Jump to content


Another Chrysler K thread (with a different perspective)


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

Strappster #41 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:41 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19621 battles
  • 6,259
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostDesyatnik_Pansy, on 19 May 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

Just one thing I wanted to comment on, not sure if anyone else already explicitly stated this part. The tank has a significantly easier to pen side compared to the O-Ho, yes, but you should also highlight just how much more mobile the Chrysler is to the O-Ho. The Chrysler has a tank traverse of 33.37d/s (with just a 100% Crew, IIRC, as tanks.gg uses those values) while the O-Ho has 19.81d/s. The Chrysler also has a p/w ratio of 20  to the O-Ho's 9.90, and then there's the other soft stats such as performance on terrain, everything clearly painting a significantly better picture for the Chrysler.

 

The O-Ho is already one of those stupid Superheavies they've added that I can't stand, but IMO, the Chrysler is worse. Unless you're sniping at his side from a distance where he can't spot you and he never bothers to angle it slightly against you like a tool, the Chrysler is going to have an significantly easier time preventing you from penning him where it hurts than the O-Ho, even if there's much more to shoot at.

 

Granted but you'd need to be a bit special to try side-hugging a tank that's low enough for the gun to hit you without struggling with its depression. Moving further away, the O-Ho pilot would similarly be a numpty to allow you to take pot-shots at his side. Ok, the Chrysler player would be able to angle a bit quicker than the O-Ho but the O-Ho has a smaller area of thin armour and will still be able to angle unless both are otherwise engaged, which is what you hope for when you try to take on a heavy or super-heavy tank in a light.

 

View PostDesyatnik_Pansy, on 19 May 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

PS; didn't watch the video, got no interest in doing so. This whole situation's pretty entertaining tbh, y'think the other thread will kick up again and will finally usurp the O-I Thread?

 

OMG, I don't care. If you want to discuss the other thread, go do it there.



braintuma #42 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:45 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18343 battles
  • 2,592
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    12-14-2010

really funny



badidos651 #43 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:50 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 13458 battles
  • 89
  • [S-D-G] S-D-G
  • Member since:
    06-13-2016

So, wait! You're telling me this tank is not OP? Well, no buy from me then.

 

LUL, I love how this works. Poor WG.



badidos651 #44 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:53 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 13458 battles
  • 89
  • [S-D-G] S-D-G
  • Member since:
    06-13-2016

View Postbraintuma, on 19 May 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

really funny

 

If you're gonna post that, post the whole thing!

 



Nazgarth #45 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 911
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 05:53 PM, said:

 

I see you're an irony-free zone.

 

 

Of course it can.

 

 

Any questions? Both images were taken as screenshots from tanks.gg default display size so the scale might be a little off but the principle is the same. Besides, I said to shoot it in the side, not to side-hug it. You know you can aim your gun at weakspots from further away, right?

 

How did you get a 61% win rating? Did someone else play the account for you or did you have to send off tokens from a cereal packet or something?

 

 

Are you waiting for me to provide it? Because I never said it wasn't, I presented an alternative view. Try reading the words in the thread asking someone to explain the words to you slowly.

 

 

 

Quite right and as soon as that dickhead stops telling me I lap up sh*t with no basis for such accusations, I'll stop calling him a dickhead.

 

Yes I see your very butt hurt right now because you decided to spend so much time showing me that the O-Ho cannot depress its gun to shoot a side hugging enemy, something I already said it cant do apart from a typo where I put can instead of cannot. So when you've finished your strawman about side-hugging a O-Ho, continue with what ever your point of view is on the Chrysler; and no "hurr durr, I can pen it from the side with my light" isn't an argument or valid reason to make a thread.

I don't expect you to understand how I got that win ratio, after all you would have it yourself if you knew how to, wouldn't you?

With the title of this thread stating an alternative view, surly but process of elimination, (i.e. near enough everyone can see its OP as hell) that would mean you don't think that. Not too bright are we now? Either change your title or stop straddling the fence and actually state what you thinking rather than some blabbering drivel which this thread currently is.

The reason why I said you are lapping up sh!t is because I detected sarcasm in your original reply (maybe wrongly) and therefore you would as a result have the opposite opinion on Foch etc than I do.


