Jump to content


Enough is enough


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

DoNutDestroyer #21 Posted Apr 02 2018 - 20:44

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14614 battles
  • 144
  • [TRED] TRED
  • Member since:
    07-20-2015

View PostACandieCaneKilling, on Apr 02 2018 - 09:18, said:

Two things before you begin reading.

I write an edited this in less than 12 minutes so if any of you are so whiny about reading something this long, I suggest you get off your cell phones, stop texting only 140 characters at a time & start having conversations again cause you wussy.

 

 

My gosh, you must be a politician.  If not, you would certainly go far with your ability to dance all over the subject but not really focus on it.

 

My points in plain simple language:

 

1.  Premium ammo adds an unfair advantage to tanks that should not have the capability that their guns should afford them.  I know everyone CAN get it, but not everyone chooses to use it BECAUSE it takes away from the game experience as a whole.

 

2.  I understand you don't buy premium ammo directly from the Premium Shop, BUT people who do buy gold use it to buy premium ammo in the garage, ergo, people are paying to buy premium ammo and WOT is making money from it.   I never said everyone uses it all the time in every tank and every game.  There are so many players in the game that you nor I can say with absolute certainly or even close to it, that someone uses only premium rounds in every tank they use.  I highly doubt anyone does and never even implied that it happened.  You are reading your own dialogue into that.  It is used frequently across the spectrum though.  I've seen the evidence on my status board enough to know when a tank is shooting premium at me and doing damage that the tank and gun should not be able to do.  My status board and game cues also tell me when a certain tank is hitting me with no damage and then starts damaging me with premium rounds.  I don't have to ask anyone about it. 

 

3.  Just because you CAN and maybe even do use premium ammo, it is still an unfair advantage.  If I am in a Tier whatever heavy and I have a gun with a 15 second reload and I am faced with a medium or light tank two tiers lower that should not be able to penetrate my armor anywhere except maybe from the rear, and he is using premium and is able to pen me, then even if I am using premium he will get 2 or 3 hits or more on me for every time I can fire.  Add in the increase in maneuverability and he can easily kill me just by staying ahead of my aim.  Sherman tanks in WWII had a very hard time killing Tiger tanks because of the Tiger's armor and the Sherman's light gun.  Throw in premium rounds and the Sherman does it with relative ease.  In your missive above, you say that the Sherman did it's job against a superior tank (i.e. the Tiger), so consider the following:  The US Army had a bit under 20,000 Shermans in use during WWII.  From 6/6/44 - 5/15/45 alone, 4,295 were lost.(The Germans called the British M4's Tommy cookers and their crews referred to them as Ronson's because they tended to catch fire when penetrated.)  Russia produced over 86,000 medium tanks (84,000 T34 and T34-85 models), of which 45,000 were lost.  Germany produced only 1,347 Tiger I tanks.  Now, I know that not every tank destroyed in battle was killed by another tank, but the numbers speak for themselves.  The main reason the M4 and the T34 ruled was due to sheer numbers.  Germany did not produce as many vehicles and could not keep up with the attrition rate.  The M26 Pershing was the only heavy tank the US had in WWII.  It was introduced late in the war and it was the only one considered to be close to equal the Tiger I and Panther in firepower and armor.  So, 1v1, the Sherman was not a good match for the Tiger I.  So, premium rounds in the M4 give it a capability that the real thing didn't have and even if facing a Tiger I that was shooting premium rounds, the M4 still has an advantage due to it's quicker fire rate.

 

Please try to stick to what I'm saying in your responses and don't go so far off on tangents.  It is after all, just my opinion that I don't like gold rounds and would like to see a game where only actual tanks of their period meet up with the same and use ammo that they actually used.  I would like to see Tier IX and X become a class of their own that you never faced at a lower tier.  It's bad enough going against Tier VIIIs in a Tier VI.

 

 



ACandieCaneKilling #22 Posted Apr 03 2018 - 08:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 55160 battles
  • 970
  • [TRIO] TRIO
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostDoNutDestroyer, on Apr 02 2018 - 12:44, said:

 

My gosh, you must be a politician.  If not, you would certainly go far with your ability to dance all over the subject but not really focus on it.

 

My points in plain simple language:

 

1.  Premium ammo adds an unfair advantage to tanks that should not have the capability that their guns should afford them.  I know everyone CAN get it, but not everyone chooses to use it BECAUSE it takes away from the game experience as a whole.

 

2.  I understand you don't buy premium ammo directly from the Premium Shop, BUT people who do buy gold use it to buy premium ammo in the garage, ergo, people are paying to buy premium ammo and WOT is making money from it.   I never said everyone uses it all the time in every tank and every game.  There are so many players in the game that you nor I can say with absolute certainly or even close to it, that someone uses only premium rounds in every tank they use.  I highly doubt anyone does and never even implied that it happened.  You are reading your own dialogue into that.  It is used frequently across the spectrum though.  I've seen the evidence on my status board enough to know when a tank is shooting premium at me and doing damage that the tank and gun should not be able to do.  My status board and game cues also tell me when a certain tank is hitting me with no damage and then starts damaging me with premium rounds.  I don't have to ask anyone about it. 

 

3.  Just because you CAN and maybe even do use premium ammo, it is still an unfair advantage.  If I am in a Tier whatever heavy and I have a gun with a 15 second reload and I am faced with a medium or light tank two tiers lower that should not be able to penetrate my armor anywhere except maybe from the rear, and he is using premium and is able to pen me, then even if I am using premium he will get 2 or 3 hits or more on me for every time I can fire.  Add in the increase in maneuverability and he can easily kill me just by staying ahead of my aim.  Sherman tanks in WWII had a very hard time killing Tiger tanks because of the Tiger's armor and the Sherman's light gun.  Throw in premium rounds and the Sherman does it with relative ease.  In your missive above, you say that the Sherman did it's job against a superior tank (i.e. the Tiger), so consider the following:  The US Army had a bit under 20,000 Shermans in use during WWII.  From 6/6/44 - 5/15/45 alone, 4,295 were lost.(The Germans called the British M4's Tommy cookers and their crews referred to them as Ronson's because they tended to catch fire when penetrated.)  Russia produced over 86,000 medium tanks (84,000 T34 and T34-85 models), of which 45,000 were lost.  Germany produced only 1,347 Tiger I tanks.  Now, I know that not every tank destroyed in battle was killed by another tank, but the numbers speak for themselves.  The main reason the M4 and the T34 ruled was due to sheer numbers.  Germany did not produce as many vehicles and could not keep up with the attrition rate.  The M26 Pershing was the only heavy tank the US had in WWII.  It was introduced late in the war and it was the only one considered to be close to equal the Tiger I and Panther in firepower and armor.  So, 1v1, the Sherman was not a good match for the Tiger I.  So, premium rounds in the M4 give it a capability that the real thing didn't have and even if facing a Tiger I that was shooting premium rounds, the M4 still has an advantage due to it's quicker fire rate.

 

Please try to stick to what I'm saying in your responses and don't go so far off on tangents.  It is after all, just my opinion that I don't like gold rounds and would like to see a game where only actual tanks of their period meet up with the same and use ammo that they actually used.  I would like to see Tier IX and X become a class of their own that you never faced at a lower tier.  It's bad enough going against Tier VIIIs in a Tier VI.

