Jump to content


FV4005 "[edited]barn" unplayble crap?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

ChristOfTheAbyss #21 Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-22-2019

View PostB_Complex, on 04 January 2020 - 05:23 PM, said:

im not sure you can :) but let me brake it down to you as if you were a 6 year old. so here goes: 

 

Speed: FV215 34.3 reverse 12     FV4005 32 reverse 8 

Turret Armor: FV215 254 / 177 / 31       FV4005 14 / 14 / 14

Hull armor: FV215 152 / 50 / 76             FV4005 76/50/38

 

Camo stationary rating: FV215  6.4         FV4005 1.37

 

So all i see is you unable to read. Try not to miss school anymore :)

 

 

Fine lets go to your level.

Top speed doesnt matter if you cant achieve it. Shitbarn is far more mobile just alone based on the p/w.

Like I said, armour does not work on 183. Its as good as useless.

Yes, camo is better, but you said HIGH camo value, which that isnt. Both could aswell be 0. That's how useless those are.

 

So did I spell it out for you clear enough?



B_Complex #22 Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:41 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20338 battles
  • 57
  • [_FNS_] _FNS_
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013

View PostChristOfTheAbyss, on 04 January 2020 - 04:29 PM, said:

 

Fine lets go to your level.

Top speed doesnt matter if you cant achieve it. Shitbarn is far more mobile just alone based on the p/w.

Like I said, armour does not work on 183. Its as good as useless.

Yes, camo is better, but you said HIGH camo value, which that isnt. Both could aswell be 0. That's how useless those are.

 

So did I spell it out for you clear enough?

Well lets go even further down then  top speed dose matter coz of lower p/w 183 takes longer to achieve it however over X distance it will be superior than FV4005 so statement that 183 faster is factually correct . Armor dose work it bounces off shoots and wont let HE to ruin crew throughout once again simply coz 254 is grater than 14 this is factually correct. Camo values are low on both vehicles however with crew and netting that  makes a huge difference for TD so this is also factually correct. So your argument is based on nothing but your personal opinion and has 0 facts to it. as said earlier don't miss school :)



ChristOfTheAbyss #23 Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-22-2019

View PostB_Complex, on 04 January 2020 - 05:41 PM, said:

Well lets go even further down then  top speed dose matter coz of lower p/w 183 takes longer to achieve it however over X distance it will be superior than FV4005 so statement that 183 faster is factually correct . Armor dose work it bounces off shoots and wont let HE to ruin crew throughout once again simply coz 254 is grater than 14 this is factually correct. Camo values are low on both vehicles however with crew and netting that  makes a huge difference for TD so this is also factually correct. So your argument is based on nothing but your personal opinion and has 0 facts to it. as said earlier don't miss school :)

 

In no distance will it be better. It will lose its speed far more every time you turn. There's no hard surface straight long enough in the game to have it be faster, at least not the way the game is played.

 

Nope, you have to be facing some really bad players for that armour to work. It does not bounce any shots(shots, not shoots). He it does take better, but playing Shitbard you've already made a mistake for allowing them to prepare to shoot you.

 

Nope, 6 compared to 1 is no huge difference. Barely tanks length difference being spotted in the open. And still, faaar from being high like you claimed.

 

Not gonna miss school, am a teacher after all.



B_Complex #24 Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:54 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20338 battles
  • 57
  • [_FNS_] _FNS_
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013

View PostChristOfTheAbyss, on 04 January 2020 - 04:49 PM, said:

 

In no distance will it be better. It will lose its speed far more every time you turn. There's no hard surface straight long enough in the game to have it be faster, at least not the way the game is played.

 

Nope, you have to be facing some really bad players for that armour to work. It does not bounce any shots(shots, not shoots). He it does take better, but playing Shitbard you've already made a mistake for allowing them to prepare to shoot you.

 

Nope, 6 compared to 1 is no huge difference. Barely tanks length difference being spotted in the open. And still, faaar from being high like you claimed.

 

Not gonna miss school, am a teacher after all.

Teacher incapable of reading and accepting factual comparison stats in video game? :)



the_nebuchadnezzar #25 Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:59 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 56062 battles
  • 1,750
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013
FV4005 should be nerfed even further. That tank is pure gancer for the game and I'm happy when I see people crying cause they are frustated when playing it... 

Nitro_Tank #26 Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:00 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7596 battles
  • 324
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View Postthe_nebuchadnezzar, on 04 January 2020 - 04:59 PM, said:

FV4005 should be nerfed even further. That tank is pure gancer for the game and I'm happy when I see people crying cause they are frustated when playing it... 

bless you sir, a man with taste and brains



ChristOfTheAbyss #27 Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-22-2019

View PostB_Complex, on 04 January 2020 - 05:54 PM, said:

Teacher incapable of reading and accepting factual comparison stats in video game? :)

 

Factual comparison without you understanding the facts? I already explained why 183 will be slower. Go test it in a training room if you dont believe me. If you do Im pretty sure we wont be seeing you after that. Like most they go quite silent when proven to be wrong.

 

Also, well done not even trying to have a counter argument on what I said. Factual counter argument.



unhappy_bunny #28 Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:06 PM

    Brigadier

  • Moderator
  • 20651 battles
  • 4,087
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

Guys and Gals,

This thread is in danger of heading into the woodchipper.

Keep it constructive, stop with the petty squabbles and insults or the puppy gets it its goodnight Vienna.



ChristOfTheAbyss #29 Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-22-2019

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 04 January 2020 - 06:06 PM, said:

Guys and Gals,

This thread is in danger of heading into the woodchipper.

Keep it constructive, stop with the petty squabbles and insults or the puppy gets it its goodnight Vienna.

 

So discussing how tanks work is petty? Wont stop discussing about that, thats what the forum is for.



B_Complex #30 Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:08 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20338 battles
  • 57
  • [_FNS_] _FNS_
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013

View PostChristOfTheAbyss, on 04 January 2020 - 05:01 PM, said:

 

Factual comparison without you understanding the facts? I already explained why 183 will be slower. Go test it in a training room if you dont believe me. If you do Im pretty sure we wont be seeing you after that. Like most they go quite silent when proven to be wrong.

 

Also, well done not even trying to have a counter argument on what I said. Factual counter argument.

Well so far the only "fact" you provided is your personal opinion. I had pleasure of trying out 183 hence i can make a claim that its far superior, once again also supported by factual stats as evidence to that claim. 



ChristOfTheAbyss #31 Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    07-22-2019

View PostB_Complex, on 04 January 2020 - 06:08 PM, said:

Well so far the only "fact" you provided is your personal opinion. I had pleasure of trying out 183 hence i can make a claim that its far superior, once again also supported by factual stats as evidence to that claim. 

 

Nope, i explained how the tanks work based on their stats. My opinion has nothing to do with that. Am just able to understand how those stats work.

 

I own both, played hundreds of games on both. And my experience backs up what I told you about the stats.

 

Again, go to training room and race those two against eachother. Then come back and post the replay and we will see. That would be the evidence you so much want to find.



Cobra6 #32 Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:33 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16562 battles
  • 18,038
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

It's fine, you might as well shoot AP, among the highest pen in the game and still an insane amount of damage.

 

Cobra 6



ThorgrimBrenadim #33 Posted 04 January 2020 - 08:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 36215 battles
  • 823
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View Postthe_nebuchadnezzar, on 04 January 2020 - 05:59 PM, said:

FV4005 should be nerfed even further. That tank is pure gancer for the game and I'm happy when I see people crying cause they are frustated when playing it... 

 

So how do you feel about the ISU-152 ? or the T-49 both can hit you for over 800 per shot. One has better armour is a smaller target and reloads faster the other is fast has way better camo and still reloads quicker.

 

So when do you want these and many more tanks nerfed ?

 

The FV4005 was slow and now is way way too slow especially in reverse, it's load time is one of the slowest in the game, it has virtually no armour and to top it off is a large target.

 

Maybe to keep you happy we should just make your tanks invincible ( oh then everyone can complain and then from your logic you get nerfed from the game, now that would not be fair would it ? The FV4005 needs line of sight so is putting itself in danger every shot it's aim time is slow leaving it exposed for a longer period as well ).

 

I know lets change the FV4005 and put the auto loader gun in they where first considering using in the real FV4005. After all auto loaders and double barrels are the in thing the cool trendy tanks of WoT these days.

 

I hate arty but I do not have issues with the Fv4005 because it has to direct fire and is so easy when few around it or alone to flanking due to that slow speed and even slower reload.



Ratriq #34 Posted 04 January 2020 - 08:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6570 battles
  • 615
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013
Good, if it's unplayable fewer people will want it, it's already bad that this tank shouldn't even exist at tier 10 and that's coming from a derp and KV-2 lover.

If it's going to be "fixed" with buffs and all that then the alpha must be nerfed.

Cobra6 #35 Posted 04 January 2020 - 08:24 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16562 battles
  • 18,038
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostThorgrimBrenadim, on 04 January 2020 - 07:05 PM, said:

 

So how do you feel about the ISU-152 ? or the T-49 both can hit you for over 800 per shot.

 

Fine, since 800 and even 900 is not one-shotting many same tier tanks, certainly not at tier 9. The SU-152 might one shot some tanks if it gets lucky but it has no turret, is big and slow so if you get caught by *that*, it's really your own mistake.

