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: Journal Hebdomadaire #21 
Link on message: #1613217
                            
                            
                        
                    Link on message: #1613217
Decept1on: 
Verrouillage des chars
Tuez le messager : les résultats
3e Offre spéciale de mars
La liste complète des bonus ci-dessous :
Expérience x3 pour la première victoire de la journée
Plus de 58% de réduction sur les munitions Premium
50% de réduction sur les véhicules : M41, M12, SU-8, Su14, Hummel, GW Panther
50% de réduction sur les véhicules premium : Matilda, Churchill
50% de réduction sur les emplacements de caserne.
50% de réduction sur l'équipage de 100% en achetant un char
50% de réduction sur le ré-entraînement de l’équipage
50% de réduction sur l’entraînement de l’équipage
Test public de la mise à jour 7.2 nº2
Liste des changements entre le test nº1 et nº2 du patch 7.2:
Paramètres des chasseurs de chars américains rééquilibrés après le premier test.
Paramètres des chars américains T34, T30, M103 et T110E5 rééquilibrés après le premier test.
Ajout de la rotation sur soi-même pour le M18 Hellcat et T25/2.
Suppression de la Ventilation Améliorée pour le T25/2.
Correction des erreurs du blindage du M103 (plaque frontale) et T110E5 (plaque frontale et mantelet du canon).
Correction de la description du nom du Lowe.
Correction d'une erreur de frappe dans le système de notification à propos de l'expiration du camouflage.
Réduction de la durabilité de la partie intermédiaire de la suspension de l'AMX 13 90, AMX M4 1945, et BDR G1B.
Correction des titres de divisons dans le filtre du menu des compagnies de chars.
Correction d'un bug où le client se ferme après avoir vendu tous les chars.
Ajout d'une aide au dossier d'un membre d'équipage : combien de compétences sont débloquables et pourcentage d'expérience restante.
Correction du modèle de destruction du T28 Prototype.
Suppression de la Ventilation Améliorée du FCM 36Pak40
Correction de la disparition d'un effet lors d'un tir sur une pente enneigée.
Correction de la disparition de multiples effets à une distance supérieure à 100 mètres.
Correction de l'affichage d'une ligne d'aide technique visible dans le garage.
Correction du modèle de dégâts sur la suspension du VK4502A.
Correction de l'effet des gaz d'échappement soumis à un fort vent.
Correction de l'option de sélection des textes dans la fenêtre de dialogue.
Déplacement du canon automoteur premium LeFH 18 B2 du rang 2 au rang 4.
Correction de la description de l'aptitude "Ultime transmission".
Correction des erreurs du modèle de dégâts du T95.
Correction de plusieurs erreurs d'entrainement de l'équipage.
Correction du modèle de suspension du Pz V Panther.
Correction de l'animation de l'icône "plus" de l'équipage montré dans le garage.
Correction des incohérences de la taille du marqueur "Attention au carré !" avec la taille du carré sur la minicarte.
Suppression de l'affichage de marqueurs de pénétration en contact avec des obus explosifs.
Corrigé des rares échecs de client dû à l'archivage implémenté avec la 7.1.1.
Corrigé le mauvais affichage de multiples paramètres de modules de char dans l'interface.
Le prix du moteur V-2K réduit à 23050.
Corrigé l'absence d'affichage de pseudo dans la liste d'équipe quand le véhicule est détruit.
Corrigé des problèmes avec des objets indestructibles sur certaines cartes.
Corrigé le mauvais placement de la croix réticule central dans le mode "Crosses II"
Corrigé une incohérence de la taille de texte dans la fenêtre du chat général.
Corrigé le coupure de la lettre "D" dans le titre des onglets du garage.
Corrigé une jonction du texte de message avec la molette dans la fenêtre du peloton.
Corrigé la possibilité de remettre à zéro les compétences alors que le véhicule est bloqué.
Corrigé l'option en vendant le char, avec équipement démontable avec de l'or alors qu'il n'y a pas d'or sur le compte.
Corrigé le statut élite du T95 quand tous les modules sont recherchés.
Corrigé le nom coupé du char sur fenêtre du chargement de la carte.
Corrigé le blurring et l'effet de grain des messages dans le chat de bataille.
Corrigé l'impossibilité récurrente de change le filtre anisotropique dans les options graphiques.
Marqueurs de char. Corrigé l'absence de différenciation de couleur d'équipe en bataille.
Marqueurs de char. Corrigé les paramètres en mode daltonien.
Marqueurs de char. Corrigé l'affichage d'un tueur ami.
Marqueurs de char. Corrigé le soulignement des coéquipiers en peloton.
Marqueurs de char. Ajouté du noircissement du nom des chars détruits.
Corrigé l'affichage des achievement dans les statistiques du joueur.
Remise en place la table des scores en pressant la touche TAB.
Corrigé la position des émissions du moteur du M18 Hellcat.
Corrigé le modèle des dommages de suspension de l'ISU-152.
Corrigé un bug lorsqu'un membre d'équipage a reçu un avancement lors de la réinitialisation des compétences et ré entrainé.
Corrigé l'affichage des lettres capitales du nom des TDs et SPGs de l'aide des chars montré dans le garage.
L'équipement "démontable" est renommé en "Complexe" dans tous les éléments d'interface.
Retour du bouton "Recherche" pour les chars élite.
Clarification de la description de la médaille d'Halonen.
Corrigé l'affichage en salle d'entrainement du type de chat vocal.
Retiré des obus inutilisés du magasin.
Changement du prix des canon : 5cm KwK 38 L/42, 5cm KwK 39 L/60, et 5cm PaK 39 L/60.
Changement visuel du modèle de la seconde tourelle du T32.
Corrigé l'absence de molette dans la liste pop-up du filtre des nations dans la baraque.
Supprimé multiples dossiers et fichiers inutilisés.

