17.1.2014

Posted on by

- apparently, there is a photo of a Japanese tank (fortification)

c6ec157a5d16t

A player asked, whether this is the picture of a turret of the possible tier 10 Japanese heavy (that was published earlier from Russian sources). SerB states that they held a long discussion about this and it seems that yes, this turret came from the tank.

- Yurko2F states that statistics are collected for all tanks, even the gift tanks and their decision and these tanks are changed “when necessery”
- Foch 155 weakpoints on its roof were not removed
- those premium vehicles that have their profitability higher than Jagdtiger 88 will not be income-nerfed
- Q: “What is the M6A2E1 (“alien”) supposed to do with tier 10 tanks?” A: “Shoot them” (Storm later states it will not get better MM)
- regarding the changes in US tank suspension details (as announced in patchnotes 8.11):

There are basically two models of US suspension – one is like this (T57):

1388_600

and one is like this (T110E5):

1599_600

As you can see, one has a “hole”, the other one doesn’t. They will all be unified, unfortunately I don’t know which version will apply for all (Storm hints that all the holes will in fact be removed, this change will come to other nations too apparently)

- confirmed: T23 will be able to go back with the same speed as it can go forward with (SS: yes, this is historical, it was a type of transmission that allowed this), its maximum speed will be 56 km/h
- the mode selection settings will not be implemented straight into the hangar
- new US medium line will not come anytime soon
- Storm confirms that the arty MM weight reduction was not an intended buff, but a measure in order to stop MM from balancing artillery with heavies on top of the team
- Object 268 will also get a reversing speed nerf
- the bug where a part of the Soviet camo patters (summer) looks “bleak” will be fixed
- Storm “will see”, whether separate National battles statistic will have influence on balancing the vehicles
- multicore support will not come in 9.0 – it will come later, it’s being developed
- maps specifically for team battles were never planned and they are not planned now
- dynamic characteristics in hangar haven’t been developed yet, but they are planned
- more tank customization is also planned
- Storm confirms: Foch lower front plate will be nerfed from 120mm to 100mm
- IS-6 profitability does not lag behind the one of Jagdtiger 88, it’s fine (won’t be buffed)
- fires on “Ruinberg on Fire” will cause massive FPS drops? “Various ways on various computers”

69 thoughts on “17.1.2014”

    • All I ever see is everyone talking and asking about multi-core support. Do you even know how it works and what kind of performance boost does it give? It’s like you are using one core and and you will be using two cores as in double the current speed. It’s really just minor stuff, you probably wont even notice it

      • Sounds like multicore support not be full parallel processing but farming out physics to another core so it will be 1.5 cores working at best. You have to ask just when did WG find out about multicore processors?

        • WoT already uses “1.5 cores” when running. The main game thread only uses 1 core, but other processes spawned by the executable are natively multi-threaded. So stick that in your fucking pipe and smoke it.

          • yeah minor improvement HA right Im running an i7 with only 1.9 ghz and a Gforce 660M with 8gb of ram and can only play this game on medium high settings not maxed out… for the comparison I can play Batman Arkham City on maxed out in 1080p perfectly so multi-core would be extremely helpful especially with the HD graphics coming and the new dynamics to the maps

            • Vast majority of the HD graphical functions are being rendered through Havoc, so they will cost you literally nothing, they will simply utilise the gear you currently have much better. However this won’t provide a performance improvement in and of itself.

              What will provide a performance improvement is the fact that they will be able to shift current main thread effects into the Havoc process which is then natively capable of splitting this into as many threads as the computer has available cores. This will reduce the size of the single-core throughput needed in favour of load spread, especially in terms of graphical output.

              It’s actually a misnomer to say WoT will become multi-core as the main thread will still run entirely on the primary core. It’s really just an improvement of library usage, which is actually much more difficult to do with an already incorporated product. People with good computers but low max single-core throughput will be *VERY* pleased with the results. Mark my words.

              • That only applies to the physics, not the graphics themselves. That’s not really how this kind of thing works. There are multiple Havok packages that do different things. There’s Havok Vision, Havok Physics, Havok Destruction, Havok AI, Havok Animation, and Havok Cloth. They all have different fuctions. If Wargaming were adopting Havok Vision that would mean replacing BigWorld with a new engine but that’s not what they’re doing. The parts of Havok that they’re implementing appears to be the physics engine and the destruction toolset. Maybe Havok’s AI toolset too since they said there might eventually be AI in historical battles.

                Essentially, they’re implementing the Havok physics engine within BigWorld, which is still going to be handling all the rendering.

          • Yeah. But it is that one thread that causes the bottleneck still.