In all my battles I've never been one-shotted by an SU-152 as far as I can remember.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 04 January 2020 - 08:32 PM.


shikaka9 #36 Posted 04 January 2020 - 09:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 74979 battles
  • 1,803
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 04 January 2020 - 05:06 PM, said:

Guys and Gals,

This thread is in danger of heading into the woodchipper.

Keep it constructive, stop with the petty squabbles and insults or the puppy gets it its goodnight Vienna.

?????????????????????



ThorgrimBrenadim #37 Posted 04 January 2020 - 09:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 36215 battles
  • 823
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View PostCobra6, on 04 January 2020 - 08:24 PM, said:

 

Fine, since 800 and even 900 is not one-shotting many same tier tanks, certainly not at tier 9. The SU-152 might one shot some tanks if it gets lucky but it has no turret, is big and slow so if you get caught by *that*, it's really your own mistake.

In all my battles I've never been one-shotted by an SU-152 as far as I can remember.

 

Cobra 6

 

But they have faster reload 152 has better armour. You seem to not like a tank that is a one trick pony. I got one shot by one last week in my T54 so what I was trying to bait him into the miss and return two shots into him. I most likely moved a fraction to far he hit my turret a damn good shot by him.

I never ever thought it was OP or needed to be nerfed after all if he had missed I would have taken a big chunk from his health. A few one shot capable tanks is not a problem as long as they have a few big weaknesses and the FV4005 has a lot of BIG weaknesses.

At least an FV4005 driver/player has to have some skill as well as RNG luck unlike arty. Now if we started seeing 3 per game even though I love mine i would agree fully in a limit of max one per team in random games.

No I have not to my memory been one shot by  a 152 but believe me one shot seriously impacts your game even when you are a higher tier tank. two shots you are either dead in many or on such low health that all you can do is try and snipe from the back as an enemy sneezing near you would finish you off.

I love taking on an FV4005 when they have little to no support, you  may get unlucky and them very lucky once every blue moon but the norm is no different than taking on an arty at close range they are just an XP pinata.



the_nebuchadnezzar #38 Posted 04 January 2020 - 09:18 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 56062 battles
  • 1,750
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostThorgrimBrenadim, on 04 January 2020 - 07:05 PM, said:

 

So how do you feel about the ISU-152 ? or the T-49 both can hit you for over 800 per shot. One has better armour is a smaller target and reloads faster the other is fast has way better camo and still reloads quicker.

 

So when do you want these and many more tanks nerfed ?

 

The FV4005 was slow and now is way way too slow especially in reverse, it's load time is one of the slowest in the game, it has virtually no armour and to top it off is a large target.

 

Maybe to keep you happy we should just make your tanks invincible ( oh then everyone can complain and then from your logic you get nerfed from the game, now that would not be fair would it ? The FV4005 needs line of sight so is putting itself in danger every shot it's aim time is slow leaving it exposed for a longer period as well ).

 

I know lets change the FV4005 and put the auto loader gun in they where first considering using in the real FV4005. After all auto loaders and double barrels are the in thing the cool trendy tanks of WoT these days.

 

I hate arty but I do not have issues with the Fv4005 because it has to direct fire and is so easy when few around it or alone to flanking due to that slow speed and even slower reload.

Hetzer can one shot tanks at tier 4 and there are sone few other examples, but FV4005 can do that at tier 10 which is beyond stupid. But like I said, I enjoy seeing FV4005 drivers crying cause their tank sucks...



ThorgrimBrenadim #39 Posted 04 January 2020 - 10:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 36215 battles
  • 823
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View Postthe_nebuchadnezzar, on 04 January 2020 - 09:18 PM, said:

Hetzer can one shot tanks at tier 4 and there are sone few other examples, but FV4005 can do that at tier 10 which is beyond stupid. But like I said, I enjoy seeing FV4005 drivers crying cause their tank sucks...

So it's ok to one shot a tank at some tiers but not others ! Logic escapes many people doesn't it.

 

It is either ok at all tiers or at no tiers. It is not beyond stupid it is very logical now if the FV was fast if it had good armour etc then yes that would be beyond stupid as it would have few if any weaknesses. Any player who enjoys seeing other players as you say cry just how and why should anyone show such a player who thinks that is fine any respect at all?



DangerMouse #40 Posted 04 January 2020 - 10:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 30941 battles
  • 1,379
  • [FLOG] FLOG
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010
Well is was crap so got it's name they then buffed it and it was not crap so we played it, it then became popular so they nerfed it back to worse than before the buffs, go figure.

Edited by DangerMouse, 04 January 2020 - 10:44 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users