Jump to content


* * * * * 1 votes

Update 1.2 Feedback


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Poll: Update 1.2 (46 members have cast votes)

Are you enjoying update 1.2 so far?

  1. Yes (23 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  2. No (11 votes [23.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.91%

  3. Not sure (12 votes [26.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.09%

What is your favorite new feature?

  1. Obj 279e Campaign (3 votes [6.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.52%

  2. New/Reworked Maps (21 votes [45.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.65%

  3. Preferential MM Rework (19 votes [41.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.30%

  4. New Clan features (Creation for Credits, Clan application process) (3 votes [6.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.52%

Are you experiencing any new technical issues with the update? (please elaborate in the thread below)

  1. Yes (18 votes [39.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.13%

  2. No (28 votes [60.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.87%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

iAmEbola #41 Posted Yesterday, 04:22 PM

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11470 battles
  • 6,488
  • Member since:
    02-06-2015

View PostMilos1389, on Oct 15 2018 - 08:59, said:

Ok, lets agree to disagree then. 

 

I'm not really at that point in this discussion.  You really haven't given me any informative feedback regarding the Type 59 that convinces me...other than you just saying so.

 

Why do you feel it is so good?

Why do you feel it is fair to compare it to the T-34-3?

 

I'm not being difficult.  I am really wanting to hear your take on it.



Milos1389 #42 Posted Yesterday, 04:27 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 23255 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011

View PostiAmEbola, on Oct 15 2018 - 15:22, said:

 

I'm not really at that point in this discussion.  You really haven't given me any informative feedback regarding the Type 59 that convinces me...other than you just saying so.

 

Why do you feel it is so good?

Why do you feel it is fair to compare it to the T-34-3?

 

I'm not being difficult.  I am really wanting to hear your take on it.

 

ok put it this way, type is faster, has more accurate gun that mac pen its own counterparts using the regular ammo, and better turret armor..etc If T-34-3 gonna have big gun with slow reload and extremely inacurate then the pen has to be more. Like this a don't see how is this tank better in anything. you don't have the amour to dance with heavies neither do you a gun to pen anything frontal, so you want to flank well you are not that fast either.....I only wish if WOT will keep on buffing tanks that we can't buy then at least make other tanks just as good. 



Gary_NA #43 Posted Yesterday, 04:42 PM

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 14991 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    10-05-2015
Every time I play tier 8 it's on the bottom of the list. You guys just don't get it. It's not fun to be bottom tier every battle.

iAmEbola #44 Posted Yesterday, 06:04 PM

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11470 battles
  • 6,488
  • Member since:
    02-06-2015

View PostMilos1389, on Oct 15 2018 - 09:27, said:

ok put it this way, type is faster, has more accurate gun that mac pen its own counterparts using the regular ammo, and better turret armor..etc If T-34-3 gonna have big gun with slow reload and extremely inacurate then the pen has to be more. Like this a don't see how is this tank better in anything. you don't have the amour to dance with heavies neither do you a gun to pen anything frontal, so you want to flank well you are not that fast either.....I only wish if WOT will keep on buffing tanks that we can't buy then at least make other tanks just as good. 

 

There seems to be a disconnect in my trying to communicate with you.  

 

I just said that I didn't think it was logical or fair to compare the two.  I asked your validation TO compare the two, and you just compared them again.  I am missing the justification to compare two tanks with very different role capacities.  

 

If someone tried to tell you that the M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo was justifiably comparable to the Cromwell, would you buy it?  That is like comparing apples to oranges, they each have a different role despite them being MTs.

 

I dance with HTs all the time in my T-34-3, it can sidescrape and once its hull down can bounce even Tier IX TD rounds.  When the enemy HTs are concentrating on ally HTs, they easily forget about a MT that is tucked away in a position.  This gives one a lot of time to flank, or to peek a boom after they fire.    It has a niche roll.  Try watching LemmingRush in his.  I run mine the same way.  You will see what I mean.



Milos1389 #45 Posted Yesterday, 06:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 23255 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011

View PostiAmEbola, on Oct 15 2018 - 17:04, said:

 

There seems to be a disconnect in my trying to communicate with you.  

 

I just said that I didn't think it was logical or fair to compare the two.  I asked your validation TO compare the two, and you just compared them again.  I am missing the justification to compare two tanks with very different role capacities.  

 

If someone tried to tell you that the M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo was justifiably comparable to the Cromwell, would you buy it?  That is like comparing apples to oranges, they each have a different role despite them being MTs.

 

I dance with HTs all the time in my T-34-3, it can sidescrape and once its hull down can bounce even Tier IX TD rounds.  When the enemy HTs are concentrating on ally HTs, they easily forget about a MT that is tucked away in a position.  This gives one a lot of time to flank, or to peek a boom after they fire.    It has a niche roll.  Try watching LemmingRush in his.  I run mine the same way.  You will see what I mean.

yeah you are right there is disconnect in communication. All I am saying is that type 59 was just fine and that tank didn't need to be buffed. The fact that they did makes t-34-3 that much worse. And if you gonna go that way there is no two tanks in the game that are the same, there fore you should never compare any two tanks ever, right! You are missing my point but I think enough was said on this topic. 



iAmEbola #46 Posted Yesterday, 06:24 PM

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11470 battles
  • 6,488
  • Member since:
    02-06-2015

View PostMilos1389, on Oct 15 2018 - 11:09, said:

yeah you are right there is disconnect in communication. All I am saying is that type 59 was just fine and that tank didn't need to be buffed. The fact that they did makes t-34-3 that much worse. And if you gonna go that way there is no two tanks in the game that are the same, there fore you should never compare any two tanks ever, right! You are missing my point but I think enough was said on this topic. 

 

So, it is your opinion that the Type 59 didn't need buffs.  There were several posts mentioning it did and why, as well, there was a lot of excitement once it was released that it would be buffed.  You are still comparing and not making any sense.

 

You aren't making any real point for me to miss.  

 

I wouldn't go as far as your parabolic knee jerk reaction for comparing two tanks.  You seem to be reacting out of emotion rather than logic.

 

I apologize for not getting what you are saying.  I am missing something and that is regrettable.  Seemed like this conversation could've been productive.  I think I am frustrating you, and for that I am also sorry.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    VooDooKobra