Jump to content


Removing the FV215b (183) from the tech line doesn't make it less broken


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

CPTANT #1 Posted 12 January 2018 - 12:48 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7515 battles
  • 259
  • Member since:
    04-13-2012

It's still very prevalent and leads to boring camping gameplay, as the "one shot determines the game" gameplay of the thing punishes aggressiveness.

 

Introducing the badger just means that this thing will never get fixed.

 

Fortunately we will see a slow decline in its use now.

 

Ps: I wonder how many people don't understand the difference between broken and OP



Balc0ra #2 Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62764 battles
  • 14,382
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostCPTANT, on 12 January 2018 - 12:48 PM, said:

Introducing the badger just means that this thing will never get fixed.don't undersd the difference between broken and OP

 

How so? It's not a premium tank by status. Nor is it protected in anyway. If they feel for it, they can nerf it or remove it still. As like the PM reward tanks. It's still looked at as a normal tank. Just the means of acquirement was different.

 

Then again, it's not over preforming to even be broken more so then not. As it still does more 600 damage shots, vs 1750 damage shots by a huge mile. Unless you feel that each one you face 1 shot kills every target he aims at? As I'm sure the average 183 don't even get that one derp kill every game for WG to see it as that broken vs the 1K sure damage hit Jpz E100.  So it's the most situational TD in the game still. And you still have one 183 gun that all can get in the tech tree. So it did not go away as such, just because the 183B did.


Edited by Balc0ra, 12 January 2018 - 01:03 PM.


VsUK #3 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012
Its a stupid td. I couldn't  hit a tank right in front of me because I was on a slight bump.

Infektid #4 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39780 battles
  • 624
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    12-20-2011

Let me guess... you got one shotted by a deathstar and came here to cry.....

 

How is this discussion even relevant if the FV4005 is on the game?



VsUK #5 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012

View PostInfektid, on 12 January 2018 - 01:18 PM, said:

Let me guess... you got one shotted by a deathstar and came here to cry.....

 

How is this discussion even relevant if the FV4005 is on the game?

 

I've not been able to 1 shot kill anyone for a while. Even hitting Meds on their side often does nothing.

Cobra6 #6 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:21 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16295 battles
  • 15,006
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

It will never get fixed because it's an ideal griefing vehicle, just like arty, a vehicle which has to take very little risk, if any, to do massive damage to an enemy. In other words an vehicle which does not have a proper risk=>reward balance and thus makes people want to get/play it.

 

Cobra 6



mvdt #7 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:23 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37303 battles
  • 278
  • [-GODS] -GODS
  • Member since:
    05-10-2011

View PostVsUK, on 12 January 2018 - 02:19 PM, said:

 

I've not been able to 1 shot kill anyone for a while. Even hitting Meds on their side often does nothing.

 

Flat side of a full hp Sheridan. 600 dmg.

Really "broken" 



adameitas #8 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 60551 battles
  • 736
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011
lol yes 183 can be annoying but it is quite easy to avoid it. It is slow, has bad gun handling, no camo, bad gun depression, is turret-back and so on. You cant even compare it with types.. noob playing 183 still will be noob (ok sometimes lucky noob) while noob in types can carry games even if they dont understand that..

adameitas #9 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:25 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 60551 battles
  • 736
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

View PostCobra6, on 12 January 2018 - 01:21 PM, said:

It will never get fixed because it's an ideal griefing vehicle, just like arty, a vehicle which has to take very little risk, if any, to do massive damage to an enemy. In other words an vehicle which does not have a proper risk=>reward balance and thus makes people want to get/play it.

 

Cobra 6

 

well at least you cant hit back on 183 (sure if you survived a shot):) Unlike on clickers...

VsUK #10 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012

View PostCobra6, on 12 January 2018 - 01:21 PM, said:

It will never get fixed because it's an ideal griefing vehicle, just like arty, a vehicle which has to take very little risk, if any, to do massive damage to an enemy. In other words an vehicle which does not have a proper risk=>reward balance and thus makes people want to get/play it.

 

Cobra 6

 

You can't compare it with arty. Arty can sit long away from harms way & pick players off. Where as this TD has to get close because it's aim is poor & shocking if your trying to hit moving tanks. It's reload is beyond a joke. You can hit a med on 100% HP rushing you 1 on 1. If your lucky you'll kill it in 1 go. But if you don't. You might as well just exit the match because its over with. Not to mention the slightest bump renders you useless. You can only fire on level or downward facing sloaps. The real TD concept which is based on the Conq MK 2 had a fully traversable turret. not partial traversable. And it had a 12 degree downward aim as well as a 36 degree upward aim. But WG being WG. They like to ruin tanks by meddling with the actual stats. 

 


Edited by VsUK, 12 January 2018 - 02:33 PM.


Balc0ra #11 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62764 battles
  • 14,382
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postadameitas, on 12 January 2018 - 02:25 PM, said:

 

well at least you cant hit back on 183 (sure if you survived a shot):) Unlike on clickers...

 

Indeed. As if it's alone on a side, it's not gonna carry anything. And as I said, it's still more situational then even arty. Either you run full AP and get consistent damage. Or you go for mostly below average AP damage shots with HESH. Sure you can camp at the back and farm damage and hide every 20 seconds. But then again most TD's at that tier can do 500 ish every 6-7 seconds breaking you even more in the open. So I'm usually more scared of those vs a 183 most times depending on what I drive ofc.

Edited by Balc0ra, 12 January 2018 - 02:32 PM.


