87 replies to this topic

[Blossomy_Hippo]

SHRiIVIP, on 05 December 2018 - 01:14 AM, said:

 

Is selective reading your super power? I literally listed reasons why it was still a good tank.

 

I read and i see nothing that would answer the question. I think you're the one actively trying to not answer the question.

I asked why should i play it over a Conqueror or 5A, when both of those fill the same role as an E5 while negating its drawbacks.

I didn't ask for reasons why the E5 is good. It is good, just not good enough when you compare it to its direct competitors.

[Baardgier]

Blossomy_Hippo, on 05 December 2018 - 01:21 AM, said:

 

I'll have to disagree there.

If you want to shoot back, your top turret will always show first so that gives people time to preaim and negate your gun handling , secondly it's so big and tall and flat that it's hard to miss it if you tried, thirdly the stiff suspension, slow turret rotation and low reverse speed make it veeeeery hard to make it jiggle enough to get weird angles or make people miss.

I guess it could be hard to hit 300m away, but then again that goes for any weakspot in the game.

 

"Your opinion isn't objective at all, seeing as many here disagree with you", sorry but i've seen enough of this forum to know this is actually a great reason to disagree, seeing that most of these replies are coming from exactly the forumers i expected, no offense.

 

 

 

So basically you came to forums to what? Is it to either ask people to change your opinion when you've already made up your mind or just for the sake of an obnoxious argument?

[JAG THE GEMINI]

I agree, E5 shouldd get the smaller Wot Blitz cupola since the turret buff(HD Model) on consoles was almost reverted and with the entrance of other heavy tanks, it is almost a shadow of it´s former self.

Edited by JAG THE GEMINI, 05 December 2018 - 03:19 AM.

[Blossomy_Hippo]

SHRiIVIP, on 05 December 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

 

So basically you came to forums to what? Is it to either ask people to change your opinion when you've already made up your mind or just for the sake of an obnoxious argument?

 

Maybe i should repeat myself again.

 

You're very much free to change my mind, as long as you present a convincing argument to prove that the E5 is somehow competitive in the current meta, not to give the same old spiel about "the good dpm, decent armor, decent this, decent that". We already established the E5 is good, if you ((knew how to) read my OP you would know, the argument is whether or not it's worth being played when you could pick any of the newer heavy tanks and do a better job. To that argument you have yet to respond, you've just basically called me an idiot for past 3 posts, which is ironic really.

 

Either way, i'm done arguing, i'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, only sparking a constructive debate. Impossible since you're right and everyone else is automatically wrong 

[Baardgier]

Blossomy_Hippo, on 05 December 2018 - 01:43 AM, said:

 

Maybe i should repeat myself again.

 

You're very much free to change my mind, as long as you present a convincing argument to prove that the E5 is somehow competitive in the current meta, not to give the same old spiel about "the good dpm, decent armor, decent this, decent that". We already established the E5 is good, if you ((knew how to) read my OP you would know, the argument is whether or not it's worth being played when you could pick any of the newer heavy tanks and do a better job. To that argument you have yet to respond, you've just basically called me an idiot for past 3 posts, which is ironic really.

 

Either way, i'm done arguing, i'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, only sparking a constructive debate. Impossible since you're right and everyone else is automatically wrong 

 

Alright fine, then I will bluntly state the obvious for every single tier 10 heavy besides the Super Conq and 5A.

 

T57 - Only good thing is dpm.

IS-4 - Mediocre across the board except where it's bad

IS-7 - good hull down, good hp, terrible gun, armor only works when people don't press A

OBJ 705A - good armor, good hp, very slow, not flexible

OBJ 277 - poor man's 5A

MAUS - after all the nerfs it's only useful task is hp and somewhat armor

E 100 - slow, bad gun, bad dpm, walking hitbox

PZ. VII - decent tank but has poor mobility and armor that turns to cheese when anyone actually decides to ain

215B - good hp, good gun, everything else isn't worthwhile

CHIEFTAIN - good gun, good dpm, and that's it

50B - hobbled once more by reload nerf, still has terrible gun handling, otherwise solid heavy

113 - poor man's 430U that does almost everything worse

TYPE 5 - slow trash heap

KRANVAGN - one trick pony to end all one trick ponies, does exactly one thing and only at a mediocre level

 

Most of these have 1 job they can do and those that can do more can't do it well across the board. The same cannot be said about the E5. That good enough for you?

[M4ntiX]

Sorry OP, I disagree. E5 is still a very good, competitive tank. It has god-like gun handling, very good gun stats, fantastic mobility for a heavy and reliable armor.

It's a very tough target to kill when hull down, despite it's gigantic 'tumor' and armor nerfs it received. It is still a very good, versatile tank that's perfect for front-line support, flanking maneuvers, out-DPMing targets, etc.

I am biased here, as this is my first tier X that I unlocked, but going back to playing it recently I still find it a very strong tier X totally capable of carrying games when needed.

Sure, there are other lines that are equally if not more inviting (the new tier X Soviet tanks, for example), but this does not take away from the E5 and its strengths.

[Blossomy_Hippo]

SHRiIVIP, on 05 December 2018 - 01:51 AM, said:

 

Alright fine, then I will bluntly state the obvious for every single tier 10 heavy besides the Super Conq and 5A.

 

T57 - Only good thing is dpm.

IS-4 - Mediocre across the board except where it's bad

IS-7 - good hull down, good hp, terrible gun, armor only works when people don't press A

OBJ 705A - good armor, good hp, very slow, not flexible

OBJ 277 - poor man's 5A

MAUS - after all the nerfs it's only useful task is hp and somewhat armor

E 100 - slow, bad gun, bad dpm, walking hitbox

PZ. VII - decent tank but has poor mobility and armor that turns to cheese when anyone actually decides to ain

215B - good hp, good gun, everything else isn't worthwhile

CHIEFTAIN - good gun, good dpm, and that's it

50B - hobbled once more by reload nerf, still has terrible gun handling, otherwise solid heavy

113 - poor man's 430U that does almost everything worse

TYPE 5 - slow trash heap

KRANVAGN - one trick pony to end all one trick ponies, does exactly one thing and only at a mediocre level

 

Most of these have 1 job they can do and those that can do more can't do it well across the board. The same cannot be said about the E5. That good enough for you?

 

See? I knew you had it in you, thanks. 

I actually agree with most of those and putting it into perspective i kinda see how it's towards the top of the list, more than i realized.

 

However i do rate both the IS-7 and T57 higher than the E5 simply because 1) the IS-7 is the definition of heavy tank, you can rush B and surprise people that don't expect a heavy tank to rush them, the armor works surprisingly well when you pressure people in close quarters and move it around randomly, plus hull down and reverse side scraping make other players want to close app. The T57 is probably the best heavy for a platoon and can do great solo, as long you play it like an autoloader should be played. Chieftain is honestly a slow well armored medium to me, so idk where i'd put it.

I still haven't figured the 277 out, mostly because i don't own it on pc and it's also got different stats so...

[Vampire_Izumi]

Blossomy_Hippo, on 05 December 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:

 

Well nerfing or remodeling the broken tanks is the sensible choice, but we all know WG is not about sensible choices. My suggestion for the E5 in particular is to simply resize the top turret maybe even nerf its armor,but make it somewhat of a skill shot because it honestly bugs me that i have no chance of outplaying anyone that has a half functioning brain, no matter how well i play, because they just need to load HEAT and wait for me to make any kind of play that would involve pointing my gun at their tank. Then i spectate some scrub in a Sp. Conqueror bouncing TDs for days while just sitting there.

 

As for the Type 5, my only opinion is that it should even be in the game in the first place.

 

   

bunker with same turret as type 4/5 heavy tanks and Sketch of Type 5 heavy. ^

Edited by greenteam117, 05 December 2018 - 02:24 AM.

