Jump to content


Jageroo too weak?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

Poll: Jageroo too weak? (75 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Does the Jg.Pz E100 need a buff?

  1. YES (32 votes [42.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.67%

  2. NO (43 votes [57.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.33%

Vote Hide poll

DefGun #1 Posted 05 June 2018 - 04:52 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8672 battles
  • 5
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    08-26-2015

 

A question which arises again and again. While players obviously hate it when they get hit by the Jgpz. E100 almost all who actually play the tank are crying for a buff. As a decent Jageroo player (wn8 1800, xTE 48) this tank feels so weak in comparison to other tanks that I always regret it when I take it out the garage. There are numerous reasons why this tank is so weak:

- Bad gun traverse: -8/8 will force you to turn your tank alot

- 0.18 dispersion on turning your tank makes your crosshair go all over your screen

- 0.2 dispersion on moving your gun makes your crosshair go even bigger than your screen ;)

- 2.7 aiming time

- 925 shell velocity

- 0.34 accuracy

- superstructure easely penned with gold ammo by tier 9/10

- sluggish movement due to bad power to weight ratio and tank traverse

- obviously no camo cause this thing is high as f*ck

 

Now I certainly don't want to cry for a ridiculous buff, just one that would get this tank on the battlefield more often. I suggest the following:

- Give this tank a gun traverse of -10/10, lower dispersion on tank traverse to 0.12 and dispersion on turret traverse to 0.10

- lower aiming time to 2.5

- lower rear armor from 150mm to 50 and give the superstructure 300mm instead of 250

- Give it a power to weight ratio of 12

 

This tank is meant to play either in a hull down position or as a support for heavies. It can't stay back and snipe because you get spotted instantly. In order to play hull down the superstructure needs to be stronger. When playing with heavies you always have to angle your tank to the enemy tank after you shoot. But doing so you loose to much accuracy at the moment.

 

What do you guys think? What needs to be changed in order to get this thing working again?


Edited by DefGun, 05 June 2018 - 04:54 PM.


Richthoffen #2 Posted 05 June 2018 - 05:09 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 26692 battles
  • 2,448
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
haven't played for ages but what is the real crux for me is the reload time and the fact the gun can troll you but the buffs you suggest  are also welcome.

denisdenikr #3 Posted 05 June 2018 - 05:18 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16186 battles
  • 424
  • [RDDTF] RDDTF
  • Member since:
    07-10-2015
Its *edited* 1000+DMG alpha gun TD, with Premium shell penetration that can go trough IS-7 turret like its peace of paper, and you would have it buff on its gun that has allredy fine stats for DMG that it can do? Really*? I can agree only for superstructure buff, nothing more and nothing less.

Edited by NickMustaine, 06 June 2018 - 01:08 PM.
Inappropriate remarks


Master__Bates #4 Posted 05 June 2018 - 05:29 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 71517 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013
I'm against all buffing and nerfing. All.

WG should give the tanks exactly the same characteristics their in real life counterparts had (i.e. armor thickness, armor angles, pen, rate of fire etc.). Of course that all info is not readily available anymore, but most tanks can be inspected in museums or manufacturers' archives.

I wish WG had introduced only those tanks that actually existed and saw action. All these imaginary tanks or "existed only in blue prints"... *sigh*

fwhaatpiraat #5 Posted 05 June 2018 - 05:49 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 44574 battles
  • 400
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostMaster__Bates, on 05 June 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

I'm against all buffing and nerfing. All.

WG should give the tanks exactly the same characteristics their in real life counterparts had (i.e. armor thickness, armor angles, pen, rate of fire etc.). Of course that all info is not readily available anymore, but most tanks can be inspected in museums or manufacturers' archives.

I wish WG had introduced only those tanks that actually existed and saw action. All these imaginary tanks or "existed only in blue prints"... *sigh*

That would be some nice blue paper armor.



Enforcer1975 #6 Posted 05 June 2018 - 05:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 18986 battles
  • 10,016
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
You can't have a german 268 4 because RashB.

XxKuzkina_MatxX #7 Posted 05 June 2018 - 07:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45675 battles
  • 1,165
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Jgpz is ancient and kind of obsolete in the current WOT. Maybe a couple of years back it was good, maybe it's fun to play it once a month for the LOLs but in general it's 90% of the time a useless addition to the team. Apart from the fear factor it got being around a corner, once it fires it dies very quickly!

 

And TBH not only the jgpz is useless, most of the higher tier german tanks except the Maus are bad to totally crap.



DefGun #8 Posted 05 June 2018 - 07:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8672 battles
  • 5
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    08-26-2015

View Postdenisdenikr, on 05 June 2018 - 05:18 PM, said:

Its *edited* 1000+DMG alpha gun TD, with Premium shell penetration that can go trough IS-7 turret like its peace of paper, and you would have it buff on its gun that has allredy fine stats for DMG that it can do? Really*? I can agree only for superstructure buff, nothing more and nothing less.

