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 #41 Posted 07 September 2018 - 11:53 PM

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostTocFanKe4, on 07 September 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

 

If a T54 takes 6 shots with its DPM ,misses a couple  because of snap shots, but pens the rest, it has 213 damage per shot with 1280 damage.  But if a Maus takes 3 shots from point blank in that same time, bounces or misses one, it gets 326 damage per shot and 980 damage.  Which tank did more for the team? 

 

Both tanks missed or bounced a third of their shots.  But somehow using this flawed statistic the Maus gets nerfed because it's doing way more damage per shot.  

 

The fact they're relying on damage per shot to balance their game make me realize they're not doing a good job.  They need to stop looking at damage per shot completely.  There's too many things that go into it such as combat distance , pen of the gun , reload and tank accuracy. 

 

An incredibly OP tank with a really fast firing gun can have low damage per shot ,but be extremely overpowered.  A tank with a slow firing gun and great accuracy/pen will look OP in this stat, even though it doesn't do much damage overall.  

 

WG , please quit using damage per shot to balance tanks.  It makes you do really dumb things.

 

I agree that damage per stat is a bunk metric, especially for balancing. I have no idea why it's being used. Even hit percentage would be better, and the Maus does have a high hit percentage because it has enough armor to let you stand still and line up shots. 


come and get them

CivilWarGoat #42 Posted 08 September 2018 - 12:34 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24270 battles
  • 1,033
  • [RED1]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013
Been traveling for last week is there a place where they posted the reasons behind the nerfs for all the tanks.  I was aware of the reasons why for the t54.  

CowboyArizona #43 Posted 08 September 2018 - 12:34 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23077 battles
  • 1,351
  • Member since:
    07-08-2015
This whole thread goes back to what I've been saying for years.  WG has a weak analysis/metrics department. If they have any at all.

Sledge1Swede #44 Posted 08 September 2018 - 01:52 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52278 battles
  • 1,501
  • [CH4OS]
  • Member since:
    02-20-2017

View PostCowboyArizona, on 08 September 2018 - 12:34 AM, said:

This whole thread goes back to what I've been saying for years.  WG has a weak analysis/metrics department. If they have any at all.

 

I dont think the team is to blame i think it is the data they have to use from the desicion makers.

 

The biggest problem with any balance is to use any endusers as a tool in this case the tanks should be balanced against tank data not player data.

 

To use player data will emiditially skew things up couse by the Unicom VS noob factor, sealclubbing in lower tiers by said skilled players and Personal rating skill level etc etc.

 

I seen some crazy numbers of battle count in one favorit tank and ofcourse to use that data is a problem.

 

I dont have any high hopes that this is even in the mindset of a unicom player of it might just be the other way around.

 

I do know there is ways to alter the stats so that is no secret but do i care about that no.

 

However i do play the Muse and that is not any fun ride after 4.6 .

 

 



Lord Quijote #45 Posted 11 September 2018 - 06:08 AM

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostCowboyArizona, on 08 September 2018 - 12:34 AM, said:

This whole thread goes back to what I've been saying for years.  WG has a weak analysis/metrics department. If they have any at all.

 

I really doubt it, seems like those people would be working on the money side of things. 


come and get them

Warthog II #46 Posted 11 September 2018 - 08:18 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 43470 battles
  • 1,629
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    05-11-2014

View PostLord Quijote, on 11 September 2018 - 06:08 AM, said:

 

I really doubt it, seems like those people would be working on the money side of things. 

 

The Maus nerfs make zero sense from a gaming balance perspective, they don't make much sense from a "get players to pay up to over 1k gold to convert the crew" because of the game balance perspective (it would be penny wise pound foolish).

  

Some people claim Ensk should be tier restricted.   I don't believe their lies. 

Imagine if this forum had only players who actually win more than lose trying to tell others how to play. Would be the best forum ever. Instead, we have a bunch of bad advice from players who lose more often than not trying to tell their betters how to play their tanks.

 


scwirpeo #47 Posted 11 September 2018 - 09:03 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 40608 battles
  • 11,137
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostWarthog II, on 11 September 2018 - 01:18 AM, said:

 

The Maus nerfs make zero sense from a gaming balance perspective, they don't make much sense from a "get players to pay up to over 1k gold to convert the crew" because of the game balance perspective (it would be penny wise pound foolish).

 

They definitely have a balance team. You wouldn't believe it from the absolute garbage they come up with.

MOEs so I can pretend like they matter

Spoiler

 


x2LATE2CAREx #48 Posted 11 September 2018 - 10:12 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17046 battles
  • 840
  • Member since:
    03-26-2017

View PostCivilWarGoat, on 08 September 2018 - 12:34 AM, said:

Been traveling for last week is there a place where they posted the reasons behind the nerfs for all the tanks.  I was aware of the reasons why for the t54.  

 

T54 got BUFFED... Not nerfed.


Lord Quijote #49 Posted 18 September 2018 - 11:48 PM

    Staff sergeant

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

View Postscwirpeo, on 11 September 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

 

They definitely have a balance team. You wouldn't believe it from the absolute garbage they come up with.

 

Seems like several of the nerfs have been reverted. I'd like to keep this topic alive in case they're still reviewing the changes.
come and get them

scwirpeo #50 Posted 18 September 2018 - 11:56 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 40608 battles
  • 11,137
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostLord Quijote, on 18 September 2018 - 04:48 PM, said:

 

Seems like several of the nerfs have been reverted. I'd like to keep this topic alive in case they're still reviewing the changes.

 

Possibly. I doubt It tho. I'm still suspicious of nerfs they made on tanks like the AT-7 and T-34-1. The sample sizes for balance will only continue to shrink as the player base shrinks. Further pushing the statistics to support pointless balance changes like this.

MOEs so I can pretend like they matter

Spoiler

 


VT Fuzed #51 Posted 19 September 2018 - 12:21 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 20960 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    05-11-2014
think what u want they are gonna nerf a certain group players to help the clueless ones spending money whether they know how play or not...dont care if u disagree...

Lord Quijote #52 Posted 30 September 2018 - 06:27 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 51 battles
  • 360
  • Member since:
    10-10-2016
Bumping this because it still hasn't been addressed.
come and get them

scwirpeo #53 Posted 30 September 2018 - 06:33 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 40608 battles
  • 11,137
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostLord Quijote, on 29 September 2018 - 11:27 PM, said:

Bumping this because it still hasn't been addressed.

 

It never will be.

MOEs so I can pretend like they matter

Spoiler

 


Warthog II #54 Posted 30 September 2018 - 09:46 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 43470 battles
  • 1,629
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    05-11-2014

View Postscwirpeo, on 30 September 2018 - 06:33 AM, said:

 

It never will be.

 

 How is a slow tank that makes it difficult to yolo in surviving so much?   

  

Some people claim Ensk should be tier restricted.   I don't believe their lies. 

Imagine if this forum had only players who actually win more than lose trying to tell others how to play. Would be the best forum ever. Instead, we have a bunch of bad advice from players who lose more often than not trying to tell their betters how to play their tanks.

 


CivilWarGoat #55 Posted 30 September 2018 - 12:54 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24270 battles
  • 1,033
  • [RED1]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostLord Quijote, on 06 September 2018 - 05:52 AM, 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 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':

 

 

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

 

well spoken OP.  Unfortunately WG doesnt have a clue what they are doing in regards to statistical analysis.  There a bunch of programmers that write code for a game they dont play.  Makes since that they cant/wont listen to the community or understand how to market a console game or how to keep there word<coming soon> or honestly anything.  

Remember 

Mapgate 1.0

It's your ISP

Broken sound effects

Mapgate 2.0

Tiger 217

French heavy line

The repair wheel

 

 

What's surprising is how much faith is put into a company that continues to do thing contrary to it best interests.  



CivilWarGoat #56 Posted 30 September 2018 - 12:57 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24270 battles
  • 1,033
  • [RED1]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostLord Quijote, on 18 September 2018 - 11:48 PM, said:

 

Seems like several of the nerfs have been reverted. I'd like to keep this topic alive in case they're still reviewing the changes.

 

where and when and how and why do you think that?

scwirpeo #57 Posted 30 September 2018 - 09:48 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 40608 battles
  • 11,137
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostWarthog II, on 30 September 2018 - 02:46 AM, said:

 

 How is a slow tank that makes it difficult to yolo in surviving so much?   

 

Lol well it's obviously because it hits really hard for a medium. 


