Jump to content


WHY, was the T 50-2 Removed


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
11 replies to this topic

GermanMade #1 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17468 battles
  • 985
  • [_-W-_] _-W-_
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012
First I never had one.  I saw all the notices about it being replaced and I can see all the whining, but can some you players who have actual knowledge explain why or what was the reason WOT had to remove the T 50-2??

I really don't care about it being removed, I'm just looking for the reason.

Thanks

KingBlueDevil #2 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 26796 battles
  • 2,973
  • [P5YCH] P5YCH
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011
Not historically accurate, IRL it was planned to be a slow infantry support vehicle

Dorneles #3 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 17079 battles
  • 2,094
  • [-GO-] -GO-
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011
good for business. just that.

deathmachine16 #4 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 16521 battles
  • 7,583
  • [JIMBO] JIMBO
  • Member since:
    12-21-2011
well have been ninja'd and its removal was planned since about 8.0

alexsyl007 #5 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 17951 battles
  • 2,030
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostKingBlueDevil, on Jul 29 2013 - 20:36, said:

Not historically accurate, IRL it was planned to be a slow infantry support vehicle
By that Logic, half the tanks in WoT need to be removed. IIRC, the MT-25 was supposed to replace the T-50-2 in the physics patch because initial testing revealed the T-50-2 to be incompatible with the new physics engine (something to do with the maneuverability). They later reworked it and everything was fine. My best guess now is they are using the 'historical' crap just to hide the fact that they poured several hours into developing the MT-25 and did not want to let it go to waste. The best way for WG to have handled this was just to keep the T-50-2 and introduce the MT-25 as the usual Tier 6 as it is now.

Commander_Apollo #6 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 18908 battles
  • 2,885
  • Member since:
    09-16-2011

View Postalexsyl007, on Jul 29 2013 - 20:42, said:

By that Logic, half the tanks in WoT need to be removed. IIRC, the MT-25 was supposed to replace the T-50-2 in the physics patch because initial testing revealed the T-50-2 to be incompatible with the new physics engine (something to do with the maneuverability). They later reworked it and everything was fine. My best guess now is they are using the 'historical' crap just to hide the fact that they poured several hours into developing the MT-25 and did not want to let it go to waste. The best way for WG to have handled this was just to keep the T-50-2 and introduce the MT-25 as the usual Tier 6 as it is now.
Those tanks are slightly different but the T-50-2 was massively different

TalonV #7 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 28185 battles
  • 23,675
  • [BURDY] BURDY
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011
Well considering the fact that the devs have stated many times they are having trouble finding russian light tanks[and i've pointed this out before] it makes little to no sense to REMOVE a russian light tank.  I say they should of just nerf bombed it like the 2801 and kept it.

Then you could of had a line like this going from tier 2-7
BT2/BT7/A20/T50/T50-2/MT25.

And it could of been it's own stand alone line, or fed into the new russian medium line. Instead we have 3 light tank lines going to the T-34[WTF WG?] and a light tank, researched off a heavy, leading to a medium that can already be researched to by 3 other tanks?  Yeah, not making sense here WG.

mattscooby #8 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:50

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 28888 battles
  • 1,442
  • [KLUB] KLUB
  • Member since:
    12-31-2010
they did not want a moped on tracks in game.
with new physics , it was just that , sliding, and moving like a motorbike, but on tracks . so its gone, bye bye .

kittikat #9 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 6990 battles
  • 8,204
  • [FOXEY] FOXEY
  • Member since:
    12-09-2012
Cause WG found out that we all touch ourselves at night.

This is our punishment.

Dominatus #10 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10091 battles
  • 12,808
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostKingBlueDevil, on Jul 29 2013 - 20:36, said:

Not historically accurate, IRL it was planned to be a slow infantry support vehicle
What WG said is bullcrap. The Object 211 was faster and had a better p/w ratio than the normal T-50. The reason was because it turned and handled like a motorbike. Personally, I don't think it should have been removed. They should have dropped the speed and horsepower to historical values (64km/h) and nerfed the crap out of the traverse speed, then had it lead to the MT-25.

Edited by Dominatus, Jul 29 2013 - 20:54.


Tupinambis #11 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26906 battles
  • 11,862
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010
I wrote this several days ago in a long-buried thread:
Here's what seems to be going on with WG's decision regarding the T-50-2, VK2801, and eventually the Chaffee.
1. The tier 5 dead-end light tanks have been feature-creeped into relative uselessness by the tier 7 and 8 light tanks. Both classes of vehicles get into the same matches, only the tier 7 and 8 lights are better at almost everything. WG is eliminating this class of vehicles and leaving either tier 5 light that research into other things [i.e. ELC and VK1602] or really awful tier 6 light tanks that research into other things.
2. While WoT isn't exactly known for historical accuracy, The T-50-2 took it way, way, waaay too far. Its comparable to WG taking a Valentine and turning it into a motorcycle.
In all other instances the tanks in game at least hold true to the fundamental essence of what the tank actually was like in real life. The Panther may be ahistorically buffed, but its still the stand-off range specialist in game as it was IRL. Same with the Tiger. The E-100 isn't scooting around like a T-54, the Hellcat isn't a heavily armored monster like the AT-2, the Panzer 1 doesn't have a 128mm gun, etc etc etc.
The T2 light tank is the only vehicle in game that has been botched up at a comparable level as the T-50-2, and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if that thing gets rebalanced later [with an offer for a refund].
3. The MT-25 is a more "historically accurate" alternative to the T-50-2. The MT-25 was actually designed to be a fast, nimble machine similar to how it is represented in game. The T-50-2/Object 211 was designed as a light infantry-support tank... similar to the Valentine. A fast one, but its in-game representation takes it way too far. Recon was never one of its design goals. Imagine the Jagdpanzer IV being turned into an ELC-esque scout as a comparison.
The only horrendously ahistorical tanks in the game right now [i.e. high tier American TDs] exist mostly due to a lack of good alternatives. If something really concrete was found to replace the T28 for example, WG would probably delete the T28 and replace it with this new machine just like they are doing with the T-50-2.
4. If the T-50-2 were to return as a premium it would reincarnate as the Object 211 and end up being extremely similar to the T-127, as in it wouldn't even be remotely similar to the T-50-2 that people are used to now. It would actually be extremely redundant vs the T-127, so there's really no point in introducing it. I suppose it could have been left in tier 5 and researched into the MT-25....but then it would have been nerfed even harder from its former glory than it is now as an MT-25 reincarnation. The only thing this would really resolve is the crew-member fiasco.
TL;DR: WG had to draw the line of "historical inaccuracy" somewhere, and the T-50-2 went over that line.

Edited by Tupinambis, Jul 29 2013 - 20:58.


deathmachine16 #12 Posted Jul 29 2013 - 20:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 16521 battles
  • 7,583
  • [JIMBO] JIMBO
  • Member since:
    12-21-2011

View Postalexsyl007, on Jul 29 2013 - 20:42, said:

By that Logic, half the tanks in WoT need to be removed. IIRC, the MT-25 was supposed to replace the T-50-2 in the physics patch because initial testing revealed the T-50-2 to be incompatible with the new physics engine (something to do with the maneuverability). They later reworked it and everything was fine. My best guess now is they are using the 'historical' crap just to hide the fact that they poured several hours into developing the MT-25 and did not want to let it go to waste. The best way for WG to have handled this was just to keep the T-50-2 and introduce the MT-25 as the usual Tier 6 as it is now.

the problem when they added physics was that the 50-2 would track itself when it would go down hills fast and try to turn so they nerfed its traverse speed to fix it but we now have the old traverse speed back but sluggish accerleration




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users