DBP Balance Feedback

12830323334

Comments

  • #872
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited December 2017
    > @Mr_Smith said:
    > USF vehicles also have uncharacteristically large target size for their chassis to make up for that.

    That must be the reason why the vet 0 Panther has such a mindblwingly outstanding chance of just above 50% to hit while moving when fighting the Jackson. Sorry, but that statement is bollocks. It might be numerically true, but the difference is statistically irrelevant when looking at the hit chances. Now, I'm only talking about Wehrmacht here, OK-W can go and eat a Bratwurst for all the good they did for my beloved Wehr.
  • #873
    2 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343

    @Hingie said:
    > @Mr_Smith said:
    > USF vehicles also have uncharacteristically large target size for their chassis to make up for that.

    That must be the reason why the vet 0 Panther has such a mindblwingly outstanding chance of just above 50% to hit while moving when fighting the Jackson. Sorry, but that statement is bollocks. It might be numerically true, but the difference is statistically irrelevant when looking at the hit chances. Now, I'm only talking about Wehrmacht here, OK-W can go and eat a Bratwurst for all the good they did for my beloved Wehr.

    The Jackson similarly has about 43% chance of scoring a penetrating hit back at the OST Panther while moving, while having less HP and firing slower than the OST Panther. Now, what do you want us to do with that probability?

  • #874
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    > @Mr_Smith said:
    > The Jackson similarly has about 43% chance of scoring a penetrating hit back at the OST Panther while moving, while having less HP and firing slower than the OST Panther. Now, what do you want us to do with that probability?

    Nothing. The Jackson can remain as it is for all I care. Improve the performance of the Panther. It's a tank which, lacking 60 range, needs to move to be able to engage it's targets. Basically the Panther is a tank which relies on its mobility for offense. It has that an pen. The DPS is bad, the RoF is mediocre, the accuracy is abysmal, and it lacks real long-range capabilities. It is fighting mostly vehicles which out range it and are geared to fight KTs. As such, it being the most expensive AT vehicle, it should be really good at the things it can do. It should be atop the AT food chain. Yet, I just about always would rather get a Stug instead. That is the problem. A combination of poor accessibility and really disappointing performance make the Panther an undesirable vehicle for Wehr to acquire.
  • #875
    2 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited December 2017

    @Hingie said:
    > @Mr_Smith said:
    > The Jackson similarly has about 43% chance of scoring a penetrating hit back at the OST Panther while moving, while having less HP and firing slower than the OST Panther. Now, what do you want us to do with that probability?

    Nothing. The Jackson can remain as it is for all I care. Improve the performance of the Panther. It's a tank which, lacking 60 range, needs to move to be able to engage it's targets. Basically the Panther is a tank which relies on its mobility for offense. It has that an pen. The DPS is bad, the RoF is mediocre, the accuracy is abysmal, and it lacks real long-range capabilities. It is fighting mostly vehicles which out range it and are geared to fight KTs. As such, it being the most expensive AT vehicle, it should be really good at the things it can do. It should be atop the AT food chain. Yet, I just about always would rather get a Stug instead. That is the problem. A combination of poor accessibility and really disappointing performance make the Panther an undesirable vehicle for Wehr to acquire.

    So, basically the stuff we did for Panther in DBP?

    Admittedly, we could do better with accessibility. However, that would require us to reshuffle the available vehicles in OST T3/T4 to make both tiers more accessible (e.g., swap PanzerIV with Panzerwerfer). However, that's too risky a change to make in one step.

  • #876
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    > @Mr_Smith said:
    > So, basically the stuff we did for Panther in DBP?

