Spring Update Balance Discussion

18911131416

Comments

  • #302
    1 year ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @Bratkartoffel said:
    At the moment the Jackson, in the right hands, dominates any other axis tank. There are some threads where this is discussed a lot. So I think, reduce armor or reduce range will do it. Right now the Jackson can get some very good shots and retreat right before axis can counter him.

    Good armor, high range, turret, fast movement, good accuracy and penetration, the combination of all makes him a bit over the top. And not to forget, how fast and easy he can be repaired. I dont say op, but something has to be done.

    Don't forget about the AP rounds they have, this is non-doctrinal but okw needs a doctrine to get the same ability. With AP rounds on, Jacksons and well placed AT guns can counter any armor assaults with 'little worry'.

  • #303
    1 year ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @javabal said:
    I like the patch, but I have 2 problem.
    1) Katyusha: Reload time increased from 2.5 to 3
    why? why? now it's difficult to kill someone with the Katyusha, because he misses most of the shots and the enemy can retired all your units after the first volleys. And you increased the time? why you don't increased the time to shoot of Rocket Launcher. The Rocket Launcher can kill all your units in 1 shoot, he can suppress you and have a bonification vs garrisons. And you change the Katyusha?
    2) Jackson: Range reduced from 60 to 55
    The others change are good, but dont reduced the range, today the USF need to decide between Calliope, Pershing or Easy 8, because you can´t have all like others army, for example OKW (they can have Stuka, Jagdpanzer IV, panther, and King Tiger or Jagdtiger). And have for the USF a power tank with good range for shoot is necessary, because if I choose a commander with Calliope, how can i confront to panther, and King Tiger or Jagdtiger? And in the last patch you increase the cost of the Jackson, so I thinks its ok, or reduced to the range of all tanks destroyers too.

    DOnt get me wrong, Jacksons need to be a good AT destroyer given the axis has some pretty good heavy tanks. They dont need nerfs in damage/pene/accuracy but their range is the real issue.

  • #304
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @vsr said:

    @Bratkartoffel said:
    At the moment the Jackson, in the right hands, dominates any other axis tank. There are some threads where this is discussed a lot. So I think, reduce armor or reduce range will do it. Right now the Jackson can get some very good shots and retreat right before axis can counter him.

    Good armor, high range, turret, fast movement, good accuracy and penetration, the combination of all makes him a bit over the top. And not to forget, how fast and easy he can be repaired. I dont say op, but something has to be done.

    Don't forget about the AP rounds they have, this is non-doctrinal but okw needs a doctrine to get the same ability. With AP rounds on, Jacksons and well placed AT guns can counter any armor assaults with 'little worry'.

    What for?
    Both axis factions have vehicles with extremely high armor. Jackson is supposed to counter these.

    What allied unit gives you so much trouble that you believe 240-260 penetration is not enough for it?
    And even then, axis have unit that can penetrate ALL allied armor with 100% reliability thanks to JT and ELE, while allies have nothing comparable to that AT power.

    Given, one of these units will have some of its armor replaced by hp, but the others remain and jackson is getting a nerf anyway.

  • #305
    1 year ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @Katitof said:

    @vsr said:

    @Bratkartoffel said:
    At the moment the Jackson, in the right hands, dominates any other axis tank. There are some threads where this is discussed a lot. So I think, reduce armor or reduce range will do it. Right now the Jackson can get some very good shots and retreat right before axis can counter him.

    Good armor, high range, turret, fast movement, good accuracy and penetration, the combination of all makes him a bit over the top. And not to forget, how fast and easy he can be repaired. I dont say op, but something has to be done.

    Don't forget about the AP rounds they have, this is non-doctrinal but okw needs a doctrine to get the same ability. With AP rounds on, Jacksons and well placed AT guns can counter any armor assaults with 'little worry'.

    What for?
    Both axis factions have vehicles with extremely high armor. Jackson is supposed to counter these.

