jackson armor nerf

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 longer aim-time could screw it hard against a Puma which has smoke to break contact and the ability to self-spot

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

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.

We can shift around a bunch of other stats, but (IMO) we're still looking at a 33% shift in DPS between the two, which is really, really high regardless of how its done. Without causing massive knock-on problems, we can adjust any of the following (at least, from what I can tell):

Stat | Current value
Puma
Accuracy (far) = 0.025
Moving Mult = 0.5
Pen (far) = 80
Damage = 120
RoF = 4.33sec

M36
Target size = 24
Armor = 130 or 110 (OP's suggestion)

Note that changes to the Puma's Damage, RoF and even pen would have significant impacts on other areas of the game.

Why? Is it not possible Relic made a mistake?

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.

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

Okay so short test:

First off: Yes, Puma needs 3 shots.

Puma fires 10 shots in about 39 seconds at approximately 2/3 of it's max range (so 30-35 m, forgot to test on the range map). This means it has an effective reload speed of 4,33 seconds.

Jackson fires 10 shots in ~63 seconds at the same range, giving a reload of 9 seconds.



So in the scenario described above (Jackson got 1 hit, Puma dives) Jackson would need 3 shots = 18 seconds to kill the Puma, Puma needs 4 shots = 13 seconds to kill the Jackson assuming all shots hit (which is actually hard to calculate on the move). If the Jackson is still on reload at the beginning of the dive, it obviously takes a bit longer for the Jackson.

If the Jackson fires 10 shots (including the starting freebie) in 63 seconds, isnt the reload time 7 seconds, not 9?

Stats on coh2db seem to put the time between shots between 6 and 6.6 seconds.

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

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

This is already such a horrendously bad situation for the USF player that not losing the M36 to the diving puma would be a bit ridiculous. And even then, if we ignore point #6, all of those adjustments only result in a 50% win rate for the Puma.

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

Yes, partly; not completely reverting the core of the change. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying it's unprecedented. Also, there would likely be a lot of pushback on that reversion.

Not sure where are you guys getting the numbers but Puma/Jackson RoF should be on coh2db stats.

Puma is (3.6 : 4.1 Reload) + 0.13 * 2 (ready and aim)
For an avg of: 4.11s

Jackson: (4.375 : 4.975) + 0.13 * 2 + 0.5 + 1.125 (Wind)
Avg: 6.56

AP Jackson: 5.2 - 5.8 + 0.13 * 2 + 0.44 + 1.1
Avg: 7.3

Reminder that in combat you have to discount the first salvo, as the vehicle already has the shell loaded.

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.

Not sure if i got the point, but you mean a change which has already been established changed years later? Because if not, there's plenty of changes which were completely flopped upside down.

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

A Puma on equal terms fighting a Jackson retreating will never be able to kill it. Even if you take into account the vet 1 critical shot. It's a turret lock, not a main gun disabled.
I made the test running a Jackson across the Test range while a Puma chases and uses Aimed shot. Without human input and having to cross more than half the map, there were cases on which the Puma was able to kill a Jackson but only when this factors occured:

-Puma lands first shots due to vision.
-Puma immediately hits aimed shot to lock turret.
-Puma moves out of line of the Jackson while keeping chase.
-Puma has great luck and connect shots and not one deflects.
-Jackson misses at least 1/2 shots.

If the Jackson has human input the Puma can't realistically defeat it.

Not sure where are you guys getting the numbers but Puma/Jackson RoF should be on coh2db stats.

Puma is (3.6 : 4.1 Reload) + 0.13 * 2 (ready and aim)
For an avg of: 4.11s

Jackson: (4.375 : 4.975) + 0.13 * 2 + 0.5 + 1.125 (Wind)
Avg: 6.56

AP Jackson: 5.2 - 5.8 + 0.13 * 2 + 0.44 + 1.1
Avg: 7.3

Reminder that in combat you have to discount the first salvo, as the vehicle already has the shell loaded.

Hannibal did some testing a few pages ago, and came to the conclusion that the Puma fires once every 4.33 seconds, and the M36 every 9 seconds. This is only 5% off your numbers for the puma, which seems reasonable, but 27% off for the M36, which is a lot.

That said, I did forget to remove the first reload, as you pointed out. However, this just shifts things more in favor of the M36.

Puma fires 10 shots in about 39 seconds at approximately 2/3 of it's max range (so 30-35 m, forgot to test on the range map). This means it has an effective reload speed of 4,33 seconds.

Jackson fires 10 shots in ~63 seconds at the same range, giving a reload of 9 seconds.

