Jump to content


Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NThirtyTwo

  • Rank
    0.41 Kills/Game

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Server

Recent Profile Visitors

2,036 profile views
  1. Maus (now) has a higher ceiling because of superior DPM, but its Gun stats and DPM are only useful if the player can utilize them (most player can't). Same with armor. Although Maus armor is empirically better than the 2 other German heavies, most players can't take full advantage of it, severely diminishing the gap. However, Alpha and mobility is something everyone can use (alpha more than mobility) with minimal brain power. IMO, those 2 elements alone make these tanks better overall than the Maus for an average player. i.e., I'd rather have 3x E100 pubbies, or 3x Pz7 pubbies than 3x Maus pubbies on my team. Just my opinion though.
  2. Where are all the 5k Maus accounts at? As far as I can tell (from playing roughly 150 battles in Maus since update), Maus still gets shat on by arty (especially if your XVM colors are making the ugly rats wet). Hell, maybe even more than before, since there is a hype going on for it. Also, gold spamming and proper aiming (or RNG luck) still pens the shit out of me unless angle is flawless (not always easy to achieve when shot at by so many tanks). And even then, E3/ E4 APCR or JPZE100 HEAT or similar ammo can always find a spot to pen. Maus is still too slow to properly re-position if other flank fails hard. Still too slow to get proper cleanup damage unless you have mad positioning skills and/or luck. Still too slow to be part of the fight if you end up on a strong flank that pushes hard. Still too slow to get in cover when spotted on an open map with 3 enemy arties. Finally, 99% of Maus players I encounter are still dumb as bricks, with poor notions (or none) of angling, timing and positioning, making them super easy to deal with (and fun, so much free HP!). Point is, Maus is still super shit at what was already shit, but now it's become pretty good at what it was initially intended to be good at, i.e. spearhead / inspire a push, hold a choke-point, and intimidate tanks who are stupid enough to 1v1 them in a straight line. It is also quite a bit more fun to play than it was before (NOT because of armor, but rather because its DPM is more competitive) - that is, if you enjoy slow bricks, like I do. Edit: I just noticed I don't really address OP's question with my Ranting. Sorry. For missions, Maus is fantastic. For pubs, E100 - PZ 7 are better. Armor is not as good, but they are much better at positioning. E100 alpha still has a bigger "knockback" than Maus. Pz 7's amazing (and accurate) gun is way better at peek-a-boo and long range shooting. Overall though, if you're looking at the most "user friendly" t10 heavy, I think E5 is still king. Good armor, good mobility, good DPM, good gun.
  3. For once, I agree with you completely. I really liked the Maus before, but only in maps with hardcore choke-points (Ensk and such). Problem was that anything with half a brain at t8 or above would auto-pen turret front in any engagement, plus, anything short of a PERFECT angle would mean auto-pen by t10 TDs, especially if they used gold. This means that even without arty, pushing in an open or semi-open map required you to know exactly where all enemies were, otherwise you'd just get fucked. Maus was relegated to a mostly campy, or plain suicidal playstyle, unless you had a full platoon of them, which made breaking enemy defenses possible because of sheer HP pool. The armor buff means Maus can now be a TRUE "stalemate breaker" where you use your armor and HP to take shots, spot TDs and other camping tanks, and allow your team to punish them. This is what a super-heavy should be able to do, in my opinion, so the armor and HP buff are totally justified. As for the gun, while the buff wasn't absolutely, critically necessary (since the prime role of the Maus isn't to deal damage), it makes the Maus a lot more independent and competitive. Before, the DPM at approximately 2200 - 2300 just wasn't enough to deal with a lot of tanks 1v1 (even with armor buff). With 2900-3000 however, it is now able to beat pretty much any other tank in a 1v1 trade situation, as it should be. A good old regular "medium" or "heavy" tank should not be able to reliably go in a face-to-face battle with a "super heavy" tank and win. They should, on the contrary, expect to lose the encounter, and instead use flanking tactics, bait them out of cover into the open, or make use of superior numbers to take down a "super-heavy" tank.
  4. I don't know the full extent of the work that was needed to get WN9 to where it is now, but I assume it is very substantial. The guys who did this did it on their own free time too; which at least to some degree suggests they cared about what they were doing. I don't know why work has stopped. Might be technical issues, might be concept issues, might not have anything to do with WN9. Regardless, I hope the people involved @RichardNixon are okay. About WN9, it is a direct (major) upgrade to WN8 in every way that I can think of. Considering the amount of time already used for its creation, it would be a real shame not to implement it. Heck, even if you look at this project with a "damage control" perspective, it is clearly worth going through with it. - It gives closure to the people who worked on it; - It gives the community a far better (IMO) metric to use for tracking their own improvement, or evaluating other players; - According to some, it lowers the calculation load for services such as WoTLabs that would use it; - It should be more resilient to future balance shifts (i.e. require less maintenance). Anyhow, I think WN9 should be implemented ASAP, and if some people want to work on improving it some more in the future, then fine; but even without that, it would be a net improvement over the current metrics!
  5. I have reached the point of no return this weekend... I expect to start taking extra artillery fire starting next week or so when people's XVM update. Also, everything @RichardNixon does increases my WN9 2-3 points here, 5-6 there, 3-4 left, 4-5 right. I suppose being almost 100% non padded has its benefits! I might be wrong, but I think this recent update pretty much takes care of the last bit that people were concerned about regarding WN9? Is it ready to go?
  6. In my experience, valley pushing works if you have 2-3 strong hull-down tanks from the south spawn. From the north, it's almost always a total and utter waste, as the south spawn is considerably easier to defend for enemy TDs. In the rare cases where valley push is actually a tactical possibility, I'll usually go there too it if my tank is capable. However, most of the time, it is a terrible tactical option, especially if spawning north. What I do then is find some cover on the mid road and flex back and forth between attack and defense. If my valley pubbies are even minimally successful, most of the enemy team will fall back to defend, which means I'll spot them crossing and disturb their ranks. In any case, going city when 10+ of my team is valley is usually a terrible idea. It's extremely easy to get caught in a close range brawl and even easier to get flanked with no possibility to fall back. Middle road is simply a better option.
  7. Well then, I stand corrected. The logic behind Arty's removal seems pretty solid then... Are you going to remove it? Or just launch WN9 as it is right now?
  8. Thanks for looking into it. I understand that most players "anti pad" in arty, i.e. they are performing worse in arty than in other classes (and get a lower WN9). This however is not the issue I forsee. Specifically because of the above, scaling values for artillery are very low. This means that if a player were to be really good at artillery, he could get a very, very high WN9; higher in fact than by being really good in other tank classes. As such, much like good players today are able to pad WN8 in a T-62A or an E50 because the vast majority of people suck at it, people would be able to pad WN9 in arty, because pretty much everyone sucks at it. Right now, a large proportion of people good enough to pad WN9 in arty either don't play it at all (because hate or fear of falling WN8) or don't play it enough to actually get good at it (hence the "anti-pad" effect). The concern is not with padding itself, as I couldn't care less. However, it stands to reason that there could be a significant chunk of morons who live only to pad WNx who spam HEAT T-54 or APCR E50 right now who would start playing artillery so they can become good enough to pad in it. In other words, padding itself is not an issue, as demonstrated by the data you gathered. However, low expected values + very low scaling for artillery would likely be an incentive for more players to spam arty until they get better and are able to pad in it, which is just spreading the cancer. I myself am not convinced this is an actual problem, because "arty padders" would be quite easy to spot, and would likely be called out by good clans and such, much the same way Hellcat padders were in the day. However, I do think that something that could potentially increase artillery player population should be looked at carefully. Removing artillery from WN9 is an ideal solution to counter this and other potential issues. However, as much as I can't stand the very concept of artillery, it seems a little unfair to leave them out completely. Would it be complex / difficult to have a separate "WN Arty" be calculated on the same bases as WN9? I wouldn't advise on putting any emphasis on it, as I for one would be pretty damn disgusted to even have the word "Arty" in my signature.... However it could be available separately if it were ever relevant to know how someone fares in artillery alone.