    What allied unit gives you so much trouble that you believe 240-260 penetration is not enough for it?
    And even then, axis have unit that can penetrate ALL allied armor with 100% reliability thanks to JT and ELE, while allies have nothing comparable to that AT power.

    Given, one of these units will have some of its armor replaced by hp, but the others remain and jackson is getting a nerf anyway.

    LOL did you not read the second comment i made right after that omg.

    BTW i have seen vet0 JT and ele's shots bouncing off of ISU/pershing/IS2's armors. So, allies do have decent heavy highly mobile counters, so comes down to people who use them well vs people who use them poorly.

  • #306
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @vsr said:

    @Katitof said:

    @vsr said:

    @Bratkartoffel said:
    At the moment the Jackson, in the right hands, dominates any other axis tank. There are some threads where this is discussed a lot. So I think, reduce armor or reduce range will do it. Right now the Jackson can get some very good shots and retreat right before axis can counter him.

    Good armor, high range, turret, fast movement, good accuracy and penetration, the combination of all makes him a bit over the top. And not to forget, how fast and easy he can be repaired. I dont say op, but something has to be done.

    Don't forget about the AP rounds they have, this is non-doctrinal but okw needs a doctrine to get the same ability. With AP rounds on, Jacksons and well placed AT guns can counter any armor assaults with 'little worry'.

    What for?
    Both axis factions have vehicles with extremely high armor. Jackson is supposed to counter these.

    What allied unit gives you so much trouble that you believe 240-260 penetration is not enough for it?
    And even then, axis have unit that can penetrate ALL allied armor with 100% reliability thanks to JT and ELE, while allies have nothing comparable to that AT power.

    Given, one of these units will have some of its armor replaced by hp, but the others remain and jackson is getting a nerf anyway.

    LOL did you not read the second comment i made right after that omg.

    BTW i have seen vet0 JT and ele's shots bouncing off of ISU/pershing/IS2's armors. So, allies do have decent heavy highly mobile counters, so comes down to people who use them well vs people who use them poorly.

    That's fun, because the only unit in game that is capable of deflecting JT shot is JT itself and only at maximum range.

    The only allied unit capable of deflecting ele shot is IS-2 and even then its 90%+ chance to penetrate at max range.

  • #307
    1 year ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    In 2v2 competitive gameplay, USF player gets two Priests and wipes all the infantry in a matter of few barrages, especially the vet3 priests are too effective for their costs and mobility. By infantry im not even talking about camped up support weapons, im talking about volks, panzergrens, snipers, etc. NO CAMPING. Preiest barages are very accurate.

    They need to be atleast made vulnerable to flanks, bring one-shot kill like other mobile arty.

    @Andy_RE Please look into this.

  • #308
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @vsr said:
    In 2v2 competitive gameplay, USF player gets two Priests and wipes all the infantry in a matter of few barrages, especially the vet3 priests are too effective for their costs and mobility. By infantry im not even talking about camped up support weapons, im talking about volks, panzergrens, snipers, etc. NO CAMPING. Preiest barages are very accurate.

    They need to be atleast made vulnerable to flanks, bring one-shot kill like other mobile arty.

    @Andy_RE Please look into this.

    You do realize that axis stuka and pwerfer does that even better and without a doctrine AND you do not need 2 of them to do it?

    And here is priest vet:
    M7B1 Priest

    Unlocks Creeping Barrage
    -20% scatter -30% ability recharge
    +30% range

    What exactly is so amazing about vet3 compared to vet0?

  • #309
    1 year ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @Katitof said:

    @vsr said:
    In 2v2 competitive gameplay, USF player gets two Priests and wipes all the infantry in a matter of few barrages, especially the vet3 priests are too effective for their costs and mobility. By infantry im not even talking about camped up support weapons, im talking about volks, panzergrens, snipers, etc. NO CAMPING. Preiest barages are very accurate.

    They need to be atleast made vulnerable to flanks, bring one-shot kill like other mobile arty.

    @Andy_RE Please look into this.

    You do realize that axis stuka and pwerfer does that even better and without a doctrine AND you do not need 2 of them to do it?

