Login

russian armor

Why the flamer HT is not addressed in WBP?

14 Dec 2016, 02:54 AM
#1
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392

Nerfing most of its counterpart and ally light vehicle to a nearly useless state but keep this squad wiper machine remain its lethality?What kind of balance is that?
14 Dec 2016, 03:07 AM
#2
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928


If it's wiping your squads then you are way out of position and not well prepared.
14 Dec 2016, 03:12 AM
#3
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392


If it's wiping your squads then you are way out of position and not well prepared.


So all the light vehicles should not be nerffed by applying this shit theory.
14 Dec 2016, 03:15 AM
#4
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

So all the light vehicles should not be nerffed by applying this shit theory.


It doesn't have the DPS to wipe unless you're not paying attention, or way overextended.
14 Dec 2016, 03:27 AM
#5
avatar of Mistah_S

Posts: 851 | Subs: 1

OP, you are kidding right?

Just keep your distance man
14 Dec 2016, 03:37 AM
#6
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392

OP, you are kidding right?

Just keep your distance man

We are talking about balace, right?
Why do they nerf M20,M15 AA,M5 Quad, Luch and T70 in WBP while you can just keep your distance or build an ATG to prevent them from wiping your squad or counter them?

I would like to quote the reasons in WBP to nerf these unit.

M17 Quad:
"We wanted to tone down the performance of the Quad to be in-line with Light Tanks and other suppression platforms. In order to make infantry counters to this unit viable, the M17 can no longer suppress enemy squads on the move."from WBP

Just keep your distance man?

T70:
"We feel that the T-70’s high damage and AOE allowed it to wipe infantry too effectively, particularly if they are clumped in cover."from WBP

Just keep your distance man again?

The flamer HT's high damage and DOT also allowed it to wipe infantry too effectively particular if they are clumped in buildings and covers. lollll

The patch is too stupid, nothing to say more.

14 Dec 2016, 03:38 AM
#7
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392



It doesn't have the DPS to wipe unless you're not paying attention, or way overextended.


Every light vehicle get nerf in WBP also don't have the DPS to wipe unless you're not paying attention, or way overextended.
14 Dec 2016, 03:43 AM
#8
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

M17 Quad:
"We wanted to tone down the performance of the Quad to be in-line with Light Tanks and other suppression platforms. In order to make infantry counters to this unit viable, the M17 can no longer suppress enemy squads on the move."from WBP

Just keep your distance man?

T70:
"We feel that the T-70’s high damage and AOE allowed it to wipe infantry too effectively, particularly if they are clumped in cover."from WBP

Just keep your distance man again?


The M17 AAHT had instant suppression and full mobility, which while you could retreat from, was unfair because it was a almost a force-retreat on any infantry it could see. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the T-70 because it was a glass cannon, but it did have very good DPS and could wipe a retreating squad if it got a few good hits in. The Flame Half-Track is neither of these things and has half the range as well. It is a non-issue.
14 Dec 2016, 06:29 AM
#9
avatar of frostbite

Posts: 593

flameht does to much dmg to units in buildings and also has to much dps
14 Dec 2016, 06:37 AM
#10
avatar of MoerserKarL
Donator 22

Posts: 1108

there is no problem with the flame ht. Maybe a l2p issue here.
14 Dec 2016, 06:54 AM
#11
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

how often do you lose models/ squads to a grenade/ mortar?
how often do you lose models/squads to a Molotov
there is your answer why
burst damage relying on RNG (goes both ways)
flame damage relies on your enemy sticking around and getting burned
the counterplay for a FHT is to move, for other lights it was retreating
14 Dec 2016, 10:24 AM
#12
14 Dec 2016, 10:48 AM
#13
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392

how often do you lose models/ squads to a grenade/ mortar?
how often do you lose models/squads to a Molotov
there is your answer why
burst damage relying on RNG (goes both ways)
flame damage relies on your enemy sticking around and getting burned
the counterplay for a FHT is to move, for other lights it was retreating


Air supremacy before totally relies on enemy sticking around on a big red circle on map, hence it get nerfed, why?

P47 totally relies on enemy's tank AFKing, but it get nerfed, why?

WASP before totally relies on enemy sticking around also, yet it get nrefed, why?

The counterplay of the above examples is to move only and they all get nerfed due to axis players whining.