 

 

 

OK, I not mad at you or anything lol, it's just a counter to your comments, not an argument, in case you were wondering about my attitude here, since you did mention I was going on tangents, which I wasn't, but ok :)

So you have made some errors in your points which I can say confidently are incorrect.

 

The first one I want to mention are your comments about the Ronson lighters & the term Tommy Cookers. This is completely false. You can look this up yourself. It has been debunked and proven never to be said, and I can tell you why I know this.

 

There was an ad for which the Ronson Lighters came out with after the war which is related to that claim about how the American tanks light up like Tommy cookers, or Ronson's. The account comes from several soldiers who were mistaken as they couldn't have made those statements since the ad wasn't produced or advertised til long after the war was over. It was a very famous ad LONG after the war & became a household phrase so that is likely how it became associated with the comments. 

 

The WoT Chieftain mentions this very subject at one of their conferences to put this rumour to bed since it wasn never said in combat, in fact it wasn't true at all, as the US tanks did NOT burst into flames whenever they were hit.

However, ANY fuel will burst into flames if the temperature gets high enough & sometimes shells would practically incinerate the inside of a tank, causing them to burn, but this is true for every single tank in the war, but the US tanks were NOT more prone to burning easily & this has been debunked by so many people, so many times, I really thought it was common knowledge now.

Regarding the lighters themselves, no one ever made those claims about the US tanks during the war or in combat at any time cause the copy for those ads were not created yet so no one could make such a quote so in fact it were NEVER said.

 

Specifically the comments about the tanks being susceptible to burning at any moment comes from an AD Campaign, which never came out (with that copy, the words used in that ad) until after the war, several years in fact.

The Ronson Lighter claim, which you are actually talking about; was never made nor was it made about the American Zippo for that matter.

In the case of the American Zippo, the ad campaign that claimed the lighter always stayed lit, even in the wind, came out several years after the war & the lighter itself did NOT have that function at that time.

The Zippo Lighter company included a lighter in many of the American's kits as a gift to them for being soldiers as did Hershey candy bars along with shaving supplies, etc.

 

1) "Premium ammo adds an unfair advantage to tanks that should not have the capability that their guns should afford them"

 

How? How does an ammo give an unfair advantage to any tank? As mentioned in the comments I wrote, premo ammo was part of the ammo in tanks of that time, read back if you need to.

 

First some background:

The outcry from the use of premo ammo came about from the time when WoT had all premo ammo as a Prem Shop purchase ONLY & that argument at that time was true.

Then it went away. WoT realized they had made a BIG mistake and changed it so that any and all ammo can be bought with credits.

 

But for some reason, that same argument has stayed with us, yet was ONLY true cause of the purchase only aspect (being available to anyone with the money to purchase it) It was NEVER claimed to be an unfair advantage for any other reason.

Once this went away (the ammo becoming available to anyone with the use of credits only) this argument should have gone away too, but it didn't, as many misunderstood where the argument came from & made the assumption it was an unfair advantage for anyone to use it at any time & it remained in the minds of players cause no one addressed this issue, which was a BIG mistake on WoT part.

WoT should have nipped this rumour nonsense pronto but they choose to remain silent & let the wanna be pro's run rampant with it, as well as making many other such claims about the game such as how to play it, when you should team kill, where to take your heavy, med, light, to WIN THE GAME, which parts of the map NEVER to play on, etc. NONE of it was true then & it's still not true now.

Many aspects of the game are complete & utter nonsense & this is one of them, in my opinion of course.

 

You literally did this yourself by believing a complete fabricated nonsensical rumour about how the US tanks went up in flames including quoting copy from an ad campaign that never existed at the time, not becoming a reality for like a decade.

YOu can see how these things come about. I can give you 20 examples, but I will give you just two.

 

When I first began playing, if I played in Himmelsdorf & was in a heavy I was told, in order to win the game I had to take my tank to TANK ALLY. Also I was NEVER to take my heavy up the hill as this was what noobs do & if I did, I would be team killed & I was cause TKed repeatedly for the first year but I knew this was nonsense. I asked WoT was there specific locals on the maps that determined the win or loss & they of course laughed & told me NO, that's silly, & assured me that is NOT the case with any map. NOr was it true that heavies med or light could ONLY go to certain locations as the tank itself determines where itr is capable to going and working well depending on the terrain & abilities of that tank.

This type of nonsense is still gong on with the advent of the wanna be pros coming up with sheer stupidity about Overlord's beach front, for which it has been said will always cost you the game, but of course that is also complete nonsense & so I asked WoT again & they again laughed and told me the same thing they always say, DON'T LISTEN TO IDIOTS. NO SUCH THING ON ANY MAP. So I began keeping an account of my experiences on Overlord, which turns out to be an 80% success rate taking the beach & flanking the enemy successfully on their end from both sides of the map, proving those opinions about the beach are just nonsense. I have since had so many players toon with me to prove my point about it & some of them have completely changed their minds about it now that they know how it actually is.

 

These rumours always come and go, they are nonsense & spread like fire in a tissue factory but if you look at them for what they are, you quickly find it is completely false, as was the stories behind the Ronson and Zippo Lighters.

 

You cannot tell me how using premmo ammo is an unfair advantage cause ALL the tanks have it, the fact some players choose NOT to use it doesn't make it unfair and you cannot explain how it does, since we all have the same ammo & as mentioned, it was always there in real life, which is why it is there in the game. So all your comments about it can not be substantiated unless you can show me some actual proof to show how ONE player can take advantage of my tank in a training room, when I have the same ammo you do, how can you possibly show me this supposed unfair advantage, when the tank's own capabilities include what uit can do with the premo ammo since it was part of the ammo package every tank has & it always was, in both the game and real life.

If you and i go into a training room with the same tanks, or any tanks, doesn't matter, you will have to show me how YOUR tank can take advantage of mine byu using premo ammo. I've never seen anyone do this & I have tried. NO ONE has ever been able to show this. Having premo ammo as an option which is supposed to be there, it cant be an advantage if we all have it.

 

You are talking about a lower tier or lower ranked tank being able to pen your higher tier tank/ranked tank & using the ammo the tank comes with normally & as it should have, to be unfair & it makes NO sense.

 

OK this one was longer, I didn't have the time to edit it, sorry, I think I get repetitive.



_Gungrave_ #23 Posted Apr 03 2018 - 10:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 42920 battles
  • 16,299
  • [X-OUT] X-OUT
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Posthoracus, on Mar 26 2018 - 01:42, said:

I see the WG apologists and shills are out in force again. Go at it, I don't care.

 

Sounds like a "They disagree with me...lets call them names and speak louder than those who are correct and using facts" kind of situation.

 

Gee I wonder where else I've seen this kind of mentality.



DoNutDestroyer #24 Posted Apr 03 2018 - 18:18

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14614 battles
  • 144
  • [TRED] TRED
  • Member since:
    07-20-2015

View PostACandieCaneKilling, on Apr 03 2018 - 08:56, said:

 

OK, I not mad at you or anything lol, it's just a counter to your comments, not an argument, in case you were wondering about my attitude here, since you did mention I was going on tangents, which I wasn't, but ok :)

So you have made some errors in your points which I can say confidently are incorrect.

