Tiger nerf

Heavy meta was a much worst deterrent for OH play than for any other faction. OH can now use infantry doctrines while before they would be in a really awkward spot if they were gonna be facing heavy tanks. I think whenever heavy mobile tanks gets 50 range through vet, they remove most of the options to counter them. In the case of OH, it makes both the Stug/PV have no range advantage.


When you can play without fearing so much the late game, you can actually push for early game and punish certain factions such as SU, before they can bring their power play (T70 or late game).


Before buffing ANY HEAVY, i would start first by nerfing said commanders first, then adjusting vet performance down on TDs and whatever adjustments needs to be done in general due to FOTM.

Snip

IMO Ostheer was the least "Heavy dependant" faction during those time considering the power of the Panther and the reliable pen of the Pak. Heavies have the role of an are denial and strong AI offensive unit. While Comet/Kv-2 (or even IS-2 can fill this role) the Brummbar is in a weird spot due to its small range and somewhat poor mobility seems good for waiting the opponent to come and not the other way.
While the Tiger could comit to kill an MG or whatever without much risk, making some "camping" around the victory point with mass AT not a viable option. Those nerf combine with frag bombs nerf (good nerf though) turn the meta around that. And the lack of power from the Panzerwerfer to fill this gap is clear (Panzerwerfer is IMO a bad unit, but beyond that, it is not meant to clear an area like a Katyu or Calliope).
This new "meta" often forced in the UTT2 the OKW to produce stuka to counter those AT/Mg/mortar pit and therefore giving up to the OKW P4 (a powerful unit).

To conclude, I'd point out that the Tiger hasn't seen any big AT change, so its role as an heavy which counter medium (T34-76/sherman/cromwell) is the same, but its real "spearhead" role as I described isn't good anymore, and Ostheer more than others with their weaker infantry (without doc) and weak "area cleaner" (what I tried to described with the Brummbar ect...) struggle more than ever to clearly forced its tempo to the game. (The Soviet lack of early game powerfull couldn't be exploit in 2vs2 because they were often paired with UKF and their AEC, installing a mortar pit and holding the line against the weak Ostheer assault).

Those obervation led me to think that the Tiger had a real role within the Ostheer synergy and alone was able to overshadow some weakness which now are clear. That's why nerfing other commanders (which is not a bad idea) isn't what will clearly help the Ostheer to come back (because the Elephant isn't that good in 1vs1/2vs2 IMO and isn't enough to overshadow Ostheer weaknesses, while the inf doc is a bit better)

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).

Yeah, this sounds about right. In summary, the Tiger lost about 20% of its AI performance vs spread-out formations and up to 30% vs clumped squads using the time to kill a 6-man squad as the benchmark. The Pershing and IS-2 on the other hand only perform 5-15% worse in the same set of tests (see table below, and detailed graphs in the spoiler)



Show Spoiler

Considering it overperformed quite a bit in the AI department prior to the patch one could say this is fine. However, taking the Vet2 scatter nerf into account it can also be argued that the overall AI reduction may have been a bit too harsh. If it were up to me, I'd probably either revert the mid-AOE distance reduction or give the Tiger part of its scatter bonus back (maybe only 10% and at Vet3 instead). This would at least bring the magnitude of the AoE-damage nerfs in line with the other two heavies.

...

You are basing your opinion in the last 2v2 tournament while ignoring both the last 1v1 tournament and the ones prior to the patch, if you say OH was the least "heavy dependant".

OH 1v1 =/= OH teamgames.

OH has already made a comeback in the 1v1 scene.

You are basing your opinion in the last 2v2 tournament while ignoring both the last 1v1 tournament and the ones prior to the patch, if you say OH was the least "heavy dependant".

OH 1v1 =/= OH teamgames.

OH has already made a comeback in the 1v1 scene.

As I said I base my opinion on both tournament and my own Teamgame experience. Teamgames regroup 2vs2/3vs3 and 4vs4 and the results of OH is mitiged or even negative. So what I said took into account the 1vs1 too.

1vs1 isn't the only gamemode and even there, Ostheer has to pick a doc which can provide him a better mainline infantry to keep up, an their comeback is also part of the UKF come back, which the OKW can't fight properly.

Was there any clip where the people who whine and moan about the tiger, tested its performance? Would be much more useful than this fuking useless "wahh I had some random match today and it sucked!" where it's literally impossible to tell if the Tiger underperformed because of trash micro, unlucky RNG or wrong decisions (e. g. using a heavy tank on a map with a lot of elevation) if there is no replay provided

I have used and tested this unit many times since the nerf and I'm getting exactly what I expect: a PREMIUM PANTHER that has more armor, more health, same anti tank and much better anti inf than a panther.




And in this clip I didnt even use a pintle-mount MG or ground attack. It wiped 3 squads in 1 minute, and only one squad was bunched up. Seriously wtf do people expect here?

snip

Repeat the test with a Panzer IV.

