Jump to content


Update 9.17.1 - US and Japanese tech Tree changes feedback thread

Type 4 type 4 t28 t28 P t95 9.17.1

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

D8W2P4 #21 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 08:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 27824 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    03-11-2012

View PostCobraWasTaken1, on Feb 28 2017 - 01:13, said:

The buffs of the Type 4 Heavy and Type 5 Heavy are completely broken. Think about it this way. What if World of Tanks had a tank that nobody can penetrate with standard rounds (Except TDs, but even then they won't penetrate at long range and have to be close up), but it can deal at least 400 damage (sometimes more) to you no matter where it aims and no matter how much armor you have. A tank that you can never kill (with standard rounds, again except TDs), and he can always damage you with every shot unless he misses. How is that supposed to sound fair? Yeah, that's the Type 5 Heavy. I don't even wanna talk about the premium shells but I feel like I have to. No other tank in the game allows you to fire premium rounds which are the same ammo type with the same penetration but more damage. Yes the SU-100Y allows you to fire premium shots that deal more damage, but they have less penetration to make up for that. Plus, without those higher damage rounds on the SU-100Y, the DPM is kinda bad. But sorry, that's a bit off topic. My point is, the Type 5 Heavy at least and possibly the Type 4 Heavy as well are really overpowered. Anyone who says they aren't overpowered are clearly players of the tank themself and enjoy having an unfair advantage over the enemy or simply just can't play it correctly.

 

Edit: I just wanted to add one more thing. In World of Tanks, for the most part, when a tank has incredibly good armor, it doesn't have an amazing gun. So, instead of your gun being an advantage to possibly help you defeat your enemies, your armor is an advantage. Your gun isn't as good, but because you have great armor it works. That's not the case with Japanese heavy tanks. I don't even mean just the Type 4 and Type 5 at this point, no, the O-I exp. fits the bill too. The O-I exp. has the highest alpha (AP rounds) of any tier 5 heavy tank in the game. You have to ask yourself wargaming, why haven't you made a tier 5 heavy tank that has that much alpha so far? Because it would be overpowered, that's why. Some people would argue, "well the O-I exp. doesn't have good armor so your logic doesn't apply." and I say, "who told you the O-I exp. doesn't have good armor?". Would you say that the KV-1 isn't well armored for its tier? I wouldn't say so. Well, believe it or not, the O-I exp. has just about the exact same armor not only on the front of the tank, but the sides as well. If you angle the O-I exp. in nearly the same way as a KV-1 then you should have just as good if not better armor effectiveness than the KV-1.

 

I agree the armor is WAY too thick (the lower plate buff was needed so it can actually angle) however the gun is just irredeemable.

Yeah it can do 300-500 damage a shot on average (in my experience, 300 for regular 500 for gold) but that's once every 16+ seconds and the gun handling is absolute garbage, would've been better if they just gave the Type 4&5 the T6 15cm gun with RoF and soft stat buffs like it got going from T6-T8 and left the armor thickness alone.



CobraWasTaken1 #22 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 09:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9074 battles
  • 98
  • [_G_D_] _G_D_
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostD8W2P4, on Feb 28 2017 - 01:28, said:

 

I agree the armor is WAY too thick (the lower plate buff was needed so it can actually angle) however the gun is just irredeemable.

Yeah it can do 300-500 damage a shot on average (in my experience, 300 for regular 500 for gold) but that's once every 16+ seconds and the gun handling is absolute garbage, would've been better if they just gave the Type 4&5 the T6 15cm gun with RoF and soft stat buffs like it got going from T6-T8 and left the armor thickness alone.

 

I kinda agree with you. I definitely think they should have left the armor thickness alone if anything. If they had kept the armor the same while adding the new 15cm, it would probably be okay. But the tier 6 15cm wouldn't work because you'd actually get some really really low damage HE shots when shooting at really thick armor. Those shells only do so much when you're shooting at thick armor.

KingofDragons #23 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 09:08

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14226 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011

the O-I exp  never bounces shots.. flat flat flat everywhere you look.. With all these new tanks coming out these types of tanks are going the way of the dinosaurs... I don't even bother playing mine anymore.. As for the type 4 and 5 don't let a couple vids make it seem like they are indestructible .. they are lumbering beast whos [edited]gets nailed by every ( peek a boo ) tank and arty...

That new gun doesn't cut it with, on the average , low damage and a reload time of 16 to 22 secs when placed on type 5 and 4 .. wont see me using mine..



KenWyns #24 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 09:31

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 23133 battles
  • 170
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

Thanks for the engine/speed buffs for US TDs! :medal:

 

Perhaps now i won't be called a camper because my T28P with Heavy Spall Liner can barely get to a firing point before the battle is over.  :ohmy:



RLBell #25 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 09:55

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 15138 battles
  • 580
  • [DHO] DHO
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

Making the T28, T28 Proto., and the T95 all faster than the Black Prince highlights the desperate need for doing something about the underperforming tier VII and tier VIII UK heavy tanks.

 

The Year 41 Type 15cm/45 gun is a disappointment.  Slow to load, slow to aim, and a shell cost of twice that of the Type 96 15cm howitzer makes me wish that if the Type 4 had to have a derp gun that it kept the Type 96, as the normal buffs for going up a tier and the additional loader makes me expect that with a rammer the reload time would drop to 12 seconds, making it a scary weapon.  Even the 14cm gun firing HE is a better option, with the faster reload, faster aim time, and much reduced dispersion making up for having a 'mere' 770 alpha.

 

Maybe it needs a penetration buff as the 75 mm of penetration is listed for a distance of 3000 meters, after the shell has lost about 25% of its initial velocity, so it may have better penetration at ranges below 500 meters.

 

Another improvements could be an actual AP round (capped, with a ballistic cap), instead of the base fuzed common round.

 

As a casemate gun on a ship the effective reload time was six to ten seconds, so there is the possibility of reducing the reload time below twenty seconds.



D8W2P4 #26 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 09:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 27824 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    03-11-2012

View PostCobraWasTaken1, on Feb 28 2017 - 03:00, said:

 

I kinda agree with you. I definitely think they should have left the armor thickness alone if anything. If they had kept the armor the same while adding the new 15cm, it would probably be okay. But the tier 6 15cm wouldn't work because you'd actually get some really really low damage HE shots when shooting at really thick armor. Those shells only do so much when you're shooting at thick armor.

 

The T6 15cm gun works fine on my O-ho in T10 matches even against things like Maus and IS-7s.

The new 15cm plus the old armor thickness is a bad combo it does too little average damage per shot for that RoF and would have little means of protecting itself (you gotta remember it's a giant slab sided box).

The T6 15cm gun plus the old armor thickness could work if they played around with the RoF and soft stats on it, you would have a tank that could chaingun out damage and make people want to stay away from it's gun while still being killable.



RLBell #27 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 10:40

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 15138 battles
  • 580
  • [DHO] DHO
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
The most frustrating thing about the "improved" gun for the Type 4 Heavy is that my Type 4 heavy does less damage with its new tier X gun in tier X matches than My O-Ho with its tier VII gun, in tier X matches.

Deltarex_Elite_Nick #28 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 14:57

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14059 battles
  • 142
  • [D1] D1
  • Member since:
    07-14-2012
Gotta buff the e5 back... it can't go hull down anymore and it's an American heavy... if you're gonna give it weakspot either choose the hull or turret not both.

CobraWasTaken1 #29 Posted Feb 28 2017 - 15:13

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9074 battles
  • 98
  • [_G_D_] _G_D_
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View Postmarkhamwaxers, on Feb 28 2017 - 07:57, said:

Gotta buff the e5 back... it can't go hull down anymore and it's an American heavy... if you're gonna give it weakspot either choose the hull or turret not both.

 

You know, I never thought about that for some reason. I agree. Nerf the hull. You can't pen any of the other high tier american heavy tanks as easily in the cupola, so why does the E5 have to have it as a huge weak spot?

The_Bezaleel #30 Posted Mar 01 2017 - 17:11

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20926 battles
  • 760
  • [LA] LA
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

It's hard to say my opinion on these changes as I only as of this moment have test server knowledge and we all know that isn't always 100% accurate to how these new changes will affect the live server. As I see it now though, the buffs to the type 4 and 5 heavy were unneeded. I have always seen both of those tanks as great meatshields and on the right map frontliners and damage dealers. A really great "In between" super heavy playstyle contrasted by the Maus and the E 100. I think that just because the community may give a fuss about the buffing or nerfing of a tank should have very little to do with the dev's action. The devs know the game inside and out and shouldn't yield to the fickle player base. In my experience many players desire instant gratification when they buy a new tank and are upset when they find out that their new death machine actually requires a good driver to preform well. Then the whining begins. I say this mostly in regards to power creeping. It is always a shame to see great tanks get less and less so when the introduction of new tanks with similar gameplay and or similar roles make an older counterpart less competitive. To many players in the top clans and some wallet warriors, their solution is to throw gold at the new line/tank and all is well, leaving more conservative players and clans like myself unhappy. The same goes for the horde of new premiums being constantly released.

 

Getting back on track, the Maus buff wasn't entirely unneeded however it follows sort of the same reasoning as my Type 4/5 statement. "Whaaa! I can't angle my Maus for dog turd against

premium shells, Buffs plz!" IMO the Maus had and has the best HP pool in the game, the most overall armor and a pretty good cannon that is now even better. Angling is couldn't be easier with the rear mounted turret but some players seem to not be able to figure it out. I guess I am saying, stop catering to newer or still learning players especially at tier X, it's only hurting them in the long run. I and many others figured it out the hard way, they can too. The rest of the changes to Germany seem along very similar lines, but I will touch on them. I found the VK B to be very similar to the Maus and gave a great feel for the Maus. The Mauschen seems to do the same thing pretty well but I still think the VK was just a more enjoyable tank overall. The VK A I have to say is not a whole lot like the rest of the line even with the changes. I loved the machine but I know many do not share the same feelings toward it nor were expecting a sort of heavium in a line like the Maus or Pz VII. Nevertheless I think it broadened a few hardcore heavy players horizons and taught them a useful playstyle. Some of the knowledge in the VK A's playstyle can be carried over to other medium and heavy lines, assisting in building a player's overall adaptability and eliminating some "one-sidedness" that many devout superheavy drivers have. I think the new buff to the UFP did help blend it in a bit more with its new line though not quite enough IMO. The VK 100 is a pretty good addition in that it gives the KV-4 some competition for the armored meatwagon role at tier VIII. Yet it changes it up nicely with it's alpha based play and great armor layout. Really I see the switching of the VK A and the VK 100 as the best decision to make the lines blend better with their tier Xs. Again though the flip flopping of playstyles in a single line from tank to tank might seem pointless and annoying it may be serving as a learning curve and is benefiting you as a player although not totally preparing you for the next tank. I am the sort of player that can't be playing one constant playstyle throughout a line and have a good time, it just gets boring. Must be why I liked the old line setup better.

 

The Tiger series turret buffs are actually my favorite buffs of this patch, the HT pen and turret buff help make it even more competitive. If it was before it sure as hell is now. The Tiger P's

turret was it's biggest weakness frontally, topping off really all of its short comings, although some argue it needs a better ROF. (I am not one of them.) As for the Tiger I, why not, when angled right the turret is also its weakest armor.

 

The biggest issue I have with the new buffs is the change to the FV4202 and the Centurion I. The FV was a great tank since its release and was always a heavy-medium. It played this role

better than any others that shared it, so it was already the best among it's like peers. In my mind that makes the buffs it has been given unneeded. Just because it differs from its peers at tier VIII does not mean it is in need of any changes. Making it play a more medium than heavy role with the last buff really took away that uniqueness it had and just makes it blend in much more than before into the sea of tier VIII mediums. Still it is a great tank and I will be able to adapt easily to it's new playstyle I just feel that making all the tanks in the game slowly more and more similar in turn makes the game more and more boring. The Cent's buff was so uncalled for, it's next to crazy. The Cent I has its weaknesses but it also has so many strengths it's ludicrous. It's turret's effective armor can bounce tier X Tank Destroyers, 10 degrees of Gun depression makes hiding its hull simple, I could go on. The point is its weaknesses were its pen and top speed. Both were buffed very generously, its now without a doubt the most OP tank in the game. I, as a dedicated and long time Centurion I player, am overjoyed but I can't imagine the rage that will come about this tank in the future to those who face it, a hull down Centurion I should be approached as if you were a Frenchman.

 

Now for the nerfs, The Grille nerf seems too harsh and in the wrong areas mostly. The nerf to the gun depression really wasn't enough, snap shots are still very possible on most maps and

when paired with the Grille's tiny turret and low profile, returning fire is difficult at best. The nerf to reverse speed helps with this but IMO not quite enough. Solutions: Nerf depression to 5-6 or reverse speed to 10k/ph. The Grille is a glass cannon and I think some key things a player wants in his glass cannon is speed, low profile, and camo. A nerf to any one of these is a huge hit to the tank's abilities. That said I think the Grille has no need of snap shot capabilities. So like I said gun depression or aim time has to go down.

 

All in all though this was one of the better patches. Improved UI, a ton of HD models, and overall some deserved buffs and nerfs. My advice is listen less to the masses and think 

yourselves, I don't want this game turning into too easy a game. Certain tanks should require large amounts of skill to play and others less but not all less or the game becomes boring for those who need or desire a challenge as I do, to enjoy themselves. o7 to all who read the whole post. :honoring:


Edited by The_Bezaleel, Mar 02 2017 - 21:54.


CobraWasTaken1 #31 Posted Mar 01 2017 - 19:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9074 battles
  • 98
  • [_G_D_] _G_D_
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

To The_Bezaleel,

While I liked your post and agreed with most of it, it really bothers me how you use the conjunction "it's" wrong SO MANY TIMES. Yes, I know, grammar nazis are annoying but I'm not one of them. I dropped out of high school because I couldn't pass English. The only reason I wanted to point it out is because you said it so much, people use it wrong all the time, and it just drives me nuts... "It's" is a conjunction because it joins the two words "it" and "is". So if you said "The point is it's weaknesses were it's pen and top speed." what you actually meant by saying that is "The point is it is weaknesses were it is pen and top speed." So instead of "it's" you want to use "its" when talking about something that belongs to "it". So you'd say "The point is its weaknesses were its pen and top speed." I know it seems wrong because of what you learned in school about possession but trust me. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

EDIT: I actually decided to provide some proof so, here you go. http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/1-grammar-error/

 


Edited by CobraWasTaken1, Mar 01 2017 - 19:36.


KingofDragons #32 Posted Mar 01 2017 - 19:36

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14226 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011

First of all if you do not own a certain tank do not tell the players, who own that tank , what it needs or does not need.. A few games in the sandbox does not show the reality of the performance or lack of performance in all areas.. There are reasons certain tanks are hardly played and players coming on here telling everyone that everything is fine just shows how out of touch some players are.. WG is trying to bring those tanks back because of negative inputs on performance ..

 

All we ask for are for stats that make it an even playing field ..



2077Chimera #33 Posted Mar 01 2017 - 21:21

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33660 battles
  • 68
  • [M0B] M0B
  • Member since:
    10-30-2012

I don’t understand why so many people are complaining about the buffs to the Type 4 and Type 5. From my experience playing in the type 5 and playing against it I’ve learned that the buffs are commonly misunderstood by many in the community.

 

First off the armor is strong, but not op. The cupola is easily penned with  AP from the majority of guns with over 250 pen and is butter when hit with premium rounds. So most tier 8 TDs, many tier 8 HTs, almost all tier 9s and every tier ten should have no problem AIMING and penning. ( the tanks that can’t pen it from usually have the mobility to run away) One crucial factor I should add is that engagement range is very important. At close range tanks like an IS-7 is going to struggle against the type 5, but a Maus or an E-100, due to their height, will just shred the type at close range. Shooting up at the major weak point is not a very bright idea so try engage at longer range (30-100m).  (note. the armor, as far as I know, did not change for the type 4 so press 2 and aim at the same spots like always.)

 

Regarding the gun there are a few things people don’t understand. People say its point, click and easy damage when in reality if you don’t aim your shot there’s very high chance of low damage rolls or even 0 damage done. When playing in the type I’ve found that in order to have high damage games you need to take your time with shots and aim at very specific spots. The best spots are turret and hull roofs where the armor is usually the thinnest and has the highest chance to pen. When this isn’t an option (example Maus) turret rings and cupolas are the next best thing because these shots will splash the thin roofs of the hull and turret.  Also, due to the slow reload and high chance off doing low rolls of around 0-500 it can be difficult to have high damage games. I’ve found that if I want to do more damage per match I can just run 14cm and press the 2 key. 600 damage a shot is far better than the majority of the rolls you get from the derp gun. (note. The reload sucks on the type 4. Use this fact when trading shots. You should be able to get in 2 hits for his 1.)

 

In conclusion, AIM and if need be press the 2 key. (for the love of god tier 10 TDs you don’t need to spam gold. I’m talking to you JG E-100 spamming HEAT.) When dealing with a Type with the derp use your teammates as cannon fodder. Wait for the Type to shoot and then shoot him, simple. 



The_Bezaleel #34 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 21:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20926 battles
  • 760
  • [LA] LA
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostCobraWasTaken1, on Mar 01 2017 - 10:33, said:

To The_Bezaleel,

While I liked your post and agreed with most of it, it really bothers me how you use the conjunction "it's" wrong SO MANY TIMES. Yes, I know, grammar nazis are annoying but I'm not one of them. I dropped out of high school because I couldn't pass English. The only reason I wanted to point it out is because you said it so much, people use it wrong all the time, and it just drives me nuts... "It's" is a conjunction because it joins the two words "it" and "is". So if you said "The point is it's weaknesses were it's pen and top speed." what you actually meant by saying that is "The point is it is weaknesses were it is pen and top speed." So instead of "it's" you want to use "its" when talking about something that belongs to "it". So you'd say "The point is its weaknesses were its pen and top speed." I know it seems wrong because of what you learned in school about possession but trust me. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

EDIT: I actually decided to provide some proof so, here you go. http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/pronouns/1-grammar-error/

 

 

I cleaned it up, sorry. I do know the difference between it's and its, like you said the apostrophe usually indicates possession so I make that mistake often when I am writing something large like that. :facepalm:

The_Bezaleel #35 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 22:14

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20926 battles
  • 760
  • [LA] LA
  • Member since:
    01-23-2013

View PostKingofDragons, on Mar 01 2017 - 10:36, said:

First of all if you do not own a certain tank do not tell the players, who own that tank , what it needs or does not need.. A few games in the sandbox does not show the reality of the performance or lack of performance in all areas.. There are reasons certain tanks are hardly played and players coming on here telling everyone that everything is fine just shows how out of touch some players are.. WG is trying to bring those tanks back because of negative inputs on performance ..

 

All we ask for are for stats that make it an even playing field ..

 

I did state at the very beginning my firsthand knowledge on many of these tanks comes from the CT. My audience was mainly WG, not players or tank owners. Have you never heard of "hidden gems"? Have you never come across a tank that you liked and could see no problem with its stats yet it had a negative connotation in the WoT community? I know I have many times. Sometimes there is no real reasoning behind it. For example the IS-3 is held in high regard because any noob can make a shot or two and do 800ish damage and, absorb a shot or two with it's spaced side armor with no angling skill. Not really because the tank is any better than others statwise. I try and bring up tanks who aren't discussed or are discussed in a bad light that they don't deserve all the time on the forums and, on other outlets so don't assume I am only just now after the fact giving feedback on these issues. Just check my content if you doubt that.

 

To achieve an even playing field, constant, sometimes one-sided buffs and nerfs aren't getting us there. It just creates more of a power creep and more buffs to attempt to keep the game from falling off the balance scale. That was probably the main point of my previous post that you seem to have missed.



CobraWasTaken1 #36 Posted Mar 03 2017 - 17:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9074 battles
  • 98
  • [_G_D_] _G_D_
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostThe_Bezaleel, on Mar 02 2017 - 14:56, said:

 

I cleaned it up, sorry. I do know the difference between it's and its, like you said the apostrophe usually indicates possession so I make that mistake often when I am writing something large like that. :facepalm:

 

Hey it's cool. I'm just glad you didn't respond like an a-hole. :teethhappy:

Mr_Lucho #37 Posted Mar 03 2017 - 22:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27771 battles
  • 48
  • [F-A-R] F-A-R
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

ehh ... TYPE 4  still got garbage armor , only good thing is the new gun , at least it's barely bearable to grind.

the TYPE 5 on the other hand does bounce alot it seems


Edited by Mr_Lucho, Mar 03 2017 - 22:04.


Mr_Lucho #38 Posted Mar 03 2017 - 22:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27771 battles
  • 48
  • [F-A-R] F-A-R
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View Postmarkhamwaxers, on Feb 28 2017 - 13:57, said:

Gotta buff the e5 back... it can't go hull down anymore and it's an American heavy... if you're gonna give it weakspot either choose the hull or turret not both.

 

wiggle that turret

rddennis49639 #39 Posted Mar 06 2017 - 01:36

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 36094 battles
  • 3
  • [-BAM-] -BAM-
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014
why in the sand box does the type 5 don't have the 15cm?

RLBell #40 Posted Mar 07 2017 - 05:28

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 15138 battles
  • 580
  • [DHO] DHO
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

The Type 4 Heavy still needs help.  The armor looks great on paper, but the guns firing at it seem to punch through the flat lower plate like it was made of styrofoam and the choice of guns either lack penetration or cannot do damage fast enough to keep it in the fight.

 

The Type 4 Heavy is about as fun to play as the tier VII Black Prince and for many of the same reasons (more often than not, the match is won or lost, before it gets in a position to contribute).






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users