Except in the previous map only what I said would occur
Yes, the rounded mantlet is bad. Doesn’t stop my turret from being one-tapped most of the time I play the thing, but I know that anecdote of that sort doesn’t erase the experience of many many players. Though it is hardly unique in benefiting from volumetric.
When playing against American tanks in particular, barrel shooting simulator is the norm in any case, and again, Panthers can’t get away.
Also doesn’t apply to the Panther F, although the reload buff makes up for it somewhat. Still, that version is even more skewed for sniping than the A and G are, given the even slower turret traverse.
You’re making my point for me: Panthers don’t really offer you anything unique that makes them fit a wide variety of situations, you almost always have a better alternative to spawn in.
Which of those things would a Tiger E not offer you? The gun is just as good so long as you stay inside a certain range, it’s much more suited to shoot and scoot, has more explosive filler, top speed and acceleration are comparable.
Of course the Tiger E’s gun will suffer in a full uptier to 7.0, but so will the Panther, which will also fully lose its ability to at least occasionally rely on its UFP.
If I’m on small Ardennes, I’ll take Tiger E and flank, not Panthers. If I’m on Alaska, Tiger E. You like the KwK 42 more? The Panzer IV/70 V has it too, with a workable reverse gear and a much lower profile. You need to snipe? Panthers can do that okay. But Sturer, Dicker, Nashorn and Waffenträger can do it better, and in three of those four cases, with comparable rates of fire, too.
1 Like
But made from high grade cardboardium and die from unaimed HVAR.
Alaska is exactly the sort of map where I’d spawn in pretty much anything before I even look at a Panther. That’s a map with short engagement ranges and where you need to rapidly reorient and duck into and out of cover all the time. It’s one of the least Panther friendly maps in the game.
1 Like
Yes, they’re glass cannons. If you need the “cannon” part, they do it better than Panthers. If you need the “stay alive” part, I would much rather be in something that gives me a chance to avoid being hit (ergo Tiger E for example) than be in a Panther and hope its UFP will keep me alive.
Pretty much the only niche I find for Panthers is to get to a sniping spot that the other TDs might be too slow to reach, or if CAS is already out and taking an open top is thus inadvisable.
For example, Hürtgen Forest: the northern side is what I would consider to be a good place to use a Panther.
1 Like
Panters are most universal MT, they not too slow, can fight if surface is not horizontal when soviets no, can fight if surface is flat when shermans no(no hills= no use for depression). Can fight on long distance, can fight on close range. Britains can shoot at big distance but have very low oneshot potential. Can push almost as heavy if needed. Can cosplay SPG.
I see no logic here. Panther was the strongest 5.7 when it was.
Idiot-proof armor, speed, point and click gun
It isn’t.
They aren’t. Panthers are faster and quicker vehicles.
Yeah and the Panther has the much better gun for the job + more mobility
Jagdpanzers are also just Panthers but worse at anything but long range sniping.
1 Like
And they were moved to 6.0, which is what I’m commenting on.
Tiger E gives me a better chance to not be hit whenever I leave cover, or to react to a threat from an unexpected direction when flanking. It’s only at range that the Panther is better.
It is. Flat pen is not everything. Under 400 metres (where most engagements happen in this game) that extra 25mm of penetration is not going to matter the vast majority of the time, if you know weakspots. I would much rather take the postpen over the flat pen.
The VK and D? Sure. All others have the engine governor. Their forward mobility is comparable to the Tiger E, and their backward mobility is much worse.
No, if I’m in a full uptier I’m not trusting either gun. My point was exactly that neither vehicle is good in a full uptier, which is perfectly normal for heavies, a bit less so for mediums. If I want a strong gun in a full uptier, I’ll go for a TD, if I want mobility, I’ll uptier the PAK Puma instead.
Frontal armour is trolly, profile is much lower, easier to hide behind cover you otherwise couldn’t use, have workable reverse gear.
2 Likes
Take your grievances to the players who win and lose about equally often with both of them, then. Not Gaijin’s fault.
What can also happen is that they can’t just move BR when something is like 1% more likely to win, or whatever, because there aren’t 100 BRs (and there’d be too little variety in matches if there were 100 BRs). With the granularity available, you probably have to wait until it goes above maybe 52 or 53% before actually triggering a BR change.
So it may well be the case that the 2P has like a 48% win rate, and the 2H has a 52% win rate at the same BR, and it simply isn’t a big ENOUGH difference to warrant 0.3 BR
I don’t subscribe to the insanely nutjob theory that we can only use statistics at face value to balance this very complex game… I am disappointed in anyone who DOES think this is possible.
