USA M1(ATgun) Balanced? Or OKW P4 unbalanced?
12 Sep 2021, 19:33 PM
#21
Posts: 772
AFAIK USF AT gun with muni investment has the highest dps and pen at 60 range from all AT guns in the game. + it has great cone of fire
12 Sep 2021, 20:19 PM
#22
Posts: 1594
Ok, I'll take your argumentation, so the best Atgun in game can bounce 4 times in a row vs a medium tank. You're just making the P4j smelling OPness with such argumentation.
Then about its timing, if that was a relevant argument then the Ostheer version should be the worst medium tank since its the first hitting the field in any condition.
As much as tank destroyer shouldn't survive if catch off guard, medium tank should have the same treatment, I catch it off-guard and had time to fire 5 times, same issue same outcome should be made.
It can bounce four times in a row because you got very unlucky. IF you reach veterancy three suddenly you never ever bounce on the P4J, which is a tank that the opposition paid a significant markup for.
Timing, incidentally, is definitely part of balancing, though it isnt the only part.
This thread really isnt indicative of a meaningful balance concern.
12 Sep 2021, 21:19 PM
#23
Posts: 1158
This is where people would usually use asymetric balance as a crutch to enable bad play from axis. Yes, this is a case of bad rng, but that bad rng also tells us something about bad numbers.
If the roles were reversed, how often do you ever see a sherman deflect not 4, but even 1 round from a pak40/rak? It just doesn't happen.
This is at the core of the problems with team games being really stupid. This game as a whole is FAR more forgiving to mistakes made by players playing axis armies. If this same player did this same action as allies, he'd have a smoking wreck and be contemplating throwing the game. People are willing to fight hard as axis because the weapons are effective and quick to give up as allies because many of the weapons are unreliable.
The M1 is an unreliable weapon. Unreliable does not mean it doesn't work. It means you don't know when it will work. Like an employee that sometimes comes into work, but you have no way to tell when they will no call/no show for a shift.
I'll never forget this one encounter I had, back before the ap shells were added to the m1. It was a 2v2 and my opponent was super cocky. He pulls his panther up right in front of my at gun, but out of range of pintle. Round after round, bounce bounce bounce. He released control of the panther and started mocking me for being unable to penetrate the panther. He said I was shooting tennis balls. 8 rounds in a row bounced.
I don't know why axis stuff was made like this in coh2. coh1 had a better balance between atguns and armor. Axis was actually challenging to play as in that game.
If the roles were reversed, how often do you ever see a sherman deflect not 4, but even 1 round from a pak40/rak? It just doesn't happen.
This is at the core of the problems with team games being really stupid. This game as a whole is FAR more forgiving to mistakes made by players playing axis armies. If this same player did this same action as allies, he'd have a smoking wreck and be contemplating throwing the game. People are willing to fight hard as axis because the weapons are effective and quick to give up as allies because many of the weapons are unreliable.
The M1 is an unreliable weapon. Unreliable does not mean it doesn't work. It means you don't know when it will work. Like an employee that sometimes comes into work, but you have no way to tell when they will no call/no show for a shift.
I'll never forget this one encounter I had, back before the ap shells were added to the m1. It was a 2v2 and my opponent was super cocky. He pulls his panther up right in front of my at gun, but out of range of pintle. Round after round, bounce bounce bounce. He released control of the panther and started mocking me for being unable to penetrate the panther. He said I was shooting tennis balls. 8 rounds in a row bounced.
I don't know why axis stuff was made like this in coh2. coh1 had a better balance between atguns and armor. Axis was actually challenging to play as in that game.
29 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM by siuking666:
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
13 Sep 2021, 02:42 AM
#24
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Show me a map where you're always have max range advantage with your Jackson, except Steppe en 4vs4, there are none, True is map are designed so max range is difficult to use.
P4j have advantage on Sherman, which make the Jackson only reliable counter to P4j. Your examples are about a unit that face a vehicle from a different category and as I stated I'd agree with the situation if I were facing a heavy tank but here it is just the usual medium tank.
And M1 isn't the best Atgun in game and even if, that's doesn't make it an argument since its facing much higher armor.