    Basically yes, only on a more meaningful level. As a Wehr player I must always ask myself, what would I rather have: 1.75 Stugs, which through DPS and ease of access alone have held up Wehr for the last year, or a Panther. Which is more expensive, whose armour is impressive on paper but really nothing spectacular in reality when all Allied TDs are built to fight King Tigers, whose RoF means it's poor accuracy hurts it more than it is the case for the Stug, which is harder to replace than the Stug... I could go on. The Panther just does not have enough going for it to incentivise it's use over the Stug. It's durability is nice, but if it can hit the broad side of a barn and takes substantially longer to dispatch a threat than the Stugs would... it's just not worth it.
  • #877
    2 years ago
    NoitatohtoriNoitatoht… Posts: 182
    edited December 2017

    @Mr_Smith said:

    @Hingie said:
    > @Mr_Smith said:
    > The Jackson similarly has about 43% chance of scoring a penetrating hit back at the OST Panther while moving, while having less HP and firing slower than the OST Panther. Now, what do you want us to do with that probability?

    Nothing. The Jackson can remain as it is for all I care. Improve the performance of the Panther. It's a tank which, lacking 60 range, needs to move to be able to engage it's targets. Basically the Panther is a tank which relies on its mobility for offense. It has that an pen. The DPS is bad, the RoF is mediocre, the accuracy is abysmal, and it lacks real long-range capabilities. It is fighting mostly vehicles which out range it and are geared to fight KTs. As such, it being the most expensive AT vehicle, it should be really good at the things it can do. It should be atop the AT food chain. Yet, I just about always would rather get a Stug instead. That is the problem. A combination of poor accessibility and really disappointing performance make the Panther an undesirable vehicle for Wehr to acquire.

    So, basically the stuff we did for Panther in DBP?

    Admittedly, we could do better with accessibility. However, that would require us to reshuffle the available vehicles in OST T3/T4 to make both tiers more accessible (e.g., swap PanzerIV with Panzerwerfer). However, that's too risky a change to make in one step.

    The thing is, though, that Allied vehicles (USF most drastically) have utility beyond Axis counterparts. Shermans, Comets, Cromwells, T-34's can all engage infantry with their main guns with medium to great effect, which is way more effective than whittling down squads with Panther's MG. That's where P4 comes in. It fills the same niche as the previously mentioned vehicles, and is the Axis answer to Allies who utilize combined arms and their own generalist tanks. It also helps that Stugs are in the same tier and generally perform better than Panthers.

    The thing with Panthers, from my perspective, is that Axis players are often required to engage and dive very deep to achieve any meaningful results. Panthers are expensive in resources and CP's, which means that they have to destroy stuff to stay ahead of the curve. They need to strike deep and get out, because both USF and Brits have ways to very, very quickly repair their own tanks, bringing them back to the fight before Axis have had a chance to recover - by utilizing crew repair, Sappers, Conscript repairs and doctrinal self-repair, which allow quick repairs on the field, without the need to withdraw back to base. Mostly this is a problem with USF and their crews. I'm fine with doctrinal self-repairs and Heavy Sappers, but the baseline ability is just insanely powerful and means that unless the Jackson or Sherman is destroyed, it will pop right back in, continue to do its thing and there's not much to do. Especially this is a problem for Wehr, who have no repair perks of any kind.

    In keeping with Axis specialist theme and elite units, I would steer the Panther in a direction where it's front armor is boosted, health lowered, but moving accuracy increased drastically and moving speed increased ever so slightly. Also, fuck the MG's, they're not really worth their price. Basically, make it finally a tank hunter - mobile and capable of engaging enemies that extend too far or outflanking them and punishing the enemy for ignoring flanks, without being immediately destroyed by Allied firepower if micro'd correctly (= attacking areas that have been scouted in an angle that keeps only the front armor exposed).

  • #878
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    To add what's already spoken, panther need better specs because it has to deal with better specced counters. I agree, make panther the specialist tanks it was meant to be. Either by giving it an armour buff or better rof/accuracy. Not both, but something enough for it to dive in and out of combat while dealing meanful damage.

    Not like dbp, when you made panther take up 2 more units and remove the armor bonus. The reason of panther spam is unbeliveable concern in single game, or even dual games.
  • #879
    2 years ago

    Any reason the Ost Panther can't get an accuracy buff with vet? It currently has none at all. I think the vet 2 armor bonus should've been replaced with something, and the main gun's accuracy is the panther's biggest weakness.

