Jackson nerf

Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 15:35 PMLago

Fairly sure he meant make M10 nondoc without locking the M36 behind a commander. Replacing the Jackson with the Wolverine would leave you with exactly the same problem as before: one tank destroyer having to fill all the vehicular AT needs of the faction.

Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 16:15 PMEsxile

Nop I was right.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 15:19 PMswordfisch

I actually made an account to discuss this, with the patch british and american armour will be in a pretty pathetic position.

The reason we see centuar and Jackson every game because the allies have nothing else. Comet, Cromewell, m10 were all nerfed without any real price decrease. so they suck, the USF for the longest time just had to rely on OP Cali or pershing every game because of useless old jackson. Meanwhile PIV and panther have seen small power creep with AI buffs and cost decreases.

Brits are fucked unless you feed them a stream of muni for tulips, because the FF just gets overrun the minute the enemy has two stugs and dies.

Only lategame chance USF will have next patch is cheesing OP Pershing and E8 commander every game. So the balance team has basically limited strategies even more.

God damn relic

Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 03:34 AMFiresparks

comet lost its long range a while back. It's only 45 now. It's far from being the british' best anti-tank weapon.

The panther only have 50 range.

Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 19:58 PMswordfisch

Panther, comet and jackson should all be elite armour options with a unique flavor. Panther blends armour, AI and speed. Comet blends less armour and range with better AI. And Jackson should be on the other end of the scale with 10 more range than panther but same health.

With the return of shrek spam next patch you can say goodbye to US AT now the new panther is neatly sheilded by cheap shrek blobs.

Jackson will struggle to get into range and explode like tommy cookers, your idea of a "skirmisher" tank does not fit the US faction at all. They need a solid AT vehicle that has the HP and range to deal with panthers or tigers, not a sissy "skirmisher" that provides another kill notch to shrek PGrens as it blows up in a single volly.

Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 23:27 PMZombiFrancis

Ahem. REEEE.



The limiting factor on PanzerGrenadier's schrecks has always been manpower. Schreck spam was an OKW phenomena. It was all about the manpower (and vet) of volks. PGrens do not have either benefit. Though they may end up getting smoke which is... interesting.

I would be quite shocked to see if somehow Pgren schreck blobs become viable over 20 munitions and a 15% increase in far accuracy.



That'd be three Pgren squads upgraded with schrecks not missing. Six schreck hits to kill a Jackson, incidentally. Up from 4 prior to last patch.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that from your own words it doesn't seem like it's the Panthers or Tigers you're worried about threatening the Jackson (Tank Destroyer)... But infantry.

I think there's a Tin Can for that.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 14:23 PMaerafield

I'm sorry but I won't discuss such ridiculous claims with people who never uploaded a replay nor have their playercard linked

Gives me this suspicion you are one of these 4 digit rank one-side-only players

Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 19:58 PMswordfisch

Panther (((only))) has 50 range you say, well what use is the Jackson when it will be within 5 range of that with paper thin armour and zero AI?

Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2018, 19:58 PMswordfisch

Jackson will struggle to get into range and explode like tommy cookers, your idea of a "skirmisher" tank does not fit the US faction at all. They need a solid AT vehicle that has the HP and range to deal with panthers or tigers, not a sissy "skirmisher" that provides another kill notch to shrek PGrens as it blows up in a single volly.

Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 02:35 AMKermitjames

Enough of this card crap I have 1,000+ hours and my card is bare. I play pvp and custom games with friends always have always will. The player card should not immediately judge whether the persons opinion is invalidated. Listen to his words and argument instead of a virtual card that isn’t always reliable.

Irl just because your older or have a degree doesn’t make u better then everyone else. Experience for the most part trumps all.

Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 08:34 AMaerafield

Fact is, a playercard is -apart from watching an actual match of said person- the best indicator about a person's skill in the modes (1v1-4v4) this person is playing. And ofc it is extremely important in balance discussions.

Why on earth would you balance the game around a skill level where 99% of the issues have nothing to do with unit imbalance, but just lack of knowledge and lack of micro instead?! "Imbalance" is just being used as an excuse for horrible micro and strategies a lot there.

Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 08:47 AMVipper

No it is not.

The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position.

Using a completely random example:

SU-76's XP value is too low weather is it VonIvan who makes the claim or Helsche87. (names are chosen to serve as an example, nothing personal with either player).

Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 10:13 AMLago

"The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position."

Of course it does. People's balance opinions are usually informed by their ingame experiences. At very low levels the MG42 absurdly powerful: players don't know how to flank them effectively so their main weakness (fixed firing arc) doesn't come into play. It's as if all enemy MGs have 360 degree firing arcs.

If they're the type of player that's inclined to believe the game is unfair instead of believing they're not playing optimally then that experience will lead them to conclude the MG42 is obscenely overpowered.

Take your specific example,

"SU-76's XP value is too low"

Take a player that's bad with the SU-76. When they use it they don't react fast enough to enemy AT and it dies. As a result they play overcautiously and it never really kills anything. As a result, they respond to your opinion with "No, the SU-76/M vets up too slowly." How do you prove them wrong?

Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 08:47 AMVipper

No it is not.

The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position.

Using a completely random example:

SU-76's XP value is too low weather is it VonIvan who makes the claim or Helsche87. (names are chosen to serve as an example, nothing personal with either player).

Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 10:21 AMCartoonVillain

Yes and no. Of course, you are less likely to have the "right" opinion if you play exclusively against the AI for example, but the opinion needs to be evaluated on the merits of the arguments, not on the player's ladder rank. In real life this is called a strawman argument and is a well-known logical fallacy.

In other words, if a player that exclusively plays against AI has the exact same opinion about balance than a top 10 ladder player, is his opinion right or wrong?"

Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2018, 10:29 AMLago

In real life this is called a strawman argument and is a well-known logical fallacy.

A strawman argument is when you create the opposing argument you disprove. You're thinking of ad hominem.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.