Agreed. Could not get out of the S40 fast enough.
Agreed. Could not get out of the S40 fast enough.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, I took my KV-2 out derp golfing and killed a full health Lorraine with a single shot. Everyone thought that was hilarious, and the enemy player said that it didn't actually destroy his tank but the shell killed his entire crew. So awesome.
I went into the somua prepared by this thread, expecting a complete and utter dog. Therefore i found it not half as bad as I expected. For a stock gun it did fair damage and it looks snazzy. But yea, slow, big, vulnerable. lovely.
Didnt WG promise multiturreted tanks would work when they first gave notice of the french tanks? Having the pewpew gun on both the lee and somua would mitigate a lot of their awfulness i reckon.
Yeah, working multiple turrets is just one of the things WG promised but never got to delivering it. Including smoke, new matchmaker, physics, etc. Hopefully some of things things are still coming but IMO we can forget about turrets.Originally Posted by schurem
Adding multiturrets doesn't make sense from the business point of view, there are no "end game" multiturreted tanks (tier 6+) and it's not like players will spend lots of gold to get the M3 Lee with two guns.
And, realistically, the M3 Lee turret gun is a 37mm peashooter. It's practically worthless at its tier, much less shooting at anything higher.
To make the M3 Lee more bearable they needed to give it more speed and few more HP.
Given the general feelings about the lee, i thought it would suck - i ended up liking it: 56% win ratio, and 77 kills in 85 battles.
I never kept it, but i think it's far more maligned than it should be, and is a far better tank than, oh say...the A-20 or the B-1...
Actually, the 37mm would help against fast lights, which can be a major problem for a tank with a hull mounted gun.
Personally, I'm really bummed that multi-turret tanks were never implemented, and am dissapointed that WG.net saw no incentive to follow through on their earlier plans, instead delivering a French line whose early tiers are, by all accounts, are a terrible slog. I don't really buy the "there's no point" excuse; I think the more likely explanation is that the developers are sufficiently satisfied with their moneyhats that they've become content to just milk their existing game engine as long as possible.
I'm still enjoying the core WoT gameplay, but the longer I play the more I become convinced that the business model is not a minor nuisance, but is rather an active hindrance to my enjoyment of the game. I would love some gated early-war (or pre-war) gameplay modes, with more attention paid to lower tier tanks. But with the business model so centered around convincing people to spend gold to convert experience to skip terrible stock tanks, we see Tier X mediums and heavies, but little work done to improve the lower tiers...
I remember, back in the day on simhq forums we had a HUGE, HUMONGOUS MONSTROUSLY MEGAÜBERSIZED thread on the il2 sturmovik board called the crap planes thread.
It started out as an ode to the underdog planes in that game. The underpowered, underarmed slobs that would always struggle against the might of the messerschmitts.
It quickly became a repository of historic material on crap planes. It grew and grew and became a forum breaking 185 pages long.
So yea. crap tanks. i love my mighty somua of doom. love its looks, love its crapness. bring it on bitches!
Yeah its like an oversized, underpowered, undergunned, underarmoured hetzer, with an extra verstigal turret on top for attracting attention. I hated it so much.
IMHO the S35 is much better, even though it is not much better armoured; it also looks freakier and has a lot more character.... and you even get a pretty decent gun on it!
cant wait to get my hands on it lol and end up with a tank that makes people go "oh fuck, its a foch!"
The M3 Lee pivots so quickly (one of its few redeeming qualities) that I never had an issue with light tanks. That and I almost never saw them - instead having the problem of seeing too many higher tier tanks in a tier 4 piece of junk.
I hear you, stock tank syndrome does suck. On the other hand, if it didn't exist, would anyone pay any money at all? Crew training and garage slots can only go so far. The sad reality is that if most don't pay and play completely for free, then after a while the servers go away and there's no game. I just wish Wargaming found a less annoying way to generate cash from the game. In two years of playing the got ~$150 out of me. Or $6 a month. I would have happily just paid them a $6 a month, hell make that $10, subscription, and skipped the stock tanks entirely. But how many others would absolutely balk at the idea? F2P is here for a reason ...
I for one am totally on board with their style of free to play; and honestly I didn't mind working up my stock tanks either, it was fun to buy new components for them and slap them on and see the performance improve. I think if there was not that sense of improvement within a tank, it would be a little less interesting.
Yes. I've put a fair bit of money into the game, but never directly to avoid having to play a stock tank. It's mostly been for premium and premium tanks to grind credits to buy higher tier tanks and modules. I have spent a bit of gold on converting experience, but that's definitely not my primary use for it. You can make the path through each tank take as long, but starting you off worse than the previous tank just sucks.
My point was less about stock tanks being terrible, and more about how the game's financial model is built around a large number of incentives to dump gold into high tier tanks. This focus on high tier tanks then ties into the game's terrible matchmaker, and has, over time, made the low-tier experience worse and worse as the server population matures.
Which sucks because low tier tanks were fun once, and would be fun again if they didn't get thrown into so many terrible games.
Yeah, I've averaged way less than $10 a month, and would gladly pay $15 to cut out all the freemium BS.
This is sort of my point. I really like the lower tier tanks, but as the game matures they seem to have become cannon fodder for high tier tanks.
I would never pay a monthly fee for a game like this (I'm not sure I'd pay a monthly fee for much of any game anymore, but definitely not for a purely PvP arena combat combat game), and I'm fairly positive that people like me are in the vast majority. But I'm sure you knew that already.
I cant say I understand the desire to get multi turreted tanks working. it seems pretty "niche"
For starters i cant understand how you could competently control the multiple guns with mouse + keyboard. How would you fire each gun? Aim each gun?
And secondly, in the scheme of WWII I would struggle to name any twin turreted or gunned tanks beyond the Lee/Grant produced in any numbers or with any tactical significance.
i very much agree the low tier game could use some love though. Ultimately, if the low tier game is no fun it will choke of their supply of new players and thus income.
+1.
Making next tier stock tank better than the previous tier top tank would require to flatten out the upgrade curve for all tanks. If we take the "power" of the previous tier top tank as 100%, currently the next tier goes, for example, from 80% to 120%, giving you a 50% increase as you work up your new tank with new components. If they decided to make stock tanks more powerful then previous tier, obviously, the 120% figure can't increase, so you would have the curve go from 105% to 120%, giving you like 15% increase.
Due to this, psychologically, you would always feel like you don't really improve much.
The way they designed it now, improving your tank feels very drastic and impacting, which makes it rewarding and serves as a great carrot. There is nothing like getting the top gun on a tank.
especially when that tank is the ISU-152 :D
There Were Tanks At Tankfest: A Report from RPS. Don't care about World of Tanks? Read this anyway.
This is a typical excerpt.RPS: If people were tanks and tanks were people, do you think that the people (formerly tanks) would ride us around (that’s the tanks, formerly people) and make us shoot each other and hold big shows about us and generally make us do all the dirty war things they wanted to do?
VK: Do you mean, would the Tank Race make a World of Humans game?
That article really ate the weather.
Usually love RPS to bits but this one blew.
Solo capped a base last night. Invader and Mastery II. On my SU-152. Sometimes I really love this game. Oh and after the game I noticed that my 100% crew wasn't trained in any skills yet.
Just a thought here. What tanks are you good at? And have you taken tanks that you were bad at and turned them around?
What I seem to be good at:
Marder II: 53% win. Used to be 60. It's gone down recently.
PZ II: 63%
JPZ IV: 64% Somehow this hated beast works for me.
SU-152: 66% I love this sucker
Turned around:
IS finally 50%: I was bad with this tank but I have made it a thing to bring it up from 39% and I think I finally figured it out.
Somehow i managed to squeeze out a mastery ace badge on my panther. Using a short 88. le wtf. So theres a suckass tank that turned around for me. horribad win percentage though.
