26.5.2014

Posted on by

Check the new article by Listy about US Marines serving in China

- Storm on quoting Discovery Channel (Great Tank Battles show) as a historical source: “Discovery is even more laughable than Wikipedia. My source are our historical consultants.” (SS: the question was, whether there were Tigers in Ardennes – there were a few, they didn’t fight though)
- for now, developers aren’t considering removing the rule where both sides have to have the same amount of arty (and scouts) (SS: this rule is not absolute, I think there is +/-1 tolerance)
- Storm states that when it comes to historicity of guns in World of Tanks – made up tanks (WT E-100) can have any gun that fits, historical tanks can only have guns they had in real life
- Storm regarding the assault mode: “What is there to comment? It’s a normal mode. I play it from the beginning without switching it off.”
- Storm, explaining why assault and encounter modes don’t have their own specialized maps and responding to a player who claims they are bland:

“Because we don’t consider it rational to make maps for those mods only. You personally decide the level of blandness of a mode? Are there any normal criteria that determine “blandness”? Assault and Encounter mode are finished and polished. Historical battles are in the state of finding the correct solution.”

- Storm reacting on the “28 bots in one game” video: “You’d have to find out what is shown in there in general and how it happened. Personally, I don’t have time to do this on Sunday. Sorry.”
- according to Storm, the TD share in battles has long since stopped growing and now is within normal frame. WG checks every month.
- too many TD’s in battles? “Statistics do not confirm that” and “We do not observe the dominance of TD’s”
- long map loading? “We are investigate this issue”
- Storm states that the IS-7 buff planned was a hoax started by Jove (Russian streamer), there will be no buff (SS: to my eternal shame, I jumped on this too – basically, he – or someone else – photoshopped a fake screenshot of “Storm’s post”)

This is how the fake looked (quite convincing)

abMFS2EFCoo

- Storm doesn’t know whether the A45/FV201 will be a tier 7 or 8 and when will it come
- situations where you get the same map several times in a row are apparently okay

72 thoughts on “26.5.2014”

  2. -Storm states that the IS-7 buff planned was a hoax started by Jove (Russian streamer), there will be no buff (SS: to my eternal shame, I jumped on this too – basically, he – or someone else – photoshopped a fake screenshot of “Storm’s post”)

    MOTHER FUCKER!

    • I only drive medium tanks and even I can attest that the IS-7 is one of the worst tanks in tier 10

      Other than a certain British medium turd. I can’t remember the last time an IS-7 managed to hit me with that god awful gun as I shoot through his pathetic ass and side armour. Granted, I’ve only ever penetrated the turret of an IS-7 once, from the front next to the gun… the sides seem tougher than the frontal ”flat-ish” area’s comically…

  3. quote: ” Assault and Encounter mode are finished and polished.”

    sais you (storm); the user in question in right, and assault is outright bad without proper maps

    • Just your opinion.

      I’d love to see some maps that were designed from the start to be Assault (and then add in standard) but that doesn’t mean that the standard maps are bad for assault. I find most of them work, but I’d also like to see different cap locations for all maps and modes in addition to the 1 set we have. (Dev’s have claimed they don’t want to confuse players, but if you expect it to be different you won’t be confused when it is)

        • ..and theirs too.

          That doesn’t mean you can say it like its everyone’s opinion. I find there’s nothing wrong with Assault. What makes it “outright bad” ?

          And I mean bad other than the constant “We defending don’t leave base” at the start of every match. If there’s a problem with assault its that some players seem to directly equate defense with camping and can’t understand that you 1) still need map control/vision and scouting 2) can win by killing all the tanks, so aggressive defense can be highly effective (even if it just throws off the initial attack “plans” of the enemy)

      • the whole point of assault is wrong, 10 minutes to win(5 less than other modes) while the other team just camp.

        • Ahhhhh, and you have to press the W button for a few more seconds than them. That’s not fair at all. I retract everything I said.

          Assault is 10min because the defending team would lose far more often if it was 15 min. (Its called balancing). Maybe this should provide a hint as to why the “camping” team doesn’t actually have an advantage.

          • Assault mode is bad because is runs counter to almost every rule regarding assaulting an enemy position. The attackers need at least a 2 to 1 advantage in numbers to have decent chances at being successful, the attackers are running under a limited time table and can’t employ tactics to soften up or observe the enemy beforehand,and are forced to attack prepared positions instead of fixing and flanking them.

            Nevermind that some of the map designs are terrible for assault in the way they are laid out. Keralia for example is terrible: all of the cover and site lines are designed for the north-east/south-east dynamic in standard mode. Do you remember westfield assault, or prohkarovka assault?

            • 2-1 Advantages and a slow steady assault would be for defending fortified positions. You can hardly call assault mode a fortified position. Think of it more a strategically important location that you need to hold until reinforcements arrive or some other objective is reached. It’s just small portion/battle in a larger engagement.

              I’ll certainly agree that a number of maps are not set up ideally for assault. Prohkarovka assault is a perfect example of this, but with a few minor adjustments you could put the cap near where the encounter cap is and it would be okay. Westfield assault was the same way, minor adjustments to the map would make it work fine (ie Cap on NW hill, make the hill far easier to get up but add more obstacles/cover at the top of both hills to limit sniping across the valley).

    • I turned off Assault and Encounter modes months ago and haven’t looked back. Why because my win rate went up thats why.

  4. hm i dont know if you guys mean only the tiger l
    either way there are some tiger 2 monuments with museums
    if you visit them they all state that these had a decent number of tanks to advance to the port of antwerp

  5. “My source are our historical consultants.”
    OUR ! so it’s their history, not the real facts
    MOTHERUSSIACKERs

  6. “Storm states that when it comes to historicity of guns in World of Tanks – made up tanks (WT E-100) can have any gun that fits, historical tanks can only have guns they had in real life”
    As demonstated by the IS-3, the KV-1S, the Tortoise, The Tiger, the Tiger 2, the T-44… the list goes on.
    Congrats Storm

      • Where on earth does it say that? not very nice to call someone ignorant :P

        • Many of the planned weapons were mounted, tested, sometimes even saw combat on a prototype chassis.

          It’s not like they’re mounting the BL-9 on a KV-1 or anything.

          • Exactly this. As long as there was a proposal/designs for the tank to be armed with the gun, its considered to have it in real life.

      • You’re definitely ignorant since you don’t even know how to read, ugly whore.

  7. - for now, developers aren’t considering removing the rule where both sides have to have the same amount of arty (and scouts) (SS: this rule is not absolute, I think there is +/-1 tolerance)

    The +/-1 tolerance is true with artys (wich means if you play a 3-arty platoon, the enemy team WILL have 2-4 artys)

    - Storm states that when it comes to historicity of guns in World of Tanks – made up tanks (WT E-100) can have any gun that fits, historical tanks can only have guns they had in real life

    IIRC the KV-1 never had a 57 mm gun IRL

  8. - Storm states that the IS-7 buff planned was a hoax started by Jove (Russian streamer), there will be no buff (SS: to my eternal shame, I jumped on this too – basically, he – or someone else – photoshopped a fake screenshot of “Storm’s post”)
    Nooooo!! :’(

  9. The game developers slap players in the face with their peens and they come back for more…it’s not question time; it’s ridicule and insult the customer time…and they like it…

    • It’s more like the players asking are mosquitoes that the devs can barely keep up swatting. Some questions are legit, but the rest are just repeated already answered questions or just plain stupid.

      • I don’t think it means they can be gaping cunts…why not just ignore the questions they don’t want to answer?

        • When you’ve been doing Q&A regularly for a couple of years and keep seeing the same dumb questions (questions that you’ve already given answers to, even) being asked over and over again, stress tends to build up. It’s a good stress relief to let out some steam on some random idiot who keeps asking said questions.

          • If you replied earlier to the question, then HOTLINK THE ANSWER! You don’t even need to come up with new slogans. :)

  12. “- Storm reacting on the “28 bots in one game” video: “You’d have to find out what is shown in there in general and how it happened. Personally, I don’t have time to do this on Sunday. Sorry.”

    Oh, you are such an important person. Wow.

    • He may literally not have time. I expect he’s spending his time with his family or something on sunday. or if he’s not that kind of person, he may actually have too much work.

      • Then say “I will investigate more on this subject on monday. Please be patient.”
        This would sound like a not asshole kind of response.

  13. IS-7 buff planned was a hoax started by Jove

    lol fucking ruskie faggot! he cant even make a good hoax. IS-7 needs better accuracy and aim time, not DPM.

  15. - Storm states that when it comes to historicity of guns in World of Tanks – made up tanks (WT E-100) can have any gun that fits, historical tanks can only have guns they had in real life
    ________________
    This is wrong on so many levels.

      • It fucking is. Either you have historical tanks and their modules or you have both historical and blueprints tanks, but since you went for the latter one then you can’t screw some tank’s balance by saying ok we won’t give it better gun because it historically didn’t had one. There is no fucking historical accuracy if you have a tank like waffleshit e100 in your game. You can give any gun to a tank just for the sake of balance and not only when it fits you. It’s called double standards.

    • Agree, how would would we know installing these kinds of guns would not tear off from the hull when fired due to the massive recoil. These are after all designs concept. That is why they should not add paper tanks in the game.

  16. - Storm states that when it comes to historicity of guns in World of Tanks – made up tanks (WT E-100) can have any gun that fits, historical tanks can only have guns they had in real life

    “This is an Object square 2. It’s basicly a T-34 BUT it can fit a 152mm gun and a 5000 HP engine. It will be in tier 4.”

    - Storm reacting on the “28 bots in one game” video: “You’d have to find out what is shown in there in general and how it happened. Personally, I don’t have time to do this on Sunday. Sorry.”

    You have an issue that needs us to investigate? Sorry, we don’t care even if it’s our main focus.

  17. “too many TD’s in battles? “Statistics do not confirm that” and “We do not observe the dominance of TD’s””

    And how about matchmaking wonders when one team is given 3 TDs while other gets 9? Do they “not observe” this too?