 


Edited by Nazgarth, 19 May 2017 - 07:13 PM.


Conor_Notorious_McGregor #46 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:09 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21910 battles
  • 7,659
  • [NERVA] NERVA
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

Yes, that was the usual counter-argument. And arty prevents camping.

 

No argument involved. Is3A is and was sheet. worse than IS3 in every way. OK so the APCR means you have to lead a little less. meh and yarbles and wibble.

Strappster #47 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19621 battles
  • 6,259
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

... something I already said it cant do apart from a typo where I put can instead of cannot.

 

That's convenient, isn't it.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

So when you've finished your strawman about side-hugging a O-Ho, continue with what ever your point of view is on the Chrysler; and no "hurr durr, I can pen it from the side with my light" isn't an argument or valid reason to make a thread.

 

I haven't stated my point of view but I did state my reason for starting the thread in an earlier post in response to a moderator who saw that it was good enough to warrant remaining open (for now), so I don't think I need your approval regarding the validity of it, not that I did anyway.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

I don't expect you to understand how I got that win ratio, after all you would have it yourself if you knew how to, wouldn't you?

With the title of this thread stating an alternative view, surly but process of elimination, (i.e. near enough everyone can see its OP as hell) that would mean you don't think that. Not too bright are we now? Either change your title or stop straddling the fence and actually state what you thinking rather than some blabbering drivel which this thread currently is.

 

The reason is in the title but as you appear to be hard of thinking, I'll give it to you again - it's an alternative point of view. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying I agree with it 100%, I'm merely putting it up in an effort to have a discussion on the tank and not a continuing cavalcade of bullsh*t internet legal arguments that no one can source or back up beyond saying that their favourite streamer has been slighted by the big bad company.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

The reason why I said you are lapping up sh!t is because I detected sarcasm in your original reply (maybe wrongly) and therefore you would as a result have the opposite opinion on Foch etc than I do.

 

That's the sort of argument I'd expect from a child (apologies if you are one). Just because I do not agree with you completely, it does not follow that I must therefore disagree with you completely. The world isn't black and white, learn to see the shades of grey.

 

 

View PostConor_Notorious_McGregor, on 19 May 2017 - 06:09 PM, said:

No argument involved. Is3A is and was sheet. worse than IS3 in every way. OK so the APCR means you have to lead a little less. meh and yarbles and wibble.

 

I don't recall that stopping the omg-WG-pls posters from having a field day when it was released. Yes, they didn't continue anywhere near as long as the Patriot, Liberté, Defender, etc. subjects have but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.



Pandabird #48 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:29 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 30649 battles
  • 4,001
  • [-WZ-] -WZ-
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013
I agree, crystal k isn't op.

At least it won't be once the next 5 even more powerful prems roll out next week or whenever. Whatever.

Nazgarth #49 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:36 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 911
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 07:22 PM, said:

 

That's convenient, isn't it.

 

 

I haven't stated my point of view but I did state my reason for starting the thread in an earlier post in response to a moderator who saw that it was good enough to warrant remaining open (for now), so I don't think I need your approval regarding the validity of it, not that I did anyway.

 

 

The reason is in the title but as you appear to be hard of thinking, I'll give it to you again - it's an alternative point of view. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying I agree with it 100%, I'm merely putting it up in an effort to have a discussion on the tank and not a continuing cavalcade of bullsh*t internet legal arguments that no one can source or back up beyond saying that their favourite streamer has been slighted by the big bad company.

 

 

That's the sort of argument I'd expect from a child (apologies if you are one). Just because I do not agree with you completely, it does not follow that I must therefore disagree with you completely. The world isn't black and white, learn to see the shades of grey.

 

 

 

I don't recall that stopping the omg-WG-pls posters from having a field day when it was released. Yes, they didn't continue anywhere near as long as the Patriot, Liberté, Defender, etc. subjects have but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

Well if you had basic reading ability you would have seen in my third post on the topic I admitted my mistake of a typo. That's why I have 61% because I admit when I'm wrong and don't just lumber around with my bob average performance thinking I'm right all the time, something you could learn about.

