Jump to content


Developer Idiocy Killed My Favorite Tank. Yours Might Be Next

Maus Nerf 4.6 Balance PAINGOD

  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

Lord Quijote #1 Posted 06 September 2018 - 05:52 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 51 battles
  • 360
  • Member since:
    10-10-2016

The recent 4.6 Update brought with it the largest tank re-balancing we’ve seen on console in years. As usual, some of it was overdue and much of it entirely undue.

 

I don’t have the energy to run down the entire list of changes and point out what was done rightly or wrongly. I merely want to draw attention to one particular tank which was unjustifiably (and insensibly) nerfed, namely the Maus.

 

Now the Maus has been something of a bugbear on PC over the last year. Along with the Type 5 heavy it was overbuffed on PC, leading to a short-lived meta where pretty much every tank was obliged to fire gold at these super heavies or bounce nearly 100% of the time. I assume this gimmick made WG some decent money in the short term, but at length it was decided that they had gone too far, and these tanks were taken down a notch.

 

On PC, the Maus initially received sweeping buffs to RoF, armor profile and hit point pool. The console devs looked at this and found it excessive, ultimately deciding to buff the armor by itself. Thus we got a somewhat better Maus than before, but nowhere near the indestructible behemoth that PC had. This was incidentally done at the same time the Panzer VII was added to console. At that time, the Maus was probably the best tier X German heavy.

 

In 4.6 however, the Maus was significantly nerfed on console. The various rationalizations for this will be discussed in turn. In my view, not only was this nerf unwarranted, but it also fails entirely to resolve the perceived unfairness of the tank, which principally concerns its durability.

 

The patch notes are as follows:

 

Block Quote

 

Maus

Chassis 1

Accuracy movement/rotation: .2/.2 → .22/.22

Turret 1

128mm KwK44 L55 gun

Reload time: 14.9 → 15.4

Accuracy: .36 → .38

Aim time: 2.1 → 2.3

 

 

The Maus essentially received four nerfs, all to the gun: worse dispersion while turning, worse reload speed, worse accuracy and worse aim time. All this combines to make the Maus, which already had the worst DPM out of all tier X heavies, basically a sitting duck.

 

But what makes absolutely no sense to me is the justification provided for these specific changes. Paingod gives the following explanation:

 

Block Quote

 

Why did we nerf the Maus?

  • Top Survivor
  • Top Winner
  • Top Damage Per Shot
  • Top Damage Blocked

Tank

G42_Maus

Class

Heavy

Tier

10

Nation

germany

Premium?

FALSE

Buff or Nerf?

Nerf

General Buff / Nerf Desc.

Accuracy when moving chassis & Turret dropped ~ 9%
Reload Time Increased ~ 3%
Aiming Time Increased ~ 10%

Survival Rate

47.95%

Survival Rank at Tier

1 out of 15 Heavy

Win Rate

52.46%

Win Rank at Tier

1 out of 15 Heavy

Damage per Battle

1,798

Damage Rank at Tier

11 out of 15 Heavy

Damage per Shot Hit

285

Per Shot Rank At Tier

2 out of 15 Heavy

Damage Blocked

2,564

Damage Blocked Rank At Tier

1 out of 15 Heavy

Vehicle XP Per Battle

1,515

Vehicle XP Rank at Tier

5 out of 12 Heavy

Credits Per Battle

32,870

Credits Rank

1 out of 12 Heavy

 

 

There are several problems with this explanation, leaving aside the most glaring issue of using bulk statistics to balance individual tanks. (At this late stage of the game’s lifecycle, it is obvious that WG console is not going to change their misguided approach to balancing.)

 

In the first place, all the purported imbalances of the Maus apart from ‘per shot rank at tier’ and ‘damage per shot’ stem from its armor, not its gun. The gun is one of the worst in the tier, barely outgunning many tier IX heavies and being outgunned by tier VIII destroyers. But what I fail to understand is this: if the problems with the Maus mainly concern its durability, then why are all the changes being made to that part of the tank which plays no part in survival, or at any rate only a minimal part? The Maus is not a tank like the E-100 or the Waffle, whose guns are powerful enough to deter attackers. It has a low alpha, low DPM gun with decent handling and marginal accuracy.

 

My point is, how exactly will altering the characteristics of the gun re-balance the Maus’ durability?

 

Above we see the following categories in which the Maus excels:

 

Survival Rate

Win Rate

Damage Blocked

Credits Rank

 

Now I should first like to ask what exactly the developer is expecting from the most heavily armored, highest hit point tank in the game, if not exceptional durability? Something has to have the highest survival rate, something has to block the most damage; which tank do you suppose ought to be better? And what indeed does the Maus have going for it, besides exceptional durability?

 

Moreover, what effect are you expecting these changes to have on the aforementioned categories? Where will nerfs to the gun be reflected? Surely not in damage blocked; probably not in survival rate; possibly in win rate; maybe in credits rank (but only because it will fire fewer rounds).

 

The Maus survives matches because of its armor profile and its hit point pool. If these are believed to be overly generous, then why were they not nerfed instead? Why not reduce the frontal or side armor of the Maus so that standard rounds fired at a flat angle from comparable tanks can reliably penetrate it? Because anyone who has actually played the Maus in matchmaking knows that most enemy tanks are going to load premium rounds as soon as they see the Maus, which essentially negate its armor. The players left at a real disadvantage are the ones that either can’t or won’t shoot gold.

 

As a Maus player, I would rather have WG roll back the earlier armor buffs, which in reality haven’t made the tank much better, and put the gun back to where it was before. It’s apparent that we’re never going to get the PC version of this tank, but we should at least be able to keep the version that we all had and enjoyed.

 

The win rate of the Maus is a product of its survival rate. In blunt terms: it is much easier for bad players to keep a heavy, slow tank alive than a light, fast one. The Maus can absorb more punishment than other tier X heavies, and its thick armor means that it will deflect a significant amount of damage even without angling. Again, all metrics point to the need for a minor armor nerf, not a major gun nerf.

 

Credits rank is, I understand, a huge point of emphasis for the developer. WG has very specific guidelines for how many credits a tank ought to earn per game, per hour, etc. Exceeding or falling below these parameters reduces either the need for or the use of a premium account. But there are several factors that can account for this.

 

According to the PC battle mechanics, credits are awarded differently if a player earns a ‘Battle Hero Achievement':

 

Block Quote

When your team is defeated but you get one of the Battle Hero, Epic or Platoon achievements, you will receive the same credit bonus as the victorious team. The "Joining a battle" reward is multiplied by 1.85.

 

These achievements include Defender, Invader, and Steel Wall. When I play the Maus, it is not unusual for me to earn a Steel Wall medal in every game, because few tanks are better at absorbing hits than the Maus. What this means is that the Maus is likely earning a disproportionately high number of credits in losing games because of its propensity to receive the Steel Wall medal, thus paying out as though it were winning games. Nerfing the gun will have no effect on this whatever.

 

Additionally, I believe we are only being given half the picture here: we know what the Maus is earning, but not what it is spending. Because of its high hit point total and the need to fire premium rounds at most targets, the repair and refit costs of the Maus are outrageous, especially in losing games where the tank does get knocked out. If you fire gold rounds exclusively and get destroyed, you are looking at anywhere from a 40K to 80K repair bill in the Maus. What this means is that the higher credit earnings are likely being offset in practice by the Maus’ prohibitively high repair costs: in reality, most Maus drivers lose money running the tank. If, however, we look only at one side of the data (i.e. credits earned), it is easy to come to the mistaken conclusion that the Maus is earning too much silver.

