Official Q&A Thread: 7.5 Era
Дата: 03.09.2012 16:29:50
Hirumaru, on Aug 31 2012 - 01:26, said: 1) As for the IS-4's hull substitution, you're full of it if you
think that—given World of Tanks' armor penetration mechanics, in
which the slope of an armor plate increases its effective
thickness2) Flawed German penetration data
http://forum.worldof...ost__p__2412388
http://forum.worldof...ost__p__2462122
http://forum.worldof...ost__p__2478508
3) Random Nonsense Generator
http://forum.worldof...ost__p__2401952
http://forum.worldof...ost__p__2190351
http://forum.worldof...ost__p__2112715
http://forum.worldof...ost__p__2037146
http://forum.worldof...ost__p__1960435
Vallter: You received suspension for flaming, insults towards developers and
players, trolling. Accusing me in your post for 'suspending you
because you are an innocent poster asking bad questions' is another
violation, the last I will permit in this thread.
1)Considering that we can change internal settings of the vehicle to remove described effect, you've witten a totally wrong statement.
2)1 - where is the question?
2- same
3 - though we are close to history, the game is oriented on game balance.
3) 1 - Random Generator works good. We do not disclose details on it.
2 - Though an Arty player, never had such problem. It's not an 'auto-aim', it's just different type of reticle, which requires different aiming.
3 - We will think about these changes closer to the date of project. Currently this feature is in Development Hell.
4 - covered
5 - We are satisfied with such spread, because it's logical for the game. We won't change it
6 - MOBA game
1)Considering that we can change internal settings of the vehicle to remove described effect, you've witten a totally wrong statement.
2)1 - where is the question?
2- same
3 - though we are close to history, the game is oriented on game balance.
3) 1 - Random Generator works good. We do not disclose details on it.
2 - Though an Arty player, never had such problem. It's not an 'auto-aim', it's just different type of reticle, which requires different aiming.
3 - We will think about these changes closer to the date of project. Currently this feature is in Development Hell.
4 - covered
5 - We are satisfied with such spread, because it's logical for the game. We won't change it
6 - MOBA game
Mini_Bolo, on Aug 31 2012 - 05:07, said: When can we expect an expansion to the french tree? I
want my Renault R35 
Vallter: We won't expand the French Tree this year, since we need to
introduce Biritsh first. Though probably you may see 1-2 premiums
badwolf3378, on Aug 31 2012 - 06:11, said: Quoting Vallter here" Well, because it's intended to be a Heavy
Tank. Moreover, such speed in reality was reached only
ones or twice, with the tank without the turret and on in ideal
conditions, if I remember right. Though The_Chieftain may correct
me"lets not put reality in here, theres alot of gaps in the game where reality would mess up the game as it is with tanks that didnt even get off the drawing board. the KV-1S has higher speed, better armor and for the time being better gun(though i heard there is going to be a removal of the 122mm) and the VK 4502 (P) has 38kph. The Tiger (H) recorded speed was 45kph, but it ended up breaking the ending doing that, and that speed would put it as a medium and be too OP for the game, thats why the 38kph speed would be better suited(the 38kph was the speed it could reach with the Speed Governor on). it basicly is a light heavy compared to the other tanks, then it could with the 38 speed upgrade keep up with some mediums behind, not keep up side by side though.
Vallter: We are satisfied with PzKpfw VI Tiger performance and won't change
it anytime soon. It performs well with current stats and I
personally can confirm this.
Potoroo, on Aug 31 2012 - 08:34, said: Will the devs reinstate the 7.3 server reticle? Can they be made to
understand that without the server reticle the game is all but
unplayable for many of us but the 7.4 implementation was simply
awful?Does anyone at Minsk have the slightest idea how much grief they have caused Oceanic players? What the hell is the holdup in Minsk announcing its decision?
Ten thousand times NO! Horns are one of the most useless, irritating wastes of time and effort anyone could possibly think of. You know full well the majority of players hate the idea with a passion and their non-release was greated with much rejoicing. Given the many serious problems WoT has how can horns even still be on the agenda?
Vallter: 1)No, we are satisfied with Server-side reticle at it's current
state. Though we will optimise ping issues some of our players
suffer from.
2)Oceanic region will be developed within SEA server. We do understand inconvenience of Clan Wars lack on NA, but, unfortunately, we were not able to make a separate region with suitable timezone on the NA global map because of technical issues. From now on we have possibility to wisely dedicate resources for developing the Oceanic region, giving players much better service compares with received on NA.
3)Abusing horns feature will be rather costly, so they will be used wisely, or user will be a bankrupt soon.
2)Oceanic region will be developed within SEA server. We do understand inconvenience of Clan Wars lack on NA, but, unfortunately, we were not able to make a separate region with suitable timezone on the NA global map because of technical issues. From now on we have possibility to wisely dedicate resources for developing the Oceanic region, giving players much better service compares with received on NA.
