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

fighting_falcon93 #61 Posted 08 October 2018 - 03:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32558 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postfwhaatpiraat, on 08 October 2018 - 03:47 PM, said:

All other tanks mentioned barely have turret weakspots, really poor game design and partially the reason why tanks like stb1 or leo1 are so poor. 

 

Personally I think it's good game design that they don't have turret weakspots. This is a strategical tank game, there should be more into it than driving up face-to-face and click on each others weakspots. Having the armor immune in certain locations create a better strategical depth where it actually pays off to position your vehicle correctly, and where the enemy actually has to do something more creative than just clicking on a few pixels on your tank. This of course also requires better maps. So if anything here is to blame for bad design, I'd say it's the maps and not the armor.

 

I can't speak for the STB-1 because I've not played it very much, but in my opinion the Leopard 1s main disadvantage is the maps lack of (useful) sniping gameplay, combined with accuracy values that doesn't really make a big difference.



fwhaatpiraat #62 Posted 08 October 2018 - 03:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 55740 battles
  • 1,359
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 08 October 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

 

Personally I think it's good game design that they don't have turret weakspots. This is a strategical tank game, there should be more into it than driving up face-to-face and click on each others weakspots. Having the armor immune in certain locations create a better strategical depth where it actually pays off to position your vehicle correctly, and where the enemy actually has to do something more creative than just clicking on a few pixels on your tank. This of course also requires better maps. So if anything here is to blame for bad design, I'd say it's the maps and not the armor.

 

I can't speak for the STB-1 because I've not played it very much, but in my opinion the Leopard 1s main disadvantage is the maps lack of (useful) sniping gameplay, combined with accuracy values that doesn't really make a big difference.

You either have a strong turret or get fcked, isn't that how it is nowadays? That is imo the poor aspect. The leopard can't snipe since the strong-turreted tanks just move towards a ridge up close. 

 

About sniping, I feel that only the worse players are getting sniped, while the better players avoid to be in the open. Not sure how a more sniper friendly environment (maps) would improve general gameplay. Honestly not sure how it would look like. Only thing I know is that many ppl don't like to face strvs. :)

 

 

OT: Decent OP and decent poll options for once :) Voted for only m103.


Edited by fwhaatpiraat, 08 October 2018 - 03:39 PM.


Lord_Barbarozza #63 Posted 08 October 2018 - 06:51 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6664 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

Technically M103 and T110e5 are balanced while their counterparts and armored mediums are in an unbalanced state, which brings the never ending problem of making some tanks overall better rather than giving all tanks strenghts and weaknesses.

Maus and Mauschen is fairly balanced due to their horrible mobility especially on soft terrain,

 

T110e5 just need a better cupola, it is the biggest weakspot on a heavytank roof as far as I know.

I never use premium ammo on my tanks so my T110e5 has its best chances fighting against medium tanks. E5 at medium to long range is quite good when they can aim for the cupola.

 

M103 just need a smaller weakspot as the Conqueror and Wz 111-4 has an advantage in every hull down situation being given almost as good or better gun depression with better turrets.

 

Mobility on these tanks is ok for a heavy tank, but for some reason WG thinks it cool to give russian and chinese heavy tanks 50-60 kmh potential top speed, which means the american heavies only really has an advantage on soft terrain going uphill in my experience.



ares354 #64 Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:31 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 76174 battles
  • 3,442
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View Postbaribal_80, on 08 October 2018 - 09:29 AM, said:

 

 Seriously you need like 5deg to the side of m103 and you can pen the part of the turret next to the mantlet. Also VK Auf A is faster. Also m103 has a bigger roof weakspot. Also overmatch rework by wg? LOL bounce all of your clips of udes. 

 

Typical, nothing new. Person who cant read. REWORK dont mean add WG idea of removing overmatch, that first. 

Second, Vk auf a can be fast, but have by FAR worst gun of all tevch tree tanks. SO i dont see your point here. We remove overmatch from all or from non.

Thing like that can be done to E75, and ? Buff e75 then 

Simeon85 #65 Posted 10 October 2018 - 10:36 AM

    Brigadier

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

View Postares354, on 07 October 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

 

M103 dont need more armor buff on turret front. He have one of best turret front if we dont look on cupola and roof(i forgot about that armor over mantlet, that they might buff). Roof armor wouldnt be problem if overmatch idiotic mechanic was removed. 

 

http://Posted Image 

 

Conqueror need to lose 3 degree of gun dep. Conq is tank that powercreeped M103. E75 is different tank. 

 

 

No to removing overmatch from M103 bu leave it on other tanks. Overmatch need core rework or remove from game. Why M103 roof cant be pennable but Vk auf A can be ? Make 0 sense that logic. 

And now Simeon85 aka Taj77 write new history. Americans made M103 as HEAVY tank, Simeon call him heavium, made up crapname from deeps off a**. 

 

Who cares about real life? It's a game, making M103 a bit faster would give it more reason to exist and it fits more with the E5, which used to be a more mobile tier 10 heavy. 

 

Since the Fv4202 went and the Cent 7/1 has gone, there are basically no 40kph meds at tier 9 and 10 anymore, so having the two US heavies goes 40kph makes them different to the likes of the Conqueror, ST-I, Super Conq etc. These tanks have always been jack of all trades, they have just been power creeped so they are now bad jack of all trades.

 

The overmatch spots are generally silly, but you can't remove the mechanic, WG tried and Borsigs could sidescrape, it was stupid.  But hull down tanks that have them should be adjusted on a case by case basis. The M103 already has a decent size cupola and also has a turret that if you get angles on it is easily pennable so IMO the overmatch spot and the strip above the mantlet should be buffed. 

 

 

View PostDeadLecter, on 07 October 2018 - 05:55 PM, said:

Your problem is you're talking based on numbers. Any player in WoT who has bothered to study the armor of these tanks knows neither T95 nor Tortoise are nowhere near OP.

 

Both T95 and Tortoise are currently OP, that is an objective fact. 

 

They got overbuffed and weren't nerfed in other areas to balance out their buffs. 

 

View Postfwhaatpiraat, on 08 October 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

Utopian, but i agree. 

 

All other tanks mentioned barely have turret weakspots, really poor game design and partially the reason why tanks like stb1 or leo1 are so poor. 

 

277 has a cupola, it's not massive but it does and it's turret is not IS7 levels anyway, plus it has some of the worst gun depression on a tier 10 heavy these days at 5.5, so it's not really problematic.

 

IS7 generally has been fine turret wise, I think they over buffed it, they should have buffed the gun or mobility, not both.

 

Super Conq just needs the same cupola as the 215b/Conqueror. 

 

Kranvagn is terrible so again don't see much issue with it's turret. 

 



ares354 #66 Posted 10 October 2018 - 11:17 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 76174 battles
  • 3,442
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

Block Quote

 

Who cares about real life? It's a game, making M103 a bit faster would give it more reason to exist and it fits more with the E5, which used to be a more mobile tier 10 heavy. 

 

Since the Fv4202 went and the Cent 7/1 has gone, there are basically no 40kph meds at tier 9 and 10 anymore, so having the two US heavies goes 40kph makes them different to the likes of the Conqueror, ST-I, Super Conq etc. These tanks have always been jack of all trades, they have just been power creeped so they are now bad jack of all trades.

 

The overmatch spots are generally silly, but you can't remove the mechanic, WG tried and Borsigs could sidescrape, it was stupid.  But hull down tanks that have them should be adjusted on a case by case basis. The M103 already has a decent size cupola and also has a turret that if you get angles on it is easily pennable so IMO the overmatch spot and the strip above the mantlet should be buffed. 

