Jump to content


Why did they nerf the VK 28.01?


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

lukzomg1 #41 Posted Jul 24 2017 - 10:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38132 battles
  • 806
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013

View PostTazilon, on Jul 24 2017 - 01:34, said:

 

You somehow totally overlook the fact the 105 pulled off ALL the top scores with the VK 28.01.   You could do well with the 75 but the 105 put it to shame on high score potential.  Why?  Because, if you played it properly, it was the better gun.  Remember the Light tank competition Wargaming held several years ago?  28.01's equipped with 105s won on every server.  Now, if the 75 was actually better, why was it 100% shut out?

 

By the way, even though it seems counter-intuitive, with the 28.01's View Range, the 105 was an awesome sniper gun.

 

100% mark of excellence with 75....where were 105s for most of last 8+ months?  Not at 100%.  Where are all those stats that show 105 in all top scores btw.  

lukzomg1 #42 Posted Jul 24 2017 - 10:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38132 battles
  • 806
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013

View PostATankFullOfIdiots, on Jul 24 2017 - 01:56, said:

 

HE rounds do not rely on pen to do damage. It's great if they do pen but not necessary. Crew and module crits affect the game just as much or more than health. Even with a 90 second cool down on reusable repair and med kits that is the longest 90 seconds ever. When doing a close range run and gun on another tank you didn't need to be accurate to get track or engine crits, just hitting anywhere on the side was good enough. High armor hull down heavies in your cap zone could be damaged at any angle for cap knock back. You might have some magical add on that lets you always be in exactly the best angle for the greatest shot but not everyone has that. In most circumstances you have to take the shot that is offered and hope for the best. The 105 offered the best utility for that.

Thats nice and all but you completely forget that all that you mentioned is not the only things that matter and 75 was still better overall for actual scout play, instead of yolo derp play.  And yes, of course anybody that does good must have some magical add on.....its not possible that they are actually capable of learning and applying what they learn in actual game play.  



Tazilon #43 Posted Jul 24 2017 - 22:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 90409 battles
  • 9,110
  • [-40-] -40-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View Postlukzomg1, on Jul 24 2017 - 03:24, said:

 

100% mark of excellence with 75....where were 105s for most of last 8+ months?  Not at 100%.  Where are all those stats that show 105 in all top scores btw.  

 

You don't even have 400 games in a 28.01.   I'm not sure you understand how it works but most 75s weren't and aren't at 100% either.   Where are the stats?  Knowing history.  Replays show it.  Having played the tank for so long and looking at people who get top scores and seeing their equipment  The 28.01 has one of the most fluid histories of all the tanks in WOT.   It has been down, average, up for a short time, down hard, down, average, and now vanilla.   I used to run a Hall of Fame for scouts and the top missions were never by 75s.   Your personal top score would not have cracked the list at all.  Times change.  Unfortunately, now we are all stuck with the weaker gun and a tank that plays just tlke every other Tier VI scout except the 12t, despite the fact lower tier tanks retain their 105s.  


Edited by Tazilon, Jul 24 2017 - 22:06.


Tazilon #44 Posted Jul 24 2017 - 22:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 90409 battles
  • 9,110
  • [-40-] -40-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View Postlukzomg1, on Jul 24 2017 - 03:29, said:

Thats nice and all but you completely forget that all that you mentioned is not the only things that matter and 75 was still better overall for actual scout play, instead of yolo derp play.  And yes, of course anybody that does good must have some magical add on.....its not possible that they are actually capable of learning and applying what they learn in actual game play.  

 

The 105 was much better for "actual scout play".  Combined with the 28.01s above average View Range, it was a great standoff weapon platform, capable of taking out literally any tank in the game.  It could compete even when the 28.01 faced Tier X tanks.

Tazilon #45 Posted Jul 24 2017 - 22:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 90409 battles
  • 9,110
  • [-40-] -40-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011
There have always been a few 28.01 drivers who feel the 75mm is/was better.  But the overwhelming majority of 28.01 tankers felt the 105 was better.  Throughout the history of the 28.01 pre-9.18, far more 105s hit 100% than have 75s.  Some people never figured out how to make the 105 work its magic so they used the 75 instead.  As I said, it was adequate, but couldn't compete with the 105s versatility on the battlefield.

lukzomg1 #46 Posted Jul 25 2017 - 02:57

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38132 battles
  • 806
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013

View PostTazilon, on Jul 24 2017 - 21:00, said:

 

You don't even have 400 games in a 28.01.   I'm not sure you understand how it works but most 75s weren't and aren't at 100% either.   Where are the stats?  Knowing history.  Replays show it.  Having played the tank for so long and looking at people who get top scores and seeing their equipment  The 28.01 has one of the most fluid histories of all the tanks in WOT.   It has been down, average, up for a short time, down hard, down, average, and now vanilla.   I used to run a Hall of Fame for scouts and the top missions were never by 75s.   Your personal top score would not have cracked the list at all.  Times change.  Unfortunately, now we are all stuck with the weaker gun and a tank that plays just tlke every other Tier VI scout except the 12t, despite the fact lower tier tanks retain their 105s.  

 

Yeah, and you have over 50K, most in 105 im assuming.....if it was so superior then why isnt your performance better? I mean according to you "You could do well with the 75 but the 105 put it to shame on high score potential."  And what?  You claimed all these facts but they are all just in your head?  Sorry bud, i find random somebody's word in the internet as not sufficient evidence.   My personal score wouldn't crack the list?  It sure did against all these 105 on US servers.....somehow, someway....despite somehow 75 being put to shame by 105...  And you know why?  Because 105 didnt put it to shame at all.  Being at 100% MoE is nothing to brag about at all at tier 6, but it helps to show that 75 was as good or better.  You dont consider almost 400 games a significant sample? Really?  

Now lets examine your claim that 105 was better for actual scout game play.  You're trying to say that having to be closer and exposed for a shot much longer in a tank with no armor is better?  

Thats nice that most vk players preferred 105....just like they preferred it on M4....and just like most people are bad at this game so just because most people like something, doesn't necessarily make it better.   Not to say that only bad players choose 105 as it wasnt a bad gun and im sure some people made it work well, but in my experience it was not better than 75.  With new MM VK is even better now, and i already have 3rd decently fresh crew on it.   Its a very fun and effective tank to play.



ATankFullOfIdiots #47 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 00:12

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 35975 battles
  • 105
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011

Nah, the whole point of this thread was asking why they took away the 105; a question nobody has answered yet. They left it as an option on other same tier and lower tanks and never gave a valid reason why lights were refused access to the gun. Whatever your views on the gun nobody has just given the answer. If they wanted the player base to use a gun they tweeked to make it better the player base would naturally gravitate to that gun on their own. I still see lots of tanks that have the option of both guns still using the 105. Hetzers, PZ IVH and M4 still use the short HE 105s. The only tanks I see that can use the 105 but don't are ones with the better 88mm option or the longer, better pen 105.

 

 



Tazilon #48 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 05:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 90409 battles
  • 9,110
  • [-40-] -40-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View Postlukzomg1, on Jul 24 2017 - 19:57, said:

 

Yeah, and you have over 50K, most in 105 im assuming.....if it was so superior then why isnt your performance better? I mean according to you "You could do well with the 75 but the 105 put it to shame on high score potential."  And what?  You claimed all these facts but they are all just in your head?  Sorry bud, i find random somebody's word in the internet as not sufficient evidence.   My personal score wouldn't crack the list?  It sure did against all these 105 on US servers.....somehow, someway....despite somehow 75 being put to shame by 105...  And you know why?  Because 105 didnt put it to shame at all.  Being at 100% MoE is nothing to brag about at all at tier 6, but it helps to show that 75 was as good or better.  You dont consider almost 400 games a significant sample? Really?  

Now lets examine your claim that 105 was better for actual scout game play.  You're trying to say that having to be closer and exposed for a shot much longer in a tank with no armor is better?  

Thats nice that most vk players preferred 105....just like they preferred it on M4....and just like most people are bad at this game so just because most people like something, doesn't necessarily make it better.   Not to say that only bad players choose 105 as it wasnt a bad gun and im sure some people made it work well, but in my experience it was not better than 75.  With new MM VK is even better now, and i already have 3rd decently fresh crew on it.   Its a very fun and effective tank to play.

 

You are proving you know very little about the gun.  You do not have to be close and exposed.  No wonder you think the 75 is better - you don't know how to play the 105./ Kind of what I said in a previous post.  Most of the people who prefer the 75 are people who never figured out the 105.  I have been at 100% on the 105 multiple times and probably for more games than you have total in the tank.  The newest version of the 28.01 sucks compared to the previous version.  Is it playable? Yes.  Is it anywhere near as fun or effective?  Not close.  As for people preferring the 105 being bad players - no; actually over the history of the game all the best players used the 105.  As I said, it used to have all the top scores - not just for the 28.01 - but in the entire game.  Newer tanks may have surpassed those scores now due to the many nerfs to, mostly MM, for the 28.,01, as it used to face Tiers 10s but it wasn't that long ago every top score in the game was 28.01 with the 105.  The 75 couldn't, and still can't, match what it could do.

 

 



lukzomg1 #49 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 08:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38132 battles
  • 806
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013

View PostTazilon, on Jul 26 2017 - 04:05, said:

 

You are proving you know very little about the gun.  You do not have to be close and exposed.  No wonder you think the 75 is better - you don't know how to play the 105./ Kind of what I said in a previous post.  Most of the people who prefer the 75 are people who never figured out the 105.  I have been at 100% on the 105 multiple times and probably for more games than you have total in the tank.  The newest version of the 28.01 sucks compared to the previous version.  Is it playable? Yes.  Is it anywhere near as fun or effective?  Not close.  As for people preferring the 105 being bad players - no; actually over the history of the game all the best players used the 105.  As I said, it used to have all the top scores - not just for the 28.01 - but in the entire game.  Newer tanks may have surpassed those scores now due to the many nerfs to, mostly MM, for the 28.,01, as it used to face Tiers 10s but it wasn't that long ago every top score in the game was 28.01 with the 105.  The 75 couldn't, and still can't, match what it could do.

 

 

 

You're right, sorry i didnt realize that both 105 and 75 had the same aim and aim time and handling.....my mistake....LOL  right?.....please stop.....  Again, you can claim whatever you want with the 105 stats but if you cant prove it, then you're just a guy talking on the internet.  You might have been or you might not have been at 100%, sure no way to check it....but for sure you werent when i was with the inferior 75.  Its not fun? That is subjective and i find it as fun as before changes....maybe even more fun when you consider new mm.  Derps are called derps for a reason, you can figure that one out....but once you learn to play the higher learning curve 75, it outperforms 105.  Also my performance in VK is on par with other tier 6 scouts of mine so its probably just fine where its at.  After changes my performance in it actually improved but that can be also because of this new crew getting new skills on top of new mm.  Your last sentence.....i proved it wrong over and over again.

Tazilon #50 Posted Jul 26 2017 - 18:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 90409 battles
  • 9,110
  • [-40-] -40-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View Postlukzomg1, on Jul 26 2017 - 01:00, said:

 

You're right, sorry i didnt realize that both 105 and 75 had the same aim and aim time and handling.....my mistake....LOL  right?.....please stop.....  Again, you can claim whatever you want with the 105 stats but if you cant prove it, then you're just a guy talking on the internet.  You might have been or you might not have been at 100%, sure no way to check it....but for sure you werent when i was with the inferior 75.  Its not fun? That is subjective and i find it as fun as before changes....maybe even more fun when you consider new mm.  Derps are called derps for a reason, you can figure that one out....but once you learn to play the higher learning curve 75, it outperforms 105.  Also my performance in VK is on par with other tier 6 scouts of mine so its probably just fine where its at.  After changes my performance in it actually improved but that can be also because of this new crew getting new skills on top of new mm.  Your last sentence.....i proved it wrong over and over again.

 

Look up the scores dude.  It is easy to prove.  As I said, I ran a Hall of Fame for scouts where people from NA, EU and SEA submitted their top scores and I made a You Tube of them.  The 75 didn't come close to matching the 105.   Not sure if you can anymore but you used to be able to look up the top all time missions and most of them were also on wotreplays or similar sites so you could watch the game.  All 2801s. All 105s.  I already looked them up before.  I'm not just making this crap up as you appear to be.  As I said, the top scores may be different now due to changes in the game, but they still support the fact the 105>75.  Simply being faster doesn't make a gun better.  It may make a certain gun preferable in certain situations but it doesn't make it better overall.  

 

The average damage on the 75 atm is 110.  The average damage on the 105 is 350.  I fire my 75 every 3.67 seconds..  I fired my 105 every 6.10 seconds.   Before I can fire a 3rd time and move from 220 to 330 damage with my 75 I have already done 700 with my 105.  While the slightly slower ROF of the 75 causes the 28.01 to struggle against scouts and mediums with faster ROFs like the MT-25 and cromwell, the 105 simply blasted them twice and was done with them. Moving in on multiple arty, the 75 maybe gets the first arty killed by the time the 105 has already killed 2 arty.  And sniping?  It was an awesome sniper no matter what you say otherwise.  HE has an advantage in that it doesn't suffer a distance penalty as does AP and APCR.  It hits with the same force at 600m as it does 50m.  Plus, it has a MUCH bigger chance of causing crit hits, something which is often overlooked (or deliberately not mentioned)  when comparing the 2 guns.  

 

All of these factors contributed to making the 105 superior to the 75 and no doubt, why the 105 ran the table in the Light contest and why the 105 held all the top scores in the game for years.   Claiming the 75 is better denies the well documented history of the tank/gun/wot.

 

But the thread is about why the 2801 lost the 105.  By arguing the 75 is better than the 105 you are actually that the 105 should not have been removed - after all, according to you, it wasn't even the best 2801 gun.   Lower tier tanks still use the same 105 the 2801 used to once use.  It is ridiculous of WOT to claim it is OP at Tier VI when Tier V and even Tier IV tanks use it.


Edited by Tazilon, Jul 26 2017 - 18:30.


lukzomg1 #51 Posted Aug 02 2017 - 05:05

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38132 battles
  • 806
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013

View PostTazilon, on Jul 26 2017 - 17:24, said:

 

Look up the scores dude.  It is easy to prove.  As I said, I ran a Hall of Fame for scouts where people from NA, EU and SEA submitted their top scores and I made a You Tube of them.  The 75 didn't come close to matching the 105.   Not sure if you can anymore but you used to be able to look up the top all time missions and most of them were also on wotreplays or similar sites so you could watch the game.  All 2801s. All 105s.  I already looked them up before.  I'm not just making this crap up as you appear to be.  As I said, the top scores may be different now due to changes in the game, but they still support the fact the 105>75.  Simply being faster doesn't make a gun better.  It may make a certain gun preferable in certain situations but it doesn't make it better overall.  

 

The average damage on the 75 atm is 110.  The average damage on the 105 is 350.  I fire my 75 every 3.67 seconds..  I fired my 105 every 6.10 seconds.   Before I can fire a 3rd time and move from 220 to 330 damage with my 75 I have already done 700 with my 105.  While the slightly slower ROF of the 75 causes the 28.01 to struggle against scouts and mediums with faster ROFs like the MT-25 and cromwell, the 105 simply blasted them twice and was done with them. Moving in on multiple arty, the 75 maybe gets the first arty killed by the time the 105 has already killed 2 arty.  And sniping?  It was an awesome sniper no matter what you say otherwise.  HE has an advantage in that it doesn't suffer a distance penalty as does AP and APCR.  It hits with the same force at 600m as it does 50m.  Plus, it has a MUCH bigger chance of causing crit hits, something which is often overlooked (or deliberately not mentioned)  when comparing the 2 guns.  

 

All of these factors contributed to making the 105 superior to the 75 and no doubt, why the 105 ran the table in the Light contest and why the 105 held all the top scores in the game for years.   Claiming the 75 is better denies the well documented history of the tank/gun/wot.

 

But the thread is about why the 2801 lost the 105.  By arguing the 75 is better than the 105 you are actually that the 105 should not have been removed - after all, according to you, it wasn't even the best 2801 gun.   Lower tier tanks still use the same 105 the 2801 used to once use.  It is ridiculous of WOT to claim it is OP at Tier VI when Tier V and even Tier IV tanks use it.

 

Why are you repeating something that i already addressed.  You made these claims about the scores and i already asked you to prove them to me.....you refused to do so till this time....probably because you dont have them or they simply dont exist. Again, what you claim you did when you ran this or that is meaningless because you have no way of proving it. You claim something is well documented so where are these documents?  ANd how am i making anything up?  We had this argument before when 105 was around and i was sitting at 100% with 75....above the 105s.... IF 105 WAS PUTTING 75 TO SHAME AS YOU SAID, I WOULDNT BE ABLE TO MAKE 75 WORK AS WELL AS I DID.  Whats so hard to understand about this?  

Your comparisons of the rof and so on is silly as good players dont sit there and trade shot for shot and on top of that you assumed that 105 would pen every time and even hit every time.  I like how you completely disregard other gun stats and the reality that comes with using them.  And it was awesome at sniping??? LOL ya, and im an assault helicopter.  Just like 105 with crap aim and aim time didnt require you to expose your self longer to take a shot....as you claimed.

Also about the removing of 105.....please stop.... You realize they could have easily nerfed the 105 instead of removing it, if they felt it was so powerful....You know they can modify anything they want in this game....right?  I think they did that to 152 on t49, not sure. 



Aknazer #52 Posted Aug 05 2017 - 04:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 16555 battles
  • 3,099
  • [RDDT7] RDDT7
  • Member since:
    12-22-2012

View PostRunninKurt, on May 18 2017 - 14:51, said:

Same reason why the ELC's 90mm was nerfed. Being a tier 6 with standard MM it would have been OP. It had 2700 dpm with the 105.

I DO agree that they OVER nerfed it. I think it needed to be done similar to arty, it can keep the 105, but can only fire standard HE from it, or something.

 

That doesn't really hold up as an argument once you realize that tanks as low as T4 get the exact same gun while facing enemies with both less armor AND significantly less health.  Which means that a non-pen can still be crippling and a pen (which is more likely due to less armor at lower tiers) can easily be a 1shot.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users