<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 15.4.2014</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:08:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meat_Shield</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-142396</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Meat_Shield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-142396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cant wait til the hd is3!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cant wait til the hd is3!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doddy</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-139937</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doddy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:38:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-139937</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Its not really a massive hurdle to get over though, sounds more like an excuse.  Who pays attention to their crew in wot?  1% of the user base maybe?  People are quite happy with their module and ammo loadouts being automagically changed for HB, i don&#039;t think they would have any issue in accepting the same with crew, who wouldn&#039;t even be seen.  Easy enough to change the flag on the tank at the same time and disable national voices for the battle if necessary.

Still, post war tank battles are far less interesting than those of ww2, or even those before ww2.  Korea saw very little tank on tank action, nor did suez or the greek civil war.  Arab-Israeli war had very few tanks period.  Vietnam, 6 day war, yom kippur war, indo-pakistani war all fall outwith the games time period even if they used tanks from the game.  Wargaming could probably do without the aggro from these wars anyway, many of which are PR poison.

They would also be incredibly hard to balance.  In Korea you had NK with T-34-85s s vs SK without tanks supported by US with a few Chafees, with both sides using their tanks in infantry support roles.  UN Reinforcements brought in Pershings, Pattons and Centurions which completely outclassed the North Koreans (and would do so in game) but since the terrain was so against tank combat UN superiority in armour didn&#039;t help much when the chinese chased them half way back down the peninsula again with nothing more powerful than T-34-85s.  The communist side would really only have 1 tank in any Korean war battles.

Korea is actually infamous as the war that showed tanks were not the be all and end all of modern warfare.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its not really a massive hurdle to get over though, sounds more like an excuse.  Who pays attention to their crew in wot?  1% of the user base maybe?  People are quite happy with their module and ammo loadouts being automagically changed for HB, i don&#8217;t think they would have any issue in accepting the same with crew, who wouldn&#8217;t even be seen.  Easy enough to change the flag on the tank at the same time and disable national voices for the battle if necessary.</p>
<p>Still, post war tank battles are far less interesting than those of ww2, or even those before ww2.  Korea saw very little tank on tank action, nor did suez or the greek civil war.  Arab-Israeli war had very few tanks period.  Vietnam, 6 day war, yom kippur war, indo-pakistani war all fall outwith the games time period even if they used tanks from the game.  Wargaming could probably do without the aggro from these wars anyway, many of which are PR poison.</p>
<p>They would also be incredibly hard to balance.  In Korea you had NK with T-34-85s s vs SK without tanks supported by US with a few Chafees, with both sides using their tanks in infantry support roles.  UN Reinforcements brought in Pershings, Pattons and Centurions which completely outclassed the North Koreans (and would do so in game) but since the terrain was so against tank combat UN superiority in armour didn&#8217;t help much when the chinese chased them half way back down the peninsula again with nothing more powerful than T-34-85s.  The communist side would really only have 1 tank in any Korean war battles.</p>
<p>Korea is actually infamous as the war that showed tanks were not the be all and end all of modern warfare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zepherex</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-139302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zepherex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:06:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-139302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[- there were some ideas to change the mechanism of crew hatches (copulas) as weakspots, developers thought about it, but decided not to do anything, there was an idea to reduce the damage taken to these spots, but it’s “too complicated” (SS: whatever that means).

It means they think people will be too stupid and confused as to why their shot just did half damage to a weakspot]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>- there were some ideas to change the mechanism of crew hatches (copulas) as weakspots, developers thought about it, but decided not to do anything, there was an idea to reduce the damage taken to these spots, but it’s “too complicated” (SS: whatever that means).</p>
<p>It means they think people will be too stupid and confused as to why their shot just did half damage to a weakspot</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Madner Kami</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-139262</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Madner Kami]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-139262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;- Churchill Gun Carrier is actually suddenly doing really fine statistically, one of the best vehicles on its tier&quot;

I sometimes wonder if they&#039;re living in a parallel reality

&quot;- it’s possible (SS: as in NOT certain) that WT E-100 will be nerfed (“he stands out but only a little”)&quot;

Yup, they clearly live on a planet that is not the same as the one that I am playing on

&quot;- there is no need to buff British heavies, they are fine apart from tier 10&quot;

WTF I want to live in their reality. Not saying that any of them are really bad, but the T10 is, by far, the best out of the bunch and I say that as someone who enjoyed the entire line and continues to own and use all of them, except for the Churchill VII (which will be rebought once there&#039;s a historical scenario where it is used).

