Jump to content


The Type 5 Heavy's armor is a joke

Type 5 Heavy Armor Special Ammo

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

Poll: Type 5 Heavy - Armor buff (63 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battle in order to participate this poll.

Do you agree with the suggestions?

  1. Yes, completely (12 votes [19.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.05%

  2. Yes, mostly (explain) (5 votes [7.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.94%

  3. No, not entirely (explain) (4 votes [6.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.35%

  4. Absolutely not (33 votes [52.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.38%

  5. Something else should be changed (about the tank or the game) (9 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

Vote Hide poll

NekoPuffer_PPP #1 Posted 03 June 2020 - 12:45 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37074 battles
  • 5,409
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

Note: read the suggestions at the bottom of the post before voting.

 

The Maus has around 320mm of effective armor at its weakest point (except mantlet weakspot) when perfectly angled.

 

The Type 5 Heavy, however, has 300mm, on a much larger area.

 

Playing it, is suffering. The tank was designed by sadists, for masochists, clearly.

 

Everybody and their gardener spams premium ammo at it. With their 330+ average penetration, the overwhelming majority of the Type 5's frontal armor has roughly a 70-90% chance to be penetrated. When perfectly angled. With cheek weakspots minimally exposed.

 

This, is bull manure.

 

May I suggest a buff to its armor?

 

The suggestions:

Frontal hull: Increase 270mm plates' thickness to 310mm. This includes cheeks. Remove 250mm/260mm crew port weakspots.

Lower front plate: Increase thickness from 270mm to 300mm.

Turret armor: Increase frontal turret armor thickness from 280mm to 340mm. There is already a cupola with ~250mm effective thickness on top, you can shoot that instead of pointing at the turret's center-mass.

Turret side front quarter panel: Increase thickness from 210mm to 230mm.

 

Additional note: This post may not be affected by "qpranger's seal of approval". Even under the circumstances of such a seal being placed on it, this note renders it invalid.



saurilian #2 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:26 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21189 battles
  • 503
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

In my opinion it's the most pointless, stupid heavy tank in this game. It only exists to get spammed by premium ammo and give free xp donation to enemy team. The only way you can penetrate this house reliably without premium ammunition is to flank it and hug so he can't shot down on you, which in current corridor meta is almost 9 times out of 10 impossible.

 

I'd say, for both Maus and Type 5, add a fuc*ing frontal weakspot. Their armor should be like on 705A or IS7. The weakspot should be obvious, but also relatively easy to make strong. Nerf the Maus lower plate to 200mm, lower the gun DPM and buff cheeks to 280mm. On Type 5, nerf the middle part of cupola to around 200mm, and make the smaller view port around 220mm. The rest of armor let's say buff to point - 50/30% chance with 330mm so people realize they have to either shot the weakspots or bait the tank to get flanked. 



Kdingo #3 Posted 03 June 2020 - 01:50 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 33292 battles
  • 8,815
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011
The type 5, just like the whole jap heavy line, is designed to ensure newbies to become "competitive" without the hassle to learn how to play.
Its pretty much barely above arty level, as you need to double tap r, lobbing armor ignoring derp bombs at whatever pops up.
And i have seen countless of players that manage their highest dpg in those tanks, none of them would even be considered average.

MeetriX #4 Posted 03 June 2020 - 06:25 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27392 battles
  • 4,907
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

Normal ammo can't hurt Type frontally.

You want it to be immune to gold too?

Actually that is not a bad idea.

Less P2W.



TheDrownedApe #5 Posted 03 June 2020 - 06:27 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 53579 battles
  • 6,853
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013
I cant believe you are playing it. 

aps1 #6 Posted 03 June 2020 - 06:56 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 30794 battles
  • 256
  • [BRT_6] BRT_6
  • Member since:
    10-06-2012

The armour was compensated by the the derp gun. Once the they nerfed the gun they didn’t improve the type 5 enough to compensate for this.
Everyone moaned about the gun however I suspect it was the same people who are now moaning about the chief and 279e, how ironic that the type 5 was one of the only tanks that wasn’t that bothered if a chief or 279e was hull down. ! Think about it it before you all start to cry about nerfing tanks.

fwhaatpiraat #7 Posted 03 June 2020 - 07:05 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 63871 battles
  • 2,732
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013
How much does your armor block on average?

tajj7 #8 Posted 03 June 2020 - 08:16 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30196 battles
  • 18,155
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

Parts of the armour can be buffed to be more resistant to premium ammo, when it has reliable weakspots to tier 10 standard ammo, which means something like a lower plate that is like 220 effective and a cupola that is like 200 effective.

 

Until then I am quite happy to see it die in a hail of heat, very few tanks deserve it more IMO. 

 

Plus with the pre-nerf derp it was massively abused by loads of players, you consistently saw average and below average players in it who barely played any other tier 10 because it boosted their win rate by like 5% and turned them from bad players into semi-competent ones, so for all those players that abused it spamming tier 10 with their premium HE, IMO it can stay under powered for a while longer as a healthy dose of karma. 



General_Jack_D_Ripper #9 Posted 03 June 2020 - 08:28 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5227 battles
  • 204
  • Member since:
    08-21-2016

So, I tested Type 5 on the sandbox server and I think the armor works better overall than Type 4. This tank can angle and thus archieve quite hefty armor levels.

Could even make it semi nimble with the new equipment.

 

Will not buy it though, I guess I am going for E-100 with 12,8cm in regard to super heavies.



Gwynbleidd11 #10 Posted 03 June 2020 - 08:36 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 18974 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011
As you see premium ammo disbalances game. Stop useing it like and it will be better

Spurtung #11 Posted 03 June 2020 - 09:20 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 82268 battles
  • 8,445
  • [USSRX] USSRX
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013
It was doable with the derp, now it's just sad.

Private_Miros #12 Posted 03 June 2020 - 09:26 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29728 battles
  • 11,837
  • [EMU87] EMU87
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

It's broken because it's too good. Armor works when weak spots can be used to bait shots. Especially when the areas around the weakspot can also bounce or ricochet premium ammo, but the weakspot itself can be penned with at least same tier regular ammo.



Japualtah #13 Posted 03 June 2020 - 09:58 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34611 battles
  • 1,373
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View PostKdingo, on 03 June 2020 - 01:50 AM, said:

The type 5, just like the whole jap heavy line, is designed to ensure newbies to become "competitive" without the hassle to learn how to play.
Its pretty much barely above arty level, as you need to double tap r, lobbing armor ignoring derp bombs at whatever pops up.
And i have seen countless of players that manage their highest dpg in those tanks, none of them would even be considered average.

 

Watch your head!

You're going to hit the ceiling on such a high horse!



Inappropriate_noob #14 Posted 03 June 2020 - 10:13 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 18999 battles
  • 5,786
  • [KV1] KV1
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostMeetriX, on 03 June 2020 - 06:25 AM, said:

Normal ammo can't hurt Type frontally.

You want it to be immune to gold too?

Actually that is not a bad idea.

Less P2W.

Well before it's nerf which made it useless ,technically it was the ultimate pay to win for the get real damage for some reason the more expensive HE was the better one, that said mine has gone now along with just about all my other tier 10 heavies.

09:17 Added after 3 minute

View Posttajj7, on 03 June 2020 - 08:16 AM, said:

Parts of the armour can be buffed to be more resistant to premium ammo, when it has reliable weakspots to tier 10 standard ammo, which means something like a lower plate that is like 220 effective and a cupola that is like 200 effective.

 

Until then I am quite happy to see it die in a hail of heat, very few tanks deserve it more IMO. 

 

Plus with the pre-nerf derp it was massively abused by loads of players, you consistently saw average and below average players in it who barely played any other tier 10 because it boosted their win rate by like 5% and turned them from bad players into semi-competent ones, so for all those players that abused it spamming tier 10 with their premium HE, IMO it can stay under powered for a while longer as a healthy dose of karma. 

