Login

russian armor

Simple Fixes: Tank Meta Issues

19 Dec 2019, 10:03 AM
#21
avatar of flyingpancake

Posts: 186 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 09:40 AMKatitof
I love this kind of threads.

"simple meta fixes"

-proceeds with a list of stuff that flips everything upside down

Atleast it's constructive and people put actual thought into it.
I much rather see these treads over X unit/X commander/X faction is OP and then leaving it at that.
19 Dec 2019, 10:11 AM
#22
avatar of Musti

Posts: 203


Panther (if we consider this a TD) ... should be exempt from this nerf.

Why wouldn't Panther recieve that nerf? If the concern is that TDs shut down medium play (as to why SHOULDN'T 140+ fuel AT only vehicles be good against tanks is beyond me) then the Panther, which does the same to allied mediums, should be included.
19 Dec 2019, 10:11 AM
#23
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


Atleast it's constructive and people put actual thought into it.
I much rather see these treads over X unit/X commander/X faction is OP and then leaving it at that.

Can't deny that, "plz fix/remove/nerf/buff" people are troglodytes of forum.
19 Dec 2019, 10:22 AM
#24
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 785

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 10:11 AMMusti

Why wouldn't Panther recieve that nerf? If the concern is that TDs shut down medium play (as to why SHOULDN'T 140+ fuel AT only vehicles be good against tanks is beyond me) then the Panther, which does the same to allied mediums, should be included.


If you want me to generate a random excuse for why the Panther is excluded, I'll say because it doesn't have the full 60 range. If you want the real answer, it's a concession to a small but vocal group of axis mains who consider the Panther completely underpowered, and one I therefore felt necessary to propose in exchange for it receiving the heavy_tank type tag and thusly not being harder to hit with dedicated TDs (it's counter in turn) after this change.
19 Dec 2019, 11:10 AM
#25
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I've always been a believer that heavies shiuld be built rather than called in so even destroying one when the enemy has float is impactful. I think starting there would be a good middle ground for both making them less cheesy but accessible in team games and actually viable in smaller modes. Look at how impactful the luchs build time change was way back when. Timing is important and build time is a bit over looked.
19 Dec 2019, 12:01 PM
#26
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

The Panther should get 60 range, cost up to 210 and decreased acceleration. Decrease turret rotation and revert the HP buff while giving it half the armour back.

That way positioning matters above all for Panthers, they are expensive because they are good and their lack of acceleration means counterplay is easier with flanking. Good armour and mediocre HP means you can easily kill a Panther by flanking it, plus its higher cost means it’ll be less supported, so you can’t yolo a panther and have it survive. Its slower turret rotation contributes to all that.
19 Dec 2019, 12:11 PM
#27
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711

The Panther should get 60 range, cost up to 210 and decreased acceleration. Decrease turret rotation and revert the HP buff while giving it half the armour back.

That way positioning matters above all for Panthers, they are expensive because they are good and their lack of acceleration means counterplay is easier with flanking. Good armour and mediocre HP means you can easily kill a Panther by flanking it, plus its higher cost means it’ll be less supported, so you can’t yolo a panther and have it survive. Its slower turret rotation contributes to all that.

OST version of FF, but with armor? Not only acceleration, but reduce overall mobility as well, to be in par with other TD and of course no blietzkrieg (replace other ability, stun shot or something else). You will get more armored and healthy 60 range TD than enemies variants have. It could work, but need overal rework of allied top-tier TD.
What role wiil be play JP4 for OKW in that case? IT already have 60 range and could deal with any allied stock unit (only churchill could make problems due hp pool).
19 Dec 2019, 12:14 PM
#28
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563

The Panther should get 60 range, cost up to 210 and decreased acceleration. Decrease turret rotation and revert the HP buff while giving it half the armour back.

That way positioning matters above all for Panthers, they are expensive because they are good and their lack of acceleration means counterplay is easier with flanking. Good armour and mediocre HP means you can easily kill a Panther by flanking it, plus its higher cost means it’ll be less supported, so you can’t yolo a panther and have it survive. Its slower turret rotation contributes to all that.

Didn't used to be a TD before.
19 Dec 2019, 12:16 PM
#29
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

The Panther should get 60 range, cost up to 210 and decreased acceleration. Decrease turret rotation and revert the HP buff while giving it half the armour back.

That way positioning matters above all for Panthers, they are expensive because they are good and their lack of acceleration means counterplay is easier with flanking. Good armour and mediocre HP means you can easily kill a Panther by flanking it, plus its higher cost means it’ll be less supported, so you can’t yolo a panther and have it survive. Its slower turret rotation contributes to all that.

Soooo an axis firefly?
19 Dec 2019, 12:31 PM
#30
avatar of Princeps

Posts: 214

Every game I have seen with Allied TDs dominating axis tanks has been the same. It's always been:
- axis never flanking
- axis forgetting blitz exists
- axis forgetting that shot blockers exist to hide their armor behind and taking free damage all the time
- axis forgetting that they have cheap Stugs and 60 range JP4s who can go head to head with allied and instead rely on heavies with P4s only.
Etc.

I can't remember ever having watched a game where I didn't think "he would have won if he just did not make X/Y/Z mistake with his armor play."


WTF?

So you say that the tank play should be this:

allied sit back and fire with 60TD in the backline... if a heavy target apears hit one button and pen every tank... and against rushes they just drive with hight speed backwards and fire with super acc...

Axsis HAVE to flank, blitz, smoke, use combiend arms ... and so on to just stay in the game.

Sounds fair to me :D

19 Dec 2019, 12:33 PM
#31
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 12:16 PMKatitof

Soooo an axis firefly?


Isn’t the FF supposed to be the best designed TD? Working on similar principles should yield a good result.