/edit
I just realized there's some flawed math in Hannibal's post. 10 shots, or 9 reloads, in 63 seconds means 63/9... which means the reload is 7 seconds. Not really sure where 9 came from.

My own testing showed 11 shots (10 reloads) in ~68 seconds, which gives a reload of 6.8 seconds. This still doesn't line up with your (or CoH2DB's) numbers, but it's closer.

I also tested the Puma, which gave 11 shots (10 reloads) in 42 seconds, which works out to a 4.2 second reload. Again, not exactly your numbers, but very close.

Not sure if i got the point, but you mean a change which has already been established changed years later? Because if not, there's plenty of changes which were completely flopped upside down.

I mean "core concept" changes. The M36 was changed from low RoF/High damage to Medium RoF/Medium damage because it used to do absurdly high 'alpha' damage, which was a real problem when in groups (or against LVs). I can't think of a time when a change was made, justified thoroughly, and then reverted entirely (i.e. full 180) after years of use. There just hasn't been an argument as to why changing the M36 back to low RoF/High damage makes sense.

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

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

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.

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.

Elchino7 pointed out the same thing; the puma isn't a counter, it's not even a deterrent.



Additionally, thanks to Elchino7's new numbers, I've redone my calculations; and they're even more in favor of the M36. The results basically show that diving the M36 with a puma (even after the M36's proposed armor nerf) only makes sense when the M36 is below 120 hp - literally only requiring one puma shot to defeat it.

Getting the puma to the state where it can dive an M36 at 480hp (1 pak shot taken), with the Puma landing a turret-lock shot instantly, still would require the puma receiving a DPS increase of over 40%.

Corrected math below:
Show Spoiler

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...

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

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 in game, and instead would only notice it when reading the patch notes and thinking "huh, they slightly nerfed the M36".

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

That's not a deterrent, that's a situational "go away for 15 seconds in exchange for 45 muni". The USF player can then back off, repair (thanks to the M36 crew), and then dive in again. This time the turret-lock will probably be on cooldown, or the axis player might not have enough muni to use it again. Additionally, this requires a vet 1 puma to work, which isn't ideal.

I just want it to reliably penetrate the Jackson at any range, at minimum.

The change your proposing (M36 front armor to 110) doesn't accomplish 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.

That's why I'm suggesting alternatives to changing the armor/pen values, such as increasing the Puma's moving accuracy multiplier and/or far accuracy to compensate for the 27.3% of shots that will bounce.

I am not expecting a light tank that you can build in potentially your first tech building, to kill a tank destroyer locked behind mjr tech. Why are you talking to be like that's what I'm asking.....

I'm not. Because it wouldn't. The only way the Puma would destroy the M36 is if all those things happened, at the same time; which means the USF player made a massive mistake. In a normal scenario, such as the M36 having full HP, or there being shot blockers, the axis player not having turret-lock for any reason, or the USF player having anything with more than 25 pen nearby, the Puma wouldn't destroy the M36.


Just to clarify, these are the proposed stat changes:

Your suggestion:
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110

My suggestion:
M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
Puma moving acc: 0.5 -> 0.6

OR

M36 Front armor: 130 -> 110
Puma moving acc: 0.5 -> 0.75
Puma far acc : 0.025 -> 0.029


I'm arguing that the 2nd set of changes (0.75 and 0.029) would be too much, but I'm also saying that those changes would be required to make the puma an actual deterrent to the M36.

If the Jackson has human input the Puma can't realistically defeat it.

You say that like all human input will improve its chances. What if it's some *ahem* firstpersonshooterman level human input?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Alright, fair point. I had missed you had suggested 90-100 a few pages ago. I assumed since you've been trying to stop any other suggestions, that 110 was your number as well.

What?

Why are you talking to [m]e like [...] what I'm asking [for is] a light tank that you can build in potentially your first tech building, to kill a tank destroyer locked behind mjr tech.

I'm not [suggesting that's what you want], because it wouldn't [result in a light tank that you can build in potentially your first tech building, to kill a tank destroyer locked behind mjr tech.]

(at least, that's what I assume you meant, and what I was trying to say)

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.

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

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

That's what I'm saying; a -20 armor change would (essentially) be a change in name only - it only looks good on paper. 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 anyone thought that made a difference, either.

If we want changes that actually impact gameplay, rather than just looking nice, they need to be bigger. CoH2 isn't as finely balanced as SC2, where +/-5% changes are actually noteworthy.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Sure, it can happen - it's just incredibly rare. Chances are the +5 fuel increase also delayed an M36 by just enough that it cost someone a game as well.