Whiteball, redball, lienne, general mud, basically all 4s maps that aren't angermunde and essen steelworks. That contains a lot of 3s maps too. Honestly most maps unless you're fighting on urban ones.
My examples were simply showing RNG happens, and had nothing to do with tanks in different categories. The fact that I had a puma pen an IS-2 shows categories mean nothing when it comes to RNG because RNG is exactly that.
You could argue any AT gun is the best ingame, they're all actually very capable at their jobs and vary from situation to situation.
When the entire thread is telling you it was bad RNG, it was probably bad RNG.
13 Sep 2021, 05:00 AM
#25
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
Yet another braindead 50 IQ post.
With a PAK or 6-pounder you would only have fired 4 shots instead of 6, and you would still have had roughly the same chance to penetrate at that range because of the AP rounds. Apart from PAK43 or 17-pounder there was nothing that could have been done when one rolls so badly 4 times in a row.
When I get bad RNG I yell some stuff in shoutbox instead of making a thread about "XYZ OP". At least a shoutbox comment is easy to ignore, doesn't clog up space in the forum, and is properly classified as angsty venting and not a completely biased balance whine based off of a 3rd grader's understanding of mathematics.
You certainly have a right to feel angry when you get robbed of a win or robbed of the enjoyment of a game sheerly through bad luck. I'm one of the last people to deny you that righteous angst. But this is truly beyond stupid that 8 years into this game's lifespan people like you still think bad RNG is a balance issue.
Just last week my Panther bounced two ZIS gun shots AND an SU85 shot to avoid being snared. 5 minutes later a T34-76 penned it frontally 3 times in a row. Across hundreds of thousands to millions of rolls there are bound to be good rolls and bad rolls.
Time for me to write a forum post that T34-76 penetration is too high, SU85 pen value too low.
With a PAK or 6-pounder you would only have fired 4 shots instead of 6, and you would still have had roughly the same chance to penetrate at that range because of the AP rounds. Apart from PAK43 or 17-pounder there was nothing that could have been done when one rolls so badly 4 times in a row.
When I get bad RNG I yell some stuff in shoutbox instead of making a thread about "XYZ OP". At least a shoutbox comment is easy to ignore, doesn't clog up space in the forum, and is properly classified as angsty venting and not a completely biased balance whine based off of a 3rd grader's understanding of mathematics.
You certainly have a right to feel angry when you get robbed of a win or robbed of the enjoyment of a game sheerly through bad luck. I'm one of the last people to deny you that righteous angst. But this is truly beyond stupid that 8 years into this game's lifespan people like you still think bad RNG is a balance issue.
Just last week my Panther bounced two ZIS gun shots AND an SU85 shot to avoid being snared. 5 minutes later a T34-76 penned it frontally 3 times in a row. Across hundreds of thousands to millions of rolls there are bound to be good rolls and bad rolls.
Time for me to write a forum post that T34-76 penetration is too high, SU85 pen value too low.
13 Sep 2021, 09:24 AM
#26
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
When the entire thread is telling you it was bad RNG, it was probably bad RNG.
It is always bad RNG when it comes to the P4j, funny enough when bad RNG happened to other unit, there is always a way to mitigate or eliminate it.
Now if this bad RNG is the rule when fighting then you're not only fighting the P4j, but P4j and RNG and not being able to win vs both of it you may lose you game.
13 Sep 2021, 09:39 AM
#27
Posts: 1158
Yet another braindead 50 IQ post.
With a PAK or 6-pounder you would only have fired 4 shots instead of 6, and you would still have had roughly the same chance to penetrate at that range because of the AP rounds. Apart from PAK43 or 17-pounder there was nothing that could have been done when one rolls so badly 4 times in a row.
When I get bad RNG I yell some stuff in shoutbox instead of making a thread about "XYZ OP". At least a shoutbox comment is easy to ignore, doesn't clog up space in the forum, and is properly classified as angsty venting and not a completely biased balance whine based off of a 3rd grader's understanding of mathematics.
You certainly have a right to feel angry when you get robbed of a win or robbed of the enjoyment of a game sheerly through bad luck. I'm one of the last people to deny you that righteous angst. But this is truly beyond stupid that 8 years into this game's lifespan people like you still think bad RNG is a balance issue.
