Jump to content


ELC AMX bis - PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PROPOSAL!

ELC AMD bis Rework Proposal

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

Poll: ELC AMX bis - CHANGES (73 members have cast votes)

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

What to do about ELC

  1. Upgrade to Tier 6 with old stats (24 votes [32.88%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 32.88%

  2. Just upgrade ingine and leave Tier 5 (16 votes [21.92%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.92%

  3. Leave the ELC where it is now (33 votes [45.21%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 45.21%

Vote Hide poll

tajj7 #21 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27258 battles
  • 14,869
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

It's fine where it is, it's pretty well balanced against the other tier 5 lights and has the option still to mount the 90mm which is massively powerful for a tier 5 light tank when tier 8 mediums still have 240 alpha.

 

It was balanced when it used to face tier 9, they should have nerfed it slightly anyway when it got regular tier 6 MM. 

 

Plus I personally think it's Karma for all the stat padders that abused it. 



DracheimFlug #22 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:19 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9984 battles
  • 4,277
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Posttajj7, on 14 May 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

It's fine where it is, it's pretty well balanced against the other tier 5 lights and has the option still to mount the 90mm which is massively powerful for a tier 5 light tank when tier 8 mediums still have 240 alpha.

 

It was balanced when it used to face tier 9, they should have nerfed it slightly anyway when it got regular tier 6 MM. 

 

Plus I personally think it's Karma for all the stat padders that abused it. 

 

If it is harder to play now than before and yet still a good tank (as you seem to be claiming) wouldn't it be easier to pad stats in, since the majority would do even worse in it making the goal posts even lower?

Homer_J #23 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:20 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31416 battles
  • 34,219
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

 

Here edited,

 

Looks the same to me.



Vajsravana #24 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32860 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    04-10-2013

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 11:30 AM, said:

As we all know ELC is now a TIer 5 (before it was a tier 6 like all light tanks are 1 tier than they were)

 

What? :amazed:

Actually, it was a tier 5. And has always been there, since I started playing.

But, before the patch, it met tier 4-8. Now, it meets tier 3-7. Nerf is fair.


Edited by Vajsravana, 14 May 2017 - 01:26 PM.


Potato_Power #25 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:40 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5199 battles
  • 60
  • [_NFTG] _NFTG
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
Nice more "NO" witout explaning reason... makes me thing just haters who dont like ELC

Potato_Power #26 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:42 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5199 battles
  • 60
  • [_NFTG] _NFTG
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostVajsravana, on 14 May 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

 

What? :amazed:

Actually, it was a tier 5. And has always been there, since I started playing.

But, before the patch, it met tier 4-8. Now, it meets tier 3-7. Nerf is fair.

 

Please remove your vote if you dont even bother reading it... i said change ELC to TIER6!!!! and THEN buff and not JUST buff!!!

r00barb #27 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 26025 battles
  • 10,311
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

Nice more "NO" witout explaning reason... makes me thing just haters who dont like ELC

 

You can't force people to respond the way you want them to, whether that's by choosing the 'wrong' option in your poll or not explaining themselves in the thread. All this protestation is for naught; move on.

Pansenmann #28 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 35578 battles
  • 13,363
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

View PostVajsravana, on 14 May 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

 

What? :amazed:

Actually, it was a tier 5. And has always been there, since I started playing.

But, before the patch, it met tier 4-8. Now, it meets tier 3-7. Nerf is fair.

 

bbut, I dont want to meet tier 3 tanks with ELC,

all I want is to have the old MM and tank back - but only in this case,

which would mean +1 to +4 MM, always low tier.

 

it feels just wrong now.

 

PS: I didnt vote because ELC was fine as-is with +4 MM


Edited by Pansenmann, 14 May 2017 - 01:59 PM.


Potato_Power #29 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:57 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5199 battles
  • 60
  • [_NFTG] _NFTG
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostStrappster, on 14 May 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

 

You can't force people to respond the way you want them to, whether that's by choosing the 'wrong' option in your poll or not explaining themselves in the thread. All this protestation is for naught; move on.

 

Why do i need to fight now... this is just frustrating, when i see your reason for pressing NO ofc i wont be happy because you did not even read what was on the "YES" side

 

and if people dont say any reason i just feel like people dislike because they dont want to deal against a ELC tank.. i just hate when someone takes time to vote but not to explane why he voted, I mean not a single one who voted no comented.. well only you but you did not even read the proposal...



r00barb #30 Posted 14 May 2017 - 02:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 26025 battles
  • 10,311
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

Why do i need to fight now... this is just frustrating, when i see your reason for pressing NO ofc i wont be happy because you did not even read what was on the "YES" side

 

You're taking the position that someone voting NO didn't read the YES option? Grow up. :rolleyes:

 

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

and if people dont say any reason i just feel like people dislike because they dont want to deal against a ELC tank.. i just hate when someone takes time to vote but not to explane why he voted, I mean not a single one who voted no comented.. well only you but you did not even read the proposal...

 

I did read the proposal, I thought it was pointless and haven't voted for either option. But well done you on remaining objective.

