Jump to content


Supertest Leak - British Mediums


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

250swb #21 Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:21 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 23230 battles
  • 5,613
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015
Well this is a great move by WG, and long overdue. The British tank line has an enormous amount of potential, but spoiled by lack of care from the balancing team. They seem to have been too busy balancing/improving 'the usual suspects' and for the longest time ignored entirely the redundant tech trees of the British. Perhaps it is a presage to the arrival of the Chieftain?

Edited by 250swb, 25 July 2017 - 07:23 PM.


xx984 #22 Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:38 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 64428 battles
  • 3,498
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
Dont get it, Everyone complains that WG dont care about the British tech tree, They finally get more buffs and everyone complains about that.. Honestly i dont blame WG for not listening to anyone now.. because no matter what you will all complain anyway :facepalm:

Edited by xx984, 25 July 2017 - 07:38 PM.


Velvet_Underground #23 Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:42 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,203
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 25 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

 

Have you ever heard of the term "strategy" before? Have you played an actual strategy game before?

 

If you drive in front of a hulldown tank being hulldown, you are in the strategical disadvantage, and are supposed to get punished for it. You're not supposed to just place your mouse cursor on his turret to counter his strategical advantage, but rather relocate and position yourself in a strategical advantage instead. That's how a tank game should work like, not stupid gameplay around "you click me, i click you back"...

I've played the total war games, quite some civilization and rts games like cossacks, the settlers (is that actually an internationally known game series?) and AoE2 so I guess I have some experiences with this genre and once or twice stumbled across the term and its meaning but thank you for asking.

 

Anyway, being hulldown is advantageous as it is without being invincible simply due to the fact that one shows less of his tanks (thus having a lower chance of getting hit/penetrated), can cover his reload etc pp. This way even paper tanks like the CDC gain an advantage and the chance to punish people sitting out in the open, having a chance to fight back (not an even chance, mind you) on the other does not negate this advantage.

Nevermind the fact that we aren't talking about a single example of this but WGs plans to buff the meds of 4 different nations the same way without any real need; penetration/dpm buffs for example would have been a good change for the british and soviet tier 8 tanks, if something would be done about the HT meta we have right now there might actually be no need to buff half of the high tier meds in the first place.



Cobra6 #24 Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16530 battles
  • 17,565
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View Postxx984, on 25 July 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

Dont get it, Everyone complains that WG dont care about the British tech tree, They finally get more buffs and everyone complains about that.. Honestly i dont blame WG for not listening to anyone now.. because no matter what you will all complain anyway :facepalm:

 

 

The only tanks redundant in the UK tank line are the Churchill tanks, especially T6-T7.

 

Cobra 6



xx984 #25 Posted 25 July 2017 - 07:55 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 64428 battles
  • 3,498
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostCobra6, on 25 July 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

 

 

The only tanks redundant in the UK tank line are the Churchill tanks, especially T6-T7.

 

Cobra 6

 

FV4005 and Conway say hello :P

Cobra6 #26 Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16530 battles
  • 17,565
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View Postxx984, on 25 July 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:

 

FV4005 and Conway say hello :P

 

If you can't make the HESH-barn work it's your problem XD

 

Cobra 6



xx984 #27 Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:51 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 64428 battles
  • 3,498
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostCobra6, on 25 July 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

 

If you can't make the HESH-barn work it's your problem XD

 

Cobra 6

 

183 is just better in nearly every way, And the small advantages the 4005 gets over the 183 are not even worth it

Search_Warrant #28 Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:02 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 28596 battles
  • 6,435
  • [FLOOF] FLOOF
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

WG do you have the armor profiles from tank inspector or tanksGG? i fear you will not buff the plates correctly of FV4202, like the area around the gun being flat 115 and the armor is literally.. 115mm effective. hitting there breaks the gun or kills the gunner, IS-6 had 150mm armor mantle and you buffed the living hell out of it with ANOTHER 150mm on top of it while having preff MM!.

 

I cant take these buffs seriously after you mentioned the FV4202 ALREADY has 148 effective UFP when my Type 62 ripped a FV4202 from the front with 144AP standard pen. unless you mean these tanks are showing values without normalisation? then its understandable, but also truly shows how pathetic the armor values are for these tanks.

 

Edit: you could technically say the FV4202p has 240 armor on the turret currently. but its literally 2 pixel spots next to the gun. thats why i fear your armor models telling the real truth of the armor "buffs"


Edited by Search_Warrant, 25 July 2017 - 09:12 PM.


Homer_J #29 Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 32787 battles
  • 35,624
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 25 July 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

I like the changes. Finally we can actually use the turret on the hulldown tank and actually do something, 

The only problem is that every other medium can also do the same thing so now we have a stalemate and the tanks which should be providing movement to the battle are all sat behind ridge lines camping.



fighting_falcon93 #30 Posted 25 July 2017 - 10:44 PM

    Brigadier

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

View PostHomer_J, on 25 July 2017 - 09:08 PM, said:

The only problem is that every other medium can also do the same thing so now we have a stalemate and the tanks which should be providing movement to the battle are all sat behind ridge lines camping.

 

Which is the cause of bad maps and not armor. Of course they get stuck if you have to move through one of three corridors to get behind the enemy...

Homer_J #31 Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 32787 battles
  • 35,624
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 25 July 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

 

Which is the cause of bad maps 

 

Doesn't matter, you don't balance the game by making every tank the same.

 

And what happened to Sandbox?