Verrouillage des chars
Tuez le messager : les résultats
3e Offre spéciale de mars
La liste complète des bonus ci-dessous :
Expérience x3 pour la première victoire de la journée
Plus de 58% de réduction sur les munitions Premium
50% de réduction sur les véhicules : M41, M12, SU-8, Su14, Hummel, GW Panther
50% de réduction sur les véhicules premium : Matilda, Churchill
50% de réduction sur les emplacements de caserne.
50% de réduction sur l'équipage de 100% en achetant un char
50% de réduction sur le ré-entraînement de l’équipage
50% de réduction sur l’entraînement de l’équipage
Test public de la mise à jour 7.2 nº2
Liste des changements entre le test nº1 et nº2 du patch 7.2:
Paramètres des chasseurs de chars américains rééquilibrés après le premier test.
Paramètres des chars américains T34, T30, M103 et T110E5 rééquilibrés après le premier test.
Ajout de la rotation sur soi-même pour le M18 Hellcat et T25/2.
Suppression de la Ventilation Améliorée pour le T25/2.
Correction des erreurs du blindage du M103 (plaque frontale) et T110E5 (plaque frontale et mantelet du canon).
Correction de la description du nom du Lowe.
Correction d'une erreur de frappe dans le système de notification à propos de l'expiration du camouflage.
Réduction de la durabilité de la partie intermédiaire de la suspension de l'AMX 13 90, AMX M4 1945, et BDR G1B.
Correction des titres de divisons dans le filtre du menu des compagnies de chars.
Correction d'un bug où le client se ferme après avoir vendu tous les chars.
Ajout d'une aide au dossier d'un membre d'équipage : combien de compétences sont débloquables et pourcentage d'expérience restante.
Correction du modèle de destruction du T28 Prototype.
Suppression de la Ventilation Améliorée du FCM 36Pak40
Correction de la disparition d'un effet lors d'un tir sur une pente enneigée.
Correction de la disparition de multiples effets à une distance supérieure à 100 mètres.
Correction de l'affichage d'une ligne d'aide technique visible dans le garage.
Correction du modèle de dégâts sur la suspension du VK4502A.
Correction de l'effet des gaz d'échappement soumis à un fort vent.
Correction de l'option de sélection des textes dans la fenêtre de dialogue.
Déplacement du canon automoteur premium LeFH 18 B2 du rang 2 au rang 4.
Correction de la description de l'aptitude "Ultime transmission".
Correction des erreurs du modèle de dégâts du T95.
Correction de plusieurs erreurs d'entrainement de l'équipage.
Correction du modèle de suspension du Pz V Panther.
Correction de l'animation de l'icône "plus" de l'équipage montré dans le garage.
Correction des incohérences de la taille du marqueur "Attention au carré !" avec la taille du carré sur la minicarte.
Suppression de l'affichage de marqueurs de pénétration en contact avec des obus explosifs.
Corrigé des rares échecs de client dû à l'archivage implémenté avec la 7.1.1.
Corrigé le mauvais affichage de multiples paramètres de modules de char dans l'interface.
Le prix du moteur V-2K réduit à 23050.
Corrigé l'absence d'affichage de pseudo dans la liste d'équipe quand le véhicule est détruit.
Corrigé des problèmes avec des objets indestructibles sur certaines cartes.
Corrigé le mauvais placement de la croix réticule central dans le mode "Crosses II"
Corrigé une incohérence de la taille de texte dans la fenêtre du chat général.
Corrigé le coupure de la lettre "D" dans le titre des onglets du garage.
Corrigé une jonction du texte de message avec la molette dans la fenêtre du peloton.
Corrigé la possibilité de remettre à zéro les compétences alors que le véhicule est bloqué.
Corrigé l'option en vendant le char, avec équipement démontable avec de l'or alors qu'il n'y a pas d'or sur le compte.
Corrigé le statut élite du T95 quand tous les modules sont recherchés.
Corrigé le nom coupé du char sur fenêtre du chargement de la carte.
Corrigé le blurring et l'effet de grain des messages dans le chat de bataille.
Corrigé l'impossibilité récurrente de change le filtre anisotropique dans les options graphiques.
Marqueurs de char. Corrigé l'absence de différenciation de couleur d'équipe en bataille.
Marqueurs de char. Corrigé les paramètres en mode daltonien.
Marqueurs de char. Corrigé l'affichage d'un tueur ami.
Marqueurs de char. Corrigé le soulignement des coéquipiers en peloton.
Marqueurs de char. Ajouté du noircissement du nom des chars détruits.
Corrigé l'affichage des achievement dans les statistiques du joueur.
Remise en place la table des scores en pressant la touche TAB.
Corrigé la position des émissions du moteur du M18 Hellcat.
Corrigé le modèle des dommages de suspension de l'ISU-152.
Corrigé un bug lorsqu'un membre d'équipage a reçu un avancement lors de la réinitialisation des compétences et ré entrainé.
Corrigé l'affichage des lettres capitales du nom des TDs et SPGs de l'aide des chars montré dans le garage.
L'équipement "démontable" est renommé en "Complexe" dans tous les éléments d'interface.
Retour du bouton "Recherche" pour les chars élite.
Clarification de la description de la médaille d'Halonen.
Corrigé l'affichage en salle d'entrainement du type de chat vocal.
Retiré des obus inutilisés du magasin.
Changement du prix des canon : 5cm KwK 38 L/42, 5cm KwK 39 L/60, et 5cm PaK 39 L/60.
Changement visuel du modèle de la seconde tourelle du T32.
Corrigé l'absence de molette dans la liste pop-up du filtre des nations dans la baraque.
Supprimé multiples dossiers et fichiers inutilisés.
                            Subject: Journal Hebdomadaire #21 
Link on message: #1612846
Quote Bonjour à tous,
Le but du journal est de donner les dernières nouvelles du front ! Les prochains évènements à venir, des informations sur les problèmes actuels et articles intéressants.
Si vous pensez avoir une histoire ou un article qui pourrait être intégré, envoyez-le-moi en MP sur le forum.
Profitez bien du jeu et balayez tout sur votre passage avec votre tank ! Vous pouvez toujours essayer de me détruire si vous me voyez sur le champ de bataille.
Toutefois je ne me laisserai pas faire facilement.
Staff : Decept1on, Mr_Kubrick
                            
