Jump to content


When are the tier 10 lights going to get the buffs they clearly need?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

Search_Warrant #41 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:05 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27235 battles
  • 6,325
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Postdouglarse, on 29 March 2018 - 12:15 PM, said:

So basically you want your light tank to be as conpetative as a medium tank?

 

Thing is people play lights like morons most of the time. Hence the poor win rates.

 

People play them like morons because they know there team knows that LT's are useless garbage and expected nothing of them. so why bother tryharding in something thats not a good tank? personally i yolo like an idiot in my T49 all the time becuase its a bad tank but its fun to not give a crap sometimes.

 

Poor win rates in them are also due to the fact they have garbage HP for no good reason and no armor at all.



brumbarr #42 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:09 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostIgor_BL, on 30 March 2018 - 01:02 PM, said:

Great. keep whining about LTs being slow and without camo. That will help to improve game, surely.

Tbh, they can be seen as slow, or not fast enough in the sense they are not fast enouhh to run away from meds. The only difference is they get to a poistion 5s faster.



Ziurawka #43 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:31 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21743 battles
  • 439
  • [NLUFA] NLUFA
  • Member since:
    08-02-2015

Is nobody worried how buffing tier X lights will affect tier VIIIs?

Is it just me?

 

The whole tier X requires rebalancing badly and maps need to be larger to allow lights to do their job at tier X. 

I don't see any of this happening, do you?



Igor_BL #44 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40197 battles
  • 1,399
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    06-10-2015

For active gameplay, and changine flanks, etc etc.

LTs are a lot faster then meds... ok B-C is almost on-par with LTs.. Following with AMX and LEO...

AMX 30b is also not that fast. It is really fast med but you cant really compare and feel that speed like when driving LTs.. Ok, meaby with Leo you can, but i have never drove Leopard.

 

Even Russian meds cant really keep up with LT speed and agility. In straight line, yes, I can agree, they are not a lot slower on short distances.. But then again, even tanks like 113 are almost as fast as 907/140  that way. To get on hill on Malinovka, 113 is as MT with bad spawn.

We dont even need to compare tanks like Paton, t62, 430, 121, e50m, CAX... Well, e50m goes 60kmh... is it as fast as LTs?

 

100LT, 13105, RHM, are all a lot faster and a lot more agile, mobile... Meaby fast isnt the best word.
What is slowest tierX, wz1321? or Sheridan.. I think Chinese is most slugish... still, not slow by any means.

 

For geting in certain location/bush/ridge, yep, LT are not a lot faster then MT... But you can even crapon those with 50b or even is7 if the terrain is right.

I adore active gameplay, not sitting in one bush or corner. And i cant agree that LTs are slow in any scenario.

 

Talking about lower tiers, difference is bigger.

 

P.S.Did you shoot too much gold ammo so they sent you to Dingers?



brumbarr #45 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:33 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostZiurawka, on 30 March 2018 - 01:31 PM, said:

Is nobody worried how buffing tier X lights will affect tier VIIIs?

Is it just me?

 

The whole tier X requires rebalancing badly and maps need to be larger to allow lights to do their job at tier X. 

I don't see any of this happening, do you?

Just you.

 

No i dont, which i ls why we need to buff the lights.



Igor_BL #46 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40197 battles
  • 1,399
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    06-10-2015

Problem is really big... we cant talk about buffing certain tanks only, if there will be maps and MM changes also...

 

But as Warzey said, there are people paid for that.

 

If they buff LTs in current state, that would be good... But who knows what would happened if the MM algorithms are also changed in near future or with some map changes etc...

This 1.0 rework of maps (which is bad, in total) made playing LTs little bit less suffering. Not enough, ofc.

 

Comparing to others tank classes, tierX needs serious buffs. But i doubt they would affect tier8s that much... if they can handle tanks like 430 and type5 (and they dont), they will handle tierX LTs with any sort of realistic buffs.

there are a lot bigger problems then eventual "overbuffed" tierX light tanks.


Edited by Igor_BL, 30 March 2018 - 01:40 PM.


Ziurawka #47 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:41 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21743 battles
  • 439
  • [NLUFA] NLUFA
  • Member since:
    08-02-2015

View Postbrumbarr, on 30 March 2018 - 01:33 PM, said:

Just you.

 

No i dont, which i ls why we need to buff the lights.

 

I understand that you enjoy playing tier IX+ then during your usual playtime. 

I don't, a lot of people don't and new players surely won't find it fun either. 

 

Skipping the root cause of the problem and introducing new ones is WG's way really, you should contact them, maybe you can get a job ;)

View PostIgor_BL, on 30 March 2018 - 01:38 PM, said:

Problem is really big... we cant talk about buffing certain tanks only, if there will be maps and MM changes also...

 

But as Warzey said, there are people paid for that.

 

If they buff LTs in current state, that would be good... But who knows what would happened if the MM algorithms are also changed in near future or with some map changes etc...

This 1.0 rework of maps (which is bad, in total) made playing LTs little bit less suffering. Not enough, ofc.

 

Comparing to others tank classes, tierX needs serious buffs. But i doubt they would affect tier8s that much... if they can handle tanks like 430 and type5 (and they dont), they will handle tierX LTs with any sort of realistic buffs.

there are a lot bigger problems then eventual "overbuffed" tierX light tanks.

 

 

Yes there are bigger problems at tier VIII but why even risk potentially adding to the pile?

 


Edited by Ziurawka, 30 March 2018 - 01:44 PM.


Search_Warrant #48 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:45 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 27235 battles
  • 6,325
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostZiurawka, on 30 March 2018 - 12:31 PM, said:

Is nobody worried how buffing tier X lights will affect tier VIIIs?

Is it just me?

 

The whole tier X requires rebalancing badly and maps need to be larger to allow lights to do their job at tier X. 

I don't see any of this happening, do you?

 

dident WG already abandon tier 8 with introduction of tanks like V4?

Igor_BL #49 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40197 battles
  • 1,399
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    06-10-2015

I really dont feel it is a risk... Why would whole tierX class sufer because some other things are wrong. or wronger :)

 

I understand your fear, but i dont think it would be big of deal.

 

I play mostly tier9 and 10, and from time to time, tier8 t44100 and Lorr40t.

I would rather meet any tierX LT then some tier9 med. on majority of maps.

(yes, these scout-tierX lights are really strong on open maps, but we dont have much of those)



brumbarr #50 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:50 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostZiurawka, on 30 March 2018 - 01:41 PM, said:

 

I understand that you enjoy playing tier IX+ then during your usual playtime. 

I don't, a lot of people don't and new players surely won't find it fun either. 

 

Skipping the root cause of the problem and introducing new ones is WG's way really, you should contact them, maybe you can get a job ;)

 

Yes there are bigger problems at tier VIII but why even risk potentially adding to the pile?

 

I dont see how buffing tierX lights is bad for tier8? All that changes is they now face tanks they can pen instead of mediums with 3k dpm or heavys they cant pen from the rear.

 

I would fix the root problem, but since that is clearly not happening the only way to make it better is bufding the lights.



Ziurawka #51 Posted 30 March 2018 - 01:54 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21743 battles
  • 439
  • [NLUFA] NLUFA
  • Member since:
    08-02-2015

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 30 March 2018 - 01:45 PM, said:

 

dident WG already abandon tier 8 with introduction of tanks like V4?

 

It sure as hell seems that way, why add a cherry on top? 

I honestly think that looking only at certain areas while balancing, rather than analyzing the big picture, is what made tier VIII stuffed in the first place. 

 

View PostIgor_BL, on 30 March 2018 - 01:47 PM, said:

I really dont feel it is a risk... Why would whole tierX class sufer because some other things are wrong. or wronger :)

 

I understand your fear, but i dont think it would be big of deal.

