Jump to content


FV4202 No Hull Buff?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

Search_Warrant #1 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:14 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27201 battles
  • 6,166
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

Well seems the image changed from last time? this was the first picture of the buffs to the armor.

Now the lastest picture says this.

So looks like we keep our worthless hull armor or WG are forgetfull. hope it gets a hull buff myself. the guns total dogpoop so it should have something going for it...



AliceUnchained #2 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:26 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38414 battles
  • 8,928
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
No, as the hull buff really would have made it utterly OP. Or something.

xx984 #3 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:31 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 55058 battles
  • 2,520
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostAliceUnchained, on 21 September 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

No, as the hull buff really would have made it utterly OP. Or something.

 

:hiding:

Balc0ra #4 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66298 battles
  • 16,324
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
I suspect all the whine topics about making it "OP" with that hull armor had something to do with it. 

Search_Warrant #5 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27201 battles
  • 6,166
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostAliceUnchained, on 21 September 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

No, as the hull buff really would have made it utterly OP. Or something.

 



K_A #6 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:54 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13641 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013
I guess it was to make it specifically work in hull down positions, and not just give it heavy tank frontal armor altogether, which pretty much it would've been if the first pic had gone live.

Search_Warrant #7 Posted 21 September 2017 - 07:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27201 battles
  • 6,166
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
The pics is without normalisation. in reality its nothing close to the values shown.

Long_Range_Sniper #8 Posted 21 September 2017 - 08:06 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 32656 battles
  • 8,871
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostAliceUnchained, on 21 September 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

No, as the hull buff really would have made it utterly OP. Or something.

 

Yeah, one stage at a time. I'd live with this and I'm looking forward to getting the AX which i've had unlocked for a while but it didn't really seem to be worth it in the current meta. I know others can make it work, but I think I need a little top cover for my level when I'm peeking a ridge.

FluffyRedFox #9 Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:01 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22971 battles
  • 8,399
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

Because WG decided to go full retard and not include normalisation on the graphics, so people complained because they genuinely thought it would get 220mm on the hull, so lets scrap it!

But hey, its completely fine for the Defender to go through supertest with its stats despite people complaining about it, but the FV4202 getting a buff that could make it genuinely decent? Bah, perish the thought.

 


Edited by fishbob101, 24 September 2017 - 10:14 AM.


Search_Warrant #10 Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:14 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27201 battles
  • 6,166
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Postfishbob101, on 21 September 2017 - 09:01 PM, said:

Because WG decided to go full retard and not include normalisation on the graphics, so people complained because they genuinely thought it would get 220mm on the hull, so lets scrap it!

But hey, its completely fine for the Defender to go through supertest with its stats despite people complaining about it, but the FV4202 getting a buff that could make it genuinely decent? Bah, perish the though.

 

 

haha so true. even with the buffs most tier 8 guns could autoaim pen the hull as it wouldent bounce much after normalisation. but lets make Defender immune to tier 10 on the UFP, including TD's.

HundeWurst #11 Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:17 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 70001 battles
  • 4,337
  • [ROIDS] ROIDS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

You are aware that this is a MEDIUM tank?

 

That tank should not even have gotten that stupid turret armor buff but instead a rate of fire buff and gun handling buff.



Baldrickk #12 Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30142 battles
  • 14,303
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostWunderWurst, on 21 September 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

You are aware that this is a MEDIUM tank?

 

That tank should not even have gotten that stupid turret armor buff but instead a rate of fire buff and gun handling buff.

 can't argue there. 

 

Ok, well I could... after WWII the British decided that they needed to focus on survivability first and foremost so the armour on their tanks was meant to stand up well to enemy fire (and the Centurion, as a "universal tank" generally did pretty well vs the Russian guns of the time)

The FV was from the same era, and with its more angled hull (and the fact that normalisation is actually backwards in this game, go figure) would have had a really effective hull if it had been produced.