Well there is already a thread regarding the Chryslers armour, so what new and exciting views is this thread bringing in regards to its armour?

And that perspective would be? You can't just say the thread is an alternative perspective and not state what that is, unless your perspective is nothing at all, which wouldn't surprise me.

Well that's funny, as my original post was referring to the armour of the Chrysler, specifically the LFP, and was not about the other Foch related debacle. Your the one who pointed out my signature, and dragged that topic into this thread. May I suggest your you redouble your efforts to keep your own topic, on topic?

Yes naturally you have run out of things to say and resort to childish personal attacks, as I can see you like to straddle the fence a lot, don't really say anything with any weight behind it, and then make strawmans when people question what your actual point of view is.

 



ZlatanArKung #50 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:49 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 2,842
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
He is like: This tank doesn't bounce T30 with 288 pen, therefore its armour isn't to good. bah,

Nazgarth #51 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 911
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 19 May 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:

He is like: This tank doesn't bounce T30 with 288 pen, therefore its armour isn't to good. bah,

 

Also "tier 9s can pen its LFP unangled, therefore NOT OP."

Strappster #52 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19621 battles
  • 6,259
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

Well if you had basic reading ability you would have seen in my third post on the topic I admitted my mistake of a typo.

 

I thought you were being sarcastic.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

That's why I have 61% because I admit when I'm wrong and don't just lumber around with my bob average performance thinking I'm right all the time, something you could learn about.

 

Bit presumptuous, isn't it? Particularly as I admitted being wrong in the very first post in this thread. Are you sure you should have that 61%?

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

Well there is already a thread regarding the Chryslers armour, so what new and exciting views is this thread bringing in regards to its armour?

And that perspective would be? You can't just say the thread is an alternative perspective and not state what that is, unless your perspective is nothing at all, which wouldn't surprise me.

 

If you can't tell the difference between a thread talking about armour values and this thread talking about the tank as a whole, then I'm not sure how to explain it. As for my perspective, I refer you to this thread, where I explain in the opening post exactly what I think of the CK. Scroll down a bit and you'll see another post from me discussing my impression of WG's strategy.

 

No, I don't expect you to have read everything I post on here but I do expect people to be able to read titles and understand them. This is a thread that puts forward an alternative point of view. That means it can also be an alternative to my point of view. Try reading the first post carefully and see if you can spot where I say that I agree with everything in the video.

 

I'm always happy to learn new things or see things presented from a different perspective because it allows me to modify and re-evaluate my view (that's a reference to an exchange with brumbarr earlier in this thread but you probably missed it because of your 61% observational skills).

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

Well that's funny, as my original post was referring to the armour of the Chrysler, specifically the LFP, and was not about the other Foch related debacle. Your the one who pointed out my signature, and dragged that topic into this thread. May I suggest your you redouble your efforts to keep your own topic, on topic?

 

Not really true, is it. You mentioned the LFP because tier 9's can pen it when unangled, which told me that you hadn't watched the video because it's later penned by an E75 firing down on it from an elevated position plus the T34 didn't seem to have many problems with it.

 

Yes, I was sarcastic in my reference to your signature but that was a comment on your observational skills, not the Foch drama.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

Yes naturally you have run out of things to say and resort to childish personal attacks, as I can see you like to straddle the fence a lot, don't really say anything with any weight behind it, and then make strawmans when people question what your actual point of view is.

 

With the admission that it sounds childish, you started it.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

You keep lapping Wgs sh!t right up don't you?

 

I could have sat back and lapped your sh*t up or stand by my words. I chose the latter.



Element6_TheSprout #53 Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:01 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24646 battles
  • 8,866
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 07:52 PM, said:

Also "tier 9s can pen its LFP unangled, therefore NOT OP."

Is an elited IS-3 OP compared to a stock IS-3 in your opinion?



Nazgarth #54 Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 911
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 19 May 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

Is an elited IS-3 OP compared to a stock IS-3 in your opinion?

 

Don't see how that is relevant but I would say. An elite is better than the stock, that is all.

Nazgarth #55 Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 911
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

 

I thought you were being sarcastic.

