Jump to content


AMX CDC - Is it worth it? / Should it get buffed?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

ScottishJunky #21 Posted 25 October 2016 - 08:15 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4154 battles
  • 361
  • [D_G_M] D_G_M
  • Member since:
    07-21-2016

View PostHugsAndKisses, on 25 October 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

What I love about the CDC: When the other team has one.

What I hate about it: That I spent money on it.

 

It's about the size of a Maus with 20-30 mm of armor, the DCA 90mm gun is temperamental at best, but the most annoying thing is that while it has amazing horsepower, it is rendered almost useless by capped top speed coupled with horrible ground resists.

The only worse T8 prem med is the Chinese burner.

Seriously? People by it for the gun and speed, gun handling and gun despression, and I think the t-34-3 is amazing, 2 of my favourite tanks, you must be playing it wrong.



HugsAndKisses #22 Posted 25 October 2016 - 08:21 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24537 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostScottishJunky, on 25 October 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

Seriously? People by it for the gun and speed, gun handling and gun despression, and I think the t-34-3 is amazing, 2 of my favourite tanks, you must be playing it wrong.

 

Obviously. Glad you like yours. 

HugsAndKisses #23 Posted 25 October 2016 - 08:23 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24537 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostEila_Juutilainen, on 25 October 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

 

Statistically speaking, it seems to score a WR pretty much the same as the average of the player except for sub-50% players with slightly pulling into a positive at higher WRs. That's decent. If a tank's WR is higher than the players, the tank is overperforming, if it's lower the tank is bad. This is of course the playerbase, not single players.

T-34-3 is better than M4 Rev and Panther88 as well, though worse than Patton KR or T-54 Mod.1 which are both overperforming to the point of potentially being OP. It's actually not doing much worse than the Mutz.

 

Feel free to look for yourself: http://wot-news.com/...hina/Ch14_T34_3

CDC's graph is pretty sad, it actually does badly for good players: http://wot-news.com/...seur_de_char_46

 

I'm aware of the statistics. My posts reflected my subjective opinions based on my experiences with the two tanks, both as enemies and when I play my own.

I can't recommend either of them.



_Crusad3r_ #24 Posted 25 October 2016 - 08:30 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31240 battles
  • 1,620
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View Postp6kk, on 25 August 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

 

You avg damage this tank is only 1300. Why so few when the tank is so good? Amazing 212 pen and 1300 avg damage? Why are you lying? This tank are junk

If 212 pen is real you avg damage is 2000 not 1300. Avg 1300 damage is normal tier 6 or tier 7 tanks

 

I really hate this tank and rarely play it outside of SH for credits. I won't say its a good tank or a bad tank because its all about your own personal opinions. I don't like it because of the poor dispersion values and the fact that its the size of a house ;) Also my stats on premium tanks in general aren't great because I want to just grind credits on them and don't really care about the stats on them so go figure :) 

 



Eila_Juutilainen #25 Posted 25 October 2016 - 08:33 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21258 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

View PostHugsAndKisses, on 25 October 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

 

I'm aware of the statistics. My posts reflected my subjective opinions based on my experiences with the two tanks, both as enemies and when I play my own.

I can't recommend either of them.

 

Well, you wondered what I consider decent and that's my answer.

 

Disliking a vehicle based on your personal experiences is completely valid, as long as you're willing to accept that your experiences with the tank may not be a reflection of how it actually is. Personally, I can't get along with IS-6 even though it's statistically overpowered. It's just not my kind of tank, I don't like it one bit. But I do not go around the forums yelling that IS-6 is weak just because I suck at playing it.

 

Also, I wouldn't recommend either, either. I think CDC is too weak, and T-34-3 too awkward.


Edited by Eila_Juutilainen, 25 October 2016 - 08:34 AM.


HugsAndKisses #26 Posted 25 October 2016 - 08:43 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24537 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostEila_Juutilainen, on 25 October 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

 

Well, you wondered what I consider decent and that's my answer.