&quot;- KV-1S will not be nerfed in 9.1, but later&quot;

That&#039;s going to be an ongong process for how long now? And when will it make a move from Soon™ to &quot;this patch&quot;-status?

&quot;– the reason for the “disappearing arty shells” bug was “desynchronization between server applications handling the inter-servere load balance”&quot;

Yeah, not like people were telling them right that there for ages. But at least I can do some silly things reliably with my artilliers now, for the entire length of the battle. Was fun yesterday, at least for me. Not so much for the splash-victims though, I guess ^.^]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;- Churchill Gun Carrier is actually suddenly doing really fine statistically, one of the best vehicles on its tier&#8221;</p>
<p>I sometimes wonder if they&#8217;re living in a parallel reality</p>
<p>&#8220;- it’s possible (SS: as in NOT certain) that WT E-100 will be nerfed (“he stands out but only a little”)&#8221;</p>
<p>Yup, they clearly live on a planet that is not the same as the one that I am playing on</p>
<p>&#8220;- there is no need to buff British heavies, they are fine apart from tier 10&#8243;</p>
<p>WTF I want to live in their reality. Not saying that any of them are really bad, but the T10 is, by far, the best out of the bunch and I say that as someone who enjoyed the entire line and continues to own and use all of them, except for the Churchill VII (which will be rebought once there&#8217;s a historical scenario where it is used).</p>
<p>&#8220;- KV-1S will not be nerfed in 9.1, but later&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s going to be an ongong process for how long now? And when will it make a move from Soon™ to &#8220;this patch&#8221;-status?</p>
<p>&#8220;– the reason for the “disappearing arty shells” bug was “desynchronization between server applications handling the inter-servere load balance”&#8221;</p>
<p>Yeah, not like people were telling them right that there for ages. But at least I can do some silly things reliably with my artilliers now, for the entire length of the battle. Was fun yesterday, at least for me. Not so much for the splash-victims though, I guess ^.^</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 1fiercedeity</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-139098</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[1fiercedeity]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-139098</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That makes a lot of sense. If that&#039;s the case, I don&#039;t think the need to make new names and faces for the crew members to be the issue. The real sticking point would be accounting for the upgrades and modifications the export versions of the tanks received and reskinning them to match their historical appearance for that battle.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That makes a lot of sense. If that&#8217;s the case, I don&#8217;t think the need to make new names and faces for the crew members to be the issue. The real sticking point would be accounting for the upgrades and modifications the export versions of the tanks received and reskinning them to match their historical appearance for that battle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skarakien</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-138993</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Skarakien]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:13:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-138993</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[- regarding the tanks driving underwater in 9.0 trailer – those are simply cinematics, tank deep fording equipment will not be implemented

Why not? :( It would make my scouts more OP :)

- there were some ideas to change the mechanism of crew hatches (copulas) as weakspots, developers thought about it, but decided not to do anything, there was an idea to reduce the damage taken to these spots, but it’s “too complicated” (SS: whatever that means).

&quot;too complicated&quot; = &quot;we don&#039;t give a shit and we are lazy plus WE NEED TO PAAAAAARTAAAAAYYYYYYY!&quot;

 - the reason for the “disappearing arty shells” bug was “desynchronization between server applications handling the inter-servere load balance”

And Storm blatantly claimed it&#039;s (at first: ) &quot;it&#039;s not our fault&quot; (later: ) &quot;maybe it&#039;s because your internet provider&#039;s fault&quot; (lastly: ) &quot;oh... so we REALLY have a bug...&quot;
BTW if what he said is true than: How does the server calculate the arcs of shots? Because we know that the server KNOWS that we have fired a shot but not register it as a hit. So... How?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>- regarding the tanks driving underwater in 9.0 trailer – those are simply cinematics, tank deep fording equipment will not be implemented</p>
<p>Why not? :( It would make my scouts more OP :)</p>
<p>- there were some ideas to change the mechanism of crew hatches (copulas) as weakspots, developers thought about it, but decided not to do anything, there was an idea to reduce the damage taken to these spots, but it’s “too complicated” (SS: whatever that means).</p>
<p>&#8220;too complicated&#8221; = &#8220;we don&#8217;t give a shit and we are lazy plus WE NEED TO PAAAAAARTAAAAAYYYYYYY!&#8221;</p>
<p> &#8211; the reason for the “disappearing arty shells” bug was “desynchronization between server applications handling the inter-servere load balance”</p>
<p>And Storm blatantly claimed it&#8217;s (at first: ) &#8220;it&#8217;s not our fault&#8221; (later: ) &#8220;maybe it&#8217;s because your internet provider&#8217;s fault&#8221; (lastly: ) &#8220;oh&#8230; so we REALLY have a bug&#8230;&#8221;<br />
BTW if what he said is true than: How does the server calculate the arcs of shots? Because we know that the server KNOWS that we have fired a shot but not register it as a hit. So&#8230; How?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ultiyplayer</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-138742</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ultiyplayer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:19:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-138742</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This would work, especially if the armor underneath was like 5 MM]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This would work, especially if the armor underneath was like 5 MM</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pussukka</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-138727</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pussukka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-138727</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JP IV is actually fine IMO]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JP IV is actually fine IMO</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nadeah</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-138722</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nadeah]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-138722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fact is, it can one clip heavy tanks with relatively good accuracy especially for a high caliber autoloader. In return a normal heavy tank will be able to shoot twice at most and three times if using a faster firing heavy. Mediums have to shoot at least 6 times and don&#039;t even require a full clip. 

It has the weird tendency to barely ever get gun damage even when shooting HE at the turret next to the gun. Shooting it from behind does often kill the gunner though but killing him twice in a row is hard. Knocking out the gun seems impossible I have never seen it&#039;s gun getting knocked out, not even in replays.

It&#039;s also crazy popular. Most games have two of them and quite often you can have 5 of them in one game, quite often two platooned. It&#039;s like the Object 160 on a bad day in terms of popularity and the Object 160 is nothing special in comparison. ( After-all the object 160&#039;s main draw is mobility and &#039;&#039;some&#039;&#039; trollish armour. ) I]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fact is, it can one clip heavy tanks with relatively good accuracy especially for a high caliber autoloader. In return a normal heavy tank will be able to shoot twice at most and three times if using a faster firing heavy. Mediums have to shoot at least 6 times and don&#8217;t even require a full clip. </p>
<p>It has the weird tendency to barely ever get gun damage even when shooting HE at the turret next to the gun. Shooting it from behind does often kill the gunner though but killing him twice in a row is hard. Knocking out the gun seems impossible I have never seen it&#8217;s gun getting knocked out, not even in replays.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also crazy popular. Most games have two of them and quite often you can have 5 of them in one game, quite often two platooned. It&#8217;s like the Object 160 on a bad day in terms of popularity and the Object 160 is nothing special in comparison. ( After-all the object 160&#8242;s main draw is mobility and &#8221;some&#8221; trollish armour. ) I</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kratatch</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/15/15-4-2014/#comment-138715</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kratatch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=10662#comment-138715</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you fail with the FV215b you must be terrible at this game. It is prob the best T10 tank out there for Random games.
Good mobility, good armor (well as long as you dont YOLO with it) and has one of the best guns in the game. Incredible accuracy, aimtime and reload (7.18s with Vent, rammer and BIA)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you fail with the FV215b you must be terrible at this game. It is prob the best T10 tank out there for Random games.<br />
Good mobility, good armor (well as long as you dont YOLO with it) and has one of the best guns in the game. Incredible accuracy, aimtime and reload (7.18s with Vent, rammer and BIA)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
