Jump to content

Save the Object 430 II !

Object 430 II Object 416 K-91

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

Poll: Object 416 or Object 430 II playstyle for new K-91 line? (28 members have cast votes)

Which playstyle would you prefer the new K-91 Soviet medium tank line to have?

  1. Object 416 - Pseudo TD characteristics, weak armor. (9 votes [32.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 32.14%

  2. Object 430 II - Decent turret armor, can sidescrape, unique playstyle. (19 votes [67.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 67.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

Hard_As_Iron #1 Posted May 26 2018 - 11:42


  • Players
  • 17677 battles
  • 35
  • Member since:


I'm really disappointed in where this line has headed on the Common Test Server 1.0.2. I really enjoy the Object 430 II as it is currently, the playing style is unique and challenging. Turning this line into a pseudo TD line is just mind boggling. If I wanted a TD, I would play a TD. I never did like having to play as a TD in the Object 416, while constantly dealing with teammates complaining about my camping in a medium tank.

Getting rid of the somewhat decent armor and side scraping ability, really puts a damper on the playstyle of the Object 430 II. The heavy nerfs to the armor, in exchange for a small DPM increase, is really going to hurt the viability of this tank. If you are serious about drastically changing the playstyle of this tank, some things to look at also changing should be to lower the weight, improve mobility and speed, better gun handling and accuracy, and camo rating, to be more along the lines of the Object 416 and the new Tier 10 K-92 then. Otherwise, this change does not make much sense, and will make the Object 430 II quite difficult to find an effective role to play, even as a pseudo TD (without the gun stats, mobility or camo rating), if that's where this is headed.

I need to reiterate how disappointed I am with the changes to this line, and especially the changes to the Object 430 II. Making this tank line centered around the unique playstyle of the Object 430 II would be much preferable to me than turning into another camping TD line, and I'm sure a lot of other people would agree also. We don't need another TD line, I already have a lot of TDs.



enya1ius #2 Posted May 26 2018 - 13:43


  • Players
  • 31680 battles
  • 217
  • [SBW] SBW
  • Member since:

they are on this "hurrdurr all tanks must play the same from t8-t10 hurrdurrrr" kick. So as much as the player base is not thrilled about certain unique vehicles being changed it wont matter. trust me, the amount of people who didn't want their t10 Obj. 263 changed was probably much higher than the amount who don't want the 430 2 changed. This is going to be one thing that they have decided for us and its just easier to get on board or jump off the train, it will continue


Edited by enya1ius, May 26 2018 - 13:44.

Cognitive_Dissonance #3 Posted May 26 2018 - 13:45


  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • Member since:
MOAR derp hurr durr type 5 tanks!!! angling, terrain following, flanking R hard!! Need clown tanks!!!

Dukki #4 Posted May 26 2018 - 21:10


  • -Players-
  • 4286 battles
  • 44
  • [L4ST] L4ST
  • Member since:
Originally (on paper) K91 was supposed to be a heavy tank, in my opinion it should have more armor and a slight improvement in mobility.

Hanrui_Zhang #5 Posted May 30 2018 - 01:55


  • -Players-
  • 1431 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
The only I grinded for the obj 430 ii line is because of the choice you were given: you can choose to go for the t54 too.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users