 

I play mostly tier9 and 10, and from time to time, tier8 t44100 and Lorr40t.

I would rather meet any tierX LT then some tier9 med. on majority of maps.

(yes, these scout-tierX lights are really strong on open maps, but we dont have much of those)

 

I agree, I feel the same way in the tier VIIIs I drive, tier X LTs won't be much of a problem for me either even if they're buffed.

T-44-100 moves like a light and Lorr  40t is a rather nimble machine too.

What about things like ... I don't know ... a KV-4? A Ferdinand? I don't play them but I wouldn't want to make them unplayable for others...

 

edit: *more* unplayable


Edited by Ziurawka, 30 March 2018 - 01:56 PM.


Cobra6 #52 Posted 30 March 2018 - 02:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,820
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

They won't be buffed because Wargaming has a strong aversion to skill-based classes in this game.

Thing is, a skill based vehicle driven by a good player has no issue with dispatching a multitude of enemies in tanks driven by bad players, which is bad for business.

 

Light tanks were tested to pretty much perfection on the Sandbox server by us and then when they went live they were butchered for no reason.

 

The sweet spot for light tanks in this game is around tier 6 and tier 7, at that tier your gun is competitive and your camo/viewrange really makes a difference. At tier 9/10 a lot of mediums and even heavies have the same viewrange and the same top speed as you and while you can't properly pen them from range, they have no issue shooting you to bits.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 30 March 2018 - 03:16 PM.


Velvet_Underground #53 Posted 30 March 2018 - 04:47 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,192
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View Postbrumbarr, on 29 March 2018 - 02:14 PM, said:

They are all below the reference line by 1-2% or more.

 

Good point, so even though they are always matched against an equally crappy tank,  they still underperform. So in fact they are even more underpowered than the graph show.

That's actually untrue. No matter how bad those tanks might be they are they have their own, exlusive MM bracket so to say. Since wins cannot simply evaporate they have to win roughly 49ish % of the game irrespective of how good they are in comparisson with the other tank classes since those aren't part of the LTs MM bracket. Analogously it's not possible for everyone to underperform in those tanks based on the strength of the vehicles alone (though the skill floor/ceiling and scaling may very well be influenced by it).

 

The actual explanation for the underperformance according to those graphes is likely a difference in the average skill level between tier 10 LT drivers and tier 10 tanks in general. The special treatment LTs get from the MM make it possible to have a several different average skill levels for each bracket of the MM. If the average tier 10 LT driver is a better player than the average tier 10 med or heavy driver it follows that the winrate curve of lights has to be below the ones of HTs and MTs, once again irrespective of the actual power level and balance status of the classes in question and I don't think it's far fetched to make this assumption about the player base.



Rati_Festa #54 Posted 03 April 2018 - 11:07 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 43628 battles
  • 1,503
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View PostIgor_BL, on 30 March 2018 - 01:47 PM, said:

 

 

I play mostly tier9 and 10, and from time to time, tier8 t44100 and Lorr40t.

 

 

 

I own the t44 100 and the LT100 and I know which one is the better tank and so do you if you are honest. The fact a t8 tank is clearly better than a t10 tank just shows you how wrong they have got the balance.

 

To even suggest that the T10 lights are fine as they are is blatantly wrong as the stats prove it. Just because the lights may be slightly more agile than some of the meds etc in no way does that compensate for all the other flaws. T10 lights should have the best view range by the nature of the role they are primarily scout, they should be the most nimble by a considerable degree as well. The guns should be low alpha, with mediocre accuracy but not lose the pen.

 

The real problem WG have is the fact that they don't want to make lights OP, but some of them are verging on OP at t7 so if they are trying to protect Steve in his beloved IS7 then it doesn't work as Steve gets mauled in his IS/IS3 in tier 7 & 8. Good light players aren't stupid we just move to a different tier. It's another glaring balance issue where WG fail to look at the game holistically. WG even added to the of t7 light "opness" by re-releasing the AMX 57 again this weekend. ( By the way my Type 62 loves them with HE loaded )

 

 



L3gionaire #55 Posted 03 April 2018 - 11:28 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19078 battles
  • 143
  • [ADUK] ADUK
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014

Cmon guys,

The only thing that could be buffed in order not to affect gameplay is that idiotic penetration loss over distance.

That is the most stupid thing honestly.

Plus - you never see that penetration loss until you buy the tank. There's no info on that in game.

 

Ok, you can look for those hidden stats on third party websites, but it's not normal to have that hidden ingame until you actually buy the tank.

 

 



XeBlackWater #56 Posted 03 April 2018 - 11:54 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10076 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    05-18-2013
I don`t know how it is at tier X, but I can tell you how it is at tier 8 light tanks. At tier 8 with my light tank LTTB, with all crew members with cammo skill, commander with increase view range, and the radio man with increase view range, gunner with the skill who keep 2 seconds more the spoted enemy vehicles, with equipement: the equipment who increase all your crew member 5% of skills, and binoculars, and cammo net, I have like 512 m view range, and I use as consumables batlle ratio wich give another 10% of all skills. So with all of this, I build my LTTB on cammo and view range full, maximum view range what I can obtain from this tank, in update 1.0.0.1 I cannot spot enemy medium tank who hide in the bushes at 50 m by my, I cannot spot him. I think I wait like 5 min same place at 50 m by this medium german tank and I don`t spoted him, until a medium tank from my team advance and spoted him, and the enemy was in front of me, open space, in the bushes at 50 m. I cannot see him, he cannot see me. So I ask nicely, what is anyway the purpose of light tank if i cannot spot enemy, i belive update 1.0.0.1 break down the view range and cammo system. Should be repaired.

Igor_BL #57 Posted 03 April 2018 - 11:57 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40197 battles
  • 1,399
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    06-10-2015

View PostRati_Festa, on 03 April 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

 

I own the t44 100 and the LT100 and I know which one is the better tank and so do you if you are honest. The fact a t8 tank is clearly better than a t10 tank just shows you how wrong they have got the balance.

 

To even suggest that the T10 lights are fine as they are is blatantly wrong as the stats prove it. Just because the lights may be slightly more agile than some of the meds etc in no way does that compensate for all the other flaws. T10 lights should have the best view range by the nature of the role they are primarily scout, they should be the most nimble by a considerable degree as well. The guns should be low alpha, with mediocre accuracy but not lose the pen.

 

The real problem WG have is the fact that they don't want to make lights OP, but some of them are verging on OP at t7 so if they are trying to protect Steve in his beloved IS7 then it doesn't work as Steve gets mauled in his IS/IS3 in tier 7 & 8. Good light players aren't stupid we just move to a different tier. It's another glaring balance issue where WG fail to look at the game holistically. WG even added to the of t7 light "opness" by re-releasing the AMX 57 again this weekend. ( By the way my Type 62 loves them with HE loaded )

 

 

 

While, i can agree that tier for tier T44100 is better tank then 100LT (if we can compare those two in first place), winrate-wise they are probably the same. For me, ofc.
dmg-wise, t44100 is far better.
On the other hand, i played 13 105 recently, and that tank is really strong IMO. Meaby it suits me, meaby i had good MM, good teams in those 50 games. I dont know.
But that tank dont need any significant buff, as far as i can tell.


TierX LTs are weak, they need buffs. But they are also not easy to play. I dont want to sound conceited (i think this is the right word), but generally only best players can pull off their weight in LTs. Ofc, that is not the reason not to buff them, if only small % of players are doing well. Also, all the graphs for tierX LTs show even the best players have lower winrate then their avg in those tanks.

 

those are mine games in last 60 days... On all 3 tanks, i use very little premium ammo, but have great crews (especially on Russians, 13105 is 3 skilled) and food.

again, i agree tierX LTs need buff (i think i already wrote that on first pages), but in 100LT and 13105 i am doing well for now.
RHM PZ is probably the biggest crap that hit tierX in this game, since the beginning. I tried that tank and it is awful.


