Jump to content


I dislike ISU-152 Nerf.

ISU-152 BL-10 9.20 Supertest Nerf

  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

Poll: Should ISU-152 Be nefred? (292 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battle in order to participate this poll.

Should ISU-152 Be nerfed?

  1. NO!! (151 votes [51.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.71%

  2. YES!! (141 votes [48.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.29%

Vote Hide poll

Igor_BL #201 Posted 30 August 2017 - 04:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42337 battles
  • 1,558
  • Member since:
    06-10-2015

i was comparing the 260/286 pen to HT armor... not isu and HT's armor.
I didnt refer to your post about isu armor.
 

well, there are people, including me, that enjoy to see as much as possible "accurate" guns and armor on tanks...

 

plus, i played isu very agressivly, as any other tank... i am not really "sniping" guy, that is why i dont play TDs...
But, isu is not frontline tank, it needs some distance to compensate that paper armor (beside mantlet) and use that camo...
It is not corner/frontline tank.

 

 

EDIT:

The reason behind this ISU152 nerf is... are... Chinese TDs.

simple.

ISU lovers  now have reason more to  grind thru Chinese TD line, to get... lets say tier9 tank with fantastic 152mm gun and more then decent armor...

 


Edited by Igor_BL, 30 August 2017 - 04:04 PM.


Entr0py #202 Posted 30 August 2017 - 04:35 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 17744 battles
  • 88
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

View PostDava_117, on 14 July 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

 

Just like JpzE100 and deathstar. But those have armour and can work in close combat. As them, you can see it's in battle, so you can just try to avoid it. And if you get hit with that gun and cammo, probably you weren't paying attention to the minimap...

 

Deathstar... armour... what game are you playing? Deathstar has absolutely horrendous armour

Balc0ra #203 Posted 30 August 2017 - 04:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 74388 battles
  • 21,279
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Played it 3 times today. Only bounced 1 shot on the M4 Rev's turret. And 2 shots on the SU-122-54's side, as he made it 70% degrees for a split second. And one shot on a Type 4 head on. But even the old gun on an bad roll would do that.

 

I had no issues getting 2000+ damage each time. No issues penning an E100 on the side with AP. Or anything head on in a +1 game even. Feels like the same old one tbh. HP buff did seem pointless, as you die just as fast when you are first spotted, and more then one gun aims at you anyway. As I did prove in 2 of the 3 games.



Baldrickk #204 Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,890
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013
I like how some people are bringing out the historical accuracy line.
If it was accurate, you would be stuck with the 152mm derp.

The only difference between the SU and the ISU is the chassis they built the superstructure on.

lord_chipmonk #205 Posted 31 August 2017 - 12:27 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36526 battles
  • 10,279
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View PostBaldrickk, on 30 August 2017 - 11:42 PM, said:

I like how some people are bringing out the historical accuracy line.
If it was accurate, you would be stuck with the 152mm derp.

The only difference between the SU and the ISU is the chassis they built the superstructure on.

 

IIRC, there was an experiment to mount the BL-10 on an ISU. Don't quote me on that though. 

Lord_Edge #206 Posted 31 August 2017 - 02:40 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6020 battles
  • 835
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016
I must say, playing the ISU sucks now but playing against it is so funny.  You can just ignore them in a superheavy while racking up steel walls XD <3

Zodiac1960s #207 Posted 31 August 2017 - 06:55 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41511 battles
  • 1,006
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostUbersonic, on 31 August 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

I must say, playing the ISU sucks now but playing against it is so funny.  You can just ignore them in a superheavy while racking up steel walls XD <3

Then you are clearly fighting complete idiots..  260, 329 pen and 750 alpha not enough?  950 alpha HE shells is extremely useful too..  

 

It sucks now? You have no clue what so ever.

 

 



Lord_Edge #208 Posted 31 August 2017 - 09:14 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6020 battles
  • 835
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostBlind_Hate, on 31 August 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

Then you are clearly fighting complete idiots..

No, they just can't pen me anymore.

 

It's not a difficult concept, if the guns penetration is reduced then it's chances of penetrating a target is reduced.  The ISU is a lot less scary to play against now than it was last week, especially in a Defender or a Jap superheavy (which was probably the plan) and a lot worse to play.


Edited by Ubersonic, 31 August 2017 - 09:16 AM.


jabster #209 Posted 31 August 2017 - 09:28 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12761 battles
  • 26,272
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postlord_chipmonk, on 30 August 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

 

IIRC, there was an experiment to mount the BL-10 on an ISU. Don't quote me on that though. 

 



Aikl #210 Posted 31 August 2017 - 09:39 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27010 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Postlord_chipmonk, on 30 August 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

 

IIRC, there was an experiment to mount the BL-10 on an ISU. Don't quote me on that though. 

 

There are even pictures, i.e. it's more 'historical' than many other tanks.

Spoiler

 

The penetration nerf is arguably warranted, even if the ISU hasn't got anything else going for it than the gun. That's kind of the point about most TDs anyway, a big gun and stealth comes at the cost of flexibility. Reducing AP pen to 260 means that you can still nuke most T8-9 heavy tanks for 30-50% of their HP; just means that a Maus doesn't have to crapits pants because some troll in an ISU camps the hill on Fisherman's Bay. 

