leggasiini

IS-4 to be swapped with ST-I? IS-4 returns to tier 9?

71 posts in this topic

Huh so Red Alert's soviet double gun tanks weren't so crazy after all :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wg: is4 is weak in its current state, what should we do?

wg: 

880 alpha, 16 sec reload, 2,4 aimtime, 3,2 bloom, 450 turret armor, 45km topspeed

ez katka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vindi said:

wg: is4 is weak in its current state, what should we do?

wg: 

880 alpha, 16 sec reload, 2,4 aimtime, 3,2 bloom, 450 turret armor, 45km topspeed

ez katka

 

Yes, but before it dies, if you press the "F" key fast enough, can it transform into a Russian Gundam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Matross said:

 

Yes, but before it dies, if you press the "F" key fast enough, can it transform into a Russian Gundam?

Optimus cyka?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matross said:

 

Yes, but before it dies, if you press the "F" key fast enough, can it transform into a Russian Gundam?

Don't forget the legendary Stalinium radar jammer and cloaking device that lets you disappear from their sights whenever you are within 50m of enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017. 03. 17. at 5:00 PM, lavawing said:

Don't forget the legendary Stalinium radar jammer and cloaking device that lets you disappear from their sights whenever you are within 50m of enemies.

+1 iron curtain for 40 secs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2017 at 11:53 AM, GehakteMolen said:

They will never do that, all Wg should for for 1 apil, is buff IS7 to its original stats for 1 day, to show all the new kids whath OP-7 and Russian Bias (with capitals) really means, the IS3 is fair and balanced vs the original russian wonder weapon aka IS7.

Serb himself even said adding the IS7 was a mistake, since it should be tier 12 and not 10 (when they added, it was more like an tier 12, so gg)

i mean, look the bs turret turning speed, or how ``fast`` it turns compared to the current IS-7:

(and thats without any crew skills like bia / off-road driving, and prob also without equipment...)

same the 150mm side armor (compared to 100mm it has atm...) was total ridiculous

ps: or IS4 with 140mm ass-armor

It wouldn't actually be that OP if you also roll the game engine rules to that period. Dual plane angled armor bug and 10 degrees normalization resulted in the beta IS-7 Having an ufp that is only 200mm effective. The side armor had always been 100mm behind tracks, 150mm above tracks. It was just listed differently back then. Rear armor used to be just 30mm. Really, the early beta IS-7 is more like a T62A with bigger alpha and better side armor, but much worse dpm and gun handling.

Back when is-4 had the 140mm ass armor in early beta, it also had a 100mm ufp at 55 degrees, which resulted in ~180mm effective when properly angled with 10 degrees normalization. At that time, pointing your ass at the opponent while properly angled had a minimum effective armor of ~200mm.. which is just really stupid.

-----------------------------

The "OP" tier 9 IS-4 old players remember is not actually that OP; but more to do with peers being subpar at the time. When properly angled, it has ~220mm effective armor at the weakest spot except for the 0mm driver's hatch, sufficient to shake off most low tiers. The rear armor also helped significantly with getting circled. It stood little chance against an elite t9 med at the time, and can be taken down by two is-3s or KTs easily if caught in a 2v1 fight.

IS-7 already had mobility neutered by that time; and retained the dual slope armor bug that resulted in flat out worse armor than IS-4. 15% extra dpm and 250 extra hp did not justify the hull being frequently penned by tier 7s and 3 degrees less gun depression. Eating a T30 shell to the turret cheeks frequently resulted in ammo rack detonations was also a significant problem IS-7 had at the time.

Maus suffered from mud flap bug (which is 100mm with 0 slope) allows every tank it faces to pen it with ease from the front regardless of angling. Even if you hull down, 220mm turret cheeks that get auto penned by tier X guns made it a weak contender.

T30 had a 170mm effective ufp when properly angled and suffers badly from being yolo'd by low tiers due to the long reload and lack of hull armor.

VKB was actually better in a corridor; but with maps being mostly open fields back then.. VKB simply couldn't handle being attacked from two directions, something IS-4 could.

T9 meds (with t10 matchmaking) and T34 suffered from being useless for 120k+ xp due to the abyssmal stock grinds involved. People remembered them by the abyssmal stock grinds, and not by how they shit on the IS-4 when elite.

If we are to have the old T9 is4 in today's game rules, it woudln't be all that OP. It would be a ST-I with 1 degree more depresson and better gun handling.. a slightly stronger LFP and a much weaker UFP. The current tier 10 IS-4 had the front armor buffed with better sloping multiple times to make the armor actually function as it does today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hally said:

snipity snip

Holy shit, someone that seems to know what they're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hally said:

It wouldn't actually be that OP if you also roll the game engine rules to that period. Dual plane angled armor bug and 10 degrees normalization resulted in the beta IS-7 Having an ufp that is only 200mm effective. The side armor had always been 100mm behind tracks, 150mm above tracks. It was just listed differently back then. Rear armor used to be just 30mm. Really, the early beta IS-7 is more like a T62A with bigger alpha and better side armor, but much worse dpm and gun handling.

Back when is-4 had the 140mm ass armor in early beta, it also had a 100mm ufp at 55 degrees, which resulted in ~180mm effective when properly angled with 10 degrees normalization. At that time, pointing your ass at the opponent while properly angled had a minimum effective armor of ~200mm.. which is just really stupid.

-----------------------------

The "OP" tier 9 IS-4 old players remember is not actually that OP; but more to do with peers being subpar at the time. When properly angled, it has ~220mm effective armor at the weakest spot except for the 0mm driver's hatch, sufficient to shake off most low tiers. The rear armor also helped significantly with getting circled. It stood little chance against an elite t9 med at the time, and can be taken down by two is-3s or KTs easily if caught in a 2v1 fight.

IS-7 already had mobility neutered by that time; and retained the dual slope armor bug that resulted in flat out worse armor than IS-4. 15% extra dpm and 250 extra hp did not justify the hull being frequently penned by tier 7s and 3 degrees less gun depression. Eating a T30 shell to the turret cheeks frequently resulted in ammo rack detonations was also a significant problem IS-7 had at the time.

Maus suffered from mud flap bug (which is 100mm with 0 slope) allows every tank it faces to pen it with ease from the front regardless of angling. Even if you hull down, 220mm turret cheeks that get auto penned by tier X guns made it a weak contender.

T30 had a 170mm effective ufp when properly angled and suffers badly from being yolo'd by low tiers due to the long reload and lack of hull armor.

VKB was actually better in a corridor; but with maps being mostly open fields back then.. VKB simply couldn't handle being attacked from two directions, something IS-4 could.

T9 meds (with t10 matchmaking) and T34 suffered from being useless for 120k+ xp due to the abyssmal stock grinds involved. People remembered them by the abyssmal stock grinds, and not by how they shit on the IS-4 when elite.

If we are to have the old T9 is4 in today's game rules, it woudln't be all that OP. It would be a ST-I with 1 degree more depresson and better gun handling.. a slightly stronger LFP and a much weaker UFP. The current tier 10 IS-4 had the front armor buffed with better sloping multiple times to make the armor actually function as it does today.

