5.9.2014

Posted on by

Currently, there is no info on the test, but it should come today, possibly in two or so hours. But that’s just an unconfirmed information.

A little fix on the yesterday’s piece of info first – I wrote that Evilly said more premium tank buffs beyond what was already announced would come around the Tanker’s Day (RU event). This was not correct (I did misread it), Evilly wrote that the current buffs (the announced ones) are tied to the Tanker’s Day. These are not however the last changes to premium vehicles, these further changes will be announced later (no ETA).

- Storm was supposed to make the KTTS 9.3 video, but he got sick and Veider had to take over on short notice, that’s whe he looks a bit “unprepared”
- Storm on the appearance of AC4 Thunderbolt in KTTS video: “For now, I can’t tell you anything”
- according to Evilly, “Replay Manager” is a really nice mod, devs will consider implementing it into the game
- the reason why some things are not implemented as game features – instead, WG leaves modders to do them – is that in wrong hands, mods can cause loss of performance in the client. This is the specific reason why the developers did allow the game to use mods. More mainstream good mods will appear in the game in the future.
- according to Storm, there are apparently no problems with the way arty currently is in the game
- there is no “TD rebalance” (of the whole class) planned
- developers are considering completely removing the option to disable shadows (so that there are always shadows), all the shadows would in such a case be static on low details (FPS issues)

49 thoughts on “5.9.2014”

  2. - developers are considering completely removing the option to disable shadows (so that there are always shadows), all the shadows would in such a case be static on low details (FPS issues)

    ehm…how about no? Would you please let the user decide if he wants them or not? I cant think that static low detail shadows are better for fps than no shadows.

    Eddit: I want to have more Graphical options btw. I dont want to use WOT Tweaker every time. Wg support your users with more options!

      • “Also get better PC.”

        No… Source Engine and Cry Engine both look good/better and are way more optimized. In both Engines i can play with shadows on and get 35+ fps steady. In Wot i get everything from 20 – 70 fps.
        And yes i know how to setup a pc/game.

        How about you stop defending this shitty Engine? You dont even know what a Pc i have, but still you make an assumption.

      • Yeah, because you know, everyone can afford a new PC to run this unoptimized game full of bugs..

      • I love people who say ‘get better PC’…OK sure, soon as you send me the money for it I will go buy one..wait what you won’t send me any money? Then how dare you tell me to get a better PC?

        • Maybe you shouldn’t cry about the game then if you can’t afford to play it properly.

          • This exactly.

            I’m really tired of the gaming industry being held back by scrubs with bad computers bitching about how they can’t play it.

            My ancient Phenom 955BE with 8gb RAM and a GTX650 BOOST (In SLi, but I disable SLi for WoT, so effectively one card) runs the game at max quality at 60 frames-sec steadily.

            I consider my rig MARGINAL at best. Yet it runs the game just fine.

            If you’re having framerate issues, it’s not the game, it’s not the engine. Stop trying to play the game on an HP DV6…

            • “the gaming industry being held back by scrubs with bad computers bitching about how they can’t play it.”

              I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

              • Laugh at the tards who try to play the game with 6fps. Cry at the ones crying about how bad the game runs when they try to play it on a piece of crap computer.

                • Seriously. The PC gaming industry isn’t here to support people who are too poor to buy consoles.

            • BigWorld engine working as intended comrade! You have no problem so there’s no problem with it, move along, fuck everyone else for having problems with the perfect engine.

              • If it’s working for some and not for others, the problem usually exist somewhere in the vicinity of the one having the issue…

                Like I said, my somewhat-antiquated rig runs the game perfectly fine at max settings at 60 frames/sec. If you have a comparable rig and it’s not running as well, it’s a problem with your rig.

                Period.

    • Like it would help, I’ve never seen shadows in the game. Weird settings or something associated with my PC. I still get good FPS, but I’ve never had the damn option anyway.

  3. Tipical for Wargaming: “Test server will be released on 5th of September” that means they will release it 2 days after that

  5. I hate shadows , i turn em off in all of the games and i go crazy when i cant set them Off . leave the graphical choice to the players and do your goddamn job instead

    • But sttic shadows option would be very nice even nicer than i would expect from WG. Static shadows are good, they give acceptable appearance and dont force you to try ice bucket challenge on your VGA(you know it makes VGA’s overheated). I wiuld be very happy to see better (less laggy) shadow system.

  6. - developers are considering completely removing the option to disable shadows (so that there are always shadows), all the shadows would in such a case be static on low details (FPS issues)

    YOU FUCKERS, DON’T YOU DARE CHANGING MUH OLD RENDER

  7. - the reason why some things are not implemented as game features – instead, WG leaves modders to do them – is that in wrong hands, mods can cause loss of performance in the client. This is the specific reason why the developers did allow the game to use mods. More mainstream good mods will appear in the game in the future.

    So basicaly the wrong hands they are talking about are theirs?
    ROFL.

      • Some features are not implemented into the game by developers because in wrong hands mods can cause loss of performance in the client. So they let the modders do the mods (because it is easier to blame the modders for bad performance than fail developement team, right?).

        That is what I understand… And that is what is written so? Please explain.

        • What they mean is that if they left a lot of features currently available in mods as default in the game then the red retards who don’t know which end of their tank shoots will get confused, break their computers (probably burn their houses down too) and then blame WG. That is what they mean but I’m not sure I agree with them, more likely they are too lazy/stupid to implement them.

  8. developers are considering completely removing the option to disable shadows (so that there are always shadows), all the shadows would in such a case be static on low details (FPS issues)

    Bullshit! I remembered at another day, dev said shadow eat a lot of performane and now they are considering remove the option to disable shadow. Fuck WG

  9. So, someone did noticed Replay Manager ingame? And the one had to be Storm , but noone from FTRers noticed it in 9.3 ASAP video?

    :-(

  13. FFS even the old CT launcher is DLing full 7.6 GB game. No point in saving old test server client it seems. It always DL whole game.

  14. They state that they want to make graphics setting more advanced by splitting post processing into what it actually is instead of a bundle, like bloom and depth of field. Most people want either, not both.

    Aaaaand now they want to remove the option to disable shadows? … i play without shadows for a damn fucking good reason. They are resource hungry and on low settings they look like crap, better to just turn them off completely. Not only that i dont like shadows in games like WoT, i want(need) clarity. High res textures, high res models, high res vegetation, high quality lighting, proper AA eliminating jaggy edges, But no shadows, no effects, no blur/depth of field, no smoke. Just a clear high re

  15. - ‘Storm on the appearance of AC4 Thunderbolt in KTTS video: “For now, I can’t tell you anything”.
    As an Aussie I can only say one thing on behalf of all Aussie players. GIVE US THAT TANK (I mean sell). and the AC4 is NOT called ‘Thunderbolt’ that is the nickname for the AC3 (with single 25pdr). good web site to look up the AC range is Australian Military Vehicles Research
    would also like the AC1 as a side note

    • also forgot to mention the in game AC4 shown in video is the prototype, which is nothing more then a AC1 with enlarged turret ring (from 54in up to 70in) the real AC4 was to have a common hull with the AC3 which lost the hull mg and one crew to make way for bigger ammo. the new upper hull was sloped at 24 degrees