[Blossomy_Hippo]

greenteam117, on 05 December 2018 - 02:15 AM, said:

 

bunker with same turret as type 4/5 heavy tanks

 

Looks like a naval gun on some kind of coastal defence line. Do you know where the photo was taken? That's interesting. 

I guess they planned to use that turret on mobile bunker platform.

 

Still, to me the type 5 is just a redundant tank, it's just a derp Maus, with a worse armor layout.

[Vampire_Izumi]

Blossomy_Hippo, on 05 December 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

 

Looks like a naval gun on some kind of coastal defence line. Do you know where the photo was taken? That's interesting. 

I guess they planned to use that turret on mobile bunker platform.

 

Still, to me the type 5 is just a redundant tank, it's just a derp Maus, with a worse armor layout.

 

from my understanding there has been documents of the type 5 heavy tank? here is 2 posts on the wargaming wiki and from a PC forum.

 

 There are no visual images of the hull of the Type 4, however, there is an image of rough sketch of the Type 5. The in-game Type 5 is inaccurately different from the hull on the sketch, so assuming the Type 4 is similar tank visually, it is likely that it's equally also inaccurate in-game. In-game Type 4/5's hull-design is closer to that of mediums tanks like the Chi-To or Chi-Ri, while the one on the sketch of the Type 5 (again, front part of the Type 4's hull is likely very similar) is more similar to that of the O-I. For example, the sketch has no evidence of the tank having hull cheeks.

In addition, there are quite a few errors on the Type 4 Heavy:

• Due to very limited information, some specifics like top speed, weight and armor are all speculation. Armor in especial is very likely thicker in-game than what it actually was, done mostly due to balance purposes.
• In-game description is somewhat inaccurate. While the Type 4/5 likely shared some design ideas and is possibly even an evolution of the O-I, it most likely is not a direct modification of it.
• Neither 12.7 or 15.2 cm guns were never proposed to be used on Type 4.
  • The 15.2cm gun had AP shells available, which the Type 4 Heavy lacks in-game.

http://wiki.wargamin...Tank:J25_Type_4

 The hull of the in-game Type 5 Heavy is different from the one presented on the sketch. In-game Type 5's hull-design is closer to that of mediums tanks like the Chi-To or Chi-Ri, while the one on the sketch is more similar to that of the O-I. For example, the sketch has no evidence of the hull cheeks.

In addition, there are quite a few other errors on the Type 5 Heavy:

• Due to very limited information, some specifics like top speed, weight and armor are all speculation. Armor in especial is very likely thicker in-game than what it actually was, done mostly due to balance purposes.
• In-game description is somewhat inaccurate. While the Type 4/5 likely shared some design ideas and possibly even components with the O-I, it is unlikely that it was an actual variant of the O-I.
• The 15,2cm gun, which is same gun as found on Chikuma-class cruisers, was never proposed to be used on Type 5.
  • The 15,2cm gun had option for AP shells, which the Type 4/5 lack in-game.

http://wiki.wargamin...k:J20_Type_2605

 

PC forum post about the tanks

http://forum.worldof...ore-historical/

 

Edit: found another thing talking about O-I/Type 4/5 heavy tanks? https://thearmoredpa...ese-ht-premium/

Edit 2: Soviet engineer talking about the tank http://ftr.wot-news....-japanese-tank/

Edited by greenteam117, 05 December 2018 - 02:59 AM.

[HEAT--54]

Blossomy_Hippo, on 04 December 2018 - 06:06 PM, said:

Never said it's bad, it's actually good. 

 

So it’s actually good and “Completely outclassed and powercreeped” at the same time.  

 

Neat.

[Baardgier]

Blossomy_Hippo, on 05 December 2018 - 02:14 AM, said:

 

See? I knew you had it in you, thanks. 

I actually agree with most of those and putting it into perspective i kinda see how it's towards the top of the list, more than i realized.

