Jump to content


the STB-1 "buff" Feedback


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

THE_SOCK_MONSTER #21 Posted May 19 2019 - 04:21

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 36616 battles
  • 86
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    01-29-2011
The “meta” has been and always will be Russian tanks with a few other nation’s tanks sprinkled in from time to time. Anyone who plays clan wars can see that it’s true. I for one am just tired of the same old “meta” from a supposedly “diverse” game.

Avalon304 #22 Posted May 19 2019 - 04:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 23642 battles
  • 10,119
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostTHE_SOCK_MONSTER, on May 18 2019 - 20:21, said:

The “meta” has been and always will be Russian tanks with a few other nation’s tanks sprinkled in from time to time. Anyone who plays clan wars can see that it’s true. I for one am just tired of the same old “meta” from a supposedly “diverse” game.

 

I mean... thats not even close to true.

Asassian7 #23 Posted May 19 2019 - 07:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 25494 battles
  • 12,137
  • [PETCO] PETCO
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View PostAvalon304, on May 19 2019 - 14:35, said:

 

I feel the need to point out that the meta of this game has only developed as it has because every tank is capable of doing everything at least semi-well. Giving tanks diverse roles, and unique roles is the way the meta starts to shift.

 

These werent just "buffs" to the STB (or the Leopard), these were complete reworks. Diversifying the roles of tanks, while making them worse in the short term (as far as the games current meta is concerned) will be better in the long term because it will provide a more dynamic and unqie meta to emerge over time. This needs to be supported by other things, but it does have to start somewhere.

It isn't the tanks themselves that have caused this meta though. It is the maps. map design has forced all tanks to be able to play similar roles, and if they can't then they're worthless. Which is why the meta is currently jack of all trade heaviums.

View PostTHE_SOCK_MONSTER, on May 19 2019 - 15:21, said:

The “meta” has been and always will be Russian tanks with a few other nation’s tanks sprinkled in from time to time. Anyone who plays clan wars can see that it’s true. I for one am just tired of the same old “meta” from a supposedly “diverse” game.

This isn't even close to true. if you have played clan wars throughout the years then you'll understand.

 

the meta is currently Russian meds and heaviums, with chieftains/super conqs, and EBRs/T100s. 

 

the meta used to be all over the place. E100s, Maus's, E5 was the best meta heavy for the longest time in the game. literally from when it was released up until its nerf and the Super Conquerer's release. batchats were used, heck even STB's and Leos were used pretty commonly for niche positions, historically the only meta russian tanks have been the RU meds, and maybe the IS-7 popping in and out depending. 



Avalon304 #24 Posted May 19 2019 - 09:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 23642 battles
  • 10,119
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostAsassian7, on May 18 2019 - 23:59, said:

It isn't the tanks themselves that have caused this meta though. It is the maps. map design has forced all tanks to be able to play similar roles, and if they can't then they're worthless. Which is why the meta is currently jack of all trade heaviums.

 

 

Its both. Its also the players letting themselves get shoehorned into it. Its a whole host of things.

 

But for it to change, they have to start somewhere. The tanks are as good a place as any to start.

 

Yes, the maps lend themselves better to the current meta, but the maps are the way they are because the playerbase, by and large, is too dumb to understand anything more than "drive to corridor and click on reds" (and even then most of them cant even click on reds that well either), because any map that is ultimately more complicated than that (whether it be a completely open map like Prok, or a map with multiple avenues of attack like Paris, or a map where you have to manage crossfires like the new Province, or Studzanki) are derided as terrible maps.

 

Lots of people complain that Paris is a bad map and that the middle of the map is a giant killzone and that the field is useless, but thats far from true: Ive won more matches on Paris by flanking through the middle or pushing the field at the right moment than Ive ever seen won by pushing valley on Lakeville. But most people dont like having to manage 3 or 4 separate lanes of attack while their driving whatever tank their driving.

