What was the win ratio of allies to axis in the 4v4 tourney? What was the win ratio of allies to axis in the last 1v1 tourney (particularly the final)?
You do know that a small sample size of games with a select group of people indicates very little?
Its very possible that certain people within that select group synergyze better with certain factions, if that happens to be more with allies.. |
You're hardcountering MGs, other mortars, and AT guns, while also providing strong fire-support vs any other infantry.
It's 20 pop vs 21 pop (Assuming your opponent has two AT guns and one MG, which is fairly standard for Ostheer especially. This number rises if the opponent has any other team weapons.)
On top of this is the further utility vs infantry, though bothering to make a population-to-population comparison there is a bit pointless.
Part of what I'd consider the benefit over the Scott vs something like a Werfer, Katyusha, or Stuka is the constant pressure they create. Their barrage has less than half the cooldown of rocket artillery, and they can still contribute to a fight even when its on cooldown. People talk about the Scott as though it fires confetti for some reason, and I've never really understood why.
You are right about the pop to pop comparison being pointless.
The constant pressure is also correct. Imo its not very high pressure. Nerfing the scotts survivability by removing the smoke and increasing its one hit kill radius a bit would do the trick. |
Everything I've seen from the scott in most games i've observed recently seems to show it being EXTREMELY effective, especially when the USF player has two of them (Though this, of course, takes 20 population).
They're used to fantastic effect in a lot of Tightrope's recent casts, reliably obliterating team weapons, and providing a lot of firepower against infantry as well.
Getting 20 pop of scotts (without pf)just to (hard) counter units of 5 to 8 pop a piece isent what id call balanced.
I personaly havent seen scotts when single or without pf do their job well. But i might just be watching the wrong games and suck at using it. |
The Jackson is significantly faster than the Stug, has a turret, has much better penetration (Absurdly so with HVAP), better range, better performance on the move, can repair itself for free, and can capture points (Though this is niche).
All of these reasons combined should give you some indication of why the Stug bouncing shots is understandable, and why the Jackson bouncing shots is not.
The Jackson doesn't have the "weakness" of no AI performance. Most TDs have little to no AI ability, excepting the ISU and Jagdtiger (Both doctrinal superheavies).
The Stug and Firefly's MGs are nice, but they're not really the most impactful things in most cases.
The faction composition is what actualy matters not units in a vacuum.
Usf cant bounce much if at all unlike ost and okw and ukf. The jackson being the best td or at least lots better then stugs and jagdpzr4 is fine because as said before usf can bounce for shit and unlike all factions they dont get a heavy at all.
This alone should show the reason for that armour nerf was a bad one, probably pandering to one side as only one tank (the p4) could bounce off the the jackson with 5% chance. You dont even notice it most say. So its pointless as well.
As for the scott, its imo quite bad already. The only thing to change would be remove smoke but increase its damage potential imo. Its damage output/bleed is not good enough for its timing and durability. You have to get 2 and even then..
The pf also arent that good on their own. I dont know how to tackle the synergy without making them usseless. |
I am showing the exact context (and you are taking what I have posted out of context):
you went on about chance to hit and pen, the issue presented was about how and why a change such as the armour nerf happend to the jakson
In the PzIV vs M36 the RNG is in favor of the M36 contrary what has been claimed.
this wasent the point and no one claimed it was other wise
The stug has 50 range, no turret and is slower than any stock allied medium tank, while the jackson has superior range, speed and a turret. If you lose your jackson to a p4 push you simply missplayed. Having the incredible reliable 5% chance to get a bounce was completely worthless for both the attacking side and the defending. The armor nerf didnt change how good the jackson is nor did it change the matchup.
so if it isent noticable why nerf the jaksons armour? A stug can bounce rounds from allied mediums while the jackon cant.
What does the Stug have to do with it?
The P4 bounces when firing on the Firefly and SU-85 even from close range. This isnt an allies vs axis thing, this is giving the Jackson some type of weakness as it is otherwise the flat-out best (nondoctrinal) TD in the game. It has everything going for it, with the only actual downside now being that if it's caught out it will always be penned by PIVs. It's not even a hugely impactful downside, given that, as geblobt says, you went from an approximate 5% chance to bounce at max range to a 0% chance.
The Jackson is absolutely not an unit you can justify asking to buff, despite the nerfs it has received it is STILL extremely menacing.
i never said the jakson is bad. The reason i brought up the stug is because the jackson having a 5% chance to bounce is unexptable yet the stug wich is also a good td bounces a lot more then the jackson.
The jackons real weakness imo is its lack of ai entirely while it already had lower armour then most td's. The armour nerf didnt chance a thing apperantly so why do it? |
It seem that the "make USF great again" team has simply lost touch with reality.
In order for a unit to do damage it has to hit and penetrate so if one check the number one gets a completely different picture than the one portrayed here.
