21.10.2013

Posted on by

Please note that the Golden Joystick results stream will take place on 25.10.2013

- SerB states that WoT won’t be transferred to a new game engine, it would increase the costs and reduce the speed of development
- there has been a project to put a gun more powerful than the BL-9 on IS-3: the D-83
- a high power 122mm gun was tested on an IS-2 (more powerful than the D-25)
- there were plans to equip the Tigers with engines more powerful than the 700hp one, for example an 870hp Maybach, there were even more advanced engines, but not for Tiger – by the time they were developed, Tiger was already replaced by Tiger II (and in future by E-75)


- a non-penetrating HE explosion (on armor) can also set an engine on fire (modules get damaged even if the shell doesn’t penetrate)
- repair kit doesn’t fix only the equipment function, but also its hitpoints
- for now the devs haven’t had time to discuss the perk/skill rebalance issues
- there is no additional bonus for critting enemy gun barrel than for damaging other modules
- Q: “How high will be the maximum speed of the new tier 10 French heavy without autoloader?” A: “As high as I implement it”
- Q: “I’d like to see Soviet tanks with autoloaders, why aren’t there any?” A:”Because the Soviets didn’t bother with autoloaders”
- the fact that a skill training is non-linear (first few percent require least XP and the last percent requires most XP to train) was made with the intent of skill starting to work faster and the average skill level related to period of time being higher
- SerB states that oscillating turrets and autoloaders are so good in the game, because reliability does not play a role in WoT. This is intentional, as the developers do not want the player to “fight their own tank”, lower real life reliability of components is sometimes implemented as lower amount of module hitpoints for example
- the fact you disable the encounter and assault modes has no influence on map selection
- Soviet autocannon Sh-37 penetration values were taken from tests conducted under 60 degrees and not 90 degrees (they are not historical), because with the 90 degrees pen the gun would be way too overpowered
- based on previous questions, a player asks where else is the penetration lower than historical, SerB replies that it’s like that with many premium shells for example
- SerB states that while the hull drawings for IS-3 on the internet are fully adequate, the drawings of the turret armor are quite complicated and that’s why they haven’t been laid out
- 122mm U-11 was not proposed for KV-2, it’s in the game as a stock gun for balance reasons
- SerB states that even though there is a new trend on RU server (players intentionally playing bad to have worst stats possible), the thing that will be punished will be these players’ individual transgressions, not the trend as a whole
- at this moment, it is not planned for shells to cause weak armor zones (SS: as in, a shell damages armor and the spot will be easier to penetrate), apparently this was planed until closed testing, it’s possible it might appear in the future, but SerB states the problem with this would be player perception (“how the hell did they penetrate that spot with a weak gun”)
- there will be no “special” tank destroyer vehicle usable only in 7/42
- it’s possible the Panther II from Patton museum (SS: Panther II hull with Panther Ausf.G turret) will make it to the game, perhaps as an optional hull
- SerB and Storm confirm that T-44-85 will NOT be in 8.9, it’s too weak and requires more testing, apparently the penetration will be buffed
- apparently the function where you can add your own notices to your friend list contacts has been considered, but it’s impossible for some reason to transfer it server-side

121 thoughts on “21.10.2013”

  1. Soo…if they use some other engine or they make their own(God forbid) that will slow development? Their own new familiar engine will slow development? What the fuck.

    • Learning a new engine would ofcourse cost a lot of time and making a new engine from scratch even longer…

    • they bought the company whose engine they are using, so basicly it is their own, and they (should) have competent guys knowing how the engine works…

      • yeah except if you go back and look at the other games using the bigworldengine you will realize there is nothing EVEN CLOSE to the complexity of world of tanks meaning that they have made EVERYTHING. to switch to something like CRYengine they would have to relearn (as a company) how everything worked within the engine and then re-implement and rebuild the entire game from scratch AGAIN! so switching to a new engine isn’t even really possible if you really want something like this just wait for War-thunder tanks or other games that will inevitably spawn from both games popularity.

  2. - SerB states that WoT won’t be transferred to a new game engine, it would increase the costs and reduce the speed of development

    Really? hmmm… i though new engine comes for free…

    • IF what he said is to be the truth for next one or two years, they will be out of business quite soon. If they start development in 2 years and finish in 4 years, not that WT would be already ahead of them – utilizing better graphics and modifying gameplay as much as possible, obtaining the biggest player base possible, but there will already be new games out there with which the already obsolete WoT engine will be only to be made fun of. It wont be the first nor the last game which went down this road, feeling comfortable with what they have now and hoping they will keep it, spending money everywhere just where it is needed not. Coupled with those PR attitude and abilities from community administrators and some other employes… They should remember that 100 good deeds will stay unnoticed while one bad move will be frowned upon for a long time. And I am not so sure about those numbers of their good deeds nor bad moves.

      • The competition is rough, they will soon learn about it. It does not require other games to be about the same as wot, for instance in that 4 years there will be probably battlefield 6 already out. And take just battlefield4play for instance, if they will make f2p version of bf3 at that time. Many, many other games will be made till then. They should not rely on that their players are all tanks enthusiasts, many are just regular online player who will play a game with the best of all, it does not matter to them, if it is about WWII, modern days, scifi, historical simulator or the arcadest thing possible, tanks or infantry or spaceship for that matter.

        • Actually WoW’s engine is the modified engine of Warcraft III, so its a lot older than that.

        • Do you mean that WOW had better engine 6-7 years prior WoT was even released!? (As in WoW still looks nice and WoT is already outdated by couple of years…)

          • WoW never looked nice IMO.
            But I’m not into that fantasy stuff too much so my view might be very objective.

          • Hell some of the MODELS in WoW haven’t changed since 2004. Some of the character models look like smashed meat pixels more then they do anything alive.

  3. The T-44-85 only needs an aim time and rate of fire buff, the pen is allright. And if with that speed you are not abble to get to the sides of an enemy, you are doing it wrong :P

    • Really? It has limited MM to tier 8 but on the test you only ever play against tier 7s, what’s worse is that almost all of them are the new PAPER german tds. Think of IS-3s, KTs, T32s, KV-4 and even KV-5 R2D2 will NOT be possible to pen without using gold ammo and even with gold ammo you won’t even have a chance to pen kv4s, kts and is3s frontally, there are no weakspots weak enough for this trash of a gun and if you fancy to lose half your HP to even have a chance to pen them on the side then I wish you best of luck because that’s not effective gameplay at all. This gun should at the very least have the same pen values as the 85mm D5T-85BM 144/194 then at least you’ll have a chance with gold ammo, atm it’s quite pathetic and should be buffed. Premium tanks are not supposed to fire gold 24/7 they are supposed to farm.

        • I guess that’s why SS wrote that it’s going to get a pen buff eh ?

          You can’t flank on most WoT maps simply because there’s no room to go around the damn chokepoint. I would be fine if the gun couldn’t reliably pen the tier 8 heavies frontally, but it’s to inaccurate to aim for weakspots, and the alpha is to low for it to be worth the risk of flanking in an uncertain position (if possible at all). If I throw my SU-122-44 around is because I know with 3 shots that pen I already have a neat profit, but with this tank you won’t live long enough to dish out any credible amount of damage simply by trying to flank. Not to mention that flanking requires some teamwork. Tanks that are that situational and depend on teamwork are the most frustrating in WoT, for me at least.

      • The A-43 meets those tanks too. On a regular basis, even (despite being Tier 6).

        Your point is?

        • The A-43 is also blisteringly fast and makes a pretty decent ersatz scout when needed, and the gun is actually *better* than the S-53 on multiple counts (mainly: RoF, acc characteristics). It’s also T6; the T8 prem would pretty much need the same MM spread (unless you fancy fighting T9s with THAT popgun…) which is… kinda eh right in the face of it.

  4. - Q: “I’d like to see Soviet tanks with autoloaders, why aren’t there any?” A:”Because the Soviets didn’t bother with autoloaders”

    Hm, i’ve seen posts about soviet WW2 autoloaders already in this blog. Not that they would fit in the reguar branch though (soviet autoloaders used the 76mm F-34, which is a weak gun ingame) could be nice premium material though.

    • “Because the Soviets didn’t bother with autoloaders”

      May the T-80 tank cook your worthless head, SerB!

      • Different type of autoloader you imbecile, in game they use revolver type and cassette style

        • You didn’t get the joke, that’s for sure.

          Let me make a shotgun marriage between you and Kellomies :D

          • Marriage is an useless relic of an institution I refuse to have any business with. =3=

            • Pretty sure we don’t even have such here, the main differences between duly registered relationships and plain cohabitation (“wolf pairs” to use an archaic colloquial) having to do with stuff like property inheritance…

      • Because a Seventies main battle tank is *totally* topical to the game… and those are autoloaders in the “replaces human” sense, not in the “six-guns for fun and profit” one, anyway.

        You’ sir, are an idiot.

      • Being “mostly just experimental” has stopped wargaming from implementing tanks, or modules approximately 0 times.

    • Serb was talking about revolver type of autoloaders in his answer. Soviet designers bothered with more ‘usuall’ loading mechanism.

    • That someone designed it doesn’t equal the military giving a shit nevermind now building a working example, luminary. The IS-7 incidentally *does* have an autoloader, but not in the same “revolver” sense as the Fifites oscillating-turret jobs.

  5. - there were plans to equip the Tigers with engines more powerful than the 700hp one, for example an 870hp Maybach, there were even more advanced engines, but not for Tiger – by the time they were developed, Tiger was already replaced by Tiger II (and in future by E-75)

    But let’s remove the engine upgrades because ‘historical balance’.
    WG at work.

          • That page makes no mentions *at all* of the IS-3′s engine, but given that the IS-2 is already listed as having had a 600-horsepower one it’s rather hard to see why the Soviets would have used a weaker one in the later and heavier vehicle…
            BTW the page on the engine family itself – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_model_V-2 – for whatever reason mentions 520hp; one vaguely suspects there may have been confusion with kilowatts somewhere, as the IS-8/T-10′s version’s 700hp convert to 522 kW…

            Anyways, the “V-2-54IS” index of the top engines suggests a modification of the 620hp T-54 engine (also apparently retrofitted into T-44s) for heavy-tank use but beats me where the extra 80 horses come from. Motor engineering is pretty arcane stuff anyway and I for one haven’t run into literature discussing this particular topic.

            • Is-3 had a 520 hp engine in the first version and the late version had a 600 hp one. Can’t find any mention of it ever having a 650 hp or 700 hp engine.

          • Judging by the index it’s two engines working on one shaft, which is a decent quick-and-dirty method to get lots of horsepower if you don’t mind the added complexity, weight and size of the setup (IIRC one of the Sherman variant’s engine was built out of *five* truck engines or somesuch…).

    • Maybach seems to have had something of a tendency to promise more than they could deliver which may not be entirely irrelevant, you know.

      • The 700hp is wishful thinking as it is closer to 680-90hpor so because of accessories like PTO for the turret transverse, starter, Alternator, various hydrolic pumps, oil pump etc. Maybach tends to, like most other company’s of the time, rate their engines hp without any accessories mounted. Be careful how you quote your engine figures guys.

        • Gross horsepower is the standard method of expressing engine power. What you’re thinking is net horsepower, not used as an engine metric as it is heavily dependent on vehicle around it.

          • Of course this is the standard TODAY, but it was quite different back then. Also, it’s quite difficult for Maybach to rate the engine including the vehicle around it because they didn’t design the vehicle.
            So they just designed the engine and stated it’s power. The engine could be used in various vehicles.

        • I’m thinking more of their overly optimistic late-war designs which famously didn’t quite deliver when the French tried to make something out of them (for a decade); if the Jumo aero-engine fiasco is anything to judge by, a certain tendency for excessively optimistic projected specs was a bit too common among wartime German engine designers.

  6. “- [...] a new trend on RU server (players intentionally playing bad to have worst stats possible) [...]”

    So… is critically underachieving the new achievement of choice or something? o_O

  7. “A new trend on RU serwer – players playing as bad as posible to get worst stats possible”
    I though this only happens on test serwers….
    But it seems that They still haven’t considered bots…

  8. Meh, a complete redo of the engine might be all that is needed.
    I want to see the new post 0.9 engine/optimization :P

  9. - SerB and Storm confirm that T-44-85 will NOT be in 8.9, it’s too weak and requires more testing, apparently the penetration will be buffed

    And the price will be buffed as well I bet

    • Technically shouldnt the M-63 fit into it as well since it was designed to go anywhere the D-25 was?

      • M62 you mean, M-63 is the Objekt 416′s top 100mm gun. Anyways IIRC the former was introduced in the late Fifties for the T-10M, ie. the upgrade of the IS-3′s successor, so while it should have been technically possible enough I doubt the Soviets bothered (note that SerB seems to be talking about historical projects) all the more so as by that point they were losing interest in heavy tanks anyway.

    • D-83 for IS-3 must be only for test purpose IMO since the gun was developed from T-64 project, and IS-3 is already outdated at that time.

  11. After an evening in a training room with several tanks, I was absolutely positive that they had implemented “weakened armor” resulting from multiple hits. It was completely consistent across all areas of multiple different tanks.

    Oh well, I suppose it’s like “extra XP for kills”, left hand doesn’t know what right is doing…

    • After many months of playing. I am absolutely positive that they have NOT implemented the weakened armor feature.

  12. - SerB states that even though there is a new trend on RU server (players intentionally playing bad to have worst stats possible), the thing that will be punished will be these players’ individual transgressions, not the trend as a whole
    ___________
    Why am i not surprised this started on RU?!

  13. Hi, anyone know how many shell penetrations the visual models retain? As in if a tank gets hit & penned 10 times how many are still visible? 4 or 5..?

    Thx

    • I haven’t tested it thoroughly, but it seems that it’s not tank-specific, but global. If only one tank gets hit it seems that it can hold more hit decals than when multiple tanks around it get hit at around the same time.

      Additionally, it seems that tanks that get hit while not visible to you (outside of display box, not spotted or no info because of radio range) don’t get hit decals for you (but others in the same game can have them).

  14. - Q: “I’d like to see Soviet tanks with autoloaders, why aren’t there any?” A:”Because the Soviets didn’t bother with autoloaders”

    Well…actually they did, but not in the ‘drum’ autoloader found in the game, instead more closely-resembling how a standard gun would load and just allowing the tank to function without a loader among the crew. Designs were drawn up for the T-34 and KV-1, but never implemented. An autoloader was eventually added to the T-64 and subsequent tanks, but they’re too advanced for this game.

    • Don’t confuse the stupid people. They will see you say they did add an autoloader and then forget how to read the rest of the page and will start saying “see there is proof they added an autoloader!”

  15. “T-44-85 will NOT be in 8.9, it’s too weak and requires more testing”

    Well, that’s what they get for putting the T-43′s gun (the weakest link on the T-43) on a T-44 (which is only better than the T-43 BECAUSE of the guns it gets).

    • And the extra agility.
      And the extra speed.
      And the lower profile.
      And the better frontal armor.

      But otherwise, yeah … just what you said …

  16. - SerB and Storm confirm that T-44-85 will NOT be in 8.9, it’s too weak and requires more testing, apparently the penetration will be buffed,

    Just make it the average 175mm pen ffs.Or at least they should buff the gold rounds so it can pen T8′s.

    • give it 175mm pen and you have t44 on t7 basically….T43 would be obsolete compared to that tank….stop with nonsense and think before you blabber out something stupid

      • Yeah, gotta agree with you here. (Weird I know, let’s not make a habit out of this.) Plus no fucking way the 85mm is going to get pens to rival the 100mm (which, granted, *is* used by the T7 Chinese…).

        • Perhaps penetration around 140-144 with worse soft stats than T43 would suffice for the T44-85, but no special MM to balance it out. 126 pen was way too poor for a Tier 7 premium.

          • Why do they have to put that tank in the game at all?
            If it’s so crappy and can’t be balanced correctly, because there are already other similar tanks, then make some totally different tanks with no such problems.
            WG are acting, as if they run out of Soviet tanks at all..

          • That’d basically be the D5T gun found in the KV-13 and T-43. Thing is the 44-85 is supposed to carry the rather shittier S-53 instead.

    • There are other premium vehicles that make the regular ones in the same tier obsolete (SU-122-44 is shuffling nervously in the corner). The grind on the stock T-44 wasn’t that bad at tier 8 with that 144 pen gun, so at tier 7 even without special MM I would find this tank very enjoyable. Also, we need a real med prem tank like oxygen (OK, maybe not that bad), because nobody really wants to train a crew in the T-34-3 for the Chinese when the 112 is also available and the Soviet tree just has so many delicious meds that need a crew.
      Yes, it would be better than the T-43 at tier 7, but then again the T-43 is arguably the worst tier 7 med. Better than the worst possible doesn’t make it OP, it just makes it worth buying.

  17. - SerB states that even though there is a new trend on RU server (players intentionally playing bad to have worst stats possible), the thing that will be punished will be these players’ individual transgressions, not the trend as a whole.
    wut?

    • If they intentionally team damage or otherwise grief their team they will be punished (hypothetically), but they won’t take other punitive measures against the people that generally suck at this game and are therefore part of this trend.

  18. >Soviet autocannon Sh-37 penetration values were taken from tests conducted under 60 degrees and not 90 degrees (they are not historical), because with the 90 degrees pen the gun would be way too overpowered

    And yet the Germans get a 30mm autocannon with depleted uranium ammo and 95 pen.

    RUH-RUH-RUH-RUH RUSSIAN BIAS!

    • The MK103′s basic ammo -which may actually be APCR, idk- pens 95, the uranium-cored prem ammo goes through 110. Nothing depleted about it though, not like the Germans had reactors to “burn” it in.

      More practically all the Soviet pipsqueaks you can put the SH-37 in have better-penetrating weapon options available.

    • Its not DU its pure, unenriched, uranium with a small amount of an hardening alloyed into it. On top of this it was made into shells in extremely limited numbers. And just a handful of shells larger then 37mm at best. Which is interesting as Nazi Germany was sitting on top of close to 200k+ Tons of low grade uranium ore.
      .
      The funny thing is that few people even knew the ore was there in any amount, much less extractable amounts.

  19. I seriously dont know why the soviet tier 7 premiums get to be WAY better than the Soviet tier 7 elite normal tanks.

    SU-122-44 is WAY better than SU-152.
    T-44-85 is allready WAY better than that pice of crap T-43. And it will get a buff.

      • The shorter one. So what? Its a lot more mobile, a lot lower, thus stealthier, PLUS it has limited premium MatchMaking. 126 or 146mm pen dosent really make any diffrence. You either pen or you dont. with this kind of pen. Also, The T-44-85 can mount V.Stab, and T-43 cant. So I think it’s allready better.

        • I think the big difference between the two guns, beyond the ~20mm of pen which is not always negligible was the accuracy. The pen value is irrelevant if you can’t hit that cupola from 100m.

        • T-43 can mount the D5T. Pretty much end of discussion as far as I’m concerned, having ‘enjoyed’ myself immensely with the KV-13 stock grind in the past and given that all the 44-85 has going for itself in return is somewhat better frontal protection and agility than the T-43 boasts.
          …and since when could T7 Soviets fit V-Stabs?

  20. - at this moment, it is not planned for shells to cause weak armor zones (SS: as in, a shell damages armor and the spot will be easier to penetrate), apparently this was planed until closed testing, it’s possible it might appear in the future, but SerB states the problem with this would be player perception (“how the hell did they penetrate that spot with a weak gun”)

    One of the better ideas, wish it would be implemented. As it would make all tanks have more potential outcome on the battle, meaning a tier 5 could realistically compete against tier 7′s. But I suppose then armor is negated (but then again it is already) and heavies start to become obsolete.

    Personally I’d like to see this.

    • Below-average-pen tanks with adequately heavy shells could contribute not by doing HP damage directly, but creating weak spots for other tanks to exploit more easily…

      I can see that appeal, but it’d definitely be a double-edged sword, and some of the more idiotic aspects of the game (such as cupolas taking multiple massive hits without being sent towards the sky) would have to be fixed somehow. Not to mention heavily-sloped, but thin, armor (upper glacis plates, turret roofs that can be struck from the front, etc) would tend to be busted regardless of penetrated or not, and then…you have 0-armor zones with minimal effort.

      Then you’d almost HAVE to have some kind of extension to the HUD that shows what condition various plates are in, so you have some sort of warning that certain plates are being pounded to mush…it would have to be customized to each tank, what with all the different armor schemes floating around even within nations (I suppose some of the IS models for example could share, though).

      It’d be a lot of work. Interesting, in the end, but a lot of work. WG’s too busy pouring out minor Soviet variations and Chinese copies these days (credit where credit’s due though, they did just put out the new German line), and seem unwilling to put together additional teams for side projects, so…eh.

  22. - SerB and Storm confirm that T-44-85 will NOT be in 8.9, it’s too weak and requires more testing, apparently the penetration will be buffed

    of course serb wants the russian premium buffed

    • Actually I think a hand waving statistic would show that the voices for and against a pen buff for this prem are 100 to 1, just by following this blog, and the threads in the forum. 126 is just so pathetically little for the way this game works, the maps, and the penetration mechanics that the idea was ridiculous to begin with. Off course, that was the historical fit for this T-44 prototype, and prem vehicles are somewhat historical (Lowe sobs in a dark corner), and they had to try it, but the reaction to this is obviously critical.

  23. - at this moment, it is not planned for shells to cause weak armor zones (SS: as in, a shell damages armor and the spot will be easier to penetrate), apparently this was planed until closed testing, it’s possible it might appear in the future, but SerB states the problem with this would be player perception (“how the hell did they penetrate that spot with a weak gun”)

    If this was not implemented, can you imagine the amount of RAGE that would happen from a Pz 1 C killing a Maus from where the Maus’s gun depression can’t reach (very, very skilled actual side-scraping or butt hug) thanks to shooting it 500 times to weaken the armour and the next 140 to kill it?

    • PzI C stands no chance against a maus, even if it hugs it, the maus will just push it away and crush it against a wall or something.

    • This might have worked before physics was added but now you cant really do the weird hugging thing anymore because a Maus can just push you out of the way. Crappy light tanks would pin large tanks all the time before physics was added (basically seen 2 38na’s hug a Maus so that it couldn’t turn anymore with its back to a wall just stuck there).

  24. SerB states that even though there is a new trend on RU server (players intentionally playing bad to have worst stats possible), the thing that will be punished will be these players’ individual transgressions, not the trend as a whole

    Just as example:
    http://worldoftanks.ru/community/clans/60856-04KO/
    WR above 30% is not so easy to get, company battles it the main source of success.

  25. t44-85 : new cannon 85 mm D5T-85BM pen 180/180/300 HP 144/194/44 mm

    where is the problem?

  26. ops sorry

    t44-85 : new cannon 85 mm D5T-85BM HP 180/180/300 PEN 144/194/44 mm

    where is the problem?

  27. “122mm U-11 was not proposed for KV-2, it’s in the game as a stock gun for balance reasons”

    That’s nice. Then put the 75/L43 on the DouchebagWagen and quit quacking about “historicity.”

  28. ” the fact you disable the encounter and assault modes has no influence on map selection ”

    Really surprising.
    I removed both encounter and assault modes because I was bored playing every time the same sand river / erlenberg / el halluf maps.
    As soon as I removed these two modes, I was able to fight on maps unseen for days.

    I really think the map selection choose first the mode, and after then the map. This should explain the missing maps for days because they are only elligible on normal mode, while sand river is available in the three modes.