Jump to content


Can we ever expect buffs to the underperforming Chinese tanks?

china balance

  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

donny007-THX #61 Posted 03 July 2019 - 03:25 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21485 battles
  • 2,649
  • Member since:
    12-18-2017
Vote early and often on this one.  The 113 is a tank I play fairly often and enjoy it.  Perhaps the buff experts can just give it a little more in the offensive capability.  Not more pen or alpha but make the reload a little faster with slight accuracy and aim time buff.  I don't want it to be like its brother the WZ 114 111 - 5 A 111 which is already great at its place.  Make the 113 a little better but not like the aforementioned.
When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle, you said, the man with a pistol's a dead man. Let's see if that's true. Go ahead, load up and shoot.

Schiavoser #62 Posted 03 July 2019 - 03:25 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 36101 battles
  • 879
  • Member since:
    09-21-2016
I like the 113, but it is a disheartening to see the newer Russian 430U running around basically doing what the 113 can do only better in most categories. 113 is still fun to play, but it is somewhat obsolete, no longer brings anything unique to the battlefield.

Destraag #63 Posted 03 July 2019 - 04:04 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40067 battles
  • 1,574
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

View PostJohn-berg1995, on 08 June 2019 - 08:27 PM, said:

They don't buff tanks based on individual combat characteristics, ie turret armor. Gun depression, accuracy they buff and nerf tanks based on how well the community is doing with them. Hense why the 113 and stb-1 got nerfed a couple patches back. It was because it's win rate / damaged caused was starting to get to high. (mainly because only super unis / very good players are playing them)

so when looking at the 121 and 430U
One tank is played by a tiny portion of players while one is played by a huge population of players , to wargaming. They both look balanced because the win rate and damaged caused is roughly the same.

Even though the 430U is a far better tank it's played by potatoes that being it's stats down drastically, and the 121 is mainly played by good players. thus is stats are being over inflated , hense why they have yet to buff the Chinese 121

 

From various sources WG has stated when they review the stats for a tank with concern to balance they look at they look at how the whole skill spectrum (as they see it) are doing with a tank. As in they break the community into buckets based on skill (WG calculation not wn8 or other consumer based metrics) rather than looking at just the stats for the whole community as as single value.

 

Assuming this is true, it takes the majority of wind out of your concern that tanks are getting nerfed purely based on the difference of the skill of active players on any given tank.

 


When a person resorts to attacking the other person rather than focusing on the issue (aka argumentum ad hominem), it becomes pretty clear they have nothing else to contribute and are wrong.


HyperSpeeder #64 Posted 03 July 2019 - 04:32 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 38845 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    01-16-2016

I hope wargaming sees this thread. It hurts when they don't play close attention to balancing and destroy tanks we love.

 

WZ-132-1 should be un-nerfed to what it was before update 4.6 (10.7 reload time instead 12.2). It is the worst performing light Tier X tank, along with the Tusk. If it is un-nerfed to what it was it will be enough.

 

WZ-113G FT need a very light buff. It is performing worse than most of the Tier X TDs but by a low margin.

 

121 needs a servere buff. It is, by far, the worst tier X medium. Needs gun depression set to 5 degress, a good buff in aiming time. Maybe something else.

 

113 and WZ-111 5A can stay as they are.

 



USSWISCONSIN94 #65 Posted 03 July 2019 - 04:44 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11541 battles
  • 27,339
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014
Been playing the WZ-111 1G FT and feel like it needs a buff or at least change. The 122mm gun has a reload that is slower than it should be. 130mm has too high alpha (don't get WG's lohic when they need to give tanks more alpha than they should but ok) and the mobility should be the same as the normal WZ-111 or even the WZ-111 14 even if its just the hull.

http://www.wotinfo.n...N94&server=xbox

youtube.com/channel/UCkXtmp3Ikozzl-K73GuxxNQ

 

Will WG ever have WoT offline like they promised?


Pit Friend #66 Posted 03 July 2019 - 09:38 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 32677 battles
  • 17,885
  • [PTATO]
  • Member since:
    07-14-2014
If/when we get that British Manticore tier X Light the WZ will get an indirect buff by no longer being the worst tier X Light. :)

I asked an EOD man how he dealt with the stress of his job. 

