19.2.2014

Posted on by

- when creating a new tier 8 vehicle (or rebalancing an old one), it is balanced for general use, not for team battles
- various new graphic effects will not be added to the old render (SS: the old render is not developed anymore in any way)
- Wargaming doesn’t want multiple “copy” maps (like Summer/Winter Himmelsdorf), SerB states that they will rather try to implement these variants with one map somehow (SS: as in, one map, more texture packs or so)
- there is a possibility that the M47 Patton with L7 alternative hull (!) will be implemented
- BMP and BMD vehicles do not fit into WoT
- apparently, no “mastery” badge rewards are planned (SS: but nothing specifically confirmed or denied)
- the reason FV215b (183)’s gun is designated as 183mm, even though its caliber is listed as 182mm: “Different nominal and actual caliber are in British case very common”
- detracking will not be split into “detracked by breaking the track” and “detracked by having a roadwheel destroyed” (SS: for the purposes of possible movement while detracked)
- currently, in the suspension model, each side has 4 contact points per side per tank (SS: as in, when calculating movement, 4 points on each side are there to make sure the suspension doesn’t “run flat” and it looks good). When the independent suspension gets introduced, this number will apparently rise to 5 – also, these points won’t have to be spread evenly, for example, when a vehicle has irregular roadwheels spread, like the T-54, these points will reflect the roadwheel positions
- T-55 Model 1958 is not in the game, because it’s too OP
- AMX 13 Model 1952 is in the game as AMX 13/75

And from Overlord:
- E25 is not OP
- FOV actually does influence FPS (SS: this was confirmed by Storm too, the wider the FOV, the more power it needs for the same performance)

70 thoughts on “19.2.2014”

  2. I thought about making sesons on maps, like now we have winter (Dec – Feb) so all the maps would be covered in snow, maybe except deserts. Same for spring and autumn.

    • Hey Ox,
      Although I would like this season maps myself my opinion is that it is getting boring to play only winter maps in winter time, spring maps in spring time and so on after some time. I think it would be a lot more fun to give every map different weathers like rainy cold weather or a very dry weather with scorching sun with lots of dust (without the season thing)

    • Sounds like nonsense to me. All the resources I can find indicated the T-55 was a pretty minor change from the T-54, almost nothing which is relevant to WoT. Maybe the historical ammo loadout used APCR/HEAT as primary?

      • Indeed, all I read about the T-55′s improvements was a better engine, longer cruising range and two-plane stabilization of the main gun rather than vertical stabilization only, also 43 rounds of ammo rather than 34 on the T-54.

        I would love to know why the T-54 in game has 120 mm thick hull armour, when all production T-54/55 had 100 mm. But that’s wargaming for you.

  4. - BMP and BMD vehicles do not fit into WoT

    BMP Russian amphibian, BMD Russian airborne tank. Both from the sixties and both have smooth bore guns – which rules them out of the game.

  7. - there is a possibility that the M47 Patton with L7 gun will be implemented into the US tree and be accessible from the M46
    ————————–
    Wasn’t that an Italian project ? Hunicutt states that it was modified by Oto Melara by adding the L7 and adding a diesel engine.
    IMO it would make more sense to keep it for the EU tree.

    • The M47 could accept either the L7 or the M68 with relative ease. Additionally there is the M47-M upgrade the US experimented with that had the AVDS-1790-2A in the M47.

      • However the US never wanted to replace the 90 with the L7, at least as far as I know. I have 2 major issues with this being added as a optional hull to the M46:
        1) The M46 is doing fine without it and doing so would change the vehicles playing style
        2) It means that the vehicle can’t be used in the EU tree which aside from this and the Swiss Pz 61 doesn’t really have any unique top tier mediums AFAIK.

  8. “FOV actually does influence FPS (SS: this was confirmed by Storm too, the wider the FOV, the more power it needs for the same performance)”
    - We alreaddy said that, they took the easy route, making fov less = more fps. Perfect for all the bullshit havoc and HD models they will introduce. But they didnt do a shit to optimize the game or the gamenegine.

    • Frame to frame, wider FOV means more objects have to be drawn, which translates to less fps for the same computing power, regardless of optimisation. The drop should be negligible, but it’s there.

        • Because the game is throttled by the CPU. The graphics are shit in general, so even the 2-gen old medium-level GPUs aren’t stressed, but they are even bored because the FPS is CPU-limited in WoT. I’m running max graphics setting and my GPU is loaded at like 80% max because my CPU isn’t the best. Well, it’s certainly enough for Battlefield 3/4 or Far Cry 3, but there’s WG’s optimization for you.

    • There is no need to give another tank to Germany: IMHO M47 Patton should be used in an italian tree.

      My grandfather drove one of them during his required military service in the ’50s, and I’d like to drive one of them too, at least in WoT.

        • Prem tanks are generally prototypes or oddities, not tanks that were in serial production.

          That’s why I want the T42 at tier 8 as a premium. It’s essentially an M47 with one less roadwheel per side..

          And all the parts are already in the game so it’d cost Wargaming pretty much nothing.

  10. - there is a possibility that the M47 Patton with L7 gun will be implemented into the US tree and be accessible from the M46

    yay!, im still play m46 for fun even i have elite M48. Good new to hear XD

      • M48 patton is that kind of tank that not everybody can play or better said: it’s hard to master.
        If you compare it with any other tier 10 medium tank on paper it’s underwhelming, but if played well it can perform very good. For example the m48 was my first tier 10 tank I got when I was a total noob and I had like 1200avg dmg and 41%wr. Now that I learned how to master it (I fail sometime now too) my recent stats for like 3weeks are ~3k avg dmg and I reached to increase my WR to 48-49%

        • M48′s problem is that it can’t do anything the T110E5 can’t do better.

          It was a decent tank before they nerfed the ever-living shit out of it, but now it’s pointless. You might as well just get a T110E5 and sacrifice a small bit of mobility for better everything else..

            • T110E5 fires a normal AP round. M48 fires an APDS round that the game sees as an APCR round, meaning it suffers from higher bleed-off and worse normalization. So the T110E5, despite having less actual penetration on it’s AP round is more likely to actually penetrate. Especially at medium-long range. T110E5 also has a better HEAT round.

              The RoF difference equates to a huge 259 DPM difference. It’s not worth losing the trollish protection the E5 has for 259 DPM and a little more mobility. It just isn’t. T110E5 is mobile enough to do most medium jobs and is protected well enough to piss off most of the stuff it faces..

              • “Tanks whose guns default to APCR are also not subject to the same penetration loss over distance as premium APCR, but still have the higher muzzle velocity.”

                Straight from WoT wiki…

                • Citation needed

                  Ingame, the M58 feels much more reliable at all ranges.

                  “You just want your OP48 back, u wont get it.”

                  It wasn’t OP when they nerfed it. It was actually comparable to the T-62A. Couldn’t have that..

              • False. Tier 10 med APCR doesnt bleed pen like other APCR.

                And the E5 is kinda slow and cumbersome tbh, especially when compared to M48.
                You just want your OP48 back, u wont get it.
                .

                • According to the game files (linear decay between the two values, shell disappears at 720 metres):

                  M68 APCR
                  - 268 @ 0-100 metres
                  - 258 @ 500-720 metres

                  M58 AP
                  - 258 @ 0-100 metres
                  - 238 @ 500-720 metres

          • M48 is better at everything compared to the T110E5 /except/:

            - bouncing (which is significant, of course)
            - slightly larger (still better camo, though)
            - alpha (minor)
            - worse normalisation properties (due to APCR having lower normalisation and a lower calibre decreasing opportunities to overmatch)

  11. - FOV actually does influence FPS (SS: this was confirmed by Storm too, the wider the FOV, the more power it needs for the same performance)

    What kind of power? CPU or GPU?

  12. - Wargaming doesn’t want multiple “copy” maps (like Summer/Winter Himmelsdorf), SerB states that they will rather try to implement these variants with one map somehow (SS: as in, one map, more texture packs or so)

    Duh… look Wargaming… this is REALLY simple…. you make *1* map – you give *4* times of day optoins, and *8* different weather conditions for that *1* map.

    The Time of Day and Weather Conditions are CLIENT SIDED so it doesn’t kill your servers, and the server simply loads the Map – ToD variant string information – Weather Condition string

    THAT… IS …. IT – I spoon-fed this to them almost *2 years ago*

    …and while they’re at it… they could make the ignore list client-sided as well so it simply acts like a contact “firewall” on your end and your list can be as big as you want your hard drive to allow the database file to be.

    • No, and that is a no for many reasons. Good thing they ignored your ideas because they are naive (weather condition strings? lol).

      First are foremost – summer vs winter, the trees are leafless and so are the bushes, this strongly influences their camo impact – map needs rebalancing. There’s a reason why they did winter Himm and not winter Malinovka/Murovanka/Prohorovka.

      Secondly – maybe you didn’t notice that, but Ruinberg On Fire actually differs from regular Ruinberg. Why did they make those small change? No idea, but they did for some reason. So it’s not just another TOD with smoke and fire, there are objects missing here and there (bushes, stone fences etc.).

      Lastly (but not least-ly :) ) you can’t allow for clients to have different TOD in the same battle (for obvious reasons), so it can’t be just client-side, it must be at least governed by the server so it’s unhackable.

      • Oh man… vegetation missing effecting camo value? What will we do? C’mon dude… try harder – what you’re describing is a Red-player’s Greek tragedy. “I don’t want to adapt… I want to go to the same 4 spots on the same 8 maps all the time and never learn how to adapt to my surroundings!”

        I don’t really think you know how this works. So I’ll try to explain it in layman’s terms.

        Server sends a signal to load a map randomly to 30 people. The map is on your system already in the client. Server basically sends 2 more signals following that to the same 30 people – 1 chooses the time of day setting, the other the weather condition setting. Once the battle begins, the system can simply ping you and verify like a CRC check that you’re running what it told you to run (keeps mods from removing the weather effect, etc).

        Those with weaker machines can reduce the effect, but the camo increase or reduction will remain regardless to prevent an unfair advantage.

        …and no Ruinberg on fire is an absolute joke. When I detailed what that map would look like on fire, visibility was next to nothing because the buildings were REALLY on fire, not a tiny ember burning in a window like we see now. Smoke was pluming in thick, black billowing clouds and choking the streets making visibility past a few dozen meters next to impossible until you drove THROUGH it. Plus, whoever set that up clearly had attention deficit disorder because they “tried” to add the most pathetic rain effect I’ve seen in online gaming in the past 10 years. You’re worried about missing leaves on trees? I envisioned smoke so thick that you might actually drive into someone if you were going fast enough! I detailed sandstorms on El Halluf that’d sandblast the camo right off your tank if you drove through it for more than a few hours (not really, but you get the idea… sand blowing in the wind reducing visibility, increasing camo value at distance in a blanket effect).

        If you want to see what a REAL ToD+Weather map would look like, I HIGHLY suggest you get Wintermod and play Himmelsdorf. That’s what the CURRENT engine is capable of which already blows the damn doors off of WG’s crap attempt. Here, I’ll even show you a screenie when I was running it in 8.10

        http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/Tenki-Kun/WoT/shot_476_zps07bfb046.jpg

        If you don’t think your machine can run it, I suggest you upgrade your hardware because to be honest, WG is slowly (finally) getting tired of catering to people playing on Ti-82′s.

    • simple things sometimes seems like they are quantom physics and the black holes….
      many things could be done waaay earlier but it seems that WG doesnt really give a shit as always

  13. BTW, while I think Winter Himmel looks great, I’m TOTALLY 100% FUCKING DELIGHTED with new Ruinberg. Especially in arty mode, when those distant thunderstrikes are not deadened by the engines, guns etc. It’s a fucking zen with frags.

  14. “- T-55 Model 1958 is not in the game, because it’s too OP”

    Hmm… T-55 model 1958 differs only slightly from T-54… it is actually the first T-55, because the production of T-55 tank started in 1958… so we have it ingame, in a sense :D so that sounds like trolling to me…

        • I don’t understand how T-55 1958 would be OP. It’d have the same glacis the vast majority of the T-54/55s built had, not the 120mm glacis that was on;y on the very first production run.

          The T-54 is the most cherry-picked vehicle in the game. It takes the very best of everything on every T-54 and places them all into one vehicle.

          I’m hoping that with HD models and hull modules, this changes.

  15. M47 at tier 10. Wow. That fixes nothing. M47 needs to be at tier 9 or tier 8 and something done about the immensely ahistorical bastardizations that are the M26 and M46..

    T20 loses the 90mm, drops to tier 6.

    M26 and M46 combined into one tank, dropped to tier 7 with 90mm M3A1 as the top gun. Loses M45 and T42 turrets. Stock M26 turret upgrades to M46 turret.

    M47 at tier 8 with the 90mm M36 buffed to current T15E2M2 stats and 90mm HEAT-T M431 as the prem round

    M48 bumped down to tier 9. Buff it’s 90mm to match the 20pdr B-barrel in penetration and DPM. HEAT-T M431 would again be the prem round.

    M60A1 at tier 10.

    Boom. It’d be awesome.

    • I have even better idea… Why not join M26 with M46 and leave it at tier VIII with current gun selection on M26.
      Then move M48 down a tier and join it with M47 as a stock hull, then leave the current gun selection from M46, buff accuracy a bit and place M60 at tier X with M68 as top gun again with accuracy buffed a bit.
      T20 is fine at Tier VII.
      Also noone said M47 would be at tier X…

      • That’s an even bigger mess than we’ve currently got. Part of the problem with the gun selections at tier 8 and 9 is that both of the top selections are made-up, fictional guns.

        And if M47 was to branch off of the M46 (as the original post said. Looks like it’s been edited), it’d likely be tier 10..

        • It says ‘alternative hull’, which means that you can choose another hull for the current Tier 9 M46 Patton, namely the M47 patton-hull, which you’ll be able to mount the L7 on at Tier 9. It’s not hard, reading.

          • You say it’s “not hard, reading” yet you ignore where I said the post had been edited to state “alternative hull”. Try looking back at some of the earlier posts.

            - there is a possibility that the M47 Patton with L7 gun will be implemented into the US tree and be accessible from the M46

            Was the original line in the original post.

            So while you’re so busy talking about how easy reading is, maybe you should try it.

    • Pershing at tier 7?
      Even if we put aside its “historical” position (1945 advanced design that influenced all US post-war tanks, among 1941-1942 technology – Tiger, Panther, IS) how exactly could it work without nerfing the Pershing to the ground in all soft stats and making it not fun to play anymore?
      103mm frontal decently angled armor + imba turret that gives hell to most tier 8/9 tanks that dont aim accurately would be broken on tier 7 medium, imo.

      Maybe something like this:
      Tier 6: Drop T20 like you suggested, with historical 76 mm gun (alternative to E8)
      Tier 7: T25 (basically a Pershing prototype) with 90mm M3
      Tier 8: M26 inlucing M46 upgrades with upcoming suspension/hull options in its elite configuration, retaining recognizable Pershing silhouette/visual appearance.
      Tier 9: M47 with M48 upgrades regarding the hull/turret in its elite configuration.
      Starting with M36 as stock gun, researchable high velocity 90mm gun as an intermediate on both stock and elite turret, and M68 as top gun on upgraded turret.
      Basically you would get M48 you have now on tier 9, with lower RoF and soft stats.
      Tier 10: M60A1 with actual M60A1 production turret and decent protection, making it competitive to the new tier X meds like Leo 1 and STB.

      But the question is – do we really need 2 M60′s in the game, one being crap and ugly looking, and one being the real deal?

      Generally speaking, they completely fucked up giving away M60 with M48 turret as a CW-only reward tank.
      Its butt-ugly and generally an underperforming tank.
      The only way they can fix it without it is by replacing current M60 with the upcoming T95E6.

      P.S. M47 with 105mm gun should be kept for Italian/EU tree.
      After all, US army didnt use them in that configuration, so I dont see a single good reason to intruduce another “unhistorical” tank just cause they can.

      • Actually, M26 was more of a 1943 design, if not earlier. T26s were combat-ready by 1944.

        But that doesn’t really matter. By that same note, Comet should not be tier 7 because it was an advanced design and it influenced British tank design for decades to come.

        The M26′s glacis isn’t all that great. It’s not even really “decently” angled. It’s 101.6mm@46*. That would make it substantially weaker than the T29′s glacis which is globally known for being paper to anything at it’s tier and most anything a tier lower.

        The justification for 2 M60s is really apparent when you compare the capabilities of the M60A1 to the vanilla M60. The M60A1 had a thicker glacis and a much better turret. The M60A1 also stayed in service with the USMC for damn near 30 years. Denying it a spot on the tree is just…ridiculous. It’s probably one of the US’s longest-active tanks and it’s nowhere to be seen.

  16. so i guess wg doesnt care about the slowish feeling of tanks, even on 60 kph due to reduced fov… which did not help fps, its still around 20 for me.

  18. - T-55 Model 1958 is not in the game, because it’s too OP
    And T-54 is totally balanced.

    - E25 is not OP
    Oh, and on another note, pigs can fly. But yeah, there’s only denial left when you introduce OP as hell hightier premium tank.

  19. - E25 is not OP

    I can support this one. They’re annoying as hell when driven by competent players, but far from being OP unless the player is just THAT good to begin with (or is platooned with two other competent E-25 drivers and are top tier, in which case they’re quite a menace). No, I don’t own an E-25, though I’ve considered getting one on a few occasions.

    Now, the M18, on the other hand…

  20. Pingback: Noticias del 19 y 20 de Febrero. | Wot y Leaks