Jump to content


Upcoming balance adjustments


  • Please log in to reply
1517 replies to this topic

boris55555 #1341 Posted 10 February 2020 - 11:47 AM

    Honary Doctor of Meh

  • Players
  • 27957 battles
  • 3,675
  • [MINC]
  • Member since:
    11-30-2016

View PostPosit1ve_, on 09 February 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

And this is where you'd be wrong.

 

WG knows that shots over cover are possible, they showcased it in their trailer for them. Not only do they know this, but they also actively seem to want it, since the missiles were buffed to be more reliable, more effective, and easier to use after the test version of the Sheridan, since the testers barely used any missiles at all

I stand corrected. Given Ribbles response. This is poor decision making and not a mistake. Now I have a decision to make.


:amazed:6.7/6.8/6.9/6.10/7.0 now we have LAME tanks w broken mechanic “Balancing” Missile tanks is a joke.
WATCH THE SPRING MISSILE TOURNAMENTS; SUPERHEAVIES & TRICK SHOTS. Top down non los magic “situational” missiles on a LAME platform is STILL poorly thought out. Urrrrgggg 

 

 

 


EricOtown #1342 Posted 11 February 2020 - 05:18 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11807 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    06-08-2019

View PostRibbleStripe, on 06 February 2020 - 11:19 AM, said:

6.7 stats arrived

 

Tier 10

 

Tier 9

 

Tier 8

 

What will happen to ATGM tanks? 

 

While introducing the ATGM vehicles, we promised to keep an eye on their battle performance and make prompt balance changes if necessary. The latest data analysis suggests the changes are necessary, so the new LTs will be re-balanced already in Update 6.8.

 

 

  • Reducing APCR penetration will cause these light tanks to play their direct role on the battlefield—instead of penetrating heavies from the top.
  • The missiles were conceived as "situative" ammo suitable for quite narrow scope of battle situations. Initially, the ATMs appeared to be too versatile, so their penetration and damage are going to be decreased.
  • The T92E1 used to bounce shots too effectively for a light tank, so its upper glacis plate thickness will be reduced.


I don’t disagree with these nerfs in principle, but it really doesn’t make any sense for the Tier 9 T92E1 to have the exact same penetration as the tier 10 Sheridan. I can’t think of any tank line in the tech tree where the tier 9 and 10 have the exact same penetration. This nerf will disproportionately impact the Sheridan, as it’s always facing tier 9 and 10 tanks with the best armor in Blitz, whereas the T92E1 faces tier 8 and 9 tanks the majority of the time and 10 less often. 
 

This is why the tier 10 Foch 155 has better pen then the tier 9 Foch. This is why the tier 10 Bat Chat has higher pen the tier 9 Bat Chat. This is why every tier 10 tank in Blitz has higher pen than the tier 9 tank in the same line. 
 

My point is also confirmed by the tank performance stats that you provided. The T92E1 is clearly performing much better vs. it’s peers than the Sheridan is performing vs. it’s tier 10 peers. This may partially be due to the T92E1’s better armor, but I also think it’s also due to the fact that the T92E1 has tier X pen for its shells. I think you should nerf the T92E1’s pen as planned, but the Sheridan should maintain its 240 AP pen and its HEAT pen should only be nerfed down from 340mm to 330mm, not 310mm.  Or you should nerf the Sheridan’s pen as you have planned, but nerf the T92E1’s pen even more than planned.

 

Either option would create some separation between the two tanks giving the tier 10 Sheridan better pen than the tier 9 T92E1, just as it should be. 



rosgrim #1343 Posted 11 February 2020 - 05:32 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 87438 battles
  • 437
  • [COD]
  • Member since:
    04-23-2016

View PostRibbleStripe, on 10 February 2020 - 09:40 AM, said:

 

Maybe because we don't consider it as exploit. According to our stats ATGM tanks dominate not because of ATGMs. Normal shells make those tanks such effective. This is why it's not about the bar. 

However we realize that being hit by a missile can upset some players in certain cases. This is why we make missiles more situational reducing their damage and penetration.


 


ok could you look at these stats for the top 10 dmg for both 9-10 tanks ? I bet all you want those players abuse missile and look out bar technique. 

It is very difficult they could get 7-9k damage only with APCR. 

You may say "ok you are talking about the top damage players"...yes for now. The tech. needs time to became used by more players and even if it is still something not correct for the logic of the tank role. 

