Developers posts on forum

Subject: Archives\Beta\Suggestions\PETITION: removal of closing channel window with X in top righr corner
Link on message: #318934

Largepotato, on 26 December 2010 - 05:57 PM, said: You misunderstood the issue, Overlord.
The problem is that clicking the X on the chat window will exit the channel.
Prior to the patch, clicking on the X would only minimize the chat window and to actually leave the channel you would have to click the X on bottom bar.
Please add an option that allows the leaving of chat channels to be like it was prior to the patch.

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\General Discussion Of v.0.6.2.7
Link on message: #318910

colonelsanders17, on 27 December 2010 - 03:53 PM, said: It IS sarcastic but not BS lol, most people forget that most of the devs aren't Russian. Which threads has he locked? Seriously man grow up, worry about your obviously lacking real life instead of imaginary video game balance conspiracies

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\General Discussion Of v.0.6.2.7
Link on message: #318898

colonelsanders17, on 27 December 2010 - 11:14 AM, said: Anyone noticed getting much less xp per round? I feel like I'm having great rounds compared to last patch but not earning as much as a mediocre game would last patch. Other than that I'm loving the patch (except my hummel is garbage now! )

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\General Discussion Of v.0.6.2.7
Link on message: #318894

shashaveli, on 26 December 2010 - 09:36 PM, said: Company battles are broken big time. The usual setup for them, is 4-5 T-10, the rest T-6 artillery. Its ridiculous because you simply CANNOT win against that

Subject: In-Game Vehicles\German Vehicles\Heavy Tanks\Please improve the Maus
Link on message: #318883

WhiteHyena, on 27 December 2010 - 01:05 PM, said: The Maus used to have better armour on the Russian server but they (Russian tank users) complained that it was too hard to kill so the devs insta-nerfed it. After that the Maus has always been crap. Until they buff the armour it'll always be crap, it dosen't need more hp or more module hp, it needs more armour. Something that slow needs an armour advantage over the tanks it'll be facing.

Subject: Please improve the Maus
Link on message: #318883

WhiteHyena, on Dec 27 2010 - 12:05, said: The Maus used to have better armour on the Russian server but they (Russian tank users) complained that it was too hard to kill so the devs insta-nerfed it. After that the Maus has always been crap. Until they buff the armour it'll always be crap, it dosen't need more hp or more module hp, it needs more armour. Something that slow needs an armour advantage over the tanks it'll be facing.

Subject: Please improve the Maus
Link on message: #318883

WhiteHyena, on Dec 27 2010 - 12:05, said: The Maus used to have better armour on the Russian server but they (Russian tank users) complained that it was too hard to kill so the devs insta-nerfed it. After that the Maus has always been crap. Until they buff the armour it'll always be crap, it dosen't need more hp or more module hp, it needs more armour. Something that slow needs an armour advantage over the tanks it'll be facing.

Subject: Technical Support & Bug Reporting\Localization & Translation\WoT in English
Link on message: #318792

Conkker, on 26 December 2010 - 12:35 AM, said: spelling error on the Profile page of the WOT website:
pic
edit: irony i spelt spelling wrong?

Subject: WoT in English
Link on message: #318792

Conkker, on Dec 25 2010 - 23:35, said: spelling error on the Profile page of the WOT website:

pic

edit: irony i spelt spelling wrong?

Subject: WoT in English
Link on message: #318792

Conkker, on Dec 25 2010 - 23:35, said: spelling error on the Profile page of the WOT website:

pic

edit: irony i spelt spelling wrong?

Subject: Technical Support & Bug Reporting\Localization & Translation\Defeat message.
Link on message: #318764

Subject: Defeat message.
Link on message: #318764

Subject: Defeat message.
Link on message: #318764

Subject: Archives\Beta\spelling error on account pages
Link on message: #318733

Subject: Archives\Beta\Broken WoT application for G19?
Link on message: #318727

Subject: Archives\Beta\Premium Account
Link on message: #318716

dalek1, on 25 December 2010 - 09:37 AM, said: It definately does not seem to be giving us all the experience we deserve after the last patch.
I have premium and am only getting 99 points after a loss and 300 after a win with a VK3601.

Subject: Archives\Beta\Premium Account Bugged.
Link on message: #318684

Subject: Archives\Beta\experiance gain lowered?
Link on message: #318653

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\What exactly do you get in a softwipe?
Link on message: #318058

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\TheSoviet (Clanleaders read please)
Link on message: #317998

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\Odd lighting effect on skinned Grille
Link on message: #317804

Subject: In-Game Vehicles\German Vehicles\Medium Tanks\Panther II
Link on message: #316834

Bubbalicious, on 25 December 2010 - 11:56 PM, said: What i would like to know is what kind of crazy christmas "gift" did the russians get?
~7.6k xp and ~354k cash for that in a T9 tank.
Al i got from doing 100% dammage to a T-54 with my Jagdpanther was ~44k cash.
Did we just get the short end of the stick with 500 gold daily or have i missed something?

