Profile of Lokust22

I really like the 222. It feels about the right strength for its cost and when it can come out. The AEC is clearly the one which is coming out too fast in this match up. The problem is people are succumbing to power creep.

So do we want to change something that doesnt need fixing? no, in fact this is one of the few things Relic has managed to balanced VERY well.

I have addressed else where. I do think there needs to be more emphasis on improving game elements. There are quite a few "balanced" things which could be improved to encourage more exciting, skilled and fun game play.

This is where i got problems with this whole topic.

It's supposed to be risky, and you're supposed to (in worst case) throw away a cheap unit to get an expensive one. It's not just about trading manpower & fuel, in the long run you will also be able to regain the same tank way earlier than your opponent.

Thanks for honestly engaging in the topic.

I get that it is supposed to be risky. But in my opinion, the risk should be centered on a full engagement. Lots can go wrong when you do this (mines, shreck support, etc), but if you catch it off guard, you can kill that very large investment. My problem more lies around the fact that the large tank hunters also make feints and probing of defenses extremely dangerous too. I don't know about you, but those are the battles that I really enjoy, when each player is constantly trying to probe the others defenses, while countering their oppositions moves.

All the units you mention got several things in common:

• only good for anti tank, and nothing (!) else. And even there only for extra support or against highly armored targets.
  
• stationary or super slow (snare & indirect fire anyone?)
  
• very pricy = you commit to a hard counter in your own punishing way. Which brings me to...
  
• needs support all the time. Unsupported heavy AT will lose against any two mediums easily, in a vacuum even vs. just one. You need a spotter or you can't make use of the range. You need support or you get screwed. You need to constantly repair or the enemy will shell it to death, overrun it with infantry, and so on...

Yip, agreed with this whole list. I am not trying to change the units role.

IMHO: those units mentioned are pretty much in a sweet spot right now. You commit a lot to hard counter something the enemy may or may not build.
I would even go the other route, and suggest to buff them a little tiny bit.

So again, I am not trying to nerf the units. I tried to give them buffs that I thought would counter act the reduction in damage and still maintain and cement their role as heavy, dedicated, long range anti tank.

Think this is very good reply. Any changes on the damage should also be followed by changes to make this vehicle less vulnerable to being swarmed.

For instance by removing the stun for JT or increasing the mobility of these units...

Yeah, I hate that stun. I would definitely be in favour of getting rid of that if the unit could be balanced without it. Thats another example where it is technically balanced, but badly designed imo.

Why "fix" something what is not broken? Huh?

Because something can be "balanced" and still limit game play and meta.

For example, I would say that the B4 and units instantly spawning out of buildings are two examples where the idea behind them is flawed and should be changed in order for the game to evolve as a whole (even though the units aren't actually OP).

git gud, the tanks can't spot for themselves and take time to reload which you can use to reposition. Barely anyone uses any of those units anyway

I'm not suggesting the units are OP. That is why I am trying to compensate the reduction in damage. I am saying, from a design point of view, 320 damage is not a good idea and I think these changes will make for more interesting game play.