Common Test 9.17.1 #2 Patchnotes

Second Iteration

  • Fixed dynamic changes in the UI not occuring after the recovery period elapsed
  • Fixed minimization of client when attempting to enter hieroglyphs
  • Fixed the issue when damage caused in the Artillery Aim was not displayed in the damage panel
  • Fixed total amount of Gold and Credits required for purchasing consumables did not display in the Service window
  • Increased the volume level for the Voice Messages in Battle for the Swedish crew
  • Fixed magazine reloading and the “No shells in ammo” message was displayed in the chat, despite the ammo rack not empty
  • Fixed continuous loading when joining the detachment in Stronghold: Battles
  • Fixed the improperly displayed location of player’s own vehicle on the minimap after being destroyed and switching to the Postmortem mode
  • Fixed messages sent before joining a battle room not displayed in chat
  • Fixed continuous loading of Strongholds
  • Fixed client hanging when updating vehicle after selling from the Garage
  • Fixed system errors when performing actions with the Spectator mode in training rooms
  • Fixed minor technical issues

Vehicles

Changes to the following vehicles:

  • VK 45.02 (P) Ausf. A
    • Changed the thickness of the lower glacis plate from 100 to 120mm
  • Maus
    • Changed vehicle durability from 3,000 to 3,200 hit points
  • Pz.Kpfw. VII
    • Changed dispersion from 0.35 to 0.37
    • Changed aiming time from 2.5 to 2.6
    • Changed dispersion during movement from 0.18 to 0.20
    • Changed dispersion on hull traverse from 0.18 to 0.20
    • Changed penetration of the PzGr 44 L shell from 330 to 315
  • Tiger (P)
    • Increased armor thickness of the commander’s cupola for the second turret from 95 to 125mm
  • Pz. 58 Mutz, Pz. 58 and Schwarzpanzer 58
    • Improved gun depression angles (removed the elevation zones above the rear view mirrors)
  • Object 907
    • Increased armor thickness of the hull sides from 85 to 100mm
    • Increased armor thickness of the turret top from 30 to 40mm
  • VK 100.01
    • Changed armor thickness of the turret front from 220 to 230mm
    • Increased armor thickness of the commander’s cupola front from 210 to 220mm
    • Changed thickness of the lower glacis plate from 125 to 135mm
    • Changed armor thickness for the frontal part of the turret side from 160 to 170mm
    • Changed shells of the 12.8cm Kw.K. L/50 gun:
    • PzGr 39 (490/220) is replaced with PzGr 39 K (440/220)
    • PzGr 40 (490/250) is replaced with PzGr 40 K (440/260)
    • Changed reloading time of the 12.8cm Kw.K. L/50 gun from 18 to 15s
    • Changed dispersion of all guns on hull traverse for the first second suspension from 0.28 to 0.25
    • Changed dispersion on turret traverse for the 12.8cm Kw.K. L/50 gun from 0.2 to 0.18
  • Mauschen
    • Changed shells of the 12.8cm Kw.K. L/50 gun:
    • PzGr 39 (490/220) is replaced with PzGr 39 K (440/220)
    • PzGr 40 (490/250) is replaced with PzGr 49 K (440/260)
    • Changed reloading time of the 12.8cm Kw.K. L/50 gun from 15 to 14s
  • E 50
    • Changed reloading time of the 8.8cm Kw.K. L/100 gun for the second turret from 5.5 to 5.0
  • E 50 Ausf. M
    • Increased thickness of the lower glacis plate from 100 to 120mm
  • Indien-Panzer
    • Changed aiming time of the 8.8cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 gun from 2.7 to 2.5
    • Changed aiming time of the 9cm Kanone gun from 2.5 to 2.3
  • Panther mit 8,8 cm L/71
    • Improved armor of the gun mantlet
  • Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. H
    • Improved gun depression angles of all guns for both turrets
Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Common Test 9.17.1 #2 Patchnotes

    1. To be fair, it wasnt actually that well-armored against equal-tier-or-higher guns in the areas that were buffed. Now, it can at least block equal-tier guns a bit more reliably, and the front sides of the turret won’t be as bad when you attempt to angle it like the Maus/Mauschen can. Plus, the lower plate was absolute garbage before, and it still isn’t much better (albeit it doesn’t need to be now).

      Like

    2. Dude, that tank is a huge pinata.
      It’s like the O-Ni – only good vs garbage guns while it fails miserably fighting same tier guns.
      It might be problematic for those who are still not willing to fire a few prem shells (not that you have to with all those weak spots).

      Like

    1. Don’t worry, you won’t. Even 1 on 1, unless the MT driver is a complete moron, you’ll still end up rather damaged. And if he has driven the VK himself, he will not have too many problems. The LFP buff won’t change much, you still have a nice and tall vehicle, with an exposed ammo rack and a ridiculous gun depression.

      Like

  1. Just picking out 1 thing, the VK 100.01 changes. Aren’t these changes a bit overboard?
    Especially when thinking about this machine also going to encounter tier 6 tanks and the way maps are today. Where flanking is only viable as bottom tier when the playing field gets leveled out.

    Personally I am not interested in high tier gameplay, nor heavy tanks (sticking to max tier 8).
    But IMO these new additions and these 2nd iteration changes do not seem to ADD to the overall game balance but SKEW it further.
    There are tanks, mainly tier 6 and quite some tier 7, who simple will struggle A LOT against such armor layouts without weak spots.

    Then there are changes which are very welcomed indeed, but they are offset by some decisions which to me seem rather odd.

    Like

    1. heres the great thing about tanks like the maus mauschen and vk100. if you cant fight them drive away and you will almost always get away 😄

      Liked by 1 person

    2. They fixed the issue of the vehicle being a bit lackluster against equal-tier opponents, without making it any more difficult to take down from flanking maneuvers – unless you consider the reload change a buff in that respect, which it could technically be, but it doesn’t make the vehicle itself any harder to out-turn. I think itll definitely stomp lower-tier vehicles who don’t play smart against it, but those who isolate and flank the vehicle will be able to stomp it back equally as hard. Think O-Ho, for an example of this.

      Like

      1. Lackluster…we are still talking about a premium ammo infested Test environment.

        My point is more that imo these machines in a normal game environment and there clear potential to stomp will not add to the current overall game balance.

        The question I am trying to ask I guess is: “does the current game really need more and more of such stomping capable content, while some core issues are still not yet fully addressed?”

        I feel that adding such content, without a having well balanced game as a base, is going to unbalance this game further. Which makes re-balancing it even more harder in the long run.

        We have to wait and see.
        Though I recon they will generate the same kinda feedback the Jap heavies did (and still do) after they got released.

        Like

        1. I think you have lack of experience with Maus. Tier for tier, Maus has slightly better armor than VK, and better gun aswell. As for T6 tanks dealing with VK…

          Lower pen mediums (130-ish AP/175-180APCR) – almost no chance frontally unless really lucky highroll, sides need highroll with ap but are kinda reliable with APCR when flat, rear is 50/50 with AP and reliable with APCR

          Regular pen to higher mediums (140-150AP/190-200 APCR) – frontally 50/50 into unangled LFP, good chance to pen flat sides from close range but APCR needed for reliability, rear is ok.

          Heavies/TD’s – low penetration ones need APCR to pen unangled LFP, mid pen ones can go through LFP with AP in case of lucky highroll have decent chances with APCR, high penetration ones can penetrate LFP even with AP and have no problem with APCR, and can go through turret front or cupola.

          T8 dealing with Maus:

          Low pen mediums (170-180AP/230-240APCR) – pretty much no chance frontally, sides need highroll with AP and side turret is less than 50/50 even with APCR, rear is pretty much the same as sides.

          High pen mediums/low pen heavies (200-215AP/250-260APCR) – frontally it’s around 50/50 with APCR into unangled LFP, sides are ok but not 100% reliable with AP, side turret is ok with APCR but not 100% reliable, rear is reliable.

          Heavies (220-230AP/260-280APCR) – frontally it’s 50/50 or better with APCR, sides are ok unless angled with AP and APCR should be good enough for side turret, again needs to be unangled, rear is reliable.

          TD’s (240-280AP/300-340APCR or HEAT) – frontally depends on gun but ranges from low to high chance, APCR and HEAT is reliable LFP and turret front and can even pen angled turret, sides and rear are np.

          As you can see, tier for tier the armor scales roughly the same. You need to realize that VK is as slow as Maus, if not slower, has one of the worst guns on non-prem MM T8’s in every regard (DPM, accuracy, gun handling) except alpha DMG, turns slow, view range/depression are mediocre, and it’s gonna get rekt by arty.
          Only thing that tank has is armor and alpha, you can’t expect every T6/7 to be able to go through it.

          Also, lately, WG has mostly been adding paper tanks – Czech line, Swedish tanks (you can argue they have armor, they do but for both TD’s and heavies it’s situational and it’s only good for holding not pushing).
          Adding a line with armor is not bad for the game, there is more HP and taking tanks such as this out takes longer, and players are not so keen on rushing them, which means slightly longer games, which we can all agree hopefully isn’t bad.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I was referring to the standard ammunition of tier 8 vehicles – these changes likely won’t affect the vehicle’s armor against premium ammo very much, if at all.

          The issue before was that a lot of tier 8 vehicles have enough pen to go through the front of the turret with standard ammunition – the IS-3 and Tiger II both having 225, the Caernarvon with 226, KV-4 with 227, AMX M4 49 & 50 100 having 230+, etc.. not to mention the T34 or tank destroyers. Now, it will be a bit less “borderline”, and will at least have a much greater chance of blocking damage from equal-tier heavy opponents like these – and likely be much more effective as such – while still not being completely impossible to take down.

          Like

    3. In your little tier 6 medium you should not fight this thing head on. Remember that this Tank faces tier 10 tanks too. I’d rather run away from it in a tier 6 than driving it in a tier 10 battle.

      Armor is useless enough as it is. If they decrease it’s values it need a mobility buff.

