Anyway, where was it mentioned on twitch, just curious.
Soviet mark target is 35% bonus damage (one less shot to kill in medium vs medium combat). Command panther mark target is 25% bonus damage and 15% bonus accuracy (0 less shots to kill in medium vs medium combat, health wise).
Should one reverse the argument then? Is there any reason why its Mark target has to do 25% damage Vs the Soviets 35%? Should the command panther's mark target then be buffed to match the soviet one? The first line of your post (when you use the correct numbers) implies that it should.
it was a number of months ago in a 2vs2, Hans went the usual land mattress strategy but OKW went early stuka into command panther, late game all allied team weapons were vaporized.
The luvnest game was a 1vs1 and his churchills and team weapons were spotted a mile off by panther. Despite some great micro on his part you could just see the unit stacking into a monster with vet and he slowly lost the game.
I'll edit the OP, thank you for clarifying the stats
Im sorry to burst your bubble but, why would I care what you know if you dont say it in the first time? What would I care what others say as an argumend of your own complaints about a specific situation that happens after a lot of things hapoent to succeed beforehand? And for what godhearing reason I must answer your so demanding request you disguise as an empirical fact when it really is a biased opinion?
Take a moment to think before yoy spit next time.
The ability is OK wether you like it or not
Lay off the personal attacks and stay in topic please
I just don't understand why people take the time to make balance threads but don't take the time to fact check themselves. I don't know, I guess the fact that the balance section is just an anthology of factually incorrect statements has really started to wear on me. I'm fairly sure more than half of the objective points made initial posts are incorrect, and I don't understand how people can expect actual discussion when over half of what they say is wrong.
feel free to post the correct percentages and I will apologize, but this is what was mentioned on twitch.
LoS issues are valid though I'm sure you would agree.
Kharn took the modesty to answer not what you want to hear but what you had to hear.
If you make blind questions its pretty logic that you get blind aswers, mr strawman argument.
Kindness is a way to achieve your goals, not a sign of weakness.
If you disagree with the answers you get then dont bother asking in the first place.
Both abilities are totally different on different commabders and factions. Consither the rest of the facts that make up the cost/benefits of each one. Then come again and complaint if you really want to
Edit. As for your addition of the su85 answer , it is as blind comparison as the one you did on mark target, but you missed the point and lost both arguments on the intent. Gj m8
Right, I'm the one making blind answers when panther LoS is leagues out of line with any other vehicle. Yet you fail to mention this part of the discussion at all.
Gj, BTW both Hans and luvnest have mentioned on stream how crazy this unit can make OKW lategame, do you think they are talking trash too? Because this thread is basically highlighting the same issues they brought up on stream
"Why my so beloved allied abilities are inferior to superior axis counterparts!?"
I dunno sherlock, maybe a broader picture of the factions and commanders involved might explain why.
Using the same logic on stugs/su85 why the latter can selfspot and even penn heavy tanks but stugs are inferior en those two aspects?
Checkmate.
How do factional differences in any way excuse a vet command panther parked behind mid VP on crossing or minsk being able to spot inside your base?
The unit combined with double damage is a bit too good imo, if you disagree you have to provide actual reasons rather than strawman argument you know...
Also fyi su-85 gets slower and worse arc with self spot, yet vet command panther can see further even while driving top speed. So you've made your own argument against yourself with that poor comparison
If you took 10s to read and understand before jumping to conclusions you would had read that i said: "IF you nerf the direct fire mode". I'm sure you know how low arc indirect fire units had been nerfed in the past and how they behave now.
If the units is not built and effective on direct fire mode, it might as well be a MHT on last tier. Which is why i said, it's probably better to go with the same type of nerf as the Brummbear received (lower range) but in a more drastic way, but improved and give more alternatives in the barrage department.
The issue with making it a fuel based short-mid range barrage unit is it's going to suck just like the old sexton was before it was made into a priest unit (normal howitzer performance, long range).
If it can't deal with shreks or volks running at it the same way a Brum or dozer can then it's the old sexton all over again, current Scott is unique as you just trade that health and armour for smoke and speed. As such it's arguably a more skill intensive unit
With perfect micro a pair of Scott's can do more damage but only a handful of players in the game like Hans or DevM can make it work perfectly.
Extremly durable? Come on. You can call KT durable (not extremely durable), an elefant, or IS-2. But definitely not the scott. If the scott is extremely durable then how do I describe an average medium like sherman or p4? Indestructible?
vippers has an interesting way of looking at stats, according to him comet has superior vet and performance than panther.
Scott is not a mortar since the trajectory it uses and projectile speed allows the unit to hit even moving targets.
Why would anyone build a Scott if it didn't hit moving targets?
Nerf it and it's going in the forgotten scrapheap with comet and easy8. Most people already agree brumbar/dozer are much better units, Scott gets used less in comparison to those this patch and it's a core unit
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
