Jump to content


British Heavy Updates (SUPER CONQUEROR AHOY)

Super Test

  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

CabbageMechanic #1 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 03:28

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 7063 battles
  • 99
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010
Hey Guys, here's the latest info from Super Test:
 

British TD's are going through tests and still being worked on.  Many of you have asked about Heavies - we haven't forgotten them!

 

We’ve decided to revise the top vehicles of this branch. The tanks are not bad, but they are too dissimilar. The Caernarvon was deeply out of the general concept, and the FV215B is a technical improvisation of devs – a "paper tank".


As a basis we took the gameplay of the Conqueror – a moderately armored vehicle with a good gun and armored turret, and “stretch” it to Tiers VIII-X. So we’re making well-armored multipurpose heavies with excellent guns.

 

First up: Caernarvon. Currently the game role of this vehicle is a hybrid of a medium and heavy tank. We plan to make it a real heavy, armored and armed with “evil” gun (direct quote from original copy). In order to do that we’ll increase vehicle’s protection and will add new top gun of 32 pounds caliber.
 

As a compensation for increased survivability and firepower, the parameters of mobility and maneuverability will be decreased a bit.



 

British HT-9 Conqueror was used as a benchmark when changing the top branch. It’ll have significantly increased armor – now it’ll be a balanced heavy tank, which is able to take a punch and skillfully give it back.

Unfortunately, nothing is for free, so the improved armor will be balanced with decreased mobility and rate of fire during the super test. 



 

We’re also ready to introduce a new British HT-10 - Super Conqueror. Now it’s available on the Super test only, but it will make it to the live server in time.

How do we plan to replace the FV215B? 
The same as with French TD-10 – if the vehicle was present in the hangar with the release, FV215B will be transferred to a "special" tanks status.

 

Why are we changing the tank?  
The FV215B is an excellent vehicle. But its gameplay is a bit specific, requires some specific skills from players and doesn’t correspond to the traits of this vehicle branch due to the rear position of the turret.


What is the Super Conqueror?

As it follows from its name, the vehicle is similar to HT-9 but even better: more HP, better firepower parameters and excellent armor, even better than its non-Super counterpart has.

More updates to come, Happy Tanking!



CynicalDutchie #2 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 18:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 35781 battles
  • 2,828
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011

-1

 

Give us the chieftain already!



_Tsavo #3 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 18:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 37178 battles
  • 13,398
  • [DIMBO] DIMBO
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostCynicalDutchie, on Aug 11 2017 - 12:35, said:

-1

 

Give us the chieftain already!

 

CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN! CHIEFTAIN! ​CHIEFTAIN!

 

We want it now!!!

 

But if we must wait, the Super Conq is all sorts of dreamy *swoon*



dominator_98 #4 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 19:12

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11839 battles
  • 745
  • [MUG-G] MUG-G
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014
Looks like I may have to grind out the black prince after all.

FrozenKemp #5 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 19:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 41578 battles
  • 3,979
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

Yayyyyyy :)

 

I guess I will train a crew and retrain them to the Super Conq on release. 



Beornotns #6 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 19:38

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 19727 battles
  • 1,561
  • [-SCA-] -SCA-
  • Member since:
    08-07-2014

I JUST sold the Caernarvon and got the Conqueror...  I reckon I better grind out to the FV215B...  If they're getting rid of it that is...

 

~B



Avalon304 #7 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 20:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 16095 battles
  • 6,014
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

Good for the Caenarvon... its needed help for years.

 

Everything else here is... (as is becoming normal) of questionable validity... Why are you changing the Conqueror when it doesnt need to be touched? And why arent you giving us the Chieftain instead of that terrible (both looking and stat wise) Super Conqueror. 2600 DPM and -7 depression? Dead on arrival. Just give us the bloody Chieftain.


Edited by Avalon304, Aug 11 2017 - 20:36.


CabbageMechanic #8 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 21:00

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 7063 battles
  • 99
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010

View PostAvalon304, on Aug 11 2017 - 11:31, said:

Good for the Caenarvon... its needed help for years.

 

Everything else here is... (as is becoming normal) of questionable validity... Why are you changing the Conqueror when it doesnt need to be touched? And why arent you giving us the Chieftain instead of that terrible (both looking and stat wise) Super Conqueror. 2600 DPM and -7 depression? Dead on arrival. Just give us the bloody Chieftain.

 

As stated in the recent 9.20 changes video, there is an ongoing design effort to ensure that tier 8-10 tanks of the same tree share playstyle traits - that's why the Conq is also being changed.

 

I think you're dismissing the Super Conq pretty early, I think it looks fine and if it underperforms in testing it will likely receive buffs. 



CynicalDutchie #9 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 21:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 35781 battles
  • 2,828
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Aug 11 2017 - 21:00, said:

 

As stated in the recent 9.20 changes video, there is an ongoing design effort to ensure that tier 8-10 tanks of the same tree share playstyle traits - that's why the Conq is also being changed.

 

I think you're dismissing the Super Conq pretty early, I think it looks fine and if it underperforms in testing it will likely receive buffs. 

 

I find it funny how they decided to buff the conqueror's armor which makes it more like the super conqueror and then proceed to add the super conqueror as the new T10 leaving us with the exact same tank, twice in a row.

 

So I say again: Give us the chieftain already!



RickPatton #10 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 21:22

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25491 battles
  • 601
  • [ANV] ANV
  • Member since:
    03-13-2014
:facepalm:

_Tsavo #11 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 21:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 37178 battles
  • 13,398
  • [DIMBO] DIMBO
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostCynicalDutchie, on Aug 11 2017 - 15:06, said:

 

Give us the chieftain already!

 

CHIEFTAIN

CHIEFTAIN
CHIEFTAIN

CHIEFTAIN

CHIEFTAIN

CHIEFTAIN

CHIEFTAIN

CHIEFTAIN

CHIEFTAIN

CHIEFTAIN

 

Pardon us, we're just a lotta bit excited and really really really really want the Chieftain!



Silamon #12 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 21:58

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8235 battles
  • 212
  • [SAVE] SAVE
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

Please reconsider adding the chieftain, I have been wanting that in game for ages now. It is already on consoles.... Why not let us have it too? :(

 

At least this gives me a reason to buy the fake-v215b after all this time, super conqueror actually looks pretty cool.



_Jayzilla #13 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 22:07

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 27839 battles
  • 1,182
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    09-05-2010

When are we getting the T30 swapped toT110E5!

 

Oh wait sorry, this is not 2011-2012 :D



Avalon304 #14 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 22:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 16095 battles
  • 6,014
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Aug 11 2017 - 13:00, said:

 

As stated in the recent 9.20 changes video, there is an ongoing design effort to ensure that tier 8-10 tanks of the same tree share playstyle traits - that's why the Conq is also being changed.

 

I think you're dismissing the Super Conq pretty early, I think it looks fine and if it underperforms in testing it will likely receive buffs. 

 

Im aware of that video... but Im pretty sure Murazor is not entirely sane... so I dont exactly trust his judgement when it comes to tank balance. At all. I mean hes buffed the armor on medium tanks that dont need to be buffed (Pattons, proposed Centurions, T-54, Obj. 140). Hes responsible for adding a derp gun to the type 4 and 5 and buffing their armor to unreasonable levels (and then trying to float the "weakspots" coming up, which are not weakspots). Hes the reason the Maus is so OP. The proposed changes to the British TDs have them lining up to become slightly OP. Nearly all of the upcoming and proposed changes are BAD. So I cant trust him at all to balance anything. Its clear he has his biases and they show up on how he balances tanks.

 

Im not though... Im  comparing it to the 215b its replacing... and the loss in DPM alone is enough for me to dismiss the tank (the only reason I still occasionally play the 215b is because it has amazing DPM and a great gun and so far this tank doesnt seem to have either of those.). I dont count armor as relevant, because premium rounds exist (and spaced armor is actually worse for AP/APCR pen since the round normalizes each time it hits a plate). The tank has a lower HP/ton, worse terrain resists, worse hull and turret traverse, worse aim time, worse view range, worse DPM and lower health. So right now we are left with a tank that is worse than the tank its replacing, and youre changing a tank that doesnt need to be changed (because it would still provide a consistent experience with the changed Caenarvon and this Super Conqueror). The Super Conqueror currently looks awful. And youve been sitting on the Chieftain for years now. Everyone is asking for it. It too would provide the consistent experience youre looking for as it sits in the client now, but you continue to faff about with a tank no one really wants.

 

Moreover its pretty clear that the Super Test is a terrible way to gather data because it only reflects one region (or do we have NA, EU and SEA super testers again. If so how to become one?) and is too small to gather accurate samples. Otherwise we wouldnt have an OP Maus, or Type 4 and 5s with derps etc.

 


Edited by Avalon304, Aug 11 2017 - 23:13.


mlinke #15 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 22:34

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 45407 battles
  • 236
  • [FADES] FADES
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
They should inttoduce drug testing in wot labs. Just saying...

Cenotaph #16 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 22:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9305 battles
  • 1,475
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostAvalon304, on Aug 11 2017 - 13:07, said:

 

Im aware of that video... but Im pretty sure Murazor is not entirely sane... so I dont exactly trust his judgement when it comes to tank balance. At all. I mean hes buffed the armor on medium tanks that dont need to be buffed (Pattons, proposed Centurions, T-54, Obj. 140). Hes responsible for adding a derp gun to the type 4 and 5 and buffing their armor to unreasonable levels (and then trying to float the "weakspots" coming up, which are not weakspots). Hes the reason the Maus is so OP. The proposed changes to the British TDs have them lining up to become slightly OP. Nearly all of the upcoming and proposed changes are BAD. So I cant trust him at all to balance anything. Its clear he has his biases and they show up on how he balances tanks.

 

I don't question his sanity... only his prejudice and intelligence.

 

Don't forget he's also responsible for the Defender, the T26E5 and Jesus Chrysler... also, he's the reason the anniversary tank was "too OP to be given away" this year.

 

WG were warned about him before they even hired him... but as usual they completely ignored the opinions of the CC's that they flew to their office to "discuss the future of the game".

 

The guy is a complete muppet, and a perfect representation of WG's inept hiring policies and obvious refusal to remove problem employees... like Ph3lan, for example.



Avalon304 #17 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 23:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 16095 battles
  • 6,014
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostCenotaph, on Aug 11 2017 - 14:43, said:

 

I don't question his sanity... only his prejudice and intelligence.

 

Don't forget he's also responsible for the Defender, the T26E5 and Jesus Chrysler... also, he's the reason the anniversary tank was "too OP to be given away" this year.

 

WG were warned about him before they even hired him... but as usual they completely ignored the opinions of the CC's that they flew to their office to "discuss the future of the game".

 

The guy is a complete muppet, and a perfect representation of WG's inept hiring policies and obvious refusal to remove problem employees... like Ph3lan, for example.

 

His predjdice and intelligence also come into question a lot.

 

Each of those tanks are also his fault, yes He should have never been hired as head of balance. I could balance this game better and Im a nobody.



hector1470 #18 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 23:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 30352 battles
  • 2,141
  • [R-7] R-7
  • Member since:
    09-24-2011
I'd rather not have another AMX 30B and Leopard 1 line that has the exact tank at tier 9 and 10. I'll take the Chieftain over that ugly thing, thanks. 

Scorpiany #19 Posted Aug 11 2017 - 23:32

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 29678 battles
  • 10,841
  • [N1NJA] N1NJA
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Aug 11 2017 - 13:00, said:

 

As stated in the recent 9.20 changes video, there is an ongoing design effort to ensure that tier 8-10 tanks of the same tree share playstyle traits - that's why the Conq is also being changed.

 

I think you're dismissing the Super Conq pretty early, I think it looks fine and if it underperforms in testing it will likely receive buffs. 

 

The Super Conqueror based upon the Super Tests is more or less a copy/paste of the Tier 9 Conqueror slightly up-tuned to be Tier 10. There's nothing unique, novel or even an "upgrade" about it.

 

People have been asking for the Chieftain for a substantially long time. It's already on the Chinese server, and the console players have gotten it. People would be very happy with the Chieftain in the game; and it would be profitable for WarGaming as well. Many people would gladly spend Gold to Free XP to the Chieftain. Nobody wants to Free XP to an FV215b though, and especially not a Super Conqueror.



BeastsOfBattle #20 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 00:11

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 8054 battles
  • 328
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    12-08-2016
Chieftain at the top of the line right now would mean that I instantly convert all my built up exp with gold to get it. That would require I buy maybe another few thousand gold... this would be real money into WG's pocket. 





Also tagged with Super Test

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users