Jump to content


Update 9.22 Feedback - Soviet Medium changes

9.22

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Promil1984 #21 Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:35 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35119 battles
  • 1,003
  • [PUNKS] PUNKS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

Quote

Object 416 no longer would lead to T-54 long time ago as they published tech tree's showing it. So I don't think that you have a good case

Why do you omit fragment when I stated "I RESEARCHED T-54" ?

It was UNLOCKED in tech tree. It became locked post patch. Where did they announce that unless you actually buy T-54 unlocked from Ob. 416 they will roll back research and move it to the other vehicle in that line (i.e. object 430 II)? Nowhere? Ah... I see. I'd understand waste of exp if I was just gathering it to get T-54 and post patch I'd be left without a way to spend it. But in this case T-54 was already unlocked pre-patch. 



Agent_327 #22 Posted 08 February 2018 - 11:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16462 battles
  • 340
  • [CAF] CAF
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010

View PostPromil1984, on 08 February 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

Quote

Object 416 no longer would lead to T-54 long time ago as they published tech tree's showing it. So I don't think that you have a good case

Why do you omit fragment when I stated "I RESEARCHED T-54" ?

It was UNLOCKED in tech tree. It became locked post patch. Where did they announce that unless you actually buy T-54 unlocked from Ob. 416 they will roll back research and move it to the other vehicle in that line (i.e. object 430 II)? Nowhere? Ah... I see. I'd understand waste of exp if I was just gathering it to get T-54 and post patch I'd be left without a way to spend it. But in this case T-54 was already unlocked pre-patch. 

Sorry I missed that one.:unsure: Still it can be hard to prove that you actually unlocked the T-54. It's not certain that they actually have that information available after the patch. if you are lucky others are in the same situation and if they also have created support tickets you could get compensation.

 

Please post an update when you have one as I'm very curious on how Wg responds to it :honoring:


Edited by Agent_327, 08 February 2018 - 11:29 AM.


VarzA #23 Posted 08 February 2018 - 06:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17911 battles
  • 1,114
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011

View PostKandly, on 06 February 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

Commanders,

 

Please share your feedback regarding Update 9.22's Soviet Medium changes in this topic.

 

Cheers,

Kandly

 

Rasha bias confimed ?

 

After the changes to engine power .... nobody can claim with a straight face it doesn't exist.


Edited by VarzA, 08 February 2018 - 06:46 PM.


Akathis #24 Posted 08 February 2018 - 07:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 72168 battles
  • 1,412
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

New soviet mediums are way more powerful compared to other nations mediums. 

 

Soviet bias.



Zinomov #25 Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:22 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 18672 battles
  • 127
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

-i suggest that the tier 10 that will come after the object 430 version 2 should be the K-91 version 2

 

Object 430 U (X) :

-Reduce the armor on the coupolas from 257 mm to 223 mm and the other part of it from 300 to 250

-improve the accuracy from 0.38 to 0.36

 

T-54 (IX) :

-reduce the gun depretion of the gun from 6° to 5° above the tank periscope in the front hull (using the 100 mm D10T2S) to make it more logical

-reduce the accuracy of the 100 mm D10T2S from 0.37 to 0.36

-improve the shell velocity from 895 to 925 m/s


Edited by Zinomov, 08 February 2018 - 08:39 PM.


az_zill #26 Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:32 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 32894 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    04-10-2014

Can someone explain to me why most armored tier X medium (430U) also needs best camo in its class(better than bat chat)?


 



BOKSERKITE #27 Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:52 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 31011 battles
  • 15
  • [BGBRD] BGBRD
  • Member since:
    08-25-2013

NO, JUST NO !!

 

I want to keep my 430U as it is now! I need my time to shine now, through the years i didn't had the chance to get my hands at OP tank. Now i have the chance and you wont take it from me, so BACK OFF!



Promil1984 #28 Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35119 battles
  • 1,003
  • [PUNKS] PUNKS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

View PostAgent_327, on 08 February 2018 - 10:27 AM, said:

Sorry I missed that one.:unsure: Still it can be hard to prove that you actually unlocked the T-54. It's not certain that they actually have that information available after the patch. if you are lucky others are in the same situation and if they also have created support tickets you could get compensation.

 

Please post an update when you have one as I'm very curious on how Wg responds to it :honoring:

 

Well I recently received answer pointing out it's related to changes announced some time ago with a link to

https://worldoftanks...-tree-revision/

Now if there's any WG employee here willing to point fragment of this announcement where it clearly states that you HAVE TO BUY RESEARCHED T-54 TO KEEP IT RESEARCHED I will rest the case. Otherwise I accuse WG of unfair tampering in players research progress without giving proper information about how exactly changes to the tech tree will affect them (which was pretty well covered when we talk about T10, Object 430 and SU-122-54 right?) I am victim of WG staff negligence.



Veka26 #29 Posted 09 February 2018 - 06:18 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 46154 battles
  • 52
  • [C_W_B] C_W_B
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

The only difference between the stock and upgraded tracks on the Obj 430 is the marginal increase in track health and also marginal and pointless increase in load capacity, since you can fully equip the tank on stock tracks. No improvement in gun handling or ground resistances which is usually(if not always) the case.