Subject: Panther II
Link on message: #316834

Bubbalicious, on Dec 25 2010 - 22:56, said: What i would like to know is what kind of crazy christmas "gift" did the russians get?
~7.6k xp and ~354k cash for that in a T9 tank.
Al i got from doing 100% dammage to a T-54 with my Jagdpanther was ~44k cash.

Did we just get the short end of the stick with 500 gold daily or have i missed something?

Subject: Panther II
Link on message: #316834

Bubbalicious, on Dec 25 2010 - 22:56, said: What i would like to know is what kind of crazy christmas "gift" did the russians get?
~7.6k xp and ~354k cash for that in a T9 tank.
Al i got from doing 100% dammage to a T-54 with my Jagdpanther was ~44k cash.

Did we just get the short end of the stick with 500 gold daily or have i missed something?

Subject: In-Game Vehicles\German Vehicles\Medium Tanks\Panther II
Link on message: #316823

WesJanson316, on 26 December 2010 - 04:42 PM, said: Well hey if Overlord is in here I'd like to ask him about the Panther 2, and in fact all the new Tier 9 medium tanks
There has been an awful lot of whining by heavy tank drivers on the forums in the days since the patch about how mediums are so powerful now that heavy tanks are useless. I think this is all a lot of knee jerk nonsense, and personally think the mediums are balanced next to perfectly against heavy tanks right now, however my question is thusly:
Has the whining of such a vocal minority gotten to the ears of wargaming? Can we expect a nerf to any class that is able to challenge a heavy again or will the game remain fun and getting closer to perfection in balance with the way it is now?

Subject: Panther II
Link on message: #316823

WesJanson316, on Dec 26 2010 - 15:42, said: Well hey if Overlord is in here I'd like to ask him about the Panther 2, and in fact all the new Tier 9 medium tanks


There has been an awful lot of whining by heavy tank drivers on the forums in the days since the patch about how mediums are so powerful now that heavy tanks are useless. I think this is all a lot of knee jerk nonsense, and personally think the mediums are balanced next to perfectly against heavy tanks right now, however my question is thusly:

Has the whining of such a vocal minority gotten to the ears of wargaming? Can we expect a nerf to any class that is able to challenge a heavy again or will the game remain fun and getting closer to perfection in balance with the way it is now?

Subject: Panther II
Link on message: #316823

WesJanson316, on Dec 26 2010 - 15:42, said: Well hey if Overlord is in here I'd like to ask him about the Panther 2, and in fact all the new Tier 9 medium tanks


There has been an awful lot of whining by heavy tank drivers on the forums in the days since the patch about how mediums are so powerful now that heavy tanks are useless. I think this is all a lot of knee jerk nonsense, and personally think the mediums are balanced next to perfectly against heavy tanks right now, however my question is thusly:

Has the whining of such a vocal minority gotten to the ears of wargaming? Can we expect a nerf to any class that is able to challenge a heavy again or will the game remain fun and getting closer to perfection in balance with the way it is now?

Subject: Archives\Beta\Suggestions\PETITION: removal of closing channel window with X in top righr corner
Link on message: #316814

exoriou, on 24 December 2010 - 02:46 PM, said: I've lost count how many times i did closed my clan's or friend's channels by missclick, accidental or being used to X that wasn't closing window. (it's even more annoying if you have to type in password every time you join channel)
If you want to keep - X signs close to each other, at least add some alternative options to minimize window. Because now, it really easy to missclick...
Best option would be to jsut get things as they were in matter of channel windows closing.

Subject: In-Game Vehicles\German Vehicles\Medium Tanks\Panther II
Link on message: #316771

winghun, on 26 December 2010 - 02:37 PM, said: I just don't understand the developers. Why can't an almost fictional tank's purely fictional turret have more armor? Why can't the traverse speed be a little faster? Why is it 'balanced' if the Panther II is far weaker than its Soviet counterpart? I'm not whining, I just don't see the point.

Subject: Panther II
Link on message: #316771

winghun, on Dec 26 2010 - 13:37, said: I just don't understand the developers. Why can't an almost fictional tank's purely fictional turret have more armor? Why can't the traverse speed be a little faster? Why is it 'balanced' if the Panther II is far weaker than its Soviet counterpart? I'm not whining, I just don't see the point.

Subject: Panther II
Link on message: #316771

winghun, on Dec 26 2010 - 13:37, said: I just don't understand the developers. Why can't an almost fictional tank's purely fictional turret have more armor? Why can't the traverse speed be a little faster? Why is it 'balanced' if the Panther II is far weaker than its Soviet counterpart? I'm not whining, I just don't see the point.

