Pumas and Target Weak Point
27 Apr 2014, 20:38 PM
#21
Posts: 432
Shocks in M3 definitely counter Pumas. L2P guys.
27 Apr 2014, 21:36 PM
#22
Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6
Use AT guns against the Puma, vehicles are not hard counters. AT guns are. Let us know how this works out.
AT guns are not a good option, it needs 3 shots from it to kill full HP Puma, and with it's reload it's hard to make 3 good shots to it, also Pumas speed is crazy high, so retreat or maneuver around at guns is not a big problem for Puma.
I believe that Puma penetration is biggest issue, 50mm should have difficulties in penetrating heavier tanks like KV-1 or T34-85 but seems that almost every shots penetrates those
27 Apr 2014, 21:42 PM
#23
Posts: 170
Both Pumas and Shermans are perfectly balanced imo.
+1 They both feel pretty balanced right now... Lets play some more before asking for nerfs and buffs.
27 Apr 2014, 21:50 PM
#24
Posts: 231
I believe that Puma penetration is biggest issue, 50mm should have difficulties in penetrating heavier tanks like KV-1 or T34-85 but seems that almost every shots penetrates those
I agree with this. I killed a KV2 yesterday with 3 Pumas. That just feels wrong. It should be able to penetrate T34 rear consistently, front occasionally. This way the Puma excels at flanks, but not in toe to toe combat.
27 Apr 2014, 22:03 PM
#25
Posts: 337
I've just had my first experience against Pumas. They seem to be able to fight my T34-85s at a 1:1 ratio, which is just completely RIDICULOUS. Why do they have such high range?
Their received accuracy against the 85mm cannon is totally messed up. It seems like only 1 out of 3 shots would hit.
Pumas are way outperforming for their cost. They need to be looked at ASAP.
Their received accuracy against the 85mm cannon is totally messed up. It seems like only 1 out of 3 shots would hit.
Pumas are way outperforming for their cost. They need to be looked at ASAP.
SC2 Team: It's Gosu Esports - http://www.itsgosu.com/
COH2: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561197999392868
COH2: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561197999392868
27 Apr 2014, 22:08 PM
#26
Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2
Nah man, shocks in a M3!
Shocks in an M3, riding inside an M5 with Guards, strapped to the top of an ISU-152
Resident Soviet Whiner and Grand Master Bias Jedi; General Secretary of the Soviet Whine Hydra Collective; Axis Hating Sheeple; Allied Butt Buddy! Collect Them All!
Also the African Branch of TAB Bulletins
PS: The Italian Army fought with courage and skill
Also the African Branch of TAB Bulletins
PS: The Italian Army fought with courage and skill
27 Apr 2014, 22:20 PM
#27
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
I don't like Pumas. Not because of balance reasons, but because of how the unit functions.
It's an armored car with a light AT gun on top. But it costs and functions as a tank with a normal AT gun on top. Its looks are very deceiving.
I would prefer the Puma to be cheaper. But at the same time I want it to be slightly more vulnerable and have lower penetration. I envision this unit as a fast, cheap, tank hunter for flanking purposes. Not as a tank destroyer that can take on medium/heavy tanks from the front.
It's an armored car with a light AT gun on top. But it costs and functions as a tank with a normal AT gun on top. Its looks are very deceiving.
I would prefer the Puma to be cheaper. But at the same time I want it to be slightly more vulnerable and have lower penetration. I envision this unit as a fast, cheap, tank hunter for flanking purposes. Not as a tank destroyer that can take on medium/heavy tanks from the front.
27 Apr 2014, 22:36 PM
#28
Posts: 1637
I don't like Pumas. Not because of balance reasons, but because of how the unit functions.
It's an armored car with a light AT gun on top. But it costs and functions as a tank with a normal AT gun on top. Its looks are very deceiving.
I would prefer the Puma to be cheaper. But at the same time I want it to be slightly more vulnerable and have lower penetration. I envision this unit as a fast, cheap, tank hunter for flanking purposes. Not as a tank destroyer that can take on medium/heavy tanks from the front.
