Jump to content


Medium Tanks Rebalance (Supertest): Second Iteration


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

blockypanzer #21 Posted 04 May 2019 - 11:35 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 24331 battles
  • 100
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

Leopard 1 changes seem about as good as we could expect from WG. Sure, I've fought on these forums for considerably stronger buffs than these, but honestly? This will do, I can work with this. The 0.13 dispersion buff from 0.17 is by far the most noticeable change, pr will be when it goes through. The Leopard desperately needed a soft stat buff worth a damn, and while this is still way behind the Object 140, It's enough that I can drop vents and put optics back on the tank, whilst still feeling better gun handling. Thank you Wargaming.

 

The retention of standard APCR is lovely, the pen buff to the "special" APCR is quite nice, though HEAT will still be missed vs certain targets. I'd say the APCR is a net positive vs most opponents though, especially when tracks or other spaced armour are involved. 

 

The small accuracy buff and aim time buff are welcome, as is the alpha buff staying, so long as I'm correct in saying the mobility nerfs have been scrapped? 

 

Tl:dr; If these are just buffs, and the mobility isn't getting any nerfs, I'm a happy tanker.



blockypanzer #22 Posted 04 May 2019 - 11:59 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 24331 battles
  • 100
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

View Postprohunter00, on 04 May 2019 - 09:59 PM, said:

WG, what about 121 and other chinese tanks? Also, in trying to create the perfect sniper(Leo 1), what about K-91?

You can at least give it fully rotatable turret. I can't remember when i last saw one on the battlefield. 

 

K-91 isn't not played because it's bad, it's not played because it's that rarest of things, a balanced Russian. With so many OP offerings, why would you choose the balanced one?

 

Compared to the buffed Leopard 1 shown here, the K-91 has a HEAT round, a higher velocity APCR, better armour (enough to survive vs lower tiers and not get nuked by artillery), better camo, etc. The Leopard gets the better mobility, alpha, pen and accuracy. I'd say the two are well matched against each other after this change. Right now the K-91 is outright better than the Leo, but is rarer, for the exact reason I stated. It's a balanced Russian.



Christofia #23 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:23 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 22910 battles
  • 60
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View Postleggasiini, on 03 May 2019 - 10:05 PM, said:

STB-1 changes look better for sure, especially happy that some of the unnecessary changes to the STB-1 like the ridiculous accuracy and top speed nerf are now gone. Basically it now gains a better turret, drastically better handling, AP instead of APCR, more gun depression with the suspension, and bit higher DPM, for reduced alpha, shell velocity and it's overall a bit more clunky. Sounds like a fair trade-off, though I want to see how much the turret armor buff affects the vehicle.

 

 

Since they have not written s**t about the other parameters they nerfed, we can safely assume that the plan is still the same.

So from nerfing the absolute living s**t out of the STB-1, now they just nerfed it hard, so it's going to be the No. 2 useless Japanese Tier X.

 

Still b*tthurt about Сахалин comrades?

 

Second iteration in the 'pursuit of excellence'

+2 degrees of gun depression

+slightly better DPM

+slighlty better turret armor, which is still going to be cracked wide open by those well balanced Russian.... anything

 

???crap shell velocitiy, worse than now, better than the first plan was???

 

So, so far:

-no mention of gun penetration drop over long distance (probably still going to be s**t like 232 mm)

-lower alpha

-worse accuracy

-worse top speed (Russian heavies will pass you like Schumacher lol)

-worse view range

 

But thx for the hydroderp suspensions, we really needed it! BTW will it least work sideways too, or we can have a super duper OP -12 degree frontally, and then enjoy the game with -6 degrees of gun depression when the turret looks sideways?

 

PS. you're right, don't nerf those objects 'for now' (Russian euphemism; see in English: 'for years, if ever';), they are totally balanced!



ToodlePips #24 Posted 05 May 2019 - 10:39 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 67365 battles
  • 890
  • [LKSB] LKSB
  • Member since:
    07-11-2012

View Postblockypanzer, on 04 May 2019 - 10:59 PM, said:

The Leopard gets the better mobility, alpha, pen and accuracy. I'd say the two are well matched against each other after this change. Right now the K-91 is outright better than the Leo, but is rarer, for the exact reason I stated. It's a balanced Russian.

 

Agreed. But both are and will remain inferior to tanks such as the Object 907, the Object 430U and probably the Object 140. Don't get me wrong, the combination of mobility and accurate guns can work well on certain maps, and without any doubt, unicums will get some outstanding results in the buffed Leopard. But all things considered, armour and raw firepower count for more on most maps, and the comparatively minor disadvantages in mobility and gun handling of these tanks will nowhere near sufficiently compensate for that. A tank like the buffed Leo will be a beast on some maps, tanks such as the 907 or the 430U are beasts on all maps.



blockypanzer #25 Posted 05 May 2019 - 09:38 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 24331 battles
  • 100
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

View PostToodlePips, on 05 May 2019 - 09:39 AM, said:

 

Agreed. But both are and will remain inferior to tanks such as the Object 907, the Object 430U and probably the Object 140. Don't get me wrong, the combination of mobility and accurate guns can work well on certain maps, and without any doubt, unicums will get some outstanding results in the buffed Leopard. But all things considered, armour and raw firepower count for more on most maps, and the comparatively minor disadvantages in mobility and gun handling of these tanks will nowhere near sufficiently compensate for that. A tank like the buffed Leo will be a beast on some maps, tanks such as the 907 or the 430U are beasts on all maps.

 

Absolutely, but at this point I'm prepared to accept the changes to the leopard 1, and WG probably knows that people will take any minor buffs, especially after the awful 1st itteration "rebalance". I suspect that was simply to make people shut up and take minor buffs, as it's better than a buff/nerf mix that leaves the tank no better, possibly worse, than it already is.
20:39 Added after 1 minute

View PostChristofia, on 05 May 2019 - 06:23 AM, said:

 

Since they have not written s**t about the other parameters they nerfed, we can safely assume that the plan is still the same.

So from nerfing the absolute living s**t out of the STB-1, now they just nerfed it hard, so it's going to be the No. 2 useless Japanese Tier X.

 

Still b*tthurt about Сахалин comrades?

 

Second iteration in the 'pursuit of excellence'

+2 degrees of gun depression

+slightly better DPM

+slighlty better turret armor, which is still going to be cracked wide open by those well balanced Russian.... anything

 

???crap shell velocitiy, worse than now, better than the first plan was???

 

So, so far:

-no mention of gun penetration drop over long distance (probably still going to be s**t like 232 mm)

-lower alpha

-worse accuracy

-worse top speed (Russian heavies will pass you like Schumacher lol)

-worse view range

 

But thx for the hydroderp suspensions, we really needed it! BTW will it least work sideways too, or we can have a super duper OP -12 degree frontally, and then enjoy the game with -6 degrees of gun depression when the turret looks sideways?

 

PS. you're right, don't nerf those objects 'for now' (Russian euphemism; see in English: 'for years, if ever';), they are totally balanced!

 

On very modern tanks like the K-2, the hydro suspension works independantly from one track to another, allowing sideways gun depression increases. On the STB-1 I think it's over the front only.

_Flagada_Jones_ #26 Posted 06 May 2019 - 02:01 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35291 battles
  • 1,687
  • [OMGR] OMGR
  • Member since:
    03-20-2012
It can be worst, medium are not hammernerfed like Japan heavies!

 

K1Lc4m #27 Posted 06 May 2019 - 08:19 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19017 battles
  • 69
  • [CPSRC] CPSRC
  • Member since:
    07-16-2016

View Postblockypanzer, on 05 May 2019 - 09:38 PM, said:

On very modern tanks like the K-2, the hydro suspension works independantly from one track to another, allowing sideways gun depression increases.

 

It would be nice if the STB-1 had that little advantage over the Swedish medium.

depressed_jellyfish #28 Posted 06 May 2019 - 12:46 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 14079 battles
  • 72
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    04-19-2018

View Post_Flagada_Jones_, on 06 May 2019 - 02:01 AM, said:

It can be worst, medium are not hammernerfed like Japan heavies!

 

 

That's because they were never good to begin with.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #29 Posted 07 May 2019 - 02:42 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,631
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

I know it has been posted before but to keep things handy here is the proposed turret buff for the STB-1...

 

 


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 07 May 2019 - 02:43 AM.


tajj7 #30 Posted 07 May 2019 - 11:01 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29515 battles
  • 17,810
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

The lack of nerfs to the 430 and 430U is just a joke to be honest, you have been swayed by Russian users of this tank who are just biased. 

 

How is this an objective decision? You said the tanks were too strong and were doing to well, you announce nerfs (the wrong nerfs, but at least nerfs) some people throw their toys out of the pram because their OP toy is going to get nerfed and you listen to them.

 

Its a complete insult to the community if you don't nerf these tanks. 



K1Lc4m #31 Posted 07 May 2019 - 01:25 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19017 battles
  • 69
  • [CPSRC] CPSRC
  • Member since:
    07-16-2016

View Posttajj7, on 07 May 2019 - 11:01 AM, said:

The lack of nerfs to the 430 and 430U is just a joke to be honest, you have been swayed by Russian users of this tank who are just biased. 

 

How is this an objective decision? You said the tanks were too strong and were doing to well, you announce nerfs (the wrong nerfs, but at least nerfs) some people throw their toys out of the pram because their OP toy is going to get nerfed and you listen to them.