A PzIV on the move (even it manages to move in to range 40) it has a 30% change to score a hit and do damage to a M36. (collision hits are not taken into account)
A M36 (even firing at 60 range) has a 52.5% to score a hit and do damage to PzIV.
In sort a PzIV needs all the RNG it can have to win a fight vs an M36 even if it caches it out of position.
Dont go and point the finger at others.
You are not showing all context. The p4 is a generalist medium. The jackson is hard at, the excact purpose of the jackson is to hard counter armour such as the p4. The p4 fills multyple roles, the jackson fills only 1.
The p4 has no need nor justification to 100% pen its hard counter on hit at max range. Yet it can now because of reasons.
You would support a t34/stug change to pen the stug 100% at max range? They are simaler in price after all. Also no one bats an eye that the t34 cant.
|
Only thing OP wants to hear is; "Maxims suck and should get buffs". Really no point in discussing this.
When I use Maxims they always seem to work, it's all about positioning, keeping the arc-cone out of the FOW and ofcourse pure RNG.
It kinda works, it works as it should when you pay muni. If the maxim was actualy cheaper in mp then the mg42 it would be completly fine.
Right now you pay a premium price and need to tech for a less potent mg wich needs extra costs per use to be on par with the axis mg's.
Its overpriced thats why imo people think it sucks. |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_H_wdcd43E
"mY scOtT is not sOo Op..thAts whY i mUst crY in the fOruM aNd tEll aLl thAt i cAnt plAy wiTh it"
Again 1 game used to claim something is op. No time stamp given to prove your claim.
Omg you must be right, nerf the scott and pf to shit and leave axis always up stuff alone. |
That simply not the case according to the patch notes:
POPULATION CHANGES
• M20: 6 to 4 buff
M20
The m20 has received some adjustments, as it would have arrived even later, and been even less effective within this new tech structure.
Manpower cost from 340 to 240 buff
M20 accuracy from 0.75/0.475/0.2 to 0.55/0.45/0.25 buff
Weapon accuracy increases with veterancy: +10%/+15%/+15% buff
Veterancy requirements lowered from 880/1760/3520 to 500/1000/2000 buff
Veterancy 3 reduces time to plant mines by 5 seconds. buff
Veterancy 3 increases stealth detection by 10; 35 stealth detection radius from 25 buff
M20 Utility Car
The M20 has repeatedly been reported as a problem unit by top players, particularly in 1v1. The Bazooka has been removed, as it was seen to make the m20 too difficult to counter, given it already has mines, high speed, smoke, and potential Lieutenant bazooka support in its favour.
Build time increased by 10 seconds (M20 will now arrive 20 seconds slower when taking the above tech changes into account) nerf
Crew no longer has a bazooka. nerf
M20 Utility Car
We wanted to introduce counter play against snipers
Now has 50% bonus accuracy against sniper types buff
Increase detection radius from 10 to 25 buff
M20
The M20 is having its build-time reduced so it can arrive sooner onto the battlefield. Furthermore, its armoured skirts are being reduced in price to better match their performance.
Build time from 55 to 45 buff
Skirt cost from 70 to 50 buff
The only real nerf is removing the bazooka which one can still purchase. When the meta changes it does not mean that a unit is up.
Yes most are buffs, yet not every buff is as valuable.
The accuracy chance is not a buff. Its long rang acc got slightly better yet its mid and close range acc got nerfed. The curve got flattened.
Build time is still longer then before.
Bazooka removed wich you can buy now from weapon racks yes, reducing the effectines of the armoured skirt price buff.
Imo its still worse off overall despite it being cheaper, getting some vet bonusses in acc. Hence imo it isent used much currently |
And that is direct result of the US tech revamp which was faction buff and changed the original design of the faction. Actually I had pointed out it at the time.
Saying that m20 has been:"nerfed quite a bit over the years" and m20 is not a very common sense is not nearly the same thing.
I am not sure what mods you are playing so I respond to why you do not see it.
Anyway I think we can move on.
And here are the other buffs m20 got that where missing:
"M20
The m20 has received some adjustments, as it would have arrived even later, and been even less effective within this new tech structure.
Manpower cost from 340 to 240
M20 accuracy from 0.75/0.475/0.2 to 0.55/0.45/0.25
Weapon accuracy increases with veterancy: +10%/+15%/+15%
Veterancy requirements lowered from 880/1760/3520 to 500/1000/2000
Veterancy 3 reduces time to plant mines by 5 seconds.
Veterancy 3 increases stealth detection by 10; 35 stealth detection radius from 25"
I think you miss my point. The m20 was nerfed cuz it was to strong, and even with its buffs afterwards it isent used much. So imo its still nerfed more then buffed.
Also i didnt mean to try and prove something you posted to be wrong. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
