Jump to content


Changes to Soviet Tanks


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

Gaea #1 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 01:17

    User Experience Researcher

  • Administrator
  • 1450 battles
  • 1,792
  • [WGATX] WGATX
  • Member since:
    09-06-2011
Post your feedback here about the Soviet tank changes!

You can see the 8.3 patch notes here.

Edited by Gaea, Jan 18 2013 - 01:26.


ghostrider454 #2 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 01:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28117 battles
  • 475
  • [3BAT] 3BAT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
I have two feed backs to send you.
1) Hit points should not have been dropped
2) SU-26 rounds should have stayed the same.
There are times when I have had to use all the rounds to win the game.

Cartoonman #3 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 01:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 13680 battles
  • 4,131
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    04-08-2011
I would have rathered that arty nerfs be held back until a full Arty tree rebalancing be done.

PelicanGuy #4 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 01:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2916 battles
  • 1,119
  • Member since:
    11-30-2012
The SU-26 should have kept the same number of rounds. It runs out enough already. The other nerfs on it were warranted.

Neverwish #5 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 01:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7200 battles
  • 1,949
  • [LABS] LABS
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012
I will give my feedback on what didn't change: The damn BL-10 sound.

Worst non-change ever.

Keckers #6 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 01:54

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21004 battles
  • 879
  • [LQC] LQC
  • Member since:
    11-11-2011
Not enough rebalancing of all the old tanks in game to account for all the new tanks in game...soviets included.

Beerstein #7 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 02:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 16275 battles
  • 10,393
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    08-18-2011
Why buff the shells on the SU-5 small gun but not large one? Complaints have been with the large one, the buff on the small one will have absolutely no effect on the game, little disappointed there. Also I do have some issue with SU-14 aim being nerfed on turning the tank with such low traverse degrees.

I'd also have preferred an armor drop over hitpoint drop to prevent freaky bounces but retain the ability to take a shot at all. A scout autocannon at long range shouldn't have as large a chance as it now does to actually take down an artillery piece.

Just tested the gun elevation changes on the SU-5, not a fan. It has too many disadvantages over other artillery now.

Elevation angle of Gun 152 mm Mortar NM mod. 1931changed from -45 degrees to -72 degrees

scorp11 #8 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 02:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23701 battles
  • 337
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011
1 near misses rapes my conq for round 1/3 hp's and tears up a moduel or two and kills my driver and or gunnerand thats just a t6 /7 arty, god help me if it hits me. Then IF / when i finally crawl and claw my way to the obj and see an arty i shoot him and he laughs as he turns with what hp's he has left and melts my face.

Maybe its because of how crappy brit tanks are, but i still think the arties Still need more hp's taken from them OR drop their damage some.

Pollenz #9 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 03:29

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 32178 battles
  • 959
  • [_NPC_] _NPC_
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
This is sadly:

Posted Image

Is pointless have the last track if you can't load all the equipment that you want. I'll have to choice of using the rammer without camo net/binos or not use camo net/binos (buying equipment for more weight capacity).

And also the shells of the Su 26. Lots of battles used all the shells, now it has less -.-

Beerstein #10 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 03:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 16275 battles
  • 10,393
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    08-18-2011

View PostPollenz, on Jan 18 2013 - 03:29, said:

This is sadly:

[img]http://i49.tinypic.com/vx1yd1.jpg[/*img]

Is pointless have the last track if you can't load all the equipment that you want. I'll have to choice of using the rammer without camo net/binos or not use camo net/binos (buying equipment for more weight capacity).

And also the shells of the Su 26. Lots of battles used all the shells, now it has less -.-
If it does well with what it has it should be able to influence a win by the time it runs out if it is actively engaging threatening opponents. This is one reason I complained more about the addition to the small gun on the SU-5 which does nothing (as a faux buff) rather than complaining about the 14 shells not being buffed (which would be a real buff) and why my main issue is the elevation change.

