Comments on: 31.1.2014

By: 23r0_NA

23r0_NA — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:52:45 +0000

The T29′s primary advantage comes from it being placed a tier lower than it should be, as it was designed to counter the Tiger II, which is a tier 8 heavy (and unlike its predecessor, the Tiger, is actually appropriately balanced at tier 8, whereas the Tiger is effectively a tier 6 heavy in every way except for the top gun, which is good at tier 7 and adequate on the Tiger II at tier 8).

The T32′s effectively the same tank but with a smaller turret and the same guns, but wouldn’t be good enough for tier 9, so tier 8′s a good place for it.

Frankly, something I could see happening once multi-hull options are added could be the T29 being moved up to tier 8, with the T29 and T32′s equipment available for it as options (and possibly allowing one to research the T30 from it as well). The only problem: there isn’t anything suitable to take its place at tier 7, so it probably won’t happen…

By: 23r0_NA

23r0_NA — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:45:57 +0000

Here’s a better question: did you honestly EXPECT them to read your FAQ?

By: 23r0_NA

23r0_NA — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:40:11 +0000

- quality of armor is not taken into account in World of Tanks

Then how do you explain nerfing the effective thickness of the Super Pershing’s frontal spaced armor, which was explained at the time that it was because it was boiler plate rather than armor-quality steel (the angle was off too, but they reduced the effective thickness of it because of the material it was made of)?

I suppose the more accurate answer would be “quality of armor is not taken into account in World of Tanks…unless you’re talking about tanks that aren’t Russian.”

Seriously, they’re full of shit sometimes.

By: Silentstalker

Silentstalker — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:24:01 +0000

I had one. Noone read that.

By: Ooorky1

Ooorky1 — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:21:55 +0000

- quality of armor is not taken into account in World of Tanks

The reason:
WT GF has armour quality and… late war soviet tanks suffer from the cast armour, it’s 5% weaker than RHA (place holder number until they get more data).

By: Leedar

Leedar — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:13:11 +0000

They have a convenient ‘argument’ for the current spread: ‘T-34-76 met Tiger IRL, therefore spread is appropriate for all tanks’ (IIRC).

By: ramp4ge

ramp4ge — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:33:16 +0000

Who said anything about Russian bias?

Also, don’t pretend the T29, T34 and T30 are the only ones that benefit from a-historical stats. How about the IS-7′s a-historical armor, or the KV-1S getting 300% more gun depression than it had in real life?

By: ggram

ggram — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 01:22:39 +0000

How about T29, T30 and T34 in-game model having a +79mm extra turret mantlet that isn’t in the real vehicle? Is that russian bias too? http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/11/20/t29-tank-possible-mantlet-changes/

By: Quineloe

Quineloe — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 01:10:57 +0000

that’s usually what a FAQ is for.

Do they have a FAQ on that forum?

By: Quineloe

Quineloe — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 01:01:13 +0000

way back when MM was from 3 to 10, devs told us that it has to be that way, else queues would be way too long and game would be too boring. Smaller brackets will never happen

people continued whining
Then they made it 4/-4.

People asked for 3/-3 and devs told them hat it has to be that way, else queues would be way too long and game would be too boring. Smaller brackets will never happen

people continued whining
Then they made it 3/-3

People then asked for 2/-2 and devs told them hat it has to be that way, else queues would be way too long and game would be too boring. Smaller brackets will never happen

people continued whining.
Then they made it 2/-2

People then asked for 1/-1 and devs told them hat it has to be that way, else queues would be way too long and game would be too boring. Smaller brackets will never happen

people continued whining.

That’s where we are now. Durr, I wonder what will happen next.