 

There are positions on every map i the game where a Leopard, in either state its in can provide adequate long range support with concealment or hard cover to use. And to be honest, with the exception of a few maps that were drastically reworked a long the way, most of the maps in this game havent actually changed in meaningful ways (Redshire, Erlenberg, El Halluf and the upcoming Kharkov come to mind as the maps with the most drastic reworks), but by and large most of the maps havent changed since the days when the T110E5 was OP (and even since before the T110E5 was OP). There have always been corridors and chokepoints and killzones on these maps,

 

The player base is also why we've gotten the tanks to the spots where they are now. The M48 Patton wasnt a bad tank before it got its turret armor buff... but people couldnt manage a cupola weakspot, or manage their exposure so as to not poke out when someone is ready to shoot them. The T110E5 isnt a bad tank now, people just cant manage a cupola weakspot. The Maus really wasnt a bad tank before it got its armor buffs, but everyone declared that its armor was bad. Lots of this games problems can be traced back to player complaints. Back in the old days, for better or worse, the tanks were more diverse, even if that made some of them less good in certain situations. They, by and large, had specific roles to do and they usually did them very well, and if they didnt, they were average jacks of all trades, not superb ones like we have now. 

 

We need to return to that. Unique roles for tanks. Slightly opening up those maps that were drastically changed. Allowing for more crossfires in certain areas, giving good plaches for heavies to brawl but where they still need to be cognizant of their exposure to all angles, allowing for more flanking opportunities, bringing scotuing back. 

 

It has to start somewhere. If it starts with the tanks the meta will follow. If it were to start with the maps, the meta would still have to follow. As it is, changing tanks is quicker and easier to do. Maps, as we have seen, take time. More time than anyone would be happy with.



Genzing #25 Posted May 19 2019 - 11:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23431 battles
  • 648
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
It's depressing seeing the spot the STB is going, DPM with terrible implementation. May have to retire ol girl and leave her to just gather dust and admire every once in a while. Meanwhile WG cancels nerfs to their precious russian tanks.

Trauglodyte #26 Posted May 19 2019 - 14:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23747 battles
  • 3,803
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View PostAvalon304, on May 19 2019 - 03:35, said:

 

I feel the need to point out that the meta of this game has only developed as it has because every tank is capable of doing everything at least semi-well. Giving tanks diverse roles, and unique roles is the way the meta starts to shift.

 

These werent just "buffs" to the STB (or the Leopard), these were complete reworks. Diversifying the roles of tanks, while making them worse in the short term (as far as the games current meta is concerned) will be better in the long term because it will provide a more dynamic and unqie meta to emerge over time. This needs to be supported by other things, but it does have to start somewhere.

 

Diversity of tanks is a good thing - everything needs to play differently.  The problem isn't diversification but the imbalance of strengths of that diversification.  If hull down with no bloom, due to stronger than necessary soft stats, and minute weak spots is the best way to play, that is what people are going to gravitate towards and no amount of buffs is going to change that.  That isn't to say that the game is "pure Russian bias", like the earlier poster.  But, look at it from the stand point of the newly buffed Leopard 1 - as I mentioned earlier, it still has worse vision than the M48 Patton which is NOT a sniper tank.  I don't mind the changes to the Leo and actually rather like them.  But, WarGaming is making changes, in a vacuum, and ignoring the stats and features of all other tanks, in the process.  If you're going to diversify tank lines, for specific roles and actions, you have to look at it holistically, both in terms of other tanks and their stats and how the maps play.  While you say that there isn't a map that the Leo can't snipe on, which you're correct in saying, you're leaving out the issue that there are different levels by which it can achieve that goal.  Meanwhile, there are no limitations on the ability to go hull down with no bloom and microscopic weak points.  There is also little point in changing the STB-1 into a hull down tank when dabbing the #2 key just completely negates that power.

 

To be clear, I like the changes and the concept by which they're making these changes.  I just sometimes look at it like two people comparing their Ferrari's where one of them has a Yugo engine.  They both look really nice but one isn't exactly as good as the other.


Edited by Trauglodyte, May 19 2019 - 14:16.


Anublister #27 Posted May 19 2019 - 16:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 68707 battles
  • 1,051
  • [--T--] --T--
  • Member since:
    05-26-2013

Why didn't you post this in the FEEDBACK section of the forums then?

 

Do you go to McDonalds to get your drivers license?

 

Do you like mixing grammar?

 

Do you ever proofread what you type?

