Jump to content
Garbad

Garbad Ranks the t8Tanks -- Power Ranking 8/2/2014

Recommended Posts

Only disagreement I have here is with the J88. It's far too slow to be good, but 3? Damn, that's pretty harsh for a AT-15-alike with better armor, hulldown capability, and pref MM.

 

 

You wouldn't rate the RMH higher? Why?

I mean, understandable, it's easy to counter,But it can peek-a-boom and it camo's up in a bush and is un spottable almost.

 

Sniping meta is gone. Roomba is still OP, but you can feel it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you meant WZ-132? and 13 90?

 

nm I see you intended to compare the tier 7 lights with tier 8's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only disagreement I have here is with the J88. It's far too slow to be good, but 3? Damn, that's pretty harsh for a AT-15-alike with better armor, hulldown capability, and pref MM.

 

 

 

Sniping meta is gone. Roomba is still OP, but you can feel it.

 

Plus, the moment you pop up you know that someone will hammer you with an HE shell and smash your gun, gunner and loader.

 

I sold it after blundering around lakeville getting 6k damage without doing a damned thing but waddle up the middle and click on things. So boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This scale does not include pref MM apparently - if it did I suspect the JT88 would be higher.

 

I would knock the IS-3 down to a 7 at most. The frontal armor is just not enough to be effective. The DPM is mediocre, gun handling poor and the APCR penetration is low enough to have trouble against many tier 10s. The turret is also vulnerable to overmatch on the roof, and the sides are weak enough to be penetrated if you are offset more then 30 degrees. The ammo rack being near the front roadwheel also makes the side armor significantly less effective. It does well in organized play mainly because it has decent alpha, and will bounce a few shots from other IS-3s (which also have shit gun handling). Against tanks with decent aim time, you are just not as effective as a 110, and hull down is more effective in a Type 59.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how wz 131 and type 62 are suddenly T8s!

 

 

I think you meant WZ-132? and 13 90?

 

Reading is hard.

 

It is also only logic that tier 8 lights are to be compared to tier 9(,5)s, as they share the battle tier.

 

Tier 7 lights on the other hand, share the MM of 8(,5)s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IS-3 is easily better IMHO, especially if we really are disregarding pref. Better pen, acc, gun handling, mobility, and turret armor for a rather small hull armor price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The KV-4 ranking is accurate, but the problem isn't just the armor... it's the speed/depression/firepower.  The armor is very workable, but getting the gun on targets is a REAL pain on a lot of the maps (speed/depression) and when you can you have lower alpha/dpm compared to your peers.

 

The KV-4s positives are penetration and armor-- the penetration is overkill at tier 8, and the armor can be worked around by good players (lower plate, turret cheeks, cupola sort of, and vertical bits on the sides that can catch shots).

 

 

Against people who don't understand the weaknesses?  The KV-4 is a juggernaut-- probably the best noobstomper in tier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The KV-4 ranking is accurate, but the problem isn't just the armor... it's the speed/depression/firepower.  The armor is very workable, but getting the gun on targets is a REAL pain on a lot of the maps (speed/depression) and when you can you have lower alpha/dpm compared to your peers.

 

The KV-4s positives are penetration and armor-- the penetration is overkill at tier 8, and the armor can be worked around by good players (lower plate, turret cheeks, cupola sort of, and vertical bits on the sides that can catch shots).

 

 

Against people who don't understand the weaknesses?  The KV-4 is a juggernaut-- probably the best noobstomper in tier.

Maybe it's just my personal experience, but I love the machine to bits. Even running in team battles it manages to bounce 2./3k damage consistently per battle. I guess I just constantly fight bad players.

=D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't rate the RMH higher? Why?

I mean, understandable, it's easy to counter,But it can peek-a-boom and it camo's up in a bush and is un spottable almost.

Roomba is op on some maps/situations but is kind of weak sometimes too.

