Jump to content


Object 268 Version 4 - Russian bias/Broken/Overpowered?

obj object 268 op bias 9.22

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Poll: Object 268 Version 4 - Russian bias/Broken/Overpowered? (255 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 100 battles in order to participate this poll.

Is the Object 268 Version 4 well balanced?

  1. Yes (40 votes [15.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.69%

  2. No (215 votes [84.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 84.31%

Vote Hide poll

flowerpower210 #1 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 08:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23309 battles
  • 614
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011

Meanwhile at WG Headquarters:

- Dmitry, Badger has weak spot. I no like.

- Comrade, no worry. We make Russian Badger. Stalinium… no weak spot. Russian engineer smart, we make faster than Leopard.

- Da. Da. Make benefit glorious nation of Russia.

 

The Object 268 Version 4 is an incredibly capable tank destroyer. It borrows the armor of a super-heavy, the power-to-weight ratio of the fastest medium tanks and, of course, the high alpha gun of tank destroyers. I believe that, in it’s current state, the tank is cancerous to the game.

·       Lack of frontal weak spot – The tank is can occupy impossible positions for extended periods of time. Example: They can aggressively push & take control of Ruinberg’s middle road to supress the field. Return fire from the medium tanks is unlikely to counter the tank. Meanwhile, they must also deal with their counterparts. I’ve seen this gameplay unfold a few times this week. Unless the city is won by the Northern team, the medium tanks are paralyzed and rendered useless.

 

·       Power-to-weight ratio: The tank destroyer has a power-to-weight ratio of 20! It rivals that of the Leopard 1 (20.75) & STB-1 (20.05) tanks. Excessive? It’s power-to-weight ratio is greater than that of every other tier X medium tank (except the Bat-Chat). The terrain resistances are not bad. While worse than that of the medium tanks, they allow for a similar level of mobility. This is especially true up-hill as terrain resistances take a backseat to the power-to-weight ratio. In practice, the Object 268 Version 4 will climb Malinovka or Himmelsdorf before most medium tanks.  

·       The backup speed (22 kph) combined with the power-to-weight ratio:

o   Allows it to minimize its exposure (as if it couldn’t rely on its armor)

o   Rock back & fourth quite violently

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion, the tank requires one or a combination of these NERFS:

1. ​​Reduced superstructure armor thickness (square around the gun): Down to 260-270 mm

​- Justify mobility

- Similar effectiveness to that of the JPz E100

- Can be countered (mostly by premium ammunition)

2. Reduced viewport thickness: Down to 200-220 mm

​- Give tier 8 tanks a chance to damage it. In it's current state, it is not balanced for tier 8 matches.

3. Reduced reverse speed: Down to 13-15 kph

​- Similar to mobile heavy tanks and TDs

- Fast enough

4. Reduced power-to-weight ratio: Down to 10-15 hp/t

​- 1500 HP engines are uncommon, especially for the 1950's

- Developed on the basis of the T-10! Real estate limitations are a thing.

- The T-10 engine has 700 HP. It's engine power should not be much greater than 1000. Fantasy tanks don't require fantasy power-to-weight ratios. 

​​


Edited by flowerpower210, Feb 20 2018 - 08:30.


scottie_ #2 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 08:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16893 battles
  • 298
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012
It's seemed that everyone was concerned with the new Russian heavies and medium being OP, but holy s**t!, This tank is a monster, I always look for it in the lineup and support where it goes.  I'm not a TD player but this tank has me considering a grind down that line.  Maybe that is the WG intent?

_Bagheera_ #3 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 09:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 34924 battles
  • 5,537
  • [ICON-] ICON-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

all of these are reasonable assesments. +1.

 

They wont nerf it the way you said tho. they will wait a few months then beat it into nothingness like the Foch 155.

 

Even after the rebuff. It's still a horrible tank. I cant even stomach my Foch B either. 



Ace_D3struct0r #4 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 10:26

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 46306 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    09-24-2011
I feel they overcompensated this tank in order to justify their decision to down tier Obj263 and pissing off its owners. Probably will nerf it soon. 

NK_33 #5 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 10:48

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19312 battles
  • 3,376
  • Member since:
    12-24-2014
The only thing wrong with this OP heavy is the awful turret traverse . . . what do you mean it's a TD, this is the ultimate brawling heavy compensated for by the awful turret traverse.

Staz211 #6 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 13:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 27045 battles
  • 3,896
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

I watched two 268 v4s push the valley on Lakeville, by themselves, and absolutely slaughter almost the entire enemy team. They never slowed down; they werent even trying. It was tap R three times and laugh. 

 

The 264 v4 is blatantly over powered. How any decent dev could have justified putting it in the game in its current state is beyond me. 



flowerpower210 #7 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 16:33

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23309 battles
  • 614
  • [TUF] TUF
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011

Above all else, I dislike it's power to weight ratio. It's too much. Maps are small and, over short distances, it can keep up with a Leopard 1. 

 

The Leopard's speed is justified by it's complete lack of armour, atrocious soft-stats and below average dpm. 



FlakKnight #8 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 17:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12781 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013
It should be a slug, it's a cartoon tank.  The only reason I'm not terribly upset yet is because I haven't had too many issues with them in games yet personally and it's so ridiculous that it's going to be nerfed.  I just kill their teams around them and then they die to the 6v1 swarm.

Can't even overmatch it's engine deck while it's face hugging unless you're a JPE or 183/4005, lol.

JA_Pinkerton #9 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 17:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 31780 battles
  • 4,449
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View Post_Bagheera_, on Feb 20 2018 - 03:16, said:

 

They wont nerf it the way you said tho. they will wait a few months then beat it into nothingness like the Foch 155.

 

It's a Russian tank.  They will wait at least a year, then nerf until it's still the best TD, but not as broken.

spud_tuber #10 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 18:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 53322 battles
  • 6,772
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostFlakKnight, on Feb 20 2018 - 10:22, said:

It should be a slug, it's a cartoon tank. The only reason I'm not terribly upset yet is because I haven't had too many issues with them in games yet personally and it's so ridiculous that it's going to be nerfed. I just kill their teams around them and then they die to the 6v1 swarm.

Can't even overmatch it's engine deck while it's face hugging unless you're a JPE or 183/4005, lol.

I put an E4 AP round into one at practically facehug range the other day.  At facehug range, I'm sure I'd have an even better downward angle on him.  Then again, atm I can't remember if I put it in the engine deck or the UFP.



usercar001 #11 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 18:56

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 17420 battles
  • 94
  • Member since:
    06-10-2017
This tank is beyond op. I drive a Maus and it rapes me most of the time. I can't pen it frontally even with gold but it can pen me with ap even when angled! Only way I can deal with it is face hug it and shoot its roof armor. No way of flanking it with its insane speed. 268 4 has all the positives: armor of a super heavy without weak spot, speed of a light/medium, gun of a tank destroyer. only negative is its non-turret gun.  

Edited by usercar001, Feb 20 2018 - 18:56.


FlakKnight #12 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 18:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12781 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013

View Postspud_tuber, on Feb 20 2018 - 17:23, said:

I put an E4 AP round into one at practically facehug range the other day.  At facehug range, I'm sure I'd have an even better downward angle on him.  Then again, atm I can't remember if I put it in the engine deck or the UFP.

 

I'm guessing UFP because the engine deck is 55 and iirc E4 is just 155 right?



spud_tuber #13 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 19:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 53322 battles
  • 6,772
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostFlakKnight, on Feb 20 2018 - 11:58, said:

 

I'm guessing UFP because the engine deck is 55 and iirc E4 is just 155 right?

E4 is 155, yes.  But 155 2X overmatches 55mm, so if I was shooting downward just enough to avoid hitting at an angle off normal >70°, it would still fairly easily pen. 

 

I'll try to find the replay tonight if I remember, and see where I actually shot him.



FlakKnight #14 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 19:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12781 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013
Overmatch is 3x though, maybe you had enough depression to you trigger a ricochet and pen, I dunno. 

spud_tuber #15 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 19:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 53322 battles
  • 6,772
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostFlakKnight, on Feb 20 2018 - 12:22, said:

Overmatch is 3x though, maybe you had enough depression to you trigger a ricochet and pen, I dunno. 

