Jump to content


ST: French TD & MT rebalance


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

HugSeal #81 Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:20 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22752 battles
  • 2,253
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

 

It's not a problem? I can't speak for others, but when I peek, I want to know in advance if it's a good decision to peek or not. If I have a turret that can get penned, I won't peek unless it's safe. So how isn't it a problem to not know if your armor will work or not? 

 

But you don't need to know that you won't get penned. You need to know that you won't get penned say, 75% of the time. Armour isn't there to make you invulnerable. It is there to add a multiplier to your base HP and give you a higher EHP.

fighting_falcon93 #82 Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:32 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostHugSeal, on 23 June 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

But you don't need to know that you won't get penned. You need to know that you won't get penned say, 75% of the time. Armour isn't there to make you invulnerable. It is there to add a multiplier to your base HP and give you a higher EHP.

 

That opinion is fine if that's how you think that HT armor should work. Maybe the problem here is that you think of it more as a game, where I think more of it how HTs actually worked in real life. After all, it's tank game based on tanks from real life, right? HTs was designed to not get penetrated, and as soon as guns and ammo technology advanced faster than armor protection, HTs became replaced by MBT.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for OP HTs. I just think that the way to destroy them should be by flanking them and penetrating their side/read armor instead of clicking on cupolas :)



Velvet_Underground #83 Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:36 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,193
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

 

That opinion is fine if that's how you think that HT armor should work. Maybe the problem here is that you think of it more as a game, where I think more of it how HTs actually worked in real life. After all, it's tank game based on tanks from real life, right? HTs was designed to not get penetrated, and as soon as guns and ammo technology advanced faster than armor protection, HTs became replaced by MBT.

 

Geez:facepalm:

It's nice to know btw that the Batchat is "situationally op" if it is capable of doing some late game cleanup while invincible hulldown tanks and frontally impenetrable heavies are just fine.



Junglist_ #84 Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40705 battles
  • 1,363
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

 

 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for OP HTs. I just think that the way to destroy them should be by flanking them and penetrating their side/read armor instead of clicking on cupolas :)

 

Which is pretty much impossible on the tiny sized corridor maps which is the majority of the current map roster. And especially noticeable on tier 10.

I hope they will tweak and introduce the frontline mod soon I didn't mind super HTs that much there because of the huge map where you could actually do things like you described



brumbarr #85 Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:51 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

 

That opinion is fine if that's how you think that HT armor should work. Maybe the problem here is that you think of it more as a game, where I think more of it how HTs actually worked in real life. After all, it's tank game based on tanks from real life, right? HTs was designed to not get penetrated, and as soon as guns and ammo technology advanced faster than armor protection, HTs became replaced by MBT.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for OP HTs. I just think that the way to destroy them should be by flanking them and penetrating their side/read armor instead of clicking on cupolas :)

In real life , armor was also not working or not.   

 

This is a picture I took of a king tiger:

 

Posted Image

 

It didnt penetrate, but it sure as hell wasnt jsut a 'pling' and rob did some serious dmg inside. The armor could have spalled inside and splinters of steel prob injured the crew.

Armor is  not a 0 or  1.



fighting_falcon93 #86 Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:52 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostVelvet_Underground, on 23 June 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

Geez:facepalm:

It's nice to know btw that the Batchat is "situationally op" if it is capable of doing some late game cleanup while invincible hulldown tanks and frontally impenetrable heavies are just fine.

 

Funny how Batchat is allowed to be "situationally op", but pre-nerf E5 is not. They could easily have nerfed the LFP and kept the cupola, then it would also have been "situationally op" while hulldown.

 

And drop the late game statement, that's pure bs. Take a look at ranked battles, atleast 2-3 Batchats on each team, wonder why... Because they can already reload their entire clip directly after countdown while driving into position, and if they spot anyone going into position they can quite easily empty an entire mag either into a single target or multiple of them passing by.

 

You need to realise that players don't simply make up stories like this. They talk about them because that's what they've seen in battles.



brumbarr #87 Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:54 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 07:52 PM, said:

 

Funny how Batchat is allowed to be "situationally op", but pre-nerf E5 is not. They could easily have nerfed the LFP and kept the cupola, then it would also have been "situationally op" while hulldown.

