WoT: USSR Rebalance

Thanks to MatchyHK, ASIA WoT Community Contributor for transmitting the info from WG – please check out his Twitch here:


„Hello everyone,

As we continue fine-tuning vehicle balance, we also want to improve how we communicate upcoming changes to you. The USSR Tank Destroyers have been through several Supertests lately, and we couldn’t but notice the heated discussion they caused. We’ve been paying close attention to your concerns, and feel that we owe you a detailed explanation on suggested changes and reasoning behind them.


We approached the revision with two objectives in mind:

  1. Boosting gameplay variety with new rear-turret heavy tanks we’ve been working on on supertest server. They offer an interesting take on HT gameplay, which is not currently available through other top tier vehicles. Not to mention their design and the fact they’re all modelled off tanks that’ve seen their share of action.
  2. Fixing the lines of Soviet rear-turret/superstructure vehicles on both the medium tank and tank destroyer lines to deliver a more logical progression to top tiers. These vehicles were totally mixed up in between the tech tree lines: rear-turret/superstructure vehicles were mixed with other vehicles with a more conventional layout and vice versa. As a result, the gameplay was varying a lot from tier to tier, which caused a lot of frustration and seriously undermined the lines’ popularity. They played oddly, so it’s not surprising only few people wanted to research the line and/or play in them.


We slightly improved the characteristics of the USSR Tank Destroyer lines in previous updates, but it didn’t work. So we decided to revise the branch again. Simply improving combat parameters didn’t cut it and we went on to rework the line entirely. Here’s the concept we had in mind for the revised line:

  • High forward and (more importantly) backward mobility combined with medium maneuverability
  • Good frontal armor, but weak sides
  • Average damage per shot with a high reload time (to compensate for mobility and protection)
  • Accuracy and aiming time that would make them effective at short-to-medium range, but also reduced their effectiveness at long range
  • Poor elevation angles due to historical design

To sum up, these vehicles are meant to drive the breakthrough of the flanks. Outstanding mobility lets them quickly reach and occupy key positions and hold them until allies catch up. They specialize in middle- and close-range combat. They can pop out from the cover, deflect enemy shells, and send a few solid punches in return before quickly retreating back to safety.

First Iteration

The first iteration we offered you to supertest was built off this concept. In it, we:

  • Moved the Object 263 down a tier enabling it to make a sensible contribution with its damage per shot and armor. At the same time, this re-shuffle stopped us from increasing to make it fit for a Tier X.
  • Added a new Tier X TD: the Object 268 Variant 4. It inherits the speed, armor and good gun from its predecessors, but unlike them, it can mount a gun above 130mm and doesn’t suffer from an open hatch

With these changes, we felt we almost reached our goals, but were left with the SU-122-54 that just didn’t fit into the concept because of its traditional turret placement. It was clearly out of the line in terms of gameplay, but was valuable from a historical point of view. As an interim solution, we decided to test it as a Tier VIII to see if it can be viable there. Unfortunately, it was just as unimpressive at Tier VIII. It was no good at blocking damage even at tier VIII and still felt like a huge step away in terms of gameplay.

The Object 263 and Object 268 Variant 4 showed excellent results in the tests. The vehicles perfectly blocked the damage and performed as assault TDs–fast, armored with an average damage per shot and not very big DPM for TDs.

Second Iteration

You spoke out against moving the Object 263 to Tier IX, but the testing result told us the opposite. The Object 268 Variant 4 proved superior to Object 263 and therefore better suited for the role. So we took them both for another round of testing to verify the initial results.

For the 2nd test we:

  • Removed the SU-122-54 completely and made a line fully composed of rear-turret/superstructure vehicles
  • Returned the SU-100M1 and SU-101 to their places, improved their armor and gun parameters
  • Reduced the Object 268 Variant 4 alpha strike from 750 to 650 to maintain the uniformity of the gameplay in the line. There’s no abrupt change in alpha damage and reload time now, when you move up from Tier VIII to Tier X.

Here’s the final setup: SU-100M1 >>> SU-101 >>> Object 263 >>> Object 268 Variant 4

The 2nd test solidified our belief that these vehicles demonstrate a very interesting type of gameplay.

  • They’re fast, with 47+ km/h from Tier VII to tier VIII and 55 km/h at Tier X
  • They excel in blocking damage, although they have weak spots in their lower plates
  • They aren’t OP. Their average damage per shot is lower than that of classic TDs, but still higher than that of heavies or mediums, which prevents them from having a huge DPM. This was intended as we did not want to create fast, armored vehicles able to deal the same amount of damage as regular TDs.

