Jump to content


- - - - -

[Supertest] Update on Object 263 Line Changes


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

CabbageMechanic #1 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 20:55

    Senior Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 7811 battles
  • 366
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010

We are still testing the Object 263 line changes and have made some significant alterations to the previous plan.  Check it:

The SU100M1 and SU-101 will now keep their places with some significant rebalances to make them more comfortable to play:

 

After testing of last month's changes, we are moving now towards removing the SU-122-53 altogether.  The Object 263 is really testing well at its new position in Tier IX, more powerful and comfortable to play than before:



We hear your concerns about the replacement at the top of this tree, but we think the Object 268 Version 4 is turning out well.  It has performed excellently in testing and we think it will end up being worthy of the spot:

 

These stats are still not finalized, and testing is ongoing.  Stay tuned!


Edited by CabbageMechanic, Dec 01 2017 - 20:56.


_DangerNoodle #2 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 16762 battles
  • 2,372
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    12-22-2011
another copypaste 750 td. :/ 263 is unique, lets keep it that way

lightball20 #3 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 27571 battles
  • 3,411
  • [R3TRO] R3TRO
  • Member since:
    02-18-2013
By "removing all together" that means SU-122-54 will be entirely removed even from anyone who owns it?

Demonic_Angel_of_Death #4 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 2153 battles
  • 3,983
  • [DEMON] DEMON
  • Member since:
    09-29-2012

"It performs well" Just like every other 750DMG TD once the player get's used to it...

 

I bet they are going to remove the SU-122-54, nerf it a bit, and sell it as a USSR Tier 8 Premium TD because how dare china one-up their premium TDs...



IndygoEEI #5 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 53849 battles
  • 5,386
  • [NA-CL] NA-CL
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012

Ok this makes a little more sense, although I'm still not happy about "Insert 750 alpha TD

here..."

 

In fact I'm not really happy or all that amused especially after you said this....

 

Block Quote

 After testing of last month's changes, we are moving now towards removing the SU-122-53(sic) altogether.

 

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG YOU!?  STOP REMOVING DELETING TANKS.  IT'S ONE

THING TO PULL THE LORRY STUNT ON US, YET IT'S COMPLETELY ANOTHER THING

TO REMOVE A BALANCED TANK FROM THE GAME ALTOGETHER!

 



mlinke #6 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 48292 battles
  • 676
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Whatever you do you have to let us keep our tier 9as a premium. We went through painfull grind and you can not just take our tanks away

_Tsavo_ #7 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 40573 battles
  • 16,473
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011
Man, keep the 263 as is, it's unique and not just another high-pen high-alpha TD

HowitzerBlitzer #8 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 14994 battles
  • 7,801
  • Member since:
    06-16-2013

Taking a look at the line...

 

Tier 7: High rate of fire, rear mount gun.

Tier 8: High rate of fire (with optional alpha gun), rear mount gun.

Tier 9: Decent rate of fire, front mount gun, decent alpha.

Tier 10: High rate of fire, rear mount gun.

 

Wouldn't the logical thing be to replace the tier 9 since it's the only Tank Destroyer in the line that doesn't fit it?



CapPhrases #9 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:41

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7035 battles
  • 3,158
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

Once again we don't like this bland 750 alpha TD that doesn't match the tanks before it.

no deleting tanks from the game this line isn't broken why change it?



Bad_Oedipus #10 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:48

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 37632 battles
  • 1,187
  • Member since:
    08-09-2014
Well, they kept their <sarcasm> great </sarcasm> accuracy, making them "Brawling" tanks without turrets.  I guess they figure players will develop tourette syndrome to compensate...

OseanTanker #11 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 21:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22388 battles
  • 1,303
  • Member since:
    09-29-2011
I don't own this line of tanks, but seriously WG. NO ONE WANTS THIS!!!! It literally makes no sense.

dnaman #12 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 22:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28700 battles
  • 1,118
  • [_EOS_] _EOS_
  • Member since:
    06-09-2013
Why can’t the 263 stay at tier X and simply branch  like others?

Dionysus_Zagreus #13 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 22:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 40562 battles
  • 960
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013
Stay the f&*% away from the 263....... go meddle with some tier 1's or something......