 

Disliking a vehicle based on your personal experiences is completely valid, as long as you're willing to accept that your experiences with the tank may not be a reflection of how it actually is. Personally, I can't get along with IS-6 even though it's statistically overpowered. It's just not my kind of tank, I don't like it one bit. But I do not go around the forums yelling that IS-6 is weak just because I suck at playing it.

 

Also, I wouldn't recommend either, either. I think CDC is too weak, and T-34-3 too awkward.

 

Actually, I didn't wonder at all what you considered decent. That's not to say that your opinion isn't valid as well, I just didn't wonder at any point.

 

T-34-3 and CDC are weak. They fill niche roles and will be under pressure when called upon to carry. I also happen to suck at playing them, true. 

IS-6 is strong because it can fill multiple roles and carry when the team crumbles. When platooned with another IS-6, you generally boost your team (whereas platooning in CDC and T-34-3 makes you even more of a liability).

The only thing it can't really do is sniping. Same goes for a strong T8 prem med like the T-54 mod 1, which is only really gimped when in tier 10 games - Like pretty much all T8 meds.

 



Eila_Juutilainen #27 Posted 25 October 2016 - 09:19 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21258 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

Eh, IS-6 is clearly overpowered and needs to be nerfed or removed for sale, honestly. The fact that WG actually buffed it is just mind-boggling.

Statistically, T-34-3 isn't weak at all, but I've already linked the stats and I don't really want to continue that conversation in a thread about a different tank too much, lest we derail it.



HugsAndKisses #28 Posted 25 October 2016 - 09:53 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24537 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

There's a disconnect here somewhere, because you argue that the T-34-3 is doing just fine. It has a global WR of 51.22% and is at 13th place among tier 8 premiums.

Meanwhile, IS-6 is just one place higher, 12th, has a global WR of 51.28% and is "clearly OP".

 

It seems to me that if you were to argue objectively, based on global WR, both would be slightly above average performers. CDC would be average.

Bonus fun fact: IS-3A would be below average, worse than both T-34-3 and CDC... (I know which I'd rather have on my team, tho)



Eila_Juutilainen #29 Posted 25 October 2016 - 10:24 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21258 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

View PostHugsAndKisses, on 25 October 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

There's a disconnect here somewhere, because you argue that the T-34-3 is doing just fine. It has a global WR of 51.22% and is at 13th place among tier 8 premiums.

Meanwhile, IS-6 is just one place higher, 12th, has a global WR of 51.28% and is "clearly OP".

 

It seems to me that if you were to argue objectively, based on global WR, both would be slightly above average performers. CDC would be average.

Bonus fun fact: IS-3A would be below average, worse than both T-34-3 and CDC... (I know which I'd rather have on my team, tho)

 

Ah, yes, it seems there is indeed a disconnect. You're using global WR as a metric of judgment, and I'm not. Here's why:

 

Global WRs are deceptive because they lump players of all levels of skill and experience together, this gives an inaccurate view of the situation. Not all tanks are played by the same demographics. An overpowered tank played massively by bad players can (and often will, just look at the old KV-1S) have a relatively low global WR. The WoT-News graphs are much more accurate because they seperate the WR values according to player WR. You can neatly see how the tank performs in different hands.

 

If you look at the IS-6 graph on WoT-News, you will see that people with an average WR of 50% will have a 52-53% WR on IS-6. And it only gets worse at the higher levels, where people can get up to 4% more WR than their average on IS-6. That's a massive overperformance. T-34-3 on the other hand will give a player a similar WR to their average and is pretty balanced, while CDC will tend to give you a lower WR than your average and is thus bad.

 

IS-6 is one of the most played tanks and highly popular, it gets recommended by pretty much every source as a tank to buy because of it's performance. As such, many players buy one including the reds and yellows that make up... almost 2/3rd of the playerbase (WoTLabs says 63%)? Those are lowering average WR.

