- a shell in the game is represented by a single point, not an object. As such, a shell can pass through holes, that are smaller than its caliber
- developers are still thinking what to do with T-44-85
- it’s possible T-34-85M will be “available before the end of the year” – it depends on whether it’s “ready” (to be released)
- developers will not disclose the internal tank module layout (the way it is in War Thunder), there will however be an “armor inspector”
- ammo rack damage (SS: as in the possibility to damage ammo racks) will not be removed from the game
- some guns have “wrong” damage (inconsistent with other guns of its caliber)? “We will definitely fix that, as soon as we recieve the data on historical damage value these guns had”
- a player claimed that certain tanks have higher chance to get certain maps and gave “Chaffee” and “Stalingrad” as an example, Yurko2F stated this is not true for the tanks the player gave as an example
- the fact that Porsche heavy tank tracks have thicker armor than the Henschel ones is “compensated by other characteristics”
- Storm admits that the ramming system is screwed. It will be reworked and simplified by removing the fact that the armor calculated currently during the ramming is the one at the point of contact. Instead, the armor considered when ramming will simply be the nominal armor, taken from the tank characteristics (nominal front/side/rear armor) on the side that rammed (or got rammed).
- T-44 in HD? “When it’s done it’s done”

81 thoughts on “15.11.2014

  1. - developers are still thinking what to do with T-44-85

    Give it limited MM and buff some soft stats to make sure it’s fast and has decent DPM. I’d buy that.

    • The pen is still horribly low for a tier 7. Even for an agile medium. Give it close to 140 ish and it might work with a limited MM. Considering the Comet has 148 and the Cromwell had 145 with +2 mm. Who cares if its “unhistorical” pen compared to gun or what not. Game balance has gone before historical accuracy before.

      Even if the pen was 135 to 140 ish. I would still buy it if it had limited MM. If its agile enough it will work. As I said. I can get the comet and cromwell to work in a tier 8/9 game with 145/148mm pen. 140 ish should work for most in a tier 7/8 game if they can move fast enough. Heck the Matilda LL that I’ve played over 300 times to train crews with got 86 at tier 5/6 and 102mm gold pen. And still by some magic it can do well :)… or well enough.

      • As you say, a lot of t7 meds have around 150-ish pen, with normal MM. If T-44-85 is at least as fast as them, preferrably a bit faster, and has limited MM, it should be fine.

      • Problem is that T-43 has “close to 140″ (144mm) and T-44 is far superior platform to that (armor and mobility). With reasonable penetration it would be much stronger that (rather weak) researchable Soviet medium.

        • I’ve always believed that the problem is is that the T-43 is terribly mediocre in anything but DPM. It’s got a huge profile, is agile but quite slow, extremely unreliable armour and the worst penetration of the tier. If you introduce a tank with worse penetration with better mobility it will outperform it easily and if it doesn’t the tank becomes horrible to play.

          The T-43 is just a dpm monster on a underwhelming platform. It takes a lot of skill to play thanks to the combination of having bad gun depression while being very tall while also not having a very reliable turret. ( in fact it’s slightly worse than the T-34-85 turret in terms of angles ) and having a mediocre hull with barely worthwhile side-armour makes effective side-scrapping very interesting with the tank and only effective against low caliber mediums. Overall it is just not as friendly to play as most the other normal mediums due to it’s confusing nature.

          Personally I sold it as fast as I could, I couldn’t get along with it. High DPM is fun but having a tall profile with no gun depression killed the tank for me. It feels liek a downgrade on the T-34-85 which I loved to play despite the high DPM and slightly better mobility. Meeting IS-3 every game and having trouble to penetrate it’s sides at a straight angle was less than fun. The comet can at least penetrate the sides half the time, the T-43′s slightly lower penetration makes it ridiculously inconsistent amazingly.

  2. “- developers are still thinking what to do with T-44-85″

    Whats wrong with T-44-85 ? UP ?

