Jump to content


British Medium Changes

Super Test

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

digitails #41 Posted Jul 30 2017 - 04:39

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10874 battles
  • 24
  • [ESG] ESG
  • Member since:
    06-17-2014

View PostMikosah, on Jul 28 2017 - 01:58, said:

 

And yet most of the player base don't even realize there ever was a difference between frontline mediums and support mediums. They never needed to. Any medium can fill the support role in a pinch. But frontline brawling and wolf-packs demand much more specialized machines. Its a one-sided relationship, the brawlers can support whenever they want to, but the support mediums make terrible brawlers. Which is precisely why the Centurions deserved buffs, whatever specialized niche they have by possessing good base spread and high stock pen can be imitated by any of their respective peers that are willing to load gold.

 

This guys gets it! Do you play Brit tanks Mikosah?

digitails #42 Posted Jul 30 2017 - 04:43

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10874 battles
  • 24
  • [ESG] ESG
  • Member since:
    06-17-2014

View PostAvalon304, on Jul 28 2017 - 04:25, said:

 

Thats because most of the playerbase is retarded.

 

And if you think these buffs, and ANY of the top tier medium buffs recently announced are a good thing you are part of the problem and are part of the reason why this game is going in very troubling directions.

 

I know you want premium ammo removed or heavily nerfed Avalon but that is not going to happen. Just like arty was not going to be removed. You must realize this. Once you do you can see this really is the only way to give meaningful buffs to these tanks. The small gun handling buffs you listed on Reddit will not elevate these tanks from trash tier. 

Jarms48 #43 Posted Jul 30 2017 - 05:05

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 117 battles
  • 1,257
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View Postdigitails, on Jul 30 2017 - 13:43, said:

I know you want premium ammo removed or heavily nerfed Avalon but that is not going to happen. Just like arty was not going to be removed. You must realize this. Once you do you can see this really is the only way to give meaningful buffs to these tanks. The small gun handling buffs you listed on Reddit will not elevate these tanks from trash tier. 

 

I'd like to see premium ammo nerfed as well. Even if premium ammo did 5% less alpha damage than standard ammo I'd be happy with it.


Edited by Jarms48, Jul 30 2017 - 05:06.


Mikosah #44 Posted Jul 30 2017 - 16:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 17515 battles
  • 3,072
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View Postdigitails, on Jul 29 2017 - 21:39, said:

 

This guys gets it! Do you play Brit tanks Mikosah?

 

The Centurions were the reason I started playing WoT in the first place. But other than that I haven't invested any significant amount of energy on the British tech tree. In that long span of time between the HD-nerf and the recent mobility buff, I was seriously considering getting a Conqueror to replace my 7/1 (and even more so when the Conq's HD model was a buff rather than a nerf). The only thing that stopped me was the thought of having to grind through the Churchill VII, BP, and Caernarvon.

SpectreHD #45 Posted Jul 31 2017 - 06:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16324 battles
  • 15,580
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostJarms48, on Jul 30 2017 - 12:05, said:

 

I'd like to see premium ammo nerfed as well. Even if premium ammo did 5% less alpha damage than standard ammo I'd be happy with it.

 

Ideally it should be 15-20% depending on the damage of the shell. Rebalancing premium would fix many balance related issues overall.



Avalon304 #46 Posted Jul 31 2017 - 07:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 16563 battles
  • 6,268
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postdigitails, on Jul 29 2017 - 20:43, said:

 

I know you want premium ammo removed or heavily nerfed Avalon but that is not going to happen. Just like arty was not going to be removed. You must realize this. Once you do you can see this really is the only way to give meaningful buffs to these tanks. The small gun handling buffs you listed on Reddit will not elevate these tanks from trash tier. 

 

I dont know where you got me wanting premium ammo nerfed hard or removed... because I dont even see premium ammo as an issue in this game. (Arty still should be though). So stop putting words in people's mouths, kay?

 

But, and Im not sure you actually understand this, when premium ammo exists, buffing armor is not how you make tanks relevant. Its how you get people to fire more premium ammo.

 

The 254mm turret front of a buffed Centurion is not going to reliably stop premium ammo from tanks at tier 9 or 10. You can see this for yourself if you go to tanks.gg and look at the Strv 81, which is basically what these tanks will become. It will not stop a top tiers premium rounds from buttering it. Not the 330 pen HEAT from mediums, and not the 340mm pen HEAT from heavies... (and you can just forget about stopping a TD shell). What this will do, is make it so that if tier 8s want to contest you they HAVE to fire premium. Tier 6s and 7s cant do anything.

 

So why would you buff the armor, if top tiers are STILL going to butter your turret anyway? What does that accomplish? Nothing really, it just means you get to crap on bottom tiers because they literally cant do anything.

 

So what Mikosah (and anyone supporting these buffs) seems to be advocating for is making all tanks generic. Thats a terrible way to actually balance a game. He doesn't "get it" because he doesnt understand that tanks having specific roles is a good thing. The Centurions and the Pattons are currently second line support tanks. Thats what they are good at (even with the Centurions trash tier gun handling). Yes a T-54 or T-62 can be used as support, but they are by no means good at it. Its not a onesided relationship. They can not use the positions suited to a support tank, they cant work ridges to provide mid-long range fire support without exposing all of their tank, where as a Centurion (or a Patton) can.

 

Buffing armor is the wrong way to buff tanks. Its the lazy way to satiate lazy [edited]players who dont want to learn their tanks role (these players also often think armor should be invulnerable, rather than playing to not get hit in the first place, which often leads to complaints). Buffing armor solves nothing, but does continue to drive this game in a very poor direction. You think the complaints about gold spam are bad now, where the only tanks that require gold are super heavies like the Maus and Type 5? Wait until every top tier medium needs it too. Wait until every top tier medium driver comes to complain about *insert tank with high pen HEAT here* slinging gold at their "well armored" turrets. This next patch has many good sides, but it'll be the WORST patch for game balance in recent history, and that includes the patch where they over buffed the Maus and gave the Type 5 a derp gun (both of which, perhaps ironically, ALSO needed just gun handling buffs).

 

The changes I outlined on Reddit are also minor, yes, but move the gun handling with skills and equipment from "still trash" to "not bad", and thats whats needed. With over 1500 battles in Centurion pattern tanks (Mk. 1, FV4202, Mk. 7/1 and Action X), I know exactly what I am talking about. Thats ~10% of my battles in Centurions. I have another 391 in Patton pattern tanks (Pershing, Patton KR, Patton and Fatton). I know what I'm talking about when it comes to support mediums versus brawling mediums. None of them need armor buffs.



Mikosah #47 Posted Jul 31 2017 - 19:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 17515 battles
  • 3,072
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostAvalon304, on Jul 31 2017 - 00:33, said:

So what Mikosah (and anyone supporting these buffs) seems to be advocating for is making all tanks generic. Thats a terrible way to actually balance a game. He doesn't "get it" because he doesnt understand that tanks having specific roles is a good thing. The Centurions and the Pattons are currently second line support tanks. Thats what they are good at (even with the Centurions trash tier gun handling). Yes a T-54 or T-62 can be used as support, but they are by no means good at it. Its not a onesided relationship. They can not use the positions suited to a support tank, they cant work ridges to provide mid-long range fire support without exposing all of their tank, where as a Centurion (or a Patton) can.

 

You've misunderstood my intentions. The fundamental problem here is that we have the Centurion series that are supposed to be in the support role but have such bad DPM and handling (among other drawbacks) that they don't even do that job particularly well. Meanwhile other support mediums with fantastic gun handling, abundant depression angles, or even a combination of both already exist. If something like an M46 is getting a(n unnecessary) turret buff, you'd better believe that the 7/1 will also need a buff to avoid being obsolete. Given the choice, I'd rather the Centurions get an obnoxious buff than being neglected, or worse yet, nerfed. Might not be likely to end that way, but it wouldn't be the strangest decision WG has made. Better safe than sorry. 

 

And as of the concern that the Centurions might become generic, the fact is that they're already generic. A bit too late to be worrying about that.



Avalon304 #48 Posted Jul 31 2017 - 22:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 16563 battles
  • 6,268
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostMikosah, on Jul 31 2017 - 11:46, said:

 

Given the choice, I'd rather the Centurions get an obnoxious buff than being neglected 

 

And as of the concern that the Centurions might become generic, the fact is that they're already generic. A bit too late to be worrying about that.

 

You dont understand why thats a bad reaction do you? That sends the wrong message to the developers. Going "Oh it needs a buff... this isnt what it needs but its a buff so cool" is [edited] stupid. Id rather them be neglected that getting buffs they do not need, which wont fix their issues.

 

And they arent generic, yet. Having another tank in its role doesnt make them generic. But when EVERY tank is shoehorned into a role, things start becoming generic.



Mikosah #49 Posted Aug 01 2017 - 00:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 17515 battles
  • 3,072
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostAvalon304, on Jul 31 2017 - 15:47, said:

 

You dont understand why thats a bad reaction do you? That sends the wrong message to the developers. Going "Oh it needs a buff... this isnt what it needs but its a buff so cool" is [edited] stupid. Id rather them be neglected that getting buffs they do not need, which wont fix their issues.

 

And they arent generic, yet. Having another tank in its role doesnt make them generic. But when EVERY tank is shoehorned into a role, things start becoming generic.

 

If only WG could actually be trusted to appraise the situation and react promptly and appropriately, then I'd completely agree. But they can't be trusted nor relied upon. All this time went by since the HD nerf and only just recently did it occur to them that this tank line had serious issues, hence the mobility buff. Yet more time had to pass between then and now and somehow by a complete miracle sent down from the heavens, it just now occurred to them that the Centurions are still a complete obscurity in the meta. This opportunity can't be squandered. If you tell WG that this buff is the wrong buff, it could be months or even years before they miraculously stumble upon the correct buff. 

 

I don't like armor any more than you do, and I don't think any of these other mediums have any business getting turret buffs (maybe the M48 but that's still iffy). But the Centurions could make good use of it and return to their old role of low-DPM high survivability hull-down. There's already tons of support mediums running the vice-versa of that scheme, but not many that are set up this way. And turret armor alone won't suddenly turn them into brawlers either. Their hulls are just too fat and weak for that. 



digitails #50 Posted Aug 02 2017 - 04:39

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10874 battles
  • 24
  • [ESG] ESG
  • Member since:
    06-17-2014

View PostSpectreHD, on Jul 31 2017 - 05:21, said:

 

Ideally it should be 15-20% depending on the damage of the shell. Rebalancing premium would fix many balance related issues overall.

 

I thought about your post some more and think a 15-20% reduction is not too major (50% would be though). I think it would interesting to see this tested on sandbox. You and Jarms may be right but do you think this would push players towards alpha damage tanks to get around the loss of potential damage? What other unintended consequences could a change like this bring? 

Edited by digitails, Aug 02 2017 - 04:39.


indoctrinated #51 Posted Aug 02 2017 - 14:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 20171 battles
  • 2,063
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostMikosah, on Jul 26 2017 - 04:42, said:

 

Let's suppose for the sake of conversation that the Centurions weren't getting armor buffs and were instead getting better gun handling and DPM. Wouldn't that make them more generic rather than less? For the record I'd be satisfied either way. I just want the damn things to be worth their salt.

I got the Centurion 7/1 and the weapons handling literally feels like I am driving a somewhat faster aiming KV-2. Here's a comparison featuring tanks I have experience with:

Someone mentioned earlier that the turret-traverse bloom makes a big impact and I'm feeling it in this tank. The L7 is very derpy (also has poor accuracy when fully aimed) and I am okay driving this tank with a damaged turret traverse (lowers the bloom). It's rather silly that the KV-2 has better turret-traverse bloom, moreso if the KV-2 could use Vert stabs. Tank is also quite huge for a "medium". Centurion tanks are about as tall as the O-Ho's hull+superstructure FYI. This is not the buff I was looking for but I guess its better to take whatever WG hands out than nothing.



KatzeWolf #52 Posted Aug 03 2017 - 02:15

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29 battles
  • 277
  • Member since:
    09-10-2012

View PostJarms48, on Jul 26 2017 - 15:58, said:

*sigh* Just another change removing any kind of historical accuracy from the game. 

 

I'd take game balance over historical accuracy any day, go play War Thunder.

Avalon304 #53 Posted Aug 03 2017 - 12:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 16563 battles
  • 6,268
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostMikosah, on Jul 31 2017 - 16:01, said:

 

If only WG could actually be trusted to appraise the situation and react promptly and appropriately, then I'd completely agree. But they can't be trusted nor relied upon. All this time went by since the HD nerf and only just recently did it occur to them that this tank line had serious issues, hence the mobility buff. Yet more time had to pass between then and now and somehow by a complete miracle sent down from the heavens, it just now occurred to them that the Centurions are still a complete obscurity in the meta. This opportunity can't be squandered. If you tell WG that this buff is the wrong buff, it could be months or even years before they miraculously stumble upon the correct buff. 

 

I don't like armor any more than you do, and I don't think any of these other mediums have any business getting turret buffs (maybe the M48 but that's still iffy). But the Centurions could make good use of it and return to their old role of low-DPM high survivability hull-down. There's already tons of support mediums running the vice-versa of that scheme, but not many that are set up this way. And turret armor alone won't suddenly turn them into brawlers either. Their hulls are just too fat and weak for that. 

 

Do you know why they cant do that? Because every time they buff something (regardless of whether or not its the right buff) the majority of people go: "YAY!!! BUFFS!!!" without any consideration of what the implications of those buffs will be. And so WG sees people reacting positively rather than getting accurate feedback about what a particular tank actually needs. There were people who cheered the armor buffs for the Maus and people who cheer for the addition of the Type 4 and Type 5 derp guns for christ sake... despite the fact that those buffs singlehandedly broke those tanks. (Jesus there are people that are happy the T-54 is getting a turret armor buff and that the 140 is being buffed too). So when WG gets inaccurate feedback, I cant exactly blame them when they keep making decisions based on it.

 

The tank line didnt have mobility issues. Thats the whole point. People wanted to play traditional mediums games in the Centurions, when they arent traditional mediums. BTW... you still cant play traditional medium games in the Centurions... because theyre still slow. We got nothing out of the top speed boosts other than getting to a support position 1/10th of a second quicker. Like thats the reality of it, the speed buff changed nothing, and the armor buff is going to do nothing either because your still gonna get penned by most things you see, even in the turret. So youre applauding a buff that is LITERALLY useless.

 

No... I'm not going to just accept the buff, because WG is slow to make changes. No thats a terrible attitude. Absolutely the worst. Thats why this game is becoming more and more unbalanced at the top tiers... because people keep accepting the boneheaded stupid buffs that WG is pitching to them. We cant do that if we want a balanced game in the long run. If the buff isnt the right one, we should be screaming it from the rooftops and suggesting the proper buffs.

 

If your think the Centurions are an obscurity in the meta then you are just wrong. Like actually wrong. They arent, and havent been. There is always a spot for a support role in the meta. Its up to the player to adapt themselves to it though.

 

I want you to name the "tons" of support mediums, because there are currently only 3 high DPM, low armor second line support mediums: the M46 and M48 Pattons and the Type 61. The Leopards and AMX-30s are long range snipers, meant to sit further back than the second line and provide long range fire, which is a different role with a different set of requirements. The STB-1 is a ridge brawler, as it has the 3rd highest DPM among tier 10 mediums and has depression and a good turret. The E 50 M is a pocket heavy. The Skodas and Bats are autoloading assassins. The WZ-120 and 121 are brawlers with big guns, and the RU hovermeds are brawlers and wolfpackers.

 

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 02 2017 - 06:58, said:

 This is not the buff I was looking for but I guess its better to take whatever WG hands out than nothing.

 

Look.... this is a terrible attitude towards game balance. Tell them its wrong, or never complain as the game continues to grow unbalanced.

 

View PostKatze_, on Aug 02 2017 - 18:15, said:

 

I'd take game balance over historical accuracy any day, go play War Thunder.

 

That you think this is good for balance is funny...

indoctrinated #54 Posted Aug 03 2017 - 15:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 20171 battles
  • 2,063
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Aug 03 2017 - 12:31, said:

 

Look.... this is a terrible attitude towards game balance. Tell them its wrong, or never complain as the game continues to grow unbalanced.

 

Well WG doesn't -seem- to be interested in improving other aspects of this tank even though it is an option. Not like the L7 is a particularly impressive weapon for its tier, there really should be no reason to give it derp-gun levels of weapons handling.

View PostMikosah, on Jul 30 2017 - 16:23, said:

 

The Centurions were the reason I started playing WoT in the first place. But other than that I haven't invested any significant amount of energy on the British tech tree. In that long span of time between the HD-nerf and the recent mobility buff, I was seriously considering getting a Conqueror to replace my 7/1 (and even more so when the Conq's HD model was a buff rather than a nerf). The only thing that stopped me was the thought of having to grind through the Churchill VII, BP, and Caernarvon.

British and Japanese Heavies are my two favorite tank lines in the game. I thought while the Churchill 7 was atrocious, the BP is okay. Caernarvon was also okay IMO before the 3-5-7 MM changes. BP and Caern are decent platforms in need of better weapons IMO. BP should get the 20pdr, Caernarvon - either a 32pdr (230/268 pen, 280 damage), an L7 with 230/278 pen, or some kind of derp gun (perhaps the British 165mm demolition gun). 20pdr just doesn't cut the mustard on a Tier 8 Heavy nowadays. WG might give the Caernarvon some silly megabuff in the future. If so, I'm in a position to cash in on it too.



Avalon304 #55 Posted Aug 03 2017 - 23:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 16563 battles
  • 6,268
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 03 2017 - 07:00, said:

Well WG doesn't -seem- to be interested in improving other aspects of this tank even though it is an option. Not like the L7 is a particularly impressive weapon for its tier, there really should be no reason to give it derp-gun levels of weapons handling.

 

 

I mean... for tier 9... the L7 is actually an impressive gun... thats still not a reason to give it derp gun stats. 

 

Still... just accepting buffs is bad. Tell them their decisions are bad or dont complaining when the game keeps becoming unbalanced. WG may be willing to change other things if people tell them (see also undoing of BatChat nerfs). But if you accept these buffs, cont come crying when you keep getting penned in the turret anyway, and dont come crying when the game keeps becoming more and more unbalanced in the future.



indoctrinated #56 Posted Aug 03 2017 - 23:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 20171 battles
  • 2,063
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Aug 03 2017 - 23:12, said:

 

 

I mean... for tier 9... the L7 is actually an impressive gun... thats still not a reason to give it derp gun stats. 

 

Still... just accepting buffs is bad. Tell them their decisions are bad or dont complaining when the game keeps becoming unbalanced. WG may be willing to change other things if people tell them (see also undoing of BatChat nerfs). But if you accept these buffs, cont come crying when you keep getting penned in the turret anyway, and dont come crying when the game keeps becoming more and more unbalanced in the future.

268 APCR is comparable, if not a bit worse (especially against angled surfaces) than 258 AP that you'd find on a normal Tier IX/X heavy. Not that great.
I don't like this buff but the problem is I think this is a pretty self serving game community. I think the bat changes were only reversed due to the huge outcry from this game community whether it be here or on Reddit. But how come there is no similar outcry against the ridiculous buffs to competitor mediums like the AMX, Patton series, T-54? Those turrets are only going to be moderately worse than a Type 5 Heavy. Tier 7, 8 tanks are gonna be in deep trouble against them where even their gold rounds are going to struggle to go thru. Many complaints are that the Type 5, Maus need gold to pen yet you're gonna need gold anyways to pen these new Mediums. How come that's acceptable? The old, pre-nerf T110E5 was allowed to run rampant for a long while and there wasn't a huge outcry against it unlike the Maus/Type 5 Heavy. People only seem to complain when community favourites get negatively affected while proper, objective game balance isn't something they care about.



Avalon304 #57 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 01:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 16563 battles
  • 6,268
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 03 2017 - 15:42, said:

268 APCR is comparable, if not a bit worse (especially against angled surfaces) than 258 AP that you'd find on a normal Tier IX/X heavy. Not that great.


I don't like this buff but the problem is I think this is a pretty self serving game community. I think the bat changes were only reversed due to the huge outcry from this game community whether it be here or on Reddit. But how come there is no similar outcry against the ridiculous buffs to competitor mediums like the AMX, Patton series, T-54? Those turrets are only going to be moderately worse than a Type 5 Heavy. Tier 7, 8 tanks are gonna be in deep trouble against them where even their gold rounds are going to struggle to go thru. Many complaints are that the Type 5, Maus need gold to pen yet you're gonna need gold anyways to pen these new Mediums. How come that's acceptable? The old, pre-nerf T110E5 was allowed to run rampant for a long while and there wasn't a huge outcry against it unlike the Maus/Type 5 Heavy. People only seem to complain when community favourites get negatively affected while proper, objective game balance isn't something they care about.

 

Shell velocity is much better, means less leading at range. And higher pen is still better, normalization really only comes into effect at high angles of incidence (which are things that should be being mitigated by player position, rather than relying on the round to do it for you). Id very much rather have APCR than AP in the majority of situations.

 

This player base is dumb. Plain and simple. Smart players wouldnt blindly accept every buff as it comes at them. They wouldnt say things like: "Oh WG doesnt seem to want to buff the right thing so I should settle for what they'll give me". Thats the kind of stuff that got us here in the first place. We should be thinking about these buffs and the effects they will have long term and telling WG they are wrong when they are wrong. And they are wrong on nearly every tank change in 9.20 and the patch after it. Off the top of my head I can think of about 3 changes that I actually agree with: The new turret for the M48 (which is separate from the armor buff), the changes to the IS-7 and the changes to the ISU. Every other change is pants on head retarded, and I dont know how they came up with them.



indoctrinated #58 Posted Aug 04 2017 - 14:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 20171 battles
  • 2,063
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostAvalon304, on Aug 04 2017 - 01:30, said:

 

Shell velocity is much better, means less leading at range. And higher pen is still better, normalization really only comes into effect at high angles of incidence (which are things that should be being mitigated by player position, rather than relying on the round to do it for you). Id very much rather have APCR than AP in the majority of situations.

 

This player base is dumb. Plain and simple. Smart players wouldnt blindly accept every buff as it comes at them. They wouldnt say things like: "Oh WG doesnt seem to want to buff the right thing so I should settle for what they'll give me". Thats the kind of stuff that got us here in the first place. We should be thinking about these buffs and the effects they will have long term and telling WG they are wrong when they are wrong. And they are wrong on nearly every tank change in 9.20 and the patch after it. Off the top of my head I can think of about 3 changes that I actually agree with: The new turret for the M48 (which is separate from the armor buff), the changes to the IS-7 and the changes to the ISU. Every other change is pants on head retarded, and I dont know how they came up with them.

The thing is I don't think the Patton series, Soviet Mediums, AMX series really needed buffs to begin with. The community seems to be okay with the developers as long as they get what they want. They will cry rivers of tears against tanks they don't play (like the Maus, Type 5 Heavy) while being DEAD SILENT about these other tanks being buffed, as long as it benefits them (because they play them). 



mlinke #59 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 13:08

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 46403 battles
  • 288
  • [FADES] FADES
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Finally I can start playing britts again. Fv 4202 can finally bouncr sone shots again. Gj

lordawesome7 #60 Posted Aug 07 2017 - 14:27

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20210 battles
  • 1,156
  • [NICO] NICO
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

View Postakh101, on Jul 27 2017 - 20:11, said:

 

 I rather have the Valkyria tanks than the Chinese TD line that BS in so many ways, and at this rate I won't be surprise they sell Valkyria tanks latter this year cause after all, they said Chinese TD was exclusive to china server back in march, and now there not. They could easily make it happen to the Valkyria tanks.

 

only reason chinese TD's got in was due to popular demand

 

 

i highly doubt the same will happen for the oh so hated Valkyria tanks despite how viable they are to fit in the game (seriously, i don't understand why they hate them, they are pretty cool and they aren't proportionally unrealistic compared to other exist fantasy tanks in the game already)







Also tagged with Super Test

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users