Jump to content


Proposed Buffs to the M48: A look at what's wrong with the Fatton


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
60 replies to this topic

EchelonIII #1 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:07

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13276 battles
  • 4,783
  • [BULLS] BULLS
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
I'll keep it simple.

It's well known that the M48 nerf welt overboard.

At the moment, the 48 is outclassed by almost every other tier 10 med, it possesses no DPM, no hull down ability, no armor, no alpha, no maneuverability, it's supposed niche is in vision control, with a view range of 420 meters to every other tier X's 400, but this is rendered moot by the fact that it's such a fat tank that its camo value completely neuters its advantage.

http://forum.worldof...ouflage-tables/

My proposal for a composite buff

1) Raise view range to 500

Consider the present situation.

M48 has 420 view range, camo values of 8.5/5.5 when stationary/moving
The T62A and Batchat have 400 view range, camo values of 17.5/12.5
E50M has camo values of 8/3

An M48 will spot a stationary E50M at 386 meters, and a moving one at 407.
The stationary M48 will spot the moving Batchat/T26A at 367 meters.
A moving M48 will spot a stationary Bat/T62A at 346 meters.
A stationary T62A/Bat will spot a moving M48 at 378 meters.

Now for some absolutely ridiculous figures:

A stationary M48 will be spotted at 366 meters by any tank with 400m view range

A moving bat will be spotted at 350 meters by any tank with 400m view range

In a standoff, the T62 and Bat will be able to light the M48 at a range the M48 is unable to light them

Against a tank such as a T110, the Bat will spot the enemy at 368, and the M48 likewise be able to light at 386.

And that's not even getting into the fact that compared to a Bat, the M48 is slow as shit and just as fragile.

The M48's niche is supposed to be vision control, its current combat capabilities offer it nothing to exploit the niche, if the niche could even be said to exist,

2) Raise RoF to 7.4

Over the past few patches, the American entry's line has been based on superior DPM, however, the M48 has lost its DPM advantage, this is aimed at returning some of its DPM to it, restoring it to just behind the T62.

Why the ROF buff? You'll see why in a bit.

3) Increase speed limit to 50kmph

Meh, why the hell not? Right now the thing's effectively a T110E5 with a pitiful speed advantage in exchange for losing every other goddamn thing.

4) Remove the tumor bobble

A. It makes it look like a dunce.
B. It's just plain ridiculous

5) Differentiate it from the T110E5

THIS is the biggest problem with the M48, as long as it exists, it will inevitably be compared with the E5, and the comparisons between them are hardly what one could call "flattering"

The E5 is a heavy which plays like a medium, except with a bit less mobility and some armor
The M48 is a medium which plays like a heavy, except with a bit more mobility and absolutely garbage everything else



Consider the analogy below:
The US heavy line has a smooth chain of progression, you start at the fat, bloated T1, and get either the ability to punch harder as you work out with the 90mm on the m6, and get sleeker and faster with every tier, the T29 being a sturdy, hard hitting tank, the T32 making everything even faster, the M103 trading a bit of turret armor for an excellent gun, and the E5 becoming one of the best all-rounded tanks in the game.

The US medium line is like a sprinter who tries to bulk up every year on steroids (yes, sprinters shouldn't try to bulk up, that's where this analogy is headed), you start at the somewhat average sherman, get faster and heavier with the E8, bulk up and get even faster even more with a 90mm at tier 7, get even more buff and a bit slower at tier 8 with a pershing, even more so with the Patton, and finally bulking up so much that you wind up being unable to spring and end up as the obese dude known as the M48

The US heavies are about how a fat tank slims down and becomes a fast moving hard-hitter, the US medium line is about a great sprinter that bulks up too much and winds up as a fat bastard.

Look at how the T62 is differentiated from its counterpart the IS4

- Significantly more mobility
- Significantly less armor
- Significantly less alpha
- MUCH more DPM (2900 against the IS4's 2200)
- MUCH less HP (only 1950 to the 2500 of the IS4)

And look how it's different from the IS7

- Less armor
- Less alpha
- A lot more DPM
- A bit less HP
- Somewhat more mobility

There are a gazillion more ways that one could say are significantly different between the IS4 and the T62A.

Likewise, I don't even have to say how the E50 is different from the Maus or E100.

Now think, if a good player was asked to describe the M48 and T110E5, he'd probably say something like this

"Well the T110E5's like the M48, except better in almost every way"

- The M48 has a very small DPM advantage over the E5 (2650 to the E5's 2400) compared to the T62A
- The M48's alpha is just 10 less than the E5
- The E5 IS less mobile, but not by much
- The E5 can actually bounce stuff, the M48 lets everything in
- It doesn't even have that much more gun depression
- the E5 has 200 more HP

So where am I going with all this? What I'm saying is that whenever two tanks are sufficiently close to each other, one of them will inevitably make the other obsolete.

Consider where we have seen something similar to this before:

Posted ImagePosted Image
Let's look at a history of the 50B

- Generally alright tier X tank
- Nerfed to oblivion
- Rebuffed to usability

Look at that pattern, it looks JUST like the current state of the M48, except without the rebuff part.

Remember what happened after the nerf? the 50B did have its advantages over the bat, but ultimately the bat was still generally considered the superior tank overall, and even then the 50B was still much, much more different from the Bat than the E5 is from the M48.

Until we find a way to effectively differentiate the M48 from the T110E5, we will ever truly be able to find a place for it in tier X.

Hallivolve #2 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 12978 battles
  • 3,851
  • [-DTOM] -DTOM
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012
qq moar

BrackDynamite #3 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10788 battles
  • 1,657
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011
I did a thread with almost the exact same ideas as this a couple of months ago: http://forum.worldof...with-the-m60/.

I think one of the biggest issues with the M48 is the lack of a definite role. It tries to shoot for the "generalist" role but it falls flat compared to the T62a. The FV4202 suffers from much the same issues really and needs to be fixed too.

Edited by BrackDynamite, Feb 05 2013 - 19:13.


Ogopogo #4 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19104 battles
  • 5,983
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
Just a few things. 500m is far too much. Beyond high tier light tanks (like the T92 and Kette), the in game limit is 455m, and while a higher does have its benefit, they are not as significant.

As for the tumor, didn't the turret actually have that historically?

In relation to the T110, yes it is going to be similar to a degree. Both British and American tank design trended towards the main battle tank concept.

Edited by Ogopogo, Feb 05 2013 - 19:17.


EchelonIII #5 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13276 battles
  • 4,783
  • [BULLS] BULLS
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostBrackDynamite, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:12, said:

I did a thread with almost the exact same ideas as this a couple of months ago: http://forum.worldof...with-the-m60/.

I think one of the biggest issues with the M48 is the lack of a definite role. It tries to shoot for the "generalist" role but it falls flat compared to the T62a. The FV4202 suffers from much the same issues really and needs to be fixed too.

The biggest problem is that even in that "generalist" role, the T110E5 and T62A completely dominate it.

Let me use TVTropes to explain the whole E5, M48, and 62A generalist roles

The problem is that the 62A is a jack of all trades and a master of one (DPM), the E5 is just superior overall, and the M48 is just inferior overall and doesn't even do what it's supposed to do well.

Quote

A member of the Necessary Drawback lineup who does not specialize, and explicitly so. Strong but not the The Strongest, Fast but not The Fastest. Good at everything, the best at nothing. His biggest strength is his lack of any glaring weaknesses, but he may have trouble dealing with characters whose skills are more extreme than his if they're allowed to press their advantages.
The Jack-of-All-Stats is often a good character for beginners to use as they get the hang of the controls; this character lacks the extremes that might trip up a novice. It is also a solid choice for advanced players who do not want to worry about opponents preying on their weaknesses. Whether the character retains his usefulness as the player's skill grows depends on how much the game rewards versatility as opposed to pure power, but the Jack-of-All-Stats is almost never the best character in any given game or a Game Breaker.
In games with multiple playable races, it is often the case that Humans Are Average and are therefore the Jack-of-All-Stats race. A common thing is for humans to be a stat-wise compromise between the graceful, fragile elves and the bulky, slow dwarves.

Another strength that helps the Jack-of-All-Stats is resistance to changes in the current situation that would reduce or remove the need for a specialist class.
See also Necessary Drawback, PVP Balanced, Always Someone Better, and Non-Elemental. Compare the Lightning Bruiser, who can do everything better, and Master of None, who does everything worse (basically the same as this trope except it works against the character). Often overlaps with the Standardized Leader. Compare The Red Mage.

This is the M48's problem:

Quote

One of the classic and most common character types in gaming is the generalist, a jack-of-all-trades with capabilities in all fields and no particular weaknesses. But specialization has advantages, so it takes a deft touch to ensure that the generalist has reasons for being used. Sometimes it simply doesn't work. They aren't completely useless at anything they try, but they're not good at it either.

They have no particular weakness or vulnerability, but that's offset by the fact that they're vulnerable to everything. That character is a Master Of None.

Master Of None is the dark side of the Jack-of-All-Stats, where their weakness is the fact that they have no strengths. The Magic Knight is easy to make into this, if the developers want to encourage specialisation in magic or physical combat. If Master Of None is part of a band or Multiform Balance, it often has some useful ability (for example, Super Not Drowning Skills) that prevent them from become Joke Character, it's just that the ability isn't very versatile.