 

He said he didn’t have any stress. Either he was right or else it became someone else’s problem. 


AnonymousHobo69 #67 Posted 03 July 2019 - 10:35 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 38092 battles
  • 4,442
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013

View PostPit Friend, on 03 July 2019 - 03:38 PM, said:

If/when we get that British Manticore tier X Light the WZ will get an indirect buff by no longer being the worst tier X Light. :)

 

Not at all true. Unless they nerf it, the manticore would certainly outperform the WZ-132-1. The WZ-132-1 really only has dpm (which is pretty bad in the first place), turret armor (not very applicable or useful in most situations), and 100 health over it, while the manticore will have best in class camo, with better mobility, gun depression, accuracy, and so on.

Edited by AnonymousHobo69, 03 July 2019 - 10:36 PM.


Salty_Tanker #68 Posted 04 July 2019 - 12:24 AM

    Major

  • WoTC Ambassador
  • 19907 battles
  • 2,512
  • [GUARD]
  • Member since:
    12-21-2016
Please stop complaining about Chinese tanks .  Just sell them or trade them in :sceptic:  

“ Never trust a forum member that uses an Anime profile pic .”      - SaltyMcD 


Teffisk #69 Posted 04 July 2019 - 01:58 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22156 battles
  • 1,290
  • [-L7-]
  • Member since:
    10-14-2015

View PostSalty_Tanker, on 04 July 2019 - 12:24 AM, said:

Please stop complaining about Chinese tanks .  Just sell them or trade them in :sceptic:  

Positive forum posts are so boring. This forums are for salty tankers. Oh wait...



AnonymousHobo69 #70 Posted 04 July 2019 - 02:56 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 38092 battles
  • 4,442
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013

View PostSalty_Tanker, on 03 July 2019 - 06:24 PM, said:

Please stop complaining about Chinese tanks .  Just sell them or trade them in :sceptic:  

 

Play Chinese tanks (without equipment of course).

Cheetah1728 #71 Posted 04 July 2019 - 02:59 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 35198 battles
  • 1,906
  • Member since:
    07-11-2013
All the 121 really needs atm is the 5 degrees of depression. The gun is actually fairly fine, the problem is mostly the fact you have to contend with every little bit of terrain geometry, then finally start to aim and... oh they're gone or hitting you. The actual gun handling is fine when equipped or using a decent crew. The biggest issue is just finding a position to wedge yourself up so you can aim down or even equal at times.

113 didn't exactly need the pen buff, but is decent regardless. I wouldn't mind seeing 7 all around or at the least raise the reload. On pc it was buffed to 6 rpm, I'd say 5.7-5.8ish would probably be fine. Just so it can sit between the 121 and 5a as a hybrid. 6 would be nice, but they'll probably take something away.

The WZ-113G FT hull traverse nerf (iirc it got one of the ground resists as well, but might be thinking of the 121's gr nerfs) hinders its close range ability. Comparing it to the 268 the closest counterpart I can see the 268 as the more accurate sniper while the wz-113g is a close range fighter. To that extent it works... except they took 5 off the hull traverse and made it even easier to get to the sides/harder to angle. I don't know what exactly should be changed outside of either equalizing the damage or giving a bit of agility back. The gun's sloppy at .38 compared to the .33, but at least it's easier to aim so I can't entirely complain outside of when it potatos into the ground or gets penned from the front.

They can throw in other buffs if they want, I was only including bare minimum because if they go full swing one way they'll come back and turn it into something completely different or ruin it. All of them would benefit to a slight dispersion buff when traversing/moving the gun, but I'd rather see the WZ-120 get some handling buffs if they're going to go heavier with them.

Edited by Cheetah1728, 04 July 2019 - 03:09 AM.


scwirpeo #72 Posted 04 July 2019 - 03:31 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 40416 battles
  • 10,804
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostDestraag, on 03 July 2019 - 09:04 AM, said:

 

From various sources WG has stated when they review the stats for a tank with concern to balance they look at they look at how the whole skill spectrum (as they see it) are doing with a tank. As in they break the community into buckets based on skill (WG calculation not wn8 or other consumer based metrics) rather than looking at just the stats for the whole community as as single value.

