Jump to content


Tier10 LT buffs, enough?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

brumbarr #1 Posted 18 August 2017 - 09:54 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

WG is buffing LT on supertest, because guess what? they where underperforming, who would have thought that.

 

https://thearmoredpa...ier-x-lt-buffs/

 

But the question is, are these buffs enough? what do you think?

 

In my opinion they need more changes, ammo capacity isnt a problem if you cant hurt anything in the first place.

They need better gun handling and VR.

Also they seem to not buff the WZ132, which will make it IMO fall behind the others as the dmg per shot is now nothing special anymore. 

 

The RHM still remains a turd with now even less dpm. GJ


Edited by brumbarr, 18 August 2017 - 09:55 PM.


robezur6 #2 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:02 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 42955 battles
  • 6,385
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011
These "buffs" are just a joke. Lights will still remain crap.

AliceUnchained #3 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:07 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38126 battles
  • 8,783
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
These can hardly be called buffs. Increase in average damage may sound nice, but changes little. Light tanks aren't mean to trade shots anyway. Ammo increase is another barely worth mentioning 'buff'. As long as the current map design stays as the predominant one, light tank need gun handling buffs so exposure time is reduced to a minimum. Increase in view range will matter little on most maps I'm afraid. 

GalmTwo #4 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:08 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7332 battles
  • 237
  • [F-A-D] F-A-D
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014
Light tanks will keep underperforming, even with these buffs

Bucifel #5 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:10 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29511 battles
  • 1,373
  • [JDUN] JDUN
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

cant be enough because they still ignore what those tanks really needs,,,,VIEWRANGE !

and this is not only for tier X LTs...all LTs need their VR back !

 

ammo capacity is a good start but far from enough



DiMtopia #6 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14439 battles
  • 765
  • [1ADRM] 1ADRM
  • Member since:
    09-17-2013

they need to buff the viewrange not improve alpha and dpm.

make the LTs have ~420 viewrange meds at max 400 and the rest lower.



brumbarr #7 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:16 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View PostAliceUnchained, on 18 August 2017 - 10:07 PM, said:

These can hardly be called buffs. Increase in average damage may sound nice, but changes little. Light tanks aren't mean to trade shots anyway. Ammo increase is another barely worth mentioning 'buff'. As long as the current map design stays as the predominant one, light tank need gun handling buffs so exposure time is reduced to a minimum. Increase in view range will matter little on most maps I'm afraid. 

They dont even make sense, the sheridan will now have the same alpha as wz1321, with way better dpm and gun handling.



leggasiini #8 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12313 battles
  • 6,069
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

Give WZ-132-1 a 122mm gun :^)

 

No really, it would keep its niche and it would be more realistic because China got their first L7s in like 80s lol



HaZardeur #9 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:27 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33257 battles
  • 1,155
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010

View Postbrumbarr, on 18 August 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

They dont even make sense, the sheridan will now have the same alpha as wz1321, with way better dpm and gun handling.

 

And lower the DPM of the Rhm... :amazed:

pathed91 #10 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:28 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17807 battles
  • 194
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014

What if they went in the same direction as wows and added consumables that are special for the class? Make a light tank consumable that will completaly negate camo bonuses from bushes for a short period of time (about 10-15 seconds) with perhaps a 120 seconds cooldown (that starts counting down at the start of the match so you can't use it directly at the start of the match). That way lights would have a role again, digging out campers hiding in bushes like on the 1-2 line on prohkorovka.

 

Would that be a good idea? 



brumbarr #11 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:30 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

My proposed buffs keeping current meta in mind and without major overhaul.

All numbers with 100% crew.

 

-T100LT: 

  •   Buff dpm to 2800 
  • Buff prem ammo pen to 260.
  • Buff VR to 400
  • Buff acc to 0.4

-WZ1321

  • Buff dpm to 2600
  • buff acc to  0.38
  • buff VR to 410
  • buff dispersion values by 10%
  • Buff HP to 1600

-Sheridan

  • keep current alpha
  • buff dpm to 2750
  • buff dispersion values by 10%.
  • buff acc to 0.36

AMX 13 105:

  • buff VR to 410
  • Keep dmg at 360
  • buff clip reload to 22s
  • buff acc to 0.38
  • buff hp to 1500

RHM:

  • buff dmg to 390
  •  buff dpm to 2300
  • buff acc to 0.33
  • buff dispersion values by 30%
  • make sure it doesnt flip over as easily

 

What do you think?


Edited by brumbarr, 18 August 2017 - 10:33 PM.


FluffyRedFox #12 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:31 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22556 battles
  • 8,094
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

My only tier X light experience is with the Sheridan, and the thing that annoyed me the most about it was how bloody often the gun would miss fully aimed shots so I'd much rather have a gun accuracy buff than an alpha buff

 


Edited by fishbob101, 18 August 2017 - 10:31 PM.


pathed91 #13 Posted 18 August 2017 - 10:58 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17807 battles
  • 194
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014

View Postleggasiini, on 18 August 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

Give WZ-132-1 a 122mm gun :^)

 

No really, it would keep its niche and it would be more realistic because China got their first L7s in like 80s lol

 

I bet wg would give it a 122mm D25T gun with 175 pen :P

NiemandXL #14 Posted 18 August 2017 - 11:11 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37955 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013
More changes by people who do not play the game^^ Gun handling and accuracy of those lights are so terrible across the board that a little more DPM and alpha are not going to change anything.

