59 thoughts on “Storm is asking about Tank Motion”

1. - PT-76 in World of Tanks? Storm: “What will it do in WoT? It has no armor. It has no speed. The gun sucks, wasn’t built to penetrate armor.”
   they are talking about chi-ri ?

   • :D +1

   • Nothing wrong with the Chi Ri its a fun tank to play.

     • If you are into BDSM, it’s fun.
       But the majority of people, it’s just a sharp searing pain in the asshole.

       • My prefrence of tanks does seem to be different to everyone else. I seem to be the only person you hated the Hellcat. lol.

       • The majority of people are also morons…

     • Its a fun tank indeed – when it shoots you with no damage and you just no-aim pen him :D

       • The Chi-Ri was awesome. Played with a bit situational awareness it can take on every other T7 tank in the game and turn the tides of battle. If you can’t handle it, it’s not the bad tank in this case but your lack of skill or the right play style for this tank. And that say I as not more than average player.

         • You do realise you just insulted yourself?
           Average in WoT means you have vacuum in your head, IF you even have head, hands crooked, abacus from 1700 and one eye.

         • Wow.. You know, there are tanks you can take on higher tiers than you…
           Chi-Ri is not bad, but it’s not exactly a good tank either. I think that whole Japan line was overtiered, up to 7tier. Unfortunately all you can do now is HP buff and that’s what WG will do eventually.

           • Chi-Ri needs a mobility/TopSpeed buff and then it should be fine

             • Pretty much this.

           • The Chi-Ri is awsome. I found myself on the top of the damage list in tier 9 games more often than not. It is not an easy tank to play well in open maps, but if you can use terrain or structures to your advantage, this thing can dish out a world of pain.

   • 186 games played in Chi-ri 62% win rate, couple of Ace tankers made…. CHi-ri is quite good acutaly.

     • Indeed.

2. - SpinTires type terrain physics is impossible to implement in WoT

   Those physics would be so good.

   • Not that its impossible but would need much more computing power for server and to sync with client, so data sent is increased, therefore lags.

     • It would be, really. BigWorld engine and all that :P

   • Wait until the entire world uses Google Fiber and i7 CPUs…
     Yeah…

   • We dont need all the uniqe mud sections and stuff… just the way the vehicle goes and how it interacts with the terrain… which is what they are doing with havok

     • HAVOK will only blow things up “nicely”. Don’t expect anything more from it.

       PS: interactive terrain is way more complicated than Bigworld + HAVOK. It needs a LOT of programming.

       • they are not doing that with Havok….it’s called new motion physics which has been explained somewhat in this article….and that’s pretty much what i would like to see….i don’t need fucking mud and realistic terrain deformability….gameplay>eye candy all day long

3. “- the moving dead tanks bug was mostly fixed, there will be a complete fix, but later, since the developers have to fix many things to get rid of it completel”

   Oh for fuck’s sake WG, you created this problem and now you claim how much needs to be fixed to actually get rid off the problem. You really suck at fixing things.

   • ..you missed how they said it wasn’t there at all, just some players thought it existed…

4. Message Storm that I dont like that tank wrecks moving away, so WG your tank motion su**s.

5. - SerB now works “on another level” than Storm (“one level higher, even two”)

   Level 80 SerB :D Or he meant on which floor?

   • Serb’s troll job level up :)). New level and new troll.:))

   • http://yourpopfilter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/South-Park-WoW-Guy.jpg

     :)

6. - IS-4, IS-7 and Maus are doing fine statistically.

   IS-4: strange tank, can pen front, cant pen its sides.
   IS-7: good as it is.
   Maus: Just….no.

   • and what about terrible E 100?

     • Gold ammo: easy mode statpading avg damage.
       AP ammo: its a sport to pen :D

       • I actually pen often while using AP ammo in E100 than HEAT. fire at enemy E100 fron turret non-angled from 50m, didnt penetrate. with AP i dont even try, shoot something else wich i can pen :D

   • But “Maus is good as it is. No need to buff.” :O

7. To Storm:
   Ok, yu have to make tanks moving realistically, while staying playable.
   But they should look a bit heavier in their behavior.
   My computer is a bit old and I can’t make the game run on more than minimum (althoug I don’t have this problem on some other games. som y computer is still competitive) so I can’t judge of the result on max graphics.

   I have the impression tanks weights almost nothing, being like Remote Controlled Cars.
   http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/07/12/verkhnyaya-pyshma-parade-9-7-2014/ while in this link, even the SU76 looks super heavy.

8. WarThunder’s drifting where one track stops thus making the tank turn sharply would be nice if it can be implemented on WoT.

   • i think thats exactly what WG means with unplayable,because thats just crap to play and no fun anymor,one of the many reasons why only so few People play WT..

     • Ya know… this mechanic can be implemented with playability. Just use two “forward” buttons instead of one. If you push just one then you go half as fast but you can turn sharply, if you push both then you go full speed but you turn like a rock. Easy to master it. Easy to implement it.

9. I think that tank motion is ok – i got used to it and i can’t see major drawbacks. Apart from tank sticking to too many hillsides lately, that one thing is a nasty surprise sometimes and makes you die then…

   As for improvements, i’d like to see more terrain variety – skidding indeed, what about Himmelsdorf on Ice? Cobblestones are slippery all by themselves, with ice they would be insane :P . I’d like you to use terrain properties in more realistic way – or not implement said terrain at all (i’m into common sense, when you see ice, it’s ice, etc).
   There is also an easy way to fake visual effect of tanks bogging down. Just make terrain texture surface higher than map driving surface. Cheap and old, though.

   • I have to agree with you on the tanks getting stuck on the side of hills and such its actually really frustrating as sometimes you don’t even go that far up some hills and your stuck and it takes ages to slowly get it back down its so bad on some maps you pretty much cant go near the hills and mountains

10. - during the first physics test (SS: old physics, as in the ones that are already in the game), there was a possibility for tanks to climb better (so they could get into all sorts of places), developers decided to remove this and artificially ban tanks from getting through some slopes and spots, because this feature was breaking the maps

    Should still be implemented. Really, just so every tank that has enough power to get up high slopes can do it. I would love to see IE a T71 on top of a very high point in the map, sniping everyone but not penning. xD

11. With HD models, a ‘more realistic’ suspension model was introduced. The new suspension looks good, but the maps are ‘flat’. For example, on Himmelsdorf, there is no difference between the road and the pavement/sidewalk.
    On Prokhorovka, or Ensk the railway tracks are ‘flat’ too.. If you watch a video about a tank crossing the railway tracks, or goes up to pavement/sidewalk, that’s completely different. If they have a test map with lots of bumps, and the roadwheels are reacting nice, that’s not enough, they need to make ingame maps more realistic, too.

    Sorry for my english guys :/

    • http://youtu.be/tPtNcxG3fDw
      Like this. The railway tracks are physical objects. Of course, it’s not perfect.

      • You know that the suspension’s “model” and “look” aren’t the same, don’t you? I mean the suspension today is connected via 4 spots to the ground and the “realism” what you see is just a bit of secondary calculation afaik.
        The thing you would like to implement would only stress the server (each battle * 30 people’s tanks * 2 set of suspensions * (various number of gears moving + tracks ) = too much data to transfer and process) and it would be highly cosmetic (like the “tank parts (eg: water container) ripping off from tanks”). And only a very few would see/notice this.

12. - during the first physics test (SS: old physics, as in the ones that are already in the game), there was a possibility for tanks to climb better (so they could get into all sorts of places), developers decided to remove this and artificially ban tanks from getting through some slopes and spots, because this feature was breaking the maps

    Translated from WG language

    - during the first physics test , there was a possibility for the Churchill tank to be what it was climb better (so they could get into all sorts of places), developers decided to remove this and artificially ban the Churchill from getting through some slopes and spots, because this feature was making it playable

    • Like you would get on those places with Churchill faster than light tanks anyway :D

    • Developers went on to say that players may either go left chokepoint, right chokepoint or middle chokepoint. All other routes break the map and have been removed.

13. - PT-76 in World of Tanks? Storm: “What will it do in WoT? It has no armor. It has no speed. The gun sucks, wasn’t built to penetrate armor.”
    - furthermore on PT-76 topic (SS: some players want it as top Soviet LT) – “What will you do with 44 km/h speed? Is that a nice scout?”

    AMPHIBIOUS TANK FFS!!! IT WOULD BE THE PERFECT TIER 10 SCOUT (even with the 44km/h speed)!!!