Is this a mistake or just working as intended?



Hamkac #30 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:19 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19109 battles
  • 15
  • [PRATO] PRATO
  • Member since:
    05-22-2015
Wtf is that Obj 430U. If this is reading someone from WG lets think a little bit (i know it hurts, but for once you can try it). You put alot of armor on TD, so it is slow, like E75, if you want mobility you put that armor away like on Leopard 1 or Bat chat, right? So why how is possible that Obj 430U has better armor then E75 (same frontal plate, better sides and unpenetrable turret) and it is more mobile then E50M? And before you say that it has bad gun, it does not have bad gun. Look at softstats. It has better sofstats then german mediums and alot better then Leipard 1, and those nubers in garage is simly lie Leo should have 1,7 aimtime and it has over 3 sec becouse of those softstats....that is not [edited]normal. Even with bigger alpha It has better dpm then E50M, waht is point of german mediums then? And if you still think it is balanced you have sawdust insted of your brain and you should not breed for good of humanity.

Promil1984 #31 Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35119 battles
  • 1,003
  • [PUNKS] PUNKS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
Well in comparison with E50M ... I agree. It's all around better. And german 0.3 or 0.32 dispersion is just pure BS as they have really big dispersion on hull/turret traverse (which most soviet and american vehicles have small so can efficiently shoot in motion). E50M at this moment becomes Panther at tier 7. Not really all that useful in short and medium range, limited at long range since even 0.32 dispersion means most shells might not hit target at all. 

MPATT #32 Posted 11 February 2018 - 01:07 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 16224 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    11-06-2011
Thx i  was going for object 430 now i am in difrent tree well i was playing for nothing thx

Promil1984 #33 Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35119 battles
  • 1,003
  • [PUNKS] PUNKS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
Just checked 430U at 1.0 CT (same stats as 0.9.22)... really? better overall armor than E50M, bigger alpha with similar RoF, better camo, same view range, better mobility, better traverse dispersion and that's how "balanced" look like? Not so long ago developers answered to question about E50M buff "it's great tank, there's no need to buff". Well it sure needs one now!

_Nix #34 Posted 12 February 2018 - 02:46 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 13334 battles
  • 11
  • [NERVA] NERVA
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013
Gonna stop playing this game because this idiotic OP tanks and terrible nerfs after (talking about Obj 268 and 430U).This make this game unplayable with platoons with this unpenetrable tanks and gives huge advantage...

VarzA #35 Posted 12 February 2018 - 03:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17911 battles
  • 1,114
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011

View Postaz_zill, on 08 February 2018 - 08:32 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why most armored tier X medium (430U) also needs best camo in its class(better than bat chat)?


 

 

Because the RU server drives development though the $/capita primarily comes from EU/US server.

And as the russian tanks were and will always be 'not that good' IRL, one needs to have the epeen stroked.



Simeon85 #36 Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:14 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,773
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

430U is just too good, gun handling and mobility should be nerfed heavily as a trade off for that armour. It has better armour than the 113, better mobility and better gun handling.

 

This tank makes the 113, T-62A, 121, and Obj. 260 completely and utterly pointless as tanks. 



BomuDicQ #37 Posted 12 February 2018 - 11:16 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10920 battles
  • 8
  • [PUSAT] PUSAT
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014

View PostSimeon85, on 12 February 2018 - 07:14 PM, said:

430U is just too good, gun handling and mobility should be nerfed heavily as a trade off for that armour. It has better armour than the 113, better mobility and better gun handling.

 

This tank makes the 113, T-62A, 121, and Obj. 260 completely and utterly pointless as tanks. 

I wouldn't say it makes T-62A or other russian clones pointless hence they are not even in the same category in terms of dps and accuracy etc... 121 was already made kinda pointless by 113,which isn't used as much hence wz-111-5A is better overall. Does 430u make wz-111-5A pointless? I don't think so, hell that one can be a better med than 430U(and 430U be a better heavy than 5A probably). Getting already powercreeped heaviums a bit more powercreeped (looking at E50M specially, others are at least resisting a bit). Just my two cents.



Promil1984 #38 Posted 13 February 2018 - 12:17 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35119 battles
  • 1,003
  • [PUNKS] PUNKS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
Sure, WZ111 5A just have both cupola weakspots and gun mantlet weakspot :) That makes it so powerful ;) 

Mentlgen #39 Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:24 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 31251 battles
  • 85
  • [ORZY] ORZY
  • Member since:
    10-15-2014
I would like to know how do you get 300 mm cupolas on a MEDIUM tank  and how can you consider it "balanced"?

asari79 #40 Posted 13 February 2018 - 07:44 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 30403 battles
  • 105
  • [_W_C_] _W_C_
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

I still think the obj 140 is better then the 430U but I guess that is up to playstyle.

 

But I think the t62a have been left behind since the buffed the 140 last year. Since the 140 is faster and have better gun depression it´s just better then the t62a.

 

Sure the t62a have better aim time and some other soft stats but overall the 140 is just so much better. So the t62a need a buff or the 140 needs a nerf cus atm 140 is just so much better.

 

Just look at CW and advance. Alot play the 140 but very few plat the t62a.







Also tagged with 9.22

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users