Jump to content


Give T-34-3 The Obj416 Top Gun.


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

Eila_Juutilainen #41 Posted 28 July 2015 - 08:05 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21125 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

So a random thought occurred. Type 59 has 2 degrees extra gun depression that it shouldn't have, because WG did a lot of weird things with tank stats in the beginning of the game. Same reason why T-34 has -8(?), and the much later introduced Type T-34 has the correct -5. Now, the reason why I was always against a depression buff for T-34-3 was because it's not right.

 

Then T-54 Prototype came along, and it got an extra -2 depression, giving it -6 over the -4 (or even -3 according to some) it had historically. BEcause that 'makes it more playable'. And now I'm sitting here like... well, it doesn't /need/ two extra degrees depression... but that would make it more forgiving to play. It would make people rage a tiny bit less. And if both it's 'relatives' get an extra -2, it's only fair T-34-3 should have that.

 

Or Type and T-54 Proto should get theirs corrected. And yes, I advocating a nerf for a tank I own and enjoy if it leads to fairness, because right now WG is measuring with two sticks.



Fluffy_The_Destroyer #42 Posted 28 July 2015 - 09:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53 battles
  • 4,403
  • Member since:
    12-07-2014
The "Russian Bias" stick and the "Dirty china peasent copycats who copy our designes so they must be worse than ours" Stick?

keyres #43 Posted 02 August 2015 - 07:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 35599 battles
  • 1,284
  • [F-T-R] F-T-R
  • Member since:
    12-26-2010

View PostEila_Juutilainen, on 28 July 2015 - 08:05 AM, said:

So a random thought occurred. Type 59 has 2 degrees extra gun depression that it shouldn't have, because WG did a lot of weird things with tank stats in the beginning of the game. Same reason why T-34 has -8(?), and the much later introduced Type T-34 has the correct -5. Now, the reason why I was always against a depression buff for T-34-3 was because it's not right.

 

Then T-54 Prototype came along, and it got an extra -2 depression, giving it -6 over the -4 (or even -3 according to some) it had historically. BEcause that 'makes it more playable'. And now I'm sitting here like... well, it doesn't /need/ two extra degrees depression... but that would make it more forgiving to play. It would make people rage a tiny bit less. And if both it's 'relatives' get an extra -2, it's only fair T-34-3 should have that.

 

Or Type and T-54 Proto should get theirs corrected. And yes, I advocating a nerf for a tank I own and enjoy if it leads to fairness, because right now WG is measuring with two sticks.

 

About type's balance, all I have to say is that the "extra" gun depression comes from moving the gun ... higher... I don't know whose idea was that, but he (she would be chauvinistic, wouldn't it?) should get an MRI considering how wrong that is spatially.

Some part of me is glad I don't own that tank, as it would annoy me to no end. On the other hand it's a well performing med that also happens to earn well, so...

 

Although I agree with this particular case, I disagree with principles you use to argument it. I don't view WoT as a historical simulator - it's an arcade game to me. So, if I could trade any semblance of historical accuracy (which is disputable at best anyway) and gain even a mere sliver of vehicle balance in exchange, I would not hesitate.



Fluffy_The_Destroyer #44 Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53 battles
  • 4,403
  • Member since:
    12-07-2014

View Postkeyres, on 02 August 2015 - 07:28 PM, said:

 

About type's balance, all I have to say is that the "extra" gun depression comes from moving the gun ... higher... I don't know whose idea was that, but he (she would be chauvinistic, wouldn't it?) should get an MRI considering how wrong that is spatially.

Some part of me is glad I don't own that tank, as it would annoy me to no end. On the other hand it's a well performing med that also happens to earn well, so...

 

Although I agree with this particular case, I disagree with principles you use to argument it. I don't view WoT as a historical simulator - it's an arcade game to me. So, if I could trade any semblance of historical accuracy (which is disputable at best anyway) and gain even a mere sliver of vehicle balance in exchange, I would not hesitate.

 

I agree on that first part, have you seen the model in game of Type 59? the gun has a box hole under the gun. the gun area does not look right.

