Jump to content


Object 264 4. What Is WGs Logic?


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

TungstenHitman #1 Posted 11 June 2018 - 12:38 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22135 battles
  • 4,055
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Hi, so I see this game breaking OP "lets not bother playing tier8 or higher anymore" TD is getting nerfed soon. Fine, but I read this [edited]and bull story about where it is OP and why it is OP and such... as follows...

 

First of all WG explain what they meant this tank to be

 

"The Object 268 Version 4’s balance turned into an issue after the machine got on World of Tanks battlefields. The set of characteristics we had prepared for the model was meant to make it a great assault vehicle, but we went too far with emphasizing its strengths. The frontal armor was too thick, the top speed was too high, the engine power was too much. The 268 v4 turned out too dominant and overpowered."

 

So, a great assault vehicle meant but they went too far emphasizing its strengths. So, how can they not know this? They DO know this, it was tested and tested by actual players. they feedbacks surely were there, they knew what was going to happen and they knew this but did it anyway... so this is just a smoke screen, eating humble pie because so many players are annoyed, some players even leave but I believe worst of all, their highest and most financially important tiers were ruined by this tank. Ok, but why do this? why would a company knowing put their business on the back foot and potentially lower their income with no actual prospects of making money from this, ever? Or am I missing something here?

 

So with the nerfs, they go on in great detail, to outline very precisely WHY this tank was so OP and in what areas. So this was not just some nerf this and nerf that without a clue really what was going to be addressed and what made this tank such a game breaker and so again, it's just a smoke screen. WG knew exactly what was going to happen. Fine(it's not fine btw) but what's it all about I ask?

 

 

Firstly, we want the machine to be involved more into close-/mid-range fights. We’ve increased the gun’s dispersion by 33% while moving or turning, whereas aiming time has increased from 2 s to 2.5 s.

Secondly, with 55 km/h, the Object could take key positions as fast as, or even faster than some medium tanks, leading to unnecessary competition. So, we’ve decreased the TD’s engine power to 1350 hp and cut the top speed to 50 km/h. Its reverse speed has also been reduced from 22 km/h to 18 km/h, lowering the chances of retreating from a taken position.

Finally, the most overstuffed specs. The major problem was the Object’s overwhelming durability. To reduce its firing life, we reworked the respective values. The HP pool has dropped from 2100 to 2000 points, while the bottom frontal armor plate is now 201 mm of effective armor, as opposed to the initial 245 mm. The commander’s hatch, in its turn, has lost 10 mm, reaching 230 mm in effective armor.

Penetration and alpha numbers will remain unchanged, so that the Object remains a decent damage dealer, but with the applied changes to armor and HP pool, its vulnerability will eventually become a bigger factor in battle.

 

 What I would really like to know is did WG finally go too far with this tank. On the back of all the other bs game breaking and annoying irritating things in this game such as arty, Type5 noob tanks, blatantly OP premiums, re-selling premiums "never to be sold again" or "exclusive" premiums, controversial MM just so so much bull. Is this the begging of WG actually taking stock of players leaving, not playing higher tiers as much as they did, starting to make higher tier more balanced or is it a case of too little too late and they have done too much irretrievable damage now, pi$$ed off many players to the point of leaving and clutching at straws? 

 

If you don't read all that I don't blame you and if you have no interest and just like a few casual battles and don't care about OP tanks rolling off the production line every few months ruining any potential grind interests that is fine if that's your thinking and attitude :) 



Rati_Festa #2 Posted 11 June 2018 - 12:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42797 battles
  • 1,381
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

Their logic will always be to make money.

 

I can only assume that they think that putting OP tanks in will push people to change free exp with cash and create a revenue stream from it. I think though this time they went to far and it could well be affecting their main cash stream that are T8 prem tanks. I haven't bought one in an age as I they are near useless against the t10 monstrosities they are dropping in game, paying cash to be cannon fodder will never work as a business plan.

 


Edited by Rati_Festa, 11 June 2018 - 12:52 PM.


Mimos_A #3 Posted 11 June 2018 - 12:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24094 battles
  • 1,990
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015
As far as i know the 268v4 that went into the game never went onto the test server. And while it was obvious to most just from the stats that this would not end well, I guess the same plate in front of their face that still makes them say the 252/Defender is fine did it's job. I don't know if they're intentionally clueless or there's some people at WG who occasionally have a massive brain malfunction, but the italian meds & chinese td's show they do actually know how to balance if they try. No idea why they have to make their own good work undone by putting those "play this or be condemned to being a useless pawn of the MM" tanks in the game.

UrQuan #4 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:06 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19453 battles
  • 6,182
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

I believe in the triangle of balance: Mobility (includes speed & turnrate), Firepower (damage per shot / ability to pen / general gun handling, turret rotation) & defense (usually armor, but size matters too & how the armor is made up + viewrange/camo also falls under this)

 

Any tank that excels at one thing needs bad things in the other two to balance it out, else it ends up broken or worse, OP. Tanks that have good characteristics in all 3 tend to score well with people (IS-3 is a fine example) as they excel in a large number of situations.

A tank who has characteristics that excel in all 3 fields is going to be OP, no matter how you spin it. The Obj 268 v4 ticks the 3 boxes:

- Mobility: it's speed rivals/exceeds that of meds, with the engine-power to use it.

- Firepower: it has a high pen gun with good damage

- Defense: It has very strong frontal armor.

So this tank was going to be OP. Didn't need it in play to know that. It is 'Balancing for Dummies; first chapter'.

Sure, you can claim 'but the sides are weak!' and 'it's not that accurate', but the main point stands, it has something in each field that it is very good at, hence it was going to be OP like nothing else.

Most tanks that have good/great characteristics in 2 out of 3 are already OP most of the time, or at the least, broken (looking at you jap types)

 

If they want to keep the general purpose deployment of the object 268 v4, then they need to nerf all the characteristics, while not overdoing it. You can have a mobile decently armored TD with good firepower, without turning the stats up to eleven.

I found that the Jagpanther TD's in the game have a good combo of this; they're mobile, they got good firepower & the armor holds up when you play by it & nobody calls them OP.



Somnorila #5 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:13 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 55818 battles
  • 2,020
  • [4-YOU] 4-YOU
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostRati_Festa, on 11 June 2018 - 12:52 PM, said:

Their logic will always be to make money.

 

I can only assume that they think that putting OP tanks in will push people to change free exp with cash and create a revenue stream from it. I think though this time they went to far and it could well be affecting their main cash stream that are T8 prem tanks. I haven't bought one in an age as I they are near useless against the t10 monstrosities they are dropping in game, paying cash to be cannon fodder will never work as a business plan.

 

 

Agree. I would also like to add that their business plan should not look to keep the game perpetual unbalanced so that players always farm towards their next "gem" or to buy every new premium tank like it will make your game experience totally different than the hoard of premiums you already have. But to focus on making the game fun. Their core revenue shouldn't be from bundles, gold for XP exchange, gambling events and premium vehicles. But from the gold players get for premium time. That's freaking enough. But for that to work the game must be worth it for people to spend time in, to be fun and also the premium status must be more attractive. But it shouldn't be attractive for game play related reasons nor for faster XP farming. Maybe for silver farming, such as now with higher income, maybe add too with cheaper repairs. Maybe permit premium users to create training rooms alone. Maybe create one or several game modes where only premium players can queue. Maybe an alternative game mode for random battles that are a bit more customisable, where you can choose your map, or is skill based MM. and other stuff like that. 

xtrem3x #6 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32216 battles
  • 1,458
  • [EFE-X] EFE-X
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

Another cry thread about this TD

Can't this have been posted in one of the other million threads that exist about it?

 

It's long winded so I'm not reading it.



Schepel #7 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:22 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 59630 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013

View PostUrQuan, on 11 June 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

I believe in the triangle of balance: Mobility (includes speed & turnrate), Firepower (damage per shot / ability to pen / general gun handling, turret rotation) & defense (usually armor, but size matters too & how the armor is made up + viewrange/camo also falls under this)

 

Any tank that excels at one thing needs bad things in the other two to balance it out, else it ends up broken or worse, OP. Tanks that have good characteristics in all 3 tend to score well with people (IS-3 is a fine example) as they excel in a large number of situations.

A tank who has characteristics that excel in all 3 fields is going to be OP, no matter how you spin it. The Obj 268 v4 ticks the 3 boxes:

- Mobility: it's speed rivals/exceeds that of meds, with the engine-power to use it.

- Firepower: it has a high pen gun with good damage

- Defense: It has very strong frontal armor.

So this tank was going to be OP. Didn't need it in play to know that. It is 'Balancing for Dummies; first chapter'.

Sure, you can claim 'but the sides are weak!' and 'it's not that accurate', but the main point stands, it has something in each field that it is very good at, hence it was going to be OP like nothing else.

Most tanks that have good/great characteristics in 2 out of 3 are already OP most of the time, or at the least, broken (looking at you jap types)

 

If they want to keep the general purpose deployment of the object 268 v4, then they need to nerf all the characteristics, while not overdoing it. You can have a mobile decently armored TD with good firepower, without turning the stats up to eleven.

I found that the Jagpanther TD's in the game have a good combo of this; they're mobile, they got good firepower & the armor holds up when you play by it & nobody calls them OP.

 

To be fair, the feedback with regards to new tanks has been known to be wrong. Remember the Foch B? I'd argue that the 268-4 could have been fine as is, if they had given it proper weakspots. The biggest problem WG has at the moment is the idiotic idea that frontal armour needs to be 100% normal ammo proof. 

UrQuan #8 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:34 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19453 battles
  • 6,182
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostSchepel, on 11 June 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

 

To be fair, the feedback with regards to new tanks has been known to be wrong. Remember the Foch B? I'd argue that the 268-4 could have been fine as is, if they had given it proper weakspots. The biggest problem WG has at the moment is the idiotic idea that frontal armour needs to be 100% normal ammo proof. 

 

Aye, player complaints aren't always correct, mainly due to the hidden stat thing, which can make or break tanks as well. But in the case of the Object 268 v4, it's core characteristics were so good, that the hidden values (ground resistance, gun handling, actual armor layout) had to be pretty ugly to make the tank not super-OP.

 

Weakspots are a great thing to balance out very high armored tanks, but in the case of the Object 268, the effect would been minimal, as it has great forward/reverse speed (it would still have helped tho, just not enough)

I do support the return of sensible weakspots, as that makes it much more fun to play against armored tanks (and also makes armored tank play more fun, as less folks will fire prem ammo at you) + you can play around more with high armor numbers in your design when a weakspot is around.

And yes, the notion that frontal armor needs to be standard ammo proof is just ridiculous & only invites bad play & prem-ammo spam. Make strong armor resistant to shells, not immune. Main reason that front armor being immune to standard shells is bad is due to map design. If maps were larger & more open, then frontally immune tanks would be far less of an issue really, providing their sides are soft.



vasilinhorulezz #9 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22813 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

Murazor Q&A

Q: How did Object 268 Version 4 happen? 

A: I played this tank, and I did not personally think it was overpowered, instead I thought of it as a more weird tank than overpowered tank.

 

this pretty much sums it up.



Mimos_A #10 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:39 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24094 battles
  • 1,990
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 11 June 2018 - 01:36 PM, said:

Murazor Q&A

Q: How did Object 268 Version 4 happen? 

A: I played this tank, and I did not personally think it was overpowered, instead I thought of it as a more weird tank than overpowered tank.

 

this pretty much sums it up.

 



truoste #11 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38045 battles
  • 1,365
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 11 June 2018 - 12:36 PM, said:

Murazor Q&A

Q: How did Object 268 Version 4 happen? 

A: I played this tank, and I did not personally think it was overpowered, instead I thought of it as a more weird tank than overpowered tank.

 

this pretty much sums it up.

At least he had played the tank....not really understading about balance does not seem to be his issue... 



signal11th #12 Posted 11 June 2018 - 01:45 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37053 battles
  • 5,706
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

View Postxtram3x, on 11 June 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

Another cry thread about this TD

Can't this have been posted in one of the other million threads that exist about it?

 

It's long winded so I'm not reading it.

 

No surprise you've only just got it then?

SlyMeerkat #13 Posted 11 June 2018 - 02:21 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16429 battles
  • 2,150
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
I dont know about WG Logic behind it but what i do know is that when ever i see a person playing it, i automatically take them as a little to no skill player and not worth the time crying over because they are just that bad at the game :D

Simeon85 #14 Posted 11 June 2018 - 02:22 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,015
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Make people free XP an unpopular line would be my guess. 

 

Plus the Murazor comment, confirming how clueless he is, but then he is the guy that thinks heavy tanks should have no frontal weakspots. 



Ceeb #15 Posted 11 June 2018 - 02:28 PM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 30222 battles
  • 5,247
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

All I read is

 

"We don't play test any new model of tank"



_Sensation_ #16 Posted 11 June 2018 - 02:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7201 battles
  • 582
  • [ORIGN] ORIGN
  • Member since:
    01-10-2017
They did know this before it went live, but it's WG? Do I need to explain myself any furhter?

TungstenHitman #17 Posted 11 June 2018 - 02:43 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22135 battles
  • 4,055
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostRati_Festa, on 11 June 2018 - 11:52 AM, said:

Their logic will always be to make money.