 

I agree the gun is intimidating on paper but not so much on the battlefield. Yes, it should deal 1000+ but in reality it rarely does so. Dealing over 1000 happens rarely, it's more like a 1000- gun. And penning IS-7 in the turret is really difficult. There is like a small spot left and right of the gun were that is possible. With the current accuracy you make that shot 1/10 times. But I agree it shouldn't be possible. As I also have an IS-7 the turrets "weak" spot needs to be removed. Btw Jageroo isn't the only tank capable of that shot. As a matter of fact several tier 10 TDs can take it: Obj 268, T110 E3, T110 E4 and WZ 131G FT.

Balc0ra #9 Posted 05 June 2018 - 07:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 63369 battles
  • 14,805
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

4 years ago during Storms tier X alpha nerf frenzy. Around when the nerfed the Russian TD's from 850 to 750. And did the same to the Foch 155 a bit later. He wanted to nerf the alpha on the Jageroo to below 1000. And give major buffs to the soft stats and shell speed. But... he never got around to it. 

 

View PostMaster__Bates, on 05 June 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

I'm against all buffing and nerfing. All.

WG should give the tanks exactly the same characteristics their in real life counterparts had (i.e. armor thickness, armor angles, pen, rate of fire etc.). Of course that all info is not readily available anymore, but most tanks can be inspected in museums or manufacturers' archives.

I wish WG had introduced only those tanks that actually existed and saw action. All these imaginary tanks or "existed only in blue prints"... *sigh*

 

Most tanks have been nerfed or buffed because they were exactly that. And some that were real, were 100% useless vs other real tanks even on the same tier. It's why most have guns they never had. As a 138 pen Tiger I would not work to well vs the T29 and it's 105 gun, would it? Or even the IS and it's 122mm. It's why the historical mode failed. As there the setups were real. And most tanks could not counter half of the enemies on the other team with the guns they had. 

 

And if we go by tanks that saw action only. The list would be rather small. And I doubt it would have lived as long as the game has if it was that strict. 


Edited by Balc0ra, 05 June 2018 - 07:50 PM.


Bordhaw #10 Posted 05 June 2018 - 07:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9864 battles
  • 1,485
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View PostDefGun, on 05 June 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

What do you guys think? What needs to be changed in order to get this thing working again?

 

Ah yes, the Jg.Pz E100, the tank you only see in old youtube videos. 



Suurpolskija #11 Posted 05 June 2018 - 07:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17695 battles
  • 1,384
  • [URHO] URHO
  • Member since:
    01-26-2016
I think it should have the top speed of 50/25 with P/W ~20 and a lot better traverse speed. It could also have smaller lower plate and it could be firing every 10 seconds. I guess that would make it competitive in the current tier x meta.

HassenderZerhacker #12 Posted 05 June 2018 - 07:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 23872 battles
  • 2,053
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015
 

View PostBalc0ra, on 05 June 2018 - 07:47 PM, said:

 As a 138 pen Tiger I would not work to well vs the T29 and it's 105 gun, would it?​

 

let's be historically accurate: most common ammo was the PzGr40, which had 219mm pen at 100m. the AP shell had 162mm pen.



Balc0ra #13 Posted 05 June 2018 - 08:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 63369 battles
  • 14,805
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 05 June 2018 - 07:53 PM, said:

 

 

let's be historically accurate: most common ammo was the PzGr40, which had 219mm pen at 100m. the AP shell had 162mm pen.

 

Well we can bring the 88 test US had on it to that showed different results vs even 138mm. Still don't change the point on how wide some historical setups are, even on the same tier. 

Edited by Balc0ra, 05 June 2018 - 08:33 PM.


etody77 #14 Posted 05 June 2018 - 08:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 61153 battles
  • 941
  • [PT-RO] PT-RO
  • Member since:
    09-12-2015
Has pen for standard ammo better than many other tier 10 for gold ammo

leggasiini #15 Posted 05 June 2018 - 08:53 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 10559 battles
  • 5,949
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

Probably just slight adjustments, and that is HP buff to 2400/2500 and gun arc buffed slightly. That's it. Not very significant buffs at first, but they would help quite a lot. Extra HP allows the tank to trade more effectively, and the buffed gun arc allows it to play better at corners and probably even sidescrape somehow.

 

One would argue that you could also go in and nerf the accuracy, and then buff the gun handling, to further encourage to play it like a close-mid range turretless support HT with a bigass gun, but I guess the HP and gun arc buff are enough.

 

I personally wouldnt buff the armor. A super-heavily armored tank with a 1k alpha boomstick would be a*edited* to fight against.