    “- some guns have “wrong” damage (inconsistent with other guns of its caliber)? “We will definitely fix that, as soon as we recieve the data on historical damage value these guns had””

    Which guns ? I dont recall any (tho its not like I check every gun stats)

    • it´s not UP, but its pen is lowish (126mm), and players dont like tanks that cannot penetrate every enemy from the front… you know, flanking with MTs is for noobs…

    • The 105mms of the T29, T32, Tiger 2, Vk45.02 A and the Löwe (probably it’s not all , didn’t mention TDs becaouse raisins) have 320 alha dmg as the 105 of the t10 and 9 mediums have 390 , also people were complaining about that the modified 100mms do 320 dmg and the modified 105s go 390, but they don’t realize that both gun types get +70dmg

      • The 100mms on chinese also have the same problem. A few got 250 of alpha, while the top gun on 110 have 320 of alpha

        • Yes but, it is fictional. If only the caliber should determine the damage many tanks with 100 and 105mm will be at severe disadvantage opposed to the 122 and 128mm guns. If they fix damage per caliber too strict they need to rebalance all gun characteristics. As is now, it makes sense that a 105 or a 100mm on a tier 9 medium should do more damage as in tank balance. Not realistic but who cares? That also means that no russian tank even at tier 10 should have more than 390 damage and T34 should not have 400 damage, but less than 390, like 370-380 due to beeing 120mm and not 122mm.

          320 damage on the 105mm guns is okay and really nice, but that also mean that those 105mm on tier 9-10 should have 320 dmg max, and tier 9 meds with 100mm guns should have less than 320dmg.

          This balance will totally need an entire overhaul of all other tank characteristics though, if we only take caliber as measure for damage. Also “historical” damage, how do they measure than and translate it in the game, when we have HP? And HP is not related to armor thickness either in this game, nor the slope of the armor.

          Also the penetration should be taken into account for damage since higher pen = higher potential to make more damage since the shell travels further into the hull and can damage more stuff. Just an idea…

          • I also argue it makes sense for higher tiered 100/105mm guns to do more damage than lower tiered counterparts because, frequently, they don’t shoot the same projectile. The 105mm the M48 Patton gets is not the same 105mm gun as the T29 and T32 get, for instance, and they do not share ammunition.

            • I am affraid they were serious, just like with all other bullshit historical changes. Game balance is more important than historical accuracy, but WG fail in both, for example by giving the vk45b 300mm effective lower plate. And also removing historical engine upgrades for german tanks..

    • ““- some guns have “wrong” damage (inconsistent with other guns of its caliber)? “We will definitely fix that, as soon as we recieve the data on historical damage value these guns had”

      Which guns ? I dont recall any (tho its not like I check every gun stats)”

      Type 59 and T-54…

  3. The ramming system is so bad. Yesterday, i took my su 122 44 for a spin, and while driving, i just lightly touched the tracks of an M103, and i took off -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 of HIS health. lol wut?

    • It’s because this new/bugged ramming system now takes the armor values in account…the 122-44 has 75mm side armor, while the M103 only has 40-60mm side armor.

      That’s why the WT auf Pz. IV yesterday rammed my Obj. 263 from behind and I actually got damaged, because his frontal armor is 80mm and my rear armor is 50mm.
      We both were at roughly the same speed, I was actually even slower. The odd thing here is, my Objekt weighs 60 tons while WT only ~27tons…

      This is screwed up.

    • Indeed it is. A KV 5 was pushing me in my T28 Prototype. He lost 20 of his health before giving it up. I found it funny that the tank most known for ramming was taking damage from my weakest point.

    • Yesterday I tried to ram a IS-8 who had 70hp left with my T110E3. I rammed the side of the stationary IS-8 in full speed and *BOUM* I died because of the ramming. I had 200hp more than the IS-8.
      The enemy IS-8 survived with all his 70hp. *sigh*

      • Storm admits that the ramming system is screwed. It will be reworked and simplified by removing the fact that the armor calculated currently during the ramming is the one at the point of contact. Instead, the armor considered when ramming will simply be the nominal armor, taken from the tank characteristics (nominal front/side/rear armor) on the side that rammed (or got rammed).

        Wow yet again a 180′ complete reversal from previous days comments. Where we just didn’t “understand” the new ramming system. That this system was much superior and it was just because of us stupid players who were used to the “old” system. Hmmm Soo how much other C%^P that storm tells us is bang on. He’s fast becoming the George Costanza of wargaming. Says one thing then it goes in the opposite direction.

  4. “Yurko2F stated this is not true for the tanks the player gave as an example”

    So… what tanks is it true for? (other than the tier based limitations)

          • Because it’s faster for the server to have 8-10 maps in the main memory instead of constantly loading one of 40-something maps from HDD.

            • So, another reason why the decision to make much of the game server-side is highly questionable.

                • Because, getting the same maps in quick succession is much less enjoyable than getting a wider variety of maps. Judging by the forums etc, I’m far from being the only one who thinks this.

              • I’d rather have 8-10 maps in rotation because the server can’t handle more, than to have stuff in game made client-side so it can be exploited.

              • Except there isn’t a single reason why that decision is questionable, there are countless reasons why it isn’t questionable tho.

