Tiger nerf

snip

I can agree to most of the bullet points. Some additions though:
- The Tiger armor effect can be decently asessed. Against unvetted Allied TDs, 2 P4s need 8 penetrations to die while the Tiger has an expectancy value of 9,5. Against higher pen units, this will go more unfavourably for the Tiger, lower pen will make it more favourable. All this will then be tilted towards mediums due to the lower target size, the effect of this is very hard to check though.
- 2 P4s can potentially dish out more damage, however this is again armor dependent. Against low armor targets they are better, against high armor targets this bonus is almost completely gone. They have approximately half of the penetration of the Tiger, making them half as likely to pen against every unit with more armor than ~200.
- Tiger has higher base accuracy by about 5-10% at ranges 20-40 and lower scatter, so it's chance to hit is a fair bit higher. This chance is not armor dependent and will always work better than 2 P4s.
- One additional point pro Tiger is the +5/+10 range. The short range of mediums compared to Allied TDs has always been a point of criticism from Axis players. At least the 50 range allow the Tiger to quickly shoot back quicker and give less margin for error for Allied TDs, while the P4 needs to traverse 20 meters under fire to be able to punish TDs.
- As MMX already pointed out, P4s allow focused fire and therefore the higher firing volume can be negated quicker and you are more likely to lose resources.

I'll point something out since there seem to be some misconceptions:
I have never said that the Tiger is still the be all end all and best choice in all circumstances and should be taken over 2 P4s any time. This is clearly not the case. But the Tiger like all heavies seems to be in a better spot now than before, because this was exactly his role pre patch: The one and only choice that you had to make if you wanted a chance to win the late game. Previously there was no choice between these two play styles, heavies were just straight up better, also in team games (actually especially in team games because the walls of ATGs and TDs could often delete a medium within seconds. Seeing 3-4 anti tank units per player is often normal).

This is also why I disagree with the rest of you post. Yes, the Tiger is on 5 Commanders, but:
1. not all of them were played equally.
2. Diversity is not defined solely by commander use

Right now, mediums see way more play again. From what I can tell also again in larger modes. The fact alone that not everyone is locked in into 2 doctrines that have a heavy anymore makes the game more diverse in a different aspect. The current meta is also not perfect, but I would not say it is worse than previously.

i did a comparison a while back before the patch went live here, but that didn't include the correct aoe profile for the tiger, yet (the most recent post here does though). should probably update this.

Thanks for the link.

So if I read this correctly then we have to compare the Tiger data posted in this thread with the orange bars in the old thread?

This would mean that the Tiger lost about 20% AI capacity compared to 8,5% of the IS2 and 18% of the Pershing at range 20.
So compared to the IS2 it got hit harder while compared to the Pershing it is pretty much the same (longer ranges should equal it out since Pershing has worse scatter stats).

snip.

You're right in most of your statement, but now there is a big difference outside numbers which is matchup.

Tiger is better against High armor, that's true, but are there many heavy armored tank that Ostheer has to face currently?

I mean the Tiger was a greater option against Churchill and other Heavy tank, but both got nerf and are not use anymore, why? Because medium took the edge in the meta. What are the consequences?

The first is the Tiger kinda lost its job, like fishing somewhere without fish, therefore lost attractivity. But there is still ISU-152,KVs, and Comet which are armored. But in both cases the Panther or the Elephant will be a better choice. The Panther is more mobile, has a better range from the get go, the same DPShot and cost less (and has more pen far ect... we already stated that). Against 60 range TD, being able to avoid bad engagement is important and is why the Panther is always a better choice to counter Comet/Kv. The Elephant is a better choice overall since the new balance AI/AT power of the Tiger.

About the overall meta, I don't like Medium Meta because it can overshadow heavy tank easily, being less likely to get catch out of position, being less vulnerable to pak ect...
I will not repeat my self over it. But there is a big difference between those 2 "meta". The heavy one does not delete mediums from the game: you can have a Tiger and still use medium with it since it is UNIQUE. While if mediums are better choice, then why would you use heavy anyway?

