Jump to content


T110E5


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
23 replies to this topic

Poll: T110E5 - What Should Happen? (105 members have cast votes)

Should The T110E5 Be:

  1. Nerfed (10 votes [9.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.52%

  2. Upgraded (51 votes [48.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.57%

  3. Downgraded (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Other (44 votes [41.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.90%

If You Have A T110E5, Do You Enjoy It?

  1. Yes, I Do (69 votes [65.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 65.71%

  2. No, I Do Not (15 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  3. I Do Not Have A T110E5, But I Think I Would Not Enjoy It. (3 votes [2.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.86%

  4. I Do Not Have A T110E5, But I Think I Would Enjoy It. (18 votes [17.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.14%

Vote Hide poll

Thenoob1234 #1 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 15:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5074 battles
  • 778
  • Member since:
    12-04-2011
The T110E5 is a monster tank, with extreme rate of fire and insane frontal armor. Think of it as a sleek, much more powerful version of the Churchill. (With a much more powerful tank, of course).

Now, I would like your honest opinion; Should the T110E5 be nerfed, upgraded, or modified?

Personally, I think that the T110E5 should be modified; as it has far too little side and back armor. In reality, it had nearly 172mm on the side, and 160mm on the back. Also, it could mount a 150mm cannon. These changes should be implemented in the game.

How about your opinions?

MacXlII #2 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 15:58

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11698 battles
  • 213
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
I just want that awful cupola gone.  I know the devs had model options without that tumor on top.  I'd be ok with my awful side armor if my front didn't have such an obvious weakspot.  I have been one shot by arty a couple times already, they just got a side hit and their HE round penetrated my side, so the T110 already has enough weakspots.

rinying #3 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 15:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 11134 battles
  • 5,746
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
i have played as the m103, and think of it as a fairly balanced tank, sometimes epic, others not. i believe the t110e is very similar to this style, at where you can sit back and unload 120mm shells one after the other into the enemy, without retreating or falling back. and there is already a section devoted to t110 armor http://forum.worldof...17-t110s-armor/

LoooSeR78V #4 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 16:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 5,063
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Enjoy, from RU newsletter ;)
Spoiler                     
Good tank. It's fun to drive it, i have better results with Tractor110, than tier 10 T30....

SpectreHD #5 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 16:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14769 battles
  • 9,955
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostLoooSeR78V, on Apr 08 2012 - 16:02, said:

Enjoy, from RU newsletter ;)
Spoiler                     
Good tank. It's fun to drive it, i have better results with Tractor110, than tier 10 T30....

Well, the T110 is more forgiving than the T30 because the T110 at least has some armour to fall back to and it does not need to wait 15(not sure of actual reload speed) seconds to shoot again.

For me, I would like more reverse speed and for it to get the M60's hull. :Smile-hiding:

GotTank #6 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 18:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19422 battles
  • 426
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
If everyone else is having the same kind of luck as I am in mine lately, the stats will show this, and a nerf may come about. I hope i don't jinx it.

IMO this tank is perfect as it is. The copula is not too bad - the tank is agile enough so that people will miss unless you stay perfectly still and they are fairly close. I was wondering if I'd like any more side armor on it, but that would mean less mobility so I think it's a very good blend of things.

We already use it in CW, 1 or 2 in each battle. We are also using the T30 in some cases, to sit back and bring the pain.

View PostSpectreHD, on Apr 08 2012 - 16:45, said:

Well, the T110 is more forgiving than the T30 because the T110 at least has some armour to fall back to and it does not need to wait 15(not sure of actual reload speed) seconds to shoot again.

For me, I would like more reverse speed and for it to get the M60's hull. :Smile-hiding:


Oh man the reverse, i almost forgot. It sucks, yes. I have BIA and vents so it's tolerable I'd say.

evanb90 #7 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 18:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 17908 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
I voted "Other" and I enjoy playing it.

Also, no American tank in reality ever had 172mm or 160mm side/rear armor. The tank could never weigh just 54 tons if it had that much side and rear armor AND frontal armor.


I'm almost 100% certain they won't be buffing it and are actually exploring ways to nerf it, but what I'd like to see is:
-Redesign of the cupola. Not for gameplay, but because it is illogical. Compare it to the cupola on the M48, for example.
1: T110 cupola is part of the turret. It cannot traverse independently.
2: The machine-gun part is fixed to the cupola, it cannot elevate.
3: Cupola likely too small for an M2HB.
The design of the cupola came from a mock-up and if the tank had continued to prototype, it would have certainly looked much different for the above reasons. So pull a T25AT and reinterpret in a more logical manner. Something a little lower-profile, preferably. Alternatively, just give it 203mm instead of 178mm.

-Reverse speed to 15km/h. The T32 has a 14km/h reverse speed. All other Tier 10s have atleast 15km/h reverse speed; I don't see why the T110 has to be the odd man out.


Fix those two things and I'd be perfectly happy with this tank.