  • #880
    2 years ago
    Accuracy shouldnt be a weak point in ostheer's armour.

    Personally i think blitz should be removed (rebuff it to its former glory and make it doctrinal, it FEELS doctrinal and being stock has cause so many problem up to and including be nerfed into the ground...) Replace that with +5 range stationary and more accuracy when stationary. Ost lacks anything with the range of dedicated TDs (the only faction to lack it) ao i fail to see how they cant make up for it by excelling against non TD tanks in the defensive role. Can you imagine? A fully vetted tiger returning fire against TDs (keep in mind its limited to 1 and costs a fair deal) make ost great again! Give it something unique!
  • #881
    2 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Accuracy shouldnt be a weak point in ostheer's armour.

    Personally i think blitz should be removed (rebuff it to its former glory and make it doctrinal, it FEELS doctrinal and being stock has cause so many problem up to and including be nerfed into the ground...) Replace that with +5 range stationary and more accuracy when stationary. Ost lacks anything with the range of dedicated TDs (the only faction to lack it) ao i fail to see how they cant make up for it by excelling against non TD tanks in the defensive role. Can you imagine? A fully vetted tiger returning fire against TDs (keep in mind its limited to 1 and costs a fair deal) make ost great again! Give it something unique!

    Why, exactly, should they have poor accuracy? It goes against their nature as tank hunters, as well as their historical counterparts, which had very good optics for their time. I don't see the point in nerfing their elite vehicles even more when they already cost more than any other tank baseline tank in the game.

  • #882
    2 years ago
    @Noitatohtori

    Reread my post nice and slowly.
  • #883
    2 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @Noitatohtori

    Reread my post nice and slowly.

    I'm sorry, I'm feeling a bit down the weather and I misread your post.

  • #884
    2 years ago
    @Noitatohtori no worries
  • #885
    2 years ago
    company14u2company14… Posts: 572
    edited December 2017

    The panther frontal armor is immortal to shermans, t34/76s, and cromwell. It also outruns two of them, so it is a pain to try to flank. Also, Players can buff their panthers with command tanks and panzer tactician. Yes, tank destroyers will stop panthers while being cheaper. They do this because they have to stop heavy tanks. If you want better balance, I would suggest changing up blitz tactics.

    New Blitz would give panthers better move speed and accuracy but would slow them when the ability ends. Blitz would make it ideal for finishing off tank destroyers; however, you would be sending the panther to its death if the tds were backed by shermans or t34s.

  • #886
    2 years ago
    EsxileEsxile Posts: 15
    edited December 2017

    @Noitatohtori said:

    The thing with Panthers, from my perspective, is that Axis players are often required to engage and dive very deep to achieve any meaningful results. Panthers are expensive in resources and CP's, which means that they have to destroy stuff to stay ahead of the curve. They need to strike deep and get out, because both USF and Brits have ways to very, very quickly repair their own tanks, bringing them back to the fight before Axis have had a chance to recover - by utilizing crew repair, Sappers, Conscript repairs and doctrinal self-repair, which allow quick repairs on the field, without the need to withdraw back to base. Mostly this is a problem with USF and their crews. I'm fine with doctrinal self-repairs and Heavy Sappers, but the baseline ability is just insanely powerful and means that unless the Jackson or Sherman is destroyed, it will pop right back in, continue to do its thing and there's not much to do. Especially this is a problem for Wehr, who have no repair perks of any kind.

    In keeping with Axis specialist theme and elite units, I would steer the Panther in a direction where it's front armor is boosted, health lowered, but moving accuracy increased drastically and moving speed increased ever so slightly. Also, fuck the MG's, they're not really worth their price. Basically, make it finally a tank hunter - mobile and capable of engaging enemies that extend too far or outflanking them and punishing the enemy for ignoring flanks, without being immediately destroyed by Allied firepower if micro'd correctly (= attacking areas that have been scouted in an angle that keeps only the front armor exposed).