I agree that the M36 shouldn't bounce P4 shots, but to me that change is more of a "bug fix" than a "balance change". It's not going to change how anyone uses their M36s or P4s.

What's not viable? Hitting a Jackson with aimed shot? Why? Self-spotting makes it very viable

What's not viable is suggesting that a muni-heavy, vet dependent ability is a deterrent. A proper deterrent has 100% up-time.

Killing the Jackson with that Puma is another thing sure. But I'm not saying it needs to be able to do that....

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

I'm not. At no point, at all, have I said or suggested making the Puma an "M36 Killer".

I've just stated, repeatedly, that to make the puma an effective deterrent (note; NOT a counter) it needs either minor buffs (in combination with its vet 1 ability), or major buffs (without its ability), that would make it overpowered against other targets.

Since, as I've stated before, I don't think muni-heavy, vet-locked abilities should be factored into balancing the core stats of a unit, that only leaves the "overpowered" option, which I'm against implementing.

That means that I believe that even with the -20 (or more) reduction to the M36's armor, the puma will NOT be an effective deterrent.

I agree that the M36 shouldn't bounce P4 shots, but to me that change is more of a "bug fix" than a "balance change". It's not going to change how anyone uses their M36s or P4s.

Okay but it will clearly change the game by preventing the scenario I just described to you. Again, not every single change needs to be the cure to cancer. If you want to talk about big sweeping changes that effect the entire meta, don't post in a thread where the OP could not have made the topic any clearer and more concise

What's not viable is suggesting that a muni-heavy, vet dependent ability is a deterrent. A proper deterrent has 100% up-time.

I've used it multiple times to save my walking stuka from diving tanks. I'm sorry you don't like my definition of deterrence, but that's not my problem

I'm not. At no point, at all, have I said or suggested making the Puma an "M36 Killer".

I've just stated, repetitively, that to make the puma an effective deterrent (note; NOT a counter) it needs either minor buffs (in combination with its vet 1 ability), or major buffs (without its ability), that would make it overpowered against other targets.

Yeah and not a single fucking person needed you to repeat it. Why are you still saying this?

Okay but it will clearly change the game by preventing the scenario I just described to you. Again, not every single change needs to be the cure to cancer. If you want to talk about big sweeping changes that effect the entire meta, don't post in a thread where the OP could not have made the topic any clearer and more concise

Yes, as a pseudo bug-fix, not as a balance change. Balance changes are intended to change how the game is played, at least to some degree. This change won't impact anyone's use of either the M36 or P4; no one is going to decide against an attack they would have decided in favor for, entirely based on a 20 armor reduction.

Basically:

this woudnt change the Jacksons performance at all, only stupid rng moments when p4 bounces, its more a QOL change then a nerf

Furthermore, the entire point of the forum is to discuss ideas/suggestions. Since I don't think (not going to check) anyone's said "no, -20 armor is a bad change", this thread would've stopped after the 5th reply. Instead, we've had a lot of other good suggestions and discussions that add to OP's suggestion.

I've used it multiple times to save my walking stuka from diving tanks. I'm sorry you don't like my definition of deterrence, but that's not my problem

I generally defend my WStukas better; they aren't dived on in the first place. What I do have problems with is 2-3 M36s (or more in team-games) driving in and deleting all my armor.

Yeah and not a single fucking person needed you to repeat it. Why are you still saying this?

Because for the last few pages you've continuously implied that I've been trying to change the Puma into that.

Yes, as a pseudo bug-fix, not as a balance change. Balance changes are intended to change how the game is played, at least to some degree. This change won't impact anyone's use of either the M36 or P4.

Jesus Christ whatever. I don't care what you call the change, you can debate the grammar all you want, it changes the game. Period

It's certainly not the same as fixing a bug though, idk why you're saying that

Furthermore, the entire point of the forum is to discuss ideas/suggestions. Since I don't think (not going to check) anyone's said "no, -20 armor is a bad change", this thread would've stopped after the 5th reply.

No way to know. Instead it got filled with stug buff requests after like 1 page

I made a thread about buffing the stug a month ago. It's annoying to see people complain about units not on topic, especially when you just made one about that pretty recently...

I generally defend my WStukas better; they aren't dived on in the first place.

Lol what? I'm talking about people sending tanks all the way to my base to try to kill it. What the hell does that have to do with defending better? I can't put mines on every single approach

Because for the last few pages you've continuously implied that I've been trying to change the Puma into that.

WHAT? Are you kidding me? I haven't even said anything remotely close to that. I wasn't even understanding why you were talking about it, how can I be implying what you're saying if I'm still trying to figure it out???