 

Not everyone who reads your thread will reply. Not everyone who votes in your poll will explain their choice. Not everyone who posts in your thread or votes in your poll will agree with you completely one way or the other.

 

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here. :child:



wotfrance789 #31 Posted 14 May 2017 - 02:17 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 4085 battles
  • 62
  • Member since:
    11-06-2016

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

As we all know ELC is now a TIer 5 (before it was a tier 6 like all light tanks are 1 tier than they were)

 

It was never tier 6.

 

I like the new one with the rotating turret. It is still so small it can hide and peck away. Ok is harder to get 9 hits to do 1,000 damage rather than 3 hits, but it is ok.



lafeel #32 Posted 14 May 2017 - 02:49 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 4964 battles
  • 1,505
  • [LAFIE] LAFIE
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011

Just because I agreed to listen does not mean I agreed to vote for your proposal.

 

And in fact I do not agree with it at all. 



_snowfIake__ #33 Posted 14 May 2017 - 03:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27900 battles
  • 673
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

Wait, are people stupid? are they seriously voting that the tank stays as it is?

 

If you see who voted "NO" they did not leave any coment at all thats why im mad.. its not that im direcly mad at the choise

 

Those who mastered it not will vote of course No.

Jigabachi #34 Posted 14 May 2017 - 04:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 20,967
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Nice more "NO" witout explaning reason... makes me thing just haters who dont like ELC

Hint: Your stronk poll allows to tick BOTH options, which many people like to do if the poll sucks.



Homer_J #35 Posted 14 May 2017 - 05:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31416 battles
  • 34,219
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostJigabachi, on 14 May 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

Hint: Your stronk poll allows to tick BOTH options, which many people like to do if the poll sucks.

 

If it had been that way I would have.

 

Quote

You can select maximum of 1 answer


Potato_Power #36 Posted 14 May 2017 - 06:44 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5199 battles
  • 60
  • [_NFTG] _NFTG
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostStrappster, on 14 May 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

 

You're taking the position that someone voting NO didn't read the YES option? Grow up. :rolleyes:

 

 

I did read the proposal, I thought it was pointless and haven't voted for either option. But well done you on remaining objective.

 

Not everyone who reads your thread will reply. Not everyone who votes in your poll will explain their choice. Not everyone who posts in your thread or votes in your poll will agree with you completely one way or the other.

 

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here. :child:

 

lol, i tought you did not read because you said that he would be too strong for this MM and i said that it would be lvl6 so it would be old MM, im just mad becuase i srsly want to hear opinions of people who pressed no too and not just from who pressed yes because i only hear yes he needs a buff and the pool is 40-60

r00barb #37 Posted 14 May 2017 - 06:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 26025 battles
  • 10,311
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostPotato_Power, on 14 May 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

lol, i tought you did not read because you said that he would be too strong for this MM ...

 

You might want to read this thread again and check who actually said that because it wasn't me and I'm not going to make a case on behalf of someone else. :rolleyes:



Potato_Power #38 Posted 14 May 2017 - 07:05 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5199 battles
  • 60
  • [_NFTG] _NFTG
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostStrappster, on 14 May 2017 - 05:55 PM, said:

 

You might want to read this thread again and check who actually said that because it wasn't me and I'm not going to make a case on behalf of someone else. :rolleyes:

So what i want Wargaming to do "PLEASE" put the ELC at tier 6 and give all the stats back what it used to have.

Make the tank that it can be upgraded to light tank "AMX 13 75" or Tank Destroyer "ARL V39" or "AMX AC 46".

 

this is a copy paste from my thread

 

and if ELC was tier 6 it would be posible to play clan battles with it and that would be the biggest gift i could have from WoT :)


Edited by Potato_Power, 14 May 2017 - 07:06 PM.


Potato_Power #39 Posted 14 May 2017 - 07:08 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5199 battles
  • 60
  • [_NFTG] _NFTG
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View Posttajj7, on 14 May 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

It's fine where it is, it's pretty well balanced against the other tier 5 lights and has the option still to mount the 90mm which is massively powerful for a tier 5 light tank when tier 8 mediums still have 240 alpha.

 

It was balanced when it used to face tier 9, they should have nerfed it slightly anyway when it got regular tier 6 MM. 

 

Plus I personally think it's Karma for all the stat padders that abused it. 

 

why do people keep misunderstanding me, i did not say its nto balanced.. in fact its stronger now.

The feeling while driving the smalledst tank with gigants on the same battlefield is what i want back and i think many other ELC users too, the feeling of leading a team with a remote controled plastic car :D


Edited by Potato_Power, 14 May 2017 - 07:24 PM.


Jigabachi #40 Posted 14 May 2017 - 07:33 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 20,967
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 14 May 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

If it had been that way I would have.

Quote

You can select maximum of 1 answer

I see.

On the phone I was able to tick both, but I didn't finish the voting. Maybe there would have been an error message...


Edited by Jigabachi, 14 May 2017 - 07:34 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users