Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'buffs'.
Found 2 results
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/17/wg-fest/ Maybe I've been living under a rock, but this article calls out a lot of new changes that I had not previously seen. Here are some examples: T28, T28 Proto and T95 will get mobility buffs VK 45.02 B will lead to a regular tree version of the Fail Lowe (Pz. Kpfw. VII) Max of 3 clickers per team Light tanks will extend to tier 10 Tank types will be balanced across teams O-I Exp/O-I nerfs, O-Ho buff and Type 4/5 derp gun additions The E75 is getting a gun handling buff? VKB is getting a side and turret armor buff?!
I predict some people will post a rage reply to the thread title without reading about how noob I am to try to analyze the balance numerically. Yes, I am aware WG couldn't give a shit, but I'm trying to distract myself from a mild case of I think hay fever right now, so I would like to see what you guys think of this analysis form a perspective that is NOT purple enough to say "there are few OP or UP tanks, usually only OP or UP players". I believe that you can balance tanks without making them all the same. If you are still reading, the statistics below are from Noobmeter's "recent" stats. Please note that for a few vehicles you might find necessary to comment, I may stay quiet if they've been changed a lot recently. I subscribe to the ideology that only one's ability to WIN really matters, RELATIVE to the weighted mean player win rate. Tanks are listed as name (common abbreviations used, if you can't recognize them you are not qualified to comment on their problems or lack thereof), recent battles, recent win rate / player recent win rate / difference (all numbers in %) Heavies: (7201K excluded as it was a prize) Maus, 167k, 52.3 / 54.1 / -1.8 E100, 948k, 52.8 / 54.1 / -1.3 215, 150k, 52.9 / 55.2 / -2.3 IS4, 343k, 51.6 / 54.4 / -2.8 57, 1080k, 53.4 / 55.4 / -2.0 E5, 681k, 52.3 / 54.9 / -2.6 50B*, 326k, 51.7 / 55.6 / -3.9 IS7, 1175k, 50.8 / 53.8 / -3.0 113, 73k, 50.9 / 55.2 / -4.3 * Denotes changes in 9.2 So the unweighted mean, with the 113 outlier (very small sample too) eliminated, is -2.46% from the player win rate. Variance of the non-113 tanks is 0.565%, which seems pretty reasonable to me, because it is close to a range of 0.5% on either side of the mean (i.e. from -1.96% to - 2.96%), which, well, varying playstyles and map shifts CAN very well account for 1% difference, right? Of course, it does mean some buffs and nerfs are due... Mediums: (M60 excluded) STB, 140k, 56.5 / 58.2 / -1.7 Bat, 1390k, 54.8 / 55.5 / -0.7 140, 636k, 55.2 / 56.7 / -1.5 50M, 439k, 53.9 / 55.5 / -1.6 M48, 192k, 53.3 / 56.2 / -2.9 62A, 799k, 53.5 / 55.6 / -2.1 430, 50k, 54.5 / 57.7 / -3.2 Leo*, 245k, 53.5 / 56.5 / -3.0 121, 156k, 52.0 / 55.7 / -3.7 4202*, 90k, 51.6 / 55.8 / -4.2 * = 9.2 changes Unweighted mean comes to -2.46%, again, but variance is 1.11%... which is retardedly huge and indicates a serious need to rebalance things, since really, a variance around 0.5% would indicate balancing that is already vaguely acceptable. Ideally though the RANGE should be +/- 0.5% or thereabouts in terms of difference from player recent win rates. It's not too surprising that mediums have higher skill ceilings than heavies and thus attract, in many cases, higher recent win rates AND recent player win rates, due to flexibility, but the much larger variance indicates problems. TDs E3, 211k, 53.4 / 54.4 / -1.0 263*, 119k, 54.3 / 56.3 / -2.0 183, 711k, 53.4 / 55.1 / -1.7 WTF*, 1184k, 53.1 / 55.1 / -2.0 155, 345k, 51.4 / 55.4 / -3.0 E4, 568k, 51.6 / 54.6 / -3.0 JPE, 689k, 51.1 / 53.5 / -2.4 268, 553k, 50.8 / 55.1 / -4.3 * = 9.2 changes Unweighted mean comes to -2.425%, variance 0.788%... the imbalances should be obvious enough, running by the =/- 0.5 rule would give a range similar that that of MTs and HTs, which means balancing well with those other classes of vehicles at (rounding to make the numbers closer between classes) -1.93% to - 2.93% SPGs CGC, 138k, 54.6 / 55.9 / -1.3 Barty, 285k, 50.4 / 54.4 / -4.0 261, 505k, 50.9 / 55.4 / -4.5 GWE, 269k, 49.7 / 54.4 / -4.7 T92, 213k, 49.5 / 54.5 / -5.0 For once, I do not believe that the deviance from player win rate should be about -2 to -3. No, for arty, I believe win rates should average out to about 50% recent if they are balanced (in other words, with good/lucky arty players evenly divided... net effect on game result is zero, though MM might put the more skilled ones--there IS an arty-only super-unicum we've heard of, that takes SKILL--on your side and the windowlicking snapshotters on the other side or vice versa at times, total arty win rate is still stagnant) So let's talk about balance, these discussions proceed in the same order as the above listings: HEAVIES Maus: We observe from the above that people yelling about Maus buffs probably need to accept the fact that they're playing a tank which is intended to eat shots and that their annoyance about XP/credits will go away whenever WG finally implements rewards for blocking damage. Oh, and they're not underpowered by the numbers, it just feels frustrating to play and the inability to flex puts a low skill ceiling on it. Granted, it likely only scored outside the +/- 0.5% range I spoke of due to the people still playing the brick being very familiar with it and its workings (low win rate for it and its players compared to the other 10s supports this idea). E-100: It will be very lucky to not be nerfed, though the too-high deviance, at -1.3 instead of about -2.5, is most likely the result of everyone shooting HEAT from the 15cm. Well, at least it's expensive to run... and the gun is derpy. I suspect the accuracy nerf they talked about in 9.3 may be bad for the 15cm as it is already Soviet-esque from what I hear. 215: Well balanced, by no means bad, according to the numbers. There's not much to nerf or buff here, particularly since the +0.2 from average deviance (-2.3 is 0.2 more than -2.5%) isn't unexpected, given it attracts on average more skilled players than say the Maus or E-100. The lack of popularity also helps the deviance be smaller than it might be if it was more popular, as those who play it are more likely to be skilled with it. IS-4: Still reasonably balanced, but it could use a little touchup, maybe 0.2 seconds better aim time and/or 0.2 RPM more? 57: Could use a significant nerf (popularity is not a reason for the smaller than expected drop from player win rate). Since its selling point is the tight spike with reasonable gun handling (though the wiki says 2.7 aim time? I thought it was 2.3 or 2.4?), I suggest a 5 second nerf to reload time. And yes, before you complain, I own one, though I haven't played it in pubs enough times to matter, I've played it in CW. It's been long enough that the recent win rate already accounted for the Great HEAT Nerf back in the days of the Artypocalypse (8.6), so we can't expect the win rate to drop more from that. THEREFORE, I think 5 second nerf to reload time and maybe 1 kph off the reverse speed, from 12 to 11 kph, should do the trick. E5: Popularity indicates that it's not a matter of being pro at the tank that could elevate win rates. Therefore, the win rate is exactly where it is supposed to be and would remain about there even if 10000 more players bought it and played 50 games each, unlike the 215. 50B: 9.2 Aim time buff from 3 seconds to 2.5, given the 2.72 second inter-clip, DOES free up an equipment slot from GLD (standard autoloaders are vents + BIA, GLD, Vstab, maybe food), and this buff has yet to be accounted for in the recent stats, but at more than 1% below the acceptable range of deviances from recent player win rates, I believe the buff will NOT be enough. Give it a slightly better armoured turret (from 100mm to 120mm at least) from another AMX 50 prototype OR, ALTERNATIVELY, make the track resistance better so that it can reach top speed on flat ground (even if it needs at least 100m of hard, straight ground to go the last bit, from 55 to 65 kph). It can't be buffed in inter-clip as that encroaches on the T57's tight spike role, but mobility is the 50B's selling point, so... yeah. IS-7: The HEAT nerf from the Artypocalypse helped this tank a LOT from the days when it was considered an underdog. That being said, its absurd popularity and the on average lower quality of the players doesn't help its deviance, coming in at -3.0%. I suggest a buff to track resistance so that it CAN hit top speed on flat ground (note: a large amount of flat, hard ground in a straight line is needed) or at least get to 45 kph on flat, semi-soft ground. 113: First we see that the game count is VERY small. This means the deviance should be less negative than it would be if it was popular, and it's not like it has on average the not so great players like the IS-7 has either so the deviance can't be engorged by that. This translates the -4.3% deviance to one conclusion only: The 113 is absolutely SHIT for most players, even though some people can make it work. Either bring the WZ-111-5 into the game as a less flexible (read: less mobile), but otherwise frontally better IS-7 with maybe a bit less ROF or something, or, as I'd prefer, buff the 113, a LOT, and make it a more troll-turreted and slower, but less UFP-armoured, E-50M (due to being so low everyone shoots down on it). Since we can't touch historical hard stats like module positions armour (or I'd put 5mm more on that UFP), I suggest Track Traverse from 36 to 40, aim time from 2.7 to 2.4, ROF from 5.5 to 6.0, max reverse speed from 15 to 18. That should help alleviate the many problems of the tank somewhat... I don't care if YOU make it work as is, it's not working for most people, so it needs help. If we balanced this game by unicums alone... it would not be commercially successful. MEDIUMS: STB: This seems balanced to me even though it's at -1.7% instead of -2 to -3. Why? Look at that recent player win rate. 58.2%... those players know how to adapt to tanks quickly and squeeze good results from them. The game count is also not exactly huge, so that means the deviance will be less negative than it should be. Bat: Despite the retardedly huge game count, I observe that the average player win rate isn't low, indicating few idiots can tolerate this vehicle. This is good. However, the win rate gap, or lack thereof, between vehicle and players indicates a problem. Since historically it only had a high-powered 90mm, we could, in theory, remove the 105mm and leave the 100mm as its top gun (give 2.2 second inter-clip, 6 shells, and better dispersion values, still a good burst in a short time even though pen would be sub-par for tier 10) and give the players Free XP refunds. However, due to sheer popularity, I suspect this tank won't be touched, even though it's got major problems in terms of relative win rates... the RU server likely has no problems of this type due to a more brawling meta, hence rejoice, Bat players, for there is no nerf coming even though it kind of deserves one! 140: Needs a small nerf to be balanced, preferably in DPM (to 8.5 ROF isntead of 9.09), and camo should only match T62A instead of exceed it, but of course ROSSIYA STRONK. 50M: Nerf ground resistance maybe? The numbers DO say it's a bit too far on the strong side... ROF from 6.25 to 6 would help that M48: It's got a rounded shape... and has less camo than a BRICK (50M has more camo). Really? It needs more DPM to compensate for lack of armour too... Well, we coudl always put in the M60A1, not like it'd be an M60 clone per se, since the 140 and 62A CLEARLY are not clones -_- and the 60A1 isn't exactly too modern, though it had better armour than the M48: 62A: Match ROF nerf of 140, down to 8.5 instead of 9.09, and it should be balanced well enough. It's a bit on the strong side of being balanced, especially considering the large game count which should depress the win rate. But of course the RU server finds it grossly UP due tot he number of bads playing it there. 430: Given low game count and above average player quality, the larger than expected win rate deviance (-3.2) says that it needs a buff. Keep the 8.7 ROF, buff the gun handling to T62A levels so that the difference between it and the other two mediums is that it has a bit more hull armour, less turret armour, and marginally better DPM. Leo: Thank goodness WG decided to buff this thing in 9.2. It was a bit UP. Hopefully the small DPM buff helps it enough. If not... After July 1966, the end of the first batch, the Leopard 1A1 began production. It had skirts, which would be nice as few have the time to change ammo in battle and eating a couple no-damage HEAT shots could mean a LOT. As for why not the A2 with a heavier and tougher turret? It was made in 1974, a bit too late. 121: From the -3.7% deviance, it needs buffing, a lot. The lethal lack of gun depression, which makes shooting under skirts hard in brawls, cannot be fixed due to historical reasons, so I suggest boosting the ROF from 6.25 to about 7 (it is unable to use it in sustained fashion due to lack of depression, so it's not as huge a problem as one might think to give it retardedly high DPM, king of tier and class in fact) and buffing the aim time from 2.7 to about 2.5. Dispersion values... can't really be helped due to -3 gundep. Yes, you might think it's dumb to have it be best in alpha AND DPM, but it is unable to abuse its turret armour from range due to inability to hull down worth anything, can't brawl that well due to lack of gun depression (a wrecked streetcar getting under a track would make it miss completely) and the gun handling... leaves a LOT to be desired. This massive buff will likely improve the Chinese tree's popularity greatly, and since 121 was never FOTM... more moneyz for WG from converting XP. 4202: From the sheer deviance value of -4.2%, I am very glad they are replacing this and hoping the Action X Centurion can mount a 20-pounder of some sort so that gold-slingers can sling gold. Alternatively, if they finally fix HESH mechanics... that would be nice too. The Action X had better have decent turret armour, at least. I'm not going to suggest any fixes. Tank Destroyers E3: This thing by numbers clearly needs a nerf after the Great HEAT Nerf during the Artypocalypse made its armour much more effective. I recommend making the hull, LFP included, the same thickness as the E5's, or, if historicity forbids it, nerfing the cupola, as well as reducing the ROF slightly. Also, please note that casemates SHOULD have terrible track traverse/movement bloom compared to turreted vehicles as the gun is literally fixed to the hull and shaken all over the place whenever the hull turns. I own one, but I haven't driven or crewed it yet, too many other lines to grind, so don't yell at me about not being invested in it. 263: No idea why they'd buff this thing, it did NOT need it. Hopefully, as more pubbies encounter this, they'll learn to sprem the mantlet or call for arty and then pray to RNGesus. However, before the ROF buff, it was likely well balanced, as the dedicated player group were well practiced in it even then. Thankfully, the more obviously OP TDs of the past had been nerfed already, hence people stopped calling this bad. However, this one should be a "wait and see" deal for balancing. 183: The HESH pen nerf will probably not be quite enough to make this thing completely in line with the average, maybe a nerf to turret cheek armour, if history allows it? Or a ground resistance nerf? WTF: Sheer popularity is expected to make deviance larger, -2.0 isn't big enough. I hope the clip nerf puts it more in line with the others... it should be enough. On the other hand, gaining E-100 level camo for one less round in the clip would be a good trade too. 155: This thing was over-nerfed according tot he -3.0% deviance, it needs a bit better gun handling. In fact, the entire French TD line tier 7-10 could use better gun handling, by at least 0.2 seconds aim time per gun, and 10% more DPM (they are all worst in tier/class in DPM). Shrink this tank's inter-clip from 5 seconds to 4, buffing aim time to 2.6 seconds instead of 3, and changing reverse speed to 16 kph instead of 13 would probably be enough to un-break this once-mighty TD and make it once more a reasonable experience to drive for the average player, while the sides are still auto-pen at any angle to heavy tank guns and the topside weakspots are as large as ever, unlike the E3's shortage of such weakspots. E4: The -3.0% deviance says this thing is somewhat UP on average. I'd think we should reduce the track and turret movement bloom values slightly (by say 10%) and reinforce the mantlet to withstand up to 280 pen AP/APCR. JPE: This tank is Just about perfectly balanced, believe it or not. 268: -4.3% means it was GROSSLY over-nerfed by the Great Camo Nerf, and with newer spotting mechanics on the horizon life will be even WORSE for this thing. I strongly recommend hard buffing, one more degree of gun traverse per side would be excellent, in addition to improving aim time from 2.7 to 2.6, improving ground resistance for slightly better acceleration, and maybe improving ROF to a round 4 RPM, bringing it back up to its old 3000 DPM (the 263 has more than 3000 after 9.2 buffs). ARTY Other than urgent nerfs needed for the Conqueror GC (I vote for WORSE dispersion values on traversing the gun, aim time of 9 seconds instead of 8.5, and a slightly lower gun arc i.e. increase the gravity affecting the round somewhat), and maybe a mild improvement to the other single-shot arty ROF (by 1 second of reload time for each) I can't really think of anything that doesn't make arty even more of an annoying slot machine. Personally I have no problem being one-shotted across the map, it's when I suspect the guy only hit me due to RNG and not skill (think of getting snapshotted by a no-scoping no-aiming JPE at 400m while running perpendicular to him in a light tank) that I get pissed off, but I'm sure you disagree with that idea. CONCLUSION I hope this analysis was satisfactory from a perspective that is not as "Every tank can work stahp whining noobtard" as a unicum or super-unicum's. Please discuss anything you found unreasonable or suggest alternative solutions. I am aware that some conclusions I came to sounded a bit ridiculous (Bat is the most OP medium numerically... what?) but the numbers aren't lying if winning is the most important metric of a tank's power. EDIT: When I proposed changes, I did my best to not encroach on the roles of the tanks (example: 50M is an armoured medium which can outrun others in a long distance race, so I proposed a slight DPM drop for it). Good luck to you all on the virtual battlefield. Oh, and before I forget, please give upvotes if you feel this post makes some modicum of sense to you. Post-Script: (Some Tier 9 complaints) They probably need to nerf the LFP of the VK 4502 B. Really, from what I hear it's worse than the T95 these days in terms of number/area of frontal weakspots. I prefer flanking T95s if driving a medium or light, but at least I like having the option to pen him frontally somehow, without spamming gold. Oh, and E-50 and T-54 are still rather strong, and there are other issues too.