+1 its very annoying. It puts T3 Soviet back to where it was pre balance changes. Puma just wrecks everything in that tier pretty easily. Its a medium tank more or less. A weak medium tank but not an armored car.
The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
27 Apr 2014, 22:48 PM
#29
10 
Posts: 871
I think either it needs a penetration and range reduction, so it has to get in close and flank things rather sitting at a distance penetrating some stuff from the front or maybe the 5cm should be a munition upgrade like in COH
28 Apr 2014, 01:16 AM
#30
Posts: 3293
AT guns are not a good option, it needs 3 shots from it to kill full HP Puma, and with it's reload it's hard to make 3 good shots to it, also Pumas speed is crazy high, so retreat or maneuver around at guns is not a big problem for Puma.
I believe that Puma penetration is biggest issue, 50mm should have difficulties in penetrating heavier tanks like KV-1 or T34-85 but seems that almost every shots penetrates those
unfortunatly it has nothing to do with having a 50 milimeter gun it has all to do with the role the unit is to fill.
gameplay > realismthat said i think target weak point needs to go makes it potentially to good. give it blitz or something.
or maybe give it a mine like the m8 for all the trolls out there. 
Failure is always an option. 
It's a happy massacre?! (yes, yes it is!)
Caffeine illegal for WiFi's to ingest in 48 states, 2 colonies, and 1 providences. To make most awesome thing in universe combine Bears and Nicholas Cage! 
and remember kids, we didn't start the flame-war!
28 Apr 2014, 02:18 AM
#31
7 
Posts: 1664
It is most amusing for me that almots no one cached the irony
At 200mp per cache I just can't afford your irony.
MVGame
28 Apr 2014, 02:26 AM
#32
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
PUMA > IS2.
I mean, who cares how much penetration you may have if the the damage you deal is the same as a T34.
This from the perspective of using the PUMA, it felt...silly. Run around IS2 using smoke to cover the damaged ones, using Target weakpoint to freeze it.
3 Pumas can easily deal with an IS2. Even better, they can easily deal with KV8.
I mean, who cares how much penetration you may have if the the damage you deal is the same as a T34.
This from the perspective of using the PUMA, it felt...silly. Run around IS2 using smoke to cover the damaged ones, using Target weakpoint to freeze it.
3 Pumas can easily deal with an IS2. Even better, they can easily deal with KV8.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
28 Apr 2014, 02:31 AM
#33
Posts: 133
Let's compare puma to t34/76
Puma costs 280 MP 80Fuel (?) T34 310 MP 100 Fuel so the difference is not that big.
T34
+wins in 1v1
+way better vs inf
+ram
+quicker turret turning speed
Puma
+more range
+speed (I think it's significantly faster right?)
+TWP at vet 1 and it's not that easy to get them to vet 1 since they die pretty quickly
+no tech needed
T34 is better at everything the only advantage of the puma is that it's easier to position it correctly due to speed and range and it only costs slightly less MP and fuel.
I don't see a balance problem.
Puma costs 280 MP 80Fuel (?) T34 310 MP 100 Fuel so the difference is not that big.
T34
+wins in 1v1
+way better vs inf
+ram
+quicker turret turning speed
Puma
+more range
+speed (I think it's significantly faster right?)
+TWP at vet 1 and it's not that easy to get them to vet 1 since they die pretty quickly
+no tech needed
T34 is better at everything the only advantage of the puma is that it's easier to position it correctly due to speed and range and it only costs slightly less MP and fuel.
I don't see a balance problem.
28 Apr 2014, 02:56 AM
#34
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
@Qubix this would be a proper answer.
I don't like -EDIT-how they feel and play for what i´m seeing-EDIT- Pumas. Not because of balance reasons, but because of how the unit functions.
It's an armored car with a light AT gun on top. But it costs and functions as a tank with a normal AT gun on top. Its looks are very deceiving.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
28 Apr 2014, 03:01 AM
#35
Posts: 1637
Let's compare puma to t34/76
Puma costs 280 MP 80Fuel (?) T34 310 MP 100 Fuel so the difference is not that big.
T34
+wins in 1v1
+way better vs inf
+ram
+quicker turret turning speed
Puma
+more range
+speed (I think it's significantly faster right?)
+TWP at vet 1 and it's not that easy to get them to vet 1 since they die pretty quickly
+no tech needed
T34 is better at everything the only advantage of the puma is that it's easier to position it correctly due to speed and range and it only costs slightly less MP and fuel.
I don't see a balance problem.
At 9 cp you would be correct. Make it cheaper and weaker. It invalidates T3 soviet because it can be no tech and comes early. You will several by the time the first 76 hits the field.
The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
28 Apr 2014, 03:34 AM
#36
Posts: 133
Well SU76 is a shit unit. I don't need a puma to counter it. Let's keep comparing it with the t34/76. Even if i get out two Pumas before the first T34 it wouldn't be a cost effective counter. As long as the soviet protects his T34 with AT-nades, Guards or ZIS Guns the Pumas won't be able to chase it down and they don't do a lot against infantry. Getting 1 to cover your Pak (instead of Schrecks basically) is indeed a strong tactic but not overpowered. Let's wait and see how the meta evolves before asking for nerfs/buffs or whatever.
Edit: elchino, so what should the uma be instead ? An improved AC ? I like the Puma as it is because it's an unique and interesting unit.
Edit: elchino, so what should the uma be instead ? An improved AC ? I like the Puma as it is because it's an unique and interesting unit.
28 Apr 2014, 04:11 AM
#37
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Dunno, but as i said, it feels a bit weird that a puma can survive 2 IS2 shots : /
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
28 Apr 2014, 04:24 AM
#38
Posts: 133
Dunno, but as i said, it feels a bit weird that a puma can survive 2 IS2 shots : /
What the hell is wrong with a 80 Fuel Unit surviving 2 IS2 shots ???
28 Apr 2014, 04:29 AM
#39
Posts: 1637
I was comparing it to a T34/76. I thought you would pick up on that. And actually with the range of the SU76 it actually does better.
We can do combined arms all day. I could say the same about how a Single Faust hit will equalize the Puma with the T34 and allow the Puma to take it head on.
Puma spam is becoming a thing. And there is a reason. Its a no tech early call in unit. That can be countered by late tier soviet call in units effectively. It cannot be countered by a T34/76 including tech costs effectively. It invalidates T3. Just like the last meta. There is no point in building T3 if there are Pumas around. The tech cost plus the unit cost makes it not worth it. Assuming equal map control.
We can do combined arms all day. I could say the same about how a Single Faust hit will equalize the Puma with the T34 and allow the Puma to take it head on.
Puma spam is becoming a thing. And there is a reason. Its a no tech early call in unit. That can be countered by late tier soviet call in units effectively. It cannot be countered by a T34/76 including tech costs effectively. It invalidates T3. Just like the last meta. There is no point in building T3 if there are Pumas around. The tech cost plus the unit cost makes it not worth it. Assuming equal map control.
The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
28 Apr 2014, 04:31 AM
#40
Posts: 598
I wouldn't call the Puma OP just yet, it is a pretty expensive scout car and it does come late game. As for people saying that it can take on IS2s, the IS2 is a unit that can kill both infantry and tanks, pumas are not very good against infantry.
Each puma cost 270 mp and 80 fuel. Three Pumas cost 810 mp and 240 fuel, which costs more than a single IS2. Pumas are agile but they are pretty weak and are fucked when they hit a mine or get hit by at nades.
Each puma cost 270 mp and 80 fuel. Three Pumas cost 810 mp and 240 fuel, which costs more than a single IS2. Pumas are agile but they are pretty weak and are fucked when they hit a mine or get hit by at nades.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
22 | ||
 |
|
|
11 | ||
 |
|
|
173 | ||
 |
|
|
14 |
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
- 6.893399.691+3
- 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
Board Info
956 users are online:
1 member and 955 guests
lukei
lukei
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48778
Welcome our newest member, Rrdcxsdfvf
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Rrdcxsdfvf
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM