Jump to content


Stealth Sandbox.


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

tajj7 #1 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:13 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24849 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

So not only do we have the general armour power creep going on at higher tiers (new Frenchies and Badger looking like to continue this) but have you also noticed that consistently new tanks have had lower penetrations values at tier 10, with the Strv 103B and the PZ VII being the main exceptions. Remember the big penetration changes that were planned about two years ago, with lots of tanks having their standard pen nerfed? 

 

Look at thew newer tanks -

 

TVP 248 APCR, some 20 lower than say a Leopard, M48, E50M etc. 

Grille 15, 279 AP, lower than the 295 -300 of most other tier 10 TDs, 

Kranvagn, 252 APCR, lower than most of the other 120mm armed heavies who have 257-259 AP.

WZ-111-5A, 250 AP, ok same as 113 but still on the lower side for heavies. 

Type 5, originally came with a 250 pen AP gun and only 280 pen premium.

Foch B, 257 AP pen replacing the 155 that had 293 AP pen.

All the tier 10 lights which have around 230-240 standard pen and only 280 pen HEAT.

WZ-113G FT, ok it's still 290, but the 268 has 303 AP pen for a similar gun.

Now the new French Heavy coming with the big gun that only has 250 AP and 280 AP premium.

And the Badger with 272 AP pen and 320 APCR, way less than say the 375 the E3/E4 has. 

 

Most of these tanks have lower premium rounds as well then the older tanks (Like Kranvagn and TVO have 300 and 310 HEAT compared to the 330/340 generally on most of the older tier 10 meds and heavies).

 

Plus 250 pen these days pens far less reliably than it did 2/3 year ago (just use an IS7 with AP). So not only is the armour getting buffed all over the place, a lot of the guns have less pen than they used, even if it's just a little it means you are going to bounce more, bounce more = more credits used, = more premium round used, = more money for WG. 

 

Also remember the original extreme Sandbox where tanks were pigeon holed into certain roles and they wanted Assault tanks and then support tanks, where they had heavies with massively buffed armour that well look at the Badger it is pretty much the epitome of what they wanted to turn half the TDs into, look at the 263 changes, another slow, unagile, massively armoured assault TD, the Maus, the Type 5, slow awkward turning heavies with absurd levels of frontal armour. 

 

All those changes the playerbase reacted badly to, they are just doing them anyway, but slowly. 

 



Balc0ra #2 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:22 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64454 battles
  • 15,471
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Posttajj7, on 18 November 2017 - 12:13 AM, said:

Remember the big penetration changes that were planned about two years ago, with lots of tanks having their standard pen nerfed?

 

Was that not part of the big "rubicon" plan and patch? That WG more or less declared dead here a while ago.

Edited by Balc0ra, 18 November 2017 - 12:22 AM.


430Umad #3 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:23 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20103 battles
  • 260
  • [EX-4] EX-4
  • Member since:
    11-30-2016
Would be very sad if all this got implied on purpose...

Dis4ster #4 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:33 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 27952 battles
  • 2,940
  • Member since:
    02-12-2012
Wasn't it all before the idiot streamer got the job of the balancing monkey of WG. I think he replaced the one who caused rubicon, you know the who didn't try to cover his intentions to make the game pay2win.

Tomotorqemada #5 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:34 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14832 battles
  • 392
  • Member since:
    03-21-2017

View Posttajj7, on 18 November 2017 - 12:13 AM, said:

So not only do we have the general armour power creep going on at higher tiers (new Frenchies and Badger looking like to continue this) but have you also noticed that consistently new tanks have had lower penetrations values at tier 10, with the Strv 103B and the PZ VII being the main exceptions. Remember the big penetration changes that were planned about two years ago, with lots of tanks having their standard pen nerfed? 

 

Look at thew newer tanks -

 

TVP 248 APCR, some 20 lower than say a Leopard, M48, E50M etc. 

Grille 15, 279 AP, lower than the 295 -300 of most other tier 10 TDs, 

Kranvagn, 252 APCR, lower than most of the other 120mm armed heavies who have 257-259 AP.

WZ-111-5A, 250 AP, ok same as 113 but still on the lower side for heavies. 

Type 5, originally came with a 250 pen AP gun and only 280 pen premium.

Foch B, 257 AP pen replacing the 155 that had 293 AP pen.

All the tier 10 lights which have around 230-240 standard pen and only 280 pen HEAT.

WZ-113G FT, ok it's still 290, but the 268 has 303 AP pen for a similar gun.

Now the new French Heavy coming with the big gun that only has 250 AP and 280 AP premium.

And the Badger with 272 AP pen and 320 APCR, way less than say the 375 the E3/E4 has. 

 

Most of these tanks have lower premium rounds as well then the older tanks (Like Kranvagn and TVO have 300 and 310 HEAT compared to the 330/340 generally on most of the older tier 10 meds and heavies).

 

Plus 250 pen these days pens far less reliably than it did 2/3 year ago (just use an IS7 with AP). So not only is the armour getting buffed all over the place, a lot of the guns have less pen than they used, even if it's just a little it means you are going to bounce more, bounce more = more credits used, = more premium round used, = more money for WG. 

 

Also remember the original extreme Sandbox where tanks were pigeon holed into certain roles and they wanted Assault tanks and then support tanks, where they had heavies with massively buffed armour that well look at the Badger it is pretty much the epitome of what they wanted to turn half the TDs into, look at the 263 changes, another slow, unagile, massively armoured assault TD, the Maus, the Type 5, slow awkward turning heavies with absurd levels of frontal armour. 

 

All those changes the playerbase reacted badly to, they are just doing them anyway, but slowly. 

 

 

Well generally - a margin remark - I guess that all autoloaders should be pen-nerfed. And be happy.

Bitter_Kipper #6 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:39 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23343 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    07-10-2014

View PostDis4ster, on 17 November 2017 - 11:33 PM, said:

Wasn't it all before the idiot streamer got the job of the balancing monkey of WG. I think he replaced the one who caused rubicon, you know the who didn't try to cover his intentions to make the game pay2win.

 

Changed the rider, but the horse is still the same. They still have the same goals push the model towards the must pay to progress as opposed to the may pay to progress. It is not quite at pay to win yet, but the way they are going.....

 

​Remember when developers made games they wanted to play? When was the last truly game changing game released?



Aikl #7 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:52 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
Not to mention slapping APCR with mediocre shell speed on everything. Blah. Almost seems like they have a plan ...almost. Experience suggests otherwise.

Strizi #8 Posted 18 November 2017 - 01:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34635 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
All autoloaders should have low pen like tvp. For other tanks i agree with the complaints.

Erwin_Von_Braun #9 Posted 18 November 2017 - 01:22 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37418 battles
  • 4,539
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View Posttajj7, on 17 November 2017 - 11:13 PM, said:

So not only do we have the general armour power creep going on at higher tiers (new Frenchies and Badger looking like to continue this) but have you also noticed that consistently new tanks have had lower penetrations values at tier 10, with the Strv 103B and the PZ VII being the main exceptions. Remember the big penetration changes that were planned about two years ago, with lots of tanks having their standard pen nerfed?

 

Look at thew newer tanks -

 

TVP 248 APCR, some 20 lower than say a Leopard, M48, E50M etc.

Grille 15, 279 AP, lower than the 295 -300 of most other tier 10 TDs,

Kranvagn, 252 APCR, lower than most of the other 120mm armed heavies who have 257-259 AP.

WZ-111-5A, 250 AP, ok same as 113 but still on the lower side for heavies.

Type 5, originally came with a 250 pen AP gun and only 280 pen premium.

Foch B, 257 AP pen replacing the 155 that had 293 AP pen.

All the tier 10 lights which have around 230-240 standard pen and only 280 pen HEAT.

WZ-113G FT, ok it's still 290, but the 268 has 303 AP pen for a similar gun.

Now the new French Heavy coming with the big gun that only has 250 AP and 280 AP premium.

And the Badger with 272 AP pen and 320 APCR, way less than say the 375 the E3/E4 has.

 

Most of these tanks have lower premium rounds as well then the older tanks (Like Kranvagn and TVO have 300 and 310 HEAT compared to the 330/340 generally on most of the older tier 10 meds and heavies).

 

Plus 250 pen these days pens far less reliably than it did 2/3 year ago (just use an IS7 with AP). So not only is the armour getting buffed all over the place, a lot of the guns have less pen than they used, even if it's just a little it means you are going to bounce more, bounce more = more credits used, = more premium round used, = more money for WG.

 

Also remember the original extreme Sandbox where tanks were pigeon holed into certain roles and they wanted Assault tanks and then support tanks, where they had heavies with massively buffed armour that well look at the Badger it is pretty much the epitome of what they wanted to turn half the TDs into, look at the 263 changes, another slow, unagile, massively armoured assault TD, the Maus, the Type 5, slow awkward turning heavies with absurd levels of frontal armour.

 

All those changes the playerbase reacted badly to, they are just doing them anyway, but slowly.

 

 

Tinfoil hat at the ready...

Search_Warrant #10 Posted 18 November 2017 - 03:20 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 26690 battles
  • 5,892
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
Just looked at armor profile of Badger, yup tier 8 TD's cannot even pen that thing reliably in the lower front plate, gotta spam that gold. or just use S1/UDES and hope he shows LFP to try pen it with 288 base pen. this is getting stupid now. the UFP on Bagder is 330 heat gold immune using a tiny bit of gundep.

leggasiini #11 Posted 18 November 2017 - 09:16 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12463 battles
  • 6,084
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

Yeah thats what I was thinking too since they buffed armor of everything and after I saw the AMX 30 B changes. The AMX 30 B was actually much like that on SB, tho afaik it didnt get buffed armor but had the amazing accuracy instead. FV4005 buffs are also much like how it was on SB, and I believe Object 263 was alot like those upcoming changes are (and people were upset back then how shitty it was).

 

The only difference is that instead of nerfing penetration, butchering accuracy mechanic and pen over distance, they just buffed raw armor values and made some tanks just inaccurate.

 

But yeah, we can somewhat say that the Sandbox changes...are already here.



Schepel #12 Posted 18 November 2017 - 09:39 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 57368 battles
  • 3,008
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013

View Posttajj7, on 18 November 2017 - 12:13 AM, said:

So not only do we have the general armour power creep going on at higher tiers (new Frenchies and Badger looking like to continue this) but have you also noticed that consistently new tanks have had lower penetrations values at tier 10, with the Strv 103B and the PZ VII being the main exceptions. Remember the big penetration changes that were planned about two years ago, with lots of tanks having their standard pen nerfed? 

 

Look at thew newer tanks -

 

TVP 248 APCR, some 20 lower than say a Leopard, M48, E50M etc. 

Grille 15, 279 AP, lower than the 295 -300 of most other tier 10 TDs, 

Kranvagn, 252 APCR, lower than most of the other 120mm armed heavies who have 257-259 AP.

WZ-111-5A, 250 AP, ok same as 113 but still on the lower side for heavies. 

Type 5, originally came with a 250 pen AP gun and only 280 pen premium.

Foch B, 257 AP pen replacing the 155 that had 293 AP pen.

All the tier 10 lights which have around 230-240 standard pen and only 280 pen HEAT.

WZ-113G FT, ok it's still 290, but the 268 has 303 AP pen for a similar gun.

Now the new French Heavy coming with the big gun that only has 250 AP and 280 AP premium.

