Jump to content


[3]


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

ID_100 #1 Posted 13 June 2018 - 05:28 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26685 battles
  • 117
  • [IMAGE] IMAGE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014

 

Czolg T wz51

T26E3 Eagle 7

T-34 shielded

 

 

Czolg T wz51 -  Nerf

 

DPM  (2059.4 / 1,955 ) 

ROF (4.63 / 4.44) 

AIM (2.68 / 2.80 ) 

Dispersion  (0.36 / 0.38) 

Turret Traverse ( 29.2 / 28 )


Edited by ID_100, 13 June 2018 - 05:42 AM.


ID_100 #2 Posted 13 June 2018 - 06:34 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26685 battles
  • 117
  • [IMAGE] IMAGE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014

They removed from tankopedia

 

T26E3 Eagle 7 (T VII)

Info

 

Czolg T wz51 (T VIII)

Info

 

T-34 shielded (T V)

Info

 


Edited by ID_100, 13 June 2018 - 08:09 AM.


undutchable80 #3 Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:15 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 8375 battles
  • 2,141
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014
Was the DPM nerf really necessary? The rest of the nerfs look fine to me, but I dont own a Defender so cant compare those two...

ID_100 #4 Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:35 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26685 battles
  • 117
  • [IMAGE] IMAGE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014

View Postundutchable80, on 13 June 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Was the DPM nerf really necessary? The rest of the nerfs look fine to me, but I dont own a Defender so cant compare those two...

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

 

4

 



LordMuffin #5 Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:49 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48529 battles
  • 11,268
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostID_100, on 13 June 2018 - 07:35 AM, said:

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

 

4

 

That T8, so balanced.

We make a new Defender for T8, then we upgrade it. Because that will surely be balanced.

More or less.

Need an armour model for a more detailed analysis.



Simeon85 #6 Posted 13 June 2018 - 09:17 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,695
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostLordMuffin, on 13 June 2018 - 07:49 AM, said:

Need an armour model for a more detailed analysis.

 

Basically this, could be fine if it has frontal weakspots that other tier 8s can reliably pen. 



NoobySkooby #7 Posted 13 June 2018 - 09:21 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 15151 battles
  • 3,829
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011
Either keep the new Polish tank as it os or release the damn Defender, which according to most is a POS anyway, fed up of this game of hype and disappointment they play with us all.

Simeon85 #8 Posted 13 June 2018 - 09:45 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,695
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013
WG don't need to make this thing OP, it will sell even if it's weak because of the huge Polish community and because people will want to buy it to train new crews for the new line. 

DuncaN_101 #9 Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:28 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 53836 battles
  • 2,071
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

I'm disappointed... An id100 thread with text In It :(


Edited by DuncaN_101, 13 June 2018 - 11:29 AM.


fwhaatpiraat #10 Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 49621 battles
  • 854
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013
Could those changes be the result of crew/equipment/consumables?

Balc0ra #11 Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:38 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67441 battles
  • 17,169
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postundutchable80, on 13 June 2018 - 07:15 AM, said:

Was the DPM nerf really necessary? The rest of the nerfs look fine to me, but I dont own a Defender so cant compare those two...

 

When they showed the tank for the first time. They said they had two variants in mind they wanted to test. One with armor, low mobility and low dpm. And one with mobility, low armor and more dpm. This is armor and dpm with good mobility for a HT with that hull armor "on paper" vs the Defender even. So.. yeah. They def need to slap it more if this is the variant they want. 

Edited by Balc0ra, 13 June 2018 - 11:38 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users