    From you perspective the panther should be OP to be useful, that what I read. I'm sorry but the way you are exposing your conception of panther is no one should survive it which is far from any concept of balance.
    Let me quote quote a celebre Axis fan/specialist caster. "if you dive with a panther you are doing it wrong". Panther armor is the best in the game but every time you get closer to your target you are simply doing the wrong move.

    Getting closer to your target reduce your armor protection but doesn't increase your accuracy on the move. So every time you dive to clean a Jackson, you are increase his chance to penetrate your armor for little to no gain at all. Jackson size is already big enough for you to hit it reliable at max range (not moving) and the Jackson armor isn't going to stop any panther shot from max range.
    Managing a panther is about keeping your panther at max range and using stop-fire-move to increase your chance to hit.
    I don't know exact stats but Jackson's chance to pen a Panther from Panther's max range isn't that bigger than from Jackson's max range. Panthers are fast as Jackson and have heavy crush unlike Jackson so you can easily keep your target at range. Now both players have to use stop-fire-move to increase their chance to score a hit while the Jackson has the advantage to be more accurate on the move.

    tl;dr
    Jackson has the advantage of being more accurate than panther on the move, more range and bigger damage per successful hit + vet damage modifier.
    Panther has the advantage of the armor, hp pool, heavy crush + vet hp pool modifier + blitz ability + doctrinal smoke.
    So don't get close, stay at max range and stop before firing and your panther will do wonder.

  • #887
    2 years ago

    @Esxile said:

    @Noitatohtori said:

    The thing with Panthers, from my perspective, is that Axis players are often required to engage and dive very deep to achieve any meaningful results. Panthers are expensive in resources and CP's, which means that they have to destroy stuff to stay ahead of the curve. They need to strike deep and get out, because both USF and Brits have ways to very, very quickly repair their own tanks, bringing them back to the fight before Axis have had a chance to recover - by utilizing crew repair, Sappers, Conscript repairs and doctrinal self-repair, which allow quick repairs on the field, without the need to withdraw back to base. Mostly this is a problem with USF and their crews. I'm fine with doctrinal self-repairs and Heavy Sappers, but the baseline ability is just insanely powerful and means that unless the Jackson or Sherman is destroyed, it will pop right back in, continue to do its thing and there's not much to do. Especially this is a problem for Wehr, who have no repair perks of any kind.

    In keeping with Axis specialist theme and elite units, I would steer the Panther in a direction where it's front armor is boosted, health lowered, but moving accuracy increased drastically and moving speed increased ever so slightly. Also, fuck the MG's, they're not really worth their price. Basically, make it finally a tank hunter - mobile and capable of engaging enemies that extend too far or outflanking them and punishing the enemy for ignoring flanks, without being immediately destroyed by Allied firepower if micro'd correctly (= attacking areas that have been scouted in an angle that keeps only the front armor exposed).

    From you perspective the panther should be OP to be useful, that what I read. I'm sorry but the way you are exposing your conception of panther is no one should survive it which is far from any concept of balance.
    Let me quote quote a celebre Axis fan/specialist caster. "if you dive with a panther you are doing it wrong". Panther armor is the best in the game but every time you get closer to your target you are simply doing the wrong move.

    Getting closer to your target reduce your armor protection but doesn't increase your accuracy on the move. So every time you dive to clean a Jackson, you are increase his chance to penetrate your armor for little to no gain at all. Jackson size is already big enough for you to hit it reliable at max range (not moving) and the Jackson armor isn't going to stop any panther shot from max range.
    Managing a panther is about keeping your panther at max range and using stop-fire-move to increase your chance to hit.
    I don't know exact stats but Jackson's chance to pen a Panther from Panther's max range isn't that bigger than from Jackson's max range. Panthers are fast as Jackson and have heavy crush unlike Jackson so you can easily keep your target at range. Now both players have to use stop-fire-move to increase their chance to score a hit while the Jackson has the advantage to be more accurate on the move.

    tl;dr
    Jackson has the advantage of being more accurate than panther on the move, more range and bigger damage per successful hit + vet damage modifier.
    Panther has the advantage of the armor, hp pool, heavy crush + vet hp pool modifier + blitz ability + doctrinal smoke.
    So don't get close, stay at max range and stop before firing and your panther will do wonder.

