Jump to content


the T-34-3 "buff"

T-34-3 buff 9.20.1

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

Dali556 #1 Posted 18 October 2017 - 04:17 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19275 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    03-08-2015

i just want to know your thoughts about the T-34-3 so called buff........i mean it got better armor now and looks better but the armor was never the problem with that tank, it's the fact the gun doesn't hit and when it does it just bounces most of the times.

the tank cost 11000 gold which isn't a cheap price i and a lot of people had to pay (before the new OP era of tanks came along) but the tank is under performing.

the T-34-3 now have 175mm of pen + 2.78 aimtime + 0.44 accuracy + horrible guns stats, those are worse stats than the SU122-44 and that is 1 tier lower...and it gets mostly T9 mm which make it a real pain to play.

i personally think it needs a proper buff to the penetration and accuracy.

now i would like to know what you guys think



qpranger #2 Posted 18 October 2017 - 04:24 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 31524 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

Travesty.

Needs pen buff.



Dali556 #3 Posted 18 October 2017 - 04:41 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19275 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    03-08-2015

the problem is it rarely is top tier, it rarely even see T7

everything on T8 and T9 just outperform it EASILY!.

this is super annoying cause the tank is expensive and now wg made it so bad it shouldn't even be worth 10 euros



THE_JACK_OF_HEARTS #4 Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9508 battles
  • 910
  • Member since:
    02-04-2015

you bought it LOL...



dennez #5 Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:22 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16851 battles
  • 4,755
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2013
Well for one thing it sure looks cool now. Gonna check it out later too see if the aimtime buff is noticeable..

Dali556 #6 Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:28 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19275 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    03-08-2015

View PostTHE_JACK_OF_HEARTS, on 18 October 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

you bought it LOL...

 

i bought it way before even the skorpion came
 

View Postdennez, on 18 October 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Well for one thing it sure looks cool now. Gonna check it out later too see if the aimtime buff is noticeable..

 

it really isn't, cause it still have that 0.44 accuracy and that wide circle when you move the turret or the tank
 

Griesgram_der_Grobe #7 Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:33 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 16946 battles
  • 2,073
  • [HCD] HCD
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

its´ problem is called 357-MM



Dali556 #8 Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:41 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19275 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    03-08-2015

View PostGriesgram_der_Grobe, on 18 October 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

its´ problem is called 357-MM

 

exactly, for a pref mm it's not a bad tank if the pref mm actually worked. you're basically a T7.5 tank in a T9 or T8 only match all the time, + it really rarely even see T7

 



G01ngToxicCommand0 #9 Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:57 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37465 battles
  • 727
  • Member since:
    11-03-2011
It is not a bad tank, actually it is better than the Type 59 due to the alpha beats DPM gane meta.

dennez #10 Posted 18 October 2017 - 06:12 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16851 battles
  • 4,755
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2013

View PostDali556, on 18 October 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

 

it really isn't, cause it still have that 0.44 accuracy and that wide circle when you move the turret or the tank

 

The dispersion/bloom on the move was actually not that bad after the gunhandling buffs from last year.. It snapshots surprisingly well for a Chinese 122mm with 0.4 accuracy.

Dali556 #11 Posted 18 October 2017 - 06:20 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19275 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    03-08-2015

View Postdennez, on 18 October 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

 

The dispersion/bloom on the move was actually not that bad after the gunhandling buffs from last year.. It snapshots surprisingly well for a Chinese 122mm with 0.4 accuracy.

 

yes but it ain't that reliable, some shots hit but a lot of shits miss
 

View PostG01ngToxicCommand0, on 18 October 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

It is not a bad tank, actually it is better than the Type 59 due to the alpha beats DPM gane meta.

 

the Type 59 have a way more reliable gun
 

tajj7 #12 Posted 18 October 2017 - 06:39 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24849 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

The armour buff is what it needed, means you can bully lower tiers, be very strong hull down and sidescrape. Basically means you can brawl, you have the alpha and the armour to out brawl even heavy tanks and certainly bully lower tiers. 

 

If the gun was accurate and more reliable what would the point of the STG Guard and M4 Rev be? Those have way way worse armour than the T-34-3, the Rev is less mobile and they both see tier 10. 



