15.9.2014

Oddly enough, there was a case on RU server, where a WG employee (community or something) “stole” a nickname from a 0 battle account (“Superman”). Why can’t we have that officially? I bet there are plenty of good nicknames belonging to 0 battle accounts, that logged in once – in 2012.

Also, if you are interested in a somewhat more “critical” opinion on World of Warships (seemingly), check out this article. For some strange reason, the content plus the site where it was published made me remember Zoe Quinn…

Also, the EU “Twilight of Gods” results are in and Wargaming fucked up once again – some players got their tanks awarded twice (once the tank, once its price in gold) while others got shit. Those, who got shit, are according to German forum rep scheduled to get the tank in the future when WG cleans up the mess.

- it’s possible that there will be a medal (award) for killing someone with a ricocheted shell
- mantlet thickness of Object 263 is 250mm, there are no “holes” in it
- there are no publicly accessible data about the mantlet armor of Object 263 available

- Q: “Why is the KV-85 100mm rate of fire so high, it’s higher than the one of D-10S on SU-100?” A: “The reason of this rate of fire is game balance. SU-100 can mount the D-10S gun, which has a different set of characteristics than the corresponding S-34, mounted on KV-85 – for example more penetration (175 vs 170 of KV-85). Therefore, it’s nothing unusual that there are differences in other characteristics as well. At the same time, the “top” gun of the SU-100 in the game is 122mm, which makes the vehicle equal to other vehicles of its tier in combat characteristics. During the balancing phase, the stats of the D-10T gun, mounted on the IS tank, were brought to such a level as to correspond the S-34 on KV-85 in order not to be inferior to it as a part of the characteristics continuity withing one tank branch.”

- the crew role change is not difficult to implement technically, it will come
- 9.3 ricochet angle calculation and its following trajectory will be calculated the same way it was in 9.2
- it’s possible that in 9.4, the Type 62 crew setup will be changed to correspond the one of WZ-131
- Storm states that even if the developers wanted to give free XP compensation for Chaffee now, there’s no time left to do it anyway before the patch is released
- developers will try to implement increased view range for the entire light tank class

61 thoughts on “15.9.2014

  1. Man, I want some gold along with my tank! I wish they’d hurry up with the retraining, I have about 20 2-3 skill radiomen sitting in the barracks playing cards…

    • “It won’t be hard to implement” so instead of just taking the small amount of time to do it now and get it out of the way they continually push it back (along with however many other things that “won’t be hard to implement”). Yet another reason I dislike WG.

  2. There would have been time to give current Chaffee owners free XP instead of tank XP if they had actually originally intended to give any compensation at all. They didn’t intend to, but changed their tune, and now it is “too late” to change again. Thanks Storm. Oh well, at least I will get to research the T37 on day one now.

    • ^ This.

      Worst part is they told us they wouldn’t be giving any xp and that was “final”. Now a number of people have banked xp that they are going to get for free and have to pay gold to use. How can it possibly be harder to give free xp instead of tank xp?

  3. “- Storm states that even if the developers wanted to give free XP compensation for Chaffee now, there’s no time left to do it anyway before the patch is released”

    Yea, because nobody thinks chaffe owners could feel pised when grind a tier 5 that in the end is a tier 6 with tier 6 prizes FROM a tier 4 scout WHEN the MM fuck a live the little M5.

    In my country we say ” there is a will, there is a way’” other thing is WG last year is in greedy mode… well is their game if competitors are clever and exploit this… maybe WG is going to return to pre-2014

    Its me or WG now move from “we are not going to implement X” to “we try implement x”??? maybe they see the “wolf tears” and are scared to suffer a disaster in early 2015… and after WOWp succes… if WOWs is not a great success and WOT lose pay base players… black future for WG.

    Ummm change in Type62 crew, ok but … i asume they reset the training no???

    • Free XP compensation… not enough time…. muahahahha…..
      Laughing about this one, since I got unusable 40k XP on my Lorraine 155-50 when filling arty-tree up to TierX.
      Research for 155-51 dropped like a boss… yeah.

      … not enough time… wuahahaha
      -,-

    • I will have something like 85K XP on the Chaffee before I research the T37. Yes, my fault for assuming they would not compensate us, but that’s still a lot of XP that is going to be sitting there doing nothing for a while.

      Nice to see they are doing something about the Type 62. Whenever anything about light tanks comes out, the Type 62 is almost always neglected. For a while, when there was a light tank event, the XP in the Type 62 didn’t count. Look at the list of light tanks being buffed next patch. See the Type 62? Nope, forgotten. I bet when they do “implement increased view range for the entire light tank class,” they Type 62 won’t be included in that list either. As for the crew change, this has been a sore subject with Type 62 owners since they introduced the Chinese light tank line. It’s about time they did something!

  4. > For some strange reason, the content plus the site where it was published made me remember Zoe Quinn…
    No shit, Rock Paper Shotgun is one of major feminazi cesspools.

