Murazor on 9.17 Premium Tanks

Good day everyone,

Murazor has made a few posts regarding the upcoming changes to Tier 8 premium tanks in the upcoming 9.17 update:

– First off, these are early setups.Tests may sho the need for further changes.

-“Why no changes to the Super Pershing”? Well, the SP is a budget premium, and we’re lucky that its as great as it is for 7k gold. Can a 7k tank be the same as a 12k tank? I think the answers obvious.

-So far we’re only touching tanks that have real problems that we know how to fix. There are plenty of T-44-100s and T-54 Mod. 1s for which there are no simple solutions. We haven’t forgotten them, and will test various solutions.

-WZ-111 and 112. The 111 is more agile, more confortable gun, less armor. The 112 is slow, less confortable gun, more armor. Prior to this they where nearly identical, now they play differently, which is what we wanted.

-I think the changes to the Revalorisé are clear enough.

-STA-2 is now getting a normal top speed for a ST, and a better engine. It should now match the other Japanese tanks.

– Top speed of the FV4202 is brought up to match the Centurions. We’ve also adjusted the shell price to increase profitability.

-While we’ve increased the armor values of the front plated and side armor, the Lowe can also tank with the new overmatch mechanics. The turret also, though that had been good previously. We had considered some proposals for mobility.

-Angles for the Panther 8.8 have been adjusted to -8 like the Panther 2. Fixes to the model have been made for this.







Liked it? Take a second to support jerryatrick53 on Patreon!
Murazor on 9.17 Premium Tanks

33 thoughts on “Murazor on 9.17 Premium Tanks

  1. -“Why no changes to the Super Pershing”? Well, the SP is a budget premium, and we’re lucky that its as great as it is for 7k gold. Can a 7k tank be the same as a 12k tank? I think the answers obvious.

    I dont need it as good as more expensive tank (like Lowe, but seriously, “same as 12k tank” , is Lowe good ?). Just give SP same penetration with M46 Ripper or M26. 90mm T15E1 ARE SAME WITH 90mm T15E2M2 on M26, and historical better than 90mm M3 on M46 Ripper !

      1. Anonymous says:

        Who gives a f…k for historical accuracy, but honestly? I dont care if those tanks exists or not, until those are not shooting some lasers and flying i am ok with it…

      2. To be fair, a historically accurate game wouldn’t be fun, but there needs to be a balance somewhere while to put in speculative enhancements to tanks in this big what if arcade, maybe it is time that wargaming started having brief 100 xp grinds for premium tank modules so these tanks can still have their original specifications up for a learning experience.

    1. It’s the same gun as on the T25/2, and it will go through most stuff with a little patience, I think the argument that the tank is the cheapest tier 8 with pref. Mm is pretty good for why the tank is as it is because the price difference is about a month’s worth of getting first place in every 1v1 tournament. Also, remeber most mediums don’t have the T26e4’s armor and most tanks will need to aim a fair bit to hit your weak points. (Ie. Very few mediums should have competitive armor blocked ratios on average).

      Fcm 50t has the pen that it does to compensate for its lack of armor against equal and higher tiered tanks. It’s no longer an amazing pref. Mm tier 8 heavy because of the power creep and the tank’s poor gun handling but it plays like a panther II if anything and it’s decent for the 12k gold price. The Fcm’s biggest drawback is probably that it has the IS-3’s dpm and outstandingly bad camo so even at range when you’re hit you’ll frequently get penned and you won’t have that problem with the super p. Soaking up hits is a big part of a battle as it stops the enemy from shooting your teammates.

      I understand that you want the tank to be buffed but this seems like more of a personal conflict with the tank that most players are able to get around. Probably why a lot of us are against you on this, sorry haha.

  2. To be honest I like these changes in general.

    Only hope the lowe armour is actually good though. 122mm or 140mm would still be crap. Needs 150 minimum, ideally 160 because it is very flat.

    1. The lowe is a sidescraping tank/hulldown style tank, plus, adding that much armor would only hurt the mobillity more. In brief, a lowe is not a Maus and just being strong enough to not get penned from the angled front by lower tiers would be a huge improvement.

      1. Mobility isn’t effected at all unless WG decides to in crease the weight. Seeing as how the Lowe is already 90 plus tons with no armour I don’t see them making any mobility changes whatsoever.

        Even if it was 150mm for example, the tank isn’t very angled at all and also has the flat bar right on the front. Tier 6 heavies and tank destroyers would still pen the front with ease especially with gold.

