Jump to content


1.10 in a nutshell


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

WindSplitter1 #1 Posted 11 July 2020 - 04:38 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21825 battles
  • 4,211
  • [WINDY] WINDY
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

Buffs to HTs,

which are very simple to play as the maps already have a defined route where the predictable gamestyle can be enjoyed but those who are not very keen in further mechanical depth. Additional armouring will make sure they won't have to worry much about what the enemy is shooting (as per the Type 5) since they may easily and comfortable present themselves forward to a position, hide their already strong hulls, to present their freshly hardened turret armour.

 

An uncomplicated feat, made even simpler.

 

Nerfs to everything else,

that, although I won't deny some of them had it coming it really begs the question:

 

Why is there so much emphasis in encouraging players driving Heavy Tanks, as opposed to other classes?

Why not improve the characteristics of other vehicles which have been underperforming for quite some time and likewise left untouched?

What makes WG so resistant in increasing the authority of other non-SPG/non-Tank Destroyer vehicles?

 

Is armour the only key stat players and developers have in mind when they play and design this game? Frankly, it seems like as if they stand as an object of worship. A Titan, if you will. HTs are a holy supreme breed which must emerge triumphantly over the lesser armoured vehicles, who must submissively concede.

 


 

I predict that E-100 players, instead of complaining about getting their turret face punctured by standard munitions, will now have the same complaint under premium ammunition. If good old predictable WG gives it the Type 5 treatment, then Steve will come here that the improvements were anything but, as the iffy penetration is now guaranteed.

 

We'll have to see until the stats come out in full force. But as they released the CTS, we now that everything is not subject to change.

Sometime in the past, they referred this as a "cult game". Didn't realize they were referring to one class alone, when there are 5 others to invest in. If this is the "secret project" Murazor is/was working on, then mission accomplished. Steve wins. Again.

 


 

I loathe complaining threads as anything posted here aimed at specific concerns is tantamount to not a single thing (unless it's Heavy Armour related) but as they say, hope is the last to perish.

Then, it's only a game, which I have already begun divesting from, as the general direction does not suit me. Recent additions have been very much positive and those announced (pertaining to matters such as new comms, bond economy, UI changes and the like), but it presents a contrast of the dismal blight gameplay and what WG encourages.

 

Putting up with raging infants online over not going where they would've liked me to go and other silly situations is something.  Players who have been undertaking actions that actually amount to something remotely close to playing are obliterated from hundreds of meters in a One-Hit KO by someone who is getting rewarding by their passive gameplay.

 

Trully was a tragic decision to remain here from 9.17/18 onwards, though myself is the only to blame... Hope that WG would've reversed the course, eventually, went unanswered...



Nebuched #2 Posted 11 July 2020 - 04:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14782 battles
  • 649
  • Member since:
    05-20-2015

View PostWindSplitter1, on 11 July 2020 - 04:38 PM, said:

Buffs to HTs,

which are very simple to play as the maps already have a defined route where the predictable gamestyle can be enjoyed but those who are not very keen in further mechanical depth. Additional armouring will make sure they won't have to worry much about what the enemy is shooting (as per the Type 5) since they may easily and comfortable present themselves forward to a position, hide their already strong hulls, to present their freshly hardened turret armour.

 

An uncomplicated feat, made even simpler.

 

Nerfs to everything else,

that, although I won't deny some of them had it coming it really begs the question:

 

Why is there so much emphasis in encouraging players driving Heavy Tanks, as opposed to other classes?

Why not improve the characteristics of other vehicles which have been underperforming for quite some time and likewise left untouched?

What makes WG so resistant in increasing the authority of other non-SPG/non-Tank Destroyer vehicles?

 

Is armour the only key stat players and developers have in mind when they play and design this game? Frankly, it seems like as if they stand as an object of worship. A Titan, if you will. HTs are a holy supreme breed which must emerge triumphantly over the lesser armoured vehicles, who must submissively concede.

 


 

I predict that E-100 players, instead of complaining about getting their turret face punctured by standard munitions, will now have the same complaint under premium ammunition. If good old predictable WG gives it the Type 5 treatment, then Steve will come here that the improvements were anything but, as the iffy penetration is now guaranteed.

 

We'll have to see until the stats come out in full force. But as they released the CTS, we now that everything is not subject to change.

Sometime in the past, they referred this as a "cult game". Didn't realize they were referring to one class alone, when there are 5 others to invest in. If this is the "secret project" Murazor is/was working on, then mission accomplished. Steve wins. Again.

 


 

I loathe complaining threads as anything posted here aimed at specific concerns is tantamount to not a single thing (unless it's Heavy Armour related) but as they say, hope is the last to perish.

Then, it's only a game, which I have already begun divesting from, as the general direction does not suit me. Recent additions have been very much positive and those announced (pertaining to matters such as new comms, bond economy, UI changes and the like), but it presents a contrast of the dismal blight gameplay and what WG encourages.

 

Putting up with raging infants online over not going where they would've liked me to go and other silly situations is something.  Players who have been undertaking actions that actually amount to something remotely close to playing are obliterated from hundreds of meters in a One-Hit KO by someone who is getting rewarding by their passive gameplay.

 

Trully was a tragic decision to remain here from 9.17/18 onwards, though myself is the only to blame... Hope that WG would've reversed the course, eventually, went unanswered...

I disagree that HT's are simple to play, relative to other classes, or simplistic to play. I'd list a few arguments, but would think that they are pretty self-evident, like perk and equipment dilemmas. 



