Jump to content


[1.5+Supertest]Tier X MT balance suggestion (Long!)


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

Wastar1970 #1 Posted 05 May 2019 - 05:19 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 49124 battles
  • 91
  • [HEVEN] HEVEN
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011

Hello. This is my suggestion to balance all medium tanks on tier X. Im considering historical accuracy but gameplay values comes first. So here we go (im leaving the reward/special tanks for the end):

@update1 Reduced BC damage.

@update2 adjusted viewrange of centurion AX. e-50m viewrange unchanged

@update3 adjusted stabilization on 30b

@update4 E-50m changes

MT TIER X:

Edited by Wastar1970, 06 May 2019 - 05:30 PM.


Etre_ #2 Posted 05 May 2019 - 05:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 56731 battles
  • 1,393
  • [WEBOB] WEBOB
  • Member since:
    04-21-2014
All this effort for what ? 

Who do you think it will read and implement your wall of text ? 

Wastar1970 #3 Posted 05 May 2019 - 05:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 49124 battles
  • 91
  • [HEVEN] HEVEN
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011
Maybe someone someday ;D

Dorander #4 Posted 05 May 2019 - 05:56 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 20349 battles
  • 4,749
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012
Just out of sheer curiousity, what are you basing your value changes on?

tankzman #5 Posted 05 May 2019 - 06:19 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 69125 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013
Very useful post, didnt read it and no one else will. GG

undutchable80 #6 Posted 05 May 2019 - 06:37 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 10280 battles
  • 2,851
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014
Even though I applaud the effort, I actually hope WG will look at rebalancing mid tiers sometime soon. 

BKatt #7 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 36475 battles
  • 587
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013

T-22med aka the rigger rank, should only be the target of two actions.

 

1). Leave it as is.

2). Remove it.

 

Also, what are you basing those values on? (Like Dorander said).

 

As an examble, why would you nerf E50M?



Wastar1970 #8 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:19 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 49124 battles
  • 91
  • [HEVEN] HEVEN
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011

View PostBKatt, on 05 May 2019 - 07:05 PM, said:

T-22med aka the rigger rank, should only be the target of two actions.

 

1). Leave it as is.

2). Remove it.

 

Also, what are you basing those values on? (Like Dorander said).

 

As an examble, why would you nerf E50M?

 

I nerfed its accuracy and view range but in exchange i buffed damage per shot / dpm. my goal is to make every med good and also unique.

 

View Postundutchable80, on 05 May 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Even though I applaud the effort, I actually hope WG will look at rebalancing mid tiers sometime soon. 

 

i dont think they care. there are some tier X ultra bad tanks that WG doesnt care about like pz VII.


Edited by Wastar1970, 05 May 2019 - 07:21 PM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #9 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:23 PM

    Colonel

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

View PostDorander, on 05 May 2019 - 08:56 PM, said:

Just out of sheer curiousity, what are you basing your value changes on?

 

  • The performance of the tank with its current values
  • His personal experience on how the tank handles in battle
  • Fitting the numbers better to the intended tank role

 

It's not an exact science balancing tanks, more like a "guesstimate" and he's done a good job at that. Introduced some original ideas of his own to the mix too.



Wastar1970 #10 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:25 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 49124 battles
  • 91
  • [HEVEN] HEVEN
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 05 May 2019 - 07:23 PM, said:

 

  • The performance of the tank with its current values
  • His personal experience on how the tank handles in battle
  • Fitting the numbers better to the intended tank role

 

It's not an exact science balancing tanks, more like a "guesstimate" and he's done a good job at that. Introduced some original ideas of his own to the mix too.

 

Couldnt have said it better myself :D thanks



XxKuzkina_MatxX #11 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:35 PM

    Colonel

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

View PostWastar1970, on 05 May 2019 - 10:25 PM, said:

 

Couldnt have said it better myself :D thanks

 

Good job man, you got some nice ideas here and i hope they will be implemented or at least some of them. :)

7thSyndicate #12 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:38 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45402 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    10-09-2012
The thing is, nobody cares about this, not wg for sure.. spend your free time doing something useful 

Wastar1970 #13 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:40 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 49124 battles
  • 91
  • [HEVEN] HEVEN
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011

View Post7thSyndicate, on 05 May 2019 - 07:38 PM, said:

The thing is, nobody cares about this, not wg for sure.. spend your free time doing something useful 

 

i just wanted all my ideas to be in 1 place.



DeadLecter #14 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29796 battles
  • 1,594
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016
No one from WG with the power to make a change will read this. So why bother?

Strizi #15 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 40780 battles
  • 800
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Your E50M proposal is bad, why would you nerf anything on it? It needs a buff, it needs more dpm and a turret buff and not a nerf to viewrange and accuracy. And why the fu.ck would you buff the dpm of object 140 even further? And LOL to buffing some american or british meds to 420/430 viewrange... because the maps are so big!

Edited by Strizi, 05 May 2019 - 07:49 PM.


7thSyndicate #16 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:50 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45402 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    10-09-2012

View PostWastar1970, on 05 May 2019 - 06:40 PM, said:

 

i just wanted all my ideas to be in 1 place.

 

i know, but they dont care about what we think

Wastar1970 #17 Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:53 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 49124 battles
  • 91
  • [HEVEN] HEVEN
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011

View PostStrizi, on 05 May 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

Your E50M proposal is bad, why would you nerf anything on it? It needs a buff, it needs more dpm and a turret buff and not a nerf to viewrange and accuracy. And why the fu.ck would you buff the dpm of object 140 even further?

 

e-50m dpm was buffed. 420 damage and 7.9 reload with bia wents and rammer. i nerfed accuracy to keep it from sniping and view range to force it closer as well. ob 140 dpm was buffed to match 907.
18:56 Added after 2 minutes

View PostStrizi, on 05 May 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

Your E50M proposal is bad, why would you nerf anything on it? It needs a buff, it needs more dpm and a turret buff and not a nerf to viewrange and accuracy. And why the fu.ck would you buff the dpm of object 140 even further? And LOL to buffing some american or british meds to 420/430 viewrange... because the maps are so big!

 

USA MT's always had best viewrange and terrible camo. i wanted to keep it that way.

Etre_ #18 Posted 05 May 2019 - 08:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 56731 battles
  • 1,393
  • [WEBOB] WEBOB
  • Member since:
    04-21-2014

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 05 May 2019 - 07:23 PM, said:

 

  • The performance of the tank with its current values
  • His personal experience on how the tank handles in battle
  • Fitting the numbers better to the intended tank role

 

It's not an exact science balancing tanks, more like a "guesstimate" and he's done a good job at that. Introduced some original ideas of his own to the mix too.

 

Like this ? 

Increase dispersion when turret is traversing from 0.04 to 0.12

Reduce dispersion when moving from 0.12 to 0.10

 

 

So, the dispersion should be bigger when staying still than when driving over hard land at 60 km/h. Beside what's the point of having 0.10 when driving if turning the turret toward a target will increase it to 0.12 ?

Well ... humans, not the most logical specie in the universe.


Edited by Etre_, 05 May 2019 - 08:20 PM.


Wastar1970 #19 Posted 05 May 2019 - 08:26 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 49124 battles
  • 91
  • [HEVEN] HEVEN
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011

View PostEtre_, on 05 May 2019 - 08:19 PM, said:

 

Like this ? 

Increase dispersion when turret is traversing from 0.04 to 0.12

Reduce dispersion when moving from 0.12 to 0.10

 

 

So, the dispersion should be bigger when staying still than when driving over hard land at 60 km/h. Beside what's the point of having 0.10 when driving if turning the turret toward a target will increase it to 0.12 ?

Well ... humans, not the most logical specie in the universe.

 

it seemed a little odd for me. other meds have more than 0.08 when turret is traversing.

https://tanks.gg/tank/amx-30-b

https://tanks.gg/tank/m48-patton

https://tanks.gg/tank/121



XxKuzkina_MatxX #20 Posted 05 May 2019 - 08:26 PM

    Colonel

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

View PostEtre_, on 05 May 2019 - 11:19 PM, said:

Like this ? 

Increase dispersion when turret is traversing from 0.04 to 0.12

Reduce dispersion when moving from 0.12 to 0.10

 

So, the dispersion should be bigger when staying still than when driving over hard land at 60 km/h. Beside what's the point of having 0.10 when driving if turning the turret toward a target will increase it to 0.12 ?

Well ... humans, not the most logical specie in the universe.

 

If you find that a bizarre thing to do, check the latest rebalance of the tier 9 Type 61...

 

http://forum.worldof...german-mediums/

 

Dispersion on turret move: 0.106

Dispersion on the move: 0.096

:teethhappy:

19:31 Added after 4 minutes

View PostWastar1970, on 05 May 2019 - 11:26 PM, said:

it seemed a little odd for me. other meds have more than 0.08 when turret is traversing.

https://tanks.gg/tank/amx-30-b

https://tanks.gg/tank/m48-patton

https://tanks.gg/tank/121

 

He's saying that dispersion when moving the turret should never exceed the dispersion on the move. The aim circle will get much bigger in a moving tank than just turning the turret around with the tank standing still. For the gun, the gunner and the commander it's like being in a cement mixer when the tank moves. :)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users