Yankee_Rhapsody #8 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 19:51

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8631 battles
  • 536
  • Member since:
    03-20-2011
wheres the "Fine as is"?

lostwingman #9 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 19:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 20334 battles
  • 20,301
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View PostThenoob1234, on Apr 08 2012 - 15:52, said:

The T110E5 is a monster tank, with extreme rate of fire and insane frontal armor. Think of it as a sleek, much more powerful version of the Churchill. (With a much more powerful tank, of course).

Now, I would like your honest opinion; Should the T110E5 be nerfed, upgraded, or modified?

Personally, I think that the T110E5 should be modified; as it has far too little side and back armor. In reality, it had nearly 172mm on the side, and 160mm on the back. Also, it could mount a 150mm cannon. These changes should be implemented in the game.

How about your opinions?
lol first off. It's front armor is NOT insane. The lower glacis is rather large and penable by tier 6 tanks. If you can't pen it, that is on you. Also the upper glacis is only as strong as the IS-4s upper glacis. Which means it is weak to tier X guns.


Second, where do you get those absolutely absurd numbers for side and rear armor? Magical made up loltank land? And a 150mm cannon? Man, whatever your smoking, I want it.

Third, I would "change" the T110. Not really buff or nerf it. I still feel this vehicles gun is lacking something for CW and that the tank overall is just not enough of a heavy to have long term usage when tier X meds come.



lostwingman #10 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 20:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 20334 battles
  • 20,301
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View Postevanb90, on Apr 08 2012 - 18:33, said:

Also, no American tank in reality ever had 172mm or 160mm side/rear armor. The tank could never weigh just 54 tons if it had that much side and rear armor AND frontal armor.

The T110E5 was set to weigh 45t or less. When they drew up the design and estimated the weight, it came out to ~48t. The 54t that we have in game is loltastically off. It's like if the devs put the Tiger in game and it weighed 75 tons.

Duty_Remains #11 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 21:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16151 battles
  • 1,356
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
The tank is fine as is... I hope the devs realize that and leave it alone.

__gabriel__ #12 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 22:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16055 battles
  • 5,930
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010
Just let the damn thing be,

And why is OP talking about adjusting a tank he's 5 tiers away from getting?  :Smile_harp:

Dravin #13 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 22:27

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 16883 battles
  • 78
  • [LEMON] LEMON
  • Member since:
    10-17-2010
The tank is fine the way it is, it doesnt need modified, nerfed or buffed. It has its own play style and if used correctly does really well.

Enough with these kinds of threads already...

JamesDean #14 Posted Apr 08 2012 - 22:51

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 6468 battles
  • 1,071
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010

View PostxRainbowDashX, on Apr 08 2012 - 19:51, said:

wheres the "Fine as is"?
This.  Please reconfigure your poll.

I'm still unsure why so many people are having problems against it.  FFS shoot the lower hull.  I'm still far more worried about coming face to face with an IS7 than I am a T110.  Much easier to bounce on.  Not to mention the butter sides and side turret of the 110.  L2p.  Of course in game chat I read a lot of bitching by soviet tankers.  I actually don't play my T110 enough.  I need to make the noobs more angry.

lostwingman #15 Posted Apr 09 2012 - 00:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 20334 battles
  • 20,301
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View PostDravin, on Apr 08 2012 - 22:27, said:

The tank is fine the way it is, it doesnt need modified, nerfed or buffed. It has its own play style and if used correctly does really well.

Enough with these kinds of threads already...
We'll see when tier X meds come out. I still don't think this thing has enough "heavy" attributes to be effective long term in organized play.




Thenoob1234 #16 Posted Apr 09 2012 - 01:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5074 battles
  • 778
  • Member since:
    12-04-2011

View PostDevil_Dog, on Apr 08 2012 - 15:58, said:

I just want that awful cupola gone.  I know the devs had model options without that tumor on top.  I'd be ok with my awful side armor if my front didn't have such an obvious weakspot.  I have been one shot by arty a couple times already, they just got a side hit and their HE round penetrated my side, so the T110 already has enough weakspots.

The cupola was re-made already three times. It won't be fixed.

Harkonnen25 #17 Posted Apr 09 2012 - 01:33

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16885 battles
  • 547
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011
Nothing should be done, it is fine as is. Leave it alone.

upnorth #18 Posted Apr 09 2012 - 02:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16691 battles
  • 491
  • [BADGR] BADGR
  • Member since:
    06-25-2011
everyone complanes about the gun..... play a t34 with a 105 for 100 battles or so and you will lern how to aim at weak spots and cupla damge is going to go from a post i have seen before ;)

Mow_Mow #19 Posted Apr 09 2012 - 04:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11515 battles
  • 14,802
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
Give the T110 some chemotherapy and chop off 1RPM or something to compensate. Some more gun depression would be appreciated as well.

Icecold7181 #20 Posted Apr 09 2012 - 04:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15761 battles
  • 543
  • [AGNT] AGNT
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011
i think its a pretty good damn straight.......better than T30.....i wish i could have the T110E5....but im still at t29http://forum.worldoftanks.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Smile_mellow.gif