                        
                    Link on message: #1612846
Quote Bonjour à tous,
Le but du journal est de donner les dernières nouvelles du front ! Les prochains évènements à venir, des informations sur les problèmes actuels et articles intéressants.
Si vous pensez avoir une histoire ou un article qui pourrait être intégré, envoyez-le-moi en MP sur le forum.
Profitez bien du jeu et balayez tout sur votre passage avec votre tank ! Vous pouvez toujours essayer de me détruire si vous me voyez sur le champ de bataille.
Toutefois je ne me laisserai pas faire facilement.
Staff : Decept1on, Mr_Kubrick
Decept1on: 
Q: Y a-t-il vraiment un buff du blindage du T110E5 ou est-ce un typo ? De 170mm à 254mm c'est un gros buff. Pouvez-vous clarifier ?
R: Oui, c'est juste, 254mm pour le bec en frontal, la plaque frontale elle même reste à 140mm.
Q: Est-ce que les compagnies de chars vont-elles être améliorées ? Plus de tiers, plus de crédits ou xp, brouillard de guerre ?
R: Oui, nous considérons des changements et améliorations que nous ne pouvons dévoiler pour le moment.
Q: Le Tigre Royal (KT) aurais peut-être besoin d'un buff du bas de caisse ? Dans la 7.2 il apparait plus gros.
R: Le KT sera légèrement plus gros dans la 7.2.
Q: Pourquoi doublez vous le blindage du SU-85 ?
R: Bug. Mauvaise valeur affichée.
Q: Pourquoi avez vous augmenté l'inclinaison du blindage de l'Obj 704 ?
R: Rien n'a changé hors-mis sa taille.

Q: Y a-t-il vraiment un buff du blindage du T110E5 ou est-ce un typo ? De 170mm à 254mm c'est un gros buff. Pouvez-vous clarifier ?
R: Oui, c'est juste, 254mm pour le bec en frontal, la plaque frontale elle même reste à 140mm.
Q: Est-ce que les compagnies de chars vont-elles être améliorées ? Plus de tiers, plus de crédits ou xp, brouillard de guerre ?
R: Oui, nous considérons des changements et améliorations que nous ne pouvons dévoiler pour le moment.
Q: Le Tigre Royal (KT) aurais peut-être besoin d'un buff du bas de caisse ? Dans la 7.2 il apparait plus gros.
R: Le KT sera légèrement plus gros dans la 7.2.
Q: Pourquoi doublez vous le blindage du SU-85 ?
R: Bug. Mauvaise valeur affichée.
Q: Pourquoi avez vous augmenté l'inclinaison du blindage de l'Obj 704 ?
R: Rien n'a changé hors-mis sa taille.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1612082
                             Esourze, on 16 March 2012 - 08:18 AM, said: That would be helpfull indeed. So why are they just considering it?
worried that people would be able to change them or something else?
Esourze, on 16 March 2012 - 08:18 AM, said: That would be helpfull indeed. So why are they just considering it?
worried that people would be able to change them or something else?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1612082
 Esourze, on 16 March 2012 - 08:18 AM, said: That would be helpfull indeed. So why are they just considering it?
worried that people would be able to change them or something else?
Esourze, on 16 March 2012 - 08:18 AM, said: That would be helpfull indeed. So why are they just considering it?
worried that people would be able to change them or something else?Overlord: If implemented, it's going to work more like showroom ir
encyclopedia, so if modified, it wont give anything.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1612076
                             ZeZergling, on 16 March 2012 - 05:44 AM, said: So Overlord... any chance of the 120mm M58 receiving a penetration
buff?
ZeZergling, on 16 March 2012 - 05:44 AM, said: So Overlord... any chance of the 120mm M58 receiving a penetration
buff?
As I have said many times before, 269mm is neither historically accurate or balanced.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1612076
 ZeZergling, on 16 March 2012 - 05:44 AM, said: So Overlord... any chance of the 120mm M58 receiving a penetration
buff?
ZeZergling, on 16 March 2012 - 05:44 AM, said: So Overlord... any chance of the 120mm M58 receiving a penetration
buff?As I have said many times before, 269mm is neither historically accurate or balanced.
Overlord: 269mm is pretty much enough to engage any tank.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1612067
                             _Strider_, on 15 March 2012 - 10:12 PM, said: The best way to balance T34 imo would to make it a tank destroyer
with a good gun but not so much hp and slow turret. Just like T30
but with 120mm
_Strider_, on 15 March 2012 - 10:12 PM, said: The best way to balance T34 imo would to make it a tank destroyer
with a good gun but not so much hp and slow turret. Just like T30
but with 120mm
Do you consider this?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1612067
 _Strider_, on 15 March 2012 - 10:12 PM, said: The best way to balance T34 imo would to make it a tank destroyer
with a good gun but not so much hp and slow turret. Just like T30
but with 120mm
_Strider_, on 15 March 2012 - 10:12 PM, said: The best way to balance T34 imo would to make it a tank destroyer
with a good gun but not so much hp and slow turret. Just like T30
but with 120mmDo you consider this?
Overlord: No, it's not under consideration.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1612028
                             Sinenfutorepatolvaj, on 15 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said: Regarding to T34 meganerf.
Sinenfutorepatolvaj, on 15 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said: Regarding to T34 meganerf.
Do you really want to ask money for this junk after release?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1612028
 Sinenfutorepatolvaj, on 15 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said: Regarding to T34 meganerf.
Sinenfutorepatolvaj, on 15 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said: Regarding to T34 meganerf.Do you really want to ask money for this junk after release?

Overlord: You are given an opportunity to try it during the test and decide.
It's fair, no one forces you to buy it.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1612022
                             kadney, on 15 March 2012 - 07:38 PM, said: Overlord, did you reconsider the T34 and made it a Premium
Tankdestroyer instead of a Premium Heavy Tank?
kadney, on 15 March 2012 - 07:38 PM, said: Overlord, did you reconsider the T34 and made it a Premium
Tankdestroyer instead of a Premium Heavy Tank?
I mean, it feels like the little brother of the T30 Tankdestroyer now.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1612022
 kadney, on 15 March 2012 - 07:38 PM, said: Overlord, did you reconsider the T34 and made it a Premium
Tankdestroyer instead of a Premium Heavy Tank?
kadney, on 15 March 2012 - 07:38 PM, said: Overlord, did you reconsider the T34 and made it a Premium
Tankdestroyer instead of a Premium Heavy Tank?I mean, it feels like the little brother of the T30 Tankdestroyer now.
Overlord: Will consider possible changes based on the test results.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1612017
                             DangerMouse, on 15 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said: Ovi Why has the T34 been turned into a turreted TD in test 2 ?
DangerMouse, on 15 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said: Ovi Why has the T34 been turned into a turreted TD in test 2 ?
Also has the credit income been reduced since test 1?

DM
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1612017
 DangerMouse, on 15 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said: Ovi Why has the T34 been turned into a turreted TD in test 2 ?
DangerMouse, on 15 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said: Ovi Why has the T34 been turned into a turreted TD in test 2 ?Also has the credit income been reduced since test 1?

DM
Overlord: 1. As far as I see, it's still classed as heavy.
2. No changes.
2. No changes.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1612014
                             Celestial, on 15 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said: Hi Overlord,
Celestial, on 15 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said: Hi Overlord,
As requested by you, here are the copied questions:
1. Are there plans to increase ammo capacity on the M103 and T110E5?
2. Are there plans increase the reversing speed on the T110E5?
3. Due to the many compains about the size reduction on especially the IS4 and IS7, is it considered to revert this change?
4. Do you think the T34 premium tank is a bit too good at
tier 8 with the current setup, I mean 400 dmg with 248 pen and decent armor will have a huge impact on the tier 8 battles. The T34 will be able to obliterate the other tanks way easier than the others. The Löwe also has a great gun and weak armor, but in return is extremely slow and huge with poor gun depression. The T34 is basicly an upped version of this with an even better gun, equal armor and also is quite fast.
5. A while back I asked about the Obj 704 and making the BL10 requiring it's suspension, has this been considered yet?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1612014
 Celestial, on 15 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said: Hi Overlord,
Celestial, on 15 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said: Hi Overlord,As requested by you, here are the copied questions:
1. Are there plans to increase ammo capacity on the M103 and T110E5?
2. Are there plans increase the reversing speed on the T110E5?
3. Due to the many compains about the size reduction on especially the IS4 and IS7, is it considered to revert this change?
4. Do you think the T34 premium tank is a bit too good at
tier 8 with the current setup, I mean 400 dmg with 248 pen and decent armor will have a huge impact on the tier 8 battles. The T34 will be able to obliterate the other tanks way easier than the others. The Löwe also has a great gun and weak armor, but in return is extremely slow and huge with poor gun depression. The T34 is basicly an upped version of this with an even better gun, equal armor and also is quite fast.
5. A while back I asked about the Obj 704 and making the BL10 requiring it's suspension, has this been considered yet?
Overlord: 1, 2, 3, 5 - No, or very unlikely.
4. After multiple adjustments made for test 2 it does not look that good as it was. Will consider possible changes based on testing results.
4. After multiple adjustments made for test 2 it does not look that good as it was. Will consider possible changes based on testing results.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1612002
                             Metalheart, on 15 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said: Hi there.
Metalheart, on 15 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said: Hi there.
Are the specs of T34 premium @ test_2 final? I'm very sceptical about such a big nerf from test_1 - rof, hp, turning traverse, engine, turret traverse. Basically it feels very weak now, too slow and sluggish.
Cya on the battlefield.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1612002
 Metalheart, on 15 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said: Hi there.
Metalheart, on 15 March 2012 - 06:25 PM, said: Hi there.Are the specs of T34 premium @ test_2 final? I'm very sceptical about such a big nerf from test_1 - rof, hp, turning traverse, engine, turret traverse. Basically it feels very weak now, too slow and sluggish.
Cya on the battlefield.
Overlord: No, they are not final, like any other specs during testing stage.
Will asses the performance and then decide if any further
adjustments are needed.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1611995
                             molan1976, on 15 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said: I don't mind so much changes in tanks weak spots layout
etc.(balancing is importaint), but I do misses information about
it.
molan1976, on 15 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said: I don't mind so much changes in tanks weak spots layout
etc.(balancing is importaint), but I do misses information about
it.
Do you have any plans to stop hiding decisive information from us players?
We do need a way to see the complete amour thickness on on every part of every tank in game (to find weak-spots in others ways than trial and error). We need to know the new crew perks and skills effeteness (in % for-instance) beforehand in order to make informed and qualified decisions on what to use, where and why.
I lack details about every tank in game as they are implemented in game (don't care about reality/history, only how it's modeld in game).
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1611995
 molan1976, on 15 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said: I don't mind so much changes in tanks weak spots layout
etc.(balancing is importaint), but I do misses information about
it.
molan1976, on 15 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said: I don't mind so much changes in tanks weak spots layout
etc.(balancing is importaint), but I do misses information about
it.Do you have any plans to stop hiding decisive information from us players?
We do need a way to see the complete amour thickness on on every part of every tank in game (to find weak-spots in others ways than trial and error). We need to know the new crew perks and skills effeteness (in % for-instance) beforehand in order to make informed and qualified decisions on what to use, where and why.
I lack details about every tank in game as they are implemented in game (don't care about reality/history, only how it's modeld in game).
Overlord: Replied just above.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1611990
                             Perscienter, on 15 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said: Will we ever be allowed to have a look at the true armour values of
tanks?
Perscienter, on 15 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said: Will we ever be allowed to have a look at the true armour values of
tanks?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1611990
 Perscienter, on 15 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said: Will we ever be allowed to have a look at the true armour values of
tanks?
Perscienter, on 15 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said: Will we ever be allowed to have a look at the true armour values of
tanks?Overlord: There is a consideration of adding a kind of hitbox for each tank
into the game client to give better understanding of why do I
penetrate and why I don't.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1611969
                             CaptainMastiff, on 15 March 2012 - 04:09 PM, said: Ive asked a few times Overlord but I'm guessing you've missed or
ignored my question.
CaptainMastiff, on 15 March 2012 - 04:09 PM, said: Ive asked a few times Overlord but I'm guessing you've missed or
ignored my question.
Is there a roadmap of releases for premium tanks, apart from the T34? I've got money to blow but the Type 59 is really the only "recent" premium tank and we can't even buy that anymore, the T34 I will get for "free" so what is out there or at least up coming for those who want to buy another premium tank?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1611969
 CaptainMastiff, on 15 March 2012 - 04:09 PM, said: Ive asked a few times Overlord but I'm guessing you've missed or
ignored my question.
CaptainMastiff, on 15 March 2012 - 04:09 PM, said: Ive asked a few times Overlord but I'm guessing you've missed or
ignored my question.Is there a roadmap of releases for premium tanks, apart from the T34? I've got money to blow but the Type 59 is really the only "recent" premium tank and we can't even buy that anymore, the T34 I will get for "free" so what is out there or at least up coming for those who want to buy another premium tank?
Overlord: Two French tanks that are currently available for testing
will be publicly available in 7.3, also IS-6 and JT with 8.8cm are coming.
Basically we will be adding a couple of prems in every update.
will be publicly available in 7.3, also IS-6 and JT with 8.8cm are coming.
Basically we will be adding a couple of prems in every update.
                            Subject:  International Forums\Russian-language Community\Спам-уголок\Ассоциации
 International Forums\Russian-language Community\Спам-уголок\Ассоциации
Link on message: #1611859
                             appendix, on 16 March 2012 - 05:18 AM, said: Медсестра
appendix, on 16 March 2012 - 05:18 AM, said: Медсестра
                            
                        
                     International Forums\Russian-language Community\Спам-уголок\Ассоциации
 International Forums\Russian-language Community\Спам-уголок\АссоциацииLink on message: #1611859
 appendix, on 16 March 2012 - 05:18 AM, said: Медсестра
appendix, on 16 March 2012 - 05:18 AM, said: МедсестраOldFox: Ммм! Промолчу...
                            Subject:  International Forums\Baltic Forums\Latviešu\Spama stūris\Stūrītis izklaidei
 International Forums\Baltic Forums\Latviešu\Spama stūris\Stūrītis izklaidei
Link on message: #1611848
                            
                            
                        
                     International Forums\Baltic Forums\Latviešu\Spama stūris\Stūrītis izklaidei
 International Forums\Baltic Forums\Latviešu\Spama stūris\Stūrītis izklaideiLink on message: #1611848
OldFox: Forsi, vai ne?
                            Subject: jouer avec un reseau wifi public 
Link on message: #1611323
                            
                            
                        
                    Link on message: #1611323
Decept1on: en effet, sur les réseaux publics, les ports sont bloqués pour
éviter tout abus (de tout type)
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1608194
                             Gigaton, on 15 March 2012 - 03:19 PM, said: Alright, thanks for clearing it up.
Gigaton, on 15 March 2012 - 03:19 PM, said: Alright, thanks for clearing it up. 
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1608194
 Gigaton, on 15 March 2012 - 03:19 PM, said: Alright, thanks for clearing it up.
Gigaton, on 15 March 2012 - 03:19 PM, said: Alright, thanks for clearing it up. 
Overlord: The same goes for T110 with the only clarification that armouring
is a bit better (140mm @ 60+ deg).
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1608176
                             FrankyK, on 15 March 2012 - 01:33 PM, said: Since the KT is about 10% bigger now and the IS-3 (for example)
about 10% smaller, there are - as you know - some issues which will
affect balance: KT is easier to hit from distance and it is easier
to hit its weakspots (lower frontal hull plate), whereas the IS-3
is harder to hit both from distance and its weakspots. Well, I know
that WG watches the balance changes after 0.7.2 has hit the
live-servers.
FrankyK, on 15 March 2012 - 01:33 PM, said: Since the KT is about 10% bigger now and the IS-3 (for example)
about 10% smaller, there are - as you know - some issues which will
affect balance: KT is easier to hit from distance and it is easier
to hit its weakspots (lower frontal hull plate), whereas the IS-3
is harder to hit both from distance and its weakspots. Well, I know
that WG watches the balance changes after 0.7.2 has hit the
live-servers.
My questions:
How long do you plan to watch a possible performance drop of KT? Until patch 0.7.3 or do you need a longer time-frame in order to make a final decision?
How big has this affect on performance to be before you take steps? I'm sure there will be no deep impact, but it definitely will affect overall performance of KT, IS-3 & Co.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1608176
 FrankyK, on 15 March 2012 - 01:33 PM, said: Since the KT is about 10% bigger now and the IS-3 (for example)
about 10% smaller, there are - as you know - some issues which will
affect balance: KT is easier to hit from distance and it is easier
to hit its weakspots (lower frontal hull plate), whereas the IS-3
is harder to hit both from distance and its weakspots. Well, I know
that WG watches the balance changes after 0.7.2 has hit the
live-servers.
FrankyK, on 15 March 2012 - 01:33 PM, said: Since the KT is about 10% bigger now and the IS-3 (for example)
about 10% smaller, there are - as you know - some issues which will
affect balance: KT is easier to hit from distance and it is easier
to hit its weakspots (lower frontal hull plate), whereas the IS-3
is harder to hit both from distance and its weakspots. Well, I know
that WG watches the balance changes after 0.7.2 has hit the
live-servers.My questions:
How long do you plan to watch a possible performance drop of KT? Until patch 0.7.3 or do you need a longer time-frame in order to make a final decision?
How big has this affect on performance to be before you take steps? I'm sure there will be no deep impact, but it definitely will affect overall performance of KT, IS-3 & Co.
Overlord: 1. Most likely until the next update, which is 7.3 unless something
unexpected pops up during the 7.2 public testing.
2. There should be such impact, our estimation is up to 1% of win ration for those tanks that have been affected most (IS-7, KT, Obj).
2. There should be such impact, our estimation is up to 1% of win ration for those tanks that have been affected most (IS-7, KT, Obj).
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1608085
                             Gigaton, on 15 March 2012 - 02:50 PM, said: Ahem, I did post a PDF page from a previously classified US
military document few pages back that states without any doubt that
the beak was 254mm (or 10 inches) on M103. Or at very least, it
clearly states that both upper and lower front hull were 10 inches
thick at some point, which would logically be the area where they
join.
Gigaton, on 15 March 2012 - 02:50 PM, said: Ahem, I did post a PDF page from a previously classified US
military document few pages back that states without any doubt that
the beak was 254mm (or 10 inches) on M103. Or at very least, it
clearly states that both upper and lower front hull were 10 inches
thick at some point, which would logically be the area where they
join.
The PDF was posted by The Chieftain on US forums few months back. I can PM him about it's exact nature and origin if you wish though (probably from US national archives).
(Edit) But I guess, technically M103 did not have 8" of armour anywhere yeah (except possibly on parts of the mantlet area). It was either below or above that in thickness.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1608085
 Gigaton, on 15 March 2012 - 02:50 PM, said: Ahem, I did post a PDF page from a previously classified US
military document few pages back that states without any doubt that
the beak was 254mm (or 10 inches) on M103. Or at very least, it
clearly states that both upper and lower front hull were 10 inches
thick at some point, which would logically be the area where they
join.
Gigaton, on 15 March 2012 - 02:50 PM, said: Ahem, I did post a PDF page from a previously classified US
military document few pages back that states without any doubt that
the beak was 254mm (or 10 inches) on M103. Or at very least, it
clearly states that both upper and lower front hull were 10 inches
thick at some point, which would logically be the area where they
join.The PDF was posted by The Chieftain on US forums few months back. I can PM him about it's exact nature and origin if you wish though (probably from US national archives).
(Edit) But I guess, technically M103 did not have 8" of armour anywhere yeah (except possibly on parts of the mantlet area). It was either below or above that in thickness.
Overlord: Don't question its credibility. After a series of checks, can say
that overall M103 armour in-game is not worse than it had in RL.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607348
                             shiftypowers2002, on 15 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said: Lol!
shiftypowers2002, on 15 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said: Lol!
On a serious note, with regards to the T110's Turret, there seems to be a lot of chatter about numerous large weakspots and issues with rapid and numerous module damage. (IE: ammo racks).
Is there any plans to tweak amended any part of it's turrent and / or strengthen any of it's module and hit boxes?

                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607348
 shiftypowers2002, on 15 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said: Lol!
shiftypowers2002, on 15 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said: Lol!On a serious note, with regards to the T110's Turret, there seems to be a lot of chatter about numerous large weakspots and issues with rapid and numerous module damage. (IE: ammo racks).
Is there any plans to tweak amended any part of it's turrent and / or strengthen any of it's module and hit boxes?

Overlord: Not at this time. Will see how the changes of 7.2.2 work out on
test server.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607339
                             Thor_Hammerschlag, on 15 March 2012 - 12:25 PM, said: Why wasnt this stated in the patch notes Overlord?
Thor_Hammerschlag, on 15 March 2012 - 12:25 PM, said: Why wasnt this stated in the patch notes Overlord?

                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607339
 Thor_Hammerschlag, on 15 March 2012 - 12:25 PM, said: Why wasnt this stated in the patch notes Overlord?
Thor_Hammerschlag, on 15 March 2012 - 12:25 PM, said: Why wasnt this stated in the patch notes Overlord?
Overlord: Bug. It was in RU patch notes though, and should be included into
the final patch notes.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607316
                             UberJager, on 15 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said: I bought T34. Purchase date 3 February. Premium T34 will be given
to me?
UberJager, on 15 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said: I bought T34. Purchase date 3 February. Premium T34 will be given
to me?
Premium t34 Is there a time limit.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607316
 UberJager, on 15 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said: I bought T34. Purchase date 3 February. Premium T34 will be given
to me?
UberJager, on 15 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said: I bought T34. Purchase date 3 February. Premium T34 will be given
to me?Premium t34 Is there a time limit.
Overlord: Make sure you have purchased in on the live server, the date
doesn't matter.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607311
                             Gaz550, on 15 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said: What is the reason that beak armor change does not apply to m103?
It had same 10" beak
Gaz550, on 15 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said: What is the reason that beak armor change does not apply to m103?
It had same 10" beak
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607311
 Gaz550, on 15 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said: What is the reason that beak armor change does not apply to m103?
It had same 10" beak
Gaz550, on 15 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said: What is the reason that beak armor change does not apply to m103?
It had same 10" beakOverlord: Replied a few posts earlier.
                            Subject: Finalistes : concours de la journée de la femme 
Link on message: #1607307
                            
                            
                        
