Sorry for no articles today, was working on some Czechoslovak tech tree materials. Check out Listy’s Unexpected Tanks article – pretty interesting!

- when World of Tanks were created, BigWorld was the only way to go, it was the only engine available with suitable networking part
- the Flash in World of Tanks is used in the form of something called “Scaleform” (SS: sorry no idea what that means)
- IS-7 and E-50 won’t be buffed soon
- RU251 and new US light tanks? “Medium KTTS” (SS: as in “when it’s done it’s done, it has medium priority” – that means anything between 3 and 6 months from now I’d say)

- in World of Tanks, shadows reduce FPS by a lot, because there are some other features connected to shadow settings, for example HBAO (SS: no idea what that means either)
- in 9.1 it will be the second time shooting sounds will get reworked
- Kharkov map is “cool”
- Q: “How come Wargaming promised multiturret mechanism and War Thunder now implemented it and WG hasn’t?” A: “We’ll have to promise more pointless and useless stuff so War Thunder gets that implemented.”
- Storm supports the solution to remove KV-1S top 122mm gun
- currently, there is some bugged graphic setting, that messes up the dynamic suspension, developers will look into it
- penetration mechanism of spaced armor and commander’s copula won’t be reworked. A player suggested that a commander’s copula hit (and penetration) would work like critting a gun: destroyed module (in this case, dead commander), but no damage done to the tank. Storm answered that such a mechanism would only increase the amount of misunderstandings by players as to why there was a hit for 0 damage (“I penetrated the copula, why didn’t I damage him?”)

123 thoughts on “11.5.2014

      • Well wasn’t it supposed to be KV-1S tier 5 and KV-85 tier 6.
        Also the KV-122 could be a tier 7 premium if I could choose.

          • What does it matter if KV-1 is there? Simply make KV-1S lead to KV-85 and KV-1 lead only to KV-2/T-150

        • Making the kv-1s a tier vii makes the kv-13 even more of a redheaded stepchild than it already is.

        • I suport Pussukka way, there’s “room” in the tech tree for the KV-1S been a tier 5 and KV-(something) at tier 6, and none room for a 3º HT side-by-side

          (And when i said that (above), I meant when the KV-1S been split, the KV-1S (was tier 5) will never get the 122mm D-2-5T again (if is OP already at tier 6, imagine tier 5!)

        • no.. is the other way around, the 85mm is the t5 lol, the 1s at t6 will have the 100m, I don’t know what they will do with the 122 though..

          • …no. It has been confirmed that the KV1s will be nerfed and whatnot, become tier 5. KV85 new tier 6, based off two vehicles. If I remember correctly, in one configuration it will be KV85, then there is another turret WG adds from another tank. Perhaps it will have 122, but fairly unlikely.

    • It probably means that the split is taking so long because Storm and SerB are fighting over it

        • Not 9.1…unless by some odd means they get it done. I speculate that it should come in 9.2 or 9.3, based on past announcements and newer delays.

  1. - when World of Tanks were created,
    BigWorld was the only way to go, it was
    the only engine available with suitable
    networking part

    What WoT does that it needs such engine with ‘suitable’ networking?

          • Planetside 2 engine (Forgelight) is afaik restricted for internal use. Only Sony games can use it.

          • Was announced after WoT release. Proprietary engine. Different format. Probably won’t support more than xx k.

          • Both eve and planetside are not really comparable to WoT, because planetside and eve are a persistent seamless world running on multiple nodes in a huge cluster.

            WoT is basically “just a huge amount of dedicated server that gets served by the MM”, its pretty comparable to how in many fps games “find online game” works, just that the distribution of players go through the MM befor and thats really the only difference there is, oh and also that all the dedicated servers are run by WG and not private people.

            Oh and they had the option to use any other engine they wanted, Bigworld spherical advertised back then that there network backend can work with other game engines together. But hey why spent extra money on it when you can get away with the least amount of money (even when it bites you in the ass in the long run)

          • Forgelight was built in house by SOE. It didn’t exist when WOT was being created.

        • Eve can barely hold 70k players, and there is a lot less to calculate on servers, by 10-100 times – no need to check visibility (very resource heavy) , penetration and other things.
          And it lags as shit when there are a lot of ships in one sector. Slowing down gaming speed could work for EVE but not for fps game like WoT.

          • On the contrary, EVE has a state of the art cluster server with still in development intel CPUs because there are extremely many calculations. Wargaming.net couldnt even afford it if they wanted to.

            • Oh yes….
              When there are 2000+ ships, all with drones and thousands of guns firing at once, that’s a LOT work for the poor servers.

    • I imagine budget had something to do with it.

      When WoT was first conceived WG was a small company with few resources to work with. If BigWorld was the “cheap but useable” option, that’s probably why they went with it.

        • maybe better, they might be quietly reworking the engine to better fit WoT ;)
          (remember, WG bought the company that created BigWorld engine)

        • No, they aren’t, because there is no networking engine on the market capable of 1 100 000 + online (ru server record). They’ve completely reworked and reworking render part of engine.
          Even if there was another option, switching to it would halt all the progress for at least a year and there would be multiple bugs afterwards – it’s equals death for a popular MMO.

          • err… they only need to handle 30 players at a time. And they can change the engine any time, they simply won’t because they bought the one they have right now years ago, so if they stopped using it.. would you buy the rights to use that engine for your game when the people behind it don’t use it themselves? probably not.

            • No. They need to handle 30*number of battles at the time.
              They cant change engine so simply. Try to find at least 1 example there a big complex game changed it’s engine to completely different one after release and how long did it take.

              • Not sure about how completely different the Netimmerse 4 Engine, and CryEngine 2 are but I know that Entropia Universe did switch from one to the other some features took weeks, months, and even years to replace there are still some features not available, But that is a far more complex game then World of tanks in terms of interactions.

                So as much as it would Jerk Wargaming’s and a lot of people chains it is doable, hell half the bugs we experience is mostly do to bad or outdated coding, they could make a new version of World of tanks using another Engine and only have to create a converter for select information like Users, Users garages, Battle records (not that it would actually need to be carried over but most want them.)

                in the long run the more you patch and try to patch a bug that was caused by patching a bug that was caused by patching a bug, you get this overwhelming bloated mess. Wargaming Refuses to drop XP that is understandable but they are trying to go into two directions maintaining usability for windows XP and while Also trying to put in some kind of multi core support so what happens is they are ripping the game apart with conflicting coding, and if wargaming wasn’t so worried about their russian userbase they’d be encouraging it to update their computers, I mean vista, 7, 8 well not so much 8 but that may be getting replaced soon with an actual pc operating system but xp is several generations of hardware and software behind and it can barely support a Dual Core, Multi core support and Hookins didn’t really start till about Vista.

    • it basically sends lots of useless information to the clients, for example your client receives information such as the reload time of every tank ingame, even the ones that arent spotted.

  2. Yep, that commander hatch 0 damage pen would break a lot of tanks. Shooting through the turret of a Rhm Borsig will do 0 damage because it will maybe knock out a crew member, then fly to the middle of nowhere.

    Also means the AT British TD series will be significantly buffed, because places like MG mounts, and the commander’s hatch cannot be dealt damage to.
    Same goes for all tanks across the board because there will be always one less weakspot to shoot at.

      • Just read a book called “Tank Men”. If the commander dies (usually splattering his brains all over the crew) 90% of the time the crew bails out. 100% of the time within seconds you will be shot again anyway. Damage when “only” hitting a cupola is quite allright I think.

        • How about less damage? For example, you shoot with your KVass in the cupola of the AT-8, and instead of dealing 400+ dmg it only does 180-200?

          • How about it can only cause damage once? Killing a tank by repeatedly punching holes through the cupola is rather foolish.

            • That would be confusing. That means you would have to keep track of which tanks have had their cupola hit already.

              Example: A T-95 that you haven’t seen yet comes around the corner. You now have two options: 1) Waste precious time examining the half of the cupola you can see for penetration marks. 2) Fire a shell at it and pray to RNGesus that it hasn’t been hit yet.

              Now imagine you’re a new player or an oblivious one that doesn’t read patchnotes. What you get is an inconsistent experience. Sometimes cupola hits do damage, sometimes they don’t, and you don’t know why that is.

              • You would have to animate a destroyed cupola. I wonder if that is even possible the way they have it designed? Would help KV5 alot, it makes little sense to shoot the radioman turret 10 times to kill the whole tank.

    • …Yes. But then you could also shoot the Rhm Borsig many times on turret…make the side break off it. And it would do nothing…So Borsig fries you then goes on in battle with half of his ‘turret’ broken off. lol. interesting thought.

  3. - Q: “How come Wargaming promised multiturret mechanism and War Thunder now implemented it and WG hasn’t?” A: “We’ll have to promise more pointless and useless stuff so War Thunder gets that implemented.”

    In WT it has more use due to the fact there are planes and tanks get taken down without HP pools. Also when youre main gun is out and you have to repair youreself you can still defend yourself in some cases.

        • So out of 300+ tanks multi turret is useful for M3 Lee, ARL V39, B1, Church I.

