defence or utility instead.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 528 | Subs: 1
No, we just don't see balancing the game as a contest between each person's pet faction.
You clearly do, else you wouldn't have brought up the completely non-sequitur Pershing that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Posts: 3260
Is this the direction we’re headed? Removal of armour entirely and 1990 rts style health bars?
Why does armour have to be meaningless, I don’t understand.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
The penetration system breaks down above medium tanks.
It works well below medium tanks because the swing in penetration between tiers is so big: a Stuart's all but impervious to a 222 at range, small arms barely scratch the 222. Armour is actual, proper protection.
With mediums up, bad penetration chances are 60%, 70%, that sort of thing. Armour becomes a pretty unreliable defence: your Pershing might bounce for days or it might evaporate in moments. As the vehicle's player you have to plan for the worst case scenario and vice versa for the opponent, so you get vehicles that suck for both sides.
Therefore, the balance direction for vehicles over 250 armour continually shifts from armour to health: health is consistent and predictable.
The only alternative system I can think of is to drive armour up instead of down: giving heavy tanks like the Tiger and IS-2 about 900 frontal armour but only 720 HP.
Tank destroyers would almost certainly need switchable rounds or deflection damage in that case.
 |
|
|
43 | ||
|
|
|
|
26 | ||
|
|
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
17 | ||
 |
|
|
118 | ||
|
|
|
|
55 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
