Developers posts on forum
In this section you'll find posts from the official developers forum. The base is updated every hour and stored on a server wot-news.com. If you encounter any bugs, have suggestions or comments, write to info@wot-news.com
Subject: Skirmish 11
Link on message: #8729695
Bastabeard, on Mar 22 2015 - 16:25, said: If I just lodged a dispute for bravo playoffs semifinal , will the
dispute be looked at before the next round?
Link on message: #8729695
Bastabeard, on Mar 22 2015 - 16:25, said: If I just lodged a dispute for bravo playoffs semifinal , will the
dispute be looked at before the next round? dance210: Yep. I already saw it, so it will be taken care of before
the next round is scheduled 
Subject: Skirmish 11
Link on message: #8729695
Bastabeard, on Mar 22 2015 - 16:25, said: If I just lodged a dispute for bravo playoffs semifinal , will the
dispute be looked at before the next round?
Link on message: #8729695
Bastabeard, on Mar 22 2015 - 16:25, said: If I just lodged a dispute for bravo playoffs semifinal , will the
dispute be looked at before the next round? dance210: Yep. I already saw it, so it will be taken care of before
the next round is scheduled 
Subject: Skirmish 11
Link on message: #8729695
Bastabeard, on Mar 22 2015 - 16:25, said: If I just lodged a dispute for bravo playoffs semifinal , will the
dispute be looked at before the next round?
Link on message: #8729695
Bastabeard, on Mar 22 2015 - 16:25, said: If I just lodged a dispute for bravo playoffs semifinal , will the
dispute be looked at before the next round? dance210: Yep. I already saw it, so it will be taken care of before
the next round is scheduled 
Subject: T110E5, Please Tell Me Its Better Then the M103
Link on message: #8728418
Link on message: #8728418
The_Chieftain: I'm sorry the M103 isn't working with your play style, but I sure
as hell works for mine. I would caution against those who have not
yet gotten to M103 reading this thread and abandoning what I think
is one of the best tanks in the game. The tank may work for you.
I have placed my opinions on how to use it here
http://worldoftanks....vorite-tanks-3/
And the last piece of advice cut out by the editors.
http://forum.worldof...86#entry8588186
Subject: Skirmish 13 - Looking for a Team/Players
Link on message: #8728262
Link on message: #8728262
dance210: Tournament Page Registration for entire tournament Registration for bravo playoff (weekend) only
Forum discussion
If you are a player looking for a team, or a team looking for player(s), feel free to post here. It is encouraged to say what tank(s) you have or are looking for, to make it easier to find players and teams. There are two separate registrations. State if you are interested in registering for the entire tournament (Group Stage + playoff) or only for the weekend (Bravo Playoff only).
If you are a player looking for a team, or a team looking for player(s), feel free to post here. It is encouraged to say what tank(s) you have or are looking for, to make it easier to find players and teams. There are two separate registrations. State if you are interested in registering for the entire tournament (Group Stage + playoff) or only for the weekend (Bravo Playoff only).
Subject: Skirmish 13 - Looking for a Team/Players
Link on message: #8728262
Link on message: #8728262
dance210: Tournament Page Registration for entire tournament Registration for bravo playoff (weekend) only
Forum discussion
If you are a player looking for a team, or a team looking for player(s), feel free to post here. It is encouraged to say what tank(s) you have or are looking for, to make it easier to find players and teams. There are two separate registrations. State if you are interested in registering for the entire tournament (Group Stage + playoff) or only for the weekend (Bravo Playoff only).
If you are a player looking for a team, or a team looking for player(s), feel free to post here. It is encouraged to say what tank(s) you have or are looking for, to make it easier to find players and teams. There are two separate registrations. State if you are interested in registering for the entire tournament (Group Stage + playoff) or only for the weekend (Bravo Playoff only).
Subject: Skirmish 13
Link on message: #8728255
Link on message: #8728255
dance210: Skirmish Rules Tournament Page Registration for entire tournament Registration for bravo playoff
(weekend) only Looking for a Team/Players Group Stage Standings Basic Tournament
Information for Skirmish 13 Please see tournament
page for all information Team Size: 8 combatants +
4 reserves Map: Fisherman's Bay Mode: Standard Tier
Point Minimum: 35 Tier Point Maximum: 77 Tier Limits: This
represents the max tier allowed. Teams are allowed to bring lower
tiers. Light: Tier 8 Medium: Tier 10 Heavy10 TD: Tier 9 SPG:
Tier 9 Special restriction: No duplicate tanks allowed
Subject: Skirmish 13
Link on message: #8728255
Link on message: #8728255
dance210: Skirmish Rules Tournament Page Registration for entire tournament Registration for bravo playoff
(weekend) only Looking for a Team/Players Group Stage Standings Basic Tournament
Information for Skirmish 13 Please see tournament
page for all information Team Size: 8 combatants +
4 reserves Map: Fisherman's Bay Mode: Standard Tier
Point Minimum: 35 Tier Point Maximum: 77 Tier Limits: This
represents the max tier allowed. Teams are allowed to bring lower
tiers. Light: Tier 8 Medium: Tier 10 Heavy10 TD: Tier 9 SPG:
Tier 9 Special restriction: No duplicate tanks allowed
Subject: Difference between Rifled and Smoothbore?
Link on message: #8727237
Link on message: #8727237
The_Chieftain: There is an additional advantage to the rifle that people have not
mentioned. Payload. Compare the HE component of a 120mm or
125mm smoothbore HE round (or smoke component of a smoke round,
etc) with that of a rifled round. Rifled 'payload' rounds tend to
be noticably larger, since they don't need to devote some of their
length to fins. Tuccy over on the EU forum did some searching for
me, and the 120mm smoothbore HE filler is about the same as that of
the 105mm rifle.
Subject: Historical Armor threads are no longer informative and fun
Link on message: #8727219
Krieger_07b, on Mar 21 2015 - 13:07, said: Hm, yes, your AR-15 will save you from tanks and planes. You
can totally defend your freedom from a Tomahawk missile with your
concealed handgun. If you truly believe that tripe you should never
own a gun. Your fantasies about "protecting your rights" are just
that, fantasies. The majority of Americans do not feel that way and
see those that do as nutjobs eagerly awaiting the day they can have
an excuse to shoot someone. If you fantasize about murder, then you
don't deserve a gun full stop and it is a crime on every level to
let someone like you or Bundy own one.
1Sherman, on Mar 19 2015 - 21:50, said:
Walter_Sobchak, on Mar 19 2015 -
13:46, said: How would you define a "bad community?"
rough neighborhood, lots of violent crimes, stuff like that.
Walter_Sobchak, on Mar 19 2015 - 13:46, said: How would you define a "bad community?"
Link on message: #8727219
Krieger_07b, on Mar 21 2015 - 13:07, said: Hm, yes, your AR-15 will save you from tanks and planes. You
can totally defend your freedom from a Tomahawk missile with your
concealed handgun. If you truly believe that tripe you should never
own a gun. Your fantasies about "protecting your rights" are just
that, fantasies. The majority of Americans do not feel that way and
see those that do as nutjobs eagerly awaiting the day they can have
an excuse to shoot someone. If you fantasize about murder, then you
don't deserve a gun full stop and it is a crime on every level to
let someone like you or Bundy own one.The_Chieftain: It is worth pointing out that for pretty much the last
decade plus, the US military with tanks, A-10s and cruise missiles
has been given something of a run for its money by a relatively
small group of lads with AK-47s, home-made explosives, and pickup
trucks. Perhaps you underestimate the effectiveness of folks with
basic armament.
1Sherman, on Mar 19 2015 - 21:50, said:
Walter_Sobchak, on Mar 19 2015 -
13:46, said: How would you define a "bad community?"
rough neighborhood, lots of violent crimes, stuff like that.The_Chieftain: rough neighborhood, lots of violent crimes, stuff like that.
So because I live in a place which is less likely to
suffer from a violent crime, I must be placed at a relative
disadvantage when that crime does happen to strike? Where's the
logic in that? Or is it your contention that there is a totally
safe neighbourhood? And what happens when I leave that
neighbourhood?
Walter_Sobchak, on Mar 19 2015 - 13:46, said: How would you define a "bad community?" The_Chieftain:
Subject: Springtime for T110 and the Americas
Link on message: #8726277
DekklinOfDeath, on Mar 22 2015 - 00:05, said: After I got fired last wednesday, I almost killed myself
that night. In order to cope, I spent an entire week baked out of
my mind (alcohol makes me feel sick and gives me headaches). Not a
single day sober. I was afraid that if I stopped smoking, I'd kill
myself. I'm 2 days clean right now and feeling like complete
[edited]trash.
Link on message: #8726277
DekklinOfDeath, on Mar 22 2015 - 00:05, said: After I got fired last wednesday, I almost killed myself
that night. In order to cope, I spent an entire week baked out of
my mind (alcohol makes me feel sick and gives me headaches). Not a
single day sober. I was afraid that if I stopped smoking, I'd kill
myself. I'm 2 days clean right now and feeling like complete
[edited]trash.The_Chieftain: Ouch. Stick with it, mate.
Subject: Weekday Warfare 10
Link on message: #8725051
Link on message: #8725051
Trevzor: Heyo everybody! I have gone through the results and created
a correct ranking of the teams and have found 5 teams to have been
effected by my case of The Dumb (seriously, bad @ Excel.)