Next Steps

We believe that the final setup will provide a fresh take on TD gameplay, and invite you to take the revised line for a stroll during the upcoming Common Test. Give them a shot, try to keep a somewhat open mind, and let us know what you think! We will monitor these and other revised Soviet tanks to see how the tuning adjustments are working out in real live server condition, and if further iteration might be needed.

Last but not least, we strongly recommend you to follow our official channels for communication on all re-balancing work being done in order to get the latest and most accurate information on changes to come. We will on our end double our efforts to keep you updated on the reasoning behind the changes we make to the tanks you play and love.”


47 thoughts on “WoT: USSR Rebalance

  1. so basicly … they heard everyone’s oppinion that they don’t want obj 263 at tier 9 and chose to ignore it … because the stats showed them so. Well the guys are going to pray now that this obj 268 v4 is not a slow, camoless, glassgun.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. How is it possible to be so retarded like those devs? I mean the line is unpopular because the tanks bevore the 263 where meds without a turret. Fixing the line is freakin easy either give them better camo for their sniper role and also find soething to exchange with the 122 54. but leave the 263 where it is now. Also arent the high tier Chinese td’s Assault tanks?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. brain dead… they cant play fucking game. i think all devs are spg users… they describe a broken tank concept like working… turretless td with out hulldown or solid front armor simply need very good camo and fire power. with out this tank is useless… they describe unworked broken solition…

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Still they are about to change a line people were grinding for low-alpha/high-dpm with a low-alpha/low-dpm line. That’s just a fucking nerf. Remove dpm, remove accuracy, add armor which is meaningless in the current meta, make them fight in short range with weak flanks.

    I’m telling you these morons do not play their own game.
    Quit testing your tanks in supertest with people that are not representative of the playerbase ; go out and actualy play them in live server just to see how shit your ideas are.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Are these the same devs collecting data for over a year,trying to convince us that the E5 was not overperforming after its buff???
    Or the Mause after it got buffed?
    The same devs showing charts that gold ammo is used only like 5% out of all ammo shot(calculating gold ammo shot at ALL battle tiers,including tier 1-2-3-4-5 where hardly anybody shoots gold)?
    The same devs who thought WTE-100 was a good balanced idea,only to nerf it after a year 4 times in 4 consecutive patches,and finally removed it?
    The same devs introducing the premium FV-4202 after its switch from tier 10,which after 4 consecutive buffs is still garbage?
    The same devs who thought arty prevents camping?
    The same devs who think 3-arty battles are playable?
    The same devs who introduce supertested balanced,fun,tactical maps like Pilsen,Kharkhov,Stalingrad?
    Some devs………………..

    Liked by 3 people

      1. So what noob?
        Go check some stats at vbaddict concerning your FV4202 kid……
        Speaking like an idiot only to show of…meanwhile 99% of all players agree its a piece of shit…..

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Youay be 40y old,but you behave like a 10y old retard you flaming piece of shit.Now go watch some porn to jack off and get your brain straight,cuz by the looks of it,you are a lonely frustrated 40y old retard,who likes to insult people for nothing.
            Gtfo shit


            1. Btw,stop spamming about your beloved Fv4202,stick it in your ass if you like to,nobody cares,this is about russian TDs and devs decisions mofo


              1. You described you character earlier,calling me noob and shithead for no reason.Now you feel insulted acting civilized?
                And yes,i did get it for free,2 gun marks on its barrel,still think its crap.


        1. FV4202 imho is actually a good tank which is fun to play also and doing fine in vbaddict stats
          Only concern for me is the high ammo cost which make it not very good for credit making


          1. No dude,its not doing fine,unless fine means beeing somewhere below average at win and credit earning.
            And remember that it got buffed 4 times in row,before it bacame playable now.
            230 alpha on a tier 8 med,with insane ammo cost and shit gun handling with a bloom the size if an elephant while turning turret or hull the slightest,kill this tank.
            And if you compare it to almost any other similar prem tier 8 (except the dead CDC),like STA-2,GUARD,M4 Revalorize,even T-54 mod or Super pershing and FCM with pref MM,or the recently buffed T34-3,it pales even more.