 

In conclusion, I wish to draw attention to what I believe is an oversight on the developer’s part with respect to the Maus. This tank was competitive before, but in its present state I don’t see how it will be. It already had the worst DPM of any tier X heavy, so there is no farther for it to fall, and future data will not reflect the nerfs that have been made to it in 4.6. I also think it is very unfair (and senseless) to re-balance a tank by worsening a point of weakness rather than diminishing a point of strength. Why on Earth the developer gathered data which indicated that the Maus was too defensively powerful, and then decided to reduce its offensive capability, is quite beyond comprehension. It is even more unfair in light of the fact that the Maus already had a very slow RoF in a meta where the average match is over in three to five minutes. The Maus is so slow to begin with that it needs one or two minutes just to reach the battle; then, it has about 90 seconds to fire before the match is decided, which equates to around six or seven shots, half of which will either bounce or miss the target. With these nerfs, the Maus might as well not have a gun or a turret at all, and instead become a rolling barricade to soak up damage while its teammates return fire. This is a rather egregious example of silliness on the part of the developer, and the explanations for it are not convincing.

 

We are entering the last phase of this game’s existence. Everyone is aware of that. The player count is probably as high today as it is ever going to be in the future. What we have at this point is a small crowd of longtime players who have gotten the tanks they want and are content to keep running them until the game stops being fun. There are certainly many game-breaking tanks in the meta, and many at tier X: the 183, E4, E5 and OBJ 140 all come to mind. The Maus was not in this category; in the hands of an average player, it was just an average tank. The developers would know this if they ever actually played their game. Instead, they analyze the performance of every tank by looking at spreadsheets devoid of context or basic sense; hence these constant oversights and errors of judgment.

 

At this time, the best that any of us can do is to point out mistakes and missteps in the hope that the developer will notice them and make amends. I understand that the budget and staffing for this game are not what they once were, and with bugs running amok in the code a comparatively minor balance issue like this is probably not a priority. But I wanted to call attention to it anyway, because I feel it must either be an oversight or a colossal piece of stupidity. No one had cause to complain about the Maus prior to the last update. Today, every Maus player has good reason to gripe. 

 

I see that some of the recent balance changes are being re-considered; I hope that the changes made to the Maus can be given another look.

 

Thank you


Edited by Lord Quijote, 05 December 2018 - 07:53 AM.

come and get them

giaka #2 Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:03 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 43523 battles
  • 19,574
  • [WTAF]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

View PostLord Quijote, on 05 September 2018 - 09:52 PM, said:

The recent 4.6 Update brought with it the largest tank re-balancing we’ve seen on console in years. As usual, some of it was overdue and much of it entirely undue.

 

I don’t have the energy to run down the entire list of changes and point out what was done rightly or wrongly. I merely want to draw attention to one particular tank which was unjustifiably (and insensibly) nerfed, namely the Maus.

 

Now the Maus has been something of a bugbear on PC over the last year. Along with the Type 5 heavy it was overbuffed on PC, leading to a short-lived meta where pretty much every tank was obliged to fire gold at these super heavies or bounce nearly 100% of the time. I assume this gimmick made WG some decent money in the short term, but at length it was decided that they had gone too far, and these tanks were taken down a notch.

 

On PC, the Maus initially received sweeping buffs to RoF, armor profile and hit point pool. The console devs looked at this and found it excessive, ultimately deciding to buff the armor by itself . Thus we got a somewhat better Maus than before, but nowhere near the indestructible behemoth that PC had. This was incidentally done at the same time the Panzer VII was added to console. At that time, the Maus was probably the best tier X German heavy.

 

In 4.6 however, the Maus was significantly nerfed on console. The various rationalizations for this will be discussed in turn. In my view, not only was this nerf unwarranted, but it also fails entirely to resolve the perceived unfairness of the tank, which principally concerns its durability.

 

The patch notes are as follows:

 

 

 

The Maus essentially received four nerfs, all to the gun: worse dispersion while turning, worse reload speed, worse accuracy and worse aim time. All this combines to make the Maus, which already had the worst DPM out of all tier X heavies, basically a sitting duck.

 

But what makes absolutely no sense to me is the justification provided for these specific changes. Paingod gives the following explanation:

 

 

 

There are several problems with this explanation, leaving aside the most glaring issue of using bulk statistics to balance individual tanks. (At this late stage of the game’s lifecycle, it is obvious that WG console is not going to change their misguided approach to balancing.)

 

In the first place, all the purported issues with the Maus apart from ‘per shot rank at tier’ and ‘damage per shot’ stem from its armor, not its gun. The gun is one of the worst in the tier, barely outgunning many tier IX heavies and being outgunned by tier VIII destroyers. But what I fail to understand is this: if the changes to the Maus mainly concern its durability, then why are all the changes being made to that part of the tank which plays no part in survival, or at any rate only a minimal part? The Maus is not a tank like the E-100 or the Waffle, whose guns are powerful enough to deter attackers. It has a low alpha, low DPM gun with decent handling and marginal accuracy.

 

My point is, how exactly will altering the characteristics of the gun re-balance the Maus’ durability?

 

Above we see the following categories in which the Maus excels:

 

Survival Rate

Win Rate

Damage Blocked

Credits Rank

 

Now I should first like to ask what exactly the developer is expecting from the most heavily armored, highest hit point tank in the game, if not exceptional durability? Something has to have the highest survival rate, something has to block the most damage; which tank do you suppose ought to be better? And what indeed does the Maus have going for it, besides exceptional durability?

 

Moreover, what effect are you expecting these changes to have on the aforementioned categories? Where will nerfs to the gun be reflected? Surely not in damage blocked; probably not in survival rate; possibly in win rate; maybe in credits rank (but only because it will fire fewer rounds).

 

The Maus survives matches because of its armor profile and its hit point pool. If these are believed to be overly generous, then why were they not nerfed instead? Why not reduce the frontal or side armor of the Maus so that standard rounds fired at a flat angle from comparable tanks can reliably penetrate it? Because anyone who has actually played the Maus in matchmaking knows that most enemy tanks are going to load premium rounds as soon as they see the Maus, which essentially negate its armor. The players left at a real disadvantage are the ones that either can’t or won’t shoot gold.

 

As a Maus player, I would rather have WG roll back the earlier armor buffs, which in reality haven’t made the tank much better, and put the gun back to where it was before. It’s apparent that we’re never going to get the PC version of this tank, but we should at least be able to keep the version that we all had and enjoyed.

 

The win rate of the Maus is a product of its survival rate. In blunt terms: it is much easier for bad players to keep a heavy, slow tank alive than a light, fast one. The Maus can absorb more punishment than other tier X heavies, and its thick armor means that it will deflect a significant amount of damage even without angling. Again, all metrics point to the need for a minor armor nerf, not a major gun nerf.

 

Credits rank is, I understand, a huge point of emphasis for the developer. WG has very specific guidelines for how many credits a tank ought to earn per game, per hour, etc. Exceeding or falling below these parameters reduces either the need for or the use of a premium account. But there are several factors that can account for this.

 

According to the PC battle mechanics, credits are awarded differently if a player earns a ‘Battle Hero Achievement':

 

 

These achievements include Defender, Invader, and Steel Wall. When I play the Maus, it is not unusual for me to earn a Steel Wall medal in every game, because few tanks are better at absorbing hits than the Maus. What this means is that the Maus is likely earning a disproportionately high number of credits in losing games because of its propensity to receive the Steel Wall medal, thus paying out as though it were winning games. Nerfing the gun will have no effect on this whatever.

 

Additionally, I believe we are only being given half the picture here: we know what the Maus is earning, but not what it is spending. Because of its high hit point total and the need to fire premium rounds at most targets, the repair and refit costs of the Maus are outrageous, especially in losing games where the tank does get knocked out. If you fire gold rounds exclusively and get destroyed, you are looking at anywhere from a 40K to 80K repair bill in the Maus. What this means is that the higher credit earnings are likely being offset in practice by the Maus’ prohibitively high repair costs: in reality, most Maus drivers lose money running the tank. If, however, we look only at one side of the data (namely credits earned), it is easy to come to the mistaken conclusion that the Maus is earning too much silver.

