Jump to content


ST-1 buffs are a joke, KV-4 and IS-4 buffs are also incomplete

ST-1 KV-4 IS-4 Buffs Gun handling

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

Dava_117 #1 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:01 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Moderator
  • 24751 battles
  • 7,030
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

Ok.

I checked the buffs to the IS-4 line, which I was waiting for, and let me say I'm deluded by some of them, especially ST-1.

 

Let's start with order. ST-1 problem is gun handling: at the moment is 0.25/0.25/0.19 that is simply horrible. Aim time is terrible, at 3.26s. DPM is a bit low, but that was not a big issue. 

Buffs are announced, I went to check the patch note and tanks.gg and I got surprised how the problem of the tank has been ignored. Ignoring the buffs to the stock 122mm, ST-1 just got a 0.6s reduction in reload time and 12% better dispersion on hull traverse and movement. At the same time the gun accuracy has been nerfed from 0.38 to 0.4. 

So dispersion parameter will became a whooping 0.22/0.22/0.19 compared to most tier 9 HT that range in the 0.19/0.19/0.11 to 0.15/0.15/0.08 range. I can live with the dispersion on hull movement and traverse, but turret traverse dispersion is even out of the line. With the buffs both KV-4 and IS-4 got very good turret traverse dispersion, so why don't ST-1 get that too?

Also all of the tier 9 HT have an aim time under 3 seconds, with KV-4 and IS-4 again having good aim time too, so why WG didn't buffed aim time to at least 2.88s?

You spent 5 moths of testing to do absolutely nothing to one of the most powercrept tank in game.

 

You also forget about increasing IS-4 ammo rack and, about KV-4, you forget to change gun depression from -6° to -8° for the 107mm too, considering you gave -8° gun depression to the 122mm, but those are far less relevant issue than ST-1 non-buff...


Edited by Dava_117, 11 July 2020 - 12:07 PM.


Kdingo #2 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:05 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33570 battles
  • 9,166
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View PostDava_117, on 11 July 2020 - 12:01 PM, said:

Ok.

I checked the buffs to the IS-4 line, which I was waiting for, and let me say I'm deluded by some of them, especially ST-1.

 

Let's start with order. ST-1 problem is gun handling: at the moment is 0.25/0.25/0.19 that is simply horrible. Aim time is terrible, at 3.26s. DPM is a bit low, but that was not a big issue. 

Buffs are announced, I went to check the patch note and tanks.gg and I got surprised how the problem of the tank has been ignored. Ignoring the buffs to the stock 122mm, ST-1 just got a 0.6s reduction in reload time and 12% better dispersion on hull traverse and movement. At the same time the gun accuracy has been nerfed from 0.38 to 0.4. 

So dispersion parameter will became a whooping 0.22/0.22/0.19 compare to most tier 9 HT that range in the 0.19/0.19/0.11 to 0.15/0.15/0.08 range. I can live with the dispersion on hull movement and traverse, but turret traverse dispersion is even out of the line. With the buffs both KV-4 and IS-4 got very good aim time and turret traverse dispersion, so why don't ST-1 get that too?

Also all of the tier 9 HT have an aim time under 3 seconds, with KV-4 and IS-4 again having good aim time too, so why WG didn't buffed aim time to at least 2.88s?

You spent 5 moths of testing to do absolutely nothing to one of the most powercrept tank in game.

 

You also forget about increasing IS-4 ammo rack and, about KV-4, you forget to change gun depression from -6° to -8° for the 107mm too, considering you gave -8° gun depression to the 122mm, but those are far less relevant issue than ST-1 non-buff...

 

Yeah gun handling on st needs love. And for the kv4s gun depression, i don't think you will see many using the 107mm anymore after the patch. As, correct me if i am wrong on that, the 122 gets 217 pen with regular ammo while also having a better dpm.



Dava_117 #3 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:12 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Moderator
  • 24751 battles
  • 7,030
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostKdingo, on 11 July 2020 - 12:05 PM, said:

 

Yeah gun handling on st needs love. And for the kv4s gun depression, i don't think you will see many using the 107mm anymore after the patch. As, correct me if i am wrong on that, the 122 gets 217 pen with regular ammo while also having a better dpm.

 

No the 122mm get worst DPM, shell velocity, aim time, dispersion, dispersion on turret traverse on top of less pen and normalization on both rounds.



Gwynbleidd11 #4 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:24 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19368 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011
IS-4 buff is great, now it will be the best T10 heavy

saxsan4 #5 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26919 battles
  • 4,986
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostGwynbleidd11, on 11 July 2020 - 11:24 AM, said:

IS-4 buff is great, now it will be the best T10 heavy


theres no way it will be better than obj 277 , is7 , obj 279e, s conq, chieftain , obj 260



tajj7 #6 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30435 battles
  • 18,381
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

The IS-4 is insane, I think that should get toned down after the first version of the test, they have buffed the frontal armour, the drivers hatch, the turret roof spot, the aim time, the DPM, the gun handling. 

 

Thing is the ST-1 buffs are pretty minor, but did it really need many buffs? It seems to be performing fine and it's easily the best out of the 3. 



splash_time #7 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:45 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17511 battles
  • 2,351
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-20-2018

View Posttajj7, on 11 July 2020 - 02:34 PM, said:

The IS-4 is insane, I think that should get toned down after the first version of the test, they have buffed the frontal armour, the drivers hatch, the turret roof spot, the aim time, the DPM, the gun handling. 

 

Thing is the ST-1 buffs are pretty minor, but did it really need many buffs? It seems to be performing fine and it's easily the best out of the 3. 

 

WG over buffs the things, then they collect FB and data, then they balance them again, honestly, i won't be surprised if they nerf the STB-1 any day soon or late. And i think they are trying to decide "leave them as they are or nerf a bit?" Right now, that's why it's "test 1" currently. 

As if an IS-4 sits in a hull down position, with the weak points being removed, it'll be able to hold a flank alone and maybe even survive with that insane side armour (160 currently) which is stronger than it's frontal armour!! 

Don't get me wrong, I'm really happy to see these changes, but i don't like to see the MM and battles full of IS-4s who would be impenetrable in hull down positions. 

The real issues though, they are the 430U's nerfs (not enough yet) alongside the bonds limitations currently. 


Edited by splash_time, 11 July 2020 - 12:49 PM.


Kdingo #8 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:49 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33570 battles
  • 9,166
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View Posttajj7, on 11 July 2020 - 12:34 PM, said:

The IS-4 is insane, I think that should get toned down after the first version of the test, they have buffed the frontal armour, the drivers hatch, the turret roof spot, the aim time, the DPM, the gun handling. 

 

Thing is the ST-1 buffs are pretty minor, but did it really need many buffs? It seems to be performing fine and it's easily the best out of the 3. 

 

Kinda agree on the is4 buffs, at least when looking at the armor numbers, looks a bit like overbuff. guess we will see.

The st is fine except that its gun handling was ok in 2013, but with the game pace having increased over the years a buff to its aimtime/gun handling wouldn't hurt.

Not asking for 0.08 bloom stats and 1.1 sec aimtime.



Gwynbleidd11 #9 Posted 11 July 2020 - 12:59 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19368 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

View Postsaxsan4, on 11 July 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:


theres no way it will be better than obj 277 , is7 , obj 279e, s conq, chieftain , obj 260

 

S Conqueror, IS-7 will be worse to than than new IS-4. 277 is a joke, I eat them with any tank, after IS-4 buff it will crush 277 like nothing.



tajj7 #10 Posted 11 July 2020 - 01:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30435 battles
  • 18,381
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Postsplash_time, on 11 July 2020 - 11:45 AM, said:

 

WG over buffs the things, then they collect FB and data, then they balance them again, honestly, i won't be surprised if they nerf the STB-1 any day soon or late. And i think they are trying to decide "leave them as they are or nerf a bit?" Right now, that's why it's "test 1" currently. 

As if an IS-4 sits in a hull down position, with the weak points being removed, it'll be able to hold a flank alone and maybe even survive with that insane side armour (160 currently) which is stronger than it's frontal armour!! 

Don't get me wrong, I'm really happy to see these changes, but i don't like to see the MM and battles full of IS-4s who would be impenetrable in hull down positions. 

The real issues though, they are the 430U's nerfs (not enough yet) alongside the bonds limitations currently. 

