Jump to content


The Leo PTA are a bad tank


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

MistahTwistah #1 Posted 03 April 2020 - 08:44 PM

    Private

  • Member
  • 410 battles
  • 4
  • [BOSS]
  • Member since:
    06-01-2015
Just kidding if you think this is a bad tank then you are wrong and must delete your account this instant

Attached Files

  • Attached File   20200404_044412.jpg   84.56K


awesome_guy290 #2 Posted 28 September 2020 - 12:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 803 battles
  • 19
  • [BOGAN]
  • Member since:
    07-31-2016
So...what’s the point of this post?
To flex?
I’m Loving Jagdpanther

STEEL_Firestorm #3 Posted 04 October 2020 - 06:41 AM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 32338 battles
  • 154
  • [OXO]
  • Member since:
    02-09-2015
I used the recent event which gave research certs to skip straight to leopard 1. Quite a good decision I must say, Leo 1 is very fun. 


P36C #4 Posted 08 October 2020 - 02:35 AM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 25943 battles
  • 173
  • [ME0W]
  • Member since:
    09-01-2018

Instead of boasting or insulting, let's look over the statistics. While opinions should be valued of course, facts never lie. 

 

If we compare the Leopard Prototyp A and the Prototipo Standard B (historically the Leopard Prototyp B, and German), they both have 350 dmg/shot, and the PT A has a 500 DPM advantage over the Standard B. However, considering that the Standard B has an auto-reloader, which as this is Blitz, has a lower skill-cap mechanic than in PC, this might be disregarded and considered equal, if not that the PT A is inferior. The Standard B has 10 degrees of gun depression however, where as the PT A only has 6, which for a glass canon tank, is terrible. However, the PT A has 15mm more penetration than the Standard B, and has better dispersion, but not as drastic as the Leopard 1 compared to other Tier X tanks. The Standard B has faster aim time however. Apart from the dispersion and slight penetration advantage, as well as DPM difference that might as well be disregarded from the Standard B's auto-reloader, I think it is fair to say that the Standard B has a much higher firepower advantage.

Let's look at the armor next. They both have none. Let's move on :P

Finally, the mobility. The Leopard PT A has a much higher hp/t ratio and top speed, clearly the PT A has the advantage here. Mobility is a powerful asset that is not used enough, and considering the Standard B's low DPM, this hits it HARD.

Finally, the WR. The Standard B has 51.54% WR, while the PT A has 47.36%. The Leopard PT A is regarded as a hard tank to play, so it would be understandable that it has a low WR, but 47% is 3%, TERRIBLY lower than the desired 50% in the perfect world of balance. The Standard B, on the other hand is overperforming slightly. The average damage is much different as well. There is a roughly 400 average damage difference with the Standard B getting the higher one. This is probably because the Standard B can use its magazine to put out its shells before it gets knocked out.

 

So what do I think? I think the Leopard PT A is slightly underpowered, especially in regard to its finesse for firepower (gun depression) compared to it's similar glass canon counterpart. Possibly a buff for the gun depression to 8 or 9 degrees, will bring it's WR to the slightly below desired 49 or 48.5%. While the Standard B may be slightly too good, it only serves to make the PT A look bad. While the PT A is clearly not as terrible as it is made out to be, as it is a challenging tank to play, the statistics do not lie, it is clearly a little underperforming. 


Edited by P36C, 08 October 2020 - 04:28 AM.


BossArdnutz #5 Posted 14 October 2020 - 03:38 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 31393 battles
  • 774
  • [-IT-]
  • Member since:
    03-30-2018
If you're getting a mastery with just 1,300 XP in a tier 9 tank, then either it's a terrible tank, you're the only good player who uses it, or both. Good tier 9s require much higher XP to ace.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users