Garbad #6 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 24159 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010
500m view range is excessive and unnecessary. The patton's niche should be/is a flexible gun platform with good view range. Its armor/speed are mediocre, and its not a true scout. Comparing it to the T-62A or bat or T110E5 isn't relevant.

The M48 needs:
- restore its accuracy on the move, aim time, and depression to pre nerf levels
- improve its DPM to ~2700 (worse than T-62A, but better than E50m/FV42 snipers, batchat, equal to chinese)

That should be enough.

SHISHKABOB #7 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8512 battles
  • 13,130
  • Member since:
    12-06-2010

View PostBlackhawk874, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:10, said:

qq moar

wow dude what the heck... talk about non constructive

anyways I think I agree in principle based on your post and I guess from what little I've seen of both tanks in game. Maybe next test server I'll grab an M48 and see what happens.

Ogopogo #8 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19104 battles
  • 5,983
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostGarbad, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:18, said:

500m view range is excessive and unnecessary. The patton's niche should be/is a flexible gun platform with good view range. Its armor/speed are mediocre, and its not a true scout. Comparing it to the T-62A or bat or T110E5 isn't relevant.

The M48 needs:
- restore its accuracy on the move, aim time, and depression to pre nerf levels
- improve its DPM to ~2700 (worse than T-62A, but better than E50m/FV42 snipers, batchat, equal to chinese)

That should be enough.

I'll agree with Garbad on this.

Edited by Ogopogo, Feb 05 2013 - 19:22.


BrackDynamite #9 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10788 battles
  • 1,657
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostGarbad, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:18, said:

500m view range is excessive and unnecessary. The patton's niche should be/is a flexible gun platform with good view range. Its armor/speed are mediocre, and its not a true scout. Comparing it to the T-62A or bat or T110E5 isn't relevant.

The M48 needs:
- restore its accuracy on the move, aim time, and depression to pre nerf levels
- improve its DPM to ~2700 (worse than T-62A, but better than E50m/FV42 snipers, batchat, equal to chinese)

That should be enough.

They never touched the M48's depression. 500m is a bit excessive. Putting the M60 (not the M60A1) would grant the M48 1 more degree of depression along with a 48kph speed cap and a more powerful diesel engine.

For reference, this is the original M60 model that I'm referring to. Essentially a hull swap with a redesigned cupola; production started in 1960. If everyone else gets a gen 1 MBT than why should the US have to make due with an up gunned 1953 stopgap tank?
Posted Image

Edited by BrackDynamite, Feb 05 2013 - 19:25.


Panzerstecher #10 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18081 battles
  • 969
  • [MARVN] MARVN
  • Member since:
    10-03-2011

View PostOgopogo, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:16, said:

Just a few things. 500m is far too much. Beyond high tier light tanks (like the T92 and Kette), the in game limit is 455m, and while a higher does have its benefit, they are not as significant.

As for the tumor, didn't the turret actually have that historically?

In relation to the T110, yes it is going to be similar to a degree. Both British and American tank design trended towards the main battle tank concept.

I would agree...500M is a bit of a stretch.  As for the camo value...well the 48 is a good bit taller then both the 62 and the batchat, so I can see it having less camo, but I am also pretty sure that the optics were better then the 62's at least IRL.  The "Tumor" is actually the Commanders Cupola, and it was historically there...the only 48 variant that didn't have it to my knowledge was the ones used by the IDF, and they pretty much just took them off, and put a regular hatch on.  Don't quote me on that because I could be wrong.

CrabEatOff #11 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 14521 battles
  • 4,710
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012
Why and how did the nerf it in the first place? I wasn't around and or too new to be paying attention.

Dockmaster #12 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 34979 battles
  • 2,856
  • [ACES] ACES
  • Member since:
    01-23-2011
It's not a tumor. (heavy Austrian accent)

BrackDynamite #13 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10788 battles
  • 1,657
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostRaiderPaladin, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:30, said:

I would agree...500M is a bit of a stretch.  As for the camo value...well the 48 is a good bit taller then both the 62 and the batchat, so I can see it having less camo, but I am also pretty sure that the optics were better then the 62's at least IRL.  The "Tumor" is actually the Commanders Cupola, and it was historically there...the only 48 variant that didn't have it to my knowledge was the ones used by the IDF, and they pretty much just took them off, and put a regular hatch on.  Don't quote me on that because I could be wrong.

Are you referring to this?

Posted Image


View PostCrabEatOff, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:32, said:

Why and how did the nerf it in the first place? I wasn't around and or too new to be paying attention.

Quote

* M48A1:
Gun dispersion from movement and turning of T97E2 suspension increased by 20%.
Aiming time of 105mm Gun M68 changed from 1.7 sec. to 2 sec.
Reloading time of 105mm Gun M68 changed from 8 sec. to 8.8 sec.
Dispersion of 105mm Gun M68 after shot increased by 15%.
Dispersion of 105mm Gun M68 on turret rotation increased by 40%.
Aiming time of 105 mm Gun T5E1M2 changed from 1.7 sec. to 2 sec.
Reloading time of 105 mm Gun T5E1M2 changed from 8 sec. to 8.8 sec.
Dispersion of the 105 mm Gun T5E1M2 after shot increased by 15%.
Dispersion of the 105 mm Gun T5E1M2 on turret traverse by 40%.
Change aiming time 90mm Gun M41 changed from 1.7 sec. to 2 sec.
Reloading time of the  90mm Gun M41 changed from 6 sec. to 6.3 sec.
Dispersion of  90mm Gun M41 after shot increased by 15%.
Dispersion of  90mm Gun M41 on turret rotation increased by 30%.
Turret traverse speed of M87 changed from 42 degrees/sec to 40 degrees/sec

Never forget.

Edited by BrackDynamite, Feb 05 2013 - 19:36.


HollowMan64 #14 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27733 battles
  • 35
  • [POCHR] POCHR
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Some very valid points Echelon, and great ideas. I do however agree with Garbad, that 5000m view range is excessive and unnecessary. The accuracy on the move, aim time, depression and DPM changes would round the tank out just right I believe.

Radix4257 #15 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:41

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17828 battles
  • 1,424
  • [XERO] XERO
  • Member since:
    12-13-2010

View PostBrackDynamite, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:34, said:

Are you referring to this?

Posted Image






Never forget.

Very nice picture, which museum is it at?

CrabEatOff #16 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 14521 battles
  • 4,710
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012
Oh, so they really brutalized that gun. Ouch. Aim-time and dispersion are the most fun/important gun stats too, as they reward player skills quite nicely!

leahcimbulwark #17 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:50

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 18728 battles
  • 140
  • [QSF] QSF
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
Have to agree with Garbad as well. Remove all the nerfs sans RoF and I think it will be a useful tank again. Would love to see the DPM upped a little from where it is currently as well, but just removing the other nerfs is a huge step in the right direction and might be enough.

ArrogantWorms #18 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 23232 battles
  • 3,618
  • [REL_3] REL_3
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012
Love/Hate with my Patton. Was warned when switching from the M46 to the M48 that it was going to be much different. At least I had warning. It just feels like it doesnt really have an angle it can exploit well. The gun hits ok, but the reload is agonizing when compared to the T62a. I would like to see it get buffed a bit. I remember when they came out, they were OP as hell it seemed.

Blackhorse_Six #19 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 25523 battles
  • 5,800
  • [2_11] 2_11
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostRaiderPaladin, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:30, said:

I would agree...500M is a bit of a stretch.  As for the camo value...well the 48 is a good bit taller then both the 62 and the batchat, so I can see it having less camo, but I am also pretty sure that the optics were better then the 62's at least IRL.  The "Tumor" is actually the Commanders Cupola, and it was historically there...the only 48 variant that didn't have it to my knowledge was the ones used by the IDF, and they pretty much just took them off, and put a regular hatch on.  Don't quote me on that because I could be wrong.

Yes, we did have M48s (M48A5) with the IDF low-profile cupola in the US Reserve system.

They were "sprinkled" sparsely throughout the various National Guard battalions.

View PostPanzerF, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:50, said:

I remember when they came out, they were OP as hell it seemed.

Yes, initial reports were good ...

We had access to someone else's and we liked it.

Then the nerf came in the next patch ...

View PostBrackDynamite, on Feb 05 2013 - 19:24, said:

They never touched the M48's depression. 500m is a bit excessive. Putting the M60 (not the M60A1) would grant the M48 1 more degree of depression along with a 48kph speed cap and a more powerful diesel engine ... Essentially a hull swap with a redesigned cupola; production started in 1960. If everyone else gets a gen 1 MBT than why should the US have to make due with an up gunned 1953 stopgap tank?

It was not essentially a hull swap ... The M60 frontal armor was improved. It had a new powerpack. The turret was redesigned to strengthen percieved weaknesses. The M60 was equipped with the license-built version of the British L7 105 ... but the fire-control equipment was not significantly different.

As for EchelonIII's description af the M48 as the "Fatton" ... It didn't get any better until the M1 came along. "Fat" is less of a problem than is "Too-Tall".

MisterPatriot #20 Posted Feb 05 2013 - 19:52

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 16724 battles
  • 6,660
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011
I agree that the M48 is severely in need of a buff. But 500 view range is too much, 440-450 sounding more appropriate.

Also, increase RoF to what Garbad said, as well as -1 more degrees of gun depression.