 

I can only assume that they think that putting OP tanks in will push people to change free exp with cash and create a revenue stream from it. I think though this time they went to far and it could well be affecting their main cash stream that are T8 prem tanks. I haven't bought one in an age as I they are near useless against the t10 monstrosities they are dropping in game, paying cash to be cannon fodder will never work as a business plan.

 

 

I think you're right on the money with that. When we think of reasons to play a game or a part of that game, we do so for fun and we do so with a belief that there is some sort of realistically fair chance at winning it. So, when some element is introduced into a game or part of a game that removes either of those two ingredients, fun, fairness, well, we don't like to play that anymore do we. So, like you said, why on earth would anyone bother to pay money on a premium tank or run a premium account to be somebody elses fun and not have fun ourselves along with realistically very little to no chance at winning. Why would anyone pay to not have fun? And that's exactly what can be the case most the time.

 

As a premium tank you are -2 tiers most battles, they even took away preferential MM premiums just to really remove any notion of fun and fairness. On the tier 9 and 10 side of things, if you are paying money for a premium account why would you now? why would you now when there are tanks like the Bobject and Type 5 on the multitude of corridor maps totally impervious to your tank which you spent months and money grinding out? Why would anyone bother? And with that knowledge, why would anyone bother grinding towards a tier8-10 now? Even if you were griding a Type 5 or Bobject etc, you now also know that with the rate WG are introducing more and more OP or broken tanks, that by the time you unlock one of the current OP or broken tanks they will most likely be outgunned by an even more OP new WG abomination. 

 

There can also be no trust now. Maybe foolishly or not caring, I would grind lines without much thought but now I do not trust this company and it's over the top greed efforts. I appreciate a business must seek to make money wherever possible but it should never negatively effect it's own product and like most companies, once you lose the trust of your clients, it's very very hard to win them back again.



truoste #18 Posted 11 June 2018 - 02:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38045 battles
  • 1,365
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostTungstenHitman, on 11 June 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

 

I think you're right on the money with that. When we think of reasons to play a game or a part of that game, we do so for fun and we do so with a belief that there is some sort of realistically fair chance at winning it. So, when some element is introduced into a game or part of a game that removes either of those two ingredients, fun, fairness, well, we don't like to play that anymore do we. So, like you said, why on earth would anyone bother to pay money on a premium tank or run a premium account to be somebody elses fun and not have fun ourselves along with realistically very little to no chance at winning. Why would anyone pay to not have fun? And that's exactly what can be the case most the time.

 

As a premium tank you are -2 tiers most battles, they even took away preferential MM premiums just to really remove any notion of fun and fairness. On the tier 9 and 10 side of things, if you are paying money for a premium account why would you now? why would you now when there are tanks like the Bobject and Type 5 on the multitude of corridor maps totally impervious to your tank which you spent months and money grinding out? Why would anyone bother? And with that knowledge, why would anyone bother grinding towards a tier8-10 now? Even if you were griding a Type 5 or Bobject etc, you now also know that with the rate WG are introducing more and more OP or broken tanks, that by the time you unlock one of the current OP or broken tanks they will most likely be outgunned by an even more OP new WG abomination. 

 

There can also be no trust now. Maybe foolishly or not caring, I would grind lines without much thought but now I do not trust this company and it's over the top greed efforts. I appreciate a business must seek to make money wherever possible but it should never negatively effect it's own product and like most companies, once you lose the trust of your clients, it's very very hard to win them back again.

This is pretty much what they have been doing for quite some time. They have just cranked it up a notch or two in past few years and based on the amount of complaints lately, it is beginning to be unbearable for many. 3-5-7 with tanks balanced so that top tier means licence to crapon everything and bottom tier meaning cannon fodder is hardly accident but seems to be what they want and apparently not what their customers want but it is what it is.



Rati_Festa #19 Posted 11 June 2018 - 02:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42797 battles
  • 1,381
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View Postxtram3x, on 11 June 2018 - 01:21 PM, said:

Another cry thread about this TD

Can't this have been posted in one of the other million threads that exist about it?

 

It's long winded so I'm not reading it.

As the tank has basically broken the whole end game of WOT it deserves all the complaints imo, shouldnt have been introduced in the state it is in and definately should have been nerfed faster.

 

Do you own one by any chance?



_Anarchistic_ #20 Posted 11 June 2018 - 03:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38555 battles
  • 1,081
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015

it is not logic

 

it is pure stupidity mixed with the Russian inferiority complex so they ignore the obvious and keep hitting the self destruct button






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users