 

And drop the late game statement, that's pure bs. Take a look at ranked battles, atleast 2-3 Batchats on each team, wonder why... Because they can already reload their entire clip directly after countdown while driving into position, and if they spot anyone going into position they can quite easily empty an entire mag either into a single target or multiple of them passing by.

 

You need to realise that players don't simply make up stories like this. They talk about them because that's what they've seen in battles.

 

The  key of the E5 isnt that its situationaly OP, its that its good not situationaly.  There isnt really a situation where its bad, or a situation where its OP..

fighting_falcon93 #88 Posted 23 June 2017 - 07:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostJunglist_, on 23 June 2017 - 07:44 PM, said:

Which is pretty much impossible on the tiny sized corridor maps which is the majority of the current map roster.

 

I fully agree. But then it would be time to start working on better maps and finally solve that problem, instead of wasting time on pointless buffs and nerfs that will have to be re-done when we get better maps anyway. That's if the devs intend to get rid of corridor maps in the first place...

 

EDIT: Funny though because I think that they've overdone it with the frontline mode. The maps there are bigger than they actually need to be. I think it would be enough to make the maps 2x2 km and then use the maps area in an more effective way instead of adding massive mountains and castles everywhere :)

 

View Postbrumbarr, on 23 June 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

In real life , armor was also not working or not.

 

I agree, but if we want that level of realism in the game, they should use an damage model like they do in World of Warships, were you take small damage even from bounces, depending on what caliber that bounced. Adding weakspots that actually allows you to fully penetrate a hulldown HTs frontal turret armor is not the way to go IMHO. I'd even say it's contradictory. A tank specialized in being hulldown, but here, have a hitbox that you can click on instead of actually flanking the target.


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 23 June 2017 - 08:10 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #89 Posted 23 June 2017 - 08:01 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postbrumbarr, on 23 June 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

The  key of the E5 isnt that its situationaly OP, its that its good not situationaly.  There isnt really a situation where its bad, or a situation where its OP..

 

I meant the pre-nerfed E5. People complained all the time how OP it was. I can agree, but not because it had a good cupola, but because it was even difficult to penetrate its LFP.



brumbarr #90 Posted 23 June 2017 - 08:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

 

I meant the pre-nerfed E5. People complained all the time how OP it was. I can agree, but not because it had a good cupola, but because it was even difficult to penetrate its LFP.

 

The pre nerf E5 was OP because it could do everything well and one thing a bit too well.

 

And if you want to make  the E5 good huldown, jsut remove the cupola instead of making it unpenetrable. 


Edited by brumbarr, 23 June 2017 - 08:22 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #91 Posted 23 June 2017 - 08:35 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postbrumbarr, on 23 June 2017 - 08:22 PM, said:

The pre nerf E5 was OP because it could do everything well and one thing a bit too well.

 

Exactly, I agree. Naturally, a hulldown tank should be easier to punish when it's not hulldown, so the E5s LFP should be nerfed instead of the cupola.

 

View Postbrumbarr, on 23 June 2017 - 08:22 PM, said:

And if you want to make  the E5 good huldown, jsut remove the cupola instead of making it unpenetrable. 

 

That's another option, but I think it had a machinegun cupola in its drawings, so that'd make the model visually unrealistic.


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 23 June 2017 - 08:35 PM.


brumbarr #92 Posted 23 June 2017 - 08:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:

 

Exactly, I agree. Naturally, a hulldown tank should be easier to punish when it's not hulldown, so the E5s LFP should be nerfed instead of the cupola.

 

 

That's another option, but I think it had a machinegun cupola in its drawings, so that'd make the model visually unrealistic.

 

I think I have already said thsi 10 times to you : the E5 is NOT a hullldown tank.

See, this is why you get replys like that....



Velvet_Underground #93 Posted 23 June 2017 - 08:46 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,193
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 07:52 PM, said:

 

Funny how Batchat is allowed to be "situationally op", but pre-nerf E5 is not. They could easily have nerfed the LFP and kept the cupola, then it would also have been "situationally op" while hulldown.