 

In conclusion, I wish to draw attention to what I believe is an oversight on the developer’s part with respect to the Maus. This tank was competitive before, but in its present state I don’t see how it will be. It already had the worst DPM of any tier X heavy, so there is no farther for it to fall, and future data will not reflect the nerfs that have been made to it in 4.6. I also think it is very unfair (and senseless) to re-balance a tank by worsening a point of weakness rather than diminishing a point of strength. Why on earth the developer gathered data which indicated that the Maus was too defensively powerful, and then decided to reduce its offensive capability, is quite beyond comprehension. It is even more unfair in light of the fact that the Maus already had a very slow RoF in a meta where the average match is over in three to five minutes. The Maus is so slow to begin with that it needs one or two minutes just to reach the battle; then, it has about 90 seconds to fire before the match is decided, which equates to around six or seven shots, half of which will either bounce or miss the target. With these nerfs, the Maus might as well not have a gun or a turret at all, and instead become a rolling barricade to soak up damage while its teammates return fire. This is a rather egregious example of silliness on the part of the developer, and the explanations for it are not convincing.

 

We are entering the last phase of this game’s existence. Everyone is aware of that. The player count is probably as high today as it is ever going to be in the future. What we have at this point is a small crowd of longtime players who have gotten the tanks they want and are content to keep running them until the game stops being fun. There are certainly many game-breaking tanks in the meta, and many at tier X: the 183, E4, E5 and OBJ 140 all come to mind. The Maus was not in this category; in the hands of an average player, it was just an average tank. The developers would know this if they ever actually played their game. Instead, they analyze the performance of every tank by looking at spreadsheets devoid of context or basic sense; hence these constant oversights and errors of judgment.

 

At this time, the best that any of us can do is to point out mistakes and missteps in the hope that the developer will notice them and make amends. I understand that the budget and staffing for this game are not what they once were, and with bugs running amok in the code a comparatively minor balance issue like this is probably not a priority. But I wanted to call attention to it anyway, because I feel it must either be an oversight or a colossal piece of stupidity. No one had cause to complain of the Maus prior to the last update. Today, every Maus player has good reason to gripe. 

 

I see that some of the recent balance changes are being re-considered; I hope that the changes made to the Maus can be given another look.

 

Thank you

 

Nerf was idiotic at best.

WG Balance 101, If a tank has a high survival rate, nerf its gun.

 

 

 


x2LATE2CAREx #3 Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:04 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16070 battles
  • 840
  • Member since:
    03-26-2017

TLDR;

 

- Maus nerf sucks, why do it?

- Play your own game to test problem tanks

- Game is dying, try harder



Lord Quijote #4 Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:08 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 51 battles
  • 360
  • Member since:
    10-10-2016

View PostGBR WARRIOR, on 06 September 2018 - 06:04 AM, said:

TLDR;

 

- Maus nerf sucks, why do it?

- Play your own game to test problem tanks

- Game is dying, try harder

 

TL;TL:

 

-- Why nerf the Maus?

-- These nerfs don't even address the imbalances WG is reporting 


come and get them

FusionStar287 #5 Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:13 AM

    Major

  • WoTC Ambassador
  • 20395 battles
  • 16,424
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013
The Maus certainly didn't need a Nerf, but at least they nerfed its gun instead of its armor. The Maus still does exceptionally well as a supporting wall, which has always been its main purpose, and even after its recent Nerf the Maus is still much better than it was before the original buffs.

"My dear brothers, take note of this: Men should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires." ~ James 1: 19-20

 

"wefWEGFRF" - RaiBOT01, 2017


CptBadger #6 Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:18 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15040 battles
  • 1,683
  • [BEARD]
  • Member since:
    07-11-2015

View PostFusionStar287, on 06 September 2018 - 06:13 AM, said:

The Maus certainly didn't need a Nerf, but at least they nerfed its gun instead of its armor. The Maus still does exceptionally well as a supporting wall, which has always been its main purpose, and even after its recent Nerf the Maus is still much better than it was before the original buffs.