                    Link on message: #1607307
Decept1on: Merci de rester courtois
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607306
                             tootz, on 15 March 2012 - 12:09 PM, said: XP costs for vehicles and modules is getting a large reduction in
7.2 and I've heard the seperation of TD/Tank guns may also be
removed which means those people who have already researched all
these things have wasted a lot of xp. Are there any plans to refund
that xp, either as free xp or something else?
tootz, on 15 March 2012 - 12:09 PM, said: XP costs for vehicles and modules is getting a large reduction in
7.2 and I've heard the seperation of TD/Tank guns may also be
removed which means those people who have already researched all
these things have wasted a lot of xp. Are there any plans to refund
that xp, either as free xp or something else?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607306
 tootz, on 15 March 2012 - 12:09 PM, said: XP costs for vehicles and modules is getting a large reduction in
7.2 and I've heard the seperation of TD/Tank guns may also be
removed which means those people who have already researched all
these things have wasted a lot of xp. Are there any plans to refund
that xp, either as free xp or something else?
tootz, on 15 March 2012 - 12:09 PM, said: XP costs for vehicles and modules is getting a large reduction in
7.2 and I've heard the seperation of TD/Tank guns may also be
removed which means those people who have already researched all
these things have wasted a lot of xp. Are there any plans to refund
that xp, either as free xp or something else?Overlord: No, there will be no refunds in this case.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607298
                             carvillan, on 15 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said: OL
carvillan, on 15 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said: OL
Is ducking questions left right and centre. Still not had an answer to some of mine a while back about new sizes for IS series.
Anyway, now that WG is going along the 'Historical' route and not the 'balancing' route, can the German 7.5 and 8.8 guns get their 'Historical' and of course realistic penetration and damage values?
And can the E series gearboxes be put ath the back of the tank as was 'Historical'.
Thx
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607298
 carvillan, on 15 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said: OL
carvillan, on 15 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said: OLIs ducking questions left right and centre. Still not had an answer to some of mine a while back about new sizes for IS series.
Anyway, now that WG is going along the 'Historical' route and not the 'balancing' route, can the German 7.5 and 8.8 guns get their 'Historical' and of course realistic penetration and damage values?
And can the E series gearboxes be put ath the back of the tank as was 'Historical'.
Thx
Overlord: In-game we decide what should be historical and what parameters can
be considered as negligible so as not to break the game.
As for E-series, only E-100 has the suspension at front, which, to my mind, doesn't hurt him much.
As for E-series, only E-100 has the suspension at front, which, to my mind, doesn't hurt him much.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607262
                             Xivilai, on 15 March 2012 - 09:12 AM, said: Q: Why was the SU-85's front armor buffed from 45mm to 90mm? It's a
huge increase. It's already the best tier 5 TD, it doesn't need to
have the best armor too! If you're going to buff a TD, buff the
shitty jagdpanzer already.
Xivilai, on 15 March 2012 - 09:12 AM, said: Q: Why was the SU-85's front armor buffed from 45mm to 90mm? It's a
huge increase. It's already the best tier 5 TD, it doesn't need to
have the best armor too! If you're going to buff a TD, buff the
shitty jagdpanzer already.
It seems that developers cant stand the Stug III now when they gave it real figures to frontal armor and just had to increase SU-85 as well... Historical figures ... what historical figures... ???
And best part is they do on eye sight of all, yet people are to stupid to realize what this mean...
Devs, good job.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607262
 Xivilai, on 15 March 2012 - 09:12 AM, said: Q: Why was the SU-85's front armor buffed from 45mm to 90mm? It's a
huge increase. It's already the best tier 5 TD, it doesn't need to
have the best armor too! If you're going to buff a TD, buff the
shitty jagdpanzer already.
Xivilai, on 15 March 2012 - 09:12 AM, said: Q: Why was the SU-85's front armor buffed from 45mm to 90mm? It's a
huge increase. It's already the best tier 5 TD, it doesn't need to
have the best armor too! If you're going to buff a TD, buff the
shitty jagdpanzer already.It seems that developers cant stand the Stug III now when they gave it real figures to frontal armor and just had to increase SU-85 as well... Historical figures ... what historical figures... ???
And best part is they do on eye sight of all, yet people are to stupid to realize what this mean...
Devs, good job.
Overlord: Seems that you deliberately skipping previous posts. SU-85 won't
see that increase to 90mm in 7.2.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607246
                             ZeZergling, on 15 March 2012 - 04:01 AM, said: M103 doesn't have anywhere near actual historical armor; the
beak/seam was 254mm thick; ingame it is nowhere near that.
ZeZergling, on 15 March 2012 - 04:01 AM, said: M103 doesn't have anywhere near actual historical armor; the
beak/seam was 254mm thick; ingame it is nowhere near that.
Armor thickness is something that can't really be fudged around with, Overlord; it is either accurate or it is not.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607246
 ZeZergling, on 15 March 2012 - 04:01 AM, said: M103 doesn't have anywhere near actual historical armor; the
beak/seam was 254mm thick; ingame it is nowhere near that.
ZeZergling, on 15 March 2012 - 04:01 AM, said: M103 doesn't have anywhere near actual historical armor; the
beak/seam was 254mm thick; ingame it is nowhere near that.Armor thickness is something that can't really be fudged around with, Overlord; it is either accurate or it is not.
Overlord: According to Hunnicutt, M103 hardly had 8 inches, will check the
data.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607229
                             Thor_Hammerschlag, on 14 March 2012 - 09:55 PM, said: Hi Overlord!
Thor_Hammerschlag, on 14 March 2012 - 09:55 PM, said: Hi Overlord!
After the fix of the soviet tank size, i was woundering why the Kingtiger size doesnt get fixed as well.
Ingame it is just as big as the panther!

whereas historically, it was about half a meter longer, wider etc..
For example here,
what is compared is
1) v7.1 models
2) historical accurate measuremets

KT may need some buffing of the lower hull when it gets its historical size, but still, historical parameters like size should be implemented strictly. After the coming update, i guess we have the same persuasion.
Regards
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607229
 Thor_Hammerschlag, on 14 March 2012 - 09:55 PM, said: Hi Overlord!
Thor_Hammerschlag, on 14 March 2012 - 09:55 PM, said: Hi Overlord!After the fix of the soviet tank size, i was woundering why the Kingtiger size doesnt get fixed as well.
Ingame it is just as big as the panther!

whereas historically, it was about half a meter longer, wider etc..
For example here,
what is compared is
1) v7.1 models
2) historical accurate measuremets

KT may need some buffing of the lower hull when it gets its historical size, but still, historical parameters like size should be implemented strictly. After the coming update, i guess we have the same persuasion.
Regards

