Jump to content


Should obj 257 and obj 430U need to nerfed?


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

Poll: Should obj 257 and obj 430U need to nerfed? (215 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should obj 257 and obj 430U need to nerfed?

  1. Yes (95 votes [44.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.19%

  2. No (120 votes [55.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.81%

Vote Hide poll

Hellfoxe #1 Posted 27 March 2018 - 08:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22724 battles
  • 512
  • [AKIN] AKIN
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011
Russian hybride med tanks are now taking over the place from Maus and Type 5 as popular tank in mm. One platoon is enough to reduce op team in every map.

Warzey #2 Posted 27 March 2018 - 08:54 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 56831 battles
  • 891
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

The only thing I would suggest is a weaker commander cupola on 430U, rest is fine.

On a side note, the main reason you're seeing so many 430Us around is due to Top of the Tree special. 



MarcoStrapone #3 Posted 27 March 2018 - 08:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34062 battles
  • 712
  • [-GODS] -GODS
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
i think they already nerfed 257 but didnt mention it.

CptBarney #4 Posted 27 March 2018 - 08:58 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 18996 battles
  • 3,978
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013
The former i guess is fine to a degree, although that side armour, i havent encountered a lot of obj 430us but i struggled to pen on frontally at the lower plate in my t54 mod 1

Sharp1903 #5 Posted 27 March 2018 - 08:59 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37384 battles
  • 1,731
  • Member since:
    01-10-2014
No need for Obj 257, but for 430U yes definitely. 

Dava_117 #6 Posted 27 March 2018 - 10:12 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18578 battles
  • 2,761
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

257 if fine IMO.

For 430U, I would make cupolas 150-200mm or, if armour is so important for the tank, I would bring the reload time in line with HTs, so around 10s.

 

Edit

Also you probably should have add also the "Just 257" and "Just 430U" option to the poll.


Edited by Dava_117, 27 March 2018 - 10:13 PM.


Balc0ra #7 Posted 27 March 2018 - 10:21 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64443 battles
  • 15,457
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
257 is far from OP or broken. If it was, it would not have a 48% server WR like it has now. Nor do I find them hard to counter. And yeah... cupola nerf on the 430U and that should be enough.

IncandescentGerbil #8 Posted 28 March 2018 - 01:16 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35666 battles
  • 1,443
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015
I really don't get on with my 430u and will sell it soon. Nerf it as much as you want.
See how it's doing in a couple of months. It's no 268v4.

TheOddRogue #9 Posted 28 March 2018 - 04:35 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9985 battles
  • 445
  • Member since:
    08-08-2012
obj 257 broken armor, but not much more to it. 430U utterly Broken armor with no weakspots, broken gun with 440 alpha, definetely needs nerf. Give it cupola weakspots.

Etre_ #10 Posted 28 March 2018 - 05:30 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50949 battles
  • 1,307
  • [WEBOB] WEBOB
  • Member since:
    04-21-2014

Cupola nerf ... bunch of sheeps repeating same notion they picked from each other.

 

First, why the [edited]are we speaking about nerfing 257 and 430U when the elephant in the room is 268v4 ? Just because good players still prefer mediums over TDs ?

 

Second, the turret of 430U is about same stuff as the ones on 140/T62A. If you are in a high medium with good gun depression you load premium and [edited]his hull like no tomorrow. If you are in another russian/chinese medium the play field is even. End of story.



the_Haba #11 Posted 28 March 2018 - 06:47 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26329 battles
  • 253
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013
257 is kinda sad. It makes you overextend like crazy and then you realise that your side armor is actually autopen. Whoops.

MarcoStrapone #12 Posted 28 March 2018 - 03:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34062 battles
  • 712
  • [-GODS] -GODS
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
257 nerfed for sure, it was so broken.

Aikl #13 Posted 28 March 2018 - 04:00 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 27 March 2018 - 09:21 PM, said:

257 is far from OP or broken. If it was, it would not have a 48% server WR like it has now. Nor do I find them hard to counter. And yeah... cupola nerf on the 430U and that should be enough.

 

Global winrate doesn't mean much if the average player in a 257 is kind of terrible. I use a 'stats mod' at times, and the joke is that the 257s are "always" below average.

 

Tank curves are of course a thing. Despite a low average winrate for the tank, it is actually overperforming. However, contrary to my assumptions. it's apparently better for good players. I'd think it was the opposite. Maybe the sample size is small, hard to tell, nor that important. Anyway, chances are the kind-of-silly armor scheme is not the primary reason it's overperforming.

 

 

Edit:  Overperformance primarily for good players might of course stem from other factors than the tank itself. Gold spam for gun marks... whatever. Here's the curve for the 430U, anyway:


Edited by Aikl, 28 March 2018 - 04:02 PM.


vasilinhorulezz #14 Posted 28 March 2018 - 04:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22780 battles
  • 1,097
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

Not sure about 257,

430U is too strong though.



ares354 #15 Posted 29 March 2018 - 08:09 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 73440 battles
  • 3,050
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

Block Quote

 Second, the turret of 430U is about same stuff as the ones on 140/T62A. If you are in a high medium with good gun depression you load premium and [edited]his hull like no tomorrow. If you are in another russian/chinese medium the play field is even. End of story.

 

Do one thing, go into tanks collision model and look on effective armor on 140 and 430U turret front and cupolas. Then talk [edited]like this. 

Funny that Jpe100 armor should not be important for him. Be free exp for 22 sec is good thing. Yet Rasha tank all need armor to help them, that only work one way. 



Cobra6 #16 Posted 30 March 2018 - 07:58 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,549
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

257 Side armour should be made normal, you can't teach your entire playerbase for years that you should shoot tanks in the side to track them or in between the tracks to do damage on Russian tanks and then put a Russian tank in the game that can't be tracked from the side properly *AND* is invulnerable between the tracks. Basic gameplay 101.

 

Cobra6



Tr0gledyte #17 Posted 01 April 2018 - 11:42 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18596 battles
  • 1,406
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

Lowering the DPM might be a valid nerf to the 430u. 

 

Alternatively they can make the turret weaker by making the cupolas weakspots.

 

The hull should stay as it is imo.



signal11th #18 Posted 01 April 2018 - 12:28 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 35450 battles
  • 5,477
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
257 is fine, 430u could do with a tweak and the 268 needs blitzing.

PzTeufel #19 Posted 01 April 2018 - 01:03 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5561 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    09-17-2015
"No, we need more heavy armored tanks is game. That makes more demand of premium ammunition, which means more weed, sport cars and hookers for us." - viktor k. 

HundeWurst #20 Posted 01 April 2018 - 01:19 PM

    Brigadier

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

257 is not op for all I can tell. Its stupid and one gotta ask why this tank replaced the T10 in the that techtree.

 

But the 430U is op and needs a nerf.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users