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?
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. |
P4 could always pen a jackson from behind. Why wouldn't you flank the Jackson with your superior velocity earn at vet1 and use you superior firing rate to outgun the Jackson the same way you describes it with the T34 vs Elefant?
Because the Jackson has a turret, and moves significantly faster than the Elefant. It also turns twice as quickly as the Elefant.
This all combined means that getting onto the flank/behind an Elefant with a T-34 is a reasonable event to occur, whereas you have very, VERY little reason for a medium tank to get anywhere near the Jackson.
This is also ignoring the fact that you're trying to compare a casemate superheavy doctrinal TD to a nondoctrinal turreted TD in this fashion. This is kind of laughable.
Jackson is what it is because there nothing else to perform on the late game on its side. Be sure that if the balance team had the opportunity to bring the Calliope stock, Jackson would have been nerfed in return.
Talking about pure Jackson's stat and not taking account of the faction as a whole isn't going to make you having any point here.
The Jackson's incredibly strong AT performance doesn't have anything to do with the Calliope. If you're buying a Jackson because you can't get a calliope then I would want to know your thought process, given that the two units don't have any sort of use-case overlap.
I'm also seriously not sure why you're even implying there's anything weak about the Jackson. The Jackson no longer bouncing shots from the P4 has not stopped it being the best nondoctrinal TD in the game.
Scott use what every other faction has access too: survivability, but instead to be in a form of superior armor stats, its range, speed and smoke. Again here let's not forget that the smoke is vet1, the same way as P4 and P5 get blitz at vet1 negating any form of speed USF units could have.
The scott already has fantastic range, speed, survivability, and then on top of this ALSO has smoke. Your scott simply shouldn't be engaged by AT threats if you are using it at all correctly, given that it outranges them and can even move while performing its barrage (Which is, to my knowledge, unique among these units)
You're still trying to compare the statistics/abilities of medium (And premium medium, in the case of the Panther) tanks to what is effectively a small self-propelled artillery piece for some reason. What exactly does the Panther having blitz have to do with the Scott having smoke? How are those two abilities at all related, other than the fact they're both on (Completely unrelated) vehicles at veterancy one? |
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.
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. |
This is pretty much a non-issue. As far as I know the BAR vs PGren STG 44 is the only instance where this even applies. And even then the BAR is still better beyond range 23, so it's an even trade at worst, and usually worth it anyway just to deny the weapon to the enemy.
The only inconsistency regarding weapon drops that could be improved upon is how it's quite arbitrary which weapon upgrades can be dropped and which ones can't. STG 44s (as a Volks or Gren weapon upgrade) and G 43s for example could be droppable too.
I still personally don't like weapon dropping as a feature to begin with. I'd say it either should act like Team Weapons, in that weapons are /always/ dropped when a squad is killed (And perhaps when one is picked up it replaces an existing weapon upgrade), or alternatively (and preferably) just have weapons never drop in the first place, which would put all infantry on equal footing. There would then be 0 consideration that needs be made when balancing/creating a weapon for how it would function on squads other than those it's specifically equipped to.
As it stands, and as you say, there's a disparity between various infantry squads and whether or not they have droppable weaponry (and how vulnerable a given squad is to dropping what they're holding), and even whether or not they can pick up drops (and how many), and on top of all this you have no control over weapon drops... It's rather like abandons/MGC in a way (Though generally much less impactful)
How far should droppable arms even go? Should STGs be droppable? G43s? PPSH? Thompsons? MP40? Scoped Garands? RE Grenade Launchers?
Arguably there are quite a few instances of weapon pickups being rather a downgrade. PTRS on most squads, LMGs (in particular the "weaker" ones) on SMG infantry, BARs on Conscripts (I'd argue that 7 man is simply superior there), etcetera. |
No . just soft retreat and set it behind smoke = you done.
Don't forgot about when you're in smoke you can't shoot so your unit will vulnerable to CQC unit.
I really have issue when my opposite use assgren + mg42 spam in 1vs1.
Another is this will need multiple unit. once you franking MG. your opposite will go capture another.
That why I've mention about "Its power is not enough to push MG back before you lost whole territory"
But, again, if it's forced to repack and go behind the smoke it still isnt doing anything useful, and now it's in a worse position when the smoke dissipates.
The goal isnt necessarily to force the MG back to base/kill it. If you can achieve your goals while the MG isnt doing anything useful then that is a win. While the MG is smoked you are able to set your troops in advantageous positions, and to capture territory that it might otherwise have been protecting.
Even just in a straight fight, smoking the enemy MG immediately takes it out of the equation, letting you defeat his remaining forces. If the MG hangs around after that, you've got it outnumbered and outmanoeuvred.
After dropping the smoke your Mortar is able to immediately start contributing damage to the remainder of the fight, so you're up an unit over your opponent regardless. |
Smoke might not work if enemy use cqc unit combo with MG.
Like asGren + mg42 or multple MG.
Smoke still totally disables the MG, regardless of whether or not Assgrens are in there too. If they've got a squad of assgrens in the smoke alongside the MG, you're winning even harder: since two squads are uselessly doing nothing. |
No wonder, because majority of the playerbase are teamgame players. And if you are malding over abandon in 4v4, there is something wrong with you.
But in 1v1, that requires a lot more effort and attention, such things may decide the fate of the match. The match that you put a lot of effort and time, just to get rekt by a horrible RNG mechanic.
There is no place for crits in 1v1.
If teamgames become more balanced/less retarded in CoH3 (by some miracle) then I'd argue they ought not to be in teamgames either. Currently it isnt hugely meaningful in CoH2, because teamgames are a mess anyway. |
Zook gimmick was there because unlike any other light vehicle the m20 .50 was harmless vs anything not on foot.
I mean, the 223, 251, 250, various allied halftracks/scout cars/etc also do nothing to anything not on foot. The M20 is hardly unique in that regard, and it doesn't really justify it having a free bazooka. |
i have to disagree, rather those wanting removal are the loud minority.
I'll agree to disagree. I'm hopeful that Relic will listen to reason and not re-implement abandons regardless.
but let just say, abandoned as a mechanic to gain access to enemy vehicle is a great feature and unless relic creates new feature to replace it. removing it is just cutting down the potential of emergent gameplay and layers. most players want to play a mulit faceted games.
Randomly handing vehicles to your opponent doesn't create a multi-faceted gameplay experience. It's a terrible feature that just provides massive swings in momentum for one side or another with absolutely no input. You have no control over whether or not a vehicle gets abandoned, so the only thing it does is discourage aggressive play. Discouraging aggressive play creates an exceedingly boring game.
Losing a vehicle is already punishing enough, I see no reason that you should also have a chance to effectively build your opponent a vehicle on top of losing your own (Completely randomly).
i have to disagree but i am not going to convince you. let just say abandoned have to stay. but we have to study what are the impact that some of you claims dislike.
a simple solution is by adding resources usage to repairing a captured tank. would that work?
it gives players another decision making stop, to see whether salvaging a P4 20 mins in a match a worth or not.
Getting a discounted tank at almost any stage of the game is a no-brainer. There is nothing you could add to the "feature" to make it anywhere near balanced/a decent part of the game other than being able to deterministically cause abandons. Abandons being at all random is a non-starter of an idea.
CoH1's Bergtiger is a better implementation of a similar concept, though it is also not fantastic there either.
in fact, my theory is, those who dislike abandoned, how many games have you lost due to this always cited example of 'it punishes aggressive plays'? is it very common and impactful or just a theory because the dislike of random outcomes?
Plenty of games have been severely negatively impacted/lost because one side or the other got exceedingly lucky/unlucky and their tank received an MGC or was abandoned. They're disabled in any vaguely "competitive" game for precisely that reason. |
You need to understand how brutal is a possibility of losing a tank and giving it away to the enemy, especially in 1v1, when you can't sit around on your ass behind HMGs and AT guns, while your allies doing all the work. Sometimes single piece of armor over your enemy can be deciding factor in a match.
So either implement it in 4v4 and 3v3s only, or drop the feature all together. Same with maingun crits.
Removing entirely really would be preferable. They're just not good features, despite what people would like to pretend. Same as flamer crits were. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
