Jump to content


The Deceit of WG

Object 277; Update 1.0.2

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

wXwXw #1 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:18

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22099 battles
  • 153
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    05-28-2015

I just updated the game and went into my garage to purchase Object 277. When I compared the 277 with the 5A, I became extremely annoyed to learn that the WG replaced the APCR with HEAT. As one tanker pointed out:

 

In comparison, the 5A has;

+Better DPM

+Better accuracy

+Better dispersion

+Better armour

-Slightly worse mobility

 

I am not mad that WG decided to nerf some of the features of the tank. What pisses me off is WG’s lack of respect and consideration for its paying customers and fans. It took them over 4 months to nerf the V4, a tank that completely ruined the random games and the Clan Wars. And now, they test one tank but introduced a completely different tank to the game without telling us prior to any changes. May I remind you that I spent time, premium time, for obtaining the tank with the features advertised.     

 

REPLACING THE APCR WITH HEAT ALTERS THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE TANK SIGNIFICANTLY. WE, THE WOT COMMUNITY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THESE CHANGES PRIOR TO THE UPDATE!!!

 

Congratulations WG! Once again you have proven to be the most deceitful company I ever came across!

 

Cheers,

Alexander

 



Connor_344 #2 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:23

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 17868 battles
  • 187
  • Member since:
    01-18-2016

Nothing surprises me about WG, sooner or later you get used to it.....

 

EDIT: I played for a month with the T-10 to get the 277, now I'm not sure if I should buy it. Not yet at least


Edited by Connor_344, Jun 13 2018 - 20:28.


RRR3 #3 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 22946 battles
  • 2,884
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012
Yeah WG was not clear at all in their "adjustment" post of the soviet vehicles with regards to the Object 277. But I mean what did you expect from WG, just look at the June 11 Incident, and now WG totally denies it and will not compensate. I was so excited to see a top tier heavy with APCR but noo. Some how WG's history suddenly changed, and they discovered the 277 didn't fire APCR. It is all a big joke as usual, please gib your wallets.

_Promote_Synergy_ #4 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:25

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15732 battles
  • 901
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    09-30-2013

OH NO! Guess you didn't do your research on the patch notes/test notes before the tank came out. I am glad it is not OP with 350 apcr from the get go. Honestly the APCR should have been 330 pen, then it is good in my book.


The 277 has a better turret. Marginally better gun stats, minus the dpm part.

It will be faster than the 5a in some areas of the maps.


All in all it is not a bad tank. Just kinda meh since the 5a has superior dpm.

 

It is on you for sinking your time and premium time into a tank that was not finalized or released yet. You can't blame WG for balancing a tank before having another v4 situation.



ThePigSheFlies #5 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 63498 battles
  • 16,345
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostwXwXw, on Jun 13 2018 - 14:18, said:

 

I am not mad that WG decided to nerf some of the features of the tank. What pisses me off is WG’s lack of respect and consideration for its paying customers and fans. It took them over 4 months to nerf the V4, a tank that completely ruined the random games and the Clan Wars. And now, they test one tank but introduced a completely different tank to the game without telling us prior to any changes. 

 

 

they tell you straight up that common test is a test client, and that changes may occur.

 

they also make the full specs available BEFORE you spend free xp, or actually purchase the tank.

 

your whinging in this regard is akin to someone visiting the North American Auto Show, seeing a concept car, and then being pissed off that you showed up at the dealership with cash in hand and pissed off that the production car varied from the concept car.  in that case, would you still make the purchase?

 

most people get pissy when they find a beloved tank was dramatically changed, nerfed.  like the M41 Walker Bulldog, or the MegaTurd25™ replacing the T-50-2 which on the surface was bad, but made all the more criminal by inserting a zero xp crew member into the mix, which broke multi-perk crew skills like BIA, Camo, and Repairs (The T-50-2 had a crew of 4, and the MegaTurd25™ has a crew of 5)

 

so, if you could just slow your roll on your being pissed off until they actually rape a tank you have had in your garage, and played hundreds, or even thousands of battles in, we'd all appreciate it.

 

k, thx, bye



CapPhrases #6 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7273 battles
  • 3,456
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015
IMO the 277 should not have been added to the game, what does it add? heck even statwise it just comes across as meh

wXwXw #7 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:31

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22099 battles
  • 153
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    05-28-2015

View Post_Promote_Synergy_, on Jun 13 2018 - 20:25, said:

OH NO! Guess you didn't do your research on the patch notes/test notes before the tank came out. I am glad it is not OP with 350 apcr from the get go. Honestly the APCR should have been 330 pen, then it is good in my book.


The 277 has a better turret. Marginally better gun stats, minus the dpm part.

It will be faster than the 5a in some areas of the maps.


All in all it is not a bad tank. Just kidna meh since the 5a has superior dpm.

 

To me, the 7 depression is much better stat than 5.5. And I agree 350 was a bit too much, I would have been happier with 225 or 230 APCR. But what is annoying is how they did it... I watched a review of the 277 last night by DezGaming and it still assumed that it had APCR. They did not even test the changes, just made it happen in the update.   

_Promote_Synergy_ #8 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:32

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15732 battles
  • 901
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    09-30-2013

View PostCapPhrases, on Jun 13 2018 - 19:28, said:

IMO the 277 should not have been added to the game, what does it add? heck even statwise it just comes across as meh

 

It just makes it so that heaviums have a tier 10 version now. Just so that it may bully mediums.

_Promote_Synergy_ #9 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15732 battles
  • 901
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    09-30-2013

View PostwXwXw, on Jun 13 2018 - 19:31, said:

 

To me, the 7 depression is much better stat than 5.5. And I agree 350 was a bit too much, I would have been happier with 225 or 230 APCR. But what is annoying is how they did it... I watched a review of the 277 last night by DezGaming and it still assumed that it had APCR. They did not even test the changes, just made it happen in the update.   

 

Best not to make assumptions before the real deal is out. Otherwise you can get burnt. I have the XP and credits ground out for the 277 so I will be getting it regardless. It will be a nice tank to play around with. Maybe with the stronk turret you will find them in hull down spots wrecking people.

DomoSapien #10 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:39

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 13585 battles
  • 474
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    12-28-2012

View PostRRR3, on Jun 13 2018 - 13:24, said:

Yeah WG was not clear at all in their "adjustment" post of the soviet vehicles with regards to the Object 277. But I mean what did you expect from WG, just look at the June 11 Incident, and now WG totally denies it and will not compensate. I was so excited to see a top tier heavy with APCR but noo. Some how WG's history suddenly changed, and they discovered the 277 didn't fire APCR. It is all a big joke as usual, please gib your wallets.

 

We definitely are not denying the June 11th server issues. 

CabbageMechanic merged all the server issue threads into a megathread, pinned that thread at the top of General Discussion, and provided real-time updates - (Also mentioned that we are discussing compensation and we will report back as soon as we have an update)
I pinned a notice to the top of the news and information subforum, and updated when the issue was resolved.  - Also linked back to Cabbage's Post that mentions we're looking at compensation

There were also two iterations of common test, the second of which had the current vehicle parameters up for testing. (with the exception of the HEAT round, I believe? Could be wrong there.) Not making any claims about whether or not the changes were warranted because I have not had a chance to test the 277, but I know there were plenty of folks in the CT threads voicing concerns about the 277 overperforming. We'll see how it fares on the live server :) 
 

Edited by DomoSapien, Jun 13 2018 - 20:40.


__WarChild__ #11 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19682 battles
  • 2,659
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

View PostDomoSapien, on Jun 13 2018 - 13:39, said:

 

We definitely are not denying the June 11th server issues. 

CabbageMechanic merged all the server issue threads into a megathread, pinned that thread at the top of General Discussion, and provided real-time updates - (Also mentioned that we are discussing compensation and we will report back as soon as we have an update)
I pinned a notice to the top of the news and information subforum, and updated when the issue was resolved.  - Also linked back to Cabbage's Post that mentions we're looking at compensation

There were also two iterations of common test, the second of which had the current vehicle parameters up for testing. (with the exception of the HEAT round, I believe? Could be wrong there.) Not making any claims about whether or not the changes were warranted because I have not had a chance to test the 277, but I know there were plenty of folks in the CT threads voicing concerns about the 277 overperforming. We'll see how it fares on the live server :) 
 

 

It was kind of you to respond to this even though it wasn't necessary.  I'm sure Nunya was working on a response that would adequately address all that is wrong with this thread.