            1. Seems like VBAddict does not agree with you. >50 win rate for a tank is mostly Pretty good(taken with a grain of salt here, because probably the players having this one for free are somewhat better than your average Defender player)


              1. The FVs stats improved greatly after it got massive buffs,and yet it performs average at best.Speed,gunhandling,armor had to be buffed for 4 patches for you to sre these average results.I still doubt anyone would choose this tank over other prem meds if he had to buy only 1 tank.
                And yes,playerbase of folks getting it for free id above average


  6. The last line leads me to think that they’re going to try the Obj 268 Ver 4 with 650 alpha? If the improve the gun handling of the Obj 263 at tier 9 and the 268 Ver 4 at tier 10 then I might be willing to run with it.

    But I’ll hold final judgement until I’ve played them but the last stats I saw werent promising at all


    1. Honestly, they should just put the Obj 268 Ver 4 at tier 9 in place of the SU-1220-54. Give it the 152mm M51 with it’s 650 alpha damage and you’re cheering.

      The line becomes better, WG gets to put in the 268 Ver 4 they’re so desperate to include and players get to keep the unique and fun Obj 263 at tier 10


      1. So it would look like this: https://i.imgur.com/VcR8mAG.png

        modules would look like this: https://i.imgur.com/wvx7qry.png

        The 152mm M51 is the same as on the Obj 705A so it would have 650 alpha damage making it play similar to the Obj 268 line without impeding on the 750 alpha fun of it.
        The 130mm S-70 off the IS-7 would make the 268 Ver 4 play a lot more like the 263
        With armor buffs to the rest of the line to make them more enjoyable while increasing it so much that the gun handling needs to be nerfed to balance it.

        This, in my opinion, is how the Soviet TD line should be changed: Swap the tier 9, buff the tier 7/8 and that’s it.


        1. That would be a nice change to fit the 268 v.4 making the connection by the two guns … the 152 leading to the object 268 and the 130 leading to the object 263.


  7. Both of their reasons are completely retarded. When you replace a unique tier 10 with a generic one, you aren’t increasing variety, you’re doing the opposite. And as for the 263 branch, it never needed this kind of shake-up. Certainly not for aesthetic reasons, and no more so for ‘consistency’ either. All those WG dimwits had to do is give the tiers 7-9 more gun depression. But nooooo…. that would be too simple and easy….

    Liked by 1 person

  8. See, this is the same old fucking bullshit that the cunts have been spewing over at the RU forum. They don’t give a fucking shit about players opinion, they don’t care that we say no, they want to change it and they will do so. Fuck you WG, you ignorant, incompetent, spastic autists.
    WG how fucking difficult can it be to understand??? Keep the Obj.263 at tier 10 and buff it if needed. How the hell can you develop a game if you havn’t learned to read????? Retarded alcoholics…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I recently made a post about it on the forums as I really struggled with it. Urquan (someone who REALLY loves the KV4) responded and basically said yes its shitty your only use is the side armour and great premium rounds…
      They need to make a choice with that tank make it a superheavy or massively buff the gun and view range, cause that tank struggles with being blind poor frontal armour, no camo and mediocre gun 😦


      1. And worse, the armor layout and values from IS-M turns kv4 even more irrelevant, I also love this tank and agree with everything you said


  9. Hmmm.
    Tl;dr: “We at Wargaming are complete cucks, not caring about our players or the game at all. We aren’t even playing it! Igor had this fantastic idea of adding that shitty new TD, so we will do that. What? You don’t want that? Too bad! Here, have some fake data and retarded gamedev explanation. Good day!


  10. If *all EU players* stopped playing WOT for just 1 weekend WG would shite themselves and fear for there jobs ~ if only 10k were on EU server instead of 150k

    THEN the shitter Devs/ managers at WG would listen, boy would they fuck listen!!

    hit WG where it hurts, no players = no money, no income stream

    guarantee WG would be so very different in there “fuck you all” salty attitude


  11. Wargaming not caring again and pushing through their own ideas despite the community making clear they don’t want these changes. Aaaaaah what was it again? “Happy Players”?


  12. Wargaming with their “ultimate wisdom” and “all knowing knowledge” for what is good for the player base….KAPPA!

    Serious question though:
    – How does the Russian community look at these changes?
    – Did they receive these upcoming changes as positive ones, with positive feedback as a result? or
    – Were these new changes received with similar feedback, as was seen from EU and NA?


  13. Is there already a topic against that dumb move in the Forum ? If Not, Just start someone and Gathering ALL together!!

    Ignore peoples meanings and just listen to the Stats … Wow gg wp wp …

    What shall I do with a fucking Gun that has 650 Alpha but Hits Not even the sun


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.