Tank Destroyer Time to Kill stats

It wasn't a flame topic nor was it off topic.

Your moderation action was just as poor quality as the OP's analysis. What it is, is a shining example of how utterly lame this board is. Censorship, corruption and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

You're trapped in a groundhog day cycle of hating on and loving the game you play, hating and loving the people that play it, hating and loving the dev team. There's no growth. Even posts that point out how people can improve their analysis get invisi'd.

Pathetic!

Your post has been reported as offensive multiple times. You could have worded your statement a lot more helpful. Instead you chose to go for unnecessary defamation. If you still have problems with that, pm me.

Quick question, why would your opponent start massing unturreted Tank Destroyers if you're building unturreted Tank Destroyers or vice versa?

If I saw my opponent building SU85s I'd build a few paks or get pgrens with schrecks instead of StuGs.

Not what I do. A StuG III almost hard counters the new SU-85 with the slower rate of fire.

If somebody believes that there's any single datapoint missing from my table, please, state, concretely what that is (e.g., "why didn't you include the performance of Command Panther without mark target on?" -- in fact I have; it performs exactly the same as the vanilla Panther). I believe I have included the performance of all mentionworthy tanks, when both when their abilities are used, and without.

I just wonder why you add Firefly with tulip. That thing costs 150 ammo just to fire once. The said ammo can be used by axis with stun shot and stuka anti-tank/cas.

Firefly without tulip is just an overpriced M36. Without it, everyone will just use comet/cromwell for better efficiency.

With that, I have really bad impression of your OP. Sorry for misunderstanding last time again.

I just wonder why you add Firefly with tulip. That thing costs 150 ammo just to fire once. The said ammo can be used by axis with stun shot and stuka anti-tank/cas.

Firefly without tulip is just an overpriced M36. Without it, everyone will just use comet/cromwell for better efficiency.

With that, I have really bad impression of your OP. Sorry for misunderstanding last time again.

Since when is more information bad?

- This is about tank destroyer dps, so stuka CAS is not a factor
- Tulips are available vet 0 and change the dps from the base model significantly if it hits; therefore he shows both values
- TWP doesn't change the fire rate or damage, it's a standard shot with more penetration. The turret lock itself doesn't impact dps in this model, neither does the tulip stun

Are you just looking for things to be mad about?

I'd love to see how long it takes the TD to kill other TDs

Not what I do. A StuG III almost hard counters the new SU-85 with the slower rate of fire.

Fair point, but like you said, it only 'almost' hard counters.

Since when is more information bad?

- This is about tank destroyer dps, so stuka CAS is not a factor
- Tulips are available vet 0 and change the dps from the base model significantly if it hits; therefore he shows both values
- TWP doesn't change the fire rate or damage, it's a standard shot with more penetration. The turret lock itself doesn't impact dps in this model, neither does the tulip stun

Are you just looking for things to be mad about?

"More information" is bad since there is significantly lack of information about this "More information". 150 munition is not easy to earn.

And is this game World of Tank Destroyer? We can include anything available to aid tank destroyer if tulip is included.

And last, I ask OP, not your consideration, thanks.

I just wonder why you add Firefly with tulip. That thing costs 150 ammo just to fire once. The said ammo can be used by axis with stun shot and stuka anti-tank/cas.

Firefly without tulip is just an overpriced M36. Without it, everyone will just use comet/cromwell for better efficiency.

With that, I have really bad impression of your OP. Sorry for misunderstanding last time again.

The reason I added Firefly with Tulips is because, from my experience, it appears that Tulips enable the Firefly (with the reduced reload time, and the vet bonuses on top of that) to deal a ridiculous amount of damage in very short time.

To provide the time-to-kill stats of the Firefly, without also providing the time-to-kill stats of the Firefly with Tulips (which is such a commonly-used ability) would leave a gaping hole in in the dataset. This is why I include both Firefly with tulips and firefly without tulips.

Finally, note that I am also providing data for how those TDs perform when paired (where alpha-strike damage is crucial). From my experience, even pre-patch Fireflies would perform well for their cost when two of them are involved.

