- Storm confirms that the Balaton HB was removed in 9.1 after all
- Panzer IV Ausf.H – this vehicle was being manufactured from 1943, yet it appears in 1942 historical battle Bryansk – Storm states this is because Ausf.D would be too weak and there is no separate Ausf.G in the game.
- Storm states that alternative hulls are necessary (SS: because of HB so there is an Ausf.G hull)
- apparently, 9.1 has some issues with quitting the battle to the hangar, the game gets somehow stuck – Storm states that this is connected to the high traffic, where the game sends a large packet of data with game results and the packet sometimes doesn’t get through properly
- apparently the bug with ultra-long map load times appeared again. Storm: “We didn’t do anything with map loading”
- Storm states that the situation with “moving corpses” is very complicated, the bug was not fixed in 100 percent of cases
- disabling the UI in battle improves FPS by a lot and removes some lags? Storm: “I wrote this before. There can’t be a non-resource-requiring interface. For its drawing and calculations there will always be resources needed.”
Will HB eventually come back? Or is a one time thing?
There are 2 new HBs.
I’d like to think Darctos meant to ask “Will HB eventually become playable?”
I mean; will (for example) battle of Kursk come back? Sorry, was not really clear in my question.
Possibly, when it is fixed. Some decently knowledgeable people are in fact working on it.
But be careful what you wish for….
They should rework historical battles so that you can choose a veriety of tanks with which you want to enter a battle to combat 30mins of queue time. I think this is the biggest problem right now. Oh, and 12 hellcats in Ardennes. Such historical huehuehue
Even though some might not like the idea they just need to have HB were you queue up and it puts you into a set tank setup for each battle that you have open to you to fill. This would salve some of the balancing issues and some of the queue times. True you still would have those people who complain on not getting the tank they want but once people got used to it things should be fine.
The devs have implied they intend to cycle out HB’s each patch
Looks like they removed future Bryansk aswell from HB pool , so we are left with Tobruk only..?
“The Historical Battles game mode will receive a new scenario: Siege of Tobruk (North Africa 1942). This battle will replace the Battle of Kursk, Operation Spring Awakening and the Battle of the Bulge, so it will serve as the ONLY historical battle available in Version 9.1.”
http://worldoftanks.eu/en/news/46/version-91-announcement/
My guess would be WG EU fuckup.
Yup, my bet also.
- apparently the bug with ultra-long map load times appeared again. Storm: “We didn’t do anything with map loading”
Oh that beautiful butterfly effect in programing, change the color of the leaves on a tree and suddenly you can’t turn to the left for some reason.
pfft, you must write simple programs. I have one where it suddenly refused to trap focus for no apparent reason, despite there being two separate subroutines trying too with two different methods…
then you’re doing it wrong
programming is absolute, if’s it’s not your code, the it must be the compiler / interpreter
or, in worst case scenario, a hardware problem
the computer must be a right wing fanatic :D
SS, what are the chances for Chinese TDs and Arty? I guess pretty much zero. And the Japanese ones? I know you are a big fan of EU tree but i think every nation should have atleast one line of every type of tank.
I would say: 2015. Maybe end of this year but only when Chinese players will insist for more vehicles from China / Taiwan.
I just hope they dont stop implementing lines at all. At least release model editor and other tools and let players make vehicles. They should make a voting system wich vehicles would get introduced or something similar. I know it sounds strange but they shouldnt let the game die.
Planned, but don’t expect anything until 2015 or later.
They WILL come, but much later due to small interest of player base.
Want to help it happen? Spread the Chinese and Japanese love, play them and make people (by physically beating them on street corners) to play them too!
“When its done its done”
Pz IV ausf. H on Bryansk and Pz. III ausf. A on Tobruk.
“Historical Battles”
They are dead anyway. On Eu you can get 1 day premium if you win 50 battles. Nobody gives a shit.
Last weekend there was 10 players total in all three HB queues (including me)
So? Another fail patch and more lies by storm? (Moving tonks corpses fixed!!11!! oh wait no…)
Map loading time? Hangar loading time?
Cant wait for tomorrow -_-
Ps: Can someone tell me how its possible to have a good looking patch on the test server and then ruin it with the release? (like 9.0)
After hours tinkering…
remember the 8.10 release? meeeeeemooorriiiiiieeeeeesss……
why do they, whenever they improve some terrible bug a little bit, wreck two or more totally different things? what’s next? will they erase the Battle-button? how about the disapperance of all clipping effects? maybe reduce the colours to black and white.
there should be a betting-thread in the forum where people can guess which random shit is going to be fucked up next.
- Storm states that alternative hulls are necessary (SS: because of HB so there is an Ausf.G hull)
_______________
And yet no one plays that mode so why the hell would alternative hulls be necessary. Not like they would change the fail mode completely and make it actually fun to play.
+1
- apparently the bug with ultra-long map load times appeared again. Storm: “We didn’t do anything with map loading”
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs43/f/2009/156/6/d/Joker_Clap_by_Smarticlesface.gif
- disabling the UI in battle improves FPS by a lot and removes some lags? Storm: “I wrote this before. There can’t be a non-resource-requiring interface. For its drawing and calculations there will always be resources needed.”
Yes I’m sure flash UI eats resources equally to other UIs, stronk math.
XD
I’d like to see them offload the UI and the sound system to a different core if they can. The FPS improvement probably wouldn’t be massive but it might just be worth it.
For me disabling (in 9.0) the UI makes the FPS jump from 60 to 90, roughly 30% more. If you look at the fps you see it right after you re-enable it (‘v’) and also i can hear the video card screaming without UI (since I have vsync off).
some 2D crap is eating up 30% of the resources, right.
help a dummy out, what’s UI?
It’s the interface appearing on screen, aim circle, list of tanks, your hp and damage indicator etc.
i think it’s necessary to enable it, even if it decreases fps… :/
The resource eating crap is only reason we have UI mods. Doubt there would be any if modding UI wasn’t so easy.
apparently the bug with ultra-long map load times appeared again. Storm: “We didn’t do anything with map loading”
fuck
Yes, I though that it was written somewhere, that 9.1 should fix that…
I’m not supporting botting….but HB needs bots to replace missing players….just don’t make to too stronk like WT’s Bombers/AA guns….
The tank set up of HB is already a failure, everyone don’t want to be cannon fodders and only strong tanks in that battle is going to use…and since nobody is playing them I can’t be a cannon fodder as well….
I believe WG scrap HB and put more resources back to HD modelling, balancing current tanks and get more new tanks will be a better plan….or maybe start the modern WoT, current nations have decent amount of indigenous MBTs anyway
“apparently, 9.1 has some issues with quitting the battle to the hangar, the game gets somehow stuck – Storm states that this is connected to the high traffic, where the game sends a large packet of data with game results and the packet sometimes doesn’t get through properly”
Why is this not done synchronously? Even javascript can do that nowadays, but apparently not WG… For that matter shouldn’t a timeout trigger the game to move on?
Good point, Alex :)
apparently the bug with ultra-long map load times appeared again. Storm: “We didn’t do anything with map loading”
uh, hello? Explain then this from the 9.1 release notes:
- Issue with increased map loading time when graphics settings are set to low fixed
what is UI?
User Interface
stuff like the mini map and how much ammo you have and stuff
“Storm: ‘We didn’t do anything with map loading’”
Right… You also didn’t do anything to any of the models you screwed up in the past like the Borsig or Valentine, yet those were obviously bugged. Perhaps have a quick chat with your employees? Who knows what kind of stuff goes on behind your back.
Is it me or WG is solving same bugs over and over again…and when they solve it new bug appears but after patch or two the old bug reappears. And do you have this bug…When I play and tank is destroyed somewhere on the map far from me (I cant even see destroyed tank)…that cloud of smoke when tank is destroyed appears next to my tank in the air like the tank is destroyed next to me…
Can anyone explain me that topic regarding the map loading times? I simply never expierenced that e.g. with 9.0. I am right in the game when the timer is at ~54-57 seconds. Is there any specific Map and/or game mode affected?
How large is the patch?
What is very interesting with professional liars like Storm and other WG-Staff – it’s very complicated to keep the overview of all lies erver told.
Remember of the lags? When we were told “There are no lags”, “We are investigating the lags” to “The lags are caused by the Olympic games” and ended with “we have no lags”.
Now, Storm (remember, the best engineer WG has…. sad enough….) states: “apparently, 9.1 has some issues with quitting the battle to the hangar, the game gets somehow stuck – Storm states that this is connected to the high traffic, where the game sends a large packet of data with game results and the packet sometimes doesn’t get through properly”
Storm states that this is connected to high traffic – I thought we do not have a problem with high traffic as the game servers have enough ressources to deal with more than 200k players (currently arround 100k!).
Storm also states, there might be packets “sometimes doesn’t get through properly” – meaning, there are packet losses.
Very funny, first this moron tried to tell us, there are no lags and if there are any lags, it’s the fault of the customer.
And now when one of the next problems got high priority, they try to excuse their permanent failing with packetlosses – something that can’t happen according to Storm some weeks ago?
Hell yeah, only smart people is working for WG – total trustworthy :)