The Puma

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[AmPM]

Thanks for the well thought out theory crafting......... Any number of things would have countered that if they were on the field at the time or in the company builds.

No one in this thread was asking for a counter to 3 - 50mm Pumas. In fact, the topic is clearly about whether the Pumas were buffed, then reversed buff ; cost versus effectiveness.

I have clearly stated that the 50mm Puma is cost effective.

Please feel free to start your own "Counter the pumas" thread in the Eirr related discussion thread.

And stating that something is cost effective by using one example without a good hard counter to the unit in question is just silly.

I'm not saying it's not, but your example is flawed. Now, the normal Puma...useless crap.

[Hicks58]

Assuming you survive the first RR volley, 20mm Puma's tear Airborne to bits.

[tank130]

And stating that something is cost effective by using one example without a good hard counter to the unit in question is just silly.

I'm not saying it's not, but your example is flawed. Now, the normal Puma...useless crap.

Are you implying that ATG's are not a hard counter to Pumas?

[RikiRude]

as an allied player that puts AP rounds on all of their MGs and always fields at least 2-3 in all US companies, I will tell you about AP rounds on LVs.

if you're in a house, you are boned, the puma will more than likely move around the house and all your AP rounds will miss as the guy switches windows or reloads which takes forever!

if you are lucky and have your MG on the ground and the puma is dumb enough to enter it's firing arc, you still wont do enough damage and the puma will kill you unless the puma is dumb enough to enter the firing arc AND stay still.

Please tell me more about using AP rounds on pumas. The only time they work is when the puma user is making mistakes.

[chefarzt]

Are you implying that ATG's are not a hard counter to Pumas?

Regarding the fact that everyone says Pumas just totally dodge them all the time....................

[NightRain]

Are you implying that ATG's are not a hard counter to Pumas?

Are PAKs hard counters to M8s and T17s? Theoretically yes, but I still say 50% chance to lose that engagement.

[AmPM]

Are you implying that ATG's are not a hard counter to Pumas?

Correct, in the same way that ATGs are not a hard counter to M8's.

LV's if held off at range, are easy targets for ATGs, as is any other unit that is out ranged. However, due to dodge rates, speed and AI ability of most LV's ATG's are not the proper counter. In most cases you want an ATG backed up by, or backing up, an armored vehicle or close range defensive AT weaponry like schreks/zooks/faust/stickies.

[tank130]

So AmPm you are saying that because, in your opinion, a HMG with Armor piercing rounds is the counter to Pumas that Pumas suck?

Come on man, you gotta do better then that.

[AmPM]

No, what I'm saying is that your example was poor.

The 50mm Puma is pretty decent.

However, the 20mm Puma is terrible. It an be easily replaced by a 50mm that allows you to tackle multiple situations.

[Spartan_Marine88]

The 50mm Puma is pretty decent.

However, the 20mm Puma is terrible. It an be easily replaced by a 50mm that allows you to tackle multiple situations.

Unfortunately this is true even at ai i find the 50mm can be more efficient

[tank130]

No, what I'm saying is that your example was poor.

The 50mm Puma is pretty decent.

However, the 20mm Puma is terrible. It an be easily replaced by a 50mm that allows you to tackle multiple situations.

So you wasted everyone's time just to have a pointless argument with tank...... good for you, give yourself a pat on the back.

You could have easily made your point with out the senseless drivel and theory crafting.

[PonySlaystation]

If you have 3 atgs covering each other and scout for them you can get off more than just one shot with each atg. If they lose to three pumas then that's a tactical mistake.

[tank130]

This is the balance forums guys, not the theory crafting room.

Lets get it back on topic please.

[Tymathee]

So you wasted everyone's time just to have a pointless argument with tank...... good for you, give yourself a pat on the back.

You could have easily made your point with out the senseless drivel and theory crafting.

but...but...then he wouldn't' be ampm, how could he live with himself?

It seems the Puma is a good infantry killer on a faction with much better infantry killers.

Why get a 20mm puma when u can get an lmg, stug with hmg, p4, mp40, etc.

