Jump to content

T49 disappointment, how bad is nerf? Bulldog Buff?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

Padre_ShadowRider #1 Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:19 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 55468 battles
  • 613
  • [GETIT]
  • Member since:

I am disappointed in the T49.  I got it after it was nerfed. Before, when I played against it, it was awesome. But I found 2 things are different after getting it.   I have both top guns, but when I play the 152mm it seems 9 times out of 10 I am pitted against upper tiers, where the gun is not that effective.  When I use the 90mm I get more even and lower tier opponents.  Does anything thing the MM takes into account your DERP when creating the teams?   My WR with the 90 is probably about 45% but about 30% with the 152.   I thought it would be a lot better.   

Was wondering if the nerf they did on the tank made it a lot less competitive with the 152?


Also wondering if the bulldog is a lot better since they buffed it?   I just ground it painfully in order to get the  T49.  I sold it when I got the 49.



Melissa_Durat #2 Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:34 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15983 battles
  • 501
  • [-HELL]
  • Member since:
You know Tier 8 are semi pro tiers rigth? And most of ligth tanks are gone by now with a few exceptions. Meta now if from 8 to 10 you will drive a médium tank. A Ligth tank like T49 gives you advantage in spotting and the huge cannon can werk havoc in tank destroyers if they even get on the sides or the back. The T 49 was a nigthmare before the nerf specially in tiers 7 8 9 where half of the people play tank destroyers. Now is balanced.

SpartacusDiablo #3 Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:41 AM

    Highly Illogical

  • Players
  • 36072 battles
  • 8,002
  • [III]
  • Member since:
They over nerfed the 152mm. Module damage needed to be cut back a bit but the reload and HE pen should have been left alone.

Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]

Rest in Peace CJ.  You will be missed.

ChitFromChinola #4 Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:55 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 66358 battles
  • 1,419
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
Bulldog is a solid tank after the buff. Get in on an exception, and I think you’ll like it.

wannabeunicum #5 Posted 08 November 2017 - 04:15 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 51682 battles
  • 5,797
  • [-MM]
  • Member since:

t49 wasn't even OP

It was imbalanced i can say that but not OP

Module dmg nerf is fair but the other 2 aren't.

Also as with every imbalanced tank that is being balanced it also needs a buff to the nerf.

It should have gotten a 960 dmg 1 mm penetration HE shell. Make it cost something like 1k credits.

This gun would be absolutely useless for penetrations 99.9 percent of shots. however now you would have three shells

the 85 mm penetration HE for lightly armored targets

150 mm penetration HEAT for moderately armored targets

960 dmg for heavily armored targets.

SanguinaryDan #6 Posted 08 November 2017 - 04:31 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17259 battles
  • 1,237
  • [III-P]
  • Member since:
The T49 really did get hit hard.  The HEAT round has ridiculously low penetration for the size of the warhead.  Using the Bulldog as an example it’s 76mm HEAT had 200 average penetration for 135 damage.  While the T49 has only 160 penetration but 560 damage. You really have to wonder how an attack that does so much more damage has so much less penetration.  And yet strangely the SU-152 has 100mm more penetration for the same size HEAT shell.  
The point of the game is to win.  The purpose of the game is to have fun.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Padre_ShadowRider #7 Posted 08 November 2017 - 04:53 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 55468 battles
  • 613
  • [GETIT]
  • Member since:

View PostChitFromChinola, on 08 November 2017 - 03:55 AM, said:

Bulldog is a solid tank after the buff. Get in on an exception, and I think you’ll like it.


What is an exception?


slayer_____ #8 Posted 08 November 2017 - 06:18 AM

    Spray and Pray

  • Players
  • 45526 battles
  • 3,092
  • [ATA2D]
  • Member since:

Ever been kicked in the family jewels? That’s how bad the T49 nerf was. Another “balance” because good and great players did well in it. Again, EVERYONE has an opportunity to get one. WG is catering to the wrong “type” of player. 


Funny how when I started and sucked, I didn’t cry To WG on how bad the tank was. Amazing the direction change we have endured. 

anonym_Xd7eLwcbB8zv #9 Posted 08 November 2017 - 06:26 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 660
  • Member since:

The T49 pre-nerf was hands down the most broken Tier VIII in the game, more broken than the IS-3 Defender. Lemme explain.

At the time the T49 was implemented, the 152mm gun had a very bizarre stat: Its damage to a module upon a hit was the highest in the game. The gun's HE shells also had a 5.56m splash radius. This all combines to create this situation


If you saw  ANY TANK that you could HE pen, and you had the credits to shell out, a successful HE penetration to the ammunition rack's general location resulted in a 100% guaranteed ammo rack. No, I am not exaggerating, no, this is not a joke. It could literally ammo rack EVERY SINGLE TANK in the game with one freaking shell. This created what could only be described as the most toxic Tier VIII experience in the game as everyone rushed to ammo rack each other in every damn round. On the map Castilla? Opposing T49s would go to the church to see who could win with a snap shot to their lower glacias with an HE shell. Canyon? Same story. Any map with a hull down spot? You bet your [edited]. 


That's how broken it was. Now, however, they've made the module damage to the same as a 150mm gun, the pen on HE was nerfed, and the reload was increased. It was never a "competitive tank". It was a tank that could win EVERY SINGLE GUNFIGHT IT PICKED, as long as it landed that first fatal shot.


Oh yeah I should mention. The T49A during the event kept the T49's module damage but was even better because of two things: 1, you could guide the shot to the ammo rack, and 2, the HE was only 1,200 credits. And the best part was that it was a Tier VII, which means it got to bully Tier VIs with oneshot ammo racks and magical death from above kills. [edited]. I loved the T49A while it was in the game. I wish they'd bring it back but fix the PC autoaim exploit lol

Maid_In_China #10 Posted 08 November 2017 - 06:35 AM

    Haruna > Fusou

  • Players
  • 38893 battles
  • 2,230
  • [CHOMP]
  • Member since:

I aced it with the stock 90mm. What are you sayin'?

But honestly, I got mine post-nerf and it wasn't as bad as people said, IMO. Just make sure you have credits to burn. 

Thanks to Zennosha and/or Panbun, I have a shiny new signature! Thank you!

j0nn0 #11 Posted 08 November 2017 - 11:08 AM

    F2P Skrub

  • Players
  • 19834 battles
  • 3,060
  • [XREGS]
  • Member since:

remember the SP1C? Remember how it had great penetration values but extremely low shell velocity and moderate DPM? Remember how WG nerfed the [edited]out of it for “balancing” for no reason at all? Yeah, they did more or less the same to the T49. Hit it upside the head with the nerf bat, straight into a coma. Pre-nerf, the T49 was more imbalanced than OP. Think of RPG builds with min-maxing taken to the extreme. Where heavies are the tanks, TDs are the long range DPS/DPM support, and mediums tend towards the standard mid-liner, the T49 was the assassin; it was built for mobility and single shot, high damage potential given the right conditions. The only thing OP about it was the high module damage almost guaranteeing a stowage kill for those who knew where to hit. The lack of armor and reliable ammo, in addition to the ridiculous shell costs, kept the t49 in check.


Since the nerf, I’ve parked mine in annoyance. The same holds true for the SP1C, but I may give it another chance in a few months, considering that WG buffed the DPM a while ago.

I may have a few too many tanks. I think I was over 150 in garage by last count.

Also tagged with T49

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users