T-34/76
10 Sep 2014, 06:57 AM
#41
Posts: 68
The PIV have a chance to penetrates the front armor of the T34 at max range with 75%. The T34 penetrates the PIVs front armor to 44% at max range. If you want to lose that fight with the PIV you have to handle him very poorly.
10 Sep 2014, 07:22 AM
#42
8 
Posts: 2470
not really. RNG is perfectly happy to decide that fight for you. it will be harder for that to happen with the 34/76 nerf this patch though.
10 Sep 2014, 07:41 AM
#43
Posts: 210
Like i said. The backbone of OKW and Wermacht is completely broken now and even more suscpetible to soviet cheese. Then the puretroll comes in complaining about the reload speed of T-3476. It is literally rubbing salt into the wounds.
This is a player that claimed OKW was easy to use only to get rushed by rifles and loses within the first 10 minutes of multiple games. Then continues to advocate against Axis thats what pisses me off.
He maxim spams each game and now this will be more effective with LMG nerfs to axis whose infantry revolves and relied upon this to great degree.
10 Sep 2014, 15:46 PM
#44
Posts: 156
The T-34/76 was fine the way it was. It would lose every time to a p4 unless the p4 fell into a trap/messed up big time.
Maybe they changed it because they want it to be a purely anti infantry deal so players would have to build better tanks? Maybe they want Soviet players to only use call-in armor?
Maybe they changed it because they want it to be a purely anti infantry deal so players would have to build better tanks? Maybe they want Soviet players to only use call-in armor?
10 Sep 2014, 15:56 PM
#45
Posts: 577
I feel this unit was improperly changed this patch. Increasing the reload time causes the T-34 to become what it once was, allowing p4s and other types of AT to run all over it again. I'm not sure why it needed a change(thought it was fine as is). Especially since Ram is pretty much useless nowadays. Thoughts?
The T34/76 got a unlisted buff in the last patch. The KV-1 should have 1 sec less reload due to the fact it has a bigger turret and crew, but since they shared the same gun (file wise) this also buffed the T34. This patch fixed this. Should have close to no impact on the game anyways as it's still dominated by call-ins. If the T34/76 is too weak now then it's probably giving a buff. Considering that out of each 30 trials at 10 / 20 / 30 range the T34 won on average 43% of the times vs a PIV (Most on short range, least on long range) I guess it's fine. I know it's not a perfect test and the sample size is small, yet it's the best data I could create without dedicated tools D:
10 Sep 2014, 15:56 PM
#46
Posts: 2070
Relic is probably thinking "oh it is a bugfix, the players will enjoy it"
sadface
sadface
Axis doesn't have the best AT options in the game
10 Sep 2014, 15:56 PM
#47
Posts: 508
At last, a reprieve from the tedious and overpowered Soviet T3/T34-76 meta.
10 Sep 2014, 16:00 PM
#48
Posts: 665
The T-34/76 was fine the way it was. It would lose every time to a p4 unless the p4 fell into a trap/messed up big time.
Maybe they changed it because they want it to be a purely anti infantry deal so players would have to build better tanks? Maybe they want Soviet players to only use call-in armor?
At this point I'm not sure even Relic knows where they want Soviets to be. The faction is all over the place with half its units being very powerful and the other half being almost worthless. Going T3 was already risky enough, with its lack of hard AT, now there are very few situations where you're not better off keeping that fuel for actually competitive call-ins. I mean, you can get an IS-2 the same price (sans like 200 mp) it costs to get T3 + T-34/76, and the IS-2 is a better unit by a very significant margin. Just get T2, stall with Maxims and AT guns, and get your call-ins when you reach the CP cost.
10 Sep 2014, 16:01 PM
#49
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
The T34/76 got a unlisted buff in the last patch. The KV-1 should have 1 sec less reload due to the fact it has a bigger turret and crew, but since they shared the same gun (file wise) this also buffed the T34. This patch fixed this. Should have close to no impact on the game anyways as it's still dominated by call-ins. If the T34/76 is too weak now then it's probably giving a buff. Considering that out of each 30 trials at 10 / 20 / 30 range the T34 won on average 43% of the times vs a PIV (Most on short range, least on long range) I guess it's fine. I know it's not a perfect test and the sample size is small, yet it's the best data I could create without dedicated tools D:
So I guess the change is focused more on forcing a greater number of people to use call-ins in their strategy. I was trying to get away from that, but the moment I do I get this. I've seen no-one complain, or start threads, even talk about the old T-34/76 being OP last patch, more ISU, 85s, etc, etc. So I feel this change, even if it was planned because of it being a mistake last patch(which dafuq, someone seriously needs to be hired to check everything out before a patch is released to make sure at least 90% of the changes were right changes, and not oops we accidentally nerfed or buffed this unit, gonna have to wait 1-2 months until next patch when we fix it, enjoy the meta.
) , should've been ruled out after what was seen over the course of the last patch.
10 Sep 2014, 16:05 PM
#50
Posts: 1217
So the same thing like with the Panzergrens happened to the T-34/76...
Tbh. the thing should go down to about the price of a StuG to be cost-effective.
Tbh. the thing should go down to about the price of a StuG to be cost-effective.
10 Sep 2014, 16:17 PM
#51
Posts: 577
So I guess the change is focused more on forcing a greater number of people to use call-ins in their strategy. I was trying to get away from that, but the moment I do I get this. I've seen no-one complain, or start threads, even talk about the old T-34/76 being OP last patch, more ISU, 85s, etc, etc. So I feel this change, even if it was planned because of it being a mistake last patch(which dafuq, someone seriously needs to be hired to check everything out before a patch is released to make sure at least 90% of the changes were right changes, and not oops we accidentally nerfed or buffed this unit, gonna have to wait 1-2 months until next patch when we fix it, enjoy the meta.
