Jump to content


T29/t32 getting nerfed


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1056 replies to this topic

Halcion #521 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 16:12

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3112 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010
Just a 20mm increase for the IS-4? I'm sure the Russians will buff it with a turbine engine upgrade before full release. Cause the Russian testers  :Smile-izmena: have found the IS-4 to be too slow.

Also, the devs found a bug with US heavy engine fire rates, its 20% lower than what its supposed to be.   <_<

This is rediculous.

Malexa #522 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 16:42

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 511
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010
US heavy tanks have one advantage tbh when fighting high tier tanks, it doesn't matter if you point the front or rear towards the enemy, they shoot through both just as easily.

SpectreHD #523 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 17:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16849 battles
  • 17,253
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
Oh wow...IS4 buff. And then all the Russian players rejoice claiming historical accuracy prevails and would make the tank playable (Good Lord, are they noobs over there?) again and worthy to be rebought! Where in the world is the Tiger and Tiger 2 speed increase? WHERE!?

WOTAN #524 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 17:33

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
As T29 and T32 tester I can say, that it's tough for people with 200 pen to damage the T32 with AP from the front. I'd say in perfect settings with straight on hull hits to the center from mid-distance, 3-4/5 shots bounce on the T32. T29 maybe 50% shots bounce on the hull. Tracks however are extremely fragile, especially on the T32, so the tank will get flanked easily and its 76mm non-slope armour be exposed to the enemy.

Overlord #525 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 18:12

    Commander

  • Developer
  • 30 battles
  • 5,276
  • Member since:
    06-03-2010

View PostSempronius, on Nov 22 2010 - 12:09, said:

View PostOverlord, on Nov 21 2010 - 00:23, said:

No personal attacks please.

Tanks are tanks, people are people.

I really could not stand the irony, nothing personal. ;)

Tanks are tanks, but russian tanks have to be better?

I just got my M6 and all I can say about american tanks so far:
- comparable to germans, weaker than russian
- KV with its 107mm and KV-3 are at least one-tier better (overall) than american tanks fo their tier (T1 heavy/M6)
- Sherman M4A3E8 is signifiacntly weaker than T-34/85 with its 100mm gun (by the way, what's the idea of putting tier-8 gun on tier-6 tank?)
- T-29 is dangerous when you meet him face to face, especially in hull-down conditions, besides that it's big box. It bites but IS bites harder.
- T-32 quite tough guy, but I would discuss is this tank really sooooo much harder than KT or IS-3. Haven't seen him too many times to have an opinion.

Welcome to the "World of overpowered soviet tanks and freakingly accurate laser-guided artillery".  :)

I do believe that it's not that Soviet tanks are too strong currently, but that German and US vehicles don't come up to expectations of the majority here.

T-34 and T-30 will get significant boost in accuracy and decrease in aiming time.

Overlord #526 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 18:17

    Commander

  • Developer
  • 30 battles
  • 5,276
  • Member since:
    06-03-2010

View Postsmokntuesdays, on Nov 22 2010 - 13:00, said:



Before I start, I would like to point out that you have simply ignored the entire reason for my post(and others like it).   All I(and others) have tried to do is to point out that the current method of trying to balance units is extremely flawed.   You would be better off not doing anything at all than trying to balance the game off meaningless numbers, which by default gravitate to 50/50 given enough time to gather stats, and that to think that a few % points difference in limited stats points to balance changes being needed is like flipping a coin X times and then saying heads has more weight than tails because your results netted 55% heads and 45% tails.   Eventually given enough flips it would even out to 50/50, which is what you get with the other nations you think are "balanced".

But hey, I'll give it a shot.

...


What you are suggesting requires too much work and looks like complete rework/redesign. At this stage, we can't afford that.

Overlord #527 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 18:19

    Commander

  • Developer
  • 30 battles
  • 5,276
  • Member since:
    06-03-2010

View Postzmeul, on Nov 23 2010 - 11:45, said:

Quote

Some of the frequent questions and things to come.

1) US Heavy Tier 7-10 Adjustments. Weapon Changes (120mm_Gun_T53: aiming time 3.0->2.4, increased accuracy during movement and turret traverse.
155mm_Gun_T7: aiming time 3.0->2.7, increased accuracy during movement and turret traverse.) Armor Adjustments (T29, Т30, Т32, Т34: fixed error with discrepancy between displayed and actual armor of the hull. Actual armor decreased by 20%) Other Adjustments in testing.
http://forum.worldof...-first-edition/
this is BS!
I have proven in the video I posted a few pages back that the US heavy armor, for at least the T29 is absolutely not bugged

any other speculation regarding turret armor rating are unfounded due to MrVic's post (see above link)

I really like to hear an explanation for this


Unfortunately/fortunately the bug persists. First off, we are to fix it. Balance issues come afterwards.

bloodie #528 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 18:38

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 169
  • Member since:
    08-31-2010

View PostOverlord, on Nov 23 2010 - 18:12, said:

View PostSempronius, on Nov 22 2010 - 12:09, said:

View PostOverlord, on Nov 21 2010 - 00:23, said:

No personal attacks please.

Tanks are tanks, people are people.

I really could not stand the irony, nothing personal. ;)

Tanks are tanks, but russian tanks have to be better?

I just got my M6 and all I can say about american tanks so far:
- comparable to germans, weaker than russian
- KV with its 107mm and KV-3 are at least one-tier better (overall) than american tanks fo their tier (T1 heavy/M6)
- Sherman M4A3E8 is signifiacntly weaker than T-34/85 with its 100mm gun (by the way, what's the idea of putting tier-8 gun on tier-6 tank?)
- T-29 is dangerous when you meet him face to face, especially in hull-down conditions, besides that it's big box. It bites but IS bites harder.
- T-32 quite tough guy, but I would discuss is this tank really sooooo much harder than KT or IS-3. Haven't seen him too many times to have an opinion.

Welcome to the "World of overpowered soviet tanks and freakingly accurate laser-guided artillery".  :)

I do believe that it's not that Soviet tanks are too strong currently, but that German and US vehicles don't come up to expectations of the majority here.

T-34 and T-30 will get significant boost in accuracy and decrease in aiming time.

Well currently for a tank thats 'supposed to hull down and snipe' there aren't enough shells but atleast thats getting fixed, the accuracy buff I guess is nice but not really essential for the T34 atleast, decrease in aiming time on the T34 again seems "ok", on the T30 well you have a long time to reload thus have a long time to aim so I dunno I guess it's "Ok" again...

Gief more hull armor even 30mm would be the difference between a T6 pen and not pen. Thx <3

Cippalippus #529 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 18:51

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 44
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
The solution to fixing a lot of discrepancies in the game would be making armor researchable, like Suspensions, Engine et cetera.
So for example you get a PZIV with 1939 armor and then you can upgrade it to better armor. There you go, you can tweak armor values, add more playtime before tanks, and give a significant value to grind for- let's be honest, who cares about radios?

CastorHoS #530 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:04

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12223 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010

View PostOverlord, on Nov 23 2010 - 18:17, said:

View Postsmokntuesdays, on Nov 22 2010 - 13:00, said:



Before I start, I would like to point out that you have simply ignored the entire reason for my post(and others like it).   All I(and others) have tried to do is to point out that the current method of trying to balance units is extremely flawed.   You would be better off not doing anything at all than trying to balance the game off meaningless numbers, which by default gravitate to 50/50 given enough time to gather stats, and that to think that a few % points difference in limited stats points to balance changes being needed is like flipping a coin X times and then saying heads has more weight than tails because your results netted 55% heads and 45% tails.   Eventually given enough flips it would even out to 50/50, which is what you get with the other nations you think are "balanced".

But hey, I'll give it a shot.

...


What you suggest requires too much work and looks like complete rework/redesign. At this stage, we can't afford that.


That is a very peculiar thing to say or even mutter. You can always afford to make changes to the development process if it means making it beyond launch or falling flat on your face.

Warhammer Online thought they could a lot of the things you folks are trying with balance, three months after release they had lost over a million paying subscribers.


Want percentages to show a point that you have failed to grasp?

A tier 10 Russian tank and a tier 10 German tank, when meeting head to head, should each have a 50% chance of winning the encounter. A Tier 9 Russian tank when meeting a Tier 10 German tank should have decreased odds. With the matchmaking system it should not be too far off from the 50/50 split but enough that the advantage goes to the Tier 10 tank. This is baseline balance based on percentages. This does not count player behavior as that is a stat, percentage or figure you can not nor should not even try to consider.  

When you factor in the other tanks in a match the baseline factor equates into more simple balance. Two tier 7 tanks going against a Tier 10 should normalize and give the advantage to the two tier 7 tanks. Say you give a tier 7 tank a 35% chance of taking down a Tier 10 tank. When two tier 7 tanks are put together against a tier 10 it should be a 70% chance of taking it out.

Do you see the problem yet?

This is not even close to how the game plays out. Why? Because there is too much of a drop off between tier 10 and tier 7. This is also why using your current system for balance and taking the numbers you are taking can not and will not work over the short term or long term. People are not going to pay for something that sets them up to be mediocre in winning and losing. Which is exactly what you are doing by trying to balance winning and losing. People unable to play this game because they can not grasp the concept of aiming, firing, hiding, etc, etc, etc should not get a benefit of a skewed system that is going to insist their chances of winning to a losing must equal 50/50.

What does this system lead to under the current format? In the matchmaking system? Not much of anything. But in the competitive scene it will lead to more trouble than it is worth. Care to bet on what happens when enough people are able to field say 5 tier 10 tanks vs. 5 tier 10 tanks in a league or ladder that does not allow for arty?

The only way to balance a game like this so it works is to balance within tier and weight, i.e. damage, armor and speed and then set the values for that so each tier above or below it falls in line. If a tier 10 tank has the ability to have 100 max damage, 100 max armor and 100 max speed then a tier 9 should have 90 max damage, 90 max armor and 90 max speed. Those are base numbers in order to allow for changes and balancing for other things. Those being guns that have a higher fire rate would not be at 100 or 90 damage but dps should equate to 100 damage for a tier 10 regardless if it is using a higher rate of fire gun or lower rate of fire.

Want to talk about time vs. cost. It is a heck of a lot easier to plug in a new nations tanks this way instead of trying to figure out what would balance out in your system. You plug in the French, British or whoever in the game and they share the same values across the board for weight and tier that any of the other nations have. It also removes the problem of people crying foul that Russian tanks are better armored, do more damage or whatever over German or US tanks.

As for slope, height of tank, etc...................Slope is a nice thought but fails in its basic method of usage in this game. Where a tank should have less armor but has a high degree of slope it can be used to skew the balance and is used exactly for that. Height is something that falls into the same category as aim and skill. A taller tank can use the advantage to fire over things where as a smaller tank can hide more easily or even fire under some things. That is where the different variety or flavor of the different nations should come into play, not the basic game combat elements such as armor or damage.

With almost 20 years of both personal and professional experience I can tell you exactly what I have seen as both a tester and someone who has worked on everything from MUDs and MUSHs to what we play today with the knowledge of where something is headed from that experience.

Asky #531 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:09

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15479 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010

View PostCastorHoS, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:04, said:



Want to talk about time vs. cost. It is a heck of a lot easier to plug in a new nations tanks this way instead of trying to figure out what would balance out in your system. You plug in the French, British or whoever in the game and they share the same values across the board for weight and tier that any of the other nations have. It also removes the problem of people crying foul that Russian tanks are better armored, do more damage or whatever over German or US tanks.


Balance = Equality in diversity, not vice-versa!

I like chess, not counter strike ;)

Finchy #532 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:14

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2469 battles
  • 378
  • Member since:
    08-31-2010
the biggest issue I have now after reading these last few pages is not even about the American tanks but the IS4 they are actually increasing it even more wtf lol I was having a huge debate about going to the T30 or the IS7 after the upcoming softwipe but looks like Ill just stick to the Uber IS4 now

Overlord #533 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:24

    Commander

  • Developer
  • 30 battles
  • 5,276
  • Member since:
    06-03-2010

View PostFinchy, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:14, said:

the biggest issue I have now after reading these last few pages is not even about the American tanks but the IS4 they are actually increasing it even more wtf lol I was having a huge debate about going to the T30 or the IS7 after the upcoming softwipe but looks like Ill just stick to the Uber IS4 now

Don't punch me too hard on this.

Regarding IS4

http://lh4.ggpht.com...sXVM/is4e.jpg  

The inscription says: Amror scheme for IS4

On the basis of the above:

upper armor plate 120->140mm
driver's lug 120->160mm
upper after-plate 120->100mm

These changes will take please in the upcoming update.

Sorry for off-topic.

CastorHoS #534 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12223 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010

View PostAsky, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:09, said:

View PostCastorHoS, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:04, said:



Want to talk about time vs. cost. It is a heck of a lot easier to plug in a new nations tanks this way instead of trying to figure out what would balance out in your system. You plug in the French, British or whoever in the game and they share the same values across the board for weight and tier that any of the other nations have. It also removes the problem of people crying foul that Russian tanks are better armored, do more damage or whatever over German or US tanks.


Balance = Equality in diversity, not vice-versa!

I like chess, not counter strike ;)


Want diversity, walk out on the street and talk to people. Want to play chess, then go play chess.

BTW diversity only works when things are balanced. Different weights and tiers able to compete equally without any one tank, tier or line being so vastly superior to make the others worth less than them. Diversity does not mean to have one line of tanks, one set of tanks or one tank that all the others have to try and band together to take out in every single encounter.

