Jump to content


Fun facts about the results of 9.20.1 "buffs"


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

Dr_Oolen #1 Posted 01 November 2017 - 11:38 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22018 battles
  • 1,626
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

So i was kinda curious about the effects of the rebalances so i checked all kinds of stats and WR curves.

 

One of the funniest things i saw was definitely how the "massive buff and rebalance" of rhm pzwgn actually NERFED the tank. (red = post patch, blue = pre patch; the middle two are overalls).

 

 

Some other tidbits (didnt check everything, just few tonks i was interested in):

 

- t-34-3 got +4% WR pretty much at all levels

- conqueror isnt overall any better than it used to be and is actually even slightly worse for great players (great changes by WG which everyone asked for! Kappa) actually its overall significantly buffed, especially for good players

- caernarvon is no longer -10+% at 60+ WRs, but only -5+%, so overall its still bad (id blame MM) is now OP about as much as chrysler/patriop

- conway is no longer pure aids for anyone with 55+ wr but is still significantly underperforming (changes had virtually no effect at all for bad/average players)

- 4005 is now as bad as it was after lauch, meaning its overall still god awful tank, basically the buffs only eliminated the effects of powercreep that happened over the few years

 

- seems like maus/type 5 no longer have 54+ wr but "only" +-52, which still makes them one of/the most op t10 tanks, but not by that much anymore

 

EDIT: had to recheck few curves which i forgot to recheck (using proper time intervals)


Edited by Dr_Oolen, 01 November 2017 - 01:18 PM.


K_A #2 Posted 01 November 2017 - 11:51 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13643 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013
So giving a light tank even lower alpha than it's already low alpha peers and "compensating it" with higher rof isn't a buff but instead a nerf because now he needs to expose himself a lot more to actually do any damage? Who would've known?:harp:

Dr_Oolen #3 Posted 01 November 2017 - 11:52 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22018 battles
  • 1,626
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View PostK_A, on 01 November 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

So giving a light tank even lower alpha than it's already low alpha peers and "compensating it" with higher rof isn't a buff but instead a nerf because now he needs to expose himself a lot more to actually do any damage? Who would've known?:harp:

 

pretty much everyone except for WG? :XD

HundeWurst #4 Posted 01 November 2017 - 11:53 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 70102 battles
  • 4,366
  • [ROIDS] ROIDS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View PostDr_Oolen, on 01 November 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

So i was kinda curious about the effects of the rebalances so i checked all kinds of stats and WR curves.

 

One of the funniest things i saw was definitely how the "massive buff and rebalance" of rhm pzwgn actually NERFED the tank. (red = post patch, blue = pre patch; the middle two are overalls).

 

 

 

  • Some other tidbits (didnt check everything, just few tonks i was interested in):
  •  t-34-3 got +4% WR pretty much at all levels
  • conqueror isnt overall any better than it used to be and is actually even slightly worse for great players
  • caernarvon is no longer -10+% at 60+ WRs, but only -5+%, so overall its still bad (id blame MM)
  • conway is no longer pure aids for anyone with 55+ wr but is still significantly underperforming (changes had virtually no effect at all for bad/average players)
  • 4005 is now as bad as it was after lauch, meaning its overall still god awful tank, basically the buffs only eliminated the effects of powercreep that happened over the few years

 

  • seems like maus/type 5 no longer have 54+ wr but "only" +-52, which still makes them one of/the most op t10 tanks, but not by that much anymore
  • I dont know what they did but they did not buff the gun for that tank, hence a failed buff. (Premium tank without the capability to damage is just a fail).
  • Conqueror changes could be expected: They made it a bit better for bad players and worse for the good ones (maybe on the really good ones), by buffing its armor and nerfing its gun.
  • Should that new Caernarvon not be totally OP after the mega buff? Interesting, but maybe we need a bit more time here since I guess the sample size might be lackluster.
  • What did they even change? As far as I know they just added a semi-derpgun? It might be more fun but most likely aint any better...
  • 4005 cannot be balanced and always will be either underperforming or horrible OP. Thats just the nature of that gun. That tank is broken. These kind of guns cannot be properly balanced. To be honest I am even happy that the tank is still as bad as before. It has the potential to complely ruin the game.

 

About Maus and Type5... As long as they dont get their armor nerfed to proper levels, aka standard ammo is worth to be used against them again these tanks are still broken. Ah and never forget.... Type 5 and 4 need their derpguns removed.

 

View PostK_A, on 01 November 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

So giving a light tank even lower alpha than it's already low alpha peers and "compensating it" with higher rof isn't a buff but instead a nerf because now he needs to expose himself a lot more to actually do any damage? Who would've known?:harp:

 

I dont even know what they did to that tank, they nerfed alpha as far as I am aware but what else? I dont know. However I remember that many and more good players instantly said that the changes are not a buff but much more a nerf.

Same goes for the STB-1... THe supposingly buffed turret armor is more or less an actual nerf to it.


Edited by WunderWurst, 01 November 2017 - 11:55 AM.


Dr_Oolen #5 Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:01 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22018 battles
  • 1,626
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View PostWunderWurst, on 01 November 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

  • I dont know what they did but they did not buff the gun for that tank, hence a failed buff. (Premium tank without the capability to damage is just a fail).
  • Conqueror changes could be expected: They made it a bit better for bad players and worse for the good ones (maybe on the really good ones), by buffing its armor and nerfing its gun.
  • Should that new Caernarvon not be totally OP after the mega buff? Interesting, but maybe we need a bit more time here since I guess the sample size might be lackluster.
  • What did they even change? As far as I know they just added a semi-derpgun? It might be more fun but most likely aint any better...
  • 4005 cannot be balanced and always will be either underperforming or horrible OP. Thats just the nature of that gun. That tank is broken. These kind of guns cannot be properly balanced. To be honest I am even happy that the tank is still as bad as before. It has the potential to complely ruin the game.

 

About Maus and Type5... As long as they dont get their armor nerfed to proper levels, aka standard ammo is worth to be used against them again these tanks are still broken. Ah and never forget.... Type 5 and 4 need their derpguns removed.

 

 

I dont even know what they did to that tank, they nerfed alpha as far as I am aware but what else? I dont know. However I remember that many and more good players instantly said that the changes are not a buff but much more a nerf.

Same goes for the STB-1... THe supposingly buffed turret armor is more or less an actual nerf to it.

 

well, conway, apart from the derp, which is imo awful and useless, got +5 gun dep, +2 turret traverse, +5 top speed, -5 reverse speed (WG logic i suppose...). One could argue that the top speed buff got completely nullified by the reverse speed nerf, since a tank with 0 armor can suddenly not get back behind cover fast enough and gets rekt, which id estimate is for that tank way more useful than +5 top speed, since the playstyle will still be redlining and hoping not to get spotted. Also for redlining you dont need gun depression or turret traverse. So the buff only made it easier to get some damage at the end of a won game+more useful on shitty maps where you are forced to brawl even i such tanks as conway. Which bad players dont do, thus it had no effect for them.

 

rhm pzwgn was basically - alpha from 360 to 320 while nerfing dpm by like 50, buffed dispersions by +-20% and aimtime by +-10%, so yes, a nerf overall because 40 alpha is way more useful than those dispersions which are still complete potato and would be even on a 240 alpha gun. If they buffed alpha to 390 and the aimtime/dispersions while keeping reload as it was it would actually turn out to be an ok tonk, kinda like a copy of sheridan :XD


Edited by Dr_Oolen, 01 November 2017 - 12:17 PM.


K_A #6 Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:14 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13643 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View PostWunderWurst, on 01 November 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

 

I dont even know what they did to that tank, they nerfed alpha as far as I am aware but what else? I dont know. However I remember that many and more good players instantly said that the changes are not a buff but much more a nerf.