MOEs so I can pretend like they matter

Spoiler

 


caglassc #58 Posted 30 September 2018 - 10:11 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 48602 battles
  • 830
  • [-TCB-]
  • Member since:
    05-02-2015
This is a great, well written post. Even if WG responds we will get a very short vague answer that just restates some of the stats they used to nerf it. It is beyond comprehension how the devs see the balance issues in this game versus the majority of the player base. And I would argue, the portion of the player base that actually understand the game as opposed to the casual players who have no clue whilst they are playing. The Maus was my first tier X vehicle and I had no clue how to play it 3 years ago. But I was at least able to play a role for my team back then by being the center of attention and letting other tanks focus fire on me. It has never been a real damage dealer tank but that role really doesn’t appeal to a lot of players. One part of balancing tanks needs to consider the players enjoyment of the game. That is obvious in the fact that the Deathstar and Waffle never receive any nerfs. People enjoy playing them and dealing out incredible damage. A tank like the Maus isn’t enjoyable to play from my standpoint. It’s at best an historical novelty for most. I would love to see an “OP” version of the Maus as that might actually make it fun to play again. How many of our frustrations with balance issues actually stems from the view that the game just isn’t fun to play?  For me that is the core issue - make the game fun again. And the approach we are given is “we aren’t PC,” and “here are your Merc tanks along with an ill conceived 4.6 balance update.” Enjoy fellas. 

De opresso liber

 


scwirpeo #59 Posted 30 September 2018 - 10:50 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 40608 battles
  • 11,137
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View Postcaglassc, on 30 September 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

This is a great, well written post. Even if WG responds we will get a very short vague answer that just restates some of the stats they used to nerf it. It is beyond comprehension how the devs see the balance issues in this game versus the majority of the player base. And I would argue, the portion of the player base that actually understand the game as opposed to the casual players who have no clue whilst they are playing. The Maus was my first tier X vehicle and I had no clue how to play it 3 years ago. But I was at least able to play a role for my team back then by being the center of attention and letting other tanks focus fire on me. It has never been a real damage dealer tank but that role really doesn’t appeal to a lot of players. One part of balancing tanks needs to consider the players enjoyment of the game. That is obvious in the fact that the Deathstar and Waffle never receive any nerfs. People enjoy playing them and dealing out incredible damage. A tank like the Maus isn’t enjoyable to play from my standpoint. It’s at best an historical novelty for most. I would love to see an “OP” version of the Maus as that might actually make it fun to play again. How many of our frustrations with balance issues actually stems from the view that the game just isn’t fun to play?  For me that is the core issue - make the game fun again. And the approach we are given is “we aren’t PC,” and “here are your Merc tanks along with an ill conceived 4.6 balance update.” Enjoy fellas. 

 

Its fairly obvious they only go with the stats they see on their spreadsheet with an absolutely idiotic obsession with win%. I doubt anyone in WGCB has played even half the tanks in this game. Let alone have the experience to know or understand what they are even looking at.

MOEs so I can pretend like they matter

Spoiler

 


Lord Quijote #60 Posted 01 October 2018 - 05:45 AM

    Staff sergeant

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

View Postcaglassc, on 30 September 2018 - 10:11 PM, said:

This is a great, well written post. Even if WG responds we will get a very short vague answer that just restates some of the stats they used to nerf it. It is beyond comprehension how the devs see the balance issues in this game versus the majority of the player base. And I would argue, the portion of the player base that actually understand the game as opposed to the casual players who have no clue whilst they are playing. The Maus was my first tier X vehicle and I had no clue how to play it 3 years ago. But I was at least able to play a role for my team back then by being the center of attention and letting other tanks focus fire on me. It has never been a real damage dealer tank but that role really doesn’t appeal to a lot of players. One part of balancing tanks needs to consider the players enjoyment of the game. That is obvious in the fact that the Deathstar and Waffle never receive any nerfs. People enjoy playing them and dealing out incredible damage. A tank like the Maus isn’t enjoyable to play from my standpoint. It’s at best an historical novelty for most. I would love to see an “OP” version of the Maus as that might actually make it fun to play again. How many of our frustrations with balance issues actually stems from the view that the game just isn’t fun to play?  For me that is the core issue - make the game fun again. And the approach we are given is “we aren’t PC,” and “here are your Merc tanks along with an ill conceived 4.6 balance update.” Enjoy fellas. 

 

I think fun died a long time ago. The only people still having fun with this game are the people who don't care about it.
come and get them





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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users