Sign in to follow this  
Spinee

WG is going through with the Obj. 263 changes

31 posts in this topic

So it seems that WG has changed their mind again and decided to completely ignore player outrage on the changes to the 263 line. Their pathetic attempt at justifying the change is below:

Quote

"Hello everyone,

As we continue fine-tuning vehicle balance, we also want to improve how we communicate upcoming changes to you. The USSR Tank Destroyers have been through several Supertests lately, and we couldn’t but notice the heated discussion they caused. We’ve been paying close attention to your concerns, and feel that we owe you a detailed explanation on suggested changes and reasoning behind them.

Reasons

We approached the revision with two objectives in mind:

  1. Boosting gameplay variety with new rear-turret heavy tanks we’ve been working on on supertest server. They offer an interesting take on HT gameplay, which is not currently available through other top tier vehicles. Not to mention their design and the fact they’re all modelled off tanks that’ve seen their share of action.
  2. Fixing the lines of Soviet rear-turret/superstructure vehicles on both the medium tank and tank destroyer lines to deliver a more logical progression to top tiers. These vehicles were totally mixed up in between the tech tree lines: rear-turret/superstructure vehicles were mixed with other vehicles with a more conventional layout and vice versa. As a result, the gameplay was varying a lot from tier to tier, which caused a lot of frustration and seriously undermined the lines’ popularity. They played oddly, so it’s not surprising only few people wanted to research the line and/or play in them.

Concept

We slightly improved the characteristics of the USSR Tank Destroyer lines in previous updates, but it didn’t work. So we decided to revise the branch again. Simply improving combat parameters didn’t cut it and we went on to rework the line entirely. Here’s the concept we had in mind for the revised line:

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

To sum up, these vehicles are meant to drive the breakthrough of the flanks. Outstanding mobility lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and hold them until allies catch up. They specialize in middle- and close-range combat. They can pop out from the cover, deflect enemy shells, and send a few solid punches in return before quickly retreating back to safety.

First Iteration

The first iteration we offered you to supertest was built off this concept. In it, we:

  • Moved the Object 263 down a tier enabling it to make a sensible contribution with its damage per shot and armor. At the same time, this re-shuffle stopped us from increasing to make it fit for a Tier X.
  • Added a new Tier X TD: the Object 268 Variant 4. It inherits the speed, armor and good gun from its predecessors, but unlike them, it can mount a gun above 130mm and doesn’t suffer from an open hatch

 

With these changes, we felt we almost reached our goals, but were left with the SU-122-54 that just didn’t fit into the concept because of its traditional turret placement. It was clearly out of the line in terms of gameplay, but was valuable from a historical point of view. As an interim solution, we decided to test it as a Tier VIII to see if it can be viable there. Unfortunately, it was just as unimpressive at Tier VIII. It was no good at blocking damage even at tier VIII and still felt like a huge step away in terms of gameplay.

The Object 263 and Object 268 Variant 4 showed excellent results in the tests. The vehicles perfectly blocked the damage and performed as assault TDs–fast, armored with an average damage per shot and not very big DPM for TDs.

Second Iteration

You spoke out against moving the Object 263 to Tier IX, but the testing result told us the opposite. The Object 268 Variant 4 proved superior to Object 263 and therefore better suited for the role. So we took them both for another round of testing to verify the initial results.

For the 2nd test we:

  • Removed the SU-122-54 completely and made a line fully composed of rear-turret/superstructure vehicles
  • Returned the SU-100M1 and SU-101 to their places, improved their armor and gun parameters
  • Reduced the Object 268 Variant 4 alpha strike from 750 to 650 to maintain the uniformity of the gameplay in the line. There’s no abrupt change in alpha damage and reload time now, when you move up from Tier VIII to Tier X.

Here’s the final setup: SU-100M1 >>> SU-101 >>> Object 263 >>> Object 268 Variant 4

The 2nd test solidified our belief that these vehicles demonstrate a very interesting type of gameplay.

  • They’re fast, with 47+ km/h from Tier VII to tier VIII and 55 km/h at Tier X
  • They excel in blocking damage, although they have weak spots in their lower plates
  • They aren’t OP. Their average damage per shot is lower than that of classic TDs, but still higher than that of heavies or mediums, which prevents them from having a huge DPM. This was intended as we did not want to create fast, armored vehicles able to deal the same amount of damage as regular TDs.

Next Steps

We believe that the final setup will provide a fresh take on TD gameplay, and invite you to take the revised line for a stroll during the upcoming Common Test. Give them a shot, try to keep a somewhat open mind, and let us know what you think! We will monitor these and other revised Soviet tanks to see how the tuning adjustments are working out in real live server condition, and if further iteration might be needed.

Last but not least, we strongly recommend you to follow our official channels for communication on all re-balancing work being done in order to get the latest and most accurate information on changes to come. We will on our end double our efforts to keep you updated on the reasoning behind the changes we make to the tanks you play and love.”

It's a real shame that they're gutting one of the most unique Tier 10 TDs in the game, and in my opinion, one of the best aggressive tanks in the game in favour of statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the 268v4 is getting a changed to be lower alpha but higher rof, I could deal with that. As long as it’s not just an idiotic clone of the normal 268

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how one of the balancing factors they use "they aren't OP" which is basically admiting they created some OP tanks and use broken mechanics as part of their design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of the reason i went up that line was for su-122-54  a e s t h e t i c s and now they're removing it.

 IOCfnHR.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hiipanda said:

Half of the reason i went up that line was for su-122-54  a e s t h e t i c s and now they're removing it.

 IOCfnHR.gif

Yup. The one sexy tank in the line and it gets the boot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spinee said:

Their average damage per shot is lower than that of classic TDs, but still higher than that of heavies or mediums, which prevents them from having a huge DPM.

Badger says hi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those stupid, inbred, downie motherfuckers... this makes zero sense. I even took the time to compile a list of all the reasons why on the WG forums. Incoming lazy copypasta:

1- The 263 was already unique, interesting, and fun. Changing it does not solve anyone's problems.

2- The 268v4 is generic and boring. We're already up to our necks in armored assault guns with 750 alpha at tier 10. 

3- Heavy armor is obnoxious. It forces code 22. If code 22 works, the armor is useless. If code 22 doesn't work, the armor is game-breaking.

4- Problems with the line could instead be solved much more easily and effectively with simple buffs to the tiers 7-9. What is gun depression?

5- Even supposing the swap hypothetically could have been an improvement, moving things around causes a lot of headaches.

6- Consistency in a tank line (aesthetic or otherwise) is a counterproductive goal to pursue. Spend your energy elsewhere, WG. If they were so worried that the potatoes just couldn't handle the idea of one tank being different from the next, for heaven's sake actually teach them how to read stats and learn how the tank is supposed to be played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure because the 263 does not have efficient armour...... and it's not like it would be able to play in the front line. Do you see JPEs playing aggressively? No because they dont have a turret to react to multiple targets. They still would be extremely goofy in brawling situations. 

Maybe giving it more gun traverse like on the British? No? Too hard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ferdi works reasonably well in brawling situations because it has decent gun traverse. Brawling in a td with very narrow traverse always sucks, no matter how good the armor or firepower is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own it and honestly I have no desire to play a lot of casement TD's, but the hubris of WG balance division is the worst part. 

"None of us play the game but trust us - we know what we're doing.  We invented the WFE-100 and the Chrysler GF after all"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thread I posted in was probably a duplicate one, so pasting my post here:
 

Quote

 

Wow, 2 years after I stopped playing I just randomly clicked on a thread saying how WG still fucks the game up. I seriously wonder how this game is still alive with that management.

That TD line always sucked, with the only decent tank being the 263 (and the 122-54 as well to some extent), and they finally managed to change both that didn't need changes at all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2017 at 7:49 AM, Archaic_One said:

I don't own it and honestly I have no desire to play a lot of casement TD's, but the hubris of WG balance division is the worst part. 

"None of us play the game but trust us - we know what we're doing.  We invented the WFE-100 and the Chrysler GF after all"

Top nit-pick a bit, the Chrysler, as strange as it may sound, is at least partly historical. As mentioned in Hunnicutt's book - this was a design spurred by the appearance of the IS-3, and perhaps not surprisingly, shares some features, e.g. the hemispherical turret, with its Soviet counterpart. What is most certainly unhistorical about WG's take on the tank is the grotesquely overbuffed armour (which irrc is almost twice as thick as was proposed historically). If WG had bothered to stick to its performance as originally proposed, then we might have had a Tier 8 430-II which went 45 instead 34, that would be pennable without spamming Tier 10 gold, and that would actually be fun for both sides involved. Instead we have this semi-historical bloated chimera of a tank which is as broken as it is overpowered. Not to mention about as fun as fighting a Maus with an IS-7 turret, with the E5's mobility and gun.

I really hope WG tries something other than a line of retarded hulldown gold proof TDs with max viewrange. Otherwise, I imagine that this line is going to be just as popular as the Chinese line, i.e. not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hall0 said:

The thing is. Having this flat MG ports on the ufp on the visual model but not modeling them in the collision model is one of the worst moves WG did in the last years. 

That was actually perfectly fine in context of them removing similar weakspots from other tanks. If they hadn't done that, this tank would be a wierd outlier both game-mechanically and in terms of effectivity. I personally feel that, many of the problems we have today, are a result of guns becoming too accurate.

Think back to the time, when they made guns more likely to hit center-reticle and german tanks in particular had all these holes in their amor. Lower plate, MG-port, driver's hatch (if applicable), turret-cheeks, commander's cupola or hatch. They were kind of in a bad place before they changed the sigma-dispersion, but range and everyone's limited ability of snapshotting allowed them to work at least somewhat, especially since they themselves had guns that allowed them to work more reliable at range. Suddenly it wasn't an issue to hit these spots at any range and while snap-shooting and everything armored just completely fell apart, leaving only wedges and sloping as an effective means of armor which, let's face it, only allowed one branch of tanks to actually tank (not exactly helped by the proliferation of premium ammo and just generally hitting stuff at any range with the high penetration rounds). There's the curious case of the VK 4502 B, which examplifies that development more than anything else in the game, imo. It literally could not do what they wanted it to do, unless they removed all the weakspots and overbuffed the armor.

So, tanks like the Chrysler K and, imo, even the 252U are a logical result of the current mechanics of the game, just as much as the current superheavy-craze. Overbuffed and weakspot-free armor is the only way to make armor relevant with the current mechanics of the game. You literally can not have a superheavy with reliably-to-hit weakspots. You can either have weakspots or great accuracy on all tanks, if you have both, it instantly obsoletes an entire part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madner Kami said:

That was actually perfectly fine in context of them removing similar weakspots from other tanks. If they hadn't done that, this tank would be a wierd outlier both game-mechanically and in terms of effectivity. I personally feel that, many of the problems we have today, are a result of guns becoming too accurate.

 

But why does the Mauerbrecher again has this weakspot? An outlier from the outlier? WG is missing a common thread. Sometimes they do it this way, the next time the other. And this makes WGs policy so weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hall0 said:

But why does the Mauerbrecher again has this weakspot? An outlier from the outlier? WG is missing a common thread. Sometimes they do it this way, the next time the other. And this makes WGs policy so weird. 

It's a premium so it's better not to overbuff it. It shows they know the VKP is overperforming and are considering a nerf. They can't nerf prems plus they don't sell their OP ones on a regular basis so they won't be able to sell the Maurer in OP form like they can't sell the Defender normally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, hall0 said:

But why does the Mauerbrecher again has this weakspot? An outlier from the outlier? WG is missing a common thread. Sometimes they do it this way, the next time the other. And this makes WGs policy so weird. 

Simple and mind-blowing in context (because we often complain about them not doing exactly that): They listen to their customers. Have a look at how premium tanks developed recently. Generally premiums were weaker than same-tier counter-parts or at least quirky and harder-to-do-good-in. It's debateable why (I'd argue that all you need to have a look at, is the release of some reward and premium vehicles like the IS5, IS3A, T95/Chieftain and 121B and the backlash they got hit with), but suddenly they all get better and this culminated in the 252 and Chrysler K. Tanks that are not only easily competative with same tier tech-tree tanks, but in some cases outright better than their tech-tree counter-parts. People got crazy and up in arms about the pay-to-win aspects of this and WarGaming does indeed scale back the effectiveness of the new premiums.

Along that development, there's a second thread slowly being sown into the fabric of balance. They want to give every line and nation a premium tank that corresponds with the gamestyle and crew-layout of the line, but they can't make it as good or better as the same-tier tech-tree counter-part or people will crucify them. Along comes the curious case of the VK 168. A tank that is literally exactly the same as the tech-tree counterpart (seriously, open up Tanks.gg and compare VK 100 and VK 168, they are almost identical in everything). They can't make the gun less effective, as the gun's handling is already fairly atrocious, the penetration is (another thread being here, but that is another theme) already in line with the general gist of the tier, lowering the DPM would make the tank a laughing stock. They lower it's mobility and people go crazy about it, because it results in a tank that is absolute ass-garbage and would be the least mobile vehicle in the entire history of the game (including a pre-buff T95 with a damage engine) and they already figured out that people draw a line at 20km sub 10hp/t, so they can't do that either. So what's left to fiddle with? Armor. The vehicle has already weaker overall armor than the VK 100 and they can't risk lowering the overall armor even further, lest they end up with a vehicle that is completely useless when it comes to premium ammo and tier-progression, so what do they end up with, while the 252-riots and complaints about lack of weakspots are a prominent theme? Yes, let's bring weakspots back.

Now granted, the timeline doesn't exactly fit, as for example the stupidly low mobilty and armor weakspots were both present in the vehicle for a long time during it's development-phase, but the general gist of the entire affair is very obvious imo. It's less a question of what happened first, but more a result of several threads developing in parallel and interacting with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

So, tanks like the Chrysler K and, imo, even the 252U are a logical result of the current mechanics of the game, just as much as the current superheavy-craze. Overbuffed and weakspot-free armor is the only way to make armor relevant with the current mechanics of the game. You literally can not have a superheavy with reliably-to-hit weakspots. You can either have weakspots or great accuracy on all tanks, if you have both, it instantly obsoletes an entire part of the game.

The funny thing is that you're absolutely right, but that just goes to show how retarded these fundamental game mechanics have been all along.

However, to accept that we need either cancerous sigma or cancerous armor presumes a complete unwillingness (or inability) on WG's part to think outside the box. For one, they could have emphasized 'durability' through hit points rather than armor. That would have been the simplest win-win, the heavy tank gets to shrug off numerous hits while his opponent gets more opportunity to farm. Another option would have been to make certain frontal weakspots extremely thin but come with a damage penalty, just like the other game did with MBT cupolas. Or they could rework code 22 and let it be just as cheap as regular ammo but have less alpha. Or they might even try a completely new mechanic that grants high pen/damage/crit rolls whenever you're hitting proper flanking shots, so that front-to-front engagements are simply less rewarding by comparison (and code 22 is less of a crutch).

That WG has somehow found a way to avoid considering even a single one of these options (or a hundred other viable alternatives) is nothing short of an unholy miracle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By far the easiets solution, and something people have remarked for dunno, 5 years by now? is simply reduce the alpha dmg of gold ammo...

  • flanking is rewarded (since you can then use AP)
  • using weakspots is rewarded (more dmg, with AP)

Combine this with hatches / mini turrets taking less dmg as hits in the turret / hull, and its fine (sat 25% reduction), even the old, ``weakspot riddled tanks``, would be ok

Hitting a KV5 miniturret with a 400 dmg HEAT shell would then only deal 400 -25% - 20% = 240 dmg, making a KV5 capable of wrecking an M103 moron.

Its so simple, yet somehow WG always fails with these things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GehakteMolen said:

Its so simple, yet somehow WG always fails with these things

When the game stalled like two years ago WG tried the mostly risk free soutiuons to pique interest and maintain the games eco: emblems (backfired), additional modes (backfired), Personal Missions (worked rather well) and then buffing tanks / releasing strong prems (was generally liked too).

But now, after stalling for like two years, the game entered a slow decline despite all that fluff. WGs answer: same maps only much nicer and personalized tenks. Well... that will surely stop the tide, if only for a few months.

But it has been like that with most games, the really drastic changes are usually made too late and then only accelerate the decline because all the people that stayed for so long really did so because they liked the game as is and all the ones that would have liked said changes already left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoWS has a concept called Damage Saturation" where once a module/component/area has taken a set amount of damage further damage is halved until a second threshold is reached and then further damage is reduced to zero.

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Damage_Saturation

So the mechanics and coding exist, all that remains is to decide how to implement it.

Share this post


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

When the game stalled like two years ago WG tried the mostly risk free soutiuons to pique interest and maintain the games eco: emblems (backfired), additional modes (backfired), Personal Missions (worked rather well) and then buffing tanks / releasing strong prems (was generally liked too).

But now, after stalling for like two years, the game entered a slow decline despite all that fluff. WGs answer: same maps only much nicer and personalized tenks. Well... that will surely stop the tide, if only for a few months.

But it has been like that with most games, the really drastic changes are usually made too late and then only accelerate the decline because all the people that stayed for so long really did so because they liked the game as is and all the ones that would have liked said changes already left.

And yet with this 'version 1.0' they have a golden opportunity to make drastic changes and build a lot of hype all at once. Never again will they have the chance to turn everything inside out and upside down and then say "Ok guys, beta test is over. This is the real version". They could do all the things that normally they'd be afraid to do- change MM, RNG, code 22, arta, you name it, but only just this once. So if they do waste their time with this 263 line nonsense rather than doing something more productive (which would be literally anything else), that would speak volumes. We'll just have to see how it turns out, because the next few patches are going to either make or break this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.