3.2.2014

- there are no two arty lines for some nations (SS: Americans could get one) because “we don’t want it for now”
- apparently, TG (Tank Grotte) won’t be implemented anytime soon
- server doesn’t store data about previous manipulation with camo, camouflages, that were bought earlier for gold and “rewritten” will not be awarded retroactively in 8.11 (SS: as in, if you bought gold camo before 8.11 and “deleted” it by buying another camo of the same type for example, you won’t get it back)
- as confirmed before, the T23 premium tank will not have identical forward and reverse speeds (Q: “Why not?” A: “Common sense”)


- there are ideas for camouflage mechanism changes, but they are very far from being implemented
- the T-54 hull in 8.11 is the 1945 model, there will be more T-54 hulls when alternative hulls are implemented (it’s “completely possible” that the 8.10 T-54 hull will be amongst the first alternative hulls to be implemented, when the concept is introduced)
- Japanese tier 10 heavy is very far away, it’s not decided how many hitpoints will it have and this decision is far away also
- SerB confirms there will be a future possibility of streaming directly from the client, details will come in the future
- some player was asking how come the Conqueror turret is less nominally armored in the game than the Centurion one, SerB kinda mocked him, basically the Conqueror turret simply has slopes and is effectively armored more
- this one concerns the situations of too many tier 8′s being in the queue: SerB states that the reason the surplus tier 8′s have to wait for full battle spread instead of MM simply putting all of them to fight one another is “to avoid pay to win element”, tier 8 (premiums) “are vehicles that earn most credits”, it would be “irrational” to give them one more advantage by making them play only other tier 8′s
- apparently, no high-caliber (150mm) premium vehicle was ever promised
- (SS: interesting) – developers considered earlier a KV-1S with a 152mm gun for a premium, but they found that it did not carry a 152mm gun, but a 122mm gun instead
- camouflage will not be transferrable from one tank to another
- apparently, current T-54 turret on the test is not final
- test round 2 of 8.11 will most likely be the last one (third is not planned)
- SerB doesn’t see any point in introducing “API Mantle” support
- no special battle modes for premium vehicles only are planned
- there is a small bug in 8.11 in the crew menu (with some text replaced by “text field”), it will be fixed when the patch is released

96 thoughts on “3.2.2014

  1. I’m disappointed about the T23 reverse speed. It would have been fun going round a corner, seeing a Tiger II and just NOPE, 50 km/h reverse and outta there!

  2. - (SS: interesting) – developers considered earlier a KV-1S with a 152mm gun for a premium, but they found that it did not carry a 152mm gun, but a 122mm gun instead

    Referring to the stubby gun with the muzzle brake?

  3. ”- Japanese tier 10 heavy is very far away, it’s not decided how many hitpoints will it have and this decision is far away also”
    I bet that it will get 3300.

  4. It seems that SerB doesn’t see any point in introducing anythint that will make this game less bugged and better optimized. DX11? Nope. Mantle? Nope. Full multicore? Nope. Proper AA? Nope.
    Better focus on researching OP-1S with 152, and changing models of tanks that noone gives a shit, that they are a little bit unhistorical..

    • Yes, because same people do that right? Let’s send all those modelers, balancers, and researchers do the coding hooray

      • the point is – this game isnt running well.
        It needs a crisis3 machine to look like a HL-Engine game.

        that’s all.

        too dumb, that most smartasses are satisfied with their 30fps on medium settings.

        • Anything below 50 fps and I start noticing it immidiately. Now clocking does a whole lot in this game, going 4ghz+ or results in massive FPS boosts due to the single threaded nature of the code. It is ridiculously CPU bound.

        • but nobody is arguing against WOT needing an engine upgrade but that has nothing to do with new tanks like you claim
          this has nothing to do with new tank models or even tank research

      • You know, a game has 3 parts (well, this one has only 2):
        1. Game engine (which is what supports or not DX11 or multicore);
        2. Game design (all the shit you see);
        3. A.I. (which does not apply for WOT).

        So it’s not “OMG everything needs to be redone, it’s only the engine. And it’s not even the entire engine, it’s the core of it, that handles commands that it feeds the CPU).

