Jump to content


Why do heavies have weaker armour than mediums?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

Argedeava #1 Posted 05 August 2018 - 07:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30521 battles
  • 512
  • [GN-R] GN-R
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

There`s a "genereal oppinion" heavily sustained by trolls on this forum that heavy tanks should have weakspot as the apex of their intellingece is to aim pixels via RGN.

There are also lots of ingame medium or even lights with turrets better than many heavies.

There is also gold ammunition.

Why is it supposed a heavy tank to be pennetrable upfront by any pimpy tank?



Sfinski #2 Posted 05 August 2018 - 07:57 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31704 battles
  • 2,612
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013
Because being pennable is balanced. 

unrealname #3 Posted 05 August 2018 - 07:59 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22370 battles
  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    10-31-2013
there shouldnt be tanks without a  frontal weakspots, but nowadays balancing deprtment has gone a bit mad, if you ask me. I had enough fun in AW open beta, trying to pen any high tier MBT frontally was an actual pixel hunt, because there were no frontal weakspots on them, apart from an actual pixel size penetrable areas, because of that at the end of the day everyone resorted to spam HE at each other, what a great fun was that. But looking at wot nowadays, we are not far off from that, if  you are not willing to fire some premium shells, then there is no other option as to spam HE if you are driving some slow HT for example. 

BR33K1_PAWAH #4 Posted 05 August 2018 - 08:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3580 battles
  • 529
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    04-11-2018

View PostArgedeava, on 05 August 2018 - 09:45 AM, said:

Why is it supposed a heavy tank to be pennetrable upfront by any pimpy tank?

 

Because unpenetrable armor is toxic.

 

And if you cant tank shots in your heavy then the problem is you, not your vehicle.



Slyspy #5 Posted 05 August 2018 - 08:10 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14202 battles
  • 16,689
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
Nice opening post, got better replies than it deserves.

Argedeava #6 Posted 05 August 2018 - 08:19 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30521 battles
  • 512
  • [GN-R] GN-R
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostSlyspy, on 05 August 2018 - 08:10 AM, said:

Nice opening post, got better replies than it deserves.

 

Not nicer than your smile. Are you the trumpet guy here?



pihip #7 Posted 05 August 2018 - 08:35 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14197 battles
  • 884
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostArgedeava, on 05 August 2018 - 07:45 AM, said:

Why is it supposed a heavy tank to be pennetrable upfront by any pimpy tank?

Weakspots are a form of game balance, one especially important in the many corridor maps we have to deal with every time we play this game. People talked trash of the VK 168.01 because it has too many weakspots for a superheavy, yet aberrations like VK 100.01, Blyatject 268 v4, the upcoming Object 726 (top prize of the new personal missions) get little salt. Double standards?

I'm actually surprised the 50TP prototyp has a fairly weak hull as tradeoff for its strong turret and powerful gun. Perhaps there is still hope? :ohmy:

CircleOfSorrow #8 Posted 05 August 2018 - 08:38 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29236 battles
  • 2,136
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View Postunrealname, on 05 August 2018 - 06:59 AM, said:

there shouldnt be tanks without a  frontal weakspots, but nowadays balancing deprtment has gone a bit mad, if you ask me. I had enough fun in AW open beta, trying to pen any high tier MBT frontally was an actual pixel hunt, because there were no frontal weakspots on them, apart from an actual pixel size penetrable areas, because of that at the end of the day everyone resorted to spam HE at each other, what a great fun was that. But looking at wot nowadays, we are not far off from that, if  you are not willing to fire some premium shells, then there is no other option as to spam HE if you are driving some slow HT for example. 

 

I seem to remember small fast vehicles (were they classed as ATVs?!) that could get around an MBT and destroy them with high RoF autocannons.  MBTs soon learnt to get their rear to a solid object when one of the little blighters was spotted.

Argedeava #9 Posted 05 August 2018 - 08:38 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30521 battles
  • 512
  • [GN-R] GN-R
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View Postpihip, on 05 August 2018 - 08:35 AM, said:


Weakspots are a form of game balance, one especially important in the many corridor maps we have to deal with every time we play this game. People talked trash of the VK 168.01 because it has too many weakspots for a superheavy, yet aberrations like VK 100.01, Blyatject 268 v4, the upcoming Object 726 (top prize of the new personal missions) get little salt. Double standards?

I'm actually surprised the 50TP prototyp has a fairly weak hull as tradeoff for its strong turret and powerful gun. Perhaps there is still hope? :ohmy:

 

Right, nothing should stop the gamebalance, not even tank classes!

Beltalowda #10 Posted 05 August 2018 - 08:55 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 61943 battles
  • 772
  • Member since:
    03-02-2011

View PostArgedeava, on 05 August 2018 - 07:19 AM, said:

 

Not nicer than your smile. Are you the trumpet guy here?

 

the trumpet guy is epic :)

SiliconSidewinder #11 Posted 05 August 2018 - 09:08 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27570 battles
  • 4,310
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

well....to be quiet frank tank classification is a wonky thing and not as tight fit as you want it to be.

the super pershing for example is classified as a medium but is more close to a heavy in gameplay.

and before you complain, this is actually a historical thing, because everyone classed his tank how ever he thought right.

 

Some tanks had even different classifications, the germans for example considered the Panther as a medium tank while the russian classed it a heavy.

 

Some Tanks are tired wrong in game, for what ever reasons, and would be more fitting a tier higher or lower.

In the end it all comes down to how you use the tanks and wether they can be played succesfully or not.