 

The first one I want to mention are your comments about the Ronson lighters & the term Tommy Cookers. This is completely false. You can look this up yourself. It has been debunked and proven never to be said, and I can tell you why I know this.

 

There was an ad for which the Ronson Lighters came out with after the war which is related to that claim about how the American tanks light up like Tommy cookers, or Ronson's. The account comes from several soldiers who were mistaken as they couldn't have made those statements since the ad wasn't produced or advertised til long after the war was over. It was a very famous ad LONG after the war & became a household phrase so that is likely how it became associated with the comments. 

 

Specifically the comments about the tanks being susceptible to burning at any moment comes from an AD Campaign, which never came out (with that copy, the words used in that ad) until after the war, several years in fact.

The Ronson Lighter claim, which you are actually talking about; was never made nor was it made about the American Zippo for that matter.

In the case of the American Zippo, the ad campaign that claimed the lighter always stayed lit, even in the wind, came out several years after the war & the lighter itself did NOT have that function at that time.

The Zippo Lighter company included a lighter in many of the American's kits as a gift to them for being soldiers as did Hershey candy bars along with shaving supplies, etc.

 

1) "Premium ammo adds an unfair advantage to tanks that should not have the capability that their guns should afford them"

 

How? How does an ammo give an unfair advantage to any tank? As mentioned in the comments I wrote, premo ammo was part of the ammo in tanks of that time, read back if you need to.

 

 

You literally did this yourself by believing a complete fabricated nonsensical rumour about how the US tanks went up in flames including quoting copy from an ad campaign that never existed at the time, not becoming a reality for like a decade.

 

 

You cannot tell me how using premmo ammo is an unfair advantage cause ALL the tanks have it, the fact some players choose NOT to use it doesn't make it unfair and you cannot explain how it does, since we all have the same ammo & as mentioned, it was always there in real life, which is why it is there in the game. So all your comments about it can not be substantiated unless you can show me some actual proof to show how ONE player can take advantage of my tank in a training room, when I have the same ammo you do, how can you possibly show me this supposed unfair advantage, when the tank's own capabilities include what uit can do with the premo ammo since it was part of the ammo package every tank has & it always was, in both the game and real life.

If you and i go into a training room with the same tanks, or any tanks, doesn't matter, you will have to show me how YOUR tank can take advantage of mine byu using premo ammo. I've never seen anyone do this & I have tried. NO ONE has ever been able to show this. Having premo ammo as an option which is supposed to be there, it cant be an advantage if we all have it.

 

You are talking about a lower tier or lower ranked tank being able to pen your higher tier tank/ranked tank & using the ammo the tank comes with normally & as it should have, to be unfair & it makes NO sense.

 

OK this one was longer, I didn't have the time to edit it, sorry, I think I get repetitive.

 

So, to begin with, I'm old, which means I actually know/knew people who served in WWII, my father included.  I have heard, with my own ears, old veterans talk about the Sherman and it's downfalls, including a tendency to catch fire when hit in the sides.  I have watched videos of German veterans referring to the British Shermans as Tommy Cookers (They also said this about some of the other older British tanks though).  I have no idea what Ronson ad you harp on, I have never seen it, but Ronson began producing lighters in 1926.  It introduced the Whilrwind wind resistant lighter in 1941, regardless of whatever ad you are referring to, Ronson was still synonymous with lighters during WWII as was Zippo, but Ronson has been around longer.

 

The issue with the Sherman was not necessarily the gas burning.  It did have high octane aviation gas and if the system were compromised it would burn fiercely.  The big issue was the fact that early Shermans had their ammo storage along the sides inside the hull, so if a shell penetrated the side the ammo would easily explode or rupture the cases and the propellant would burn.  Much of this flaw was alleviated by later Sherman designs that had the ammo stored in the bottom of the hull and surrounded by a water jacket (which is what the wet ammo storage option is).  I'm sure that the main impetus for the derogatory names applied to the Sherman, and other tanks is that the Germans could easily knock them out and there were so many left on the battlefields, many on fire.  But, their own crews were afraid of them because of their inferiority to the German Tiger and Panther.  

 

You yourself said that premium rounds, i.e. APCR was very rare in WWII and that a tank MIGHT have only one aboard.  Most had none because of their expense and rarity, so to say that they all had it during the war is a gross exaggeration.  So, just to continue my line of discussion using the Sherman v Tiger scenario.  Under normal circumstances, a Sherman gun could not penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger.  In order to do serious damage, the Sherman had to get to the rear of the Tiger where armor was thinner.  So, even with a single APCR round, the Sherman should not usually be able to take out a Tiger in a head on battle  Loading multiple rounds of APCR gives the Sherman an advantage that didn't exist in reality.  The Sherman fires faster so it can hit more times than a Tiger even if the Tiger is shooting APCR.  Now take this to a different level where the Tiger is pitted against a light tank with a smaller gun, but the light is loaded with premium rounds and can kill the Tiger, that is where the unfair advantage comes in.  This is just an instance, but plays out across all of the Tiers, even down into the lower tiers of WWI tanks that did not have APCR.  Everyone being able to have premium rounds means little if you are in a tank that loads so slowly or the turret traverses so slowly that you can't hit the smaller tank that is punching holes in you, when in reality it shouldn't be able to do so.  Stop using WOT mentality and doctrine to tell me that I am wrong because we are talking about two different things.  I am talking talking about how it should be in reality and why it frustrates me and you are talking about how WOT makes it.  Apples and oranges.  Again, it's my opinion as to why the game isn't as enjoyable as it could be.



ACandieCaneKilling #25 Posted Apr 06 2018 - 10:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 55160 battles
  • 970
  • [TRIO] TRIO
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostDoNutDestroyer, on Apr 03 2018 - 10:18, said:

 

So, to begin with, I'm old, which means I actually know/knew people who served in WWII, my father included.  I have heard, with my own ears, old veterans talk about the Sherman and it's downfalls, including a tendency to catch fire when hit in the sides.  I have watched videos of German veterans referring to the British Shermans as Tommy Cookers (They also said this about some of the other older British tanks though).  I have no idea what Ronson ad you harp on, I have never seen it, but Ronson began producing lighters in 1926.  It introduced the Whilrwind wind resistant lighter in 1941, regardless of whatever ad you are referring to, Ronson was still synonymous with lighters during WWII as was Zippo, but Ronson has been around longer.

 

The issue with the Sherman was not necessarily the gas burning.  It did have high octane aviation gas and if the system were compromised it would burn fiercely.  The big issue was the fact that early Shermans had their ammo storage along the sides inside the hull, so if a shell penetrated the side the ammo would easily explode or rupture the cases and the propellant would burn.  Much of this flaw was alleviated by later Sherman designs that had the ammo stored in the bottom of the hull and surrounded by a water jacket (which is what the wet ammo storage option is).  I'm sure that the main impetus for the derogatory names applied to the Sherman, and other tanks is that the Germans could easily knock them out and there were so many left on the battlefields, many on fire.  But, their own crews were afraid of them because of their inferiority to the German Tiger and Panther.  