        All this “OMG, it’s huge, it’s so hard to make multicore, OH NOEZ MULTICORE COSTS MORE THAN CYPRUS, is fucking gay! Same bullshit that was given by EA regarding offline play for Simcity. At first they said the game can NEVER be made offline due to the huge computations that were made on the cloud. Then some wise guy enabled offline mode thru a minor hax. The EA said, it’s so hard, it will take a very long time to do, OMG IT WILL REQUIRE A SERIOUS REMAKE OF THE ENGINE!!!!11111QQQQQQQQQQ Now, 1 year after the game launch, the game will receive the offline option, an option that has been in development since… December last year. Either they were full of shit, like Wargaming is here, or they have hired all the programmers in the world to fix it in 2 months.

      • Yea, and they should do it, lie Blizzard made Starcraft 2 afte starcraft 1, and EA improves there games every year, or even better, like Blizzard makes extentions to the same Wow all the time.

    • After Havoc, this is the order of things that I would do:
      1. DX11 support as it is designed for multi-core environments
      2. Since Audio is already on a separate core, start moving some of the eyecandy/non-essential stuff over such as Track Traces, ground impacts (missed shots), all the movement of the foliage & trees, etc that do not affect the game directly but do suck up CPU cycles.

      • I like it when someone mentions some of the important stuff every fucking goddamn smartass starts posting their arguments how people who are researching the tanks aren’t in charge of game coding. Really? We didn’t know that already? Point is that fucking game leading developers aren’t focused enough on that stuff and rather spend their resources on boring stuff like fantasy tanks and their bigass guns instead of putting more effort and money into the coding department and forcing them to make all the important stuff that will optimized the game faster.

  5. “- as confirmed before, the T23 premium tank will not have identical forward and reverse speeds”

    Aw yiss

    • for a VERY minuscule ammount of players, first it’s only AMD GPUs, then only the LATEST GCN R9′s (they will add support for the entire GCN GPUs in future) and lastly, it would mean developing AND maintaining a totally different renderbase.
      it’s not worth it AT ALL.
      Also, Mantle only gives gains when you’re CPU bound, this game doesn’t even has proper SMP support so it makes even LESS sense to use a propietary API.

      it’s the same reason they chose HAVOK vs shitty nvidia physx for the upcoming physics.

      • Umm, you are not right, it’s not VERY minuscule playerbase, it’s for R9, R7 and 7xxx series(79xx and 78xx are getting it for sure, not sure about 77xx), so that’s not minuscule at all. Heck, even Steam today published the results of Steam survey, they can see how many people got that cards(I know it doesn’t prove anything necessarily , but still they can see some numbers)…

        Alas, that all doesn’t change the fact that most russians play WoT on calculators.

  6. - as confirmed before, the T23 premium tank will not have identical forward and reverse speeds (Q: “Why not?” A: “Common sense”)

    But wouldn’t common sense dictate that, in a design which allowed for a reverse speed the same as or comparable to the forward speed, the two should be the same? Did the T23 transmission allow for it to drive in reverse as fast as it could forward? If yes, then why not allow it? Oh right, this is SerB we’re talking about; common sense doesn’t even begin to enter into it.

    • He had a really interesting way of explaining it, that basically amounted to “It would be very hard to drive at 50 km/h in reverse because the Driver doesn’t have a rear view mirror and has to rely on the Commander to relay what’s behind him.”

      That said, 30 km/h is still very fast in reverse.

      • The commander has to relay what’s INFRONT of the driver most of the time. Besides, World of Tanks is full of things that shouldn’t be possible but still are. Like AMX 13′s being able to be reloaded while on the move and with the crew still in the vehicle, or gun barrels phasing through the world, or the countless number of SPG’s and TD’s with no internal ammo stowage having more than a single round.

        • Actually other then the GW Tiger (1 21cm round or 3 17cm rounds stowed) all known SPGs that I have researched had at least 3 rounds stowed on the SPG. Including the Bison I (3 rounds).

          Plus those rounds can weight upwards of 230 lbs just for the round and not counting the powder. 9.2 inch CGC.

          And most SPGs of larger caliber even the US M12 and M40/43 had tracked carriers moving with them carrying more ammo. (20-30 rounds) Not including the occasional truck.

          All TDs carried more then a few rounds. Even the Sfl. V. carried at least 15 rounds with crates of rounds usually piled up nearby that were hauled in by Munition Panzer or Truck.

      • That doesn’t fly. The T23 was able to be driven by the commander from his station, or even by remote from outside the tank. So the commander can look and get a perfectly good view to the rear of the tank from his cupola.

