Jump to content


Pull up a chair! (Updated: 14/10/13)


  • Please log in to reply
13467 replies to this topic

RandomBerk #13121 Posted 15 October 2015 - 12:20 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41919 battles
  • 1,644
  • [HARVE] HARVE
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012

View Posttajj7, on 15 October 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

 

Yeh that's an issue for me as well, no idea where people are penning me, not great from a learning experience. 

 

I have nothing against the weak armour, hull down it's fine but to me the gun should be great (and was in the 60s) but against what it faces it struggles. 

 

Facing too many early 3rd gen MBTs is the issue, if I could get some top tier games it would be ok but it seems to always be in tier 6 games against XM1-s, Leopard 2s and MBT-70s which struggle to pen it whilst an MBT-70 seems to be able to pen pretty easily with HEAT. That's why I think it should be a tier 4. 

 

Find the game very campy at the moment, people seem to just wait at until someone pushes, only games I feel I have been able to influence are ones in my MBT-70 because it can push and take a beating, other tanks I've found that you probe for opportunities but both teams are always waiting to see who blinks first and at time I've driven to spots and then suddenly you find 4 or 5 tanks just waiting for someone to appear. Or you win a flank an push through only to find enemy MBTs on full HP who have been camping the base whole game. 

 

I'm having fun but I think there are issues with the gameplay, especially balance wise and map design seems to be familiarly WOT corridor ish at times, plus the spotting system is confusing.  

 

I'm enjoying it too. I'm finding that it doesn't cause rage in the way that WoT does/did, but this may be just because my expectations are lower because I'm still learning.

 

The spotting confuses me too. there are plenty of times I've been spotted when behind hard cover and miles behind the front line.

 

I like the campy nature of it. I like the fact that people have to probe for weakness because of the (mostly) open nature of the maps results in broad fronts of attacks. This may be because most don't know the maps that well, but it's certainly better than in WoT's corridors. The map design in WoT results in easy flanking down closed corridors if they aren't all covered. Which is always the case with the propensity to Lemming train.

 

In the Chief, I now just concentrate on hull-down damage dealing and avoid tier 6 MBTs like the plague. It seems to be working ok.



anonym_fNru3sexYMEU #13122 Posted 15 October 2015 - 01:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 841
  • Member since:
    07-11-2020
Use the PVE coop mode to train crew and unlock modules. I do this before using a new vehicle in pvp, makes life much easier. Don't forget to upgrade the BASE, (which has no equivalent in WOT, and which improves both PVE and PVP XP and credit gains, of all kinds.) 

_Kruemelchen_ #13123 Posted 16 October 2015 - 10:41 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18671 battles
  • 662
  • [FUGLY] FUGLY
  • Member since:
    06-17-2012
Yes PVE makes stock grind really enjoyable. It's like using Team Battle/Stronghold in WOT but it's not limited to some special tiers (and you don't need a clan/friends). Exp gain is actually quit good in pve, credits not so much.

GoldMountain #13124 Posted 22 October 2015 - 02:20 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 20209 battles
  • 2,336
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

Hey listy.

How real is the super conqueror?

How extensive were the plans/designs?

 

I have heard of a Chieftain's gun being mounted on a conqueror to test the gun, but only in a turret less, rigid mount.

The only up armouring we have seen of the tank is the spaced armour additions.



Listy #13125 Posted 22 October 2015 - 02:34 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,548
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostCelestia, on 22 October 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

Hey listy.

How real is the super conqueror?

How extensive were the plans/designs?

 

I have heard of a Chieftain's gun being mounted on a conqueror to test the gun, but only in a turret less, rigid mount.

The only up armouring we have seen of the tank is the spaced armour additions.

 

There's no such thing as a super Conquer.

 

There's a target hulk fitted with spaced armour for experimentation

There's a redesigned turret to give improved ballistic shape.

There was even talk of a 2 man turret to improve the protection.



Link_to_Insanity #13126 Posted 22 October 2015 - 04:17 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28503 battles
  • 453
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

View PostListy, on 22 October 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

 

There's no such thing as a super Conquer.

 

There's a target hulk fitted with spaced armour for experimentation

There's a redesigned turret to give improved ballistic shape.