 

You yourself said that premium rounds, i.e. APCR was very rare in WWII and that a tank MIGHT have only one aboard.  Most had none because of their expense and rarity, so to say that they all had it during the war is a gross exaggeration.  So, just to continue my line of discussion using the Sherman v Tiger scenario.  Under normal circumstances, a Sherman gun could not penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger.  In order to do serious damage, the Sherman had to get to the rear of the Tiger where armor was thinner.  So, even with a single APCR round, the Sherman should not usually be able to take out a Tiger in a head on battle  Loading multiple rounds of APCR gives the Sherman an advantage that didn't exist in reality.  The Sherman fires faster so it can hit more times than a Tiger even if the Tiger is shooting APCR.  Now take this to a different level where the Tiger is pitted against a light tank with a smaller gun, but the light is loaded with premium rounds and can kill the Tiger, that is where the unfair advantage comes in.  This is just an instance, but plays out across all of the Tiers, even down into the lower tiers of WWI tanks that did not have APCR.  Everyone being able to have premium rounds means little if you are in a tank that loads so slowly or the turret traverses so slowly that you can't hit the smaller tank that is punching holes in you, when in reality it shouldn't be able to do so.  Stop using WOT mentality and doctrine to tell me that I am wrong because we are talking about two different things.  I am talking talking about how it should be in reality and why it frustrates me and you are talking about how WOT makes it.  Apples and oranges.  Again, it's my opinion as to why the game isn't as enjoyable as it could be.

 

You are old, too old to look up the actual facts about the lights, where those rumours came from for example and NO you didn't hear anyone talking about Sherman's going up in flames cause they was NEVER true.

You can look this info up on line yourself, the idea you are referring the rumours passed down from generations of rumours doesn't make it a fact, but what does come up, time after time, are the actual records of fires in Sherman tanks.

The reality is, they didn't catch fire any more easily than that of ANY TANK during the war, the rumours are NOT only false, but they were NEVER SAID during the actual war itself, ONLY afterwards, did that rumour start.

 

As far my "HARPING ON" goes, the fact is the terms "TOMMY KNOCKERS" & "WENT UP LIKE A RONSON" come from an ad campaign created AFTER THE WAR. So for anyone to QUOTE that same ad couldn't have come about within the war itself & didn't. This has been a misnomer for decades as even soldiers believed they heard it during the war but they are mistaken & are simply quoting what others have said over the years, but it is in fact FALSE.

NO ONE has ever seen nor shown any documentation to prove any Sherman tanks "BURNED FIERCELY" or even burned more often than any other tank. This is NOT a rumour, it is a well known fact.

 

Also, as explained in my post as well as well documented in historical fact for anyone to LEARN instead of listening to rumours & second hand gossip is that ANY Fuel at all is just as flammable as any other fuel when ammo is ignited.

Sherman's were NOT prone to ammo racking & subsequent fires. They, like any tank, will burn if their fuel is exposed or leaked. SHerman's were NOT more prone to fires during WWII, regardless of who you claim you listened to.

This has been a rumour for decades & is completely false, as I mentioned in my post; The Chieftain specifically addressed this issue along with all the other WWII tank experts at several tank expos & it has since proven to be a complete falsehood that SHerman's burned as YOU claimed.

 

As for the AD, the quotes you are claiming others mentioned, are just misinformation as I said earlier passed on & on.

The AD itself, wasn't in existence during the war, so NO ONE CAN QUOTE something that was never introduced & anyone who makes such a claim, claims to have overheard it or claims to member it is simply WRONG.

There is a TON of documentation about this specific topic & as mentioned, YOU CAN LOOK UP THE REALITY for yourself, online.

Simply go to the Chieftain's websight & ask the question, you will find the video on the topic along with dozens of others who are in the know about this including some who were in WWII as well.

Simply put, NONE of those claims are TRUE. All of them have been debunked dozens of times with a TON of documentation so I am going to go with facts, instead of hearsay, which is all you have to argue with.

I bet you are NOT too old to look up the truth are you? Cause if you are, then you are too old to be left alone & shouldn't be chatting let alone posting BS in the forums cause nothing you claim is true.

 

As for the APCR, or premo ammo, the reason WoT added premo ammo to the game for everyone to use is very clear in the notes of the gaming mechanics which again you can read for yourself. (If you are not too old)

I simply explained the reasoning behind that, I am not defending WOT for anything they do or did.

As mentioned in my post... & for the most part, APCR was rare & not used by ALL tanks in WWII, but it was available to MANY tanks during that time as well as after the war in various conflicts in which WoT has included tanks from years other than the WWII era.

Furthermore, the actual number of times Sherman's encountered Tiger tanks in the battlefield as a ONE on ONE or head to head battle are also documented & I believe there are only a few actual cases.

Never was APCR implemented to take out Tiger tanks, but they were part of the standard compliment of shells any & all tanks had, if they were available & they were available during many conflicts, just not as readily during WWII.

 

As for oranges to apples, I was NEVER using WoT mentality or doctrine to make any claims at all, other than that of how the game itself works & why they included premo ammo in the game.

Any historical information I suggested & offered comes from tank fests, which may or may not have been sponsored by WoT, but are in no way affiliated with the game itself.

These tank events have tank, WWII (& later) equipment experts & specialists who have NOTHING at all to do with WoT & are all historians, authors, experts & documentorians on the subjects we are discussing, none of which has anything to do with WoT mentality.

Facts on ALL these topics are readily available to anyone who wants to know the reality & truth behind what was & is historical fact about what did & did not occur during & after WWII.

NONE of your so called memories or the memories of what others have told you is indeed factual & again, this has been proven to be so many times over & again, can be looked up yourself.

IF you are too old to look up historical facts which may show you are WRONG in your comments, then I feel you are too old to share your thoughts as they are nonsense & completely false.

If you do NOT believe me, then LOOK THEM UP FOR YOURSELF.

 

I HEARD THIS GUY SAY THIS, is hardly factual, I don't care how old you are. People get things wrong all the time & in this case, all of the things you are claiming are UNTRUE.

 

To clarify: The so called quotes about the Sherman tanks being Tommy Cookers, are NOT TRUE.

Nor are the claims they burned more than any other tank in the war. They were NOT prone to fires cause of the fuel they used. This is a myth.

Nor did anyone make any of those statements during the war itself & there is absolute proof of that documented countless times.



DoNutDestroyer #26 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 05:10

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14614 battles
  • 144
  • [TRED] TRED
  • Member since:
    07-20-2015
Thank you Candie, for clarifying that you know everything there is to know about truth and fact from other people telling you so and reading it on the internet, when all I did was talk to people who were actually there.  I am not going to continue this thread any more, because I have said it from the beginning that it is just my opinion, and it is an opinion based on the research I have done.  Yes, I do use the internet for research.  I even mentioned that an issue with the Sherman was the placement of the ammunition in the sides of the hull, which was later lessened with moving it to the bottom and surrounding it by water.  I also said that it is probable that the names came partially from the number that were destroyed on battlefields and left burning, something that happened to all vehicles during the war.  What I do know is that the Sherman was an inferior tank and many of the crews were afraid of them because they were easy to knock out because of their thinner armor.  Whether they caught fire, blew up from ammo damage, turned into a pile of jello or just stopped driving around because there was a smoking hole somewhere in them and dead crew inside.  I don't know how many times Sherman's encountered Tigers 1 on 1 during the war and don't care...It was an example, not intended to be a hallmark for comparison in reality.  I don't care what WOT does or does not provide to each tank in the game or how you get it.  I simply said that using premium rounds frequently gives tanks the ability to damage higher tier or larger tanks that they would not normally be able to damage, or at least not to the extent that they do.  That is my opinion, I am entitled to it and I can say it if I want to.  You are entitled to your opinion and can say so.  Neither opinion makes either of us right or wrong.  It is apples and oranges in a sense because you are arguing in the context of the game, and I am basing it on reality.  They aren't the same and the reality is that this is a game, and the programmers can do what they want.

Front_Towards_Enemy1 #27 Posted Apr 07 2018 - 14:27

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 20132 battles
  • 24
  • [L-N-L] L-N-L
  • Member since:
    11-16-2013

Agree very much with you on this. Don't forget they totally ruin the OI Exp as well and have made tier 8 almost unplayable from all the tier 9 and 10s that spam gold around as well.

 

Instead of all the pretty maps sure would be nice if they would configure matches into 2 tier only.



ACandieCaneKilling #28 Posted Apr 08 2018 - 03:15

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 55160 battles
  • 970
  • [TRIO] TRIO
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostDoNutDestroyer, on Apr 06 2018 - 21:10, said:

Thank you Candie, for clarifying that you know everything there is to know about truth and fact from other people telling you so and reading it on the internet, when all I did was talk to people who were actually there.  I am not going to continue this thread any more, because I have said it from the beginning that it is just my opinion, and it is an opinion based on the research I have done.  Yes, I do use the internet for research.  I even mentioned that an issue with the Sherman was the placement of the ammunition in the sides of the hull, which was later lessened with moving it to the bottom and surrounding it by water.  I also said that it is probable that the names came partially from the number that were destroyed on battlefields and left burning, something that happened to all vehicles during the war.  What I do know is that the Sherman was an inferior tank and many of the crews were afraid of them because they were easy to knock out because of their thinner armor.  Whether they caught fire, blew up from ammo damage, turned into a pile of jello or just stopped driving around because there was a smoking hole somewhere in them and dead crew inside.  I don't know how many times Sherman's encountered Tigers 1 on 1 during the war and don't care...It was an example, not intended to be a hallmark for comparison in reality.  I don't care what WOT does or does not provide to each tank in the game or how you get it.  I simply said that using premium rounds frequently gives tanks the ability to damage higher tier or larger tanks that they would not normally be able to damage, or at least not to the extent that they do.  That is my opinion, I am entitled to it and I can say it if I want to.  You are entitled to your opinion and can say so.  Neither opinion makes either of us right or wrong.  It is apples and oranges in a sense because you are arguing in the context of the game, and I am basing it on reality.  They aren't the same and the reality is that this is a game, and the programmers can do what they want.

 

"Thank you Candie, for clarifying that you know everything there is to know about truth and fact from other people telling you so and reading it on the internet, when all I did was talk to people who were actually there."

 

OMG are you serious??

The people I referred to are SCHOLARS, EXPERTS & HISTORIANS & many of them WERE THERE.

They used eyewitness accounts at the time of the war, NOT so called eyewitness accounts from 18 to 24 year olds (at the time) 50 - 70 years later who says; I remember when...

You want to believe hearsay, told & retrold hundreds of times when there is indisputable proof of it being INCORRECT instead of well documented expert historians & historical facts based on actual accounts from people there & the fact that NO ONE COULD HAVE QUOTED AN AD CAMPAIGN THAT WASN'T CREATED YET, ABOUT A MODEL OF LIGHTER THAT WASN'T AVAILABLE FOR OVER A DECADE AFTER THE WAR?

How stupid are you in your old age?

That's like believing the Earth is flat based on 200 people who believe it.

MASS HYSTERIA doesn't make anything MORE TRUE, lol, nor does it negate actual historical facts which come from multiple sources in different countries' historical archives as well as eyewitness accounts.

The fact that it comes from the internet doesn't have any bearing at all to its accountability when you watch it live.

 

You're unable to separate what was said by some guy who heard it from another guy who was there, from actual historical facts which are incredibly well documented & include eyewitness accounts at the time in question.

BUT what gets me the most is, you CHASTISE ME by suggesting I am so STUPID cause I believe other people (experts & historians) from the internet. But you got this info from hearsay & that makes it credible? lmbo

You are a perfect example of ignorance in motion.

 

I'm sorry for being so blunt & at times, rude, but I cannot stand by & see a person at your age whom we should respect for their experiences tell younger people absolute nonsense & BS when we KNOW for a fact it isn't true.

You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading such nonsense.



rogueluke #29 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 09:07

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 16064 battles
  • 70
  • [MAG7] MAG7
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014

 The M60 American tank was known as the Roson.

it was due to a type of hydraulic fluid used in the turret that was highly flammable.

it was discovered during one of the Arab Israeli wars that it was a major hazard.

the fluid was changed to a non flammable type and was corrected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


rogueluke #30 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 13:38

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 16064 battles
  • 70
  • [MAG7] MAG7
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014

View PostACandieCaneKilling, on Apr 03 2018 - 07:56, said:

 

OK, I not mad at you or anything lol, it's just a counter to your comments, not an argument, in case you were wondering about my attitude here, since you did mention I was going on tangents, which I wasn't, but ok :)

So you have made some errors in your points which I can say confidently are incorrect.

 

The first one I want to mention are your comments about the Ronson lighters & the term Tommy Cookers. This is completely false. You can look this up yourself. It has been debunked and proven never to be said, and I can tell you why I know this.

 

There was an ad for which the Ronson Lighters came out with after the war which is related to that claim about how the American tanks light up like Tommy cookers, or Ronson's. The account comes from several soldiers who were mistaken as they couldn't have made those statements since the ad wasn't produced or advertised til long after the war was over. It was a very famous ad LONG after the war & became a household phrase so that is likely how it became associated with the comments. 

 

The WoT Chieftain mentions this very subject at one of their conferences to put this rumour to bed since it wasn never said in combat, in fact it wasn't true at all, as the US tanks did NOT burst into flames whenever they were hit.

However, ANY fuel will burst into flames if the temperature gets high enough & sometimes shells would practically incinerate the inside of a tank, causing them to burn, but this is true for every single tank in the war, but the US tanks were NOT more prone to burning easily & this has been debunked by so many people, so many times, I really thought it was common knowledge now.

Regarding the lighters themselves, no one ever made those claims about the US tanks during the war or in combat at any time cause the copy for those ads were not created yet so no one could make such a quote so in fact it were NEVER said.

 

Specifically the comments about the tanks being susceptible to burning at any moment comes from an AD Campaign, which never came out (with that copy, the words used in that ad) until after the war, several years in fact.

The Ronson Lighter claim, which you are actually talking about; was never made nor was it made about the American Zippo for that matter.

In the case of the American Zippo, the ad campaign that claimed the lighter always stayed lit, even in the wind, came out several years after the war & the lighter itself did NOT have that function at that time.

The Zippo Lighter company included a lighter in many of the American's kits as a gift to them for being soldiers as did Hershey candy bars along with shaving supplies, etc.

 

1) "Premium ammo adds an unfair advantage to tanks that should not have the capability that their guns should afford them"

 

How? How does an ammo give an unfair advantage to any tank? As mentioned in the comments I wrote, premo ammo was part of the ammo in tanks of that time, read back if you need to.

 

First some background:

The outcry from the use of premo ammo came about from the time when WoT had all premo ammo as a Prem Shop purchase ONLY & that argument at that time was true.

Then it went away. WoT realized they had made a BIG mistake and changed it so that any and all ammo can be bought with credits.

 

But for some reason, that same argument has stayed with us, yet was ONLY true cause of the purchase only aspect (being available to anyone with the money to purchase it) It was NEVER claimed to be an unfair advantage for any other reason.

Once this went away (the ammo becoming available to anyone with the use of credits only) this argument should have gone away too, but it didn't, as many misunderstood where the argument came from & made the assumption it was an unfair advantage for anyone to use it at any time & it remained in the minds of players cause no one addressed this issue, which was a BIG mistake on WoT part.

WoT should have nipped this rumour nonsense pronto but they choose to remain silent & let the wanna be pro's run rampant with it, as well as making many other such claims about the game such as how to play it, when you should team kill, where to take your heavy, med, light, to WIN THE GAME, which parts of the map NEVER to play on, etc. NONE of it was true then & it's still not true now.

Many aspects of the game are complete & utter nonsense & this is one of them, in my opinion of course.

 

You literally did this yourself by believing a complete fabricated nonsensical rumour about how the US tanks went up in flames including quoting copy from an ad campaign that never existed at the time, not becoming a reality for like a decade.

YOu can see how these things come about. I can give you 20 examples, but I will give you just two.

 

When I first began playing, if I played in Himmelsdorf & was in a heavy I was told, in order to win the game I had to take my tank to TANK ALLY. Also I was NEVER to take my heavy up the hill as this was what noobs do & if I did, I would be team killed & I was cause TKed repeatedly for the first year but I knew this was nonsense. I asked WoT was there specific locals on the maps that determined the win or loss & they of course laughed & told me NO, that's silly, & assured me that is NOT the case with any map. NOr was it true that heavies med or light could ONLY go to certain locations as the tank itself determines where itr is capable to going and working well depending on the terrain & abilities of that tank.

This type of nonsense is still gong on with the advent of the wanna be pros coming up with sheer stupidity about Overlord's beach front, for which it has been said will always cost you the game, but of course that is also complete nonsense & so I asked WoT again & they again laughed and told me the same thing they always say, DON'T LISTEN TO IDIOTS. NO SUCH THING ON ANY MAP. So I began keeping an account of my experiences on Overlord, which turns out to be an 80% success rate taking the beach & flanking the enemy successfully on their end from both sides of the map, proving those opinions about the beach are just nonsense. I have since had so many players toon with me to prove my point about it & some of them have completely changed their minds about it now that they know how it actually is.

 

These rumours always come and go, they are nonsense & spread like fire in a tissue factory but if you look at them for what they are, you quickly find it is completely false, as was the stories behind the Ronson and Zippo Lighters.

 

You cannot tell me how using premmo ammo is an unfair advantage cause ALL the tanks have it, the fact some players choose NOT to use it doesn't make it unfair and you cannot explain how it does, since we all have the same ammo & as mentioned, it was always there in real life, which is why it is there in the game. So all your comments about it can not be substantiated unless you can show me some actual proof to show how ONE player can take advantage of my tank in a training room, when I have the same ammo you do, how can you possibly show me this supposed unfair advantage, when the tank's own capabilities include what uit can do with the premo ammo since it was part of the ammo package every tank has & it always was, in both the game and real life.

If you and i go into a training room with the same tanks, or any tanks, doesn't matter, you will have to show me how YOUR tank can take advantage of mine byu using premo ammo. I've never seen anyone do this & I have tried. NO ONE has ever been able to show this. Having premo ammo as an option which is supposed to be there, it cant be an advantage if we all have it.

 

You are talking about a lower tier or lower ranked tank being able to pen your higher tier tank/ranked tank & using the ammo the tank comes with normally & as it should have, to be unfair & it makes NO sense.

 

OK this one was longer, I didn't have the time to edit it, sorry, I think I get repetitive.

 

If WOT had designed over penetration as part of the game the whole gold ammo issue would have been gone long ago.

There are tanks that really should never have anything but HE shot at them, SPG's some light tanks ect.

it is like shooting a car with a AP round, the round would go right though it and unless it hit a person or the engine and do no real damage.

In WOT there is no real trade off for not using gold rounds other than the cost of the rounds themselves.

There really should be some sort of trade off for using high pen rounds especially on low armor targets.

It also creates problems overall because people do not learn how to properly angle their tanks especially in the lower tiers which ruins game play overall.

on the flip side this also creates problems when someone knows how to properly angle and bounce gold rounds where the players on the other side have no clue what to do other than to keep spamming gold rounds and hope one pens somewhere instead of trying to flank or overwhelm the target. 



MagillaGuerilla #31 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 13:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25096 battles
  • 3,880
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
Lots of words.

Sgt__Guffy #32 Posted Apr 09 2018 - 23:40

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3433 battles
  • 1,896
  • Member since:
    04-01-2017

View PostNudnick, on Apr 09 2018 - 06:43, said:

Lots of words.

 

What is a perfect, truthful, frank and precise summing up of the thread.

 

+1



PNR #33 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 14:06

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11555 battles
  • 41
  • Member since:
    08-29-2014

DoNutDestroyer & aCandieCaneKilling & horacus

_____________________IMO

 

@Candie:  horacus was evaluating the game itself.  I really don't think you mentioned many relevant points, especially in you second post.  I don't think you have any idea how painful it was trying to read through your points in your second reply.  You know why my head started to hurt?  Because, you were stating the obvious.  You yourself typed, (at how many WPM?), that most of what you were mentioning is obvious.  That's nice that you have tens of thousands of battles under your mouse, but I think you misunderstood what DoNut / horacus were implying.  Your second post is entirely unnecessary.  We aren't talking about history here.  Your calling people silly and wussy; and I assure you, I'm one of the few grinders whom actually read most of it before I started gagging.  I just cant read anymore.  You stated aspects of the game, in which (like you said) all us players could easily recognize.  Summing up what the mechanics of the game are about is not the point-at-hand.  They're both pointing out the obvious, that you neglected to mention.  This game is a game of balancing power.  The whole game must be in balance.  The tanks must be penetrable.  The matchmaking must be competitive.  The tech-tree must be entirely reasonably accessible regarding its competence to maintain balance.  The tanks themselves aren't a huge issue because (for the most part) they're permanent.  This game IMO is extremely technical.  Excessive gold-round usage is a technicality of sorts.  Many players, as we've all noticed, want to play and have fun.  They're mostly not savvy on smart game-play.  This is when people come in with fully-loaded racks of gold-rounds.  Unless this game is redefined as a superior technical game/sport, it may not change at all.  If it's easier for people be competitive, more people will actually be competition.  I understand this completely.  This game currently has potential to be state-of-the-art soon, & even someday 3-D.  Before any huge expansion plans WG plans to enact, it is worth considering the technical relevance to WoT.  People LOVE the game because it's technical.  They also like it because it is relatively simple to understand.  If WoT is to be truly terrific one day, WoT will need to gather some truly brilliant minds for brainstorming.  I do think that this game should be reevaluated.  The way I see it, WoT is nowhere near its full potential.  It's pretty good though.

Mentioned earlier: every long-term player ends up with an abundance of work that cannot be accounted for.  I started grinding the SPI-C, took a break from WoT, and came back to see no auto-loader.  People have worked extremely hard to obtain some of these fantastic tanks & features for them.  How about the Type-59?  I heard it was made readily available.  How is that fair?  That tank was ultra-rare, and now some Unicum somewhere is getting shut-down by another Type-59.

 

I had more to type, but went back to reading candie second post, & the side of my head started throbbing.

Candie: Do you immediately suspect all people are ignorant to what you yourself know?  You definitely side-tracked OP.

 

also...horacus, WoT replays only play on WoT program (you might have already known that)

somebody mentioned something about buying your way through tier X.  I'm fairly certain most people cannot do that.  In my instance, I have 517,000 convertible free-XP.  I did that on a standard account.  Now it costs me a 'WarChest' to unlock.

 

anything else?  Right.  In making the game spectacular... On to that.

 

[edit: includes OH WOW, there is a page two, just as long: I somewhat hope to read it later & update my reply with a second reply]


Edited by PNR, Apr 16 2018 - 14:16.


ACandieCaneKilling #34 Posted Apr 22 2018 - 14:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 55160 battles
  • 970
  • [TRIO] TRIO
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostPNR, on Apr 16 2018 - 06:06, said:

DoNutDestroyer & aCandieCaneKilling & horacus

_____________________IMO

 

@Candie:  horacus was evaluating the game itself.  I really don't think you mentioned many relevant points, especially in you second post.  I don't think you have any idea how painful it was trying to read through your points in your second reply.  You know why my head started to hurt?  Because, you were stating the obvious.  You yourself typed, (at how many WPM?), that most of what you were mentioning is obvious.  That's nice that you have tens of thousands of battles under your mouse, but I think you misunderstood what DoNut / horacus were implying.  Your second post is entirely unnecessary.  We aren't talking about history here.  Your calling people silly and wussy; and I assure you, I'm one of the few grinders whom actually read most of it before I started gagging.  I just cant read anymore.  You stated aspects of the game, in which (like you said) all us players could easily recognize.  Summing up what the mechanics of the game are about is not the point-at-hand.  They're both pointing out the obvious, that you neglected to mention.  This game is a game of balancing power.  The whole game must be in balance.  The tanks must be penetrable.  The matchmaking must be competitive.  The tech-tree must be entirely reasonably accessible regarding its competence to maintain balance.  The tanks themselves aren't a huge issue because (for the most part) they're permanent.  This game IMO is extremely technical.  Excessive gold-round usage is a technicality of sorts.  Many players, as we've all noticed, want to play and have fun.  They're mostly not savvy on smart game-play.  This is when people come in with fully-loaded racks of gold-rounds.  Unless this game is redefined as a superior technical game/sport, it may not change at all.  If it's easier for people be competitive, more people will actually be competition.  I understand this completely.  This game currently has potential to be state-of-the-art soon, & even someday 3-D.  Before any huge expansion plans WG plans to enact, it is worth considering the technical relevance to WoT.  People LOVE the game because it's technical.  They also like it because it is relatively simple to understand.  If WoT is to be truly terrific one day, WoT will need to gather some truly brilliant minds for brainstorming.  I do think that this game should be reevaluated.  The way I see it, WoT is nowhere near its full potential.  It's pretty good though.

Mentioned earlier: every long-term player ends up with an abundance of work that cannot be accounted for.  I started grinding the SPI-C, took a break from WoT, and came back to see no auto-loader.  People have worked extremely hard to obtain some of these fantastic tanks & features for them.  How about the Type-59?  I heard it was made readily available.  How is that fair?  That tank was ultra-rare, and now some Unicum somewhere is getting shut-down by another Type-59.

 

I had more to type, but went back to reading candie second post, & the side of my head started throbbing.

Candie: Do you immediately suspect all people are ignorant to what you yourself know?  You definitely side-tracked OP.

 

also...horacus, WoT replays only play on WoT program (you might have already known that)

somebody mentioned something about buying your way through tier X.  I'm fairly certain most people cannot do that.  In my instance, I have 517,000 convertible free-XP.  I did that on a standard account.  Now it costs me a 'WarChest' to unlock.

 

anything else?  Right.  In making the game spectacular... On to that.

 

[edit: includes OH WOW, there is a page two, just as long: I somewhat hope to read it later & update my reply with a second reply]

 

I'm fascinated the way you simplify things & then draw conclusions from that. You mentioned several times about how I state the obvious, but never mention what I was saying or talking about so there is nothing to comment on.

Of course I state a lot of things simplistically & sometimes obviously cause most of the people with whom I am countering their claims are being so simplistic with their opinions, yet they state them as facts.

 

The one guy begins with TELLING us all that...

"Premium ammo adds an unfair advantage to tanks that should not have the capability that their guns should afford them."

"I know everyone CAN get it, but not everyone chooses to use it BECAUSE it takes away from the game experience as a whole."

 

At what point did this become a true fact vs. his opinion?

If any tank had premo ammo as an option during its time in actual battle (assuming we are talking tanks which were equipped with such ammo as many were in WWII) then YES, their guns certainly could do the damage the premo ammo offered.

SO what are you talking about when you make the claim there is an unfair advantage?

I need him to explain HOW this gives anyone an unfair advantage, when every single tank comes with premo ammo.

I also need it explained as to how it takes away from the game when it was designed into the game from the very start.

 

As for not mentioning relevant parts, are you kidding? What post were you reading? Of course I mentioned relevant parts & referred to as many as I could think of at the time. You simply do not agree with them, which is fine but what I said, may have not be well written, repetitive & even overstated, but it was still on point & made perfect sense. I make no excuses for NOT being a writer.

 

As for my second post, it was to counter what was said by someone else so unless you wish to elaborate somewhat on what you are talking about, without your brain hurting from reading some paragraphs, go ahead & point them out.

 

One more thing. I never called anyone a wuse, I merely mentioned how pathetic many have become (IMO) when it has become the norm that writing more than 140 characters has become some kind of hardship & near impossible to read.

 

I don't actually care if your head hurt while reading my post cause frankly it isn't something I care about. If it upset or hurt you that much just reading some paragraphs & it's too difficult, I suggest you get help for that & stop criticizing me lack of writing abilities. At what point did my writing suddenly become relevant to the conversation? How does my writing have anything to do with the subject matter, and what was your point mentioning it in the first place?

Telling us all how hard & painful it was for you to glance through a few paragraphs to the point where you felt it was necessary to criticize my writing abilities is, I supposed, what counts now for making an intelligent counter to someone's post.

If you don't like the way it was written, you should just criticize it, then we all know the subject matter is no longer the topic, let alone important.

 

I'm simply countering claims the use or overuse of premo ammo (which may not be ideal) "adds an unfair advantage" & that it's going to take some actual explaining with some evidence instead of just stating it as fact when it certainly is not.



Ich_bin_Hass #35 Posted Apr 22 2018 - 21:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 77887 battles
  • 916
  • [1VETS] 1VETS
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

View Postn00bfarmer, on Mar 25 2018 - 22:33, said:

So basically gold rounds have been in the game for years now and you spent a lot of time working up towards one of the slowest and most armored tanks in the game and then are surprised when everyone and their cat shoots gold at it? Amazing...but I do agree that gold (premium) rounds do throw the armor/firepower balance out of whack in this game. They should just make all ammo for a tank roughly the same credits but the higher penetrating rounds do 1/2 damage. I also agree about the bulldog nerfs. That tank should have a 6 round magazine on it just like the tank before it does, the T71da.

 

Only way to pen a Maus from the front. Just like the OP'd 268 V4 if the player doesn't hull down. If the 268 V4 player hulls down ? You're SCREWED ! Hope you've got artty while you keep him tracked. Now as far as you comment here ?

 

  "but I do agree that gold (premium) rounds do throw the armor/firepower balance out of whack in this game. They should just make all ammo for a tank roughly the same credits but the higher penetrating rounds do 1/2 damage. I also agree about the bulldog nerfs. That tank should have a 6 round magazine on it just like the tank before it does, the T71da." 

 

   Gold rounds aren't the problem and NEVER have been. It's all the illegal mod use. IE,. Aim bot mods that automatically target critical areas or crew on your tank, lead your tank automatically and other illegal mods like lasers the show where your opponents gun is pointing and your reload time !

 

  That's the problem. Not gold/premium ammo.


Edited by Ich_bin_Hass, Apr 22 2018 - 21:06.


Ich_bin_Hass #36 Posted Apr 22 2018 - 21:09

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 77887 battles
  • 916
  • [1VETS] 1VETS
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

View Postrogueluke, on Apr 09 2018 - 02:07, said:

 The M60 American tank was known as the Roson.

it was due to a type of hydraulic fluid used in the turret that was highly flammable.

it was discovered during one of the Arab Israeli wars that it was a major hazard.

the fluid was changed to a non flammable type and was corrected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you mean the M4 Sherman.

ACandieCaneKilling #37 Posted Apr 23 2018 - 04:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 55160 battles
  • 970
  • [TRIO] TRIO
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostIch_bin_Hass, on Apr 22 2018 - 13:00, said:

 

Only way to pen a Maus from the front. Just like the OP'd 268 V4 if the player doesn't hull down. If the 268 V4 player hulls down ? You're SCREWED ! Hope you've got artty while you keep him tracked. Now as far as you comment here ?

 

  "but I do agree that gold (premium) rounds do throw the armor/firepower balance out of whack in this game. They should just make all ammo for a tank roughly the same credits but the higher penetrating rounds do 1/2 damage. I also agree about the bulldog nerfs. That tank should have a 6 round magazine on it just like the tank before it does, the T71da." 

 

   Gold rounds aren't the problem and NEVER have been. It's all the illegal mod use. IE,. Aim bot mods that automatically target critical areas or crew on your tank, lead your tank automatically and other illegal mods like lasers the show where your opponents gun is pointing and your reload time !

 

  That's the problem. Not gold/premium ammo.

 

I think you are completely unaware of the number of illegal mods being used in the game. The numbers are actually very low when compared to players who DON'T use mods at all, let alone players who use legal mods.

It is nearly impossible to detect an illegal mod user while playing the game as you cannot see if they are using ladders or aim-bots, etc.

The ONLY WAY to tell this is careful examination of the game when watching the video after the fact when some things can be seen.

The other way is to examine the code in their game which can only be done by WoT & the only way that can be done is for you to send in a ticket with a copy of any game you believe or suspect someone is cheating.

Since WoT does not divulge that info to you I seriously doubt you have any data to backup your claim.

 

Your perception of the number of players cheating in WoT has to come from your own viewpoint while playing the game as you are likely, like so many players, convinced any player who does well in a game is cheating which is just nonsense,

I do well now & again & I've never used anything illegal mods in the game from the first day I played to the present. I use mods which are all sanctioned by WoT so they are all legal, like most players do.

 

Don't get all caught up in the hype that "MOST players are using cheats" when they are NOT. There is NO data to support your statement & you certainly cannot tell us yourself who is cheating & who isn't since you don't have that info.



Harvester_0f_Sorrow #38 Posted Apr 24 2018 - 01:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21712 battles
  • 434
  • [RDDT3] RDDT3
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View Posthoracus, on Mar 25 2018 - 16:27, said:

I suffered through the terrible mm, crap maps, tanks stolen or re-purposed by WG (my WT auf E100, Bulldog losing it's autoloader, list goes on) as I considered it a challenge to fight against the odds.

But now with everyone shooting gold ammo it's gone too far.

I didn't grind the Maus for months just to have it killed in 30 sec by couple tier 8 meds spamming gold rounds at me, right into my front armor no less.

Checkout the replay - 100% gold spam.

If I can't play fairly the tanks I've worked hard for then the game is now hopeless.

Eeycandy of the new release is no substitute for good gameplay.

I'm done. Time to take a break and try other games.

 

Bye

 

PS. Nice censorship as I can't attach a replay file. Get an error "Error You aren't permitted to upload this kind of file"

       Lol, - "Bad, awful file" is the message from wotreplays.com, they covered all their corners so people can't show what a scam this game is.

 

 

Weird I cant give you a rep vote. I can give everybody else a vote up but not you. Rigged

Sgt__Guffy #39 Posted Apr 24 2018 - 05:46

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3433 battles
  • 1,896
  • Member since:
    04-01-2017


DoNutDestroyer #40 Posted Apr 24 2018 - 07:14

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14614 battles
  • 144
  • [TRED] TRED
  • Member since:
    07-20-2015

View PostACandieCaneKilling, on Apr 23 2018 - 04:41, said:

 

I think you are completely unaware of the number of illegal mods being used in the game.

 

Don't get all caught up in the hype that "MOST players are using cheats" when they are NOT. There is NO data to support your statement & you certainly cannot tell us yourself who is cheating & who isn't since you don't have that info.

 

Hi I'm back.  Thought I'd drop in to see if anything improved....nope....

 

I think you are also completely unaware of the number of illegal mods being used in the game.  For all the same reasons you gave to support your argument against his opinion, those same reasons can be used to argue against your opinion.  There is no data to show who is using illegal mods and how often.  He never said that "MOST players are using cheats", only that they were being used.  I think that, in and of itself can be accepted as a true statement.  Illegal mods ARE being used, but we don't know the numbers because YOU don't have that info either.  See, so it just boils down to opinion....again.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users