These teams are as follows: Rank Teams Total Games Played Total
Points Earned Total Point Possible Win Ratio 1 Red Line
Commandos 19 57 57 1.000 7 Straiku Waifus 20 48 60 0.800 9 Szoguni
Akademika 19 45 57 0.789 11 VIDAMA 20 47 60 0.783 14 mancos al
combate 20 45 60 0.750 Compensation for this problem
will be as follows: Red Line Commandos will be awarded gold in
accordance to first place (10,000.) All other teams, having Win
Ratios being equal to or greater than .200 away from first
place, but .050 or less between each other will all receive gold in
accordance to second place (7500.) I have decided to compensate the
teams in this manner so as not to downplay the achievement that is
a perfect record going into days 4 and 5 in the Weekday Warfare.
Furthermore, team that were published incorrectly not
in the top 16 will be awarded the either the gold that they were
published to have earned or that they would have earned had I not
brained super hard on the rankings sheet, whichever amount is
higher. I deeply apologize for the error. I am only but
human and sometimes humans screw up. And now to the Corner
of Shame...


Subject: Springtime for T110 and the Americas
Link on message: #8724705
shapeshifter, on Mar 21 2015 - 08:42, said: British testing of guns 26th Jan 1945 "Agenda Tank and Tank
destroyer conference, Army war college" AGF (470.8)
Possible T5 gun (48 calibers) in testing? or the T8 105mm.
Ian Hogg in his book Allied artillery of world war two, Has
this to say on the T8 105mm gun. "The 105mm gun T8, this to
began as a tank gun, the 105mm T5 of 48 calibers in length. In mid
1944 it was lengthened to 65 calibers to reach the magic 3000
ft/sec velocity figure and proposals for putting it on a wheeled
carriage appeared. Development countined through 1945. It fired a
39lb (17.7kg) AP shell at 3100 ft/sec (945 m/sec) and the
penetration was claimed as 210 mm @ 1000 yards @ 0 deg"
Interesting info on the T5. So we have the following
T5 (tank) 48 calibers in length T8 (towed) 65 calibers in length
T5E1 (tank) 65 calibers in length T5E2 (tank) 65 calibers in length
A 39lb shell would be the T32 round I imagine as it was the
same weight, 3100 f/s is 100 f/s more then what hunnicutt lists.
Chief ever found any info on that short T5 48 caliber 105mm?
sounds like it would be an interesting weapon option for T6 tanks.
Link on message: #8724705
shapeshifter, on Mar 21 2015 - 08:42, said: British testing of guns 26th Jan 1945 "Agenda Tank and Tank
destroyer conference, Army war college" AGF (470.8)
Possible T5 gun (48 calibers) in testing? or the T8 105mm.
Ian Hogg in his book Allied artillery of world war two, Has
this to say on the T8 105mm gun. "The 105mm gun T8, this to
began as a tank gun, the 105mm T5 of 48 calibers in length. In mid
1944 it was lengthened to 65 calibers to reach the magic 3000
ft/sec velocity figure and proposals for putting it on a wheeled
carriage appeared. Development countined through 1945. It fired a
39lb (17.7kg) AP shell at 3100 ft/sec (945 m/sec) and the
penetration was claimed as 210 mm @ 1000 yards @ 0 deg"
Interesting info on the T5. So we have the following
T5 (tank) 48 calibers in length T8 (towed) 65 calibers in length
T5E1 (tank) 65 calibers in length T5E2 (tank) 65 calibers in length
A 39lb shell would be the T32 round I imagine as it was the
same weight, 3100 f/s is 100 f/s more then what hunnicutt lists.
Chief ever found any info on that short T5 48 caliber 105mm?
sounds like it would be an interesting weapon option for T6 tanks.The_Chieftain: No, I don't think I did. I came across the full
version of the table above in the TD Board archives on my last
trip, and sent it up to Minsk. I'll see if I can find it again.
Subject: The Chieftain's Random Musings Thread
Link on message: #8724675
Link on message: #8724675
The_Chieftain: The Super Pershing re-work is getting a lot of attention recently,
I've noticed. I'm afraid I'm partially to blame, I decided to get
myself involved, and the whole thing has expanded over not just the
T26E4, but also we're looking at the M26 and M46 as well while
we're at it (and why not? It's all the same hull, more or less).
Part of the problem has been that the official figures we have to
hand, such as Hunnicutt and Ordnance descriptions, basically result
in a nerf. And, contrary to popular belief, we really don't like to
nerf premium vehicles. On the other hand, we're also trying as hard
as possible to 'fix' any errors which may exist in a model, let the
chips fall as they may. The catch is that although we have
information from some Ordnance Branch documents, from which
Hunnicutt worked, we have other fairly reputable sources which say
otherwise, not least the official figures 'look' wrong. To the
point that I was down at an M26 earlier this week with an
inclinometer trying to figure out just what the heck is going on
and, sure enough, the Hunnicutt figures don't match with the real
tank. This isn't so huge a surprise, as the Ordnance Form 50s he
mainly worked from are basically quick reference sheets, not
engineering specifications or test reports, and it wouldn't be the
first time we've discovered that they're wrong. But you can imagine
the confusion going on with the models when the modellers are
trying to parse incorrect figures with photographs and what they
can glean from other sources, with few people agreeing on what's
'right.' In this case, we picked up on the discrepancy a little
late, which is why the Super P is getting the public attention.
We've still a little work to do, we'll get it right.
Subject: Skirmish 10
Link on message: #8724463
DeadDotEd, on Mar 17 2015 - 19:20, said: The Skirmish 12 page was put up earlier today, and doesn't start
for nearly a week. I don't think anyone will get mad, if anything
people will be more upset that you're holding off on changes
unnecessarily.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 18 2015 - 21:16, said: Why did it need to change? What was/is the reason?
Perhaps it would help us to understand better were we to actually
know. As it stands now your average skirmish players cannot imagine
a single logical argument in favor of it, and as can be seen, this
infuriates them. Please elaborate.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 20 2015 - 18:52, said: Silence. Somehow I'm not surprised.
Link on message: #8724463
DeadDotEd, on Mar 17 2015 - 19:20, said: The Skirmish 12 page was put up earlier today, and doesn't start
for nearly a week. I don't think anyone will get mad, if anything
people will be more upset that you're holding off on changes
unnecessarily.dance210: Yes, it was up on Tuesday. I am off on Wednesdays, which means that
the earliest it would be changed is Thursday, ~48 hr after it went
live. While I know some check the forums and check the tournament
page, not everyone will. And someone, somewhere, would get upset
about things changing in the middle. It may seem unnecessary
to you to wait. However, experience has taught me that the wider
player-base prefers for rules to not change in the middle. I only
mentioned when it was going to change so that y'all would have a
definite date and know that we were working on adjusting things. If
you prefer, I will refrain from giving a heads up in the future.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 18 2015 - 21:16, said: Why did it need to change? What was/is the reason?
Perhaps it would help us to understand better were we to actually
know. As it stands now your average skirmish players cannot imagine
a single logical argument in favor of it, and as can be seen, this
infuriates them. Please elaborate.dance210:
The_Assassin711, on Mar 20 2015 - 18:52, said: Silence. Somehow I'm not surprised.dance210: Apologies for the delay in responding. The truth is I can't
explain it in a way that will make you happy. There are some
things I can say and some things I cannot (and probably some that I
shouldn't, but do anyways). I already explained that we changed the
format to make the Skirmish more competitive. I could argue the
Weekday Warfare was designed to be more competitive, so changing
the Skirmish for that reason isn't all that strange. To be
fair, you can probably find about as much complaining about the old
format/gold as you can about the new format/gold. We didn't explain
why we changed it a year ago and unfortunately we won't be
explaining exactly why we changed it this year. I understand
that you won't be happy with that answer but that's the best that I
can do. Sorry.
Subject: Skirmish 10
Link on message: #8724463
DeadDotEd, on Mar 17 2015 - 19:20, said: The Skirmish 12 page was put up earlier today, and doesn't start
for nearly a week. I don't think anyone will get mad, if anything
people will be more upset that you're holding off on changes
unnecessarily.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 18 2015 - 21:16, said: Why did it need to change? What was/is the reason?
Perhaps it would help us to understand better were we to actually
know. As it stands now your average skirmish players cannot imagine
a single logical argument in favor of it, and as can be seen, this
infuriates them. Please elaborate.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 20 2015 - 18:52, said: Silence. Somehow I'm not surprised.
Link on message: #8724463
DeadDotEd, on Mar 17 2015 - 19:20, said: The Skirmish 12 page was put up earlier today, and doesn't start
for nearly a week. I don't think anyone will get mad, if anything
people will be more upset that you're holding off on changes
unnecessarily.dance210: Yes, it was up on Tuesday. I am off on Wednesdays, which means that
the earliest it would be changed is Thursday, ~48 hr after it went
live. While I know some check the forums and check the tournament
page, not everyone will. And someone, somewhere, would get upset
about things changing in the middle. It may seem unnecessary
to you to wait. However, experience has taught me that the wider
player-base prefers for rules to not change in the middle. I only
mentioned when it was going to change so that y'all would have a
definite date and know that we were working on adjusting things. If
you prefer, I will refrain from giving a heads up in the future.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 18 2015 - 21:16, said: Why did it need to change? What was/is the reason?
Perhaps it would help us to understand better were we to actually
know. As it stands now your average skirmish players cannot imagine
a single logical argument in favor of it, and as can be seen, this
infuriates them. Please elaborate.dance210:
The_Assassin711, on Mar 20 2015 - 18:52, said: Silence. Somehow I'm not surprised.dance210: Apologies for the delay in responding. The truth is I can't
explain it in a way that will make you happy. There are some
things I can say and some things I cannot (and probably some that I
shouldn't, but do anyways). I already explained that we changed the
format to make the Skirmish more competitive. I could argue the
Weekday Warfare was designed to be more competitive, so changing
the Skirmish for that reason isn't all that strange. To be
fair, you can probably find about as much complaining about the old
format/gold as you can about the new format/gold. We didn't explain
why we changed it a year ago and unfortunately we won't be
explaining exactly why we changed it this year. I understand
that you won't be happy with that answer but that's the best that I
can do. Sorry.
Subject: Skirmish 10
Link on message: #8724463
DeadDotEd, on Mar 17 2015 - 19:20, said: The Skirmish 12 page was put up earlier today, and doesn't start
for nearly a week. I don't think anyone will get mad, if anything
people will be more upset that you're holding off on changes
unnecessarily.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 18 2015 - 21:16, said: Why did it need to change? What was/is the reason?
Perhaps it would help us to understand better were we to actually
know. As it stands now your average skirmish players cannot imagine
a single logical argument in favor of it, and as can be seen, this
infuriates them. Please elaborate.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 20 2015 - 18:52, said: Silence. Somehow I'm not surprised.
Link on message: #8724463
DeadDotEd, on Mar 17 2015 - 19:20, said: The Skirmish 12 page was put up earlier today, and doesn't start
for nearly a week. I don't think anyone will get mad, if anything
people will be more upset that you're holding off on changes
unnecessarily.dance210: Yes, it was up on Tuesday. I am off on Wednesdays, which means that
the earliest it would be changed is Thursday, ~48 hr after it went
live. While I know some check the forums and check the tournament
page, not everyone will. And someone, somewhere, would get upset
about things changing in the middle. It may seem unnecessary
to you to wait. However, experience has taught me that the wider
player-base prefers for rules to not change in the middle. I only
mentioned when it was going to change so that y'all would have a
definite date and know that we were working on adjusting things. If
you prefer, I will refrain from giving a heads up in the future.
The_Assassin711, on Mar 18 2015 - 21:16, said: Why did it need to change? What was/is the reason?
Perhaps it would help us to understand better were we to actually
know. As it stands now your average skirmish players cannot imagine
a single logical argument in favor of it, and as can be seen, this
infuriates them. Please elaborate.dance210:
The_Assassin711, on Mar 20 2015 - 18:52, said: Silence. Somehow I'm not surprised.dance210: Apologies for the delay in responding. The truth is I can't
explain it in a way that will make you happy. There are some
things I can say and some things I cannot (and probably some that I
shouldn't, but do anyways). I already explained that we changed the
format to make the Skirmish more competitive. I could argue the
Weekday Warfare was designed to be more competitive, so changing
the Skirmish for that reason isn't all that strange. To be
fair, you can probably find about as much complaining about the old
format/gold as you can about the new format/gold. We didn't explain
why we changed it a year ago and unfortunately we won't be
explaining exactly why we changed it this year. I understand
that you won't be happy with that answer but that's the best that I
can do. Sorry.
Subject: Thanks you dance210 for all the work.
Link on message: #8724409
badmonkey59, on Mar 21 2015 - 07:42, said: dance210, I'm sure sometimes it seems like all we do is [edited]but
speaking for myself and I'm sure many others; 'Thank You' for all
the time and work you put into the different tournaments.
Link on message: #8724409
badmonkey59, on Mar 21 2015 - 07:42, said: dance210, I'm sure sometimes it seems like all we do is [edited]but
speaking for myself and I'm sure many others; 'Thank You' for all
the time and work you put into the different tournaments. dance210: Thank you badmonkey!! I love doing tournaments
for y'all...you guys are the best! <3
Subject: Thanks you dance210 for all the work.
Link on message: #8724409
badmonkey59, on Mar 21 2015 - 07:42, said: dance210, I'm sure sometimes it seems like all we do is [edited]but
speaking for myself and I'm sure many others; 'Thank You' for all
the time and work you put into the different tournaments.
Link on message: #8724409
badmonkey59, on Mar 21 2015 - 07:42, said: dance210, I'm sure sometimes it seems like all we do is [edited]but
speaking for myself and I'm sure many others; 'Thank You' for all
the time and work you put into the different tournaments. dance210: Thank you badmonkey!! I love doing tournaments
for y'all...you guys are the best! <3
Subject: Thanks you dance210 for all the work.
Link on message: #8724409
badmonkey59, on Mar 21 2015 - 07:42, said: dance210, I'm sure sometimes it seems like all we do is [edited]but
speaking for myself and I'm sure many others; 'Thank You' for all
the time and work you put into the different tournaments.
Link on message: #8724409
badmonkey59, on Mar 21 2015 - 07:42, said: dance210, I'm sure sometimes it seems like all we do is [edited]but
speaking for myself and I'm sure many others; 'Thank You' for all
the time and work you put into the different tournaments. dance210: Thank you badmonkey!! I love doing tournaments
for y'all...you guys are the best! <3
Subject: Springtime for T110 and the Americas
Link on message: #8722936
Daigensui, on Mar 21 2015 - 05:11, said: National as in covering the state of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not national as in the group
of people known as nation.
Link on message: #8722936
Daigensui, on Mar 21 2015 - 05:11, said: National as in covering the state of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not national as in the group
of people known as nation.The_Chieftain: The UK is a little odd. It is a sovereign state made up of a
number of individual countries of varying levels of independence.
It's both more close, and looser than a federal system at the same
time.
Subject: Springtime for T110 and the Americas
Link on message: #8722858
Daigensui, on Mar 21 2015 - 03:56, said: Welsh isn't the official national language, it's just
"an" official language of Wales.
Link on message: #8722858
Daigensui, on Mar 21 2015 - 03:56, said: Welsh isn't the official national language, it's just
"an" official language of Wales. The_Chieftain: Are you suggesting that Wales is not a nation?
Subject: Springtime for T110 and the Americas
Link on message: #8722628
Daigensui, on Mar 21 2015 - 03:29, said: Neither Spain nor UK have more than one national official
language.
Link on message: #8722628
Daigensui, on Mar 21 2015 - 03:29, said: Neither Spain nor UK have more than one national official
language.The_Chieftain: True, but the only official national language in the UK is
Welsh, so it's not quite the best way of looking at things.
Subject: 9.7 Common Test Issues and Reports
Link on message: #8721775
Link on message: #8721775
Pigeon_of_War: Alright, we got word from HQ the hanging garage issue should be
fixed by the full release of 9.7, but we cannot guarantee that it
will be fixed in this or other iterations of the common test.
Apologies in advance.
Subject: Springtime for T110 and the Americas
Link on message: #8721705
EmpressNero, on Mar 20 2015 - 02:15, said: "Consideration" as in "Gunlion wandered in and said "okay,
so what would be some suggestions for things that you want to see
changed in-game?" That's basically it. No "I'll forward
this to the devs", no "That'll never happen", no "Your opinion is
very important to us, please wait while we ignore it",
nothing. So basically it's just damage control. There's
not going to do anything about it.
Link on message: #8721705
EmpressNero, on Mar 20 2015 - 02:15, said: "Consideration" as in "Gunlion wandered in and said "okay,
so what would be some suggestions for things that you want to see
changed in-game?" That's basically it. No "I'll forward
this to the devs", no "That'll never happen", no "Your opinion is
very important to us, please wait while we ignore it",
nothing. So basically it's just damage control. There's
not going to do anything about it. The_Chieftain: He doesn't post it, but he does a written assessment of
sentiment that he comes across every day or two, and sends it up.
Subject: Prueba pública 9.7
Link on message: #8721630
Link on message: #8721630
Content_WG: Prueba por un tiempo limitado las nuevas funciones planificadas
para la nueva actualización de World of Tanks.
Texto completo de las noticias
Texto completo de las noticias
Subject: Weekday Warfare 10
Link on message: #8721399
Valan, on Mar 20 2015 - 15:12, said: Thus Wargaming NA is promoting 'tainted results' overall,
for Weekend Warfare 10. Everyone in the Top 16 should be
compensated the same, in terms of gold regardless. To do
otherwise is utterly unfair. Why? They get paid for not even
having to show up and play a single match on Thursday & Friday.
Meanwhile the Top 16 who 'earned' the right to be there, and
were schedule to played against others who did not even 'earn' the
right to be in the Top 16 are being penalized for Wargaming errors.
This whole tournament schedule & compensating system stinks
to high heavens. Biased, rigged and indefensible.
Link on message: #8721399
Valan, on Mar 20 2015 - 15:12, said: Thus Wargaming NA is promoting 'tainted results' overall,
for Weekend Warfare 10. Everyone in the Top 16 should be
compensated the same, in terms of gold regardless. To do
otherwise is utterly unfair. Why? They get paid for not even
having to show up and play a single match on Thursday & Friday.
Meanwhile the Top 16 who 'earned' the right to be there, and
were schedule to played against others who did not even 'earn' the
right to be in the Top 16 are being penalized for Wargaming errors.
This whole tournament schedule & compensating system stinks
to high heavens. Biased, rigged and indefensible.dance210: The teams that were left off the top 16 are being compensated
for a screw up that was not their own. We have a history of
compensating teams when there is an issue on our side - either a
server failure or a failure of the staff to do something correctly.
How, exactly, is that biased or indefensible? How is anyone
playing on Thursday and Friday penalized? The teams are required to
show up, play and win if they want gold. Taking out the games
against "extra" teams isn't fair. I haven't looked, but there is a
possibility that they weren't evenly distributed between the two
groups. So, would it be "fair" that one group may remove 3 teams
and one group only removes one? I'm sorry if you don't like
it. However, this is how issues have been dealt with in the past.
