KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage
4 Jun 2019, 11:19 AM
#201
Posts: 1392
I also want to see hull-down more often. Bring back the reloade buff for StuG and make a range indicator.
4 Jun 2019, 11:26 AM
#202
Posts: 1794
I am still for 2,5 or 5 more range for PaK40. After the critical hit was nerfed this can allows to counter tank hunters. Also since Jackson got more HP I see no real balance problem with that.
At the moment british PaK is more useful, because of its quick setup and has same dps stats as PaK40.
Im glad brit pak will be less deadly against light vehicle in next patch.
I will also say usf pak with crazy rof and tungsten ap round is as deadly.
I mean that's the case aint it. Wehr units may look good on raw stats but allies more than make up with side abilities and combined arms, achieving better performance for the cost.
Like Churchill is only 16 pop and 5 man IS is 8pop.
Panther is 18 pop and 4 man gren is 7pop.
4 Jun 2019, 11:28 AM
#203
Posts: 3260
I would really like some of this theory experts show real footage of the highly convoluted solutions they propose.
Other than that I've see no real answer to Croc+firefly
Throw two Panthers at it: they cost less then Croc+Firefly. Kill the Firefly first.
No "'overpowered' is a completely subjective term".
JLI where OP
Tiger ACE was op
Assault Grenadier where OP
Win industry was OP
Cancer commander was OP
Penal with flamer where OP
USF mortar was OP
....
Overpowered is a completely subjective term.
Without objective criteria to define something as overpowered, it is subjective.
Saying that all those things on your list were overpowered is also subjective. Widely agreed, but subjective nonetheless.
That's what Katitof was saying. You can't expect people to treat your opinions as facts.
4 Jun 2019, 12:36 PM
#204
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
That's what Katitof was saying. You can't expect people to treat your opinions as facts.
Pls leave katitof out of it.
If it is you think that I expect other people to treat my opinion as a fact you are simply wrong.
My post are filed with imo which stand for in my opinion. It as actually other that present their own opinion as facts while attacking and insulting people who disagree with them in process.
Overpowered is a completely subjective term.
Without objective criteria to define something as overpowered, it is subjective.
Saying that all those things on your list were overpowered is also subjective. Widely agreed, but subjective nonetheless.
That is your opinion and based on your approach that there are non "objective criteria". Actually Relic set up a benchmark exactly to be able to compare unit with base line and decided what is UP or OP.
In the case of Churchill the characteristic I have already mentioned
does not mean much one their own but once one starts comparing them with the values of other vehicles one will see that these value are not normal and their combination make the unit over perform for cost.
As you can see there are thing that can be used as "objective criteria".
4 Jun 2019, 12:57 PM
#205
Posts: 2358
I certanly agree with vipper about unit benchmarks, and objective criteria. Many people tend to make the mistake of use over performing as an opinion, but as others do, it just says it is doing too well for what is meant to.
Overall, the sum of UPs and OPs (also design and oportunity) tend to define a faction difficulty, performance and people enjoying playing with it. That's a hard formula, but an existing one nonetheless.
There should be a simple logic to follow to determine unit over performing, as example okw jli. Simply nerfing them was enough to level the commander and the faction also. That is such a big deal, a whole faction should not rely as much on a single unit, with a single specific role. There must be at least 2 options to choose, even if that makes a lot harder to balance the game. Otherwise the game becomes predictable and based in raw brute force, applying the same method over and over again
Overall, the sum of UPs and OPs (also design and oportunity) tend to define a faction difficulty, performance and people enjoying playing with it. That's a hard formula, but an existing one nonetheless.
There should be a simple logic to follow to determine unit over performing, as example okw jli. Simply nerfing them was enough to level the commander and the faction also. That is such a big deal, a whole faction should not rely as much on a single unit, with a single specific role. There must be at least 2 options to choose, even if that makes a lot harder to balance the game. Otherwise the game becomes predictable and based in raw brute force, applying the same method over and over again
4 Jun 2019, 13:18 PM
#206
Posts: 3260
That is your opinion and based on your approach that there are non "objective criteria". Actually Relic set up a benchmark exactly to be able to compare unit with base line and decided what is UP or OP.
In the case of Churchill the characteristic I have already mentioned
does not mean much one their own but once one starts comparing them with the values of other vehicles one will see that these value are not normal and their combination make the unit over perform for cost.
As you can see there are thing that can be used as "objective criteria".
In order to prove the Churchill's rear armour is too high, you need to define the maximum acceptable rear armour value.
If you can do that without using a single opinion, then I will accept your conclusion as objective.
Until then, it is subjective.
4 Jun 2019, 13:26 PM
#207
Posts: 2066
Throw two Panthers at it: they cost less then Croc+Firefly. Kill the Firefly first.
Overpowered is a completely subjective term.
Without objective criteria to define something as overpowered, it is subjective.
Saying that all those things on your list were overpowered is also subjective. Widely agreed, but subjective nonetheless.
That's what Katitof was saying. You can't expect people to treat your opinions as facts.
2 panthers as ostheer? Lol
Kappa
4 Jun 2019, 13:27 PM
#208
Posts: 4474
we have the general rear armor for heavy tank, 180 is much higher than that, so is the kv 1 165
In order to prove the Churchill's rear Armour is too high, you need to define the maximum acceptable rear Armour value.
If you can do that without using a single opinion, then I will accept your conclusion as objective.