Dr_Grigz #45 Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 21405 battles
  • 699
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011

You can make it work >.> I have a better WN8 than in my WZ-111 which is a better tank but i guess the WR on that is higher :hiding:

 

 

 



Valvalecia #46 Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:03 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11685 battles
  • 1,404
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
1,5k dpg at tier VIII is not "making it work"

Fluffy_The_Destroyer #47 Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53 battles
  • 4,403
  • Member since:
    12-07-2014

View PostValvalecia, on 02 August 2015 - 11:03 PM, said:

1,5k dpg at tier VIII is not "making it work"

 

Exactly this.

Dr_Grigz #48 Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 21405 battles
  • 699
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011

View PostValvalecia, on 02 August 2015 - 10:03 PM, said:

1,5k dpg at tier VIII is not "making it work"

 

It's enough to get 2 marks doe still xD

Fluffy_The_Destroyer #49 Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:09 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53 battles
  • 4,403
  • Member since:
    12-07-2014
Tanks that are bad usualy are easy to get marks on. i got 2 marks on Type 64 somehow. its a good LT too. but its a LT. so most likely people suiscout and do terrible like most LT players.

Dr_Grigz #50 Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 21405 battles
  • 699
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011
Yea but if it's bad then it is or should be hard to do damage, therefore making it hard to get the mark :P  ?

Fluffy_The_Destroyer #51 Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:13 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53 battles
  • 4,403
  • Member since:
    12-07-2014
its got a 390 alpha gun, so by default the damage will look high regardless of player who uses it. majority wont pull 1.5k. hell they wont even manage over 800 i bet.

Dr_Grigz #52 Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 21405 battles
  • 699
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011

View PostValvalecia, on 02 August 2015 - 10:03 PM, said:

1,5k dpg at tier VIII is not "making it work"

 

Also it's not JUST a tier VIII it is arguably the shitiest :D 

Eila_Juutilainen #53 Posted 03 August 2015 - 07:55 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21125 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

View Postkeyres, on 02 August 2015 - 07:28 PM, said:

 

About type's balance, all I have to say is that the "extra" gun depression comes from moving the gun ... higher... I don't know whose idea was that, but he (she would be chauvinistic, wouldn't it?) should get an MRI considering how wrong that is spatially.

Some part of me is glad I don't own that tank, as it would annoy me to no end. On the other hand it's a well performing med that also happens to earn well, so...

 

Moving the gun higher should actually give it less depression, since the breech has less space to move inside the turret... if the barrel goes down, the breech goes up. These dome-shaped turrets are notorious for being cramped, IIRC.

 

 

View Postkeyres, on 02 August 2015 - 07:28 PM, said:

 

Although I agree with this particular case, I disagree with principles you use to argument it. I don't view WoT as a historical simulator - it's an arcade game to me. So, if I could trade any semblance of historical accuracy (which is disputable at best anyway) and gain even a mere sliver of vehicle balance in exchange, I would not hesitate.

 

The only principle I'm arguing is 'if these similar tanks get buffed depression (despite WG claims they're going to make things more historical from now on), then why is this one stuck with terrible depression when that is totally unfair'. My point is not historical authenticity, it's the apparent measuring with two sticks.


Edited by Eila_Juutilainen, 03 August 2015 - 07:56 AM.


tajj7 #54 Posted 03 August 2015 - 10:42 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25575 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

-5 would be fine, it's T-54/T-62a levels and at least workable.

 

Changing the gun changes the whole tank, rather than trying to make it a type copy i'd rather have it viable in it's own right, which is using the 122mm to be a brawler.

 

I'd like to see buffs across the board though, I'd go with -

 

- ROF of 5 to 5.2

- gun dep to -5.

- LFP buff to 90mm, side armour buff to 80mm.

- ground resistance buff by about 20%

- give it an accuracy of 0.40 and aim time of 2.9 seconds I reckon.

 

Makes the tank a nice little brawler, still very far from OP but much more fun to play and different to the Type. 



Fluffy_The_Destroyer #55 Posted 03 August 2015 - 03:13 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53 battles
  • 4,403
  • Member since:
    12-07-2014

View Posttajj7, on 03 August 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

-5 would be fine, it's T-54/T-62a levels and at least workable.

 

Changing the gun changes the whole tank, rather than trying to make it a type copy i'd rather have it viable in it's own right, which is using the 122mm to be a brawler.

 

I'd like to see buffs across the board though, I'd go with -

 

- ROF of 5 to 5.2

- gun dep to -5.

- LFP buff to 90mm, side armour buff to 80mm.

