25.12.2014

Posted on by

- Storm is not that keen on large maps (1500*1500+). He states that it was tested and slow tanks would be even worse than they are now and they would just camp the bases. In general, focus would shift from shooting to moving and that becomes boring really quick
- Storm confirms that XP bonus for blocking damage with your armor (“tanking”) will come
- Tiger II in HD: “when it’s done it’s done”
- the reason the British switch (FV4202) was not implemented was that the agreement with the museum (Bovington) about making detailed photos of the replacement and measuring it took a LOT of time
- Storm confirms that US tier 2-3 tank destroyers and arties will be switched around, specifically – T18, T82, T57 and two more new vehicles on those tiers (SS: IIRC one is T3 HMC). This switch will happen later than 9.6
- Storm confirms that the French and Japanese new tanks are problematic due to the difficult collection of historical sources
- 9.6 will not bring many new HD models

83 thoughts on “25.12.2014”

  1. Nooooo! Not my T82! my favourite tank! I so OP you wouldnt want to believe it… why? :(

    • Something tells me T18 switch will only make it to relocate the problem. Instead of impenetrable for machine guns in front lines – it will be same in bushes :D

      • Obviously, when T18 will become an arty, its 51 mm front armor will be nerfed, to (my guess) ~20 mm or less.

          • Tier 3 with a 75 mm artillery gun? Not entirely sure whether or not that is going to happen, since most SPGs at tier 3 rock a 10.5 cm or bigger gun.
            But maybe it’s gonna be a SU-26-alike

              • That would sort of make the T18 comparable to the SU-26, which has a 76mm at tier III
                But we also currently have the priest at the same spot though.
                I smell 2 low-tier SPG lines…

      • I know… but why do they have to do it? T82 isn’t played very often (at least I rarely see it). Not even sealclubbers seem to play it, even though its the perfect machine to do so. Fast, great gun and awesome viewrange. No armour of course.

        • Yyyyeeeeaaaaaaaaa!!!!!! t18 sealclubbers god armor is nerfed again to hell lol

          like how they did the super persh xD

          • So, instead of unsloped 51 mm, it will have sloped 29 mm with 45 mm LFP, and without the 20 mm weak spot.

  2. So japs have only T8-T10 as HTs? Well I dont see a problem.
    T57 Heavy line is just pure clusterfuck, so why cant they do it again :D

    • lets not give example the new brit tree that goes from medium tanks to t5-7 tds!
      makes perfect sense!

    • Because lowtier Type 89 (or another number) “heavy”, Iwakuro on tier 5 – 6 (depending on armor layout – either ChiRious or uparmored x2) and then hightier O-I and super heavy Godzilla tank or something… They have various tiers and holes between them.

      Or just fill holes with ChiRi clones with different guns (and size), noone will notice – we got used to it (tiers 4 – 7 in jap tree are just same tank, but bigger). Tier 7 Chi Ri with 10.5 cm gun, tier 4 Chi He Kai with Chi Nu gun, tier 6 Chi To with 88 mm gun, tier 8 – even bigger Chi Ri (OK, with 100/40/40 armor) with 120 mm gun – oh look I’ve made a new line :D

      • WG never had problems to fill empty spaces in a branch – if WG cant find one, they just create one (WTF E-100)

        • That E100… there is E100 TD, Heavy, Arty
          im waiting for them to finish this bullshit with the mighty :: Jäger-Späher E100
          … a scout with E100 hull, tiny turret and Jge100′s gun (Sounds legit !)

        • XD I’m sure they are not very fond of creating there own fake tanks because if they were almost all the tier 10 would be fake.

      • those tier 4-7 you talk about are historically existed. Chi-He was a prototype if I remember correctly. Chi-Nu is mass produced. There’s are some still exists. Chi-To was also made. Chi-Ri was just a hull when it was found.

        My question is: why not Japanese TDs?

  3. - Storm is not that keen on large maps (1500*1500+). He states that it was tested and slow tanks would be even worse than they are now and they would just camp the bases. In general, focus would shift from shooting to moving and that becomes boring really quick

    This is utter horses**t – all this reads to me is “We’re reaching for any and every excuse to make this game dumb enough for the lowest common potato.” The maps *need* to be substantially bigger. Slow tanks will suffer a bit, sure, but scouts can actually do their jobs, real flanking maneuvers can take place with mediums – TD’s can actually benefit from better view and radio ranges to long-ball long-range targets. The damn Tiger, and many other tanks can finally have their historical view ranges and gun effective ranges.

    Oh … and the most important factor for 99.9% of players – Artillery would no longer be an orbital death ray because shell-travel time would increase so only the hardest camper would get directly hit by one.

    We need WoWp maps – period. WG needs to just stop making excuses for crippled Soviet s**tbox computers. Imagine … 30 minute battles, 30 man teams – and no b/s tank stats … the actual ones (view, gun-range, radio range, speed, etc).

    *drops tha mic*

    • We dont need bigger maps. We need widely accessible maps.
      For exampel: Steppes (what are the odds) – drive almost anywhere.
      And there this shitmap – Hidden Village – where half of map is either a fucking big ass mountain or hills.

      • I’m cool with topography – as long as it’s accessible … so they could simply do both.

        I mean it’s not rocket science, WG don’t have to throw away the current map rotation – but basically transpose the current maps into lower-tier play like they did with Province. Then maps that have WoWp variants could be the upper-tier ones – like say, tier 7+

        More real estate has always been a good thing. The problem with hidden village is exactly as you pointed out – tons of garbage in the way, not a lot of room to move – if all that clutter was spread out in an area 2x the current size, it’d be a lot more interesting to play.

      • We need maps that are accessible like Kharkov – when i first played on it i thought its 1000×1000 map, but ist “only” 800×800

        And just forget about bigger maps unless something is done with very slow tanks (T95, TOG, etc – maybe an unhistorical, but deserved top speed buff)

      • Sooo the NET size of a map should be around 1000m x 1000m. Then we can have those 1500/2000m^2 maps
        (Although you have to admit that for example in steppes the middle flat area is only important in the lategame :D )

      • Artys fine :p you should be more worried about a t49 then an arty lol a Gun Launcher means an arty cannon i stopped playing my artys only on rare times when my t49 is in battle. but i love my Moble arty. i hear people say when they see me looking at them.. they say.. No… no no no no no.. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!
        They dont poke out when a scout with a 152 looks at em lol some even say the common arty slang as if there was an arty a game when i hear that i say. Oh you mean me you derp :P… then they call me a scumbag lol

        they hate t49s sooo much they would give the game away just to kill me lol i shot an is7 in the butt once and an M103 they were not happy xD lulz

        Arty players you love arty play a t49 lol

    • No, Storm’s right about this one. On bigger maps you would have to just drive and drive, tank battles wouldn’t be so much intensive. Instead you would get something like this. A 3-4 tanks go on one side, another batch on middle and one on the other side. With maps that big there would be NO helping between those two groups, and if the enemy starts the lemming train on one side they would won. Trust me by putting JUST bigger maps ingame without seriously reworking other stats the gameplay would be quite shitty.

      • The groups wouldn’t help each other because
        -Wargaming wouldn’t increase the draw distance
        -The map would still be nothing but poorly accessible chokepoints and passageways, bowls or mountains that take up 53% of a map
        -Basic mechanics wouldn’t change and the game would still rely very heavily on RNG for dispersion

        The problem with larger maps, is that Wargaming still doesn’t really know how to make maps.

    • 1200 x 1200 is usable maximum. Anything more and you get two options – base camp or lemming train. Anything else and enemy base camp / lemming train will simply tear you apart before you can react.

    • Storm is actually correct in the sense that the bigger maps will be a disaster for slow tanks. Imagine yourself in a T95 and u land in a good team, your whole time in the match will just end in trying to get your gun to bear on a target and keep moving. It will become very boring indeed.

      And what was the Tiger’s ‘historical’ view range btw? View range is just an abstract variable introduced in games for balance purposes. IRL Tiger’s or any tank’s view range just depends upon the eyesight of the crew and quality of optics.

      BTW what is 9.6 supposed to bring apart form the ‘confirmed’ jap premium?

      • Nope, those wont be a disaster. T95 already suffers when the team is good and rapes everything in front line (dat suffer when my team raped everything on corridor map and before I could haul my ass the game was over…and my 2x bonus too) Nothing would change in that matter on bigger map. However, the truth is that all those slow-ass tanks would need a speed buff for bigger maps – simply because riding through all that terrain at that speed would be boring

        Anyway, the problem with bigger maps is that 15vs15 matches would be too small.2kx2k map and 30vs30 could be nice

        And as sm1 mentioned above – bigger maps would be profitable for MT’s (for actual flanking stuff) and LT’s (for actual spotting stuff)

        Overall I’d like to see bigger maps. Or maybe even 10kx10k maps with 5 bases per team, 80vs80 – 100vs100 battles and shitloads of ways to attack/defend points. You know, big-ass scale battle But well, imagine cooperating with retards and tomatos on that map…(“Fuck you, I wont go back to defend base number 4 because its far away and enemy light tank is just behind a corner so I will chase it blablabla” and such stuff)

          • Not rly. Bigger map means a lot more points. You fire at a point and turns out that no one is there. Thats where the LT’s comes in play. They would actually need to spot enemy movements and not just spot the enemy itself. At current maps you just know where the enemy will be unless they are retarded enough to leave a line/point/side unprotected. On bigger maps that would be the other way – enemy can be “everywhere” or “nowhere” so the LT’s would need to ride across entire map and actively spot enemy movements. This would also require a lot less “straight 2-way” corridors for balance reasons, because you would need to send fast tanks to defend a point where enemy made a break-through and obviously going back to start point to enter the “corridor” is not a possibility – you will need a route/routes that are connecting to the “corridor” (and basically those routes would eliminate the corridor itself). So in the end on such big scale map there cant be any corridor that is connecting the opposite points of the map, as seen on current maps.

            Srlsy, I can only imagine how badass such big scale game would be (as long as the big size map will have good design)

            PS: Hope you got what I mean, sometimes its hard for me to write longer serious posts in english (it’s not my native lang)

        • The T95 is garbage any way you care to look at it. You have to hope your team screws up as it is the only way to do something in it. Bigger maps would not change much: you will still be in a last ditch defender that either rakes in damage, gets nuked by arty or does nothing.

          How on earth I got a 60% (+) wr in it is beyond me.

          • Its not garbage at all. It just suffers when the team rushes and kills everything in front. Overall its a good vechicle, had a great time with it

    • Soooo… you want WG to make WT? Cuz that’s what I’m hearing. Ya know that Kursk map? It gets old, don’t it? :P

    • So he doesn’t like larger maps because of a shift from shooting to movement, but is looking forward to axing tank view ranges instead? Utter bullshit!

      • Actually, it makes sense. He wants a game with quick turnaround times. You get in a battle, you are in combat within 10-20 seconds. Fast, furious, fail, next.

      • Those that claim too much camping cant be against larger maps. Only the most backward-assed WOT programmers would make a larger map then have caps at the end. Round map with KOH in center, or the like. Tanks in real life need to manuver, and bottlenecks arent a queue….just flank around. The current maps, especially the older urban ones are pathetic tank maps. Take some real topographic maps and base the game off it.

  4. Of course, never live to see changes in my favorite tank. They are lazy … and unkempt. No HD model? Fascinating ..:-) What do I think then?

    One can also apparent dissatisfaction, and wg to respond “how terrible” is the response?