And the Badger with 272 AP pen and 320 APCR, way less than say the 375 the E3/E4 has. 

 

Most of these tanks have lower premium rounds as well then the older tanks (Like Kranvagn and TVO have 300 and 310 HEAT compared to the 330/340 generally on most of the older tier 10 meds and heavies).

 

Plus 250 pen these days pens far less reliably than it did 2/3 year ago (just use an IS7 with AP). So not only is the armour getting buffed all over the place, a lot of the guns have less pen than they used, even if it's just a little it means you are going to bounce more, bounce more = more credits used, = more premium round used, = more money for WG. 

 

Also remember the original extreme Sandbox where tanks were pigeon holed into certain roles and they wanted Assault tanks and then support tanks, where they had heavies with massively buffed armour that well look at the Badger it is pretty much the epitome of what they wanted to turn half the TDs into, look at the 263 changes, another slow, unagile, massively armoured assault TD, the Maus, the Type 5, slow awkward turning heavies with absurd levels of frontal armour. 

 

All those changes the playerbase reacted badly to, they are just doing them anyway, but slowly. 

 

 

I seem to recall that at the time this was predicted. Only thing they have left on their to do list is nerfing the crap out of the old tanks. They tried to do it with the BC, but it seems like that as long as we remain vocal, they think about it, but don't quite do it.

ZlatanArKung #13 Posted 18 November 2017 - 09:49 AM

    Major General

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

View PostBalc0ra, on 18 November 2017 - 12:22 AM, said:

 

Was that not part of the big "rubicon" plan and patch? That WG more or less declared dead here a while ago.

It is not dead, WG are just implementing it in a slower way.



ZlatanArKung #14 Posted 18 November 2017 - 10:04 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
Yes, I think Murazor should get removed because he is slowly killing the game.

Number of players have declined since he got head of development


RamRaid90 #15 Posted 18 November 2017 - 11:39 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20586 battles
  • 6,286
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostBallisticgel, on 17 November 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

 

Changed the rider, but the horse is still the same. They still have the same goals push the model towards the must pay to progress as opposed to the may pay to progress. It is not quite at pay to win yet, but the way they are going.....

 

​Remember when developers made games they wanted to play? When was the last truly game changing game released?

 

Probably Runescape.

HundeWurst #16 Posted 18 November 2017 - 11:53 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67756 battles
  • 4,281
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

And how far did they get with these changes? last time I checked they lost roughly 17% of thir players over on the RU servers.

 

Seems like WG at work. We tried something and it was torn to pieces by the playerbase? No problem we are going to implement this in a more hidden way. In the meantime many and more players leave.

 

2 years in the future the big bad Wargaming boss is instructing Kolja, Igor and Ivan to figure out why WoT went down the drain.



Gkirmathal #17 Posted 18 November 2017 - 11:58 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,495
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View Posttajj7, on 17 November 2017 - 11:13 PM, said:

 

All those changes the playerbase reacted badly to, they are just doing them anyway, but slowly. 

 

 

Wargaming has to be gentile and slow, otherwise it hurts (the players) taking it up the arse...

 

:trollface:


Edited by Gkirmathal, 18 November 2017 - 12:12 PM.


Phobos4321 #18 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:12 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 43110 battles
  • 8,229
  • Member since:
    09-27-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 18 November 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

Yes, I think Murazor should get removed because he is slowly killing the game.

Number of players have declined since he got head of development

 

and they hadnt before he got that position ?

ZlatanArKung #19 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:31 PM

    Major General

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

View PostPhobos4321, on 18 November 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

 

and they hadnt before he got that position ?

The past 2 years have seen a decline.



Phobos4321 #20 Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:49 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 43110 battles
  • 8,229
  • Member since:
    09-27-2011

its more like the last 3-4 years you could observe a decline and  how long is he at this position ? 1-1,5 years ?

 

i mean its nice you want to give him credits but give him credits for stuff he had actually done ...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users