Edited by NickMustaine, 06 June 2018 - 01:11 PM.
Inappropriate remarks


Dorander #16 Posted 05 June 2018 - 08:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17854 battles
  • 1,895
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostDefGun, on 05 June 2018 - 06:26 PM, said:

 

I agree the gun is intimidating on paper but not so much on the battlefield. Yes, it should deal 1000+ but in reality it rarely does so. Dealing over 1000 happens rarely, it's more like a 1000- gun. And penning IS-7 in the turret is really difficult. There is like a small spot left and right of the gun were that is possible. With the current accuracy you make that shot 1/10 times. But I agree it shouldn't be possible. As I also have an IS-7 the turrets "weak" spot needs to be removed. Btw Jageroo isn't the only tank capable of that shot. As a matter of fact several tier 10 TDs can take it: Obj 268, T110 E3, T110 E4 and WZ 131G FT.

 

Yeah, because screw this nonsense, IS-7 turrets shouldn't be penetrable by anything, especially not the tier X tank destroyers carrying the biggest guns in the game. That's just unreasonable, how are you going to hulldown murder everyone if there's a snowball's chance in hell they can actually hurt you!? Invulnerability or bust!

 

 

I've always found the JgPzE100 not a bad tank but a really situational tank. You can't really play it as an assault TD anymore, so you have to be patient with it. Use that fear factor. Hope you have a team that it can work well with. You can hold a flank with this tank and a few other players who know how to use their armour, against superior numbers, 'cause nobody's going to want to face your gun and lose easily 1/3rd of their hp. The downside is that you may not be contributing much to damage, even while you are contributing to the victory.

 

For me the JgPzE100 is like Colossus from the Deadpool movies. "Four or five moments". That's all it takes to be a JgPzE100. 'cause that's 4 or 5k damage done right there. You have to pick your moment, choose your shots, and consider your targets. The JgPzE100 isn't the tank you get a killsteal in on the last 100 hp of some tank, that's a waste of its alpha. It's the one you punish the camping autoloader in the back with. It's the one you correct the superheavy's thinking with then they think they're going to break the line. It's not versatile, so you need to be careful with it, and remember that 1000 alpha is nothing to scoff at.



ares354 #17 Posted 06 June 2018 - 12:50 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 72475 battles
  • 2,728
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

If I wonna be honest make Jp e100 more like JT and Ferdi, less like Fv 183, Fv 4005. 

What to change

-Buff superstructure from 250 mm to 330 mm. 
-300 mm shield around gun mantlet to 350 mm. 

-Add 10 mm of armor to roof of hull
-remove 17 cm gun, add 12.8 mm L66 gun with those stats; 650 alpha, 840 HE or 600 alpha and 800HE. 295 AP pen, 360 APCR, 95 HE. DPM 3100, a bit better then JT. 
-buff soft stats on ground res, to get a bit better mobility, but dont change HP ratio.

-Buff soft stats on track traverse a bit. 
-Dont change hull armor, and MG port armor.  

^^ This will make JPe100 top tank as line looks like, quite high alpha, good pen and dpm, slow tanks with ok/good armor with bad camo. No more 1k + dmg to make life of lower tier a bit better and to make Jpe100 have chance to fight faster HT or MT. 


Edited by ares354, 06 June 2018 - 12:51 AM.


Simeon85 #18 Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:53 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,828
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Unless alpha gets nerfed it should not get any buffs.

 

It's like the 183s, they are crap because their alpha is broken. 



Somnorila #19 Posted 06 June 2018 - 09:08 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 55535 battles
  • 2,014
  • [4-YOU] 4-YOU
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostSimeon85, on 06 June 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

Unless alpha gets nerfed it should not get any buffs.

 

It's like the 183s, they are crap because their alpha is broken. 

 

I disagree. 183's are way better than Jag because of their HESH mainly. Also the 215b is better protected than Jag as it can actually go hull down properly. Not to mention that both 183's have super wide gun traverse as compared to the Jag. 

So i think that the Jag does need some love either in armor department either in mobility and gun soft stats either in DPM. Or in all three balanced in such a way to have comparable battle effectiveness as the obj v4 or at least as an E3. Wouldn't mind to be in the same league with 215b either. WG should define roles better and put all tanks in the game in those roles. As all should be as good or as bad according to situations, because right now there are tanks that can fill many roles effectively and others that can barely fill the ones designed for them. Tanks that can perform well on all maps and others that can perform decent only on some maps. I feel that the game lack logical game play design and proper balancing between vehicles.


Edited by Somnorila, 06 June 2018 - 09:13 AM.


_Sensation_ #20 Posted 06 June 2018 - 09:17 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6237 battles
  • 435
  • [OMNI] OMNI
  • Member since:
    01-10-2017

Dude are you [edited]stupid?

 

It has bad aim time yeah well ofcourse tfuk you think with that calibre gun? M48 snapshot ability?

 

It has freaking 420 heat pen, y'all just can't play it properly






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users