 

 

Bit presumptuous, isn't it? Particularly as I admitted being wrong in the very first post in this thread. Are you sure you should have that 61%?

 

 

If you can't tell the difference between a thread talking about armour values and this thread talking about the tank as a whole, then I'm not sure how to explain it. As for my perspective, I refer you to this thread, where I explain in the opening post exactly what I think of the CK. Scroll down a bit and you'll see another post from me discussing my impression of WG's strategy.

 

No, I don't expect you to have read everything I post on here but I do expect people to be able to read titles and understand them. This is a thread that puts forward an alternative point of view. That means it can also be an alternative to my point of view. Try reading the first post carefully and see if you can spot where I say that I agree with everything in the video.

 

I'm always happy to learn new things or see things presented from a different perspective because it allows me to modify and re-evaluate my view (that's a reference to an exchange with brumbarr earlier in this thread but you probably missed it because of your 61% observational skills).

 

 

Not really true, is it. You mentioned the LFP because tier 9's can pen it when unangled, which told me that you hadn't watched the video because it's later penned by an E75 firing down on it from an elevated position plus the T34 didn't seem to have many problems with it.

 

Yes, I was sarcastic in my reference to your signature but that was a comment on your observational skills, not the Foch drama.

 

 

With the admission that it sounds childish, you started it.

 

 

I could have sat back and lapped your sh*t up or stand by my words. I chose the latter.

 

Ok lets leave the O-Ho side hugging aside then because it obvious what the reality on that is.

Dunno maybe, hacks, WG bias, MM, pro teams, what other excuses could it be?

Well your original post talks about armour and nothing but, no mention of mobility, view range, gun. Nope, nada, nothing.

Still not sure what your point of view actually is, why do I have to go to another thread to find out what you mean in the thread you actually created? I mean if you want you can follow my example; "I would say its an OP pile of crap, too much armour, too much mobility, a gun with soft stats that are blatantly better than supposedly the same gun on the T32, but at the same time requires your to spam gold in order to be competitive. Broken and OP." Now all you have to do is change the words to match your opinion then there might be a constructive argument here.

I have already stated my view on the video. Yes tier 9s or tanks with average tier 9 penetration can pen the LFP when unangled, in the video at 1:36 he puts "tasty OP armour" while being penned unangled, as though it would only be OP if tier 9s bounced all the time unangled; ludicrous. At 3:34 vs E75 he was not well angled and was only on slightly lower ground, not to mention 1 shot is not really any kind of evidence. Yes also he did get penned in the UFP at one point by an E75 at close range shooting down, pretty much all tanks have this occur on the odd occasion, happened to me in Maus a few times when I wasn't angled that well.


Edited by Nazgarth, 19 May 2017 - 08:21 PM.


Strappster #56 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:06 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19621 battles
  • 6,259
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

Well your original post talks about armour and nothing but, no mention of mobility, view range, gun. Nope, nada, nothing.

 

Try reading it again. It's specifically about the side armour and the previous comparison to an O-Ho. I don't mention the turret armour, UFP, LFP or rear armour either.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

Still not sure what your point of view actually is, why do I have to go to another thread to find out what you mean in the thread you actually created?

 

I actually created the other one too. That one's titled, "I will NOT be buying a Chrysler K and here's why!" This one's titled, "Another Chrysler K thread (with a different perspective)". You see, I'm old fashioned in that I think a thread's title should convey an understanding to the reader of what subject the content is likely to address. You asked for my point of view and I've told you where to find it. I'm not going to copy/paste it because you can't be bothered clicking a link.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

I mean if you want you can follow my example ...

 

Or you could follow mine and read the relevant thread.

 

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

I have already stated my view on the video. Yes tier 9s or tanks with average tier 9 penetration can pen the LFP when unangled, in the video at 1:36 he puts "tasty OP armour" while being penned unangled, as though it would only be OP if tier 9s bounced all the time unangled; ludicrous. At 3:34 vs E75 he was not well angled and was only on slightly lower ground, not to mention 1 shot is not really any kind of evidence. Yes also he did get penned in the UFP at one point by an E75 at close range shooting down, pretty much all tanks have this occur on the odd occasion, happened to me in Maus a few times when I wasn't angled that well.

