Jump to content


Upcoming balance adjustments


  • Please log in to reply
1174 replies to this topic

Morphman11 #981 Posted 14 February 2019 - 06:59 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26 battles
  • 650
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostOicraftian, on 13 February 2019 - 11:20 AM, said:

 

Let me think...

Spoiler

This is a buffed tier 8 medium. Notice how a medium is partly outclassed by the tier 7 heavy tank in a field it is supposed to specialize in.

 

Now, you can argue that the indien is 'good enough' tier for tier, it is clearly an incremental growth over Tiger 1 at tier 7, not a broken leapfrog.

 

Except for 1 flaw.

Ok. So players don't know how to play mediums because they were playing Indien like the tier 7.

 

Indien problem? It is good tier 7 firepower in a tier where heavy tanks have DPM approaching with nearly twice the alpha at times, while having awful gun handling and mediocre mobility. Indien doesn't need a big buff though, only something to make it, say, have ~100 pts more DPM when kitted for example, with 0.14 bloom or something similar to make it snapshot. Or perhaps that is too much in light of nerfing almost every tier 8 mediums pen.

 

At the moment it is probably worth less than an IS-6 with DPM gun. Which, funnily enough, also needs a buff.

 

 

How to cure the spam of IS-5 & IS-6?

Make them have gun handling/DPM guns, what other ideas?

 

IS-5 can have 'surprisingly good' gun handling with say, inferior pen to before, while IS-6 can have slightly better pen and... I don't know just become less despicable.

 

SU-101?

Give it the gun handling to flex, and the DPM to actually function as a tank destroyer. 

 

Tier 8 mediums in general?

I think this situation is not a very complex one. The NATO tier 8 mediums in real life are really just using guns similar to 90mm M3, which really isn't that powerful, save for tanks like Indien. I presume on 'hotter' ammunition loads, but still, not a comparison to D-10T.

I'd say nerf the pen, up the alpha and DPM.

STA-1 penetration down to say, 187 mills?, increase max speed?, improve softs, and the DPM to 'something competitive'. 2550 or such should work, it can't just arbitrarily run over Indien DPM. It leads over all but the Caer. Which, for a 'soft' medium like STA-1, is reasonable I think. Caer has the armor, the pen to kill anything and flex on spot, STA-1 has the flex, speed, and alpha.

Pershing stays as is, DPM increased outright

Centurion I, renamed Cent 3, UFP increased to, IDK, Cent 7/1 levels? DPM & alpha increased, main change is gun handling to 0.1/0.1 or something. Pen cut down to ~200.

Spoiler

 

 

I am concerned with upping the DPM so much without looking at the others, but generally this idea should work.

Remember, most tier 8 heavies already sit at ~2-2.2k DPM

 

100mm D-10T? I thought of a radical idea to just rework the alpha/pen of 100mm D-10T, LB-1, L7, and D-54, but I do not think WG will make such a change.

 

Whatever the solution is for T-44, I think it can rest knowing that this will never come to pass, and that it will never be a relevant in this way.

Spoiler

 

 

It's not complicated or difficult to see problems with tier 8 mediums. Namely that their best DPM can't beat a heavy tank, their DPM is almost the same as in tier heavies with almost no advantage, and their alpha is just too low. But they pen almost everything because... Reasons. I think it is better to move them this way. Few can contest a heavy in pen, but even then they will lose out, but most focus on DPM and such features.

 

Anyway, imagine a T-44 rolling in with 340 alpha and ~210mm AP pen, and sure it'll come with 4 degrees of gun depression, but you will be 'snapping' with 340 alpha.

 

The alpha compression... I am concerned, but also notice how this is Blitz. 7 vs 7, alpha compression appears to make sense.

 

This is tentative, a fantasy to float out.

 

T-44 is fine as is. The Indien is better than the Tiger as it’s armor is more effective not to mention the difference in the wr is due to the Tiger having to face tier 6 vehicles while the Indien faces tier 9 vehicles. No one plays the IS-6 anymore and the only reason the IS-5 is being spammed is due to its price. Being a third of the price to comparable tier 8s is the reason why people buy it. And you have be incompetent if you think the SU-101 needs a buff the vehicle is broken.

4sfield #982 Posted 14 February 2019 - 10:03 PM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 32376 battles
  • 4,946
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostMorphman11, on 14 February 2019 - 01:59 PM, said:

 

T-44 is fine as is. The Indien is better than the Tiger as it’s armor is more effective not to mention the difference in the wr is due to the Tiger having to face tier 6 vehicles while the Indien faces tier 9 vehicles. No one plays the IS-6 anymore and the only reason the IS-5 is being spammed is due to its price. Being a third of the price to comparable tier 8s is the reason why people buy it. And you have be incompetent if you think the SU-101 needs a buff the vehicle is broken.

 

  No it isn’t. It gets penned too easily by tier VIII heavies. The issue is that the heavies tier VIII mediums see are too strong. 

 

  I think some speed and a little more pen and less reload time for mediums all the way around would make them more playable. They should not be run down or kept up with by any heavy tank. The lack of speed difference contributes to unplayabity as much as lack of pen. Heavies traverse turrets too fast and have too much speed and acceleration now and its made their role on the battlefield overly less significant than it once was. 

 

  Or, we just need all of the heavies, I don’t care which. Y’all can complain about their gun handling all you want and I don’t care. A gun with a muzzle as big as a house and slinging the alpha that it does should not be able to snap shoot a tank from across the map. There should be a penalty for carrying around all of that armore and alpha. If should be aim time and dispersion plus speed and traverse. There had to be something that offsets what it does well to keep it from being OP. 

 

  Right now the meds have nothing going for them at tier VIII. They are easy pens, they can’t own anything and they have no speed advantage. Why would anyone want to play them when you can strap on an IS-X tank and full that role? All you have to give up is reload time. 

 

  Oicraftian is right. 

 

   


 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #983 Posted 15 February 2019 - 12:25 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View Post4sfield, on 14 February 2019 - 10:03 PM, said:

 

  No it isn’t. It gets penned too easily by tier VIII heavies. The issue is that the heavies tier VIII mediums see are too strong. 

 

T-44's problem isn't armor, its that the gun it pays so much for, isn't really that good. It is in the same boat as the other tier 8 mediums. T-44 is trading pen for alpha, but just isn't flexible enough to use that pen that well. The gun isn't enough to make up for its flaws.

 

  I think some speed and a little more pen and less reload time for mediums all the way around would make them more playable. They should not be run down or kept up with by any heavy tank. The lack of speed difference contributes to unplayabity as much as lack of pen. Heavies traverse turrets too fast and have too much speed and acceleration now and its made their role on the battlefield overly less significant than it once was. 

 

Pen isn't the problem, most tier 8 mediums actually have enough that too much DPM would make *them* OP. Instead, their pen should probably be traded for DPM, if they are really pushing the Caer's level of DPM. It will make armor like the Tiger II's mean more. At the same time, certain models should move faster. Like STA-1. It does not need to be 'historical'.

 

190 pen isn't going to skewer every heavy tank on the first shot. You have to aim. Keeping their armor useful. Only for example, this alternate Cent has 'just' 200 pen, but it has a 'shocking' ROF maybe. And with that UFP? 127mm? Incredible for a medium. It is basically a Caer-lite

 

  Or, we just need all of the heavies, I don’t care which. Y’all can complain about their gun handling all you want and I don’t care. A gun with a muzzle as big as a house and slinging the alpha that it does should not be able to snap shoot a tank from across the map. There should be a penalty for carrying around all of that armore and alpha. If should be aim time and dispersion plus speed and traverse. There had to be something that offsets what it does well to keep it from being OP. 

 

The problem isn't that the gun is 'too much alpha' (to be clear) it is that their opposition isn't worth the price.

 

  Right now the meds have nothing going for them at tier VIII. They are easy pens, they can’t own anything and they have no speed advantage. Why would anyone want to play them when you can strap on an IS-X tank and full that role? All you have to give up is reload time. 

That's not quite true. They are usually easy pens, but their main weakness is they just don't have the 'force' or 'worth' when they flank. You can see tank like RU-251 is so good because of "2.7k DPM on 80 kph 30+ hp/t".

 

I am questioning IS-X, because it really depends.

IS-6 is... I am on both sides for this one. The DPM gun is 'skill based', but the armor is irredeemable. I think it is 'evil'. The side is just so 'unfair' to enemy tank. I think trim middle side, rear, in exchange for small DPM gun buff. Remove high pen gun to make more 'skill based' (help the IS-3!)

IS-3 is not even good

IS-5 is only good because it has armor + pen combo, I always wince when I see that, and think, trade the pen (~220 --> 185) for gun handling (0.26 --> 0.17??? (too extreme)) and another stat, maybe better softs or something. So, less 'strong' but more 'flexible' and 'skilled'.

IS-3D I say '#### off pls remove' like I say to T-54 mod1 and forget about it all the time. But making the mag 2 rounds of 340 alpha in exchange for something else is immediately my thought. Exchange gun pen maybe?

 

Do not take those dangerous thought ['immediately my thought'], as well designed idea though. I do not think it is right (as is), so I change to what I think is right.

For example, for all of these IS-X, one thought is, 'remove skirt armor pls', because I think it is 'cheat'.

 



Morphman11 #984 Posted 15 February 2019 - 02:29 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26 battles
  • 650
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View Post4sfield, on 14 February 2019 - 10:03 PM, said:

 

  No it isn’t. It gets penned too easily by tier VIII heavies. The issue is that the heavies tier VIII mediums see are too strong. 

 

  I think some speed and a little more pen and less reload time for mediums all the way around would make them more playable. They should not be run down or kept up with by any heavy tank. The lack of speed difference contributes to unplayabity as much as lack of pen. Heavies traverse turrets too fast and have too much speed and acceleration now and its made their role on the battlefield overly less significant than it once was. 

 

  Or, we just need all of the heavies, I don’t care which. Y’all can complain about their gun handling all you want and I don’t care. A gun with a muzzle as big as a house and slinging the alpha that it does should not be able to snap shoot a tank from across the map. There should be a penalty for carrying around all of that armore and alpha. If should be aim time and dispersion plus speed and traverse. There had to be something that offsets what it does well to keep it from being OP. 

 

  Right now the meds have nothing going for them at tier VIII. They are easy pens, they can’t own anything and they have no speed advantage. Why would anyone want to play them when you can strap on an IS-X tank and full that role? All you have to give up is reload time. 

 

  Oicraftian is right. 

 

   

 

Its a bloody medium why are you using armor as an excuse. Its literally the best medium, the gun is mediocre but it still works fine. The speed isn't awful. Its just in the middle for every thing. I have pushed over 70% wr on 3 accounts not even trying, nothing is wrong with the T-44, you are the issue.

4sfield #985 Posted 15 February 2019 - 03:00 AM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 32376 battles
  • 4,946
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

 Relax Betty, 

 

  I didn’t say it was any good or that I couldn’t make it work. I haven’t played a game with it for a long time because it isn’t as good as it used to be, none of the tier VIII mediums are. We’ve been talking about tier VIII mediums needing a buff, not bragging about our stats or whining about not being able to win or make tanks work.  It might be the best tier VIII but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need a buff. 

 

  I used to outplay guys in T54s with my T44 and I haven’t seen that done since I last did it. I used to be able to win at Will with any medium tank and there was something wrong with that. The point is, they need fixed. The meta is not fun and tier VIII is stale. A tier VIIi medium in a tier IX fight is even less fun, especially if you play solo and don’t have kid mode supremacy turned on. 

 

  Stand alone medium tanks are what we need not the garbage we have where you have to platoon or play supremacy with the skrubs to win like you used to. It has nothing to do with making anything OP, they just need to have carryability like they used to have. DPM like was mentioned would go a long way in doing that. 


 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #986 Posted 15 February 2019 - 01:07 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

<Rant about why they are bad>

 

 

The T-44 is not good. This is why it isn't being used competitively.

 

Type 59 is so so, but is still strong, which is why it sometimes gets used competitively.

 

T-54 Lwt has a strong kit, it just doesn't have the power the RU does. That being said, if I wanted to play a T-44 like tank, I'd pick this too.

 

But SU-101? I'd rather play a [edited]T-43 on my team in a tier 8 tourney than that piece of [edited].

Well, by comparison T-43 is a positively stellar choice.

 

Anyway, T-44 vs T-43 when flanking?

Won't win against Type 59/ mod 1, RU, Lwt, isn't fast enough, typically 46 seconds to kill against in tier, IS-6 has around 40 btw, and most in tier heavies with 400 alpha have 48. Turns out they also pen everything. At least T-43 will smash the RU and the Lwt, and I can trust it to have enough DPM when it flanks.

 

Oh, and 8HK against tier 8 tank. Ok, so that is, *37 seconds to kill*.

Huh.

1400 HP?

33 seconds to kill.

With HE?

18.52 seconds to make RHM health vanish.

Ho ho ho.

 

T-44 can't hold a candle to that. For same feat, T-44 needs 30 seconds. RHM needs 2-3 shots to remove T-44.

 

Yeah, it is (T-44) better than Centurion or STA-1, but those are [edited].

If it was good people would play these tanks in competitive. Why don't they? Huh?

 

Oh right. They suck balls.

 

T-54 lwt isn't even that good a tank if the RU plays good enough. It has the speed to flank, just not enough DPM to be worth it. It does have the armor to 'insist' on 'punching' an enemy.

RU-251 is just... Better.

 

Unless of course, RU is OP because it is the LT people actually care about. Considering 13 90 is incredibly trash.

 

Yeah, keep flanking, it'll almost be like you could just play a real flanker or the T-43. And if you used T-44's current set to use 'power' it goes back to being inferior to Type 59.

 

People say flank like it cures tier 8 medium issues but the real issue for them is that they suck at exploiting flanking on top of everything else they suck at.

It looks like tier 7 killing high value targets faster than them. It looks like tier 8 heavy killing all targets almost as fast, if not faster in case of certain softies, except not from a flank, but from the front line.

 

They have nothing to use that is really good enough.

Just run the math and you find out how detrimental they are to a team.

 

If you gave a Comet a 180 pen but made the DPM 2k max it would be [edited]. Sure, you boost gun handling for example, it is still 2k DPM, 160 alpha, and with so much pen it doesn't need.

That is basically tier 8 med in a nutshell.

 

It isn't worth it to play a medium, with similar to heavy DPM, when you have to go out of your way to use it. While the heavy can just steamroll.

Sure, if the heavy has big disadvantages that the mediums can exploit, then yeah, sure it might work. They better be pretty big though.

 

Oh what? They aren't enough? And the tank is bad? What a surprise.

 

 

T-44 would be 'good' if its HE alpha was its standard ammo, the pen was enough to pen tier 8 heavy front, and the DPM was 2300. It's not. It isn't worth playing since it doesn't do [edited]well. Low pen 280 alpha just isn't good enough. Gun depression? Happily throw it away, it needs something to use. Not to flex better.

Pershing would be 'good' if it had more gun pen and DPM. I don't think a miracle is due, but ~2400 DPM maxed and ~190 pen isn't exactly a miracle.

Indien would be 'good' if it had more DPM. But it doesn't. If you wanted gun tank with sustained fire just play a Caer.

STA would be 'good' if it had 'good' DPM, because the only thing good about it, is a so so gun it handles relatively well.

 

Yeah, sure, 70% WR likely in a platoon and against Dumbo's. 70%+ WR IS-6 with over 2.4k average damage is something that can be solo pubbed.

And who remembers smashing idiots in 13 75? Triple clipping a tank who had [edited] pointed at you.

 

I will probably never go back to 'fix' my T-44 stats. I can, potentially, but the tank is trash.



4sfield #987 Posted 15 February 2019 - 05:17 PM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 32376 battles
  • 4,946
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostOicraftian, on 15 February 2019 - 08:07 AM, said:

<Rant about why they are bad>

 

 

The T-44 is not good. This is why it isn't being used competitively.

 

Type 59 is so so, but is still strong, which is why it sometimes gets used competitively.

 

T-54 Lwt has a strong kit, it just doesn't have the power the RU does. That being said, if I wanted to play a T-44 like tank, I'd pick this too.

 

But SU-101? I'd rather play a [edited]T-43 on my team in a tier 8 tourney than that piece of [edited].

Well, by comparison T-43 is a positively stellar choice.

 

Anyway, T-44 vs T-43 when flanking?

Won't win against Type 59/ mod 1, RU, Lwt, isn't fast enough, typically 46 seconds to kill against in tier, IS-6 has around 40 btw, and most in tier heavies with 400 alpha have 48. Turns out they also pen everything. At least T-43 will smash the RU and the Lwt, and I can trust it to have enough DPM when it flanks.

 

Oh, and 8HK against tier 8 tank. Ok, so that is, *37 seconds to kill*.

Huh.

1400 HP?

33 seconds to kill.

With HE?

18.52 seconds to make RHM health vanish.

Ho ho ho.

 

T-44 can't hold a candle to that. For same feat, T-44 needs 30 seconds. RHM needs 2-3 shots to remove T-44.

 

Yeah, it is (T-44) better than Centurion or STA-1, but those are [edited].

If it was good people would play these tanks in competitive. Why don't they? Huh?

 

Oh right. They suck balls.

 

T-54 lwt isn't even that good a tank if the RU plays good enough. It has the speed to flank, just not enough DPM to be worth it. It does have the armor to 'insist' on 'punching' an enemy.

RU-251 is just... Better.

 

Unless of course, RU is OP because it is the LT people actually care about. Considering 13 90 is incredibly trash.

 

Yeah, keep flanking, it'll almost be like you could just play a real flanker or the T-43. And if you used T-44's current set to use 'power' it goes back to being inferior to Type 59.

 

People say flank like it cures tier 8 medium issues but the real issue for them is that they suck at exploiting flanking on top of everything else they suck at.

It looks like tier 7 killing high value targets faster than them. It looks like tier 8 heavy killing all targets almost as fast, if not faster in case of certain softies, except not from a flank, but from the front line.

 

They have nothing to use that is really good enough.

Just run the math and you find out how detrimental they are to a team.

 

If you gave a Comet a 180 pen but made the DPM 2k max it would be [edited]. Sure, you boost gun handling for example, it is still 2k DPM, 160 alpha, and with so much pen it doesn't need.

That is basically tier 8 med in a nutshell.

 

It isn't worth it to play a medium, with similar to heavy DPM, when you have to go out of your way to use it. While the heavy can just steamroll.

Sure, if the heavy has big disadvantages that the mediums can exploit, then yeah, sure it might work. They better be pretty big though.

 

Oh what? They aren't enough? And the tank is bad? What a surprise.

 

 

T-44 would be 'good' if its HE alpha was its standard ammo, the pen was enough to pen tier 8 heavy front, and the DPM was 2300. It's not. It isn't worth playing since it doesn't do [edited]well. Low pen 280 alpha just isn't good enough. Gun depression? Happily throw it away, it needs something to use. Not to flex better.

Pershing would be 'good' if it had more gun pen and DPM. I don't think a miracle is due, but ~2400 DPM maxed and ~190 pen isn't exactly a miracle.

Indien would be 'good' if it had more DPM. But it doesn't. If you wanted gun tank with sustained fire just play a Caer.

STA would be 'good' if it had 'good' DPM, because the only thing good about it, is a so so gun it handles relatively well.

 

Yeah, sure, 70% WR likely in a platoon and against Dumbo's. 70%+ WR IS-6 with over 2.4k average damage is something that can be solo pubbed.

And who remembers smashing idiots in 13 75? Triple clipping a tank who had [edited] pointed at you.

 

I will probably never go back to 'fix' my T-44 stats. I can, potentially, but the tank is trash.

 

  This^, besides that you have all the nubs wearing their camp pants and tunnelling derps or heavies with 400 alpha at choke points every game while your guys are busy hiding, not spotting and generally sucking. Getting on the flank or isolating a red heavy doesn’t pay off because you bounce more than you should, their traverse can stay with you while you circle and the reload difference between the 2 tanks isn’t enough to get you the extra shots you need to make up for it. 


 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #988 Posted 15 February 2019 - 06:17 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

If I drive an IS-6, your medium is [edited]. Including first shot I have 2800 DPM and he has under 2600 at best, and I get first shot, usually a free one, too.

 

So the result is that he is facing 2800 DPM and starts with initial of ~(usually) 2400-225

It gets worse because I bounce shots.

If he loads gold he's [edited] entirely.



SanguinaryDan #989 Posted 16 February 2019 - 08:11 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16727 battles
  • 1,236
  • [III-P]
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014
And the tank that shall not be named remains so.  Why?  Because there really isn’t a damn thing you can do for the T69 that doesn’t turn it into a completely different tank. Fastest HEAT round in the game on a completely mediocre POS.
The point of the game is to win.  The purpose of the game is to have fun.  They are not mutually exclusive.

L82futbol #990 Posted 17 February 2019 - 11:51 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 48129 battles
  • 9
  • [SWBG]
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015
Anything coming for the WOEFUL VK72.01k in the way of an armor buff?

InkaPanzer #991 Posted 17 February 2019 - 11:58 PM

    Tanquista Peruano

  • Players
  • 51768 battles
  • 2,839
  • [DBLAT]
  • Member since:
    04-01-2016

View PostL82futbol, on 17 February 2019 - 06:51 PM, said:

Anything coming for the WOEFUL VK72.01k in the way of an armor buff?

 

:facepalm:

Saludos desde Perú!

 


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #992 Posted 19 February 2019 - 03:14 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View PostInkaPanzer, on 17 February 2019 - 11:58 PM, said:

 

:facepalm:

 

This guy gets it.

 

Addressing what Morph talked about, in a more reasonable way.

 

If they are so good why does no one want them to be used?

If they are so good can you tell me why?

If the Indien so good, why is the difference in average DPG between tier 7&8 50? They are basically same playstyle.

 

Heavy tanks have way bigger jump across board, except for known to be mediocre tanks like Tiger II.

 

Indien does have pretty solid armor if enemy cannot aim for life. If they can aim it is up to RNG.

 

IS-6 is dead because IS-5 is a one size fits all solution, and IS-6 only specialty is a 175 pen gun. It has armor advantage, gun advantage, and speed advantage. 

 

SU-101... Is the main point I am skeptical about. Early on I had around 2400 DPG with 100mm, but WR was lower than 122mm. All that time I never felt any potential in the tank.

 

T-44 is similar. What does it even do? Is a good question to ask I think.

And I mean aside from getting an [edited] kicking every time it duels Type 59.



Posit1ve_ #993 Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:25 AM

    Credits Master

  • Players
  • 50099 battles
  • 5,478
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostOicraftian, on 13 February 2019 - 06:20 AM, said:

 

Let me think...

Spoiler

This is a buffed tier 8 medium. Notice how a medium is partly outclassed by the tier 7 heavy tank in a field it is supposed to specialize in.

 

Now, you can argue that the indien is 'good enough' tier for tier, it is clearly an incremental growth over Tiger 1 at tier 7, not a broken leapfrog.

 

Except for 1 flaw.

Ok. So players don't know how to play mediums because they were playing Indien like the tier 7.

 

Indien problem? It is good tier 7 firepower in a tier where heavy tanks have DPM approaching with nearly twice the alpha at times, while having awful gun handling and mediocre mobility. Indien doesn't need a big buff though, only something to make it, say, have ~100 pts more DPM when kitted for example, with 0.14 bloom or something similar to make it snapshot. Or perhaps that is too much in light of nerfing almost every tier 8 mediums pen.

 

At the moment it is probably worth less than an IS-6 with DPM gun. Which, funnily enough, also needs a buff.

 

 

How to cure the spam of IS-5 & IS-6?

Make them have gun handling/DPM guns, what other ideas?

 

IS-5 can have 'surprisingly good' gun handling with say, inferior pen to before, while IS-6 can have slightly better pen and... I don't know just become less despicable.

 

SU-101?

Give it the gun handling to flex, and the DPM to actually function as a tank destroyer. 

 

Tier 8 mediums in general?

I think this situation is not a very complex one. The NATO tier 8 mediums in real life are really just using guns similar to 90mm M3, which really isn't that powerful, save for tanks like Indien. I presume on 'hotter' ammunition loads, but still, not a comparison to D-10T.

I'd say nerf the pen, up the alpha and DPM.

STA-1 penetration down to say, 187 mills?, increase max speed?, improve softs, and the DPM to 'something competitive'. 2550 or such should work, it can't just arbitrarily run over Indien DPM. It leads over all but the Caer. Which, for a 'soft' medium like STA-1, is reasonable I think. Caer has the armor, the pen to kill anything and flex on spot, STA-1 has the flex, speed, and alpha.

Pershing stays as is, DPM increased outright

Centurion I, renamed Cent 3, UFP increased to, IDK, Cent 7/1 levels? DPM & alpha increased, main change is gun handling to 0.1/0.1 or something. Pen cut down to ~200.

Spoiler

 

 

I am concerned with upping the DPM so much without looking at the others, but generally this idea should work.

Remember, most tier 8 heavies already sit at ~2-2.2k DPM

 

100mm D-10T? I thought of a radical idea to just rework the alpha/pen of 100mm D-10T, LB-1, L7, and D-54, but I do not think WG will make such a change.

 

Whatever the solution is for T-44, I think it can rest knowing that this will never come to pass, and that it will never be a relevant in this way.

Spoiler

 

 

It's not complicated or difficult to see problems with tier 8 mediums. Namely that their best DPM can't beat a heavy tank, their DPM is almost the same as in tier heavies with almost no advantage, and their alpha is just too low. But they pen almost everything because... Reasons. I think it is better to move them this way. Few can contest a heavy in pen, but even then they will lose out, but most focus on DPM and such features.

 

Anyway, imagine a T-44 rolling in with 340 alpha and ~210mm AP pen, and sure it'll come with 4 degrees of gun depression, but you will be 'snapping' with 340 alpha.

 

The alpha compression... I am concerned, but also notice how this is Blitz. 7 vs 7, alpha compression appears to make sense.

 

This is tentative, a fantasy to float out.

 

This post is a meme on so many levels

 

1. The D-10t doesn't even get sabot rounds until 1968 in the form of the BM-8, which many sources say only had 264mm of penetration @1km. Even the APFSDS shell BM-25 developed in the late 70's only had 325mm of penetration @1km

2. The in-game round for the D-10t, D10t mod 1945, and the LB-1 is the UBR-412 AP shell, which has only 135mm of penetration @1km; which makes sense, because this shell was developed in the mid 40's, in line with when the tanks that can mount these guns (IS, T-44, and early model T-54) were developed. Suggesting that the D-10t should have massive penetration because 30 years later the Soviets made APFSDS rounds for it makes 0 sense. 

3. The in-game round for the T-54's D-10T2S is the UBR 412 B AP shell, which only has 185mm of penetration @1km

4. If you're going to use numbers from a late 1970s shell for the D10t, you ought to be fair to the L7. The M735 APFSDS shell developed around the same time as the BM-25 has 410mm of penetration @1km. Heck, if we're just going off the best shells made for a gun as you seem to want to compare, why don't we just quote the >500mm armor penetration @1km of the 1990's era DU shells for the L7?

5. The in-game round for the L7A1 is the M392/L28 APDS, which as you mentioned, does indeed have 340mm of penetration @1km. And the game choosing this shell also makes sense, seeing as this is the round developed for the gun in 1961, in line with when tanks like Leopard were being introduced.

6. The 90mm M3 with APCBC shells has ~122mm of penetration @1km, not radically different from the D10t shells available at the time (especially considering I've given the UBR-412 the most generous number I could find for it, many sources quote its penetration as just 110mm @1km).

7. This is World of Tanks, not real life, and if you can't already tell, penetration values in-game are radically different from real life. 

 

I'm honestly kind of sick of your constant hard-ons for Soviet armor based on completely unrealistic expectations and numbers.


Edited by Posit1ve_, 21 February 2019 - 03:26 AM.

311 tanks in the garage!

 

Your local friendly credits guru: http://forum.wotblit...__fromsearch__1  (Most upvoted post on the forums!!!!)

Certified Batignolles Chatillon 25t addict


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #994 Posted 21 February 2019 - 06:18 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View PostPosit1ve_, on 21 February 2019 - 03:25 AM, said:

 

This post is a meme on so many levels

 

1. The D-10t doesn't even get sabot rounds until 1968 in the form of the BM-8, which many sources say only had 264mm of penetration @1km. Even the APFSDS shell BM-25 developed in the late 70's only had 325mm of penetration @1km

2. The in-game round for the D-10t, D10t mod 1945, and the LB-1 is the UBR-412 AP shell, which has only 135mm of penetration @1km; which makes sense, because this shell was developed in the mid 40's, in line with when the tanks that can mount these guns (IS, T-44, and early model T-54) were developed. Suggesting that the D-10t should have massive penetration because 30 years later the Soviets made APFSDS rounds for it makes 0 sense. 

3. The in-game round for the T-54's D-10T2S is the UBR 412 B AP shell, which only has 185mm of penetration @1km

4. If you're going to use numbers from a late 1970s shell for the D10t, you ought to be fair to the L7. The M735 APFSDS shell developed around the same time as the BM-25 has 410mm of penetration @1km. Heck, if we're just going off the best shells made for a gun as you seem to want to compare, why don't we just quote the >500mm armor penetration @1km of the 1990's era DU shells for the L7?

5. The in-game round for the L7A1 is the M392/L28 APDS, which as you mentioned, does indeed have 340mm of penetration @1km. And the game choosing this shell also makes sense, seeing as this is the round developed for the gun in 1961, in line with when tanks like Leopard were being introduced.

6. The 90mm M3 with APCBC shells has ~122mm of penetration @1km, not radically different from the D10t shells available at the time (especially considering I've given the UBR-412 the most generous number I could find for it, many sources quote its penetration as just 110mm @1km).

7. This is World of Tanks, not real life, and if you can't already tell, penetration values in-game are radically different from real life. 

 

I'm honestly kind of sick of your constant hard-ons for Soviet armor based on completely unrealistic expectations and numbers.

#1

3BM8 according to Soviet sources has 290mm penetration at 2 km using 75% criteria which reduces penetration compared to NATO 50% criteria. No clue where your 264mm is from. Technologically speaking it is equivalent to L28A1? or such shot. Officially entered service 1967. Penetrator mass of 5.7 kg.

It had begun being received by 1964? (or in production?), but was not 'officially adopted' yet.

So as we can see your claim is completely [edited].

 

 

3BM-25 APFSDS is 2nd generation APFSDS, behind equivalent NATO and Soviet armor penetrators of the era.

 

So, no, it (3BM8) doesn't penetrate 'just 264mm at 1km'. It's 290mm at 2 km. On a harsher criteria than your figure presumably.

 

While on this topic, since you've neglected to mention where your 'sources' are, though I suspect they are SB data, 3BM8 actually outperforms L28 APDS in this metric...

 

#2

No, according to WW2 Ballistics armor and gunnery BR-412 is capable of penetrating 164mm at 1 kilometer. 

 

#3 So WW2 ballistics armor and gunnery, how difficult. The penetration is also 235 millimeters at 100 meters distance, and 185mm at 1km. Now, you might pick the FH figure, but that is against face hardened armor which was a method dropped because of how it performed at angles against APCBC shot. Now if you're a total [edited]you can take the FH figure because BR-412B would magically gain the attribute of making whatever armor it shot at face hardened, but that's not how the enemy perceives the process.

 

#4

I am suggesting the tier 9 has a penetration value between 227mm - 235 mm, not exactly magical, 200mm - 220mm for tier 8, and the tier 7 has ~190-200 mm. While that is very high penetration for a medium tank gun, its not outside the range of equivalent tier tanks.

So I don't see super high pen magic, but I do see a gun performing roughly equivalent to the 88mm/71 in the game, which has 203mm. I'd think that the 88/71 is more powerful than that, but I do not think it is really that relevant. 

 

LOL it's STEEL BEASTS :teethhappy:

 

#5

So? Leopard 1A0 was 1964. 3BM8 was designed before 1964.

 

#6

yeah... You don't use WW2 Ballistics armor and gunnery as a baseline do you?

Now it also seems you don't understand the shot themselves but ok whatever.

And I don't think you understand why some 'sources' cite different figures based on penetration criteria.

 

#7

Notice how it would be good for said tanks gameplay not to rely on gold spam. And how 200-220 is within range for tier 8 medium tanks. Average figure is 210mm, not above tier 8 heavies, but almost the same, sometimes higher, and this time it comes at the cost of T-44 lacking medium tank DPM in the first place. Meaning it pays for the pen and alpha for DPM, on a tank that cannot bounce very much.

 

Meanwhile for the tier 9, 227-235 is a little under the Batchat 25T AP, which, combined with what the T-54 has at the moment, doesn't seem to be a magical miracle of godliness.

Considering that BR-412D can pen 250mm at the vertical as justification, it is not outside the imagination.

 

 

I think it is conclusive that you don't know very much about what you are talking about, and thus have come to the wrong conclusions. Using dates to compare tanks isn't always the best method. Particularly in a game where a 1957 model tank has WW2 era AP shot (BR-412B APBC) as its main AP munition with the performance of BR-412.



4sfield #995 Posted 21 February 2019 - 06:26 PM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 32376 battles
  • 4,946
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014
  Where are the German Charts?

 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #996 Posted 21 February 2019 - 06:28 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

View Post4sfield, on 21 February 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

  Where are the German Charts?

 

The 88/71 is 'deceptively powerful' where it can pierce the vertical value just fine, but in Yugoslav tests they found the 100mm UFP of T-54 at 60* was totally immune to 88/71 (AP and APCR?). While the turret was penetrable, but from impractical distance. 

 

Actually for the most part this is true of high velocity full caliber AP shot. The vertical pen will be inflated, but angled performance is not going to look nearly as good. For example, I believe it was the 75/70 that was consistently incapable of penetrating KT turret front at point blank, while the 100 & 122mm guns didn't bat an eye and put holes through the turret/UFP

 

This is because of small steel shot more easily being moved off course/damaged. The penetrator mass itself is simply not high enough to 'stick to the plate' as well a larger equivalent.



4sfield #997 Posted 21 February 2019 - 06:38 PM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 32376 battles
  • 4,946
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostOicraftian, on 21 February 2019 - 01:28 PM, said:

 

The 88/71 is 'deceptively powerful' where it can pierce the vertical value just fine, but in Yugoslav tests they found the 100mm UFP of T-54 at 60* was totally immune to 88/71 (AP and APCR?). While the turret was penetrable, but from impractical distance. 

 

Actually for the most part this is true of high velocity full caliber AP shot. The vertical pen will be inflated, but angled performance is not going to look nearly as good. For example, I believe it was the 75/70 that was consistently incapable of penetrating KT turret front at point blank, while the 100 & 122mm guns didn't bat an eye and put holes through the turret/UFP

 

This is because of small steel shot more easily being moved off course/damaged. The penetrator mass itself is simply not high enough to 'stick to the plate' as well a larger equivalent.

 

  You read my mind, thanks for sharing these.

