Jump to content


Object 777 Version II | Possible New T10 Heavy After T-10 in 9.22?

Object 777 version II 9.22 wotguru

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

CodyMenz #1 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 19:10

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 29899 battles
  • 2,887
  • [VAN] VAN
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

Most have heard that in 9.22 the Russian tech tree is getting a massive overhaul.  Currently Wargaming hasn't announced two new tier 10 tanks being introduced with 9.22.  One being a medium and the other being a tier 10 heavy following the newly moved T-10 heavy tank at tier 9.  I think the candidate that is most likely to be the tier 10 heavy will be the Object 777 version II.  Maybe it could even be the tier 10 medium following the Obj 430 v2.

 

The Object 777 shares the same gun and also play style of the T-10 heavy.  It does need a little bit of updating since it has been in the client for quite some time.  Mainly its DPM needs a bit of improving given the power creep that has happened over the past couple years.  What do you all think?  Do you think that the Object 777 version II would make a good fit in the tech tree in 9.22?

 

 

9.22 Changes: https://ritastatusreport.live/2018/01/11/update-9-22-preview-ussr-tree-revision/



Dirizon #2 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 20:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 27926 battles
  • 5,259
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011
What is your opinion in that STl <-> lS4 changes are not included in this massive overhaul. Seems like the time to do everything at once. 

CodyMenz #3 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 21:05

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 29899 battles
  • 2,887
  • [VAN] VAN
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostDirizon, on Jan 12 2018 - 14:42, said:

What is your opinion in that STl <-> lS4 changes are not included in this massive overhaul. Seems like the time to do everything at once. 

 

While Wargaming has been teasing a possible ST-I / IS-4 swap or even the ST-II.  It doesn't seem like it is going to happen given the tech tree they released for 9.22.  I think the likelihood of a IS-4 swap down to t9 simply with the ST-1 is pretty low.  The only change we might see in the future is the ST-II being added(it has two guns so it needs new mechanics implemented for it to work) and the IS-4 being turned into a special tier 10.

Edited by C_Menz, Jan 12 2018 - 21:06.


Dirizon #4 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 02:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 27926 battles
  • 5,259
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

I just don't know, or understand WG moves sometimes. 

Brit Tech tree overhaul, happened in 3 distinct patches too. Maybe lS4 will get changed someday.

All this talk and change, for instance:

VKs and Maus, badger, FV215B, obj 263 268V4, 43OU and 43O ll, T1O, 7O5A, challenger-charioteer-conway.....

 

all these lines getting reworks, for what WG wants as synergy and conformity, in tech trees making sense and having final products like vehicles throughout the grind (AKA  rear turret forward engine, rear superstructure forward engine, forward fighting compartment, gun depression, slowness, speedy, DPM and RoF).....why the heck no lS4 STl change?

KVs make absolute no sense, nor do they help with modules, getting to STl & lS4. Apply some conformity here, WG



tanopasman62 #5 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 02:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21375 battles
  • 4,580
  • [_ADP_] _ADP_
  • Member since:
    12-13-2016

View PostDirizon, on Jan 13 2018 - 02:08, said:

I just don't know, or understand WG moves sometimes. 

Brit Tech tree overhaul, happened in 3 distinct patches too. Maybe lS4 will get changed someday.

All this talk and change, for instance:

VKs and Maus, badger, FV215B, obj 263 268V4, 43OU and 43O ll, T1O, 7O5A, challenger-charioteer-conway.....

 

all these lines getting reworks, for what WG wants as synergy and conformity, in tech trees making sense and having final products like vehicles throughout the grind (AKA  rear turret forward engine, rear superstructure forward engine, forward fighting compartment, gun depression, slowness, speedy, DPM and RoF).....why the heck no lS4 STl change?

KVs make absolute no sense, nor do they help with modules, getting to STl & lS4. Apply some conformity here, WG

 

Perhaps making the IS-4/ST-II line come from the IS-3 as well, then make a new superheavy line finishing in the Object 279.

Dirizon #6 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 08:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 27926 battles
  • 5,259
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

Just make a KV series superheavy continuation.

Turn lS4 back to T9 from lS3, and make STl the T X. STI  ll will never appear as a dually



Dr_GoldRounds_PhD #7 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 12:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 25499 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    09-19-2012
I guess this makes sense. Will be similar in play style to the T-10, maybe not better tier for tier. Hope the gun depression doesn't kill it.

CodyMenz #8 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 16:40

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 29899 battles
  • 2,887
  • [VAN] VAN
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostScrapJunkie, on Jan 15 2018 - 06:08, said:

I guess this makes sense. Will be similar in play style to the T-10, maybe not better tier for tier. Hope the gun depression doesn't kill it.

As long as they give it a little more DPM and possibly 100-200 more health it should be a decent tank. 



_Gungrave_ #9 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 16:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 45503 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

I still think the 777 is going to be a tier 10 reward for PMs 2.0

• Personal Missions have been around for 2 to 3 years now released in early 2015

https://worldoftanks...sonal-missions/

• The Obj 777 was introduced into the client with Patch 9.14 around March 2016 which is when rumors of Patch 2.0 started to circulate and WG mentioned that it was one of their long term plans. This right here is the one thing that leads me to think the 777 will be a PM reward.

• WG over the past 2 years has teased about Personal Missions 2.0 confirming it with the Badge update and stating they're coming this year during WG Fest.

• If the 777 was intended to be used for the T10 they would have probably used it already because this late in the game I can't really recall a time when they've changed their mind on which tank to use

 

Just my two cents ;)

 

Nevermind...read below me


Edited by _Gungrave_, Jan 15 2018 - 17:04.


trondd #10 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 17:03

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20278 battles
  • 229
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014
https://thearmoredpa...h-january-2018/

Orion3 #11 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 17:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 10534 battles
  • 2,801
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013
I'm wondering if all of these changes were the reason they delayed the release of the Kirovets tier 8 premium. It doesn't have a pike nose and wouldn't really fit into the KV line. It's more like a 112 in the looks department. Either way, it would make more sense to do it all at once. Unless, it'll give people more time later to grind the line out before the proposed changes. Which is always good. 

_Gungrave_ #12 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 17:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 45503 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostOrion3, on Jan 15 2018 - 17:04, said:

I'm wondering if all of these changes were the reason they delayed the release of the Kirovets tier 8 premium. It doesn't have a pike nose and wouldn't really fit into the KV line. It's more like a 112 in the looks department. Either way, it would make more sense to do it all at once. Unless, it'll give people more time later to grind the line out before the proposed changes. Which is always good. 

 

You talking about that crappy tier 8 reward tank?..my god that thing is a rare sight on the battlefield because its so bad lol.

Edited by _Gungrave_, Jan 15 2018 - 17:06.


Orion3 #13 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 17:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 10534 battles
  • 2,801
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View Post_Gungrave_, on Jan 15 2018 - 11:06, said:

 

You talking about that crappy tier 8 reward tank?..my god that thing is a rare sight on the battlefield because its so bad lol.

 

​I think Clause did a video of it a year ago but, I haven't seen it here. They delayed the release for some reason. 

trondd #14 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 18:25

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20278 battles
  • 229
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014

View PostOrion3, on Jan 15 2018 - 17:09, said:

 

​I think Clause did a video of it a year ago but, I haven't seen it here. They delayed the release for some reason. 

 

Its here. Was a tier 8 campaign reward a year or 2 ago. They are just bad so you never see them

_Gungrave_ #15 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 18:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 45503 battles
  • 16,299
  • [-SRP-] -SRP-
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Posttrondd, on Jan 15 2018 - 18:25, said:

 

Its here. Was a tier 8 campaign reward a year or 2 ago. They are just bad so you never see them

 

You know back then I thought for sure they were going to use the KV4 KTTS which seemed like a much more promising tank when compared to the Kirovets.

64sherman #16 Posted Feb 15 2018 - 18:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26809 battles
  • 664
  • [MOZZY] MOZZY
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013

View Posttanopasman62, on Jan 12 2018 - 19:18, said:

 

Perhaps making the IS-4/ST-II line come from the IS-3 as well, then make a new superheavy line finishing in the Object 279.

 

I like the idea of IS-4 becoming a tier 9, but the ST-I should be a tier 10 that gets upgraded to the ST-II, it could be researched by the IS-4 (which could then research yet another soviet heavy the object 270, 277, or 278) and by Shashmurins TEP at tier 9.  (The dual gun thingy that gets two of the object 704s stock gun).  This will likely not happen until we get mutli-turret/gun support.   The 279 I'm afraid has an armor scheme that is just too much.  WG could make the the entire ring around the hull a weak spot (where the armor stops sloping in one direction and starts going back down in the other), being only 260(?) mm thick, it would be a small but sufficient weak spot.  Even if they were to push the limits as far as nerfs go, tier 8s would never stand a chance.  So if any of this happens it will be well after a MM overhaul. 

64sherman #17 Posted Feb 15 2018 - 19:02

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26809 battles
  • 664
  • [MOZZY] MOZZY
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013

View PostDirizon, on Jan 13 2018 - 01:22, said:

Just make a KV series superheavy continuation.

Turn lS4 back to T9 from lS3, and make STl the T X. STI  ll will never appear as a dually

 

I'd like to see a KV-4 buganov as an alternate tier 8 heavy to the IS-M for the new rear mounted heavy tanks.  

 



Mikosah #18 Posted Feb 15 2018 - 19:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,495
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

I see no reason to swap or replace either the ST-I or the IS-4. If they add the ST-II as an alternative tier 10, that would be nice but every time something gets relocated or replaced it has been counterproductive. That said, the IS-4 branch hasn't been very relevant in the meta for a good long while and the new rear-turret heavies compete for the exact same niche, and they do so very well. 

 

Were it up to me, I'd simply buff the KV-4 and IS-4's depression to 8 degrees to match that of the ST-I, and give all three some basic quality of life upgrades to be more flexible and competitive. Terrain resistance, aim time, movement dispersion, view range, et cetera. 



techferment #19 Posted Feb 15 2018 - 20:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20501 battles
  • 53
  • Member since:
    04-06-2011
WG will just do whatever is needed to keep us on the gerbil wheel. Logic is just the beef they put on the pill to make the dog swallow it.

TankFullOfBourbon #20 Posted Feb 16 2018 - 09:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 31002 battles
  • 6,823
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
The Obj.777 looks more like the big brother of Obj.430(U) than it does the big brother of T-10.

Edited by TankFullOfBourbon, Feb 16 2018 - 09:41.






Also tagged with Object 777 version II, 9.22, wotguru

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users