Jump to content


Supertest Information

supertest

  • Please log in to reply
284 replies to this topic

Bucifel #221 Posted 21 December 2017 - 01:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37285 battles
  • 1,600
  • [_BR0-] _BR0-
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostAfdass, on 21 December 2017 - 02:12 AM, said:

 

​https://thedailybounce.net/2017/12/15/world-of-tanks-supertest-object-705a-details/

 

Guess it will be a new line. Something a bit different than the usual Soviet Heavy Tanks and maybe branching out from the IS (which makes sense). 

About "weakspots" let's see if this isn't again one Chrysler K or VK B.

 

dont insult VKB please...thats still a decent tank how time its cupola is a weakpoint.

was better in past when machinegun and driver hatch was weakpoints too...but dont compare it with that retard Chrysler wich have 0 weakpoints please...thats a insult !

:D



xx984 #222 Posted 21 December 2017 - 03:40 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 67548 battles
  • 3,939
  • [72861] 72861
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
will these new ruski heavies have the gun access port weakspot on the roof? 

molnargabor666 #223 Posted 21 December 2017 - 07:15 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 28115 battles
  • 25
  • [HU666] HU666
  • Member since:
    12-28-2015
i would like to apply super test to be able to try the innovations and help me but i do not know how to do it

papageo_cy #224 Posted 23 December 2017 - 05:12 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 70931 battles
  • 192
  • [RSX] RSX
  • Member since:
    08-28-2013
So, I was watching the WG Fest stream and one of the product managers announced some changes to the Russian lines and this new line will be coming from KV-13, the medium tank :)

vuque #225 Posted 25 December 2017 - 10:34 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 19281 battles
  • 4,070
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010

Hello everyone,
 

As we continue fine-tuning vehicle balance, we also want to improve how we communicate upcoming changes to you. The USSR Tank Destroyers have been through several Supertests lately, and we couldn’t but notice the heated discussion they caused. We’ve been paying close attention to your concerns, and feel that we owe you a detailed explanation on suggested changes and reasoning behind them.
 

Reasons

We approached the revision with two objectives in mind:

  1. Boosting gameplay variety with new rear-turret heavy tanks we’ve been working on on supertest server. They offer an interesting take on HT gameplay, which is not currently available through other top tier vehicles. Not to mention their design and the fact they’re all modelled off tanks that’ve seen their share of action.
  2. Fixing the lines of Soviet rear-turret/superstructure vehicles on both the medium tank and tank destroyer lines to deliver a more logical progression to top tiers. These vehicles were totally mixed up in between the tech tree lines: rear-turret/superstructure vehicles were mixed with other vehicles with a more conventional layout and vice versa. As a result, the gameplay was varying a lot from tier to tier, which caused a lot of frustration and seriously undermined the lines’ popularity. They played oddly, so it’s not surprising only few people wanted to research the line and/or play in them.


Concept

We slightly improved the characteristics of the USSR Tank Destroyer lines in previous updates, but it didn’t work. So we decided to revise the branch again. Simply improving combat parameters didn’t cut it and we went on to rework the line entirely. Here’s the concept we had in mind for the revised line:

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

To sum up, these vehicles are meant to drive the breakthrough of the flanks. Outstanding mobility lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and hold them until allies catch up. They specialize in middle- and close-range combat. They can pop out from the cover, deflect enemy shells, and send a few solid punches in return before quickly retreating back to safety.  


First Iteration

The first iteration we offered you to supertest was built off this concept. In it, we:

  • Moved the Object 263 down a tier enabling it to make a sensible contribution with its damage per shot and armor. At the same time, this re-shuffle stopped us from increasing to make it fit for a Tier X.
  • Added a new Tier X TD: the Object 268 Variant 4. It inherits the speed, armor and good gun from its predecessors, but unlike them, it can mount a gun above 130mm and doesn’t suffer from an open hatch

With these changes, we felt we almost reached our goals, but were left with the SU-122-54 that just didn’t fit into the concept because of its traditional turret placement. It was clearly out of the line in terms of gameplay, but was valuable from a historical point of view. As an interim solution, we decided to test it as a Tier VIII to see if it can be viable there. Unfortunately, it was just as unimpressive at Tier VIII. It was no good at blocking damage even at tier VIII and still felt like a huge step away in terms of gameplay.

The Object 263 and Object 268 Variant 4 showed excellent results in the tests. The vehicles perfectly blocked the damage and performed as assault TDs--fast, armored with an average damage per shot and not very big DPM for TDs.


Second Iteration

You spoke out against moving the Object 263 to Tier IX, but the testing result told us the opposite. The Object 268 Variant 4 proved superior to Object 263 and therefore better suited for the role. So we took them both for another round of testing to verify the initial results.