 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


Posit1ve_ #998 Posted 21 February 2019 - 09:07 PM

    Credits Master

  • Players
  • 50099 battles
  • 5,478
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostOicraftian, on 21 February 2019 - 01:18 PM, said:

#1

3BM8 according to Soviet sources has 290mm penetration at 2 km using 75% criteria which reduces penetration compared to NATO 50% criteria. No clue where your 264mm is from. Technologically speaking it is equivalent to L28A1? or such shot. Officially entered service 1967. Penetrator mass of 5.7 kg.

It had begun being received by 1964? (or in production?), but was not 'officially adopted' yet.

So as we can see your claim is completely [edited].

 

 

3BM-25 APFSDS is 2nd generation APFSDS, behind equivalent NATO and Soviet armor penetrators of the era.

 

So, no, it (3BM8) doesn't penetrate 'just 264mm at 1km'. It's 290mm at 2 km. On a harsher criteria than your figure presumably.

 

While on this topic, since you've neglected to mention where your 'sources' are, though I suspect they are SB data, 3BM8 actually outperforms L28 APDS in this metric...

 

#2

No, according to WW2 Ballistics armor and gunnery BR-412 is capable of penetrating 164mm at 1 kilometer. 

 

#3 So WW2 ballistics armor and gunnery, how difficult. The penetration is also 235 millimeters at 100 meters distance, and 185mm at 1km. Now, you might pick the FH figure, but that is against face hardened armor which was a method dropped because of how it performed at angles against APCBC shot. Now if you're a total [edited]you can take the FH figure because BR-412B would magically gain the attribute of making whatever armor it shot at face hardened, but that's not how the enemy perceives the process.

 

#4

I am suggesting the tier 9 has a penetration value between 227mm - 235 mm, not exactly magical, 200mm - 220mm for tier 8, and the tier 7 has ~190-200 mm. While that is very high penetration for a medium tank gun, its not outside the range of equivalent tier tanks.

So I don't see super high pen magic, but I do see a gun performing roughly equivalent to the 88mm/71 in the game, which has 203mm. I'd think that the 88/71 is more powerful than that, but I do not think it is really that relevant. 

 

LOL it's STEEL BEASTS :teethhappy:

 

#5

So? Leopard 1A0 was 1964. 3BM8 was designed before 1964.

 

#6

yeah... You don't use WW2 Ballistics armor and gunnery as a baseline do you?

Now it also seems you don't understand the shot themselves but ok whatever.

And I don't think you understand why some 'sources' cite different figures based on penetration criteria.

 

#7

Notice how it would be good for said tanks gameplay not to rely on gold spam. And how 200-220 is within range for tier 8 medium tanks. Average figure is 210mm, not above tier 8 heavies, but almost the same, sometimes higher, and this time it comes at the cost of T-44 lacking medium tank DPM in the first place. Meaning it pays for the pen and alpha for DPM, on a tank that cannot bounce very much.

 

Meanwhile for the tier 9, 227-235 is a little under the Batchat 25T AP, which, combined with what the T-54 has at the moment, doesn't seem to be a magical miracle of godliness.

Considering that BR-412D can pen 250mm at the vertical as justification, it is not outside the imagination.

 

 

I think it is conclusive that you don't know very much about what you are talking about, and thus have come to the wrong conclusions. Using dates to compare tanks isn't always the best method. Particularly in a game where a 1957 model tank has WW2 era AP shot (BR-412B APBC) as its main AP munition with the performance of BR-412.

 

Oh please, don't pretend like you know everything either.

 

WWII Ballistics Armor and Gunnery? You mean the armchair general's bible written by armchair generals based on incomplete 2nd and even 3rd hand information? The quality of the research in there is about as good as if I were to just google everything and write it myself in a pseudo-intellectual fashion.

As for the rest of your information, you know just as well as I do that half of it comes from obscure blogs from other pseudo-intellectual armchair generals and historians.

 

Honestly, I'm not even sure why I let myself get mired in this mess of a fantasy. I'll let you keep jacking off to your armor penetration numbers; history has moved on. At the end of the day, history has shown the paper performance of tanks to have minimal impact on reality; and even on the balance of this game: http://forum.wotblit...работки-баланс/

 

 


311 tanks in the garage!

 

Your local friendly credits guru: http://forum.wotblit...__fromsearch__1  (Most upvoted post on the forums!!!!)

Certified Batignolles Chatillon 25t addict


anonym_2ZNiJLJL8ln2 #999 Posted 21 February 2019 - 11:18 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 940
  • Member since:
    06-16-2019

You came into a balance thread talking about a poster talking about a balance topic, in an area that is believed by some individuals to be needing change. You complained how their *justification* for some of the balance changes were 'wrong'. When they bring up information your only defense to 'claim it is wrong' as opposed to discrediting it.

It is a fantasy because what?

 

Is this some strategy of yours? Derail the thread so I bring up history information, then run away saying I'm bringing up history instead of game balance?



PudgyBud #1000 Posted 04 March 2019 - 02:55 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 13991 battles
  • 3
  • [US29]
  • Member since:
    03-11-2016

Blitz has had time to adjust balance in at least the last 3 updates,and has done nothing. What makes you think they are going to change. Losing about 40% of players has not made them think. My suggestion is to quit and find some games that are fair to all players, and not money pit. Which blitz has become.

 






4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users