I am merely providing the data, where there was none available before. People can form their own subjective opinions about it. However, now, behind those opinions there will be hard data to support or disprove those opinions.

Finally, and most importantly, this thread is not necessarily directed at people that want to read some numbers, and then argue about said numbers. It's also for new players, to help them guide towards which TDs they should be favouring, and which abilities they should be using. e.g.,:
- Do I get my value for money when I use M10 HVAP shells? (no you don't, you should be flanking)
- If I am in a team with a USF player and a UKF player, should we be building Fireflies or should we be building Jacksons instead?

PS: You are right that I should include TWP and Pershing HVAP in my table. I just didn't have the time.

The reason I added Firefly with Tulips is because, from my experience, it appears that Tulips enable the Firefly (with the reduced reload time, and the vet bonuses on top of that) to deal a ridiculous amount of damage in very short time.

To provide the time-to-kill stats of the Firefly, without also providing the time-to-kill stats of the Firefly with Tulips (which is such a commonly-used ability) would leave a gaping hole in in the dataset. This is why I include both Firefly with tulips and firefly without tulips.

Finally, note that I am also providing data for how those TDs perform when paired (where alpha-strike damage is crucial). From my experience, even pre-patch Fireflies would perform well for their cost when two of them are involved.

I am merely providing the data, where there was none available before. People can form their own subjective opinions about it. However, now, behind those opinions there will be hard data to support or disprove those opinions.

Finally, and most importantly, this thread is not necessarily directed at people that want to read some numbers, and then argue about said numbers. It's also for new players, to help them guide towards which TDs they should be favouring, and which abilities they should be using. e.g.,:
- Do I get my value for money when I use M10 HVAP shells? (no you don't, you should be flanking)
- If I am in a team with a USF player and a UKF player, should we be building Fireflies or should we be building Jacksons instead?

PS: You are right that I should include TWP and Pershing HVAP in my table. I just didn't have the time.

Hmm, okay, I understand why you put tulip in.

What's about last conclusion about "- The Firefly probably doesn't need its Tulips that much anymore"? Could you elaborate further the reason?

Hmm, okay, I understand why you put tulip in.

What's about last conclusion about "- The Firefly probably doesn't need its Tulips that much anymore"? Could you elaborate further the reason?

I see what you mean. It was a faux-pas on my behalf, cramming subjective conclusions with the data I presented.

What I meant with my statement is that the Firefly doesn't really require the current implementation of the Tulip to be useful:
- The Tulip should not be stunning tanks (at best it should prevent them from firing)
- With the cost and cooldown decrease, I would say that the Tulip has become extremely accessible.
- Personally, pre-patch, I would think twice before using tulips. Now (post-patch), I spam them to smack snipers, or infantry squads clumping in cover. (tulips could use some inaccuracy to prevent squad-wipes)
- Given the synergy of Tulip damage-dealing with the Tank Commander, the Tulip has become a near no-brainer.

I can understand, people call tulips broken coz thay stun, but another stuff that can stun for them are fine ?

I can understand, people call tulips broken coz thay stun, but another stuff that can stun for them are fine ?

Kitekaze asked me about the Tulips. I replied to him about the Tulips. I believe that diving straight to the point raised is more efficient than trying to raise every single issue that might, or might not be related to the issue.

Instead if I had answered, to him, something along the lines of:
- I believe Tulip to be OP because it is too cheap for what it offers
- Pak40, which also stuns is a bit OP, since you deal more damage in addition to stunning, and costs very little.
- AEC and Stug shouldn't have such a powerful debuff either, since both units are too cheap compared to the targets that they can potentially disable
- I also consider Sturmtiger debuffs (permanent immobilization) way too much for the durability of the unit
- The Sturmtiger wiping radius is big; but it's definitely not as big, or powerful, as the Stuka Dive LolBomb
- Speaking of which, demo charges are also bad for the game because they wipe things
- However, if I had to compare Soviet generalist mines, and OST Teller mines, I would go for the Teller mines, now that mine-wipes have been fixed.

