Jump to content


Nameless & Edelweiss: Over-armored

Nameless Edelweiss balance over armored

  • Please log in to reply
528 replies to this topic

Poll: Nameless and Edelweiss: Over-armored (228 members have cast votes)

Should the Valkyria tanks stay at tier 8? Or should they be dropped in tier with armor adjusted to match its weight?

  1. Voted They should stay as they are (42 votes [18.42%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.42%

  2. They should be changed (23 votes [10.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.09%

  3. They should not be added to the game (142 votes [62.28%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 62.28%

  4. Who cares/Indifferent (21 votes [9.21%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.21%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

Rhogath #161 Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:01 AM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13309 battles
  • 1,740
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

View PostJarms, on 08 June 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:

 

Would be way too powerful, besides the 121 standard penetration is with the little-john adapter. 78 penetration is the exact same as the Valentine's, the Covenanter's, and the Matilda's stock 2-Pdr. The Matilda has the little-john to make up for its terrible mobility. The Sentinel doesn't have to worry about that, it has enough power-to-weight to get around.

 

One could argue  about the gune being too powerful but that would drag it off topic.

 

 

 

Anyway, I decide to do a quick photoshop of the size the Edelweiss could be given if it were a LT using the tier 7 WZ-131 as a base. I say photoshop but all I did was just shrink the hull down while leaving the turret as it was.... the current is on top with the edited at the bottom... is it me or does the edited one look more proportional? It's giving me a bit of a M41 Bulldog vibe

Although the roadwheels are still ridiculously small :D

 

Guess I'll go to re-proportion the Nameless next. It's going to need a bit more work because of how huge the hull is
 


Edited by DeadArashi, 09 June 2017 - 08:02 AM.


Jarms #162 Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:31 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13129 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostDeadArashi, on 09 June 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Although the roadwheels are still ridiculously small :D

 

Guess I'll go to re-proportion the Nameless next. It's going to need a bit more work because of how huge the hull is

 

Didn't realise it until now but that side profile (except for the turret) is heavily inspired by the Panzer III.



Rhogath #163 Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:38 AM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13309 battles
  • 1,740
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013
holy shit, you're right

struth #164 Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:57 AM

    Crikey

  • Member
  • 52114 battles
  • 2,124
  • Member since:
    10-17-2013
PIII the hull does scream, even the tracks.

Rhogath #165 Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:31 AM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13309 battles
  • 1,740
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

Don't know how well people will be able to tell the difference with the Nameless so I'll explain

I lowered the the top of the hull so that it was closer to the tracks thus shrinking the side profile, then brought it all down in size. The original (top) is the size of the Tiger II from tracks to turret roof (commanders cupola excluded), while the edited version (bottom) has the cupola about the same height as the Panther II turret roof. The reason for making it smaller then the Panther II is simply because it's 20t lighter

 

I know it's unlikely to happen (dreams are cheap) but what do people think of the smaller sizes if the Edelweiss was changed to a LT (considering the LT mobility it has) and the Nameless to a MT (considering the Nameless is a MT in VC to begin with)?



Otakubouzu #166 Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:45 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 17298 battles
  • 10,073
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostDeadArashi, on 09 June 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

I know it's unlikely to happen (dreams are cheap) but what do people think of the smaller sizes if the Edelweiss was changed to a LT (considering the LT mobility it has) and the Nameless to a MT (considering the Nameless is a MT in VC to begin with)?

 

Nameless to MT is okay.

Edelweiss to LT is... lore breaking to say the least. It at least a light medium tank IMO. So either you nerf its armor or nerf a bit its speed


Edited by Otakubouzu, 09 June 2017 - 09:46 AM.

Back to World of Tanks for now.


Rhogath #167 Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:54 AM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13309 battles
  • 1,740
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013
hull: 50/40/40
turret: 80/45/45

Was something I suggested for the Edelweiss were it to be a LT.  The armor might be on the thicker side but it's still actually thinner then the tier 7 Soviet LTG which is a much smaller target even where the Edelweiss to shrink. I don't particularly see that the armor should be made thinner then what I've already suggested or that its weight would need to be adjusted

FramFramson #168 Posted 09 June 2017 - 10:10 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 56798 battles
  • 4,080
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015
I think the Edelweiss just needs it's hull flattened a bit.


Elphaba #169 Posted 09 June 2017 - 10:56 AM

    Private

  • Beta-Tester
  • 995 battles
  • 2,573
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013

View PostDeadArashi, on 08 June 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

thanks. Any info regarding a responce to how they got the stats they did would be appreciated, even if it's just saying "they will stay as is" or "they will be changed" but not specify how.

 

Also just going to apologize now for my recent rant. Was inappropiate and could have been worded better.

 

Okay, so I have heard back from the game balance team. The stats are what they are because they want to stay as true as possible to how the Edelweiss and the Nameless are in the original VC game, hence the weight and the speed that they have now (which wasn't realistic to begin with, TBH). But if you have played the old VC games, you would also know that the game does not have any data regarding these tanks' armour so this was a game balance call to make them how they are now.

 

The available option would be to adjust the weight to make it more realistic for the armour that they currently have, but this will also entail an increase in engine power as they need to retain the same level of mobility as the current model. Overall, this will result in a buff for both tanks.

 

[EDIT] Also, this is not a WG intellectual property (IP) so do keep in mind that changes that can be made is very limited.


Edited by Elphaba, 09 June 2017 - 11:02 AM.


Rhogath #170 Posted 09 June 2017 - 11:07 AM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13309 battles
  • 1,740
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

Really doesn't make sense then. If they want to stay as true as possible by giving it the stats they have listed then that's fine and they have achieved that goal (been a while since a tank's stayed true to historical stats though: Swedish HTs, Obj 252U, Chrysler K, upcoming T-103 :hiding:) Now I know that armor isn't given in the VC games but for the balance team to give it armor that they physically could never have based on the weight  of the tanks remains a mystery.

*sigh* The only reason I can think of goes to the stereotypical "Overbuff to tier 8 to be able to charge the most $ for it". But that's not your fault. Thanks Elphaba for checking for us.



Elphaba #171 Posted 09 June 2017 - 11:16 AM

    Private

  • Beta-Tester
  • 995 battles
  • 2,573
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013

View PostDeadArashi, on 09 June 2017 - 03:07 AM, said:

Really doesn't make sense then. If they want to stay as true as possible by giving it the stats they have listed then that's fine and they have achieved that goal (been a while since a tank's stayed true to historical stats though: Swedish HTs, Obj 252U, Chrysler K, upcoming T-103 :hiding:) Now I know that armor isn't given in the VC games but for the balance team to give it armor that they physically could never have based on the weight  of the tanks remains a mystery.

*sigh* The only reason I can think of goes to the stereotypical "Overbuff to tier 8 to be able to charge the most $ for it". But that's not your fault. Thanks Elphaba for checking for us.

 

Hence the option to increase the weight and the engine power to make it a better match for the in-game armor stats, but as I point out this would result in a buff to both tanks. Basically opens a new can of worms.

Rhogath #172 Posted 09 June 2017 - 11:25 AM

    Imperium Tech Priest

  • Member
  • 13309 battles
  • 1,740
  • Member since:
    05-31-2013

yer, if you want it to stay at tier 8 and make the armor reasonable for the weight then you would increase the weight to match, that much is a given.

 

But I don't think you seem to understand based on your wording. It doesn't need to be a tier 8 or have the armor it does. Look at my stat suggestions: tier 7 with thinner armor... but the weight and engine power, the stats they want to carry over from VC, stays the same.

 

So why does it have to be forced into tier 8? I'm sorry but you can keep saying the option is to increase weight and engine. Sorry to say but it's most certainly not the onlt option and I've preven that with theory crafted stats.

 

What you're saying is the "available option" is the option where they stay in tiers they shouldnt be to maximise the amount they can charge for it


Edited by DeadArashi, 09 June 2017 - 11:52 AM.


Ezz #173 Posted 09 June 2017 - 12:59 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 77831 battles
  • 37,735
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostDeadArashi, on 09 June 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

So why does it have to be forced into tier 8?

Because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for a lower tier prem.


Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, Balance TM and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


FramFramson #174 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:16 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 56798 battles
  • 4,080
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015

Eeeeeexactly.

