Jump to content


Caernarvon: the next OP beast..


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Laur_Balaur_XD #1 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35393 battles
  • 640
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

Since a [edited] mod closed the topic about Caernarvon without any reason or explanation, i feel the need to point that Caernarvon is having a insane DPM and some really good gun handling, and probably it will be OP and broken.

 



Aikl #2 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:16 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

The moderator literally closed the thread because "op asked for it", not "without any reason or explanation". He also wished us a nice day - so hardly rude either (a callback to a previous thread with a "rude mod" ) .


Edited by Aikl, 07 October 2017 - 10:16 AM.


Laur_Balaur_XD #3 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:28 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35393 battles
  • 640
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostAikl, on 07 October 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

The moderator literally closed the thread because "op asked for it", not "without any reason or explanation". He also wished us a nice day - so hardly rude either (a callback to a previous thread with a "rude mod" ) .

 

You missed the fact that the moderator silently edited his post. After i made this topic....

His first post looked like this:

 



NOPANs_Bicycle #4 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:28 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1471 battles
  • 58
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    03-11-2017



Gkirmathal #5 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:34 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,492
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostIulian_ro, on 07 October 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Since a [edited] mod closed the topic about Caernarvon without any reason or explanation, i feel the need to point that Caernarvon is having a insane DPM and some really good gun handling, and probably it will be OP and broken.

 

 

If I were you I'd rewrite my opening post a bit ;)

The issue is worth a good discussion for feedback IMO, but your current opening post will get this thread closed asap. Just saying ;)



Balc0ra #6 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:41 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64272 battles
  • 15,382
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
 

View PostIulian_ro, on 07 October 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Since a [edited] mod closed the topic about Caernarvon without any reason or explanation, i feel the need to point that Caernarvon is having a insane DPM and some really good gun handling, and probably it will be OP and broken.

 

Any explanation? Don't even need one. That topic did steer so far off course and became a rage fest vs other people, not the DPM on the tank. As they started arguing about anything but that DPM on that tank after a bit. So the topic creator did actually ask for it to be closed. I suspect since it got out of hand.

 

View PostNOPANs_Bicycle, on 07 October 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

 

Not really comparable, since the DPM on that one is limited by his armor. Same reason the Maus got nerfed. As if he had 2600 DPM with that armor... it would be even more broken.

But if we are gonna use that argument. They should buff the DPM on the 4502A to since it's a medium heavy. And put the Caernarvon down to the same. 2600 base is indeed to much. Considering the O-ho and KV-5 has 2100 base. 2150 or 2200 should be the most. I know it a "medium heavy", but still.


Edited by Balc0ra, 07 October 2017 - 10:48 AM.


Laur_Balaur_XD #7 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:49 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35393 battles
  • 640
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostGkirmathal, on 07 October 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

 

If I were you I'd rewrite my opening post a bit ;)

The issue is worth a good discussion for feedback IMO, but your current opening post will get this thread closed asap. Just saying ;)

 

Closed for what reason? For pointing how bad, lazy and sneaky liar is a mod?

He could at least mention that he has later edited his post, something like this:

''LATER EDIT: blabla bla bla...''

 

BACK ON TOPIC: Anyway let's not steer out from the Caernarvon subject.

I just played it on test server and is great at perma-tracking enemies. Shooting at 5.3 - 5.4 seconds means that even if the enemy has a 100% repairs crew he can not fix the track...:trollface:



NOPANs_Bicycle #8 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:49 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1471 battles
  • 58
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    03-11-2017
it's a bit slow and apparently the turret face can still be penetrated by most tier 8 gold ammo so maybe it won't replace T32 and patriot in CW, but it will be a good backup if the other tanks are locked

Stimpeltje #9 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:49 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 27388 battles
  • 1,108
  • Member since:
    09-06-2010

It has to have such an insane DPM

 

Because half the time u are ammoracked anyways, cutting that insane DPM right in half.



Aikl #10 Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:52 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostIulian_ro, on 07 October 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

 

You missed the fact that the moderator silently edited his post. After i made this topic....

His first post looked like this:

 

Spoiler

 

 

That's weird, I was so sure it looked like this.

 

Spoiler

 



Laur_Balaur_XD #11 Posted 07 October 2017 - 11:26 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35393 battles
  • 640
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostAikl, on 07 October 2017 - 09:52 AM, said:

 

That's weird, I was so sure it looked like this.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

EDIT:

This is the part that really confuses me: 

Block Quote

Pinging Jbnn, remove this 'shop' if it's against the rules to edit posts.

 

 

LATER EDIT: 

Please stop polluting this thread with posts about some lazy mod, no one cares about him.

This topic is about how broken Caernarvon is in his current state on test server. Stick to that.

 


Edited by Iulian_ro, 07 October 2017 - 11:32 AM.


Junglist_ #12 Posted 07 October 2017 - 11:34 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35855 battles
  • 1,331
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostAikl, on 07 October 2017 - 09:52 AM, said:

 

That's weird, I was so sure it looked like this.