Your solution is to kill the Tiger2P off as a fun and playable vehicle. nice going my guy. You can’t have a vehicle at the same BR as an identical but superior vehicle and still have the previous vehicle be played at all.
1 Like
If by “insanely nutjob” you mean “The objectively correct way that like 99% of pvp games are balanced around” then sure.
EVERYTHING of any level of success uses roughly-50%-win-rate balancing in the pvp world. Video games from LoL to Fortnite to COD to Starcraft, and everything in between balance around 50% win chances going into a match.
And even outside of video games, chess balances around 50% win rates (I don’t mean the pieces, I mean ELO), even pro sports leagues like the NBA, NFL, etc. give the first draft pick to the worst team the previous year to balance toward 50% win rates. When you arm wrestle your 8 year old niece at thanksgiving, you’ll do it with one pinky finger vs her whole arm to make it more interesting and try toward 50% win rates. If you played pickup soccer in the park and one of your friends was a pro player, you would make his team have 3 fewer players on it to try and make it roughly even. Everything does this.
You are the one in the tiny tiny minority thinking this isn’t a good idea, not the other way around.
Your solution is to kill the Tiger2P off as a fun and playable vehicle.
If it has roughly 50% win rates, then clearly people are finding it perfectly well playable. If it “wasn’t playable”, it would have terrible win rates and would go down in BR until it was playable.
“Playable” inherently MEANS “roughly 50% win rate or higher at its BR in real life games.” So “making every vehicle playable” is exactly what their algorithm optimizes toward.
[Obviously not an advertisement]
Except most use context and stat analysis… gaijin does not use context or stat analysis. You are a shill and I’m not reading the rest of your awfully put together argument.
-
Citation needed
-
What other context would possibly improve the outcome? ANYTHING you do to fudge or deviate from a pure stats based approach by definition will make the game have lopsided chances to win for one team before the match begins. Why would you ever even want that as a goal?
Very impressive to not read something and yet also know if it’s good or bad when you have no idea what it says, lmao.
You’ve provided SO MANY so far that I forgot to provide mine!
Maybe reading why something has the stats it does and not just seeing numbers at face value.
It’s pretty easy actually. If you need to learn how this is how you do it,
Step 1: Find somebody arguing
Step 2: Read their first line and see if they say some stupid shit. Guess what, if your entire premise is based on a falsehood you are useless and not worth talking to.
Uhhh I DID provide like 8 examples
Maybe reading why something has the stats it does and not just seeing numbers at face value.
Why does it matter? >>ANYTHING<< you do to deviate for ANY reason, will by DEFINITION lead to a lopsided match. Before bothering to talk about reasons for deviating, we first need to establish why on earth anyone would want a more lopsided match to begin with?
If it’s not a desirable goal, then we can stop right there and not even get into it
[Lol, “community felt this was an advertisement” silliest excuse to censor a post you don’t like I’ve seen so far. I was advertising… chess? Except I wasn’t even, because it was an example of another game that does the SAME thing War Thunder does. War Thunder would be worse balanced only if it did things your way, but it doesn’t]
Maybe you forgot, but the game already works the way I want it to, and Gaijin is definitely doing it that way for the reasons I’m describing, since it’s the same reason all the other video games and sports and everything else in the world balances on 50% win rates.
If you refuse to engage against the reasons why the entire industry does it like this, then you’re not going to convince any of the established people in this or in any other competing game, to ever change to your way of doing it. And you will continue to not get what you want.
So… weird strategy to shoot yourself in the foot, but okay by me. I’ll keep enjoying the correctly balanced game.
You did not. Nothing you have said today had value. You claim things and that’s it.
This stupid logic is why the CL13 Mk4 almost went to a higher BR than the much more advanced F-86F’s despite being literally a worse jet in every metric. You are a waste of time. You are the guy who doesn’t know what the word context means in every aspect of his life im guessing.
You are disputing that Chess tournaments or Starcraft ranked games are based only on ELO, lol? FIDE is just lying to us then? Because they claim to use pure ELO… FIDE rankings - Wikipedia Big Chess conspiracy tonight at 10? ELO is based entirely 100% on win rates to push people toward 50/50 outcomes when playing another similarly ranked person.
literally a worse jet in every metric
Yet people keep winning in it. Why are their teams not losing all the time if you’re correct about this? This is inherently built into win rates, that if one side has a huge disadvantage, that they will lose more and that will already get accounted for by pure stats
[this is completely on topic, give me a break]