Login

russian armor

Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (11)down
2 Dec 2018, 04:51 AM
#1
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
Well, there's no balance patch but the little boys at Relic or the balance team whoever is responsible thought it was ok to triple nerf the Brum with no room for user feedback. Haven't you guys learned your lesson about drastic changes are the worst changes? Yes, there were a lot of players crying about OP Brum. IS THAT ANYTHING NEW? People cry about stuff all the time on both sides. Just temporarily ignore them and wait for the next balance patch to fix things. If you're gonna touch the mechanics of a unit, do it in a balance patch. It's clear that this change was a big fuck you to all Ost players because we can't have a good Ost unit while the other factions run wild. For example, the bal team took their sweet time to fix the broken OP USF mortar at release. It took them THREE patches to fully fix the damn thing. But did somebody say Ost unit OP. Quick! Hit the nerf button several times. That is only one example of bias. I can go on and on.....

Seriously people who are complaining haven't used a Brum themselves. Many have said it already, but a Brum is on par with Sherman HE when allowed to free fire. It's better when inf is stationary and worse than Sherman against moving inf. Its only better than Sherman if the player uses hold fire and attack grounding EVERY DAMN SHOT. And if the Brum does well because EVERY DAMN SHOT is micro managed, THE OST PLAYER DESERVES THE EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE. Whereas Sherman is the easiest medium tank to micro in the game. And the fact that the Sherman has AP rounds and can defend itself against armor a lot more easily than a Brum, you'll see that the Brum is barely overpowered.

I think the Brum needed just a very small adjustment. The range nerf from 40 to 35 is sufficient. The armor nerf was uncalled for. This is effectively a double nerf to survivability. Less attack range and less armor expose the Brum much more. I think the shell speed should be very slightly increase to partially compensate for reduced range.

Now both AI tanks for Ost are not worth the price. Despite several logical posts of the new Ostwind being just as bad as the old version of the Ostwind over the course of a year, Relic and bal team have done nothing. It would be nice if your enthusiasm for buffing units matches the nerfs you're handing out.
2 Dec 2018, 05:04 AM
#2
avatar of NaOCl

Posts: 378

Snip.


The Brummbar was way too strong though.
2 Dec 2018, 05:30 AM
#3
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1


Seriously people who are complaining haven't used a Brum themselves. Many have said it already, but a Brum is on par with Sherman HE when allowed to free fire.


LOL
2 Dec 2018, 05:32 AM
#4
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned


LOL


What's so funny about facts?
2 Dec 2018, 05:33 AM
#5
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 05:04 AMNaOCl


The Brummbar was way too strong though.


"way" too strong. lol allied players need to get used to Ost actually getting Tier 4 these days when the panther is finally not a peice of shit and the Stug has been slightly overnerfed.
2 Dec 2018, 05:36 AM
#6
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
The complaints about hte Brum is the same as the complaints about the 222. The 222 spam meta was dead in a month because allied players especially the USF/SU players finally located the "buy at gun" button on the screen instead of thinking a single zook or pair of ptrs is gonna hold back double 222s. Allies have more than enough tools to deal with the old Brum. To sum it up the complaining is simply EXAGGERATION.
2 Dec 2018, 05:43 AM
#7
avatar of NaOCl

Posts: 378

The complaints about hte Brum is the same as the complaints about the 222. The 222 spam meta was dead in a month because allied players especially the USF/SU players finally located the "buy at gun" button on the screen instead of thinking a single zook or pair of ptrs is gonna hold back double 222s. Allies have more than enough tools to deal with the old Brum. To sum it up the complaining is simply EXAGGERATION.


The 222 is cancer against brits and wipes retreating squads way too easily.

Brum often 1-shots AT guns

It needed lower armour.
2 Dec 2018, 05:44 AM
#8
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

This thread could use more technical details and proper writing styles.

The micro is not crazy for the Brummbar as getting glanced you take 32 points of damage vs the Sherman's 16 and has an AOE of 6 vs 4. The projectile only truly suffers if it needs to lob over obstacles where the projectile arcs and slows greatly.

Furthermore, the Brummbar has fairly low damage degradation over its AOE at 56 points of damage going to 32 points past 1.25m to 6m; this is superior to the Sherman's 56 points at 1.25m going to 16 points at 2.25m. The Brummbar also has a slightly bigger OHK radius as its degradation starts at 0.625 rather than 0.5; Sherman shells also still have much greater scatter.

Brummbars, however, you're not getting for durability. You get them for reliable anti-infantry firepower. It might be a late tier unit, but it's also one of the most reliable units for destroying veteran infantry thanks to its deadly AOE and lack of scatter and can even snipe anti-tank guns. It still excels in point-hold situations and defense where infantry are forced to advanced towards it and attacking stationary targets. It's only a little bit more vulnerable because unlike flame tanks, it dumps all its damage in a single shot allowing it to roll up to a target and roll back with impunity.

That will be all.
2 Dec 2018, 05:55 AM
#9
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
This thread could use more technical details and proper writing styles.