 

Is your objective constructive? If so then manage your delivery so it is concise and easily understood. Otherwise why should anyone bother to read it? 



spud_tuber #28 Posted May 19 2019 - 16:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 59300 battles
  • 8,836
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostAvalon304, on May 19 2019 - 02:25, said:

 

Its both. Its also the players letting themselves get shoehorned into it. Its a whole host of things.

 

But for it to change, they have to start somewhere. The tanks are as good a place as any to start.

 

Yes, the maps lend themselves better to the current meta, but the maps are the way they are because the playerbase, by and large, is too dumb to understand anything more than "drive to corridor and click on reds" (and even then most of them cant even click on reds that well either), because any map that is ultimately more complicated than that (whether it be a completely open map like Prok, or a map with multiple avenues of attack like Paris, or a map where you have to manage crossfires like the new Province, or Studzanki) are derided as terrible maps.

 

Lots of people complain that Paris is a bad map and that the middle of the map is a giant killzone and that the field is useless, but thats far from true: Ive won more matches on Paris by flanking through the middle or pushing the field at the right moment than Ive ever seen won by pushing valley on Lakeville. But most people dont like having to manage 3 or 4 separate lanes of attack while their driving whatever tank their driving.

 

There are positions on every map i the game where a Leopard, in either state its in can provide adequate long range support with concealment or hard cover to use. And to be honest, with the exception of a few maps that were drastically reworked a long the way, most of the maps in this game havent actually changed in meaningful ways (Redshire, Erlenberg, El Halluf and the upcoming Kharkov come to mind as the maps with the most drastic reworks), but by and large most of the maps havent changed since the days when the T110E5 was OP (and even since before the T110E5 was OP). There have always been corridors and chokepoints and killzones on these maps,

 

The player base is also why we've gotten the tanks to the spots where they are now. The M48 Patton wasnt a bad tank before it got its turret armor buff... but people couldnt manage a cupola weakspot, or manage their exposure so as to not poke out when someone is ready to shoot them. The T110E5 isnt a bad tank now, people just cant manage a cupola weakspot. The Maus really wasnt a bad tank before it got its armor buffs, but everyone declared that its armor was bad. Lots of this games problems can be traced back to player complaints. Back in the old days, for better or worse, the tanks were more diverse, even if that made some of them less good in certain situations. They, by and large, had specific roles to do and they usually did them very well, and if they didnt, they were average jacks of all trades, not superb ones like we have now. 

 

We need to return to that. Unique roles for tanks. Slightly opening up those maps that were drastically changed. Allowing for more crossfires in certain areas, giving good plaches for heavies to brawl but where they still need to be cognizant of their exposure to all angles, allowing for more flanking opportunities, bringing scotuing back. 

 

It has to start somewhere. If it starts with the tanks the meta will follow. If it were to start with the maps, the meta would still have to follow. As it is, changing tanks is quicker and easier to do. Maps, as we have seen, take time. More time than anyone would be happy with.

I'm going to have to disagree with you.   Stats clearly showed the M48 wasn't a particularly good tank.  All skill levels of players did worse in it than in most of the available alternatives. 

 

Similarly, the E5 is now inferior to many alternatives. When it was nerfed, the 113 was already matching its ability to generate wins.

 

OTOH, the Maus was doing ok overall even before its buff.   I think the issue here was prem ammo and its effects on the tank 's strengths when encountered in quantity.   In typical WG fashion, they didn't address the issue and instead tried to buff/nerf around the issue, and made the Maus too good unless being prem spammed, and even then maybe a bit too good.  And of course, these armor buffs contributed to more prem spam, almost like a feedback loop.

 

But speaking of typical WG, trying to shoehorn tanks into roles that the maps only give limited opportunities to perform means either making those tanks gods in those roles, which they generally aren't doing, or leaving then inferior at winning  compared to more generalist tanks and tanks which are specialized in the roles the maps provide more opportunities for.



My_Name_Is_Nobody_ #29 Posted May 19 2019 - 17:54

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7038 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    07-13-2018

It's a Japanese medium... you didn't think they were really going to buff it, did you?

LOLOL

 

It's, 'how can we make it look like a buff, when it will actually be a nerf'.


Edited by My_Name_Is_Nobody_, May 19 2019 - 17:55.


Avalon304 #30 Posted May 19 2019 - 21:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 23642 battles
  • 10,119
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postspud_tuber, on May 19 2019 - 08:53, said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you.   Stats clearly showed the M48 wasn't a particularly good tank.  All skill levels of players did worse in it than in most of the available alternatives. 

 

Similarly, the E5 is now inferior to many alternatives. When it was nerfed, the 113 was already matching its ability to generate wins.

 

OTOH, the Maus was doing ok overall even before its buff.   I think the issue here was prem ammo and its effects on the tank 's strengths when encountered in quantity.   In typical WG fashion, they didn't address the issue and instead tried to buff/nerf around the issue, and made the Maus too good unless being prem spammed, and even then maybe a bit too good.  And of course, these armor buffs contributed to more prem spam, almost like a feedback loop.

 

But speaking of typical WG, trying to shoehorn tanks into roles that the maps only give limited opportunities to perform means either making those tanks gods in those roles, which they generally aren't doing, or leaving then inferior at winning  compared to more generalist tanks and tanks which are specialized in the roles the maps provide more opportunities for.

 

It was a fine tank. It just didnt have armor that could be relied on. Because it had a huge turret and a cupola weakspot that was easy to hit. The same can be said of the E5 now. The majority of players cant handle having weakspots on their tanks, because they cant handle exposure and managing their weakspots. Every low armor tank/tanks with weakspots have bad stats in this game, because the majority cant manage them properly. Its the exact reason people cried for turret armor buffs and the removal of the cupola from the M48 and the exact reason people want the cupola removed from the E5 now.

 

Tanks arent specialized in to roles, becuase tanks dont generally fill a specific role anymore. The majority of tanks are superb jacks of all trades now. The maps havent ever been geared toward particular roles (beyond city maps being really good for heavies and open maps being better for more mobile vehicles), its just that tanks have all become more homoginized in recent years. The reality is, right now for pubs, you can pick any tank and be just as well off as any other tank in the game in the vast majority of cases. Even the Leopard 1 or STB-1. Clan wars is different, but clan wars will always be different.

 

The maps do offer plenty of opportunities to snipe for Leopards, even currently  (and sniping doesnt mean sitting on the red line exclusivly, before anyone tries to imply it does), and there are plenty of places for the new STB-1 to work ridges (espeically because this is what it used to be really good at before the HD model).

 

These changes could be the start of something good, provided players dont trip all over themslves to screw it up.



Deputy276 #31 Posted May 19 2019 - 21:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 20403 battles
  • 5,974
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View Post2MOEJOE, on May 17 2019 - 20:01, said:

I can't remember the last time I've seen a Japanese medium  in  pubs much less an STB1.

No kidding!!!. Seeing Japanese mediums is a rarity in pub matches. I had to go into the Wiki just to find out what tier the STB-1 was!!!!:ohmy:

 

And that vain hope that WG will pay attention to the NA forum is pretty hilarious. I mean why would they suddenly start listening to us now? We beg for changes and improvements over and over again but WG just ignores us. 



Deputy276 #32 Posted May 19 2019 - 21:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 20403 battles
  • 5,974
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

Wow...some of these comments make me wonder if some folks are even playing the same game I am. Probably not. Comments from some folks are mainly about clan wars. And that is NOT what the majority of players play. 

 

Maps...making larger maps was done for Frontline. And in that specific mode, it seems to work okay. But for Random...I doubt it. People are NOT going to be willing to wait forever for some stat-padder to kill off the last clown car or light tank that is hiding in a gigantic map. As it is most folks bail the second they die, unless they want to stay and blame or badmouth the remaining players. Searching miles and miles of map gets boring. I know, because I've done it on Steel Beasts PE. The people playing this game aren't interested in long, drawn out battles. They want instant combat RIGHT NOW. Remember, it's that "instant gratification" thing. 

 

And WG makes tanks to work within the limitations of the maps they provide in Random battles. They aren't "custom-designed" for specific players based on how they play. 

