Jump to content


The Tier 10 premium round shift.


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Simeon85 #1 Posted 01 June 2018 - 08:51 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,297
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

So with the common test 2 out, it looks almost certain that the 277 is going to go live with a 350 penetration, 1800 m/s APCR round as it's premium round.

 

Pretty much a 'god round' for a heavy or medium. 

 

We have also recently had the 121b, M60, and 72.01 K get 350 pen HEAT rounds, but as CW reward tanks seen in very low numbers this is less of an issue.

 

This however seems to indicate a shift in policy of tier 10 premium rounds, for a long time the tier 10 standard (IS7/Maus aside) has been for 325 pen APCR (215b now Super Conq, 50b etc.) 330 pen HEAT (almost all the meds) 340 pen HEAT (most of the 120mm or 122mm armed heavies/meds).

 

A lot of the more recent tanks though brought into the game have shown the premium round pen being slowly decreased to closer to 300mm for most tanks.

 

For example the Kranvagn has 300 pen HEAT, TVP has 310 pen HEAT, Panzer VII has 315 pen APCR, the AMX M4 45 has 315 APCR pen or 280 pen AP, the Badger has 320 pen APCR, the 705A has 317 pen HEAT, the Obj. 705 has 303 pen APCR or 315 pen HEAT, the Obj. 257 has 315 pen HEAT.  And most of the tier 9 versions of these tier 10 guns have the same.

 

Even the 268 v4 has 360 pen HEAT, lower than the 395 HEAT you get on the 268 and the Strv 103b has 350 pen APCR, lower than say the 375 APCR that the T110E3/E4 get. Even going all the way back to the Grille 15, you had a new tier 10 TD with 'only' 334 pen HEAT, whilst the tier 9 Waffle can pack 352mm APCR on tier 9.

 

So there was for a long time a clear direction of shifting tier 10 premium rounds down from the 330-340 pen range, down to more the 300 - 320mm range.

 

This IMO is a good thing and they should do this more, it would be an easy win for providing a solution to premium ammo, anyone who has used the 303 pen APCR rounds on an IS7 or the 300 pen HEAT on the Kranvagn knows these rounds are not the auto-pen rounds people claim premium rounds are, pretty much all the tier 10 heavies will trouble these rounds, a Type 5 or Maus to a Kranvagn is just a nightmare. 

 

Yet, we suddenly see with the recent tanks the premium pen is going to other way, the Progetto and the K-91 are both getting standard medium 330 pen HEAT, even though the previous medium autoloader brought into the game only had 310mm pen HEAT rounds (and the K-91 has the highest standard pen of any medium or heavy in the game). Then we have the CW reward tanks with their 350 pen HEAT and now the Obj. 277 raising the power creep even further by having a premium round better than many tier 10 TDs.

 

What's changed?

 

WG said they were planning to rebalance premium ammo, they said they removed the option to buy premium consumables and ammo for gold so they could make these changes. It seems silly to me, when you were clearly toning down how good the premium rounds were (imagine if all tier 10 heavy and medium premium rounds were more like 290-310 pen, I'd reckon we'd see less complaints) to suddenly bring in such powerful premium rounds on a very strong tier 10 heavy. 

 

A tier 10 heavy as well that has 265 standard AP pen, so shouldn't need to fire many premium rounds in the first place, but credits aside why the hell would you not spam 350 pen APCR rounds with the fastest shell velocity in the game? There are no downsides to that round, at least with HEAT it gets absorbed by spaced and tracks, if you see someone side on and have HEAT loaded it's not great, but these rounds who cares. 

 

It just seems to me another example of WG having no real direction or plan with regards balance, it looked like someone had the plan to tone down tier 10 premium rounds and was doing that with the newer tanks, yet here we are with most power creep round ever seen. 


Edited by Simeon85, 01 June 2018 - 08:53 AM.


RamRaid90 #2 Posted 01 June 2018 - 08:54 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20579 battles
  • 6,284
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

When WG announced the rebalancing of premium rounds my thought was this.

 

Higher pen, less damage.

 

Maybe this is the start of that shift?



Simeon85 #3 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:07 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,297
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostRamRaid90, on 01 June 2018 - 08:54 AM, said:

When WG announced the rebalancing of premium rounds my thought was this.

 

Higher pen, less damage.

 

Maybe this is the start of that shift?

 

It does the same damage though?

 

That has been an often suggested change to premium ammo, basically the Armoured Warfare approach. IIRC WG have in the past dismissed that idea because they believe fundamentally the issue with premium rounds is people don't like getting penned with them and wouldn't notice the lower damage.

 

Which I think is a fair point, many of the people that whine about it, from what I have seen are often heavy tank players that expect their vehicles to be basically invulnerable and resent anything that damages them.  I suspect if premium ammo was removed or heavily nerfed, these sort of players would start complaining about high pen standard rounds as well.

 

Plus that suggestion would heavily hurt -1 and -2 tanks, imagine being in like a crappy tier 8 medium shooting at the E100 or IS7 or whatever with your premium rounds that are still less than most tier 10 standard rounds and your already pathetic 240 alpha is now 180 or something and your tank now effectively has like 1500 DPM against tanks that have like 3k DPM and in some cases 2.5k plus hit points. 



Tinbawx #4 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:09 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14747 battles
  • 1,251
  • [SNOB] SNOB
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

Atm I gotta say, I have no idea what to make of this.

 

All I know is that introducing such a premium round without any further comment is more than a little wierd. Especially since the Obj. 277 out of all T10s doesn´t strike me like a tank that needs this.



RamRaid90 #5 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:20 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20579 battles
  • 6,284
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostSimeon85, on 01 June 2018 - 08:07 AM, said:

 

It does the same damage though?

 

That has been an often suggested change to premium ammo, basically the Armoured Warfare approach. IIRC WG have in the past dismissed that idea because they believe fundamentally the issue with premium rounds is people don't like getting penned with them and wouldn't notice the lower damage.

 

Which I think is a fair point, many of the people that whine about it, from what I have seen are often heavy tank players that expect their vehicles to be basically invulnerable and resent anything that damages them.  I suspect if premium ammo was removed or heavily nerfed, these sort of players would start complaining about high pen standard rounds as well.

 

Plus that suggestion would heavily hurt -1 and -2 tanks, imagine being in like a crappy tier 8 medium shooting at the E100 or IS7 or whatever with your premium rounds that are still less than most tier 10 standard rounds and your already pathetic 240 alpha is now 180 or something and your tank now effectively has like 1500 DPM against tanks that have like 3k DPM and in some cases 2.5k plus hit points. 

 

Agreed, the issue (for most) is definitely the pen values. On the other side of the coin though, what would be the point in using a premium round vs +2 tiers when the pen value is only 20/30mm higher? You're still likely to bounce.

 

I'm in agreement that this shell is very strange, and as Tinbawx pointed out the 277 doesn't need a round that strong when it already has medium mobility with heavy armour and a very high 490 alpha with exceptional gun handling for a heavium.

 

Am I right in saying this is the tank to go after the T-10?



Simeon85 #6 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:28 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,297
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostRamRaid90, on 01 June 2018 - 09:20 AM, said:

 

Agreed, the issue (for most) is definitely the pen values. On the other side of the coin though, what would be the point in using a premium round vs +2 tiers when the pen value is only 20/30mm higher? You're still likely to bounce.

 

I'm in agreement that this shell is very strange, and as Tinbawx pointed out the 277 doesn't need a round that strong when it already has medium mobility with heavy armour and a very high 490 alpha with exceptional gun handling for a heavium.

 

Am I right in saying this is the tank to go after the T-10?

 

Some -2 tanks need premium rounds to reliably pen the sides of some heavies these days. Like the 190-212 pen most tier 8s meds have is going to struggle with E100, IS4, Maus, Type 5 sides, especially if you are not flush on and at close range. 

 

Yep it goes after the T-10.

 

Also has 265mm standard AP round as well, higher than any other tier 10 heavy, so even less reason for such an absurd premium round. It has the mobility, gun handling and accuracy to flank/an or hit weakspots, plus a standard round that has a good chance of punching through things like a Type 5 frontally or a Maus turret. Doesn't need a lol pen prem round.

 

Like 320 APCR would have been more than fine or at least the 340 HEAT the T-10 has. 


Edited by Simeon85, 01 June 2018 - 09:29 AM.


RamRaid90 #7 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:31 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20579 battles
  • 6,284
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostSimeon85, on 01 June 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

 

Some -2 tanks need premium rounds to reliably pen the sides of some heavies these days. Like the 190-212 pen most tier 8s meds have is going to struggle with E100, IS4, Maus, Type 5 sides, especially if you are not flush on and at close range. 

 

Yep it goes after the T-10.

 

Also has 265mm standard AP round as well, higher than any other tier 10 heavy, so even less reason for such an absurd premium round. It has the mobility, gun handling and accuracy to flank/an or hit weakspots, plus a standard round that has a good chance of punching through things like a Type 5 frontally or a Maus turret. Doesn't need a lol pen prem round.

 

Like 320 APCR would have been more than fine or at least the 340 HEAT the T-10 has. 

 

And is it in the common test atm?

 

If so I have a feeling this will change before live (maybe) since everyone spams premium in CT and they cant fail to notice how strong that round is combined with the rest of the tanks attributes.

 

Then again, it's russian.


Edited by RamRaid90, 01 June 2018 - 09:33 AM.


Simeon85 #8 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:33 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,297
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostRamRaid90, on 01 June 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

 

And is it in the common test atm?