Not to mention the fact that the tank gets so much praise and recommendation is a suspicious thing in and of it's own.

 

http://wot-news.com/...r/R61_Object252

Here's the graph. Compare it to the T-34-3 I posted earlier and then start to wonder if their performance really is only 0,08% apart. Hell, if their performance really was so close it would actually be an argument /against/ your claims that T-34-3 was weak, wouldn't it? Surely a tank that wins almost as much as IS-6 has to be good.


Edited by Eila_Juutilainen, 25 October 2016 - 10:49 AM.


HugsAndKisses #30 Posted 25 October 2016 - 04:48 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24537 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostEila_Juutilainen, on 25 October 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Here's the graph. Compare it to the T-34-3 I posted earlier and then start to wonder if their performance really is only 0,08% apart. Hell, if their performance really was so close it would actually be an argument /against/ your claims that T-34-3 was weak, wouldn't it? Surely a tank that wins almost as much as IS-6 has to be good.

Exactly my point. If you go by global WR, one can't suck while the other is OP when they're so close.

We don't, though... And you do have a good point, looking at the skill adjusted WR.

 

However, even if we go by raw statistics, ignoring subjective experiences such as consistency in gun performance, armor, etc., a player of our skill (56% WR) has several options of T8 prem med. 

T-34-3: 57.08%

Ripper Patton: 57.09% (borderline case)

T-44-100: 57.98%

T-54 mod. 1: 58.02%

 

If we expand the selection to include heavy tanks, there's of course the IS-6 at just over 60%, IS-3A at 57.86%, 112 at 58.62%, FCM at 57.26% and God knows what else (I stopped digginng at this point)...

All of those are stronger, even if we look strictly at the statistiscs, making the T-34-3 relatively weaker.

Or just weak.

And the CDC is even weaker... 

 


Edited by HugsAndKisses, 25 October 2016 - 04:49 PM.


Eila_Juutilainen #31 Posted 25 October 2016 - 05:59 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21258 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

View PostHugsAndKisses, on 25 October 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

All of those are stronger, even if we look strictly at the statistiscs, making the T-34-3 relatively weaker.

Or just weak.

And the CDC is even weaker... 

 

 

Well, there's the stinger in the argument. Relatively weak and empirically weak aren't the same thing. CDC and M4 Rev (and possibly a few others, I can't be arsed to check them all either) are definitely underperforming. T-34-3 isn't, it is one of the most balanced tier 8 premiums, judging from the stats. You're right in that it's one of the lesser performing of the bunch, but it's still performing adequately even with there being stronger tanks out there - you might even say it still manages to do well despite having to face said tanks - some of which are, with little doubt, too strong.

 

And I get it, from a player's point of view everybody wants the 'strongest' tank, not the 'decent' one. Why settle for an 8 when you can have a 10? But the 8 isn't useless just because the 10 exists.

 



HugsAndKisses #32 Posted 25 October 2016 - 06:25 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24537 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostEila_Juutilainen, on 25 October 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

 

Well, there's the stinger in the argument. Relatively weak and empirically weak aren't the same thing. CDC and M4 Rev (and possibly a few others, I can't be arsed to check them all either) are definitely underperforming. T-34-3 isn't, it is one of the most balanced tier 8 premiums, judging from the stats. You're right in that it's one of the lesser performing of the bunch, but it's still performing adequately even with there being stronger tanks out there - you might even say it still manages to do well despite having to face said tanks - some of which are, with little doubt, too strong.

 

And I get it, from a player's point of view everybody wants the 'strongest' tank, not the 'decent' one. Why settle for an 8 when you can have a 10? But the 8 isn't useless just because the 10 exists.

 

 

Indeed, but since one can only play one tank at a time anyway, why play anything but the strongest of the bunch?

It's not useless, but given the relative difference in strength, the utility of training Chinese vs Soviet crews and the strange difference in RL-monies price, how could I possibly recommend the T-34-3?