    - barrels will not become material

    “We want realism in this game.” “Suspension physics is a must-to-do.” “Tank parts shaking/fall off is a nice thing to see.” WG logic (R).

    – the new motion physics will come in not so far future

    Can we skate on ice with the tank after the new motion physics? PLS?

    - during the first physics test (SS: old physics, as in the ones that are already in the game), there was a possibility for tanks to climb better (so they could get into all sorts of places), developers decided to remove this and artificially ban tanks from getting through some slopes and spots, because this feature was breaking the maps

    Just LOL… Because if you can’t make a good map then ban the players for climbing up places you shouldn’t go (without explicitly saying that they should not go there)? WG logic (R).

    • >AMPHIBIOUS TANK FFS!!! IT WOULD BE THE PERFECT TIER 10 SCOUT (even with the 44km/h speed)!!!

      They’ve entertained the notion and found it was a waste of time on supertest. Who could’ve guessed tanks in ponds are sitting ducks?

      >- barrels will not become material
      >“We want realism in this game.” “Suspension physics is a must-to-do.” “Tank parts shaking/fall off is a nice thing to see.” WG logic (R).

      They want realism that’s not at the expense of gameplay. They’ve been extremely lucid about this fact and additionally found the calculations to be too expensive for what they bring. This has been discussed before.

      >Just LOL… Because if you can’t make a good map then ban the players for climbing up places you shouldn’t go (without explicitly saying that they should not go there)? WG logic (R).

      I don’t even understand what you just said. At best I can think of you saying “WELL IF THEY COULD COMPLETELY UNBALANCE THE MAPS BY REACHING BROKEN AREAS WE SHOULD REWARD THEM FOR BREAKING THE MAPS.”

      I’ve had an episode in Modern Warfare 2 where this argument would’ve made the game entirely bullshit on at least one map. I once beheld an enemy sniper who exploited the map, got outside of it, jumped into an apartment block that was outside of the level 200 meters away, and started plinking everyone with a sniper. He was unkillable because 99% of the game was built around 50 meters at best, not 200, and all you can see of snipers in cover is the top of their head. Good luck hitting him.

      Pieces of terrain in real life are much more UP/OP than games present. You aren’t afforded the luxury of conveniently located bits of tank cover on every field you engage in, much less a theme, a lack of naturally defensible pieces of terrain, or a guaranteed route to somewhere important.

      • A., You can make amphibious tanks FUN to play with. They did it before with the TDs (which IRL were always camping at a base OR always moved with the entire regiment, thus not fun at all…).

        B., “They’ve been extremely lucid about this fact and additionally found the calculations to be too expensive for what they bring.”

        “Tank parts shaking/fall off is a nice thing to see.”
        “Barrels will not become material.”

        One would spice up the gameplay the other would be just a cosmetic thing. And they want the Looks (R). Because it’s not so “expensive for what it brings”. Must i say more?

        C., You must be really a moron to compare “Boundry-Jumping” in MW2 to “Climb up a hill” in WoT. Really. Climbing to a hill doesn’t make you harder to hit ffs. If it would make it then we would only play on a flat surface.

        • >A., You can make amphibious tanks FUN to play with. They did it before with the TDs (which IRL were always camping at a base OR always moved with the entire regiment, thus not fun at all…).

          Camping at a base? Moving with the entire regiment? What are you even trying to say? I’m not even going into the fact that tank destroyers are nothing like amphibious vehicles, which are insanely light, insanely underpowered (they have to be), and gain so little for what they receive. The Maps of World of Tanks are much too small to take advantage of strategic movement like crossing lakes. The moment you duck into a pond you’re a sitting duck going 13 kph.

          >B. “Tank parts shaking/fall off is a nice thing to see.”
          >“Barrels will not become material.”

          I was only discussing solid tank barrels, the second one is being looked into as we speak. I’d personally love movable bits. The expense I was referring to was primarily because I remember specifically reading that WG checked out solid tank barrels and found it would decimate the servers.

          >One would spice up the gameplay.
          We could also spice it up by giving Gold ammunition their historical armor penetration values. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

          World of tanks is an arcade third person shooter. It would be a ridiculous nerf to large guns and small traverse casemates and become a major pain in the ass for any tank that doesn’t have good gun elevation. It would make hilly maps and urban fighting an insane pain in the ass as you’re fighting your tank, your gun, and the terrain at the same time. It’s really not worth all the hassle and server load.

