Jump to content


Q&A: Buffing CW reward tanks; "This will require some time before we get to these though"...

CW Reward tanks Long overdue buffs

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Cobra6 #1 Posted 28 November 2017 - 11:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,550
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Block Quote

“We are going to continue our work on this of course, and we hope at some point we will also revisit some tanks that have been left alone so far, such as CW rewards tanks for example. This will require some time before we get to these though.”

 

Source

 

These should actually be a BIG priority since they are rewards for competitive play. This year with the new campaign you already managed to get so many player pissed off that they are not even bothering with the campaign at all and we have CW reward tanks which where underpowered/-performing at release that *REALLY* need to be fixed ASAP.

 

These tanks have been in the game for years and years, some even longer than vehicles that got buffed in the last 6 months yet they are consistently ignored.

 

===============

 

Things like the Chieftain/T95 which is just laughable and the T95E6, both of these have a cupola the size of the moon without any effective armour and the T8 one also suffers from penetration/mobility issues on top of that.

 

The M60 should have been buffed at the same time as the Patton did.

 

The 121B needs a DPM buff above everything else.

 

907 is too good and needs a nerf in the armour.

 

KV-4 Kres needs to have it’s from plate made the same armour thickness as the standard KV-4.

 

IS-5 needs better engine power and less potato gun handling.

 

T23E3 is actually quite fine, its probably the most balanced of the bunch funnily enough.

 

VK2701 is fine as it is as well.

 

===============

 

Why are these CW reward tanks not buffed at the same time as specific tanks for the same nation are buffed? You have enough statistical data for it and a part from the T23E3 which is fine and the 907 which got an undeserved buff they are just left to gather dust.

 

Cobra6


Edited by Cobra6, 28 November 2017 - 11:59 AM.


LeGod7 #2 Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:05 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 847 battles
  • 162
  • Member since:
    12-24-2014

View PostCobra6, on 28 November 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

 

Source

 

These should actually be a BIG priority since they are rewards for competitive play. This year with the new campaign you already managed to get so many player pissed off that they are not even bothering with the campaign at all and we have CW reward tanks which where underpowered/-performing at release that *REALLY* need to be fixed ASAP.

 

These tanks have been in the game for years and years, some even longer than vehicles that got buffed in the last 6 months yet they are consistently ignored.

 

===============

 

Things like the Chieftain/T95 which is just laughable and the T95E6, both of these have a cupola the size of the moon without any effective armour and the T8 one also suffers from penetration/mobility issues on top of that.

 

The M60 should have been buffed at the same time as the Patton did.

 

The 121B needs a DPM buff above everything else.

 

907 is too good and needs a nerf in the armour.

 

KV-4 Kres needs to have it’s from plate made the same armour thickness as the standard KV-4.

 

IS-5 needs better engine power and less potato gun handling.

 

T23E3 is actually quite fine, its probably the most balanced of the bunch funnily enough.

 

VK2701 is fine as it is as well.

 

===============

 

Why are these CW reward tanks not buffed at the same time as specific tanks for the same nation are buffed? You have enough statistical data for it and a part from the T23E3 which is fine and the 907 which got an undeserved buff they are just left to gather dust.

 

Cobra6

 

Some clearly could have had some obvious buffs, like the M60 getting the same turret changes as the M48A5.

 

121B shouldn't have come out as it did. DPM is an obvious buff. 

 

All the other cupola US tanks should get the M48A5 treatment of shrinking it to a small size (Chieftain/T95, T95E2 & E5, 59-Patton).

 

To be fair aside the 907, pretty much all the reward tanks, even the PM ones need some attention now. T-55A and Obj. 260 have both been left behind by the recent buffs and new tanks. 



Unkel_Dolan #3 Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:16 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 25654 battles
  • 2,693
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    12-14-2010
IS-5 is fine as it is for a premium tank

Gkirmathal #4 Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

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

IMO this game has more current and dire issues that need addressing, than the reward tanks.

 

That does not mean they should be forgotten though, but in the scheme of things fixing them won't contribute as much to the issues at hand. Although those issues at hand and their solution vs WG point's of view.

Those two are as different as an ostrich sticking it head into the sand looking for a solution, or it keeping it's head out of the hole and actually seeing/confronting the issue.


Edited by Gkirmathal, 28 November 2017 - 12:30 PM.


Junglist_ #5 Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36023 battles
  • 1,333
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013
But why buff them if there's no need to spend money to get them? Isn't that why they started the buffing from higher tiers and now started swapping the tier 10s to encourage people to use free xp or grind like mad before WG will remove the tank from the line. 

Cobra6 #6 Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,550
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View Postbraintuma, on 28 November 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

IS-5 is fine as it is for a premium tank

 

It's one of the better ones for sure but the terrain resistance on hard terrain being 50%-60% more than any other Russian clone tank and the gun handling being rather potato compared to the rest as well, it could use a slight tweak.

 

Cobra 6



ZlatanArKung #7 Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:34 PM

    Major General

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

View PostCobra6, on 28 November 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

 

It's one of the better ones for sure but the terrain resistance on hard terrain being 50%-60% more than any other Russian clone tank and the gun handling being rather potato compared to the rest as well, it could use a slight tweak.

 

Cobra 6

Which puts it in a position where all premium tanks should be imo.

'Slightly weaker'...



Unkel_Dolan #8 Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:36 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 25654 battles
  • 2,693
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    12-14-2010

View PostJunglist_, on 28 November 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

But why buff them if there's no need to spend money to get them? 

I'm spending something like 200k credits per day of CW and these campaigns last a month, or 2 weeks for some of these tanks. there's no "need" to spend money but it's way easier if you have prem account and at least one prem tank to finance all that prem ammo



Dr_Oolen #9 Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20610 battles
  • 1,557
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

Plenty of things are way more pressing and time consuming than changing 10 numbers total in a spreadsheet, i mean thats what? 2 minutes of work? That cant possibly be spared, someone might get the time to do that in 1 year. Maybe.

 

 

(Kappa)



LeGod7 #10 Posted 28 November 2017 - 01:07 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 847 battles
  • 162
  • Member since:
    12-24-2014

View PostZlatanArKung, on 28 November 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

 

'Slightly weaker'...

 

Don't see the point of spending money on something that in some cases is the same price as a full AAA game, to be handicapped competitively. 

 

If they have the same MM as regular tanks, they should be as strong as regular tanks, otherwise they are pointless. 



Unkel_Dolan #11 Posted 28 November 2017 - 01:24 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 25654 battles
  • 2,693
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    12-14-2010

View PostLeGod7, on 28 November 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

 

Don't see the point of spending money on something that in some cases is the same price as a full AAA game, to be handicapped competitively. 

 

If they have the same MM as regular tanks, they should be as strong as regular tanks, otherwise they are pointless. 

 

the point is that make a fuckton more credits than regular tanks even if you're afk all game, that's worth a small disadvantage in performance and it's better than having CW-meta tanks buyable in euros only

Himmelfallen #12 Posted 28 November 2017 - 02:06 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28988 battles
  • 312
  • [X-TRA] X-TRA
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

Nerf the 907 before buffing the others.

 

Question outside of topic: Is there any clear information on how the CW rewards will work this campaign? This is my first campaign and I am already regreting this. Last I heard first 11k will recieve the OPTION to buy a tank with bonds. Really doubt that my 1k bonds will be enough. 



TsundereWaffle #13 Posted 28 November 2017 - 02:12 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 26579 battles
  • 10,916
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013
A buff for the IS-5 would be nice considering it's pretty damn pathetic

Unkel_Dolan #14 Posted 28 November 2017 - 02:15 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 25654 battles
  • 2,693
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    12-14-2010

View PostHimmelfallen, on 28 November 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

Question outside of topic: Is there any clear information on how the CW rewards will work this campaign? This is my first campaign and I am already regreting this. Last I heard first 11k will recieve the OPTION to buy a tank with bonds. Really doubt that my 1k bonds will be enough. 

1- you need to finish in top 11k in personal fame points to be able to buy the tank for bonds

2- the tank costs 4000 bonds

3- you get bonds from the campaign based on the table in the rules

4- the amount of bonds you get can be multiplied based on your clan position

rules: https://worldoftanks...bit-rules-regs/



Balc0ra #15 Posted 28 November 2017 - 02:20 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64467 battles
  • 15,475
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostHimmelfallen, on 28 November 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

Nerf the 907 before buffing the others.