 

With all that said, it was a demonstration prototype, never even considered as a production vehicle, and was made from pretty mild steel so...


Edited by Baldrickk, 21 September 2017 - 10:24 PM.


Search_Warrant #13 Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27201 battles
  • 6,166
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostWunderWurst, on 21 September 2017 - 09:17 PM, said:

You are aware that this is a MEDIUM tank?

 

That tank should not even have gotten that stupid turret armor buff but instead a rate of fire buff and gun handling buff.

 

no ammount of dpm and aimtime could make that trashcan playable. be real here.

SuedKAT #14 Posted 22 September 2017 - 05:07 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,512
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View PostWunderWurst, on 21 September 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

You are aware that this is a MEDIUM tank?

When I played the Cent I I can't say it felt much like a medium tank, well at least apart from the alpha and the armor. I was not only larger than most HT's I faced but also slower, I had the gun handling of a Russian derp gun, I had the RoF of a HT and so on, so yes it's a medium tank, but so is the Super Pershing.

 

Glad that I'm done with the Cent I and I would never in my life buy the FV, even with the armor buffs.



FluffyRedFox #15 Posted 22 September 2017 - 07:53 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 22971 battles
  • 8,399
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012
Welp, now that tanks gg has updated, the hull is either 50.8mm on the upper plate and 76.2mm on the lower plate, the middle 110mm armour zone got removed. On flat ground, the turret can still be penned as the sloped top-most plate is around 200-215 effective, ignoring the 60mm cupola ofc. You pretty much need to be hulldown and using your gun depression to bounce stuff reliably.

Baldrickk #16 Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:28 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30142 battles
  • 14,303
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postfishbob101, on 22 September 2017 - 07:53 AM, said:

Welp, now that tanks gg has updated, the hull is either 50.8mm on the upper plate and 76.2mm on the lower plate, the middle 110mm armour zone got removed. On flat ground, the turret can still be penned as the sloped top-most plate is around 200-215 effective, ignoring the 60mm cupola ofc. You pretty much need to be hulldown and using your gun depression to bounce stuff reliably.

 Is that a nerf or a notbuff?



Ceeb #17 Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:36 AM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 30268 battles
  • 5,260
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 21 September 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

 

no ammount of dpm and aimtime could make that trashcan playable. be real here.

 

Im going to try my very best to prove you wrong.... 

 

I'm waiting for the "Nerf the British Meds thread" 

 

or 

 

"WFT 10 degrees on the shltbarn, WG have broken the game



Dr_ownape #18 Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:47 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 43512 battles
  • 5,487
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

hull

 

does

 

not

 

need

 

buff



Asghaad #19 Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:52 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 13273 battles
  • 3,099
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View Postfishbob101, on 22 September 2017 - 07:53 AM, said:

Welp, now that tanks gg has updated, the hull is either 50.8mm on the upper plate and 76.2mm on the lower plate, the middle 110mm armour zone got removed. On flat ground, the turret can still be penned as the sloped top-most plate is around 200-215 effective, ignoring the 60mm cupola ofc. You pretty much need to be hulldown and using your gun depression to bounce stuff reliably.

 

correction, you need to use TWO DEGREES of gun depression for the upper turret to be ricochet ...

 

and considering its 200+ when completely flat id say its damn good for a medium tank ...



Asghaad #20 Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:55 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 13273 battles
  • 3,099
  • [PPDCZ] PPDCZ
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostBaldrickk, on 22 September 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

 Is that a nerf or a notbuff?

 

original turret had 130 effective on the top, 130-138 at the cheeks and the toughes - extremely small- zones were 250-ish

new turret has 208-218 effective top, 230-260 at the cheeks and zones with 280-330 ...

 

its MASSIVE buff

 

as for the lower plate its the same effective armor as it was before because they angled the whole lower plate isntead of having thicker but flatter part of it, so no its not a nerf to the hull either


Edited by Asghaad, 22 September 2017 - 08:58 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users