          >And they want the Looks (R). Because it’s not so “expensive for what it brings”. Must i say more?
          What?

          >C., You must be really a moron to compare “Boundry-Jumping” in MW2 to “Climb up a hill” in WoT. Really. Climbing to a hill doesn’t make you harder to hit ffs. If it would make it then we would only play on a flat surface.
          Oh, where do I begin.

          1) Insulting the person who’s somewhat calmly debating you is considered poor form.

          2) to a certain extent, getting into parts of hills that are meant to be inaccessable IS considered boundary jumping. You’re taking advantage of parts of the level which were never intended to become part of the map’s meta. It’s not entirely bad, but I can see how a map designer could see that as abuse.

          3) The example I made of a map abuse aren’t even the same exploit, but they are the same issue. This isn’t a question of “well it’s harder to hit him,” but that the map designer isn’t even considering that map element to be a part of the playable game. He doesn’t expect to have to account for impassable terrain A being objectively better than impassable terrain B. Considering it takes months for players to recognize seriously overpowered terrain and then more months for WG to remedy it, taking precautions so that they don’t happen isn’t stupid, it’s sensible.

          4) Tossing all map development aside and encouraging the entire team to roll over all quote-unquote ‘denied’ terrain with sloppy limits isn’t conducive to good gameplay balance.

          5) I will say that the idea of intentionally adding difficult terrain to traverse is interesting, but the development team has to consciously incorporate them, not scramble to fix a scandalously overpowered exploit they never found out for months. A fix on that scale constitutes a painful delay and a broken map.

14. “- Storm states that when you manage to turn your vehicle on the roof and noone helps to flip you back on your tracks, the battle is over for you, but also adds that such situations are very rare”

    first thing that came to my mind :D

    http://i.imgur.com/ioKHPUW.gif

    • My first thought:
      http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/322/c/f/tank_epic_fail_by_seekerarmada-d5ldecy.jpg
      :)

    • my goodness, those girls are strong!

      • Well the CV33 is an extremly small tankette, only 1,5 ton. Of course not high school girls but two men can flip it back like this :P

        http://www.ferreamole.it/eventi/comina_2004/059.jpg

15. How about fixing the tortoise? You might notice, the tank travels twice as fast as the tracks turn and slides over the ground.

16. - during the first physics test (SS: old physics, as in the ones that are already in the game), there was a possibility for tanks to climb better (so they could get into all sorts of places), developers decided to remove this and artificially ban tanks from getting through some slopes and spots, because this feature was breaking the maps

    So that’s why I am no longer able to get into the awesome hill spots on Mountain Pass!!!

17. > – the “jerking” of tracks will be implemented (SS: hard to explain without a video, it’s a situation where when a tank turns, the track on the opposite side of the turning circle between the first roadwheel and sprocket “jerks”

    Do you mean like Crowfooting? It’s a thing on some utility vehicles vehicles that offer ‘part time’ all wheel drive, where the back set of tires tires are forced to spin at the same speed when a smooth turn calls for one to go slower; if you turn too hard on tarmac, the vehicle starts rocking and jerking back and forth in a regular interval because one tire is fighting the turn and friction so hard it has to slip on the pavement like the really grippy rubber it is. You feel like the entire front end is trying to hop like a crow into the turn if you push it hard enough (Or, if you turn hard enough, the vehicle stops entirely.)

18. Regarding tank movement in the game…I only really have one complaint:

    Engine torque isn’t properly modeled in the game. If you’re wondering why that’s important, let me put it this way: it has an effect on how much (or how little) speed one loses while climbing slopes, which can be important in some cases. As it is in game, the general method of determining this is the power-to-weight ratio of the tank, but that doesn’t take into account torque, which is how tanks like the Churchills were so good at climbing hills in real life.

19. I’d personally love more detailed medium tank motion fun, especially for crazy RNG tier stuff (good or bad) happening, but not at the cost of a bunch of tedious elements. Drifting isn’t exactly one of those things. That said, things like modelling engine torque, gear shifts (automatic would be just fine), and maybe even a more detailed cruise control would be great. Add anything to expand and widen the range and flavor of movement as far as possible, don’t just sit down and remodel the old physics engine into the new one with extra bells and whistles.

    My Leo PTA is extremely fun to drive simply because it’s only the high speed tanks that get to have all the fun crazy shit happen to them.