 

funny when i played caernarvon found it exceedingly op

carrying tx and stuff

 

btw where would you rank wz 111, the rare t8 chinese ht?

caernivore has crap alpha and soft armor, that = trash

 

111 would probably be a 6 but I would have to play it

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's surprising how high the T-34-3 is considering it's terrible gun handling. Or that the 112 is as high as it is. Otherwise I don't have any real arguments against this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just my personal experience, but I love the machine to bits. Even running in team battles it manages to bounce 2./3k damage consistently per battle. I guess I just constantly fight bad players.

=D

 

I had a match where I drove at the hill on redshire (original version) and ate something like 8,000 potential, or something outrageous like that.

 

I think it's ranked a little harshly, but, tbh, I would take an IS-3 over the KV-4 anyday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel as if the Cent needs a little more love. Compared to tanks in its tier it has excellent penetration, accuracy, and aim time, acceleration, gun depression, and mantle. The only downsides are hull armor and top speed, but as a hill abusing sniper those do not hurt it very much. 

 

Also I am not sure why you consider the FCM to be flammable? I have played 580 games in mine and I don't even run with an extinguisher, I never get caught on fire. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This scale does not include pref MM apparently - if it did I suspect the JT88 would be higher.

 

I would knock the IS-3 down to a 7 at most. The frontal armor is just not enough to be effective. The DPM is mediocre, gun handling poor and the APCR penetration is low enough to have trouble against many tier 10s. The turret is also vulnerable to overmatch on the roof, and the sides are weak enough to be penetrated if you are offset more then 30 degrees. The ammo rack being near the front roadwheel also makes the side armor significantly less effective. It does well in organized play mainly because it has decent alpha, and will bounce a few shots from other IS-3s (which also have shit gun handling). Against tanks with decent aim time, you are just not as effective as a 110, and hull down is more effective in a Type 59.

I agree with this.

 

Garbad, when last did you play the IS3? Because honestly, I think the IS6 is a better tank. The DPM of the IS3 is awful compared to the IS6, its frontal armour is terrible now, 175 pen guns go through it all the time. The sides are also pretty shit compared to the IS6 IMO. And as for gun handling.. I don't see a difference. Overall I feel the IS6 is a stronger tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sniping meta is gone. Roomba is still OP, but you can feel it.

Try running it with the 15cm, did it the other day (cause why not) and followed my platoon mate around with it, 3k damage games were easy.

 

 

IS-3 is easily better IMHO, especially if we really are disregarding pref. Better pen, acc, gun handling, mobility, and turret armor for a rather small hull armor price.

Would rather play my IS-3 every day over my IS-6. Granted the IS-6 front armor might be slightly better, but most everyone where to shoot it, but on the IS-3, its side armor is much better than the IS-6s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this.

 

Garbad, when last did you play the IS3? Because honestly, I think the IS6 is a better tank. The DPM of the IS3 is awful compared to the IS6, its frontal armour is terrible now, 175 pen guns go through it all the time. The sides are also pretty shit compared to the IS6 IMO. And as for gun handling.. I don't see a difference. Overall I feel the IS6 is a stronger tank.

 

Would rather play my IS-3 every day over my IS-6. Granted the IS-6 front armor might be slightly better, but most everyone where to shoot it, but on the IS-3, its side armor is much better than the IS-6s.

 

Opinions on the IS-6 and IS-3 seem to be divided. I would suggest running something similar to the T-62s vs Obj. 140 test, but they dont get the same mm. From personal experience fighting the two, the IS-6 has more bs bounces, but also has a lot harder time penning me. I love my IS-3 to death, and wish I had one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IS-3 vs IS-6 obviously depends on the context:

 

- In a tier 8 game -- debatable

- In a tier 9 game -- IS-3

- Solopubbing -- IS-6

- In a stat padding platoon -- IS-6

- As a gold spamming reroll -- IS-6

- As a standard player -- IS-3

- In competitive play -- IS-3

 

But remember, I said the ratings don't include limited MMing.  If they did, the IS-6 (and all other limited tanks) would gain 2-3 points each.  But viewed purely in terms of combat power relative to its peers, IS-3 wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...