Can I ask you this: do you think is correct for a light tank deal more damage than TD s ? (I mean the strongest Td s of the game Foch included)

And do you relay think that the planned nerf will balance this ? well this is a kind of rhetoric because in your mind the answer is yes.

My opinion is that won't work if my assumption is correct (huge damage supported by ATGM/look out bar)

To be clear this assumption is based on the several video where you can see the use of the missile is not 1 or 2 times but 6 or 7 or even more times.

Is this situational on your point of view ?

Anyway thanks for your replay. at the least we can understand the status of WOTB point of view (we can't see detailed stats obviously but I'm pretty sure average won't show the reality)

Last: honestly for me is not a big drama because you still have to be a good player to get outstanding performance.

 

What is annoying and not correct is this kind of damage potential for a light tank that change totally the way to play: Many of these tanks players are started playing like they were TD.

The problem is that the MM consider those light. So who is gonna do the role of the light in the team ? a JG or a Grille ?


Edited by rosgrim, 11 February 2020 - 05:43 AM.


RibbleStripe #1344 Posted 12 February 2020 - 07:45 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Administrator
  • 252 battles
  • 837
  • Member since:
    10-04-2017

View PostEricOtown, on 11 February 2020 - 08:18 AM, said:


I don’t disagree with these nerfs in principle, but it really doesn’t make any sense for the Tier 9 T92E1 to have the exact same penetration as the tier 10 Sheridan. I can’t think of any tank line in the tech tree where the tier 9 and 10 have the exact same penetration. This nerf will disproportionately impact the Sheridan, as it’s always facing tier 9 and 10 tanks with the best armor in Blitz, whereas the T92E1 faces tier 8 and 9 tanks the majority of the time and 10 less often. 
 

This is why the tier 10 Foch 155 has better pen then the tier 9 Foch. This is why the tier 10 Bat Chat has higher pen the tier 9 Bat Chat. This is why every tier 10 tank in Blitz has higher pen than the tier 9 tank in the same line. 
 

My point is also confirmed by the tank performance stats that you provided. The T92E1 is clearly performing much better vs. it’s peers than the Sheridan is performing vs. it’s tier 10 peers. This may partially be due to the T92E1’s better armor, but I also think it’s also due to the fact that the T92E1 has tier X pen for its shells. I think you should nerf the T92E1’s pen as planned, but the Sheridan should maintain its 240 AP pen and its HEAT pen should only be nerfed down from 340mm to 330mm, not 310mm.  Or you should nerf the Sheridan’s pen as you have planned, but nerf the T92E1’s pen even more than planned.

 

Either option would create some separation between the two tanks giving the tier 10 Sheridan better pen than the tier 9 T92E1, just as it should be. 

 

M103 & T110E5
Mauschen & Maus

Leo PTA & Leo 1
ST-1 & IS-4
Conqueror & FV215b

Type 61 & STB-1

WZ-111G FT & WZ-113G FT

AMX 50 120 & AMX 50B

 

I guess there are enough cases when tier 9 tank has the same penetration as tier 10 one. It's normal when two tanks are equipped with the same gun. Just like Sheridan and T92E1.


 

 


RibbleStripe #1345 Posted 12 February 2020 - 08:03 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Administrator
  • 252 battles
  • 837
  • Member since:
    10-04-2017

View Postrosgrim, on 11 February 2020 - 08:32 AM, said:


 

Can I ask you this: do you think is correct for a light tank deal more damage than TD s ? (I mean the strongest Td s of the game Foch included)

 

 

It's not. This is why we adjusting ATGM tanks and are open to further changes if needed. 

 

The vital thing here is that new tanks are dominating not because of missiles at all. Missiles provide a small share of total damage. ATGM drama as far as i can see is based on some videos that are drop in the ocean comparing to overall stats. In fact very few players use missiles effectively. 

 

View Postrosgrim, on 11 February 2020 - 08:32 AM, said:

What is annoying and not correct is this kind of damage potential for a light tank that change totally the way to play: Many of these tanks players are started playing like they were TD.

The problem is that the MM consider those light. So who is gonna do the role of the light in the team ? a JG or a Grille ?

 

There are enough players who use HT as TD. And MM still consider them as heavies. So it's not about MM, the problem is players don't use their vehicles the way it should be done. And it's common issue for each class in the game. 


 

 


Texas_Tyrant #1346 Posted 12 February 2020 - 03:28 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9267 battles
  • 797
  • [UTC]
  • Member since:
    08-02-2018

View PostRibbleStripe, on 12 February 2020 - 02:03 AM, said:

 

It's not. This is why we adjusting ATGM tanks and are open to further changes if needed. 

 

The vital thing here is that new tanks are dominating not because of missiles at all. Missiles provide a small share of total damage. ATGM drama as far as i can see is based on some videos that are drop in the ocean comparing to overall stats. In fact very few players use missiles effectively. 

 

 

There are enough players who use HT as TD. And MM still consider them as heavies. So it's not about MM, the problem is players don't use their vehicles the way it should be done. And it's common issue for each class in the game. 


Since you recognize theproblem with the player base can you implement training? Or training "manuals" that tech scraping, hull down, etc?


We Want Israeli Tanks In Game! Merkava MK 1 Fits In Game!

"Remember the Alamo, remember Goliad" and tank with Vengeance!

Fun fact: There are 15 MBT in game already!

 


boris55555 #1347 Posted 12 February 2020 - 05:46 PM

    Honary Doctor of Meh

  • Players
  • 27957 battles
  • 3,675
  • [MINC]
  • Member since:
    11-30-2016

View PostRibbleStripe, on 12 February 2020 - 03:03 AM, said:

 

It's not. This is why we adjusting ATGM tanks and are open to further changes if needed. 

 

The vital thing here is that new tanks are dominating not because of missiles at all. Missiles provide a small share of total damage. ATGM drama as far as i can see is based on some videos that are drop in the ocean comparing to overall stats. In fact very few players use missiles effectively. 

 

 

There are enough players who use HT as TD. And MM still consider them as heavies. So it's not about MM, the problem is players don't use their vehicles the way it should be done. And it's common issue for each class in the game. 


the drama is:

 

1. the tanks were so poorly balanced to begin with. That was not a missile issue but poor balancing.

2. Cheat aim features. 
3. the game was not balanced nor the players trained in such a way to fight strikes from above

4. whether it’s the gifted or random luck...there is no place for a tank that can strike with ZERO chance of facing return fire. That breaks the game dynamic.

5. Wg has indirectly nerfed all tier 8 premiums with this.

 

the missile mechanic needs to be addressed. Balance the tanks. Or start a new game that eliminates the heavies which are now obsolete.

 

why do you think that so many people are upset over these missiles? Forum, you tubers, Facebook, Twitter, discord. It’s all blowing up because these tanks are broken and the missiles are broken. People are as upset as the whole spare parts problem 3.8 and The destruction of the low tiers 5.5.

 

i don’t understand the wg’s inability to see this. Surely the euro and Russian servers are saying similar things?


Edited by boris55555, 12 February 2020 - 05:52 PM.

:amazed:6.7/6.8/6.9/6.10/7.0 now we have LAME tanks w broken mechanic “Balancing” Missile tanks is a joke.
WATCH THE SPRING MISSILE TOURNAMENTS; SUPERHEAVIES & TRICK SHOTS. Top down non los magic “situational” missiles on a LAME platform is STILL poorly thought out. Urrrrgggg 

 

 

 


wannabeunicum #1348 Posted 12 February 2020 - 07:03 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 39622 battles
  • 5,736
  • [-MM]
  • Member since:
    10-25-2015
If the balancers think the ATGM mechanic is fine, then why are we doing a one update balance? The only tank I can remember is the charioteer and the bdr that had a 1 update balance. Looking at the stats of the sheridan I know the winrate is brought down by the fact its better players playing it and its being spammed so one sheridan = enemy sheridan so therefore only one of them can win. However the average damage too is only 100 higher than the 2nd highest tier X tanks but as we know this is common for a lot of new tanks so why not just wait till 6.9 for the nerf if there wasn't a plan for a rebalance of the missile mechanic? The reactions about the tank itself is more mixed but the vast majority of the playerbase in tier VIII to X agree that the missile mechanic is fundamentally broken.

Edited by wannabeunicum, 12 February 2020 - 07:28 PM.


tanker070 #1349 Posted 12 February 2020 - 08:14 PM

    The Nitwit

  • Players
  • 58244 battles
  • 1,343
  • [SKXLL]
  • Member since:
    07-11-2014

View PostRibbleStripe, on 12 February 2020 - 02:03 AM, said:

 

Missiles provide a small share of total damage. ATGM drama as far as i can see is based on some videos that are drop in the ocean comparing to overall stats. In fact very few players use missiles effectively. 

