Comments on: 7.7.2014

By: IRSanchez

IRSanchez — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:52:10 +0000

You have had lots of valid points in your posts here before, but I can’t agree on your view about HD models.

They are specifically aiming at the average WoT player and not the hardcore types.
After all, its the average player who care about graphics and immersion more, then real gameplay. They want to play a few games, land some shots and maybe even make some kills. Also unlock the wholy grail (Tier X). Thats all.
Also, they want the game easy and accessible (“omg dissapearing tanks WTF WG nerf them QQ” and WG listens, for better or worse)

So the HQ models actually made sense, especially when the competition (WT:GF) is way forward in that regard.

The execution was really bad, and indeed that might be the matter of engine limitations and bad leadership.

By: Swamp_Thing

Swamp_Thing — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:01:25 +0000

Ah. Well new info always good anyhow. Cheers.

By: khrrocks

khrrocks — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:29:56 +0000

Sturer Emil doesnt equal Pz Sfl. V.
Pz Sfl V was based on the Pzkpfw V’s (Panther) chassis. Sturer Emil’s official name was the “12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H)” which meant that it was based on the VK 30.01(H) chassis, not the Pzkpfw V’s chassis. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me :) Therefore i dont think they shld rename the Pz Sfl. V the Sturer Emil.

By: nixxxie

nixxxie — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:43:56 +0000

Already fixed this in my xvm config :P .
But most often i call it “coffin” or “bidet”…

By: Brenthos

Brenthos — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:12:45 +0000

When I write ‘Borsig’ in chat, usually the Borsig itself does not understand I’m talking to him.
As for pronouncing it – I’ve heard a lot of people callinh it ‘Rahm’, or ‘Rehm’…
The stupidity…

By: Brenthos

Brenthos — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:08:16 +0000

Did we just witnessed common sense from WG?

By: kstoff_EU

kstoff_EU — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 07:11:28 +0000

Forcing the introduction of HD (or rather ‘high quality’) models was unnecessary in the first place. From the techncial point of view the game can’t handle those models (which I briefly explained above in this thread).

But far more improtant is that it takes resources, many resources (and as evi7stylez pointed out – resources that WG obviously desn’t have at the moment), which should have been diverted to improving the gameplay. Besides, as WG disclosed, main target of the game aren’t hardcore gamers or gaming enthusiasts which perhaps pay atention to graphics. The typical WoT player is a casual player, who doesn’t usually play games and even for whom WoT is the only game he plays. Pushing the graphics overhaul (again, which WG can’t handle obviously) was a really weird business decision.

Maybe WG wants to increase the number of people playing by attracting gaming enthusiast (those who usually don’t pay attention to some f2p game-like products). However they will fail in this. And the game will suffer because of that.

By: evi7stylez .

evi7stylez . — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 06:49:05 +0000

5-10 tanks per patch.. it will be Year 2023 most likely ;)

By: Vincent Noche

Vincent Noche — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 06:25:39 +0000

I’m sorry, but you misunderstood.
I’m not telling i can’t penetrate – I’m telling RNG is not so random at all.
I’m stating it is part of balancing mechanism.

too bad there is no mode to calculate results of team/enemy after battle.
it might be interesting to see number of shots, total damage(per shot) and number of penetrating hits.
Of course all would have to be statistically normalized, so we can compare results.

And now I see – of course WG will deny anything :-)

By: Szepie Law

Szepie Law — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 06:14:57 +0000

somehow reminds me of EA when they refuse to make frostbite engine open source, claiming that its “too complicated” for the players to understand.

its all bullshit basically, we will figure it out eventually, they gotta be hiding it for their own good.