Just last week my Panther bounced two ZIS gun shots AND an SU85 shot to avoid being snared. 5 minutes later a T34-76 penned it frontally 3 times in a row. Across hundreds of thousands to millions of rolls there are bound to be good rolls and bad rolls.
Time for me to write a forum post that T34-76 penetration is too high, SU85 pen value too low.
Do you feel this same way about the jackson nerf?
29 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM by siuking666:
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
13 Sep 2021, 09:52 AM
#28
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
It is always bad RNG when it comes to the P4j, funny enough when bad RNG happened to other unit, there is always a way to mitigate or eliminate it.
Now if this bad RNG is the rule when fighting then you're not only fighting the P4j, but P4j and RNG and not being able to win vs both of it you may lose you game.
I doubt that, you probably do not remember when you AT penetrated the PZ 4 times in row although the chance of that was something like 20%
13 Sep 2021, 10:58 AM
#29
Posts: 76
other/none
Imagine smiling after a slap in the face. Then think of doing it twenty-four hours a day.
13 Sep 2021, 11:18 AM
#30
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Ok, I'll take your argumentation, so the best Atgun in game can bounce 4 times in a row vs a medium tank. You're just making the P4j smelling OPness with such argumentation.
Then about its timing, if that was a relevant argument then the Ostheer version should be the worst medium tank since its the first hitting the field in any condition.
As much as tank destroyer shouldn't survive if catch off guard, medium tank should have the same treatment, I catch it off-guard and had time to fire 5 times, same issue same outcome should be made.
What's your solution then?
Lowering P4Js armor? The unit is fairly balanced for cost and timing itself (at least in my opinion), so the only way that should work is with a simultaneous cost decrease. Which would basically make it an Ostheer P4.
Increasing the 51mm penetration? Screws over other targets as well.
Increase the ability's pen gain? Basically same as above.
Look, I've been arguing for redesigning USF's AT options including the ATG for long now because in my opinion the current system only forces USF into a Jackson.
The biggest difference to the situation P4 vs Jackson is also the scope of the changes: Making the Jacksons thin armor a little bit thinner is in line with the unit and almost exclusively affects the P4 and the Puma. The armor nerf was done to ensure that good positional play is important and finding someone out of position is rewarded.
Should you have been rewarded in your video? Yes, surely. But changing any of these two units to guarantee the penetration changes way more than just those two units.
13 Sep 2021, 11:42 AM
#32
Posts: 1515
What's your solution then?
Lowering P4Js armor? The unit is fairly balanced for cost and timing itself (at least in my opinion), so the only way that should work is with a simultaneous cost decrease. Which would basically make it an Ostheer P4.
Increasing the 51mm penetration? Screws over other targets as well.
Increase the ability's pen gain? Basically same as above.
Look, I've been arguing for redesigning USF's AT options including the ATG for long now because in my opinion the current system only forces USF into a Jackson.
The biggest difference to the situation P4 vs Jackson is also the scope of the changes: Making the Jacksons thin armor a little bit thinner is in line with the unit and almost exclusively affects the P4 and the Puma. The armor nerf was done to ensure that good positional play is important and finding someone out of position is rewarded.
Should you have been rewarded in your video? Yes, surely. But changing any of these two units to guarantee the penetration changes way more than just those two units.
While I don't think anything should be done as this is the prime case of bad RNG (eg. I've had games where my RE/Major 4 zooks penetrated 6 times in a row on a Panther frontally, eg. Good RNG).
OKW P4 is the prime medium tank in the game, even for that timing as it can take on every other stock medium without a hitch, while a Panther can secure dives. Something that OKW is reliant on, a P4 + Panther dive will always win vs a TD + medium tank on almost all 2v2 and 3v3 maps.
I don't think anything needs changing. If anything, maybe, a big maybe the OKW P4 gets 200 armour and a price decrease. Who knows. They do have the stock KT, so even making an AT gun vs OKW as USF is not really a good investment. I myself always preferred sending a zook blob along the margins of the map with a sweeper, bait the KT on the frontlines and then just let it rip on it's ass.