Well, old IS4, with current mechanics ofc, else you also need to remove all gold ammo :P

And the armor didnt get a buff (at first), WG nerfed the armor, tier 9 IS4 of patch 7.3 had better armor as tier 10 IS4 of 7.4, stronk

For the rest, agree, Maus mud flaps was trully stupid, the stock grinds where atrocious (20k exp with Panther II with 75mm L70 anyone? 135 pen, no gold on tier9, YOLO! just to get a fucking turret so you could mount your 88L71, still enoy grinding +100k exp for a good gun and a proper engine)

ps: the IS7 was only trully OP during the alpha phase of the game, they cut the armor / mobility in half before the game went closed beta afaik, it then became mostly good for stomping tier 6/7/8 tanks and was OP compared to T30 and Maus (the maus was a sad joke, no idea where some people got the idea that it was ever any good), infact, IS4, VK-B maus and T30 where all roughly equal, Obj 704 and T54 where both ofc better (they are russian) and IS7 was the best

or how an old dev called: T-54 dev edition

http://overlord-wot.blogspot.nl/2013/04/wot-are-you-oldfag-of-wot.html

ps ps: T34, with big gun, was actually glorious, it was fast, had gun depression, a solid punch and good dpm / everything else, only its armor was garbage, combined with the #1 most awefull stock grind of all time and it was no suprise WG replaced it

ps ps ps: Obj 704 had same gun arc as a tortoise has nowadays, and on top of that ``working as intended camo``

ps ps ps ps: and thats ignoring the bullshit camo russian tanks got around that time T-34-85 had better camo as M5 stuart and Su-100 had double the camo of a luchs (60% when stationary, that means even a tank with 500m viewrange wont spot the SU-100 untill he gets as close as 200m (and thats in the open....) i once posted a link on wotlabs, but cant find it back)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.3.2017 at 2:50 PM, Matross said:

 

Yes, but before it dies, if you press the "F" key fast enough, can it transform into a Russian Gundam?

New Russian HT-line confirmed.

ger_soldiers_march.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hally said:

It wouldn't actually be that OP if you also roll the game engine rules to that period. Dual plane angled armor bug and 10 degrees normalization resulted in the beta IS-7 Having an ufp that is only 200mm effective. The side armor had always been 100mm behind tracks, 150mm above tracks. It was just listed differently back then. Rear armor used to be just 30mm. Really, the early beta IS-7 is more like a T62A with bigger alpha and better side armor, but much worse dpm and gun handling.

Back when is-4 had the 140mm ass armor in early beta, it also had a 100mm ufp at 55 degrees, which resulted in ~180mm effective when properly angled with 10 degrees normalization. At that time, pointing your ass at the opponent while properly angled had a minimum effective armor of ~200mm.. which is just really stupid.

-----------------------------

The "OP" tier 9 IS-4 old players remember is not actually that OP; but more to do with peers being subpar at the time.

Well, if all the others are subpar and this one is the only good one. And let´s just assume the others were some kind of balanced. Doesn't this make the IS4 OP? Isn't that the definition what OP means. Being better than others? 

When properly angled, it has ~220mm effective armor at the weakest spot except for the 0mm driver's hatch, sufficient to shake off most low tiers. The rear armor also helped significantly with getting circled. It stood little chance against an elite t9 med at the time, and can be taken down by two is-3s or KTs easily if caught in a 2v1 fight.

Why I drove an IS-4 was not for the frontal or the rear armor. It was its magic side armor. Angling a bit and I could ignore most of T8 meds, beside Panther2. Something i could not do with all the other heavies. Magic Stalinium combined with shell eating tracks worked perfectly. And you had an reliable turret. Overmatch was a thing, but almost noone knew this and against german turrets this was so much better. The S-70 was also the better gun. 12mm more penetration was noticeable for me.

And you should always lose a 2vs1 situation as they will normally out dpm you. But thx to trollish armor you had a better chance than in all the other T9 heavies. Same vs T9 meds. If I had to choose in what kind of heavy I want to fight those the answer is clear. 

VKB was actually better in a corridor; but with maps being mostly open fields back then.. VKB simply couldn't handle being attacked from two directions, something IS-4 could.

For me the VKB was worse in every possible way. Beside side scraping. Armor sucked, getting set on fire by enemies shooting your lfp sucked. Getting shot in your MG port sucked. Or this one time were WG fucked something up and even a Loltracktor could pen the viewports or what ever this is on the ufp. Getting shot in your commanders hatch sucked. Corridor always means getting close to the enemy. And getting close means people can get shot your weakspots. And here the VK had more.

...

If we are to have the old T9 is4 in today's game rules, it woudln't be all that OP. It would be a ST-I with 1 degree more depresson and better gun handling.. a slightly stronger LFP and a much weaker UFP. The current tier 10 IS-4 had the front armor buffed with better sloping multiple times to make the armor actually function as it does today.

Yes it probably would not. Cause it got overtaken by the powercreep. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not taking one thing into account - the existence of armor viewers.  Without them only minimal amount of players knew armor schemes of tanks like IS-4 so people were shooting at bad spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MacusFlash said:

You are not taking one thing into account - the existence of armor viewers.  Without them only minimal amount of players knew armor schemes of tanks like IS-4 so people were shooting at bad spots.

like how people STILL shoot (HEAT) at the side boards of IS7`s and complain about ``total overpowered armor``, forgetting that the entire part behind the tracks is 100mm flat, aka, as weak as a King tiger...

GSFpZJu.jpg

 

and all tanks had way less effectice armor back then 10 deg normalisation quite a difference, give current tier 10 IS4 St-1 mobility, IS7 gun, nerf its armor to what it was before HD model, and you have a tier 9 heavy which would rival E75 and ST-1 for best tier 9 heavy (infact it would be the best, since the gun depression / extra side armor / extra alpha dmg make it better as ST-1, and ST-1 is alrdy ``the best`` more or less...)

+ it was also tiny, at some point WG rescaled some russian tanks T54 became like 30% taller, while IS7 became 20% smaller, IS4 also became a bit bigger (its still small, but not as small as it once was), look at how small my IS4 is compared to the tiger in the thumbnail)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MacusFlash said:

You are not taking one thing into account - the existence of armor viewers.  Without them only minimal amount of players knew armor schemes of tanks like IS-4 so people were shooting at bad spots.

Indeed. Sides like http://wotguru.com/weak-spots-guide-is-4/ were king :minidoge:

23 minutes ago, GehakteMolen said:

like how people STILL shoot (HEAT) at the side boards of IS7`s and complain about ``total overpowered armor``, forgetting that the entire part behind the tracks is 100mm flat, aka, as weak as a King tiger...

GSFpZJu.jpg

Not to forgett WGs magic 30mm Spacedarmor they got from god knows were :serb:

https://youtu.be/Hoecf7ovrRM?t=4m15s

FQnTrp1.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hall0

T9 meds and T34 (when elite) were not plagued by bugs. They also happened to perform significantly better than IS-4 in the hands of skilled players due to their dpm and flexibility. Old Obj704 also had no trouble beating IS-4 to a pulp. Both of the front line tier 10 heavies at the time suffering from serious armor bugs gave the IS-4 the title of having the best armor.

The meta back then was vision control, with mostly open field maps. IS-4 having user friendly armor did not translate well to win rate on the high end due to lack of mobility compared to the t9 meds. The t9 meds (and T34) will win a 2v1 engagement against two tier 8 heavies most of the time; something the IS-4 struggled with.

You probalby remembered the VKB wrong. The LFP could not be penetrated by any tier 8 at the time, except for ISU. The UFP was actually ~20mm effective weaker, and can be penned by 246 pen guns. UFP penetrations did not come with transmission fires. Getting penned by a loltractor through the machine gun port was a bug that was patched out during beta. The machine gun port weakspot had been removed altogether from the armor model during the best times of IS-4. VKB's commander's hatch was stronger than IS-4's ufp. Main issue VKB had in a corridor was transmission fires from getting derped by KVs (which was everywhere). VKB sucked in open field maps; but was hands down better than IS-4 in a corridor at the time.

 

-----------------

@GehakteMolen

IS-7 could still actually reach top speed at start of closed beta if I remember right, but turned like a beached whale.

