Jump to content


Type 5


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

soul3ater #1 Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18764 battles
  • 635
  • Member since:
    07-27-2012

Can WG do something about these tanks?

 

HELLO? 

 

yes I know it's the millionth topic regarding these OP pieces of crap but idgaf.



Aikl #2 Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:32 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25540 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

According to the T95 thread, the Type 5 is fine because it's only the tenth most played T10 HT. :)

 

Losing FOTM status helped a bit, I guess. Nerfing more is problematic. It's like giving a child candy and then taking it back...



Homer_J #3 Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28692 battles
  • 29,991
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postsoul3ater, on 18 October 2017 - 10:21 PM, said:

Can WG do something about these tanks?

 

You don't seem to have any Japanese heavy tanks.  Funny that.

ZlatanArKung #4 Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:50 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 18 October 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

 

You don't seem to have any Japanese heavy tanks.  Funny that.

Which is a totally irrelevant remark.



soul3ater #5 Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18764 battles
  • 635
  • Member since:
    07-27-2012

View PostAikl, on 18 October 2017 - 09:32 PM, said:

According to the T95 thread, the Type 5 is fine because it's only the tenth most played T10 HT. :)

 

Losing FOTM status helped a bit, I guess. Nerfing more is problematic. It's like giving a child candy and then taking it back...

 

I would rather face t95...at least it doesn't have a stupid gun that does damage no matter what tank you're in.

 

 

 

 

 



brumbarr #6 Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:53 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012
According to WG , the critiscim hasnt reached critical levels yet. Basicly: Go [edited]yourself.

japtank #7 Posted 18 October 2017 - 11:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View PostAikl, on 18 October 2017 - 10:32 PM, said:

According to the T95 thread, the Type 5 is fine because it's only the tenth most played T10 HT. :)

 

There's some logic in that.

Would you play a boring tank just because it's overpowered?

 

In other words, what about the 'fun factor' was a balancing element?

 

Food for thought.



Aikl #8 Posted 19 October 2017 - 12:14 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25540 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Postjaptank, on 18 October 2017 - 10:34 PM, said:

 

There's some logic in that.

Would you play a boring tank just because it's overpowered?

 

In other words, what about the 'fun factor' was a balancing element?

 

Food for thought.

 

I didn't say it was overpowered, even if it clearly isn't balanced. The main problem remains the fact that it's a horrible gameplay element with a 'skilless' gun, armor largely impervious to standard ammo from other heavy tanks that can't really be angled at all - and lest we forget - the awesome premium round with absolutely no drawbacks.

 

It might be boring, but this is a game where people think fun gameplay can mean sitting in base for ten minutes straight or looking at tanks from above. You can't really argue that 'fun factor' is a balancing element with that in mind. Anyway, I prefer sticking to cold, hard facts: Type 5's overperforming by 2-4% in the 48-56% WR bracket. That's quite a bit for a T10 - and the actual 'food for thought' here. Funnily enough your Type 5 is performing quite a bit over what you'd expect for a T10's winrate - and out of your top ten tanks on WR there are no less than four Japanese heavy tanks. :D
It's performing quite a bit better than e.g. the WZ-111 5A or Maus - neither of which are considered weak tanks, nor perform anywhere close to bad. Type 5's doing well and doing it in a fashion that many players believe fits badly into overall gameplay. Smells like a problem to me.

 

Personally, 'fun factor' sure is a balancing element. I don't like playing overpowered tanks that much. They're kind of uninteresting. Competitive is good, broken ones can be fun, but being able to faceroll everything always isn't. Plenty of players who think that, of course, which is why the 'FOTM mentality' works so well for the market-balancing department. Simply stating it got nerfed probably reduce the numbers more than the so-called "weakspots" of the tank do.