The micro is not crazy for the Brummbar as getting glanced you take 32 points of damage vs the Sherman's 16 and has an AOE of 6 vs 4. The projectile only truly suffers if it needs to lob over obstacles where the projectile arcs and slows greatly.

Furthermore, the Brummbar has fairly low damage degradation over its AOE at 56 points of damage going to 32 points past 1.25m to 6m; this is superior to the Sherman's 56 points at 1.25m going to 16 points at 2.25m. The Brummbar also has a slightly bigger OHK radius as its degradation starts at 0.625 rather than 0.5; Sherman shells also still have much greater scatter.

Brummbars, however, you're not getting for durability. You get them for reliable anti-infantry firepower. It might be a late tier unit, but it's also one of the most reliable units for destroying veteran infantry thanks to its deadly AOE and lack of scatter and can even snipe anti-tank guns. It still excels in point-hold situations and defense where infantry are forced to advanced towards it and attacking stationary targets. It's only a little bit more vulnerable because unlike flame tanks, it dumps all its damage in a single shot allowing it to roll up to a target and roll back with impunity.

That will be all.


Hold fire attack ground micro does require some skill vs moving infantry. You need to predict where the inf will move and count in your head the reload times and them calculate how far the infantry will move until the Brum has finished reloading. Quite a bit of thinking to fire a shot.

I DO get Brum for durability. Tell me another anti-inf unit in the Ost roster that is more durable than the Brum. I get Brum because the Ostwind is crap. You basically need to use the Ostwind like a light tank because a t70 can reliably penetrate it. It's so scared of anything that is not pure anti-inf infantry and hence you have to be over cautious with it.

I know everyone likes to roll forward and back with the brum and max range snipe a stationary squad. The range nerf alone will make it harder for brum users to do that. There's no need for armor and vet 1 nerfs.

The vet 1 nerfs are basically turning it into an ability where only the first shell matters. Just like the overpriced railway arty. Only first shell matters.

2 Dec 2018, 05:59 AM
#10
avatar of Justin xv

Posts: 255

This should be a bannable offense. This entire post.
2 Dec 2018, 06:00 AM
#11
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 05:43 AMNaOCl


The 222 is cancer against brits and wipes retreating squads way too easily.

Brum often 1-shots AT guns

It needed lower armour.


Brum 2 shots full health at gun. It only 1 shots at guns if the crew are low health. The radius of the automatic one hit kill was already nerfed. The oldest version of the Brum would reliably one shot full health at guns due to having a big radius of automatic one hit kill. You can't rely on one at gun to push away a Brum, you need 2. And you should be able to afford a TD if Ost can afford a Brum.
2 Dec 2018, 06:02 AM
#12
avatar of Thamor

Posts: 290

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 05:43 AMNaOCl


The 222 is cancer against brits and wipes retreating squads way too easily.



In what world...yes it has a chance to wipe very low health 1 model squad in retreat, but no way it's doing it with the ease of other units in the game doing that much better. 222 is maybe the worst LV unit to try killing retreating squads.
2 Dec 2018, 06:03 AM
#13
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
This should be a bannable offense. This entire post.


I know right, let's ban this thread because it's one of the rare ones that actually have logic.
2 Dec 2018, 06:16 AM
#14
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

This should be a bannable offense. This entire post.



This post is literally the t70 recon thread 2.0.

A faction one-trick player complaining about a blatantly overperforming unit that the rest of the community agrees needed a nerf. Who then compares it to an opposing unit that is nowhere close to being as OP as the unit they are defending.
2 Dec 2018, 06:22 AM
#15
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned



This post is literally the t70 recon thread 2.0.

A faction one-trick player complaining about a blatantly overperforming unit that the rest of the community agrees needed a nerf. Who then compares it to an opposing unit that is nowhere close to being as OP as the unit they are defending.


SMH. I'm comparing the Brum to a Sherman beccause the Sherman is not op. If the Brum is comparable to a much cheaper Sherman, how op could the brum possibly be. 2 months ago literally all allied players and some pros like Jae for Jett complained 222 is op after the buff. How come nobody complains about it anymore? Because 222 spam is a gimmick easily overcome by getting a single at gun.
2 Dec 2018, 07:38 AM
#16
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

Al eye no iz we mayking the bulldser in 2 new buumbar
2 Dec 2018, 09:39 AM
#18
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

2 Dec 2018, 09:52 AM
#19
avatar of Cresc

Posts: 378

This is where you wish replays didn't depend on patch updates.
Even though my game against Donnie made for some good laugh, it was the most obvious instance of Brumbar overpowering every unit in the game.

You have to be incredible deluded to claim that it was not, and that the patch "overnerfed it" did you even read the patchnotes? They only slightly reduced the armor value.
2 Dec 2018, 10:20 AM
#20
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



What's so funny about facts?

The part where you ignore them, because you don't like them(brummbar WAS op af and the only player saying otherwise was you) and proceed to make this thread.
PAGES (11)down
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

734 users are online: 734 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM