Buff Grille 15 already..

Sfinski, on 07 December 2018 - 06:19 PM, said:   Yet you have not provided any arguments on why that is so. Ive told you that those basic steps can be taken way faster. You blaming me to not wanting to take in account what you've said, while you've completely ignored ALL the arguments I have provided.   Give me tools and I'll prove it to you. I'll balance 430U for you for example. In a week.


Igor_BL, on 07 December 2018 - 06:32 PM, said:   I understand that his "job" is to defend company decisions. You can explain the process behind balancing, their ideas behind some tank buffs or nerfs, etc. But you can not defend tanks like old e5, 268v4, type5 etc.
You simply can not.

Just take graphs how those tanks are performing across the playerbase, and you will see that they are overperforming by huge margin.
(ok, meaby type5 is not that much as e5 or 268v4 were, but it is still broken and gamebraking tank)   tanks that are boosting players avg winrate for 5% can not be balanced, no matter what. You need to nerf them instantly. And not to "collect data" for years.  


Strizi, on 07 December 2018 - 06:44 PM, said:   For tanks that are a bit too strong or weak i could agree with you to gather data for a longer time.   For tanks like 268-4 that are so much stronger (Or Leopard 1 for the so much weaker tanks) that everyone can smell it 10km against the wind (or however you say that in english) the only thing i can say is: if wg will insist on not nerfing these tanks fast with hotfixes they will keep infuriating players. You can nerf these tanks for 5 or 10% with a fast hotfix and after that gather data. If you needed 6 months to realise that 268-4 was completely broken i suggest to send wg balancing department to the dota 2 devs, they rebalance the game on a regular basis and dont need months for overpowered heroes. Why can they do it and wg cant? I assure you - players do not understand and agree with these discrepancies. But go on and keep defending the undefendable as igor_bl said.


laulaur, on 08 December 2018 - 12:34 AM, said:   Is anybody here that thinks a buff on the bloom of Grille would make it OP? I don't think that a slow paper TD that can't even rotate his turret 360 degrees, being able to shoot something before that something get in cover would be so strong. Grille has 0.26 precision on paper, but in reality you can't hit a weakspot.....   Let's take a look how tier X TD's are performing 268v4 is still the best despite being nerfed and despite being the most recent introduced in game. Balance much, such wow STRV has been added also after Grille , performs much better. FV4005 has been buffed because reasons. Badger, another new introduced TD is outperforming the oldies.   This means only 2 things: 1. WG is promoting the 'flavour of the month' tanks to make players spend money (free xp conversion to get the op tank,premium account and reserves bought to fast grind) or to make people play more and grind them. 2. WG is unable to balance tanks, because they are incompetent. (no offense)


Swoopie, on 08 December 2018 - 12:44 AM, said:   Players said the most recent buffs to Maus (Where it got a decent DPM and health buff along with other small gun handling buffs) would make it OP. You released it anyway. And it needed to be nerfed later due to over performing way above what was expected. Players said 268v4 would be OP. You released it anyway in the state it was and took half a year to deal with it. Players said 907 didn't need buffs. You buffed it anyway and now it's the only proper choice for a medium in competitive modes (As it has been ever since it was released back in the 3rd campaign). Players said the Type 5 would be broken (Not OP, broken, hope you know the difference). You buffed it anyway and imo it's one of the most unfun regular tanks to play against (I know this is more of a personal opinion, but point still stands).   Then you've had ideas such as: http://forum.worldof...e-autoreloader/ Like it doesn't take long to figure out that, this mechanic would've effectively given Is3A the best of both worlds. You enter a battle with a full clip, first burst the 3 shells out, then keep firing as soon as you're reloaded to maximize your DPM. There would've been literally no downsides to emptying your clip. I'm fully aware this was only on Supertest but the fact that you needed to even test something like this to conclude you cant really balance it properly (At least that's what I'm assuming why you didn't introduce this in the end) makes me question the competence of your balancing team.    So why are you trying to change all of this at once then? Introducing new mechanics which alter the meta in major ways and changing old tanks, all while introducing new tanks/complete lines. On top of that you're making map changes (Which arent imo playing as big of a role in all of this balancing mess as you make it seem to be).   Now I'm aware that it might be a challenge to make tanks that are unique, fun to play and ones that are not utterly useless. But honestly I see no reason why you need to wait half a year to balance a obviously broken tank when you could make slight changes to it in weekly or bi-weekly mini patches and see how it goes from there.   There are already some examples where you've got it right, for example Kranvagn. The 1st test version was just a better 50B pretty much, but for the later tests you managed to make it unique and it fills a niche role while being decently balanced.      


Igor_BL, on 08 December 2018 - 10:49 AM, said: Just look at those stats posted by @laulaur.   Look where old object 263 is.   After horrible grind, you get the really good tank.
Tank that was fun. That was balanced. Great armor, but with weakspots. proper weakspots. Great gun. ammo loadout wasnt p2w, because AP was fantastic with 290mm and APCR was 330? something like that. Players usually used AP on it, there was rarelly any 263 spamming full APCR like SQ, 50b, T57 etc.   Great armor, fast, fun, amazing gun/DPM, UNIQUE tank. It had its niche.     Then wargaming decided to implement 268v4, most gamebraking tank ever.
And to rub more salt into wounds, they wrote an article, how WE, PLAYERS, WANTED them to remove 263, how everyone was complaining about that tank, and thus they decided to rework whole line.   Players never complained about object263. (ofc, some random ones were, but like playerbase - no.) We complained about su100m1, su101 and that awful su12254 Those 3 tanks needed rework, buffs, tweaks.   And so that they could justife their abomination of 268v4, they wrote how WE WANTED THEM TO DO THAT. Instead reworking lower tiers, they removed 263, and made whole line yolo-brainless-proof.   HOW CAN SOMEONE think that 268v4 is better for the game then 263. And then same people talk to us, how balancing is hard.   You add 268v4 and talk about balancing.


ares354, on 09 December 2018 - 03:33 PM, said: Tell me something   How much data you have about Tiger II or T34-2. 

WHO are UP for past 4 years ? Pls enlighten me