Until then, it is subjective.
just bring them to 140-150, which is still higher than other heavy tank but not to the point of negating the advantage of hitting the rear
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
4 Jun 2019, 13:32 PM
#209
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
we have the general rear armor for heavy tank, 180 is much higher than that, so is the kv 1 165
just bring them to 140-150, which is still higher than other heavy tank but not to the point of negating the advantage of hitting the rear
The advantage of hitting the rear is you have a much better chance to penetrate because the armour is lower
The churchill has more front armour than rear armour and hitting its rear gives you a much better chance to penetrate
Ergo, the advantage is not negated
4 Jun 2019, 13:34 PM
#210
Posts: 3260
2 panthers as ostheer? Lol
A Croc/Firefly combo costs about 1080 MP 385 FU.
Two Panthers costs 980 MP 370 FU.
4 Jun 2019, 13:38 PM
#211
Posts: 4474
yes but compare it to other tanks, the reaer is around half the front armor, giving u a much better odds of penetrating, for the churchil and kv1 they have too much rear armour reducing this advantage by a lot while still having having good frontal armor all for a good price, remember that when u try to flank something u have to expose ur rear too most of the times
The advantage of hitting the rear is you have a much better chance to penetrate because the armour is lower
The churchill has more front armour than rear armour and hitting its rear gives you a much better chance to penetrate
Ergo, the advantage is not negated
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
4 Jun 2019, 13:39 PM
#212
Posts: 3260
yes but compare it to other tanks, the reaer is around half the front armor, giving u a much better odds of penetrating, for the churchil and kv1 they have too much rear armour reducing this advantage by a lot while still having having good frontal armor all for a good price, remember that when u try to flank something u have to expose ur rear too most of the times
If the ratio is what matters, would you support taking that 40 armour from the back and putting it on the front?
4 Jun 2019, 13:42 PM
#213
Posts: 4474
it's not the ratio, it was an example explaing that they have too much rear armor, by logic u can do it with every tank
If the ratio is what matters, would you support taking that 40 armour from the back and putting it on the front?
would like to add 60 armor from rear to front for x tank ?
we are talking about unit overperforming, no a change in role, for the price kv1 and churchil have too much rear armor, there was a reason that they nerfed the armor of all heavy tank without buffing them back
btw would u like to remove 100 armor form the JT frontal armor to add it to the rear ?
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
4 Jun 2019, 13:59 PM
#214
Posts: 3260
it's not the ratio, it was an example explaing that they have too much rear armor, by logic u can do it with every tank
would like to add 60 armor from rear to front for x tank ?
we are talking about unit overperforming, no a change in role, for the price kv1 and churchil have too much rear armor, there was a reason that they nerfed the armor of all heavy tank without buffing them back
btw would u like to remove 100 armor form the JT frontal armor to add it to the rear ?
You were the one saying it was the ratio: that getting behind the tank isn't rewarding enough.
If your problem is the rear armour is too high in isolation, don't compare it to the front armour. You'll confuse people.
4 Jun 2019, 14:10 PM
#215
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
I still demand an answer other than "okw has jp4". I would prefer to read "I dont care about okw" at least that is honest
Then go make a thread about croc+Firefly. The Croc really isn't that similar to the standard Churchill. 320 less health, +50 armor, costs way more, is doctrinal, etc. You don't buy it just to soak damage, which is what this thread is about
If by "follows the same design" you mean they look alike and have the word Churchill in their name, then yes, you are correct. Otherwise, no not really. 2 Panthers are cheaper than Croc+Firefly but they are 55 more fuel than Churchill+Firefly. It's clearly a different issue
4 Jun 2019, 14:13 PM
#216
Posts: 1392
Still, why not make hull-down more random as Option for Ostheer and OKW? That would help a lot I think.
4 Jun 2019, 14:15 PM
#217
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
In order to prove the Churchill's rear armour is too high, you need to define the maximum acceptable rear armour value.
If you can do that without using a single opinion, then I will accept your conclusion as objective.
Until then, it is subjective.
Let put aside the rear armor for sec.
Do you agree that acceleration, rotation, HP are objectively too high?
Do you agree that stock defensive smoke is a big advantage especially in an already very durably vehicle?
4 Jun 2019, 14:16 PM
#218
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
we have the general rear armor for heavy tank, 180 is much higher than that, so is the kv 1 165
just bring them to 140-150, which is still higher than other heavy tank but not to the point of negating the advantage of hitting the rear
P4s are meant to have a very hard time in general against them, Pumas rarely bounce their rear armor point blank, StuG/JP4 obviously won't be flanking anything and P5 and above doesn't have to.
So the only unit that would benefit from it is a P4, which both churchill and KV-1 are meant to hardcounter as hard as it gets without penning it 100% of the time in return.
Would you be up for lowering rear armor and increasing pen in return?
If you soften damage sponge, its no longer a damage sponge.
Unless you want to slap that missing rear armor on the front, which also is an option.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Jun 2019, 14:22 PM
#219
Posts: 3260
Let put aside the rear armor for sec.
Do you agree that acceleration, rotation, HP are objectively too high?
No.
In order to define something as objectively too high, you need an objective maximum height.
We don't have one.
4 Jun 2019, 14:23 PM
#220
Posts: 4474
by that logic shouldn't the panther have superb rear armor ? as it's meant to counter them ?
P4s are meant to have a very hard time in general against them, Pumas rarely bounce their rear armor point blank, StuG/JP4 obviously won't be flanking anything and P5 and above doesn't have to.
So the only unit that would benefit from it is a P4, which both churchill and KV-1 are meant to hardcounter as hard as it gets without penning it 100% of the time in return.
Would you be up for lowering rear armor and increasing pen in return?
If you soften damage sponge, its no longer a damage sponge.
Unless you want to slap that missing rear armor on the front, which also is an option.
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1259
Board Info
659 users are online:
659 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49870
Welcome our newest member, chipstall
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, chipstall
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM