Jump to content


Object 705A Line Change (KV-13 to IS)


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

vuque #1 Posted 29 December 2017 - 01:04 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 17785 battles
  • 2,760
  • [YOQ] YOQ
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010

Hello Commanders,

 

Following your feedback and suggestions received after the new branch had been announced, we changed the initial vehicle in the branch that will lead to the Object 705A. Tentatively, transition to the new branch will start with the IS—not with the KV-13. Transition to the new vehicles from the IS will be a more logical and convenient solution. That's the branch composition that will be presented for the Common Test. 

 

Regards,



fighting_falcon93 #2 Posted 29 December 2017 - 01:08 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31396 battles
  • 4,058
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postvuque, on 29 December 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Following your feedback

 

Can you follow our feedback to keep Obj.263 at tier 10 aswell, or does WG pick what to listen to and what not? :unsure:



vuque #3 Posted 29 December 2017 - 01:22 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 17785 battles
  • 2,760
  • [YOQ] YOQ
  • Member since:
    08-05-2010

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 29 December 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

 

Can you follow our feedback to keep Obj.263 at tier 10 aswell, or does WG pick what to listen to and what not? :unsure:

 

We are always following your feedback and passing it to our developers. About Obj.263, your feedback was shared and we know how you feel about this (Btw thanks for sharing your feedback).

It is not about we pick what to listen to and what not but we believe that, we have valid reasons to make this changes and we have explained some of them here. Maybe we can share more information in the future to express why we believe this changes would be better option. If that makes you see things from our perspective, great! If not, in the end this changes will go through common test as usual and you will have a chance to try it out and provide your valuable feedback. :)

Edited by vuque, 29 December 2017 - 01:38 PM.


basin79 #4 Posted 29 December 2017 - 02:15 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 15351 battles
  • 8,733
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View Postvuque, on 29 December 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

 

We are always following your feedback and passing it to our developers. About Obj.263, your feedback was shared and we know how you feel about this (Btw thanks for sharing your feedback).

It is not about we pick what to listen to and what not but we believe that, we have valid reasons to make this changes and we have explained some of them here. Maybe we can share more information in the future to express why we believe this changes would be better option. If that makes you see things from our perspective, great! If not, in the end this changes will go through common test as usual and you will have a chance to try it out and provide your valuable feedback. :)

But those who make the changes in WoT don't even play the game. 

 

WG have decided the Obj 263 has to go. Probably because it's one of the few unique vehicles still available. Why they can't let the players who have it or will have it in time for the change keep it is beyond me though. 

 

You did it with the Foch 155 and the Death Star. Why not the Obj 263 too and actually make the  players happy? Just make a new tier 9 up.



Hardass #5 Posted 29 December 2017 - 02:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33191 battles
  • 1,189
  • Member since:
    08-03-2010

View Postvuque, on 29 December 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

 

We are always following your feedback and passing it to our developers. About Obj.263, your feedback was shared and we know how you feel about this (Btw thanks for sharing your feedback).

It is not about we pick what to listen to and what not but we believe that, we have valid reasons to make this changes and we have explained some of them here. Maybe we can share more information in the future to express why we believe this changes would be better option. If that makes you see things from our perspective, great! If not, in the end this changes will go through common test as usual and you will have a chance to try it out and provide your valuable feedback. :)

 

You are Not listening WE dont want the 263 at tier 9 we WANT the 263 to stay at tier 10 its that simple we dont care what your super-test results are We have asked you not to do this and you have completely ignored the community AGAIN and pushed this change WE DO NOT WANT on us.

Cobra6 #6 Posted 29 December 2017 - 02:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16333 battles
  • 15,828
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View Postvuque, on 29 December 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

 

We are always following your feedback and passing it to our developers. About Obj.263, your feedback was shared and we know how you feel about this (Btw thanks for sharing your feedback).

It is not about we pick what to listen to and what not but we believe that, we have valid reasons to make this changes and we have explained some of them here. Maybe we can share more information in the future to express why we believe this changes would be better option. If that makes you see things from our perspective, great! If not, in the end this changes will go through common test as usual and you will have a chance to try it out and provide your valuable feedback. :)

 

If you'd really listened to the feedback the community gave you would not be ramming down that new TD down our throats even though it now has 650 alpha.

It's not about that, it's about the whole playstyle of the vehicle and the way the 263 has it's own style, flair and design. We do not need or want more of these casemate TD's, they are bad for the game like any over-armoured vehicle is.

 

Also, inb4 you make the SU-122-54 a Russian Tier 8 premium TD and don't give it to the people who own it now. (Russia doesn't have a premium T8 TD and this one is ideal for it and it's very similar to the new Chinese one.) I know you are going to do it. it's just a matter of time.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 29 December 2017 - 02:52 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #7 Posted 29 December 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31396 battles
  • 4,058
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postvuque, on 29 December 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

we have valid reasons to make this changes and we have explained some of them here.

 

I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but those reasons makes no sense at all. Let's see what the link says:

 

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

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.

 

Ok, fine, you want the line to contain rear-mounted-gun TDs with good mobility. The Obj.263 has good mobility and its gun mounted in the rear. What's the problem?

 

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

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
    Obj.263 has high forward speed and good maneuverability. Backward speed is not different from the rest of the line.
     
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
    Obj.263 has good frontal armor, and weak sides.
     
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
    Why do you want this? The Obj.263 branch has never been about average damage with righ reload. The entire line has been quite consistent about having low alpha (compared to other TDs), and high rate of fire to still give them a respectable DPM. On top of that the line has been quite lightly armored, with the Obj.263 having a bit more armor, but only on it's front.
    - How is adding a well armoured Obj.268V4 going to make this line more consistent?
    - How is adding a well armoured Obj.268V4 going to make any difference to an already well armored Obj.263?

     
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
    Again, why do you want this? You want branch consistency, right? Most of the tanks in the current branch are best played on medium-to-long range, or on short range with the help of camo/ambush tactics. Obj.263 fills that role perfectly.
     
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design
    Obj.263 has poor elevation angles.

 

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

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
    Same as Obj.263.
     
  • They excel in blocking damage, although they have weak spots in their lower plates
    Same as Obj.263.
     
  • 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.
    Same as Obj.263.

 

IMHO the points WG have put forward so far makes no sense at all. You want to replace the Obj.263 with a vehicle that is almost the same, but where they differ is actually where the Obj.263 offers unique gameplay and variety. In other words, you'll take away variety from tier 10.

 

If Obj.263 will get moved down to tier 9 it obviusly matches the branch... So if it matches, why move it in the first place?

 

If you think that it's consistent enough to sit on tier 9, I say it's total bullcrap that it needs to be moved in the first place. If you think that Obj.263 is too weak for tier 10, then buff it, but keep it at tier 10.

 

I don't know if WG has ever given this a thought, but do you know how long it takes for an average player to grind a tier 10 vehicle? With that in mind, do you think it's right of you to just change it as you see fit, especially when you don't even have a really good reason to do so and especially when the original tier 10 will not even be given as a special vehicle like Deathstar or Foch? Players invested their time and money to get an Obj.263, NOT to get screwed over and get an Obj.268V4 instead.

 

Why can't you add the Obj.268V4 as an additional tier 10 TD instead?

 

I'm still waiting for one good reason to move Obj.263 to tier 9... :)

 

#KeepObj263AtTier10



Afdass #8 Posted 30 December 2017 - 01:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12991 battles
  • 636
  • Member since:
    07-26-2016
And I was thinking in giving the KV-13 a chance once this goes live. Change of plans then :|

albee9 #9 Posted 31 December 2017 - 05:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 63969 battles
  • 617
  • [ACIDO] ACIDO
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
Funny how a heavy will fit into a med high tier branch.

albee9 #10 Posted 31 December 2017 - 06:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 63969 battles
  • 617
  • [ACIDO] ACIDO
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
And re 263, please do not touch it. Besides the Tier IX, the rest of the branch is fine.

samtheman26 #11 Posted 01 January 2018 - 12:53 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 26916 battles
  • 10
  • [TAC] TAC
  • Member since:
    06-08-2013

Brilliant, started grinding xp in the KV-13 ready for when this comes out. 30k of grinding later and now it changes branch. So is this going to change again once I start grinding the IS? A little consistency would always be nice rather than chopping and changing whenever you feel like.