 

M103 trades better hull over Conqueror. Nerf Conqueror gun dep and buff a bit M103, see what heppen. E5 use to be both very hard to pen and fast HT, long time ago, WG added many new tanks. 

 

But overmatch NEED to be reworked. Based only on caliber is silly. DERP from KV 1 is better fitted to overmatch then 120 mm GUN from M103. Overmatch need to be based on something different then number on caliber from gun. 

All what is need is different overmatch. IF you use 8 degree gun dep in M103, they CANT hit your roof if they arent above you. 



DorsVenabiIi #67 Posted 10 October 2018 - 11:36 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26400 battles
  • 1,189
  • [BIBLE] BIBLE
  • Member since:
    03-31-2015

E5 was disease back in the day, [edited]that tank, hope it rots. 

 



Simeon85 #68 Posted 10 October 2018 - 11:44 AM

    Brigadier

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

View Postares354, on 10 October 2018 - 11:17 AM, said:

 

M103 trades better hull over Conqueror. Nerf Conqueror gun dep and buff a bit M103, see what heppen. E5 use to be both very hard to pen and fast HT, long time ago, WG added many new tanks. 

 

But overmatch NEED to be reworked. Based only on caliber is silly. DERP from KV 1 is better fitted to overmatch then 120 mm GUN from M103. Overmatch need to be based on something different then number on caliber from gun. 

All what is need is different overmatch. IF you use 8 degree gun dep in M103, they CANT hit your roof if they arent above you. 

 

Conqueror doesn't need a nerf, you showed the win rate curve it's in a good place, slightly above reference curve for above average players, slightly below for below average. It's a harder to play, higher reward tier 9 heavy, which is a good thing.

 

M103 is just underpowered all round, so why shouldn't it just be buffed?

 

Not only does Conq power creep it, but AMX M4 51 does as well, same gun, similar turret without the overmatch, better hull and better mobility.

 

I kind of agree on overmatch, but I doubt that is going to happen any time soon, so in the meantime they can fix the silly roof overmatches of tanks like the M103 and Tiger 2 when these tanks have cupola weakspots anyway. M103 should be able to hull down better not on reverse ridgelines and even with the gun depression you can still easily pen above the mantlet. 

 

 



ares354 #69 Posted 10 October 2018 - 12:02 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 76174 battles
  • 3,442
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View PostSimeon85, on 10 October 2018 - 11:44 AM, said:

 

Conqueror doesn't need a nerf, you showed the win rate curve it's in a good place, slightly above reference curve for above average players, slightly below for below average. It's a harder to play, higher reward tier 9 heavy, which is a good thing.

 

M103 is just underpowered all round, so why shouldn't it just be buffed?

 

Not only does Conq power creep it, but AMX M4 51 does as well, same gun, similar turret without the overmatch, better hull and better mobility.

 

I kind of agree on overmatch, but I doubt that is going to happen any time soon, so in the meantime they can fix the silly roof overmatches of tanks like the M103 and Tiger 2 when these tanks have cupola weakspots anyway. M103 should be able to hull down better not on reverse ridgelines and even with the gun depression you can still easily pen above the mantlet. 

 

 

 

Then ok, add historical armor on Tiger 2 turret, that will pass on Vk auf A, 44 mm, overmatch is no longer possible with 122 mm gun. Buff M103 roof to 44 mm too. But still, will this make M103 better ? I dont think so. French AMX 51 still is very strong. M103 is just jack of all trades. Special at nothing, ok in everything. That is hes role. 

Simeon85 #70 Posted 10 October 2018 - 12:07 PM

    Brigadier

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

View Postares354, on 10 October 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

 

Then ok, add historical armor on Tiger 2 turret, that will pass on Vk auf A, 44 mm, overmatch is no longer possible with 122 mm gun. Buff M103 roof to 44 mm too. But still, will this make M103 better ? I dont think so. French AMX 51 still is very strong. M103 is just jack of all trades. Special at nothing, ok in everything. That is hes role. 