  7. - some player was asking how come the Conqueror turret is less nominally armored in the game than the Centurion one, SerB kinda mocked him, basically the Conqueror turret simply has slopes and is effectively armored more

    what bothers me, how come conqueror has less armored turret than fv215b when in fact it is the same turret.
    Yet fv215 has almost 100mm more. If I understand correctly , conqueror is just Caern.hull+fv215 turret.

    • If I understand correctly , conqueror is just Caern.hull+fv215 turret.

      Sort of. The Caern is a Conqueror hull with a centurion turret, as the 120mm gun for the production turret (the top turret on the conqueror) wasn’t ready yet. The FV 215b is mostly just a Wargaming mock-up.

      • Oh that’s interesting.
        Well even then, the turret should be identical, at least it doesnt make much sense… they look identical, but the one of them is 10cm thicker …

        • I assume the Conqueror turret at tier 9 is historically. They just buffed it for balance on the fictional 215b HT.

    • It’s the other way around…
      Caern. uses the conqueror hull + Centurion turret AND FV215b uses the Conqueror turret…the FV215b turret is present on the TD version…the heavy version is a WG fantasy.

  8. -apparently, current T-54 turret on the test is not final

    poor thing…
    Next patch notes
    “We found a historical photo with the t54 painted in pink camo and covered with logs so we’ll introduce it”

  9. -“to avoid pay to win element”, tier 8 (premiums) “are vehicles that earn most credits”, it would be “irrational” to give them one more advantage by making them play only other tier 8′s

    Isn’t WG always rubbing our noses in how premium tanks are worse than normal tanks at the same tier.
    So what exactly OTHER advantage is he talking about?

      • Actually as someone with a lot of games in both, the Type isn’t really better. In most ways its worse but requires less overall skill to excel in than the T-44. The Type kind of hits its outer limits of how good it is when it has to do something other than troll bounce people or kill lower tiered enemies as it runs out of tricks fast. The T-44 is a bit harder to master but has higher returns when you know what you’re doing as it has a few more tricks up its sleeve. At least in my experience after 768 battles in the T-44 and 617 in the Type 59.

    • it would be too easy to eran a decent amount of credits.. even though u get more credits when u damage higher tiers (so even it out?..hmm) and yeah it’s generally harder to play with a tier 8 Premium vs. tiers 9 than vs. tier 8′s

      sort of a: dont give ‘em too much credits, damn capitalist pigs! they should work in the gulag for their living!

  10. I get that with the slower backwards speed, I mean it would be nice if WG would add all those quirks of all the tanks (some drivable without tracks, others as fast backwards as forwards and so forth), but if you add one you gotta add all of them.

  11. “SerB doesn’t see any point in introducing “API Mantle” support”

    As the owner of an AMD video card, I can certainly see the point……..

    • on a 15 years old engine I dont see the point either.

      We can only dream about things like DoF, tesselation, TXAA, … not to mention API Mantle…

      • Engine is not 15 years old any more.

        If you followed over the last 6 months you would know that WG has said that next to nothing(code) remains of the engine they started with.

  12. - SerB doesn’t see any point in introducing “API Mantle” support
    lol thats a good one…. what’s Mantle got to do with Win32 Direct X 7 API? (none)

  13. - Japanese tier 10 heavy is very far away, it’s not decided how many hitpoints will it have and this decision is far away also

    Well there is hope at least!

    - apparently, current T-54 turret on the test is not final

    I hope they dont make it even bigger… :(

  14. -SerB states that the reason the surplus tier 8′s have to wait for full battle spread instead of MM simply putting all of them to fight one another is “to avoid pay to win element”

    All tanks on equal footing in a battle = pay to win
    *Wargaming Logic*

    • On one hand, I can sort of see his point: you pay for a tank in a tier swamped with other paid tanks, which (if it worked as you’d think it would) forces MM to throw together more same-tier matches (which are easier to win because you’re less dependent on higher-tier teammates who die in the first couple minutes), so assuming you’re any good you win more, therefore in a roundabout way it’s pay2win.

      On the other hand, it’s a free to play game, and tier 8 premiums are fairly expensive cash items with below-average stats compared to other tanks, so…why the hell *shouldn’t* people who financially support the game occasionally get forced-better MM?