CynicalDutchie #14 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 22:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 38863 battles
  • 3,500
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Dec 01 2017 - 20:55, said:

We hear your concerns about the replacement at the top of this tree, but we think the Object 268 Version 4 is turning out well.  It has performed excellently in testing and we think it will end up being worthy of the spot:

 

You people seriously need to get new testers.

 

Oh and get that EU transfer you promised us months ago of course.



Scorpiany #15 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 22:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32429 battles
  • 11,962
  • [N1NJA] N1NJA
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

1) Don't touch the line. The Obj. 263 is unique and quirky, with an interesting style of gameplay. Not every tank destroyer at Tier 10 needs to have exactly 750 alpha damage; just like not every medium needs to have good turret armor.

 

2) Stop removing tanks, seriously. The SU-122-54 is different from other Tier 9 TD's, that's a good thing. I personally love playing it.

 

3) In the unfortunate scenario that it is removed, what would happen to the SU-122-54? Will we get to keep it? Same with the Obj. 416 (Which also shouldn't be removed)... Would we keep the tanks?


 

Also... What in the actual hell is that View Range on the Tier 10 TD? I thought you guys didn't want TD's to have good View Range? All of a sudden the Tier 10 one would have 420m; tied for the best View Range in the game? How does that make any sense? The Tier 9 would have the worst non-arty View Range at Tier 9, then you just jump up 60m with the next tank up to the best View Range in the game?

 

Where's the logic? None of this makes any sense... Why? Why do we need any of the line to change?


Edited by Scorpiany, Dec 01 2017 - 22:19.


lightball20 #16 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 22:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 27571 battles
  • 3,411
  • [R3TRO] R3TRO
  • Member since:
    02-18-2013

View PostGunadie, on Dec 01 2017 - 13:17, said:

 

Notice how its "WE THINK THE OBJ 268 VERSION  4 IS TURNING OUT WELL"

NEWS FOR YOU WAR SHAMING, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO THINK ITS TURNING OUT WELL!

NOT THE PLAYER BASE!!

 

Problem is. That is the opinion of the NA server.

 

If it turns out the RU server likes it. They will make the change. Because RU > Anyone



eragon0309 #17 Posted Dec 01 2017 - 22:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25382 battles
  • 1,286
  • [NAF] NAF
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012
Please no, the object 263 is actually unique. We don't want or need another 750 alpha TD.

Mikosah #18 Posted Dec 02 2017 - 00:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 17563 battles
  • 3,740
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

In the end, the 268v4 remains unjustified. The 263 is already one of the most unique and fun tier 10s in the roster, why in the hell would you change it? And the 268v4 meanwhile is little more than an uninspired clone of the JPzE100 with a much less interesting gun. And otherwise, armor like this is cancerous. There's really just one practical technique to use against it (spam code 22), which is a lose-lose for both sides. Once again, the goal of making the line all the same has backfired. 

 

Without any sarcasm whatsoever, my suggestion is to abandon the entire proposal. Stick with the tanks that are already on the tech tree and just buff as necessary. For example, just a little bit more gun depression would make the SU-100m1 and SU-101 much more playable. And as of the 268v4, save it as a clan reward or something. 



Silver_ReBangBang_Wow #19 Posted Dec 02 2017 - 01:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 35536 battles
  • 1,175
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    09-17-2013
Come on wg, we don't want this. Maybe listen to the community?

Tupinambis #20 Posted Dec 02 2017 - 02:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 35621 battles
  • 15,254
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View PostHowitzerBlitzer, on Dec 01 2017 - 21:40, said:

Taking a look at the line...

 

Tier 7: High rate of fire, rear mount gun.

Tier 8: High rate of fire (with optional alpha gun), rear mount gun.

Tier 9: Decent rate of fire, front mount gun, decent alpha.

Tier 10: High rate of fire, rear mount gun.

 

Wouldn't the logical thing be to replace the tier 9 since it's the only Tank Destroyer in the line that doesn't fit it?

 

the problem is that high rof/low alpha td’s do NOT work at all in the current meta. Just changing the tier 9 would still leave an entire line of tanks that suck. The rebalances themselves are fine and make sense, but the 268 v4 seems boring and dumb.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users