Just make it so ram does not immobilize T-34 anymore.
Vet ability should NOT have such an immense penalty as complete disability of the unit.
[Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback
- This thread is locked
29 Nov 2020, 10:55 AM
#181
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
29 Nov 2020, 11:00 AM
#182
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I like the idea of moving ram back to vet 0 but adding a requirement of say 50% hp or below.
That would solve the problem of building/using a fresh T-34 and running it straight into an enemy tank out of nowhere to follow up with an offmap (imo the main problem with ram), while keeping the original intention of being a last ditch effort to get some value out of a dying unit.
When going after heavies it would take careful timing and quite a bit of gambling to have it willingly take damage, before being able to activate the ram and then hope it doesn't die before it can ram. It would give the enemy player more time to sense what is going on and more time to react.
Another approach would be:
T-34 has ram and secure point replace by a new ability "ramming speed" that increases the speed of the vehicle in straight line and add heavy crush. At vet 1 the same ability result in ram if it collides with vehicle.
So the unit become slightly better at vet 0 and the ram effective require better micro.
29 Nov 2020, 11:45 AM
#183
Posts: 322
If you don't want to lock the T34/76mm ramming in vet 1 then please remove IL2 bombing run from the ISU-152 commander.
Right now in 2vs2 SoV can just stall for time until ISU-152 come out and wipe axis infantry left and right.
If Wehr bring out an Elefant or OKW bring out Jadtiger, SoV can just throw a fresh T34/76mm to ram and drop IL2 bombing run on those tank-destroyers.
So if you don't like what happen to Ramming in this new patch then please tell the Dev / Balance team to move the IL2 bombing run out of both ISU-152 commander
And yeah sure do the same to Stuka bomb drop in Elefant commander
Right now in 2vs2 SoV can just stall for time until ISU-152 come out and wipe axis infantry left and right.
If Wehr bring out an Elefant or OKW bring out Jadtiger, SoV can just throw a fresh T34/76mm to ram and drop IL2 bombing run on those tank-destroyers.
So if you don't like what happen to Ramming in this new patch then please tell the Dev / Balance team to move the IL2 bombing run out of both ISU-152 commander
And yeah sure do the same to Stuka bomb drop in Elefant commander
29 Nov 2020, 11:52 AM
#184
Posts: 611
If you don't want to lock the T34/76mm ramming in vet 1 then please remove IL2 bombing run from the ISU-152 commander.
Right now in 2vs2 SoV can just stall for time until ISU-152 come out and wipe axis infantry left and right.
If Wehr bring out an Elefant or OKW bring out Jadtiger, SoV can just throw a fresh T34/76mm to ram and drop IL2 bombing run on those tank-destroyers.
So if you don't like what happen to Ramming in this new patch then please tell the Dev / Balance team to move the IL2 bombing run out of both ISU-152 commander
And yeah sure do the same to Stuka bomb drop in Elefant commander
Stop making inteligent suggestions.
29 Nov 2020, 11:54 AM
#185
Posts: 1979
If you don't want to lock the T34/76mm ramming in vet 1 then please remove IL2 bombing run from the ISU-152 commander.
Right now in 2vs2 SoV can just stall for time until ISU-152 come out and wipe axis infantry left and right.
If Wehr bring out an Elefant or OKW bring out Jadtiger, SoV can just throw a fresh T34/76mm to ram and drop IL2 bombing run on those tank-destroyers.
So if you don't like what happen to Ramming in this new patch then please tell the Dev / Balance team to move the IL2 bombing run out of both ISU-152 commander
And yeah sure do the same to Stuka bomb drop in Elefant commander
i actually agree with this... ISU + ram/IL-2 is fckn broken in teamgames soo + 1 for this...
in any case id still like to rework the T-34 and ram... the base unit most definitely needs some change and improvement to be usable outside of ram/offmap combos...
29 Nov 2020, 11:55 AM
#186
Posts: 322
i actually agree with this... ISU + ram/IL-2 is fckn broken in teamgames soo + 1 for this...
in any case id still like to rework the T-34 and ram... the base unit most definitely needs some change and improvement to be usable outside of ram/offmap combos...
Thank you.
ISU-152 and IL2 bombing run shouldn't be in the same commmander just like Stuka bomb drop shouldn't be in the same doctrine as Elefant.
Right now both of these Axis and Allies Commanders have something that capable of long range anti-tank / infantry and also capable of destroy enemy static arty equipment.
I agree that T34/76mm shouldn't be a vet ability because some other Soviet doctrines like anti-tank overwatch or Soviet Airbone doctrine need the Ramming ability to work with but ISU-152 commanders is straight up broken because of Ramming right now.
29 Nov 2020, 12:05 PM
#187
Posts: 611
Stop making smartass comment.
Others have also agreed with the ideal of IL2 bombing run shouldn't be in the same doctrine with ISU-152. Example? Look up.
Thank you.
ISU-152 and IL2 bombing run shouldn't be in the same commmander just like Stuka bomb drop shouldn't be in the same doctrine as Elefant.
Right now both of these Axis and Allies Commanders have something that capable of long range anti-tank / infantry and also capable of destroy enemy static arty equipment.
I agree that T34/76mm shouldn't be a vet ability because some other Soviet doctrines like anti-tank overwatch or Soviet Airbone doctrine need the Ramming ability to work with but ISU-152 commanders is straight up broken because of Ramming right now.
Switch brain on moron, i was supporting your suggestion.