Velvet_Underground #32 Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:20 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,203
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 25 July 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

 

Which is the cause of bad maps and not armor. Of course they get stuck if you have to move through one of three corridors to get behind the enemy...

Do we really need more than half of the tier 10 meds to have such turret armor? If people can just sit behind a ridgeline and be invulnerable, don't you think there's the chance that instead of relocating etc to take those tanks out people would just counter-camp their own ridges, especially when an awful lot of meds are good at this very tactic? Which maps currently in the game are "good" in your opinion?

 

PS: Wouldn't it be the more logical approach to balance the game for the maps we have rather than for the ones you hope we might get?



_cro_magnon #33 Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:34 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 33066 battles
  • 2,824
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

View Postxx984, on 25 July 2017 - 07:38 PM, said:

Dont get it, Everyone complains that WG dont care about the British tech tree, They finally get more buffs and everyone complains about that.. Honestly i dont blame WG for not listening to anyone now.. because no matter what you will all complain anyway :facepalm:

 

Basically same stuff as with Chrysler. The straw that broke the camel.

 

Game is going bland and stagnant and it's going there fast.



fighting_falcon93 #34 Posted 26 July 2017 - 01:43 AM

    Brigadier

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

View PostVelvet_Underground, on 25 July 2017 - 11:20 PM, said:

Wouldn't it be the more logical approach to balance the game for the maps we have rather than for the ones you hope we might get?

 

No, because the maps we currently have are horrible aswell. I find it interesting that you think a bit of turret armor is so game breaking, but it seems from your quote that you think the maps are just fine... I see it as wasted development time to first balance tanks according to corridor maps, then rework maps into non-corridor, and then go back and tweak all tanks again. There're way too many tanks in this game to just play around back and forth with their stats every update.



8126Jakobsson #35 Posted 26 July 2017 - 09:11 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 79760 battles
  • 5,401
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

the armour values goes up and up

up and up

up and up

the armour values goes up and up

better load more golds 



Velvet_Underground #36 Posted 26 July 2017 - 12:08 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,203
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 26 July 2017 - 01:43 AM, said:

 

No, because the maps we currently have are horrible aswell. I find it interesting that you think a bit of turret armor is so game breaking, but it seems from your quote that you think the maps are just fine... I see it as wasted development time to first balance tanks according to corridor maps, then rework maps into non-corridor, and then go back and tweak all tanks again. There're way too many tanks in this game to just play around back and forth with their stats every update.

Actually, I've criticized the maps on multiple occasions in other threads, they are partly responsible for the heavy tank meta I mentioned early in this thread that should be fixed first rather than just buffing the turret armor of 4 different medium branches.

Your mistake is that you somehow assume that the maps are going to be fixed, that WG will move away from all of the awful corridor maps. We are talking about a company not fixing the climbing issue despite acknowledging the problem, they have yet to even announce when they are solving the issue even though it persisted for months now and instead of creating bigger, more open maps they are polishing the turds we have in game and rework the bad maps we have into HD. Clearly a prettier Himmelsdorf is what the game needs. Why should WG balance the game not for maps we have, not for the ones we will get but instead for the ones you hope we will see some day? Nevermind the fact that there are other ways to improve those tanks like dpm/pen buffs for the tier 8 tanks for example, everyone is craving for more armor, right?



Cobra6 #37 Posted 26 July 2017 - 12:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16530 battles
  • 17,565
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View Postxx984, on 25 July 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

 

183 is just better in nearly every way, And the small advantages the 4005 gets over the 183 are not even worth it

 

But it's still better than the Foch(155), Obj268 etc....

 

The Churchill's are not better than any other same-tier heavy tank pretty much.

 

Cobra 6



mantazzo #38 Posted 26 July 2017 - 12:48 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7167 battles
  • 208
  • [LTUKP] LTUKP
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
British Heavies need buffs/optimizations badly also, especially tiers 6-8 (Caernarvon is getting especially useless nowadays). Just please, don't "buff" Conqueror turret, it's in acceptable place (although minimal increase in gun depression, if possible, would be great :D ) And of course the promised Chieftain... One can only dream (except if you're in China server and have a load of moneys)

Gkirmathal #39 Posted 26 July 2017 - 02:01 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8602 battles
  • 1,713
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

Firstly I though: good WG is finally doing something. Might come back for a short time to perhaps grind to the Cent I.

Until this thought crossed my mind: does this game really need even more tanks with over buffed, completely unhistorical, armor values? To make their armor count again. That is a causal treatment, nothing more and the actual problem they still refuse to touch.

 

It would be nice to have the old armor values back on these tanks, from before the HD remodels, those values at least were not as ludicrous as these armor values. But that’s it.
IMO though these tanks, most tanks in general, would be far better of with just dpm and some gun handling tweaks.

 

I really think WG have backed themselves too much into a corner which they almost cannot escape from, by having released the last batches of premium tanks. Armor effectiveness vs premium ammo and their current solution for it. The performance gap with new premiums vs local game balance, because premiums in that stale generate better sales, but they keep by their EULA to not change them.

 

Those decisions have served them the current situation, which they could have seen coming miles ahead of time, which is very hard to turn out from.

 


Edited by Gkirmathal, 26 July 2017 - 02:02 PM.


Echotun #40 Posted 26 July 2017 - 02:07 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22317 battles
  • 533
  • [FA-1] FA-1
  • Member since:
    03-15-2015
They really need to introduce platinum ammo




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users