Jump to content


Tanks, that are too bad and unplayed, should be buffed.


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

Derethim #1 Posted 12 August 2017 - 01:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17840 battles
  • 1,997
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

I know Wargaming is trying to keep a few tanks pretty bad to add to the difficulty of the game, do some variety and especially to make people shell out money for free XP.

But there are some tanks in the game, that haven't been buffed in ages, namely the T3-T7 tanks, that are meant to be just an obstacle until you reach Tier 8.

I'm currently grinding towards G1R, just because I like the way it looks, because it's a T5 and T5 makes a good ammount of creds and because I like weird tanks in this game, but I'm not looking forward to it, because I can see the only option for it to be of ANY use in battle is to use the 105mm howitzer.

 

The german lines up to T7 I haven't played much, but the Pz. 38. nA could use more speed or acceleration imo.

 

For example, any of the Russian lines I can't find a single bad tank up to tier 7..

 

I have almost all lines on tier 5 with the americans and everyone will say the M3 Lee is just terribad outside it's own tier while being average while T4, which is still rare. The M7 is fine actually, I liked it a lot back in 2014, it could just use a tiny bit more acceleration... I don't really know why people don't play this tank a little more.

 

Now the French are just a breeding ground for terrible stats. The whole T2 is great and then it just stops and you get tanks like the S35, which has a good gun and can sidescrape if it ever gets to battle in time, the AMX 38 is just COMPLETELY useless on T5, it's a cannon-fodder tank and should only meet T4, just like the Duck should only meet T5, as it's completely useless and this just punishes the poor player for daring to play any of these. The TDs are pretty much fine, save for the stupid cupolas SAu 40 and ARL V39 have. They should really be better armored in these spots... A lot of times you think you are hiding behind some rubble and someone just laughs and shoots you in the turret you can't use for anything. The heavies are great, except for the M4 45, but this one is fast and has a good gun - an example of hard to play, but rewarding tank. And like I said the G1R is just terrible.

 

The Brits probably have the strongest T1-T3 vehicles in the game, with many of the tanks having the Pom-pom. Medium III is just sluggish, but still pretty playable, VAL-AT just wrecks people on long range, if you can land a shot with the 3.7 howitzer. The Grant is almost the same as the Lee. Matty still stands as one of the most powerful T4 vehicles. The T5 is decent, except for the paper Crusader, which should either be faster, should get the 3.7 howitzer, or should get a tiny bit more armor. Altough it leads to the Cromwell, which is amazing. The only tanks I find extremely underwhelming for the brits are the Churchill GC and sometimes the Churchills, especially BP. The GC I've played for quite a while, earned a mark, but it was painful. The gun is great, the tank is really slow, it could use at least more engine power, but the main problem is the armor and the gun arc. The armor should be at least 110-120mm imo, or the gun arc needs to be expanded for this bucket to even be playable. Or just remove it, buff it and make it a premium. The Black Prince just has a horrible godawful penetration for it's tier, that is all - the same gun Sherman Firefly has, but it meets Tier 9 tanks.

 

I'm also grinding the Chinese for a few months now, the heavy line, but the only tank i'm having trouble with so far is the IS-2. Where is the armor? IS is supposed to be an earlier model, but for some reason, the later one has 30mm less frontal armor? What? It should at least be faster and it is - by the tiniest smallest bit. And it has the horrible gun depression all chinese tanks have on top of that - a tumor cupola, just like the IS.

 

Can't say anything about the other lines, haven't played them, so I would probably just make stuff up. But I just think some awful tanks should be buffed, as some people may be put-off by playing them.

Last match I did like 300 damage in a SARL and some 200 spot damage, which is just terrible and I got a 2 badge. Just proves how horrible some tanks are.

 



Spurtung #2 Posted 12 August 2017 - 01:45 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 66183 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013
That's already what they've been doing for a while anyway, but considering only the tier 10 of each line.

leggasiini #3 Posted 12 August 2017 - 01:47 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 15250 battles
  • 6,240
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostSpurtung, on 12 August 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

That's already what they've been doing for a while anyway, but considering only the tier 10 of each line.

 

And the tier 9, generally, sometimes tier 8 as well.

 

But yea there are tons of low-midtiers that needs love. 



HeidenSieker #4 Posted 12 August 2017 - 01:48 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,652
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

It might be better to reverse the idea - nerf "tanks that are too good and are overplayed".

 

What is too bad or too good is to some extent a personal opinion.



