Jump to content


Buff M103 + T110E5

M103 T110E5

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

Poll: Should they buff the M103 / T110E5 (206 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should WG buff M103 / T110E5

  1. Yes (113 votes [54.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 54.85%

  2. Just M103 (25 votes [12.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.14%

  3. Just T11035 (39 votes [18.93%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.93%

  4. No (29 votes [14.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.08%

Vote Hide poll

JocMeister #21 Posted 07 April 2018 - 10:26 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 26896 battles
  • 2,536
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015

View Postsomegras, on 07 April 2018 - 08:45 AM, said:

 

The conq was always a better M103, although even more so now. 

 

Regarding the M103 itself, it's by far the weakest tier 9 HT. It wouldn't surprise me if it had the lowest global WR of all of them as well.

 

Had to check and to my surprise its actually worst in both WR and damage of the T9 HTs. Really didn´t expect that!

 

Perhaps it just suits me or something. I really enjoy playing it and besides the Conq its my highest DPG tier 9 HT. 



Simeon85 #22 Posted 07 April 2018 - 10:33 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 1141 battles
  • 4,131
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

M103 needs it's roof overmatch changed, it's already got the cupola, you don't need people missing that then just overmatching the roof.  It also needs it's forehead being made stronger, currently just above the gun mantlet flat on is like 190 effective, that should never get penned just make that thicker so it's much higher effective armour then the M103 will be able to hull down much better.

 

At the moment people aim for the cupola, often miss but still get pens because they overmatch the roof or they pen the forehead. 

 

I then also make it able to go 40kph, with like 15kph backwards, that would differentiate it compared to the Conqueror and would make it more like a US Heavium.

 

Same with the T110E5, it needs a much smaller cupola that is like the same size as the M48 Patton and is like 200 effective, then make the T110E5 go 40kph and 15kph backwards so it's again got a clear mobility advantage over a Super Conqueror. 

 

(while you are at it the T110E4 can get the same treatment, smaller cupola, higher top speed). 

 


Edited by Simeon85, 07 April 2018 - 10:35 AM.


Enforcer1975 #23 Posted 07 April 2018 - 10:33 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 21562 battles
  • 10,968
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostVolatile_Squirrel, on 06 April 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

They don't need buffs.

 

Other tanks need nerfs.

^

 

This 10

 

We need nerfs not more buffs that increase the power gap even more. 



Simeon85 #24 Posted 07 April 2018 - 10:37 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 1141 battles
  • 4,131
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostEnforcer1975, on 07 April 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

^

 

This 10

 

We need nerfs not more buffs that increase the power gap even more. 

 

I'd say both of these tanks need buffs regardless of the other power creep that has gone on. M103 is worse than an ST-1, E75, T-10 etc. and those have not changed for a few years, same with the E5, it's still worse than like the E100 or 113 even if you ignore the Super Conq, 5A and buffs to the IS7. 

somegras #25 Posted 07 April 2018 - 10:51 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 49915 battles
  • 8,708
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostJocMeister, on 07 April 2018 - 10:26 AM, said:

 

Had to check and to my surprise its actually worst in both WR and damage of the T9 HTs. Really didn´t expect that!

 

Perhaps it just suits me or something. I really enjoy playing it and besides the Conq its my highest DPG tier 9 HT. 

 

Doesn't surprise me at all. The armour is extremely lackluster and the gun is mediocre at best. You might enjoy it yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a bad tank. Personally I hated it with a passion, and it's by far my worst performing tier 9 HT (apart from WR, but that could either be sample size or platooning, not sure).

Tidal_Force #26 Posted 07 April 2018 - 11:23 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16195 battles
  • 6,842
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    08-29-2012

View PostJocMeister, on 07 April 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

 

Had to check and to my surprise its actually worst in both WR and damage of the T9 HTs. Really didn´t expect that!

 

Perhaps it just suits me or something. I really enjoy playing it and besides the Conq its my highest DPG tier 9 HT. 

 

More importantly, tank curves show that both M103 and E5 are very UP.

http://wot-news.com/...eu/usa/A66_M103

http://wot-news.com/.../usa/A69_T110E5



SlyMeerkat #27 Posted 07 April 2018 - 11:32 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18064 battles
  • 2,927
  • [-RLD-] -RLD-
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
Indifferent 

Ze_HOFF_fverhoef #28 Posted 07 April 2018 - 11:35 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 15466 battles
  • 3,141
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012

It would be really great if Wargaming would really start to look at balancing tanks, instead of

- introducing OP tanks that effectively nerfs other tanks

- sporadically buff UP tanks to make them OP and effectively nerf all the other tanks

- sporadically nerf OP tanks to effectively make them UP (or soon UP because of the 2 points above)



Dava_117 #29 Posted 07 April 2018 - 11:39 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21998 battles
  • 4,479
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostZe_HOFF_fverhoef, on 07 April 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

It would be really great if Wargaming would really start to look at balancing tanks, instead of

- introducing OP tanks that effectively nerfs other tanks

- sporadically buff UP tanks to make them OP and effectively nerf all the other tanks

- sporadically nerf OP tanks to effectively make them UP (or soon UP because of the 2 points above)

 

Agree, but just after IS-4 OPness time. Please, it's years I wait for this!