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
https://coh2stats.com/players/76561198031032150
https://coh2stats.com/players/76561198031032150
13 Sep 2021, 11:55 AM
#33
Posts: 1158
What's your solution then?
Lowering P4Js armor? The unit is fairly balanced for cost and timing itself (at least in my opinion), so the only way that should work is with a simultaneous cost decrease. Which would basically make it an Ostheer P4.
Increasing the 51mm penetration? Screws over other targets as well.
Increase the ability's pen gain? Basically same as above.
Look, I've been arguing for redesigning USF's AT options including the ATG for long now because in my opinion the current system only forces USF into a Jackson.
The biggest difference to the situation P4 vs Jackson is also the scope of the changes: Making the Jacksons thin armor a little bit thinner is in line with the unit and almost exclusively affects the P4 and the Puma. The armor nerf was done to ensure that good positional play is important and finding someone out of position is rewarded.
Should you have been rewarded in your video? Yes, surely. But changing any of these two units to guarantee the penetration changes way more than just those two units.
Which units exactly would be negatively affected by a high penetration at gun? It wouldn't happen to be even bigger tanks than the p4, would it? God forbit at guns(all of them in the game) do their damned job and penetrate armor. Coh1 had shells bouncing too, but not like this. Any tank you had did not dare be on the receiving end of an at gun. Now in coh2 we have units hard countering their counter. That's not to say heavy tanks should be immediately wrecked by a 270mp weapon, but it should be good enough to at least deter the player psychologically and wreck them if they make huge mistakes(as in that video).
You know there are cases were allied weapons had similar performance. Those of you that have been here with us since release know the power of the kv-8. Could not be stopped by atguns. It was changed eventually, because it countered it's counter.
29 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM by siuking666:
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
13 Sep 2021, 12:30 PM
#34
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
Do you feel this same way about the jackson nerf?
Jackson went from being batshit OP to being still very good, so why would I feel rage at it? I still go Sherman-Jackson every game as USF with only 1 AT gun throughout the whole game. I literally never have problems fighting off an OKW P4 with an M1 AT Gun - it's always the infantry-supported pushes killing my AT gun that causes problems. As USF the thing I hate most is Obers wiping out my AT gun crew with their 35 range gatling gun.
I don't rage at the balance team or balance issues. Much less non-existent "balance issues" like the cheapest stock AT gun with the best arc, tracking, fire rate, and range having less penetration. I rage at RNG usually because that is genuine unfairness. I believe the balance team is doing the best they can to balance 5 factions for 4 game modes given that the scope of what they're allowed to change is limited by Relic, and they're not a highly-paid, well-staffed professional team. Even when there are imbalances like *fucking Ostruppen sniper cancer* I don't cuss out the balance team like the typical forum meta.
13 Sep 2021, 12:34 PM
#35
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
I doubt that, you probably do not remember when you AT penetrated the PZ 4 times in row although the chance of that was something like 20%
He's exactly the type of player whose stock Sherman penned my OKW P4 frontally 4 times in a row, thinks he "outplayed" me and starts trash-talking non-stop, then throws up a complete hissy fit about balance when my next P4 bounces one or two shots from his AT gun.
13 Sep 2021, 12:35 PM
#36
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
That's about 68% of all balance threads here.
Remaining ones are vipper wanting to play a different game and communicating it through his balance blog.
This thread has tipped it over to 69% so I guess it isn't completely worthless after all.
13 Sep 2021, 12:51 PM
#37
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
What's your solution then?
Lowering P4Js armor? The unit is fairly balanced for cost and timing itself (at least in my opinion), so the only way that should work is with a simultaneous cost decrease. Which would basically make it an Ostheer P4.
Increasing the 51mm penetration? Screws over other targets as well.
Increase the ability's pen gain? Basically same as above.
Look, I've been arguing for redesigning USF's AT options including the ATG for long now because in my opinion the current system only forces USF into a Jackson.
The biggest difference to the situation P4 vs Jackson is also the scope of the changes: Making the Jacksons thin armor a little bit thinner is in line with the unit and almost exclusively affects the P4 and the Puma. The armor nerf was done to ensure that good positional play is important and finding someone out of position is rewarded.