Lord_Edge #12 Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostVsUK, on 12 January 2018 - 02:30 PM, said:

Where as this TD has to get close because it's aim is poor & shocking if your trying to hit moving tanks. It's reload is beyond a joke. You can hit a med on 100% HP rushing you 1 on 1. If your lucky you'll kill it in 1 go. But if you don't. You might as well just exit the match because its over with. Not to mention the slightest bump renders you useless. You can only fire on level or downward facing sloaps. The real TD concept which is based on the Conq MK 2 had a fully traversable turret. not partial traversable. And it had a 12 degree downward aim as well as a 36 degree upward aim. But WG being WG. They like to ruin tanks by meddling with the actual stats. 

 

You're talking about a tank that could destroy every single vehicle in this game with one shot, while being frontally impervious to many tier 9 or lower guns, of course WG had to gimp it.


Edited by Lord_Edge, 12 January 2018 - 03:02 PM.


Laur_Balaur_XD #13 Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:34 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35365 battles
  • 640
  • [-WBZ-] -WBZ-
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostLord_Edge, on 12 January 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

You're talking about a tank that could destroy every single vehicle in this game with one shot, while being frontally impervious to many tier 9 or lower guns, of course WG had to gimp it.

 

Actually he can not destroy every single vehicle in this game in one shot.

183 is just a meme tank and is just good for griefing people, and since it was removed you won't see many in randoms. People are playing now because of the 'top of the tree' missions, that's all.



Lord_Edge #14 Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostIulian_ro, on 12 January 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

Actually he can not destroy every single vehicle in this game in one shot.

I was talking about in real life, the real world production model of the 183 would have been able to "kill" the real world production model of any in vehicle currently in WoT, with a single shot, from 1KM away, while bouncing everything an IS tank could throw at it until it got within 500 meters.  Hence why the in game version is much weaker in all aspects.

 

It was never put into production because anti-tank guided missiles arrived with significantly lower cost attached, not because it wouldn't have been devastating.


Edited by Lord_Edge, 12 January 2018 - 03:45 PM.


Laur_Balaur_XD #15 Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35365 battles
  • 640
  • [-WBZ-] -WBZ-
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostLord_Edge, on 12 January 2018 - 02:43 PM, said:

I was talking about in real life, the real world production model of the 183 would have been able to "kill" the real world production model of any in vehicle currently in WoT, with a single shot, from 1KM away, while bouncing everything an IS tank could throw at it until it got within 500 meters.  Hence why the in game version is much weaker in all aspects.

 

It was never put into production because anti-tank guided missiles arrived with significantly lower cost attached, not because it wouldn't have been devastating.

 

View PostLord_Edge, on 12 January 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

You're talking about a tank that could destroy every single vehicle in this game with one shot, while being frontally impervious to many tier 9 or lower guns, of course WG had to gimp it.

 

Are you sure you were talking about real life? Because i have never seen or heard about those 'tier 9 or lower guns' in real life...:sceptic:



Lord_Edge #16 Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostIulian_ro, on 12 January 2018 - 03:48 PM, said:

Are you sure you were talking about real life?

Yes, hence why I was directly referencing how much more powerful the real version was than the in game version, and how it would have been unfair for WG to add it without gimping it, when directly responsding to a person complaining that the in game tank was not as powerful as the real version.



tajj7 #17 Posted 12 January 2018 - 04:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24356 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostVsUK, on 12 January 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

 

You can't compare it with arty. Arty can sit long away from harms way & pick players off. Where as this TD has to get close because it's aim is poor & shocking if your trying to hit moving tanks. It's reload is beyond a joke. You can hit a med on 100% HP rushing you 1 on 1. If your lucky you'll kill it in 1 go. But if you don't. You might as well just exit the match because its over with. Not to mention the slightest bump renders you useless. You can only fire on level or downward facing sloaps. The real TD concept which is based on the Conq MK 2 had a fully traversable turret. not partial traversable. And it had a 12 degree downward aim as well as a 36 degree upward aim. But WG being WG. They like to ruin tanks by meddling with the actual stats. 

 

 

The real thing never existed. 

 

The closest they got is the FV4005 stage 2 which got to a prototype up stage and currently sits outside the Bovington tank museum, there was no such thing as an FV215b 183. The first prototype was a Centurion hull with the gun completely exposed and an autoloader system, so you can't say what the real life characteristics would have been because it got no further than the mock up stage. 

 

And the FV4005 in game has better characteristics than the real thing, which had limited traverse in reality because the barrel was so heavy and likely could not fire on the move.

 

The Fv215 Heavy tank gun project did not get very far and it is highly unlikely it ever had 12 degrees of gun depression or 36 degrees of gun elevation. The one in game is probably way better than the real one every would have been. 



Lord_Edge #18 Posted 12 January 2018 - 05:36 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View Posttajj7, on 12 January 2018 - 04:50 PM, said:

The real thing never existed. 

 

The closest they got is the FV4005 stage 2

The FV4005 stage 2 was literally the gun from the FV215b-183 mounted on a centurion hull (with a tin box on stop to keep the rain out) because after the FV215b-183 got cancelled they decided to try other things with the gun to try and stop the R&D going to waste.

 

The final production model of the FV215b-183 was never built but all the designs were finalized, the scale models were evaluated, the blueprints done, the gun was built, the modified hull was available.  All they had to do was put it together then build the turret but it never got that far as the advent of guided missiles made it uneconomical.

 

 

View Posttajj7, on 12 January 2018 - 04:50 PM, said:

The one in game is probably way better than the real one every would have been. 

Can the one in game reliably kill any IS tank with a single hit from a Kilometer away while bouncing all the return fire unless it gets within 500 meters? As that was the main design concept.


Edited by Lord_Edge, 12 January 2018 - 05:38 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users