 

As to "Why didn't you post this in the FEEDBACK section of the forums then?" It really doesn't matter where this is posted. It will pretty much fall on deaf ears...or eyes. WG listens mainly to the Russian forum. The NA players are here just to keep WG supplied with $$$. All these forums are for NA players is a place to vent. That's why WG provides them. If you really want your suggestions to be read by WG, you will need to learn how to post them in Russian on the Russian forums.  Even then, it's not even a 50-50 chance that WG will actually pay any attention to them. Quite simply, it's their game and they will do whatever they think will make them the most $$$. I mean that is why WOT exists in the first place. Surely no one thought WOT was some kind  of charitable institution being provided strictly for players to "have fun". :amazed:



spud_tuber #33 Posted May 19 2019 - 21:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 59300 battles
  • 8,836
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostAvalon304, on May 19 2019 - 14:01, said:

 

It was a fine tank. It just didnt have armor that could be relied on. Because it had a huge turret and a cupola weakspot that was easy to hit. The same can be said of the E5 now. The majority of players cant handle having weakspots on their tanks, because they cant handle exposure and managing their weakspots. Every low armor tank/tanks with weakspots have bad stats in this game, because the majority cant manage them properly. Its the exact reason people cried for turret armor buffs and the removal of the cupola from the M48 and the exact reason people want the cupola removed from the E5 now.

 

Tanks arent specialized in to roles, becuase tanks dont generally fill a specific role anymore. The majority of tanks are superb jacks of all trades now. The maps havent ever been geared toward particular roles (beyond city maps being really good for heavies and open maps being better for more mobile vehicles), its just that tanks have all become more homoginized in recent years. The reality is, right now for pubs, you can pick any tank and be just as well off as any other tank in the game in the vast majority of cases. Even the Leopard 1 or STB-1. Clan wars is different, but clan wars will always be different.

 

The maps do offer plenty of opportunities to snipe for Leopards, even currently  (and sniping doesnt mean sitting on the red line exclusivly, before anyone tries to imply it does), and there are plenty of places for the new STB-1 to work ridges (espeically because this is what it used to be really good at before the HD model).

 

These changes could be the start of something good, provided players dont trip all over themslves to screw it up.

Thing is, they have, or had, worse stats in the hands of very good players as well when compared to those player's normal performance.   For some reason, you seem to think these stats aren't representative of reality, just like your claims regarding the defender not actually being that good.  These tanks don't exist in a vacuum,  but in the meta of world of tanks, including who plays against and with them.



Avalon304 #34 Posted May 19 2019 - 23:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 23642 battles
  • 10,119
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postspud_tuber, on May 19 2019 - 13:53, said:

Thing is, they have, or had, worse stats in the hands of very good players as well when compared to those player's normal performance.   For some reason, you seem to think these stats aren't representative of reality, just like your claims regarding the defender not actually being that good.  These tanks don't exist in a vacuum,  but in the meta of world of tanks, including who plays against and with them.

 

They arent. Because the reality was (and is in cases) theyre still good tanks, regaldress of players performing worse in them than other tanks. The M48 was fine before the buffs, just as the E5 is fine now (and just as having good armor doesnt make the Defender a good tank). A tank not having good stats doesnt mean its a bad tank. Because the reality is: In pubs youre going to be just as well off in a T32 as you will be in a Defender. You'll be just as well off in a Leopard 1 as you would be in an M48 Patton. because in pubs it really doesnt matter what tank youre driving. It matters how you personally play the tank youve chosen. There are no tanks in this game that are so irredeemably bad that you cant do anything in them. There is always going to be a tank that is worse than all the others. If it wasnt the Leopard 1 for tier 10 mediums it would be something else. If werent the AMX 65t for tier 8 heavies it would be something else. But theres no tank that you can drive in this game and be completely ineffective, unless you as a player arent capable of making things work.



spud_tuber #35 Posted May 20 2019 - 01:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 59300 battles
  • 8,836
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostAvalon304, on May 19 2019 - 16:26, said:

 

They arent. Because the reality was (and is in cases) theyre still good tanks, regaldress of players performing worse in them than other tanks. The M48 was fine before the buffs, just as the E5 is fine now (and just as having good armor doesnt make the Defender a good tank). A tank not having good stats doesnt mean its a bad tank. Because the reality is: In pubs youre going to be just as well off in a T32 as you will be in a Defender. You'll be just as well off in a Leopard 1 as you would be in an M48 Patton. because in pubs it really doesnt matter what tank youre driving. It matters how you personally play the tank youve chosen. There are no tanks in this game that are so irredeemably bad that you cant do anything in them. There is always going to be a tank that is worse than all the others. If it wasnt the Leopard 1 for tier 10 mediums it would be something else. If werent the AMX 65t for tier 8 heavies it would be something else. But theres no tank that you can drive in this game and be completely ineffective, unless you as a player arent capable of making things work.