    And here is priest vet:
    M7B1 Priest

    Unlocks Creeping Barrage
    -20% scatter -30% ability recharge
    +30% range

    What exactly is so amazing about vet3 compared to vet0?

    -20% scatter

  • #310
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    You don't need that against concentrated infantry as you claimed earlier.
    Would you happen to have a replay of what you claim is a norm?
    Because priest doctrine is not even a meta in 2s, much less getting 2 of them.

  • #311
    1 year ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    @Katitof I am not sure whats your statement is. For me it is clear that Jackson is op, since years.
  • #312
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @Widerstreit said:
    @Katitof I am not sure whats your statement is. For me it is clear that Jackson is op, since years.

    Its too good now.
    If you think it was always like that, you probably were driving it rear armor first against it.

  • #313
    1 year ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    @Katitof Maybe for Tiger II, or sometims for old Vet2 Panther on 60 range. But still there the Jackson was OP. Same for Firefly, Elefant, Jagdtiger, ISU152. There is no place for units with high range, high damage, high reloadtime without deficits.

    I don't understand why nobody is testing passive multibler on move for vehicles. So we can make vehicles more realistic AND balanced.

    E. g.
    1. Panther had extremely less space for the crew in the turret = - 20% reloadtime on the move.
    2. Firefly was extremely bad weight balanced = - 10 range on the move
    3. Jackson had same problems as Panther, but more horsepower. - 10% reload and - 5 range on the move.

    At all the M36 should be changed with the M10.

    At all the tank balance and the historical position of the armored units are wired.
    There are 3 cliches for every nation:
    - Germans: Best objectives (range and accuracy), underpowerd engines and difficult repairing.
    - Soviets: Best armor design, bad accuracy and primitive communication systems (sight)
    - Brits: Good objectives, primitive shells and good mobility
    - US: High mobility, very specific weapons (very bad or high pen), medium armor only.
  • #314
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    edited May 2018

    I find the problem with coh2 now, besides factions losing their unique flavors(asymmetric), it has been patched to the point of favoring long range battles + arty. Best tanks are those who can snip from far and penetrate armor like nothing. Armor is worthless stat now. First we lose elite infantry armor, now tank armor are mostly useless. What happened to the flanking up their arse and making use of terrain back and forth?

    Soon we are heading down the road of 2-3 hit kills, no more RNG fun.

    Disgusting, i fear Coh3 will be ultimate disappointment like Dow3, Relic staffers left are just letting their franchises die, dumb down all stats and probabilities in the name of 'balance', lazy lazy!

  • #315
    1 year ago

    There is one aspect missing in the discussion about jackson - it is a stock unit. And compared to the german stock units, he overperformance. And I think, not everybody wants to have jagdtiger in loadout and even then, jackson can easily flank them.

    So, combined with the strong infantry, it is tough to fight americans.

  • #316
    1 year ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    @Bratkartoffel That is the situation. It simply overperforms.

    We can also nerf its damage to 120 and give it 160 versus Heavys and Panther. So we simulate overpenetration and mediums stay balanced. But wait... fan-boys are around.
  • #317
    1 year ago
    alptekinalptekin Posts: 5

    The one of the main problems is balancing 4vs4, 1vs1, 2vs2 together,if you adjust balance for only thinking 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2,the things in 4 vs 4 go out of balance.So balance team should care all of aspects, and we all know it is sth not easy to do...

  • #318
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited May 2018

    M36 Jackson is not at all suitable for flanking. Flanking is much more advantageous for tanks with faster maneuvers and higher speeds. Or, it should be a tram with self-defense to some extent to break the line, or be cheap enough to suffer less even if you lose it. In general, when flanking a rear armor, the Medium Tank can penetrate most of the heavy tanks without difficulty, so there are T-34/76, M4 Sherman, and M10 Wolverine that are suitable for flanking. However, the M36 Jackson is, as you know, expensive and has a GMC (Gun Motor Carriage) with a 90mm gun. This is not a weapon made for flanking, nor is it suitable for its role. In fact, it is much more advantageous to flanking with other medium tanks in the game.
    The M36 Jackson, like the SU-85 or Sherman Firefly, is suitable for kiting rather than flanking.