 

This, it's party trick is it's survivability, if you nerf that what selling point does it have left?

Lord Quijote #7 Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:20 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 51 battles
  • 360
  • Member since:
    10-10-2016

View PostFusionStar287, on 06 September 2018 - 06:13 AM, said:

The Maus certainly didn't need a Nerf, but at least they nerfed its gun instead of its armor. The Maus still does exceptionally well as a supporting wall, which has always been its main purpose, and even after its recent Nerf the Maus is still much better than it was before the original buffs.

 

I disagree. If the Maus has been more effective as a wall then before, it's because other tanks have had their penetration/alpha values nerfed. Compromising the gun just makes the Maus a rolling target with no capacity to return fire. 

 

The armor was adequate before, if not outstanding. The minor buffs it received have just made gold spam more prevalent than ever. 

 

It's no better than it was, survival wise. If anything, players are more reluctant to shoot at it than before, but you can't really call that a buff. 


Edited by Lord Quijote, 06 September 2018 - 06:24 AM.

come and get them

Haukkis #8 Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:29 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 33950 battles
  • 2,881
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015
Long text, hopefully devolopers have time to read it because pretty much everything OP said is true. Maus didn't need nerf, hell no. It's slow as hell, doesn't turn and it's a huge target for td's and arty... dpm buff is needed IMO, like they did on pc. Something like 4.50 or 4.70 rounds per minute would be fine.

R35T NO MORE #9 Posted 06 September 2018 - 06:37 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 15887 battles
  • 22,924
  • [BNKR-]
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013
Good post, completely agree with you. 

My WoT tank reviews

If you enjoy them please do share/sub. Thanks. 


NightOfDeaths #10 Posted 06 September 2018 - 07:01 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 32334 battles
  • 16,249
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    07-16-2014

View PostLord Quijote, on 06 September 2018 - 12:20 AM, said:

 

I disagree. If the Maus has been more effective as a wall then before, it's because other tanks have had their penetration/alpha values nerfed. Compromising the gun just makes the Maus a rolling target with no capacity to return fire. 

 

The armor was adequate before, if not outstanding. The minor buffs it received have just made gold spam more prevalent than ever. 

 

It's no better than it was, survival wise. If anything, players are more reluctant to shoot at it than before, but you can't really call that a buff. 

It's very fun when tier ten TDs can just load the gold and shoot your UFP like it's swiss cheese anyways, well, I do that a lot. Lol.

 

The tank isn't too useful if it can't put out much damage, I am considering to sell mine, if, and only if competition doesn't need this hunk of junk, I was hoping this tank would get a buff but I was wrong.  A tier ten Heavy like the Maus or 113 should NOT get tier 6 heavy tank DPM, it is absolutely absurd.

 

 

 

 


 Screw my elders!!!!

World of Tanks a game where it's 1 versus 29. 15 reds trying to kill you and 14 greens trying to support them. The yellows are your only hope. For signature and stats visit http://wotinfo.net/en/player-stats

2 & 3 MoEs

 


Sledge1Swede #11 Posted 06 September 2018 - 07:27 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 51702 battles
  • 1,500
  • [CH4OS]
  • Member since:
    02-20-2017

Thank you for putting the extra time in to write this post i agree 100% with your conclusions sadley the devs dont play the game in real time live server so until they do we will see this downhill getting even more steep downhill to a void with no return.

 

Spreedschets and statistics is a very delicate aproach and sadley to easy to tamper with just look at the financial or political arena there is always a way to back your decisions with stats if it is in black and white.

 

The resent claims that they will follow up is just a fancy way to save there reputation some what but with damage control you are just saying we did not think this through and we used the wrong measurmeants with the history of WG behavier it is just a dream this is not a future.