 

;)



AlirezaTheLord #12 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:45

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 42713 battles
  • 131
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    10-26-2014
We just have to wait and see how it goes. Remember the V4 incident? no one ever thought of it being OP during testing...and look what happened!

wXwXw #13 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:46

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22099 battles
  • 153
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    05-28-2015

View PostDomoSapien, on Jun 13 2018 - 20:39, said:

 

We definitely are not denying the June 11th server issues. 

CabbageMechanic merged all the server issue threads into a megathread, pinned that thread at the top of General Discussion, and provided real-time updates - (Also mentioned that we are discussing compensation and we will report back as soon as we have an update)
I pinned a notice to the top of the news and information subforum, and updated when the issue was resolved.  - Also linked back to Cabbage's Post that mentions we're looking at compensation

There were also two iterations of common test, the second of which had the current vehicle parameters up for testing. (with the exception of the HEAT round, I believe? Could be wrong there.) Not making any claims about whether or not the changes were warranted because I have not had a chance to test the 277, but I know there were plenty of folks in the CT threads voicing concerns about the 277 overperforming. We'll see how it fares on the live server :) 
 

 

That's your go to answer right. We will see how it performes in the live server. Did you really need 4 month of testing to see that V4 was OP as hell?

wXwXw #14 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:51

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22099 battles
  • 153
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    05-28-2015
The issue here is not that WG decided to nerf an OP tank. The issue is how they did it. I played the Common Test and a lot of reviews were based on the CT but the changes on 277 did not show there. There is nothing wrong with working with the community to balance the game but WG tested one thing and without any warring introduced a completely different thing.  

Nunya_000 #15 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 21033 battles
  • 12,653
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View Post__WarChild__, on Jun 13 2018 - 11:43, said:

 

It was kind of you to respond to this even though it wasn't necessary.  I'm sure Nunya was working on a response that would adequately address all that is wrong with this thread.

 

;)

 

Ain't that cute.  It's trying to be snarky.

ThePigSheFlies #16 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 63498 battles
  • 16,345
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostAlirezaTheLord, on Jun 13 2018 - 14:45, said:

We just have to wait and see how it goes. Remember the V4 incident? no one ever thought of it being OP during testing...and look what happened!

 

?!

 

most of the folks I watch stream that sampled it on test thought it was broken as hell and advised their viewers to grind away, or stockpile free xp.



wXwXw #17 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 20:59

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 22099 battles
  • 153
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    05-28-2015

View Post__WarChild__, on Jun 13 2018 - 20:43, said:

 

It was kind of you to respond to this even though it wasn't necessary.  I'm sure Nunya was working on a response that would adequately address all that is wrong with this thread.

 

;)

 

  lol let him be :) 

GeorgePreddy #18 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 21:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 9,741
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

Final patch notes... including the HEAT change... were posted yesterday, one day prior to the update.

 

 

 

 

 

 



Guido1212 #19 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 21:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 76728 battles
  • 7,926
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostwXwXw, on Jun 13 2018 - 19:18, said:

I just updated the game and went into my garage to purchase Object 277. When I compared the 277 with the 5A, I became extremely annoyed to learn that the WG replaced the APCR with HEAT. As one tanker pointed out:

 

In comparison, the 5A has;

+Better DPM

+Better accuracy

+Better dispersion

+Better armour

-Slightly worse mobility

 

I am not mad that WG decided to nerf some of the features of the tank. What pisses me off is WG’s lack of respect and consideration for its paying customers and fans. It took them over 4 months to nerf the V4, a tank that completely ruined the random games and the Clan Wars. And now, they test one tank but introduced a completely different tank to the game without telling us prior to any changes. May I remind you that I spent time, premium time, for obtaining the tank with the features advertised.     

 

REPLACING THE APCR WITH HEAT ALTERS THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE TANK SIGNIFICANTLY. WE, THE WOT COMMUNITY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THESE CHANGES PRIOR TO THE UPDATE!!!

 

Congratulations WG! Once again you have proven to be the most deceitful company I ever came across!

 

Cheers,

Alexander

 

 

It was OP, it got nerfed before it helped unbalance tier 10.  I'd actually not call it nerfed,as it was just a test model until right now.  There's no "deceit" when it was never actually released into the game until now.

Omq_Creampuff #20 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 21:14

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 6944 battles
  • 16
  • [NA-CL] NA-CL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2017
[edited]HEAT rounds APCR made the tank unique now its no good




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users