        The main issue with this tank however is not even the hull armour as it’s supposed to be hulldown, the mobility and garbage DPM makes it utter rubbish.

    1. Cent says:

      You beat me to it
      This is one of my favorite tanks but it desperately needs some help. I believe it’s one of those tanks that only good players bother to play with anymore, and for which WG would say “no buff, look, stats are fine”

    2. T-34-3 already had a huge buff to gun depression and gun handling. It’s not supposed to be another Type 59. With bad accuracy and poor aim time, it really takes a strategist to play it well and someone who knows the best hull down places to get that outstanding turret armor to use. I could recommend mounting a stabilizer, gunlaying, and rammer if the gun is giving you huge problems and even throwing some food in there if you aren’t happy about the credits you earn.

  3. DeanoGTO says:

    what do they mean the lowe can now tank with the new over matching mechanics? i know the lowe has bad armor but even now i cant think of any places that would be over matched. so what did he mean by that? also i hope they look at the rof on that tank over 10s reload for 320 alpha is painfully bad.

    1. WG will be testing new armor overmatching mechanics in 9.17. Rather than a simple 3 caliber rule, it’ll take more factors into the equation. The little info they have released doesn’t go much beyond that however :/

  4. HkS150 says:

    you guys only whine and bitch in the comment section seriously……some of you are asking for stuff that are logical while others are asking wg to over buff the premium tank that happened to be in their garage if they treat all premium tanks equally then they all will look the same and when that happens i want a refund for the cdc that i bought recently.

    1. Lol ikr but it’s pretty clear that wargaming is going to go through with the panther II changes to take away its semi-long 88 and replace it with the very-long E50 88 for a small pen increase and nerf the dpm/mobility a lot. Arguably, the premium 88 will be the better german medium at tier 8.

  5. Dalarien says:

    Hello, mind if I ask what was that about T-44-100s and T-54 Mod. 1s? I am currently thinking about buying T-54 Mod 1 as soon as Remembrance day sales hit, but I do not understand what that paragraph means.

    Does that mean there is a buff incoming for these two vehicles, but it wont be any time soon?

    Also, I was following news about the new upcoming premium, Lorraine. Is there any information indicating when this tank will be in game? I know it is not any time soon, but at least an approximate time frame?



    1. I think it was in response to a lot of people calling out that the T-44-100 and T-54 mod 1 were underpowered and needed buffs. Personally I don’t see what’s wrong with the T-54 mod 1 but I only played it as a rental. As for the T-44-100 it’s a mixed bag, my average damage in the tank is a couple hundred less than my other tier 8 tanks but I have a +60% win rate over 100 battles so there might be some attribute of dmg with assist or something not being accuratly awarded there.

      Anyways, tanks with all round armor, mobility, and firepower are always a lot more difficult to balance than those that focus on just two of those three catagories.

      1. I see no reason to buff either of these. They are both good tanks and I have done very well in them.
        Of course they are Russian so every buff is requires right?

        Possibly the T4 mod 1 could use a pen buff since it plays more like a heavy anyway.

  6. Mister Z says:

    Did I understand it correctly that they want to buff the STA-2? Despite the fact that it is already one of the best tier 8 meds!

    1. Arguably the award for best tier 8 med. goes to the type 59 officially at least haha you sound like someone who really enjoys the STA-2, I think they’re doing this to encourage more players to play it and buy it so it will make it a lot easier for you to get three marks in it ^^

  7. Finally something, that makes sense from Murazor. Hard to believe…
    – FV’s speed was awful. No idea why they even touched it, on the T8 version.
    – Also, very long ago, Löwe’s depression was nerfed, it was right about time, to roll it back.
    – WZ-111 and 112 really worked like the same, I like the idea, to make them different.
    – PT88 is really problematic. I like the improvements, but I would give a littlebit better camo values to it, since mostly it is a sniper support tank. (At least, that’s how I play it…)
    – STA-2 worked fine for me, but this buff wouldn’t make it OP. Like it.
    – My favorite premium vehicle, after Type 59. I wouldn’t have changed it, I love it as it is, but buffs are always welcome.

  8. Corey_MN says:

    The frustration I have with the Super Pershing is the power creep…all the newer tier 8 premium mediums have better pen than the SP, bar none, and all the Pershing variants have the 90mm at 190 pen. Would it really be that damaging to balance to give that to the SP as well? I mean, I spent money on it for a specific reason because it was the only option I had at the time. Maybe I’m just a whiner lol
    But really, would a pen buff break the SP? I would argue it’s the same as buffing the mobility on the STA-2.

Leave a Reply