Jump to content


Mind-boggling Eq 2.0 flaw

equipment

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

Nebuched #1 Posted 08 September 2020 - 03:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14847 battles
  • 685
  • Member since:
    05-20-2015

Some tanks have simply the wrong preferred eq slot. For IS-3 its survivability. That's quite thoughtless and the worst choice. What if I want  the bonus on better aim time, faster reload, more mobility ? More spotting so I get sniped less ?

Nope useless survivability. Its the least useful category for a IS-3 which gets penned at very long distances by WV's and same tier mediums, and for whom a few extra hp wont help. Only useful equipment is vents. Why not two preferred slots ?

 

M41 Bulldog: scouting preferred slot. No option for a bonus on firepower for a better chance against WV and mediums. No option for a mobility bonus to keep up with faster tanks or escape trouble faster with your big, big (by scout standards) tank.

 

I could mention many other tanks, list goes on and on. And no, I don't have the creds or bonds to put food or directives on almost every battle,  to boost the other characteristics of a tank. Aside from WG trying to kill passive scouting, now you're limiting playstyles on tanks even further. 


Edited by Nebuched, 08 September 2020 - 03:58 AM.


StronkiTonki #2 Posted 08 September 2020 - 04:13 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Commander
  • 37672 battles
  • 2,316
  • [T0AST] T0AST
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

Lots of people already made threads about this, but it's still true.

 

AMX 50's being one of the best examples. Definitely benefitting more from firepower or mobility rather than survivability.



BR33K1_PAWAH #3 Posted 08 September 2020 - 05:09 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 11133 battles
  • 3,236
  • [_N0D_] _N0D_
  • Member since:
    04-11-2018
Still better lovestory than Twilight.

Obsessive_Compulsive #4 Posted 08 September 2020 - 06:33 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 30483 battles
  • 9,022
  • [J1FTD] J1FTD
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014
That bonus slot should be universal, which would make having it pointless in the first place. just remove it...

Unicorn_of_Steel #5 Posted 08 September 2020 - 06:36 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24014 battles
  • 968
  • [R_D_A] R_D_A
  • Member since:
    12-29-2017

'Eq 2.0: Mind-boggling flaw' 

 

Ftfy



undutchable80 #6 Posted 08 September 2020 - 06:43 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 16756 battles
  • 5,549
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014

I think both HTs and TDs should have a choice of either Survivability or firepower, since not all HTs are front-line brawlers and not all TDs are redline base def bushwankers. 



Unicorn_of_Steel #7 Posted 08 September 2020 - 07:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24014 battles
  • 968
  • [R_D_A] R_D_A
  • Member since:
    12-29-2017
If the intention behind Eq. 2.0 really would have been bringing more diversity to the game they would have made the bonus slot a free to choose one. They would not care if a player would want to boost viewrange on a Maus to the max because that is what diversity is all about. But the real intention of Eq. 2.0 is draining credit and gold reserves: chance for the sake of letting us burn credits, gold and real money. 

Edited by Unicorn_of_Steel, 08 September 2020 - 07:48 AM.


Cro006 #8 Posted 08 September 2020 - 08:12 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15550 battles
  • 386
  • Member since:
    12-22-2014
One universal slot for everyone! Now! 

Balc0ra #9 Posted 08 September 2020 - 09:05 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 79885 battles
  • 24,926
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

It should still be limited as such. You don't what wheelies to have firepower so they can spam HE faster with a more effective rammer overall. Or the 430U to have survivability with even more HP and faster repair. 

 

But as we have said before, some tanks have sub-roles. Inc HTs. Not all HTs are brawlers. 50 100 could get firepower or even mobility, as survivability is as useless there too. Then you have assault TDs like the T95 that I don't want more firepower on as his focus. Even tho the repair time on his current build is insane as is. 



Strapps #10 Posted 08 September 2020 - 09:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30127 battles
  • 12,088
  • [GONAD] GONAD
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015
The slot is universal if you put vents in there.

Cregan37 #11 Posted 08 September 2020 - 09:14 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 11148 battles
  • 111
  • [OLDG] OLDG
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012

View PostNebuched, on 08 September 2020 - 02:53 AM, said:

Some tanks have simply the wrong preferred eq slot. For IS-3 its survivability. That's quite thoughtless and the worst choice. What if I want  the bonus on better aim time, faster reload, more mobility ? More spotting so I get sniped less ?

Nope useless survivability. Its the least useful category for a IS-3 which gets penned at very long distances by WV's and same tier mediums, and for whom a few extra hp wont help. Only useful equipment is vents. Why not two preferred slots ?

 

M41 Bulldog: scouting preferred slot. No option for a bonus on firepower for a better chance against WV and mediums. No option for a mobility bonus to keep up with faster tanks or escape trouble faster with your big, big (by scout standards) tank.

 

I could mention many other tanks, list goes on and on. And no, I don't have the creds or bonds to put food or directives on almost every battle,  to boost the other characteristics of a tank. Aside from WG trying to kill passive scouting, now you're limiting playstyles on tanks even further. 


You are not forced to use the slot for the high bonus. If you want to boost firepower, you can do so.
 

View PostUnicorn_of_Steel, on 08 September 2020 - 06:45 AM, said:

If the intention behind Eq. 2.0 really would have been bringing more diversity to the game they would have made the bonus slot a free to choose one. They would not care if a player would want to boost viewrange on a Maus to the max because that is what diversity is all about. But the real intention of Eq. 2.0 is draining credit and gold reserves: chance for the sake of letting us burn credits, gold and real money. 


If they made the slot free to chose, then you'd be back in the original Eq 1.0, just with a higher bonus. 

