Jump to content


Update 9.22: Second Common Test


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

Community #1 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:00 PM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 26,339
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
Get in line for the second round of testing for the revamped USSR line.

The full text of the news item

fighting_falcon93 #2 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:04 PM

    Brigadier

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

*
POPULAR

 

Please don't move the Obj.263 to tier 9!

 

If you think that Obj.263 is 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 and stop removing variety from the game!

 

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

 

Moving Obj.263 to tier 9 is a very, very bad change, mainly because:

 

  • Obj.263 is a unique vehicle of its class in tier 10 games. Not only does it offer unique gameplay compared to other tier 10 TDs, out of 11 TD branches currently in the game, only 4 of them has a tier 10 TD with an alpha below 600 damage. And with this change you want to change that 4 into a 3.
  • Obj.263 fits into the branch perfectly. It has low alpha compared to other TDs, just like the other tanks in the branch. It has good mobility and a rear mounted gun with bad gun depression, just like the other tanks in the branch. You even want to keep Obj.263 yourself in the branch, isn't that proof enough that the vehicle fits the branch? So why move it to tier 9? You started by removing tanks that didn't fit in other branches, now it seems you're editing branches left and right just because you can.
  • Obj.263 costs 692'710 xp to unlock, if we count the xp all the way from the start of the branch. Do you have atleast an idea of the amount of time a player has to put in to grind all that xp? And those players that decide which branch they want to grind depending on the tier 10, which tank do you think they wanted when they started the grind? Exactly, they wanted the Obj.263, not something else.

 

Let's see what you want this line to become:

 

Update 9.22 Preview—USSR Tree Revision

  • High forward and backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability, which lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and retreat back to safety
  • Good frontal armor to deflect enemy shells, but weak side armor and lower front plates
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time to compensate for mobility and protection
  • Accuracy and aiming time balanced to make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduce their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

 

What you described above is exactly what the Obj.263 is, except it has a better gun. So you want to "fix" an unpopular line by making it even worse? Hello?!?!?!

 

Players have made it very clear that this is not what they want. Take a look in this thread at the Russian forum. That's currently 91 pages of discussion where players are very unhappy with this change. Take a look at this other thread at the Russian forum. That's currently 12 pages of discussion where players also are very unhappy with this change. Take a look around on your own European forum, how happy does players seem about this change? WG, if you proceed with this change, never ever dare to say that you listen to your players feedback again.

 

Instead, I have 2 other suggestions for you:

 

 

 

WG, you say that you listen to our feedback. Now is the time to prove that!

 

 

If you agree that Obj.263 should remain at tier 10 with either its current stats or buffed stats, please repost the image above to show your support. Don't forget how WG wanted to destroy the BatChat branch, and now they want to do it again with the Obj.263 branch. We managed to stop them then, and if we protest loud enough, we might be able to stop them again.

 

#KeepObj263AtTier10 :izmena: :izmena: :izmena:



fighting_falcon93 #3 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:05 PM

    Brigadier

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

WG what the hell is wrong with you???

 

You say that you listen to players feedback... Look at this thread! And yet you release 2nd iteration of test server, and Obj.263 is still at tier 9 while Obj.268 clown version is at tier 10. Do you understand english or do you just enjoy ------- us in the backside?

 

We don't give a ---- how much you buff the Obj.268V4, we still want our Obj.263 to remain as it was (or buffed) on tier 10!

 

Ph3lan, you said you were going to talk to those clown developers. Can you please help us out here? Please before that Murazor clown ruins the game completely?

 

GUYS CAN WE RAISE OUR VOICE A BIT HERE? IT SEEMS THAT OLD WG DEVELOPERS CAN'T HEAR US...

 

 

#KeepObj263AtTier10

 

 

#KeepObj263AtTier10

 

 

#KeepObj263AtTier10


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 25 January 2018 - 06:06 PM.


StinkyStonky #4 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:07 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28752 battles
  • 2,189
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

Block Quote

Other changes

  • With the release of Update 9.22, the FCM 50 t will be removed from the in-game store.

 

That's very interesting but ... Why ?

 

When you change the penetration of a shell from this to that is obvious that the thing the penetration not enough/too much.

 

But why remove the FCM 50t ?  It's clearly not OP.

 

So why ?

 



legendkiller16 #5 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8050 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    12-02-2013
  • "Insignificantly improved the frontal hull armouring"  Wow what a choice of wording. Practically there is no point in that improvement..


GENERATOR2142 #6 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:20 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15138 battles
  • 32
  • [RDDTF] RDDTF
  • Member since:
    05-31-2011

Why does the 705A need more hull armor anyway? its already better in every way than an E100 for example.

 

Also whats the reasoning behind removing FCM 50t? Its not like its blatabtly OP or anything.

 

This entire patch just keeps getting worse and worse.



ReFUZE2Lose #7 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:32 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8268 battles
  • 1
  • [DYA] DYA
  • Member since:
    11-01-2011
This is getting worse! WG gives a s**t on the oppinion of the WoT players. Still the 263 at tier 9 and you Srsly buffing the 705A? That will be on of worst patches ever.

Easha #8 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Commander
  • 35122 battles
  • 1,119
  • [WMA] WMA
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

So let us check the patch notes for actual TD changes...

Guess what - Nothing worth mentioning.

 

Which part of "your whole new concept for the TD branch is utterly useless" you did not get? There is no need for another copypasta boomstick immobile hard brickstone TD line. Keep the uniqueness of the old line, which means mobility and DPM instead of vomiting a new concept into the game nobody asked for.

 

Yours sincerely,


Easha



Snowhard #9 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:40 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 23551 battles
  • 18
  • [MGLTU] MGLTU
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012
no accuracy buff for Obj.268 v4? well then i dont want that tank let me keep obj.263 at tier X

vreemd #10 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:44 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19135 battles
  • 38
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    08-03-2011
plz let me keep my tier 10 obj 263

teroguy #11 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 16413 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013
so obj. 777v2 not coming this patch?? well crap

SantarasGSX #12 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:55 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 52278 battles
  • 74
  • [LT-18] LT-18
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 25 January 2018 - 06:04 PM, said:

Instead, I have 2 other suggestions for you:

 

 

 

So the guy from the first post in this forum gave a picture which I really like.. New tanks implemented, old ones stays in their places.. Obj. 268 version 4 is implemented, also 263 stays in tier X, and SU-122-54 stays in the game. I like when new things come into the game, so any new tank is nice for me.. But I hate when old ones are removed. So, WG...? The players (Your customers) are demanding to leave 263 and SU as they are, but you just want to make your own tech tree which looks right for you. Do you think it's more important to make your own things or to listen to Your customers, which are happy with tech tree such as it is..?? Think..

Leave the SU in it's tier 9, make TWO tier X which can be researched from SU - Obj.263 ans Obj.268 vers.4. THis way the old tier 9 stays, the tier X owners will be happy, also we eill have new TD in the game..
fighting_falcon93's picture is even more perfect..!
Every tank in the game has it's own fans. EVERY. no matter how good or bad it is.. I'm not even sure how much I like Obj. 430 becoming tier 9, but I liked that we have new tank - 430U. I wanted to suggest to leave 430 II leave in tier 9 and have two researchable tanks from it - 430 and 430U, but as long as no tank will be removed in that case, I'll not say anything...

 

Also tried new soviet heavies in the Test Server, looked nice, going to get them. I'm not competitive to decide they need nerfs or bugs, but liked them, as I always like new content. New tanks, maps or game modes are always nice.. Didn't notice any bugs in Test Server..

So WG, good look with your development and most important - with your decisions...


Edited by SantarasGSX, 25 January 2018 - 07:01 PM.


