Jump to content


Will the AC 1 Sentinel ever get a buff?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

AMSRocker #21 Posted Nov 17 2016 - 13:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 39903 battles
  • 6,150
  • [SPRAY] SPRAY
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

View PostYANKEE137, on Nov 16 2016 - 12:05, said:

They should buff it to go as fast in reverse as it does forward. Then call it the AC/DC because it goes both ways...

 

Okay that was funny! +1

landedkiller #22 Posted Nov 17 2016 - 19:00

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 8586 battles
  • 1,529
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 16 2016 - 10:46, said:

If the win rate remains the current 49.8 percent, give or take, no. It's within 'balanced' parameters..

 

I find Sentinel to be one of those odd tanks for which every rational stat and assessment indicates that the tank should be horrible, but despite that, it just seems to 'work' for me. Judging by the average win rate, it seems my experience is not unique.

 

ac3 thunderbolt coming in the future perhaps?

21Blackjack #23 Posted Dec 11 2016 - 12:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 21157 battles
  • 2,676
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 16 2016 - 17:46, said:

If the win rate remains the current 49.8 percent, give or take, no. It's within 'balanced' parameters..

 

I find Sentinel to be one of those odd tanks for which every rational stat and assessment indicates that the tank should be horrible, but despite that, it just seems to 'work' for me. Judging by the average win rate, it seems my experience is not unique.

 

If collectors and British tank maniacs can only manage 49.8 percent, then I imagine the winrate would drop like a rock if the general playerbase got a hold of it.

 

Comparing the Matilda and the Valentine to the Sentinel doesn't look to bad, until I tell you the former tanks are still running stock turret and stock gun.

 



Jarms48 #24 Posted Dec 11 2016 - 13:03

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 117 battles
  • 1,337
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

My winrate is sitting at 57%, though that's with a 5 skill crew. I also use GLD, Vents, and Optics. I choose not to mount a Rammer because it leads to a tendency of reloading before it aims.

 

I don't see the point of comparing it to the Valentine, the tech tree Valentine is a terrible machine, it's been unloved for so long. Which is a shame because it's one of my favourite tanks of WWII.


Edited by Jarms48, Dec 11 2016 - 13:05.


lbgsloan #25 Posted Dec 11 2016 - 21:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 21116 battles
  • 3,376
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

Block Quote

comparing it to the Valentine

As badly balanced as the Brit Valentine is, the Valentine with the stock gun and turret is pretty much a Sentinel that's a bit slower but is otherwise better.  When your premium tank compares badly to stock tier 4s there is a problem with the balance.  Then there's the lend lease Valentine that laughs at both as it gets to be top tier every match.

 

As underwhelming as the Sentinel AC 4 version is, at least it's reasonably armed for the MM it has.



Willy_W_Wonka #26 Posted Dec 11 2016 - 22:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 49343 battles
  • 11,476
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013
There is some big reasons why I only played a single battle in mine but to sum it up, the AC1 is a B2 without pref mm that has to contend with cromwells and O-Is let alone suffer tier 5s. In hands of average players should it be made available would be catastrophically low and desperately needs limited MM like so many other low and mid tier premiums. 

21Blackjack #27 Posted Dec 11 2016 - 23:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 21157 battles
  • 2,676
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

View PostJarms48, on Dec 11 2016 - 13:03, said:

 

I don't see the point of comparing it to the Valentine, the tech tree Valentine is a terrible machine, it's been unloved for so long. Which is a shame because it's one of my favourite tanks of WWII.

 

Why not? Valentine can mount the same gun, has the same armor, has similar power to weight sees the same MM.  We arent comparing the AC1 to the Cromwell B here.



SirLagsalot #28 Posted Jan 04 2017 - 21:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 44176 battles
  • 53
  • [BFH] BFH
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
The thing that bothers me most about this tank isn't its sluggish acceleration, its generally unreliable armor, its frustrating match making, or its mediocre penetration. The thing that bothers me every bloody time I play this tank is its 2.7s aim-time on its 40mm gun! Even with BIA, smooth ride, snap shot, vents, and consumables, the gun is still a bear to use! Even if you're lucky enough to hit a target and pen, the alpha damage leaves you in tears. Still, I could accept the alpha damage as-is if the aim-time were reasonable! How can Wargaming even rationalize having a 2.7s aim-time on a 40mm gun?! It goes so outside realism and the general behavior of every other gun in the game! This tank will continue to be the bad omen in my garage until this unacceptable and deliberate "crippling" is addressed.

Edited by SirLagsalot, Jan 04 2017 - 21:47.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users