.. then, I believe that the message would have been lost, the thread would get derailed, and everybody would (rightfully) think I was a raving lunatic.

Moreover, this wouldn't serve any single purpose on a topic which is explicitly about sharing the raw performance of tank-destroyers.

Kitekaze asked me about the Tulips. I replied to him about the Tulips. I believe that diving straight to the point raised is more efficient than trying to raise every single issue that might, or might not be related to the issue.

Instead if I had answered, to him, something along the lines of:
- I believe Tulip to be OP because it is too cheap for what it offers
- Pak40, which also stuns is a bit OP, since you deal more damage in addition to stunning, and costs very little.
- AEC and Stug shouldn't have such a powerful debuff either, since both units are too cheap compared to the targets that they can potentially disable
- I also consider Sturmtiger debuffs (permanent immobilization) way too much for the durability of the unit
- The Sturmtiger wiping radius is big; but it's definitely not as big, or powerful, as the Stuka Dive LolBomb
- Speaking of which, demo charges are also bad for the game because they wipe things
- However, if I had to compare Soviet generalist mines, and OST Teller mines, I would go for the Teller mines, now that mine-wipes have been fixed.

.. then, I believe that the message would have been lost, the thread would get derailed, and everybody would (rightfully) think I was a raving lunatic.

Moreover, this wouldn't serve any single purpose on a topic which is explicitly about sharing the raw performance of tank-destroyers.

KK.

- However, if I had to compare Soviet generalist mines, and OST Teller mines, I would go for the Teller mines, now that mine-wipes have been fixed.

That argument would make sense, if Tellermines weren't bugged to hell, causing them to never work on British vehicles, while also not working on Soviet and US vehicles about 20% of the time.
There is basically no sense in using Tellermines right now, because Relic doesn't bother with fixing them (that bug has existed since at least the closed Alpha for the British Forces).

Sorry smith would you mind giving me the stats for the puma too ?

I find this relatively meaningless considering a panther for instance misses most shots when moving, same is true about the puma.

Sorry smith would you mind giving me the stats for the puma too ?

Sure.

TARGET
IS2:            217.55 - 270.85  116.80 - 153.43  106.85 - 135.55  56.86 - 76.84   
KT:             258.55 - 315.95  153.43 - 190.06  127.35 - 156.05  76.84 - 93.49   
Churchill:      188.85 - 225.75  96.82 - 123.46   94.55 - 110.95   46.87 - 60.19 
Tiger           168.35 - 213.45  93.49 - 120.13   82.25 - 106.85   46.87 - 60.19   
Pershing        139.65 - 180.65  83.50 - 110.14   69.95 - 90.45    40.21 - 53.53   
Panther Vet2    188.85 - 242.15  116.80 - 153.43  94.55 - 119.15   56.86 - 76.84   

Though, note that:
1. The Puma has one of the widest divergences in the game when it comes to penetration. Penetration for puma goes from 160, at point-blank range to 80 at max-range (which is what the stats show). (Panzer4, penetration, e.g., goes from 120 to 100)

2. I don't know how to apply the range-modifications properly, thus I haven't applied it at all. Thus, effectively, I am giving you the Vet3 puma stats. Depending how range-increase veterancy affects the distances, this could also affect penetration. However, I don't know!

I find this relatively meaningless considering a panther for instance misses most shots when moving, same is true about the puma.

Against the big cats, very few of those shots would ever really miss, even when the firing unit is moving.

Against the big cats, very few of those shots would ever really miss, even when the firing unit is moving.

Fair enough, probably true it's still relevant against single, large targets. But for anything from Pershing downwards it does miss a lot when moving from my experience.

I'd love to see how long it takes the TD to kill other TDs

I know as a fact that JP4 kills SU85 100% of the times, and before the SU changes even a vet3 SU couldn't kill a vet0 JP.

Stug g arrives at the time of t70, even light su76 is ussualy latter than stug. But they compare it to su85 still