            We’ve had dual cores+ in commercial machines for over a decade (2003). Multiprocessing has been around at least since the early 80s. (As in running more than one thread at once).
            The concept is hardly new, and yet is not implementted.

            Lets put some perspective on this:

            “The most popular (mmo) game ever”,

            Developers with enough capital to buy a bank

            Single threaded engine in 2014

            Sure, the engine isn’t brand new, but actually being multi-threaded (instead of just running on a different core to OS) was a big thing in gaming in 2006/7.

            The game as a whole is great, and let’s face it, those gamers happy to spend >£1000 on a machine are more likely to spend money on the game than those who haven’t upgraded there machine since xp was new, and don’t meet the minimum requirements.

            • It should be noted that Cryengine games are the only games I am aware of that natively split their own primary threads. I’m not even sure why they chose to do that, presumably more to show it could be done rather than any great necessity. Maybe they were just being very laptop conscious? Because, the truth is that doing so is usually unnecessary if you have incorporated the correct libraries/middleware from the beginning of your planning phase (clearly not the case in WoT) your max core throughput won’t be very high anyway. At the end of the day all the customer cares about is the result, not how it was achieved. That is until you fail to achieve it, then they care an awful lot.

              • Background: I’m a software developer with a fair amount of experience in concurrent and parallel programming. (Concurrency and parallelism are not the same thing.)

                The standard technique these days is to divide up the work that needs to be done in to various small “jobs” and farm these out to the available processing cores. It’s not a particularly new technique, and a lot of games are doing it. If you can achieve reasonable granularity, the results are excellent, easily giving you 2-3x more processing power on a four-core system.

                Using separate processes to implement concurrency is not a smart move; you’re looking at higher overhead–potentially significantly higher. It’s the kind of thing we did back in the bad old days of the 90s when we needed concurrency with parallelism and some OSes didn’t support this within a single process.

                I’m not clear on what you mean by “natively split their own primary threads,” unless you mean actually doing concurrent programming at all, which has been necessary since the multi-core Xbox 360 was released more than eight years ago.

                Basically, not being able to use parallelism in the CPU at this point is due to WG simply not being smart about software development over the past half decade or more. It’s unlikely to be a freak problem within WG; there’s ample other evidence that they simply aren’t very good at developing software.

  2. “Confirmed: T23 will be able to go back with the same speed as it can go forward with (SS: yes, this is historical, it was a type of transmission that allowed this), its maximum speed will be 56 km/h”

    So does that mean that the tank will have the same acceleration forwards and backwards or is it just the top speed that remains the same?

  4. Gosh. That japanese HT is really big.
    I still wish that they come in 2014…rather hopeless to wish that but they said on ASAP that they wants to add them in 2014. Looking forward.

  5. “- confirmed: T23 will be able to go back with the same speed as it can go forward with (SS: yes, this is historical, it was a type of transmission that allowed this), its maximum speed will be 56 km/h”
    “Take your car. Now remove the rear mirror. Cover the rear glass and leave only a small slit. On the rear seat, put your mother in law (she won’t be missed that much) so that she covers the small slit. And now drive cross crountry at full speed backwards, while obeying your mother-in-law’s commands. And don’t forget to include a wish in your testament so that your widow sends us the video of the whole event.”

  6. - Q: “What is the M6A2E1 (“alien”) supposed to do with tier 10 tanks?” A: “Shoot them” (Storm later states it will not get better MM)
    Fukken retard, i just cant use other words. That is definitely worst premium tank i own. Type 59 (which i also own) is thousands times better in tier X than M6A2E1 (FYI its underpowered piece of crap with no limited MM).

    - Object 268 will also get a reversing speed nerf
    Foch gets less alpha, less DPM, less armor, less speed and Object which is IMO best TD only reverse speed nerf and gold ammo nerf. Rusbias at its finest.

    • - DPM of Object 268 will also be changed (SS: as in nerfed)
      That was posted yesterday, keep up.

      • FYI M6A2E1 was never intended as premium tank, but as a promotional tank you get for those big gold packages preorders or something like that. And why would it get preferential MM when it uses the same gun as T32 which is also T8 heavy just like Alien? For a tank to get preferential MM it needs to have seriously UP gun for it’s tier.

        • The gun is slower firing then the Tier 7 T29 with the 105mm. The armor is horrid on the M6A2E1 no side or rear armor, 191mm frontal sounds good but when it has almost no slope on the hull, and none on the turret it’s worse then most other Tier 8 heavies. Toss in the lowest camo value for any tank (worse then maus) and the fact it’s modeled taller then the maus when it was smaller in real life…. well

        • If I recall correctly it had T30 heavy’s gun before it was nerfed / transferred. It was designed to be like the Su-100Y but for Americans. Kinda pointless now.

