Jump to content


M60A1 & 2nd American Medium Branch Campaign HQ (NA)


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

Legiondude #41 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 03:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,997
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostM4A3E8sherman, on Sep 15 2015 - 21:20, said:

Alright, I figured out a solution for the tech tree, but it requires a rework.

 

I shared my suggestions with a couple of guys at wotlabs, and the feedback was generally positive, but one guy brought up a good point: adding the T95E9 would make the existing T54E2 and the T95E6 redundant. Instead, why not make the T95E3 a tier 10? After all, it does get a 390 alpha 105mm gun.

T140 is not an impressive gun as it's currently implemented, there are some of us that would like to see that changed that that involves a much larger overhaul concerning the T5E1 ane T140 that implicates both the primary heavy line and the T57's line



M4A3E8sherman #42 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 03:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17464 battles
  • 1,099
  • [KBEAR] KBEAR
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

Block Quote

 T140 is not an impressive gun as it's currently implemented

It could probably be buffed to tier 10 levels without too much trouble. With upgraded AP rounds, APCR premium, and an enhanced rate of fire, the T95E3 would likely work well as an alternative to the STB-1.

Block Quote

  there are some of us that would like to see that changed that that involves a much larger overhaul concerning the T5E1 ane T140 that implicates both the primary heavy line and the T57's line

Honestly I don't feel that's necessary, the current guns on the US heavies work fine and there's no real need to add the T140 to any of them.

 



CK16 #43 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 03:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Sounds interesting for sure. Just seems odd ti have two 95's but not back to back? Just thinking a bit.

 

This is all great guys, we must keep talking about it. This is our fight we must keep going lol.



Legiondude #44 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 04:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,997
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostM4A3E8sherman, on Sep 15 2015 - 21:35, said:

It could probably be buffed to tier 10 levels without too much trouble. With upgraded AP rounds, APCR premium, and an enhanced rate of fire, the T95E3 would likely work well as an alternative to the STB-1.

Honestly I don't feel that's necessary, the current guns on the US heavies work fine and there's no real need to add the T140 to any of them.

 

Shapeshifter has been digging up data illustrating the relation between the T5 series and the T140 for some time now

 

And it wasn't to add the T140 to them, it was to buff the T5E1 and the T140 accordingly, which is why I brought up the objection due to the relation between the two guns



Life_In_Black #45 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 04:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 24342 battles
  • 10,837
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostM4A3E8sherman, on Sep 15 2015 - 22:20, said:

Alright, I figured out a solution for the tech tree, but it requires a rework.

 

I shared my suggestions with a couple of guys at wotlabs, and the feedback was generally positive, but one guy brought up a good point: adding the T95E9 would make the existing T54E2 and the T95E6 redundant. Instead, why not make the T95E3 a tier 10? After all, it does get a 390 alpha 105mm gun.

 

I thought this was fair enough, particularly since I don't think the T95E3 really finds optimal placement in tier 9. Reason being that the T95E3 is too heavily armored to be balanced around an M46 gameplay style (in fact, the turret armor is superior to the M48A1's, and closer to the M60A1's), which would mean that, with the tier 9 M46's replacement, there would be nothing left to fulfill its role. Instead you would be left with one armored tier 9 medium with a high pen low RPM gun and another more heavily armored tier 9 medium with a low pen high RPM gun. 

 

The idea is to uptier the T95E3 to tier 10, and use the T42 to replace the tier 9 M46. The T42 works almost perfectly as a drop-in replacement, because you have the same turret and similar hull armor, and I'm sure the mobility stats can be fiddled with to replicate the Patton's. In order to fill the gap at tier 8, we could use the original T95 or the T95E1 medium tank instead. Gets a more heavily armored turret than the M46, but would be slower with greater dispersion while moving-a good fit for the tier 8 Pershing's niche.

 

So the 2nd US tech tree would go as follows:

 

T20->T25->T95E1->T42->T95E3

 

For a premium, we can add the T23E4 at tier 7 with a 76mm M1A2.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

No, absolutely not. a T42 at tier 9 would have to be just as unhistorical as the M46 currently, which is part of the reason for a complete rework. And the 105mm T140 should have penetration as good or better than that of the 105mm L7, so that wouldn't be historical either to keep the low penetration for it. Plus, you have the T95E1 at tier 8, which uses the same turret as the T95E3, in addition to the T95E1 also using (and designed around) the 90mm T208 smoothbore cannon. As I have it, the T95E3 is fine as a tier 9, and could be upgraded to the T95E7 if Wargaming so chooses. As for the T54E2 120mm, and the T95E6, the whole purpose of premium tanks (rewards should fall into this category too), is for the vehicle to be slightly worse than the tech tree equivalent, which this would accomplish by using the M60A1 and the T95E9. The T23E4 would be better as either a tier 6 premium or the elite form of the tier 6 T20, as the current T23E3 had to be given both preferential matchmaking, as well as special matchmaking weight limiting the number of tier 8 matches it gets. Again, the whole idea of this rework is to keep from having to do stuff like that again.