Repeat the test with a Panzer IV.

I'm sure their AI level is the same.

I have used and tested this unit many times since the nerf and I'm getting exactly what I expect: a PREMIUM PANTHER that has more armor, more health, same anti tank and much better anti inf than a panther.

If the Tiger is so good as you say why does Sander93 suggests a slight buff in in his ideas for the next patch? He and others tested the unit too and come to an other conclusion than yourself: the Tiger was hit harder than other heavies by the nerfs.

Was there any clip where the people who whine and moan about the tiger, tested its performance? Would be much more useful than this fuking useless "wahh I had some random match today and it sucked!" where it's literally impossible to tell if the Tiger underperformed because of trash micro, unlucky RNG or wrong decisions (e. g. using a heavy tank on a map with a lot of elevation) if there is no replay provided

I have used and tested this unit many times since the nerf and I'm getting exactly what I expect: a PREMIUM PANTHER that has more armor, more health, same anti tank and much better anti inf than a panther.




And in this clip I didnt even use a pintle-mount MG or ground attack. It wiped 3 squads in 1 minute, and only one squad was bunched up. Seriously wtf do people expect here?

good stuff. though some people still won't be convinced, this is the stuff the discussion needs.

I'm sure their AI level is the same.

Exactly, which is why it’s pointless to go Tiger. The meta has thus shifted to 5man Grens in 1v1/2v2 to bolster the infantry war by quite a margin, while Panzer IVs and the buffed Brummbar can bear the brunt of fighting infantry and Panthers are there for fighting heavies, as well as the Elephant alternative pick to 5man Grens as an ISU152 counter. It’s not worth picking a Tiger doctrine just to pay double the P4 price for a P4’s anti infantry and to make do with LMG Grenadiers.

Exactly, which is why it’s pointless to go Tiger. The meta has thus shifted to 5man Grens in 1v1/2v2 to bolster the infantry war by quite a margin, while Panzer IVs and the buffed Brummbar can bear the brunt of fighting infantry and Panthers are there for fighting heavies, as well as the Elephant alternative pick to 5man Grens as an ISU152 counter. It’s not worth picking a Tiger doctrine just to pay double the P4 price for a P4’s anti infantry and to make do with LMG Grenadiers.

Nothing needs to be added to this.

why does Sander93 suggests a slight buff in in his ideas for the next patch?.

ok, a slight buff. But some people here act like the Tiger is the worst unit known to man

But some people here act like the Tiger is the worst unit known to man

Noobs and trolls aside, the general consensus is that the Tiger in its current state is not worth investing in. I don't see anything wrong with that consensus nor do I think some huge buff is needed. I think a slight buff in performance or a shift to a command tank role for both Ost and OKW variants would turn it into a viable choice in the meta.

Noobs and trolls aside, the general consensus is that the Tiger in its current state is not worth investing in

I think it's debatable if its worth to pay an extra 45 fuel and 140 manpower for a Panther that is more durable and has P4 anti inf. I would say it can totally be worth it

I tend to get a Tiger at some point. I kind of agree that it needs a buff, but at the same time I'm VERY HAPPY that it's not a must-get unit any longer. It was boring to skip tiers, spam Pgrens, and rush to Tiger as good as every game.

I kind of agree that it needs a buff, but at the same time I'm VERY HAPPY that it's not a must-get unit any longer. It was boring to skip tiers, spam Pgrens, and rush to Tiger as good as every game.

I think we can all agree on this.

The Tiger got a special treatment with the 20% scatter at vet 2 removed. Plus if I remember correctly, the AOE nerf was the exact same flat amount for all heavies, which represent a bigger impact on the Tiger proportionaly since it has the lowest (AOE) of the 3(IS,Pershing,Tiger).

Revert the Scatter and we should be fine.

And I'm more willing to take into acount the stats given mounth ago rather than a vid.

Was there any clip where the people who whine and moan about the tiger, tested its performance? Would be much more useful than this fuking useless "wahh I had some random match today and it sucked!" where it's literally impossible to tell if the Tiger underperformed because of trash micro, unlucky RNG or wrong decisions (e. g. using a heavy tank on a map with a lot of elevation) if there is no replay provided

I have used and tested this unit many times since the nerf and I'm getting exactly what I expect: a PREMIUM PANTHER that has more armor, more health, same anti tank and much better anti inf than a panther.




And in this clip I didnt even use a pintle-mount MG or ground attack. It wiped 3 squads in 1 minute, and only one squad was bunched up. Seriously wtf do people expect here?

I don't want to knitpick cause I know when people post videos they cannot incoorporate every test scenario into videos, and I know in posts after this one I'm replying to you've said it could use a slight buff, but as you've said with the tiger not shooting with elevation influence, trash micro and RNG, this would theoredically be a best case scenario. If this is best case, worst case ingame the tiger would be pretty close to useless. So I do think some of those cries are not entirely unwarranted.