 

There are enough players who use HT as TD. And MM still consider them as heavies. So it's not about MM, the problem is players don't use their vehicles the way it should be done. And it's common issue for each class in the game. 

Ribble,
> we both agree that there aren’t many players who know how to use missiles ‘feature” effectively.
If we consider this “feature” same as side-scraping then yes whoever knows how to do it, will win in damage trade.
I sense that majority of us see missile feature as a cheat because of that lookout bar and auto aim on touch.  if you can stay behind hard cover and do damage ... this makes 5+ years of experience useless. New feature should add to the game right? Not take away old options.
> balancing team looks at 55-65% wr players, we both know, these players will learn today or tomorrow ... and when that happens dont you think it be much harder to balance by nerfing stats?
missile overhaul is needed one way or another... if Devs insist on keeping this feature, to change how it works is a minimum requirement.

 

im just identifying a problem that can be fixed. Identifying playerbase as a problem fixes nothing mate.
appreciate your replays with us scrubs.


→_→ #tankerTalks

pro tip: Take Deep Breaths Often.


What__why_ #1350 Posted 12 February 2020 - 10:59 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 58432 battles
  • 17
  • [STORM]
  • Member since:
    12-28-2016

View PostRibbleStripe, on 12 February 2020 - 08:03 AM, said:

 

It's not. This is why we adjusting ATGM tanks and are open to further changes if needed. 

 

The vital thing here is that new tanks are dominating not because of missiles at all. Missiles provide a small share of total damage. ATGM drama as far as i can see is based on some videos that are drop in the ocean comparing to overall stats. In fact very few players use missiles effectively. 

 

 

There are enough players who use HT as TD. And MM still consider them as heavies. So it's not about MM, the problem is players don't use their vehicles the way it should be done. And it's common issue for each class in the game. 

yes, the USA lights are incredibly overpowered and its not really because of the rockets. Its because they have 240mm pen with a 560 alpha round, and light tank camo and mobility. Taking that down to 230 will not fix the problem, it needs to be taken down to like 150mm or taken away entirely. Make them use ATGMs and HE.



rosgrim #1351 Posted 13 February 2020 - 05:47 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 87438 battles
  • 437
  • [COD]
  • Member since:
    04-23-2016

View PostRibbleStripe, on 12 February 2020 - 08:03 AM, said:

 

It's not. This is why we adjusting ATGM tanks and are open to further changes if needed. 

 

The vital thing here is that new tanks are dominating not because of missiles at all. Missiles provide a small share of total damage. ATGM drama as far as i can see is based on some videos that are drop in the ocean comparing to overall stats. In fact very few players use missiles effectively. 

 

 

There are enough players who use HT as TD. And MM still consider them as heavies. So it's not about MM, the problem is players don't use their vehicles the way it should be done. And it's common issue for each class in the game. 

 

 

And as I said ATGM is not a drama neither a big deal for me (should be the same for all the players with a brain) but it is still a part of the problem.

You are exactly right about the players.

But this is even more true about these 2 tanks: never saw before (except very few) a light used as Td. 

 

About that, can we do something about the tank roles comprehension ?

thanks



rosgrim #1352 Posted 13 February 2020 - 05:50 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 87438 battles
  • 437
  • [COD]
  • Member since:
    04-23-2016

View Posttanker070, on 12 February 2020 - 08:14 PM, said:

Ribble,
> we both agree that there aren’t many players who know how to use missiles ‘feature” effectively.
If we consider this “feature” same as side-scraping then yes whoever knows how to do it, will win in damage trade.
I sense that majority of us see missile feature as a cheat because of that lookout bar and auto aim on touch.  if you can stay behind hard cover and do damage ... this makes 5+ years of experience useless. New feature should add to the game right? Not take away old options.
> balancing team looks at 55-65% wr players, we both know, these players will learn today or tomorrow ... and when that happens dont you think it be much harder to balance by nerfing stats?
missile overhaul is needed one way or another... if Devs insist on keeping this feature, to change how it works is a minimum requirement.

 

im just identifying a problem that can be fixed. Identifying playerbase as a problem fixes nothing mate.
appreciate your replays with us scrubs.

 

this

+++

(as I also said before in another post: 

-the technique will be learned by all players above 50%. it is just a matter of time

-the mechanic/balance of all the others tank was not designed with the existence of ATGM. with this all the tanks before are obsolete)


Edited by rosgrim, 13 February 2020 - 05:53 AM.


Death__Valley #1353 Posted 14 February 2020 - 06:55 AM

    Purveyor of Dad Jokes

  • Players
  • 21922 battles
  • 557
  • [FOGS2]
  • Member since:
    12-31-2011

Quoting myself from a different thread, but here is my take on fixing the ATGM (even though I would personally prefer them removed, but I doubt that would happen)


This is another justification, in my opinion, that these ATGMs need a time (distance travelled) buffer before the controls kick in. They were never meant to be used the way we use them in game. I know I sound like a broken record, but the ATGM guidance system takes time to activate (enough time for the missile to travel 730 meters). And according to Wikipedia (not always a reliable source of info) would they weren’t even installed in the T92. The ATGM need a time/distance travelled buffer BEFORE THE GUIDANCE SYSTEM ACTIVATES. It also SHOULD HAVE LINE OF SIGHT TO TARGET for controlling the missile. I would also recommend limiting the tank’s ammo capacity and then adding a gun option to NOT CARRY ATGM rounds and add capacity for more APCR, (which really happened in Vietnam).

 

In addition, the missile proved to have a very long minimum range. Due to the layout of the vehicle, the missile did not come into the sight of the gun/tracker system until it was 800 yards (730 m) from the vehicle, at which point it could start to be guided. Because of its maximum range of about 2,200 yards (2,000 m), the system was only effective within a fairly narrow span of combat distances.” - From the “M551 Shillelagh” wiki, link below

 

Aiming the missile was simple; the gunner simply kept his gunsight on the target, while electronics in the sighting system tracked the missile optically and sent corrections through an IR link (similar to a TV remote control). In general the gunners were able to achieve excellent hit rates.” - From the “M551 Shillelagh” wiki, link below

 

Armor units consisted solely of tanks (minus headquarters company) and mechanized infantry units consisted solely of M113s. In this role, the real problem with the Sheridan was its limited ammunition load; normally, only 20 rounds and 8 missiles; although, as the M551s in Vietnam service were not equipped with missiles or their guidance equipment, this increased the basic load of conventional rounds” - From “Sheridan” wiki, link below

 

“The only niche where the M551 Sheridan was not ideal was the medium and long-range anti-tank engagement. The muzzle velocity was so low that a HEAT round fired at longer ranges would have to be "lofted", making aiming difficult, and the flight time would be so long that a moving target would be very difficult to hit. However, it appeared there was a solution to this problem by equipping the tank with gun-fired anti-tank missiles. For longer range engagements a missile would be fired instead of a HEAT round, and although its velocity would also be relatively slow, the guidance system would make a hit highly likely anyway. The M551 Sheridan appeared to offer the best of both worlds; for infantry support the large calibre gun allowed it to fire full-sized artillery rounds and canister shot, while also giving it reasonable short-range anti-tank performance from the same gun.” From the “Tanks in the Cold War” wiki, link below

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51_Shillelagh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T92_Light_Tank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_the_Cold_War


Edited by zcostilla, 14 February 2020 - 07:13 PM.

-INDEFINITELY ON HIATUS


EricOtown #1354 Posted 14 February 2020 - 07:12 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11807 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    06-08-2019

View PostWhat__why_, on 12 February 2020 - 10:59 PM, said:

yes, the USA lights are incredibly overpowered and its not really because of the rockets. Its because they have 240mm pen with a 560 alpha round, and light tank camo and mobility. Taking that down to 230 will not fix the problem, it needs to be taken down to like 150mm or taken away entirely. Make them use ATGMs and HE.


WarGaming’s stats since launch for the missiles tanks don’t show that they are incredibly overpowered.  Especially not the Sheridan. It looks like the Sheridan is a little OP and the T92E1 is OP, but not incredibly so. 
 

Every tank is the game is balanced by its strengths and weaknesses. The Sheridan has 2 huge weakness that help balance its strengths. It’s 2 biggest weakness are its very low DPM for a tier 10 med/light and it’s very weak armor profile. It’s strengths are it’s speed, mobility, penetration, and alpha damage. 

 

The Bat Chat is similarly balanced with a weak armor and low DPM for its tier and it has all of the same strengths as the Sheridan except for penetration. The Bat Chat has great speed and mobility, and very high burst damage of nearly 1,000 alpha. 
 

The T92E1 is more over powered than the Sheridan due to its troll armor profile and it’s super high penetration for a tier 9 tank. For some inexplicable reason, WG decided to give the T92E1 the exact same penetration as the Sheridan for APCR, HEAT missiles, and HE. This makes absolutely no sense. Every tier 9 tank in Blitz has less penetration than the tier 10 tank in the same line. For some inexplicable reason WG chose not to do this with the T92E1 and even the proposed nerfs will still not correct this issue. 
 

The Sheridan has very good pen for a tier 10 tank and because T92E1 has the same pen as the Sheridan, it’s pen is completely broken for a tier 9 tank. This coupled with its troll armor for a light tank, make the T92E1 a lot more broken than the Sheridan because about half the time it’s competing against tier 8 tanks. 

 

Regarding the missiles, I’ve send lots of highlight videos on YouTube showing players shooting the missiles from behind cover using the look around bar, but they don’t show all the missiles that miss or fail to pen their target. Whenever I shoot missiles from behind cover, using the look around bar trick, I probably hit and pen my target only 1 out of ever 4 missiles. This makes the missile tanks’ very low DPM even worse. I enjoy missile because it brings a new unique dynamic to the game, but honestly I think I would be more effective in my Sheridan with regular HEAT. 
 

If I were king of Blitz, these are the changes I would make to the Sheridan and T92E1: 

 

OPTION 1:

 

-Leave the missiles and make no changes to their firing mechanics

 

-Nerf the Sheridan’s penetration for APCR and HEAT missiles, so that they are equal to the tier 10 Bat Chat, but keep it’s HE pen as is
 

-Nerf the T92E1’s penetration more than the Sheridan, so that the T92E1 has pen numbers equal to the tier 9 Bat Chat for APCR, HEAT missiles, and HE. As it stands now, the T92E1 has the exact same pen as the Sheridan. They should not have their pen numbers nerfed equally because that will leave the tier 9 T92E1 with the same pen as the tier 10 Sheridan, which is completely unprecedented in Blitz. 
 

-Nerf the T92E1’s armor so that it’s effective armor thickness is on par with the tier 9 Bat Chat. 
 

-Make no changes to the missile firing mechanics

 


OPTION 2 (to appease all the missile-haters):

 

-Make all of the Nerds listed above, in addition to the following: 

 

-Remove the missiles entirely and replace them with regular HEAT with typical shell velocity 
 

-Make the Sheridan’s HEAT pen the same as the tier 10 Bat Chat

 

-Make the T92E1’s HEAT pen the same as the tier 9 Bat Chat 

 

WG should either leave the missiles as is and not make any changes to their firing mechanics (i.e. look around bar trick) or they should remove the missiles entirely. Leaving the missiles in the game and removing ability to shoot them from behind cover using the look around bar, will make the missiles much weaker than regular HEAT. The problem is that the missiles only have a 30 to 45 meter per shell velocity compared to regular HEAT which travels at 1,000 to 1,400 meters per second. 
 

If you can’t shoot the missiles from behind cover than what you are left with is essentially a super slow HEAT round that travels at only about 5% of the speed of regular HEAT. This is a huge disadvantage as it allows the enemy tank to dodge the missile or get behind cover and you have to sit out in the open for a really long time while your super slow missile travels to its target. Without the ability to use the look around bar to shoot from behind cover, I would much rather have regular HEAT.

 

 

 



Death__Valley #1355 Posted 14 February 2020 - 07:42 PM

    Purveyor of Dad Jokes

  • Players
  • 21922 battles
  • 557
  • [FOGS2]
  • Member since:
    12-31-2011

View PostEricOtown, on 14 February 2020 - 01:12 PM, said:


WarGaming’s stats since launch for the missiles tanks don’t show that they are incredibly overpowered.  Especially not the Sheridan. It looks like the Sheridan is a little OP and the T92E1 is OP, but not incredibly so. 
 

Every tank is the game is balanced by its strengths and weaknesses. The Sheridan has 2 huge weakness that help balance its strengths. It’s 2 biggest weakness are its very low DPM for a tier 10 med/light and it’s very weak armor profile. It’s strengths are it’s speed, mobility, penetration, and alpha damage. 

 

The Bat Chat is similarly balanced with a weak armor and low DPM for its tier and it has all of the same strengths as the Sheridan except for penetration. The Bat Chat has great speed and mobility, and very high burst damage of nearly 1,000 alpha. 
 