Derethim #5 Posted 12 August 2017 - 01:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17840 battles
  • 1,997
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostHeidenSieker, on 12 August 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

It might be better to reverse the idea - nerf "tanks that are too good and are overplayed".

 

What is too bad or too good is to some extent a personal opinion.

 

Why not both? A little nerf here a little buff there, you can put the whole meta on it's head this way.

The problem with the game is balance of individual tanks, not balance of TDs as a whole, or heavies as a whole. Try playing the french heavies, you won't bounce that much (at all) :D



Spurtung #6 Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:04 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 66183 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostDerethim, on 12 August 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

 

Why not both? A little nerf here a little buff there, you can put the whole meta on it's head this way.

It's like you want a game where tanks are airtight in the specs and people get to choose the ones that best suit them in a balanced environment.

WG wants none of that, constantly fluctuating specs makes people go after the current trend, spending money to reach the goal faster. 



Derethim #7 Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:22 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17840 battles
  • 1,997
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostSpurtung, on 12 August 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

It's like you want a game where tanks are airtight in the specs and people get to choose the ones that best suit them in a balanced environment.

WG wants none of that, constantly fluctuating specs makes people go after the current trend, spending money to reach the goal faster. 

 

Not true, I actually want variety. What WG is currently doing only affects Tier 8+

And for example, the german TDs were on top for a long long time.



NiemandXL #8 Posted 12 August 2017 - 08:14 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37955 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

View PostSpurtung, on 12 August 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

That's already what they've been doing for a while anyway, but considering only the tier 10 of each line.

 

And thanks to that tier X is one of the worst balanced tiers in the game. So it's probably for the best that they are mostly leaving the low tiers alone, at least until they actually got a few competent people to re-balance tanks.

 

I'm not convinced that the people currently responsible for balancing @Wargaming would be capable to balance a loaf of bread between 2 people^^


Edited by NiemandXL, 12 August 2017 - 08:14 PM.


Steeleye_Spam #9 Posted 12 August 2017 - 10:05 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29867 battles
  • 277
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-31-2014

Well, my experience is that there are very few awful tanks, and the ones you highlight aren't. There are tanks that only do one thing well which borks their usefulness. There are tanks that just aren't as good at everything as others in the tier. But mostly there are tanks that you don't enjoy and don't do well in because they don't suite your play style (and you're not good enough to adapt to). I've been through plenty that I've hated and others rave about, and some of my best tanks some people think are worthless. Sure, some are obviously better for most of the player base, but that doesn't make the others awful.

 

i found g1r to be perfectly playable with the long gun. Sarl is one of my best T4's. Everyone loves to hate the Grant, again, one of my best T4s. Didn't particularly enjoy the BP, but my average Exp in it wasn't a million miles off that for IS, O-Ni or Tiger P.



Derethim #10 Posted 12 August 2017 - 11:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17840 battles
  • 1,997
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostSteeleye_Spam, on 12 August 2017 - 10:05 PM, said:

Well, my experience is that there are very few awful tanks, and the ones you highlight aren't. There are tanks that only do one thing well which borks their usefulness. There are tanks that just aren't as good at everything as others in the tier. But mostly there are tanks that you don't enjoy and don't do well in because they don't suite your play style (and you're not good enough to adapt to). I've been through plenty that I've hated and others rave about, and some of my best tanks some people think are worthless. Sure, some are obviously better for most of the player base, but that doesn't make the others awful.

 

i found g1r to be perfectly playable with the long gun. Sarl is one of my best T4's. Everyone loves to hate the Grant, again, one of my best T4s. Didn't particularly enjoy the BP, but my average Exp in it wasn't a million miles off that for IS, O-Ni or Tiger P.

 

One of my tops is Lee from back in 2012, but it's seriously underwhelming compared to some of the new tanks and wasn't changed in ages, for example - it was good back then.

Just because you're good and you do good in some bad tanks, doesen't mean they aren't underpowered. SARL's 47mm is quite powerful, that's why I though it would play like a T4 Chi-Nu-Kai with a faster gun, but no. The turret is high, so it's silhouette is also high, therefore it loses some camo value. The view range is great, but the speed is underwhelming and it's gun is inaccurate. It has no adequate armor, not even on the turret. Imagine how you played when you began the game, now imagine you have to play through something like this. You'd get pissed-off and leave. Also, try to kill everything in a Tier 6 match in an AMX40.


Edited by Derethim, 12 August 2017 - 11:58 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users