Should you have been rewarded in your video? Yes, surely. But changing any of these two units to guarantee the penetration changes way more than just those two units.
Then make it an Ostheer P4, is it so bad that we prefer having a tank that has no reliable counter on USF roster except for the Jackson?
13 Sep 2021, 13:57 PM
#38
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Which units exactly would be negatively affected by a high penetration at gun? It wouldn't happen to be even bigger tanks than the p4, would it? God forbit at guns(all of them in the game) do their damned job and penetrate armor. Coh1 had shells bouncing too, but not like this. Any tank you had did not dare be on the receiving end of an at gun. Now in coh2 we have units hard countering their counter. That's not to say heavy tanks should be immediately wrecked by a 270mp weapon, but it should be good enough to at least deter the player psychologically and wreck them if they make huge mistakes(as in that video).
...
Which is exactly what the 57mm does at least with the increased penetration ability. Again, you forget that 4 out of those 5 shells penetrating is the most likely outcome. And judging by the distance, the chances were actually even better. No one is going to yolo his P4 into that ATG. Even against a Tiger it should pen at least 3/5 frontally. I am not saying USF's AT design is great, because it really is not, but at least with the high penetration rounds, the 57mm is doing well. To put this into perspective: The 6 pounder (basically a clone of the PaK40), would have gotten about 3,6 penetrations in a similar situation.
Then make it an Ostheer P4, is it so bad that we prefer having a tank that has no reliable counter on USF roster except for the Jackson?
It would solve the issue for the P4 for sure, but not for the JP4 or Panther (or even Brummbar against OST for that matter). I don't think the OKW P4 by itself is really an issue since it fits the faction's design as well as the overall balance. It is just USF's shitty AT design of having no high pen unit apart from the Jackson or the option to constantly churn out munitions. USF's current design is relying on a lot of lower chance RNG rolls instead of fewer high chance ones. This can lead to the shitty RNG you got here. Your ATG could have penetrated 4 times in a row even without the high pen rounds. This scenario is about 100 times more likely than what you got in your video. Should the OKW player be able to make a post claiming that this shitty 270 MP ATG regularly wrecks his premium medium?
That's why people are saying you only got an example of bad RNG. But to be honest I'd like to detach from the example video since it does more harm than good to this discussion.
I think what would be good to clarify is what you actually want to argue about:
- Should the 75mm have higher base penetration?
- Should the ability be better?
- Should the OKW P4 have lower armor?
Again, all of these can be argued about for sure, but all of them will probably come with more changes than just changing 1 or 2 stat values in the editor. And most likely also at a price for USF, because (unlike the Jackson armor nerf), all of these changes have larger effects outside of the interaction between the 57mm and the OKW P4.
13 Sep 2021, 14:23 PM
#39
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Again, all of these can be argued about for sure, but all of them will probably come with more changes than just changing 1 or 2 stat values in the editor. And most likely also at a price for USF, because (unlike the Jackson armor nerf), all of these changes have larger effects outside of the interaction between the 57mm and the OKW P4.
What would they be, as you say the ATG could have pen the 4 times and kill it. The problem here is that the encounter isn't reliable for anybody and this RNG have a higher effect since it clearly decides the outcome of what can be the momentum of a game.
Again when you play with a high armored tank, you don't plan on bounce expectation, you plan on having it pen 4 times and during the battle every bounce count as an extra life letting you do pursue further the initiative.
As a solution we could lower the armor and increase by 160 the health of the tank, just like for the churchill so you'd know you need 5 shots, maybe 6, to take it down and not simply see the tank passing thru the field unharmed because RNG decided so.
Those moment of RNG aren't the exception even if 4 time in a row isn't seen every game. But 2 to 3 bounces with the ability on is not exceptional at all.
13 Sep 2021, 15:55 PM
#40
1 Posts: 1276
Just increase the US AT gun pen at max range by a tad or increase HVAP pen at max range as you are already dumping muni for an RNGesus round to bounce of a p4. The USF AT gun is underrated up close but the far bounces are rly inconsistent.
0 user is browsing this thread:
Livestreams
 |
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
293 | ||
 |
|
|
158 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
762 users are online:
762 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM