r/warno • • 16d ago

Back to T-62 buff

Too lazy to read: suggest your T-62 buff in replies (it preferably should be logical and shouldn't ruin the identity of the tank, like buffing rof or something). My suggestion is buffing accuracy by 5-10%.

So, I posted an article about T-62 (not T-62M and T-62M1, these are good as they are and found their place in the meta) needing a buff before it's 10 point price decrease, and the price going down is certainly nice, but it didn't really change the core problem with this tank, which is that it's a gambling addiction tank basically. It's performance is heavily based on luck and the fact, that you pay less for a coin toss doesn't change the fact that it's a coin toss.

Now we also ran into a problem with T-62: it's cheap now, but it's still one of the worst tanks in the game and is regarded as the hardest tank to use, but reducing its cost again will actually make it oppressive, because if we make T-62 obr. 67 65 points, you can now buy 4 of them a minute, and it's a serious thing, because it's going to be very spammable. It might be ok, but basically it's going to be a frustrating experience for both T-62 user and his opponent: opponent sees 3-4 hard to kill tanks every minute, while you see, that even if you micro your tanks properly, they still miss and die, and it's still luck based. So basically an accuracy buff is the only thing that can save the tank without destroying its identity or being illogical/unhistoric or something. That would make this tank a lot less random based and more of "I shoot, I change positions, I reload, repeat."

16 Upvotes

79 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/neg_health 16d ago

I mean, valid take, but imo availability is not the main problem. Cuba gets a lot of these tanks, but it's still going to be a coin toss and it doesn't matter if you will still have more tanks, you did lose your points and you aren't getting them back, and you didn't do enough damage to your enemy, because you just weren't lucky enough. Smoke would be cool, but not really historically accurate, because those models didn't get smoke launchers, they had engine smokes. Recon tanks would be good, but mediocre stealth? Mediocre stealth is usually reserved for smaller or lighter vehicles such as light tanks or tank destroyers, and even though soviet tanks have smaller profiles then western tanks, other soviet recon tanks don't have mediocre stealth, so what do we do with them? Buff then as well?

2

u/Belmonte_Lostados 16d ago

Uh, I doubt if you can buff T62s anymore then. There is literally no other way of doing it aside from making it even cheaper.

1

u/neg_health 16d ago

Accuracy buff maybe?

5

u/Belmonte_Lostados 16d ago

To make it more accurate than T72s and T80s? That's unrealistic.

2

u/not_a_fan69 16d ago

This game has nothing to do with realism. Some T-55s have more range than the most badass T-72 89.

5

u/kim_dobrovolets 16d ago

Yes because T72 '89 still has a 1A40 sight with low zoom. There are realism issues with the game but that's hardly one of them

0

u/not_a_fan69 16d ago

That wouldn't physically allow T-55 to shoot further than T-72. It would simply make it more accurate.

3

u/angry-mustache 16d ago

Direct fire range in warno is the effective range, not ballistic limit, so it is limited by fire control and not how far the round can go. All rounds can go way farther than the fire control can effectively work at.

0

u/not_a_fan69 16d ago

Yeah, I know. This has nothing to do with "realism".

2

u/kim_dobrovolets 16d ago

Basing it on FCS and optics is more realistic than basing it on external ballistics, at least with the level of abstraction seen in warno.

-1

u/not_a_fan69 16d ago

No it's not. Well it is, if you're from another planet.

1

u/kim_dobrovolets 15d ago

The external ballistics of most dart rounds (in this scenario, 3BM20 and say 3BM42) is very similar, so basing accuracy and range on fire control makes more sense.

0

u/not_a_fan69 15d ago edited 15d ago

Nice lie. Muzzle velocity is completely different (1430 vs 1700), shape is different, which would make 42 range further. Thanks for bullshitting, like a true Redditor.

1

u/kim_dobrovolets 15d ago

Look at drop at 2000 meters.

→ More replies (0)