Same goes for the STB-1... THe supposingly buffed turret armor is more or less an actual nerf to it.

 

IIRC while most tier 10 lights got alpha buffs back to the test server figures, effectively giving them better dpm as well, the rhm pzwg got less alpha but no dpm buff. Rof was increased only to a point where the dpm remained the same as pre-patch.



MrConway #7 Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:16 PM

    WoWs Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 13046 battles
  • 862
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostDr_Oolen, on 01 November 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

- conway is no longer pure aids for anyone 

 

Well that's good news at least...

 

We're watching stats for all of these tanks carefully, so if further adjustments need to be made, they will be made!

 

That being said, the RHM stats do look weird, I'll need to go play that and check it out!



TankkiPoju #8 Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:20 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20798 battles
  • 6,305
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

I have been playing Black Prince.

 

It's still as totally OP when compared to T29 and IS. MrConvay, could you put in a word BP needs a nerf.



__H3H3__ #9 Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30898 battles
  • 577
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013
Just give the RHM its 360 alpha back. With the 320 alpha it feels like you are playing in a tier 8 tank. Good luck 1 v 1 ing a obj 140 in youre RHM.:popcorn:

Edited by another_Ghost_Shell, 01 November 2017 - 12:22 PM.


Dr_Oolen #10 Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:30 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22018 battles
  • 1,626
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Postanother_Ghost_Shell, on 01 November 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Just give the RHM its 360 alpha back. With the 320 alpha it feels like you are playing in a tier 8 tank. Good luck 1 v 1 ing a obj 140 in youre RHM.:popcorn:

 

but rhm was rebalanced to become a proper sniping light tank

 

you know, with 0.35 accuracy and 194 pen at 400 meters, and 320 alpha, so if you play it like that, to your strengths, you will beat 140 in such situations. But oh wait, 140 has the same accuracy, 255 pen at 400 meters, 3s faster reload on same alpha and 200+ effective armor everywhere when angled a bit. Almost forgot - it also has 350 m/s faster shells and 40% better gun dispersions and 350 more HP.


Edited by Dr_Oolen, 01 November 2017 - 12:33 PM.


Cobra6 #11 Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16333 battles
  • 15,843
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Light tanks in general are still underperforming, they were tested to perfection by us on the Sandbox and needed a few very minor tweaks (like a reload buff for the 13 105) but then they were nerfed into the ground. They are still not on the level they are supposed to be which is:

 

- Normal accuracy values for a T10, so around 0.3=>0.35 max.

- Less pen than mediums (so around 240mm pen) but proper premium pen.

- Higher viewrange than mediums, the values they had on the Sandbox.

- These potato accuracy and dispersion values need to go for lights.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 01 November 2017 - 12:33 PM.


tajj7 #12 Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25575 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostDr_Oolen, on 01 November 2017 - 10:38 AM, said:

So i was kinda curious about the effects of the rebalances so i checked all kinds of stats and WR curves.

 

One of the funniest things i saw was definitely how the "massive buff and rebalance" of rhm pzwgn actually NERFED the tank. (red = post patch, blue = pre patch; the middle two are overalls).

 

 

 

Some other tidbits (didnt check everything, just few tonks i was interested in):

 

- t-34-3 got +4% WR pretty much at all levels

- conqueror isnt overall any better than it used to be and is actually even slightly worse for great players (great changes by WG which everyone asked for! Kappa)

- caernarvon is no longer -10+% at 60+ WRs, but only -5+%, so overall its still bad (id blame MM)

- conway is no longer pure aids for anyone with 55+ wr but is still significantly underperforming (changes had virtually no effect at all for bad/average players)

- 4005 is now as bad as it was after lauch, meaning its overall still god awful tank, basically the buffs only eliminated the effects of powercreep that happened over the few years

 

- seems like maus/type 5 no longer have 54+ wr but "only" +-52, which still makes them one of/the most op t10 tanks, but not by that much anymore

 

  • T-34-3 changes seem sensible to me so that is good to see. 

