Jump to content


Nerfing the 430U / 430, Getto65 / Standard B


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

Steeldeathdriver #1 Posted May 23 2020 - 21:20

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 34599 battles
  • 219
  • Member since:
    05-18-2015

Greetings commanders,

 

We continue working on implementing selective balance changes to certain vehicles. Earlier we talked about the list of planned changes for heavy tanks of 3 branches: the E 100, the IS-4, and the T110E5. However, changes for two medium tank branches are released to Supertest today: the Progetto 65 and the Object 430U.

 

Much time has passed since the release of these vehicles, and all that time they have been unchanged. The top-tier Italian vehicle was considered by many to be a complex and demanding vehicle that can perform well only in the hands of experienced players, mostly because of its autoreloading mechanics. Speaking of the Soviet medium tank, it was and still is a vehicle that's easy to learn, which, thanks to its good armor and generally nice gun handling, became a hybrid of heavy and medium vehicles that combined the survivability and firepower of the former with the advantage in dynamics of the latter. 

 

With time, it became obvious that these vehicles that were simply good at the start, started to stand out in efficiency from the competition because of the growing skill of their owners. These vehicles are available to everyone, they are growing in numbers and start influence the balance in general, both in Random Battles and in special modes. Because of this, we are considering a possibility to change their characteristics, the full list of the changes is provided below. 

 

Please note that these changes are not final. 

 

Progetto 65

It's a versatile medium tank that's able to deal much damage in short bursts and to sustain normal cyclical fire. The changes are aimed at decreasing the efficiency of long-range shooting along with an indirect decrease in general damage per minute. It's worth noting that the main feature of the whole branch, the autoreloading system, stays intact, along with the play style in general. The loading time for separate shells and the shell autoreloading time will stay the same. 

 

Turret Traverse Speed: from 36 to 34 

Aiming Time (s): from 2.1 to 2.5 

Increased the dispersion after firing a shot  

Dispersion at 100 m (m): from 0.33 to 0.35 

Removed the ability to mount the Gun Rammer 

 

Apart from the Tier X vehicle, changes were also made to the Tier IX vehicle.

Standard B

Turret Traverse Speed (stock): from 32 to 30 

The Cannone da 90 Rh gun in the stock turret: 

Aiming Time (s): from 2 to 2.1 

Increased the dispersion after firing a shot 

The Cannone da 105 Rh V1 gun in the stock turret: 

Aiming Time (s): from 2.4 to 2.6; Dispersion at 100 m (m): from 0.35 to 0.37;  

Increased the dispersion after firing a shot 

Turret Traverse Speed (top): from 34 to 32 

The Cannone da 90 Rh gun in the top turret: 

Aiming Time (s): from 2 to 2.1; Dispersion at 100 m (m): from 0.32 to 0.33 

Increased the dispersion after firing a shot 

The Cannone da 105 Rh V1 gun in the top turret: 

Aiming Time (s): from 2.3 to 2.5; Dispersion at 100 m (m): from 0.35 to 0.37 

Increased the dispersion after firing a shot 

Top engine power: from 750 to 690 (Specific Power: from 21.8 to 20) 

Removed the ability to mount the Gun Rammer.

 

Object 430U

A medium tank that combines features of both heavy and medium tanks. Such hybrids usually suffer from the drawbacks of both types, however the Object 430U managed to take the best from them. The changes to this tank will include the changes to its frontal armor and gun handling.  

Object 430U:  

Dispersion during movement and hull traverse: from 0.12 to 0.16 

Dispersion during turret traverse: from 0.1 to 0.12 

Nerf of frontal armor (created weak spots and decrease thickness a bit, so that E 50 had the same or better armor to add the two original nations' armored medium tanks to the meta). The frontal view of the commander's cupola and the gunner's cupola will be reduced to 270 mm of effective armor to allow the Tier IX-X vehicles to penetrate them. 

 

post-502699962-0-92718700-1590159096.jpg

 

The Object 430 will only have its gun handling changed. 

Object 430

Dispersion during movement and hull traverse (both): from 0.14 to 0.16 

Dispersion during turret traverse: from 0.1 to 0.12 

 

Conclusion:

With these changes, we want to decrease the efficiency of the vehicles mentioned above and keep all their key features intact at the same time. The roles of the vehicles will not change, only some borderline cases that made the vehicles too efficient were affected. The mentioned changes are not final and are still tested. We will let you know about the final changes separately, please follow the news. 

 

omg...no nerfs to wheels..=\



Lowridah #2 Posted May 23 2020 - 21:25

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14821 battles
  • 856
  • [T-K-O] T-K-O
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011
Any changes to anything but those heavies listed and the wheelies is a waste of [edited]time.  they say it themselves .. these vehicles were creeping up towards being OP in the hands of skilled players.  That's 5% (sarcasm) of the playing population.  Well done WG .. SMH

Edited by Lowridah, May 23 2020 - 21:25.


Buttknuckle #3 Posted May 23 2020 - 21:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 55578 battles
  • 3,377
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013

Why start a new thread on this topic?

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/627583-stobj-430u-progetto-65-rebalance/page__p__12523318#entry12523318



Cowcat137 #4 Posted May 23 2020 - 21:38

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16801 battles
  • 7,907
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015

Trying to Grok this-

"can perform well only in the hands of experienced players"

So you're nerfing it for all players.

And yet those same experienced players can run their deliberately OP reward tanks nd that's fine with Minsk?

It almost sounds like they intend to protect these experienced players by nerfing any dirty tech tree tanks that might give them trouble and putting a virtual moat around the reward tankers.

It's a very strange game mechanic to bake into a product. It's like telling new drivers at the Indy 500 that they will have to race in dump trucks until they win.



omi5cron #5 Posted May 23 2020 - 21:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 27079 battles
  • 6,154
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013

 luck continues to go sour with high tier tanks.;i just bought 3 of these in the last few months. im a bad player but was hoping to have some luck with these. (430U is only one i did not get). thank heavens i have NOT played them,and dont plan to for a long while. now i dont want to get a feel for them,and then get disgruntled with a nerfing.

 

if i wait til AFTER the nerf,i wont notice any change!!!



Atragon #6 Posted May 23 2020 - 21:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 46378 battles
  • 5,747
  • Member since:
    04-22-2012

I believe the reason those tanks are being nerfed is because they are fun tanks and players play them a lot. They want players to sell the tanks and spend on different tanks.

I bet the marketing dept had a say in this.


Edited by Atragon, May 23 2020 - 21:44.


Cowcat137 #7 Posted May 23 2020 - 21:48

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16801 battles
  • 7,907
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015

View PostAtragon, on May 23 2020 - 21:44, said:

I believe the reason those tanks are being nerfed is because they are fun tanks and players play them a lot. They want players to sell the tanks and spend on different tanks.

I bet the marketing dept had a say in this.


They do have a track record of nerfing popular tanks.



YamahaR6_ #8 Posted May 23 2020 - 21:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 37144 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013
Absolutely ridiculous to even mention a nerf to any tank, especially the Italian tanks.  Fix the damn EBR's and ridiculously OP reward tanks.  What a crock of sh1t!   Pathetic and incompetent bunch of morons.

bake3020 #9 Posted May 23 2020 - 23:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 134 battles
  • 272
  • [-BAT-] -BAT-
  • Member since:
    11-03-2011
They are simply being nerfed because the are destroying the balance of the game.  They are the current scapegoats that take the place of clown cars.

Primace #10 Posted May 23 2020 - 23:29

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13 battles
  • 443
  • [FDM] FDM
  • Member since:
    07-18-2012

View PostYamahaR6_, on May 23 2020 - 15:54, said:

Absolutely ridiculous to even mention a nerf to any tank, especially the Italian tanks.  Fix the damn EBR's and ridiculously OP reward tanks.  What a crock of sh1t!   Pathetic and incompetent bunch of morons.

reward tanks are unique tanks in SerB's days

but he lost in a power struggle, ah no, office politics

the current balance team does not play their own game



goldfinger_555 #11 Posted May 23 2020 - 23:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27957 battles
  • 1,443
  • [FFWC] FFWC
  • Member since:
    10-17-2013
Removing the gun rammer for Italian tanks is too big of a swing.

GundamEz8 #12 Posted May 24 2020 - 00:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29203 battles
  • 256
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    03-25-2013

View PostCowcat137, on May 23 2020 - 21:38, said:

Trying to Grok this-

"can perform well only in the hands of experienced players"

So you're nerfing it for all players.