  5. Close future, somewhere around 2017/2018:

    - Patch 9.9123 will not bring many new HD models
    - Patch 9.9124 will not bring Havok

  6. Question im sure youve answered before, Why is the sherman III 76mm M1A1 gun about 1 ton lighter than the US M4′s M1A1 76mm

  8. “Storm confirms that the French and Japanese new tanks are problematic due to the difficult collection of historical sources” … you are just lazy to go in France (Châtelleraut) !

  10. The way I imagine them fixing the larger maps is for them to expand the borders, but keep the flags (and spawn points) at the same range as they are now, so that going around can work, but the slow tanks can still just press straight forward and still (possibly) see something. Might need to rebalance the capping mechanic to make it work, but I’m far from certain on that one.

  11. Bigger maps don’t need to have more accessible area than say kharkov, it opens the opportunity to implement setpieces like the mountain in Hidden village WITHOUT screwing up the map.

    The spawns also don’t need to be in the corners/opposing sides of the map, the distance between capture and spawn points doesn’t need to change at all. The only thing the extra distance could be used for is actual routes for mediums and lights to flank over the long way around. It would also discourage heavy tanks from driving up to medium flanking positions to ”pown” some mediums while leaving the heavies 1 tank down.

    Competent mapmaking only has more opportunities for actual variation if the map creators are competent.

    • They could make a huge map and make it only for tier 8-10 encounter that way everyone should be headed to the same objective and there is no need for base camping.

  12. I wouldn’t be opposed to well-designed large maps, but if they do anything above 1200x1200m they need to fix the render square. Right now it is very limiting and unintuitive, where tanks that are 500m away are invisible because they are N/S/E/W to you but tanks that are 650m away are easy to see. Some maps depend on this awkward mechanic, like Assault on Karelia, and this really needs to be changed. This limitation is already obvious on most 1000x1000m maps, and it would be a big crutch for any larger maps.

  13. - Storm is not that keen on large maps (1500*1500+). He states that it was tested and slow tanks would be even worse than they are now and they would just camp the bases. In general, focus would shift from shooting to moving and that becomes boring really quick
    _________________
    We don’t need HUUUGE maps, but there’s nothing more boring than playing T10 tanks on some small map. Maps should be at least 1×1 and above, everything bellow should only be limited to low tiers.

    - 9.6 will not bring many new HD models
    _________________
    Who would have expected ( ° ͜ʖ͡°)

  14. I can’t wait to hear the cries of the seal clubbers when they lose their beloved T18′s :D
    T18 was OP since it was 1st introduced in the game and took them forever to nerf it and it is still OP.

  15. Getting really tired with this wargaming comment.
    “When it’s done it’s done” you know what wargaming
    WHEN IT’S DONE I WILL PAY YOU FOR IT AND NOT A DOLLAR UNTIL THEN!

  16. I really don’t think WG has any idea what is/ isn’t fun or good about their game anymore. They flatten the maps, create boring corridors so every map feels the same, cater to anyone who cries (about TDs, arty), rip all cover from maps while preaching that they’re trying to make lights more useful. Basically they’re at a point now where their only interest seems to be squeezing in as many potatoes as they can while squeezing out every penny they can.

  17. You’re missing the other big reason WG will not implement larger maps…

    The RU gameplay is very aggressive and YOLO, all they want is a quick brawl, no tactics or gameplay, just brawl.

    If you have big maps, the RU players would get too bored too fast, WG lose too many roubles…

  20. Pingback: World of Tanks news 25 12 2014

  21. So, wait…

    > He states that it was tested and slow tanks would be even worse than they are now and they would just camp the bases. In general, focus would shift from shooting to moving and that becomes boring really quick

    So, big maps are bad because slow tanks will camp base – and that would make the focus of the game shift from camping and shooting from the base to slow tanks camping and shooting from the base and fast tanks moving around the map (which is boring)?