Jump to content


E-75 after 7.4 - is it really the end?

E-75 after 7.4 good or bad?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
98 replies to this topic

Poll: E-75 after 7.4 (268 members have cast votes)

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

Since the 7.4 update do you think the E-75 is:

  1. A lot better (7 votes [2.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.61%

  2. Better (6 votes [2.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.24%

  3. The same (78 votes [29.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.10%

  4. Worse (80 votes [29.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.85%

  5. A lot worse (97 votes [36.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.19%

Vote Hide poll

AD557 #1 Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:32 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10901 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011
I don't think the E-75 has changed that much actually. I done about 20 battles since the changes and have not been set on fire yet, and my engine has only been hit once. The E-75 has also been given a massive boost in turning speed, so I think it's about even.

cupoftea #2 Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:57 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9422 battles
  • 165
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011
I must admit that after playing 10-15 battles in my E-75 I also yet have to experience a fire or an engine failure. Maybe it's too little to give a good opinion though.

insanEEE_DaLegend #3 Posted 21 June 2012 - 11:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38139 battles
  • 567
  • [ZWACK] ZWACK
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012
Played like 30 battles today with E-75 . Got on fire 3 times and damage engine at least 8 times . Wait till people will learn where to shoot . Then it will be a big problem and tank will become shit . + Dunno if it was just  bad luck . But i've got constant crew  damage .. today

Edited by Norikmet, 21 June 2012 - 11:40 PM.


Zenith #4 Posted 22 June 2012 - 12:54 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 4457 battles
  • 3,236
  • Member since:
    07-05-2010
It will be okay for a few days, then people will realise where the engine hit-box is located, and the real pain will begin.

If the devs are insistent upon this nerf, then I think it should be balanced out with a LFP armour increase, and/or a top speed increase, since it is the only T9 with such drawbacks.

Loofah #5 Posted 22 June 2012 - 01:57 AM

    General

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22733 battles
  • 8,716
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

View PostZenith, on 22 June 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

It will be okay for a few days, then people will realise where the engine hit-box is located, and the real pain will begin.

If the devs are insistent upon this nerf, then I think it should be balanced out with a LFP armour increase, and/or a top speed increase, since it is the only T9 with such drawbacks.

Or just buff the gun to ridiculous values. Anyway, this won't be the good old "charge, ram, facehug and kill IS4 while losing 900HP" kind of tank any more (yeah, this actually was possible, and it was damn rare, but it happened, too bad that's enough for WG to nerf this tank to the ground leaving Germans with not even a single fun, effective and/or good loooking T9/10 tank.

Edited by Loofah, 22 June 2012 - 01:59 AM.


Yodarkore #6 Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:01 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24540 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    03-28-2011
Tiger's nightmare show up again: top gun below average (not enough pen, not accurate enough for long range sniping), and engine fire when shoot frontally.

Occured me 1 out 5 games with it today, and i have the driver perk engine maintenance... Im using 105 octane but i will now put extinguishers and play it only for the daily. Playing it in random high tier battle was often a pain to suffer due to lack of tactical awareness of teamates, now it is masochistic. I've got the IS-8 too, aka the paper IS, it is waaaay funnier to play, and, altough paper lower hull, no fire frontally!!

Edit: To me, this tank (E75) is only a tier 6-8 hunter, not more not less. Not to mention that beside fire, being crippled with engine broken makes you a "kill me" target to anyone, while being of almost no use to your team...

Edited by Yodarkore, 22 June 2012 - 02:08 AM.


Meogron #7 Posted 22 June 2012 - 08:49 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 28760 battles
  • 858
  • [HYL] HYL
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View PostGregolego1, on 21 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

I don't think the E-75 has changed that much actually. I done about 20 battles since the changes and have not been set on fire yet, and my engine has only been hit once. The E-75 has also been given a massive boost in turning speed, so I think it's about even.

Because frontal transmission is actually better than rear one if we take driving into account. I hope they did same with e-50 then.

Iron_Funeral #8 Posted 22 June 2012 - 11:05 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33938 battles
  • 1,017
  • Member since:
    12-26-2010
It's not necessarily worse at all times, you could play 300 matches without having your engine damaged/set on fire OR of course you can have your engine damaged 2 times a match EVERY match. It's because it's damn random and there is no telling how and when will it affect your gameplay.

Latorque #9 Posted 23 June 2012 - 02:13 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8177 battles
  • 493
  • Member since:
    05-23-2012
It's not the fires, but you can set your clock after the module damage on your engine; and the E75 isn't exactly a racecar with the engine intact. At the moment, it's a heap of junk. In the rock-paper-scissors-balancing method, the E-75 was able to hold it's own up to the moment i grinded through to it. Could drive it for two days after obtaining before my freaking engine got set up in front... oh, pardon, it's the historical transmission :wacko: .

Famet85 #10 Posted 23 June 2012 - 09:49 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 37754 battles
  • 498
  • [PIR] PIR
  • Member since:
    08-02-2010

View PostLatorque, on 23 June 2012 - 02:13 AM, said:

It's not the fires, but you can set your clock after the module damage on your engine; and the E75 isn't exactly a racecar with the engine intact. At the moment, it's a heap of junk. In the rock-paper-scissors-balancing method, the E-75 was able to hold it's own up to the moment i grinded through to it. Could drive it for two days after obtaining before my freaking engine got set up in front... oh, pardon, it's the historical transmission :wacko: .

Posted Image

Panzerkeks85 #11 Posted 23 June 2012 - 10:48 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8878 battles
  • 365
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011
E75 is still a good tank but the tank lost clearly some of his battle performance!

Before 7.4 I was never set on fire. Since 7.4 I played around 15 battles with my E75 and I was set on fire 4 times, 2 times from behind. All 4 times the engine was knocked out and then you are just fucked.

And I don't see that "massive boost in turning speed" for the E75, my E75 turns as fast as ever!

I still don't understand why they nerfed the E-50/75, there is not a single rationale for that!

Edited by Panzerkeks85, 23 June 2012 - 10:50 AM.


ulcusrodens #12 Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11474 battles
  • 675
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
i haven't played it much since the new patch, but

1) i never had any fire or engine damage (in 4 battles, that's really not much, i know)
2) my ammo rack gets damaged every 2 hits from every angle. exactly like before.
3) acceleration is better
4) traverse is A LOT faster

i_waar #13 Posted 23 June 2012 - 06:31 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 30747 battles
  • 85
  • [BAT-S] BAT-S
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
so, i have fully grinded e75 with 2 skill crew, and i cant say that it turns better or that he is some faster, but i know that if someone goes throo the middle third of the lfp he instantly goes on fire, damages almoust all modules and stay on 10-20% health from the 100%. from the back situation is slight better, i got shooted twice from jgpanther 105mm gun and not set on fire, mabye just lucky i was...donno... i liked to go throo the mass before 7.4, now i must think do i need to use repair kit for gun, ammorack or engine...pritty bad, isnt it? sorry for eng, i m from serbia.

Strongback #14 Posted 23 June 2012 - 07:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 12530 battles
  • 633
  • [-TIB-] -TIB-
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010
I'm of the opinion, that making the dedicated weakspot of a tank cause engine fires is bullshit.
Considering the whole E-100 thing, where the lower glacis is so weak that even tier 7 tanks can set it on fire.

Now, I do understand that certain tanks need weakspots where they can be penetrated from.
But you have to admit that it's cheap as hell to make your dedicated weakspot cause damage to one of your most critical modules.

Consider if you'd be able to damage and ammorack an IS-7 by shooting at the MG ammo boxes on it's top.
That's how cheap the frontal fires are.

Zenith #15 Posted 23 June 2012 - 10:27 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 4457 battles
  • 3,236
  • Member since:
    07-05-2010

View PostStrongback, on 23 June 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Consider if you'd be able to damage and ammorack an IS-7 by shooting at the MG ammo boxes on it's top.

If they ever made such a change, I would never complain about frontal transmission fires again. :Smile_veryhappy:

Jopj #16 Posted 23 June 2012 - 11:31 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28287 battles
  • 244
  • [RSOP] RSOP
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011

View PostZenith, on 22 June 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

It will be okay for a few days, then people will realise where the engine hit-box is located, and the real pain will begin.

If the devs are insistent upon this nerf, then I think it should be balanced out with a LFP armour increase, and/or a top speed increase, since it is the only T9 with such drawbacks.

Guess you have not driven a VK4502b then. Imagine your E-75. Now make the lower plate weaker by 30mm of los armor. Then, make the upper plate weaker by 20mm los armor. Reduce side armor by 20mm. Add two weakspots to the upper plate. After that, take away the 1200hp engine. Move the turret to the rear.
After that's done, make it burn from dings. Yes, having your engine burn when people penetrate your weakspot sucks, but having it burn even when they don't sucks even more!

They should not have nerfed the E-75, it was fine. But it most certainly is not the only tier 9 with such drawbacks.

Latorque #17 Posted 24 June 2012 - 12:42 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8177 battles
  • 493
  • Member since:
    05-23-2012

View PostJopj, on 23 June 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Guess you have not driven a VK4502b then. Imagine your E-75. Now make the lower plate weaker by 30mm of los armor. Then, make the upper plate weaker by 20mm los armor. Reduce side armor by 20mm. Add two weakspots to the upper plate. After that, take away the 1200hp engine. Move the turret to the rear.
After that's done, make it burn from dings. Yes, having your engine burn when people penetrate your weakspot sucks, but having it burn even when they don't sucks even more!

They should not have nerfed the E-75, it was fine. But it most certainly is not the only tier 9 with such drawbacks.

The fact that the other Tier IX heavy from the german line stinks even more is of little consolation :Smile_mellow: . The great "armor" advantage of german tanks if of very little use when the power creep led to Tier X guns for all other nations that can even pen your UFP 8 times out of 10 (angled or not), and go through your (large) LFP and engi... transmission like a hot knife through butter. I'm learning to park it, though it saddens me. Maybe if the german heavies are barely played anymore it will show in WGs mysterious statistics, and they will buff... dunno - the HP?

Tupinambis #18 Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:54 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1,509
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View PostJopj, on 23 June 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Guess you have not driven a VK4502b then. Imagine your E-75. Now make the lower plate weaker by 30mm of los armor. Then, make the upper plate weaker by 20mm los armor. Reduce side armor by 20mm. Add two weakspots to the upper plate. After that, take away the 1200hp engine. Move the turret to the rear.
After that's done, make it burn from dings. Yes, having your engine burn when people penetrate your weakspot sucks, but having it burn even when they don't sucks even more!

They should not have nerfed the E-75, it was fine. But it most certainly is not the only tier 9 with such drawbacks.

These problems are virtually irrelevant to a properly used VK4502B though.

In either case, as a VK4502b user, I must admit that I feel virtually no sympathy for the current E-75 whiners right now.

SilverPigeon #19 Posted 24 June 2012 - 12:00 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7836 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    02-28-2012
After around 25 battles after the new patch I had 5 or 6 hits that crippled my engine. One was from arty, the rest from tanks, or td's. That is alot more than I used to have. Had no engine fires tho.

Jukelo #20 Posted 24 June 2012 - 12:06 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 26608 battles
  • 3,603
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostPanzerkeks85, on 23 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

I still don't understand why they nerfed the E-50/75, there is not a single rationale for that!

You have to be kidding me: E-75 has long been the best tier 9, and you're telling me there's no reason to nerf it? A tank overperforming is certainly a good justification for a nerf.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users