 

VC quite plainly takes place in a world which is technologically more akin to our interwar period than our WWII era, so they would fit better as T7 tanks, or even lower. As has been pointed out the Edelweiss was an advanced design but appears to be based on the Pz III hull mated to a Bulldog turret.



tekno #175 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:21 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Council of Armored Forces
  • 23138 battles
  • 655
  • [NZAD] NZAD
  • Member since:
    12-08-2012

View PostElphaba, on 09 June 2017 - 03:16 AM, said:

 

Hence the option to increase the weight and the engine power to make it a better match for the in-game armor stats, but as I point out this would result in a buff to both tanks. Basically opens a new can of worms.

 

elighten me as to HOW increasing the mass and retaining the same PTW, HP,armour, yadda yadda is a buff?let alone that the HT has AMX 50-100 PTW ratio....and ridiculus armour...

random question...

whats the level ground front on EA of the HT?
 

 


Edited by tekno, 09 June 2017 - 01:22 PM.


Jarms #176 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:34 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13129 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

View PostDeadArashi, on 09 June 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

hull: 50/40/40
turret: 80/45/45

Was something I suggested for the Edelweiss were it to be a LT.  The armor might be on the thicker side but it's still actually thinner then the tier 7 Soviet LTG which is a much smaller target even where the Edelweiss to shrink. I don't particularly see that the armor should be made thinner then what I've already suggested or that its weight would need to be adjusted

 

Personally I think with those stats it'd still work as a tier VII medium tank, basically just a more maneuverable, less armoured, and better armed VK 30.02 D.

 

The Nameless could also be a tier VII medium, basically a less maneuverable, but better armed Panther.

- hull: 80/50/40
- turret: 120/60/60


Edited by Jarms, 09 June 2017 - 01:57 PM.


timwahoo #177 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:39 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 72626 battles
  • 5,913
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostEzz, on 09 June 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

Because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for a lower tier prem.

Well not really. If a tier 3 can cost $150 they can charge basically anything for any tier

 

On one hand I am against more tier 8s. That tier is completely saturated with prems, both OP and shitty.

 

but on the other hand, if tier 8 is already [Removed] then they can keep adding their worst ideas to tier 8 and I'll keep avoiding tier 8 games. So that's a win

 

​Inappropriate content based on a serious illness, post updated. User warned

~Flying_Elite


Edited by Flying_Elite, 09 June 2017 - 03:08 PM.

SOLOPUBE. 3 MoE: T54E1, Lowe, FV4202, M46KR, IS-2, AMX M4 45, FV201, Panther M10, ARL 44, Heavy Tank VI, VK 30.01 D, Excelsior, Renault G1R, ELC


MagicalFlyingFox #178 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:50 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 36066 battles
  • 13,961
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View Posthate_pubbehs, on 09 June 2017 - 03:39 PM, said:

Well not really. If a tier 3 can cost $150 they can charge basically anything for any tier

 

On one hand I am against more tier 8s. That tier is completely saturated with prems, both OP and shitty.

 

but on the other hand, if tier 8 is already [Removed] then they can keep adding their worst ideas to tier 8 and I'll keep avoiding tier 8 games. So that's a win

 

Fortunately when i get back to playing, all my grind tanks are at tier 9. 

Edited by Flying_Elite, 09 June 2017 - 03:09 PM.
Quote updated

http://www.theuselessweb.com/

This account is proudly sponsored by Wargaming. 


Ezz #179 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:52 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 77831 battles
  • 37,735
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostMagicalFlyingFox, on 09 June 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

 

Fortunately when i get back to playing, all my grind tanks are at tier 9. 

 

The issue then becomes credit generation. And sadly tier 8 is where all my credit grinders are. Will be taking a new tact to avoid tier 8 i suspect.

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, Balance TM and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


MagicalFlyingFox #180 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:53 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 36066 battles
  • 13,961
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostEzz, on 09 June 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

The issue then becomes credit generation. And sadly tier 8 is where all my credit grinders are. Will be taking a new tact to avoid tier 8 i suspect.

 

Oh just pay for premium 

:trollface:


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

This account is proudly sponsored by Wargaming. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users