Jump to content


Type 4 heavy sucks...


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

pepe_trueno #21 Posted Sep 16 2015 - 12:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 41596 battles
  • 6,391
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostMetalEatingMonster, on Sep 16 2015 - 07:15, said:

Would hypothetical nerf to penetration of gold rounds change anything?  I have a feeling that is more likely then their guns getting buffed.

the problem is the armor not the guns, in the current game flat armor is quite pointless.

 

a nerf to gold would be welcome but i dont see that hapening any time soon since its a big cash cow for WG

 

gold rounds are a major problem but is not only gold but penetration in general, when i joined this game the highest pen was 270-280 (old t30 when it was a t10 heavy and a 1-2 t9 tds), the rest of t9/t10 tanks hovered around 220 and 250. now we have t10  meds with 270 as base and many tds with 300 pen.

 

 


Edited by pepe_trueno, Sep 16 2015 - 12:38.


Guido1212 #22 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 03:12

    Community Contributor

  • Players
  • 80874 battles
  • 8,729
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostPrivate_Public, on Sep 15 2015 - 14:12, said:

 

The amount of battles you have in WoT does not change the fact that each nation did have different war-time designs/"philosophies" when it came to mobile armor.

 

And still you don't get it.  Design philosophies don't matter in balancing a game.  In any event these are made up tanks for the most part.

 

Your argument is invalid.



mcclada #23 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 03:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21313 battles
  • 396
  • [BAL_S] BAL_S
  • Member since:
    03-11-2012
Have the O-I currently...it's pretty bad. The O-I exp. was at least fast, with good traverse and great alpha dmg. The O-I...slow, with occasionally trollish armor. Derp gun is terrible. Most games I am getting spammed with gold in the turret. I was hoping the heavies would get better...might stop at the tier 8 now...

Willy_W_Wonka #24 Posted Sep 17 2015 - 05:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 47528 battles
  • 11,476
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View Postmcclada, on Sep 16 2015 - 20:22, said:

Have the O-I currently...it's pretty bad. The O-I exp. was at least fast, with good traverse and great alpha dmg. The O-I...slow, with occasionally trollish armor. Derp gun is terrible. Most games I am getting spammed with gold in the turret. I was hoping the heavies would get better...might stop at the tier 8 now...

 

It gets a lot worse with the O-Ni, started off good but after today the stats really took a hit from being bottom tier for 30 games today I dropped from 58% with 1813 wn8 down to 50% and 1598 wn8. It is not a fun tank to run most of the time and the struggle is real to carry the runny excrement that is the teams. Didn't derp because the top gun is very functional especially when gold is needed but this tank is useless against tier 9s because of the large size and the armor profile is basically auto pen.

 

The O-Ho is ok but the top gun lacks gold and everyone just spams gold once you are spotted, will bounce some tier 9 and the weaker tier 10 guns (luck bounces) but that is it. Low tier guns can pen using gold with ease. Gun handle ok however the tank boobs cause gun depression issues that are costly in some games.

 

This line is clearly very team dependent! Too slow to flex when needed such as cap resets ect, pathetic side armor so anything can go in except for heat when there is spaced armor. Sky cancer basically forgets about the rest of your team until they kill you. Internal modules are every bit as bad as with Chinese tanks with the ammo rack and fires being a huge issue.

 

If you didn't hate sky cancer before you will after getting to tier 8 or 9 in this line.

 

 


Edited by yoggraid, Sep 17 2015 - 05:41.


Kronaan #25 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 02:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 46413 battles
  • 633
  • Member since:
    09-21-2011

View PostPrivate_Public, on Sep 15 2015 - 15:12, said:

 

The amount of battles you have in WoT does not change the fact that each nation did have different war-time designs/"philosophies" when it came to mobile armor.

 

And after close to 27k battle you should've learned that the tanks in this game are not having their historical characteristics and that they are getting balanced for gameplay. The point is this tank does suck.

The ability of not bouncing gold ammo no matter how you angle and the low pen gold ammo for its gun, plus the huge size with a slow speed, are making the winning ingredients for the title of best money grabber tank as WG made sure that you will hate this tank so much that you'll want to free xp it.

After the "success" of the second British td line, I didn't think that WG could come up with another horrendous line to grind but they actually went beyond that point. This makes me think that the new Czech line will also be a massive fail.

 



mcclada #26 Posted Sep 18 2015 - 12:49

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21313 battles
  • 396
  • [BAL_S] BAL_S
  • Member since:
    03-11-2012

View Postpepe_trueno, on Sep 16 2015 - 11:36, said:

 

a nerf to gold would be welcome but i dont see that hapening any time soon since its a big cash cow for WG

 

gold rounds are a major problem but is not only gold but penetration in general, when i joined this game the highest pen was 270-280 (old t30 when it was a t10 heavy and a 1-2 t9 tds), the rest of t9/t10 tanks hovered around 220 and 250. now we have t10  meds with 270 as base and many tds with 300 pen.

 

 

 

Agreed. I started playing WoT around April 2012 and I remember only carrying a couple of premium rounds due to the fact that they cost gold only; they were there generally to deal a few shots to tough tanks, if I used them at all. Otherwise, it was HE or AP; accuracy and armor characteristics mattered. 

 

I have been destroyed in my O-I by Panzer IV's and Sherman III's. From the front. I get it if they maneuver around to my sides...but seriously. These are the tanks I should be bullying.

 

5k away from the O-Ni. Told myself not to use any free xp on this line, just in case I need the garage space.


Edited by mcclada, Sep 18 2015 - 12:51.


Guido1212 #27 Posted Sep 19 2015 - 13:35

    Community Contributor

  • Players
  • 80874 battles
  • 8,729
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

Update.

 

Tank is still awful.



kuxan #28 Posted Sep 23 2015 - 15:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 54905 battles
  • 495
  • [PL1AD] PL1AD
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011

Don't have a lot of games in it yet however I'm experienced player and can tell you my opinion so far. 

 Upsides:

 -good armor vs bad and new players

 -disent alpha gun

Downsides:

-bad nonfunctional armor vs good players and gold spammers

-to slow to get to the front lines when it matters to slow slow to reposition or make a real difference over all most of the time.

-huge arty target and for a tank  this big and supposedly armored way to soft vs arty.

- gun reload to long and all though the low gold round pen is what all tanks should be brought down to in current state is subpar to be competitive.

Conclusion: in its current t state it's out matched and outclassed by all other tier 9 Hwy tanks out there, basically a pig pile of crap.

 



Painbringer71 #29 Posted Sep 23 2015 - 18:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 53516 battles
  • 6,679
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

T5 - blast especially when played like a sniper (I know but it is so troll with the gun)

T6 - blast with the derp since you can wait to aim

T7- I had fun with this tank in city maps you can troll that armor.

T8- I am not sure why but I seem to have great games and 2k damage but crap I can barley get a 3 yet alone a 2 or ace.   Fun tank pens pretty well and can bounce.

T9 scares me

T10 played on test server took a full waffle clip in the face only one penned.  I felt like tank god "Tis But A Scratch"  but then every single arty player saw me on the mini map and smoked me.  So yet another Gigantic heavy that is map dependent on being able to succeed.



Private_Public #30 Posted Sep 23 2015 - 21:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 38258 battles
  • 2,861
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    01-13-2012

View Postjsgx3, on Sep 16 2015 - 21:12, said:

 

And still you don't get it.  Design philosophies don't matter in balancing a game.  In any event these are made up tanks for the most part.

 

Your argument is invalid.

 

You are arguing something totally different than what you initially argued.  Your initial argument was that his amount of battles played meant that he had no intellectual concept of what each nation's wartime designs/armor schemes outside of the game were.  That is not a game balance issue - your initial statement as written indicated that his lack of playtime in WoT invalidates any arguments about real-world armor designs.  That is what I was commenting on.

 

View PostKronaan, on Sep 17 2015 - 20:58, said:

 

And after close to 27k battle you should've learned that the tanks in this game are not having their historical characteristics and that they are getting balanced for gameplay. The point is this tank does suck.

The ability of not bouncing gold ammo no matter how you angle and the low pen gold ammo for its gun, plus the huge size with a slow speed, are making the winning ingredients for the title of best money grabber tank as WG made sure that you will hate this tank so much that you'll want to free xp it.

After the "success" of the second British td line, I didn't think that WG could come up with another horrendous line to grind but they actually went beyond that point. This makes me think that the new Czech line will also be a massive fail.

 

 

I was not responding to a game balance issue.  I was responding to a player attacking another for his in-game stats somehow meaning that he could have no understanding of an Out-of-Game issue (armor designs).  It was not directed at his understanding (or lack thereof) of game balance.



Katukov #31 Posted Sep 26 2015 - 21:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 71982 battles
  • 3,286
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    11-27-2010
bad tank

Edited by Katukov, Apr 08 2016 - 23:05.


Willy_W_Wonka #32 Posted Sep 27 2015 - 01:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 47528 battles
  • 11,476
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostKatukov, on Sep 26 2015 - 14:53, said:

POS

 

Good maybe they will give it some buffs, love it when people complain that these behemoths are OP.

Katukov #33 Posted Sep 27 2015 - 19:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 71982 battles
  • 3,286
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    11-27-2010

View Postyoggraid, on Sep 26 2015 - 19:02, said:

 

Good maybe they will give it some buffs, love it when people complain that these behemoths are OP.

 

May be others but type 4 is unique, it is true POS. And I had it fully upgraded from  start.

 



Painbringer71 #34 Posted Oct 12 2015 - 21:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 53516 battles
  • 6,679
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

I am just wondering if they store the shells on the outside of the tank?  Cause wet rack and safe stowage seem to never help ... and I am racked almost every match.  I would like to use my repair kit on other things. 



Orumus #35 Posted Oct 14 2015 - 21:42

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 29290 battles
  • 95
  • [BFG] BFG
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
I am so disappointed by the Type 4. Loved the O-I, Loved the O-Ni, did well in the O-Ho but at that tier you really start seeing the premium spam but at least when top tier it can do a lot of work the Type 4 in the best situations is tolerable at best in fact aced it first battle but the crap pen means it can not contest most heavily armored t9s or 10s from the front which is where you will be fighting them since its lousy speed means flanking or repositioning is unrealistic. The armor on paper looks good but since nearly everyone seams to spam premium it doesnt matter also considering how "good" the armor is you would think it would take arty hits better then the O-Ho but so far it seems to take more from the same arty. In fact I got 1 shot by a T92 with HE when it shot me in the face(I also use a spall liner) Whereas I have been hit in the side on the O-Ho by T92 for less then 1k,  So it seems like something is broken there.... 
 Even if the armor where better though, the low pen and lack of a decent premium round on the guns means you are just a punching bag anyway and that is no fun. 

hyro010 #36 Posted Oct 15 2015 - 03:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 28955 battles
  • 114
  • Member since:
    04-14-2012

View PostOrumus, on Oct 14 2015 - 15:42, said:

I am so disappointed by the Type 4. Loved the O-I, Loved the O-Ni, did well in the O-Ho but at that tier you really start seeing the premium spam but at least when top tier it can do a lot of work the Type 4 in the best situations is tolerable at best in fact aced it first battle but the crap pen means it can not contest most heavily armored t9s or 10s from the front which is where you will be fighting them since its lousy speed means flanking or repositioning is unrealistic. The armor on paper looks good but since nearly everyone seams to spam premium it doesnt matter also considering how "good" the armor is you would think it would take arty hits better then the O-Ho but so far it seems to take more from the same arty. In fact I got 1 shot by a T92 with HE when it shot me in the face(I also use a spall liner) Whereas I have been hit in the side on the O-Ho by T92 for less then 1k,  So it seems like something is broken there.... 
 Even if the armor where better though, the low pen and lack of a decent premium round on the guns means you are just a punching bag anyway and that is no fun. 

 

Type 5 only get's a little better.  

fighting arty:

every known thing on the minimap spots you.  You have so much negative camo it's like the Japanese are singing pop songs on the back of your tank while you drive to any spot on the map.  This thing is incredibly easy to hit from arty.

 

fighting e-100:    

E-100 sees me, I see e-100,  

e-100 heat round snapshot into me for 800 damage ->  

I try penning turret face with premium ap  bounce full aimed ->

E-100 heat rounds me again doing 700 damage ->

I shoot an ap round at it's face again and hits for 500 damage (average is 600) I back away knowing I am being r****.  

E-100 is more aggressive because he knows this.  

I trying going into hull down in a ditch and shoot him for 550 damage (average is still 600 damage).

E-100 just snapshots my hull down face or shoots the little cupola doesn't matter does 780 damage.  

just repeat what I said until I lose.

 

it's a frustrating tank.  Don't get me wrong I don't regret going down this line I've had some tremendous games in them but I've had quite a few non-tremendous games.

 

 



Explodo #37 Posted Oct 16 2015 - 18:32

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29464 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View Postyoggraid, on Sep 16 2015 - 21:40, said:

 

It gets a lot worse with the O-Ni, started off good but after today the stats really took a hit from being bottom tier for 30 games today I dropped from 58% with 1813 wn8 down to 50% and 1598 wn8. It is not a fun tank to run most of the time and the struggle is real to carry the runny excrement that is the teams. Didn't derp because the top gun is very functional especially when gold is needed but this tank is useless against tier 9s because of the large size and the armor profile is basically auto pen.

 

The O-Ho is ok but the top gun lacks gold and everyone just spams gold once you are spotted, will bounce some tier 9 and the weaker tier 10 guns (luck bounces) but that is it. Low tier guns can pen using gold with ease. Gun handle ok however the tank boobs cause gun depression issues that are costly in some games.

 

This line is clearly very team dependent! Too slow to flex when needed such as cap resets ect, pathetic side armor so anything can go in except for heat when there is spaced armor. Sky cancer basically forgets about the rest of your team until they kill you. Internal modules are every bit as bad as with Chinese tanks with the ammo rack and fires being a huge issue.

 

If you didn't hate sky cancer before you will after getting to tier 8 or 9 in this line.

 

 

 

I did not have the same O-Ni, O-Ho experience that you had.  I thought they were both great tanks.  For the O-Ni, I used the AP gun as I dislike inconsistent inaccurate guns.  For the O-Ho, I had to use the HE gun due to the depression and low AP pen.  I loved playing them both and did pretty well in both of them.  61% win in the O-Ni and 60% win in the O-Ho.  With good angling both of them will bounce a surprising amount of shots.  I had a good laugh in my O-Ho when I bounced 3 in a row from a T110E3 at close range.  The terrain wasn't advantageous for his shooting angle and my HE rounds still hurt him.

 

They are excellent tanks when played well and I look forward to the Type 4.  Sure people complain about playing it, but they complain about the 7 and 8 also. 

 

I never did get Ace in the O-Ho.  I assume that to get Ace you'd need to use the AP gun and have the battle go just right so that you could use that relatively low pen to tear up some 10s, or just devastate some 8s.  I had a great deal of fun with the HE gun, and fun is what matters. 

 

The accuracy on the O-Ho HE gun is pretty amazing.  You can really peg stuff at range with it.

 

 



Explodo #38 Posted Oct 17 2015 - 02:46

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29464 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

Some battles into the Type 4 now.  Yeah, it sucks.  It suffers just like the T95 does...so slow that it's only good if there's a close choke point to reach and then the armor is useless vs tier 10s unless they're clueless.

 

Such a disappointment.

 

 



Explodo #39 Posted Oct 17 2015 - 22:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29464 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

More battles in, and my opinion is:

 

FARK THIS TANK.

 

Usually too slow to catch the battle.



Cabilis66 #40 Posted Oct 18 2015 - 02:55

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18449 battles
  • 83
  • [MUG-G] MUG-G
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

View Posthyro010, on Sep 14 2015 - 09:01, said:

 

so.... you think Germany made their tanks as square as possible to be able side scrape buildings? no.  Most of these tanks  were only done on paper.   As I have played every tier 9 heavy tank I understand the strengths of all of them.  So you think there is no situation where one can blame one's tools?  do you think the native american's blamed their bows and arrows when they lost to guns?  

 

Native Americans could not compete with guns if they were using bows and arrows. One of the main reasons white settlers pushed right over them is because NA did not evolve their technologies. So yes they could blame their tools. 

Japanese tank design doctrine was not up to par with other countries . Japanese designed low armor tanks that could easily travel through forested battle grounds. Their tanks were well suited to fighting unarmed farmers, but not so much against allied shermans and tank destroyers. Ask any Japanese middle school student. Most of these paper tanks were being designed to defend the eventual invasion of Japan.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users