 

I have no issue with it fixing the same problem on the Tiger 2/VK-A, again they don't even have strong turret fronts and have cupolas, so don't see why their roofs should be weak.

 

M103 is jack of all trades and that is fine, but it's slipped down it used to be solid to good at most things for a heavy, now really in comparison to others it's below average to average at everything and that makes it weak.

 

So little buffs to every area will help it become average to good again. Hence slight mobility buffs, fix the roof overmatch, strip above the gun mantlet and maybe buff the gun depression to -10 on this and E5 to fit the rest of the line.

 

Probably this whole US heavy line needs looking at, doubt any of them are doing very well. 



LordMuffin #71 Posted 10 October 2018 - 12:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 50649 battles
  • 12,707
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostDorsVenabiIi, on 10 October 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

E5 was disease back in the day, [edited]that tank, hope it rots. 

 

Even if WG made the E5 exactly like it was during its prime time.

It would still be a bad T10 compared to current T10 tanks.

11:44 Added after 3 minutes

View PostSimeon85, on 10 October 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

 

I have no issue with it fixing the same problem on the Tiger 2/VK-A, again they don't even have strong turret fronts and have cupolas, so don't see why their roofs should be weak.

 

M103 is jack of all trades and that is fine, but it's slipped down it used to be solid to good at most things for a heavy, now really in comparison to others it's below average to average at everything and that makes it weak.

 

So little buffs to every area will help it become average to good again. Hence slight mobility buffs, fix the roof overmatch, strip above the gun mantlet and maybe buff the gun depression to -10 on this and E5 to fit the rest of the line.

 

Probably this whole US heavy line needs looking at, doubt any of them are doing very well. 

T1 and M6 are probably doing rather fine.

T29 is still best T7 heavy.

Only the T8-T10 needs some work.

Though I would prefer a nerf of the other T8-T10 heavies instead (like Conq, SC, IS-7, objects, Type 4/5, Maus line etc).



catatpillar #72 Posted 10 October 2018 - 12:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21940 battles
  • 675
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014

Terrible tanks. Just terrible. They indeed buffed E5 in previous patches (long ago) making it viable again for its job (sidescraping), then nerfed it to the ground and made hull cheecks like french cheese, ammo rack of paper, gun of paper, and really vulnerable to arty HE shells.

 

And m103 is just awful experience at tier 9.



F2PEXP #73 Posted 10 October 2018 - 02:12 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 4840 battles
  • 142
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

e5 has I believe the 3rd lowest WR% of any tier 10 tank, only Leo 1 and T62 worse?   T62 amazes me, that tank is awesome

 

anyway, it needs a buff and as someone who objects to weak spots just for the sake of weak spots I would be happy with a cupola buff, or perhaps an M48 style cupola size change

 

Now as for weak spots, where it makes sense sure, eg machine gun ports and the shell can enter the interior of the tank, but shooting a non vital part of the tank over and over to kill it, nah that's just bad game design.  make the maps better and you solve all the issues



STLR #74 Posted 11 October 2018 - 08:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32330 battles
  • 746
  • [MIND] MIND
  • Member since:
    06-07-2013
it's still one of my fav T10 even after the nerf. i had these days a match with 7k dmg. it is very capable, unless close combat with better DPM machines while not brawling. 

Simeon85 #75 Posted 11 October 2018 - 02:36 PM

    Brigadier

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

View PostLordMuffin, on 10 October 2018 - 12:40 PM, said:

Even if WG made the E5 exactly like it was during its prime time.

It would still be a bad T10 compared to current T10 tanks.

11:44 Added after 3 minutes

T1 and M6 are probably doing rather fine.

T29 is still best T7 heavy.

Only the T8-T10 needs some work.

Though I would prefer a nerf of the other T8-T10 heavies instead (like Conq, SC, IS-7, objects, Type 4/5, Maus line etc).

