Posts: 1794
If your opponent does absolutely nothing to protect the rear of their vehicles then sure, I guess?
You've got to assume a decent level of skill when discussing balance.
Posts: 3260
It is really not hard to pen the rear in the chaos of better, since "rear" is 50% of the tank hit box...
Posts: 1794
Posts: 2066
Posts: 808
No. Nerf this unit and see USF tumble into nothingness again.
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
So I've been comparing the three Allied tank destroyers.
The Firefly's got the lowest damage output thanks to its awful reload, but good burst damage. It's also got a medium tank's armour and Tulips if you're willing to feed its ravenous hunger for munitions. It has a turret but it turns slowwwwwwwwwwwwly...
The SU-85 is a casemate, which means it's a slow lumbering beast in desperate need of protection. It's got a better damage output than the Firefly and can self spot. It's also got better penetration than the Firefly and it's cheaper.
Between these two I can see the tradeoff. The SU-85 is cheaper and puts out more damage faster, but the Firefly is more independent.
Then we come to the Jackson.
It's got the price and damage output of the SU-85, the best penetration before you bring in its HVAP ability, good turret rotation and 0.75 moving accuracy. Put all this together and it can roll up to an enemy medium Panther-style and splatter it. The other two can't: the SU-85 gets flanked and the Firefly'll lose because of how long it takes to reload.
I'm fairly sure it used to only have 480 health (three hit kill like a light vehicle), but went up to 640 in DBP.
There's no real contest here: the Jackson is the best of the three in almost every department. It just seems like a better Firefly for less.
What gives? Does it need toning down? Do the other TDs need toning up? Or is it like this to compensate for some factional weakness I'm missing?
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
Look at the other AT sources from USF, they got a rubber projectile AT gun that is awesome vs light tanks but trash vs any tank on okw p4 level or higher.... and they have poop bazookas which have a similar behavior like their AT gun. There is a reason why USF has the best standalone TD from the allies.
And please show me how a Jackson wins a 1v1 vs a Panther. When Jacksons were still 480HP, teamgames were pretty annoying on many maps cuz you couldnt stop the panther spam.
Posts: 2358
Look at the other AT sources from USF, they got a rubber projectile AT gun that is awesome vs light tanks but trash vs any tank on okw p4 level or higher.... and they have poop bazookas which have a similar behavior like their AT gun. There is a reason why USF has the best standalone TD from the allies.
And please show me how a Jackson wins a 1v1 vs a Panther. When Jacksons were still 480HP, teamgames were pretty annoying on many maps cuz you couldnt stop the panther spam.
Posts: 1220
as long as its dmg, pen and range is not touched, some nerfs would be fine
Posts: 2358
No. Nerf this unit and see USF tumble into nothingness again.
Posts: 2358
Feed the USF at-gun some muni and it becomes the best AT-gun vs any target. And it´s cheaper than Pak40,Zis3 and 6 pounder too. IMO this is not a valid point. Bazookas aren´t overly effective but I don´t see how PIATs or PTRS (unless we are talking Guards PTRS) are any better. So I don´t think this is a fair point either.
I don´t think anyone claimed the Jackson wins 1v1 aganist a Panther. Of course that´s not going to happen.
Posts: 1220
bad design? U maybe dont know that but all faction have minimum 2 non doc AT option for example soviets su76 and su85 one is better versus heavy another versus medium armor. Okw jagpanzer and panther wermaht stug and panther. Brits? Firfly hmm and comet ? This one maybe not exactly. Usf players rely on jackson not because they like it because there is nothing else. Nerf this unit and u will nerf whole usf late game simple
This clearly shows that M36 are to be nerfed. If a unit relies so much on a single *not OP* heavy TD then what the rest of the faction for?
Posts: 2358
bad design? U maybe dont know that but all faction have minimum 2 non doc AT option for example soviets su76 and su85 one is better versus heavy another versus medium armor. Okw jagpanzer and panther wermaht stug and panther. Brits? Firfly hmm and comet ? This one maybe not exactly. Usf players rely on jackson not because they like it because there is nothing else.
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2358
I dont think you can nerf its performance too much, but Lago's point about cost efficiency makes plenty of sense.
You can always just increase the cost and not touch the performance. If the US needs the Jackson at its current level, but that level is too good for its current price, that's the way to go.
Posts: 1794
I dont think jackaon need nerf as someone said sherman have more troubles versus panther than panzer versus jackson. Sherman if even flank panther can do shit but if u guys really need nerf something in jackson then nerf his turret speed rotation or max speed and we gut.
And about medium armor for example in team games panzer spam is more viable because how thin jackson armor is on other hand even e8 spam is just bad because how good panther is, medium spam is just suicide versus axis.
Shadowlink try to be funny with his sarcasm but didnt work lol u forgot about your op scott buddy but true is usf dont need any change current balance is ok only wermaht need buffs to infantry and thats it. Now i just wait for patch and new threads because forum is boring right now.
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
-Jackson far pen down: you still get your 60 range jackson and can outrange panthers, but maybe it shouldnt be so reliable at that range...
-Jackson fuel cost up: the jackson is a premium tank destroyer (again, basically the best in the game), but its price doesnt really reflect that. Its the only dedicated AT vehicle usf have, and people argue its high performance is a necessity for usf. So then keep its performance, but at least make sure players have to pay for that performance.
Posts: 2358
Is it one or both of these? Because I feel like nerfing a unit and increasing its cost simultaneously is too much all at once. But it is a case by case basis I suppose
Posts: 4474
Katitof-2018
 |
|
|
36 | ||
|
|
|
|
35 | ||
|
|
|
|
34 | ||
 |
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
19 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