    I don't want the Panther to be made OP like you imply and demonizing the opposition isn't a very good argumentation technique.

    While you have valid points in the fact that Panther is as fast as Jackson and has the advantage of armor, you've ignored that Jackson has better range, better vision and doesn't have to stop to shoot in order to maintain reasonable accuracy, which allows it to move at a better rate in a moving firefight. Jackson is also classified as a tank destroyer, which implies ambush potential and range. Panther, meanwhile, is a tank hunter, which implies mobility and risk/reward gameplay. Panther is also much more expensive than Jackson - very much so. I simply don't agree that improving Panther front armor while reverting its health buff and also increasing moving accuracy makes it OP. Currently, it's underutilized and struggles vs all enemy vehicles it's supposed to counter, as the Axis late-game superiority and armour advantage has all but fizzled away, except for a few doctrinal exceptions (Jagdtiger and Sturmtiger, namely).

  • #888
    2 years ago
    EsxileEsxile Posts: 15

    You don't want but that's where you are leading the panther with your wishes. Put yourself on USF player boots, tell us how an USF player is supposed to counter your version of the panther? The only remaining advantage the Jackson has is doing more damage per hit. But to do that, it needs to pen which is negated by the fact you increased the panther armor. You are just creating a pure RNG situation favorable for the panther. The only way to stop your panther is to be... lucky.

    And just to be clear, Panthers aren't supposed to counter Jacksons the way you think as much as Jacksons aren't countering well used Panthers. Panther is a tank destroyer with a different profile than Jackson or Su-85 but still a tank destroyer. Panthers counter shermans and T34 variants. If there isn't any of those tanks on the field, build pak40 and pzshreck as they are countering just fine tanks destroyers.

  • #889
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited December 2017
    > @Esxile said:
    > Put yourself on USF player boots, tell us how an USF player is supposed to counter your version of the Panther?

    I don't know, perhaps Bazookas or AT guns or Mines or flanking the more expensive Panther with a larger number of vehicles... basically the same you are suggesting people should do to counter Jackson, while Jacksons are cheaper than Panthers. By a long shot.

    You suggesting that the most expensive non-doctrinal AT unit in the game should not be built if the USF player decides to built Jacksons instead of Shermans (why would you build Shermans when Rifles counter every infantry threat they come across handily?) Is a ludicrous proposal. It basically means that the more expensive, less accessible unit should be made redundant by the cheaper one.
  • #890
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,672

    Why are you so fixated on attacking jackson with panther?

    As I have said previously, neither lacks anything nor has it too good.

    You struggle against jackson so much? Roll up god damn AT gun and watch it melt while its completely helpless.

    STOP pretending its 1v1 ultimate dueling showdown between units, because it never was nor never will be.
    If you're facing jacksons and don't have ATGs to counter them, you play wrong, period. Nothing more, nothing less-just that. Use correct units to counter specific threats.

    Protip: Panther is NOT intended jackson counter, its the other way around.

  • #891
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    The Panther is an AT focused unit. It's more expensive than a Jackson. Ergo it should win against a Jackson. If by your verdict Sections should beat Grens handily by merit of them being 16% more expensive, the Panther should annihilate Jacksons by merit of it being 25% more expensive.
  • #892
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,672
    edited December 2017

    @Hingie said:
    The Panther is an AT focused unit. It's more expensive than a Jackson. Ergo it should win against a Jackson. If by your verdict Sections should beat Grens handily by merit of them being 16% more expensive, the Panther should annihilate Jacksons by merit of it being 25% more expensive.

    More focused doesn't equal to specialist.
    Panther can still engage infantry to a point, where jackson is pure, 100% AV unit that is unable to do literally anything else.

