Jump to content


the STB-1 "buff" Feedback


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

teamoldmill #41 Posted May 20 2019 - 16:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 15473 battles
  • 11,510
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
Sorry to bump in --- testers or smart people comment, maybe in another thread, on German medium changes? Seems useless to me. Making tanks more snipery seems dumb.

Asassian7 #42 Posted May 20 2019 - 19:29

    Major

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

View Postteamoldmill, on May 21 2019 - 03:36, said:

Sorry to bump in --- testers or smart people comment, maybe in another thread, on German medium changes? Seems useless to me. Making tanks more snipery seems dumb.

The leo was always snipery. The buffs to it are good and direct buffs, they do vastly improve the tank...

 

Buuut its not going to make the tank any better because in this meta that playstyle is both worthless and almost impossible. And no buff to the leo will change that. They'll need to change the maps to make that tank properly good again.



Trauglodyte #43 Posted May 20 2019 - 19:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23747 battles
  • 3,808
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Postteamoldmill, on May 20 2019 - 16:36, said:

Sorry to bump in --- testers or smart people comment, maybe in another thread, on German medium changes? Seems useless to me. Making tanks more snipery seems dumb.

 

In regards to the Leo changes, I can comment on them, in the context of about 50 games in the test Leo.

 

- bigger alpha is nice

- shell velocity is amazing

- APCR premium is kind of lackluster, given the pen drop off, but the ability to put a shot on target at range is really nice

- gun handling is a lot better

- increase in speed is a carrot on a stick, since maps aren't big enough nor is the engine power sufficient enough to get you up to 70 kph

 

Only problem is this: if you ever felt claustrophobic, given the size of maps and the frail nature of the "modern" German tanks, then you're still going to feel just as cramped while also feeling like you're getting pushed to a combat range of 375-450 meters.  Good luck to you on the crappy ranged maps like Abbey, Cliff, etc.  But, the bright side to it is that you'll have a bigger punch when you actually get an angle.


Edited by Trauglodyte, May 20 2019 - 19:32.


Rundog #44 Posted May 20 2019 - 19:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 33517 battles
  • 718
  • Member since:
    09-24-2011

View Post2MOEJOE, on May 18 2019 - 14:01, said:

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

 

Yeah. I got the Type61. Wasn't enjoying it, looked at the X stats and gave up.

It's the only med line I have given up on, and I have many X meds.



Deputy276 #45 Posted May 20 2019 - 23:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 20403 battles
  • 5,974
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013
I've got all the Jap(anese) tanks from tier 5-8 plus the Prem STA-2. I was kinda surprised how hard it was to earn credits on the STA-1 compared to the premium STA-2, even though their specs are almost identical. I know Prems are usually pretty easy to make credits with, but the difference in performance was depressing. Made me stop grinding the Jap(anese) medium line at tier 8. I took out my STA-2 yesterday and did pretty well against tier 9-10. And yes, I was the only Jap(anese) medium on both teams.

Asassian7 #46 Posted May 21 2019 - 02:13

    Major

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

View PostRundog, on May 21 2019 - 06:31, said:

 

Yeah. I got the Type61. Wasn't enjoying it, looked at the X stats and gave up.

It's the only med line I have given up on, and I have many X meds.

 

STB-1 in its current form is quite frankly, dank. It is the most fun tank I've ever played, you'll regret not getting it before the changes.

 

the changes make it.... better. but different. 



Genzing #47 Posted May 21 2019 - 02:50

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23431 battles
  • 648
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostAsassian7, on May 20 2019 - 17:13, said:

 

STB-1 in its current form is quite frankly, dank. It is the most fun tank I've ever played, you'll regret not getting it before the changes.

 

the changes make it.... better. but different. 

I love playing the STB-1, but my lord when the gun derps, it does it so hard, gotta love it haha, hopefully WG makes some more changes for the better.



Mikosah #48 Posted May 21 2019 - 19:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,492
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostAsassian7, on May 20 2019 - 12:29, said:

The leo was always snipery. The buffs to it are good and direct buffs, they do vastly improve the tank...

 

Buuut its not going to make the tank any better because in this meta that playstyle is both worthless and almost impossible. And no buff to the leo will change that. They'll need to change the maps to make that tank properly good again.

 

Generally agreed, though the problem wouldn't be as severe if these dedicated 'snipers' could actually hit weakspots consistently at the ranges they're meant to fight at to begin with. The most accurate guns in the whole game are very inconsistent even in ideal circumstances.

Trauglodyte #49 Posted May 21 2019 - 19:55

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23747 battles
  • 3,808
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View PostMikosah, on May 21 2019 - 19:03, said:

 

Generally agreed, though the problem wouldn't be as severe if these dedicated 'snipers' could actually hit weakspots consistently at the ranges they're meant to fight at to begin with. The most accurate guns in the whole game are very inconsistent even in ideal circumstances.

 

Very true.  Though, this kind of leads to what I consider to be one of the most egregious issues with the game.  WAY back, when WarGaming had the initial artillery changes on the sandbox server, they were also testing out changes in shot distribution.  Basically, they wanted to loosen the constraints, thus making players last longer in game by making less shots be around the aim point.  One of the WarGaming devs went on record as saying that the game is currently coded so that players will put 70% of their shots fired within the inner 50% of the aiming reticle.  When the community found out about it, they went ballistic and the concept was scrapped.  The problem with the overall concept of 70%/50% is that it largely benefits Russian tanks, since they have such little bloom while moving their tank and/or turrets.  Meanwhile the "sniper" tanks get hit in the face for moving their tanks and/or turrets but are "compensated" by better aim times and dispersion.  As we all know, dispersion is a joke stat that doesn't really matter and aim time is pointless, to the point that nobody, short of artillery, uses the Enhanced Gun Laying Drive.

 

So, they're in essence rubbing dirt on an arterial bleed because it is the less intensive and more cost effective way of making the Leopard 1 "snipery" instead of doing the hard work that would make the game more balanced.  It is m personal opinion, that there needs to be 4 types of "shot distribution" codes:

 

- howitzer (arty/derp gunners):  100% shot distribution

- close range (hull down brawlers):  70% of shots land within the inner 65%

- medium range (multi-aspect tanks):  70% of shots land within the inner 50%

- long range (snipers):  70% of shots land within the inner 35%

 

The distribution coding would be attached to a gun, specific to the tank.  So, if three tanks all have the same gun but are separated by different play style concepts, the distribution codes could be changed to reinforce that play style.  Case in point, the Pz. IV A should be a medium range distribution tank, with the 75 mm but would be howitzer distribution with the 105 mm.  Meanwhile, the Pz. III/IV would be long range, or a hybrid of medium and long, to support the concept of the overall line, despite the fact that the 75 mm on the Pz. III/IV is the same as that of the Pz. IV A.  These are the levers that this game is starving for, to gain overall balance and differentiation.  In the case of the Leopard 1, they want it to be snipery and what they're doing is going to semi-sort of achieve that.  But, until they actually separate and differentiation the chance of putting shots where the user wants to put shots, thus removing the impact of RNG, all that they're doing is painting the tank the same shade of blue but calling it a different name.  "You can roll a turd in powdered sugar but it doesn't make it a jelly doughnut."



teamoldmill #50 Posted May 21 2019 - 22:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 15473 battles
  • 11,510
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
Above makes sense, of course they would never do that. KV-2 sniping has to be a thing. Still moot, since maps penalize long range fire.

Konigwolfen #51 Posted May 22 2019 - 01:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25124 battles
  • 1,291
  • [BFPA] BFPA
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011

View PostTrauglodyte, on May 21 2019 - 19:55, said:

 

Very true.  Though, this kind of leads to what I consider to be one of the most egregious issues with the game.  WAY back, when WarGaming had the initial artillery changes on the sandbox server, they were also testing out changes in shot distribution.  Basically, they wanted to loosen the constraints, thus making players last longer in game by making less shots be around the aim point.  One of the WarGaming devs went on record as saying that the game is currently coded so that players will put 70% of their shots fired within the inner 50% of the aiming reticle.  When the community found out about it, they went ballistic and the concept was scrapped.  The problem with the overall concept of 70%/50% is that it largely benefits Russian tanks, since they have such little bloom while moving their tank and/or turrets.  Meanwhile the "sniper" tanks get hit in the face for moving their tanks and/or turrets but are "compensated" by better aim times and dispersion.  As we all know, dispersion is a joke stat that doesn't really matter and aim time is pointless, to the point that nobody, short of artillery, uses the Enhanced Gun Laying Drive.

 

So, they're in essence rubbing dirt on an arterial bleed because it is the less intensive and more cost effective way of making the Leopard 1 "snipery" instead of doing the hard work that would make the game more balanced.  It is m personal opinion, that there needs to be 4 types of "shot distribution" codes:

 

- howitzer (arty/derp gunners):  100% shot distribution

- close range (hull down brawlers):  70% of shots land within the inner 65%

- medium range (multi-aspect tanks):  70% of shots land within the inner 50%

- long range (snipers):  70% of shots land within the inner 35%

 

The distribution coding would be attached to a gun, specific to the tank.  So, if three tanks all have the same gun but are separated by different play style concepts, the distribution codes could be changed to reinforce that play style.  Case in point, the Pz. IV A should be a medium range distribution tank, with the 75 mm but would be howitzer distribution with the 105 mm.  Meanwhile, the Pz. III/IV would be long range, or a hybrid of medium and long, to support the concept of the overall line, despite the fact that the 75 mm on the Pz. III/IV is the same as that of the Pz. IV A.  These are the levers that this game is starving for, to gain overall balance and differentiation.  In the case of the Leopard 1, they want it to be snipery and what they're doing is going to semi-sort of achieve that.  But, until they actually separate and differentiation the chance of putting shots where the user wants to put shots, thus removing the impact of RNG, all that they're doing is painting the tank the same shade of blue but calling it a different name.  "You can roll a turd in powdered sugar but it doesn't make it a jelly doughnut."

Additionally shot distribution should be lowered via fully aiming, as its obvious that a stationary gun will be more accurate than a gun attached to a tank moving at all (without modern FCS anyway). Only issue is that 'sniping' is still hampered by extremely poor map design. The great bush removal and nerfs to map geometry and sight lines have made most maps rather horrible for long range fire. Forcing sniper tanks to brawl with inadequate armor.



Rides_with_Death #52 Posted May 22 2019 - 17:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 35457 battles
  • 2,536
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011

View PostKonigwolfen, on May 21 2019 - 18:45, said:

Additionally shot distribution should be lowered via fully aiming, as its obvious that a stationary gun will be more accurate than a gun attached to a tank moving at all (without modern FCS anyway). Only issue is that 'sniping' is still hampered by extremely poor map design. The great bush removal and nerfs to map geometry and sight lines have made most maps rather horrible for long range fire. Forcing sniper tanks to brawl with inadequate armor.

This is an interesting idea, but may lead to more "campy" game play as people will not want to lose thier aiming bonus by moving. But If there was a way to implement it as a class specific  or even maybe as a crew perk?  To say get a 10% aim bonus when stationary for x amount of time, possibly stackable with GLD.



_Xi #53 Posted May 22 2019 - 18:23

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19786 battles
  • 711
  • Member since:
    12-11-2012
Question, when gold ammo is fired at the turret, does the STB-1 actually bounce most of it?

Mikosah #54 Posted May 22 2019 - 19:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,492
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostTrauglodyte, on May 21 2019 - 12:55, said:

 

Very true.  Though, this kind of leads to what I consider to be one of the most egregious issues with the game.  WAY back, when WarGaming had the initial artillery changes on the sandbox server, they were also testing out changes in shot distribution.  Basically, they wanted to loosen the constraints, thus making players last longer in game by making less shots be around the aim point.  One of the WarGaming devs went on record as saying that the game is currently coded so that players will put 70% of their shots fired within the inner 50% of the aiming reticle.  When the community found out about it, they went ballistic and the concept was scrapped.  The problem with the overall concept of 70%/50% is that it largely benefits Russian tanks, since they have such little bloom while moving their tank and/or turrets.  Meanwhile the "sniper" tanks get hit in the face for moving their tanks and/or turrets but are "compensated" by better aim times and dispersion.  As we all know, dispersion is a joke stat that doesn't really matter and aim time is pointless, to the point that nobody, short of artillery, uses the Enhanced Gun Laying Drive.

 

So, they're in essence rubbing dirt on an arterial bleed because it is the less intensive and more cost effective way of making the Leopard 1 "snipery" instead of doing the hard work that would make the game more balanced.  It is m personal opinion, that there needs to be 4 types of "shot distribution" codes:

 

- howitzer (arty/derp gunners):  100% shot distribution

- close range (hull down brawlers):  70% of shots land within the inner 65%

- medium range (multi-aspect tanks):  70% of shots land within the inner 50%

- long range (snipers):  70% of shots land within the inner 35%

 

The distribution coding would be attached to a gun, specific to the tank.  So, if three tanks all have the same gun but are separated by different play style concepts, the distribution codes could be changed to reinforce that play style.  Case in point, the Pz. IV A should be a medium range distribution tank, with the 75 mm but would be howitzer distribution with the 105 mm.  Meanwhile, the Pz. III/IV would be long range, or a hybrid of medium and long, to support the concept of the overall line, despite the fact that the 75 mm on the Pz. III/IV is the same as that of the Pz. IV A.  These are the levers that this game is starving for, to gain overall balance and differentiation.  In the case of the Leopard 1, they want it to be snipery and what they're doing is going to semi-sort of achieve that.  But, until they actually separate and differentiation the chance of putting shots where the user wants to put shots, thus removing the impact of RNG, all that they're doing is painting the tank the same shade of blue but calling it a different name.  "You can roll a turd in powdered sugar but it doesn't make it a jelly doughnut."

 

I'll simply make the brief response that I don't think something like a KV-2 is too accurate. My only point of concern is that something like a Leo 1 is still far too inaccurate. I wouldn't even mind if all guns in the game were extremely accurate- even then, the distinction between a sniper and a brawler could be made via penetration, shell velocity, and steepness of the ballistic arc. 

Trauglodyte #55 Posted May 22 2019 - 19:44

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23747 battles
  • 3,808
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Post_Xi, on May 22 2019 - 18:23, said:

Question, when gold ammo is fired at the turret, does the STB-1 actually bounce most of it?

 

Kind of-ish.  I'd say that it bounces probably 2/3rds of the incoming rounds, based upon my testing, against same class, same tier opponents.  You won't bounce much from Heavies or TDs, but you shouldn't (and neither should any other tank *cough* Russian garbage coding *cough cough*).

 

View PostMikosah, on May 22 2019 - 19:11, said:

 

I'll simply make the brief response that I don't think something like a KV-2 is too accurate. My only point of concern is that something like a Leo 1 is still far too inaccurate. I wouldn't even mind if all guns in the game were extremely accurate- even then, the distinction between a sniper and a brawler could be made via penetration, shell velocity, and steepness of the ballistic arc. 

 

I would argue that it is too accurate, given that it can pull off stupid RNG Stalin Guided munition crap.  Meanwhile, normal tanks that should be more accurate struggle with the same BS that blesses the derp tanks.  But, I think that we're in agreement with the overall concept.  Though, as it stands, "sniper" tanks have the same level of pen as brawling tanks, without the added benefit of accuracy.  Doesn't make any sense that a 430U is more accurate and deadly than a K-91 or that the newly changed Leopard 1 is still subpar in the design concept.



_Bagheera_ #56 Posted May 22 2019 - 20:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 36887 battles
  • 5,744
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

View PostAsassian7, on May 17 2019 - 19:46, said:

so, this is happening. I guess it is technically a "buff" to the tank, but I need to give some major feedback as to why it should not happen, at least with the current changes, in a vein hope that WG will actually listen to a non RU player (and if not I hope the RU players are saying the same thing)

 

The hydualic suspension. Its... okay. There is a slight delay when switching from regular gun dep to the suspension. It makes snap shots especially when over ridges a bit clunky. it is otherwise fairly seamless. I am so far 50/50 on my opinion on it.

 

The turret buff is very nice - its something the tank sorely needed. that can be kept.

