Login

russian armor

M10 call-in is too strong compared to Puma call-in

27 Apr 2016, 16:45 PM
#41
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384



Meta changes as a direct response to patches. Granted, there may be organic shifts in the meta but most come from buffs & nerfs.


No, it can actually change quite a bit without any patches. A great example is Brood war, which evolved constantly despite a lack of balance patches because the competitive scene encouraged coming up with new builds.

Coh2 lacks an evolving metagame because it lacks creative and innovative players.
27 Apr 2016, 17:24 PM
#42
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

Penetration is a bit lowish for an AT unit could use a penetration buff
27 Apr 2016, 18:49 PM
#43
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

It took how many years for people to figure out that veterancy wasn't working on reinforced models



4/5 months IIRC. It was introduced when they tried to fix support weapon and superman kind of bugs.
27 Apr 2016, 21:26 PM
#44
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2016, 17:24 PMZyllen
Penetration is a bit lowish for an AT unit could use a penetration buff


You are joking, right?

Puma is pretty much a miniature version of the panther, and if you vet it you can easily deal with shermans and t34s
27 Apr 2016, 21:42 PM
#45
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

Coh2 lacks an evolving metagame because it lacks creative and innovative players.


I don't think you understand the differences between Broodwar and CoH2 very much.
27 Apr 2016, 22:01 PM
#46
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2016, 21:26 PMzerocoh


You are joking, right?

Puma is pretty much a miniature version of the panther, and if you vet it you can easily deal with shermans and t34s


yeah with 80 penetration long range ( which causes more then 50 % of all shots to bounce on all mediums) i can hardly call it a mini panther.

now the m10 being doctrinal and being a bit more cost effective is good but it nearly has 2 times more penetration more hp is immune to bullets and with flanking speed and hvap rounds is a very serious threat to German heavies.
27 Apr 2016, 22:10 PM
#47
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Dedicated tank destroyer at 8 cp is stronger then stock armored car dedicated to counter light armor and some med tanks arriving at 6cp.

More news at 11.

27 Apr 2016, 22:13 PM
#48
avatar of Kamzil118

Posts: 455

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2016, 22:10 PMKatitof
Dedicated tank destroyer at 8 cp is stronger then stock armored car dedicated to counter light armor and some med tanks and arriving at 6cp.

More news at 11.
LOL, you just made my day.
28 Apr 2016, 04:54 AM
#49
avatar of LuGer33

Posts: 174

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2016, 22:10 PMKatitof
Dedicated tank destroyer at 8 cp is stronger then stock armored car dedicated to counter light armor and some med tanks arriving at 6cp.

More news at 11.


Perfect response to the post above you complaining that the M10 has more penetration than the Puma.
28 Apr 2016, 05:05 AM
#50
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Apr 2016, 04:54 AMLuGer33

Perfect response to the post above you complaining that the M10 has more penetration than the Puma.


Well if the puma was somewhat cheaper i would agree with you. the thing is its nearly as expensive as a m10. now i do not mind one unit being better then the other unit but this is rather a large difference in efficiency. So once again you and katitof fail but that's fairly common.
28 Apr 2016, 06:43 AM
#51
avatar of LuGer33

Posts: 174

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Apr 2016, 05:05 AMZyllen


Well if the puma was somewhat cheaper i would agree with you. the thing is its nearly as expensive as a m10. now i do not mind one unit being better then the other unit but this is rather a large difference in efficiency. So once again you and katitof fail but that's fairly common.


Yeah but they don't share the same role. The M10 is a cheap and efficient tank destroyer and the Puma is intended more as a hard counter to Allied light vehicles that can also help kill medium armor like the AEC. Their costs may not reflect their performance perfectly relative to one another but so what? Those little imbalances exist all over the game.

You're gonna tell me the 4-man .50 cal HMG should be 280 MP while the MG42 is only 260? Or that the 222 should be 280 / 15 while the M20 Utility Car is a whopping 340 / 20?

It's not like OST doesn't have their own cheap tank destroyer already - the Stug, that with target weak point can practically 1v1 a Pershing.