 

If so I have a feeling this will change before live (maybe) since everyone spams premium in CT and they cant fail to notice how strong that round is.

 

It's common test 2 and was not changed from the first test. 

Aikl #9 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:35 AM

    Brigadier

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

Wargaming's lack of direction is at times amusing. Bet they're between a rock and a hard place when it comes to designing tanks for their apparent target group. No limits for dum-dum. I bet they'll nerf the premium ammo again in a few months, though. Same procedure as every year.

 

Diversifying ammo types would be nice in a tactical shooter, but not in WoT. Too advanced for a 'tactical' shooter where the maps are made for people with blinders an preference for 'I win'-buttons.

 

View PostRamRaid90, on 01 June 2018 - 08:31 AM, said:

 

And is it in the common test atm?

 

If so I have a feeling this will change before live (maybe) since everyone spams premium in CT and they cant fail to notice how strong that round is combined with the rest of the tanks attributes.

 

Then again, it's russian.

 

​Do we know that Wargaming changes tank specifications based on CT? CT seems more like a 'technical stress test' to figure out if the client works (although even that is debateable).

 

We know they change stuff during CT, but that could well be based on the simultaneously running supertest. Wargaming typically cites roughly four months before they can nerf or buff something. Statistics, or whatever. Following that logic, a week or two of CT provides just about nothing in terms of useful data. If CT actuallly does provide enough data, then it's even more obvious how they 'accidentally' release tanks that are too strong, and nerf them only after people have ate the powercreep bait.

 

Seems illogical, though I'm sure there's a good explanation for why.


Edited by Aikl, 01 June 2018 - 09:42 AM.


Dava_117 #10 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:41 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18538 battles
  • 2,745
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

If there is a tank needing 265 pen AP and 350 pen APCR, this tank is IS-4. All the line sports excelent pen and superb premium (just look at KV-4 APCR).

A tank with 277 mobility and armour doesn't need it at all!


Edited by Dava_117, 01 June 2018 - 09:42 AM.


Enforcer1975 #11 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:48 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20559 battles
  • 10,549
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Introduce overpenetration and other armor mechanics or double the price and full skill ammo loadouts are history.
Tier 10 already have more than enough pen lets eff the lower tiers even more.

Aikl #12 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:49 AM

    Brigadier

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

View PostDava_117, on 01 June 2018 - 08:41 AM, said:

If there is a tank needing 265 pen AP and 350 pen APCR, this tank is IS-4. All the line sports excelent pen and superb premium (just look at KV-4 APCR).

A tank with 277 mobilityvand armour doesn't need it at all!

 

Aside from fitting well with WG's (recently implemented) preference for 'line consistency', please do not come here with logically sound suggestions. This makes total sense for WoT, just like it makes sense to create a medium tank with TD-alpha that seems to eclipse certain existing min-max concepts entirely.

 

Just wait, I bet we'll get the community staff stating on stream that the Defender Chimera "is not that strong" and the Revalorisé is so much better because it has shell velocity and ...uhm, superior cultural heritage?

 

View PostEnforcer1975, on 01 June 2018 - 08:48 AM, said:

Introduce overpenetration and other armor mechanics or double the price and full skill ammo loadouts are history.
Tier 10 already have more than enough pen lets eff the lower tiers even more.
 

 

I'm not a game designer, but I've got kids. They get frustrated if they can't understand what we're doing or if I'm making any changes.

 

Following this, arguably brilliant, logic: Can you explain "overpenetration and other armor mechanics" to a five-year old?

 

(As noted above, I'd very much like to see something more than 'press 2 twice to pen'. I'm just realistic.)

 

View PostDava_117, on 01 June 2018 - 08:41 AM, said:

(...)

 

BREAKING: Following the Chimera-Revalorisé logic of superior cultural heritage being an advantage for an armoured fighting vehicle, I've found evidence that the Progetto '46 needs a nerf:

Spoiler

In related news, E100 gets a buff:

Spoiler

 


Edited by Aikl, 01 June 2018 - 10:00 AM.


Simeon85 #13 Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:57 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,297
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostAikl, on 01 June 2018 - 09:35 AM, said:

Wargaming's lack of direction is at times amusing. Bet they're between a rock and a hard place when it comes to designing tanks for their apparent target group. No limits for dum-dum. I bet they'll nerf the premium ammo again in a few months, though. Same procedure as every year.

 

Diversifying ammo types would be nice in a tactical shooter, but not in WoT. Too advanced for a 'tactical' shooter where the maps are made for people with blinders an preference for 'I win'-buttons.

 

 

​Do we know that Wargaming changes tank specifications based on CT? CT seems more like a 'technical stress test' to figure out if the client works (although even that is debateable).

 

We know they change stuff during CT, but that could well be based on the simultaneously running supertest. Wargaming typically cites roughly four months before they can nerf or buff something. Statistics, or whatever. Following that logic, a week or two of CT provides just about nothing in terms of useful data. If CT actuallly does provide enough data, then it's even more obvious how they 'accidentally' release tanks that are too strong, and nerf them only after people have ate the powercreep bait.

 

Seems illogical, though I'm sure there's a good explanation for why.

 

They appear to buff stuff between different iterations of the common test, as the K-91 shows and the Maus hit points buff shows.

 

They used to nerf stuff between versions of the common test, the Kranvagn being an example which was amazing on the first test and meh on the 2nd version. Also the Panzer VII had like 340 APCR rounds when it first appeared and much better DPM/gun handling, all that then got nerfed on the 2nd test. 



AXIS_OF_RESISTANCE #14 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:08 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 7457 battles
  • 197
  • Member since:
    12-21-2017

Its normal tier progression 256 AP pen at t9 - 265 at tier 10

                                          334 HEAT pen  - 350 APCR

             + extra mobility 

          + extra armor   +extra dpm and gun handling 

seems normal and balanced  to me :)


btw i have 220k exp in T-10:coin:


Edited by AXIS_OF_RESISTANCE, 01 June 2018 - 10:16 AM.


Aikl #15 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:10 AM

    Brigadier

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

View PostSimeon85, on 01 June 2018 - 08:57 AM, said:

(...)

 

Gotta wonder why, but I doubt there's much point. It's Wargaming, so something simple that can be explained by (part of) my go-to Dilbert strip is probably accurate:

 

 

Sorry if I seem blunt. Balancing tanks is probably harder than I imagine it to be. They've only been doing it for seven-eight years, after all.



Dava_117 #16 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:31 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18538 battles
  • 2,745
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
Spoiler

 

Can't like a post 2 times.

That cultural heritage part made my day! :D



Simeon85 #17 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:31 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,297
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostAikl, on 01 June 2018 - 10:10 AM, said:

 

Gotta wonder why, but I doubt there's much point. It's Wargaming, so something simple that can be explained by (part of) my go-to Dilbert strip is probably accurate:

 

 

Sorry if I seem blunt. Balancing tanks is probably harder than I imagine it to be. They've only been doing it for seven-eight years, after all.

 

The common test has to be a terrible place to test anything due to all the team killing, yolo plays, spamming of everything premium, the people who have barely made it past tier 5 tanks playing tier 10s they have no clue about and the probably 8 skill crews everyone has cos they give you a billion free XP.

 

The issue is more how these things even get to a final testing phase in this state in the first place.

 

A 350 pen APCR round with 1800 m/s velocity on a mobile heavium, that shouldn't need to get to common test, someone in the balance team should just go 'nope' that is stupid and it gets nerfed.

 

Conversely a weakly armoured, rear turreted 'sniper' medium should never get to the public test with less engine power than a Lowe, again it's just an obvious thing they should be noticing and fixing before it ever gets near public consumption.

 

They are now releasing things on super test preview that they themselves are already admitting are too strong, so why the hell put it out like that in the first place? 

 

There are not enough facepalms in the world for WG's 'balancing' decisions. 


Edited by Simeon85, 01 June 2018 - 10:33 AM.


TankkiPoju #18 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:35 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20014 battles
  • 6,192
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

I'm just going to point out in many situations 320mm APCR is better than 350mm HEAT, and even more "pay to win":

 

You can shoot APCR against anything while HEAT gets absorbed by spaced armor.

 

For example there is no downside at all playing when IS7 with full APCR. If you can't afford APCR, you cant afford tier 10 anyway.

 



Balc0ra #19 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:53 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64364 battles
  • 15,426
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

I did not mind the jump from 330 to 340 to 350 HEAT pen on the CW tanks. As it's HEAT, and all the factors affected by it at times, nor does it fly super fast. APCR on the other hand has shell speed too along with 350 pen. IMO it should have bee 320 at the most. But as I said in a past topic. I suspect it's the new "tier X meta".

 

Last it was -10 gun depression to everything they buffed on tier X. 350 gold pen is the new thing. 



Simeon85 #20 Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:59 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,297
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostTankkiPoju, on 01 June 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

I'm just going to point out in many situations 320mm APCR is better than 350mm HEAT, and even more "pay to win":

 

You can shoot APCR against anything while HEAT gets absorbed by spaced armor.

 

For example there is no downside at all playing when IS7 with full APCR. If you can't afford APCR, you cant afford tier 10 anyway.

 

 

Pen drop off, it's higher on APCR premium rounds than standard rounds. 

 

350 pen HEAT is going to deal with a Type 5 at 300/400m a lot better than the 320mm APCR round, because that APCR round is probably 300 or below at 400m 

 

The Badger has 320mm APCR and it struggles more with Maus/Type 5/E100 turret etc. than a 330 or 340mm HEAT round does. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users