It has a disappointing high chance to bounce allies heavy though. And yes that slow turret lock is big hidden weakness in team games
It has a decent chance to bounce on the IS-2 because everything has a decent chance to bounce on the IS-2. It's got a whopping 375 armour. |
QOL stands for 'Quality of Life', and refers to changes that make the game more user friendly without affecting the balance.
Making PTRSses optional is NOT a QoL change. It's a balance change, and a hefty one at that.
A mod should probably rename this thread. |
The Tiger's a generalist. It's got high pen and good AoE, making it dangerous to just about anything. |
Since then we've actually received some info about that from veteran modder Sneakeye, so this might actually be possible to implement next patch (we haven't tried yet).
What do you think is the latest viable timing for the current iteration of heavy tanks? |
I'm not sure what CP they should be, but they should absolutely have a build timer
Perhaps not a build timer, but their ability goes on cooldown when the tank dies rather than when it's called in? |
I voted for 13+ CP with a considerable buff to all heavies, i want heavies to be worth.
Pershing and Tiger are the most affected/hurt with this perspective, they could have 2 CP lower than the rest.
I think they are now. They'd definitely function in 1v1 at 13 CPs.
The question is if they'd still function in teamgames, which was the reason they got bumped down to 9 CPs in the first place. |
When Cons+T2 is already as popular or even more popular than T1? Seems like you are not up to date regarding what Soviet strategies are getting used.
Soviet T 0 is popular.
Soviet T2 gets built because you have to build one of the two and it's nice to have ZiS guns in the late game. |
To me it doesn't seem like making a player choose to float fuel and wait for the arbitrary timer that is Cp's is an intuitive solution. Players should be presented a discrete choice not told "wait this long".
Editlike3minslater: I think Cp's makes it easier to spam light vehicles into heavy tanks. Alternatively A tech cost increase would give medium vehicles more space to be effective so it depends on which counterplay strategy you want to make effective.
The effect of high CPs on heavies in 1v1 is it allows the opponent to field two or three mediums before the heavy can be deployed.
Trying LVs into tech-tied CP 13 heavies would probably end badly because medium armour has a solid time window to do its thing and kill the lights. |
In the heavy tank overhaul patch, heavy tanks got moved down to 9 CP.
The idea was this wouldn't affect 1v1 that much, but they'd be viable as shock units in team games as the opponent would have 4 fewer CPs of time to deploy and vet tank destroyers.
In practice, heavy tanks are often rushed as the first unit in 1v1, creating a similar problem to the one we had before where the other player has to rush a TD or their own heavy because meds can't deal with the heavy's armour. Luvnest's Soviet strategy in WC19 is a good example of this.
I can't speak for teamgames, but the patch has definitely succeeded at making them viable as non-call-ins with the tandem timing and firepower buffs.
Do you think 9 CP is working well for heavies, or is it too soon? If 9 CP is too soon, how far back would you push it? |
I like this approach. I would have it be 260-280mp though to make its "base cost" be more like a slightly expensive standard mortar with longer range.
I also have to say regarding the OPs suggestion that 175mp for a single mortar is way way way too cheap for the utility it would provide if you want to go that route.
It shouldn't be more expensive than a standard mortar when it's flat out worse. |