Rati_Festa #13 Posted 18 October 2017 - 07:35 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41501 battles
  • 1,085
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012
I played my T-34-3 and got a top tier match 1st game. Its a beast top tier, brawled an IS bullied some t6 meds. The tank is fine it would be far to powerful with an accurate gun with 400 alpha. You just need to play it properly and not like a med and more like a heavy that can flank.

Edited by Rati_Festa, 18 October 2017 - 07:35 PM.


Aikl #14 Posted 18 October 2017 - 07:41 PM

    Brigadier

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

View PostDali556, on 18 October 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

 

the Type 59 have a way more reliable gun

 

View PostDali556, on 18 October 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

 

yes but it ain't that reliable, some shots hit but a lot of shits miss

 

I am fairly certain that you'd keep complaining even if the T-34-3 popped out of the screen and gave you a handy.

 

Type 59 has a smaller gun, after all. 250 vs 390 damage is a bigger deal than you'd think. It seems to work just fine if you ask me; it's not supposed to be a T-54 that can't even see T10 tanks.

 

Accept that preferential matchmaking is an advantage that necessarily should come with downsides.

 

View Postdennez, on 18 October 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

Well for one thing it sure looks cool now. Gonna check it out later too see if the aimtime buff is noticeable..

 

It actually has some armor now. Type 59 armor hasn't been "magic" in a long time, but fine for a medium tank. Felt good when I tried it earlier; that and the Type 59 will probably be just about the only tanks I'll play now...

Scanmen #15 Posted 18 October 2017 - 07:42 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19318 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    10-14-2011

View Postdennez, on 18 October 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Well for one thing it sure looks cool now. Gonna check it out later too see if the aimtime buff is noticeable..

 

It looks cool, but remain crap as it was. The aim buff in practice is not significant.

This crap did not need armor buff... it need a gun, with usable aim time, and maybe a little pen buff.


Edited by Scanmen, 18 October 2017 - 07:56 PM.


SeekerKuba #16 Posted 18 October 2017 - 08:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31685 battles
  • 1,171
  • Member since:
    11-08-2012

View Posttajj7, on 18 October 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

The armour buff is what it needed, means you can bully lower tiers, be very strong hull down and sidescrape. Basically means you can brawl, you have the alpha and the armour to out brawl even heavy tanks and certainly bully lower tiers. 

 

If the gun was accurate and more reliable what would the point of the STG Guard and M4 Rev be? Those have way way worse armour than the T-34-3, the Rev is less mobile and they both see tier 10. 

 

You are perfectly right. When i saw change list i thought lol what a crap, but surprisingly it like whole new tank. Aim time feels ok now, as same as armor is more reliable. Its worth to add that new mm also helps. Instead of defender or any other monster in enemy team we have rather normal 'average'...

It is really ok tank now.



G01ngToxicCommand0 #17 Posted 18 October 2017 - 08:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37465 battles
  • 727
  • Member since:
    11-03-2011

View PostDali556, on 18 October 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

 

the Type 59 have a way more reliable gun

 

Alpha beats reliable

Scanmen #18 Posted 18 October 2017 - 08:24 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19318 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    10-14-2011

View PostSeekerKuba, on 18 October 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

 

You are perfectly right. When i saw change list i thought lol what a crap, but surprisingly it like whole new tank. Aim time feels ok now, as same as armor is more reliable. Its worth to add that new mm also helps. Instead of defender or any other monster in enemy team we have rather normal 'average'...

It is really ok tank now.

 

You say that when you played 217 battle with this crap. Play 1500 battle and please tell me your opinion again.

And we're surprised that wg does not change?  Why would they do, if they read such reviews?



SeekerKuba #19 Posted 18 October 2017 - 09:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31685 battles
  • 1,171
  • Member since:
    11-08-2012

View PostScanmen, on 18 October 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

 

You say that when you played 217 battle with this crap. Play 1500 battle and please tell me your opinion again.

And we're surprised that wg does not change?  Why would they do, if they read such reviews?

 

Well i did almost 2x more dmg than you before buff so it wasnt so bad...

I guess you play it in the wrong way bro. You should try change your gameplay a bit.

At the beginning try camp less(1.14 spot per battle is bad for a medium tank). 



Charlemagne_KDG #20 Posted 19 October 2017 - 09:26 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 12987 battles
  • 31
  • [SA-] SA-
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012
Wow those gun stats make me puke.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users