Jump to content


Vehicle Rebalance Feedback

Patch 9.20

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

MikeApollo #21 Posted Aug 31 2017 - 04:52

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3410 battles
  • 121
  • [-OAC-] -OAC-
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

View PostStrike_Witch_Tomoko, on Aug 30 2017 - 19:33, said:

......why was T-54 buffed?  the star medium of tier 9......and it got buffed.

 

this is like when you buffed IS-3....when it was already the star of tier 8.

 

 


 

 

So this is what I've seen from WG in the past 4+ years regarding the Russian tree......if a Russian tank is already OP it doesn't matter nerf the german tree and buff a random Russian tank......I bet they pin a collage of pictures of Russian tanks and TDs up on a board and throw a dart at it and what ever one gets hit that's the one that gets buffed



flowerpower210 #22 Posted Aug 31 2017 - 07:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 18486 battles
  • 324
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011

I like the changes to the M48 Patton & Object 140. 

 

The Foch B's reload time between shells is a little quick in my opinion.



Townie_1 #23 Posted Aug 31 2017 - 07:46

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 8418 battles
  • 26
  • Member since:
    01-30-2015
Would you please rethink the speed nerf on O-I Exp. 40 to 25 kph is a bit much!   Tier 5 heavy tanks all average around 35 kph. It is such a slug now. I think a Tog would give it a fit in a drag race. Its already an arty magnet and 25 doesn't give you a lot of room for error.   Thanks, Townie  

moogleslam #24 Posted Aug 31 2017 - 12:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 27393 battles
  • 2,689
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013
Well, that Foch B needs to go already.  The most ridiculously OP tank in the game, even without a turret and with a long reload.

madogthefirst #25 Posted Aug 31 2017 - 21:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 21505 battles
  • 7,732
  • [CSA-1] CSA-1
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 30 2017 - 19:36, said:

Why do these medium tanks need turrets that are nearly on par with heavy tanks? Do you want to encourage higher tier tanks to just bull through lower tier tanks?

In a lot of regards they are better than the Maus' turret.



TheBigBucket #26 Posted Sep 01 2017 - 02:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 21568 battles
  • 34
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012
I honestly think that the 4005 needs more camo, I'm getting spotted in the most ridiculous ways.

misterwit #27 Posted Sep 01 2017 - 02:50

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12674 battles
  • 703
  • [NOKAP] NOKAP
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

I'm actually in support of most of the changes but I feel like the mid-tier tanks have once again been completely disregarded.

 

Please stop ignoring them, WarGaming.



kramm007 #28 Posted Sep 01 2017 - 02:53

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 10309 battles
  • 1
  • [TMVD] TMVD
  • Member since:
    09-08-2013

Foch B need to be buff!!!! its the new wth-100

 

2400 in 12 sec its way to much dmg. you can clip a tier x tank. and with 2 sec between shell your track them to easy

0


Edited by kramm007, Sep 01 2017 - 03:07.


Mellenius #29 Posted Sep 01 2017 - 13:38

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12858 battles
  • 133
  • Member since:
    09-05-2013

The nerf of the Japanese Tanks was completely unneeded. People are complaining about not being able to pen the back of an O-I? Almost anyone who has any brain cells in their skull can figure out that with Japanese Heavies have their weak spots in the sides which in tiers 7-10 is about the size of a barn! And not to mention many Soviet MTs are so short that the Japanese HTs can't get enough gun depression from any angle to even aim at them if they're less than 30 feet away from it. German TDs also have this low profile advantage.

 

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Jul 27 2017 - 15:27, said:

Update 9.20 contains a significant amount of vehicle rebalances spanning 5 Nations
 

Japanese Heavy Tanks:

The Japanese heavy line called for a refocus and rebalance from tier V all the way to tier X. We put balance and complementary gameplay styles at the center of design, tweaking its every vehicle with the only exception of the O-Ni. These changes should give the superheavies a feel of their own: more “break out and assault” in style with great frontal armor and two choices of gun styles.

 

...

 

O-I

If you ever crossed paths with the tier VI O-I while playing a lower tier, you should know how terribly difficult it was to break through its thick armor. Even flanking wouldn’t work. Update 9.20 cuts down on its rear armor thickness ramping up your chances at outflanking it.

 

I dunno about anyone else but saying "Flanking did not work" I think is just a lie. I can run circles around an O-I in almost any MT or Turreted TD and rip it apart from the sides. Flanking does not have to mean specifically engaging from behind it can include the sides. If you keep nerfing the back ends of every Japanese Heavy then newer players won't learn how to fight differently with different nations of tanks and everything will meld into a uniform copy-paste situation. The British are known for weak hulls but strong turrets, Soviets are face huggers with close to impenetrable fronts, Americans have strong turrets that are excellent at working ridge-lines. The French are just drag racers that are your typical drive-by shooters. The Japanese I thought would be a nation where you would have to flank on the sides instead of the back keeping you on your toes. But I guess we can't have too much variety now can we?



JWcorsair #30 Posted Sep 02 2017 - 03:52

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 45957 battles
  • 96
  • [F-J] F-J
  • Member since:
    12-20-2010

Typical russian Bias. buff the russian tanks and nerf everything else

 



indoctrinated #31 Posted Sep 02 2017 - 04:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20144 battles
  • 1,959
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View Postmadogthefirst, on Aug 31 2017 - 21:09, said:

In a lot of regards they are better than the Maus' turret.

"Better" is pushing it but they're not far off. Bizzare choice of buffs.

View PostMellenius, on Sep 01 2017 - 13:38, said:

The nerf of the Japanese Tanks was completely unneeded. People are complaining about not being able to pen the back of an O-I? Almost anyone who has any brain cells in their skull can figure out that with Japanese Heavies have their weak spots in the sides which in tiers 7-10 is about the size of a barn! And not to mention many Soviet MTs are so short that the Japanese HTs can't get enough gun depression from any angle to even aim at them if they're less than 30 feet away from it. German TDs also have this low profile advantage.

 

 

I dunno about anyone else but saying "Flanking did not work" I think is just a lie. I can run circles around an O-I in almost any MT or Turreted TD and rip it apart from the sides. Flanking does not have to mean specifically engaging from behind it can include the sides. If you keep nerfing the back ends of every Japanese Heavy then newer players won't learn how to fight differently with different nations of tanks and everything will meld into a uniform copy-paste situation. The British are known for weak hulls but strong turrets, Soviets are face huggers with close to impenetrable fronts, Americans have strong turrets that are excellent at working ridge-lines. The French are just drag racers that are your typical drive-by shooters. The Japanese I thought would be a nation where you would have to flank on the sides instead of the back keeping you on your toes. But I guess we can't have too much variety now can we?

Yeah that was weird. The O-I had really poor side armor, same with the O-Ni.



Sgt_Fury #32 Posted Sep 02 2017 - 15:54

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 29759 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010

View PostxXTheGameAceXx, on Aug 30 2017 - 15:09, said:

A very possibly real wargaming employee conversation:

Employee 1: "Hey, you know the O-I Experimental, right?"

Employee 2: "Yeah, that tier 5 Japanese heavy. The first one in the line that's actually not terrible."

Employee 1: "I was thinking maybe it's just too good though. It doesn't have much armor, but it has a gun that's just way too good. You know. Too 'one-shotty'."

Employee 2: "Ya know, I was thinking the same thing... Maybe we should remove the gun altogether and give nothing to compensate?"

Employee 1: "Oooh! Excellent idea! And you know what? Let's screw it over even further by removing it's mobility and making it have an even slower turret!"

Employee 2: "Brilliant idea! We'll just give it a bit of armor to justify the newfound slug-like speeds, and hopefully no one will notice how bad it is now."

Employee 1: "Hey, on the subject of way too one-shotty tanks... How about those Tier 10 British TDs...?"

Employee 2: "Nah, nothing wrong there. Hey, let's talk about buffing those next!"

 

Sorry if that seems a bit ridiculous, but I just had to. I seriously thought a lot of the 9.18 update was bad, but a lot of the stuff in 9.20 is pretty awful. Oh, and the Matchmaking system is still drunk off it's [edited]. I only managed to get one or two wins today out of ~20 matches. Everything I'm seeing is that things are just getting worse. Stop it wargaming. STOP.

If you want to fix things up, give legitimate balancing starting with the tanks that are so bad they're borderline unplayable or have nothing good going for them.

 

I couldn't agree more. While they're at it might as well paint targets on the side and top since all it is now is arty bait. Yes I'll admit it was OP when top tier but not so when bottom tier. Does WG even test the changes they make before going live with them or is their top priority still eye candy?

Genarelbetrayus #33 Posted Sep 02 2017 - 23:37

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16894 battles
  • 158
  • [RACK] RACK
  • Member since:
    09-21-2014
Uh buffing tanks that don't need buffed sounds about right to me.  

Maxwell83 #34 Posted Sep 03 2017 - 20:25

    Private

  • Players
  • 10791 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    03-17-2013
Why didn't the gun on the Object 430 II, the D-54 get the same update as the gun on the T-54.

Mikosah #35 Posted Sep 03 2017 - 22:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 17456 battles
  • 2,979
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

As of the T-54 situation, I can respect that the high-penetration gun is now the accurate one with low DPM, and that the low-penetration gun is the opposite. Now at least it can be said that each has its niche as opposed to the old scheme where one was completely obsolete. But why was the T-54's turret armor buffed? It was already performing well, so exactly what purpose did that buff serve? If this is preemptive balancing for upcoming changes, then why buff the armor now as opposed to later? Also why was the Obj. 430 II not given the same treatment?

 

The Obj. 140 turret buff is similarly suspicious. The tank was already about as competitive as they come, and this change intrudes into the T-62a's niche too. Why even consider such a thing?

 

The T-44 and T-44-100 were complete mediocrities and therefore buffing them is acceptable, But they now compete for the T-54 first prototype's niche. For tanks that are supposed to be agile flankers, gun handling alone would have made them more worthwhile. The concern over one tank behaving differently than its 'parent' is trivial. Better to focus on making individual tanks unique and playable.

 

I fail to see exactly which problem was solved by the ISU-152's penetration nerf. The patch notes complained about the alpha, so why didn't they nerf the alpha?

 

The Maus nerf was done backwards. Armor of that magnitude causes significant problems in forcing code 22 spam and therefore either being rendered irrelevant, or being utterly invincible. Hit points cause neither of these problems.

 

Changing the AMX-30s has made them more meta-relevant, but no more unique than they were before. so now the question is if the same treatment is going to be done to the Leopards as well.

 

The Foch TD line makes sense having small drums with relatively quick reloads, that lesson has long since been established. But the tier 10 having a 6-shell drum is just asking for trouble. Better to stay with a 4-shell drum and compensate with gun handling and penetration.

 

The M46 was already very strong in the meta so the turret armor buff was entirely unnecessary. And once again, worrying about the line behaving differently at different tiers is a pointless, superficial concern.

 

As of the M48, there is at least some merit in making it more competitive but now it intrudes into the Centurion AX's niche. Why were the Centurion turret buffs delayed to the next patch? For the sake of these two counterpart lines staying balanced with one-another, the two should have been changed simultaneously.

 

Armor nerfs to Type 4 and Type 5 heavies were too subtle. Remember the aforementioned problem with armor- once code 22 enters the fray, heavy armor is either invincible or worthless, and both of these outcomes are massively detrimental. Use hit points to model vehicle durability instead of cancerous armor values. Also a reminder that the premium HE being identical to the standard apart from improved damage is a poor balancing decision. Improved damage only makes sense with lower penetration, and vice-versa.



Gnevsie #36 Posted Sep 04 2017 - 08:13

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 1930 battles
  • 45
  • [IIWII] IIWII
  • Member since:
    03-15-2015
What was the freaking point of the Foch B? sure its not overly OP, it just needs its intraclip reload nerfed and then it'll be a pure breed gold ammo spamming scumbag of a tank. So you give it one of, if not the worst pen values of Tier 10 TD's and then give it a premium round with over 300mm's of pen, like ... what in the actual hell is this blatant crap? is it to make it competitive? because I can tell you now, its just blatantly overpowered with gold rounds, without its blatantly underpowered. So you in effect ... swapped out the Foch 155 with another Foch that has EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES FROM THE BEGINNING.

What is the point of its existence WG? 9.20 will be known for being probably one of the most retarded patches as of late ( definitely not THE most retarded, thats for sure. )

I was hoping you'd instead, perhaps buff the 155's weakspots, such as its rangefinder, make it harder to pen whilst wiggling, moving - but still possible to pen with standard rounds. But no ... no, instead you just ignore what the French TD players have been suggesting for years now and give them this utterly pointless Tier 10 TD. Why would ANYONE pick the Foch B, over the AMX 50B? ... why? if your not going to have literally ANYTHING going for you besides premium rounds, just get the damn AMX 50B, its a Foch B with a turret, better gun handling and faster clip reload! Wooo!

Seriously ... It's just an AMX 50B without a turret and 2 extra rounds and encourages premium spam. Just grind for the AMX 50B people, don't bother with the Foch B, I beg of you not to waste your time on this TRASH.

YayDeath #37 Posted Sep 04 2017 - 18:22

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5349 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    09-12-2015

I personally love the changes that have been made to the IS-7 - I finally enjoy playing my only tier X. Also love the 30v30, even if it would be nice to have that Grand Canyon map. 

 

However, and this is a little bit separate - Premium ammo is just off the charts in terms of how many people are using it. There are times when tanks like the IS-7 should be completely impenetrable, and some bloody idiot fires a premium round, and suddenly your armor means jack ***. I would really appreciate it if there was a limit to the total amount of premium rounds a tank can carry - perhaps five or six on a standard single shot gun, and then 1 or 2 clips depending on the size of the clip. I mean, WG is already making a ***load of money from the cancer premiums, and since people buy gold anyways, it would be nice to see the game be more enjoyable and more luck based than pay-to-win based. (P.S. I really would like it if there was a daily crate type of thing, like there is in the WoT Blitz app)

 

But back to the main point. I think the top tier JP heavies - the Type 4 and Type 5 - need to have that lower plate nerfed a bit too, or those two hatches need to be weaker. They are still impenetrable with an IS-7 or most any tier X heavy without resorting to premium ammo. And don't even get started on tier 8s and 9s. Those two just rape everything with armor, and so does the Maus. I think the cheeks should stay as strong as they are now, but the lower plate should be nerfed a bit, just to give some tanks a fighting chance. Also, I totally agree with everyone else - the T-54 did not need any more love; on the contrary, it actually needed some hate to make it more balanced. Also, I think the O-I exp. should retain some of it's speed. 25 is far too slow for that tier, unless you've really got something to have a reason for that.

 

As for what tanks do need buffs, I think the 268 still needs a lot more love, and I think that just about every tank should have it's pen buffed ever so slightly - like from 250 to 260 at the most - so that tier Xs can actually pen each other without resorting to premium rounds. And I think that the Foch B needs some HEAVY nerfs - at least one shell, or worse reload, or worse armor, or something to make it less of a beast. Right now, it's kinda replacing the WT auf E100 - if in a smaller, less powerful way.


Edited by YayDeath, Sep 04 2017 - 20:16.


Genarelbetrayus #38 Posted Sep 05 2017 - 06:44

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16894 battles
  • 158
  • [RACK] RACK
  • Member since:
    09-21-2014
how about you give my french heavy tank more armor than the medium that might make sense, oh wait low on sense that makes sense. :rolleyes:

Fog_Musashi #39 Posted Sep 07 2017 - 18:43

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 2709 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    12-02-2016
im still waiting to see "return of the FUN elc" ...why cant just give him back his mobility?

Genarelbetrayus #40 Posted Sep 07 2017 - 19:00

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16894 battles
  • 158
  • [RACK] RACK
  • Member since:
    09-21-2014
STG - Guard is not Op enough did you guys forget that your supposed to make all new Prem tanks op need more armor and then you'll almost be there.   :bajan:





Also tagged with Patch 9.20

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users