MrKrotchy #3 Posted 12 July 2020 - 12:56 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 25563 battles
  • 137
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostNebuched, on 11 July 2020 - 04:47 PM, said:

I disagree that HT's are simple to play, relative to other classes, or simplistic to play. I'd list a few arguments, but would think that they are pretty self-evident, like perk and equipment dilemmas. 

 

I'd say that sidescraping off a corner/hulldowning behind a trash pile and blapping people with gold is pretty simple. Only that now with all the armor buffs that gold is being slowly exchanged for HE. 

Ranking classes by simplicity goes something like SPG-TD/HT-MT-LT with lights being the hardest class.

 

 

As for the OP's question "Why is there so much emphasis in encouraging players driving Heavy Tanks", it's because Steve's are the largest part of WG's customer base and how do you appease a clueless Steve? Give him a tank with idi*tproof armor and funnel him down 1 of 2-3 corridors. 2 shots worth of damage make a Steve smile and open his wallet more.

 


And you can't really pen a E100 turret face with most AP since that turret is something like 280-290mm avg. The problem comes from the fact that everyone spams the fair and balanced gold and instead of nerfing gold ammo they keep dumping extra armor on tanks until people can't pen eachother even with gold...


Edited by MrKrotchy, 12 July 2020 - 12:58 AM.


no_skill_bob #4 Posted 12 July 2020 - 01:04 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 35065 battles
  • 2,552
  • Member since:
    10-31-2013
I really hope that we will see a lot more hts in battles, because atm, there are a lot if battles where you have 1 ht per team at best.

NekoPuffer_PPP #5 Posted 12 July 2020 - 01:05 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37284 battles
  • 5,537
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

Players shouting for years: "Buff E100 and IS-4 they are TERRIBLE!!"

 

This dude: "No u."

 

Dude, the door's over there, see yourself out.

 

Those tanks were powercreeped to hell and long overdue on some buffs.

 

The Progettos were always strong and the WV's were in a league of their own from the start.



no_skill_bob #6 Posted 12 July 2020 - 01:09 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 35065 battles
  • 2,552
  • Member since:
    10-31-2013
is-4 still doesnt seem any good, compared to e100 and t110e5 buffs

Spurtung #7 Posted 12 July 2020 - 02:09 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 82711 battles
  • 8,499
  • [USSRX] USSRX
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013


splash_time #8 Posted 12 July 2020 - 08:10 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17432 battles
  • 2,325
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-20-2018

View Postno_skill_bob, on 12 July 2020 - 03:09 AM, said:

is-4 still doesnt seem any good, compared to e100 and t110e5 buffs

 

T110E5's weak spot is that coupla, never needed a DPM buff, they've could buff it by increasing that copula armour, like, from 210 up to 225 mm...

IS 4 however, now it can bounce, never was a DPM beast, and it'll never be. All what IS 4 need is to buff it's gun handling. 



feoffle3 #9 Posted 12 July 2020 - 08:23 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14999 battles
  • 168
  • [CHAO] CHAO
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015
Type-5 was never some invincible fortress, the reason the derp gun got nerfed was because all the Russians hated their Hull down monsters being countered.

I had typed out a long post and then I realised,  why bother.

Misago #10 Posted 12 July 2020 - 08:48 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21234 battles
  • 249
  • Member since:
    04-21-2012

View PostWindSplitter1, on 11 July 2020 - 03:38 PM, said:

Buffs to HTs,

which are very simple to play as the maps already have a defined route where the predictable gamestyle can be enjoyed but those who are not very keen in further mechanical depth. Additional armouring will make sure they won't have to worry much about what the enemy is shooting (as per the Type 5) since they may easily and comfortable present themselves forward to a position, hide their already strong hulls, to present their freshly hardened turret armour.

 

An uncomplicated feat, made even simpler.

 

Nerfs to everything else,

that, although I won't deny some of them had it coming it really begs the question:

 

(ETC)

 

This is the whiniest complaint I have ever seen in a medium that is certainly not lacking for competition.

 

They buffed a handful of underperforming heavy tanks to bring them up to standard, and they nerfed five overperforming mediums and the wheelies. How is that "nerfs to everything else"?

 

I'm really curious why you think superheavies are the dominant class in this game. With the prevalence of artillery and the powercreep in high pen guns, it has never been easier to damage them. In fact, they're a pain to play, and the meta is, if you bothered to pay attention, with more mobile heavies with high alpha. Go play some clan wars and tell us how many Type 5, Maus, E-100 you see with the top clans, then come back and tell us how this game is all about armor thickness.

 

In a game with vehicle health being a very limited resource, high-level play will ALWAYS focus on those classes that can avoid digging into those healthpools. You will always get hit, so armor is the most reliable protector of the health pool when utilized properly.



BR33K1_PAWAH #11 Posted 12 July 2020 - 09:00 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 8453 battles
  • 2,132
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    04-11-2018
1.10 is a long overdue equipment rework, not a balance patch.

Randomar #12 Posted 12 July 2020 - 10:01 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32240 battles
  • 375
  • Member since:
    10-18-2015

View PostBR33K1_PAWAH, on 12 July 2020 - 09:00 AM, said:

1.10 is a long overdue equipment rework, not a balance patch.

>1.10 is a long overdue equipment rework,

>not a balance patch.

:medal::harp::girl::D:bajan:



Wintermute_1 #13 Posted 12 July 2020 - 10:03 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 55009 battles
  • 2,693
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

View PostBR33K1_PAWAH, on 12 July 2020 - 09:00 AM, said:

1.10 is a long overdue equipment rework, not a balance patch.

 

Equipment rework isn't in the common test, given how it's test went I imagine it won't be arriving for a while either.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users