The T92E1 is more over powered than the Sheridan due to its troll armor profile and it’s super high penetration for a tier 9 tank. For some inexplicable reason, WG decided to give the T92E1 the exact same penetration as the Sheridan for APCR, HEAT missiles, and HE. This makes absolutely no sense. Every tier 9 tank in Blitz has less penetration than the tier 10 tank in the same line. For some inexplicable reason WG chose not to do this with the T92E1 and even the proposed nerfs will still not correct this issue. 
 

The Sheridan has very good pen for a tier 10 tank and because T92E1 has the same pen as the Sheridan, it’s pen is completely broken for a tier 9 tank. This coupled with its troll armor for a light tank, make the T92E1 a lot more broken than the Sheridan because about half the time it’s competing against tier 8 tanks. 

 

Regarding the missiles, I’ve send lots of highlight videos on YouTube showing players shooting the missiles from behind cover using the look around bar, but they don’t show all the missiles that miss or fail to pen their target. Whenever I shoot missiles from behind cover, using the look around bar trick, I probably hit and pen my target only 1 out of ever 4 missiles. This makes the missile tanks’ very low DPM even worse. I enjoy missile because it brings a new unique dynamic to the game, but honestly I think I would be more effective in my Sheridan with regular HEAT. 
 

If I were king of Blitz, these are the changes I would make to the Sheridan and T92E1: 

 

OPTION 1:

 

-Leave the missiles and make no changes to their firing mechanics

 

-Nerf the Sheridan’s penetration for APCR and HEAT missiles, so that they are equal to the tier 10 Bat Chat, but keep it’s HE pen as is
 

-Nerf the T92E1’s penetration more than the Sheridan, so that the T92E1 has pen numbers equal to the tier 9 Bat Chat for APCR, HEAT missiles, and HE. As it stands now, the T92E1 has the exact same pen as the Sheridan. They should not have their pen numbers nerfed equally because that will leave the tier 9 T92E1 with the same pen as the tier 10 Sheridan, which is completely unprecedented in Blitz. 
 

-Nerf the T92E1’s armor so that it’s effective armor thickness is on par with the tier 9 Bat Chat. 
 

-Make no changes to the missile firing mechanics

 


OPTION 2 (to appease all the missile-haters):

 

-Make all of the Nerds listed above, in addition to the following: 

 

-Remove the missiles entirely and replace them with regular HEAT with typical shell velocity 
 

-Make the Sheridan’s HEAT pen the same as the tier 10 Bat Chat

 

-Make the T92E1’s HEAT pen the same as the tier 9 Bat Chat 

 

WG should either leave the missiles as is and not make any changes to their firing mechanics (i.e. look around bar trick) or they should remove the missiles entirely. Leaving the missiles in the game and removing ability to shoot them from behind cover using the look around bar, will make the missiles much weaker than regular HEAT. The problem is that the missiles only have a 30 to 45 meter per shell velocity compared to regular HEAT which travels at 1,000 to 1,400 meters per second. 
 

If you can’t shoot the missiles from behind cover than what you are left with is essentially a super slow HEAT round that travels at only about 5% of the speed of regular HEAT. This is a huge disadvantage as it allows the enemy tank to dodge the missile or get behind cover and you have to sit out in the open for a really long time while your super slow missile travels to its target. Without the ability to use the look around bar to shoot from behind cover, I would much rather have regular HEAT.

 


The Shillelagh is an INFRARED control system and requires line of sight to work in real life. It also needed 730 meters before the c troll would work. The ATGM mechanics in game should correspond to real life,  


-INDEFINITELY ON HIATUS


Nature_Boy_2001 #1356 Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:11 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 11895 battles
  • 2
  • [RISE-]
  • Member since:
    06-10-2018

View Postboris55555, on 12 February 2020 - 05:46 PM, said:


the drama is:

 

1. the tanks were so poorly balanced to begin with. That was not a missile issue but poor balancing.

2. Cheat aim features. 
3. the game was not balanced nor the players trained in such a way to fight strikes from above

4. whether it’s the gifted or random luck...there is no place for a tank that can strike with ZERO chance of facing return fire. That breaks the game dynamic.

5. Wg has indirectly nerfed all tier 8 premiums with this.

 

the missile mechanic needs to be addressed. Balance the tanks. Or start a new game that eliminates the heavies which are now obsolete.

 

why do you think that so many people are upset over these missiles? Forum, you tubers, Facebook, Twitter, discord. It’s all blowing up because these tanks are broken and the missiles are broken. People are as upset as the whole spare parts problem 3.8 and The destruction of the low tiers 5.5.