- ground resistance buff by about 20%

- give it an accuracy of 0.40 and aim time of 2.9 seconds I reckon.

 

Makes the tank a nice little brawler, still very far from OP but much more fun to play and different to the Type. 

 

Exactly this, i dont want a poor mans Type 59. i do want something different to play, but if being different makes it crippled then i dont see the reason why they even released it, majority of people dont like this tank because its not FUN, its FUSTRATING. it shouldent have been released the way it was originaly.

 

These buffs need to happen to make it a tank worthy of a replacement to the Type 59 without making it a Type 59.



keyres #56 Posted 03 August 2015 - 06:48 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 35599 battles
  • 1,284
  • [F-T-R] F-T-R
  • Member since:
    12-26-2010

View PostEila_Juutilainen, on 03 August 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

Moving the gun higher should actually give it less depression, since the breech has less space to move inside the turret... if the barrel goes down, the breech goes up. These dome-shaped turrets are notorious for being cramped, IIRC.

 

This is precisely what I meant. The type 59 model is simply broken and ugly.

 

View PostEila_Juutilainen, on 03 August 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

The only principle I'm arguing is 'if these similar tanks get buffed depression (despite WG claims they're going to make things more historical from now on), then why is this one stuck with terrible depression when that is totally unfair'. My point is not historical authenticity, it's the apparent measuring with two sticks.

 

I jumped to a conclusion - and I apologize sincerely, my mind was seeking trouble apparently.

 

View Posttajj7, on 03 August 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

-5 would be fine, it's T-54/T-62a levels and at least workable.

 

Changing the gun changes the whole tank, rather than trying to make it a type copy i'd rather have it viable in it's own right, which is using the 122mm to be a brawler.

 

I'd like to see buffs across the board though, I'd go with -

 

- ROF of 5 to 5.2

- gun dep to -5.

- LFP buff to 90mm, side armour buff to 80mm.

- ground resistance buff by about 20%

- give it an accuracy of 0.40 and aim time of 2.9 seconds I reckon.

 

Makes the tank a nice little brawler, still very far from OP but much more fun to play and different to the Type. 

 

That would (arguably) render it superior to T-44 and T-34-2. Which makes it more than unlikely to happen.

I agree with RoF (even a more radical one could be justified) and aim time buffs. They alone would make it a sort of one trick pony - not exactly best of the bunch, not exactly flexible but workable with that one good trait.

 

All of the buffs put together (especially the gun depression buff would be not in line with other Chinese meds), would make it an interesting tank in its own right - you know that WG doesn't like to make those...

All being said that WG can screw it over with soft stats anyway.



Valvalecia #57 Posted 06 August 2015 - 09:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11685 battles
  • 1,404
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
I bought it again not having played it after the buffs, and I think this tank is very underrated, easily on of my favorite tanks now even though I had problems with in in the past.

e: wrong thread

Edited by Valvalecia, 06 August 2015 - 09:07 PM.


SonyAD #58 Posted 06 December 2016 - 06:27 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 45788 battles
  • 156
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View Postkeyres, on 09 July 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

 

Sooo... You want a gun which place is at tier 9, on tier 8 premium tank? That's so far off reasonable, that even WG's "balancing" team didn't consider that...

I'm not saying the tank is good as it is - it's clearly an underdog on tier 8 even when accounting for being a premium tank, but that's simply unreasonable (heck, even the 416 is out of place with that gun).

 

What are you talking about? T26E5? 49 Liberte? American T34 (better pen than my E75's 128 mm)? All have guns some of the best guns at tier 8. They are arguably tier 9 guns.

 

Anyway, I don't even want a penetration buff. I just want a gun that's not a complete joke in terms of accuracy and handling.


Edited by SonyAD, 06 December 2016 - 06:28 AM.


Gkirmathal #59 Posted 06 December 2016 - 10:44 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,513
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013
Nice necro! It was almost completely decomposed already :trollface:

DragonriderZ #60 Posted 06 December 2016 - 04:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 26702 battles
  • 85
  • [KLKMP] KLKMP
  • Member since:
    09-22-2012

object 416 gun :D haha why dont we give it a 1800 hp engine and 420 viewrange while we are at it?

 

if that tank got the 416 gun it would be the most op tier 8 tank in game... 416 has that gun because it has other huge disadvantages






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users