                • Stop talking bullshit!

                  Technologically, the server side nature of WOT acts as a major bottleneck on performance – that’s the main reason most games don’t take this approach. So there is a single (and very good) reason why its questionable. There are also several other reasons, such as the limit on map variety.

                  So lets hear these “countless” reasons of yours why it is not questionable. If the lack of cheats is a reason, its a poor one, as

                  a) WOT still has some fairly effective cheats in the form of mods


                  b) (more importantly) plenty of other online competitive games are mostly client side and are served by effective anti-cheat methods.

                • What cheats in form of mods?
                  Aimbot? Bitch please I have straight hands.
                  Laser? Bitch please RNG will fuck you up in far distances, and I can see up close where you aim at.
                  Destructed stuff on minimap? For some CW or TB maybe good thing.
                  3D skins? Bitch please I shoot to kill not shoot to crit.
                  Defoliant? Fucks you up more than you fuck enemies due to it.
                  What else….White corpses, tracks – nah, I aint blind.

              • A lot of mods cheat in some way. They give you something extra over another player without it.
                Extra zoom, last known position, even XVM as it shows you who to take down first or avoid.
                Cheats in wot are more subtle than god mode

    • I feel that the answer i a bit troll. The player asked about Chaffe getting a lot to Stalingrad and E100 – to Malinovka. So the game designer gave exactly this answer instead of telling that there is no such setting at all.

      Based on previous experience of WG game designers and managers insulting players in their answers i would not be surprised.

  5. - some guns have “wrong” damage (inconsistent with other guns of its caliber)? “We will definitely fix that, as soon as we receive the data on historical damage value these guns had”

    Are they being sarcastic or i remember someone said damage doesn’t depend on gun caliber

    • As far as I know, in real life guns don’t have “damage values”. So yeah, I would say he was sarcastic.

    • Yeah…damage doesn’t depend on gun caliber….then what does it depend on? How is ‘damage’ defined? The damage caused in the tank after the shell penetrated? From this perspective, APCR shells should have less damage compared to AP shells of the same caliber if they both penetrates. There isn’t a historical damage value for the guns, but there are some differences in damage caused.

      • Really thinking about it should really depend on the total kinetic energy for kinetic rounds (AP/APCR). HE/HESH on the weight and type of explosive.

        HEAT’s the funny one don’t really fit in anywhere. it depends on the guns’ era and the caliber. (later the gun generally the better the ammo)

        • If it totally depend on the total kinetic energy for AP/APCR, shouldn’t 17-pounder have a higher alpha than the short 88(171 vs 132)? Or 88 L/71 have a higher alpha than D-25T(203 vs 175)? Then the soviet heavies would suffer and WG definitely won’t do it.

          I actually think the damage should depend on both the gun caliber and the penetration.

            • Really? Then please tell me what alpha mean, cause I don’t know how WG defines the ‘alpha’ of the guns. Tbh, WG did a good job seperating gun’s penetration and damge caused to the tanks, cause it would make otherwise UP Russian heavies on par or even OP, and more Russian players will play WOT, that way WG would make more money.

        • If that would be true German 75mm KwK 42 L70 should actually be on par or even better in dealing damage than KV-85 troll kanon (122mm gun of doom)

          Can you imagine a T6 German medium tank to have a gun with 390 average damage?

          If you dig enough through search on Google or WoT forums you should actually find the evidence that L70 and “Short 88″ (88mm Kwk 36 L56) were practically on par, nearly equal in terms of total kinetic energy compared to IS 122mm gun (the top gun on “old” KV-1S / alternative 122 gun for current KV-85)

          Skewing and twisting the historical accuracy only because of Russian market is just … BS

          Even Russians should know that they had beaten Germans by quantity NOT quality. Along with the fact that they also needed help from Western powers only to “divide” already divided Wehrmacht even more.

      • When we’re dealing with WW2 era tanks, the AP ammo was by far the most used in anti-tank role. Basically, it worked like a bullet shot at a vest. If the bullet penetrates, it can damage the organs at that part of the body. Same goes for AP ammo, except instead of organs we have the crew, the ammo and the engine as weak points.

        After the penetration occurs, the chunk of metal dislodged by the penetrating shell is shattered and becomes shrapnel, which in such a cramped space full of ricochet possibilities is absolutely deadly. Many times one shot is enough to kill the entire crew with that shrapnel, or to hit the ammo causing it to explode or hit the engine/fuel, burning the crew alive.

        The higher the caliber, the bigger the chunk of metal dislodged meaning more shrapnel meaning more chances to hit the crew/ammo/engine. But it’s safe to say that a 88mm shot is more than enough to incapacitate a tank with one shot, as history has showed us. Higher than that it’s not really a good idea, unless you up the caliber in order to be able to penetrate your enemy.

        This game will never respect history or reality so all I said is pointless.

        • I think the damage should be based on caliber, pen value, ammo type as well as shell speed. Just balance the damage on caliber alone will need massive rebalanced in this game since, game balance is more important than historical accuracy (if that can even exist in a HP game). The only good part with this will be that alpha damage will be decreased on the higher tiers and no 105mm or 122mm gun in the game can make more than 320 and 390 damage (same as tier 8 alpha numbers).

          • You’re right, you can’t possibly balance dmg in this game based on reality. Just think about it, if the 88mm shell one-shots any tank, just like the 122mm shell, then it’s safe to say that King Tiger was able to fire and kill 3 tanks while the IS-2 was able to fire once. This is how it was in real life, if we respect that then the germans will have by far the best tanks in the game, and guess what, they did have the best tanks in WW2.

            • To the salt mines dog!!!

              It’s true though :/ The game would be amazing if it reflected the huge gulf between the qualities of German and Russian tanks, and the MM balanced through selection.

            • Or the 88 and 90mm guns make 240 dmg and the 100mm guns make 250 dmg. Lol, just keep gun values fictonal. No point messing with alpha damage because after tier 7, many guns dont get much bigger in caliber at least for medium and heavy tenks, but the alpha does increase a bit depending on the overall balance. Just compare the 128mm gun with the 122mm guns, the damage for the 128mm is 490-560 while the 122mm range between 390 and 440. Inconsistent yes, but it is needed for game balance. This tells me that the potential differances in ammo type/quality, shell velocity and pen makes the damage differ even if the caliber is fairly similar. And this is the only explenation we need even if its fictional, since there no way to tell the real life damage. Some tanks can take several penentrating hits and work, as longs as crews and modules dont get seriously damaged.

              If damage should be “historical” then we are moving towards WT mechanics, where tanks dont have HP and have fictional mechanics in their own way.

        • Actually APHE was the most commonly used anti-tank ammo used in WWII, for obvious reasons. Just penetrating a tank’s armor doesn’t guarantee a kill, it just makes a big hole and if you are lucky spalling/metal shrapnels did the actual duirty work. To ensure the kill, the HE-part was important.

          • All penning hits didnt kill crew or knocked out modules, that is true. But in WOT, its all about taking off enemies HP, and second if you are lucky you get the bonus of killing crews and knock out engines, but that is only a small part of the game, since the main objective is removing HP.

            But yeah in a way its an okay mechanic we have in wot, taking off enemies HP makes the tank weaker in the way that it can take fewer hits untill the tank is destroyed.

  6. - some guns have “wrong” damage (inconsistent with other guns of its caliber)? “We will definitely fix that, as soon as we recieve the data on historical damage value these guns had”

    As in, the 105mm derp for both germans and americans, it has much better alpha than the more advanced 105mm guns on T8 tanks. How the fuck is that possible ???
    The russian 122mm derp has 370dmg, while the standard 122mm guns have 390dmg, thus the standard 105mm guns should be buffed to at least 360dmg.

    • If you think for a moment, there is a slight possibility that you realize – it’s not a gun that does damage. It’s projectile. Different nations designed different projectiles (e.g. by amount and/or type of explosive inside) even for similar purpose/caliber guns. Also in real life NO shell does 360 HP damage. Because there are no HP. In hame however reality and logic can be skewed at will in the quest for the ever elusive “balance”.

      Then there is the opposite example. Like L7 and it’s derivatives in game have same penetration and damage values. Because it’s basically the same gun and projectile even though handling (reload time, accuracy and so on) might be different from nation to nation from tier to tier.

      • And you’re saying that the high velocity 105mm guns have worse ammo than the low velocity 105mm guns, is that it ? Sorry, I don’t buy it, it doesn’t make any sense and as I said, the 122mm russian guns have correct dmg, the standard being higher than the derp’s.

        And what’s with the stupid NO gun has 360dmg in real life, I was talking about the game

        • World of Tanks is about, primarily, armor damage.

          Which do you think does more physical damage to a plate of armor
          A: a projectile that passes straight through, punching a hole and causing minor spalling on the other side, or
          B: a projectile that *explodes* against the plate, damaging both the impact side and far side

          You can’t count HEAT in the equation, because HEAT is a special, magical creature. Its characteristics are based around the normal HE round, and is designed to give the player a cash alternative that behaves more like (but not just like) AP.

