Jump to content


Rebalancing options, part 2 : Germans


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

Zinomov #1 Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:15 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20585 battles
  • 221
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

T-55A :

-change the penetration from 201 to 221 mm

-improve the ground resistances on hard terrain from 0.70 to 0.50

-improve the ground resistances on medium terrain from 0.80 to 0.60

-change the shell coast from 1230 to 1050 credits/shell

reasons behind these changes :

those who own one knows the pain they went through to get it, the tank has an amazing gun but the latter lacks accuracy, more over the speed is not really the best, as the T-54 is way faster than it and has an extra 20 mm of frontal plate armour

 

Leopard PTA :

-change the reload time of the 10.5 cm L7A1 from 10.30 to 10.05 sec

-change the ammo rack health from 220 to 260

reasons behind these changes :

the tank is fine but has a very weak ammo rack, so weak that it can be damaged by shooting at the front hull of the vehicle

 

Leopard 1 :

-change the tank dispersion when moving from 0.18 to 0.12

-change the tank dispersion on tank traverse from 0.18 to 0.12

reasons behind these changes :

the tank is lightly armoured and can be penetrated by everyone, so for such a huge weakness i find the dispersions rather bad

 

Rhm. pzw. :

-change the reload time from 9 to 8.65 sec

reasons behind these changes :

the tank is great but lacks dpm heaviely

 

E-50 :

-change the penetration of the 10.5 cm kw.k L/52 auf B gun from 220 to 235 mm

-change the frontal turret armour from 185 to 220 mm

reasons behind these changes :

the tank is huge and is an easy target to every vehicle, and since the turret is flat you don't need crazy pen to go through it

 

E-50 auf M :

-change the frontal turret armour from 185 to 220 mm

-change the reload time from 9.60 to 9.20

reasons behind these changes :

same story as the E-50 above also it lacks dpm a little bit

 

VK.45.02 auf A :

-change the reload time from 10.10 to 9.85 sec

reasons behind these changes :

an classic heavy among the german tech tree, although it lacks power compared to the other tier 8 heavies, thanks to the buff WG gave it last time, the armour is fair but the DPM is still low for a 10.5 cm gun at this tier

 

 

 

if i forgot any tank make sure to let me know :)


Edited by Zinomov, 20 February 2018 - 11:31 AM.


Cobra6 #2 Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:20 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,770
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

E-50M needs a DPM buff most of all, the rest is fine.

 

Leopard 1 needs it's dispersion values on movement and hull rotation fixed because they are atrocious for no reason.

 

Cobra 6



Zinomov #3 Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:27 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20585 battles
  • 221
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

View PostCobra6, on 20 February 2018 - 11:20 AM, said:

E-50M needs a DPM buff most of all, the rest is fine.

 

Leopard 1 needs it's dispersion values on movement and hull rotation fixed because they are atrocious for no reason.

 

Cobra 6

 

Leopard 1 added to the main list

 

Leopard 1 :

-change the tank dispersion when moving from 0.18 to 0.12

-change the tank dispersion on tank traverse from 0.18 to 0.12


Edited by Zinomov, 20 February 2018 - 11:31 AM.


Fodboldt #4 Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:29 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 790 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015

"Traverse" in case you are into spelling.



Zinomov #5 Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:37 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20585 battles
  • 221
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014
lol my bad XD

pudelikael #6 Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:39 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19783 battles
  • 645
  • Member since:
    05-15-2015

T-55a is gift tank, play or sell, your choice but this tank don't need buff because if you want good tank, play t-54

this game is a marketing game: one day some tanks are good and the other day the other tanks is good. it's very difficult to make 400 tanks equal.

ofc today lots of old tanks is very bad and their tanks times is over. 