Eq 2.0 forced people to make a choice: high bonus with pre-determined category, of lower bonus with free to choose. This gives much more diversity and options. Take the IS-3 for example, it has a survivability slot which a lot of people dislike. Either use the high bonus extra suvivability or use something else with a lower bonus. How is this not more diversity that everyone using a gun rammer?



saxsan4 #12 Posted 08 September 2020 - 09:39 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 29027 battles
  • 6,219
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
a universal slot would mean no one would have changed their  original equipments 

StinkyStonky #13 Posted 08 September 2020 - 09:58 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 42361 battles
  • 3,101
  • [DASH] DASH
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

The current system is fine.

What the OP is saying is they want to play their IS3 like a medium and they want WG to help them do it.

What WG has said is we'll give you a bonus if you set the tank up to play it as we intended the class to be played.

Sure there are one or two exceptions but for the vast majority of tanks the bonus is appropriate.

 

Eq. 2.0 fixed 2 problems

1) Useless equipment like C02 fuel tanks and Cyclone Filters.

2) Almost every tank having the trio of rammer/vents/stabs with a few varients using optics/binos/net/GLD/toolbox and in the case of binos/net/toolbox they were chosen not because they were a good choice but because they were free and something is better than nothing.

 

The OP moans "What if I want  the bonus on better aim time, faster reload, more mobility ?" but vents gives that to all three, i.e. it makes it more like a med.

But that isn't how the vast majority of heavies should be played.



FizzleMcSnizzle #14 Posted 08 September 2020 - 11:29 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32637 battles
  • 1,233
  • Member since:
    05-21-2018
I don't think 2.0 "fixed" anything.
Give the meta a chance to find itself, and everyone will be running the same gear on any given tank.
Meanwhile, most players are losing credits / gold as they try to come to terms with it. I'm sure some will disagree, just as some believe artillery is good for the game, but even now, in the experimental phase, I just find it annoying.

Unicorn_of_Steel #15 Posted 08 September 2020 - 11:43 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24014 battles
  • 968
  • [R_D_A] R_D_A
  • Member since:
    12-29-2017

View PostCregan37, on 08 September 2020 - 09:14 AM, said:


You are not forced to use the slot for the high bonus. If you want to boost firepower, you can do so.
 


If they made the slot free to chose, then you'd be back in the original Eq 1.0, just with a higher bonus. 

Eq 2.0 forced people to make a choice: high bonus with pre-determined category, of lower bonus with free to choose. This gives much more diversity and options. Take the IS-3 for example, it has a survivability slot which a lot of people dislike. Either use the high bonus extra suvivability or use something else with a lower bonus. How is this not more diversity that everyone using a gun rammer?

 

Because a pre determined category means a limited choice in what aspect of the tank a player can optimize by using the high bonus. Take my Tiger II for instance, the only thing i do not like about this tank is the lack of speed. I would love to be able to put the turbo charger in the bonus slot, to maximise its effect. But i can't, i am forced to choose equipment that WG pre selected for that slot on this tank. I don't need some extra health or a tiny bit less aim time, i want more mobility. Imo that is not what diversity is about. it's not facilitating experimenting with surprising out of the box builds, it's just hindering that.

 

Just remember mr. Ford about the T-Ford. 'Sure, the customer can order a T-Ford in any colour he or she desires, as long as it is black'...

 

Btw, i want more mobility on my Tiger II not to play it as a medium but to be able to keep up with the meta of (0-5)-15 roflstomps < 3 minutes so i can either do some damage too or be able to escape a collapsing flank. 


Edited by Unicorn_of_Steel, 08 September 2020 - 11:44 AM.


shikaka9 #16 Posted 08 September 2020 - 11:46 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 83458 battles
  • 3,361
  • [M-W-B] M-W-B
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013

I have no problems with equipment 2.0 at all ..

 

 

because I have no credits to buy it :teethhappy:



mpf1959 #17 Posted 08 September 2020 - 01:30 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 41361 battles
  • 3,903
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    10-29-2017
I put what I want in the slots and ever will do, so [edited]WG and their school-teacher like attempt to railroad me. :girl: 

imposter #18 Posted 08 September 2020 - 01:40 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 35154 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011
Equipment 2.0 attempted to fix the broken randomising element of the game, where 90% of the players used the same three peices of equipment on the same tank. It succeeding in anoying most people through a poor implimentation of the solution, and time/credits/confusion involved to migrate. The end result is questionable. It's possible that 90% of players are simply using a different three peices of equipment now on the same tank.

Strapps #19 Posted 08 September 2020 - 02:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30127 battles
  • 12,088
  • [GONAD] GONAD
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View Postmpf1959, on 08 September 2020 - 12:30 PM, said:

I put what I want in the slots and ever will do, so [edited]WG and their school-teacher like attempt to railroad me. :girl: 

 



WindSplitter1 #20 Posted 08 September 2020 - 03:27 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22549 battles
  • 4,493
  • [WINDY] WINDY
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postundutchable80, on 08 September 2020 - 05:43 AM, said:

I think both HTs and TDs should have a choice of either Survivability or firepower, since not all HTs are front-line brawlers and not all TDs are redline base def bushwankers. 

 

I suggested this to on the thread:

 

HTs: Survivability + Firepower

MTs: Firepower + Mobility

LTs: Mobility + Scouting

TDs: Scouting + Firepower

SPG: Firepower alone

 

One slot, two possibilities.

This prevents situations that a vehicle that doesn't quite fit its expected class role to get another chance (50b won't benefit much from survivability as they would from firepower, bobject will prolly be better off with survivability, etc).

The mods replied and said they'd pass it on yet here we are.

 

Maybe they'll change that.







Also tagged with equipment

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users