 

Its a complete insult to the community if you don't nerf these tanks. 

the proposed nerf haven't change their performance this is why they are gonna nerf another thing about those tank

 

i supposed



depressed_jellyfish #32 Posted 07 May 2019 - 01:38 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 14079 battles
  • 72
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    04-19-2018

View Posttajj7, on 07 May 2019 - 11:01 AM, said:

The lack of nerfs to the 430 and 430U is just a joke to be honest, you have been swayed by Russian users of this tank who are just biased. 

 

How is this an objective decision? You said the tanks were too strong and were doing to well, you announce nerfs (the wrong nerfs, but at least nerfs) some people throw their toys out of the pram because their OP toy is going to get nerfed and you listen to them.

 

Its a complete insult to the community if you don't nerf these tanks. 

 

The problem with those tanks wasn't the gun handling (what they planned to nerf) but the armor.

It's like having a TD with a huge alpha damage with premium rounds and nerfing its mobility and gun handling while leaving its damage intact. Now that would be a joke! 



bbmoose #33 Posted 07 May 2019 - 02:51 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14266 battles
  • 459
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013

So you aren't touching the mobility stats on the Leopard? In the first iteration you guys proposed some unneeded mobility nerfs. These are canceled, as they are not mentioned in the second iteration?

 

And what about the OPject 430's?



tajj7 #34 Posted 07 May 2019 - 03:04 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29515 battles
  • 17,810
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

Also can we not get some actual clarification and some clear communication about these 2nd test changes?

 

The first article was badly worded, missed sections and said it was going to nerf some things that weren't but at least we got clear graphics with the changes.

 

Now we have 2 paragraphs, with no real clue what is staying from the first test and what is not changed. Can you not re-do the graphics you did but with the updated changes from this 2nd version? 



K1Lc4m #35 Posted 07 May 2019 - 03:24 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19017 battles
  • 69
  • [CPSRC] CPSRC
  • Member since:
    07-16-2016

View Posttajj7, on 07 May 2019 - 03:04 PM, said:

Also can we not get some actual clarification and some clear communication about these 2nd test changes?

 

The first article was badly worded, missed sections and said it was going to nerf some things that weren't but at least we got clear graphics with the changes.

 

Now we have 2 paragraphs, with no real clue what is staying from the first test and what is not changed. Can you not re-do the graphics you did but with the updated changes from this 2nd version? 

 

View Postbbmoose, on 07 May 2019 - 02:51 PM, said:

So you aren't touching the mobility stats on the Leopard? In the first iteration you guys proposed some unneeded mobility nerfs. These are canceled, as they are not mentioned in the second iteration?

 

And what about the OPject 430's?

 

All change here are additional , this is write in the introduction

 

Block Quote

Now we’ll describe some additional adjustments to the MTs in more detail, and will also explain what we intend to achieve.

 

 



prohunter00 #36 Posted 08 May 2019 - 06:15 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 25709 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

Offtopic:WG, when are you going to "rebalance" heavy tanks? Bobject 269 (e) will be changed also? I'm asking because this tank is also overpowered(guess what: it's a rusky tank:) ). I'm so F@cking tired to shoot gold in my is-7 and 80% of the shots bounce from his stalinium armor.

 



sokolicc #37 Posted 10 May 2019 - 02:20 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34939 battles
  • 461
  • [D4EAM] D4EAM
  • Member since:
    04-14-2016
Leopard overall is going to be buffed, but for the love of SerB, leave HEAT as gold ammo. Give it a bit of velocity, or you could leave it on ~1200 m/s.
Leopard sniping ability should never depend on gold shells.
Also, leave HEAT on Leo PTA too.

There's metric ton of tanks that can be penned by HEAT only, so why to nerf anything on Leotards?

Hezs #38 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 31814 battles
  • 147
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011
Where's the third iteration? Only few tank lines have been balanced in four months, and with this pace not many more until the end of the year.

Edited by Hezs, 11 May 2019 - 05:10 PM.


WindSplitter1 #39 Posted 11 May 2019 - 08:48 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21349 battles
  • 3,928
  • [WINDY] WINDY
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postdepressed_jellyfish, on 07 May 2019 - 12:38 PM, said:

 

The problem with those tanks wasn't the gun handling (what they planned to nerf) but the armor.

It's like having a TD with a huge alpha damage with premium rounds and nerfing its mobility and gun handling while leaving its damage intact. Now that would be a joke! 

 

You mean like they did with the Stage II?

depressed_jellyfish #40 Posted 11 May 2019 - 09:04 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 14079 battles
  • 72
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    04-19-2018

View PostWindSplitter1, on 11 May 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

 

You mean like they did with the Stage II?

 

I don't know what you're talking about... :unsure:






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users