 

However i do rate both the IS-7 and T57 higher than the E5 simply because 1) the IS-7 is the definition of heavy tank, you can rush B and surprise people that don't expect a heavy tank to rush them, the armor works surprisingly well when you pressure people in close quarters and move it around randomly, plus hull down and reverse side scraping make other players want to close app. The T57 is probably the best heavy for a platoon and can do great solo, as long you play it like an autoloader should be played. Chieftain is honestly a slow well armored medium to me, so idk where i'd put it.

I still haven't figured the 277 out, mostly because i don't own it on pc and it's also got different stats so...

 

I'm just mostly kinda lazy when it to comes to the forums. So, that's the main reason. 

 

The IS-7 is nowhere near a bad tank, but you come up against anything with good armor and it's pen just doesn't hold up. The 57 is a good tank but is very much a close range tank that doesn't have the armor to play close range. Also bad ammo count.

[John-berg1995]

Complains about one of the best tier X heavy tanks being underpowered and power creeped

Is-4 lurks in the shadows

[Red Dough Boy]

Just because it's not broken anymore doesn't mean it's completely outclassed and power crept. If you want to look at power creep look at the E 50 and E 50M, both nerfed when people have been calling for buffs for at least the M. The E 50 was a reasonable tank, strong but not OP and WG decided to nerf the thing into the ground. And the M stands even less of a chance against the Easiums than it did before.

 

Tier 10 heavies need to be able to move and have angled armor, things the T110E5 actually has. The E 100, Maus, and Type 5 all suffer when the opponent fires HEAT or APCR or just has a tier 10 destroyer that knows how to aim even a little. The three heavies mentioned either dominate, or burn up with very little done depending on how they're played and what they face.

[Red Dough Boy]

John-berg1995, on 04 December 2018 - 09:34 PM, said:

Complains about one of the best tier X heavy tanks being underpowered and power creeped

Is-4 lurks in the shadows

 

Mine sits in the garage with no crew, and only because I have the slim hope that WG will get some people in that will give the poor bastard some love. Biggest disappointment after a tier 9 with a damn stronk turret and reasonable gun.

Or just give us the ST-II.

[Vampire_Izumi]

John-berg1995, on 05 December 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:

Complains about one of the best tier X heavy tanks being underpowered and power creeped

Is-4 lurks in the shadows

 

i was going to get the IS-4 until i noticed how easy it was to kill it...

[John-berg1995]

greenteam117, on 05 December 2018 - 07:08 AM, said:

 

i was going to get the IS-4 until i noticed how easy it was to kill it...

It's actually an O-K tank it's just extremely situational. I would personally rank it higher than something like the kranvagan mainly because it has Armor and the kranvagans heat is rather underwhelming. And I would probably rank the is-4 over the up coming french HT, but that's about it. 

 

It needs an aim time buff, here is a comparison

(Just off the top of my head) 

Panzer 7 (560 alpha) (2.7~ aim time) 

Wz-111-5A (490) (2.5 aim time)

705A (650 ) (2.8 aim time) 

113 (440) (2.7) (pls buff 113)

T110e5 (400) (2.0) 

cheiftain (400) (1.7...?) 

Is-4 (440) (2.9 aim time) 

 

Every other large caliber gun aims faster and deals much more damage. 

 

Its aim time would suggest high alpha but instead it has low alpha and long aim time. Maybe it was good back in 2012 but the game has changed. The meta has changed. 

 

ST-II would be a sick addition/replacement

[Juke Ninja]

You want to play the meta tanks then grind for them. Its silly of you OP to fail at recognizing one simple fact...

The game evolves.

[alw2001]

Especially with the M103 having the same accuracy with the same gun but a tier lower makes it even worse now

 

[alw2001]

Juke Ninja, on 05 December 2018 - 07:27 AM, said:

You want to play the meta tanks then grind for them. Its silly of you OP to fail at recognizing one simple fact...

The game evolves.

Isn't it a shame u can't seem to recognise the fact that the game is a game, and should be balanced as all games should be.