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 12:11 PMMaret

OST version of FF, but with armor? Not only acceleration, but reduce overall mobility as well, to be in par with other TD and of course no blietzkrieg (replace other ability, stun shot or something else). You will get more armored and healthy 60 range TD than enemies variants have. It could work, but need overal rework of allied top-tier TD.
What role wiil be play JP4 for OKW in that case? IT already have 60 range and could deal with any allied stock unit (only churchill could make problems due hp pool).


Reason I’d keep top speed but give it shit acceleration is because historically the Panther had a very high top speed.

Other than that I think making the Panther a well armoured, not very mobile, high accuracy and very high cost sniper that’s susceptible to flanking would be a very good way to go.

As for the JP4 it could get a slight mobility boost and slight pen nerf/cost decrease to allow it to be a more mobile sniper useful vs mobile mediums.
19 Dec 2019, 12:36 PM
#32
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Isn’t the FF supposed to be the best designed TD? Working on similar principles should yield a good result.

Not according to me.
I'm casemate TD team.

FF is not bad, but it certainly is not a good designed TD for the fact how it deals damage alone(bursts, muni heavy if you want to finish what you started, requires pretty much 100% accuracy to be reliable at all).
19 Dec 2019, 12:38 PM
#33
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 12:36 PMKatitof

Not according to me.
I'm casemate TD team.

FF is not bad, but it certainly is not a good designed TD for the fact how it deals damage alone(bursts, muni heavy if you want to finish what you started, requires pretty much 100% accuracy to be reliable at all).


Well which role is best for the Panther then?

Expensive Sniper, weak to flanking

Expensive hunter/diver, weak to flanking

Current version which is underwhelming at everything
19 Dec 2019, 12:39 PM
#34
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Well which role is best for the Panther then?

Expensive Sniper, weak to flanking

Expensive hunter/diver, weak to flanking

Current version which is underwhelming at everything


The current Panther clobbers every medium in the game. It's not cost-efficient versus TDs, but the StuG and JPIV are.

The problem is heavy tanks.

The problem is always heavy tanks.
19 Dec 2019, 12:54 PM
#35
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563



Well which role is best for the Panther then?

Expensive Sniper, weak to flanking

Expensive hunter/diver, weak to flanking

Current version which is underwhelming at everything


Well the designed role of the panther was to be the T34/85 to p4 but 3v3 and 4v4 exist which made the Panther just op. But a lot of things have changed though. TD no longer have only 480 hp they
pen more reliably(regularly) at all ranges and panther has much less armor (270 vs 350 or was it 320 idrc) and it costs different. Maybe we can try and give back the panther this role may by giving it a tad better AOE performance and nerfing it's range to 45 or something. Cus OST lack offensive power late game, giving them a defensive vehicle won't do em any good.
19 Dec 2019, 13:11 PM
#36
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 12:39 PMLago


The current Panther clobbers every medium in the game. It's not cost-efficient versus TDs, but the StuG and JPIV are.

The problem is heavy tanks.

The problem is always heavy tanks.


So what exactly is the Panther so good at? Which role does the current version excel at?
19 Dec 2019, 13:18 PM
#37
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



So what exactly is the Panther so good at? Which role does the current version excel at?

Murdering anything that costs less then it and isn't its own dedicated hardcounter.
19 Dec 2019, 13:40 PM
#38
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1



WTF?

So you say that the tank play should be this:

allied sit back and fire with 60TD in the backline... if a heavy target apears hit one button and pen every tank... and against rushes they just drive with hight speed backwards and fire with super acc...

Axsis HAVE to flank, blitz, smoke, use combiend arms ... and so on to just stay in the game.

Sounds fair to me :D



Yes, it is fair, since you are given the tools for it.

How is this any different from lets say, early game USF vs OST infantry play? Why does USF have to flank OST HMGs and use smoke or light vehicles to counter them? Why can't they just win in a straight up fight?

Why should OST be able to make a heavy tank and just be able to A move and win, when the faction has Panzerschreks, high DPS AT guns, cheap Stugs, and P4s and Panthers with blitz?

Still if you can't be bothered to use these tools, you can always sit back with your own 70 range heavy tank destroyer and let the Allied player do all the hard flanking stuff.
19 Dec 2019, 13:42 PM
#39
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 13:18 PMKatitof

Murdering anything that costs less then it and isn't its own dedicated hardcounter.


That’s not a role, that’s the basis of tank combat. P4 beats T34/76 because it costs more but loses to T34/85 because it costs less. Panther beats T34/85 because it costs more but loses to IS2 because it costs less.

A role is different. The FF has a role, as an immobile sniper that’s vulnerable when assaulted directly. The T34/76 has a role as a flank protector, flanker and sacrificial piece with ram. The Tiger has a role as a breakthrough tank with limited mobility that needs support to excel.

The Panther doesn’t have a role other than brawling with mediums and softcountering heavies.
19 Dec 2019, 13:44 PM
#40
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



That’s not a role, that’s the basis of tank combat. P4 beats T34/76 because it costs more but loses to T34/85 because it costs less. Panther beats T34/85 because it costs more but loses to IS2 because it costs less.

A role is different. The FF has a role, as an immobile sniper that’s vulnerable when assaulted directly. The T34/76 has a role as a flank protector, flanker and sacrificial piece with ram. The Tiger has a role as a breakthrough tank with limited mobility that needs support to excel.

The Panther doesn’t have a role other than brawling with mediums and softcountering heavies.

Its brawler....
It outlasts everything within its firing range, excluding ONE allied tank.

You said it doesn't have a role in first sentence and highlighted its role in last...
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

750 users are online: 750 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49101
Welcome our newest member, Dorca477
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM