Jump to content


T110's Sixth Summer of Love and Tolerance


  • Please log in to reply
31354 replies to this topic

Life_In_Black #14681 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 19:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 25289 battles
  • 11,211
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostThatTrafficCone, on Sep 17 2017 - 13:26, said:

 

Fair enough about the color scheme, I suppose. But I wanted something that was easier to edit rather than looking pretty.

 

I didn't include the M60A1 because by what I've been able to gather on my initial pass, it would be too overpowered. Otherwise it'd be there in a heartbeat. But it is on my list of excluded tanks to revisit at a later date.

 

My process is to determine what tier a tank may fit in based on its guns, armor, and speed. I then create branches based on chronology or some kind of theme, and then go back to each tank individually and in further detail (my posts on the main page). You should check out the website, as I go into further detail about why things are the things they are over there.

 

There is no way at all that the M60A1 would ever be overpowered. Especially not when they're massively overbuffing armor way past what it was historically. Likewise, the MBT-70 is more than viable as a tier 10 heavy tank (yes, it's an MBT, but it's also too powerful as a medium and is quite heavy), and would make a better tier 10 coming off of say a tier 9 T30.

Aloeus #14682 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 19:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24103 battles
  • 1,021
  • Member since:
    02-25-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Sep 17 2017 - 11:28, said:

 

Its too bad it'll still be garbage because the DPM and gun handling will still be trash tier.

 

It has medium levels of speed and heavy tank armor, it looks pretty good to me (with the caveat that I only have the wg armor profile to go off of). Gun handling and dpm is probably its only downside now. Not patriot levels of good, but not the garbage it used to be. 



SpectreHD #14683 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 19:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16514 battles
  • 16,624
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostEmpressNero, on Sep 17 2017 - 23:31, said:

 

Maybe they should do something about its gun handling and other soft stats instead of taking a sledgehammer to the tank in an effort to make it "fit" in the game.  They evidently still know how to program soft stats, seeing as how the Type 59 is getting a soft stats buff.

 

Oh no no no! Lets just make armour a balanceable stat instead of treating it as a fixed baseline stat to balance the numerous other stats around. Even better, lets leave the ONE thing screwing up balance since its inception as a pay to win item as is.

 

FRACKING WG LOGIC.

 

View PostThatTrafficCone, on Sep 18 2017 - 02:26, said:

Fair enough about the color scheme, I suppose. But I wanted something that was easier to edit rather than looking pretty.

 

It is not about being pretty but using colours denoting vehicle classes widely recognised by the community to make the communication of your information easier .

 

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 18 2017 - 02:31, said:

 

There is no way at all that the M60A1 would ever be overpowered. Especially not when they're massively overbuffing armor way past what it was historically. Likewise, the MBT-70 is more than viable as a tier 10 heavy tank (yes, it's an MBT, but it's also too powerful as a medium and is quite heavy), and would make a better tier 10 coming off of say a tier 9 T30.

 

You should pot up your tech tree.

Avalon304 #14684 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 18535 battles
  • 7,897
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostAloeus, on Sep 17 2017 - 11:48, said:

It has medium levels of speed and heavy tank armor, it looks pretty good to me (with the caveat that I only have the wg armor profile to go off of). Gun handling and dpm is probably its only downside now. Not patriot levels of good, but not the garbage it used to be. 

 

Its a medium tank with a garbage gun. Its going to be garbage.

Life_In_Black #14685 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 25289 battles
  • 11,211
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Sep 17 2017 - 13:59, said:

 

Oh no no no! Lets just make armour a balanceable stat instead of treating it as a fixed baseline stat to balance the numerous other stats around. Even better, lets leave the ONE thing screwing up balance since its inception as a pay to win item as is.

 

FRACKING WG LOGIC.

 

 

It is not about being pretty but using colours denoting vehicle classes widely recognised by the community to make the communication of your information easier .

 

 

You should pot up your tech tree.

 

Yeah, I might do that then. It's been a while. I still don't like the fact that MeatheadMilitia acknowledged this guy's tree, even though The_Chieftain completely ignored the number of us from this thread (myself, Super_Noodle, CK16, and others who have been advocating this sort of thing for years now. No wonder the NA community is dying off.

Daigensui #14686 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 28422 battles
  • 29,956
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

HWK 12 Honorable Reattempt 

 

TnjFAw6.jpg

 

I guess I just have to work a bit harder.

 



Life_In_Black #14687 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 25289 battles
  • 11,211
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
I'm guessing you didn't get the secondary objective?

SpectreHD #14688 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16514 battles
  • 16,624
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 18 2017 - 03:06, said:

 

Yeah, I might do that then. It's been a while. I still don't like the fact that MeatheadMilitia acknowledged this guy's tree, even though The_Chieftain completely ignored the number of us from this thread (myself, Super_Noodle, CK16, and others who have been advocating this sort of thing for years now. No wonder the NA community is dying off.

 

Seriously? Where the hell this Militia acknowledge it?