 

Assuming this is true, it takes the majority of wind out of your concern that tanks are getting nerfed purely based on the difference of the skill of active players on any given tank.

 

 

I give you a set of values.  Let's say the values range in integer from 0-10 based on multiple factors of a tanks performance. Now we have one tank with 800,000 battles and one tank with 20,000. What tank do you think will have a more accurate average representative of it's position on that integer scale?

 

The confidence index tells us that to decrease your margin of error in this problem you need more values. Making a projection with a small sample gets more and more inaccurate the smaller your original number of samples was. Meaning you correctly balance the tank with 800,000 battles more correctly using a raw data comparison than you do the tank with 20,000 battles. That tank with 20,000 battles has a margin of error magnitudes higher than the tank with 800,000 battles.

 

 

In the case of tanks with small battle counts especially, a few unis or just random data fluctuations can render your result incorrect. This gets even worse when trying to evaluate a post balance window on tanks that can be as small as 3 months. Especially when you consider they are using over all win  % as their evaluation of skill. The use of raw data with zero understanding of the scenario will get you a invalid result. It's similar to how you could say African Americans cause more crime than Caucasians, while statistically correct you have ignored causation and the situations of said data in favor of a raw estimation of numbers.

 

Basically what we are getting at is the numbers don't tell a complete story and would like the Chinese tanks to be evaluated from multiple angles as they do not have enough popularity to be pushed into a mold built for tanks with tens of millions of total battles.


MOEs so I can pretend like they matter

Spoiler

 


KillDozer33 #73 Posted 04 July 2019 - 02:35 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5491 battles
  • 738
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015

View PostSalty_Tanker, on 07 June 2019 - 05:27 PM, said:

Type T-34 is the highlight of the Chinese tech tree .  

 

But with less gun depression than the Soviet why even bother? I play the both & the T-34 is more accurate while moving, no reason at all to nerf an already mostly bad China line of tanks but that's WG for ya.:facepalm:

AJH387 #74 Posted 04 July 2019 - 03:15 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15223 battles
  • 2,453
  • [HLCAT]
  • Member since:
    12-10-2014
I'm to the point that I don't like any Chinese tanks, including the KD. I'm over it. I'm finishing the grind on the WZ111 1-4 to get the 10s but I hate every minute of it. I know ppl like those tanks but for me they are total trash. The gun is not worth the high rolls. Bounces like crazy, takes forever to aim and still never goes where you aim. Plus armor is a joke. Terrible tanks and I'm mad at myself for even doing the line.

AJH387 #75 Posted 04 July 2019 - 03:34 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15223 battles
  • 2,453
  • [HLCAT]
  • Member since:
    12-10-2014
Case in point. Just had a m41 90mm and a turtle both bounce my shot in the same battle, top gun. Good stuff.

Schiavoser #76 Posted 25 July 2019 - 12:41 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 36101 battles
  • 879
  • Member since:
    09-21-2016

Giving this thread a bump, since balance changes must be coming someday soon, right?

 

I thought about an analogy regarding the Tier X Chinese medium 121 and proof-positive of the benefit of balance changes. Prior to Patch 4.6, the British Tier IX Conway was severely flawed. Very few players operated the vehicle. If you had perfect line of sight on a target and no red tank was targeting you, the Conway could absolutely shred the opponent before Patch 4.6. But most of the time putting yourself into position with a mere 5 degrees of gun depression exposed you to crippling damage. The buff from 5 to 10 degrees helped make the Conway a common sight in that Tier bracket. Balance changes gave that TT line from Tier VIII-X a breath of life.

 

Similarly, a smaller but no less significant buff to the 121 (and WZ-120 with top package) would make this TT line viable. As it stands, the reputation the WZ-120 and 121 have is that they are rarely fun tanks to play. Only completists and masochists pursue the grind. 

 

WG, do the right thing!



Teffisk #77 Posted 25 July 2019 - 03:00 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22156 battles
  • 1,290
  • [-L7-]
  • Member since:
    10-14-2015

View PostSchiavoser, on 25 July 2019 - 12:41 PM, said:

 

WG, do the right thing!

Here here!



AnonymousHobo69 #78 Posted 25 July 2019 - 05:29 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 38092 battles
  • 4,442
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013

View PostDr__Jag, on 03 July 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:

 

 

lol rekt

 

No as rekt as the competitiveness of the underperforming Chinese line. Chinese buffs.when? 

John-berg1995 #79 Posted 25 July 2019 - 06:34 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 12362 battles
  • 2,477
  • [CIA]
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015

View PostDestraag, on 03 July 2019 - 04:04 PM, said:

 

From various sources WG has stated when they review the stats for a tank with concern to balance they look at they look at how the whole skill spectrum (as they see it) are doing with a tank. As in they break the community into buckets based on skill (WG calculation not wn8 or other consumer based metrics) rather than looking at just the stats for the whole community as as single value.

 

Assuming this is true, it takes the majority of wind out of your concern that tanks are getting nerfed purely based on the difference of the skill of active players on any given tank.

 

Why would a company lie to their consumers?? company's don't do that! That's dishonest! 



Destraag #80 Posted 25 July 2019 - 07:28 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40067 battles
  • 1,574
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

View Postscwirpeo, on 03 July 2019 - 10:31 PM, said:

 

I give you a set of values.  Let's say the values range in integer from 0-10 based on multiple factors of a tanks performance. Now we have one tank with 800,000 battles and one tank with 20,000. What tank do you think will have a more accurate average representative of it's position on that integer scale?

 

The confidence index tells us that to decrease your margin of error in this problem you need more values. Making a projection with a small sample gets more and more inaccurate the smaller your original number of samples was. Meaning you correctly balance the tank with 800,000 battles more correctly using a raw data comparison than you do the tank with 20,000 battles. That tank with 20,000 battles has a margin of error magnitudes higher than the tank with 800,000 battles.

 

I agree. Up to a point inadequate sample size can have a big impact, sure. 

 

View Postscwirpeo, on 03 July 2019 - 10:31 PM, said:

In the case of tanks with small battle counts especially, a few unis or just random data fluctuations can render your result incorrect. 

 

This is the point where I feel like you might be overstating the problem. They would only have an impact inside the uni bucket and I like to believe they do not balance only based on one bucket.

 

The TVP T 50/51 for example (sorry, I cant site the source for this reference) they said they knew was overperforming but early on it was only the unis/hardcore players for which they had meaningful stats. It wasn't until a wider portion of the population started playing the tank that they actually put a nerf on it.

 

In addition, I believe they look at several different views. Most likely in some and possibly all views all the outliers are removed by cutting the top and bottom x% to get a more normalized view of how any given tank is performing. further reducing the impact of a few amazing (or terrible) players. 

 

View Postscwirpeo, on 03 July 2019 - 10:31 PM, said:

This gets even worse when trying to evaluate a post balance window on tanks that can be as small as 3 months. Especially when you consider they are using over all win  % as their evaluation of skill. The use of raw data with zero understanding of the scenario will get you a invalid result. It's similar to how you could say African Americans cause more crime than Caucasians, while statistically correct you have ignored causation and the situations of said data in favor of a raw estimation of numbers.

 

Basically what we are getting at is the numbers don't tell a complete story and would like the Chinese tanks to be evaluated from multiple angles as they do not have enough popularity to be pushed into a mold built for tanks with tens of millions of total battles.

 

I agree that it is very important to understand exactly what the numbers you are looking at represent and try your best to account for all factors that may have been involved. Can be easy to get misled. 

 

I feel like the recent map poll may have been an example where exactly the scenario you described `may` have happened. The poll asked for 5 favorite maps and the maps they reduced in rotation were mostly variants.. which were likely to get a lower vote total in a poll like that. The raw numbers could have been misread. I have no special knowledge on what all factors they considered in making that decision. 

 

On Chinese tanks specifically - In general I find them to be some of the better tanks in the game. Trading gun handling, module durability and/or gun depression to be a bit better at xy or z.

 

I'm not saying this is a fact but Consider the possibility these are intended to have a higher skill floor. Taking shots can be more punishing. Therefore being designed to shine brightest in the hands of the better players. If so they are unlikely to buff them for the average player. So maybe these are designed to conform to a different balance model than you might expect.


When a person resorts to attacking the other person rather than focusing on the issue (aka argumentum ad hominem), it becomes pretty clear they have nothing else to contribute and are wrong.






Also tagged with china, balance

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users