Jump to content


Why does obj 430 and obj 430U have light tank camo?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

TheOddRogue #1 Posted 06 April 2018 - 01:56 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9977 battles
  • 430
  • Member since:
    08-08-2012

Obj 430U you can achieve a stationary camo of 37% and a camo on the move of 28%! WHY!? This is already the best tier 10 medium/heavy, why the [edited]does it get these camo values for? Compare it to E50M which has absolute trash camo, also compare to M48 Patton another tier 10 medium tank with bad camo. WG might "Oh it has low profile", I say [edited]right off, this tank needs to be a exception and have it's camo values nerfed or make it taller. Mind bogglingly stupid.

 

Obj 430 not completely OP as obj 430U but again it's stationary camo is 37% and its camo on the move 29%! This gives it light tank camo for no reason, again compare it to E50 and Patton. Don't completely trash it's camo but reduce to something more reasonable like 25% stationary and 20% on the move. I think obj 430 is fine, acceptably balanced, but it's camo values are stupid. 



juonimies #2 Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:22 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43387 battles
  • 323
  • [KARJU] KARJU
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011
Strange - basic camo of my Object 430 is 17,84% and Object 430U is 17,44%.  A bit better than for example T-62 but not insanely high. 

Thejagdpanther #3 Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33049 battles
  • 4,251
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

The most disgusting thing is that you play the 430 pratically full since the beginning.

Have you see the "improvement" of elite tracks? For the lolz? Of course you can mount the elite engine without even research the useless track.

 

Da comrade!!



250swb #4 Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:04 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20814 battles
  • 4,603
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View PostTheOddRogue, on 06 April 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

Obj 430U you can achieve a stationary camo of 37% and a camo on the move of 28%! WHY!?  

 

Are you using food? With a full camo crew and paint my 430U is 35.27 and 27.17 moving, my 430 is a fraction better but not much. I suspect it's because the tank is fairly low slung, but it belies the idea that camo isn't useful on high tier medium tanks because with these values it can't not work.



Cobra6 #5 Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16295 battles
  • 15,018
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostThejagdpanther, on 06 April 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

The most disgusting thing is that you play the 430 pratically full since the beginning.

Have you see the "improvement" of elite tracks? For the lolz? Of course you can mount the elite engine without even research the useless track.

 

Da comrade!!

 

Russian traditions, the T-54 doesn't need the tracks either to mount everything, other nations need tracks before you can mount even the most basic modules :D

 

Cobra 6



NUKLEAR_SLUG #6 Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:08 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26628 battles
  • 1,623
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Post250swb, on 06 April 2018 - 03:04 PM, said:

 

Are you using food? With a full camo crew and paint my 430U is 35.27 and 27.17 moving, my 430 is a fraction better but not much. I suspect it's because the tank is fairly low slung, but it belies the idea that camo isn't useful on high tier medium tanks because with these values it can't not work.

 

Yep, it's not necessarily about having the best camo, a lot of the time just having more camo than the guy next to you is plenty helpful. :)

Balc0ra #7 Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:19 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62857 battles
  • 14,459
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostThejagdpanther, on 06 April 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

The most disgusting thing is that you play the 430 pratically full since the beginning.

 

Well it's the new norm more or less by the looks of it. New French HT's was more or less the same on guns anyway. Most use the stock one. But it's why you need almost 100K more XP to get the tier X vs other tier 9 meds.

 

Tho considering the population on it has barely gone up by 2K since the line was split. 93% of the current owners always had it elite anyway from day one.

Edited by Balc0ra, 06 April 2018 - 03:20 PM.


Digidi #8 Posted 05 May 2018 - 10:08 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8398 battles
  • 10
  • [DUFOR] DUFOR
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

all of the russian tanks have better camo than any other nation because they have no armor no mobility and shitty guns so you need camo to compensate



Ceeb #9 Posted 06 May 2018 - 06:16 AM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 30073 battles
  • 5,034
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View PostCobra6, on 06 April 2018 - 02:05 PM, said:

 

Russian traditions, the T-54 doesn't need the tracks either to mount everything, other nations need tracks before you can mount even the most basic modules :D

 

Cobra 6

 

Are you saying there is Russian bias.  