Life_In_Black #14689 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 25289 battles
  • 11,211
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Sep 17 2017 - 14:25, said:

 

Seriously? Where the hell this Militia acknowledge it?

 

His weekly video. But could any of us get any kind of help or recognition despite doing this for years now? Nope, not at all.

LittleJoeRambler #14690 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 23522 battles
  • 3,652
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

I can remember a time when WoT was a daily thing for me, and paying for premium time was a guaranteed thing. Nowadays, I might play WoT off and on, but I sure as hell don't pay for it anymore. The only thing that keeps it from getting frustrating is that they hand out the XP and credit boosters like candy, so you can get pseudo-premium without paying for it. And the free premium on some weekends helps, but I'd honestly rather go work on knight rushing in AoE 2. The buffed Franks in HD are really solid, and the Gothic Imperial flood is always fun.



Daigensui #14691 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 28422 battles
  • 29,956
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 17 2017 - 12:20, said:

I'm guessing you didn't get the secondary objective?

 

For LT-15-1. Now going to work up LT-XX-2.



Aloeus #14692 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 20:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24103 battles
  • 1,021
  • Member since:
    02-25-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Sep 17 2017 - 12:02, said:

 

Its a medium tank with a garbage gun. Its going to be garbage.

 

It IS garbage, and it always has been at tier 8. Now it will have the armor of a t-54p, the mobility of a t-62a, and a gun that might not shoot or aim fast, but unlike a t-54p can punch through armor. 

ThatTrafficCone #14693 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 21:00

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 17 2017 - 12:06, said:

Yeah, I might do that then. It's been a while. I still don't like the fact that MeatheadMilitia acknowledged this guy's tree, even though The_Chieftain completely ignored the number of us from this thread (myself, Super_Noodle, CK16, and others who have been advocating this sort of thing for years now. No wonder the NA community is dying off.

 

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 17 2017 - 12:27, said:

His weekly video. But could any of us get any kind of help or recognition despite doing this for years now? Nope, not at all.

 

For what it's worth, it's not like I'm new to this. I've been working on this project (and others) off and on since 2014, doing what seemed like endless revisions and copious amounts of research. I tried getting these off the ground several times in the past, but each time I realized I was doing so before I was ready. It wasn't until a little more than a month ago that I was comfortable enough with this US Revamp to actually begin any significant writing. However, it was maybe a week or two ago that I decided this project was complete enough and I was comfortable enough to share it with people.

 

It's also misleading to say similar projects by people like CK16, Slackrrrrrr, and several others have been ignored. I know of the work these guys have done and have great respect for them. I can't speak for The_Chieftain, but I do know Wargaming has been aware of these kind of things for quite some time. I've even tried to reach out to Wargaming once or twice before (before I was ready, as previously mentioned), but never got anywhere. This instance with Meathead was just me starting to slowly share it with people after so long. And it wasn't my idea for him to promote it, either. At the most I was just quietly hoping he could pass it along to whomever it may concern.



Life_In_Black #14694 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 21:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 25289 battles
  • 11,211
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 17 2017 - 14:43, said:

 

For LT-15-1. Now going to work up LT-XX-2.

 

Ah.

 

View PostThatTrafficCone, on Sep 17 2017 - 15:00, said:

 

 

For what it's worth, it's not like I'm new to this. I've been working on this project (and others) off and on since 2014, doing what seemed like endless revisions and copious amounts of research. I tried getting these off the ground several times in the past, but each time I realized I was doing so before I was ready. It wasn't until a little more than a month ago that I was comfortable enough with this US Revamp to actually begin any significant writing. However, it was maybe a week or two ago that I decided this project was complete enough and I was comfortable enough to share it with people.

 

It's also misleading to say similar projects by people like CK16, Slackrrrrrr, and several others have been ignored. I know of the work these guys have done and have great respect for them. I can't speak for The_Chieftain, but I do know Wargaming has been aware of these kind of things for quite some time. I've even tried to reach out to Wargaming once or twice before (before I was ready, as previously mentioned), but never got anywhere. This instance with Meathead was just me starting to slowly share it with people after so long. And it wasn't my idea for him to promote it, either. At the most I was just quietly hoping he could pass it along to whomever it may concern.

 

First, it isn't misleading, as there have been very visible proposals, lots of research put into this by other people, and nobody at Wargaming gave a single rusty F-word about it. So you getting any kind of official acknowledgement strikes me absurd and very disrespectful on Wargaming's part. Second, why mention Slakrrrrrr? While Slakrrrrrr means well, I can't really remember any US proposal of his, and his sense of balance is and always has been terrible, plus he will make completely arbitrary decisions and directly contradict them simply because he feels it's ok.

 

But more importantly, your tree still has massive issues with it. The fact you think the M60A1 is too overpowered is quite the issue, and it feels way too much like you're trying to both completely rework things while still keeping a lot of Wargaming's same crap decisions and/or structure in place, which doesn't work in the slightest. Why have an M551 Pilot vehicle at tier 10 instead of the actual M551 Sheridan? You've got a T77 as a tier 9 medium behind the T57 Heavy as a tier 10 heavy, which makes no sense whatsoever from a balancing perspective, you have the T162 175mm artillery as a tier 10 TD, because that's what this game needs, more high alpha cannons. You made the autoloading T30E1 a tier 10 reward tank, but think the regular non-autoloading T30 is a viable tier 10, etc. I just can't take your tree seriously, it's painful in how many vehicles you decided to include that were only ever a concept drawing that never went anywhere, yet actual real vehicles are completely left off or excluded because you went for some arbitrary nonsense in terms of criteria to include vehicles. No XM66 D turreted vehicles anywhere, M60A2 after a completely unrelated vehicle, M36B1 somehow a tier 7, no MBT-70 despite it fitting just fine, the 90mm Hellcat is a premium but for some reason the 90mm Pershing turreted Sherman is a tier 7.......it just doesn't end.



ThatTrafficCone #14695 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 21:49

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 36212 battles
  • 114
  • [200IQ] 200IQ
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 17 2017 - 13:28, said:

First, it isn't misleading, as there have been very visible proposals, lots of research put into this by other people, and nobody at Wargaming gave a single rusty F-word about it. So you getting any kind of official acknowledgement strikes me absurd and very disrespectful on Wargaming's part. Second, why mention Slakrrrrrr? While Slakrrrrrr means well, I can't really remember any US proposal of his, and his sense of balance is and always has been terrible, plus he will make completely arbitrary decisions and directly contradict them simply because he feels it's ok.

 

But more importantly, your tree still has massive issues with it. The fact you think the M60A1 is too overpowered is quite the issue, and it feels way too much like you're trying to both completely rework things while still keeping a lot of Wargaming's same crap decisions and/or structure in place, which doesn't work in the slightest. Why have an M551 Pilot vehicle at tier 10 instead of the actual M551 Sheridan? You've got a T77 as a tier 9 medium behind the T57 Heavy as a tier 10 heavy, which makes no sense whatsoever from a balancing perspective, you have the T162 175mm artillery as a tier 10 TD, because that's what this game needs, more high alpha cannons. You made the autoloading T30E1 a tier 10 reward tank, but think the regular non-autoloading T30 is a viable tier 10, etc. I just can't take your tree seriously, it's painful in how many vehicles you decided to include that were only ever a concept drawing that never went anywhere, yet actual real vehicles are completely left off or excluded because you went for some arbitrary nonsense in terms of criteria to include vehicles. No XM66 D turreted vehicles anywhere, M60A2 after a completely unrelated vehicle, M36B1 somehow a tier 7, no MBT-70 despite it fitting just fine, the 90mm Hellcat is a premium but for some reason the 90mm Pershing turreted Sherman is a tier 7.......it just doesn't end.

 

To begin with, the T30E1 didn't have an automatic loader. It used an automatic rammer or an assisted loading mechanism, like what's found on the IS-3A. In return for having a slightly higher rate of fire, it would have that distinctively tall cupola which effectively negates its hull-down ability. As for the M36B1, it used the M4A3 hull. I remember reading somewhere that the idea of using the M4A3E2 hull was tossed around, so that's an alternate hull option right there. I do have my reasons for tanks being in the positions that they're in and I'm working on explaining my points. I'm about 1/3 of the way through right now. I still have plenty of writing to do on these vehicles. If you check out the website, I've already made some points in regards to the T77 and XM551. 


Edited by ThatTrafficCone, Sep 17 2017 - 21:56.


Avalon304 #14696 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 22:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 18535 battles
  • 7,897
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostAloeus, on Sep 17 2017 - 12:45, said:

 

It IS garbage, and it always has been at tier 8. Now it will have the armor of a t-54p, the mobility of a t-62a, and a gun that might not shoot or aim fast, but unlike a t-54p can punch through armor. 

 

So still garbage. Got it.

Aloeus #14697 Posted Sep 17 2017 - 22:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24103 battles
  • 1,021
  • Member since:
    02-25-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Sep 17 2017 - 14:08, said:

 

So still garbage. Got it.

 

yea, everything that isn't a patton kr is garbage. 

godofdun #14698 Posted Sep 18 2017 - 00:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 14471 battles
  • 5,215
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011
Aren't we all just bright rays of sunshine today :trollface:

Dragon_Witch #14699 Posted Sep 18 2017 - 00:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 11681 battles
  • 12,622
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
Ken Burns Vietnam is showing on PBS in a half hour for people in the Eastern time zone.

TheUDF #14700 Posted Sep 18 2017 - 01:25

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 8111 battles
  • 1,534
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010

Curses! Oh well...I guess I'll try to catch it some other time.

 

As an aside, my faithful HDD has suddenly decided it wanted to do its best Dodo impression and I'm now my pc's kaput. What're all your opinions on upgrading to a 525GB SSD for $150? I'm kinda on the fence since I've found a 1TB HDD for only ~$50.






22 user(s) are reading this topic

2 members, 19 guests, 1 anonymous users


    Haunt8dTank, FrozenKemp