“A substância fundamental do progresso desportivo do Sporting é um fogo clubista que incessantemente se acende. É o suporte de vida do espírito leonino; é uma matéria viva ...”

No que ao Sporting respeita: Inaugurado em Março de 2011, encerrado em Maio de 2014, reaberto sob o mesmo nome mas diferente endereço em Agosto de 2016, é este um pequeno e doméstico espaço onde se olha o passado, o presente e o futuro da maior potência desportiva Nacional.
Ademais: Este é um blogue pessoal no qual se vêem analisados outros temas, bem como um depósito para comentários sobre diversos tópicos que vou deixando um pouco por toda a parte.
Para deixar um comentário: Clica no título do respectivo 'post' (à direita do texto). Alternativamente, usa a tua conta do FB. Regras superficiais de utilização: Emprega bom-senso.

Never had the Czech tank (doesn't look the least appealing) and as for the Comet, after I 3-marked it, haven't touched it in more than 2 years. To be honest I would never play it nowadays. Pretty sure it can't perform the way it used to before all the new tanks that were introduced and the armour buffs many in the meantime received. But that's one of the reasons I wanted / want the Leo: It will satisfy some of the Comet nostalgia, even not being as good as it seems, while I perfectly trust your word that it isn't. Worst possible scenario the 105mm should give it something new relatively to other tanks, even if it's an under-performing gun.
Having better gun (handling) than that of the Comet suggests the tank is very playable, as long as it doesn't see itself punished by the MM. The Comet was one of those tanks that forced a generous premium ammo load-out, which would then be either used or not depending on the match-ups (facing IS-3, IS-6 and things of the sort). And even non-very armoured tanks such as the T29 were more than enough to easily challenge the Comet's regular pen. Imagine now with all the armoured heavies that were introduced and crappy tier VIII mediums such as the mod-1. Tanks like the Comet are completely outdated and tanks like the Leo should struggle (as you're saying). I really hope they go forward with the necessary buffs to the British tier VIII mediums turrets but for many tier VII those will be difficult to cope with. I'm looking forward to it because of the fond memories of the Comet, as I've said. It will be fun but not necessarily competitive. (Although I hope that it is.)
I will probably use both guns but the 75mm should be superior to the 105.
ST-1 (one) or ST-I (i). As doubts were raised as to the correct designation of the tier IX Russian HT ST-I, I'll share with you a conclusive answer referring to the original Russian article on the vehicle. Without confusion: The correct designation is CT-1, which should be read ST-1 (one). According to the article, there was a project for a CT-2 tank, which explains the different titles on the drawings / prints available on the web. As it is, «Es-te-ii» would translate into Cyrillic «CT-И», which can't be found in any designation of the tank. Why would Cyrillic and Latin characters associate under such designation? They wouldn't. Obviously, Russian can use both Arabic and Roman numerals at random. The author of the following video, for example, has written the title «CT-I». However, throughout the video he refers to the tank as CT-1, «Es-Te-Odin». Thus, the vehicle's designation (project) is CT-1, read ST-1, and not ST-I.
Hope this will clarify the doubts.
Crew training, the Swedish line and the pay-to-play element.
Pay-to-win being premium ammo and rations but let's keep it away from the topic.
When I had no idea the following had been offered to us, nor that I had a premium tier II light tank in my garage (L-60, if I'm not mistaken), after finding a 100% Swedish crew with brothers-in-arms I've decided 5 days ago to start grinding the Swedish line, not so much for the tiers VIII and IX auto-loaders, although they look pretty powerful, but for the Leo and its resemblances with the British Comet. As with every other non-premium user (I will presume there are plenty of us), there is no skipping tanks, there isn't having equipment in all of the tanks we have, there isn't obviously the use of rations nor premium-ammo spamming and, more importantly: There isn't retraining crews with gold nor buying crew-members with gold. Grinding lines and training crews are done from scratch, something which isn't all that of a nightmare in case the tiers V and VI aren't all that unplayable. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case for the Swedish t. V (I hope I'm mistaken), while the t. VI looks very decent so despite the chaotic nature of the tier it shouldn't be too painful grinding it. Painful, however, is rolling with 75% and 80% crews regardless of the tier(s).
The experiment was very simple:
Seeing how long it would take to train a crew to 100% in a low tier tank before the line changes (never mind 6th sense). For Sweden that is tiers III to IV where lights become mediums. Starting with a 75% / 80% crew in a t. III, it has taken thus far 88 matches to see it reaching 99%. For 100% it will roughly take 7 to 9 more. That is nearly 100 games just to get a crew to 100%, when a 100% crew is the minimum requirement for any given tank to become playable. How long would have taken for a premium-time user to train the same crew? I'll assume more or less 40 games. This is actually a very significant difference and one I wasn't aware until now. This is also the only element making worthwhile having a premium account.
1 - To make the distinction for the pay-to-play description in the title. Pay-to-win obviously exists but that's fine. (For me at least.) Or it isn't fine but I'm not interested in discussing it at this point. I'm instead speaking of playing any given tank to a minimum standard of enjoyment when for that it is necessary having a 100% crew.
2 - I seriously doubt it will take you 120 games to train a crew with a premium account. If I remember correctly the commander and driver started off with less than 90%, and that's because I was initially gonna do it in the t. II. It didn't take however more than 2 or 3 games to see that would give me cancer. So I had to drop percentage putting that very same crew in the t. III and start afresh. For the Swedish line it is necessary recruiting a loader as it didn't come with the 100% bothers-in-arms crew I mentioned above. The loader starts therefore with 75% / 80% or whatever it is. 88 games to reach 99% and 100 or-so games to reach 100%. I'm therefore very sure it wouldn't take you 120 games to do it with a premium account, although I can't unfortunately disprove you as I don't have nor will I pay (ever) for premium account.
But it does and I wasn't aware of it as well. No one (except new players) grinds crews in low-tier tanks. 30-odd games should be enough in a tier VI or VII, possibly, I'm not too sure. Without premium account. Never paid attention to it.
To know how long it takes to bring a crew to 100% in a tank below tier V or VI it takes doing it, at least once.
Reading and interpreting is hard for some people—congratulations, you're one.
Crews and others: Premium ammo, avoiding stock modules (guns and turret) and one consumable in particular (rations) are the most obvious.
I don't have a doubt in my mind that you wouldn't notice a 75% crew in comparison to a 100% one.
Reread the thread—only suggestion I can offer you. Although I doubt it will help you.
It's more lack of will of wasting time with simultaneously clueless and shouting damsels in distress anymore than the necessary.
You didn't, nor did anyone else. You're instead trying hard / crying for attention and failing miserably at it. But by all means keep trying, I can't stop you.
Not so. Non-premium account players are much more restricted as to the tanks they can play and how they can address a line altogether.
It isn't so much a case of being upset. Rather recognising the evident gap between profit and balance. Profit is the goal of any private company which is fine, but when the gap is not only notorious but one (imbalance) is deeply encouraged for the sake of profit, I choose not to reward such policy. Strictly: The 8 Euros per month are — as stated in a comment above — a rational investment. "I honestly believe that playing tier 8 (plus) on a standard account isn't really an option, maybe it was a while back but not now." — Your assessment is correct and any knowledgeable player will agree to it.
The point remains awfully simple: It takes far too long bringing a crew to normal (100% base) standards without spending gold. It also follows the assumption that a premium account may reduce that time drastically (still for those who don't retrain / recruit crews with gold). Only premium-time players can support such claim.
The corollary is also very simple: Crews and stock modules should be reworked. Every tank should come with a non-skilled / non-perked 100% crew. Stock modules should be rethought not to render any given tank useless. There are stock tanks that are perfectly playable. Many however aren't.
In very simple terms and if by the end you cannot see the difference, you never will:
1) Pay-to-win relates to the elements offering advantages over others from the willingness to spend money on the game (Not all as some players get it from their clans but a majority doesn't—they buy them from the Premium Shop): Premium time and Gold. And that is the only way you can regularly sustain premium ammo usage and 20 000 credits-per-game consumables. I would argue—every time—that large repair kits and even automatic fire extinguishers are to an extent easily overlooked. However, rations aren't. They do in fact offer a significant in-game advantage and that's the reason why some tanks will shine using them and feel short without.
2) Pay-to-play (what this topic was / is about), relates to the basic conditions allowing us to pick up a tank / a line and simply play the game. Of course there are many players—some of you commenting here—that will do it no matter what, and to whom anything goes / everything feels the same. That's fine and to each his own. Others however will not. Practical examples: Tier IX stock tanks. There are players who will not play a stock tier IX until they have the necessary free-exp to unlock 2 or 3 modules, and that is a very rational decision given some of the appalling stock grinds around. Likewise, there are players who will not start grinding a new line only for the fact they don't wish going through the hassle of 80% crews and stock grinds that will penalise many tanks and lines already average or below. It really isn't complicated ...