Well, I finally notice complaining Axis unit is not acceptable on the forum. I am guilty ,sorry.
14 Dec 2016, 10:55 AM
#14
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392



The M17 AAHT had instant suppression and full mobility, which while you could retreat from, was unfair because it was a almost a force-retreat on any infantry it could see. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the T-70 because it was a glass cannon, but it did have very good DPS and could wipe a retreating squad if it got a few good hits in. The Flame Half-Track is neither of these things and has half the range as well. It is a non-issue.


The flame HT is more lethal and potent than you think of. Actually its damage output is even more consistent than T-70. It can wipe a retreating squad and have very good DPS that totally not rely on RNG and can 100% wipe out garrisoned team weapon that can't leave the building before the first hit.
14 Dec 2016, 12:24 PM
#15
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

The only conceivable issue with the flamer HT is the amount of damage it deals to an enemy squad, if they are garrisoned (damage is high enough, that the squad might be dead by the 2nd burst).

Elsewhere, it's a fragile, high-cost, high-risk investment.

Technically the flamerHT has been nerfed in three ways, though, indirectly:
- Improvements to squad spacing (obviously doesn't affect garrisoned squads)
- Availability of 222. If you go flamerHT, you probably can't afford the necessary 222's needed to protect your flanks.
- Soviets and Brits now get better access to anti-vehicle capability regardless of tier pick (Penal PTRS, UKF PIATs, UKF AEC)

I don't think that anti-garrison damage is such a major concern though. We will try to address this more thoroughly though in the future, if/when we are given the chance to normalize flamer-vehicle damage across the board (Flamehetzer :foreveralone: )

14 Dec 2016, 13:36 PM
#16
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
Guy are right, flame HT are hight damage unit.
14 Dec 2016, 15:24 PM
#17
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

OP you have gotten some good feedback here, especially in Mr. Smith's comment. If you are having problems with the FHT still please post in the Replay Review section of the forum. My feeling on this unit is that it is completely fine and its power is well moderated by its low health and high vulnerability.
14 Dec 2016, 15:32 PM
#18
avatar of empyriumm

Posts: 51

OP you have gotten some good feedback here, especially in Mr. Smith's comment. If you are having problems with the FHT still please post in the Replay Review section of the forum. My feeling on this unit is that it is completely fine and its power is well moderated by its low health and high vulnerability.


+1
15 Dec 2016, 01:32 AM
#19
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392

OP you have gotten some good feedback here, especially in Mr. Smith's comment. If you are having problems with the FHT still please post in the Replay Review section of the forum. My feeling on this unit is that it is completely fine and its power is well moderated by its low health and high vulnerability.


This is a balance issue. I can deal with it doesn't mean anything. It will be simply op when compare to other nerfed light vehicle in WBP.
15 Dec 2016, 02:02 AM
#20
avatar of William Christensen

Posts: 401

Just a thought: To be honest, everything that has flamer equipped while also having good mobility/flexility are just not really good for balance. I mean, Rifleman with flamer got remove due to the squad's good mobility and utility, now Penals Battalion is getting its flamer remove since they have similar problem (good mobility + all-round range when get flamer). In my opinion, the UC/Hetzer/Flamer HT/Crocodile shouldn't be a thing (Well, it already is, but seriously, the problems they created are far more worse than Rifle/Penals with flamer):‎
- The UC can be easily dealt with LVs, but then you'll have to rush LVs, which relatively starts the whole LV meta (Not saying it's the direct reason, just a small contribution to it)
- The flamer HT basically has the same problem like the UC, while also has more lethality that the UC (300 degree turning guns while faster than the UC). To be honest, I would rather want to see the 251 being a small-arm-immunity reinforcement halftrack with no flamer upgrade. Maybe give it a 38mm AT upgrade (Basically the Raketen on top of its now open top when upgraded) rather than the flamer.
- Hetzer got its limited turret-cone like the UC, but seeing it can take down one of its counterpart easily (AT guns), it's one of many reason why you rather rush for tanks than get AT guns.
- The Churchill Crocodile has the same problem like the Hetzer, except being way more bucky, which make it less risky when yolo charging than the Hetzer. ‎
In all honesty, Flamer should only be issues to Engineer units and incendiary barrage for mortar units. ‎
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

231 users are online: 231 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48732
Welcome our newest member, strzlagx81
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM