Jump to content


ST-II, worst t10 heavy. Change my mind.

worst t10 heavy

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

HerrWizo #61 Posted 05 February 2020 - 09:53 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 40323 battles
  • 137
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    08-07-2014

View PostChristOfTheAbyss, on 05 February 2020 - 03:29 AM, said:


Already countered that claim by noting that Type 5 has better winrates than many heavies do. And those worse heavies than type 5 are better than ST-II, which makes Type 5 better too.

 

Worst T10 heavies are Type 5 and IS-4, hands down. Closely followed by E-100 (the only T10 I ever sold, even before playing 50 games in it). Replaced the latter with 60TP, never looked back. No comparison.



SirTogII #62 Posted 05 February 2020 - 03:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 50154 battles
  • 724
  • [REQT] REQT
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012
Have only played it in Team Clash but it performs way better than expected there. Not OP in any way but able and fun to play (3-4k dmg in 7-7 not uncommon). Of course youre probably a higher skilled player than I am and the skill cap on the tank is lower than a mobile heavy like the 277, but imh it’s not bad at all. 

Blubba #63 Posted 05 February 2020 - 09:15 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 62752 battles
  • 2,538
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

Block Quote

ST-II, worst t10 heavy. Change my mind.

 

 

Look into my eyes, look into my eyes. The eyes the eyes. Not around the eyes, look directly into my eyes.

3...2...1 and you're und.....

 

....now how do you feel?



MightyBalls_2 #64 Posted 06 February 2020 - 09:53 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11203 battles
  • 210
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View Postshikaka9, on 02 February 2020 - 09:41 AM, said:

all double barreled are 1 tier to high :)

 

I like the IS-2 and IS-3 versions. The weakest is the tier X which is stupid because the end game should always be the best, else why grind to it?



roboslash #65 Posted 06 February 2020 - 12:30 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12088 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    04-11-2012

View PostMightyBalls_2, on 06 February 2020 - 09:53 AM, said:

 

I like the IS-2 and IS-3 versions. The weakest is the tier X which is stupid because the end game should always be the best, else why grind to it?

 Imo the IS-2-II feels incredibly weak. It basically has no armor except for the turret front. And the gun's penetration isn't exactly very good either.


Edited by roboslash, 06 February 2020 - 12:30 PM.


MightyBalls_2 #66 Posted 06 February 2020 - 01:22 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11203 battles
  • 210
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View Postroboslash, on 06 February 2020 - 11:30 AM, said:

 Imo the IS-2-II feels incredibly weak. It basically has no armor except for the turret front. And the gun's penetration isn't exactly very good either.

 

The pen is great, it goes through any tier 8, most tier 9 tanks and you then have to dab the 2 key on a lot of tier X but that is the same for most tier 8 tanks.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the IS2 which this tank is taken from has no armour also, so expect the same.

 

I am averaging 2100 damage and 500 assistance and I feel I am not playing this tank well, so for me I believe this tank is a decent tank and in better hands can be a great tank.



roboslash #67 Posted 16 February 2020 - 02:38 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12088 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    04-11-2012

Just got to the ST-II and it does seem underwhelming. Paper armor, sluggish, bad traverse speeds.

Plus it has a bunch of top 30mm plates. Arty eats this thing. 

 

I get like 3 crew members killed every game due to HE spam either from arty or just large caliber guns.

 

This tank needs a slight buff IMO. Buff top plates to 40-45 mm, buff lower plate thickness slightly, turret traverse speed and it would be a decent tank.


Edited by roboslash, 16 February 2020 - 03:30 PM.


Skyline118 #68 Posted 26 March 2020 - 11:46 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15987 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    02-28-2013
I like a lot IS-2-II and IS-3-II and i'm mad that ST-II is that bad. I played it only at test server but i'm not gonna buy it. This tank needs some love and get some buff imo.

_SpartanWarrior_ #69 Posted 27 March 2020 - 03:40 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38384 battles
  • 789
  • [BLOJ] BLOJ
  • Member since:
    01-09-2013

I might be wrong here,i read 20% of posts here (its TL;DR at 4am) and I can say that ST-II needs a LITTLE BIT OF LOVE TOUCH

Not gun handling,armor,camo(what?) or penetration,but a little bit more mobility. Especially its turret rotation speed. Its like driving a tier3 TD or Wolverine,but doing 880DMG,having more hp and armor and going into t10 matches.

 



Makroros_The_Arty_Magnet #70 Posted 27 March 2020 - 06:46 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23787 battles
  • 375
  • [QSF-C] QSF-C
  • Member since:
    11-16-2012

View PostChristOfTheAbyss, on 02 February 2020 - 10:26 AM, said:


Was more referencing the t8 and t9 there.

 

Also, check the mantlet weakspot on ST-II. No need for heat.


Do you expect another "no frontal weakspots" heavy tank? Just play Chrysler.
People rage at WG for bs op no weakspot tank and then they rage when WG creates tank with weakspots aswell.
I'm on the side of weakspot tanks.



leggasiini #71 Posted 27 March 2020 - 10:14 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 18308 battles
  • 6,513
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

ST-II doesn't seem very good but I can't see it being worse than any of the tanks that are about the get buffed (IS-4, E5 and E 100), though those very likely will all be superior to it after the buffs. It's probably better than the AMX M4 54, Type 5 and FV 215b as well, but all of those need changes as well.

 

It's still a new tank, give it a bit more time but right now it's not looking very strong. Need to get it myself first to see.


Edited by leggasiini, 27 March 2020 - 10:15 AM.






Also tagged with worst, t10, heavy

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users