FinlandRed #12 Posted 06 September 2018 - 08:01 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21514 battles
  • 1,956
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
I agree completely with this. This isn't the only tank they've gone after in an *** backwards way.


Jope2209 #13 Posted 06 September 2018 - 09:28 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 32654 battles
  • 6,677
  • Member since:
    01-28-2017
LOL, this must be oone of the longest posts I've seen on forums recently. It's a bit TL, but I can see some salt about ''balancing'' Update. A lot of popular tanks got nerfed, I'm still gutted with E50 nerfs, they ruined the tank.

 

The 13. (Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the performance of the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56, when their Tigers engaged the T-34: "First round hits were usually achieved at ranges between 800 to 1,000 meters. At these ranges, the Panzer Granate (they are referring to the PzGr. 39 APCBC ammunition) absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor, and usually still destroyed the engine at the rear of the T-34 tank. In 80 percent of the cases, shots from the same range hitting the side of the hull toward the rear of the tank resulted in the fuel tanks exploding. Even at ranges of 1,500 meters and longer, during favorable weather, it is possible to succeed in penetrating the T-34 with minimal expenditure of ammunition" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).

3 MoE tanks: T-34, Pz IVH, Tiger I, Pz.Kpfw. T 25, M7, T-50

 

New updated poll - please take a minute and cast your votes for the least preferred map in rotation (2019)


Tempest fox3 #14 Posted 06 September 2018 - 09:48 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 20687 battles
  • 17,868
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
Love how in terms of average damage it was 11/15 and that apparently means it's damage output needs to be nerfed.

War is a Democracy and the enemy always gets a vote.

3 MoE's: E-25, M41 Walker Bulldog, E-50, Snakebite, E-75, T32, Tiger 131 - In order obtained

 

Spoiler

AndroidHunter45 #15 Posted 06 September 2018 - 09:52 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18551 battles
  • 145
  • [RETRO]
  • Member since:
    01-26-2017
nice indepth reasoning, but it's not as bad as you make out really.

John Arrowsmith #16 Posted 06 September 2018 - 09:54 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 76924 battles
  • 15,554
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

"Top dmg blocked"   

 

On a Heavy tank,  that's just unacceptable,  let's nerf the crap out of it.  

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by John Arrowsmith, 06 September 2018 - 09:55 AM.

World of tanks Auto lock edition,  because aiming shouldn't be a skill.

 

 

 


JAG THE GEMINI #17 Posted 06 September 2018 - 09:55 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 64853 battles
  • 2,420
  • [UNIC-]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

they should stop shooting prem. rounds at the MAUS... knewbs!

Oh and regarding the topic, i agree!


Edited by JAG THE GEMINI, 06 September 2018 - 09:58 AM.

 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


AKalashnikovT #18 Posted 06 September 2018 - 09:59 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15501 battles
  • 447
  • [ASH]
  • Member since:
    02-20-2017
This really sucks for me because I just used this last op run for the German tanks to run this line out. Got to play it for about two weeks and then it got hit with a nerf bat. Sad, I was really getting into it, now, I can't last 5 min in a match without getting smoked.

KanderisBAE #19 Posted 06 September 2018 - 10:03 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28967 battles
  • 584
  • Member since:
    04-02-2017
average player took me long time to grind to e50 and i was just starting to feel confident in it and learn by my mistakes and then bang :facepalm: they nerfed it and i sold it:angry:kind of puts me off grinding top tier anymore because of the risk of them changing the tank you wanted to get ,it takes such along time to do just for them to butcher it later on

FuzzySquirrel21 #20 Posted 06 September 2018 - 11:52 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10518 battles
  • 1,644
  • Member since:
    10-08-2016
Excellent post.   Here’s the answer though, the devs don’t play their game so they have no clue what they are doing.   I mean they are using a “data sheet” and if tanks sits number 1, it’s in with a nerf.   I mean, they nerfed the Type-5 cause it hits hard for a “medium tank”.   That says it all about WG.





Also tagged with Maus, Nerf, 4.6, Balance, PAINGOD

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users