 

Spoiler

 

 

I did also see the mod closing the topic saying just "Thread closed" so he must've edited it.

Not that there's anything wrong with it since OP requested it.



Bucifel #13 Posted 07 October 2017 - 12:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29503 battles
  • 1,373
  • [JDUN] JDUN
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostNOPANs_Bicycle, on 07 October 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

 

exactly how it should be ! ;)

better than their stupid premium counterparts

 

nothing wrong here...its finally a way to stop that foolish P2W fact wich ruin game



Luchs_Luthor #14 Posted 07 October 2017 - 01:20 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19022 battles
  • 125
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    08-19-2014
It’s about time there was more than 1 or two decent British tanks in the game.

Strappster #15 Posted 07 October 2017 - 02:32 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23695 battles
  • 8,926
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015
I'd like to discuss the changes to the Caern (which I'm in favour of, BTW) but OP has shown himself to be such a complete tool that I'm not going to bother.

roachex #16 Posted 08 October 2017 - 12:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20261 battles
  • 607
  • [RIGA] RIGA
  • Member since:
    06-01-2012

Picked for a spin my Caernarvon in team battles. Still seems to be a nice machine. 

 

The thing i like in Caern is nice turret, superior gun handling and great mobility (traverse for turret & hull). Yes, it could have better DPM on its 20 pounder, like 2300 - 2400 base, with a bit more module damage, and it already would be a fantastic buff. Fast sniping stinger. And an epic buff would be to improve GH even more for the 20 pounder.

 

Not sure why the F someone would want to play T32 or Tiger2 after these changes.. 

 

 



tajj7 #17 Posted 08 October 2017 - 11:35 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24835 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

Lots of tanks have turret armour, gun depression and DPM, they are not OP so I'm not seeing where the Caernarvon is going to be OP.

 

Patriot is more mobile, has higher pen, high shell velocity and better hull armour, turrets are pretty much the same.  Caernarvon then has more DPM, and slightly better gun handling, seems pretty fine to me and that is the Patriot, not even comparing it to monsters like the VK 1001 P or Defender or IS3. 

 

Caern will be strong hull down if people feed it, won't be great is most other situations specifically city maps and brawling maps (which are 70% of the game) where it'll be much worse than an IS3 for example, nor will it be able to bully lower tier tanks like a Defender or VK can as it has a LFP that tier 5s can pen, so it'll need ridges and hull down spots. 

 

People massively over rate DPM as a stat, currently the game is about alpha and armour, especially for a heavy tank, it's about how much you can bounce and how well you can trade.  

 

And yeh sure the T32 and Tiger 2 have been power crept, but that is not the Caernarvons fault. Those tanks just need some love, like T32 needs 220-225 standard pen and some gun handling buffs and it would be pretty epic, Tiger 2 needs the Tiger 1 treatment, basically accept is has no armour and just give it really high HP and high DPM and make it all about that gun. 



ZlatanArKung #18 Posted 08 October 2017 - 11:48 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
I think DPM is very important.

The main reason why T34 is bad, is because of terrible dpm. Which means it can't kill enemy tanks.

This Caernarvon idea has way to good dpm for the tier, and will be very good at killing tanks.

After buff,  it is just plain out better then Patriot due to 25%+ higher dpm, slightly higher alpha and all else pretty similar.

The best aspect of Patriot is the good dpm, decent turret and decent mobility.
And here Caernarvon comes with vastly superior dpm, similar turret and similar mobility.

tajj7 #19 Posted 08 October 2017 - 12:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24835 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostZlatanArKung, on 08 October 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

I think DPM is very important.

The main reason why T34 is bad, is because of terrible dpm. Which means it can't kill enemy tanks.

This Caernarvon idea has way to good dpm for the tier, and will be very good at killing tanks.

After buff, it is just plain out better then Patriot due to 25%+ higher dpm, slightly higher alpha and all else pretty similar.

The best aspect of Patriot is the good dpm, decent turret and decent mobility.
And here Caernarvon comes with vastly superior dpm, similar turret and similar mobility.

 

T34 isn't bad because of DPM, it's bad because it's got terrible gun handling for no good reason.

 

It has 0.21 dispersion on turret traverse which is worse than many turreted TDs with 750 alpha guns. Meanwhile the IS3 with 10 less alpha has 0.08 cos reasons.  The T28 proto which has the same gun has vastly better gun handling, yet it's a turreted TD with nearly 1k more DPM.

 

I have never in my T34 wanted more DPM, I've wanted my gun to actually hit what I am aiming and not having to wait over 5s to get it fully aimed just because I slightly moved. There is this thing called trading, it completely negates DPM with ease, good luck shooting that hull down IS3 with your DPM when he just retreats between reloads. 

 

Also 'similar mobility', worse top speed, reverse speed, hp/ton and traverse is 'similar' now. 



KillingJoker #20 Posted 08 October 2017 - 12:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32042 battles
  • 1,307
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015
that gun handling and DPM will make it absurdly good... 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users