          • I wasn’t talking about AP vs HEAT, I know that HEAT and HE are more damaging, I was talking about AP vs AP, read my post 2 posts lower.

    • I wonder how many more people are going to write comments like this before someone realizes that both penetration and alpha are tuned mainly for balance rather than “realism”, and gun caliber is largely irrelevant except for use in overmatching and loosely figuring out how much explosive they could carry (in the case of HE rounds).

      Also, comparing derp guns, which fire either HE (explodes, causing more damage because…it explodes) or HEAT (doesn’t explode, but creates a lovely jet of superheated metal) to proper anti-armor guns firing an assortment of AP/APCR and derivative flavors is just…silly.

      Edit: late :v

      • Ok, let me explain it one more time, so that you understand. AND WE’RE TALKING ONLY ABOUT THIS GAME, not reality, where both guns dealt the same dmg – one shot kill.

        The german 105mm derp has 3 types of ammo, AP, HE and HEAT. Just like the 105mm High Velocity gun on Tiger II, for example.

        NOW, the AP dmg of 105mm derp is 350 while the AP dmg of 105mm HV is 320. That is wrong.

        And since the HEAT does the same dmg as the AP, means that if the russian 122mm derp had AP ammo, it would do 370 dmg. That’s fine as long as the 122mm HV gun does 390 dmg.

        I know all about the stupid “balance”, you do realize that buffing the alpha of a gun means a nerf to the RoF, so I see no problem with buffing the alpha to the normal in-game value it should have.

        • Because balance.

          Consider your tier 5 10.5cm AP ammo. It does more damage than the anti-tank gun on the Tiger.
          Why? Because it’s garbage. It has 60-someodd penetration, which while it’s AP and therefore gets superior normalization, is still too low to bother using over HE 90% of the time. In the event that the player actually DOES penetrate with it, they get increased damage as a reward.

          HEAT != AP. If the 122mm did get AP, it would probably be in the 70-80mm penetration range, and in the same boat as the 10.5cm stuff; I would imagine it would actually end up with more damage than the “normal” 122mm AP to balance out the poor penetration.
          Why is the HEAT damage lower than the 122mm anti-tank guns’ AP? Because with HEAT you get 140mm of penetration with 370 alpha damage at tier 5, which is overpowered as it is. The last thing it needs is a buff.

          Now, why don’t they simply screw with other gun characteristics and change the alphas to even things out? Aside from the above, at a guess, because they want to nudge people towards certain playstyles. Also because, well, WG’s balance department moves in mysterious ways.

  7. - some guns have “wrong” damage (inconsistent with other guns of its caliber)? “We will definitely fix that, as soon as we recieve the data on historical damage value these guns had”

    What the hell is a “historical damage value”.
    Like an old nazi document that says:”Tests have shown that the KwK 34 has a damage value of 153″

  8. “- a player claimed that certain tanks have higher chance to get certain maps and gave “Chaffee” and “Stalingrad” as an example, Yurko2F stated this is not true for the tanks the player gave as an example”

    So the map rotation just happens to completely switch whenever I switch into a different vehcile by coincidence?

    • First game: T37, map, Himmelsdorf tier 9
      Second game: T37, map: Himmelsdorf tier 9
      Switch tank
      Third game: A-44, map: Steppes tier 8
      Fourth game: A-44 map: Malinovka tier 9
      Switch tank
      Fifth game: WZ-131 map: Ensk tier 8
      Sixth game: WZ-131 map: Mines tier 9
      Switch tank
      Seventh game: IS-3 map: Prokhorovka tier 10
      Eight game; IS-3 map: Prokhorovka tier 9
      Switch tank
      Ninth game: T37 map: Ensk tier 9
      Tenth game: T37 map: Lakeville tier 9

      Such unlikely unfortunate streaks, happen much to you?
      Just an example, I play mediums and mediums are pretty much good in every map except certain Russian mediums/ ( A-44 in open maps, Object 416 in city maps )

  9. I’m gonna use my premium time up and then fuck this game off. Between WGEU employees and players, I don’t know who the most detestable faggots are…after playing this game for so long I have come to the conclusion that there is no more fun to be squeezed from this shitpile.

    A real shame…I liked this game a lot…

  10. Top 5 Wargaming Comments:

    1.) “When it’s done it’s done”
    2.) “It’s a Server side game”
    3.) “Working As Intended”
    4.) “The Problem is obviously on your side”
    5.) Any comments made that their player base are idiots, assholes etc.