 

As for suggestions, I would be fine with making quite a few of these tanks less boring to play. Lower acceleration/agility but improve the top speed enough that they are able to get into positions without getting nuked. Not a solution for all superheavies, but surely something that would make them fit better into the rock-scissor-paper mentality we know so well from certain RTS games. Overall local mobility on superheavies is too good for the armor advantage it gets. That derp gun could surely be fine-tuned a bit (like with a chainsaw /s)- but that goes for HE mechanics overall. A Type 5 derping same-tier heavies for 4-500, well, it's not great, but surely beats an O-Ni smashing a Mäuschen for 500 straight in the face. The main problem for the O-Ni is that it's more than nippy enough to beek-and-boom against other heavies once you see them fire a shot. I believe that translates to other superheavies as well.

(Once the "role" of a superheavy is more 'established' as a moving bunker, it would not be a huge problem to keep them without major frontal weakspots. Mobility would be its weakspot, in a sense.)


Edited by Aikl, 19 October 2017 - 12:16 AM.


sgtYester #9 Posted 19 October 2017 - 12:48 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 54377 battles
  • 1,652
  • [RANGF] RANGF
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011

the type5 is just fine as it is.  stop ur whining

 

its the op is7 that needs fixing.

 

also wg needs to start the unbalalnce in mm of tiers below tier8

 

a tier6 needs 8/9 shots to kill a tier8 while they only need 2. gg , well done



CoDiGGo #10 Posted 19 October 2017 - 01:19 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14997 battles
  • 569
  • [NEUR0] NEUR0
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015

Easy 5? is ok no?

 

 



ExclamationMark #11 Posted 19 October 2017 - 02:54 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16775 battles
  • 3,727
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013
nah the bots love it too much, won't be nerfed until WG feels the majority of bots have grinded it.

ZlatanArKung #12 Posted 19 October 2017 - 07:01 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Postjaptank, on 18 October 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

 

There's some logic in that.

Would you play a boring tank just because it's overpowered?

 

In other words, what about the 'fun factor' was a balancing element?

 

Food for thought.

 

Nah, fun is not part of WG consideration.

Though they do balance around the 'money making' factor.



leggasiini #13 Posted 19 October 2017 - 07:50 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 14130 battles
  • 6,191
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

Its still overperforming, but even bigger problem is the fact its utterly P2W and utterly awful to fight against, making it very, very toxic vehicle.

 

Type 5 never was super popular tier 10 HT in first place, even on its full glory times. Keep in mind that literally no one had it before buffs, its expensive as helm to run, not necessarily fun to play for quite a few and the fact you need to gest past Type 4 before it which is very unpleasant tank to play and also needs stupidly alot XP to get through.

 

A simple nerf doesn't work though, it needs a complete rework (that is yes, overall still a nerf, but it would however also buff it on other areas like the 14 cm gun) in order to be balanced. I repeat myself once more withe the three main problems of the tank:

 

  1. The derp gun. Its terrible for gameplay as the premium HE as too excessive damage output, and its P2W. They need preferably completely remove it, or at very least remove the premium HE ammo.
  2. The armor needs to be reworked so that it has dinstinct weakspots but is more rewarding to use by angling it (like sidescraping). This can be done by removing the hull cheeks, making the lower frontal plate and cupola into weakspots and make the upper front plate stronger (so its as effective as Maus/E 100 upperplate, to encourage people to aim at weakspots instead of spamming gold at everywhere)
  3. The 14 cm gun needs some buffs in order to be viable gun. It is an awful combination of terrible gold pen, worst-in-class accuracy, bad gun handling and 2nd worst DPM in its tier. In order to make the gun viable, buff the penetration to ~255 / 300 and then either increase rate of fire, increase alpha to 650 (and keep the RoF same) or give a slight buff to accuracy and gun handling. Not all of them, but at very least the penetration needs to be buffed.

 

If you ignore any of these problems, the Type 4/5 will stay broken in a way or another. 



Bennie182 #14 Posted 19 October 2017 - 08:04 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 53676 battles
  • 1,597
  • [WGL-A] WGL-A
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Postsoul3ater, on 18 October 2017 - 10:21 PM, said:

Can WG do something about these tanks?