M4A3E8sherman #46 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 04:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17464 battles
  • 1,099
  • [KBEAR] KBEAR
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

Block Quote

 No, absolutely not. a T42 at tier 9 would have to be just as unhistorical as the M46 currently, which is part of the reason for a complete rework. 

Some vehicles are just going to be that way. As it stands, I think the tech trees are pretty accurate. Having one odd duck is barely anything compared to many other trees (and I assure you WG would not mind at all!), especially considering the US tree isn't really a standout for napkin tanks.

Block Quote

 And the 105mm T140 should have penetration as good or better than that of the 105mm L7, so that wouldn't be historical either to keep the low penetration for it.

A lot of gun penetration figures are unhistorical. If you want accurate figures for the 105mm T140, the best course of action would be to simply uptier the platform.

Block Quote

 Plus, you have the T95E1 at tier 8, which uses the same turret as the T95E3, in addition to the T95E1 also using (and designed around) the 90mm T208 smoothbore cannon.

The problem, you realize, isn't that the turret is OP at tier 9, but rather that the M48 and the T95E3 do not offer enough difference in playstyle, and neither would the M46 and T42. With the inclusion of the T54E2/M48A2, T95E6, and the T95E9, we'd also see 3 US tier 10 meds that are all effectively the same thing. This problem only becomes worse if you give the T140 historical penetration figures, because now the T95E3 not only has M48+ levels of armor, it also has an M48+ level gun. You'd see the complete disappearance of the flexible, mobile high skill floor, high skill ceiling gameplay that the current tier IX M46 is know for, and replace it with 2 Cent 7/1 competitors with relatively minimal overall differences. This is not only a bit of a whiplash for US med players, it also doesn't offer enough meaningful differences between the trees, and results in a major shift in tier 9 medium meta (and probably not for the better, at least as far as above average players are concerned).

In short:

The tier 8 tanks are very similar in playstyle.

The tier 9 tanks are very similar in playstyle.

3 of the tier 10 tanks are very similar in playstyle.

 

That's getting into RU med territory.

Block Quote

  the whole purpose of premium tanks (rewards should fall into this category too)

Actually, they're not, at all. WG has stated previously that reward tanks are balanced as regular vehicles, and they're not given any credit bonuses as a result. Plus I doubt anyone is going to want to do campaigns for a nerfed tier 10 that doesn't make any more credits.

 

The VK7201K, M60, and Obj 907 were all balanced with their regular counterparts in mind, and while the former 2 aren't very good, the intention wasn't to make them underpowered in comparison. The M60, for one, is actually better than the M48A1, though the differences are slight. The minimal contrast between the M48A1 and the M60 is also why simply making the T95E9 a somewhat buffed up T95E6 (they even use the same armor models) doesn't really work. You have T95E6 and T95E6+1, which isn't all that exciting.

Block Quote

 The T23E4 would be better as either a tier 6 premium or the elite form of the tier 6 T20, as the current T23E3 had to be given both preferential matchmaking, as well as special matchmaking weight limiting the number of tier 8 matches it gets.

IMO the tank should work reasonably well if one were to (as qcarr said) give it T20 speed and E8 agility, along with a buffed up 76mm gun. 150 pen M79 AP as default will get the job done at tier 7 in light of the fact that actual premium tanks are meant to be worse than tech tree tanks. Besides that, a tier 6 T23E4 would pretty much be an E8 clone anyway.

Block Quote

 Again, the whole idea of this rework is to keep from having to do stuff like that again. 

If you ask me, the suggested alternate US med tree line meets acceptable historical accuracy criteria for WoT, especially when you consider stuff like the entire waffentrager line. Making a single tank unhistorical is well worth trade off for better gameplay. Remember, most WoT players across all skill levels are primarily interested in the game, with only a passing glance at historical accuracy. For me, and for most people, I would suspect the main point of revising the US tech tree would be to 1) implement some tier 10 US meds that aren't crap and 2) expand the US med line instead of giving us more Germans and Russians, with improving historical accuracy being a secondary concern. Adding more tanks won't really help if they're all clones anyway, hence why nobody really cares that much (and some get angry) if a new T-54 variant is added.



Life_In_Black #47 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 04:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 24342 battles
  • 10,837
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostM4A3E8sherman, on Sep 15 2015 - 23:38, said:

Some vehicles are just going to be that way. As it stands, I think the tech trees are pretty accurate. Having one odd duck is barely anything compared to many other trees (and I assure you WG would not mind at all!), especially considering the US tree isn't really a standout for napkin tanks.

A lot of gun penetration figures are unhistorical. If you want accurate figures for the 105mm T140, the best course of action would be to simply uptier the platform.

The problem, you realize, isn't that the turret is OP at tier 9, but rather that the M48 and the T95E3 do not offer enough difference in playstyle, and neither would the M46 and T42. With the inclusion of the T54E2/M48A2, T95E6, and the T95E9, we'd also see 3 US tier 10 meds that are all effectively the same thing. This problem only becomes worse if you give the T140 historical penetration figures, because now the T95E3 not only has M48+ levels of armor, it also has an M48+ level gun. You'd see the complete disappearance of the flexible, mobile high skill floor, high skill ceiling gameplay that the current tier IX M46 is know for, and replace it with 2 Cent 7/1 competitors with relatively minimal overall differences. This is not only a bit of a whiplash for US med players, it also doesn't offer enough meaningful differences between the trees, and results in a major shift in tier 9 medium meta (and probably not for the better, at least as far as above average players are concerned).

In short:

The tier 8 tanks are very similar in playstyle.

The tier 9 tanks are very similar in playstyle.

3 of the tier 10 tanks are very similar in playstyle.

 

That's getting into RU med territory.

Actually, they're not, at all. WG has stated previously that reward tanks are balanced as regular vehicles, and they're not given any credit bonuses as a result. Plus I doubt anyone is going to want to do campaigns for a nerfed tier 10 that doesn't make any more credits.

 

The VK7201K, M60, and Obj 907 were all balanced with their regular counterparts in mind, and while the former 2 aren't very good, the intention wasn't to make them underpowered in comparison. The M60, for one, is actually better than the M48A1, though the differences are slight. The minimal contrast between the M48A1 and the M60 is also why simply making the T95E9 a somewhat buffed up T95E6 (they even use the same armor models) doesn't really work. You have T95E6 and T95E6+1, which isn't all that exciting.

IMO the tank should work reasonably well if one were to (as qcarr said) give it T20 speed and E8 agility, along with a buffed up 76mm gun. 150 pen M79 AP as default will get the job done at tier 7 in light of the fact that actual premium tanks are meant to be worse than tech tree tanks. Besides that, a tier 6 T23E4 would pretty much be an E8 clone anyway.

If you ask me, the suggested alternate US med tree line meets acceptable historical accuracy criteria for WoT, especially when you consider stuff like the entire waffentrager line. Making a single tank unhistorical is well worth trade off for better gameplay. Remember, most WoT players across all skill levels are primarily interested in the game, with only a passing glance at historical accuracy. For me, and for most people, I would suspect the main point of revising the US tech tree would be to 1) implement some tier 10 US meds that aren't crap and 2) expand the US med line instead of giving us more Germans and Russians, with improving historical accuracy being a secondary concern. Adding more tanks won't really help if they're all clones anyway, hence why nobody really cares that much (and some get angry) if a new T-54 variant is added.

 

You have unhistorical modules, overbuffed vehicles, and no sense of progression with two T95E1 separated only by gun option, at tier 8 and 10. How is that nay different from the mess we have now? I could give a rusty [edited]if the T95E9 outshines the T54E2 120mm and the T95E6, serves Wargaming right for being more concerned about reward tanks than fixing their mistakes. And no, that's not how it is, the US mediums, lights, and heavies could be made pretty damn historical all things considered, there's no point in changing things just so they can be unhistorical in different ways to how things are currently. And seriously, putting the M46 at tier 8 and the damn near identical T42 at tier 9 makes sense on what planet?

CK16 #48 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 05:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Easy easy guys discussion is good but just keep it civil we do NOT need to have this break into two camps we have to remain on the same team here WHAT EVER happens we just need to talk about progress not scowle and nip at each other wont. Both of you guys have good points teamwork 101 its about convincing the other guy your ideas are great not make anyone feel like a winner or loser here we all together must have the same goal that being the M60A1  at tier X and reworking of the tree along with a new medium tree for the USA. 

 

 - Also Changed the title for now to coexist with the EU -

 

NEW TITLE

M60A1 & T95E9 For Tier X - 2016! Campaign HQ (NA)


Edited by CK16, Sep 16 2015 - 05:20.


Life_In_Black #49 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 05:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 24342 battles
  • 10,837
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
I apologize, I'm in a very bad mood at the moment and should have gone to bed already. I just can't support making the reworked tech tree just as unhistorical as the current one is, only in different ways. It defeats the entire purpose of fixing the tech tree in the first place.