 

And drop the late game statement, that's pure bs. Take a look at ranked battles, atleast 2-3 Batchats on each team, wonder why... Because they can already reload their entire clip directly after countdown while driving into position, and if they spot anyone going into position they can quite easily empty an entire mag either into a single target or multiple of them passing by.

 

You need to realise that players don't simply make up stories like this. They talk about them because that's what they've seen in battles.

 

Nice attempt to hide your hypocracy:rolleyes:

FluffyRedFox #94 Posted 23 June 2017 - 08:50 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 25896 battles
  • 9,212
  • [FLOOF] FLOOF
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

 

Exactly, I agree. Naturally, a hulldown tank should be easier to punish when it's not hulldown, so the E5s LFP should be nerfed instead of the cupola.

 

 

That's another option, but I think it had a machinegun cupola in its drawings, so that'd make the model visually unrealistic.

Why don't WG treat the E5s cupola like the Chyslers MG ports and include the cupola on the visual model but not on the armour model.



fighting_falcon93 #95 Posted 23 June 2017 - 09:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postbrumbarr, on 23 June 2017 - 08:40 PM, said:

I think I have already said thsi 10 times to you : the E5 is NOT a hullldown tank.

See, this is why you get replys like that....

 

I would agree with you if its armor model wasn't so obvious. Take alook at it, it follows the same armor layout as all other hulldown tanks in the game.

 

Hulldown:

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/t110e5/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/is-7/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/t-62a/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/t32/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/113/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/kranvagn/model

[etc...]

 

Lol, even this one:

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/m48-patton/model

 

You see the common factor for all these tanks? The majority of armor is placed on the turret. Even the Patton is a hulldown tank, but because it's a medium, it doesn't have so thick armor, but the layout still follows the same pattern. The E5 also follows that armor layout pattern aswell.

 

Now compare it to a non-hulldown tank:

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/amx-50-b/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/e-50-m/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/fv4005/model



fighting_falcon93 #96 Posted 23 June 2017 - 09:04 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postfishbob101, on 23 June 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

Why don't WG treat the E5s cupola like the Chyslers MG ports and include the cupola on the visual model but not on the armour model.

 

You mean that it would be no hitbox there at all? Or that it would have the same thickness as the rest of the turret? :)

FluffyRedFox #97 Posted 23 June 2017 - 09:11 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 25896 battles
  • 9,212
  • [FLOOF] FLOOF
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

 

You mean that it would be no hitbox there at all? Or that it would have the same thickness as the rest of the turret? :)

I was joking :p

The evil option would having no hitbox at all



brumbarr #98 Posted 23 June 2017 - 09:18 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 23 June 2017 - 09:03 PM, said:

 

I would agree with you if its armor model wasn't so obvious. Take alook at it, it follows the same armor layout as all other hulldown tanks in the game.

 

Hulldown:

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/t110e5/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/is-7/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/t-62a/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/t32/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/113/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/kranvagn/model

[etc...]

 

Lol, even this one:

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/m48-patton/model

 

You see the common factor for all these tanks? The majority of armor is placed on the turret. Even the Patton is a hulldown tank, but because it's a medium, it doesn't have so thick armor, but the layout still follows the same pattern. The E5 also follows that armor layout pattern aswell.

 

Now compare it to a non-hulldown tank:

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/amx-50-b/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/e-50-m/model

http://www.tanks.gg/tank/fv4005/model

 

Is the E5 effective hulldown? No? then it isnt a hulldown tank.

If the maus had no armor and went 60kph, it wouldnt be a superheavy tank, it would be a light.



fighting_falcon93 #99 Posted 23 June 2017 - 09:24 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postbrumbarr, on 23 June 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

Is the E5 effective hulldown? No? then it isnt a hulldown tank.

 

It was effective hulldown, untill people complained that its cupola should be nerfed instead of its LFP...

 

They should look at the design documents and see how well armored the cupola was there. But then again that would also be a bit misleading because IRL tanks of that era wasn't accurate enough to snipe cupolas effectively.


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 23 June 2017 - 09:26 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #100 Posted 23 June 2017 - 09:26 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postfishbob101, on 23 June 2017 - 09:11 PM, said:

I was joking :p

The evil option would having no hitbox at all

 

Oh :P Well they could just give in an E3 cupola and nerf the LFP :great:




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users