There was even talk of a 2 man turret to improve the protection.

 

No such thing? Hmmm.... so WG were talking about replacing a fake tank, because it is fake, with another "fake tank" though with the benefit of the doubt, maybe there was a translation issue...

 

 

So Listy, what's your opinion about this Chieftain thing that WG have pulled? (Sorry if you have stated already and note that I don't blame you and no-one should.)



Listy #13127 Posted 22 October 2015 - 05:12 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,548
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostLink_to_Insanity, on 22 October 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

 

No such thing? Hmmm.... so WG were talking about replacing a fake tank, because it is fake, with another "fake tank" though with the benefit of the doubt, maybe there was a translation issue...

 

 

So Listy, what's your opinion about this Chieftain thing that WG have pulled? (Sorry if you have stated already and note that I don't blame you and no-one should.)

 

 Its not fake, its just the term Super Conqueror is fake. All three of the Projects I mentioned above were real, and I'm the guy with the paper work to prove it! I also discovered two of them.

 

As to my opinion, we;; I've got a FV215B HT sitting in my garage with 0 battles played, waiting for the Chieftain replacement, and this T-62 is a crap grind!



Link_to_Insanity #13128 Posted 22 October 2015 - 05:17 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28503 battles
  • 453
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

View PostListy, on 22 October 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

 

 Its not fake, its just the term Super Conqueror is fake. All three of the Projects I mentioned above were real, and I'm the guy with the paper work to prove it! I also discovered two of them.

 

As to my opinion, we;; I've got a FV215B HT sitting in my garage with 0 battles played, waiting for the Chieftain replacement, and this T-62 is a crap grind!

 

 

Ha, well fair enough.

 

The T-64 is even worse mate. Still on mine and hate the thing.



Gvozdika #13129 Posted 22 October 2015 - 05:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38183 battles
  • 550
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Tin foil hats aside - I have a theory about the Chieftain thing.

 

WG need to fix FV 215 and FV 4202. Historical issues be damned - the vast majority of the general player base (Brit fans aside) don't really feel the need or inclination to grind up to the Brit T10s like they do with the IS-7, E-100. They aren't viewed as viable must-haves for CW - so fewer people still go for them. Less grinding - less money for WG. Nothing irritates the Komrades higher up than missing out on opportunities to part the Kapitalists from their money.

 

So they come up with replacements - first for the 4202. Cent Action X - the name sounds brilliant, looks great in HD and will basically be faster, packing high-pen HEAT and be generally superior to the FV 4202 when viewed as an overall package. Also allows WG to push the FV 4202 and create another premium they can sell without having to completely produce another model. Win-win. 

 

Fv 215B Replacement - Trickier, since initially the Chieftain is discounted as being too modern and powerful when viewed in WoT's timeline. At this point they either don't know about the enhanced / super / augmented Conker (whatever it's correct name is) or the information from Listy hasn't reached the right ears yet. So they build a Chieftain - it fits the bill as a 'heavy' tank and with some tweaking maybe they can make it fit into T10. A few thin(ish) armour values for the upper front hull wouldn't go amiss either.

 

The Reversal - Chieftain is proving to be a pig to balance perhaps? Maybe the armour scheme (which was fine for long-distance shooting) is not quite T10 material when thrown against the great hordes of premium-spammers and against arty? Or maybe it's too powerful vs. lower tiers? Whatever the reason - adding it is not ideal for some WG-inspired reason which may never see the light of day. Then someone remembers the idea of a Conqueror-Plus.... 

 

The Intended Result - WG decide to pull the Chieftain for the time being - perhaps keeping it on the back burner for a special 'chieftain' heavy line after the Skoda and Baguette lines are added - perhaps calculating that eventually people will get over it and get hyped up over something else. People will then get excited in 12 months time when an announcement is made that the Brit tree with get a Super Conker, plus a new Chieftain line with tanks down to T8. 

 

The Actual Result - Players who weren't bothered about the Chieftain are not likely to be overly affected - maybe just a bit of passing disappointment that a new shiny tanks wasn't added. Players who were kind of station-keeping until the Chieftain arrived (such as a few denizens of this part of the forum) will jump ship to AW for their Chieftain fix. Players who were looking forward to getting a competitive T10 Brit HT (whether Chieftain or otherwise) may well stop grinding the Brit line as some were doing in order to get the replacement for free.

