Jump to content

_Juris

Patron³
  • Content Count

    503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About _Juris

  • Rank
    Is depressed about gun depression

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States of Carolina
  • Interests
    Tanks and racing - everything else is just a game...
  • Server
    NA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,890 profile views
  1. No problem, I didn't even have a chance to play last night anyways, so i'll remember and make sure to stay until the end of each battle.
  2. I've played with it off and on since it came out. At least at my level, it does feel like it makes some difference, but i'm happy to do the replay data collection for you and see what we see, as long as you don't mind if it takes a little while to collect it? Was three-marking shitty tier 8s, unless you'd rather data from different tanks... you're probably getting either VK75.01 or T42 replays.
  3. Yeah, probably not much. I'm not sure i'd call it "quite strong," i'd say it's in the upper tier of the ridgeline mediums in tryhard mode, but no better than slightly above middle overall of tier 8 premium mediums. And i'm not really playing it in semi-poverty mode, but definitely reserving APCR for when it's necessary (which, as you point out, is quite often). The turret is trolly but once you're all playing in tryhard mode, it's going to get penned at least half the time even if you're pointing your turret directly at your adversary, and it's harder to take snapshots because of the relatively worse gun handling. Looking at the comparison table above, I think i'd probably put the T42 as the third-best, behind the STA-2 and the TL-1 LPC.
  4. I'm not rating it mainly as a credit earner, but at least for the majority of the tanks-playing population, it would seem odd not to at least mention its ability to do that, especially given that it can't even be bought for gold, but has to be purchased with actual currency. I agree it's not the only useful metric of a tank, but it is one useful metric - I like to think of all tanks as a sort of product of their fun gameplay potential and their credit making (or losing) profile. I don't understand what you're trying to say in your last paragraph - why would credit earning lead me to rate the Chrysler K as "balanced but annoying?" Part of what i'm saying here is that the T42 has exactly the same problem as the Chrysler K, at least in that sense - its combat effectiveness is almost entirely predicated on firing nothing but premium rounds. Especially for a premium tank, the requirement to fire nothing but premium rounds is a significant downside unless you quite literally don't care about the credit economy at all. I know here there are probably a lot more of us in that position than on the official forums, but i'm skeptical that it's the majority position even on WoTLabs, and I wrote my article with the official forums population in mind. I also feel like you're not really compares apple to apples, here - if you want to analyze the performance of the T42 in full tryhard setup (always running food and full premium ammo loadout), you can't compare it to other tanks in non-tryhard setups. If that's our assumption, I don't think my opinion of where it lies in terms of pure combat effectives changes much from my longer post yesterday comparing it to other ridgeline fighters - it's a pretty decent one, but i'm not even sure it's the best of those, and it still loses out to any of the other tanks I listed as being better than it, if you allow all those tanks to be in full tryhard setup, too.
  5. I agree, and I don't even think it's a disconnect, really - it's a perfectly adequate tank from a pure combat perspective if you don't factor in credits, and slinging 268 APCR at tier 8 is fun, it's just that it seems difficult to justify paying actual money for the privilege, when you could just play the M26 Pershing or the Caernarvon instead.
  6. I think the T42 clearly not better at poking, since it has considerably worse bloom values than the TL-1 LPC, the hulldown is at best a wash (since it gets one more degree of gun depression, but its mantlet is way smaller), and it's a little better at sniping because of the accuracy (but you will be forced to use APCR to do it effectively, while the TL-1 LPC can use its AP rounds, and at least in some situations has a superior premium round as well). I compared it to the T-44-100 because it is a premium tank that has a poor enough AP round that flanking shots will be necessary in order to make reasonable use of standard rounds (and, thus, reliably make credits with it), particularly on NA where you will not get many games as an actual top-tier tank. The point is that the T-44-100 has the appropriate other characteristics to make this combination work in spite of the poor AP round, whereas the T42 does not. I didn't say that the tank didn't perform for me, or that it's a lost cause. The issue is that it makes you choose between being a credit earner or having maximum combat potential, with a wide divergence between the two. With turbocharger, VStab, and vents, and while deliberately not spamming APCR for purposes of the review (since I assume most normal players will not want to do this), I am sitting just under 2k DPG, and around 2.7k combined. I agree that switching to full APCR is worth at least another shot, and maybe two, but at that point, why are you playing a premium tank? You're not going to be making much money, and it doesn't even exactly match the skillset of the rest of the US medium line. Which was exactly my point - you can absolutely make it be combat-effective, just not while really being a credit-maker, so if you aren't making credits and you're not progressing down a tech tree, why bother paying real money for the privilege? The Super Pershing would almost certainly make you more money while being just as combat-effective, as would the TL-1 LPC. As far as where i'd rank it, i'd say it's lower-middle if you don't use the full tryhard setup - it's probably better than bottom-tier stuff like the Panther 8,8, 59-Patton, and the like (although those might still be better credit earners in some situations, especially the 59-Patton), but there's no way it's much higher up than that. It's not fast enough to be a genuine flanker like the T-44-100 or the Lansen C, doesn't have the autoloader/reloader to leverage like the Bourrasque, Skoda T27, Lorraine, or Progetto, and doesn't have really big alpha like the CS-52, STG, or M4A1 Revalorise to make people not want to poke. That leaves it in the squishy middle with lots of NATO hull-down ridge-fighters, and while it has some good characteristics there, almost all the others have more effective AP rounds (both in penetration and shell velocity), and so they'll be better as premium tanks. https://tanks.gg/compare/t42?t=59-patton~amx-cdc~centurion-51~fv4202-p~m48-rpz~pz-58~sta-2~strv-81~tl-1-lpc As the comparison table shows, it loses out badly on AP pen and shell speed to all of them, is roughly tied for the bottom in gun handling, and has atrocious mobility. It is unarguably the worst tank on the list? No, it's not, but I don't think you can make an unequivocal case for it being the best of even that list, and that list includes none of the "best" premium tier 8 medium tanks. Your Renegade comparison is revealing - it even loses out in DPM, penetration, and power-to-weight to a heavy tank at the same tier. Can you imagine a Renegade losing a 1v1 to a T42, under any circumstances?
  7. Finally got around to playing mine a bit, and wrote up a long review on the official forums: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/634586-juris-reviews-the-t42/ TL;DR is that there are too many downsides and not enough equipment slots to fix them. You either end up with a medium tank that's too slow and sluggish to get into position, or a medium tank that has to choose between rate of fire (with poor penetration) or reasonable gun handling (with poor penetration). Add in the dumbness where Situational Awareness is on the commander (so basically you won't get to use it unless you have a dedicated commander) which means you need to at least have BIA+Recon+Food+Vents to hit 445 view range, and you get a premium tank that fails at being a premium tank. The TL-1 LPC is just better in basically every category, and there's no reason to buy this while that one exists (and actually goes on sale, which I think it has a couple times).
  8. That's very interesting and, as you say, in the competitive environment the extra HP could be really decisive. I wish the competitive environment wasn't so shitty, because seeing the new equipment choices in that context would be really fascinating.
  9. In the case of the Maus, I think the answer is clearly yes. 4 km/h is a 20% speed boost, and the tank feels noticeably more agile. I was toying around with vents in the bonus slot, then turbo and rammer, which seems to work very well. It's still slow enough that not having the VStab doesn't really feel that bad. I think you could go lots of different ways with the other two pieces of equipment, depending on what you want to do, but with a good crew and food with this setup, you still have 465m view range too, so you're not blind.
  10. You should buy the STB-1 and not buy the AMX M4 54 for all the reasons above. I'm going to be unusual and suggest you try the Pz. VII, with the caveat that if you do, you should only play it in full tryhard setup (purple equipment, APCR standard, food). I bought it for the hell of it quite awhile ago and did the above just to do something different, but I find that I actually really like it and can be effective in it. Yes, people who spam premium rounds can go through you, but that's true of most tanks. 560 alpha and 315 APCR feels nice, and the fact that you're tall sometimes lets you use unconventional cover. The DPM sucks but it's a trading heavy, so just don't get into DPM fights, and I think you'd have fun with it.
  11. FWIW, i've tried playing the Maus both ways, and I think the turbocharger is better. Although it doesn't improve the effective traverse speeds as much as the grousers do, it does improve them roughly as much over "stock" as the grousers improve them over the "turbo" configuration, which is enough to be significant. Because the turbo adds a flat 4km/h and 2km/h bonus to speed (rather than a percentage), it helps tanks with a low top speed more in a relative sense, and I haven't noticed much trouble getting it to actually hit its new top speed. As with lots of superheavies, I think the biggest issue with the Maus is not even being able to get to a place where you can be effective before the game is decided, and the turbocharger helps significantly with that, along with (additionally) making you a bit more agile in close-quarters combat.