Aikl #7 Posted 20 February 2018 - 11:43 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Forum's too buggy to adress these by quotes, so excuse the mess:

 

Where's the Leopard 1? That's usually the one that is most talked about, typical ideas include a rework towards a mobile TD/sniper. That includes improving accuracy (a lot), improving the penetration, minimal penetration loss at distance, higher dispersion and lower aimtime. Effectively prevents it from being excellent at mid-range peek-a-boo, and from becoming just another T10 tank with gun depression and turret armor. Due to how the maps are laid out, rather hefty buffs likely won't make a huge difference.

 

T-55A: Makes sense. Terrain resistance is a viable alternative to engine power to avoid mediums competing with light tanks. Refraining from buffing the view range is generally a good idea for the same reason. A more viable AP shell is a good idea, makes full HEAT spam less of a necessity. Ammo capacity would likely be fine as-is, improved AP penetration does make it less relevant than now.

 

PTA: The difference between 220 and 260 module HP is rather low, most 100mm guns would still be able to damage it. Still a sensible buff, and would likely prevent e.g. a 268 ammoracking you. Another option is reducing the ammo capacity and removing parts of the rack modules. 58 shells is likely a fair bit more than this thing really needs.

 

E50: Improving the frontal turret is rather sensible, it'll still be a turret that can be 'autopenned' if it's not looking directly at you (Tiger 2-style). Buffing the penetration might go well with it being a 'heavy medium' whose main gimmick is the upper front plate and accurate gun more than anything.

 

E50M: One could argue for a bit of terrain resistance improvement. Consensus is that the E50 is better 'tier-for-tier'; a minor DPM increase will sure help with that, however.

 

VKA: Fair enough. High-DPM/low-pen is a viable combination. One could argue for a tougher frontal plate to fit the line theme better; turret front/sides and lower plate would remain very viable weakspots.


Edited by Aikl, 20 February 2018 - 11:45 AM.


Zinomov #8 Posted 20 February 2018 - 12:02 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20585 battles
  • 221
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

i added the leo1 above

maybe you diden't notice it



Aikl #9 Posted 20 February 2018 - 12:53 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostZinomov, on 20 February 2018 - 11:02 AM, said:

i added the leo1 above

maybe you diden't notice it

 

It took some time to check the stats for some tanks.

 

Come to think about it, Wargaming's latest focus seem to be 'line consistency', i.e. a line should keep a similar playing style from, I'd guess, T7-10. Look at the new Soviet MTs and TDs to get the idea. Using 'line consistency' as the main argument for tank rebalance might be what Wargaming would look for in player feedback. 

 

Another typical "problematic" German tank is the Tiger II. A common suggestion is to move the Tiger I and II down a tier, and fill the gap with some fantasy tank (E75 "Prototype"). While tempting, it's not a real tank - and would cause problems with the rest of the tree. The 'short' 88 at T6 is also a tad lackluster, though likely possible to balance by DPM and aim time.

 

There's another alternative, which is to make the VK4503 the 'Tiger II Porsche' (only really requires fixing the upper plate; the turret is still cheese). Keep the mediocre DPM. The Tiger II would have its current elite turret as the stock one.

An upgraded Krupp turret would be added, with somewhat improved armor (e.g. 100mm sides frontally). The upgrade would go on to become the stock E75 turret. This would make the 10,5 L/68 a tad more plausible, as well as making the E75 grind a bit less crap.



Coldspell #10 Posted 20 February 2018 - 01:03 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19367 battles
  • 2,124
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013
Surprised the tiger P isn't up there, it's been horribly power creeped for a few years now.

Technocrat_Prime #11 Posted 20 February 2018 - 01:12 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 31056 battles
  • 3,428
  • [-TCC-] -TCC-
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
*edited*

Edited by Daxeno, 20 February 2018 - 01:28 PM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to being non-constructive.


Zinomov #12 Posted 20 February 2018 - 01:20 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20585 battles
  • 221
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014
*edited*

Edited by Daxeno, 20 February 2018 - 01:29 PM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to being off-topic conflict.