ZeFeKa #15 Posted 18 August 2017 - 11:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Community Contributor
  • 79032 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010

T-100 buff seems fine...

13 105 i would prefer reload decrease instead of alpha increase... but i'd love rotation buff above anything else

Rhm need more love, handling buff is great but please, give him some DPM (decrease reload like supertest but don't touch alpha)

 

And for the 2 other i don't own them so...

Btw i didn't feel like they need VR or Accuracy buff.

VR is pretty fine with their camo and you can't really give them accuracy coz you know... redline pew pew.



brumbarr #16 Posted 18 August 2017 - 11:24 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View PostNiemandXL, on 18 August 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

More changes by people who do not play the game^^ Gun handling and accuracy of those lights are so terrible across the board that a little more DPM and alpha are not going to change anything.

 

I agree with accuracy, but gun handling?? Apart from the RHM they all have pretty much better or on par handlng then tier10meds.

Dr_Oolen #17 Posted 18 August 2017 - 11:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20568 battles
  • 1,553
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

not even close

 

what i would do:

wz

VR 400 -> 410

acc 0.42 -> 0.4

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.14 -> 0.1

dispersion on turret traverse 0.06 -> 0.05

hull traverse 52 -> 62

+10 shells

 

sheridan

acc 0.4 -> 0.38

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.12 -> 0.08

dispersion on turret traverse 0.05 -> 0.04

alpha 360 -> 390

top speed 65 -> 70

+10 shells

 

13105

VR 390->400

acc 0.42 -> 0.4

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.15 -> 0.12

dispersion on turret traverse 0.12 -> 0.1

alpha 360 -> 390

hull traverse 42 -> 50

+12 shells

 

t-100

VR 390-->400

acc 0.46 -> 0.42

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.06 -> 0.04

dispersion on turret traverse 0.05 -> 0.03

hull traverse 58 -> 64

gold pen 248 -> 268

+10 shells

 

rhm

acc 0.36 -> 0.33

alpha 360 -> 390

aimtime 1.9 -> 1.6

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.18 -> 0.12

dispersion on turret traverse 0.12 -> 0.06

gun depression 10 -> 12

top speed 75 -> 80

hull traverse 56 -> 60

+10 shells

 

then i imagine the lights wouldnt suck [edited]



Zhongze_Li #18 Posted 19 August 2017 - 12:13 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8454 battles
  • 206
  • [HAV0C] HAV0C
  • Member since:
    10-29-2015
I first consider the buff as logical, if not sufficient (IMO definitely not enough)..... until I saw the RHM 'buff' with the reduced alpha & measly 5 shell increase? Must be a mistake.

Edited by Zhongze_Li, 19 August 2017 - 12:14 AM.


Bucifel #19 Posted 19 August 2017 - 12:45 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29511 battles
  • 1,373
  • [JDUN] JDUN
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostDr_Oolen, on 18 August 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

not even close

 

what i would do:

wz

VR 400 -> 410

acc 0.42 -> 0.4

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.14 -> 0.1

dispersion on turret traverse 0.06 -> 0.05

hull traverse 52 -> 62

+10 shells

 

sheridan

acc 0.4 -> 0.38

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.12 -> 0.08

dispersion on turret traverse 0.05 -> 0.04

alpha 360 -> 390

top speed 65 -> 70

+10 shells

 

13105

VR 390->400

acc 0.42 -> 0.4

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.15 -> 0.12

dispersion on turret traverse 0.12 -> 0.1

alpha 360 -> 390

hull traverse 42 -> 50

+12 shells

 

t-100

VR 390-->400

acc 0.46 -> 0.42

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.06 -> 0.04

dispersion on turret traverse 0.05 -> 0.03

hull traverse 58 -> 64

gold pen 248 -> 268

+10 shells

 

rhm

acc 0.36 -> 0.33

alpha 360 -> 390

aimtime 1.9 -> 1.6

dispersion on hull movement/traverse 0.18 -> 0.12

dispersion on turret traverse 0.12 -> 0.06

gun depression 10 -> 12

top speed 75 -> 80

hull traverse 56 -> 60

+10 shells

 

then i imagine the lights wouldnt suck [edited]

 

this sounds good enough excepting gold ammo penetration because we dont need to see LTs penetrating heavys front more than they already do and instead of damage boost i prefer some ROF increase...

ah..and viewRange...MINIMUM 410 on worst case.


Edited by Bucifel, 19 August 2017 - 12:46 AM.


AliceUnchained #20 Posted 19 August 2017 - 10:42 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 38126 battles
  • 8,783
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 18 August 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

They dont even make sense, the sheridan will now have the same alpha as wz1321, with way better dpm and gun handling.

 

Oh I agree, but average damages haven't made sense for a long, long time already. Take the 10.5 cm KwK 46's for example; the shorter barreled ones have 390 average, the L/68 gets 320. Then the 7.5 cm / 76 mm for the light tanks: M41 gets 150 average for the auto-loader, all other same caliber guns get 170 average. Then compare that to the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 with 135 average damage... Whereas the 17-pounder gets 150 average... It's a mess. Always has been, as Wargaming sucks terribly at logic and consistency. And worse of all, deliberately gimps performance of well known guns of a particular nation.

 

View PostBucifel, on 19 August 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

excepting gold ammo penetration because we dont need to see LTs penetrating heavys front more than they already do 

 

Right, because 248 mm penetration is balanced whereas 268 mm is easy penetration. As always, you have no idea what you're blabbering about.


Edited by AliceUnchained, 19 August 2017 - 10:43 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users