Jump to content


Alternate Soviet TD lines rework proposal


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

Uebergewicht #1 Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11702 battles
  • 1,062
  • Member since:
    11-15-2015

As you probably know, WG is currently still testing its idea of the Object 263 line change. With many players shunned and in disbelief about the. frankly, quite ridiculous changes to the tier 10 and the line as a hole, I´d just like to highlight one of the many proposals the community did come up with. While I don´t 100% agree with every change in this proposal, it shows that it is quite possible to rework the Soviet TDs in a way that is both interesting and leaves the character of the vehicles and lines intact. It even draws a lot of inspiration from historical vehicles and deals with mostly actual designs, with only a degree of fictionalization in line with what WoT already does most of the time. 

 

Full Details

 

 

I hope you guys and the WG representatives have a good read. Unlike the current tested changes, something like this immidietly sparks my interest and wants to see further refinement, unlike what WG is doing, which basically just makes me want to facepalm really hard and hold a funeral service for my 263. This would be one possible way (out of many) to make an interesting change that does not fundamentally screw the lines over. While you don´t have to agree, beware that this is just one thing the community came up with and compare that to what WG is planning to do, and draw your own conclusions. Thank you :)



Balc0ra #2 Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:42 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66239 battles
  • 16,231
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

I get that they want the SU-100M1 gone "one of the worst tanks around IMO" I get that they want to distinguish the line as more aggressive, and less of a sniper line vs the ISU/obj line. I get the fact that they have to take a few of the tanks down a tier. I don't however get why the tier X has to go down, and why the new tier X can't be made into a tier 9.

 

But they want to remove the new tier X and the current tier 9 and toss in 4 more? Well they tossed in several guns and armor stats, but besides the 261 that would be better then the 122-54 due to better armor that is fair enough. They did not point out why it's better to add the 268 variants, and what the point of it would be besides a shortcut. Is the 268 shortcut going to be a hybrid line of the two other lines? Aggressive line with poor dispersion there to, as they are fairly well armored to do so for a tier 8 even. Or pure sniper tanks there to with great dispersion and armor of the the ISU? Sure it's nice to add more tanks to grind. But besides the point of just adding them because they can. I would like to see a better argument on why and what they want the 268's there for besides a convenient shortcut for those that don't want to go the 152 direction for the 268 tier X.



Cobra6 #3 Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,759
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

I honesty support the rework in that specific TAP article because it would keep the current (unique) line mostly intact while also adding that new 268.

 

 

Cobra 6



rush0620 #4 Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:44 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 22839 battles
  • 114
  • Member since:
    01-03-2012

Tier 8 SU 203!

 

http://warspot.ru/10368-zveroboi-bolshogo-kalibra

 

Tier 9 IS4 152!

 

Tier 10 Object 721!

 

 

Done!



Dava_117 #5 Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:45 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19422 battles
  • 3,272
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

The concept is intresting, but what would happen to ISU line? Why people should follow a lightly armoured assault gun line if there is a similar one that have some workable armour?



Uebergewicht #6 Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11702 battles
  • 1,062
  • Member since:
    11-15-2015
It´s not flawless, as I said. But it is at the very least quite interesting, and does not make ones head spin the moment you read it like what they´re actually planning. Personally I think the line would be perfectly salvageable with some technical buffs (maybe replaying the 122-44 with the 268/4), but I´m open to other aproaches. If WG would scrap their idea in favor of any of the comunity suggestions, I´d be quite happy.

Dava_117 #7 Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:16 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19422 battles
  • 3,272
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostUebergewicht, on 07 November 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

It´s not flawless, as I said. But it is at the very least quite interesting, and does not make ones head spin the moment you read it like what they´re actually planning. Personally I think the line would be perfectly salvageable with some technical buffs (maybe replaying the 122-44 with the 268/4), but I´m open to other aproaches. If WG would scrap their idea in favor of any of the comunity suggestions, I´d be quite happy.

 

IDK, 268/4 would have a 152mm gun aswell. The problem is how WG want to characterize the 2 branches between snipers and assault gun. If 263 line has to be intended as armoured snipers based on dpm a tier 9 152 gun doesn't fit well and 268 branch should get better traverse and dipersion while losing lots of cammo. Viceversa if is 268 line is intended as the sniping branch it should get better accuracy, while 263 should get better dipersion parameters, keeping 268/4 with a derpy 152.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users