Jump to content


T 34-3 should get same penetration as STG Guard


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

qpranger #1 Posted 07 September 2017 - 06:31 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30722 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

Come on WG, stop taking the pish and do the right thing! 

Like this if you agree, let's get a record number of likes.

Maybe then WG will finally pay attention.


Edited by qpranger, 07 September 2017 - 06:36 PM.


GalmTwo #2 Posted 07 September 2017 - 06:37 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7304 battles
  • 237
  • [F-A-D] F-A-D
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014
I was going to say no, but I guess you might need those likes to trade them for food and such, so, what the hay.

Sergeant_Antaro_Chronus #3 Posted 07 September 2017 - 06:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13249 battles
  • 605
  • [EL-G] EL-G
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013
Don't hold your breath. The tank has preferential MM, so it be a miracle to get a penetration buff. 

tajj7 #4 Posted 07 September 2017 - 06:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24362 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014
T-34-3 is getting Type 59 armour, and has limited MM so not sure why it needs a pen buff. 

hasnainrakha57 #5 Posted 07 September 2017 - 08:15 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12589 battles
  • 463
  • [WFTTE] WFTTE
  • Member since:
    08-01-2013
Lol i sold my crap t34 3 worst gun ever

Balc0ra #6 Posted 07 September 2017 - 08:20 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62806 battles
  • 14,408
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Posttajj7, on 07 September 2017 - 06:50 PM, said:

T-34-3 is getting Type 59 armour, and has limited MM so not sure why it needs a pen buff. 

 

Tbh, WG is not sure if they want to keep that on some of the limited MM tier 8 tanks. They even talked about removing it from the IS-6 as an option if they buffed the gun enough.

lord_chipmonk #7 Posted 07 September 2017 - 08:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32183 battles
  • 10,166
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

Was going to say "no, it has pref. MM", but there doesn't seem much point. 

 

Woops. 



PricelessPlayingPancake #8 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15137 battles
  • 667
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    01-24-2011
Preff mm these days got as much use as wet ammorack in equipement shop :angry: 

Search_Warrant #9 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:15 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,330
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Posttajj7, on 07 September 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

T-34-3 is getting Type 59 armour, and has limited MM so not sure why it needs a pen buff. 

 

its also apparently gaining an aimtime buff with the armor changes. im happy with that.

arthurwellsley #10 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:17 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 50487 battles
  • 2,506
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

NO

Guard = rear turret

T34-3 = turret in normal position.

 

Go and play T34-2 and Object 416, and come back with your comparisons of those two tanks.



tajj7 #11 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:21 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24362 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostBalc0ra, on 07 September 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

 

Tbh, WG is not sure if they want to keep that on some of the limited MM tier 8 tanks. They even talked about removing it from the IS-6 as an option if they buffed the gun enough.

 

If they remove limited MM then yeh, but with the proposed buffs the T-34-3 will have better turret and hull armour than the guard, similar if not better mobility, similar camo, better view range and in some respects better handling (which is apparently getting buffed as well) PLUS limited MM. 

 

So to buff it;s pen as well would be too much.

 

Not sure any of the limited MM tanks need a pen buff if they keep limited MM, maybe the IS6 prem round and maybe KV-5, but more they just need to generally sort out tier 8 MM and the pref-MM tanks will feel that benefit. 



Balc0ra #12 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62806 battles
  • 14,408
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Posttajj7, on 07 September 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

 

If they remove limited MM then yeh, but with the proposed buffs the T-34-3 will have better turret and hull armour than the guard, similar if not better mobility, similar camo, better view range and in some respects better handling (which is apparently getting buffed as well) PLUS limited MM. 

 

So to buff it;s pen as well would be too much.

 

Not sure any of the limited MM tanks need a pen buff if they keep limited MM, maybe the IS6 prem round and maybe KV-5, but more they just need to generally sort out tier 8 MM and the pref-MM tanks will feel that benefit. 

 

On top that sure. But if they removed the limited MM and gave it 220+ pen that is. But the issue is, WG is not sure how well that will be recived. If some will ask for a refund then, or if most will take it and like it more.

Search_Warrant #13 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:32 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,330
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Posttajj7, on 07 September 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

 

If they remove limited MM then yeh, but with the proposed buffs the T-34-3 will have better turret and hull armour than the guard, similar if not better mobility, similar camo, better view range and in some respects better handling (which is apparently getting buffed as well) PLUS limited MM. 

 

So to buff it;s pen as well would be too much.

 

Not sure any of the limited MM tanks need a pen buff if they keep limited MM, maybe the IS6 prem round and maybe KV-5, but more they just need to generally sort out tier 8 MM and the pref-MM tanks will feel that benefit. 

 



PricelessPlayingPancake #14 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15137 battles
  • 667
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    01-24-2011

View Postarthurwellsley, on 07 September 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

NO

Guard = rear turret

T34-3 = turret in normal position.