As for those 5 commanders, they are all equaly viable as long the Tiger is IMO. They all offer specific bonus aside from the Tiger and is why there wasn't one go-to commander during the previous patch.

As for the meta which is purely subjective, the heavy meta may have been painful in 1vs1 but in the other game modes it felt fair (but 9 CP was bullshit), and I will maintain that commanders make a great diversity in this game, and having only 2 to 4 viable on a pool of more than 10 is quite a shame. For instance replays published on youtube are choosen depending of which commander is played because unorthodox strats come with unorthodox commanders. The UTT2 was also disapointing from this perspective, and even with "Meta commanders" there was a clear winner side. The Heavy meta may not the best but at least was fair for either side and more fun from my teamgames perspective.

...

The thing is, outside of game release when you could spam more than 1 doctrinal heavy, Tigers/IS2/Pershing were never a popular option for 3v3+.

The heavy meta FORCED Tigers and IS2 to be viable on 3v3+ when they never were at the cost of other game modes.
If we don't make ISU/ELE/JT and in a lesser way Howitzers viable for 1v1, we don't make heavies meta for team games.

The thing is, outside of game release when you could spam more than 1 doctrinal heavy, Tigers/IS2/Pershing were never a popular option for 3v3+.

The heavy meta FORCED Tigers and IS2 to be viable on 3v3+ when they never were at the cost of other game modes.
If we don't make ISU/ELE/JT and in a lesser way Howitzers viable for 1v1, we don't make heavies meta for team games.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

He means the units are fine where they currently are and no, not all units are equally viable in all game modes nor can or should they be.

He means the units are fine where they currently are and no, not all units are equally viable in all game modes nor can or should they be.

I haven't bother myself to produce that much example to see someone just stating the exact opposite as an absolute truth in 2 sentences.

I haven't bother myself to produce that much example to see someone just stating the exact opposite as an absolute truth in 2 sentences.

Well, if you need a full page to explain something that took others 2 lines, maybe you really don't understand it that well.

Well, if you need a full page to explain something that took others 2 lines, maybe you really don't understand it that well.

Everything in this world is about to prove what you think with example during a somewhat structured argumentation. So I will just follow what ruled the world and decline your truth.

Tiger is in a good spot right now. It's not over-performing and it's not under-performing. It can instill fear when it's out due to it's HP and Armour and the fact that it's quite mobile along with that. Veterancy and preservation reinforce that. It is not a meat grinder like it used to be and that's fine, no heavy is right now. On the topic of ISU-152, it's not UP nor OP. It's great vs every target (depending on shell used) but it's armour and mobility and target scanning is so poor it can only be used to stop infantry blobs and maybe snipe tanks (which is very situational on most maps unless heavies clear the bushes). The only tank I feel is not in it's price range right now is the Pershing. Not by it's gun, but by survivability. I think the armour should be buffed to 290 and that's it.
Heavies are generally in a good spot right now. Some are situational (elefant, ISU), others are all-rounders (Tiger, IS-2). None really stand out.

If I had to grade them. I think that tiger would still be #1 tank in all scenarios mainly because it's not hard to support him and it can kill both tanks and infantry easily, along with it's survivability.

Why it is not use? We can't say that "people were to used to an OP Tiger" 2 mounth after the patch.

We can't say that "people were to used to an OP Tiger" 2 mounth after the patch.

Why?
Its EXACTLY the case.

The units completely fell out of meta for much less then that, hell they were deemed from OP AF to completely useless without any kind of change often.

The only nerf to the tiger is currently requires is the requirements to deploy it: Battle Phase 3 needs to be changed into Battle Phase 3 and Heavy Panzer Korps or Support Armor Korps.

Why?
Its EXACTLY the case.

Another truth without proof? Stop trolling its not funny.

Either tournaments or normal game show that Heavy aren't in a good spot, you can't deny it.