For the 2nd test we:

  • Removed the SU-122-54 completely and made a line fully composed of rear-turret/superstructure vehicles
  • Returned the SU-100M1 and SU-101 to their places, improved their armor and gun parameters
  • Reduced the Object 268 Variant 4 alpha strike from 750 to 650 to maintain the uniformity of the gameplay in the line. There’s no abrupt change in alpha damage and reload time now, when you move up from Tier VIII to Tier X.


Here’s the final setup: SU-100M1 >>> SU-101 >>> Object 263 >>> Object 268 Variant 4

The 2nd test solidified our belief that these vehicles demonstrate a very interesting type of gameplay.

  • They’re fast, with 47+ km/h from Tier VII to tier VIII and 55 km/h at Tier X
  • They excel in blocking damage, although they have weak spots in their lower plates
  • They aren’t OP. Their average damage per shot is lower than that of classic TDs, but still higher than that of heavies or mediums, which prevents them from having a huge DPM. This was intended as we did not want to create fast, armored vehicles able to deal the same amount of damage as regular TDs.


Next Steps

We believe that the final setup will provide a fresh take on TD gameplay, and invite you to take the revised line for a stroll during the upcoming Common Test. Give them a shot, try to keep a somewhat open mind, and let us know what you think! We will monitor these and other revised Soviet tanks to see how the tuning adjustments are working out in real live server condition, and if further iteration might be needed.

Last but not least, we strongly recommend you to follow our official channels for communication on all re-balancing work being done in order to get the latest and most accurate information on changes to come. We will on our end double our efforts to keep you updated on the reasoning behind the changes we make to the tanks you play and love.

 



Thuis001 #226 Posted 25 December 2017 - 11:52 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5981 battles
  • 467
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

View Postvuque, on 25 December 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

...

First of, nothing against you, you just do your job. However I yet have to hear the first non-WG employee that thinks that moving the 263 a tier lower is a good idea. Heck I hear that on the Ru forum there is an 80 pages!!!! discussion about why it is a bad idea. Yet still WG keeps insisting on changing it, WHY? The current focus of the line is this: decently frontal armored TD's that are fast in a straight line yet very unagile, with lower alpha but higher DPM. Why is that focus changed? I mean, I get why the SU-122-54 is removed, but why do you keep insisting on moving the 263 down a tier, NOONE wants that. And (I haven't, so not speaking about me) lets say, you are a player that ground that line because of the niche it fills (no 750 alpha boomstick, decent armor, fast) when these changes hit the live server you get a line that was not why you ground it, rather it has just become another generic TD line. The 263 is fine, heck if you want to change it then buff it a bit, but don't move it to tier IX, instead focus on the tier VII-IX which are not that great. Thank you for reading, and have a nice X-mas.



fighting_falcon93 #227 Posted 25 December 2017 - 04:46 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postvuque, on 25 December 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

Hello everyone,
 

As we continue fine-tuning vehicle balance, we also want to improve how we communicate upcoming changes to you. The USSR Tank Destroyers have been through several Supertests lately, and we couldn’t but notice the heated discussion they caused. We’ve been paying close attention to your concerns, and feel that we owe you a detailed explanation on suggested changes and reasoning behind them.
 

Reasons

We approached the revision with two objectives in mind:

  1. Boosting gameplay variety with new rear-turret heavy tanks we’ve been working on on supertest server. They offer an interesting take on HT gameplay, which is not currently available through other top tier vehicles. Not to mention their design and the fact they’re all modelled off tanks that’ve seen their share of action.
  2. Fixing the lines of Soviet rear-turret/superstructure vehicles on both the medium tank and tank destroyer lines to deliver a more logical progression to top tiers. These vehicles were totally mixed up in between the tech tree lines: rear-turret/superstructure vehicles were mixed with other vehicles with a more conventional layout and vice versa. As a result, the gameplay was varying a lot from tier to tier, which caused a lot of frustration and seriously undermined the lines’ popularity. They played oddly, so it’s not surprising only few people wanted to research the line and/or play in them.


Concept

We slightly improved the characteristics of the USSR Tank Destroyer lines in previous updates, but it didn’t work. So we decided to revise the branch again. Simply improving combat parameters didn’t cut it and we went on to rework the line entirely. Here’s the concept we had in mind for the revised line:

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

To sum up, these vehicles are meant to drive the breakthrough of the flanks. Outstanding mobility lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and hold them until allies catch up. They specialize in middle- and close-range combat. They can pop out from the cover, deflect enemy shells, and send a few solid punches in return before quickly retreating back to safety.  


First Iteration

The first iteration we offered you to supertest was built off this concept. In it, we:

  • Moved the Object 263 down a tier enabling it to make a sensible contribution with its damage per shot and armor. At the same time, this re-shuffle stopped us from increasing to make it fit for a Tier X.
  • Added a new Tier X TD: the Object 268 Variant 4. It inherits the speed, armor and good gun from its predecessors, but unlike them, it can mount a gun above 130mm and doesn’t suffer from an open hatch

With these changes, we felt we almost reached our goals, but were left with the SU-122-54 that just didn’t fit into the concept because of its traditional turret placement. It was clearly out of the line in terms of gameplay, but was valuable from a historical point of view. As an interim solution, we decided to test it as a Tier VIII to see if it can be viable there. Unfortunately, it was just as unimpressive at Tier VIII. It was no good at blocking damage even at tier VIII and still felt like a huge step away in terms of gameplay.

The Object 263 and Object 268 Variant 4 showed excellent results in the tests. The vehicles perfectly blocked the damage and performed as assault TDs--fast, armored with an average damage per shot and not very big DPM for TDs.


Second Iteration

You spoke out against moving the Object 263 to Tier IX, but the testing result told us the opposite. The Object 268 Variant 4 proved superior to Object 263 and therefore better suited for the role. So we took them both for another round of testing to verify the initial results.

For the 2nd test we:

  • Removed the SU-122-54 completely and made a line fully composed of rear-turret/superstructure vehicles
  • Returned the SU-100M1 and SU-101 to their places, improved their armor and gun parameters
  • Reduced the Object 268 Variant 4 alpha strike from 750 to 650 to maintain the uniformity of the gameplay in the line. There’s no abrupt change in alpha damage and reload time now, when you move up from Tier VIII to Tier X.


Here’s the final setup: SU-100M1 >>> SU-101 >>> Object 263 >>> Object 268 Variant 4

The 2nd test solidified our belief that these vehicles demonstrate a very interesting type of gameplay.

  • They’re fast, with 47+ km/h from Tier VII to tier VIII and 55 km/h at Tier X
  • They excel in blocking damage, although they have weak spots in their lower plates
  • They aren’t OP. Their average damage per shot is lower than that of classic TDs, but still higher than that of heavies or mediums, which prevents them from having a huge DPM. This was intended as we did not want to create fast, armored vehicles able to deal the same amount of damage as regular TDs.


Next Steps

We believe that the final setup will provide a fresh take on TD gameplay, and invite you to take the revised line for a stroll during the upcoming Common Test. Give them a shot, try to keep a somewhat open mind, and let us know what you think! We will monitor these and other revised Soviet tanks to see how the tuning adjustments are working out in real live server condition, and if further iteration might be needed.

Last but not least, we strongly recommend you to follow our official channels for communication on all re-balancing work being done in order to get the latest and most accurate information on changes to come. We will on our end double our efforts to keep you updated on the reasoning behind the changes we make to the tanks you play and love.

 

With all of that text written down, I still fail to find atleast 1 logical reason to why you're so extremely keen on pulling this change through? Why can't you just buff the Obj.263 and leave it on tier 10???

 

Let me bring forward a few arguments to you:

 

- Obj.263 offers unique TD gameplay on tier 10, this is good.

- Obj.263 is consistent with the other TDs in the branch.

- Unlocking tier 10s takes a lot of time, stop screwing players over.

 

Now I wonder, can you atleast give me 1 good reason to NOT keep Obj.263 on tier 10?

 

From me I'll already go ahead and say NO! I want the Obj.263 to remain on tier 10. And WG can surely go ahead and do whatever you want (isn't that what you do anyway?), but this is not something what players want. So go ahead, waste time on super tests and common test, I will (and hopefully the others players aswell), keep our opinions. Simply because the decision is very simple, you want to remove variety from tier 10.

 

#KeepObj263AtTier10



xx984 #228 Posted 25 December 2017 - 04:52 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 67548 battles
  • 3,939
  • [72861] 72861
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
Why not make the 54 a reward tank like the fv215b, Foch and 183?

ares354 #229 Posted 25 December 2017 - 05:34 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 78147 battles
  • 3,580
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View Postvuque, on 25 December 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

Hello everyone,
 

As we continue fine-tuning vehicle balance, we also want to improve how we communicate upcoming changes to you. The USSR Tank Destroyers have been through several Supertests lately, and we couldn’t but notice the heated discussion they caused. We’ve been paying close attention to your concerns, and feel that we owe you a detailed explanation on suggested changes and reasoning behind them.
 

Reasons

We approached the revision with two objectives in mind:

  1. Boosting gameplay variety with new rear-turret heavy tanks we’ve been working on on supertest server. They offer an interesting take on HT gameplay, which is not currently available through other top tier vehicles. Not to mention their design and the fact they’re all modelled off tanks that’ve seen their share of action.
  2. Fixing the lines of Soviet rear-turret/superstructure vehicles on both the medium tank and tank destroyer lines to deliver a more logical progression to top tiers. These vehicles were totally mixed up in between the tech tree lines: rear-turret/superstructure vehicles were mixed with other vehicles with a more conventional layout and vice versa. As a result, the gameplay was varying a lot from tier to tier, which caused a lot of frustration and seriously undermined the lines’ popularity. They played oddly, so it’s not surprising only few people wanted to research the line and/or play in them.


Concept

We slightly improved the characteristics of the USSR Tank Destroyer lines in previous updates, but it didn’t work. So we decided to revise the branch again. Simply improving combat parameters didn’t cut it and we went on to rework the line entirely. Here’s the concept we had in mind for the revised line:

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

To sum up, these vehicles are meant to drive the breakthrough of the flanks. Outstanding mobility lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and hold them until allies catch up. They specialize in middle- and close-range combat. They can pop out from the cover, deflect enemy shells, and send a few solid punches in return before quickly retreating back to safety.  


First Iteration

The first iteration we offered you to supertest was built off this concept. In it, we:

  • Moved the Object 263 down a tier enabling it to make a sensible contribution with its damage per shot and armor. At the same time, this re-shuffle stopped us from increasing to make it fit for a Tier X.
  • Added a new Tier X TD: the Object 268 Variant 4. It inherits the speed, armor and good gun from its predecessors, but unlike them, it can mount a gun above 130mm and doesn’t suffer from an open hatch

With these changes, we felt we almost reached our goals, but were left with the SU-122-54 that just didn’t fit into the concept because of its traditional turret placement. It was clearly out of the line in terms of gameplay, but was valuable from a historical point of view. As an interim solution, we decided to test it as a Tier VIII to see if it can be viable there. Unfortunately, it was just as unimpressive at Tier VIII. It was no good at blocking damage even at tier VIII and still felt like a huge step away in terms of gameplay.

The Object 263 and Object 268 Variant 4 showed excellent results in the tests. The vehicles perfectly blocked the damage and performed as assault TDs--fast, armored with an average damage per shot and not very big DPM for TDs.


Second Iteration

You spoke out against moving the Object 263 to Tier IX, but the testing result told us the opposite. The Object 268 Variant 4 proved superior to Object 263 and therefore better suited for the role. So we took them both for another round of testing to verify the initial results.

For the 2nd test we:

  • Removed the SU-122-54 completely and made a line fully composed of rear-turret/superstructure vehicles
  • Returned the SU-100M1 and SU-101 to their places, improved their armor and gun parameters
  • Reduced the Object 268 Variant 4 alpha strike from 750 to 650 to maintain the uniformity of the gameplay in the line. There’s no abrupt change in alpha damage and reload time now, when you move up from Tier VIII to Tier X.


Here’s the final setup: SU-100M1 >>> SU-101 >>> Object 263 >>> Object 268 Variant 4

The 2nd test solidified our belief that these vehicles demonstrate a very interesting type of gameplay.

  • They’re fast, with 47+ km/h from Tier VII to tier VIII and 55 km/h at Tier X
  • They excel in blocking damage, although they have weak spots in their lower plates
  • They aren’t OP. Their average damage per shot is lower than that of classic TDs, but still higher than that of heavies or mediums, which prevents them from having a huge DPM. This was intended as we did not want to create fast, armored vehicles able to deal the same amount of damage as regular TDs.


Next Steps

We believe that the final setup will provide a fresh take on TD gameplay, and invite you to take the revised line for a stroll during the upcoming Common Test. Give them a shot, try to keep a somewhat open mind, and let us know what you think! We will monitor these and other revised Soviet tanks to see how the tuning adjustments are working out in real live server condition, and if further iteration might be needed.

Last but not least, we strongly recommend you to follow our official channels for communication on all re-balancing work being done in order to get the latest and most accurate information on changes to come. We will on our end double our efforts to keep you updated on the reasoning behind the changes we make to the tanks you play and love.

 

 

WE OWNERS of 263 dont want next 750 alpha generic TD on tier 10. 263 is good, you can buff it by making his gun arc a bit better. 

You dont listen the community, you WG do WHAT you think is good for game. 

you will just add next line of TDs with no weakspot for normal ammo, TO FORCE US PLAYERS to spam more premium ammo. YOU AS WG will never tell us this, but we know why you change this. 

Edited by ares354, 26 December 2017 - 12:02 AM.


ZlatanArKung #230 Posted 25 December 2017 - 06:09 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1537 battles
  • 5,563
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Postvuque, on 25 December 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

Hello everyone,
 

As we continue fine-tuning vehicle balance, we also want to improve how we communicate upcoming changes to you. The USSR Tank Destroyers have been through several Supertests lately, and we couldn’t but notice the heated discussion they caused. We’ve been paying close attention to your concerns, and feel that we owe you a detailed explanation on suggested changes and reasoning behind them.
 

Reasons

We approached the revision with two objectives in mind:

  1. Boosting gameplay variety with new rear-turret heavy tanks we’ve been working on on supertest server. They offer an interesting take on HT gameplay, which is not currently available through other top tier vehicles. Not to mention their design and the fact they’re all modelled off tanks that’ve seen their share of action.
  2. Fixing the lines of Soviet rear-turret/superstructure vehicles on both the medium tank and tank destroyer lines to deliver a more logical progression to top tiers. These vehicles were totally mixed up in between the tech tree lines: rear-turret/superstructure vehicles were mixed with other vehicles with a more conventional layout and vice versa. As a result, the gameplay was varying a lot from tier to tier, which caused a lot of frustration and seriously undermined the lines’ popularity. They played oddly, so it’s not surprising only few people wanted to research the line and/or play in them.


Concept

We slightly improved the characteristics of the USSR Tank Destroyer lines in previous updates, but it didn’t work. So we decided to revise the branch again. Simply improving combat parameters didn’t cut it and we went on to rework the line entirely. Here’s the concept we had in mind for the revised line:

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

To sum up, these vehicles are meant to drive the breakthrough of the flanks. Outstanding mobility lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and hold them until allies catch up. They specialize in middle- and close-range combat. They can pop out from the cover, deflect enemy shells, and send a few solid punches in return before quickly retreating back to safety.  


First Iteration

The first iteration we offered you to supertest was built off this concept. In it, we:

  • Moved the Object 263 down a tier enabling it to make a sensible contribution with its damage per shot and armor. At the same time, this re-shuffle stopped us from increasing to make it fit for a Tier X.
  • Added a new Tier X TD: the Object 268 Variant 4. It inherits the speed, armor and good gun from its predecessors, but unlike them, it can mount a gun above 130mm and doesn’t suffer from an open hatch

With these changes, we felt we almost reached our goals, but were left with the SU-122-54 that just didn’t fit into the concept because of its traditional turret placement. It was clearly out of the line in terms of gameplay, but was valuable from a historical point of view. As an interim solution, we decided to test it as a Tier VIII to see if it can be viable there. Unfortunately, it was just as unimpressive at Tier VIII. It was no good at blocking damage even at tier VIII and still felt like a huge step away in terms of gameplay.

The Object 263 and Object 268 Variant 4 showed excellent results in the tests. The vehicles perfectly blocked the damage and performed as assault TDs--fast, armored with an average damage per shot and not very big DPM for TDs.


Second Iteration

You spoke out against moving the Object 263 to Tier IX, but the testing result told us the opposite. The Object 268 Variant 4 proved superior to Object 263 and therefore better suited for the role. So we took them both for another round of testing to verify the initial results.

For the 2nd test we:

  • Removed the SU-122-54 completely and made a line fully composed of rear-turret/superstructure vehicles
  • Returned the SU-100M1 and SU-101 to their places, improved their armor and gun parameters
  • Reduced the Object 268 Variant 4 alpha strike from 750 to 650 to maintain the uniformity of the gameplay in the line. There’s no abrupt change in alpha damage and reload time now, when you move up from Tier VIII to Tier X.


Here’s the final setup: SU-100M1 >>> SU-101 >>> Object 263 >>> Object 268 Variant 4

The 2nd test solidified our belief that these vehicles demonstrate a very interesting type of gameplay.

  • They’re fast, with 47+ km/h from Tier VII to tier VIII and 55 km/h at Tier X
  • They excel in blocking damage, although they have weak spots in their lower plates
  • They aren’t OP. Their average damage per shot is lower than that of classic TDs, but still higher than that of heavies or mediums, which prevents them from having a huge DPM. This was intended as we did not want to create fast, armored vehicles able to deal the same amount of damage as regular TDs.


Next Steps

We believe that the final setup will provide a fresh take on TD gameplay, and invite you to take the revised line for a stroll during the upcoming Common Test. Give them a shot, try to keep a somewhat open mind, and let us know what you think! We will monitor these and other revised Soviet tanks to see how the tuning adjustments are working out in real live server condition, and if further iteration might be needed.

