Jump to content


Amx 65t and its stupid resistance levels


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

KillingJoker #1 Posted 08 May 2018 - 06:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32171 battles
  • 1,320
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

It took me only a couple seconds to realize this, something that i didnt paid attention while checking it on tanks.gg

 

mobility is definitly what makes this tank bad, its not the top turret, its not the bad gun handling...

its the terrain resistance that is absurdly bad... its like incredibly stupid terrain resistance levels 

 

have the developers even tryed to play the game? or they just throw an aleatory number to make this tank soft stats?

 

seriously, this tank mobility with the second engine (cant even imagine the stock one...) moves literaly like an E75 with a stock engine...

Its incredibly slow, slower like a tank that does have half of its power to weight, and weights a lot more... yet, its just as slower...

 

this tank is for me an example that the guys responsible for giving it numbers, dont play the game they didnt even played the tank

because this tank is unplayable, the way it is right now... its unplayable

 

The stock turret armor isnt not, bad, actually i think the stock turret is the way to go, another example of stupidity of the people who develop this gmae,because the stock turret should never Ever be better than the top one.... but in this case it is... the top turret is just badly armored, have less gun depression, and the only benefit is that it can mount bigger guns... Wich is actually funny, since the stock turret seems to even be bigger in size, compared to the second one...  are you sure that you didnt mistake? perhaps the stock turret should be the TOP ONE... just saying...

 

because its even larger in size, usualy a larger sized turret allows for bigger guns to operate, MAKES SENSE right? 

 

But this tank is just so bad.... you would need mobility to make the tank work, since being hull down or using ridge lines would be the way to go, since gun depression and turret armor is what in my opinion would turn this tank interesting...

 

But its complete lack of mobility due to insane levels of terrain resistance, makes the tank unplayable, you are completely exposed when your showing your hull since you have no armor, and you cant relocate faster, so this tank is basicly a non armored brick, filled with flaws and a result fo a careless throw by the wargaming team responsible for introducing new stuff in the game...

 

just like the obj268 v4, this people seem to throw aleatory numbers for a game they dont actually play, and then some side effects imediatly apear

 

this tank have suposedly a 16.9 power to weight with the top engine, its a 1100 hp engine, and yet, due to its pathetic and not resonable at all terrain desistances the suposedly medium like mobility makes it unplayable...

 

The amx 65t is the direct result of careless development. 


Edited by KillingJoker, 08 May 2018 - 07:01 PM.


Aikl #2 Posted 08 May 2018 - 07:07 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostKillingJoker, on 08 May 2018 - 05:59 PM, said:

(...)

The amx 65t is the direct result of careless development. 

 

Or careful creation of free-XP traps. There's a reason why there are some really terrible tanks in just about every line. It's not because of bad balancing or carelessness.

 

Not that it really applies to the 65t. The T9 is supposed to be decent, but the T10 is kind of 'meh'. That could be considered bad game design - it's not really worth effort involved in grinding a crappy tank both at T7 and T8.



KillingJoker #3 Posted 08 May 2018 - 07:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32171 battles
  • 1,320
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View PostAikl, on 08 May 2018 - 07:07 PM, said:

 

Or careful creation of free-XP traps. There's a reason why there are some really terrible tanks in just about every line. It's not because of bad balancing or carelessness.

 

Not that it really applies to the 65t. The T9 is supposed to be decent, but the T10 is kind of 'meh'. That could be considered bad game design - it's not really worth effort involved in grinding a crappy tank both at T7 and T8.

 

Maybe your right, maybe they do it on purpose, but in the case of the Tier 7 is not as bad as people say... when played with the 105mm gun the amx m4 45 can be interesting because of the alpha damage, its a decent support heavy...

 

but this amx 65t is just unplayable, its not a case of a tank that is poor and requires more "mastery", i would the say the amx m 45 mle, does require more mastery, but its playable....

 

the amx 65t is unplayable, its broken... the terrain resistance numbers they gave to the tank makes it top speed not be 40, but ratter 24 kph...

 

24 kph on a tank that is poorly armored in the hull, and on the sides...  its no surprise everyone say its the worse tier 8 tank. 

 

 



Balc0ra #4 Posted 08 May 2018 - 07:41 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64443 battles
  • 15,457
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Tho the top turret was worse IMO, and I did stick to the stock one. Mobility was one of the main reasons I sold it instantly. I don't want it to be a speed demon either. But when you see 20 to 24 on the speed on flat terrain, and you bleed speed like crazy the second you turn. It's a bit of a waste. It should be able to do 50, not 25. Even if it takes over a min to get up there. And it should get it's ground resistance buffed, so it don't bleed it so badly. I've might have kept it around if it could move a bit more. As it's armor is not that effective that you should struggle to keep up with a T95 out of cap.

_6i6_ #5 Posted 08 May 2018 - 07:43 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5964 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View PostKillingJoker, on 08 May 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

 

Maybe your right, maybe they do it on purpose, but in the case of the Tier 7 is not as bad as people say... when played with the 105mm gun the amx m4 45 can be interesting because of the alpha damage, its a decent support heavy...

 

but this amx 65t is just unplayable, its not a case of a tank that is poor and requires more "mastery", i would the say the amx m 45 mle, does require more mastery, but its playable....

 

the amx 65t is unplayable, its broken... the terrain resistance numbers they gave to the tank makes it top speed not be 40, but ratter 24 kph...

 

24 kph on a tank that is poorly armored in the hull, and on the sides...  its no surprise everyone say its the worse tier 8 tank. 

 

 

 

worse than tiger ii??
 

btw...it depresses me to read all these negative comments regarding tiers VIII and up...just when i was starting to get a bit better at the game at tiers IV-VII and thinking of playing more tier VIII...

you guys think this situation will go on or is there some light in the tunnel?


 

KillingJoker #6 Posted 08 May 2018 - 08:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32171 battles
  • 1,320
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View Post_6i6_, on 08 May 2018 - 07:43 PM, said:

 

worse than tiger ii??

 

the Tiger 2 have better mobility, better gun , better handling, better frontal hull armor.... better accuracy

 

the Tiger 2 despite somehow being not great... it demands a bit of "mastery" and mature play to be efficient... is playable...

 

the amx 65t is unplayable as a heavy tank... and by unplayable, i mean, its completely useless

you have no armor, you will climb hills slower than heavies with much worse power to weight... you will reach your top speed of 24kph on himmelsdorf flat surfaces...

and you will climb hills slower than super heavies... in a very poorly armored tank, with a poor set of guns with poor gun handling.

 

Its a bad, broken tank. 

 

right now, i am seriously thinking in buying gold only to convert experience to not having to play 200 games to unlock the tier 9

because this is ridiculous...

 



tmp #7 Posted 08 May 2018 - 08:21 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 92060 battles
  • 174
  • [BADDY] BADDY
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

I managed to tease 65t to 28 kph on medium terrain in training room.  This matches ground resistance (to the best of my knowledge) of 2.40, which according to tanks.gg should be soft terrain resistance.  Oops, WG.


 

Steep climbs are more a function of power-to-weight ratio than terrain resistance, and 65t is not actually terribly bad at that.  On milder inclines terrain resistance omnomnoms your engine power, of course.



KillingJoker #8 Posted 08 May 2018 - 08:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32171 battles
  • 1,320
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View Posttmp, on 08 May 2018 - 08:21 PM, said:

I managed to tease 65t to 28 kph on medium terrain in training room.  This matches ground resistance (to the best of my knowledge) of 2.40, which according to tanks.gg should be soft terrain resistance.  Oops, WG.


 

Steep climbs are more a function of power-to-weight ratio than terrain resistance, and 65t is not actually terribly bad at that.  On milder inclines terrain resistance omnomnoms your engine power, of course.

 

Makes sense because a Maus have 1,05 terrain resistance on hard level per example, while the amx 65t have the incredible 1,50 on hard soil

 

so that explains why the power to weight on paper is even better than some mediums, and it suposedly should go 40 kph as top speed, but it ends up not going faster than 24kph... because it does have a broken terrain resistance level of 1,50... 

 

The engine power and the weight doesnt mean nothing for the equation, i realize its all about the terrain resistance.



tmp #9 Posted 08 May 2018 - 08:53 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 92060 battles
  • 174
  • [BADDY] BADDY
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
It was hard to test accurately, but I'm pretty sure that 65t terrain resistance on hard terrain is more like 2 than 1.5 - medium terrain one seems to be the one for soft terrain on tanks.gg, hard terrain is only slightly better when tested and soft terrain is only slightly worse.  It's universally terrible.

