Jump to content


Upcoming balance adjustments


  • Please log in to reply
855 replies to this topic

Ruby_Rose_ #241 Posted 24 January 2018 - 05:39 PM

    I don't need help growing up! I Drink Milk!

  • Players
  • 13299 battles
  • 2,406
  • [FLOOP]
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostSturmgeschutz1, on 24 January 2018 - 10:36 AM, said:

Great wreck another American tank because another bit of commie bias ( the Chinese line) is coming in. Suggestions for Italian lines and Japanese Heavies have been asked for seriously a long time going now...but nooooo. 

 

Oh?
Italian Tanks?
Do tell me how they can fit into Blitz when it's not in WoT PC itself
Japanese Heavies cannot properly balanced with the playstyle of Blitz, as what the devs said.
So tell me, who's been asking for these?


Made by Panbun

"Efficiency is Just Clever Laziness" 

Want a RWBY signature? Here

 

 


wannabeunicum #242 Posted 24 January 2018 - 05:44 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 27408 battles
  • 5,415
  • [PNCR]
  • Member since:
    10-25-2015

View PostRibbleStripe, on 24 January 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

 

I explained why we consider this group relevant several times. If you disagree with it - fine. But i'm not saiyng the same things over and over again. No more comment about 'portions' from now on. 

 

Ok then I got a different question?

Does this graph differentiate between players in that group?

 

Lets say one tank is more appealing to lower skilled players in this group such as 55-57. Then the next tank is much more appealing to 63+ playerrs

The difference in skill is extremely different between a 55er and 65 percent player. So I am just wondering could we have a winrate graph curve? 

I feel as if looking at a section of a tanks player without adjusting for how many of each different winrate play this tank is a bad way to balance. I can understand the 55-65 although I strongly disagree with it but not looking at the winrate curve would be bad



Spekulatius #243 Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:03 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29633 battles
  • 1,672
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2014

View Postwannabeunicum, on 24 January 2018 - 12:44 PM, said:

 

Ok then I got a different question?

Does this graph differentiate between players in that group?

 

Lets say one tank is more appealing to lower skilled players in this group such as 55-57. Then the next tank is much more appealing to 63+ playerrs

The difference in skill is extremely different between a 55er and 65 percent player. So I am just wondering could we have a winrate graph curve? 

I feel as if looking at a section of a tanks player without adjusting for how many of each different winrate play this tank is a bad way to balance. I can understand the 55-65 although I strongly disagree with it but not looking at the winrate curve would be bad

I found the vehicle efficency Charts in wblitz.net the best representation on how a tanks performances relative to the player skill. 55-65% WR is a huge range and there is probably a lot of differentiation within that population cohort.


Community pledge signer


wannabeunicum #244 Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:31 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 27408 battles
  • 5,415
  • [PNCR]
  • Member since:
    10-25-2015

View PostSpekulatius, on 24 January 2018 - 06:03 PM, said:

I found the vehicle efficency Charts in wblitz.net the best representation on how a tanks performances relative to the player skill. 55-65% WR is a huge range and there is probably a lot of differentiation within that population cohort.

 

Yes i forgot the website name

That is what they should show rather than these charts would statisticians would cry at 



4sfield #245 Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:51 PM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 28829 battles
  • 3,886
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

  The real problems are still the same even after the 4.8 changes are put in place. 

 

  1. Mediums and lights can’t see far enough. 

  2. Tier VIII premiums are stronger than their tech tree counterparts

  3. The advantages heavies have been given have made the meta campy, undynamic and and made lots of tanks unattractive to play

  4. The new players aren’t getting any better

  5. No one at WG wants to discuss 1-4, they just want to talk about what’s on the list for 4.8

 

  I’m done talking about piecemeal balancing. It’ll take years of updates to make anything right with the way things have been handled. I don’t see an overall vision for anything done with this update or any others. To me it just just looks like things are decided reactively because of a few badly thought out changes that were made 10-12 updates ago. Those were put in place despite the fact that everyone here advised against them. Again and just like back then, no one is listening.

 

  I deal with enough situations like this at work. I’m not a nub toat watching people fail reactively try to fix something that is flawed because they’re too proud to admit that they screwed it up in the 1st place. I just sit back and say, “I told you so”. We have had the exact same thing going on here for almost 2 years.

 

  The guys making the decisions here are the same to me as the people I deal with at work. I have no respect for those that are too stupid and too stubborn to admit when they’re wrong and fix something they screwed up. They’re just making it harder on everyone else. Eventually what happens is the guy in charge will have enough, figure it out for himself and make changes of his own. The 1st thing he’ll do is fire the guys who were responsible for the mess.

 

  If your customer isn’t happy, you’re doing something wrong.

 

  


 

 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


Sepp_Ulrich #246 Posted 25 January 2018 - 02:49 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32981 battles
  • 870
  • [21DAK]
  • Member since:
    04-11-2016
I don´t understand why they will nerf the Ferdinand. I am killing them by the dozen right now.
The Angel of Verdun

goog1967 #247 Posted 25 January 2018 - 03:51 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2291 battles
  • 238
  • [MOM]
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011

You guys nerf the Tiger 1 and Tiger P after they reach the upper 2,000 damage per game result but time after time I'm in games where OP Helsings and other OP clown tanks are doing north of 3-4 K damage.

 

When are you guys going to fix this mistake on your part???


Edited by goog1967, 25 January 2018 - 03:56 AM.


RibbleStripe #248 Posted 25 January 2018 - 08:32 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Administrator
  • 241 battles
  • 540
  • Member since:
    10-04-2017

View Postwannabeunicum, on 24 January 2018 - 08:44 PM, said:

 

Ok then I got a different question?

Does this graph differentiate between players in that group?

 

No.



WizoGT379 #249 Posted 25 January 2018 - 11:29 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6999 battles
  • 1,874
  • [RUDY]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2016

View Postgoog1967, on 24 January 2018 - 10:51 PM, said:

You guys nerf the Tiger 1 and Tiger P after they reach the upper 2,000 damage per game result but time after time I'm in games where OP Helsings and other OP clown tanks are doing north of 3-4 K damage.

 

When are you guys going to fix this mistake on your part???

They said they won’t nerf premiums 


I’m sampling the retiree life, of Blitz, not sure if I’ll be returning, but thanks for all of your advice and fun.

 

You can't outsmart stupid, it just doesn't work like that - TengenToppaPotatoLagann


Spekulatius #250 Posted 25 January 2018 - 12:06 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29633 battles
  • 1,672
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2014

View Postgoog1967, on 24 January 2018 - 10:51 PM, said:

You guys nerf the Tiger 1 and Tiger P after they reach the upper 2,000 damage per game result but time after time I'm in games where OP Helsings and other OP clown tanks are doing north of 3-4 K damage.

 

When are you guys going to fix this mistake on your part???

 

The Drac and Helsing clowns remain, but it obviously wasn’t the right solution to add Tiger 1 and Tiger P clowns (count me in with those) that destroy now anything else. It will be interesting to see what they do next to fix this broken Tier. It’s a lot of fun to drive cardboard boxes like the T71 now in Tier 7.

Community pledge signer


tpcshadow #251 Posted 25 January 2018 - 05:54 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25582 battles
  • 1,934
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2014

View PostSpekulatius, on 25 January 2018 - 06:06 AM, said:

 

The Drac and Helsing clowns remain, but it obviously wasn’t the right solution to add Tiger 1 and Tiger P clowns (count me in with those) that destroy now anything else. It will be interesting to see what they do next to fix this broken Tier. It’s a lot of fun to drive cardboard boxes like the T71 now in Tier 7.

 

As Blartch and others have said, they have painted themselves in a corner. Tier 7 & 8 are dominated by OP premiums. Since they can't (AKA won't) nerf them, they try to buff everything around them. However that has a ripple effect on tiers above and below them. Tier 6 is a terrible place to be right now, and tier 7 is worse when in a weak tank like the T20 or Bulldog and stuck in a tier 8 game. Trying to grind the meh AMX AC 46 is a lesson in extreme frustration.

0Pdude #252 Posted 25 January 2018 - 11:11 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 4471 battles
  • 44
  • [B_AOG]
  • Member since:
    07-23-2017

View PostRibbleStripe, on 06 December 2017 - 06:09 AM, said:

Hey everyone!

 

We'd like to share our plans for upcoming vehicles changes. So, this is what will happen in near future:

 

T110E5 will be rebalanced - long-awaited cupola changes are coming.

Lowe should be and will be improved. The details will be revealed later.

Indien-Panzer is one more German to be buffed. Its gun will be more comfortable.

We'll keep refining tier 6 TDs. M36 Jackson, Churchill Gun Carrier and ARL V39 are the next candidates. 

Pz.Sfl.IV will become more comfortable.

 

Feel free to leave comments about upcoming changes. More news to come!

 

This is a bit late, but I’m already quite comfortable in the ARL V39 although the only strategy I would use is long range sniping and kemping bush.

Afleet_Alex #253 Posted 26 January 2018 - 01:27 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 61254 battles
  • 3,925
  • Member since:
    06-29-2014
wl{{191*7}}rm

Edited by obi__wan__shinobi, 26 January 2018 - 01:37 AM.


4sfield #254 Posted 26 January 2018 - 01:35 AM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 28829 battles
  • 3,886
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View Postobi__wan__shinobi, on 25 January 2018 - 08:27 PM, said:

 

 

Wargaming knows something that you don’t really get.

There’s only about five unhappy customers.

But you guys get on here everyday and fire up your echo chamber.

And never seem to notice that you keep making the exact same group of posts everyday.

Do you copy and paste them?

And then you wonder why ribblestripe ignores you ...