Hmm, dunno. Actually a few people said that they felt the T34/76 was too strong. I just think the majority mostly looks at the changes in the log and what streamers use for their opinions. Since this change was not listed probably close to nobody actually went for T34/76 strategies, as they did not expect it to perform well.
I fully agree on the patching though. Not really great for the Alpha testers as well as they test their one set of changes which then only partly make it into the live patch combined with several unwanted changes and they then take the flak from the community for not properly testing.
10 Sep 2014, 16:19 PM
#52
15 Posts: 164
No one seems to be talking about the fact that its a bug fix for both the T34/76 & the T34/85. Maybe the intent was to affect just the 85? Without a relic staff member commenting I think we're not going to get any answers.
IMHO, direct comparisons from unit A vs unit B (ala T34/76 to Sherman) overlook too many important factors to be useful. Faction tech structure, and the units roll in the factions unit composition are equally important as cost/performance.
IMHO, direct comparisons from unit A vs unit B (ala T34/76 to Sherman) overlook too many important factors to be useful. Faction tech structure, and the units roll in the factions unit composition are equally important as cost/performance.
10 Sep 2014, 16:26 PM
#53
Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41
No one seems to be talking about the fact that its a bug fix for both the T34/76 & the T34/85. Maybe the intent was to affect just the 85? Without a relic staff member commenting I think we're not going to get any answers.
Because it's not. This change only affects the T34/76.
10 Sep 2014, 16:26 PM
#54
Posts: 577
No one seems to be talking about the fact that its a bug fix for both the T34/76 & the T34/85. Maybe the intent was to affect just the 85? Without a relic staff member commenting I think we're not going to get any answers.
See my post earlier. It's just the T34/76.
T34/76 and KV-1 had the same file for the gun. When the KV-1 received a 1 second reload reduction this file was edited, which meant it was also affecting the T34/76. Now this file is split into two separate ones and the T34/76 has it's intended reload back, while the KV-1 still has a 1 second shorter reload.
T34/85 was never touched.
There you have your intent and reasoning and everything. It's a bug fix.
10 Sep 2014, 16:32 PM
#55
15 Posts: 164
Because it's not. This change only affects the T34/76.
See my post earlier. It's just the T34/76.
There you have your intent and reasoning and everything. It's a bug fix.
Thanks for the clarification.
10 Sep 2014, 16:34 PM
#56
Posts: 2053
The KV-1 should have 1 sec less reload due to the fact it has a bigger turret and crew
How does this translate to one second longer reload? Does Relic know the difference in time it takes to reload a t34 as opposed to a KV-1? Is this argument of reload even valid when an IS-2 reloads as fast as a t-34?
Its nothing complicated. They saw that the t34 also shot slightly faster than usual, increased its reload time, and called it a bug fix. Realism of reload time wasnt considered.
10 Sep 2014, 16:52 PM
#57
Posts: 577
Dude, it's not "realism" based but that was one argument used in the discussion. The KV-1 needed to be better than the T34/76 in some way. Penetration and such doesn't really work as that would increase further inaccuracies. Making it reload slightly faster (due to better trained / bigger crew and bigger turret) and a bit more accurate on the move (heavier and slower tank => less prone to vibrations during driving) were changes that would improve it without completely breaking the logic. Realism is never 100% achieved, but if you can make changes that to a degree are logical that is superior to just completely out of the thin air ones.
10 Sep 2014, 16:57 PM
#58
Posts: 2053
Just sounds like making up reasons to me. You shouldnt have to find a reason why Relic does things. When you do, the validity of the change is questionable.
10 Sep 2014, 17:07 PM
#59
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Penetration and such doesn't really work as that would increase further inaccuracies.
*cough*SU-76, ZiS-3*cough*
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.
10 Sep 2014, 17:08 PM
#60
Posts: 542
Well, Relic seems to like doing such things. Like when they increased the setup time of the OKW Flak halftrack (not this patch, but one in the past) or increased Panzer IV call in price even though those units were already underperforming.
Usually a sound plan. First fix unintended things before you try to change the unit for balance to avoid further unintended behaviour in the future. But when you think how chaotic Relic usually works and they don't seem to care about all kinds of weird and unpolished stuff, this becomes nearly funny.
To be fair, a reduced firing rate in comparison to a more expensive Panzer IV doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and it still shoots faster than the dead slow Panther), but the whole tank balance is weird right now and makes the T34/76 unattractive to other options. At least Easy Eight got now a slight nerf.
Usually a sound plan. First fix unintended things before you try to change the unit for balance to avoid further unintended behaviour in the future. But when you think how chaotic Relic usually works and they don't seem to care about all kinds of weird and unpolished stuff, this becomes nearly funny.
To be fair, a reduced firing rate in comparison to a more expensive Panzer IV doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and it still shoots faster than the dead slow Panther), but the whole tank balance is weird right now and makes the T34/76 unattractive to other options. At least Easy Eight got now a slight nerf.
0 user is browsing this thread:
Livestreams
 |
|
|
50 | ||
|
|
|
|
26 | ||
 |
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
106 | ||
 |
|
|
57 | ||
 |
|
|
32 | ||
|
|
|
|
20 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1265
Board Info
1102 users are online:
1102 guests
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50006
Welcome our newest member, Villaloboski
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Villaloboski
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM