Jump to content


Comprehensive list of balance changes that should be implemented


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

dominator_98 #1 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 22:15

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11839 battles
  • 745
  • [MUG-G] MUG-G
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

Give the IS-4 the same soft stats as the 113. No reason it should be derpier and have a slower reload than a faster heavy.

Either nerf the T110E3's cupola or buff the E4's, I don't care which. The glaring weakspot vs ridiculous strong point on what is essentially the same vehicle is just dumb.

Remove the weakspots from the Tiger P's frontal armor. It already suffers gun handling relative to the "armorless" Tiger so why not make it have reliable frontal armor?

VK 100.01 P needs an armor nerf. It's nearly impossible to kill when its on top of a 3/5/7 matchup. Maybe buff traverse rates to compensate?

Armor or mobility buff for the Churchll VII and Black Prince. Churchill GC as well. Something that slow should be harder to kill.

AMX M4 45 needs some more armor or mobility. Probably mobility since its French.

T-34/100 needs a gun handling buff. The amount of fully aimed shots that just fly into nowhere is disgusting.

 

Feel free to discuss and add to the list below.

 



zarg12 #2 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 22:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19713 battles
  • 835
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View Postdominator_98, on Sep 11 2017 - 16:15, said:

Give the IS-4 the same soft stats as the 113. No reason it should be derpier and have a slower reload than a faster heavy.
That is not how balance works.

Either nerf the T110E3's cupola or buff the E4's, I don't care which. The glaring weakspot vs ridiculous strong point on what is essentially the same vehicle is just dumb.
Oh noes a weakspot on broken armor TDs. how horrible.

Remove the weakspots from the Tiger P's frontal armor. It already suffers gun handling relative to the "armorless" Tiger so why not make it have reliable frontal armor?
How about no?

VK 100.01 P needs an armor nerf. It's nearly impossible to kill when its on top of a 3/5/7 matchup. Maybe buff traverse rates to compensate?
nibba what? This thing already has weakspots, learn to aim, lowerplate is about 200mm and 220 on the cupola, just flank it. Besides, it rarely gets top tier.

Armor or mobility buff for the Churchll VII and Black Prince. Churchill GC as well. Something that slow should be harder to kill.
Sure.

AMX M4 45 needs some more armor or mobility. Probably mobility since its French.
Not really.

T-34/100 needs a gun handling buff. The amount of fully aimed shots that just fly into nowhere is disgusting.
Git gud

 

Feel free to discuss and add to the list below.

 

 


Edited by zarg12, Sep 11 2017 - 22:31.


Arteei #3 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 22:31

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 35844 battles
  • 107
  • Member since:
    08-29-2013
i would say IS4 needs roof armor or what is the point of the tank

Markd73 #4 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 22:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 28421 battles
  • 3,187
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Postdominator_98, on Sep 11 2017 - 21:15, said:

Give the IS-4 the same soft stats as the 113. No reason it should be derpier and have a slower reload than a faster heavy.

Sure whatever

 

Either nerf the T110E3's cupola or buff the E4's, I don't care which. The glaring weakspot vs ridiculous strong point on what is essentially the same vehicle is just dumb.

They are not "essentially the same vehicle". One has a semi-traverse turret and one does not. That is a major difference and is compensated with better armor for the E3

 

Remove the weakspots from the Tiger P's frontal armor. It already suffers gun handling relative to the "armorless" Tiger so why not make it have reliable frontal armor?

I loathed the Tiger P, not for the commander hatch per say but for flat armor that gets cut  like butter ever since premium ammo for credits was a thing.

 

VK 100.01 P needs an armor nerf. It's nearly impossible to kill when its on top of a 3/5/7 matchup. Maybe buff traverse rates to compensate?

Good point but the VK gives up a ton for that armor. Think of the VK as another way for WG to pad their profit margins. VK = more premium spam therefore more need for premium time and premium tanks.

 

Armor or mobility buff for the Churchll VII and Black Prince. Churchill GC as well. Something that slow should be harder to kill.

Just kill the Black Prince and Churchill GC with fire. Those tanks are serious turds.

 

AMX M4 45 needs some more armor or mobility. Probably mobility since its French.

No I don't think so. The AMX is already a very good tank if you can hide that weakspot cupola. It needs no buffs.

 

T-34/100 needs a gun handling buff. The amount of fully aimed shots that just fly into nowhere is disgusting.

No comment. I have not played that thing in ages.

 

Feel free to discuss and add to the list below.

 

 



TristanXD6 #5 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 23:04

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7947 battles
  • 230
  • [CALZS] CALZS
  • Member since:
    12-12-2015

View Postdominator_98, on Sep 11 2017 - 13:15, said:

Give the IS-4 the same soft stats as the 113. No reason it should be derpier and have a slower reload than a faster heavy.

Never used either tank, nor have I fought them enough to have a valuable opinion.

 

Either nerf the T110E3's cupola or buff the E4's, I don't care which. The glaring weakspot vs ridiculous strong point on what is essentially the same vehicle is just dumb.

The cupolas seem fine for both. The advantage the E4 pulls over the E3 is that it has a semi-turret on it, but it trades armor for that. The E3 can be flanked quite easily if you're a decent player or if you work well with your team, so I don't believe that it needs a cupola nerf.

 

Remove the weakspots from the Tiger P's frontal armor. It already suffers gun handling relative to the "armorless" Tiger so why not make it have reliable frontal armor?

Even if you remove the regular frontal weakspots that the tank has, you'll still have that large commander's hatch on top of the turret (which is what most players aim for anyway). I could see this tank using a slight rof buff to help it with brawling, but otherwise I believe that this tank is alright.

 

VK 100.01 P needs an armor nerf. It's nearly impossible to kill when its on top of a 3/5/7 matchup. Maybe buff traverse rates to compensate?

This tank is fine the way it is. Sure, it has excellent armor, but everything else about it is either average or bad. The speed and mobiltity suck, the 105mm is average while the 128mm has bad accuracy, and your turret traverse is on-par with American turreted TD's. If you nerfed the armor, then it would defeat the point of using this tank. The best way to take out a VK is to work with your teammates. It's a very easy tank to flank.

 

Armor or mobility buff for the Churchll VII and Black Prince. Churchill GC as well. Something that slow should be harder to kill.

I'd say the Churchill 1, Churchill VII, and the Black Prince all need armor and gun buffs. Right now, there are few advantages to using these tanks, and numerous drawbacks. Some people enjoy playing these tanks and do well in them, but I personally believe that it's in spite of the tanks, not because of them. I could see a buff to the terrain resistance being a possible option as well (in fact, this would make the Churchill's a bit more historically accurate, if that means anything to you).

 

AMX M4 45 needs some more armor or mobility. Probably mobility since its French.

This tank seems fine the way it is to me. It isn't a bad tank, but it isn't overpowered either.

 

T-34/100 needs a gun handling buff. The amount of fully aimed shots that just fly into nowhere is disgusting.

I've never used this tank, nor have I spent enough time around it ingame to have a good opinion on it.

 

Feel free to discuss and add to the list below.

 

 

Tier 10 lights need some buffs to them. Right now, there are certain mediums that can scout better than the current Tier 10 lights ingame.

 

The IS-6 needs to be reworked. While I still enjoy playing mine, I don't consider it competitive when compared to more recent premiums that have been introduced ingame.

 

The T37 feels underpowered for what it was meant to be; a combat scout. It doesn't have a high-pen gun anymore, and it lost some of it's speed, but it's still a somewhat large light tank for it's tier. Ever since it got reworked, I've noticed less and less of these being used for Skirmishes.

 

I can't think of any other tanks off the top of my head right now. If I remember more, then I'll post them in this thread.



Ak_Lonewolf #6 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 23:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 27288 battles
  • 596
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    08-15-2012
I will say the churchill tanks could use some love. It has been years since I have played those tanks but even then they were under powered. They are now woefully in need of a buff of some sort.

_PM #7 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 23:23

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14840 battles
  • 197
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    01-15-2013

View Postdominator_98, on Sep 11 2017 - 16:15, said:

Give the IS-4 the same soft stats as the 113. No reason it should be derpier and have a slower reload than a faster heavy.

IS-4 does need buffs, I would say more mobility but i wouldn't touch the gun handling tbh.

Either nerf the T110E3's cupola or buff the E4's, I don't care which. The glaring weakspot vs ridiculous strong point on what is essentially the same vehicle is just dumb.

Don't frontal fight the E3,  E4 has a turret.

Remove the weakspots from the Tiger P's frontal armor. It already suffers gun handling relative to the "armorless" Tiger so why not make it have reliable frontal armor?

Or give it Tiger gun handling

VK 100.01 P needs an armor nerf. It's nearly impossible to kill when its on top of a 3/5/7 matchup. Maybe buff traverse rates to compensate?

I would say nerf the cupola so it can be penned by like 190 guns.

Armor or mobility buff for the Churchll VII and Black Prince. Churchill GC as well. Something that slow should be harder to kill.

Agreed

AMX M4 45 needs some more armor or mobility. Probably mobility since its French.

Yeah

T-34/100 needs a gun handling buff. The amount of fully aimed shots that just fly into nowhere is disgusting.

I can't comment

 

Feel free to discuss and add to the list below.

 

 



Demonic_Angel_of_Death #8 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 23:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 2142 battles
  • 3,580
  • [DEMON] DEMON
  • Member since:
    09-29-2012
"Comprehensive"              :sceptic:

HOTA_CHATON #9 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 23:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 12097 battles
  • 12,399
  • [T0TS] T0TS
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011
Tier 10 lights need no buffing what so ever, they are good enough.  Buffing them would imbalance an already badly imbalanced game, even more.  Love for all the Churchill tanks is needed.

zarg12 #10 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 23:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19713 battles
  • 835
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View PostHOTA_CHATON, on Sep 11 2017 - 17:49, said:

Tier 10 lights need no buffing what so ever, they are good enough.  Buffing them would imbalance an already badly imbalanced game, even more.  Love for all the Churchill tanks is needed.

 

view range on LTs is fine, rather it's the rest that should have a VR nerf. Balancing isn't only done through buffs everywhere



TristanXD6 #11 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 23:58

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7947 battles
  • 230
  • [CALZS] CALZS
  • Member since:
    12-12-2015

View PostHOTA_CHATON, on Sep 11 2017 - 14:49, said:

Tier 10 lights need no buffing what so ever, they are good enough.  Buffing them would imbalance an already badly imbalanced game, even more.

 

Tier 10 light tanks, when compared to high-mobility mediums of the same tier, just aren't competitive. Thats why I feel that the Tier 10 LT's need either a view range or mobility buff (preferably with top speeds).

 

View Postzarg12, on Sep 11 2017 - 14:53, said:

view range on LTs is fine, rather it's the rest that should have a VR nerf. Balancing isn't only done through buffs everywhere

 

Those are good points. I can agree with that.

 


Edited by TristanXD6, Sep 12 2017 - 00:00.


dominator_98 #12 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 00:01

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11839 battles
  • 745
  • [MUG-G] MUG-G
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostDemonic_Angel_of_Death, on Sep 11 2017 - 16:39, said:

"Comprehensive"              :sceptic:

 

It will be comprehensive as people continue to post here. I can't possibly cover every tank in the game by myself.

View Postzarg12, on Sep 11 2017 - 16:53, said:

 

view range on LTs is fine, rather it's the rest that should have a VR nerf. Balancing isn't only done through buffs everywhere

 

Agreed. The fact that the VK 100.01P has 400 base viewrange is a bit nuts. A general VR nerf would also make scouting more useful as TDs and heavies are less able to spot for themselves.

dominator_98 #13 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 00:11

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 11839 battles
  • 745
  • [MUG-G] MUG-G
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View Postzarg12, on Sep 11 2017 - 15:30, said:

Give the IS-4 the same soft stats as the 113. No reason it should be derpier and have a slower reload than a faster heavy.
That is not how balance works.

How does it work then? One has mobility, the other has armor. No reason the IS-4 should suffer a significantly weaker gun considering they're both of the same tier and class.

Either nerf the T110E3's cupola or buff the E4's, I don't care which. The glaring weakspot vs ridiculous strong point on what is essentially the same vehicle is just dumb.
Oh noes a weakspot on broken armor TDs. how horrible.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Remove the weakspots from the Tiger P's frontal armor. It already suffers gun handling relative to the "armorless" Tiger so why not make it have reliable frontal armor?
How about no?

Why not? It suffers because of the gun relative to the Tiger I but I have played both enough to say the Tiger P's armor is pretty bad

VK 100.01 P needs an armor nerf. It's nearly impossible to kill when its on top of a 3/5/7 matchup. Maybe buff traverse rates to compensate?
nibba what? This thing already has weakspots, learn to aim, lowerplate is about 200mm and 220 on the cupola, just flank it. Besides, it rarely gets top tier.

I own the thing and bounce plenty of 240+mm pen guns off the cupola. It doesn't get top tier much but it's broken when it does

Armor or mobility buff for the Churchll VII and Black Prince. Churchill GC as well. Something that slow should be harder to kill.
Sure.

AMX M4 45 needs some more armor or mobility. Probably mobility since its French.
Not really.

T-34/100 needs a gun handling buff. The amount of fully aimed shots that just fly into nowhere is disgusting.
Git gud

Valid argument, i totally see your point now.

 

Feel free to discuss and add to the list below.

 



saru_richard #14 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 01:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19791 battles
  • 2,074
  • [H-H] H-H
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015
i was expecting more from a post claiming to be "comprehensive" 

GearTech #15 Posted Sep 13 2017 - 16:39

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14085 battles
  • 11
  • [GT-I] GT-I
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011

Well I guess I will try to think of the most glaring imbalances in the game right now.

 

Okay tier 10 light tanks should all have view range higher than their respective countries mediums, and in my personal opinion they should all be over 400m. The fact that the bat 25 has higher view range than the light tank is just rediculous. Mediums should have 420 view when not all lights do.

 

I'm going to agree with the changes to either the e3 or the e4, they have the same cupola models and yet they aren't the same? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense when the e4 also suffered from weak cheek and lowe plate armor compared to e3.

 

Wargaming needs to decide if they want heavies to have frontal weak spots or not. They weakened the t110e5 front saying it didn't have weak spots even though it has a weak lower plate and paper side armor, and yet they don't seem to have a problem with things like a maus or type 5 which either don't have a cupola or it just isn't a weak spot.

 

No one has addressed the elephant in the room yet, I'm looking at you foch b. I don't know what they were thinking adding back in something like the wt Auf e100 when they removed it because of balance. I hope it gets a magazine capacity nerf sooner rather than later.

 

So that's my take on the tanks I can think of off the top of my head. Although the biggest problem with balance in WoT in my opinion isn't the tanks. I have problems with the fact that there is still premium ammo in the game. Now I'm not saying remove the ammo, I want the shells to be balanced so that with increased penetration the shells should do less damage. Much like how HE does more damage for less pen. Then make the shells the same cost as the rest. This will help them balance heavy tank armor and will eliminate how people who play more or use gold to get these shells can just spam premium shells.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users