3)Abusing horns feature will be rather costly, so they will be used wisely, or user will be a bankrupt soon.
ROMEU, on Aug 31 2012 - 15:06, said: How effective armour is calculated?For example: Type 59.
100/cos (60º)= 200mm
Normalized(Normalization =6º for AP):
100/cos ((60-6)º)= 170mm
Now if i angle my Type 35º how is the math?
a)100/cos ((60-6)º)/(35º)= 207mm
b)100/cos ((60-6)º)/((35-6)º)= 194mm
c)Another?
Thanks.
Vallter: Well, everything depends on he impact angle between armor and
shell. I will write a small explanation here and would appreciate,
if someone spread it out on forums:
Angle between round and shell
Is counted from normal (vector, perpendicular to armor plane) to armor in the point of shell impact, in plane, which goes through normal and vectror of shell trajectory in the moment of impact. This is the angle, which influence on the effective thickness of armor.
Normalisation of round
Some time ago it was found out that blunt-pointed round which angle of impact with armor differs from 0 degree richoshets less frequently and penetrates armor better. This effect received 'normalisation' name. The case is the equalworking force turns the shell to Normal vector, decreasing the angle of impact.
HE and HEAT shells in game have 0 normalisation. While other currently have 7 degrees approximately (in 8.0 will be changed to 4 degrees, thus increasing efficience of armor)
Sloped armor
Most in-game vehicles have sloped armor, which is penetrated by shell not per normal vector, but under specific angle. So to calculate effective armor the following formula will be used:
X/cos(Y-Z)=
Where - X - armor thickness
Y - impact angle
Z - normalisation degree.
So without knowing, how exactly will your opponent fire, I cannot tell effective thickness and both your formulas are incorrect or I have misunderstood them.
Angle between round and shell
Is counted from normal (vector, perpendicular to armor plane) to armor in the point of shell impact, in plane, which goes through normal and vectror of shell trajectory in the moment of impact. This is the angle, which influence on the effective thickness of armor.
Normalisation of round
Some time ago it was found out that blunt-pointed round which angle of impact with armor differs from 0 degree richoshets less frequently and penetrates armor better. This effect received 'normalisation' name. The case is the equalworking force turns the shell to Normal vector, decreasing the angle of impact.
HE and HEAT shells in game have 0 normalisation. While other currently have 7 degrees approximately (in 8.0 will be changed to 4 degrees, thus increasing efficience of armor)
Sloped armor
Most in-game vehicles have sloped armor, which is penetrated by shell not per normal vector, but under specific angle. So to calculate effective armor the following formula will be used:
X/cos(Y-Z)=
Where - X - armor thickness
Y - impact angle
Z - normalisation degree.
So without knowing, how exactly will your opponent fire, I cannot tell effective thickness and both your formulas are incorrect or I have misunderstood them.
martingalindo, on Aug 31 2012 - 15:12, said: Have you plan to make the 12.8cm PaK L/66 in the game? Maybe for
some anti-tank tier 10, who have a similar rol as JT?Vallter: Currently there are no plans for it.
hoom, on Aug 31 2012 - 15:35, said: I'd also like to know that.And is it actually currently 6 degrees?
Vallter: Currently normalisation is 6-8 degrees depending on the distance,
averagely it's 7
In 8.0 it will be changed to 3-5 degrees, averagely 4
In 8.0 it will be changed to 3-5 degrees, averagely 4
whitedragonking, on Aug 31 2012 - 17:06, said: WG im tired of assaulting malinovka in assault is is so bad the
score was 3>15. its so unfair. scouts cant go because
its up hill. the bushes block our line if sight. and its just a
waist of time and credits. can you please put some cover!! hell i
had to push my dead comrade tank up the damn hill and still
died.also having them 4 artys and 5 TDs does not help with us its just terrible . Its not fun its not fair its just sighing your death Warrant.
can you fix this?
Vallter: We are closely looking to statistics of this map and discussing
possibilities, but currently it's seems to be OK. Also we will look
how selectable game modes feature will influence this. Personally,
have no problems in assaulting the hill. while platooned. Though it
may be tough without platoonmates in solo random.
WarStore, on Aug 31 2012 - 17:53, said: I don't think these changes will do anything to fix the situation.
Besides, they are dumb, with all due respect.Punishing SPG players by reducing earnings is not the best way to fix MM issues.
Vallter: We are not punishing artillery players. They will receive same
amount of credits in 7.4. Tightening MM resulted in unexpected
income nerf, which has broken economic balance. Thus more and more
players started to play SPG's per our statistics. Returning income
to 7.4 values will most probably return Artillery amount to value
of this update, thus fixing the issue. But we will closely monitor
the situation in any case.