  12. FWIW, I tried both when I ground through it, and felt like the 122mm was hands-down the better choice. The 130mm is just too derpy on the 705 (compare it to the IS-7, and it's obvious why - the 122mm is already at IS-7 levels of dispersion, and the 130mm keeps the bad handling and bumps out to 0.42 from 0.38), and 315 HEAT definitely worked better fighting superheavies than 303 APCR. You also get a modest but reasonable DPM bump with the 122mm.
  13. I was pleasantly surprised to discover my old favorite forum alive and still somewhat active. This post interested me, as I think i've always had a few semi-unconventional ideas about the game. My current thoughts, roughly in order of increasing unconventionality, and with the caveat that these are NA only: Not controversial, but fuck EBRs, especially the tier 10 which is a vehicle tailor-made to encourage both idiotic YOLO gameplay that's largely ineffective but fucks random people in the ass, AND for being insanely exploitable by good players, especially good players with good internet connections. Trying to hit one and you've got some network hiccups? Thought you computed a good lead? Fuck you, it's actually already driving the other direction, in complete defiance of the normal physics and it's just slapped you for 500+ HP with HE thanks to getting access to another mechanic that other tanks don't. Tanks that aren't playing the same game as most of the other tanks were a bad idea (hi arty), and i'm not sure what on earth possessed WG to fail to learn from that the first time quite so spectacularly. Tier 8 and tier 9 still seem to be the most fun in terms of balance. Not that there isn't stupid bullshit in each of these tiers, but most of the tanks here haven't yet acquired ALL of the ridiculous qualities that make their tier 10 counterparts incredibly dumb. I'd still rather fight a Defender or a Skorp than a Chieftain, 279(e), or 268 v4. In fact, my only enjoyment in the game recently has been three-marking shitty tier 8 premium tanks, and the fact that it's possible to enjoy that means these tiers probably don't suck too hard. Lower tier HP buffs were generally good, but should have included handling buffs as well. I wrote a long official forums post about this, but basically anything that takes low tier gameplay and makes it favor stationary campers less is probably good for the overall health of the game. Equipment changes were okay, but in some respects didn't go far enough. Related to my point above, I have argued for straight-up removal of the camo net and binoculars, especially because at lower tiers they amplify the advantages inherent in sitting still and doing nothing. Getting killed by tanks you can't possibly spot has almost always been one of the worst features of the game, so adding things like the Commander's Vision System was good to combat this, but WG should have taken the opportunity to get rid of the stuff that makes campy gameplay even more campy. The approximate timeframe of the Type 5/Maus overbuffs was the start of consistently sequentially more and more terrible tier 10 gameplay, which the various incredibly stupid reward tanks have accelerated. The ONLY upside to the ridiculous reward tanks is that they make you forget how stupid some of the OP tech tree variants (430U and 268 v4, particularly, plus Super Conq) were. That is, until I played the most recent season of Ranked battles on NA (thank heavens I only "needed" to get into League 1, not finish it). Seriously, if you don't think these vehicles make end tier gameplay a billion times worse than it needs to be, you can't possibly have tried playing Ranked where you suddenly didn't have to deal with them. The VKB is now arguably the worst tier 9 heavy tank other than the Type 4, and i'm not sure i'm willing to even concede that without a fight. You constantly fight two things - either other tier 9 heavies that have access to tier 10 HEAT rounds that can pretend that you don't have any frontal armor, or tier 10 heavies that have access to tier 10 HEAT/APCR rounds that can also pretend thaat you don't have any frontal armor. In exchange for this excellent level of armor protection, you have speed that's laughable and gun handling that's atrocious. Gun rammer has NEVER been a must-have piece of equipment on all tanks, and especially isn't now with the advent of additional pieces of equipment that either help deal with bush campers or further increase gun handling. Raw DPM has always been crazily overvalued and overrated, especially after the sigma nerf - sometimes it is better to accept a slower rate of fire for more accurate fire. Come at me...
  14. For a tank with literally no side armor, this gets more troll and rage-inducing bounces than any tank i've ever seen. Lost a game on Karelia earlier this week due three consecutive random bounces off the side of one of these things who was doing dumb stuff in the middle and (apparently) couldn't get punished for it.
×
×
  • Create New...