It isn't as nimble as the Comet then. Thanks for the warning.
That's actually a good point. And F2P players will also play one tank at a time and use the same crew for all the tanks in the line. As for the question it was answered in the 2nd comment. I was going to do it in the tier II and only a couple of games later decided to do it in the tier III one. That costed some percentage. Also because a loader needs recruiting. That's the main reason the progress was so slow.
Starting with the 75% / 80% loader made it soak up the progress of both the commander and the driver.
Never made the maths but yes: Premium-account is a sane / rational / worthy investment. One some players won't however do. (I'm one.)
Dear Arthur, please note how the thread has no relation to this. The failure to interpret and keep on topic shows how narrow minded some of you are.
With a free to play account you can focus one line and play either tiers VIII, IX or X (1 at a time, not 2 or 3 simultaneously) combined with tier VII. Tier VII is the limit for credit making with a free to play account. (And you don't make that many credits, although you don't lose them either.) You cannot however play tiers VIII or above only, even focusing one line. The only exception to this are possibly the American light-tanks where if I remember correctly the T49, at least when it was in tier VIII, surprisingly made credits, and maybe the German heavy line although I'm not too sure as I'm speaking of memory. German heavies up to the E 75, only.
The thread you're showing relates to statistics. We're instead (at this point) speaking of WOT economy and how the free-to-play self-advertised attribute doesn't exist unless you force yourself to play tier VII tanks. And that's the reasonable limit, VII, as if you really want to finance your own game tiers V and VI are where you need to be at. And in case you play those, then, yes: You can have a couple of lines on the side where you can play tier VIII and above. (A couple, not more than that.)
Other than that and relating to the thread you've showed: Of course you can play well and win games on a free-to-play-account, especially if you were playing the T-54 at the time that thread was made. Why wouldn't that be possible? I'll relate you instead to the (again if I remember correctly) experience Foch made going up the Russian server. He had to stop as it was impossible to sustain his account playing the AMX 50 100. He could break even playing it with the stock gun but he couldn't do it playing the regular cannon and make credits to progress any further. That's what we're speaking of. Also, doing well and winning games focusing one line (any line for this matter, apart from turretless TDs) doesn't translate into denying the in-game advantages premium consumables, premium ammo, and the ability to choose the tanks you want to play without worrying about losing credits offer. Especially now (past 6 months) where premium ammo gained much more relevance with the introduction of many tanks whose armour profiles suggest that's what WOT is really after.
I'm grinding the Caernarvon right now and the tank would be (as you say) enjoyable if it were the Tiger I of tier VIII. As it stands it isn't a good tank. It has nothing.
The Tiger II compensates for example its debilities with a nice gun and a decent reload but the Caernarvon not even that, and the very good gun handling does very little when everything else is so bad (DPM, especially). 400m view range is great but the tank is so slow that it isn't noticeable. It could however remain "average" with one single change: a 5.5 second reload on the 20 pounder. This would make it very enjoyable with all else remaining the same.
And the Centurion Mk1 should by the way have the Caernarvon's gun handling. Some turret armour (like it once had) and would become very decent again.
If the turret was changed (I don't know how it was before) it's nothing special as it doesn't bounce anything. But that's fine as long as it keeps the gun handling and has a much better reload (5.0-5.5 sec.). That would make the tank very okay and unique. It would remain "average" relatively to Russian Heavies but simultaneously very enjoyable. There's nothing wrong with the 20 pounder (it's inclusively a very solid choice for the Centurion Mk. 7/1) and sacrificing aiming and/or accuracy for 280 alpha isn't worth it, though we have to wait before judging. But the 20 pdr. needs a better reload otherwise the tank will always be inconsequential. Unlike the Caernarvon, the Centurion definitely needs the turret-armour buffs as with the terrible aiming stats it's necessary to fully aim. Thus, it's necessary to stay exposed.

Threads and comments (EU forum / server).

Posted on

Sunday, 13 August 2017

Leave a Reply

Search This Blog