    If you ambushed jackson, you'll win, but if you're being kited by it, you won't, nor should you.
    IS and Grens have the exact same role of general main line infantry, so that already makes your example completely void-they literally are used for exact same thing. Just like P4 vs T34.

    Panther is NOT the same as jackson, nor does it have the same role.
    Panther is AT focused brawler with high health and armor and ability to engage infantry, jackson is 100% tank destroyer.

    Being more expensive doesn't mean crap if you completely ignore units intended role, even if it performs similarly to others.

    If your cost argument stood any ground, panther shouldn't stand a chance against comet - yes, comet is more of a generalist, but its also more expensive one, therefore by extension of your logic, should beat panther.

  • #893
    2 years ago

    When it comes to tanks, remember one crucial thing: okw does not have have fuel caches!!! Yes, ost does but there is no guarantee we get paired with ost. Then there are 1v1s..

    So in terms of doctrinal units, and ill count the kt since its abailable with any commander, we have the following:

    A med tank that is alright vs infantry but gets destroyed by allied tanks of just slightly more fuel cost.

    A med-heavy tank that is worthless against infantry and good against tanks but has limited sight and range and is now being rendered even less effective.

    A heavy tank that is great against all targets but very expensive, slow, and limited sight and range. Now also nerfed so that infantry have nothing to fear and can simply rush it and AT grenade it to engine failure.

    To top it off, you nerfed combat blitz which feels like a nail in the coffin.

    you finally gave okw a means to deal with early game hmg garrison via the earlier access to grenades and smoke and fire rounds for the ISG, and that is amazing and much needed, but this is not going to matter since the late game now heavily favors allies.

    will i stop playing? no, but i may have to switch to allies. problem is, i think everyone will.

  • #894
    2 years ago

    @Hingie said:
    The Panther is an AT focused unit. It's more expensive than a Jackson. Ergo it should win against a Jackson. If by your verdict Sections should beat Grens handily by merit of them being 16% more expensive, the Panther should annihilate Jacksons by merit of it being 25% more expensive.

    Well said.

    Of course we should play with good strategy, and it's very seldom a 1 on 1 tank duel, but if there is one thing i see in the changelogs its a motive to keep cost in line with performance, at least ostensibly. Therefore the one on one comparison holds water. If the Panther isnt as good, fine, but it should cost less.

    ....especially given that okw cant build caches!!!!!!! There is a reason us okw players are so vigilant about our tank tweaks. Fuel is very precious to us.

    How about this: just give us caches.

  • #895
    2 years ago

    @Katitof said:

    @Hingie said:
    The Panther is an AT focused unit. It's more expensive than a Jackson. Ergo it should win against a Jackson. If by your verdict Sections should beat Grens handily by merit of them being 16% more expensive, the Panther should annihilate Jacksons by merit of it being 25% more expensive.

    More focused doesn't equal to specialist.
    Panther can still engage infantry to a point, where jackson is pure, 100% AV unit that is unable to do literally anything else.

    If you ambushed jackson, you'll win, but if you're being kited by it, you won't, nor should you.
    IS and Grens have the exact same role of general main line infantry, so that already makes your example completely void-they literally are used for exact same thing. Just like P4 vs T34.

    Panther is NOT the same as jackson, nor does it have the same role.
    Panther is AT focused brawler with high health and armor and ability to engage infantry, jackson is 100% tank destroyer.

    Being more expensive doesn't mean crap if you completely ignore units intended role, even if it performs similarly to others.

    If your cost argument stood any ground, panther shouldn't stand a chance against comet - yes, comet is more of a generalist, but its also more expensive one, therefore by extension of your logic, should beat panther.

    Well, the Comet already matches the Panther in AT while being much better in all other areas. The Panther is not a generalist, no matter how much you may tell everyone it is. It's anti-infantry output is minimal and unreliable, and no-one has ever gotten themselves a Panther to counter infantry rushes.