 

 

 



BravelyRanAway #12 Posted 05 August 2018 - 09:10 AM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 22547 battles
  • 9,319
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostArgedeava, on 05 August 2018 - 07:19 AM, said:

Not nicer than your smile. Are you the trumpet guy here?

Trombone not trumpet. :)



LordMuffin #13 Posted 05 August 2018 - 10:45 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48094 battles
  • 11,105
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostArgedeava, on 05 August 2018 - 08:38 AM, said:

 

Right, nothing should stop the gamebalance, not even tank classes!

Correct. Game balance trumps everything.



Dava_117 #14 Posted 05 August 2018 - 11:04 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19443 battles
  • 3,285
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostArgedeava, on 05 August 2018 - 07:45 AM, said:

There`s a "genereal oppinion" heavily sustained by trolls on this forum that heavy tanks should have weakspot as the apex of their intellingece is to aim pixels via RGN.

There are also lots of ingame medium or even lights with turrets better than many heavies.

There is also gold ammunition.

Why is it supposed a heavy tank to be pennetrable upfront by any pimpy tank?

 

Why do you think those mediums and light should not have weackspot too?

 

Every tank should have frontal weackspots the should be pennable by lower tier: MG port, cupolas, LFP, overmatchable zone. 

268v4 wouldn't bee so OP with a 150mm cupola, the same goes, on a lower extent, on 430U: 300mm cupolas are too much over that turret and UFP.



Wintermute_1 #15 Posted 05 August 2018 - 11:51 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 44215 battles
  • 1,562
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013
Because when WG decided to release a Gazillion different tanks they needed to go through every possible combination to make them vaguely different. That results in some heavies as soft as kittens and some mediums with turrets made of pure neutron star.

Jigabachi #16 Posted 05 August 2018 - 12:19 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 19,018
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostArgedeava, on 05 August 2018 - 10:39 AM, said:

Trolls see eachother beautifull.

Thanks for proving my point. Again.


Edited by Jigabachi, 05 August 2018 - 12:19 PM.


NoobySkooby #17 Posted 05 August 2018 - 12:21 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12969 battles
  • 2,770
  • [TFMB] TFMB
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View Postpihip, on 05 August 2018 - 08:35 AM, said:


Weakspots are a form of game balance, one especially important in the many corridor maps we have to deal with every time we play this game. People talked trash of the VK 168.01 because it has too many weakspots for a superheavy, yet aberrations like VK 100.01, Blyatject 268 v4, the upcoming Object 726 (top prize of the new personal missions) get little salt. Double standards?

I'm actually surprised the 50TP prototyp has a fairly weak hull as tradeoff for its strong turret and powerful gun. Perhaps there is still hope? :ohmy:

 

Still hope it may get a buff, lol

Mko #18 Posted 05 August 2018 - 12:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16132 battles
  • 1,188
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010

Why weakspots are needed or good:

Maps don't offer enough flanking opportunities, as on most maps, tanks are funneled into corridors and have to face one another frontally.

You have vehicles of various tiers facing each other, so they need to have some weakspots so that they can fight each other. If they couldn't fight each other, the game would be boring and players wouldn't stay or be would be leaving.

Weakspots make the game interesting and are an element which adds to the game's skill-based side.

There's probably more reasons, but this is enough to make a point.

 

Anyway, these points also put into perspective how weakspotless heavies, corridor maps, premium ammo, and massive RNG are bad for the game in the long run.

 

Heavy tanks should have some strengths and weaknesses. Same for medium tanks and all other classes. Overall, it should be balanced. Of course when WG is not that interested in making the game properly balanced, and when they do everything they can (including disrupting the balance and making tanks OP on purpose) to make more money, you end up with a game that is not properly balanced. Furthermore, it's not all about the turret armor.



WindSplitter1 #19 Posted 05 August 2018 - 01:46 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15937 battles
  • 2,560
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostArgedeava, on 05 August 2018 - 06:45 AM, said:

There`s a "genereal oppinion" heavily sustained by trolls on this forum - I disagree with you and your thesis is that I am a troll? 3/10

 

that heavy tanks should have weakspot - Every vehicle has weak points. Why on earth would Heavies be the exception?

 

as the apex of their intellingece is to aim pixels via RGN. - *RNG. Apart from that I can agree with you on this point

 

There are also lots of ingame medium - And? Your point being?

 

or even lights with turrets better than many heavies.- Type 62 Gai and T-100 are two. TWO is not many. Also, the only HT that has a piss poor turret I can think of is the 50B. Again, that's not "many"

 

There is also gold ammunition. - Which heavies carry too and spam at each other as all classes are able to. Once more, I fail to see the issue.

 

Why is it supposed a heavy tank to be pennetrable upfront by any pimpy tank? - Because it's the way it's supposed to be?

 

Oh, look. Another Disciple of Murazor preaching his Heavytankism religion.



Argedeava #20 Posted 05 August 2018 - 08:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30521 battles
  • 512
  • [GN-R] GN-R
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostSiliconSidewinder, on 05 August 2018 - 09:08 AM, said:

well....to be quiet frank tank classification is a wonky thing and not as tight fit as you want it to be.

the super pershing for example is classified as a medium but is more close to a heavy in gameplay.

and before you complain, this is actually a historical thing, because everyone classed his tank how ever he thought right.

 

Some tanks had even different classifications, the germans for example considered the Panther as a medium tank while the russian classed it a heavy.

 

Some Tanks are tired wrong in game, for what ever reasons, and would be more fitting a tier higher or lower.

In the end it all comes down to how you use the tanks and wether they can be played succesfully or not.

 

 

 

 

Yes, all is relative. Success is the only point of reffrence.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users