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

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.

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.

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.

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.