Theres just more effective AI in wehr than the Puma.

Also, the crap accuracy doesn't help, it sounds like it should be shredding infantry when its just tickling them.

maybe its incremental accuracy, it tries to fire at each guy in the squad instead of focusing on one. The less people in a squad, the more effective the puma is.

The Puma's IncAcc is 1.02

for comparison, the T-17 is 1.0, the 50mm is 1.0 as well.

and I think the t-17 does the same amount of damage per shot but its focusing on one guy and not each guy.

Maybe the puma is better in support rather than in front, hmg + puma = dead squad.

[Hicks58]

I'm gonna let somebody else pull that post apart.

[Shabtajus]

Pumas spam is bad, m8 and t17 spam is ok..

dunno why it was so needed to nerf puma tbh, when allied LVs beats shit out of axis its k, but when axis got decent LV its insta NERFFFF NERFF NERFFF...
since when its so OP unit ughh? m8 beats it, m18 or cromvels never misses, MG ap rounds just eats them go ask heartmann lol.
My point is atm allied fanboys should stop QQ dont even want start discussion about 3 callies or 4 jumbo coys..
Anyway back on topic, nerfing pumas i think was not needed

[pqumsieh]

Ok I actually am shocked by how difficult some people found reading the patch notes were? Are we not formatting it clearly enough??

Ok let me clarify some things. First, the Pumas DPS received a major buff, both on the 20mm and 50mm. Some have asked for the 50mm Puma to be better versus armor. However, we decided not to make the 50mm more effective vs armor but instead more effective versus infantry. We felt that making it more effective versus armor would result in scenarios where it made too much sense to suicide a pack of Pumas for a more expensive armored vehicle. We didn't like this conclusion so instead tried to provide the 50mm more capacities in other areas. The result was a more rounded 50mm.


As for the 20mm, before we reverted the moving accuracy change I was getting 20-30 kills per puma I fielded. It was way too easy to shred a squad and stay alive by never stopping. I was getting Pumas to vet 2 within a match in some cases. Given the fact that the puma costs only 65 fuel and 6 pop, compared to most other LV's which average around 100 fuel and 8 pop, this seemed quite out of place. Also keep in mind that we wanted to maintain the design of each factions. That is, Germans have weaker LV's but stronger mediums and heavies. Similarly, allies have stronger LV's but weaker mediums and heavies.

At 65 fuel and 6 pop, the Puma really wasn't even comparable to other LV. We reduced the effectiveness of being able to fire on the move but retained the theoretical max DPS which can be attained by issuing a stop order. What this change did was add a risk to receiving this additional DPS boost, opting not to provide it as a default.

The net result should actually be a reduction in the Pumas survivability more than its DPS, as you can no longer maintain your mobility and take advantage of your received accuracy modifiers.

@Tym, incremental accuracy works as an exponential gain to accuracy. 1.02 is a better number than 1. Basically you take the number of entity's within the guns search radius and make that the power of the incremental accuracy. That value is then multiplied by the accuracy of the unit to get the final result. (i.e. a rifle squad has 6 entities, therefore 1.02 to the power of 6 = 1.13; 1.13 x accuracy = new accuracy.

As you have guessed, an incremental accuracy of 1 means no additional accuracy is applied to the gun.

Hope this helps,

PQ

edit: added more info/explanation. Originally responded via iPhone.

[tank130]

Pumas spam is bad, m8 and t17 spam is ok..

dunno why it was so needed to nerf puma tbh, when allied LVs beats shit out of axis its k, but when axis got decent LV its insta NERFFFF NERFF NERFFF...
since when its so OP unit ughh? m8 beats it, m18 or cromvels never misses, MG ap rounds just eats them go ask heartmann lol.
My point is atm allied fanboys should stop QQ dont even want start discussion about 3 callies or 4 jumbo coys..
Anyway back on topic, nerfing pumas i think was not needed

Absolutely no one in this thread has come remotely close to suggesting a nerf..... Please be sure to read all the posts before commenting.