  9. If my opinion is worth anything, I've read through pretty much everything you published regarding WN9, how it works, its limitations, etc. and I think you have reached a very nice point. The only aspect which I think is still somewhat debatable is the influence of artillery on the metric. As pointed out by a few above, perhaps being a good player in artillery allows for a higher WN9 ceiling than being good in tanks, and as such, one could maybe "pad" in artillery more easily than in other classes. I suppose this is due to the fact that proportionally much fewer players are good at arty than good at tanks, which creates very low "scaling" values for them. Perhaps a simple solution would be to lock the *scale values for artillery at 1.0 (which is, if I understand correctly, "average"). Whatever you decide to do about artillery, I think WN9 is already the best metric available at the moment, and as such, should be implemented.
  10. Would you be able to provide a better description? As stated, this is what I gather from videos / comments / stats and numbers interpretation, but I could be incorrect. Logic being that in a long corridor, it seems that very few guns are actually able to reach the 260ish pen required to reliably pen the Maus, even un-angled. And that's assuming you hit weak spots, which is obviously more difficult with guns that are now more inaccurate at range. For info, for "long corridor", I had in mind something like a Karelia south push, or Abbey lower west, or Steppes west, or Cliff west, etc.
  11. I don't blame you for your opinions. I think they are valid. The point I bring to the table, which is backed up by fact, is that at the moment, heavy tanks are the best class for "Joe Average". Medium tanks are better and favorite of good players, and this brings the overall performance of mediums slightly above that of heavy tanks. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Because of this, we know what really happens in this type of meta. While it's not as bad as some of the previous metas, too much of it is in effect "bad". Sandbox changes would in turn be "too much of it", and thus, I think it would be a "bad" thing, and I am far from alone with that opinion.
  12. I think you make a very valid point in that arty skill does not translate (much) to tank skill. I also think that actual "good arty play" should be rewarded by the WNx system. Just like me or you put up a lot of effort to be good at tanks, these guys put up efforts to be good at arty. Having a separate "WN Arty" metric could definitely work, but it requires extra work. In the end, I do believe the simplest and best option is to leave things as is. I have no doubt in my mind that anyone who browses a super unicum arty player profile will quickly see what's going on and automatically (and likely correctly) assume that he will be a poor tank player.
  13. To be fair, being a better player does makes him by default better qualified to give his opinion on how the game works. Logically, if he plays better, he likely understand the game better. However, understanding how something works and being able to abuse it does not mean you are better placed to know what is better for everyone else. This is something that requires understanding, yes, but also empathy, i.e. the ability to put yourself in other peoples' shoes. I completely understand where you come from when you say that an ultra brawly, super aggressive playstyle, role centered tanks and heavy uncontested king meta would be an improvement for this game. However, I also believe you are wrong, because you ignore the fact that most other players AFAIK, and some of them not dipshits, disagree with you.
  14. Haha, while I enjoy it, I don't enjoy it that much The "typical" tanks I play are the M48 and E100, i.e. the "heavy frontline" role or the "medium frontline" role. The cause of my plateau is mostly bad tilt management, inconsistency and being too stubborn. Keep playing after 4 horrible games in a row, trying different / dangerous routes because I am bored, and trying to hold a lost flank too long are respective examples.
  15. You make a good point. However, I do not say that the Type 5 is a "good" tank. It is objectively "bad". I say that it is not anywhere near "bad enough" that it is "unplayable", or cannot be enjoyed.
  • Create New...