Linijas #13 Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:58 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 32451 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    12-17-2012


sir_alex_ice #14 Posted 25 January 2018 - 07:00 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 36610 battles
  • 453
  • Member since:
    05-16-2014

"Insignificantly improved the frontal hull armouring" but probably just enough to make those impossible bounces and ricochets happen.



Peaceful_Refugee #15 Posted 25 January 2018 - 07:01 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3122 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    12-13-2017

View PostStinkyStonky, on 25 January 2018 - 06:07 PM, said:

 

That's very interesting but ... Why ?

 

When you change the penetration of a shell from this to that is obvious that the thing the penetration not enough/too much.

 

But why remove the FCM 50t ?  It's clearly not OP.

 

So why ?

 

 

They've clearly said many times that they will be removing every single pref. mm tank from in-game shop since it is a "pay to win" element in a way

FluffyRedFox #16 Posted 25 January 2018 - 07:04 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23379 battles
  • 8,590
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

Ok so some decent little changes here and there. Looking just at the article, will try at for myself later but:

-430U is not touched, hopefully there's more to this vehicle planned for the 3rd iteration if there is one.

-While it may be insignificant, why is the armour being buffed on the 705 and 268v4 a tiny bit? 705 I can maybe see but the 268v4? That thing needs a significant amount of the lower plate to go 100mm rather than just the small strip at the bottom.

-257 side armour being nerfed. The side armour of the 257 was not the issue, its the hull shape that is the problem. 

-You're still pushing the Soviet TD changes. 



deorum #17 Posted 25 January 2018 - 07:08 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22156 battles
  • 216
  • [WHOGS] WHOGS
  • Member since:
    10-27-2010

I am trying to understand what is going on. I really dont dont dont get it. 

 

From the hundreds if not thousands of posts about feedback on the obj263-268v4, WG got the clear message... that the 1st itteration of obj268v4 needed AN ARMOR BUFF?

 

are we SERIOUS?

 

worse DPM, worse view range, worse trasverse, worst accuracy of t10 TD, almost worst alpha. 

Maybe its 2nd from the end, but hey, its all off these things together!
What is it the best?
TOP SPEED and mobility with some caveats. (trasverse)

E3 - badger - jpge100 all have similar if not better armor, but at the same time the have much better alpha and/or dpm, accuracy, view range everything. 

You want it to be a brawler? Fine. 
Give it a good TRASVERSE. GOOD, better than before, not worse than before - 40% nerfed. This thing gonna be circled by type5 heavy. 
And the accuracy? Yes, you dont want it to snipe we got it. 
but 0,42 base? not even t5 derp guns are like that



Stohne #18 Posted 25 January 2018 - 07:10 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 28502 battles
  • 167
  • Member since:
    04-15-2017
One cryptical sentence about the new MM?

Gremlin182 #19 Posted 25 January 2018 - 07:12 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 49185 battles
  • 8,233
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

Make the Object 263 a special vehicle create new tier 9 or leave current tier 9 as a temporary move till you can make one.

.

Doesn't bother me as I have never played it but given you set the precedent with Foch 155, FV215b and FV215b 183 why not do the same here and make the 263 lovers happy or at least less unhappy.


Edited by Gremlin182, 25 January 2018 - 07:12 PM.


CptGreen69 #20 Posted 25 January 2018 - 07:35 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 16998 battles
  • 19
  • [_DOPE] _DOPE
  • Member since:
    12-17-2016

OMG WG !!!!! U totally ruined the Object 257 ... u just trashed that tank down ..... it has no freaking armor what so ever on the sides ... u said T-10 doesnt fit between is-3 and is-7 ... at least with t-10 could block something with a turret even if u have those little cupolas, u are more confident sitting hull down and even side sraping cause u can at least block 120mm+ guns ... T-10 even has more pen on the standard shells and the premium ones .... u wanted to introduce a tank that fit better between is-3 and is-7 and u did a total s**t ... GJ !!!

 

http://prntscr.com/i5jw8i 

 

this is too ridiculous .... 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users