        • I guess one day some people will have to think about something better than calling people SJW, if they want to be taken serious.

          (Yeah, let`s start a flame war)

          • Oh, I get it, someone who fights for social justice is the bad person, not the ones perpetrating injustice. Right.

            Up is down, north is south, etc…

            • Isn’t it time for the SJWs to tweet selfies of themselves holding signs demanding convertible XP or social justice for Type 62 crews?

              I mean, it worked so well for the schoolgirls kidnapped in W. Africa – except that they are still kidnapped and the topic has dropped from SJW radar. Convenient, that.

    • Do you even examine tank models?

      The mantlet of the 263 is in a gap in the frontal plate.

      They don’t overlap.

      A shell can go through the gap between the mantlet and the frontal plate. Even a HE shell can penetrate if your angle exposes the armour gap.

      Only 30mm on the floor of the gun slot and the “walls” that are exposed if you angle your tank are 80mm. What T8-10 large gun WONT penetrate that.

  5. - mantlet thickness of Object 263 is 250mm, there are no “holes” in it

    Well i think the problem with that is, that it counts as Mantletarmor and mantletarmor doesnt have the normilasation rule as far as i know. So basiclly it doesnt matter in which angle you shoot the gunmantlet it will be anyway 250mm.

  6. fucking WG pieces of shit

    i bought the Chaffee last night based on WG saying they intended to reimburse Chaffee owners but instead of 43k xp i just get FUCKED instead!

    i love this game but i HATE the fuckers that own it

  7. - Storm states that even if the developers wanted to give free XP compensation for Chaffee now, there’s no time left to do it anyway before the patch is released

    How convenient.

    I think the simplest fix is “People who owned the elited Chaffee prior to 9.3 will automatically have the T37 unlocked (not purchased, just unlocked).

    • i missread it, lol.

      we already knew they were not giving free XP so why continue to bring it up again and again?

      i still hate those guys!, lol.

    • From what I gather from posts on this blog:

      9.2 Chaffee owners will be compensated with ~40k “Chaffee XP”, which they can use to spend on Chaffee modules or on the tier 6 right away. Once Chaffee is elite, players can then use the remaining “Chaffee XP” to convert into “Free XP” with gold.

      The “Free XP” in today’s post meant the XP you can spend on any tank without having to pay gold, and that will not be given to the 9.2 Chaffee owner.

      I may be wrong, but I don’t own a Chaffee now so meh.

  8. OFF TOPIC does anyone else have issues with FTR updating when their signed in for example if my account is signed in I don’t get the latest posts there always 2 days behind. I have to signout and then back in just to see the latest posts.

  9. instead of increasing the view range of light tanks which i am all for why not nerf the view ranges of all the other tanks which will make the maps bigger?

    u could move around more and not be spotted. the way the game is now u cant move more than 20 meters without being spotted.

    • Indeed! in true WG style and reasoning!

      Why WG is on purpose overlooking 8 other instances of the D10T/44-100JT usage is truly beyond my understanding.

  10. - Q: “Why is the KV-85 100mm rate of fire so high, it’s higher than the one of D-10S on SU-100?”
    - A: “The reason of this rate of fire is game balance….jadiejada bla bla bla….During the balancing phase, the stats of the D-10T gun, mounted on the IS tank, were brought to such a level as to correspond the S-34 on KV-85 in order not to be inferior to it as a part of the characteristics continuity withing one tank branch.”

    I’m really getting tired of WG balance logic patch after patch. Like the IS is the only tank using the D10T.

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind the ROF being different on tank B vs C using the D10T, or its clone the 44-100JT.
    But buffing base stats, as in: accuracy and aimtime, in only ONE instance (the IS) and leaving the rest untouched/ingoring the rest in the name of “balance” (T-44, IS-3, IS-2, T-34-1, T34-2, WZ-131, WZ-132, some I might have forgotten)…..I find that a lack in competence and using the above translated arguments: disturbing.

  11. They buff the of the 100mm on the IS becuase historicaly IS 100mm had like 25mm or pen than the 122mm

  12. - “Also, if you are interested in a somewhat more “critical” opinion on World of Warships (seemingly), check out this article.”

    play BattleStations !!!!

  13. About that ‘stealing’ a player name.

    There are a lot of zero use accounts that have been created with all the inscriptions that can be purchased. I tried to change my player name to ZYKLOP so I could use that name and have it on the side of all my German vehicles. Went and checked out the player base and found it and most of the others were already used to create unused accounts.

    Along with a lot of the other names such as tank aces etc.

    Perhaps they need to advertise that all accounts must be used and any acount with no activity over a certain time period will be cancelled.

    I was aso hoping that the bonus XP for premium vehicles would start to bring some of those rare ones out. In 4 years of playing I have only seen a Pz V/IV once. If those acocunts are all deactivated there is no reason that vehicle can’t be offered for sale.

    • Apologies for the spelling errors.

      As an example, on the USA server do a search for the player Betty. There are 16 pages of names with all but 3 names per page with zero games.

      That’s around 200 phantom accounts. And even those accounts that have games appear to have been idle for a long time.

    • “Perhaps they need to advertise that all accounts must be used and any acount with no activity over a certain time period will be cancelled.”

      Perhaps not cancelled – but just reset the name somehow, tell them to find a new name.
      Alternatively, there should be a cancellation warning AND a very long waiting period, depending on the number of games played. I’d be pretty pissed if I’d built a huge garage and paid for any number of tanks – take a year off – and then find out I have to rebuild from scratch.

      Fair enough to say “if you have played >100 games, reset period will be three months. If you have played >1000 games, it’s 6 months, >10000 matches 12 months, <10000 matches 24 months.

  14. “I bet there are plenty of good nicknames belonging to 0 battle accounts, that logged in once – in 2012.”

    One log is still good, but there are accounts which are registred since 2011 and belong to players which NEVER loged in to game. Im waiting on one of this accounts like a vulture.

  15. Well about the World of Warships I can say that it could be a success. I for one will try it, because I got a lot of experience with Battlestations: Midway and Battlestations:Pacific which I both own. The latter IMO is one of the best mix of strategy and action from the POV of vessels and airplanes and submarines(that won’t be in WOWs) . I liked both games, so WGs game should be nice.

    • I like the games myself pretty much. Especially the multiplayer part with BS Pacific kept me going for a while. From the ship point of view I really hope WoWs will be not as arcade as BS in terms of ship movement and damage. BB against BB was a quick session. Took like 30s to destroy a Montana with a Yamato. The gun fire spread wasn’t in the game at all. If that comes properly implemented to WoWs then we could talk about a few minutes of BB vs. BB fights on max range. I’m really looking forward to that game. I was really addicted to NF1. I also played NF2 for a few months but due to lack of player base the game got scrapped in Europe in August this year.

  16. “Oddly enough, there was a case on RU server, where a WG employee (community or something) “stole” a nickname from a 0 battle account (“Superman”). Why can’t we have that officially? I bet there are plenty of good nicknames belonging to 0 battle accounts, that logged in once – in 2012.”

    My prefered nickname is blocked by someone with 5 T1 games in April of 2011 (NA server). I’ve opened 2 tickets about it (the second was along the lines of “It’s been a year since I last asked and he still hasn’t played any battles since the day the account was opened”… Still no luck)

  17. “_- developers will try to implement increased view range for the entire light tank class”
    yes please look at all the light tanks like the forgotten T50 that’s slower than some mediums at tier 4! who has bad view range! 330m and slow :(
    look at the view range on some premium tank too! like the t2 light(260m), tetrach(260m), even the BT-SV need more than (280) meter view range!

    you can also add special light tank Recon/ situational awareness thats more than 2%/3% extra…. make people work for extra view range some times

  18. - the crew role change is not difficult to implement technically, it will come
    ————————-
    Then WHY are you not doing it!??
    I could make an army of USSR and USA Radioman crews with 2 or 3 perks.. And I am now approaching many Tier10 tanks, which will have a need for additional loader, so a good retrained radioman would be just perfect rather then pulling out a total rookie with 0 skills and broken arm!

    - it’s possible that in 9.4, the Type 62 crew setup will be changed to correspond the one of WZ-131
    ————————
    Finally :)

  19. - developers will try to implement increased view range for the entire light tank class

    amg buff my ELC !

  20. “The reason of this rate of fire is game balance”.

    Ain’t it funny how WG juggles between “historical accuracy” and “game ballance” whichever is more convenient to them. Not that i think that being hypocrite is bad or anything. What’s bad is that they have no balls to admit it.

    • In all fairness, no it isn’t funny – it’s logical.

      Of course, sometimes the “historical” aspects will mess with game balance and making one tank more “historical” will require rebalancing of all other tanks.

      The whole idea with hitpoints is all balance.

      Funny is when they ignore both historicity and balance – like with gold ammo or any number of consumables.

      That any tank would drive around with a rack full of HEAT or other “gold” ammo is unhistorical and imbalanced.
      That’s the part they won’t admit, because it’s “fiscal” (i.e. built-in imbalance/unhistoricity = money for WG).

  21. Why are you surprised they have problems with balancing?! They released so many tanks, no one can balance everything. This isn’t me trying to defend them but to rain hate on them because it’s their own problem because they used “give more tanks” improvement tactics when they should’ve used “make better gameplay” tactics! We are waiting for better engine for 3 years now. MM is still extreme BS and that’s because of their sneaky win/lose system (don’t believe me). We will never have in-game trade market. We will never have reasonable premium tanks. We will always suffer from “nerf everything” instead of “buff” everything strategies. And we will always have SerB saying “whine some more” when EU market says things that are actually a big problem and really not another whine comment…