Unless you can give me a good reason to change our policy, the
decision stands. The only way to remove "tainted" results
would be to cancel the entire tournament. GG, well done, everyone
gets either zero or 200 gold (traditional compensation for server
issues). Frankly, that's not something I am prepared or willing to
do, but if that is what y'all want...
Subject: Weekday Warfare 10
Link on message: #8721399
Valan, on Mar 20 2015 - 15:12, said: Thus Wargaming NA is promoting 'tainted results' overall,
for Weekend Warfare 10. Everyone in the Top 16 should be
compensated the same, in terms of gold regardless. To do
otherwise is utterly unfair. Why? They get paid for not even
having to show up and play a single match on Thursday & Friday.
Meanwhile the Top 16 who 'earned' the right to be there, and
were schedule to played against others who did not even 'earn' the
right to be in the Top 16 are being penalized for Wargaming errors.
This whole tournament schedule & compensating system stinks
to high heavens. Biased, rigged and indefensible.
Link on message: #8721399
Valan, on Mar 20 2015 - 15:12, said: Thus Wargaming NA is promoting 'tainted results' overall,
for Weekend Warfare 10. Everyone in the Top 16 should be
compensated the same, in terms of gold regardless. To do
otherwise is utterly unfair. Why? They get paid for not even
having to show up and play a single match on Thursday & Friday.
Meanwhile the Top 16 who 'earned' the right to be there, and
were schedule to played against others who did not even 'earn' the
right to be in the Top 16 are being penalized for Wargaming errors.
This whole tournament schedule & compensating system stinks
to high heavens. Biased, rigged and indefensible.dance210: The teams that were left off the top 16 are being compensated
for a screw up that was not their own. We have a history of
compensating teams when there is an issue on our side - either a
server failure or a failure of the staff to do something correctly.
How, exactly, is that biased or indefensible? How is anyone
playing on Thursday and Friday penalized? The teams are required to
show up, play and win if they want gold. Taking out the games
against "extra" teams isn't fair. I haven't looked, but there is a
possibility that they weren't evenly distributed between the two
groups. So, would it be "fair" that one group may remove 3 teams
and one group only removes one? I'm sorry if you don't like
it. However, this is how issues have been dealt with in the past.
Unless you can give me a good reason to change our policy, the
decision stands. The only way to remove "tainted" results
would be to cancel the entire tournament. GG, well done, everyone
gets either zero or 200 gold (traditional compensation for server
issues). Frankly, that's not something I am prepared or willing to
do, but if that is what y'all want...
Subject: Weekday Warfare 10
Link on message: #8721399
Valan, on Mar 20 2015 - 15:12, said: Thus Wargaming NA is promoting 'tainted results' overall,
for Weekend Warfare 10. Everyone in the Top 16 should be
compensated the same, in terms of gold regardless. To do
otherwise is utterly unfair. Why? They get paid for not even
having to show up and play a single match on Thursday & Friday.
Meanwhile the Top 16 who 'earned' the right to be there, and
were schedule to played against others who did not even 'earn' the
right to be in the Top 16 are being penalized for Wargaming errors.
This whole tournament schedule & compensating system stinks
to high heavens. Biased, rigged and indefensible.
Link on message: #8721399
Valan, on Mar 20 2015 - 15:12, said: Thus Wargaming NA is promoting 'tainted results' overall,
for Weekend Warfare 10. Everyone in the Top 16 should be
compensated the same, in terms of gold regardless. To do
otherwise is utterly unfair. Why? They get paid for not even
having to show up and play a single match on Thursday & Friday.
Meanwhile the Top 16 who 'earned' the right to be there, and
were schedule to played against others who did not even 'earn' the
right to be in the Top 16 are being penalized for Wargaming errors.
This whole tournament schedule & compensating system stinks
to high heavens. Biased, rigged and indefensible.dance210: The teams that were left off the top 16 are being compensated
for a screw up that was not their own. We have a history of
compensating teams when there is an issue on our side - either a
server failure or a failure of the staff to do something correctly.
How, exactly, is that biased or indefensible? How is anyone
playing on Thursday and Friday penalized? The teams are required to
show up, play and win if they want gold. Taking out the games
against "extra" teams isn't fair. I haven't looked, but there is a
possibility that they weren't evenly distributed between the two
groups. So, would it be "fair" that one group may remove 3 teams
and one group only removes one? I'm sorry if you don't like
it. However, this is how issues have been dealt with in the past.
Unless you can give me a good reason to change our policy, the
decision stands. The only way to remove "tainted" results
would be to cancel the entire tournament. GG, well done, everyone
gets either zero or 200 gold (traditional compensation for server
issues). Frankly, that's not something I am prepared or willing to
do, but if that is what y'all want...