Ha ha and then those low WR players get heckled by everyone else, people moaned about the object yet the type 5 was the perfect counter to it pre nerf, either mine has gone to the scrapheap, so I care not a jot:D



pihip #15 Posted 03 June 2020 - 10:41 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17461 battles
  • 1,630
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013
I thought we had enough common sense not to approve of tanks balanced around gold ammo in the forums, guess I was mistaken.

The last thing World of Tanks needs is more indestructible bunkers, and let's not forget Type 5 was absolute plague with the unnerfed gold derp. If people still hate it, I can't blame them.

Dava_117 #16 Posted 03 June 2020 - 10:42 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Moderator
  • 24592 battles
  • 6,821
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

So you want to make a noobproof tank even more noobproof? 

Absolutely no, thank you.

It needs real weackspots, not one that is at most 50% chance to pen for tier 10 tanks...



JocMeister #17 Posted 03 June 2020 - 10:54 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 29394 battles
  • 2,861
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015
The biggest problem with the Type 4 and 5 is that they brought them into the game in the first place.

NekoPuffer_PPP #18 Posted 03 June 2020 - 11:11 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37074 battles
  • 5,409
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostDava_117, on 03 June 2020 - 10:42 AM, said:

So you want to make a noobproof tank even more noobproof? 

Absolutely no, thank you.

It needs real weackspots, not one that is at most 50% chance to pen for tier 10 tanks...

 

The Maus doesn't have any "true" weakspots, or can hide them. I don't see anyone complaining about how OP it is.



divsmo #19 Posted 03 June 2020 - 11:23 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 40844 battles
  • 880
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    07-08-2012

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 03 June 2020 - 10:11 AM, said:

 

The Maus doesn't have any "true" weakspots, or can hide them. I don't see anyone complaining about how OP it is.

No one is asking for it's armour to be buffed so as to negate gold ammo either which is what your asking for on the type 5. 



leggasiini #20 Posted 03 June 2020 - 11:35 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 18640 battles
  • 6,547
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

As someone who has hundreds of games with the Type 5 Heavy in its every iteration (release, 9.15.1 buffs, 9.17.1 which gave it derp, 9.20 which gave it very, very minor armor and mobility nerfs, and after it was nerfed/redesigned in 1.5), who has reviewed the tank multiple times and three marked it twice...

 

Sorry, no. This is NOT how you fix the Type 5 Heavy. Buffing armor like that without adding weakspots is a terrible idea. 

 

Type 5's armor is just fundamentally flawed. Its broken. Not broken in a OP way, but broken because...its broken. You're not wrong that it is even worse against premium than pretty much any other heavily armored vehicle; most of Type 5's frontal armor gets cheesed through by +330 HEAT, even when angled. However, why does it get spammed with premium so hard? It has no weakspots to standard ammo. And no, those hatches on the front or the cupola are not proper weakspots. Not only they are very small, but also have only like 40% chance to pen with standard. When the Type 5 is completely unangled. And you still gotta hit them. Then there's cupola, which while not small by itself, is rounded and you have to hit it right in the middle, so the actual pennable area is actually pretty small. Even then, the cupola is like 240-250 effective and its mounted on the tallest tier 10 in the game, meaning that penning it is still heavily influenced by RNG and its even more painful to hit because of tank's height.

 

Type 5's armor is broken because it's too weak against premium, but too strong against standard. Yes, you get gold spammed at A LOT, but there's still players who can't afford gold spam and they can't just deal with the Type 5 without it. What is a F2P player in his E 100 gonna do against a Type 5? Flank with his own superheavy in current maps in which most of them flanking is often impossible? Spam HE at one of the most HE resistant tanks in the game? The same goes to any heavy that isn't really fast (like 277). The only way to pen the Type 5 frontally with basic standard ammo at tier 10 (250-260 pen) is to rely on RNG by hitting very small weakspots, that you need even more RNG to penetrate. Otherwise you can go f*** yourself. Sure, you can eventually pen the Type 5 with standard, but it takes forever because you need RNG for penning and in many cases hitting the "weakspots", AND then you also need to burn through its massive 2900 HP pool in order to kill it. Don't get me wrong, Type 5 should be hard to kill. But right now, its too hard without gold, especially how the maps are currently designed. Thats why it gets gold spammed at so much, as in most situations there's no other viable counterplay to it.

