Jump to content


How would YOU buff the STB-1?

STB-1 buff WG planned nerfs

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

Poll: STB-1 options (35 members have cast votes)

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

Which of the following do you prefer?

  1. Accurate sniper (14 votes [40.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.00%

  2. All-round with ready rack (7 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  3. Neither (please explain why and/or provide ideas of your own) (8 votes [22.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.86%

  4. Don't care about STB-1, its fate is irrelevant to me (6 votes [17.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.14%

Vote Hide poll

BDSM_Roon #1 Posted 28 April 2019 - 10:48 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15140 battles
  • 1,067
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

Ever since I've seen WG's plans to "rework" the STB-1 I've been thinking about an alternative to save the tank from the gutter. At the moment I do not even have the tank, but I love its looks and, perhaps after I gather a new girl crew, I'd like to finish grinding the JGSDF tanks (am at STA-1 at the moment, haven't touched it in ages).

I've added a poll but more importantly I'm leaving this thread here so people can discuss potential ideas on how to rework the tank because, at least IMHO, WG plans for it stink.

So, here's my 2 cents on the matter, two different proposals. Both take into account the tank as it is now, not the stats as scheduled for testing.

 

1. Sniper

 

- buff standard penetration to 268/278 (from 258)

- buff aimtime to 2 seconds (from 2.3)

- buff accuracy to 0.33 (from 0.36)

- buff dispersion when moving and turning the hull to 0.14 (from 0.16)
- buff turret traverse dispersion to 0.1/0.08 (from 0.14)

- add hydropneumatic suspensions and siege mode, same mechanics as Swedish mediums and TDs (afaik STB-1/Type 74 has them)

 

2. Mid-range fighter

 

- reduce alpha damage to 360 (from 390)

- reduce viewrange to 400 (from 410)

- buff aimtime to 1.8 seconds (from 2.3)
- buff dispersion when moving and turning the hull to 0.14 (from 0.16)
- buff dispersion when turning the turret to 0.12 (from 0.14)

- add a 3-shot ready rack/autoreloader, similar to the one used on Italian medium tanks (so first shell loads the slowest, and then faster with each new shell)

- raise ammo capacity to 54 (this takes the 3-shot ready rack into account)



...and that's it. If given a choice I would pick the first option because we already have enough autoloaders and autoreloaders running around, and burst damage is not really healthy for the game imho (I still remember the shock when meeting my first AMX 50 100 years ago, I thought he was cheating).

 

Disclaimer - I did not go for radical changes because I don't think that is what the game needs. So no hovermeds with 5k DPM and armor that makes some heavies blush (yes I'm looking at the Soviets).



Dava_117 #2 Posted 28 April 2019 - 10:59 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21473 battles
  • 4,165
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

I wouldn't pick none of that. We already have the Leo1 for sniping and Progetto65 for autoreloader. 

I liked the basic idea of a mid-close range fighther proposed by WG, but not how they wanted to apply it. 

Pneumatic suspensions as sweedish MT is a must, as the tank had it, then I would buff tank soft stat a lot and also increase a bit the dpm and maybe turret armour, but if soft stat are really good, the latter is not needed as exposure time can be very short. 


Edited by Dava_117, 28 April 2019 - 11:00 AM.


shikaka9 #3 Posted 28 April 2019 - 10:59 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 67191 battles
  • 466
  • [SWM] SWM
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
easy ... 8x autoloader ..  :)

BDSM_Roon #4 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:02 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15140 battles
  • 1,067
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View Postshikaka9, on 28 April 2019 - 10:59 AM, said:

easy ... 8x autoloader ..  :)

 

I'm sure at least someone out there would like it. :trollface::)

 

View PostDava_117, on 28 April 2019 - 10:59 AM, said:

I wouldn't pick none of that. We already have the Leo1 for sniping and Progetto65 for autoreloader. 

I liked the basic idea of a mid-close range fighther proposed by WG, but not how they wanted to apply it. 

Pneumatic suspensions as sweedish MT is a must, as the tank had it, then I would buff tank soft stat a lot and also increase a bit the dpm and maybe turret armour, but if soft stat are really good, the latter is not needed as exposure time can be very short. 

 

I'm aware we already have tanks that fulfill a similar role, but I tried to give STB-1 some "flavor", otherwise the third non-listed option would be to make it a paper ridge fighter like AMX 30B and just buff gun handling and aimtime, and that's it.

Dava_117 #5 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:11 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21473 battles
  • 4,165
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Postpihip, on 28 April 2019 - 11:02 AM, said:

 

I'm aware we already have tanks that fulfill a similar role, but I tried to give STB-1 some "flavor", otherwise the third non-listed option would be to make it a paper ridge fighter like AMX 30B and just buff gun handling and aimtime, and that's it.

 

Well, AMX30 is not that paperish. Mantlet is actually quite strong. 

But I beleve the STB-1 can have a class of it's own, not being similar to something else.

If you combine pneumatic suspensions with the well shaped turret you already have a quite solid ridgefighter. But if you also add a godlike gun handling and good DPM you can also play it in areas where hulldown is not an option. I will also take the lowered alpha if it allows to shoot 2 times while other shoot just once.



Nishi_Kinuyo #6 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:20 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 8385 battles
  • 5,641
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

Imo, I'd change the JGSDF Mediums to follow the IJA Mediums' pattern of having decent/good pen and handling.

Just look at the Chi-To: it is 3rd for best bloom values on its tier (2 objectively better tank, 1 mixed bag, rest is same or worse).

While the STB-1 places 2nd last for whatever reason; even worse, it has worse bloom than the Type 61 at tier 9.



BDSM_Roon #7 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:50 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15140 battles
  • 1,067
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostDava_117, on 28 April 2019 - 11:11 AM, said:

Well, AMX30 is not that paperish. Mantlet is actually quite strong. 

But I beleve the STB-1 can have a class of it's own, not being similar to something else.

If you combine pneumatic suspensions with the well shaped turret you already have a quite solid ridgefighter. But if you also add a godlike gun handling and good DPM you can also play it in areas where hulldown is not an option. I will also take the lowered alpha if it allows to shoot 2 times while other shoot just once.

 

STB-1 also has a decently protected turret face afaik, though it's more about sloping than raw thickness and it has "holes" in it - places where the armor is much weaker.

Anyway, now that I better read them the changes proposed by WG are not that horrible (the dispersion penalty and hp/t would receive a significant buff), however I cannot accept the nerf to shell velocity and standard ammo penetration. That is just unneeded and other than forcing players to spam more gold, I cannot see any other reason why they would enforce such a change.

 

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 28 April 2019 - 11:20 AM, said:

Imo, I'd change the JGSDF Mediums to follow the IJA Mediums' pattern of having decent/good pen and handling.

Just look at the Chi-To: it is 3rd for best bloom values on its tier (2 objectively better tank, 1 mixed bag, rest is same or worse).

While the STB-1 places 2nd last for whatever reason; even worse, it has worse bloom than the Type 61 at tier 9.

 

The improvement to gun bloom is included in the changes being tested by WG - dispersion penalty goes from 0.16 to 0.09 which is huge, though I don't see any change for turret traverse dispersion, which is bad at 0.14.

Seems that they did take the good bloom of earlier Japanese mediums into account at least.

As for penetration, as I said above nerfing it to 232 and also greatly nerfing shell velocity is hardly what I'd call a good move (it reminds me of an old idea of theirs, when they thought nerfing AP penetration on the WZ-111 1-4 to 220 was viable).

Nishi_Kinuyo #8 Posted 28 April 2019 - 11:59 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 8385 battles
  • 5,641
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Postpihip, on 28 April 2019 - 11:50 AM, said:

As for penetration, as I said above nerfing it to 232 and also greatly nerfing shell velocity is hardly what I'd call a good move (it reminds me of an old idea of theirs, when they thought nerfing AP penetration on the WZ-111 1-4 to 220 was viable).

At 500 metres distance.

How often are you shooting stuff at that range, and how often do you hit those shots where you want them to go?

Personally, I'd rather be a bit closer than that, so the extra pen drop-off at that distance should barely affect my gameplay.