Diacom #11 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 03:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14889 battles
  • 596
  • [SHUSH] SHUSH
  • Member since:
    12-04-2011
So, the issue has been quantity over quality and you folks chose to choke back the quality rather than deal with the quantity issue.

Sorry, these changes are un called for to balance, just set max to 3 arty and the rest would have sorted itself out.

8112204 #12 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 03:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16618 battles
  • 1,757
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
SU-26 seems to have also had a range nerf from 620 or so to 560. The ammunition rationing is also most irritating. However, with decreased weight but the same engine, it gains more acceleration. We can live with that.

FastForward7 #13 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 04:07

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9627 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    03-31-2011
Unless I'm reading this wrong they've turned the 212 into an even more immobile pig with even worse recticle bloom?  Awesome. As a guy who plays maybe 20 arty games a week in his 212 this sucks. As another poster said all we needed was a cap.

Rypper #14 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 06:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 21523 battles
  • 3,108
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    01-15-2011

View PostFastForward7, on Jan 18 2013 - 04:07, said:

Unless I'm reading this wrong they've turned the 212 into an even more immobile pig with even worse recticle bloom?  Awesome. As a guy who plays maybe 20 arty games a week in his 212 this sucks. As another poster said all we needed was a cap.

Well, it was rather powerful before the nerf. If my stupid team didn't let the light through and I survived till the end, I usually done 3K damage. I also never done 7800 damage in a tank in one battle, like I did in the Object 212. Taking into account I was killed in the middle of that battle, it's damage potential was probably a bit too much.

Not that I am complaining. I am just happy I have elited mine already :)

AzureTerra #15 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 12:27

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 13443 battles
  • 1,304
  • Member since:
    07-01-2010
Its most irritating to fire a shell that does 1850 Avg damage and see it repeatedly splash tanks for 250-280 damage. A 203mm shell landing next to a Tank should be doing much more than that.

Why was the Reserve Speed of the S-51 reduced - how is the ability to drive decently fast backwards OP?

Fatigatti_AR #16 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 21:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 37458 battles
  • 88
  • [_NPC_] _NPC_
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostPollenz, on Jan 18 2013 - 03:29, said:

This is sadly:

Posted Image

Is pointless have the last track if you can't load all the equipment that you want. I'll have to choice of using the rammer without camo net/binos or not use camo net/binos (buying equipment for more weight capacity).

And also the shells of the Su 26. Lots of battles used all the shells, now it has less -.-
Maybe a Big Weigth BUG
Posted Image

Fatigatti_AR #17 Posted Jan 18 2013 - 21:46

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 37458 battles
  • 88
  • [_NPC_] _NPC_
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostPollenz, on Jan 18 2013 - 03:29, said:

This is sadly:

Posted Image

Is pointless have the last track if you can't load all the equipment that you want. I'll have to choice of using the rammer without camo net/binos or not use camo net/binos (buying equipment for more weight capacity).

And also the shells of the Su 26. Lots of battles used all the shells, now it has less -.-
ç



MAYBE A BIG WEIGHT BUG
Posted Image

shefsatyr #18 Posted Jan 19 2013 - 04:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19209 battles
  • 38
  • [-NAG-] -NAG-
  • Member since:
    07-05-2012
Well WG if your goal was to suck the last bits of fun out a line so people would stop playing em in rage, I guess this patch could be considered a "success" Does it do anything other than make anti arty whiners happy? Nope.

scorp11 #19 Posted Jan 19 2013 - 06:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23701 battles
  • 337
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011
after playing my s-51 and testing it out.. feels a little more sluggish now, but still owns just as much as before.

Pollenz #20 Posted Jan 19 2013 - 16:03

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 32178 battles
  • 959
  • [_NPC_] _NPC_
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
So... Is my 212 bugged or not? Why do I have 57.79 of weight and my friend has 55.29? Any clue?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users