Jump to content


T110`s Armor

Over 5000 pages of comfort!

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
109624 replies to this topic

Arzoo #7841 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
Meh, I'm OK with a nerf to the T34's turret traverse. Just gives you more incentive to hang further back where it doesn't matter much. The gun is still amazing, and at the end of the day it's still a premium tank. As an added bonus, the change makes it slightly closer to the real-life stats; not a huge deal but still... it's nice that they picked a nerf that conforms well to reality.

If you ever feel bad about your T34 just compare the stats on the 120mm to the KV-5's 107mm.



As to the T110... I'm hearing good things about the armor (and ammo-rack situation). The gun got more accurate as well. All I could really ask for is the 280mm penetration (or at least 276) and removing that damn tumor hitbox, though I suspect neither will ever happen.

Gaffield #7842 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 20 battles
  • 2,623
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View PostKnightFandragon, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:18, said:

What was it?  D25T?  What was the real traverse? wasnt it hand cranked with an auto loader thing?  Reload of like 20 seconds?  I wonder how this game would change if all tanks were given their REAL historical values.

I don't know and I don't really care, my point is that "historical correct" stats should either be historical for all 4 factions or for none. The S70 would kill the entire crew of the tank if fired inside the turret it got.

KilljoyCutter #7843 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,422
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Do some of the new skills increase traverse rate?  

I wonder if some traverses are being lowered in order to be the same after 7.2 only if you invest in the traverse-affecting skills.  

Whatever, it's still strange.


I have the sense that the T34 and T30 are going to be over-nerfed despite the fact that they were really 8.5 and 9.5 respectively before this all started.

KilljoyCutter #7844 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,422
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostGaffield, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:22, said:

I don't know and I don't really care, my point is that "historical correct" stats should either be historical for all 4 factions or for none. The S70 would kill the entire crew of the tank if fired inside the turret it got.

Yeap.  

"Historically correct" should have the same impact across the board, not drastically hurt some tanks and drastically help others.  As it stands, it's just an excuse for whatever the hell the devs feel like doing.

KnightFandragon #7845 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostArzoo, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:21, said:

Meh, I'm OK with a nerf to the T34's turret traverse. Just gives you more incentive to hang further back where it doesn't matter much. The gun is still amazing, and at the end of the day it's still a premium tank. As an added bonus, the change makes it slightly closer to the real-life stats; not a huge deal but still... it's nice that they picked a nerf that conforms well to reality.

If you ever feel bad about your T34 just compare the stats on the 120mm to the KV-5's 107mm.



As to the T110... I'm hearing good things about the armor (and ammo-rack situation). The gun got more accurate as well. All I could really ask for is the 280mm penetration (or at least 276) and removing that damn tumor hitbox, though I suspect neither will ever happen.


View PostGaffield, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:22, said:

I don't know and I don't really care, my point is that "historical correct" stats should either be historical for all 4 factions or for none. The S70 would kill the entire crew of the tank if fired inside the turret it got.

Lol, The US Heavy line reeeaaaalllllllyyyyyy should swap spots in the Tech tree with the Medium line so it is in between them.  The M103 should branch off the Pershing and T28 seeing how its both a medium and a TD but not a heavy.  The T34 should be renamed a Tank Destroyer seeing how it has the HP of one and the traverse of one and it is set up to play like one.

KnightFandragon #7846 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:24, said:

Do some of the new skills increase traverse rate?  

I wonder if some traverses are being lowered in order to be the same after 7.2 only if you invest in the traverse-affecting skills.  

Whatever, it's still strange.


I have the sense that the T34 and T30 are going to be over-nerfed despite the fact that they were really 8.5 and 9.5 respectively before this all started.

Those skills should be aids and slightly improve already decent stats, it should NOT be like a WAR for the Panther, manditory to bring a severely lacking skill up to par....

And before we get more trolls saying were just never happy about anything..well, WG fixed one issue(T110) but created another....The T34 was fine the way it was...what provoked the nerf anyway?

111psycho #7847 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22470 battles
  • 658
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
Where's the buff on the turret armor of the m103 / t110?

Still no hull armor on the m103, historically (cof), 254mm would be on m103's hull right?

RoF seems not a big deal for me, maybe others users can debate about it. 6,00 for the m103 would be nice.

I couldn't achieve 34 km/h on the m103 and 37 km/h on the t110. Still,  35 / 40 EFFECTIVE would be really nice to see. Acceleration on both is  ok for me.

No changes on pen and alpha values for the M58 (this is FTW WG, thanks...).

Aim times nerfed? ¬¬

Darth_Conrad #7848 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:29

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 25 battles
  • 572
  • [TB-H] TB-H
  • Member since:
    04-25-2010

View PostKnightFandragon, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:26, said:

Lol, The US Heavy line reeeaaaalllllllyyyyyy should swap spots in the Tech tree with the Medium line so it is in between them.  The M103 should branch off the Pershing and T28 seeing how its both a medium and a TD but not a heavy.  The T34 should be renamed a Tank Destroyer seeing how it has the HP of one and the traverse of one and it is set up to play like one.

I'd be ok with it as a tier 8 TD.  lol  They really could have moved the T29/34/30 over and I wouldn't have been surprised.  It would have had the same outcome though.  We'd still be down anything worth calling a heavy tank at tier 9/10 and the devs still wouldn't know how to balance turreted TDs.

KnightFandragon #7849 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View Post111psycho, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:27, said:

Where's the buff on the turret armor of the m103 / t110?

Still no hull armor on the m103, historically (cof), 254mm would be on m103's hull right?

RoF seems not a big deal for me, maybe others users can debate about it. 6,00 for the m103 would be nice.

I couldn't achieve 34 km/h on the m103 and 37 km/h on the t110. Still,  35 / 40 EFFECTIVE would be really nice to see. Acceleration on both is  ok for me.

No changes on pen and alpha values for the M58 (this is FTW WG, thanks...).

Aim times nerfed? ¬¬

T110 armor buff?  I guess they didnt, only switched the numbers around so the 254 mantle is on the center of the turret and 203 is the outer edges of the mantle.

Shield_Aegis #7850 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 252
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
Add historical endurance to tank also, IS-4 will collapse after 4 shots or 100 km traveled.. while German or american will still fly like bees.

R0adRunner #7851 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:31

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9107 battles
  • 140
  • [2F2H] 2F2H
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011
Posted Image

Gaffield #7852 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 20 battles
  • 2,623
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View PostShield_Aegis, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:30, said:

Add historical endurance to tank also, IS-4 will collapse after 4 shots or 100 km traveled.. while German or american will still fly like bees.

The German would be parked in a hedge with a broken transmission.

SFC_Storm #7853 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
TY for who ever killed Poll you saved me :)

KnightFandragon #7854 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostShield_Aegis, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:30, said:

Add historical endurance to tank also, IS-4 will collapse after 4 shots or 100 km traveled.. while German or american will still fly like bees.

that would be a very amusing feature to add to a game...mechanical reliability.  The US and Germans had it..Russians...ehh, not so much.  If crashing through a wall or a house meant the chance to blow a track....ramming tanks meant pretty hefty damage to both tanks, im sure a collision of 2 40-70ton tanks ramming each other has pretty adverse effects on both machines...more so then we see in WoT now.  Just driving along and your engine could just quit cuz its overtaxed.

Darth_Conrad #7855 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:34

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 25 battles
  • 572
  • [TB-H] TB-H
  • Member since:
    04-25-2010

View Post111psycho, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:27, said:

Where's the buff on the turret armor of the m103 / t110?

Still no hull armor on the m103, historically (cof), 254mm would be on m103's hull right?

RoF seems not a big deal for me, maybe others users can debate about it. 6,00 for the m103 would be nice.

I couldn't achieve 34 km/h on the m103 and 37 km/h on the t110. Still,  35 / 40 EFFECTIVE would be really nice to see. Acceleration on both is  ok for me.

No changes on pen and alpha values for the M58 (this is FTW WG, thanks...).

Aim times nerfed? ¬¬

It's a cruel joke but WG asked for feedback from it's player base in all three regions then ignored it completely.

Galcian #7856 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:35

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 10224 battles
  • 85
  • Member since:
    11-24-2010
And I still can't connect to the test server :(

CCC_Dober #7857 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:36

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,476
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010

View PostCmd_Storm, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:32, said:

TY for who ever killed Poll you saved me :)

Glad you're back mate. The only positive thing now is that the T110 ammo racks are fixed, but true to form they broke something else. The T34 this time ... scroll back a couple pages to see the specs I posted.

burning_phoneix #7858 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7121 battles
  • 826
  • [WCI] WCI
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View Post111psycho, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:27, said:

Where's the buff on the turret armor of the m103 / t110?

Still no hull armor on the m103, historically (cof), 254mm would be on m103's hull right?

RoF seems not a big deal for me, maybe others users can debate about it. 6,00 for the m103 would be nice.

I couldn't achieve 34 km/h on the m103 and 37 km/h on the t110. Still,  35 / 40 EFFECTIVE would be really nice to see. Acceleration on both is  ok for me.

No changes on pen and alpha values for the M58 (this is FTW WG, thanks...).

Aim times nerfed? ¬¬

Aim time has been buffed actually.

KilljoyCutter #7859 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,422
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostKnightFandragon, on Mar 15 2012 - 18:27, said:

Those skills should be aids and slightly improve already decent stats, it should NOT be like a WAR for the Panther, manditory to bring a severely lacking skill up to par....

Oh, I agree with that, I'm just pondering where their "brains" are going on that nerf.

Cobra39 #7860 Posted Mar 15 2012 - 18:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 32745 battles
  • 1,335
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostCCC_Dober, on Mar 15 2012 - 14:45, said:

I'd love to talk about the new tanks, seriously. It's just the sorry fact that all of us, who have contributed here, have been more or less right about the outcome of the devs latest 'work'. And since they seem content enough to throw some token buffs on them to 'fix' what is inherently broken, what other reaction do you honestly expect? That we are gonna take that sh!t and ask for seconds?

You keep doing that and that's fine with me. I'm looking elsewhere for entertainment and share something less depressing with the guys, rather than comment on inept yapping from the kool aid crowd and the retarded trolls that have been pestering this very thread. Do as you please, but don't mind those, who already know how this is gonna end. I have options as far as other games are concerned and don't feel the need to join the 'winning side' because my favorite tanks are turned into sh!t and the pride of Mother Russia is godlike in comparison.

If WoT was a patient, it would be declared comatose by all rights and the devs are about to pull the plug. Happy thoughts my 4$$.
Look, I've made my feelings known. To be viable as a true tier 10 the T110E5 needs:
speed: 40-44 kph. Also, reverse at -11 kph is too slow. Buff to about -14 kph.
penetration: about 10 mm more at the minimum
damage: the REAL problem. needs at least 450 and would like to see the HEAT round somewhere in the vicinity of 500 to be a useable tank in Clan Wars. This is a modern gun and it's a joke that damage is only 400.
The tumor: what more needs to be said about this abomination? Since the thing would shear off IRL if hit, then it makes no sense that it should continually take max damage round after damn round.
armor: since we lose the turret armor that was the hallmark of U.S. heavy tanks before, at least give us a hull that bounces rounds from guns that aren't tier 9 or above. It should be able to bounce tier 10 shells on occasion, but that would be too good to hope for.

To sum up: the tank is not a tier 10 heavy, it's a tier 10 heavy/medium hybrid that can't hold its own versus other tier 10 heavy tanks and can't act in the medium tank role. It might be okay in pub games, but that's it.

Did you really expect the devs to give us a competitive tank? They've had a year to design this thing and what they came up with is just as underwhelming as we all knew it would be.

Whining won't help, because, as we all know, the tank is exactly "working as intended" and that sucks for us.

And don't get me started on the M103 because I think it's even a worse tank for its tier than the T110 is. At least the T110 is reasonably fun to play. I have not had any fun whatsoever in the M103. I hate it as badly as I hated the T34.




12 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users