It’s not. So, if we are decompressing properly, Tiger II H should go to 7.0.
However, it is not fair or fine for Tiger II H to face most stuff you see at 8.0. So, if we are decompressing properly, many 8.0s need to become 8.3s. And of course, it’s not fair for them to… etc etc.
Carry this on to the very top, and draw the relevant conclusion.
I’m fine with prototypes being in the game, there’re already a bunch of those in the game currently. In my opinion everything that’s more than just an idea should get into the game.
You are right about 2S38 though, I suppose they added it to the game to serve as a cash cow, so I highly doubt they know each and every detail about the vehicle’s performance, considering how new it actually is.
But this leads us to yet another problem about new vehicles that may still be classified, information about 2S38’s armor is pretty irrelevant since it’s easy to see anything should be able to penetrate that thing, so getting the armor values perfectly correct isn’t that big of a deal.
On the other hand, information about MBT’s armor and internals is surely highly important, considering so many “tank X should have better/worse armor, here’s classified source to back up my claims” threads on this forum.
Main problem I have with 2S38 is it’s BR, it should easily could be a few BR steps higher. Also, similar tanks like for example OTOMATIC are placed much higher without a real reason.
It’s always up to them which source will they believe to, we can’t have much impact there, but I guess there aren’t many sources to believe to when stuff is still highly classified, that’s what I’m trying to say.
Seeing how many people are upset with 2S38 at 10.0 leads me to believe that adding whole tiers of vehicles with made up stats wouldn’t fare well in the community and would lead to a massive backlash.
Because of this reason I’m hopeful they won’t do such a grave mistake.
True, market appeal is a big thing to them, but at least in my opinion WW2 tech alongside modern tech are by far the most popular ranges in the game, so adding more WW2 stuff would surely still interest many people.
Also, adding modernized tech to higher tiers would attract loads of attention as well (like adding vehicles at 10.0 - 11.0 range), they don’t have to be cutting edge tech.
Might be the case, who knows.
As you said, they might not be willing to risk changing the game from ground up until shit hits the fan and community starts a massive backlash.
I’m more amused than anything, no reason to be depressed over something you can’t change haha.
Oh, me too. I just wish we wouldn’t, as a community, lie to ourselves about what they are. It makes people feel better to laugh at WoT and claim we only have super-duper realistic vehicles that were actually built, but that’s fictional. It’s a good marketing USP, but it’s not reality.
Information about its gun and ammunition, however…
Also, I mean, Panthers A, G and F have an engine RPM governor which was introduced IRL for reliability reasons, which are not a concern in game. Had they stayed at the prototype stage, they’d have no such governor, and they’d be faster.
That’s the sort of thing you can’t just infer by looking at a prototype. Armies themselves don’t know until the equipment is actually in the field in considerable numbers for a prolonged period of time.
Yeah.
I think being able to tell people they’re introducing the “modern trio” is a marketing ploy with too much potential for them to ignore. And they’ll be top BR for sure, which will probably make it less egregious than the 2S38.
Very zen. :D
Never played that game so have no idea how unrealistic tanks get there, are they completely fictional with not even their name appearing anywhere ?
I’m not really familiar with technical specification of most tanks, let alone 2S38 so I can’t say much more than I already said.
In my opinion any nerfs regarding to reliability shouldn’t be in the game.
Either use reliability nerfs on everything, or on nothing, doing this weird “in between” logic just to nerf a handful of vehicles isn’t really good.
In my opinion we should stay clear of those things that affect vehicle’s reliability and/or crew comfort, implementing those things would add a layer of complexity in a already pretty complex game, if you know what I mean.
Of course they would end up at top tier, but still that feel of having a whole tier of practically unfinished (in game) vehicles with loads of made up stats doesn’t look good, at least to me.
I don’t know how others would react, and if they would buy into that ploy.
I think 2S38 is really popular because it’s really strong at it’s BR, not because it’s a shiny new piece of tech IRL.
But yeah, everything revolves around money, and I’m afraid they would do anything just for a quick payday.
Very zen and also you’ll have a good laugh seeing people losing their minds over a video game, like their existence is tied to it.
I’ve never played it either, but I’ve looked into it every now and then. The main differences are as follows: Wargaming has one separate game for every major branch (one for tanks, one for air, one for ships) while WT is one game. This is an aspect I think Gaijin doesn’t take enough credit for, actually. While yes, they’ve punched above their weight and overreached in terms of how much stuff is in the game, and product QA is really suffering, the fact that we have all these different combat environments in one game, and a partial degree of combined arms, is technically remarkable.
WoT is a lot more arcadey than War Thunder, utilising a health points system. It also doesn’t have a lineup system, meaning that you play a single vehicle at a time. So it’s clearly appealing to a different niche.
Finally, its tank roster is not completely fictional, no: they do have a pretty wide selection of historical tanks. But they also allow blueprints, with mixed results. You know by this point that I’m fine with blueprints, but there are a few things in WoT that are honestly a little outlandish, like this.
As Wargaming’s own wiki says about this “Jagdpanzer E-100”,
No historical records exist of the Jagdpanzer E-100’s design specifications. In particular, the intended superstructure and weight of the vehicle is unknown. The model used in-game is what the design could have been if the project was carried to further development.
Most assessments of the project hold that centrally-mounted superstructure akin to that of the Jagdtiger is more likely to have been used, since the basic E-100 has a rear-mounted engine and thus a rear-mounted superstructure would require a complete revision of the hull.
The vehicle likely would’ve been named Sturmgeschutz E-100 rather than Jagdpanzer E-100.
One of the Jagdpanzer E-100’s intended historical armaments, the 15 cm StuK L/63 gun, is missing. The other historical armament, the 17 cm StuK L/53, might be the same as the “17 cm Pak” gun in-game.
To someone who’s familiar with German R&D processes from that era, this is quite head scratching to read. Already the E-100 we have in WT is something I frown upon because the turret choice is wrong (as far as I know no design for it was ever finalised, but if you’re speculatively selecting one, going with the Maus V1 turret is one of the few definitive mistakes you can make).
But this goes a step farther with an iteration they themselves think is dubious (and I have many questions about their nomenclature too).
Basically, I suppose the point is that WoT doesn’t just allow “alternate history”, which is a speculative exercise I appreciate, but also fiction, which I would rather leave out of a game like WT.
I’ve also heard, but I have no way to corroborate this, that there is a powercreep issue, with the fake vehicles being simply better than the real world stuff.
EDIT: there is one WoT mechanic that I find kind of interesting, assuming I understand it correctly: some vehicles have options when it comes to which weapon to mount, and when you research a gun, it stays with you as you progress. For example, you could have researched the Soviet 100mm gun, and then choose if you want your T-44 to mount the 85mm gun, or the 100mm gun.
While that doesn’t really apply to the way the WT tech tree is structured, something about the idea appeals to me, probably because the ability to “tinker with your vehicles in the hangar” feels pretty immersive on the face of it.
That thing looks like something from comic books to be honest, so I would mind seeing vehicles like that in WT though.
That would be interesting, you could take off/change different parts of your vehicle and have your BR lowered/raised as a consequence.
Would be cool, but it’s just added work for Gaijin to do, so I guess we won’t see that, ever.
You forgot to mention the fact that in WoT tanks do not obey the laws of physics: they can mount guns that wouldn’t have fit in the turret and still have -10° of gun depression when the breech should’ve hit the roof armour at -5° without taking into account space for recoil. Many tanks have ahistorical engines that could not have possibly fit inside the engine compartment even theoretically without some serious modifications to the hull. The game is just another third person shooter, like Overwatch, and despite appearances has little to do with military history.
This has never been a valid defense for why a tank is a BR. If it can see them (and it DOES see them, go actually try playing 6.0-6.7) then it matters.
Ask for decompression. Not more compression for the sake of 1 vehicle. The things above the IS-3 need to be moved.
True.
The same is pretty much true for War Thunder, though.
If I may ask, as I am genuinely curious and want to learn, how do you deal with tanks like the STB-1, T32E1, Type 69’s etc.
STB-1: centre mass
T32E1: forehead shot can be lucky. Otherwise, barrel and run. Fortunately, they cannot easily penetrate you either.
Type 69: turret ring, same as almost any MBT. Cleaves right through that lower turret and pops everyone inside.
But how do you survive getting shot by them? They usually oneshot my IS-3.
Had a M60 oneshot me through frontal plating just now as I am writing this.
IDK, I don’t get shot all that often. Definitely stay in close-range areas and shoot first when possible. Angling can surprisingly increase survivability despite lowering actual armour thickness, as it’s a lot more difficult to get a total knockout with a single shot. Also, the turret is a lot stronger than the hull in my experience, so hull downs are just good in general.
um… no.
I think it would be Fine for it to stay 7.0 but since it got a better round, the .3 bump is arguably justified.
Also. in your edit you have the T34 at 7.0… its at 6.7 sooo… again… no.
… what are you babbling about… the m50 can one tap Most things, and if not maybe 2 or 3… it has 433 penetration… im starting to think you are a newb/incompetent.
Ah, level 45. Newb confirmed.
Are these the D shell or B shell?
You are better off playing the IS-4m, I find it more forgiving and enjoyable to play and I also have a higher K/D with it. I have not touched the IS-3 since it moved up.
Welcome to higher tier heavies.
If you are in any sort of an uptier your armor will get negated by all those APDS/HEAT slingers, which are also better than you in every other metric as well.
Since I see you are quite new, I would suggest you to play IS-3 extremely passive in games that aren’t full downtiers. In 8.3 games you are pretty much limited to be a backline sniper overlooking a single pathway, while also praying the enemy coming out will be something you can reliably penetrate from the front.
Also try sticking with the majority of the team and be very close to cover at all times, because that reload is a pain in the ass, especially if you don’t have maxed out crew skills.
Yeah you can. It has a shot trap under the barrel if you don’t have the pen to hull it
Play IS-3 for its reverse speed bro.