Last but not least, we strongly recommend you to follow our official channels for communication on all re-balancing work being done in order to get the latest and most accurate information on changes to come. We will on our end double our efforts to keep you updated on the reasoning behind the changes we make to the tanks you play and love.

 

No thanks, not a good idea at all.

 

Just leave 263 at T10 as it is. It is different and unique in style.

Your proposed v4 IS NOT DIFFERENT IN STYLE TO MOST OTHER T10 TD. It is just a generic 750 alpha frontally armoured TD. Like E3.

Close to JgPzE100 aswell. Nothing new, nor interesting in that design. 

 

Keep the 263, and maybe buff reload and armour slightly.



Angel_Arrow #231 Posted 25 December 2017 - 06:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20211 battles
  • 825
  • [WOTI] WOTI
  • Member since:
    02-13-2015

It's so enjoyable how everybody is a real pro all of a sudden. Just wait and see. Try it out first before giving bad critics. It's been this way forever and it will never change. The only thing that does change are the changes WG pushes through every time. And every time we play them and after a few weeks everybody forgot about the change announcements and all of the comments that came out of it. At least WG is trying something to make the game more attractive again. Are all changes per definition good changes? I leave that in the middle. But keeping the game like it is and never change something is the same thing as standing still and letting the game die.

 

So even if I'm a bit sceptical myself sometimes I have to thank WG for at least trying something. Do not forget that these changes get tested out by the Super testers. If they think that this is not what we need, I think WG (or at least I hope) won't go through with it.



SovietBias #232 Posted 25 December 2017 - 08:12 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40083 battles
  • 1,878
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013
Why is the new Heavy IS-2h minibranch starting in KV-13, instead of IS?

jetfirecro #233 Posted 25 December 2017 - 08:24 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 29880 battles
  • 44
  • Member since:
    06-19-2014

why do you remove su-122-54???

why not split this line or the isu line and put him there like ferdinad in jgpz e100 line ????



SnowRelic #234 Posted 25 December 2017 - 09:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24480 battles
  • 635
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

 

View Postvuque, on 25 December 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

Concept

We slightly improved the characteristics of the USSR Tank Destroyer lines in previous updates, but it didn’t work. So we decided to revise the branch again. Simply improving combat parameters didn’t cut it and we went on to rework the line entirely. Here’s the concept we had in mind for the revised line:

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

To sum up, these vehicles are meant to drive the breakthrough of the flanks. Outstanding mobility lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and hold them until allies catch up. They specialize in middle- and close-range combat. They can pop out from the cover, deflect enemy shells, and send a few solid punches in return before quickly retreating back to safety.  


Next Steps

We believe that the final setup will provide a fresh take on TD gameplay, and invite you to take the revised line for a stroll during the upcoming Common Test. Give them a shot, try to keep a somewhat open mind, and let us know what you think! We will monitor these and other revised Soviet tanks to see how the tuning adjustments are working out in real live server condition, and if further iteration might be needed.

Last but not least, we strongly recommend you to follow our official channels for communication on all re-balancing work being done in order to get the latest and most accurate information on changes to come. We will on our end double our efforts to keep you updated on the reasoning behind the changes we make to the tanks you play and love.

 

 

I played the SU-122-54 and the 263 a couple of times on the test servers. Would have wanted to get them on the live servers if time permitted me. The current line is as it is in the game is one reason why I'd want a premium account. Since you're going to chance it and the vehicles you're changing them into sound entirely unappealing, thank you for not making me waste my precious time grinding.

 

There's nothing wrong with the current line, nothing that needs to change. The whole concept of the new line sounds totally copy+paste. There is nothing fresh about inaccurate guns plus frontal armour. More close up brawling. It's boring. I want real maps, less dumbing down, longer range engagements and more variety. Thank you.

 

Also... don't mention flanking. Bring back the maps where we can flank, then talk about vehicles especially for flanking.

 

Don't tell people to keep an open mind and then report back, that's insulting your customers. You're basically telling people how to think and then ask them to report back to you. Instead of asking, you guys should do the listening. You guys should start having an open mind. Remember, it's you who came up with a concept of what must be. It's you who closed your mind, not the customers.

 

You do not need to double your efforts. In fact, with less effort put into ruining the game we would love the game more. Concentrate on the real issues, like maps, arty and so on.



jorn175 #235 Posted 26 December 2017 - 10:23 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 16079 battles
  • 72
  • [PAAL] PAAL
  • Member since:
    06-02-2012

View Postvuque, on 25 December 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

Hello everyone,
 

As we continue fine-tuning vehicle balance, we also want to improve how we communicate upcoming changes to you. The USSR Tank Destroyers have been through several Supertests lately, and we couldn’t but notice the heated discussion they caused. We’ve been paying close attention to your concerns, and feel that we owe you a detailed explanation on suggested changes and reasoning behind them.
 

Reasons

We approached the revision with two objectives in mind:

  1. Boosting gameplay variety with new rear-turret heavy tanks we’ve been working on on supertest server. They offer an interesting take on HT gameplay, which is not currently available through other top tier vehicles. Not to mention their design and the fact they’re all modelled off tanks that’ve seen their share of action.
  2. Fixing the lines of Soviet rear-turret/superstructure vehicles on both the medium tank and tank destroyer lines to deliver a more logical progression to top tiers. These vehicles were totally mixed up in between the tech tree lines: rear-turret/superstructure vehicles were mixed with other vehicles with a more conventional layout and vice versa. As a result, the gameplay was varying a lot from tier to tier, which caused a lot of frustration and seriously undermined the lines’ popularity. They played oddly, so it’s not surprising only few people wanted to research the line and/or play in them.


Concept

We slightly improved the characteristics of the USSR Tank Destroyer lines in previous updates, but it didn’t work. So we decided to revise the branch again. Simply improving combat parameters didn’t cut it and we went on to rework the line entirely. Here’s the concept we had in mind for the revised line:

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

To sum up, these vehicles are meant to drive the breakthrough of the flanks. Outstanding mobility lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and hold them until allies catch up. They specialize in middle- and close-range combat. They can pop out from the cover, deflect enemy shells, and send a few solid punches in return before quickly retreating back to safety.  


First Iteration

The first iteration we offered you to supertest was built off this concept. In it, we:

  • Moved the Object 263 down a tier enabling it to make a sensible contribution with its damage per shot and armor. At the same time, this re-shuffle stopped us from increasing to make it fit for a Tier X.
  • Added a new Tier X TD: the Object 268 Variant 4. It inherits the speed, armor and good gun from its predecessors, but unlike them, it can mount a gun above 130mm and doesn’t suffer from an open hatch

With these changes, we felt we almost reached our goals, but were left with the SU-122-54 that just didn’t fit into the concept because of its traditional turret placement. It was clearly out of the line in terms of gameplay, but was valuable from a historical point of view. As an interim solution, we decided to test it as a Tier VIII to see if it can be viable there. Unfortunately, it was just as unimpressive at Tier VIII. It was no good at blocking damage even at tier VIII and still felt like a huge step away in terms of gameplay.

The Object 263 and Object 268 Variant 4 showed excellent results in the tests. The vehicles perfectly blocked the damage and performed as assault TDs--fast, armored with an average damage per shot and not very big DPM for TDs.


Second Iteration

You spoke out against moving the Object 263 to Tier IX, but the testing result told us the opposite. The Object 268 Variant 4 proved superior to Object 263 and therefore better suited for the role. So we took them both for another round of testing to verify the initial results.

For the 2nd test we:

  • Removed the SU-122-54 completely and made a line fully composed of rear-turret/superstructure vehicles
  • Returned the SU-100M1 and SU-101 to their places, improved their armor and gun parameters
  • Reduced the Object 268 Variant 4 alpha strike from 750 to 650 to maintain the uniformity of the gameplay in the line. There’s no abrupt change in alpha damage and reload time now, when you move up from Tier VIII to Tier X.


Here’s the final setup: SU-100M1 >>> SU-101 >>> Object 263 >>> Object 268 Variant 4

The 2nd test solidified our belief that these vehicles demonstrate a very interesting type of gameplay.

  • They’re fast, with 47+ km/h from Tier VII to tier VIII and 55 km/h at Tier X
  • They excel in blocking damage, although they have weak spots in their lower plates
  • They aren’t OP. Their average damage per shot is lower than that of classic TDs, but still higher than that of heavies or mediums, which prevents them from having a huge DPM. This was intended as we did not want to create fast, armored vehicles able to deal the same amount of damage as regular TDs.


Next Steps

We believe that the final setup will provide a fresh take on TD gameplay, and invite you to take the revised line for a stroll during the upcoming Common Test. Give them a shot, try to keep a somewhat open mind, and let us know what you think! We will monitor these and other revised Soviet tanks to see how the tuning adjustments are working out in real live server condition, and if further iteration might be needed.

Last but not least, we strongly recommend you to follow our official channels for communication on all re-balancing work being done in order to get the latest and most accurate information on changes to come. We will on our end double our efforts to keep you updated on the reasoning behind the changes we make to the tanks you play and love.

 

 

What I just don't get is and what I think is kind of stupid is that they kept the Foch 155 in the game and people got it's replacement AND they were able to keep the Foch 155. The same counts for the FV 215b 183... So why not for the Obj. 263...