 

 

 

Considering how fast they nerfed the T-22. I don't see why the 907 is taking so long. They know how well it preforms vs the rest I'm sure.



brumbarr #16 Posted 28 November 2017 - 02:25 PM

    Lieutenant General

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

View PostBalc0ra, on 28 November 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

 

Considering how fast they nerfed the T-22. I don't see why the 907 is taking so long. They know how well it preforms vs the rest I'm sure.

 

The difference is the T22 also had rigging involved and a whole outcry about that, so nerfing it was a response to it both being OP and the rigging.

In case of the 907, its gotten without any riging or cheating, or atleast there wasnt a massive shitstorm about it. So they prob dont care.



HundeWurst #17 Posted 28 November 2017 - 02:41 PM

    Brigadier

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

View PostDr_Oolen, on 28 November 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

Plenty of things are way more pressing and time consuming than changing 10 numbers total in a spreadsheet, i mean thats what? 2 minutes of work? That cant possibly be spared, someone might get the time to do that in 1 year. Maybe.

 

 

(Kappa)

 

Life is hard you know.

Cobra6 #18 Posted 28 November 2017 - 03:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,550
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostBalc0ra, on 28 November 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

 

Considering how fast they nerfed the T-22. I don't see why the 907 is taking so long. They know how well it preforms vs the rest I'm sure.

 

If they'd nerf the 907 hardly anybody would have bothered with the current campaign as the only worthwhile tank of the bunch is the 907.

 

Still, I'm hipster and going for the 121B but I'd be far more motivated if I didn't own the 907 yet for sure.

 

Cobra 6



Dexatroph #19 Posted 28 November 2017 - 03:07 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 43277 battles
  • 2,962
  • Member since:
    02-09-2013

View PostCobra6, on 28 November 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

 

These should actually be a BIG priority since they are rewards for competitive play. This year with the new campaign you already managed to get so many player pissed off that they are not even bothering with the campaign at all and we have CW reward tanks which where underpowered/-performing at release that *REALLY* need to be fixed ASAP.

 

 

Here we are again, we talk about CW / Reward tanks performance as we do since more than 3 years. But nothing changed and I bet we will talk about all the unbalanced reward tanks in another 12 months, because nothing really have changed. In the meantime you will read that they monitor the situation closely and will act accordingly when the stats show that some of the tanks don't perform well enough. 

 

At the end of the day its the same problem as it is since years. They don't really care and also they just take a look at the overall stats not considering that good tanks played by lots pf beginners will have worse statistics than bad tanks played by better players what received them as reward.

 

Chieftain/T95 is on the 2nd position and  the IS-5 is on the 3rd positon of all Tier8 premiums when it comes to winrates. That looks good. ;)

 

View PostZlatanArKung, on 28 November 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

Which puts it in a position where all premium tanks should be imo.

'Slightly weaker'...

 

We are ahead of that rule already and I don't see any reason to stick to it nowdays. 

 

 

View PostBalc0ra, on 28 November 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

 

Considering how fast they nerfed the T-22. I don't see why the 907 is taking so long. They know how well it preforms vs the rest I'm sure.

 

Its a completly different story and the T-22 (unnerfed) was stronger than the Obj 907 is nowdays.  All in all this T-22 as reward in combination with these retarded missions was one of the biggest desaster/fails in the past of WoT. Not to forget all the drama about how WG handled the rigging afterwards (just punish the first 100) while so many still have that tank in the garage what also rigged the missions. And how all that showed us how broken the reporting system was.  I'm happy that they just nerfed that tank that hard in no time. That was the right end of this failure/desaster.


Edited by Dexatroph, 28 November 2017 - 03:15 PM.


Search_Warrant #20 Posted 28 November 2017 - 03:09 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 26690 battles
  • 5,892
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostCobra6, on 28 November 2017 - 11:29 AM, said:

 

It's one of the better ones for sure but the terrain resistance on hard terrain being 50%-60% more than any other Russian clone tank and the gun handling being rather potato compared to the rest as well, it could use a slight tweak.

 

Cobra 6

 

to be fair. IS-5 is basically a IS-3A clone and both suck equally bad. IS-3A actually has worse gun handling...

Edited by Search_Warrant, 28 November 2017 - 03:09 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users