 

Generally speaking, the maps are arguably the main problem anyway, as many of them provide low-risk, no-commitment 'basecamping positions', which only serves to limit gameplay during the late game. I'm probably mistaken, but it at least feels like TDs used to have more options for supporting flanks rather than defending the base. Now it's basically a replacement for the pre-9.18 artillery, continuing the line of low-risk/high-reward gameplay where your tier doesn't really matter in a battle.



Toni112007 #211 Posted 31 August 2017 - 09:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11166 battles
  • 768
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013
I sold ISU as soon as I heared it was getting nerfed. Now I have OBJ 704 and I don't regret selling it.

immortal_sniper1 #212 Posted 31 August 2017 - 10:51 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17968 battles
  • 271
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    10-16-2015
isu-152 was overpowered and it still is

immortal_sniper1 #213 Posted 31 August 2017 - 10:57 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17968 battles
  • 271
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    10-16-2015

isu-152 ap pen 260   rhm 15 cam ap pen 215

 

isu-152 apcr 262       rhm 15 cam heat pen 334 

 

so nerf isu-152 ap pen to 230   or buff the rhm ap pen to 240



Igor_BL #214 Posted 31 August 2017 - 11:09 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42337 battles
  • 1,558
  • Member since:
    06-10-2015

ISU has much bigger shell velocity, that is why there is difference in penetration values.

 

plus, rhm is much better tank, it doesnt need any kind of buff...



Baldrickk #215 Posted 31 August 2017 - 11:53 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,890
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostIgor_BL, on 31 August 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

ISU has much bigger shell velocity, that is why there is difference in penetration values.

 

plus, rhm is much better tank, it doesnt need any kind of buff...

 Yeah, it's only slower, eats he shells and has much worse gun dep and much worse pen with the 150mm

The camo is the only thing going for it, and that only works as well as any other when you start firing. 

 

Not saying it needs a buff, but the ISU isn't worse off. 


Edited by Baldrickk, 01 September 2017 - 07:31 AM.


Commonunprofessional #216 Posted 31 August 2017 - 03:26 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31427 battles
  • 274
  • Member since:
    11-10-2013

View Post_SpartanWarrior_, on 14 July 2017 - 02:50 PM, said:

I dislike ISU-152 Nerf.

 

You don't like it because it makes it more difficult for you the sh*t blast tanks for 50% of their HP. It's just another orange compensate tank where you only have to connect a few shots to impact the game.

tajj7 #217 Posted 31 August 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28447 battles
  • 16,705
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostBaldrickk, on 10 August 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

Ok, so it's less accurate than the tank he picked to compare it to. 

Hits one heck of a lot harder too though. Still beats it handily with the nerfed pen. 

For someone who is saying all the stats should be taken into account, you seem to be forgetting that. 

 

As for accuracy, it's lugging a 152mm barrel around and still beats 0.4.

T37 only has a 76mm gun and 0.43 accuracy. 

0.39 is not bad.

 

 

This.

 

its frankly absurd to complain about 'bad accuracy' on something that has 750 alpha, 269 pen and still  has sub 0.40. 

 

For that alpha the gun by rights should be even worse, pretty much all the tier 9 & 10 lights have worse accuracy than the Isu and have 240 pen or less, and barely half the alpha having to deal with Maus and Type all the time but apparently being able to two shot Tiger 2s with basically auto-aim and one shot tier 6 tanks having 0.39 accuracy is a hardship. 



somegras #218 Posted 31 August 2017 - 04:50 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 50963 battles
  • 8,711
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View Posttajj7, on 31 August 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

 

This.

 

its frankly absurd to complain about 'bad accuracy' on something that has 750 alpha, 269 pen and still  has sub 0.40. 

 

For that alpha the gun by rights should be even worse, pretty much all the tier 9 & 10 lights have worse accuracy than the Isu and have 240 pen or less, and barely half the alpha having to deal with Maus and Type all the time but apparently being able to two shot Tiger 2s with basically auto-aim and one shot tier 6 tanks having 0.39 accuracy is a hardship. 

 

You just don't understand their suffering, now they ''might'' have to aim at some tanks instead of using autoaim 90% of the time. :O



Dava_117 #219 Posted 31 August 2017 - 05:35 PM

    Major General

  • Moderator
  • 23008 battles
  • 5,453
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostEntr0py, on 30 August 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

 

Deathstar... armour... what game are you playing? Deathstar has absolutely horrendous armour

 

correct me if i'm wrong, but 183 got 254mm on the turret, that is far more reliable than 90mm on ISU. You can hulldown at mid range and expect your turret to block some shot.

Baldrickk #220 Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:30 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,890
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostDava_117, on 31 August 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:

 

correct me if i'm wrong, but 183 got 254mm on the turret, that is far more reliable than 90mm on ISU. You can hulldown at mid range and expect your turret to block some shot.

It's also two tiers higher and more of an assault gun. 

The ISU is tier 8 and has more fire rate and DPM.  The shells travel faster, it has better gun handling across the board except for 0.01 final accuracy.  It's a faster vehicle with a better power to weight and very similar terrain resistances.  The hull armour on both is essentially garbage. 

 

The ISU comes out of this comparison looking pretty rosy imho 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users