And yet those same experienced players can run their deliberately OP reward tanks nd that's fine with Minsk?

It almost sounds like they intend to protect these experienced players by nerfing any dirty tech tree tanks that might give them trouble and putting a virtual moat around the reward tankers.

It's a very strange game mechanic to bake into a product. It's like telling new drivers at the Indy 500 that they will have to race in dump trucks until they win.

if wg wanted to protect experienced players there would be no RNG in this game please use your brain next time.



V_P_V #13 Posted May 24 2020 - 02:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 17590 battles
  • 3,288
  • [-PACK] -PACK
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Now I'm angry. I bought a vent last night for my 430U, but if they're going to nerf the frontal armor, then I don't want it! I want my bonds back so I can buy a Tier 8 premium tank. 

 

Grrr.



KIoemn #14 Posted May 24 2020 - 02:31

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 9134 battles
  • 620
  • Member since:
    06-01-2019

I have and regularly play 3 of 4 of these tanks. I agree that they're over powered, and I absolutely think the standard b is a better thank than most tier 10 mediums and definitely needs a nerf. But I find it absolutely ridiculous that they're nerfing some of the only tech tree tanks that can compete with the ridiculous reward vehicles without also nerfing the reward vehicles.

In my opinion it's good for the game to have competitive tech tree tanks, and these nerfs do nothing but further elevate the truly broken tanks into anti-fun territory. But anti-fun is kind of a theme in this game lately.


Edited by KIoemn, May 24 2020 - 02:45.


CardboardJedi #15 Posted May 24 2020 - 02:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14264 battles
  • 1,041
  • [DDVR] DDVR
  • Member since:
    02-19-2012
From the Nether Realms our Waffentragers say, "at least you get to keep your tannnnks...."

stryker105mm #16 Posted May 24 2020 - 02:46

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10767 battles
  • 277
  • Member since:
    06-09-2016
how about nerfing the clan war tanks like the fv 95, 907 and the 269e also the bs ebrs. these are the biggest issue in this game not the 430u and pro65.  wg just does the reverse of what players want to see, they just suck 

The_Pushok #17 Posted May 24 2020 - 02:53

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 18725 battles
  • 1,688
  • [H-UNT] H-UNT
  • Member since:
    08-23-2015
The only balance change I want to see are to the wheelies, meaning when I hit them in the side, no idiotic "critical hit", there needs to be dmg.

el_01 #18 Posted May 24 2020 - 02:56

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5589 battles
  • 318
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    10-27-2018

The Progetto is clearly a massive problem, not like the TVP has better DPM (even with 3/4 shells loaded in Prog65) and better intraclip or anything like that. Nah, that's a convenient omission we'll make to justify nerfing one specific tank that isn't even a problem. The only maybe ridiculous thing that I can think of on the Progetto is the autobounce hull (fwiw what the players calling for the nerf were complaining about - has good gun and autobounce hull), but the turret is large and has no armour so even that doesn't really matter.

 

I think the 430U nerf is meh. The turret is still "screw off" even with the nerf, and I find it really funny that they try to say that it has similar armour to a E50M now. Sure. The E50M has a 185mm turret that's clearly equal to 270+mm. Clearly Tier 9s and 10s will be able to pen the 430U without gold, not like average pen is 250 or so. It's good to see that they're trying though, but ultimately I see it as half-hearted and also a convenient way to delay buffs to the Chinese line.



AllieOop2 #19 Posted May 24 2020 - 03:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 15 battles
  • 2,170
  • Member since:
    02-22-2019

View PostGundamEz8, on May 24 2020 - 00:06, said:

if wg wanted to protect experienced players there would be no RNG in this game please use your brain next time.


Please tell us exactly what the game would be like with no RGN. Use your brain!!!



AllieOop2 #20 Posted May 24 2020 - 03:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 15 battles
  • 2,170
  • Member since:
    02-22-2019

View Poststryker105mm, on May 24 2020 - 02:46, said:

how about nerfing the clan war tanks like the fv 95, 907 and the 269e also the bs ebrs. these are the biggest issue in this game not the 430u and pro65.  wg just does the reverse of what players want to see, they just suck 


I dont think a nerf is needed. Just exclude them from Random matches. They don't belong there to begin with. Let them use them in any modes they want just not Random.






4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users