KillingJoker #10 Posted 08 May 2018 - 11:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32171 battles
  • 1,320
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

Im done with it...

 

I managed to have a lucky master on lakeville valley and free exp it for the tier 9 

 



Shaade_Silentpaw #11 Posted 09 May 2018 - 12:07 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22026 battles
  • 355
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015
I'm pretty sure it's intentional, considering they just buffed the previous tiers and left the AMX 65t alone.

malachi6 #12 Posted 09 May 2018 - 02:30 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 49264 battles
  • 3,238
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
Odd how this terrible tank is the lead in to the rather good tier 9.  One would think WG were using it to encourage the spending of money.

RamRaid90 #13 Posted 09 May 2018 - 05:02 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20586 battles
  • 6,286
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postmalachi6, on 09 May 2018 - 01:30 AM, said:

Odd how this terrible tank is the lead in to the rather good tier 9.  One would think WG were using it to encourage the spending of money.

 

A business encouraging you to spend money?

 

WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?!?!



SuperOlsson #14 Posted 09 May 2018 - 06:08 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21141 battles
  • 895
  • [E-5OM] E-5OM
  • Member since:
    08-07-2012
Maybe i haven't played it enough but i'd AMX 65t to be quite decent, though i have only 6 random battles in it so far.  I find it to be quite strong for defense in frontline mode though.

KillingJoker #15 Posted 09 May 2018 - 08:25 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32171 battles
  • 1,320
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View PostSuperOlsson, on 09 May 2018 - 06:08 AM, said:

Maybe i haven't played it enough but i'd AMX 65t to be quite decent, though i have only 6 random battles in it so far.  I find it to be quite strong for defense in frontline mode though.

 

If you manage to keep the distance for your enemies only exposing the turret, and not needing to use mobility at all, yest, its decent...

i got my master defending the valley alone, against muppets who instead of trying to flank me, were basicly missing shots in my turret weakspot

 

The lack of mobility absolutely kills the tank, makes you an easy target and reduces way to much your chances of getting opportunities to get damage

only when you are well positioned and the enemies come all in front of you, and they are really bad players, you might get some luck... other than that...

its a broken tank...



DracheimFlug #16 Posted 09 May 2018 - 08:59 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8957 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014
It is true... the AMX 65t is crazy strong against poison, and surprisingly vulnerable to magic. This should be fixed immediately! :izmena:

StinkyStonky #17 Posted 09 May 2018 - 09:12 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26977 battles
  • 1,921
  • [H5VOC] H5VOC
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View PostKillingJoker, on 08 May 2018 - 05:59 PM, said:

this tank is for me an example that the guys responsible for giving it numbers, dont play the game they didnt even played the tank

because this tank is unplayable, the way it is right now... its unplayable

I find it hilarious when people with no knowledge or experience of software development (never mind game development or balancing) make comments like this.

 



KillingJoker #18 Posted 09 May 2018 - 09:27 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32171 battles
  • 1,320
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

View PostStinkyStonky, on 09 May 2018 - 09:12 AM, said:

I find it hilarious when people with no knowledge or experience of software development (never mind game development or balancing) make comments like this.

 

 

Oh I am so sorry if my comment offended you...my apologies



somegras #19 Posted 09 May 2018 - 09:50 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 48506 battles
  • 8,703
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

The tank is quite playable with the top gun and turret. Playing with the stock turret gives you an abysmal 3s aimtime with 300 alpha, while the top gun handles very well for having 400 alpha. The armour on the top turret wasnt even that bad. I quite enjoyed the tank, actually.

 

Besides, while the mobility might be mediocre its far from unplayable.


Edited by somegras, 09 May 2018 - 09:52 AM.


SeekerKuba #20 Posted 09 May 2018 - 10:30 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31685 battles
  • 1,171
  • Member since:
    11-08-2012

With liberte ( stock ) turrent and 100mm gun in full gold mode i managed to 3 mark  this trash tank yesterday. It took me 75 battles with following stats:

2188 dmg,

664 spotdmg,

1,22 spot,

wr 62,5% and

0,63 armor indicator LOL

 

Looks like 263 pen and armored turret is what makes this tank playable - not with pleasure ofc but playable...

 


Edited by SeekerKuba, 09 May 2018 - 10:30 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users