 

But heres the problem - It now has -6 only over the sides, you only get that -13 or even the -10 it used to have over the front. this is BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD! It makes the entire suspension buff completely irrelevant. It should be staying at -10 over the side. heck, it should stay at -10 over the front and just have the suspension take it up to -13. At the very least it should have -8 over the sides after this change. as it is now the tank is actually less effective in ridge fighting that it was before, needing to be completely front on to the enemy to get gun dep, which limits angles you can use when poking ridges.

 

Second, the gun changes. The reload is great, my STB now reloads faster than my 140. HOWEVER. I don't think it needs these changes. Ignoring the gun handling, I think I'd rather have the RoF/alpha left as it is. the reason being is they are making everything too complicated. The tank is now too "busy" with the suspension, the mismatched depression, the fact you now need to be sitting in front of enemies constantly to get damage out. There is too much going on with it. Too much different things to concentrate on to get the most out of the tank, even if you can potentially get a lot out of it.

 

the tank in general, even though its supposed to be a buff, doesn't feel any more capable than it did before. even with the major RoF buff and even with the gun handling buff.

 

So, heres my suggestion to what it should actually be:

 

-Keep turret buff. that is really good.

-Gun dep, -10 all around as it is currently. Suspension can take it up to -13 over the front like it currently does on CT.

-ignore the RoF buffs, just leave it as it is. don't change the alpha, leave it at 390. If you have to then maybe a 0.2 second buff would be good. 

-Gun handling buff, I don't actually think it needs it, but I don't think keeping it would make it overperforming or anything.

 

These are what it actually needs. not a complete redesign of how the tank plays which is what WG is currently going for. the current changes are technically a buff, but they don't really work. 

 

It NEEDS the gun handling buffs.

 

With the changes being made to the 30B, Its basically going to be the Current STB WITH a higher rate of fire and about as effective armor. Its technically better since the mantlet now is a Gigantic NOPE black hole that eats shells, so at longer ranges missed shots at the cupola might bounce off.



spud_tuber #57 Posted May 22 2019 - 21:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 59323 battles
  • 8,846
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View Post_Bagheera_, on May 22 2019 - 13:34, said:

 

It NEEDS the gun handling buffs.

 

With the changes being made to the 30B, Its basically going to be the Current STB WITH a higher rate of fire and about as effective armor. Its technically better since the mantlet now is a Gigantic NOPE black hole that eats shells, so at longer ranges missed shots at the cupola might bounce off.

30B buffs not in this iteration of the common test, are they?



_Bagheera_ #58 Posted May 22 2019 - 21:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 36887 battles
  • 5,744
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on May 22 2019 - 14:20, said:

30B buffs not in this iteration of the common test, are they?

 

I dont know but I remember them saying they where basically removing the penetration nerfs from several patches ago. So when these changes go live i belive the 30B is straight up going to be a better STB with good gun handling and penetration.

 

Honestly at 248/300 is more than enough for me to work with so With the nerfs coming to the STB i no longer have any reason to drive it. I can just drive the 30B, do just as well and not lose my alpha.

 

Edit: Its not in this iteration according to Tanks.gg, I'm pretty sure it was stated they where removing the pen nerfs and just leaving the rest alone after the stb changes. These two where just up first because of their unpoularity.

 

(also, JESUS CHRIST the 30B has .03 turret dispersion bloom? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MISS with that? I dont even need Vertstabs...That's OP as fk. I'm getting one of those badboys.)


Edited by _Bagheera_, May 22 2019 - 21:39.


C3rb3rus #59 Posted Jun 15 2019 - 00:40

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18230 battles
  • 142
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

The Japanese medium line sucks, and starting with the sta-1, as the game is nowadays, with map design and power creep, it makes no sense. These changes wont change anything. It's unfortunate, tho. 

Id give the t8-10 auto reloader thingies like the italians, remove the stupid tumors from the sta and type 61, buff turrets a bit so theyre not penned by everything, and forget about minor stupid adjustments. Heck, some lower tier japanese tanks had auto loaders. Bring them back!

Sorry is there is a hint of salt here, i would really like to be able to enjoy these tanks, but its just not happening. They just make no sense. Even tier 6 tanks will have a field day feasting on its hp pool, from any distance at any angle.


Edited by C3rb3rus, Jun 15 2019 - 01:17.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users