Diversity also does not mean that the tank should dictate the outcome of a fight. When player skill, aim and even luck are countered with the stats on a tank, even of the same weight and tier there can be no diversity or balance.

bloodie #535 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:27

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 169
  • Member since:
    08-31-2010

View PostOverlord, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:24, said:

View PostFinchy, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:14, said:

the biggest issue I have now after reading these last few pages is not even about the American tanks but the IS4 they are actually increasing it even more wtf lol I was having a huge debate about going to the T30 or the IS7 after the upcoming softwipe but looks like Ill just stick to the Uber IS4 now

Don't punch me too hard on this.

Regarding IS4

http://lh4.ggpht.com...sXVM/is4e.jpg  

The inscription says: Amror scheme for IS4

On the basis of the above:

upper armor plate 120->140mm
driver's lug 120->160mm
upper after-plate 120->100mm

These changes will take please in the upcoming update.

Sorry for off-topic.

Wow some really nice stuff there overlord, gief 120mm armor on t30 and we'll all leave this forum in peace.

SpectreHD #536 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16849 battles
  • 17,253
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostAsky, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:09, said:

Balance = Equality in diversity, not vice-versa!

I like chess, not counter strike ;)

That is only your opinion on what balance is. I'd prefer what Wikipedia says:

A more complex definition of game balance that critics have described is that, when players have multiple options or routes to victory, most or all of these options are about equally effective or feasible. To be perfectly balanced, each of these options would have to be strategically identical (in which case they wouldn't be substantial choices at all). In a game where various options (such as armies in a real-time strategy game, fighters in a fighting game, or character classes in a role-playing game) have significant qualitative differences between them, the game is balanced if the options are roughly equally likely to lead to success despite their differences. In a suitably balanced game, players would make such choices based on their personal preference, strengths, and playing style, rather than on an inherent advantage in one option. If one option were weaker than the others, then it would rarely be selected by any player and will not contribute to the complexity of the game.

When trying to create a complex or strategically rich game, game designers typically strive to maintain balance by using a careful selection of game mechanics, while offering the greatest possible number of these options, which in turn increases the difficulty of balancing the game. Balanced games are generally more enjoyable, and are considered better-made, than unbalanced ones.


And chess is about a game of strategy. Counter Strike is about skill. Not sure what that statement brings to the argument.


View PostOverlord, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:24, said:

Don't punch me too hard on this.

Regarding IS4

http://lh4.ggpht.com...sXVM/is4e.jpg  

The inscription says: Amror scheme for IS4

On the basis of the above:

upper armor plate 120->140mm
driver's lug 120->160mm
upper after-plate 120->100mm

These changes will take please in the upcoming update.

Sorry for off-topic.

So, about that Tiger and Tiger 2 max historical speed. Will the Tigers AGAIN be the tanks that have to compromise while the IS4 gets an armour buff and still go 35km/h?

zmeul #537 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:31

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 523
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostOverlord, on Nov 23 2010 - 18:19, said:

Unfortunately/fortunately the bug persists. First off, we are to fix it. Balance issues come afterwards.
ok, let me see if I got this .. you're saying that the bug occurs randomly?
because if you look at my video, it clearly shows the green target pointet at the T29's hull with 76mm M1A2 gun
using same gun on IS-4 rear, the target reticle is orange

Overlord #538 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:35

    Commander

  • Developer
  • 30 battles
  • 5,276
  • Member since:
    06-03-2010

View Postzmeul, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:31, said:

View PostOverlord, on Nov 23 2010 - 18:19, said:

Unfortunately/fortunately the bug persists. First off, we are to fix it. Balance issues come afterwards.
ok, let me see if I got this .. you're saying that the bug occurs randomly?


Have no idea why you think so. The armor bug is permanent.

Overlord #539 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:37

    Commander

  • Developer
  • 30 battles
  • 5,276
  • Member since:
    06-03-2010

View PostSpectreHD, on Nov 23 2010 - 19:29, said:


So, about that Tiger and Tiger 2 max historical speed. Will the Tigers AGAIN be the tanks that have to compromise while the IS4 gets an armour buff and still go 35km/h?

In different sources, the max speed values are different.

One #540 Posted Nov 23 2010 - 19:37

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 146
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
You're nerfing the T29/T32 and buffing the IS-4?

Really?

Really?

Like the IS-4 isn't already the hardest tank in the game to kill?

Abandon German, Nerf US, Buff Russian.

I'm with SpectreHD on this. You guys ignore the Tigers' historical speeds, yet you buff the IS-4's already amazing armor because that's how it was historically?

I'm just at a loss for words.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users