 

BOLD PART. i am not sure why you quoted me :) I am sure i have never wrote that tierX LTs are fine in general. Mostly i wrote the opposite.

I did wrote about them not being slow and with good camo. And that is about it.


Edited by Igor_BL, 03 April 2018 - 12:07 PM.


Simeon85 #58 Posted 03 April 2018 - 12:11 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,309
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostIgor_BL, on 03 April 2018 - 11:57 AM, said:

 

While, i can agree that tier for tier T44100 is better tank then 100LT (if we can compare those two in first place), winrate-wise they are probably the same. For me, ofc.
dmg-wise, t44100 is far better.
On the other hand, i played 13 105 recently, and that tank is really strong IMO. Meaby it suits me, meaby i had good MM, good teams in those 50 games. I dont know.
But that tank dont need any significant buff, as far as i can tell.


TierX LTs are weak, they need buffs. But they are also not easy to play. I dont want to sound conceited (i think this is the right word), but generally only best players can pull off their weight in LTs. Ofc, that is not the reason not to buff them, if only small % of players are doing well. Also, all the graphs for tierX LTs show even the best players have lower winrate then their avg in those tanks.

 

those are mine games in last 60 days... On all 3 tanks, i use very little premium ammo, but have great crews (especially on Russians, 13105 is 3 skilled) and food.

again, i agree tierX LTs need buff (i think i already wrote that on first pages), but in 100LT and 13105 i am doing well for now.
RHM PZ is probably the biggest crap that hit tierX in this game, since the beginning. I tried that tank and it is awful.


 

BOLD PART. i am not sure why you quoted me :) I am sure i have never wrote that tierX LTs are fine in general. Mostly i wrote the opposite.

 

If the tier 10 lights were well balanced then unicums would slightly overperform in them, that would actually be a sign of a decently balanced fairly high skill cap tank, but most don't, most underperform. Be similar to a Bat Chat or other paper meds, they'd then be about par for the blues/greens and underperform for the rest. 

 

My T-100 barely breaks 50% WR, it just doesn't have enough to impact games consistently unless you have one of the big spottinh maps, you work your arse off and end up with like 3-4k damage and some assistance, which in a tier 10 med is much much easier and happens much quicker because the light is usually missing or bouncing 1/3 shots at least from my experience. 

 

The only one is the 13-105 and that is because the burst damage has value, it's no surprise it's the light with the best performance across the board and consistently does the most damage because even with crappy pen and accuracy, like 1100 damage in 5s is still powerful tool that is able to change games. 



Igor_BL #59 Posted 03 April 2018 - 12:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40197 battles
  • 1,399
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    06-10-2015

I think i wrote that.
If i didnt, then i wanted to.

 

to sum up, I agree.

(English is not even my 2nd language lately, but 3rd. so my writings could be awkward/weird or whatever.)



Somnorila #60 Posted 03 April 2018 - 12:29 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 55889 battles
  • 2,020
  • [4-YOU] 4-YOU
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

I don't fully agree with you. I find that the gimped gun and shell capabilities are a good touch. Their mobility and camo are not way over the top, even if a bit too weak are decent enough. But the view range should be the best in the game, way over any other class, so like the lowest top light should have at least 440 base view range, at least 20 more than the best MT in the game.

 

I feel that the classes are too similar, there is no clear definition between them.

Lighs should have best top speeds, with enough engine power o get there fast and have best view ranges. Decent manueverability and low armor and HP.

MT's best dpm and maneuverability, decent top speeds armor and HP.

HT's best armor and HP, decent dpm and low top speeds and maneuverability.

TD's best camo and alpha damage, decent dpm and armor, low mobility and view range.

SPG's best alpha, decent dpm and camo, low gun handling top speeds and mobility.

This is somewhat what i presume an expect. So i would like that the differences be wide enough so that there is a clear naked eye distinction between classes.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users