 

Had WG explained the process above to us - a process known as 'communication' (I know, I know - but it has been known to happen) - I think people would be less irritated. After all, would not a simple developer post of 'sorry chaps - we would add this thing but can't without mullering the game balance or <insert real reason here>' be a bit less annoying for those who have waited?

 

 



5everin #13130 Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 81267 battles
  • 1,704
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

Block Quote

 Had WG explained the process above to us - a process known as 'communication' (I know, I know - but it has been known to happen) - I think people would be less irritated. After all, would not a simple developer post of 'sorry chaps - we would add this thing but can't without mullering the game balance or <insert real reason here>' be a bit less annoying for those who have waited?

 

Up until now they have not had real competition and so could afford not to bother with tedious stuff like communication or customer service.

Listy #13131 Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:14 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,548
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostGvozdika, on 22 October 2015 - 04:48 PM, said:

Tin foil hats aside - I have a theory about the Chieftain thing.

 

WG need to fix FV 215 and FV 4202. Historical issues be damned - the vast majority of the general player base (Brit fans aside) don't really feel the need or inclination to grind up to the Brit T10s like they do with the IS-7, E-100. They aren't viewed as viable must-haves for CW - so fewer people still go for them. Less grinding - less money for WG. Nothing irritates the Komrades higher up than missing out on opportunities to part the Kapitalists from their money.

 

So they come up with replacements - first for the 4202. Cent Action X - the name sounds brilliant, looks great in HD and will basically be faster, packing high-pen HEAT and be generally superior to the FV 4202 when viewed as an overall package. Also allows WG to push the FV 4202 and create another premium they can sell without having to completely produce another model. Win-win. 

 

Fv 215B Replacement - Trickier, since initially the Chieftain is discounted as being too modern and powerful when viewed in WoT's timeline. At this point they either don't know about the enhanced / super / augmented Conker (whatever it's correct name is) or the information from Listy hasn't reached the right ears yet. So they build a Chieftain - it fits the bill as a 'heavy' tank and with some tweaking maybe they can make it fit into T10. A few thin(ish) armour values for the upper front hull wouldn't go amiss either.

 

The Reversal - Chieftain is proving to be a pig to balance perhaps? Maybe the armour scheme (which was fine for long-distance shooting) is not quite T10 material when thrown against the great hordes of premium-spammers and against arty? Or maybe it's too powerful vs. lower tiers? Whatever the reason - adding it is not ideal for some WG-inspired reason which may never see the light of day. Then someone remembers the idea of a Conqueror-Plus.... 

 

The Intended Result - WG decide to pull the Chieftain for the time being - perhaps keeping it on the back burner for a special 'chieftain' heavy line after the Skoda and Baguette lines are added - perhaps calculating that eventually people will get over it and get hyped up over something else. People will then get excited in 12 months time when an announcement is made that the Brit tree with get a Super Conker, plus a new Chieftain line with tanks down to T8. 

 

The Actual Result - Players who weren't bothered about the Chieftain are not likely to be overly affected - maybe just a bit of passing disappointment that a new shiny tanks wasn't added. Players who were kind of station-keeping until the Chieftain arrived (such as a few denizens of this part of the forum) will jump ship to AW for their Chieftain fix. Players who were looking forward to getting a competitive T10 Brit HT (whether Chieftain or otherwise) may well stop grinding the Brit line as some were doing in order to get the replacement for free.

 

Had WG explained the process above to us - a process known as 'communication' (I know, I know - but it has been known to happen) - I think people would be less irritated. After all, would not a simple developer post of 'sorry chaps - we would add this thing but can't without mullering the game balance or <insert real reason here>' be a bit less annoying for those who have waited?

 

 

 

Couple of bits in there are wrong.

First the Chieftain apparently played fine on the test server. The issue was it played differently to the current tank. The issue is it plays very differently, so consideration is given to those who already have that tank. For example if you brought, grinded, played and liked the Charioteer then suddenly without warning it was replaced with the AT-15.



5everin #13132 Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 81267 battles
  • 1,704
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

Really!?!