 

i don’t understand the wg’s inability to see this. Surely the euro and Russian servers are saying similar things?

 

Seems to me Wargaming always introduces new lines overpowered to get players playing and then scales back accordingly. 
 

Boris, wthdo you know about tier 8,9, or 10 with your 53% win rate and 900 avg damage?

 

I trust Ribblestripe to entertain your comments in a politically correct manner, while in reality ignore your overbearing whining.

 

Just STFU until your gameplay can catch up with your mouth.

 



Death__Valley #1357 Posted 15 February 2020 - 07:21 PM

    Purveyor of Dad Jokes

  • Players
  • 21922 battles
  • 557
  • [FOGS2]
  • Member since:
    12-31-2011

View PostNature_Boy_2001, on 15 February 2020 - 08:11 AM, said:

 

Seems to me Wargaming always introduces new lines overpowered to get players playing and then scales back accordingly. 
 

Boris, wthdo you know about tier 8,9, or 10 with your 53% win rate and 900 avg damage?

 

I trust Ribblestripe to entertain your comments in a politically correct manner, while in reality ignore your overbearing whining.

 

Just STFU until your gameplay can catch up with your mouth.

 


you seem really politically correct


-INDEFINITELY ON HIATUS


boris55555 #1358 Posted 16 February 2020 - 03:03 AM

    Honary Doctor of Meh

  • Players
  • 27957 battles
  • 3,675
  • [MINC]
  • Member since:
    11-30-2016

View PostNature_Boy_2001, on 15 February 2020 - 09:11 AM, said:

 

Seems to me Wargaming always introduces new lines overpowered to get players playing and then scales back accordingly. 
 

Boris, wthdo you know about tier 8,9, or 10 with your 53% win rate and 900 avg damage?

 

I trust Ribblestripe to entertain your comments in a politically correct manner, while in reality ignore your overbearing whining.

 

Just STFU until your gameplay can catch up with your mouth.

 

1. Welcome to the forum

2. I appreciate the stat shame and your interest.

3. none of your rudeness negates my points about the missile tanks.

4. I apologize if you feel I’m unqualified to discuss the upper tiers. If you hang around here a bit more and get to me as it were you’d see that I’ve never claimed to be a great player. I came here to learn and it helped me improve greatly. I chose to take almost 20k battles before I’d really venture into tiers 9/x as I wanted to contribute. I’m pretty proud of having improved and not being a negative on my team. I’ve kind of made the point as well that players such as myself (53% or 56% in the last 90 or 60% in the last 30) really can’t afford to face tanks that don’t adhere to the balance of the blitz universe. 
5. please get a tier x tank before you rudely dismiss my ability to discuss the tier. Thank you.

 

View Postzcostilla, on 15 February 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:


you seem really politically correct

Appreciate you.


:amazed:6.7/6.8/6.9/6.10/7.0 now we have LAME tanks w broken mechanic “Balancing” Missile tanks is a joke.
WATCH THE SPRING MISSILE TOURNAMENTS; SUPERHEAVIES & TRICK SHOTS. Top down non los magic “situational” missiles on a LAME platform is STILL poorly thought out. Urrrrgggg 

 

 

 


boris55555 #1359 Posted 16 February 2020 - 06:14 AM

    Honary Doctor of Meh

  • Players
  • 27957 battles
  • 3,675
  • [MINC]
  • Member since:
    11-30-2016
Never mind
:amazed:6.7/6.8/6.9/6.10/7.0 now we have LAME tanks w broken mechanic “Balancing” Missile tanks is a joke.
WATCH THE SPRING MISSILE TOURNAMENTS; SUPERHEAVIES & TRICK SHOTS. Top down non los magic “situational” missiles on a LAME platform is STILL poorly thought out. Urrrrgggg 

 

 

 


RibbleStripe #1360 Posted 17 February 2020 - 11:07 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Administrator
  • 252 battles
  • 837
  • Member since:
    10-04-2017

View PostTexas_Tyrant, on 12 February 2020 - 06:28 PM, said:


Since you recognize theproblem with the player base can you implement training? Or training "manuals" that tech scraping, hull down, etc?

 

Recognize? It's a fact for every game based on teamplay. There were, there are and there always will be players who don't care about anything. 


But as you might notice we made a couple of tutorials recently. This is what we will keep doing in future. 

 


 

 





11 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users