Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I don't see the relevance of this to T2's value as a tier.
Posts: 1527
Permanently BannedYou could lock shreks to T2, seems pretty reasonable.
Making T2 cheaper isn't a good idea because flame half track rush.
But I do think it's easy to counter, people just need to learn how to read it and what to build.
Well, a month later the allied players learned where the "buy at gun" button is located and pressed it when there was more than one 222, and 222 spam meta was dead in a month. The 222 ended up being completely counterable and did NOT receive nerfs that the allied crybabies wanted. 
Posts: 711
Posts: 3260
Well, a month later the allied players learned where the "buy at gun" button is located and pressed it when there was more than one 222, and 222 spam meta was dead in a month. The 222 ended up being completely counterable and did NOT receive nerfs that the allied crybabies wanted.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
The drawbacks of skipping T2 are so minor now that it's just not worth 200 MP 20 FU any more.
Posts: 3260
Personally I think a large part in this is the Allies not adjusting their build orders yet (which is to be expected, it's only been just over a week). Not having a Pak is most certainly a drawback, just one that hasn't been exploited very well yet.
Soviets still seem to almost always go for their trusted T-70, but that build order plays right into the hands of the (Assgrens into) Panzerschrecks into Ostwind. If Soviets got the M5 quad instead, it'd hardcounter the Schrecks pretty well while leaving more fuel to get an SU-76 or T-34 to help counter the Ostwind.
Every Allied faction has access to a mobile suppression half track now, they just have to start using them to counter the Schrecks. Players should be given time to figure out natural counters for the stuff that is strong but not blatantly broken, and if after some weeks it turns out the T2 skipping is too strong regardless we can have a look at artificially restricting it (in which case I'd prefer to just make both T2 building or BP2 a requirement for Schrecks).
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Making Panzershrecks available regardless has turned T2 into a side tech: you can get away with not building it pretty easily now.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
It doesn't really matter to me how powerful the T2 skip is in absolute terms. What does matter is how much more powerful it is than building T2.
Making Panzershrecks available regardless has turned T2 into a side tech: you can get away with not building it pretty easily now.
The idea of side tech is it gives you an immediate benefit: you get powerful tools now (light vehicles) at the cost of delaying more powerful tools later (tanks).
This doesn't work with T2 because of the 200 MP cost for the building. That puts a T2 skipping strategy 200 MP up over a T2 building strategy, balancing out the benefit of T2's units. And if that sidetech isn't giving you an immediate advantage, what's the point of it? You're delaying your tech for nothing.
That's why I'd like to see the Panzershrecks locked behind T2 anyway: it's necessary to restore the internal balance of Ostheer.
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.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
...
Posts: 3260
I don't really agree. The role of T2 (main tech or "side tech") is directly tied to how viable Panzerschrecks are to skip it. If people figure out how to effectively counter Pschrecks, the tech skip builds would fail. Also it comes down to personal preference and gamemode, because in 3v3 I would always build T2 for a 251 and the much more reliable Pak 40s.
Posts: 5279
Go play into mid and late game without PaK above noob level.
You'll see why skipping tech as ost doesn't work very quickly.
Posts: 833
Go play into mid and late game without PaK above noob level.
You'll see why skipping tech as ost doesn't work very quickly.
Posts: 682
But hey what do top 20 players know saving the fuel and mp of building a Pak... They must be noobs according to you
 |
|
|
7 | ||
 |
|
|
224 | ||
 |
|
|
46 | ||
 |
|
|
17 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