          Yep so useful. So many reasons to create a feature for 4 tanks which would in addition require them to COMPLETELY rebalance those tanks(Because if you think allowing those tanks to use a second gun won’t make them OP your an idiot.)

          • I know rebalancing anything is an enormous challenge for a company as clueless as Wargaming (just look at Tiger P nerf, lol) but it’s rather pathetic excuse.
            As for the amount of tanks where it’d make a difference – why exactly does it make a difference? I’d ask for multi-turret mechanics even if there would be just one tank in an entire game using it.
            Warthunder got even fewer tanks with multiple turrets than WoT yet they implemented the feature regardless.

            • will M3 Lee’s or ARL V39′s turret gun made that much difference?
              on the other hand, Churchill 1′s and B1′s hull gun will made quite the difference.
              and then, for WoT, it’s 4 tanks out of more than 300 other tanks.
              for WTGF, it’s a few out of less than 100 tanks.
              you got my point.

    • “We’ll have to promise more pointless and useless stuff so War Thunder gets that implemented” – You know what I read in that?

      Wargaming = empty promises
      Gajin = delivers.

  4. If the KVS can have 122mm gun mounted, why Shermans cannot have 90mm mounted ?

      • Shermans are medium tanks, meaning they have reduced MM weight (IE, they aren’t as good as tier 6 heavies as far as the MM and balancing in general is concerned).

      • if i remember correctly, was it the yugoslavians who tried to install an 122mm gun to a sherman?

    • Did you miss the part where the KV-1S is probably getting that 122mm gun removed?

      Anyway, a 90-mm armed Sherman is, supposedly, coming as a premium tank…. eventually.

      This was mentioned 3 years ago and all we’ve seen of it since was one of its garage icons hidden in the game files.

      • There are two 90mm M3 armed M4 Shermans

        The first was the normal M4 with the normal turret with a 90mm M3 stuffed inside it… It was an abject failure to man and use.

        The second was the M4 hull with a T26(M26) turret and 90mm M3 gun slapped on top of it.

  5. > the Flash in World of Tanks is used in the form of something called “Scaleform” (SS: sorry no idea what that means)

    Should be this :)


    Autodesk® Scaleform® enables developers to leverage the power of the Adobe® Flash® tool set to create powerful and immersive user interface (UI) environments for PCs, game consoles, mobile devices, and consumer electronics. Used across most major platforms, Scaleform middleware provides a design-driven workflow for creating high-performance menus, graphics, and 2.5D UI elements.

      • Scaleform is fine. TONS of games work on it, on PC and even with crippled console hardware.
        Usually the resource hogs of GUIs are these made on HTML with web browser running. Like Awesomium in WoT 9.0 (though it’s not used for main GUI – it’s still causing problems).

        You see – flash in the video games, especially in the scalefrom iteration, tends to be by far more optimized than most of the alternatives, mostly because of very wide use and years of developing optimizations for it’s implementation in the games.

      • IS-4, IS-7 are good.
        E-100 is good.
        Maus borderline UP.
        113 is bullshit.
        215b should be replaced.
        Nerf T57, buff 50b.

        • Maus (super heavy must have for frontline assault. But wait dat gun; lets hope they ram me)

              • Same turret for the most part on each tank.

                Although there are slight differences between the Maus Turret and the E100 turret and that is because the later turret is refined and designed along mass production lines.

          • T110E5 has the best DPM of all tier 10 and the mobility is pretty good with very good traverse
            what you find underpower in this tank really?

            • T57 has much better DPM: 3000ish vs ~2400 for E5 and all other non-Autoloader Heavys.

            • i have a list of some tier 9 and 10 tanks that has more DPM than E5 : Tortoise, T57H, Obj 268, Obj 263, JT, T-62A, E3, FV 215b, 121, M48A1, SU-122-54, Obj 704, Leo 1, Foch, AMX 50B, Foch 155, FV 4202, T95, JE-100, E-50M, E4, 113, STB-1, Obj 430
              tell me if i missed something.

          • Exactly, it is even widely considered to be the best Heavy in the game…I’d disagree, but it is actually really good!

          • it’s pretty much OK for me. most people get the wrong idea about it. most peoples shots HEAT in ASIA, so you just have to face him forward, and everything bounces off, plus your turret IS sturdy. the speed doesn’t mean that it should play as a medium, it’s still a heavy tank, but it’s meant to take advantageous points quicker than other heavies, and it’s 130mm gun will give the meds more stuffs to think about. it’s pen value is enough, you just need to aim carefully from that inaccurate gun and not to try anything daring, such as shooting from 400m and giving away your position. you have to play as something to make way for bigger, sturdier heavies, and to push when the enemy line is weakened.

        • IS-4 is good, but, something is missing. it’s armor is barely good, it’s gun isn’t that much better, it’s speed wasn’t something to brag about either, i dont know. the “OH DAMN THAT IS-4 IS SO COOL!” factor is gone when they turned it into a tier 10.

    • I don’t get why russians beg for IS-7 buff, it is already one of the strongest if not best tier X heavy. Speed of a medium and best tX overall armor just makes it beast, only con on this tank are the hitpoints. Guess they want 3k hp and bl-10.

      • is-7 has no dpm inaccurate gun bad pen armor isnt that usefull if your enemies have 270mm+ pen and gold ammo and it accelarates verrrrry slow,i know some people who are really good in it but its not a Tank for me^^

        but woras why you think 113 is bullshit it is actually a pretty good tank it accelarates like a medium has an OK dpm the gun is far more accurate than the is-7 gun etc. in my opinion its pretty cool:)

        • From test server testing that thing. It has cupola – obvious weakspot, gas tanks in front, lower DPM than 121, depression lol.
          But it looks very good.

          I dont know, maybe I will change my mind when I get it.

          • depends on map/situtation. They’ll both have hard time penetrating each other. Though as soon as is7 comes close to it, maus wouldn’t be able to penetrate is7′s turret.

          • well, IS-7 is bad when played by stupid players, as any other tank

            (some people just don’t realize that pike nose is the most effective when facing enemy straight ahead, not under an angle, and it’s quite hard to hit the frontal weakspot of IS-7 at range…)

      • Is7 has very armor but it is slugish as hell that 59.6 kph is only catched going downhills and then good luck turning in
        the gun is horrible for a top tier 10 tank (maybe same class as the maus gun)
        the armor comes to shine when you hide that demm lower plate then good luck pen it and ofc the obvious weakspot at the front of the is7 where there is the ammo rak and if it is known by players it goes boom
        is7 now is just medicore tier 10 not very good not very bad

        the only buff they could make to the is7 is just the mobility part just not to feel so slugish nothing more

      • I bet you don’t have one. BTW AMX40 is well known for it’s great speed of 50 too, see them zipping around at breakneck speed every day…
        also one of the worst guns in T10.

  6. I dont mind damage through commanders hatch, however hatches in general should be buffed to compensate for the artifical gaming environment where all fights are usually below 500 metres…

  7. lol E-50 needs a Buff???
    i played it only after the Nerfs and i have 3300 average dmg. and 70% wr on it(90% solo) i dont think it needs a buff it has a great dpm great armor very accurate gun etc. its like the e-50m on tier 9 just with a worse engine and less pen…

  8. HBAO is tailored for nvidia cards and works crap with ATI cards
    HDAO is tailored for ATI cards and work crap with nvidia cards.
    SSAO is just an unoptimized version that works crap on both.
    Thats why the two are options in nearly all games they are implemented, not forcing one or the other.

      • And thats the diffrence between oldschool people and new kids to computers.
        The impact they made on the market was as ATI, sure AMD bought them not so long ago and put their own name on ATI’s products. But they will always be ATI to the ones that felt the first impact.

  9. - currently, there is some bugged graphic setting, that messes up the dynamic suspension, developers will look into it

    Yeah, I cant get the dynamic suspension on my Tiger 1 to work at all.
    Good thing they noticed it.

  10. in World of Tanks, shadows reduce FPS by a lot, because there are some other features connected to shadow settings, for example HBAO

    What kind of idiot programmer do that? HBAO has quite a big performance impact. It should be separate from shadows.

  11. “BigWorld was the only way to go, it was the only engine available with suitable networking part” – There is no truth in that statement at all! Better engines with the capability of handling exactly the same networking were available, but were more expensive.

  12. - Q: “How come Wargaming promised multiturret mechanism and War Thunder now implemented it and WG hasn’t?” A: “We’ll have to promise more pointless and useless stuff so War Thunder gets that implemented.”

    “We need to focus on HD tanks, because it will be available for the 1% of the playerbase and everybody else will suffer from it. Because it generates profit you know. And multiturret mechanism just creates a lot of balance issue that we can’t handle even if we have 20k eff. rated ‘balancers’ and the new tanks won’t be as fun as playing with the glorious KV-1S(uperbuffed) or the WTF100. Really? Who wants to play anything else than the heavies or TDs, sniping from the bushes mindlessly?”

  13. SS, KTTS (Как Только Так Сразу) is ASAP (As soon as Possible) in English, as far as I know.