People compare Tiger to FUCKING ISU-152 in this very thread.
If that doesn't ring a bell for you on how OP it was, nothing will.

Tiger wasn't unjustly nerfed, it was general change for all heavies, yet you only see the REEEE from ost players.
That is another proof.

Do you expect someone to glue that to a brick and toss it at your face?

Show Spoiler

What was your heart rate prior to and after writing this post?

People compare Tiger to FUCKING ISU-152 in this very thread.
If that doesn't ring a bell for you on how OP it was, nothing will.

Tiger wasn't unjustly nerfed, it was general change for all heavies, yet you only see the REEEE from ost players.
That is another proof.

Do you expect someone to glue that to a brick and toss it at your face?

Show Spoiler

Chill mate, not being able to argue like everyone isn't bad, keep trolling like you're use to and let people which can writte down their idea with enough line and example to illustrate what they think debate between them.

If you're sweating at the idea of confronting your idea instead of trolling that's ok, no one will push you.

I will not lose more time trying to convince you, it will change nothing. If the balance team come by and find my argument good enough they will take it, if it isn't they will not, that's all.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

The moment normal heavies are viable on 600+ popcap games are the times where they are broken for all game modes.

1v1 meta vs 2v2 meta vs 3v3/4v4 meta is completely different.


Heavies were FINE on smaller modes although with a variance in performance (RNG). They pushed them to be reliable and arrive sooner and boom meta on every game mode.

The analogy to the heavy TD/Howitzers, is that it would absolutely destroy the game for 2v2 and up if we were to make them viable for 1v1.


Accessibility and cost are not something i'm opposed to see discuss but if anything happens, i would rather see the vet 2 range extension discarded in favour of something else (this would help OH more than vice versa).

PD: heavy meta deleted mediums from the game because the stalling for a heavy is rewarded on facing a SINGLE medium in the opposing side.
If you want a more diverse meta on 3v3+ teamgames, you should advocate for a nerf in Jaeger Armor and ISU commander, not making Tiger/IS2 doctrines stronger through giving them buffs.

The moment normal heavies are viable on 600+ popcap games are the times where they are broken for all game modes.

1v1 meta vs 2v2 meta vs 3v3/4v4 meta is completely different.


Heavies were FINE on smaller modes although with a variance in performance (RNG). They pushed them to be reliable and arrive sooner and boom meta on every game mode.

The analogy to the heavy TD/Howitzers, is that it would absolutely destroy the game for 2v2 and up if we were to make them viable for 1v1.


Accessibility and cost are not something i'm opposed to see discuss but if anything happens, i would rather see the vet 2 range extension discarded in favour of something else (this would help OH more than vice versa).

PD: heavy meta deleted mediums from the game because the stalling for a heavy is rewarded on facing a SINGLE medium in the opposing side.
If you want a more diverse meta on 3v3+ teamgames, you should advocate for a nerf in Jaeger Armor and ISU commander, not making Tiger/IS2 doctrines stronger through giving them buffs.

I totaly agree and that's what I thought first when the patch came out. But after seeing tournament and playing my self, I must admit that I found the "Heavy meta" not that much of a deal.

Taking gamemode into the equation also means taking faction and how they interact between each others. What would make the Tiger OP in one and worthless in another?

Pusing them to be more reliable wasn't a bad choice, but the 9 CP requirement was clearly a bad idea. But the nerf on the Tiger was clearly too much.

Plus the overall lack of power of Ostheer infantry, which lead to the need of the Infantry Doc (or a subsitution like ostruppen). Therefore the need of a good area denial and a way to avoid MP bleed from your inferior infantry.

I don't have much time to illustrate that properly, but my idea is that with all the nerf (the tiger got the biggest one) and the recent result during tournament (the winner side was nearly decided before the match start) show a real problem, while the heavy meta at least gave chance for both side to win.

ISU-152 is Unique and what you expect from a Unique Heavy tank to perform, and I feel the Tiger doesn't fill its own role like it should. I will try to say more in the next day.