 

HELLO? 

 

yes I know it's the millionth topic regarding these OP pieces of crap but idgaf.

WG: "Working as intended"



ZlatanArKung #15 Posted 19 October 2017 - 08:27 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
The more threads about how bad type 5 is, the better.

Remember, we haven't reached a critical point of negative Type 5 feedback yet.
ALl feedback on the tank has been negative, b ut amount to low for wg to consider a change.

Bennie182 #16 Posted 19 October 2017 - 08:37 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 53676 battles
  • 1,597
  • [WGL-A] WGL-A
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View PostZlatanArKung, on 19 October 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

The more threads about how bad type 5 is, the better.

Remember, we haven't reached a critical point of negative Type 5 feedback yet.
ALl feedback on the tank has been negative, b ut amount to low for wg to consider a change.

WG does NOT read these threads. they just don't care, so why bother posting these spam topics, while someone else's spam topic has just been closed?


Edited by Bennie182, 19 October 2017 - 08:37 AM.


Lord_Edge #17 Posted 19 October 2017 - 09:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5987 battles
  • 834
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostZlatanArKung, on 18 October 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

Which is a totally irrelevant remark.

 

Well it isn't really because if he had actually played them and not just played against them then he would know they are nowhere near as good/overpowered as all the whiners make out.

leggasiini #18 Posted 19 October 2017 - 10:03 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 14130 battles
  • 6,191
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostZlatanArKung, on 19 October 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

The more threads about how bad type 5 is, the better.

Remember, we haven't reached a critical point of negative Type 5 feedback yet.
ALl feedback on the tank has been negative, b ut amount to low for wg to consider a change.

 

The problem is that we are not on RU forums, though. 

 

From what I have read from RU forums, the feedback of Type 5 HT is not as negative as ours, though mostly because they care less about P2W. They still dont like it at all, as they like to call it a "noob machine", dislike playing against it and also complain that it's not fun to play (though that might be due to RU meta which is more aggressive than ours).

 

View PostHomer_J, on 18 October 2017 - 11:42 PM, said:

 

You don't seem to have any Japanese heavy tanks.  Funny that.

 

And why should that matter? I have played them alot and I still think that the Type 5 is absolutely not fine the way it is.


Edited by leggasiini, 19 October 2017 - 10:08 AM.


japtank #19 Posted 19 October 2017 - 10:25 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View PostAikl, on 19 October 2017 - 12:14 AM, said:

Funnily enough your Type 5 is performing quite a bit over what you'd expect for a T10's winrate - and out of your top ten tanks on WR there are no less than four Japanese heavy tanks. :D

 

Thanks for proving my point : I played a whooping 68 games in my type 5 (of which my son played quite a few for giggles), which clearly indicates that I (and I suspect the majority) will not play a tank because it's overpowered if it's not fun to play.

To grind a whole line only to play 68 games in the tier X is not really worth it, is it?

 

The problem is that this line can not be changed (well, the premium ammo scandal should be changed though) otherwise nobody would ever touch those utterly boring tanks.

They overperform but are bad, like in boring, frustrating, bland, whatever.

 

So, yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think the fun factor is relevant in balancing and that the less fun tanks must have a special something going for them otherwise nobody would ever play them.

 

Oh, and if you want to waste your time looking for people's stats (which is a bit sad :child:) at least do it correctly, I averaged 49% in the type 4 which is far from my best performing tanks and the HT N° 6 in which I have 100% winrate (over 6 games, yeah!) has nothing to do with the topic at hand. :girl:


Edited by japtank, 19 October 2017 - 10:26 AM.


soul3ater #20 Posted 19 October 2017 - 11:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18764 battles
  • 635
  • Member since:
    07-27-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 18 October 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

 

You don't seem to have any Japanese heavy tanks.  Funny that.

What? You don't have to own a tank to know its broken.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users