      Like

    1. I think it definitely deserves the love, though – the gun depression difference from the Tiger II made no sense since they shared the same turret, and the armor, while OK, could be a bit lackluster against medium guns. Now, it’s a bit more flexible, as well as stronger in the role of a heavium. Definitely a good buff imo.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. ive always thought of it as kind of a m4 jumbo at tier 8 can shred mediums like theres noooo tomorrow but cvan struggle vs hts if you doont know what your doing. also im glad it finally got buffed in gun dep and i agree the 6 degrees on this vs the 8 on the tiger 2 never did make sense but i reckon this tank with the buffed ufp and the same lfp as before will be pretty dam strong.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Tiger 2 need same kind of buff to lower plate, cos right now all he has is better pen on gun and acc. Rest goes for VK auf A, and this make Tiger 2 really weak tank.

    Like

    1. I wouldn’t mind if the speciality of Tiger 2 was DPM, just like it is for Tiger. Give it better reload and it’s all the love it needs.

      Like

    1. I think so, yes; albeit the Mauschen didn’t receive any buffs – only the stock cannon was changed to fit the new damage changes to it. The VK did deserve these buffs IMO, as the armor was a little borderline for a tier 8 heavy tank – the lower glacis was incredibly easy to pen, and tanks of equal tier could go through the original turret fairly reliably. Now, it at least had somewhat more reliable turret armor against its own tier, and it can sidescrape the turret a little better against higher tier vehicles.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Like I said, I only played a few games in it and probably didn’t play it long enough. My opinion was based on first impressions. They gave it buffs allround based on how it performed lately so I will go with that.

        Ps. This is my alt acc.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. It was needed to compansate the worse angle of the lower plate when they made it HD

      Talking about other bussines, I still think that the nerf to the E5 is a mistake… it should not be nerfed in the cuppola (all the Americans have the hull-down role), it would be much more logical to nerf its lower glacis to encourge hull-down gameplay…
      I’ve been playing in the test server with it this evening and a freaking IS-3 could pen me with AP in the damm cuppola… Shame on you WG

      Like

        1. And this is the reason that makes many players free exp M103 or play with the intermediate gun to skip it ASAP… I personally played it, and it was on of the worst tier 9 heavies (neither particularly fast, nor with strong turret and/or hull) which is totally eclipsed by tanks such as T10, Wz111-1-4 or new Emil-2 (in mobility terms) or E-75 or Vk-B (of the slow heavies).

          Like

        2. Well… to be fair, the M103’s top turret is actually rather effective after it received a refreshed model a few patches back. I’ve had plenty of success in semi-hulldown positions with it; all you have to do is use and abuse the gun depression – hiding your cupola in the process, as well as your lower plate – and the turret becomes extremely effective against both equal-and-higher-tier opponents alike. And, unlike the M103, the T110E5 can’t hide its cupola as easily, since it’s off to one side and is closer to the center than the rear. I personally think it’s good that you can pen the new E5’s cupola if you hit it dead-center; however, it does seem a *tad* too weak at the moment IMO. I still think the vehicle is in need of a rework, as the vehicle looks almost nothing like its historical mockup ( http://blog.tankpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/T110E5.png ), but if they aren’t willing to do that, a slight increase in armor (not quite back to its old thickness, but a bit stronger than it is now) would be justified.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Buffing 907 – wow. Just wow. Maybe buff all arties aswell, they are also very weak for some players who never play anything but arty?

    Like

    1. So unfair! Buff arties so they have better armour than 907… Oh, wait. They actually did that with Type 4 and 5.

      Damn, better be careful what you wish for, even if it’s just a rant. 😀

      Like

  4. Pz.Kpfw. VII
    Changed dispersion from 0.35 to 0.37
    Changed aiming time from 2.5 to 2.6
    Changed dispersion during movement from 0.18 to 0.20
    Changed dispersion on hull traverse from 0.18 to 0.20
    Changed penetration of the PzGr 44 L shell from 330 to 315

    Outclassed by the Maus.

    Like

    1. And after all these Maus buffs,RIP E-100 too (not that it was thriving anyways),cuz who the f*ck would drive a tank that has a serious allergy to (all over the front) to Heat-spamming try- hards when you can drive Heat-immune Maus?

      Like

  5. Interesting change with the gunstats on teh VK 100, those armor buffs are also welcome in my opinion.
    However… why did the Obj. 907 need any armor buffs?..

    Like

    1. side armor is weaker than the pre-hd one. Top turret is probably against hesh shells, it doesn’t do as much as it seems against normal rounds

      Like

  6. Yess schMutz finally losing those “fuck up” zones above the mirrors.
    I stopped playing it because it was inferior in almost every aspect when compared to the STA-2 and on top of that you had to deal with those dumb mirrors.

    Now i hope they will redo it’s visual model because it is one of the worst in the HD class plus the gun is touching the mirrors now.
    It never made any sense to me why should the gun depression be affected by something as unimportant as the reverse mirrors that would 100% get removed/ colapsed if the vehicle entered combat zone.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s