  • #319
    1 year ago
    DarjeelingMK7Darjeelin… Posts: 244
    King tiger is stock unit with okw too. > @Bratkartoffel said:
    > There is one aspect missing in the discussion about jackson - it is a stock unit. And compared to the german stock units, he overperformance. And I think, not everybody wants to have jagdtiger in loadout and even then, jackson can easily flank them.
    >
    > So, combined with the strong infantry, it is tough to fight americans.

    OkW have King tiger as stock unit. What do you thing (? _?)
  • #320
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21
    edited May 2018

    Yeah, because the King Tiger is in such a good spot after the last patch.

    It's so amazing a single Jackson will render it completely and utterly useless. Great stock unit.

    As for the Jackson, when a single unit shuts down all Axis tanks you know there is a problem.

  • #321
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,980

    @Loren said:
    M36 Jackson is not at all suitable for flanking. Flanking is much more advantageous for tanks with faster maneuvers and higher speeds.

    The M36 Jackson is a unit with fast maneuvering and high speed. How else could it kite? Its in fact one of the fastest vehicles in the game. Dont really see your point here.

  • #322
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited May 2018

    @Hingie said:

    @Loren said:
    M36 Jackson is not at all suitable for flanking. Flanking is much more advantageous for tanks with faster maneuvers and higher speeds.

    The M36 Jackson is a unit with fast maneuvering and high speed. How else could it kite? Its in fact one of the fastest vehicles in the game. Dont really see your point here.

    did you know that Phanter is faster than Jackson?

    Maximum speed of M36 : 6.5
    Maximum speed of Panther : 6.6 without blitzkreig

    Jackson is fast tank, but has no armor.
    Even Panther says that flanking is difficult, how can a tank with a lower HP, slower speed, thinner armor, has no self-defense ability tank suitable for flanking?

    And, I want to ask one more thing. If there is no M36, what should the USF depend on late-game antitank? Should the axis bring a heavy tank and USF must be defeated?

  • #323
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited May 2018

    The problem with USF's medium TD is that if you nerf it, you lose the ability of the anti-tank completely in late-game. There is no substitute to replace this.

  • #324
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited May 2018

    @Widerstreit said:
    @Bratkartoffel That is the situation. It simply overperforms.

    We can also nerf its damage to 120 and give it 160 versus Heavys and Panther. So we simulate overpenetration and mediums stay balanced. But wait... fan-boys are around.

    And before discussing M36 Jackson, see Puma. 400 HP, 7.2 max speed, 120 damage / 3.6s reload time (33.3 dps). If the M36 's main gun damage is 120, the M36 Jackson will lose 1v1 if it fights Puma because of a 38% slower rate of fire;4.975s reload time(24.1 dps). Is this the right balance?

  • #325
    1 year ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    @Loren Building a PaK or an other tank is also an option. But it would be one option fixing the current situation.
  • #326
    1 year ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Loren said:
    M36 Jackson is not at all suitable for flanking. Flanking is much more advantageous for tanks with faster maneuvers and higher speeds.

    The Jackson is one of the fastest vehicles in the game, you've literally just contradicted your first sentance with your second.

    However, the M36 Jackson is, as you know, expensive and has a GMC (Gun Motor Carriage) with a 90mm gun. This is not a weapon made for flanking, nor is it suitable for its role.

    Well not anymore, its pen was upped massively and it has sabot rounds for an even further increase. What's the point using its excellent mobility to flank, when you can just plink away from max range and consistently pen even the highest armour values.

    And, I want to ask one more thing. If there is no M36, what should the USF depend on late-game antitank? Should the axis bring a heavy tank and USF must be defeated?

    Is the m36 being removed? Are people asking for that?