I considered t9 pershing or T34 to be the best.. they both performed far better than IS-4/7 for me; but that could just be a personal playstyle thing.

To this day, I wish I can have my old T34 back. The closest analogy I can think of today is giving Fatton a much better, tumor-less turret; better camo value; 1 degree more depression; improved acceleration; You lose 150 hp and and 10 km/h forward top speed.. as a tier 9. It also had a premium tank level credit multiplier as a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T9 meds could perform good especially T-54 but highly doubt T34 reached IS4 performance levels. T34 is just a one trick pony. Good in Hulldown that's basically it. Sure you could have good games in it, but saying T34 was the better tank is blasphemy. I've never seen, or at least I can't remember fights were a T34 won a 2vs1 vs T8 tanks. How should he. If he isn't hull down he is toast. Every shot fired at him will pen him. IS4 has much more flexibility in such a fight.
And if a BL-10 tank can't deal with IS-4 basically nothing could. I think the BL-10 is one of the few things which hasn't changed a bit during all the years. 

This is a screen from early 2012, couldn't find older stuff. Anyway. I can't recall having problems penning this VKs was a problem, even in T8s. But I couldn't find any older data. It could be. However, with in April 2012 it was quite easy to deal with VK Bs. Regarding UFP fires, I wouldn't say they were impossible since right behind the ufp are the fueltanks. But that's just theory crafting. :P

vk-4502-b-front-armor-scheme.png

The thing is. Even WG saw there is something wrong with the balance on T9. The forums were full with wine threads about the IS4. For T34s or VKs? Not so much. Sure you can't take pubbies serious all the time, but you could see a pattern here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 9 T34 was literally bogged down by the stock grind. It was stupidly strong after elite, mainly due to the dpm/penetration/gun handling combo. It actually had the same dpm and gun handling as t9 pershing, but significantly higher pen and 0.02 higher base accuracy. Drawback is slightly lower camo value and a top forward speed of 35kph. Players who attempted to play it as a front line heavy (which is most of the player base) failed miserably. Players that played it similar to t9 pershing performed insanely well. It can easily perma track and run circles around lone heavies for example, because it stayed at full speed even when turning.

WG balances based on average win rates. Tanks with abyssmal stock grinds get artificially deflated win rates. This created abominations like the T9 T34 that was basically a tier 8 tank with 300 extra hp when stock; and after 128k xp of torture (plus another 48k for engine), you get a tier 10 tank with slightly lower hp. The t9 meds all had this issue at the time, just not as extreme as the T34's case.

A good chunk of IS-4 complaints came form low tier tanks having no effective way of dealing with it, while VBK and T34 could be handled by low tiers. With the old mm, vast majority of tanks you faced were KVs and tier 6/7 fodders. Another good chunk of IS-4 complaints came from how it performed better than Maus/IS-7 despite being a tier 9. People didn't complain about elite T34 and T9 meds wrecking Maus/IS-7 because those are much rarer vehicles at the time. Personally, I felt I deserved an OP wagon after suffering that stock grind.

T34 was replaced because it was impossible to balance in wg's eyes. It was already too powerful when elite; but the average win rate was still too low. The replacement, m103 had a much easier stock grind. It was also a significantly worse vehicle when elite; having nerfed dpm, mobility, turret armor, gun depression, gun handling, camo, reverse speed. In exchange, it got an UFP that could bounce low tiers and higher (overkill) penetration. Thanks to not having that stock grind; m103 had a "normal" win rate; and wg was happy.

-----------------------

The VKB armor profile definitely did not match the one I played back in summer 2011. It was ~250 LFP and ~230 UFP at 20 degrees angle at the time. Angling more than 20 degrees resulted in the side being penned by just about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hally said:

Tier 9 T34 was literally bogged down by the stock grind. It was stupidly strong after elite, mainly due to the dpm/penetration/gun handling combo. It actually had the same dpm and gun handling as t9 pershing, but significantly higher pen and 0.02 higher base accuracy. Drawback is slightly lower camo value and a top forward speed of 35kph. Players who attempted to play it as a front line heavy (which is most of the player base) failed miserably. Players that played it similar to t9 pershing performed insanely well. It can easily perma track and run circles around lone heavies for example, because it stayed at full speed even when turning.

WG balances based on average win rates. Tanks with abyssmal stock grinds get artificially deflated win rates. This created abominations like the T9 T34 that was basically a tier 8 tank with 300 extra hp when stock; and after 128k xp of torture (plus another 48k for engine), you get a tier 10 tank with slightly lower hp. The t9 meds all had this issue at the time, just not as extreme as the T34's case.

A good chunk of IS-4 complaints came form low tier tanks having no effective way of dealing with it, while VBK and T34 could be handled by low tiers. With the old mm, vast majority of tanks you faced were KVs and tier 6/7 fodders. Another good chunk of IS-4 complaints came from how it performed better than Maus/IS-7 despite being a tier 9. People didn't complain about elite T34 and T9 meds wrecking Maus/IS-7 because those are much rarer vehicles at the time. Personally, I felt I deserved an OP wagon after suffering that stock grind.

T34 was replaced because it was impossible to balance in wg's eyes. It was already too powerful when elite; but the average win rate was still too low. The replacement, m103 had a much easier stock grind. It was also a significantly worse vehicle when elite; having nerfed dpm, mobility, turret armor, gun depression, gun handling, camo, reverse speed. In exchange, it got an UFP that could bounce low tiers and higher (overkill) penetration. Thanks to not having that stock grind; m103 had a "normal" win rate; and wg was happy.

-----------------------

The VKB armor profile definitely did not match the one I played back in summer 2011. It was ~250 LFP and ~230 UFP at 20 degrees angle at the time. Angling more than 20 degrees resulted in the side being penned by just about anything.

Neah, now you overestimate tier 9 mediums, IS4 was the godking, sure T54 was equal good, but T54 was also OP as hell, and an obj 704 beiing able to ``finish the IS4 easy`` is  again no suprise, ince that tank was also OP.

There is a reason T34, Pershing and Panther II got downtiered and IS4 uptiered, and thats not only due to stock grind :P 

In beta, it was World of Russian tanks, tanks lik the KV, KV3 and IS4 where just vastly better, if your team gets 2x KV3 was top tier and other team has none, you would win 90% sure, unless the other side got 5 KV`s and you 5x a T1 heavy.

ps: SU-85 with 107mm was also nice, or SU-100 vs Jp-IV, before the later got like 3 big buffs (yes, Jp-IV got atleast 3 times a serious buff, while SU-100 is still the exact same)

best example is ISU, WG never changed ANYTHING to it, and the ISU is still the best tier 8 TD, same SU-85b is still rly good, and guess what, nothing got changed, infact, the whole russian TD line was like a tier higher as the german one, SU-85b was as good as a stug, SU-85 = Jp-IV, SU-100 almost a Jagdpanther,and the ISU was better as the jagdtiger, heck, a Ferdinand was as good as a Jagdtiger....

(for those wondering, you see the huge ass gun mantle, it had 0mm armor, because hurr durr gun mantles have no armor, giving the JT a massive weakspot you cant hide)

And we all ignore the blatant russian bullshit in regards to camo, fire chance and module damage, when those numbers got leaked the whole forum almost crashed under whine, german tanks had like double the firechance AND double the burnrate, 2x longer track repairs and half the camo, and im not joking, T54 had better camo as tier 3 german light tanks and so on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just giving the IS-4 the handling and DPM of the 113 and leaving its armor and mobility alone would still make it a much more playable tank.  Right now its slow with buggy armor and a crappy gun, not exactly a recipe for success.  Nobody is crying about the 113 having OP fire power, but its an order of magnitude better than the IS-4 with essentially the same gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.