Subject: In-Game Vehicles\German Vehicles\Medium Tanks\Panther II
Link on message: #316767

Houkka, on 26 December 2010 - 01:05 PM, said: This is a beta. Nothing needs to be "accepted as such" in a beta. If you ask me, even when a game is finished, the players have a right to point out what they think is wrong with the game and even not accept it as such.
Also, it's a very bad justification for imbalance in a game that it's "a game design decision". It's true, making a game imbalanced is a game design decision, but its not a very good one, is it?
P.S. I'm only as far as tier 5, but the stats for those two tanks seem to confirm that the T-54 is not only cheaper, but better in every aspect than the Panther II. Except you get a better gun once you've played a cardboard box armed with a peashooter for long enough. Then you get a cardboard box armed with an 88mm or a 105mm tank gun.
I liked your post up to that point, but I don't think imbalance can be justified with any excuse that'll leave the players happy.

Subject: Panther II
Link on message: #316767

Houkka, on Dec 26 2010 - 12:05, said: This is a beta. Nothing needs to be "accepted as such" in a beta. If you ask me, even when a game is finished, the players have a right to point out what they think is wrong with the game and even not accept it as such.

Also, it's a very bad justification for imbalance in a game that it's "a game design decision". It's true, making a game imbalanced is a game design decision, but its not a very good one, is it?

P.S. I'm only as far as tier 5, but the stats for those two tanks seem to confirm that the T-54 is not only cheaper, but better in every aspect than the Panther II. Except you get a better gun once you've played a cardboard box armed with a peashooter for long enough. Then you get a cardboard box armed with an 88mm or a 105mm tank gun.

I liked your post up to that point, but I don't think imbalance can be justified with any excuse that'll leave the players happy.

Subject: Panther II
Link on message: #316767

Houkka, on Dec 26 2010 - 12:05, said: This is a beta. Nothing needs to be "accepted as such" in a beta. If you ask me, even when a game is finished, the players have a right to point out what they think is wrong with the game and even not accept it as such.

Also, it's a very bad justification for imbalance in a game that it's "a game design decision". It's true, making a game imbalanced is a game design decision, but its not a very good one, is it?

P.S. I'm only as far as tier 5, but the stats for those two tanks seem to confirm that the T-54 is not only cheaper, but better in every aspect than the Panther II. Except you get a better gun once you've played a cardboard box armed with a peashooter for long enough. Then you get a cardboard box armed with an 88mm or a 105mm tank gun.

I liked your post up to that point, but I don't think imbalance can be justified with any excuse that'll leave the players happy.

Subject: Archives\Beta\Big nasty armor-related bug, affects pretty much all tanks
Link on message: #316752

Troika, on 26 December 2010 - 06:19 AM, said: How about instead y'all inspect your models, since that's obviously what's causing the problem? Some videos have been posted above showing examples of this.

Subject: Archives\Beta\windows seven
Link on message: #315891

Subject: In-Game Vehicles\Soviet Vehicles\Tank Destroyers\Object 704
Link on message: #315816

ZZBB, on 23 December 2010 - 06:49 PM, said: 120mm at 50-60 degrees? If that's 190mm effective then that's already better than 2/3rds of what the front of the JT's armor is not mention a HUGE(area-wise gun mantle of 320mm) and way better side armor on the Object 704...


TrIpMo, on 24 December 2010 - 10:45 AM, said: ...
So I am wondering. Because the have a BIG GUN MANTLE of 320mm. And the JT has a small part being 250mm. And the Object704 has the BL-10.
...

Subject: Object 704
Link on message: #315816

ZZBB, on Dec 23 2010 - 17:49, said: 120mm at 50-60 degrees? If that's 190mm effective then that's already better than 2/3rds of what the front of the JT's armor is not mention a HUGE(area-wise gun mantle of 320mm) and way better side armor on the Object 704...



TrIpMo, on Dec 24 2010 - 09:45, said: ...

So I am wondering. Because the have a BIG GUN MANTLE of 320mm. And the JT has a small part being 250mm. And the Object704 has the BL-10.

...

Subject: Object 704
Link on message: #315816

ZZBB, on Dec 23 2010 - 17:49, said: 120mm at 50-60 degrees? If that's 190mm effective then that's already better than 2/3rds of what the front of the JT's armor is not mention a HUGE(area-wise gun mantle of 320mm) and way better side armor on the Object 704...



TrIpMo, on Dec 24 2010 - 09:45, said: ...

So I am wondering. Because the have a BIG GUN MANTLE of 320mm. And the JT has a small part being 250mm. And the Object704 has the BL-10.

...

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\General Discussion Of v.0.6.2.7
Link on message: #315725

Orkel2, on 25 December 2010 - 08:51 PM, said: Could you please do something about heavy amounts? I was expecting fixed matchmaking, but I've been constantly being put in matches where 9 out of 15 enemies are heavies in the new patch, and it's impossible to do anything in my medium tank. Cap the amounts.