    The Jackson's main problem is that its currently handling all of the USF at duties single-handedly. Its too effective against lights and mediums, meaning there is no incentive for USF players to use other tools like zooks, at guns or mines. Instead all a USF player needs to win is spam rifles with bars backed up with jacksons. That combo handles everything, with rifles handling all the infantry and the jackson shutting down any and all axis vehicle play.

    It firstly needs to lose some of its pinpoint accuracy against smaller targets, fair enough it can consistently strike heavies at max range, but things like p4's get hammered by its alpha strike and have no chance of escaping or fighting back due to its excellent speed allowing it to chase/kite. In the hands of a good player, the Jackson is currently god-tier in terms of at.

    It should be lethal for cost, something a player builds to fight off the axis big cats like panther, brums, tigers and KT's. Not a no-brainer purchase that allows a USF player to dump all his other resources and pop into rifles and simply roll over his opponent by a moving.

  • #327
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,980

    @Loren said:
    did you know that Phanter is faster than Jackson?

    Maximum speed of M36 : 6.5
    Maximum speed of Panther : 6.6 without blitzkreig

    Jackson is fast tank, but has no armor.
    Even Panther says that flanking is difficult, how can a tank with a lower HP, slower speed, thinner armor, has no self-defense ability tank suitable for flanking?

    And, I want to ask one more thing. If there is no M36, what should the USF depend on late-game antitank? Should the axis bring a heavy tank and USF must be defeated?

    The speed difference is negligible, they are for all purposes equally fast. Did you in turn know that the Jackson has a better acceleration than the Panther?

    Almost none of the US tanks has any kind of impressive armour, the Pershing being the sole exception. The Jackson has only slightly less armour than the Sherman, now has the same hp, and is faster. Flanking with the Panther is not a viable thing to do because its accuracy - especially on the move - is utter rubbish. Flanking requires movement. The Panther cant do that, it'll miss far too often.

    If there was no Jackson, USF players would be forced to use their brains for once. Plenty of other counters around.

  • #328
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited May 2018

    Many USF players use the M36 because it is not just an OP. In fact, before this HP upgrade patch, the M36 was used consistently. It is also a problem because other anti-tank measures are very poor. By basic, USF does not have a universal mine except for certain commanders. The zooks are not effective at dealing with the late-game heavy tank. The AT can be effective in some ways, and in fact it is used a lot, but it is also true of all other factions.
    The problem with the M36 is that if this tank does not adequately respond to the heavy tank, then it is too difficult to respond to other countermeasures. This is the same problem for no-brainer axis players. pak40, Panzerschreck, teller-mine, Panther, etc., you just feel that this is not enough to counter M36? well, I can not understand why axis players feel it is unreasonable to demand the same play, reversing it exactly and asking the allies player to play like this.

    The simplicity of unit production by USF users is due to the fact that no other unit has any lean edges. The USF player of the upper tier also tries to utilize the various units. But is not that the USF now that all these options are nerfed? Is there any other smooth option in the USF just before stuart, pack gun, M2, mortar, even smoke? (At least the units mentioned here are the units that have been used as mainstream) If you feel that the USF is spamming only Riflemen, it is a structural problem of the USF Faction, not just a problem for the user. In fact, most users are playing all five factions.

  • #329
    1 year ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 684
    > @Farlion said:
    > Yeah, because the King Tiger is in such a good spot after the last patch.
    >
    > It's so amazing a single Jackson will render it completely and utterly useless. Great stock unit.
    >
    > As for the Jackson, when a single unit shuts down all Axis tanks you know there is a problem.

    And when a single generalist super heavy tank can hold an entire army at bay it is/was not a problem? Making every allied unit usseles.

    Kt being the only non doc super heavy.
    Bouncing nearly if not every round fired by non doc td's and tanks alike, handheld AT did even worse. While having devastating firepower to boot.

    Allies had no cost effective way to deal with it reliably. Heavy arty was suposed to be the counter to those kinds of units. But that got nerfed way back. Leaving allies with next to nothing to deal with it.