I guess I just don't get why the M10 being "better" than the Puma is an issue given their defined roles.
28 Apr 2016, 06:53 AM
#52
avatar of squippy

Posts: 484

Unit costs really shouldn't be compared directly with units in other factions. What the costs really govern is how soon a unit comes out, and how many of them can be brought out. So what really matters is how the costs for that unit fit into the resources available to that faction.

Direct comparisons with other, similar units may seem like the obvious thing to do, but it isn't really relevant to the issue at hand.
28 Apr 2016, 07:17 AM
#53
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

Look i would agree with what kat said if it wasn't that the puma suffer from the same problem as all axis tank
Low accuracy ,big target size
28 Apr 2016, 07:25 AM
#54
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Look i would agree with what kat said if it wasn't that the puma suffer from the same problem as all axis tank
Low accuracy ,big target size

Puma has exactly the same long range accuracy as M10.
Only near accuracy is lower, but scatter hits make it not noticeable anyway.
Target size argument also goes out of the window, its bigger then M20, its smaller then M15, its equal to AEC and light tanks, nothing unexpected here and inconsistent with other units of that tier.
28 Apr 2016, 08:34 AM
#55
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

Look i would agree with what kat said if it wasn't that the puma suffer from the same problem as all axis tank
Low accuracy ,big target size

Hm? It's smaller than M10, SU-76, M15A1, Stuart, and it's the same size as Luchs, T-70 & AEC. Pretty sure only the glass cars like Kubel and WC51 are smaller than that.
28 Apr 2016, 12:53 PM
#56
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Apr 2016, 06:43 AMLuGer33


Yeah but they don't share the same role.
The M10 is a cheap and efficient tank destroyer and the Puma is intended more as a hard counter to Allied light vehicles that can also help kill medium armor like the AEC.


Its a matter of opinion what it is but it is ether underpowered medium tank hunter or a way overpriced hardcounter to lv's


Their costs may not reflect their performance perfectly relative to one another but so what? Those little imbalances exist all over the game.
You're gonna tell me the 4-man .50 cal HMG should be 280 MP while the MG42 is only 260? Or that the 222 should be 280 / 15 while the M20 Utility Car is a whopping 340 / 20?


20 mp more or less for an unit that performs more or less the same. but if i stick to the stats of the m10 vs puma to the mg42 vs 50 call matchup the 50 call would have double the dps , a 6man squad with sprint and incendiary ammo . As i said before the puma really is not doing a good job for its price.


It's not like OST doesn't have their own cheap tank destroyer already - the Stug, that with target weak point can practically 1v1 a Pershing.


utterly irrelevant why take a stug when you can have a panther ? because they are 2 completely different TD's


I guess I just don't get why the M10 being "better" than the Puma is an issue given their defined roles.


You are not incorrect their is more to balance then just looking at 2 units and their stats. but the cost inefficiency of the puma is so blatantly bad that i believe that it needs a penetration buff
28 Apr 2016, 12:56 PM
#57
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Apr 2016, 12:53 PMZyllen

[...]
why take a stug when you can have a panther ?
[...]

lel
28 Apr 2016, 14:40 PM
#58
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


lel

You need to forgive him.

He never lasted long enough in multiplayer game to meet churchill.
28 Apr 2016, 14:45 PM
#59
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Apr 2016, 14:40 PMKatitof

You need to forgive him.

He never lasted long enough in multiplayer game to meet churchill.

Actually, I've noticed that I've kinda pulled that phrase out of context.
His point was valid (about unit diversity), but still doesn't explains why Puma should be more cost efficient.
28 Apr 2016, 14:51 PM
#60
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


Actually, I've noticed that I've kinda pulled that phrase out of context.
His point was valid (about unit diversity), but still doesn't explains why Puma should be more cost efficient.

And he won't be able to.

Puma is armored car fitted with outdated, pre war gun.
M10 is actually armored vehicle fitted with actual anti tank gun made during the war.

Puma arrives earlier and is cheaper, its lower penetration at long range is the only thing keeping it from becoming op, up close its dangerous to all tanks but heaviest ones, it has smoke, it has TWP and great scaling which boosts its damage up to normal TD level of 160.

That is like comparing T34 to Tiger and complaining that T34 is weaker.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

235 users are online: 235 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49210
Welcome our newest member, Shunnarah
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM