Jump to content


Why is everybody ok with ahistorical AMX 30b turret?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

Rifron #1 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:06

    Private

  • Players
  • 21274 battles
  • 2
  • [-FG-] -FG-
  • Member since:
    08-07-2012
I realize there are a TON of paper tanks in the game and some gameplay balances with historic tanks especially as it relates to pen. But this massive buff on an iconic Cold War tank is absurd. Tripling the turret "for reasons" breaks with reality a bit much for my taste. I realize this is a game and don't have access to the reams of data WG has but I still like to believe as it relates to real tanks that I am driving a facsimile with all of the trade offs and design decision that the real designers faced. 

RC_1140 #2 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:10

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52545 battles
  • 1,139
  • [P2WIN] P2WIN
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013
I agree, they should have buffed it in a more historical way. They also could have buffed the Leo's armor since I believe it was uparmored at some point. 

earthman34 #3 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 42355 battles
  • 2,929
  • Member since:
    07-17-2013
I would think it would be clear by now that this company's approach is anything but "historical". Their goal in creating supertanks is to get people to dump real money into buying huge gold packages to free up experience so they can get their own supertank. It's just a viscous circle I will not participate in.

_PM #4 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15054 battles
  • 202
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    01-15-2013
We don't care about historical accuracy because this is a tank ARCADE game, not a tank simulator. If you want realism go play warthunder. In this game I'd rather have a tank be relevant than be historically accurate.

indoctrinated #5 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 20171 battles
  • 2,060
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
People seem to be okay when community picks like the T-54 and this get buffed but the maus? Forget about it.

Duqe #6 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 24015 battles
  • 7,469
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View Post_PM, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:16, said:

We don't care about historical accuracy because this is a tank ARCADE game, not a tank simulator. If you want realism go play warthunder. In this game I'd rather have a tank be relevant than be historically accurate.

 



_PM #7 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:23

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15054 battles
  • 202
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    01-15-2013

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 12 2017 - 13:21, said:

People seem to be okay when community picks like the T-54 and this get buffed but the maus? Forget about it.

 

I don't know that the 30B is a "Community Pick" and the Maus is blatantly overpowered.

indoctrinated #8 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 20171 battles
  • 2,060
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View Post_PM, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:23, said:

 

I don't know that the 30B is a "Community Pick" and the Maus is blatantly overpowered.

The Maus is being brought back into line but there is also 0 outcry against buffs to the Patton series, other Soviet mediums, etc. Buffing the Type 5 Heavy? Rivers of tears. It's not even a great tank. Everyone whines that you need gold against it but lower tiers will need it too against these medium tank turrets. Seems to be okay.



Anderwar #9 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 41723 battles
  • 393
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013
I remember when Murazor was just a streamer and was ranting all day: That is not historical and other bs

CynicalDutchie #10 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 35804 battles
  • 2,833
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011

I'm a bit disappointed that they went this route but WG seems hell bent on destroying any semblance of balance at the higher tiers anyway so might as well make all the tanks unhistorical in the progress.

 

View PostRC_1140, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:10, said:

I agree, they should have buffed it in a more historical way. They also could have buffed the Leo's armor since I believe it was uparmored at some point. 

 

They wanted to differentiate the Leo1 and 30b and instead of changing the Leo1 to a historically accurate uparmored version they decided to change the 30b is something they completely made up themselves.

 

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Edited by CynicalDutchie, Aug 12 2017 - 19:35.


tod914 #11 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 19:50

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49772 battles
  • 1,863
  • [RDNKS] RDNKS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostRifron, on Aug 12 2017 - 13:06, said:

But this massive buff on an iconic Cold War tank is absurd. Tripling the turret "for reasons" breaks with reality a bit much for my taste

 

Being they have been steering this game into corridor point blank heavy slug fests, it's only a natural progression that the mediums will terrain resistance nerfs, and mega armor buffs.  Let's not forget accuracy nerfs.

Edited by tod914, Aug 12 2017 - 19:50.


ESX #12 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25298 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    05-23-2013

View PostRifron, on Aug 12 2017 - 18:06, said:

I realize there are a TON of paper tanks in the game and some gameplay balances with historic tanks especially as it relates to pen. But this massive buff on an iconic Cold War tank is absurd. Tripling the turret "for reasons" breaks with reality a bit much for my taste. I realize this is a game and don't have access to the reams of data WG has but I still like to believe as it relates to real tanks that I am driving a facsimile with all of the trade offs and design decision that the real designers faced. 

 

"breaks with reality" hahahahahah in this WOT arcade crap game, ahhahahahahhah

Edited by ESX, Aug 12 2017 - 20:14.


CapPhrases #13 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:15

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 6074 battles
  • 1,784
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015
simply put the "balance" department cares for meds and superheavies and pretty much anything else can just go die in a fire.

dominator_98 #14 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:42

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 12788 battles
  • 794
  • [O-VER] O-VER
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014
Son, WoT hasn't given a damn about historical accuracy since they gave every hellcat a 90mm and every Tiger I the long 8,8. That was in the game while in beta I do believe. (Long before my time). Anything they post about accuracy on their website is steaming hot PR bullcrap.

otacon237 #15 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 22572 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012

View Post_PM, on Aug 12 2017 - 18:16, said:

We don't care about historical accuracy because this is a tank ARCADE game, not a tank simulator. If you want realism go play warthunder. In this game I'd rather have a tank be relevant than be historically accurate.

 

​it's plenty relevant when I can get games like this in it. 

 

please explain to me how nerfing the accuracy and nerfing the shell velocity to derp levels on a sniper tank makes it somehow "more relevant"? this is another one of WG's bull crapknee jerk "rebalances" that no one asked for. 

http://imgur.com/67cU7b3

 

OP I completely agree, when the stats were historical, the tank balance was at least "grounded" in some way that prevented a bunch of devs who don't play the game from doing absolutely pants on head retarded levels of crapin terms of balancing. now that Pandora's box is open, and the game will only get worse and worse. 

 

 



MountainLion1 #16 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 23:51

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 18301 battles
  • 965
  • [TMBPK] TMBPK
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014
I'm OK with the buff because I have one, I wish they would leave the gun as is. You can shot through the eye of a nettle with that thing.

_Gungrave_ #17 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 00:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 36630 battles
  • 9,381
  • [JGRN] JGRN
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostRC_1140, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:10, said:

I agree, they should have buffed it in a more historical way. They also could have buffed the Leo's armor since I believe it was uparmored at some point. 

 

Basically you mean introducing the Leopard 1A1A1 which was the 3rd design iteration of the Leopard 1 though that designation does sound really stupid.

otacon237 #18 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 02:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 22572 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012

View Post_Gungrave_, on Aug 12 2017 - 23:02, said:

 

Basically you mean introducing the Leopard 1A1A1 which was the 3rd design iteration of the Leopard 1 though that designation does sound really stupid.

 

Milky's even already made a skin for it. 

https://modshop.milkym4n.com/archives/leopard-1a1a1/

 

though I think the leopard should be balanced on the opposite end of the scale, leave the no armor but give it crazy good speed and gun handling. 



strenfoo #19 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 02:24

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11697 battles
  • 988
  • [C_NTS] C_NTS
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015
It's just a video game. If you want realism and accuracy, join the military.  This game has nothing to do with real tanks.  It's an arcade game where you happen to be driving/shooting things that look like tanks.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users