2X overmatch is a thing, and grants the normalization bonus.  3X overmatch simply adds no ricochet to the benefits.  At least according to the wiki

 

http://wiki.wargamin...anics#Overmatch

Block Quote

 

If the AP or APCR shell's caliber is more than 2 times the nominal thickness of the armour (Such as a 130mm shell hitting a 60mm thick plate), projectile shell normalization is increased by the following formula: basic normalization * 1.4 * shell caliber / nominal armour thickness. Note that the shell is still capable of bouncing if it strikes the armor at an angle of 70° or more from normal.

If the AP or APCR shell caliber is more than 3 times the nominal thickness of the armour (such as a 130mm shell hitting a 40mm thick plate), no ricochet will happen even if the impact angle is more than 70° from normal. The increased shell normalization described above will also occur.

 

 



Dogsoldier6 #16 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 19:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 58599 battles
  • 2,777
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

View Postusercar001, on Feb 20 2018 - 18:56, said:

This tank is beyond op. I drive a Maus and it rapes me most of the time. I can't pen it frontally even with gold but it can pen me with ap even when angled! Only way I can deal with it is face hug it and shoot its roof armor. No way of flanking it with its insane speed. 268 4 has all the positives: armor of a super heavy without weak spot, speed of a light/medium, gun of a tank destroyer. only negative is its non-turret gun.  

 

(See below after reading this comment please the first part only addresses this comment, the rest is on the 268v4) First off it is fast moving forward, but turns like a slug. Second it has weak spots, from all angles, otherwise you wouldn't see them getting penned in CW, the only battles I have driven it in so far is CW I have been penned from the front, sides, and rear. Sorry too busy grinding other tanks to take it out in pubbies.

 

To some extent I believe, and WoT has done this before as do other gaming companies, they introduced it pretty OP to get people to spend gold to speed grind to it. Then it will get the nerf hammer down the road. Myself I do not spend gold to speed grind to the next, new, OP tank introduced. But if others want to spend it so be it, after all World of Tanks is a business designed to make money and I do not blame them for that.



FlakKnight #17 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 19:43

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12781 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013

View Postspud_tuber, on Feb 20 2018 - 18:28, said:

2X overmatch is a thing, and grants the normalization bonus.  3X overmatch simply adds no ricochet to the benefits.  At least according to the wiki

 

http://wiki.wargamin...anics#Overmatch

 

 

 

Yea but can you even get the gun that low?  I couldn't with my AMX 45 51 with the 127 using prem AP rounds even, was auto bounce every time and that's a pretty tall tank.



spud_tuber #18 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 19:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 53322 battles
  • 6,772
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostFlakKnight, on Feb 20 2018 - 12:43, said:

 

Yea but can you even get the gun that low?  I couldn't with my AMX 45 51 with the 127 using prem AP rounds even, was auto bounce every time and that's a pretty tall tank.

Hmm, possible not.  I was more worried about how much health I was going to lose to sniping reds to pay as much attention as I could have to where I hit.  As I said, I'll try to find the replay tonight.



FlakKnight #19 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 20:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12781 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013

View Postspud_tuber, on Feb 20 2018 - 18:56, said:

Hmm, possible not.  I was more worried about how much health I was going to lose to sniping reds to pay as much attention as I could have to where I hit.  As I said, I'll try to find the replay tonight.

 

That sounds like work, you should just grab a pitchfork and demand its murder instead.



Mikosah #20 Posted Feb 20 2018 - 20:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,082
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013
The idea of a very fast TD with crazy front armor is an interesting novelty, but as the OP says it does come with strings attached. One is that the other TDs in its line don't play the same way unless top tier and even then its situational, so RIP consistency. The second is that when trying to play like a turretless heavy, why not just play an actual heavy? And third, this sort of armor is frustrating for all parties involved. Whenever it works or whenever it fails, someone gets screwed. And fourth, if WG tries to tweak the 268v4 to be a more normal TD, then the question gets raised of why the line was ever changed in the first place.





Also tagged with obj, object, 268, op, bias, 9.22

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users