      Frankly, it’s pretty sad that people are forced to play underpowered (well, in a lot of cases; premium tank balance is pretty screwed up in WoT, and the devs are scared to death of touching any of them aside from when they’re…not) tanks just to get something approaching fair matchmaking to begin with, and that the matchmaker is rigged specifically to enforce unfair matching is just…well. Icing on the cake.

      ‘course, all this would matter a little less if there was some sort of system to balance teams better. One that, say, takes skill into account, specifically to make sure that one team doesn’t end up with three unicums and the other all buy-in newbies, resulting in slaughter. IF ONLY there was some way to compute overall skill level and output it to the MM.
      Hmm.
      HMM~

      • skill based mm is retarded…. it would make all the good players have a 50% winrate if they get put in to fair matchs (against other unicums), MM is great in world of tanks because it does NOT provide a fair game if you put skill in to account but does tank wise

      • That sounds like skill-to-win not pay-to-win.

        Sure, it may be “easier” for you to club baddies but it’s also “easier” for the entire enemy team to do damage to you.

        Pay-to-win suggests you are given an advantage over the enemy team for money, like gold rounds.

        Now… I would see a problem if premium tanks only got put in matches where it’s on top. It sounds like by waiting for a “full battle spread” they’re actually making this situation more common… particularly since they’re commonly given preferential match making.

  15. - as confirmed before, the T23 premium tank will not have identical forward and reverse speeds (Q: “Why not?” A: “Common sense”)

    Lol. So real-life capability =/= common sense?

    I’ll tell you what. KV-1S having -8* gun depression in a turret that could only historically allow it -2* doesn’t make much common sense..

    • It is said that if you speak about KV-1S in front of serb, he hits you with a nerfhammer. The hammerhead is made to resemble a KV-1S

    • Whoa there, sir.

      You should know by now that most WG staff only applies common sense selectively, generally when it supports their often dumb and/or arbitrary decisions.

      Just like when it comes to realism and historical accuracy~

  16. forward and reverse speeds (Q: “Why not?” A: “Common sense”)
    The Panhard EBR goes 105 km/h in both directions, two drivers. 90mm or 75mm autoloader. But its wheeled and to fast so it will not appear in game.

  17. The_Chieftain has found documented proof that the T23E3 with it’s electric drive had identical forward and reverse speeds.

    “Common sense”.

    • It’s not a soviet tank, if it was a T-54 that was found to be able to go full speed in reverse…

  18. Pingback: [MMORPG]World of Tanks by Hellsfury - Page 233 - TribalWar Forums

  19. I gotta say, Other than Reddit and Imgur, coming to this site at work is the best way of reading my daily dose of entertainment. No longer a player but reading all these r̶e̶t̶a̶r̶d̶e̶d̶ WG style replies is making me felt great for dropping this game for good. WG Common sense FTW!

  20. Still nothing on the British heavies or mediums don’t really want them to get rid of the fv42 i do pretty well in that tank. perhaps redo the cupola , a slight speed buff and turret armor buff that’s all it needs.

    Still waiting for the vickers MBT and chieftain. They buff Russian tanks every patch and add to the Russian tree kind of absurd. In my opinion if they want to compete with War thunder they have to stop there BIAS which means firing Yuri Palashkov that stupid meth head.

    No the conqueror seems to able to bounce way more shots frontally than the centurion off course side on it does not have chance but what tank does.

  21. - apparently, current T-54 turret on the test is not final
    __________
    Awww….it took exactly few days of russkie whining to please their needs….so T-54′s turret got bigger and more similar to RL version….OH NOE!!! yu nurf aur bestest OP sovjet tonk tu muchh….bring it bak!!! On the other hand while we are in the “historical size” department we also discovered that Ferdinand, Lowe, and whole E-series are too small compared to RL so we will make them 1/3 larger. HUEHEUHEUE

  22. I wonder if WoT is EVER going to be optimized the way WT is for example. Their engine sucks, their rendering suck even harder, beasts PCs are having trouble with fucking game cause it is retarded as hell.

    Better textures are a step forward but that doesn’t change the fact that rest of graphic experience is shitty and isn’t moving forward at all. I ain’t saying I will stop playing cause it’s not the best looking game, but eventually that will be a problem. I hope they work on it.

    • lol only problem with WT is that it is a more retarded and pay to win version of COD aswell as the graphics in WOT being just fine for a midline computer, just like semi casual games are suppose to be