          • Nope always had the 105mm. But it used to have 360dmg. When they nerfed the105mm on the T29/T30/T34 they nerfed it on the M6A2E1 as well.

    • It was promotional but WG was planning to resale the tank at a later date till a bunch of players made a big fuss about it, so those who have it, have it. It’s just a damn shame they can not take solace in owning it, Personally I find anyone who complains about the alien to make me think ” Does your Greed know no bounds?” well that and “You Reap what you Sow.”

      I mean if you screw hundreds of Players out of a chance to play it for own selfish interests do you not deserve to suffer in some fashion?

  9. “those premium vehicles that have their profitability higher than Jagdtiger 88 will not be income-nerfed”
    And what are those? :)

  10. I checked the suspension of the tanks listed to be changed and most have no hole but some (T57 is on the list) do.

    Guess we will know when the test server comes.

  11. vbaddict.net

    shows net income of JigTig at 23k
    IS6 is 17k
    thats a 6k margin
    And WG say it’s not lagging behind the JigTig and the T34 is when it’s net income is 21

    • I imagine they’re basing the calculation on the net income not counting repairs, and more importantly, the significant amount of gold people tend to use on the IS-6

  12. - Object 268 will also get a reversing speed nerf

    Damn! They finally touch the crucial point!

  13. - multicore support will not come in 9.0 – it will come later, it’s being developed

    WT, here I come…

    I’m patient, but this is just too much.

  14. (Storm hints that all the holes will in fact be removed, this change will come to other nations too apparently)
    ______________
    So we can expect more 0 dmg crits in future on tanks that already have magical tracks, because if they remove the “holes” basically whole side armor will count as tracks and same thickness.

    - fires on “Ruinberg on Fire” will cause massive FPS drops? “Various ways on various computers”
    ______________
    Once again. I don’t have problems with fps(minor drops), but why implementing something that won’t change the map gameplay at all, but will cause fps drops because they are incompetent in optimising it right?!

    • optimising is something hard for WG it seems
      2014 some stuff are supposed to be Logcial and already implaced but naaaa WG is ages back in this stage(and many others propably)

  15. more tank customization is also planned…

    What sort of customisation are we talking SS?

    Will it be trivial stuff like more icons or will we be able to add things like sandbags, machineguns, storage boxes e.t.c? Do tell!

    • I’m guessing this is referring to the option they have talked about in the past of putting different unlockable hulls on tanks i.e. different versions of the same tank.

      • I know something was mentioned that with Havok, additional equipment can be put on tanks that can then be shot off. I wondered if it was referring to this?..

  16. “- confirmed: T23 will be able to go back with the same speed as it can go forward with (SS: yes, this is historical, it was a type of transmission that allowed this), its maximum speed will be 56 km/h”

    0_0

  17. SS, regarding the track “hole”, this was mentioned in one of the old QAs, it is the 2013/11/20 vol.
    In the QA, you mentioned this
    – apparently, older collision models of suspensions will be reworked to feature a “hole” in the middle, like this:
    and theres a pic exactly the same one as the T57 pic in this post. So im wondering if this is a translation error or WG decided to slap their own face.
    Plz make a double check.
    Thank you.

    Edit: and heres the link to the pic http://ftr.wot-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/684_900.jpg
    and to the post: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/11/20/20-11-2013/

  18. Well…that pic’s pretty interesting, and from the link I can honestly say that the tank’s design doesn’t look familiar to anything I’ve heard of before. It’s possible that this could be the Type 100 O-I, of which allegedly one was built and shipped to Manchuria, only for the Japanese to lose track of it (or if they DID know where it went, they purged the files on it along with most of their other wartime documents).

    That being said it’s unlikely that it’s the O-I, as from my understanding the O-I was a multi-turreted tank, but that might just have been the Navy’s version, as there were two O-I designs: the Army’s version (which is what I’m speculating the photo is of) and the Navy’s version (which was never built, and iirc would have been 50% heavier than the Army design).

  19. Russian will rule Tier VI in National Battle For sure….

    But, keep it mind that KV-1S is like a blind bat….

  20. i’ve played every Russian heavy and, to be honest, like KB-1C the least. I also seem to have the worst record on it. (But hey, Hellcat was aweful too, i much more preferred 25/2.).

    Tier 7 will be dominated by Tiger I (s) though. I feel that, since last buff, its soooo overpowereed (RoF buff ? on already AWESOME gun ? HP Buff in line with T8 HT ?). Now im playing through China line and i dread Tigers on top when im on IS-2 as, 1 on 1, its a sure road back to hangar.