Ze_HOFF_fverhoef #30 Posted 07 April 2018 - 11:53 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 15466 battles
  • 3,141
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012

View PostDava_117, on 07 April 2018 - 10:39 AM, said:

 

Agree, but just after IS-4 OPness time. Please, it's years I wait for this!

 

Why did you pick the wrong line anyway??? ;)

Dava_117 #31 Posted 07 April 2018 - 11:56 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21998 battles
  • 4,479
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostZe_HOFF_fverhoef, on 07 April 2018 - 11:53 AM, said:

 

Why did you pick the wrong line anyway??? ;)

 

Was noob. Had no idea IS-7 is the "stronk rasha tonk"... :teethhappy:

Ze_HOFF_fverhoef #32 Posted 07 April 2018 - 12:01 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 15466 battles
  • 3,141
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012

View PostDava_117, on 07 April 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

 

Was noob. Had no idea IS-7 is the "stronk rasha tonk"... :teethhappy:

 

Oh well... we all have to live with our bad choices. For example, some of the first few lines I went for were:

- British heavies

- British AT line

- German Leopard line (still stuck at indien panzer)



markthekiller #33 Posted 07 April 2018 - 12:12 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17334 battles
  • 124
  • [EMOJI] EMOJI
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011
If they can fix those stupid pixel weakspots next to E5's gun mantlet and give it 1 or 2 degrees more gun depression, it would be a nice tank to play and to play against, no big armor buffs needed.

yeezusk #34 Posted 07 April 2018 - 12:13 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5038 battles
  • 31
  • [SKIL5] SKIL5
  • Member since:
    07-09-2017
I wouldn't mind the armour on the M103 if it really was faster. You have to play this tank like a slow leaopard 1. You constantly have to bait shots or snap shot, which the top gun is inconsistent at even when hull down. I would really love it if I can be confident in the turret armour or make it faster so its harder to hit.

Erwin_Von_Braun #35 Posted 07 April 2018 - 01:03 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 42324 battles
  • 5,911
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View PostWarzey, on 07 April 2018 - 01:25 AM, said:

 

Just.... don't.... stay on T29, only misery lies ahead.

 

We shall see...;)

STLR #36 Posted 23 April 2018 - 10:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32330 battles
  • 746
  • [MIND] MIND
  • Member since:
    06-07-2013

View Postdex_1950, on 07 April 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

E5 needs reversing of tumor nerf, that was good up until 270+ with good angles more. Now whole "hull down" line sucks [edited]after T29. T32 is strong turreted, but gun is potato. So past T29 nothing is worth it.

 

Kinda True. 

AcheronEHJ #37 Posted 23 April 2018 - 10:47 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9019 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    04-08-2013
Power creep has passed them by. Though to be fair, there are tanks more behind the curve than these.

vasilinhorulezz #38 Posted 23 April 2018 - 11:02 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25191 battles
  • 1,718
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

View PostDava_117, on 06 April 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

We already have enough tanks without weakspots.

 

THIS.



dex_1950 #39 Posted 23 April 2018 - 11:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34408 battles
  • 527
  • [N1GER] N1GER
  • Member since:
    11-16-2014

M103 just needs a bit more mobility, i like the tank, i like it even before turret buffs.

T110E5 needs some love, like few km/h and revers tumor nerfs. This is line pointless after T29 IMHO, hulldown tanks that can't hulldown.



Artick_ #40 Posted 23 April 2018 - 11:57 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 30488 battles
  • 237
  • [REZIS] REZIS
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013

View PostLordMuffin, on 07 April 2018 - 07:00 AM, said:

While I do agree that both M103 and T110E5 are currently some of the weakest tanks for their respective tier and class.
the IS-4 at T10 is as weak, and the 50 120 at T9.
I think it is a way better option to nerf all other heavy tanks down to their powerlevel.

 

50 120 is weak? :))

 

what abut t54e1 with 212 pen autoloader 120mm?:))

 

 







Also tagged with M103, T110E5

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users