BDSM_Roon #9 Posted 28 April 2019 - 02:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15140 battles
  • 1,067
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 28 April 2019 - 11:59 AM, said:

At 500 metres distance.

How often are you shooting stuff at that range, and how often do you hit those shots where you want them to go?

Personally, I'd rather be a bit closer than that, so the extra pen drop-off at that distance should barely affect my gameplay.


There's RNG to consider as well. While wanting all your shots to pen is unrealistic, 232 average pen with average to bad shell velocity on a Tier 10 medium tank with little to no armor is just terrible. If buffs to the ammo are not considered, WG should at least have the good sense of leaving the shells as they are now (not counting the improved RoF at the expense of some alpha).

 



Dava_117 #10 Posted 28 April 2019 - 02:31 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21473 battles
  • 4,165
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Postpihip, on 28 April 2019 - 02:17 PM, said:


There's RNG to consider as well. While wanting all your shots to pen is unrealistic, 232 average pen with average to bad shell velocity on a Tier 10 medium tank with little to no armor is just terrible. If buffs to the ammo are not considered, WG should at least have the good sense of leaving the shells as they are now (not counting the improved RoF at the expense of some alpha).

 

 

The idea is making STB-1 a close quarter combat tank. So the pen drop off nerf counterbalance the increased normalization. At distance up to 100-150m you won't have any sensible nerf and under 100m you will actually have a better penetration performance thanks to AP having better normalization (5° vs 2° of APCR).

 

Note

Base pen was intended to stay at 258mm.


Edited by Dava_117, 28 April 2019 - 02:32 PM.


arthurwellsley #11 Posted 28 April 2019 - 03:10 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53362 battles
  • 3,756
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

1. I quite liked the STA-1 when I played through it and kept it.

2. I quite liked the Type 61 when I played through it and kept it.

3. I have the STB-1. I hardly ever play it.

 

The Type 61 feels decent in tier IX while the current STB-1 feels lamentable in tier X. Obviously the tumour on the Type 61 lets it down, but otherwise not a bad package.

I would not make the STB-1 into a long range sniper, that role is held by the Leopard 1 and allegedly the K-91(although that is a whole other story - how many K-91's do you see in battle? yes I have one).

 

In the mid-range sniping mode presently there is the CAX and the M48. The M48 also benefits from high view range and awesome on the move snap shoot ability.

So what makes the STB-1 different from the CAX?

The CAX has better turret armour, while the STB-1 had better dpm at a cost of worse gun handling.

If the aim is to keep the dpm advantage over the CAX and buff the gun handling (which is the reason no one plays it), then what is to be the downside against a CAX? In addition the AMX 30B has better stats in many areas than both the CAX and STB-1 and you do not see many of those either.

So buff the STB-1 gun handling, give it the pneumatic suspension (it had it in real life) like the incoming Swedish mediums and leave the dpm alone. You might need to buff CAX turret armour to show the difference between the ridge line fighters. Let the STB-1 rely on relatively thin armour that gets it's bounces from the angle of the armour compared to the pneumatic suspension.

Make the penetration good within 100-200 metres and then drop off horribly.


Edited by arthurwellsley, 28 April 2019 - 03:11 PM.


WindSplitter1 #12 Posted 28 April 2019 - 03:28 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18728 battles
  • 3,130
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostDava_117, on 28 April 2019 - 01:31 PM, said:

 

The idea is making STB-1 a close quarter combat tank. So the pen drop off nerf counterbalance the increased normalization. At distance up to 100-150m you won't have any sensible nerf and under 100m you will actually have a better penetration performance thanks to AP having better normalization (5° vs 2° of APCR).

 

Note

Base pen was intended to stay at 258mm.

 

CQ tanks need armour, something IJA/JGSDF tanks lack.

 

WG has been constantly throwing poor accuracy on new tanks that lack armour to bring them closer. This negates whatever advantage they might have in other departments.

 

Pen drop off over distance is ridiculous in the sense it forces you to come closer as well. 232mm is good enough, don't get me wrong but it's uncalled for. I'd still love to see such "balancing" in USSR tanks.