I am best with the hellcat fast american TD. It has a fierce gun and is so fast i can always find the weak flank with it and make a difference before dying horribly.
To me the tank that most dramatically turned around was the Tiger. Once i got the engine on it and the long 88 it finally came into its own. That gun is just so sweet.
I'm best with TDs. According to Tank Tracker, my overall win % with TDs is 53.9% whereas with mediums its 51.55% and only 48.995% for heavies.
My best win percentages are mostly on the mid-tier mediums though with 57% on the T-44, 55% on the Pershing, 55% on the T-20, 54% on the M4A3E8 (all with over 240 battles and actually a whopping 763 on the Pershing). Unfortunately my Patton and T-54 numbers are still below 50% though. I've been struggling to get them up, but only making moderate progress.
I've got some individual high TD scores including a 66% on the Hetzer, but most of them don't have very many battles on them, so they may not be statistically significant.
My account's overall winrate is 56%, yet:
- VK3601H: 66% winrate. It's a very solid tank, but how is a tier 6 medium influencing game winrate so much?? It's not like it's getting ludicrous matchmaking like the old KV. As a comparison my winrate in the T-34-85 is only 54% (similar number of games)
- T-28: 62% winrate. This one makes more sense since it's pimped out with equipment and high skill crew at tier 4 where many of the opposition will have 60% crew and no equipment. It's also got a tier 6 gun at tier 4 so..
- Type 59: 63% winrate. Still a very solid premium tank. Recently got BIA on mine, which is nice
- SU-26: 69% winrate. Such a powerhouse of an arti for its tier. This is without any extra crewskills or equipment too. Best round was 10 kills with it 8-o
And for the bad
- AMX 13 90: 47% winrate, though climbing slightly. Surprised how low this was (AMX 13 75 has 65% with similar no of battles) since I love the playstyle it affords. Took a while to unlock the top gun though, so am partly blaming that.
Some stats:
http://tank-tracker.com/view_tanker.aspx/500040496
100% winrate on my RenaultFT.... after 2 battles ;)
I find that the more battles I play on a given tank the more my percentage drifts towards 50%. In my tanks where I have over 100 battles fought almost all my win percentages fall between 45 and 55%, T20 and Panther II being exceptions at 60%.
Of the tanks I am currently playing, my M26 with 61% after 74 battles, and M18 with 66% after 59 battles seem to be my best performing tanks.
Apparently I am terrible at arty; my one arty that I play, the S-51, has a pitiful 42% winrate after 146 battles.
I have a global 58% win rate:
T110E5: 70% win rate, this thing is a beast even after they nerfed its rate-of-fire. I usually drive this in CW or in 3-man platoons, hence the inflated win %.
Patton: 65% win rate, the gun is amazing and makes up for everything else that is wrong
E50: 61% win rate, I drive the E50 too recklessly but sometimes a sacrifice must be made to the ram gods
Bat Chatillion: 55% win rate, I practice CW style scouting in the Bat Chat a lot, which tends to be less effective in random matches compared to hiding in a bush with binocs. Paired with even a single Bat.chat 155 we never lose a match, however.
Type 59: 62% win rate, this tank funds driving all my other tanks even without premium, but I enjoy cruising around in it too.
T32: 64% win rate, I used to drive this a lot when helping other people grind through their tier 8 tanks.
AMX 13 90: 60% win rate, this is my fun "blow off steam" tank. It was also my testing bed for Sixth Sense on a scout tank, and after a few hundred matches it has only been handy maybe a dozen times.
Most of my arty pieces have low to mid 50s for win %s, with my Object 261 the king at 59%, though my T92 is still sitting at 100% after four matches, heh.
Some preliminary patch notes for 7.5 got out into the wild. hot stuff. a bunch of russian mediums and the su85 are getting a whack of the nerf bat. tier spreads are being looked at. jagdpanther II.
Good times!
107 removed from the SU85. Yeah, it was way overpowered. Wut?
Reply With Quote