    The KT as it was implemented created this armour vs td mess imo. With medium tanks paying the price.
    Its to accesable for the impact it has/had.
    They should have nerfed that. Like having 1 max per game, or once every 15 minutes.

    The kt did so much damage and saved you on reinforcent cost etc you could just rebuild it if it finaly got destroyed. While allies were bleed dry on everything when facing it.
  • #330
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496

    I prefer the jackson to go back to its old place, cheaper so you can mass up the units, use 3-4 units to swamp 1-2 axis tanks. Doing so Allies and Axis players need to do active path management. Decrease the HP and costs stat!

    Right now Jackson is all about sitting back and sniping, while Panther don't dare to dive in. A lot of stalemate, and if they do engage in battle, most units die in 2-3 hits. Reminds me of COD, high kill-counts, all about headshots and instant gratifications as your counter jumps upwards.

  • #331
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited May 2018

    I dunno why my thread deleted. anyway,> @Farra13 said:

    @Loren said:
    M36 Jackson is not at all suitable for flanking. Flanking is much more advantageous for tanks with faster maneuvers and higher speeds.

    The Jackson is one of the fastest vehicles in the game, you've literally just contradicted your first sentance with your second.

    However, the M36 Jackson is, as you know, expensive and has a GMC (Gun Motor Carriage) with a 90mm gun. This is not a weapon made for flanking, nor is it suitable for its role.

    Well not anymore, its pen was upped massively and it has sabot rounds for an even further increase. What's the point using its excellent mobility to flank, when you can just plink away from max range and consistently pen even the highest armour values.

    And, I want to ask one more thing. If there is no M36, what should the USF depend on late-game antitank? Should the axis bring a heavy tank and USF must be defeated?

    Is the m36 being removed? Are people asking for that?

    The Jackson's main problem is that its currently handling all of the USF at duties single-handedly. Its too effective against lights and mediums, meaning there is no incentive for USF players to use other tools like zooks, at guns or mines. Instead all a USF player needs to win is spam rifles with bars backed up with jacksons. That combo handles everything, with rifles handling all the infantry and the jackson shutting down any and all axis vehicle play.

    It firstly needs to lose some of its pinpoint accuracy against smaller targets, fair enough it can consistently strike heavies at max range, but things like p4's get hammered by its alpha strike and have no chance of escaping or fighting back due to its excellent speed allowing it to chase/kite. In the hands of a good player, the Jackson is currently god-tier in terms of at.

    It should be lethal for cost, something a player builds to fight off the axis big cats like panther, brums, tigers and KT's. Not a no-brainer purchase that allows a USF player to dump all his other resources and pop into rifles and simply roll over his opponent by a moving.

    i dunno why my thread deleted, anyway write down this again.

    most cases, USF players in the top tier do not just use riflemen and Jackson. And in other words, the lower tier axis players also use volks spam or gren spam. This is a characteristic of the player level rather than a characteristic of faction player.

    anyway, the simplicity of unit production by USF users is due to the fact that no other unit has any lean edges. The USF player of the upper tier also tries to utilize the various units. But is not that the USF now that all these options are nerfed? Is there any other smooth option in the USF just before stuart, pack gun, M2, mortar, even smoke? (At least the units mentioned here are the units that have been used as mainstream)

    The other options of the USF are not attractive enough in most cases. Think about why axis players did not produce MG well when dealing with soviet's Dshk, and why they do not produce 81mm when facing 120mm.

    If you feel that the USF is spamming only Riflemen, it is a structural problem of the USF Faction, not just a problem for the user. In fact, most users are playing all five factions.

    The anti-tank means of the USF is weak compared to the axis. zooks, AT gun, no mines without a few command abilities. Etc. However, using these various means to force the USF to deal with the tanks of the axis is no different than to force the axis to catch the M36 with pak40, teller-mine, Panzerschreck, and Panther. But the latter is said to be because M36 is an op, so it is a very biased story that the former is no-brainer.

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.