 

If your information isn't accurate don't publish it . . .



ogremage #12 Posted 01 January 2018 - 02:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33765 battles
  • 1,419
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

View Postsamtheman26, on 01 January 2018 - 11:53 AM, said:

Brilliant, started grinding xp in the KV-13 ready for when this comes out. 30k of grinding later and now it changes branch. So is this going to change again once I start grinding the IS? A little consistency would always be nice rather than chopping and changing whenever you feel like.

 

If your information isn't accurate don't publish it . . .

 

They never said it was final tech tree. They don't even say it now.

 

Stop passing off the responsibility of your own failures to someone else. You wanted to grind 30k useless XP on KV-13, that's on you. Not anyone else.



basin79 #13 Posted 01 January 2018 - 05:58 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 15351 battles
  • 8,733
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
Now call me a silly old cynic but I do find it convenient that WG have decided the new line won't come from the KV-13 after all when they announced it would. And for a special free xp can be converted for gold at a better rate.

It's almost like WG planned it.................

Dava_117 #14 Posted 02 January 2018 - 06:15 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19834 battles
  • 3,462
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Postvuque, on 29 December 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Hello Commanders,

 

Following your feedback and suggestions received after the new branch had been announced, we changed the initial vehicle in the branch that will lead to the Object 705A. Tentatively, transition to the new branch will start with the IS—not with the KV-13. Transition to the new vehicles from the IS will be a more logical and convenient solution. That's the branch composition that will be presented for the Common Test. 

 

Regards,

 

And what about IS-4 line? Last summer you said you were about to give it a revamp but since then we didn't hear anything. Instead we will have those 2 new heavy line and the changes in Obj263 branch. Are there any chance to see this rebalance soon?

HappyNovemberFungus #15 Posted 06 January 2018 - 04:52 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7578 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    08-19-2012

View Postvuque, on 29 December 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

 

We are always following your feedback and passing it to our developers. About Obj.263, your feedback was shared and we know how you feel about this (Btw thanks for sharing your feedback).

It is not about we pick what to listen to and what not but we believe that, we have valid reasons to make this changes and we have explained some of them here. Maybe we can share more information in the future to express why we believe this changes would be better option. If that makes you see things from our perspective, great! If not, in the end this changes will go through common test as usual and you will have a chance to try it out and provide your valuable feedback. :)

 

Indeed, a sly sentence: ''We are always following your feedback and passing it to our developers" which basically means "we don't actually give a * about your feedback, we just pass it down to people who don't care even more." in my opinion. yay.

 

"It is not about we pick what to listen to and what not but we believe that, we have valid reasons." - It seems that players' opinions that want to play WoT AND have good time playing aren't valid reasons. 'Do not make your customers happy, make them believe that they are'.

 

With this update and notes on it Wargaming basically TELLS everyone what this is a good change, because it appears so (not really, just 'valid reasons' and 'new players like big gunz, so lets destroy a line just because';). That's how propaganda works - textboook example. And then people that have no connections with this line think that it actually is a good idea.

 

"If that makes you see things from our perspective, great! If not, in the end this changes will go through" - just reread what I wrote above...
1. Don't listen to people.
2. Do whatever you want.
3. Tell people they wanted it.
4. If they don't agree, tell them they didn't understand the point of what you did.
 

That's what government does when society doesn't want something.

(EDIT: Just sometimes in different order ;) )


At least:

#KeepObj263AtTier10

Edited by HappyNovemberFungus, 06 January 2018 - 04:53 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users