 

Go and play T34-2 and Object 416, and come back with your comparisons of those two tanks.

 

416 is the best regular tier 8 medium - hard to addapt , but you have tier 9 gun with great acc, dpm and prem ammo , good camo , mobillity .
34-2 is the shittiest tier 8 medium with horrible pen , dispersion,  which wasnt buffed and isnt even hd yet (34-3 to) 2.9 sec aiming time for 250 alpha , fuel tanks and ammoracks all over the tank , hull that any tier 6 can butter like it isnt there at all. 

Turret placement isnt an argument at all . Even giggled after read this bullcrap :popcorn:

arthurwellsley #15 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:33 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 50487 battles
  • 2,506
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Posttajj7, on 07 September 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

 

If they remove limited MM then yeh, but with the proposed buffs the T-34-3 will have better turret and hull armour than the guard, similar if not better mobility, similar camo, better view range and in some respects better handling (which is apparently getting buffed as well) PLUS limited MM. 

 

So to buff it;s pen as well would be too much.

 

Not sure any of the limited MM tanks need a pen buff if they keep limited MM, maybe the IS6 prem round and maybe KV-5, but more they just need to generally sort out tier 8 MM and the pref-MM tanks will feel that benefit. 

Searchwarrant was faster than me (edit)


Edited by arthurwellsley, 07 September 2017 - 09:33 PM.


Pansenmann #16 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:33 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33268 battles
  • 12,024
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

View Posttajj7, on 07 September 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

 

If they remove limited MM then yeh, but with the proposed buffs the T-34-3 will have better turret and hull armour than the guard, similar if not better mobility, similar camo, better view range and in some respects better handling (which is apparently getting buffed as well) PLUS limited MM. 

 

So to buff it;s pen as well would be too much.

 

Not sure any of the limited MM tanks need a pen buff if they keep limited MM, maybe the IS6 prem round and maybe KV-5, but more they just need to generally sort out tier 8 MM and the pref-MM tanks will feel that benefit. 

 

well, at least the Type 59 needs a distinctive buff,

if it should remain as top price for tournaments and stuff...

 

then it's only fair that the T-34-3 also gets the same armor layout at least.



arthurwellsley #17 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:37 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 50487 battles
  • 2,506
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostPricelessPlayingPancake, on 07 September 2017 - 08:32 PM, said:

 

416 is the best regular tier 8 medium - hard to addapt , but you have tier 9 gun with great acc, dpm and prem ammo , good camo , mobillity .
34-2 is the shittiest tier 8 medium with horrible pen , dispersion,  which wasnt buffed and isnt even hd yet (34-3 to) 2.9 sec aiming time for 250 alpha , fuel tanks and ammoracks all over the tank , hull that any tier 6 can butter like it isnt there at all. 

Turret placement isnt an argument at all . Even giggled after read this bullcrap :popcorn:

 

I notice on that account you own a T34-3. But it shows you as never having played a T34-2. You have the A43, and the A44 but have not played the Object 416.

PricelessPlayingPancake #18 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15137 battles
  • 667
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    01-24-2011

View Postarthurwellsley, on 07 September 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

 

I notice on that account you own a T34-3. But it shows you as never having played a T34-2. You have the A43, and the A44 but have not played the Object 416.

 

Ive played T-34-3 , and 3 marked it - the tanks is sheeeet tho. 
416 was my fav when i used to play on russian server (both accounts were created at the same time , eu made into open beta tho) . 25k battles there .:child:

tajj7 #19 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24362 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

So buffed T-34-3 would have over STG -

 

+ Better turret armour all over

+ Way better hull armour 

+ Better hp/ton

+ Better traverse

+ Better DPM

+ Better dispersion on moving/hull

+ Better view range

+ Limited MM

 

Leaving the Guard's only real advantages at 

 

Gun depression (but I'd rather have -5 on a forward mounted turret than -6 on a rear)

Pentration

Accuracy

Aim time (but after the T-34-3 buff only 0.38s compared to the current difference of 0.86s) 

Ground resistances. 

 

With camo, top speed etc. all being pretty similar. So the buffed T-34-3 is arguably better or par with the STG even without the limited MM. 

 



arthurwellsley #20 Posted 07 September 2017 - 09:49 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 50487 battles
  • 2,506
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostPricelessPlayingPancake, on 07 September 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

 

Ive played T-34-3 , and 3 marked it - the tanks is sheeeet tho. 
416 was my fav when i used to play on russian server (both accounts were created at the same time , eu made into open beta tho) . 25k battles there .:child:

 

I loved the Object 416 (doesn't mean that I was actually any good with it, but I could see the potential). But across the player base, there are many who struggle with the Object 416. This is why I suspect the Guard is an extremely dangerous tank in the hands of a good player but pretty meh for the majority of the player base. I am guessing it will not have a win rate curve like the Defender has on those graphs.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users