 

Yeh 430U nerfs are a joke. To me they look like rather than really nerfing it's effectiveness of they are giving it a token nerf to get people to think its been nerfed so people play it less, because you know how much most people don't read things and just hear 'nerf'.

 

To me the IS-4 either needed the armour or the gun buffs, not both, and probably the gun buffs so we don't have another over armoured tier 10 heavy with removed weakspots, maybe remove one weakspot, not several like they seem to have. 

 

View PostKdingo, on 11 July 2020 - 11:49 AM, said:

 

Kinda agree on the is4 buffs, at least when looking at the armor numbers, looks a bit like overbuff. guess we will see.

The st is fine except that its gun handling was ok in 2013, but with the game pace having increased over the years a buff to its aimtime/gun handling wouldn't hurt.

Not asking for 0.08 bloom stats and 1.1 sec aimtime.

 

For quality of life it would be good, but like I said the tank is pretty effective as it is. I mean it has a lot of armour for a tier 9 heavy, not many of the others have a very strong turret and a strong hull, with such strong side armour.  Like a Conq or Emil has the very good turret but their hulls are paper, stuff like the E75 or VK have strong hull but their turrets have weaker weakspots and are more easily penned by tier 10 HEAT. 



Dava_117 #11 Posted 11 July 2020 - 01:21 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Moderator
  • 24751 battles
  • 7,030
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View Posttajj7, on 11 July 2020 - 12:34 PM, said:

Thing is the ST-1 buffs are pretty minor, but did it really need many buffs? It seems to be performing fine and it's easily the best out of the 3. 

 

At the moment is the best because all the line suffers from terrible gun handling. But lately ST-1 has become frustrating to play. You simply miss too many occasions just because of the terrible bloom and aim time. There is really no reason to keep it as bad. 

I'm not asking for Conqueror gun handling, but at least a 0.2/0.2/0.1 and 2.7s aimtime, so it's actually an improvement over KV-4. Heck, I would gladly give up the DPM buff to have decent gun handling.


Edited by Dava_117, 11 July 2020 - 01:22 PM.


leggasiini #12 Posted 11 July 2020 - 01:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 18782 battles
  • 6,547
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

I think the KV-4 gets -8 only on 122 to make it somewhat more viable alternative, even though it's not even close good enough compared to the buffed 107. KV-4 buffs are really good either way; all the 180 mm spots on the frontal turret are now 220 mm, it gets a BIG DPM buff (almost 300 extra DPM), then on top of that it gets an accuracy buff, big aim time buff AND very big turret bloom buff, so the gun handling goes from mediocre to likely best in the entire tier if you compare it to anything that has even remotely comparable penetration and more than 300 alpha. I don't think it needs gun dep buff on top of this, as the current buffs are already pretty damn good and we already know that megabuffing a super-heavy at once has a good risk of making it broken (see - Maus and Type 5). KV-4 has issues but it's not unplayable even now, after the buffs it seems to be strong enough (the gun is now one of the best HT guns in tier with its combination of DPM, pen, gun handling, shell velocity, accuracy and not having sub 300 alpha). If it really needs it then I guess the gun dep could be buffed too, but especially considering its role I highly doubt it needs it.

 

I always thought IS-4's armor was fine and all it really needed was gun buffs. Buffing the armor while leaving the gun untouched would've been a terrible approach, glad they didn't go that direction. Even with the buffs the gun is still average at best; the gun handling isn't really godlike considering the accuracy, it still has worse DPM than any competing 122/130 other than IS-7, 440 alpha is below-average if anything for its type and DPM is also just average, not to mention it now has the 2nd worst accuracy in the entire tier (only 705A is worse). The gun doesn't need to be that great, though, since the platform always has been pretty good and especially now it's pretty great with its combination of high HP pool, good armor, low profile and somewhat okay mobility for its armor . Some people had issues with the turret roof weakspot - its gone now, and on top of that they also buffed the UFP (and the driver's hatch it seems?). Then they also buffed traverse speed quite a lot, it turns way faster now and makes it easier to wiggle. 