WG, when you give one child a candy with other childeren around. You need to give all children candy... Because this isn't just fair. All the time, effort and premium time I spent to get the Tier X Obj. 263. Will be just drained down the sewer because now I get a tier IX Obj. 263. And a tier X Obj. 268v4. Whilst I put the time and effort in it just to get the OBJ. 263

 

I honestly would rather have a special tier X Obj. 263 than a Tier X boomstick. I didn't grind that line to get a boomstick. But to get an agile, high dpm tank destroyer... WITHOUT A BOOMSTICK.

 

And for the people that are saying: the tank isn't that popular so replacement wouldn't be that of a big deal. But please think about THE players actually having this tank and having fun in this tank. It is just unfair to move it down to tier IX for the players having this tank because it is a rare tank... Even more looking to the changes they did for the Foch 155 and the FV 215b 183. "Well but the Obj. 263 is a broken tank" Like, look at the Foch 155, 2250 clip damage, incredible armour and good mobility. Look at the FV 215b 183, 1750 damage with 230 pen. U wot... The only thing the Obj. 263 has is mobility and good DPM. The armour can be penetrated very easily in the lower plate and gun mantlet. The side is just garbage and gets overmatched so many times, and when you get hit in your side it is an instant ammorack. So no, the Obj. 263 doesn't compete with the OP factor of atleast the FV 215b 183.

 

I can understand that they change the line, because the grind was kind of awkard to do. But the Obj. 263 was nothing wrong with...

 

If this change really happens, then I will stop playing any games anymore made by WarGaming... I have seen redicilous things WG did to the game and kept on playing. But this is the maximum crap I can take.....



Angel_Arrow #236 Posted 26 December 2017 - 12:28 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20211 battles
  • 825
  • [WOTI] WOTI
  • Member since:
    02-13-2015

View Postjorn175, on 26 December 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

 

What I just don't get is and what I think is kind of stupid is that they kept the Foch 155 in the game and people got it's replacement AND they were able to keep the Foch 155. The same counts for the FV 215b 183... So why not for the Obj. 263...

I think you're a bit confused, no?

The 2 tanks you are preferring to got replaced entirely. They didn't change tier position or anything like that. Those 2 tanks got replaced by completely new tanks and therefore they stayed in the game but as premium vehicles instead.

The Object 263 you are talking about will not just be replaced by a new tank. It will change tiers (one tier down) and therefore it stays in the game as a standard tank. 

You are comparing apples to oranges.



Bucifel #237 Posted 26 December 2017 - 03:20 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37285 battles
  • 1,600
  • [_BR0-] _BR0-
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
another "balance" fail...:facepalm:

ares354 #238 Posted 27 December 2017 - 02:53 AM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 78147 battles
  • 3,580
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
Hey people, look !: WG listen to community. 

https://thearmoredpa...t-44-changes-2/

T44 get yet another buff, meanwhile shits like TVP VTU, T34-2 and Panther 2 get nothing. T44 is now most blanaced MT on tier 8, after that he will be broken. STA 1 too will suffer. Pershing will look so bad in compere to Centuion 1(recent buff) who got big buff and NEW buff to T44. 

Now new kings of tier 8 (no premium) are T44 and Centurion 1. STA 1 and Pershing where fine, till now. Panther 2 imho got nerf in 9.17.1, and TVP, T34-2 are waste of time. But WG buff tanks that need it most, right >? 

forkboy1 #239 Posted 27 December 2017 - 10:22 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6579 battles
  • 88
  • [N2S] N2S
  • Member since:
    12-20-2015

View Postares354, on 27 December 2017 - 02:53 AM, said:

Hey people, look !: WG listen to community. 

https://thearmoredpa...t-44-changes-2/

T44 get yet another buff, meanwhile shits like TVP VTU, T34-2 and Panther 2 get nothing. T44 is now most blanaced MT on tier 8, after that he will be broken. STA 1 too will suffer. Pershing will look so bad in compere to Centuion 1(recent buff) who got big buff and NEW buff to T44. 

Now new kings of tier 8 (no premium) are T44 and Centurion 1. STA 1 and Pershing where fine, till now. Panther 2 imho got nerf in 9.17.1, and TVP, T34-2 are waste of time. But WG buff tanks that need it most, right >? 

 

I do agree with you that both T-44 and Centurion Mk-1 are both fine tanks, although my bad performance in them. I do not see a reason to buff the T-44 as well, although it could maybe improve my results



Bucifel #240 Posted 27 December 2017 - 01:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37285 battles
  • 1,600
  • [_BR0-] _BR0-
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
and balance fails still continue...:facepalm:

Edited by Bucifel, 27 December 2017 - 01:53 PM.






Also tagged with supertest

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users