29 Nov 2020, 12:07 PM
#188
Posts: 322
Switch brain on moron, i was supporting your suggestion.
Sorry, English is not my native language, I thought you mean stop making dumbass suggestions.
29 Nov 2020, 13:12 PM
#189
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Just make it so ram does not immobilize T-34 anymore.
THIS
If it's a vet 1 ability, make both vehicles stunned for 5 seconds and take engine damage, while T34 also gets destroyed main gun.
29 Nov 2020, 14:37 PM
#190
9 
Posts: 1094 | Subs: 20
Can we make PTRS better so they can actually be a threat to light vehicles? That would help T1 and make Soviet less dependable on AT guns like ZIS or M42s.
29 Nov 2020, 14:44 PM
#191
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Also, now that ZiS-3 barrage doesn't shoot as fast, maybe it could get a scatter reduction?
No reason why muni ability should be this ineffective.
Its not only slow, but very inaccurate and lethality of direct hit was already nerfed in the past.
I see no reason to keep nerfing it without anything in return.
No reason why muni ability should be this ineffective.
Its not only slow, but very inaccurate and lethality of direct hit was already nerfed in the past.
I see no reason to keep nerfing it without anything in return.
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.
29 Nov 2020, 15:07 PM
#192
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Can we make PTRS better so they can actually be a threat to light vehicles? That would help T1 and make Soviet less dependable on AT guns like ZIS or M42s.
PTRS vs light could be improved by reducing time before firing.
If that is fixed they should their AI moved to an ability. For instance their accuracy could be lower and hit the dirt provide accuracy buffs to PTRS.
29 Nov 2020, 15:15 PM
#193
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
PTRS vs light could be improved by reducing time before firing.
If that is fixed they should their AI moved to an ability. For instance their accuracy could be lower and hit the dirt provide accuracy buffs to PTRS.
Or you can just buff them, because non guards don't do anything to infantry and guards don't do 40 dmg to infantry anymore for years.
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.
29 Nov 2020, 15:17 PM
#194
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Can we make PTRS better so they can actually be a threat to light vehicles? That would help T1 and make Soviet less dependable on AT guns like ZIS or M42s.
We're thinking about giving Penals 3x PTRS or reducing aim time, and letting PTRS attack ground.
29 Nov 2020, 15:20 PM
#195
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
We're thinking about giving Penals 3x PTRS or reducing aim time, and letting PTRS attack ground.
What about simply buffing the range of PTRS vs vehicles?
29 Nov 2020, 15:24 PM
#196
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
We're thinking about giving Penals 3x PTRS or reducing aim time, and letting PTRS attack ground.
Wouldn't the attack ground require giving PTRS actual ballistic projectile?
And 3 PTRS, while it certainly would help stock penals AT, tank hunter cons would be left in dust as if doctrine wasn't dead already.
Perhaps an ability that would inflict temporary blind or engine crit?
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.
29 Nov 2020, 15:25 PM
#197
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
What about simply buffing the range of PTRS vs vehicles?
PTRS range is already 40, which is more than other infantry based AT weapons and more than the coaxials of the 222/Luchs or other vehicles, way more than the flame 251 range and the same range as the 20mm guns on the Luchs and 222.
29 Nov 2020, 15:25 PM
#198
9 Posts: 1094 | Subs: 20
We're thinking about giving Penals 3x PTRS or reducing aim time, and letting PTRS attack ground.
That would render the squad useless vs infantry and a single point of failure because a single squad can get pushed away quite easily. The problem is still that you can get one ptrs volley out before having to retreat vs the flame HT. unless you take out a chunk of health of the HT it's of no use. Also PGrens will have a a good time because of the reduction of anti infantry capabilities.
A combination of increasing the lethality of PTRS (e.g. damage) and reducing Flame HT range would help alot. For their current cost they perform poorly. This would also help other units such as guards and tank hunter cons, not just penals.
29 Nov 2020, 15:37 PM
#199
Posts: 578
Another route would be to make ram have less impact but also have less drawbacks, so ram + offmap won't necessarily mean a dead tank for both sides.
The Rus player sacs a tank and a ton of munis to kill one axis tank and you think that ram is a problem?
No, the problem is that it's too easy to immobilise an axis tank with ram and then finish with offmap.
But if you remove immobilise from ram it becomes useless.
As RUS, the problem with ram is that you sac a tank for 'a chance' to kill another tank.
It's best used to rush in and slam a werfer or walking stuka through a wall of AT guns, for example.
So why not forget about trying to immobilise and just give it a good AP damage buff and ensure the T34 is always destroyed by performing a ram? Remove the RNG from the scenario, if a player sacs a unit he wants to see a result.
It's Relic's responsibility.
29 Nov 2020, 15:39 PM
#200
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
A combination of increasing the lethality of PTRS (e.g. damage) and reducing Flame HT range would help alot. For their current cost they perform poorly. This would also help other units such as guards and tank hunter cons, not just penals.
Maybe a penetrating shot from the PTRS could force a 1sec crew stun critical? That way you can't just run up to PTRS squads with a flame HT, fire one burst, then retreat with like 30% of the squad's health gone.
0 user is browsing this thread:
Livestreams
 |
|
|
8 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.483190.718-1
- 4.587233.716+3
- 5.1095612.641+19
- 6.891399.691+1
- 7.280162.633+8
- 8.1004649.607+5
- 9.304113.729+4
- 10.379114.769+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1006