 

@Ontopic: TL;DR: Patton treatment. Weak cupola, strong turret, 55km/h, workable to good on the move performance, quick reload, 360 dmg, titanlike gunhandling, historical/paper hull, active suspension, no changes to standard and gold ammo speed. drop the idiotic idea of pen drop off over distance, 1900HP, historical ammo (APCR, cHEAT, HEP) Call it a day.

 

IIRC, APCR as standard still has the 5 degs of normalization, and if not, that difference is seldom measurable in battle.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #13 Posted 28 April 2019 - 03:42 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 53201 battles
  • 3,718
  • [OBY] OBY
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Two shot auto reloader (boom-boom) with...

 

  • 360 alpha
  • Worse gun handling and accuracy than the Progetto 65 but better than what it got now
  • Better DPM than the Progetto
  • Slightly better turret armor

 

Some diversity in the game play without screwing the balance or the tank owners.



BDSM_Roon #14 Posted 28 April 2019 - 03:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15140 battles
  • 1,067
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostWindSplitter1, on 28 April 2019 - 03:28 PM, said:

IIRC, APCR as standard still has the 5 degs of normalization, and if not, that difference is seldom measurable in battle.

 

AFAIK, all APCR ammo have worse normalization than AP, the difference being that APCR standard bleeds less speed in flight than APCR gold.

WindSplitter1 #15 Posted 28 April 2019 - 04:18 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18728 battles
  • 3,130
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postpihip, on 28 April 2019 - 02:49 PM, said:

 

AFAIK, all APCR ammo have worse normalization than AP, the difference being that APCR standard bleeds less speed in flight than APCR gold.

 

It's possible. If so, I stand corrected.

In_memory_of_Bud_Spencer #16 Posted 28 April 2019 - 04:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19909 battles
  • 948
  • [-V-A-] -V-A-
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

I have chosen "neither". As you wanted have it explained:

 

I think, some tanks need a rebalance. But not by buffing the bad ones. I would like to nerf the op ones to get a more equal level. Because with buffing the bad ones you increase the spread between the tiers as the T9, T8, ... won't get a buff because some T10 got a buff.


Edited by In_memory_of_Bud_Spencer, 28 April 2019 - 04:20 PM.


gpalsson #17 Posted 28 April 2019 - 04:23 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24477 battles
  • 8,928
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013
They can leave it like it is now (after the changes I mean), but then make it more mobile and higher DPM. That would make an interesting different tank. It should have super high DPM though.

Edited by gpalsson, 28 April 2019 - 04:24 PM.


BDSM_Roon #18 Posted 28 April 2019 - 04:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15140 battles
  • 1,067
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostIn_memory_of_Bud_Spencer, on 28 April 2019 - 04:20 PM, said:

I have chosen "neither". As you wanted have it explained:

 

I think, some tanks need a rebalance. But not by buffing the bad ones. I would like to nerf the op ones to get a more equal level. Because with buffing the bad ones you increase the spread between the tiers as the T9, T8, ... won't get a buff because some T10 got a buff.

 

That is also an option worth considering, though that means nerfing several of the top tier Soviet tanks, and I think you saw how that went when WG tried to nerf Object 430/430U. :sceptic:

 

View Postgpalsson, on 28 April 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

They can leave it like it is now (after the changes I mean), but then make it more mobile and higher DPM. That would make an interesting different tank. It should have super high DPM though.

 

STB-1 already has the second highest DPM among L7A1 (legit and derivative) tanks, beaten only by AMX 30B. If the buff has to be small, I'd rather they make the gun more accurate and improve the handling/aimtime.

kaneloon #19 Posted 28 April 2019 - 04:43 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 30021 battles
  • 2,854
  • [FR2DB] FR2DB
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

I would keep most of the tank but :

- buff the mobility - now it bumps up and down like a van,

- make it less prone to HE damage.



psychobear #20 Posted 28 April 2019 - 04:51 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19467 battles
  • 1,951
  • [FUS2D] FUS2D
  • Member since:
    06-21-2012

- buff pen to 280 mm;

- MASSIVELY buff gun handling.

 

Done.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users