 

Was that so hard? Now we have your comments on the video, finally. Thanks for sharing.



Element6_TheSprout #57 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:13 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24646 battles
  • 8,866
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

Don't see how that is relevant but I would say. An elite is better than the stock, that is all.

It is sort of relevant since the core game design is such that one individual tank can and will be unbalanced on itself, and this goes for almost every tank that is in the game. Which makes me question the relevance of a few unbalanced premium tanks by comparison to the entire list of tanks available to us.

 

Or how good players with a good in-game economy can boost their 5 perk crews for 20.000 credits each battle... but that's player skill, right?



Nazgarth #58 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 911
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostStrappster, on 19 May 2017 - 09:06 PM, said:

 

Try reading it again. It's specifically about the side armour and the previous comparison to an O-Ho. I don't mention the turret armour, UFP, LFP or rear armour either.

 

 

I actually created the other one too. That one's titled, "I will NOT be buying a Chrysler K and here's why!" This one's titled, "Another Chrysler K thread (with a different perspective)". You see, I'm old fashioned in that I think a thread's title should convey an understanding to the reader of what subject the content is likely to address. You asked for my point of view and I've told you where to find it. I'm not going to copy/paste it because you can't be bothered clicking a link.

 

 

Or you could follow mine and read the relevant thread.

 

 

Was that so hard? Now we have your comments on the video, finally. Thanks for sharing.

 

So about armour, exactly what the other thread not created by you was about.

The perspective is a clueless NA muppet who doesn't know balance from his own arse? So the what is your opinion on the video>? because you certainly haven't stated that.

You own opinion in your own thread isn't relevant, that's a new one. I don't expect an essay just its this because of that.... is it really that difficult?

Like I said I already expressed my opinion on the video in my very first post, perhaps you were so awestruck by my signature you forgot to actually read it. I would say we finally have your opinion in your own thread but we don't, sigh.



Strappster #59 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:24 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19621 battles
  • 6,259
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNazgarth, on 19 May 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:

So about armour, exactly what the other thread not created by you was about.

The perspective is a clueless NA muppet who doesn't know balance from his own arse? So the what is your opinion on the video>? because you certainly haven't stated that.

You own opinion in your own thread isn't relevant, that's a new one. I don't expect an essay just its this because of that.... is it really that difficult?

Like I said I already expressed my opinion on the video in my very first post, perhaps you were so awestruck by my signature you forgot to actually read it. I would say we finally have your opinion in your own thread but we don't, sigh.

 

About a specific point raised in a separate thread, as in my last post.

 

Ok, you have an opinion, that's nice.

 

I thought it raised some interesting points and covered areas I hadn't considered when I posted my previous thread, that hadn't been covered in other reviews that were too busy wanking over it's apparent OPness. I try not to form definite opinions immediately because snap judgements are rarely accurate, as you've shown throughout this thread. The mistake I made was to think that this was a forum where a contentious subject could be discussed but obviously I was wrong.

 

You made a bland statement relating to a single event. If you wanted me to take that as your considered opinion of the video, you should have said so.



Nazgarth #60 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27032 battles
  • 911
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 19 May 2017 - 09:13 PM, said:

It is sort of relevant since the core game design is such that one individual tank can and will be unbalanced on itself, and this goes for almost every tank that is in the game. Which makes me question the relevance of a few unbalanced premium tanks by comparison to the entire list of tanks available to us.

 

Or how good players with a good in-game economy can boost their 5 perk crews for 20.000 credits each battle... but that's player skill, right?

 

But all tech tree tanks go through this, and their end result should be a group of tanks which are of similar power level (yes there are tanks that lag behind and these need sorting but that's a different topic), it used to be that premium tanks were somewhere between a stock tech tree tank and an elite one. Now there are tanks straight out of the box considerably better than tech tree tanks or old premiums to the point of making them obsolete. Not much of an argument to say an elite tank is better than a stock so its ok to put P2W OP sh!t in the game is it?

Never used a premium consumable food, yet here I am in the top percentile of the playerbase.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users