And that's not even taking into consideration the randomness of the gun and its tendency to burn and take module damage, which sucks a lot of the fun out of actually playing it (again, I'm biased against it because I don't play it well, but I'm pretty sure it objectively burns a lot more often than most tier 8 prem meds).

 

Seriously, if the gun didn't have long reload, long aim time, horrible dispersion and very meh penetration, I'd play it against even tier 10s. Just a tiny little buff to aim time and dispersion and I'd be up for it.

 



Eila_Juutilainen #33 Posted 26 October 2016 - 07:45 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21258 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

View PostHugsAndKisses, on 25 October 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

Indeed, but since one can only play one tank at a time anyway, why play anything but the strongest of the bunch?

 

Two reasons:

1- Fun. Not all players are competitive. Some people just want to drive a cool-looking tank.

2- Personal preferences. Not every tank is suitable for every player, and thus not all players will do equally as good in them.

 

As I've said before, I personally don't get along with IS-series tanks. IS-6 may be overpowered, but I do not like the way it's played and I do not enjoy playing it. My WR (admittedly over a small amount of battles) is quite under 50% with it. T-34-3 on the other hand I loved from the day it was released (although I haven't had the time to play it much lately, blame WoWs and the Arpeggio missions).

The only thing that disappoints me about the thing is that it's a T-54 -esque tank with no real armour, just the turret front. The hull is so bad you could give it -10 depression and call it American :harp:



pudelikael #34 Posted 17 December 2016 - 08:40 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22309 battles
  • 738
  • Member since:
    05-15-2015
trash tank, no pen (even goldammo), no camo useless bolsevik crap

SonyAD #35 Posted 10 January 2017 - 02:49 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 48400 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

It is not worth it. The camo value is really bad and that's all you would have had to be able to reliably excel in this tank. The tank is, for all intents and purposes, a light tank. But it gets classed as a medium tank and gets really bad camo value and rather lacklustre view range with a stock crew. Even though it's not that tall and that was the usual excuse for how WG choose camo values.

 

There is basically nothing you can do to bounce shots so all you have is camo value, which is bad, spotting range, which is not good enough with a stock crew, and accuracy + aim time, which are rather good but not enough by themselves to offset the crap camo value and rather lacklustre spotting ability.

 

Mobility is also quite good, which was to be expected given that you basically have no armor.

 

However, the Ru-251 is more enjoyable in every way than this turd.


Edited by SonyAD, 10 January 2017 - 02:59 AM.


The_Georgian_One #36 Posted 10 January 2017 - 09:36 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39616 battles
  • 1,875
  • [KOFN] KOFN
  • Member since:
    01-05-2015

Ravioli is a better tank and I would advice everybody to take it instead of CDC if you need French medium crew trainer.



ThePegasus1979 #37 Posted 13 January 2017 - 09:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22919 battles
  • 962
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

The tank is perfectly fine. Sure, the camo is not very good, but the rest is very nice. Whenever i get into the CDC, it is love ;)

 

Ace, High Caliber, 2 kills, 3.8k dmg, 4 spots, 900 assist

http://wotreplays.com/site/3249878



Guard7309 #38 Posted 10 April 2017 - 09:05 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9673 battles
  • 110
  • Member since:
    05-08-2016

the gun handling has to get buffed

 



VarzA #39 Posted 24 April 2017 - 08:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23588 battles
  • 1,589
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011

It could use a light buff in that area, but after seeing what the arty changes are, i fear those far more.

Higher rof, more shots in the air, better accuracy and way larger range of stun effect on such a light vehicle with such low armor.

It will still get full damage from HE rounds of arty too.



Thebodoms #40 Posted 06 May 2017 - 10:11 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1982 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    01-16-2014

I had a quit from WoT in 2012 and allways wanted to own a CDC since then.Cuz when i was playing tier 5-6's the tank was looking like a  limousine.

So i came back to WoT this year got myself a limo and guess what? 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users