    It has simply been overshadowed by other anti-tank vehicles and needs to be brought up to match its cost again.

  • #896
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited December 2017
    @Katitof
    You're not going to weasel your way out of this. For all intents and purposes the Jackson and the Panther serve the same purpose: to destroy tanks. You don't get a Panther to fight infantry, the same way you don't get an Ostwind to fight T-34s - a comparison which incidentally comes close to higlighting the very relative effectiveness of the Panthers AI. The Panthers role is clearly to fight other vehicles. The Jacksons role is the same. Hide behind semantics if you wish, but that does not change the fact that the Panther is procured solely for AT purposes by... everyone. The purpose of the Comet, on the other hand, is to fight everything. It's perks and profile clearly designate it as a multipurpose vehicle with a varied spectrum of operative deployments. You can use it to fight tanks effectively, fight infantry and weapons crews effectively, to support allied infantry through smoke shells, etc. Additionally, the cost difference between the Panther and the Comet is only 8.5%, so it should, even if cost was the only factor, be really close. Or, to use the Katitof scale of effectiveness, about half the difference between a IS power level versus a Grenadier power level.
  • #897
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,672
    edited December 2017

    @Hingie you're not wrestling me on this one, but relic and balance modders. Its not me, making the changes - its them. I'm simply explaining you the possible reasoning and since @Mr_Smith already replied on the topic, what I'm saying is pretty much in line with what they are doing and why.

    Yes, you don't get panther to fight infantry.
    But the most important thing here, you can still fight infantry with it, contrary to jackson who can't do anything.
    You're using yet another moot example, because Panther can force away infantry squads, even AT ones with some RNG penetration luck, while ostwind vs T34 is pretty one sided, only further cementing my point of specialist units having one job and excelling at it and only at it.

    Again, because you have incredibly hard time comprehending it:

    Yes, panther primary job is to engage armor BUT its not its only job, it can still engage infantry.
    No, jackson can not do the same as its a specialist and heaviest of its faction, meaning it has to be fully capable of countering whatever armor you throw at it.

    @Noitatohtori said:
    Well, the Comet already matches the Panther in AT while being much better in all other areas. The Panther is not a generalist, no matter how much you may tell everyone it is. It's anti-infantry output is minimal and unreliable, and no-one has ever gotten themselves a Panther to counter infantry rushes.

    It has simply been overshadowed by other anti-tank vehicles and needs to be brought up to match its cost again.

    Comet also:
    -costs more
    -has less armor
    -has less penetration
    -has less range
    -fights against higher armor on average then panther does

    And stop acting like I'm saying that panther is AI vehicle.
    I've said what it is, please stop throwing tantrums and putting false words into my posts.

  • #898
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited December 2017
    If the existence of MGs on the Panther and it's limited ability to engage infantry is such a relevant factor in deciding it's AT effectiveness I'm all for removing the MGs. If they are the excuse or reason to hamper the Panthers true role they are an obstacle to be eliminitated.
  • #899
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,672

    That "limited ability to engage infantry" is equal to LMG gren DPS-last I've checked, they didn't had "limited ability to engage infantry" but a considerable dps.

    But yes, that and panthers armor value and health value together are why jackson is and should be better AT.

  • #900
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    Compared to just about every multi purpose vehicle it's not that great. It's gun is flaming useless and that's what makes or breaks the AI for vehicles most of the time.
  • #901
    2 years ago

    Checking off all of your opposition as "throwing tantrums" isn't a very good method to upkeep healthy conversation about any topic.

    The fact is that for the very small price difference of the Comet and the Panther, the latter performs worse in all aspects, except for pure penetration and armour value, and even there the difference is minor. I find this extremely strange and frustrating. Without comparing the two, it still remains a factor that Panther has no role where it performs adequately, being unable to protect anything from infantry (especially AT infantry, but even AT-nade spam can drive it off before it kills anything) and struggles against tanks and tank destroyers, lacking the range to outrange MBT's and the armor, accuracy and speed to counter tank destroyers.

This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.