It plays differently is the reason? I would have thought that was a little obvious from the start*,  and I would also think that most people ground to the Fvb with the express intention of getting the Chief'

 

*Tanks with rear mounted turrets tend to have a different play style. Or did this escape WG's attention up till  the last minute?

 

On the same line Tortoise/fvb (183) isn't a change in play style? Yes its across a tier but the similarity's are non-existent.

 


Edited by 5everin, 22 October 2015 - 06:34 PM.


anonym_fNru3sexYMEU #13133 Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 841
  • Member since:
    07-11-2020

View PostListy, on 22 October 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

 

Couple of bits in there are wrong.

First the Chieftain apparently played fine on the test server. The issue was it played differently to the current tank. The issue is it plays very differently, so consideration is given to those who already have that tank. For example if you brought, grinded, played and liked the Charioteer then suddenly without warning it was replaced with the AT-15.

 

Listy, this is a sell out comment, and bloody obvious as one too. (And I liked the fv215b when I was still an active player). If they wished to keep the fv215b they could have made a side branch out from the Conq. They did it with other trees, so the excuse is absent. Instead, they foist upon their players this abomination of an Action X turret on a centurion hull at tier 10 as a medium. I wasn't surprised, and so not outraged, but your comment is fairly outrageous. :facepalm:

 



Gvozdika #13134 Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38183 battles
  • 550
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Block Quote

Couple of bits in there are wrong.

First the Chieftain apparently played fine on the test server. The issue was it played differently to the current tank. The issue is it plays very differently, so consideration is given to those who already have that tank. For example if you brought, grinded, played and liked the Charioteer then suddenly without warning it was replaced with the AT-15.

 

I am happy to be corrected and retract my musings! Interesting to know though....

 

 



5everin #13135 Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 81267 battles
  • 1,704
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

View PostKiloIndie, on 22 October 2015 - 06:37 PM, said:

 

Listy, this is a sell out comment, and bloody obvious as one too. (And I liked the fv215b when I was still an active player). If they wished to keep the fv215b they could have made a side branch out from the Conq. They did it with other trees, so the excuse is absent. Instead, they foist upon their players this abomination of an Action X turret on a centurion hull at tier 10 as a medium. I wasn't surprised, and so not outraged, but your comment is fairly outrageous. :facepalm:

 

 

Don't shoot the (unofficial) messenger.

 

@vogel my gripe was with the message not its giver. We seem to have posted at the same time.


Edited by 5everin, 22 October 2015 - 06:56 PM.


Vogel #13136 Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 17418 battles
  • 855
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011
Why are you guys dissing Listy? You don't kill the messenger, even if it is bad news. 

Listy #13137 Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:58 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,548
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostKiloIndie, on 22 October 2015 - 05:37 PM, said:

 

. I wasn't surprised, and so not outraged, but your comment is fairly outrageous. :facepalm:

 

 

  Justgoing by what I've been told.

anonym_fNru3sexYMEU #13138 Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 841
  • Member since:
    07-11-2020

View PostVogel, on 22 October 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

Why are you guys dissing Listy? You don't kill the messenger, even if it is bad news. 

 

I like Pigeon, roasted with potatoes, parsley and a good sauce! 

Listy #13139 Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:22 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12157 battles
  • 5,548
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostKiloIndie, on 22 October 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

 

I like Pigeon, roasted with potatoes, parsley and a good sauce! 

 

Yes Mutley...

tajj7 #13140 Posted 22 October 2015 - 10:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33383 battles
  • 19,744
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

So played a few games on the test server with the action-x, I like it, could see myself playing it a lot.

 

it's damn fast, like goes almost every at least 50 kph, gun feels good but can't be 100% sure on whether it's any better than the FV4202, you can get the reload down to 6.3 seconds if you use the loader emblems but its about 6.6 with just the 4% to all crew members and so far the turret has bounced some shots from the few souls not spamming HEAT and of course now I can spam HEAT back. 

 

Oh and the HD model is just sweet, which I think makes it more fun. 

 

Better than the STB-1? Not sure, really need to see the turret in better spots, I got the hill area on Sand River and bounced a good 4 or 5 shots from opposite mediums but then an enemy 140 just spammed HEAT (one of which bounced) but most didn't. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users