CK16 #50 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 05:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 15 2015 - 22:22, said:

I apologize, I'm in a very bad mood at the moment and should have gone to bed already. I just can't support making the reworked tech tree just as unhistorical as the current one is, only in different ways. It defeats the entire purpose of fixing the tech tree in the first place.

 

Its ok man I am not yelling at you about it haha it happens to all of us from time to time.

 

M4A3E8 we need to try to bring historically accurate builds here because it could be a big seller alone, people are wanting more accurate then fake paper trees lately. So our goal also is to make it convincing for the community that they might buy and pay into this as well as show it would be profitable for WG to take the time to consider and possibly implement some or all of our ideas. We got a long road ahead of us I feel but we can do something don't listen to this "oh WG never listens" I call [edited]if we keep it logical we may gain great allies in this endeavor and they will listen to reason specially if it can mean profit, and NA could buy into this for the sake of #Americastrong tanks!

 

Sorry for the pep talks but I got a lot of energy to give here guys and VERY passionate about this being a change. 


Edited by CK16, Sep 16 2015 - 05:29.


M4A3E8sherman #51 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 07:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17464 battles
  • 1,099
  • [KBEAR] KBEAR
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

Block Quote

 You have unhistorical modules,  overbuffed vehicles,

Actually, so far, the only tank that fits this description is the T42. Keep in mind that this is a relatively obscure project that most people don't know about, and very few people are going to join the game hoping to play this tank. I don't think most people will be displeased with its introduction, especially since it retains the aesthetics and gameplay of the well-liked M46. In fact, almost every other vehicle's modules are historical to a point, even their engines. This is better than the vast majority of high tier tanks in the game, which at the very least will have an unhistorical gun and most likely a unhistorical engine as well. 

Block Quote

 no sense of progression with two T95E1 separated only by gun option, at tier 8 and 10

The T95E3 and T95E1's turrets are modeled differently; they are present as the M48A2/T54E2 and T95E6's turret, respectively, and the armor models may be found on tank inspector and tanks.gg. Additionally, it is better to have the same playstyle carry through the tiers of the same tech tree, then have the same playstyle for both tech trees at the same tiers. The playstyle doesn't change a whole lot, no, but the T95E3 is still effectively balanced at tier 10 thanks to its soft stats (which, for medium tanks, are incredibly important).

 

Point being, would you rather have the same playstyle carry through the same tree, or would you rather have the same playstyles in both trees? I think most people would overwhelmingly prefer the former; if there isn't a difference between the niches of 2 tanks in seperate trees, why bother to make the second one in the first place?

 

Furthermore, the T95E3 uses the T54E2's turret and the T95E9 and T95E1 both use the T95E6's turret! Effectively, your own suggestion is also subject to your own criticism. After all, what would separate the T95E3 at tier 9 like you want from the T95E9 at tier 10, other than the gun? The soft stats? The T95E1 at tier 8 and the T95E3 at tier 10 would also have different soft stats. The turrets? The T95E1 uses the same turret armor model as the T95E9, and the T95E3/T54E2 turret is not going to change because it gets moved down to tier 8. Your own suggestions are subject to LITERALLY the EXACT same (perceived) faults. 

 

If you still need it broken down more carefully, here is your suggestion.

T95E3 at tier 9 with a 105mm gun, the same hull as the T95E9, and a T54E2 turret.

T95E9 at tier 10 with a 120mm gun, the same hull as the T95E3, and a T95E6 turret.

 

My suggestion:

T95E1 at tier 8 with a 90mm gun, the same hull as a T95E3, and a T95E6 turret.

T95E3 at tier 10 with a 105mm gun, the same hull as a T95E1, and a T54E2 turret.

 

In both cases, the tanks have the same hulls, slightly different turrets, and are mainly separated by their guns. 

 

Furthermore, the T95E1 uses the same turret as the T95E9, and the T95E3 uses the same turret as the T95E3 (duh).

 

So why is your suggestion acceptable, yet mine isn't?

 

The T95E9 does have a different engine, but there is almost no difference in horsepower.

Block Quote

 How is that nay different from the mess we have now?

Actually, it's a lot better.

-T20 used to be tier 7 with an unhistorical 90mm gun. It is now tier 6 with its historical 76mm gun, and competes with the 76mm armed HVSS Sherman, which is fairly reasonable in consideration of their similar real life specifications and the T20 development.

-Pershing used to be tier 8 with the long T15 90mm. Now it's at tier 7 with the historical 90mm M3. Historically, the Pershing was designed to be closer to the equivalent of the Tiger and Panther armor and armament wise than the Tiger II, so it seems reasonable.

-M46, a basic upgrade of the Pershing, is now tier 8 and carries a historical 90mm.

-The M48, meant to contend with T-54s rather than T-62s, is placed within tier 9. Its gun was not unhistorical in the first place, and it still isn't.

-M60A1 is now tier 10, no one disputes this position is historical.

 

-T25 gets placed within tier 7. Not unreasonable considering it carried the stock tier 8 Pershing's gun and turret, and was overall closer to the T26 than the T20. Plus the T20 needs a successor of some sort. The 90mm M3 Late that I listed for its stats may not have been the gun it was originally designed with, but it could almost certainly be fitted to the tank-doesn't take much suspension of belief.

-T95E1 is placed within tier 8 with its historical 90mm. Seems fairly balanced at tier 8-decently armored, but not particularly mobile, and not enough alpha to contend at tier 9. There's no particular reason this doesn't fit, especially considering the T95E2 is also a tier 8 medium.

-T42 is placed within tier 9 with the current tier 9 M46's modules. This is the only standout from a historical point of new. We have made at least 6 improvements, and we have 1 tank that's overbuffed. That's a pretty good net deal.

Think about this: The E50, VK4502B, and the Type 61 have been overbuffed to suit tier 9. Very few people have a problem with this. Why?

  • None of these tanks were iconic. The T42 was not either. As a result, people will not be very interested in its historical vs ingame performance. Think about this: 99.9% of players probably have no idea what the T42 is! and, say, about 97% of US med players don't. Of that 3%, only a fraction will care that its ingame stats were altered from its real life performance. I think nearly everyone at wotlabs would rather get to keep the M46 at tier 9 through the T42, than get 2 tier 9 tanks that both fulfill the easy to use, low skill floor, low skill ceiling niche that is already occupied by the Centurion 7/1 along with 2 tier 8 tanks that have little meaningful difference. This is particularly true when neither the T95E3 nor the T42 are tanks that anyone knows or cares about in real life.
  • Putting these tanks in tier 8 instead, where they would have belonged historically, would be redundant because there would be few changes compared to playing the existing tier 8.
  • They were all logical progressions of their tier 9 predecessors. The E50 was designed to replace the Panther, the VK4502B was meant to be an advancement over the VK4502A, and the Type 61 was an improvement over the STA-1. In the same way, the T42 is also a logical progression of the M46 because it was meant to be an improvement. The problem is that this would not translate into any meaningful difference statistically. The placement is a little odd because you don't actually research the T42 from the M46, but it makes sense that the T42>M46, not T42=M46.

Block Quote

 I could give a rusty [edited]if the T95E9 outshines the T54E2 120mm and the T95E6, serves Wargaming right for being more concerned about reward tanks than fixing their mistakes.

Regardless of what your personal attitudes towards reward tanks and WG are, this is not going to fix the problem of clones. If WG were to introduce a tier 10 T-54 variant superior to the T-22 sr and Obj. 907, standard reactions would consist of "Oh, not another one!" rather than "This is really different!".

Block Quote

 And no, that's not how it is, the US mediums, lights, and heavies could be made pretty damn historical all things considered, there's no point in changing things just so they can be unhistorical in different ways to how things are currently

Nobody is asking for things to be unhistorical just for $h1ts and giggles, but it's often beneficial to sacrifice some historical accuracy for better gameplay. Remember-this is a game! People play to have fun and compete. WoT isn't a simulator, and making both trees entirely historical except for one tank is a better compromise than usual. Like it or not, you won't be satisfied if you adopt a hardline stance towards historical accuracy so that 100% of vehicles are 100% true to life. The devs have made this abundantly clear already, and most players will not care too much as long as napkin tanks like the Waffentrager auf E100 are kept to a minimum. Think about this-the T28 Prototype is complete fantasy, yet most people have little problem with it.

Block Quote

 And seriously, putting the M46 at tier 8 and the damn near identical T42 at tier 9 makes sense on what planet? 

Better question: Why would you put 2 identical tanks in the same tier if they're in different trees?

Remember, the T42 was meant to be an improvement over the M46. It's logical that it gets to be a tier up. Unfortunately, the differences in real life don't really count for anything in game because the M47 turret and T69 hull by themselves offer little improvement over the M46 turret and hull when you're dealing with those tiers of tanks, so I proposed other upgrades. Still, point is-T42>M46 in real life, why not T42>M46 in game? It makes perfect sense for the AMX AC mle. 46 and mle. 48 to be placed in different tiers at the cost of historical accuracy (ac 46 was designed with a 120mm gun in mind), even if they were similar in real life. Other examples: AMX 50 120 and AMX50B, SU-101 and SU100M1, WZ-131 and WZ-132, PZ II vs Pz. II Ausf. G, T1 vs M6, WZ-111 vs WZ 111 1-4, WZ-120 vs 121B. Then look to see what percentage of the player base minds. The T42 is by no means the only example out there! 

Block Quote

  I just can't support making the reworked tech tree just as unhistorical as the current one is, only in different ways.

As I've explained in great length, it's not, but even if it were, this wouldn't be the case:

Block Quote

 It defeats the entire purpose of fixing the tech tree in the first place. 

Like I said, you cannot look at this game purely from a historian's glass. The vast majority of players come to play a game. The main things most people are going to be interested in when a new tech tree gets introduced or an existing tech tree gets renovated are 1) balance changes and 2) new tanks. In fact, probably a good portion of the playerbase

Block Quote

 could give a rusty [edited]

if almost no attention were paid to historical accuracy at all, at least in the case of poorly known tanks-which many of the suggested vehicles are.

Block Quote

 M4A3E8 we need to try to bring historically accurate builds here because it could be a big seller alone, people are wanting more accurate then fake paper trees lately.

Sure, but mostly what those people want are chassis that actually existed or were conceived, not napkin and serb-land tanks. Introducing varied, exciting gameplay will be far more beneficial than pertaining 100% to historical accuracy. What people are going to do when they look see the T42 is say, oh, it's a cold war US medium tank and it was meant to be an improvement over the M46, okay sure. And that'll be the end of it. They won't spend hours poring over fine details. For most of the people who want a redesigned US tech tree for historical purposes, they're just going to see that the Pershing's tier 7, M46's tier 8, M48 is tier 9, and M60's tier 10, and they'll be satisfied. Hardcore historians will probably have better things to do than criticize an online game over minor historical transgressions, and if they did decide to do that, they sure wouldn't start with the new US med tech trees first.

 

Besides that, people are clamoring for the M60A1 because they want new tier 10 US meds that are credit purchasable, xp researchable, and aren't terrible. They use the introduction date of the Pershings and Pattons to justify a redesign of the tech tree, but here's why they talk about the age of the M48 relative to other tier 10 tanks: They're saying "Ok, this tank isn't very good, so why not introduce this tank instead, which was actually meant to compete with tier 10 RU meds, as a more viable choice. To make room for it, we can move these other tanks down a tier, because so and so history". Game balance is largely at the heart of it-very few people would push for the downtiering of the Pershing on historical basis if it just meant the Pershing alone, and for most people, the unhistorical state of the M46 is an afterthought. They may think "Yeah, it'd be cool if this were an M47 instead, but the tank works and I'm OK.". Had the M48 actually been good, like it was at release, far fewer people would care.

 

As for the T95E1 and T95E3, both are, like the T42, relatively obscure, and could fit in several tiers based on just their historical modules through soft stat balancing. Almost no one is going to have a problem because they won't know much about the tanks in the first place, and even if they do, what tier would the T95E3 fit in anyway? There's no definitive answer. In fact, the guy who actually suggested making the T95E3 the new tier 10 tank to me cared a lot more about changing the US medium branch than I did-including the historical aspect. And you'll notice that while all the EU poasters complained about how so and so tank was sooooooo OP because they were completely stupid about what certain stats were and what existing tanks were like, no one had any real complaint about the specific ordering of E#s.



Harkonen_siegetank #52 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 09:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 27950 battles
  • 5,441
  • [_LOL_] _LOL_
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 16 2015 - 04:22, said:

I apologize, I'm in a very bad mood at the moment and should have gone to bed already. I just can't support making the reworked tech tree just as unhistorical as the current one is, only in different ways. It defeats the entire purpose of fixing the tech tree in the first place.

 

I just have to point out that you too are working on an Isreali Tech Tree which are mostly clone tanks (IMO totally unneeded), and people supported you. Why cant you give the same support to US tech tree.

 

Personally, I dont see anything wrong with this proposal except the M48A1 would struggle at tier 9 as it will still face tier 10s but now with lower HP (while carrying over its perks and weaknesses). 



Life_In_Black #53 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 11:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 24342 battles
  • 10,837
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostHarkonen_siegetank, on Sep 16 2015 - 04:19, said:

 

I just have to point out that you too are working on an Isreali Tech Tree which are mostly clone tanks (IMO totally unneeded), and people supported you. Why cant you give the same support to US tech tree.

 

Personally, I dont see anything wrong with this proposal except the M48A1 would struggle at tier 9 as it will still face tier 10s but now with lower HP (while carrying over its perks and weaknesses). 

 

Becuase his proposal completely defeats the purpose of reworking the US tech tree in the first place. He wants a T95E1 at tier 8 while claiming the T05E3 would be overpowered at tier 9, an earlier and unrelated design is supposed to fill the gap at tier 9, and reward tanks are supposed to be respected, even though they're definitely part of the problem. And the M46 and T42 would each get the same turret, but the chassis for the T42 evolved out of the M41, so that line could be the lighter and more maneuverable line, with the "M" line being the slightly slower, slightly better armored line. It's not the clones that's the problem, just the complete disregard for what's making the rework necessary in the first place and creating more unhistorical tanks. He's essentially creating more problems that don't exist in my proposal, and is coming up with the same kinds of solutions that Wargaming would have, which got us here in the first place.

CK16 #54 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 16:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

I have to agree the T95E3 at tier 8 would be way overpowered. Those 90mm are smoothbores not rifled and those are totally different animals then rifled guns we have in game. A smoothbore 90mm probably would act more like a rifled 105mm we have at tier X (if I am recalling past arguments right and why WG avoids them for time being).

 

I think the T42 does fit better here at tier VIII Sherman, between the M46 (armored) T42 (mobilty) and T69(machinegun) the three are good across the board and are good counter parts.

 

 I really appreciate your ideas it is keeping the ball rolling. We are not going to force you to follow our set up. We all have different opinions and that is OK! But just respect each other is all I ask. I don't want anyone here feeling like they are losing we all should feel like winners in the end if and when these changes happen.



Legiondude #55 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 17:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,997
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostCK16, on Sep 16 2015 - 10:16, said:

A smoothbore 90mm probably would act more like a rifled 105mm we have at tier X (if I am recalling past arguments right and why WG avoids them for time being).

WG programmed the 90mm T208 as basically an American 88 L/71 on the Chieftain-T95E1 hybrid



CK16 #56 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 17:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Sep 16 2015 - 10:53, said:

WG programmed the 90mm T208 as basically an American 88 L/71 on the Chieftain-T95E1 hybrid

Ok, see there you go Sherman that 90mm at tier VIII...yikes! Lol



AutismSpeaks #57 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 21:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30499 battles
  • 1,087
  • [ASU] ASU
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012

Brilliant

+1

+1

+1

+1



M4A3E8sherman #58 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 00:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17464 battles
  • 1,099
  • [KBEAR] KBEAR
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 16 2015 - 05:25, said:

Becuase his proposal completely defeats the purpose of reworking the US tech tree in the first place. 

It frustrates me when I have to take 2 hours of my night to compose a multi-paragraph post that comprehensively details my reasoning for each individual point only to get a response the next day that recycles pretty much the same thing, especially when I feel like I'm not being afforded the same effort and patience that I'm putting into what I'm doing-so I'll be blunt and a little less polite this time around. Read my prior posts carefully, and realize that you are not going to get anywhere realistically by striving for 100% historical accuracy at the cost of sacrificing gameplay while failing to take WG's basic modus operandi into account. I type my posts so that other people can read them, not to hear myself talk.

Block Quote

  while claiming the T05E3 would be overpowered at tier 9

Please don't strawman when I explicitly stated that the T95E3 would not be overpowered. Here's the problem, you have turret armor that's better than the M48's and a gun that's better than the M48's. The M48 is already a slower moving, high pen moderately armored medium at tier 9. How are you going to balance a tier 9 medium with even better armor and armament? You'd have to kill the (already unimpressive) DPM or the (once again, unastounding) mobility-at which point you are left with 2 low skill ceiling, low skill floor tier 9 American meds and none of the current t9 Patton's nimbleness and flexibility. They may be easy to play but they would reduce tier 9 US med viability and would be unattractive to above average players that would greatly prefer tanks with more potential like the E50 and T-54.

Block Quote

 an earlier and unrelated design is supposed to fill the gap at tier 9

You also have the T42 in your tech tree, and as it is "unrelated", I don't see why it needs to follow timeline-wise. In fact, there are some instances like the AT8 and AT7, IS8 and IS4, and IS6 where later related developments come first in the tech tree. Plus the T95E2 is already present at tier 8, while even with the suggested tech tree the M48 is a tier above.

Block Quote

 and reward tanks are supposed to be respected

The problem is not reward tanks in and of themselves, the problem is that WG 1) made the incredibly iconic M60 largely unattainable and 2) favors making crappy tier 10 reward US meds instead of good credit purchasable and researchable tech tree tanks. However, as the T95E6 and T54E2 already exist in game, there is nothing to do about it. Since WG may not make both the T95E6 and the T54E2 reward tanks as they are so similar, one suggestion would simply be to switch one of them to the 2nd tech tree, and buff both appropriately; this would result in 2 possible clones at tier 10 but it would be better than having 3 clones by the way of the T95E9, T95E6, and T54E2. Furthermore, no one is obligated to nerf reward tanks because people are angry they can't get them, and you'll alienate many of the better players who would otherwise feel no reason to participate in CW campaigns.

Block Quote

 And the M46 and T42 would each get the same turret

Or the M46 could utilize its stock turret, which does not differ significantly in armor protection. 

Block Quote

 but the chassis for the T42 evolved out of the M41, so that line could be the lighter and more maneuverable line

Actually the way I've made it, it already is. The T95E1 vs M46 at tier 8 is the only case where this gets subverted. In your suggested line, both the T42 and the T95E3 would subvert this because the T42 actually offered more hull protection than the M46 with basically the same turret protection, while the T95E3's enhanced turret armor is worth more than the M48's somewhat superior hull. 

Block Quote

 It's not the clones that's the problem

You're right, it's not, because my suggested tech tree would incorporate less of them-it includes not only fewer similar tanks at the same tiers, but also fewer tanks that have the same playstyles at the same tiers yet belong in different branches. 

Block Quote

 He's essentially creating more problems that don't exist in my proposal, and is coming up with the same kinds of solutions that Wargaming would have, which got us here in the first place. 

I have already, in great detail, listed the problems with the current suggested tech tree, and explained why my suggestions would be a reasonable compromise, so I am not going to do that again.

Block Quote

  and is coming up with the same kinds of solutions that Wargaming would have, which got us here in the first place. 

No it didn't. "Here" is a bunch of crap tier 10 US meds, only one of which people can actually get. This was caused by WG panic nerfing the M48 and refusing to develop new tech tree US meds, or any good tier 10 US meds at all for that matter. Notice that I am not suggesting any of that, or 20 napkin tanks like you think I am.

Block Quote

Ok, see there you go Sherman that 90mm at tier VIII...yikes! Lol

If the 90mm T208 is programmed as an American 88mm L/71, it wouldn't be overpowered at all. The Panther 88 premium and the Panther II tier 8 German tanks both already use the 88mm L/71, and both vehicles are considered relatively average. A 90mm at tier 9 would be severely hampered by its lack of alpha regardless of its penetration level and would likely require an RPM of at least 10 to remain remotely competitive with the standard 390 alpha boomsticks; on the other hand, a high pen 90mm at tier 8 can still be balanced through soft stat adjustment.

Block Quote

 I think the T42 does fit better here at tier VIII Sherman, between the M46 (armored) T42 (mobilty) and T69(machinegun) the three are good across the board and are good counter parts.

This works if you give the M46 the Pershing's top 203mm mantlet turret, but still does not fix the problem of unexciting and unvaried gameplay at tier 9, the removal of the current M46's niche, or the presence of 3 clones at tier 10 (and no real reason to get 2 of them).

Block Quote

 We are not going to force you to follow our set up.

I greatly appreciate your understanding. However, when I receive one paragraph responses to my 15 paragraph ones that start with "absolutely not" and can be summarized as "your tech tree is godawful and there is no reason to implement it because the US medium branch must be a historical replication of American tank development, gameplay be damned, you're no better than wargaming", I feel less than tolerated by other members, and this is not helped by a bunch of Euro baddies who dismiss several hours of work researching tank specifications and tier adjustments because they were too lazy to look up the stats of existing tanks (or, in some cases, find out what tanks existed in the first place and what each stat actually meant), nor by some random dude who complains that I'm taking his M46 and M48 out when I am making an effort to keep their playstyles in. Cutting WG's work out for them feels distinctly unrewarding.



CK16 #59 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 00:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011
I feel you it took me hours of time to do pitches gathering quotes and making banners/posters on photoshop. To a degree I was hoping to get more support by now but fires don't always start so fast. Keep working at it and stick with it. Take a break when you need to. Now is not a time to stress out over this lol. We gotta win support here first I see. I am happy both of u ou guys post and even if don't agree on the fine details we can figure it out. After all we are not the ones away to make it happen in the end WG is the shot caller still. We can only suggestion and express what we want.

CK16 #60 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 00:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9355 battles
  • 1,868
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011
I feel you it took me hours of time to do pitches gathering quotes and making banners/posters on photoshop. To a degree I was hoping to get more support by now but fires don't always start so fast. Keep working at it and stick with it. Take a break when you need to. Now is not a time to stress out over this lol. We gotta win support here first I see. I am happy both of u ou guys post and even if don't agree on the fine details we can figure it out. After all we are not the ones away to make it happen in the end WG is the shot caller still. We can only suggestion and express what we want.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users