 

Type 5's armor overall isn't necessarily underperforming, as how underwhelming it feels against gold ammo. Its just super inconsistent because it relies on RNG and on what players you face. But on average, it still blocks quite a lot of damage. Even in recent times, I average at least 2500 average damage blocked per game, often going closer to 3000. It seems pretty reasonable; I block around 3.2k in Maus, which is also how it should be as Maus is supposed to be even more heavily armored, but slower. You could argue the armor could block even more, but it depends on how you view the tank. Personally I agree that the Type 5 is underperforming right now, and technically it needs a buff, but in my personal opinion its more because its 14 cm gun is too weak, not because the armor is too weak (and the derp can f*** off and should be removed from the game, it wasn't there when the tank was released and it shouldn't be there now either). I think the overall amount of average blocked Type 5 blocks is somewhat fine, the gun is what could use more help, IMO. You could also go other way and just buff its overall armor and leave it to have crap guns, but you most likely result in having a tank that is both frustrating to play with and frustrating to play against. However, that doesn't mean the armor doesn't need a rework, it definitely does. Not a direct buff, but a rework

 

Currently, the armor of the Type 5 is almost as terribly designed as armor layout can get, because of two big issues:

 

  • Its too weak against premium ammo, but too strong against standard ammo.  (as already explained earlier)
  • Its super braindead so its easy to use, but its designed so that its not very rewarding when used well (= low skill floor, but low skill ceiling)

 

This means that depending on if the opponent is firing gold or not, the armor of the Type 5 is either terrible to fight against or terrible to use, sometimes its even both. Its never enjoyable for both players. It also becomes the more frustrating the better you are as a player, as it doesn't reward angling or weakspot management at all, while it carries terrible players because it doesn't require any said skills. 

 

This means that even though the Type 5's armor technically isn't performing too well or too poorly, it still definitely requires a rework, just because how terribly designed it is right now and fixing it would make it more enjoyable for everyone, both players playing the Type 5 and anyone playing against it. It needs a fix, a rework.

 

But how do you fix the armor of the Type 5? 

 

  • Give the frontal hull armor more "strongspots" that are so thick that even premium struggle to penetrate it. Think like the upper glacis plate of the E 100, Maus and well...most of the heavily armored tanks. This means that gold can't cheese through it nearly as easily, and opponent need to aim at specific spots. It also encourages them to aim...
  • ...at the weakspots. Now that you have given the tank strongspots that resists even gold, now also give it weakspots that have somewhat realistic chance to be penetrated with standard ammo. For example, the E 100 has a LFP that can be easily penetrated with standard ammo. Nobody complains about that - players think that E 100's armor issues lies in its turret, not its LFP. But I'm pretty sure that most players who think that E 100's armor isn't good enough would agree that its fine if the turret issue was fixed. Even the Maus has a LFP, that while not the most optimal weakspot, has still a decent chance to be penned when the Maus is unangled (as its around 235 mm effective), and therefor is still a better weakspot than whatever the Type 5 currently has.

 

So for the Type 5, instead of straight up buffing the armor, I suggest something in lines of this:

 

  • increase the upper front glacis plate armor from 270 mm to around 320 - 330 mm, including the hull cheeks. The hatch weakspots are unnecessary if the cupola and LFP are made weakspots, though they could be left as weakspots if you want to give more room for buffing the gun. Now the upper front plate is strong enough that anything but T10 TDs will avoid shooting gold at it, and thus are encouraged to actually aim instead of shooting at the center mass of the tank.
  • decrease the lower glacis plate armor from 270 mm to around 225 mm. Now it's comparable to the E 100 or marginally stronger, but because of Type 5's much stronger side armor and now reinforced cheek armor, it can angle it way more and make it still a reasonably hard target to penetrate assuming the Type 5 angles correctly. But this actually makes it more skill based now. 
  • Increase the mantlet armor from 280 mm to +350 mm. Again, to prevent people to shoot gold straight at the center mass. Turret cheeks would still be there, but they become a significantly smaller and harder target to hit if you make the huge mantlet strong
  • Reduce the cupola armor by around 20 mm. Now it becomes a viable weakspot. It also could be made smaller if it becomes a too big of an issue, or the top part hitbox could be removed, but the Type 5 is so huge that its still tricky to hit, especially if the Type 5 wiggles.
  • Buff or rework the 14 cm gun in some way to make it more effective and more interesting (only if needed, rework the armor first). Change the 14 cm accordingly depending on how much the armor changes affect the tank, until the tank is balanced. I'd imagine the 14 cm wouldn't need that much after the suggested changes, but at very least the premium ammo penetration could be upped from 290 to 300. Remove the 15 cm derp so people don't get fooled and use it (its laughably hopeless), or completely rework it to something else. The 15 cm could be given something unique, like make it an AP gun with 650-700 alpha and give it high pen HE or something to keep some kind of "HE gimmick" in, but a full derp gun is a terrible concept for a tier 10 superheavy that realistically just can't be balanced.