 

  I don’t care if Ribble ignores me, I’m not trying to impress him. This isn’t the 3rd grade and he isn’t my teacher. He reads the posts, just like you do. That’s enough for the 5 of us.

 

 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


RibbleStripe #255 Posted 26 January 2018 - 09:02 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Administrator
  • 241 battles
  • 540
  • Member since:
    10-04-2017

View Post0Pdude, on 26 January 2018 - 02:11 AM, said:

 

This is a bit late, but I’m already quite comfortable in the ARL V39 although the only strategy I would use is long range sniping and kemping bush.

 

It won't be buffed significantly anyway - minor adjustment is something V39 needs. 

Spekulatius #256 Posted 26 January 2018 - 11:56 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29633 battles
  • 1,672
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2014

View Posttpcshadow, on 25 January 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

 

As Blartch and others have said, they have painted themselves in a corner. Tier 7 & 8 are dominated by OP premiums. Since they can't (AKA won't) nerf them, they try to buff everything around them. However that has a ripple effect on tiers above and below them. Tier 6 is a terrible place to be right now, and tier 7 is worse when in a weak tank like the T20 or Bulldog and stuck in a tier 8 game. Trying to grind the meh AMX AC 46 is a lesson in extreme frustration.

 

Might be a solution to just add 5% to the ROF for all tech tree tanks across Tier 1-10 and call it a day, that way, they would have  quasi nerfed the premiums without changing the game balance within the tech tree. All the balancing has done so far is to add more tanks that are imbalanced and screw up the game balance further.

 

The Tiger 1&P buff never should have passed the smell test to begin with. It does not make sense to improve a  Tier 7 tanks  armor profile, dispersion and agility and increase it’s DPM higher than a TD’s at the same Tier to 2700HP/min with a high pen gun to begin with. It looks already wrong on paper.


Edited by Spekulatius, 26 January 2018 - 11:58 AM.

Community pledge signer


40_Percent_Trash #257 Posted 26 January 2018 - 02:04 PM

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Players
  • 27497 battles
  • 4,084
  • [MSELF]
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015

View PostSpekulatius, on 26 January 2018 - 07:56 AM, said:

 

Might be a solution to just add 5% to the ROF for all tech tree tanks across Tier 1-10 and call it a day, that way, they would have  quasi nerfed the premiums without changing the game balance within the tech tree. All the balancing has done so far is to add more tanks that are imbalanced and screw up the game balance further.

 

The Tiger 1&P buff never should have passed the smell test to begin with. It does not make sense to improve a  Tier 7 tanks  armor profile, dispersion and agility and increase it’s DPM higher than a TD’s at the same Tier to 2700HP/min with a high pen gun to begin with. It looks already wrong on paper.

 

183 with 5% faster reload :hiding:



Blartch #258 Posted 28 January 2018 - 05:12 PM

    Causer of Unrest

  • Players
  • 52841 battles
  • 7,554
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    05-01-2015

View PostRibbleStripe, on 26 January 2018 - 04:02 AM, said:

 

It won't be buffed significantly anyway - minor adjustment is something V39 needs. 

 

Any chance one of those minor adjustments includes enabling it to cross a puddle without drowning?

boris55555 #259 Posted 29 January 2018 - 04:32 AM

    Honary Doctor of Meh

  • Players
  • 17517 battles
  • 1,330
  • [MINC]
  • Member since:
    11-30-2016

View PostBlartch, on 28 January 2018 - 12:12 PM, said:

 

Any chance one of those minor adjustments includes enabling it to cross a puddle without drowning?

Nyet, working as intended 


Edited by boris55555, 29 January 2018 - 04:33 AM.

the slow March towards the end. I wonder if Apple will give me my money since I have mistakenly bought pixel product from incompetent bigots?

Chariot_Solace #260 Posted 04 February 2018 - 03:03 AM

    Stug Life

  • Players
  • 29893 battles
  • 2,581
  • [_STR8]
  • Member since:
    12-06-2016
Zloydd or Ribble: When will The IS-2 get its rightful buff? We were expecting it this patch since it was accidentally left out when the rest of the tier 7 heavies got buffed.

Tier Xs; E100, E50M, JgPzE100, Maus, Grille. Lines I'm Grinding: IS7(IX), STB-1(VIII), AMX50B(IX), 121(VIII), 113(VIII), FV215B(VII) Favorite Tank: E75. Top 100 Tanks: AMX M4 45, ARL 44, IS-2Sh, Chi-To, Chi-Nu, LeKPz M41 90mm, AMX 50-100, Sturer Emil, Pz Sfl IV C, Type 58, Panzer IV Anko, Nashorn, BT-SV, Panzerjager I, chIS-2, WZ-110, Type T-34, T-34-1, BDR G1B, Sherman V, Chieftain/T95, Pz IV Hydrostat, STRV 74A2, IS-2 Berlin, Kuro Mori Mine, M6A2E1, Panzer IV S, T-44-100, Black Prince, AC IV Sentinel, SU85i





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users