 

  • Conqueror makes sense as it basically made the tank a little more forgiving whilst trading away some of it's potential. 

 

  • This can't be right as every one and their mother told me this tank was going to be massively OP (because hurr durr DPM and turret) and I was called all sort of names for suggesting otherwise, apparently I am massively British biased for suggesting this tank was unlikely to be OP, I doubt anyone is going to apologise any time soon but I'll settle for just being smug.  :B

 

  • Conway was a turd and it's tough to polish a turd, as a TD the only thing it had going for it was a turret, it had nothing else that average players can use in a TD, high alpha, high pen, high camo or super strong armour.  The buffs did not change this, so this does not suprise me, the problem with that tank is that the 120mm is a good gun but you are still basically a paper, massive target, with mobility still worse than many other TDs or heaviums, no alpha, no high pen and poor gun handling With the 120mm the tanks is still basically a very bad Conqueror with higher DPM. With the new gun things are a little better, you have some alpha and that      allows you to at least trade well and be a bit scary. However that alpha is nothing special for tier 9, it's Jagdtiger levels and it's coupled with 260 pen which is 1mm more pen than the Conquer gets, you then have no high pen round to challenge heavy tanks, instead you have a very unreliable and extremely expensive HESH round that only boosts your alpha up to T30/704/T95 levels anyway but in most cases won't pen and will bankrupt your credits in no time, so I'd reckon most players will not use it. Plus you still have terrible gun handling so you have to sit still and aim for ages. They need to buff the bad pen on that 5.5 inch gun to 276 - 280, more around what other tier 9 TDs get and make the HESH cheaper for a start and give it the same 230 pen the 183s have for their HESH rounds. 

 

  • Again always likely, when they nerfed the mobility I think they went too far, they should have at least left the reverse speed at 20kph so it's able to back out of situations. If not then compensated it in other areas. The 183s really need a complete re-work though. 

 

I went to look at the other tier 10 lights and surprising no one, the tiny buffs to those tanks has done very little and all four are still underpowered at all skill levels. 

 


Edited by tajj7, 01 November 2017 - 12:53 PM.


brumbarr #13 Posted 01 November 2017 - 01:09 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Posttajj7, on 01 November 2017 - 12:52 PM, said:

  • This can't be right as every one and their mother told me this tank was going to be massively OP (because hurr durr DPM and turret) and I was called all sort of names for suggesting otherwise, apparently I am massively British biased for suggesting this tank was unlikely to be OP, I doubt anyone is going to apologise any time soon but I'll settle for just being smug.  :B

 

 

yeah,  about that...

You  can wipe that smuggnes of your face and bown down. Cause these are the actuall stats from the update till now:

 

Posted Image

 

Seems pretty darn OP to me, especially for good players.

The purple curve is the Chrysler K, and the caernarvon is jsut below that, and keep in mind the chrysler is a prem tank that gets a 1-2% Wr boost anyway due to no grind/good crews.

So the statistics show the caernarvon is a better tank then the chrysler, or at least as good.

 

Ill settle for an apology for now, make sure it doesnt happen in the future tajj ;)



Dr_Oolen #14 Posted 01 November 2017 - 01:12 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22018 battles
  • 1,626
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 November 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

yeah,  about that...

You  can wipe that smuggnes of your face and bown down. Cause these are the actuall stats from the update till now:

 

Posted Image

 

Seems pretty darn OP to me, especially for good players.

The purple curve is the Chrysler K, and the caernarvon is jsut below that, and keep in mind the chrysler is a prem tank that gets a 1-2% Wr boost anyway due to no grind/good crews.

So the statistics show the caernarvon is a better tank then the chrysler, or at least as good.

 

Ill settle for an apology for now, make sure it doesnt happen in the future tajj ;)

 

:thonking:

 

i know what happened, i must have checked caernarvon for 30th september until 30th october while the rest of the tonks i then started checking properly for 17th->31st, but didnt recheck caernarvon.

 

-> Rechecked other tonks too that i wasnt sure if i checked proper time period and i also didnt recheck conqueror, which indeed is now significantly better for good players too.


Edited by Dr_Oolen, 01 November 2017 - 01:14 PM.


ZlatanArKung #15 Posted 01 November 2017 - 01:21 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
The Caernarvon is overperforming... what a surprise...

ExclamationMark #16 Posted 01 November 2017 - 01:21 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16775 battles
  • 3,727
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013
Only bads can't get 60%+ wr in OPWagon :facepalm:

ZlatanArKung #17 Posted 01 November 2017 - 01:22 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostExclamationMark, on 01 November 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Only bads can't get 60%+ wr in OPWagon :facepalm:

??? OP wagon = Chrysler? 



tajj7 #18 Posted 01 November 2017 - 01:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25575 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 November 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

yeah,  about that...

You  can wipe that smuggnes of your face and bown down. Cause these are the actuall stats from the update till now:

 

Posted Image

 

Seems pretty darn OP to me, especially for good players.

The purple curve is the Chrysler K, and the caernarvon is jsut below that, and keep in mind the chrysler is a prem tank that gets a 1-2% Wr boost anyway due to no grind/good crews.

So the statistics show the caernarvon is a better tank then the chrysler, or at least as good.

 

Ill settle for an apology for now, make sure it doesnt happen in the future tajj ;)

 

Apologise for what exactly?

 

It's barely 1% for the majority of the playerbase, it doesn't go over  2% until you at least hit 52% overall and that is based on two weeks of data. 

 

That is nothing like you lot claimed and is highly likely to go down from here with more data. You lot made it out be like a Defender or VK and that is plainly not the case. 

 

I'll call it a draw and that is being generous considering some of the over reaction comments made on that thread. 


Edited by tajj7, 01 November 2017 - 01:30 PM.


brumbarr #19 Posted 01 November 2017 - 01:37 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View Posttajj7, on 01 November 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

 

Apologise for what exactly?

 

It's barely 1% for the majority of the playerbase, it doesn't go over  2% until you at least hit 52% overall and that is based on two weeks of data. 

 

That is nothing like you lot claimed and is highly likely to go down from here with more data. You lot made it out be like a Defender or VK and that is plainly not the case. 

 

I'll call it a draw and that is being generous considering some of the over reaction comments made on that thread. 

 

oh tajj, you are so funny.

If this was any other tank with those stats you would be screaming OP, but not, its british and you said it wasnt goign to be OP. Hilarious.

I get it,  you are doomed either way,  got yourself in a situation didnt you.

 

Ill leave this one alone, we all know who was right in the end anyway.



tajj7 #20 Posted 01 November 2017 - 01:41 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25575 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 November 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

 

oh tajj, you are so funny.

If this was any other tank with those stats you would be screaming OP, but not, its british and you said it wasnt goign to be OP. Hilarious.

I get it,  you are doomed either way,  got yourself in a situation didnt you.

 

Ill leave this one alone, we all know who was right in the end anyway.

 

No one was right. 

 

Sorry but your over the top reactions in that thread are not the reality now are they, people in that thread made out the tank would be the spawn of satan, 1-2% for above average players is nothing like what you and other were claiming it would be.

 

The thread was called 'The Caernarvon is the next OP beast', is that the WR curve of an OP beast? 

 

I also said this in that thread

 

Block Quote

 You wanna bet that the majority of the playerbase won't out perform their Defenders, IS3s, Oh-ho and VKs in the Caernarvon

 

And look -

 

Posted Image

 

Shame no one took me up on the bet. 

 


Edited by tajj7, 01 November 2017 - 01:50 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users