 

Oh my.  



VarzA #10 Posted 06 May 2018 - 08:35 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17495 battles
  • 1,049
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011
/WG dev team .... 'there is no russian bias' ... russian force mind trick.

TankkiPoju #11 Posted 06 May 2018 - 09:38 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19670 battles
  • 6,090
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
Just check the camo values on 268v4... rashaaaaaa

Browarszky #12 Posted 06 May 2018 - 10:18 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 14906 battles
  • 2,775
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013
Shhh!....:ohmy:

Dorander #13 Posted 06 May 2018 - 10:22 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17709 battles
  • 1,584
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostBrowarszky, on 06 May 2018 - 09:18 AM, said:

Shhh!....:ohmy:

 

Putting the "shh" back in Russia? :trollface:

kejmo #14 Posted 06 May 2018 - 11:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26860 battles
  • 612
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011
Cause...Russian ?

TrewSx #15 Posted 06 May 2018 - 12:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 59130 battles
  • 644
  • Member since:
    03-02-2011
Rashaaa biatch, it has to be better at everything. Did not you get the memo ?

There is only one tech tree WG cares about, just look at how many updates in a row was heavily focused in improving Soviet vehicles. 1.0.1 was an exception, now the next update 1.0.2 is a Soviet theme all over again.

Edited by TrewSx, 06 May 2018 - 12:22 PM.


adameitas #16 Posted 07 May 2018 - 12:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

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

more interesting question to me is why upcoming t10 tank (based on sniping) after 430-2 will have worse camo then 430u (based on pushing). Or did they fix this thing?

and as far as i remember they introduced this situation as a bonus for K-91. Like: "look new tank gonna have only a bit worse camo then 430u"....

 

and that upcoming massive 430-2 nerf.. i understand that 430-2 dont fit new line conception (btw so does a-44) but why to ruin tank that is at least a bit unique? If it doest fit conception add it as option next to t-54...



Soifon99 #17 Posted 07 May 2018 - 01:11 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34807 battles
  • 388
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    01-21-2013

Hahaha i was going to say omg nobody complained about the 268-4...but someone did..  #fail..

 

 

stop filling every topic that's not about the 268-4 with 268-4 [edited]man..  



Geno1isme #18 Posted 07 May 2018 - 01:20 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40064 battles
  • 6,628
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View Postadameitas, on 07 May 2018 - 01:11 PM, said:

and that upcoming massive 430-2 nerf.. i understand that 430-2 dont fit new line conception (btw so does a-44) but why to ruin tank that is at least a bit unique? If it doest fit conception add it as option next to t-54...

 

Somehow I think they want to do that to "compensate" for the 268v4 nonsense and/or to distract how the polish techtree and premium might turn out.

 

(and A-44 is T7, so out of scope for WGs high-tier-only mantra since 9.18)



Feble #19 Posted 07 May 2018 - 01:25 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 25792 battles
  • 20
  • [5FPS] 5FPS
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
 Because camo is also dependent on tank height as ive noticed and 430U is alot closer to the ground then fatton/e50m . 

Dorander #20 Posted 07 May 2018 - 01:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17709 battles
  • 1,584
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostFeble, on 07 May 2018 - 12:25 PM, said:

 Because camo is also dependent on tank height as ive noticed and 430U is alot closer to the ground then fatton/e50m . 

 

There's no reason for this to be true, really. It's just a value that WG can set. Even if it's a formula based partially on height, it's still a value that WG can set. If you look at what actual camo values are for tanks they're all over the place, even for tanks that have similar height.

 

Tank height comes into play spotwise as for what objects you can fully hide behind. One of your spotting points, is your commander's hatch, the very top of your tank. If you are low enough you can obscure that behind far more objects than tanks with higher profiles can, consequentially you'll get spot less frequently.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users