So stats don't matter, only you feels.  Got it.

 

Edit 2:  and no,  you won't be just as well off in a T32 as a defender.  Defender is worth at least a 3% increase in WR for most skill levels of players.  So, you are in part still denying stats

/edit 2. 

Original edit follows 

 

Edit:

 

After reading past your claim that tanks with bad stats are still good tanks, I see the issue may be one of what constitutes a "good tank" rather than an issue with you completely rejecting stats.  Any tank that is below average isn't a good tank, unless you intend to call below average players good players as well?  So, perhaps you meant simply "acceptable" rather than good?

 

Anyway, you're correct that there will always be a best and worst tank. However, there are 2 issues that can arise despite accepting this.

 

The first is how much better, or worse, than average a tank is.  This is somewhat subjective, of course, as everyone has their own cutoff for what is acceptable.   For reference, the difference in WR between playing the defender vs the amx 65t is something like 6-7% on average across the skill spectrum in favor of the defender.

 

The second issue is when WG takes a tank already below average and makes it worse, or above average and makes it better.   This is one of the issues with WG trying to artificially squeeze tanks into rolls that just aren't as viable as other rolls or a generalist in the current meta. 



Volcanic_lobster_220 #36 Posted May 20 2019 - 03:18

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 8708 battles
  • 1,053
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View PostF1O1, on May 18 2019 - 03:26, said:

l find it extremely unfair, uncharacteristic, that when WG buffed lS7 year and a half ago....They buffed the tank.

They did not nerf half the aspects, and buff other half. They flat out buffed it with only improvements.

Why can't they seem to do the same, with Leopard, AMX30, STB1? 

 

With 140, did they buff half of it, and nerf the other half? No. Just buffs. [(why buff 140 in the first place?)]

 

This ^^^ the WG Devs are idiots, when you BUFF something you don't NERF the rest of the stats for absolutely no reason other than "because it's not Russian".

The_Iron_Bullet #37 Posted May 20 2019 - 03:33

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 20261 battles
  • 611
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014
You know the one thing that really made me dislike this buff/nerf was the penetration. It went from 258 to 232; why in the world would a tier 10 tank have such terrible pen!? Heck, tier 10 LTs have better pen than 232!

spud_tuber #38 Posted May 20 2019 - 04:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 59300 battles
  • 8,836
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostThe_Iron_Bullet, on May 19 2019 - 20:33, said:

You know the one thing that really made me dislike this buff/nerf was the penetration. It went from 258 to 232; why in the world would a tier 10 tank have such terrible pen!? Heck, tier 10 LTs have better pen than 232!

Pen at 100m stayed the same at 258.  For some reason, they nerfed pen falloff some, and that 232 is at 500m, which is currently 248.  That's still a pretty significant nerf, but not as bad as it first appears. 



Asassian7 #39 Posted May 20 2019 - 04:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 25494 battles
  • 12,137
  • [PETCO] PETCO
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011
Im sorry avalon, Im not gonna quote allc your posts, but I simply disagree.

Plus, changing tanks that are creating the meta is, IMO, a better option than changing tanks that aren't. Anyway, look at all the meta tanks, they all basically do similar things. 5a/277/260, RU meds are all the same, super conq/chieftian are similar, etc.

Changing tanks like the STB which already have a fairly unique role (and plays a lot different to the Cent AX or M48, at least when comparing to 5a vs 277 or Sconq vs chieftian) to be even more whacky isn't really an ideal strategy.

Deputy276 #40 Posted May 20 2019 - 16:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 20403 battles
  • 5,974
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013
In all things, "follow the money trail". While buffing and nerfing some parts of a tank may "make no sense", WG doesn't do anything without first considering how it will affect their bottom line. It may not be immediately visible, but that's the way it is. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users