 

Here's comparison between Type 5's current armor layout and my suggested one. The color codes mean:

 

Red: both standard and gold ammo of same tier HT/MT fail to penetrate it. "Don't shoot me here" zone.

Orange: standard struggles, but gold and TDs have a chance.

Yellow: same as orange, but its 50/50 against standard. Technically a weakspot, but its RNG based.

Green: standard ammo has a decent enough change to penetrate it if exposed. A proper weakspot.

 

BAD armor design

 

You can see that the current Type 5 has little "strongpoints", no proper weakspots and only a few RNG weakspots. Most of it is filled with areas that standard cant reliably pen, but gold ammo can. Example of a poorly designed armor layout.

 

GOOD armor design

 

Here, while not perfect, the armor is much better designed. It has stronger hull cheeks and upper front area that enables angling and makes it more rewarding when the vulnerable area (lower plate) is hidden or angled. Mantlet is now a strong spot, making the turret much tougher especially if the gun depression is used, but it has a cupola that is vulnerable especially if shot from above. Sidescraping gets rewarded more. Hulldown gets rewarded more. Poor play and overexposing gets punished. Well positioned Type 5 doesn't get cheesed by premium as easily and gets rewarded more, poorly positioned Type 5 gets punished harder and can be punished with standard shells.

 

Keep in mind that my proposal isnt perfect and the values aren't exactly optimal. However, it should still give a good direction that what I personally think they should do for Type 5's armor layout. In all fairness, the armor of the Type 5 is so awfully designed at the moment that almost any change that doesn't blatantly buff or nerf it would most likely be a good change. 

 

Basically the concept remains mostly the same as on my now outdated Japanese HT rework proposal a few years back, just updated to modern standards. Whether I will make a new, full on modernized version on this depends on my motivation but I don't think it'll do anything so I likely won't bother, even though I've already done a lot of work on it.

 

Here's the old one:

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/630009-the-great-rework-of-japanese-heavy-line-it-is-possible-and-how/

 

------------------------------------------------

 

TL;DR: Type 5's armor doesn't need a direct buff, it needs a REWORK. Rework the armor so it has actual weakspots that can be penned with standard ammo, but can be hidden/made stronger with skillful play, and give it strong points to non-weak areas to encourage people to aim at the said weakspots. Rework the armor layout so that it rewards good play and punishes bad play more, and make it more enjoyable to both play as and play against. Buff / rework the 14cm. Remove / rework the derp.

10:39 Added after 4 minute

View PostNekoPuffer_PPP, on 03 June 2020 - 12:11 PM, said:

 

The Maus doesn't have any "true" weakspots, or can hide them. I don't see anyone complaining about how OP it is.

 

Maus LFP is still better than anything the Type 5 has. Maus is also even slower and clunkier due to its rear mounted turret and gun depression. Maus is still better overall, but that is because of the fact the armor layout is so much better designed and rewards skillful play way more than Type 5's. That being said, I think the Maus LFP could still be nerfed a little bit just to make it a little more viable weakspot against standard ammo when the Maus is not angled, and then buff the gun, maybe pen for example to compensate.


Edited by leggasiini, 03 June 2020 - 11:55 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users