Aikl #13 Posted 20 February 2018 - 01:37 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostColdspell, on 20 February 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Surprised the tiger P isn't up there, it's been horribly power creeped for a few years now.

 

While not declared, I think the idea was to stick to higher tiers for the time being. The 'P' does have some rather obvious opportunities for fixing, the frontal armor in particular. The sides are weak enough to leave it unlikely to be a major problem even if the frontal plate was thicker and the shoulders smaller, for instance. Trouble is, 'historical accuracy' is seemingly in effect for the armor models of 'real' tanks, for no particular reason.

 

View PostTechnocrat_Prime, on 20 February 2018 - 12:12 PM, said:

*edited*

 

Feel free to argue for the current balance of the game if you wish, or simply sod off.

 

While we don't exactly have a direct line to Minsk, it's at least interesting to discuss these things - they usually provide more grounds for civil discussion than most other topics.

 

(While there is a feedback thread, it's arguably way tidier to discuss it before spamming the topic down; despite suggestions for 'quality feedback' being shot down as far back as September.)



SuperDuperOtter #14 Posted 20 February 2018 - 01:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15097 battles
  • 1,311
  • [_7TH_] _7TH_
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostCobra6, on 20 February 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

E-50M needs a DPM buff most of all, the rest is fine.

 

Leopard 1 needs it's dispersion values on movement and hull rotation fixed because they are atrocious for no reason.

 

Cobra 6

 

Nah.

 

DPM is the last thing the E-50 M needs. Not all tanks have to be russian mediums. Lowish DPM is OK as long as you have better hit/pen potencial and opportunities. The E 50 M has that. Not enough though.

 

So to give the E 50 M more hit/pen potencial and opportunities without increasing the DPM, it needs better mobility. It has a great engine. But it's lost on terrible terrain stats. Improving these terrain stats to meet those of the Tier IX E 50 would improve his mobility enough to compensate for a lowih DPM.



spuff #15 Posted 20 February 2018 - 03:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12423 battles
  • 658
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
E100 - give a slight angle to the turret front to protect against heat and buff the turret sides by 10mm

Tiger 2 - mobility buff and LFP buff

RHM pzw - as with all t10 lights buff the dpm. If they are being forced to engage at close range by giving such ridiculous pen drop at range then they should be able to use their speed a manoeuvrability to circle slow heavies like the old Chaffee used to do.



veso_vn #16 Posted 20 February 2018 - 04:18 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 18875 battles
  • 74
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014
question - Why we need always to buff tanks..? Why not debuff some ?

spuff #17 Posted 20 February 2018 - 04:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12423 battles
  • 658
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View Postveso_vn, on 20 February 2018 - 03:18 PM, said:

question - Why we need always to buff tanks..? Why not debuff some ?

With the OPness of some tanks it’s easier to just buff the weaker ones rather than HUGE nerfs to tanks that everyone has. And by buffing tanks you then create the next OP flavour of the month that people spend real money to get quickly!


Edited by spuff, 20 February 2018 - 04:30 PM.


KillingJoker #18 Posted 20 February 2018 - 04:35 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33316 battles
  • 1,392
  • [-EXC-] -EXC-
  • Member since:
    09-07-2015

What about the Tiger II? is it doomed to stick with te "accurate" ww2 setup in techtree where all the other competition is made of 50s and 60s tanks, or napkin fictional projects?? 

 

when will WG give the Tiger II 105mm gun the damage punch it should have??? 390 alpha damage... 

the 105mm from the french tanks is worse... less accurate, but the Tiger II, must have 320 alpha because "reasons"

 

 



MeNoobTank #19 Posted 20 February 2018 - 04:44 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11477 battles
  • 389
  • [R3L4X] R3L4X
  • Member since:
    02-16-2017
And what about the SPIC ? that tank is akward. Is so tall and lightly armoured so is the first one to be shoot by enemies. The gun is also very bad, when you meet other light tanks you are screwed with that amazing DPM.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users