Noggmoritz, on Aug 31 2012 - 18:31, said: About the answer you gave me, with the developers not wanting
another Maus if the E100 had alternate turrets. Well, yes, I
suppose a mausturm on the E100 would make it very similar. But to
go further, the maus turm would have mounted the 15cm gun
"historically", so at least it would be different in that
sense.And your explanation does not cover the reasoning why Wargaming won't develop a Henschel turret for us. I know that this must be annoying to hear, like "gimmie gimmie", but the Henschel turret design on the E100 (whether blue prints of this really existed or not) is the logical next step after the Tiger II and E-75, and plus the vast majority of players across all servers do prefer it. I don't see how this is problematic with the game design at all, but I do understand it's another model needing to be created which isn't exactly highest priority.
Thanks
Vallter: 1)I doubt that this gun would be mountable with Mausturm.
2)We like the vehicle as it is, we just want to balance it and make perform better. Making another turret will require starting balancing process anew, thus resulting in even worse p
2)We like the vehicle as it is, we just want to balance it and make perform better. Making another turret will require starting balancing process anew, thus resulting in even worse p
ARGENTVS, on Aug 31 2012 - 19:25, said: Vallter, i do know how loaders works in a tank, i do know that the
Maus has a lot more space that the IS-7, Maus should reload faster,
or IS-7 should reload worst than it does today.Also sovierts used IS2, SU-152 big big cannons against german 75 mm and 88 mm cannons. The fact that russian used those 122 and 152 mm cannons respond to the low quality in russians, they had to use big calibers to reach same range of fire and armor penetration, big a very bad accuracy. Sill Germany ALWAYS had better sight and optics system. You didnt answered that, you must improve our german view range and if you really are seeking historic accuracy.
Do it, improve it, is so easy and you will have a lot of happy players spending in a thing that they dont need making you more rich. Stop being so capricious with german tank we dont want to make em good to play so people dont use em...
Vallter: 1)See above comment about historical accuracy.
2)View system is made taking in mind reality and accuracy, but it's totally game instance and made such for the game balance.
3)Contibution of players do not change our salaries. It just allows us to add more resources to WoT development and make project batter.
2)View system is made taking in mind reality and accuracy, but it's totally game instance and made such for the game balance.
3)Contibution of players do not change our salaries. It just allows us to add more resources to WoT development and make project batter.
SassanidShockCavalry, on Aug 31 2012 - 19:35, said: every one whining about jpe100 and e50m or m48a1 but how about
T62A dear developers?isnt it the worst performing tier
10 medium based on your own server stats????!!!!why no buff for
t62a but imediately you buff jpe100 after 1 patch and
consider e50m also???please dont negate t62a because it has not much players in the servers.....i clearly see less t62a than batchat or m48 or e50m when playing....why is that ????because it underperforms why so much hate for soviet mediums? it has clearly the worst W/R among all the servers......so why no help ????!!!!please i beg you consider this and do something for t62a
thanks.
Vallter: As answered before, we are currently looking on performance of new
mediums. So currently there are planned changes only for Patton III
teamoldmill, on Aug 31 2012 - 20:51, said: All answrered aboveYou did not answer a single question of mine, not even one. Why will you not actually answer the tough questions? All German tanks are slipping or already at the bottom T8 and up, and all we get is repeated answers telling us there will be no meaningful changes, you are happy with German tanks being bad.. Out of 11 T8 heavy tanks, 4502 is 10th place, and you say it is "awesome once mastered"? Is that a serious response or a joke? You listed "speed" as the E50 Ms big advantage? Another joke?
4)E-100 has just different way of playing. Joke? Playing dead? You are happy with the Maus? Good grief.
So why do Germans not get to take advantage of camo nets, crew skills, and the upcoming adaptive camo like other nations? Why is arty specifically designed to counter German armor? How bad do German tanks have to get before they actually get a real buff?
JT - last in tier
JPE - last in tier
E50 M - last in tier
Maus/E-100 low in tier
Working as intended?
Vallter: 1)Questions or opinions?
2)Traverse speed?
3)I play mainly German vehicles, so I think I know what I'm talking about.
4)According which statistics? -)
2)Traverse speed?
3)I play mainly German vehicles, so I think I know what I'm talking about.
4)According which statistics? -)
ponyking, on Aug 31 2012 - 21:14, said: Will we see the second french heavy line this year?Vallter: No, we do not plan to add it this year.
Ironfa1con, on Aug 31 2012 - 21:28, said: Vallter, could you please give us an idea of the buffs planned for
the JagdPz E-100? Even hints at specific ideas for buffs
would be great! Thanks.Vallter: Aiming time and some other. You will be able to see on the Public
Test soon. Before it we are tweking parameters, so it's rather hard
to tell.
Official Q&A Thread: 7.5 Era