 

ST-I got the least love out of the bunch because, well, it's the best tank out of the 3 (though personally I still don't think it's very good), but the way they handled the buffs was pretty weird in my eyes, too. It already had pretty solid DPM; I think the gun handling should've been buffed instead; drop the aim time to something like 3.0 seconds, and turret bloom down to around 0.12 or so. You could drop the accuracy to same level as IS-4 (0.42), which would give it more room for more gun handling buffs. ST-I with something like 0.42 accuracy, 0.20 / 0.20 / 0.10 bloom and 2.8 sec aim time (rough numbers, not how they should exactly be) would be more in line with the buffed/changed IS-4. Then if needed buff the DPM is slightly as well, and I think with those ST-I would be good enough. It's still an okay tank but the gun handling is unreasonably bad for current standards, and I agree that they should update that.


Edited by leggasiini, 11 July 2020 - 01:28 PM.


no_skill_bob #13 Posted 11 July 2020 - 01:24 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 2,552
  • Member since:
    10-31-2013
thats wg balancing for you, st-1 needs only 2 things - return old cupola and buff the damn gun handling.

Kdingo #14 Posted 11 July 2020 - 01:36 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 33570 battles
  • 9,166
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View Posttajj7, on 11 July 2020 - 01:00 PM, said:

 

To me the IS-4 either needed the armour or the gun buffs, not both, and probably the gun buffs so we don't have another over armoured tier 10 heavy with removed weakspots, maybe remove one weakspot, not several like they seem to have.

 

Looking at the changes at tanks.gg it still has a rather "soft" lfp which i think is way more of a weakspot then certain other tanks have.

We talk like 200-230 effective unangled, 220-250 when angled. I mean its worlds apart from 279 level.

 

Not saying i entirely get all the buffs to it as the biggest issue anyone had with it, one that pretty much rendered the tank useless, was the turret roof armor. This has been fixed, thankfully, why the other changes have been considered necessary is beyond me.



shikaka9 #15 Posted 11 July 2020 - 05:21 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 80232 battles
  • 2,648
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
who doesnt like good jokes?

ABC_Przyrody #16 Posted 11 July 2020 - 06:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 21998 battles
  • 765
  • [1PADX] 1PADX
  • Member since:
    12-19-2010
Guess I will be the first one to dislike the new IS4 so far. I'm not sure if trading accuracy for armor was really worth it. It bounces few more shoots if people don't pen each time its lower plate but I had serious problems hitting other tanks weakspots. Gonna test more but if feels like a letdown.

Dava_117 #17 Posted 11 July 2020 - 06:13 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Moderator
  • 24751 battles
  • 7,030
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostABC_Przyrody, on 11 July 2020 - 06:08 PM, said:

Guess I will be the first one to dislike the new IS4 so far. I'm not sure if trading accuracy for armor was really worth it. It bounces few more shoots if people don't pen each time its lower plate but I had serious problems hitting other tanks weakspots. Gonna test more but if feels like a letdown.

 

To be fair, the small accuracy nerf get heavily compensated by the gun handling buff... I hit so much more shells just because the aim was smaller and shrank faster.



Balc0ra #18 Posted 11 July 2020 - 06:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 78120 battles
  • 23,864
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Guns were partly why I fully hated that line from the KV-3 and up. I doubt I will buy back any one of them with these stats tbh. 

 

 



Desyatnik_Pansy #19 Posted 11 July 2020 - 06:20 PM

    Bartender

  • Moderator
  • 19933 battles
  • 28,022
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostABC_Przyrody, on 11 July 2020 - 06:08 PM, said:

Guess I will be the first one to dislike the new IS4 so far. I'm not sure if trading accuracy for armor was really worth it. It bounces few more shoots if people don't pen each time its lower plate but I had serious problems hitting other tanks weakspots. Gonna test more but if feels like a letdown.

 

If I had to guess, they maybe felt that by buffing the armour and removing the hull overmatch, they really wanted to double-down on this thing being a "up in your face" close-range brawler. Granted I've never played the tank but I think this is a fine approach, except it needs a buffed ammo capacity to compensate it a bit (like 30 -> 38 Or something).



ABC_Przyrody #20 Posted 11 July 2020 - 06:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 21998 battles
  • 765
  • [1PADX] 1PADX
  • Member since:
    12-19-2010

View PostDava_117, on 11 July 2020 - 06:13 PM, said:

 

To be fair, the small accuracy nerf get heavily compensated by the gun handling buff... I hit so much more shells just because the aim was smaller and shrank faster.

 

I didn't feel any gun buffs apart from the aiming time.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users