 

M6 is, T1 heavy is not, so 4 out of the 6 are not doing well and IIRC the T29 probably needs toning down as it's basically OP.

 

Neither Conq or Super Conqueror need nerf IMO, maybe Super Conq needs same cupola as Conq and 215b so you can pen it hull down but apart from that they are showing as well balanced.

 

M103 and E5 are way behind tanks like E75, E100, IS4, ST-I etc. they are not poor because of power creep tanks, they are just generally poor and need buffing. 



LordMuffin #76 Posted 11 October 2018 - 02:56 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 50649 battles
  • 12,707
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostSimeon85, on 11 October 2018 - 02:36 PM, said:

 

M6 is, T1 heavy is not, so 4 out of the 6 are not doing well and IIRC the T29 probably needs toning down as it's basically OP.

 

Neither Conq or Super Conqueror need nerf IMO, maybe Super Conq needs same cupola as Conq and 215b so you can pen it hull down but apart from that they are showing as well balanced.

 

M103 and E5 are way behind tanks like E75, E100, IS4, ST-I etc. they are not poor because of power creep tanks, they are just generally poor and need buffing. 

I always felt my M103 was on par with E75 and ST-I, I had some advantage over them, they had advantage over me.

Though compared with the Conq  (especially buffed one), the M103 is just worse in most/all ways.

 

I think SC and Conq needs a nerf, together with IS-7, Maus, Type 5 and so on, because I think they are badly designed (no weakspots and in general to extreme in what they do) and are making the gap between T8 and T10 unnecessarily large.

 

There should be a gap, but currently I think it is to wide and the game would be better if it was smaller.

 

T32 would be fine if it only got a pen increase to 220-230 on regular AP and a slight buff to dpm.



Simeon85 #77 Posted 11 October 2018 - 03:27 PM

    Brigadier

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

View PostLordMuffin, on 11 October 2018 - 02:56 PM, said:

I always felt my M103 was on par with E75 and ST-I, I had some advantage over them, they had advantage over me.

Though compared with the Conq  (especially buffed one), the M103 is just worse in most/all ways.

 

I think SC and Conq needs a nerf, together with IS-7, Maus, Type 5 and so on, because I think they are badly designed (no weakspots and in general to extreme in what they do) and are making the gap between T8 and T10 unnecessarily large.

 

There should be a gap, but currently I think it is to wide and the game would be better if it was smaller.

 

T32 would be fine if it only got a pen increase to 220-230 on regular AP and a slight buff to dpm.

 

E 75 and ST-I are much better than M103, both have more alpha, E75 is pretty much as mobile and agile, but has way better hull armour, it's turret is weaker to high pen guns but better against standard ammo. ST-I has a way stronger turret, generally similar hull armour and hits for more alpha.

 

M103 is just an easy heavy tank to face, there is no fear there really, it has a turret most things can pen, alpha is nothing special, gun handling is nothing special, mobility is nothing special. At least a T32 is a tough cookie to deal with hull down, the M103 is not a tough cookie really in any situation and doesn't get compensate in other ways. 

 

Conqueror has 3 weakspots frontally, lower plate which is huge and weak, viewport which is stronger but tier 10 guns still pen it and cupola which anything it faces can pen. It's strong, but far from OP and doesn't need a nerf, it's a well balanced tier 9 in a well balanced tier. Super Conq just needs the same weakspots on the turret. 

 

Not sure the IS7 needs a nerf either. It's never been that problematic of a tank even though it's always been almost invincible hull down, probably it's gun handling is too good these days for a brawler so I'd nerf that if anything. 

 

type 5 is broken like the whole line.

 

Maus didn't need it's armour buffs. They should have kept the DPM/gun handling buffs and reverted the armour buffs. 

 


Edited by Simeon85, 11 October 2018 - 03:28 PM.






Also tagged with M103, T110E5

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users