Subject: Skirmish 11
Link on message: #8721354
BearFan, on Mar 20 2015 - 13:45, said: Does someone have the link for Weekend-Only pairings?
animalflh, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:59, said: Teams may only include existing clan names/tags in their team name
if at least one member is directly affiliated with that clan.
what excactly does this mean? Can 2 different clans be in 1 team.[2
different clan tags]
Link on message: #8721354
BearFan, on Mar 20 2015 - 13:45, said: Does someone have the link for Weekend-Only pairings?dance210: The weekend only teams are in the playoff brackets, which is
located on the Skirmish
11 tournament page.
animalflh, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:59, said: Teams may only include existing clan names/tags in their team name
if at least one member is directly affiliated with that clan.
what excactly does this mean? Can 2 different clans be in 1 team.[2
different clan tags]dance210: This means that a team cannot be called PBKAC if none of the team
members are from the PBKAC clan. Yes, a team can have
members from multiple clans. And, there is no need for a team to be
named after the clan name or clan tag; the captain to choose any
name, as long as it's appropriate.
Subject: Skirmish 11
Link on message: #8721354
BearFan, on Mar 20 2015 - 13:45, said: Does someone have the link for Weekend-Only pairings?
animalflh, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:59, said: Teams may only include existing clan names/tags in their team name
if at least one member is directly affiliated with that clan.
what excactly does this mean? Can 2 different clans be in 1 team.[2
different clan tags]
Link on message: #8721354
BearFan, on Mar 20 2015 - 13:45, said: Does someone have the link for Weekend-Only pairings?dance210: The weekend only teams are in the playoff brackets, which is
located on the Skirmish 11 tournament page.
animalflh, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:59, said: Teams may only include existing clan names/tags in their team name
if at least one member is directly affiliated with that clan.
what excactly does this mean? Can 2 different clans be in 1 team.[2
different clan tags]dance210: This means that a team cannot be called PBKAC if none of the team
members are from the PBKAC clan. Yes, a team can have
members from multiple clans. And, there is no need for a team to be
named after the clan name or clan tag; the captain to choose any
name, as long as it's appropriate.
Subject: Skirmish 11
Link on message: #8721354
BearFan, on Mar 20 2015 - 13:45, said: Does someone have the link for Weekend-Only pairings?
animalflh, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:59, said: Teams may only include existing clan names/tags in their team name
if at least one member is directly affiliated with that clan.
what excactly does this mean? Can 2 different clans be in 1 team.[2
different clan tags]
Link on message: #8721354
BearFan, on Mar 20 2015 - 13:45, said: Does someone have the link for Weekend-Only pairings?dance210: The weekend only teams are in the playoff brackets, which is
located on the Skirmish 11 tournament page.
animalflh, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:59, said: Teams may only include existing clan names/tags in their team name
if at least one member is directly affiliated with that clan.
what excactly does this mean? Can 2 different clans be in 1 team.[2
different clan tags]dance210: This means that a team cannot be called PBKAC if none of the team
members are from the PBKAC clan. Yes, a team can have
members from multiple clans. And, there is no need for a team to be
named after the clan name or clan tag; the captain to choose any
name, as long as it's appropriate.
Subject: T35-A driving
Link on message: #8721297
Link on message: #8721297
Lert: The only runner in the world. That makes this one as rare as Tiger
131 in Bovington, though that Tiger is a lot more famous.
Mmmm, dat engine sound.
Subject: Skirmish 12
Link on message: #8721211
Daikonic, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:19, said: I have a question, if we do this Skirmish XII and Weekday Warfare,
will the matches on these overlapping days be in conflict?
Link on message: #8721211
Daikonic, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:19, said: I have a question, if we do this Skirmish XII and Weekday Warfare,
will the matches on these overlapping days be in conflict?dance210: Nope. The Weekday Warfare will be finished several hours
before the Skirmish begins 
Subject: Skirmish 12
Link on message: #8721211
Daikonic, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:19, said: I have a question, if we do this Skirmish XII and Weekday Warfare,
will the matches on these overlapping days be in conflict?
Link on message: #8721211
Daikonic, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:19, said: I have a question, if we do this Skirmish XII and Weekday Warfare,
will the matches on these overlapping days be in conflict?dance210: Nope. The Weekday Warfare will be finished several hours
before the Skirmish begins 
Subject: Skirmish 12
Link on message: #8721211
Daikonic, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:19, said: I have a question, if we do this Skirmish XII and Weekday Warfare,
will the matches on these overlapping days be in conflict?
Link on message: #8721211
Daikonic, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:19, said: I have a question, if we do this Skirmish XII and Weekday Warfare,
will the matches on these overlapping days be in conflict?dance210: Nope. The Weekday Warfare will be finished several hours
before the Skirmish begins 
Subject: PAX East Stream Survey
Link on message: #8721147
Link on message: #8721147
pizzastorm: Hey everyone! If you have not filled out this survey yet,
please take a few minutes and let us know what we can improve on
for our next show. Thanks everyone.
Реклама | Adv