Overlord: KT is going to be somewhat bigger in 7.2.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607220
                             Mungo73, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said: Did you really mean "aiming time increased"? From the context it
looks as if you meant "aiming time decreased".
Mungo73, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said: Did you really mean "aiming time increased"? From the context it
looks as if you meant "aiming time decreased".
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607220
 Mungo73, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said: Did you really mean "aiming time increased"? From the context it
looks as if you meant "aiming time decreased".
Mungo73, on 14 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said: Did you really mean "aiming time increased"? From the context it
looks as if you meant "aiming time decreased".Overlord: Read as decreased. Sorry.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607154
                             ijazrazik, on 14 March 2012 - 08:25 PM, said: so devs intentionally hide the numerical values of the advantages
of the new skills,
ijazrazik, on 14 March 2012 - 08:25 PM, said: so devs intentionally hide the numerical values of the advantages
of the new skills,
and block the closed beta testers access to the public test by an error,
and intentionally limit the number of players to 26k
and letting the players have no chance to test the skills for them selves ,and u asking us to search the forums for a random dudes unofficial research to risk 250%+ worth of skils in their top tiers?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607154
 ijazrazik, on 14 March 2012 - 08:25 PM, said: so devs intentionally hide the numerical values of the advantages
of the new skills,
ijazrazik, on 14 March 2012 - 08:25 PM, said: so devs intentionally hide the numerical values of the advantages
of the new skills,and block the closed beta testers access to the public test by an error,
and intentionally limit the number of players to 26k
and letting the players have no chance to test the skills for them selves ,and u asking us to search the forums for a random dudes unofficial research to risk 250%+ worth of skils in their top tiers?
Overlord: Regarding points 2, 3, and 4, the capacity of test server is
limited. That's the only quick way out to allow players to test
smth with more or less comfortable performance.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607140
                             costi, on 14 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said: The same thing many people have asked: instead of "increased chance
of X happening" having "+5% chance of X happening" given.
costi, on 14 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said: The same thing many people have asked: instead of "increased chance
of X happening" having "+5% chance of X happening" given.
Seriously, I don't know why WG is so reluctant to release these stats and leaves players with the guessing game. Crew skills have a very big impact on a tank's performance and now that we have so many to choose from, it's not the old no-brainer anymore. Grinding skills takes a lot of time (especially after the first), and forcing players to make selections blindly seems kinda silly, considering the fact that practically everything else is given.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607140
 costi, on 14 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said: The same thing many people have asked: instead of "increased chance
of X happening" having "+5% chance of X happening" given.
costi, on 14 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said: The same thing many people have asked: instead of "increased chance
of X happening" having "+5% chance of X happening" given.Seriously, I don't know why WG is so reluctant to release these stats and leaves players with the guessing game. Crew skills have a very big impact on a tank's performance and now that we have so many to choose from, it's not the old no-brainer anymore. Grinding skills takes a lot of time (especially after the first), and forcing players to make selections blindly seems kinda silly, considering the fact that practically everything else is given.
Overlord: That's the way the old skills work. Also there is doubt that eg +2%
to smth will make anyone happy. It was a tough decision to hide
those values.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607129
                             Paaranoja, on 14 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said: Have in mind that on test server everyone plays with gold.
Paaranoja, on 14 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said: Have in mind that on test server everyone plays with gold.
Question of OL:
Will team companies be upgraded to atract more players? More tiers, bigger credit and/or xp gain, fog of war?
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607129
 Paaranoja, on 14 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said: Have in mind that on test server everyone plays with gold.
Paaranoja, on 14 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said: Have in mind that on test server everyone plays with gold.Question of OL:
Will team companies be upgraded to atract more players? More tiers, bigger credit and/or xp gain, fog of war?
Overlord: Yes, we are considering some changes and improvements which I can't
disclose at the moment.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607108
                             FrankyK, on 14 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said: Overlord,
FrankyK, on 14 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said: Overlord,
two questions, I would be grateful for an honest answer:
You mentioned that your blog will return after the GDC. Well, is this still planned?
I've read some rumours that the idea of moving the transmission of E-50 and E-75 to the front has been given up. Is this true? WG would make lots of EU customers happy with this change of mind.
Thanks.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607108
 FrankyK, on 14 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said: Overlord,
FrankyK, on 14 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said: Overlord,two questions, I would be grateful for an honest answer:
You mentioned that your blog will return after the GDC. Well, is this still planned?
I've read some rumours that the idea of moving the transmission of E-50 and E-75 to the front has been given up. Is this true? WG would make lots of EU customers happy with this change of mind.
Thanks.

Overlord: 1. Yes, will sort a few urgent things first.
2. This definitely won't be done in the foreseeable future.
2. This definitely won't be done in the foreseeable future.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1607075
                             Gaffield, on 14 March 2012 - 06:05 PM, said: The IS4 with the turret used in game didn't mount the S70 either, a
lot of tanks got features they didn't have, why is American tanks
restricted by your sudden fondness of "historical correctness"?
Gaffield, on 14 March 2012 - 06:05 PM, said: The IS4 with the turret used in game didn't mount the S70 either, a
lot of tanks got features they didn't have, why is American tanks
restricted by your sudden fondness of "historical correctness"?
Tell us what kind of role the T110 is supposed to have, as Chieftain pointed out, its not even a heavy tank by design.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1607075
 Gaffield, on 14 March 2012 - 06:05 PM, said: The IS4 with the turret used in game didn't mount the S70 either, a
lot of tanks got features they didn't have, why is American tanks
restricted by your sudden fondness of "historical correctness"?
Gaffield, on 14 March 2012 - 06:05 PM, said: The IS4 with the turret used in game didn't mount the S70 either, a
lot of tanks got features they didn't have, why is American tanks
restricted by your sudden fondness of "historical correctness"?Tell us what kind of role the T110 is supposed to have, as Chieftain pointed out, its not even a heavy tank by design.
Overlord: While we do stick to realistic armour layouts and are ready to
correct all inconsistencies if proven, most of the other parameters
are tweakable for the balance sake. As for IS-4, it will be changed
during the revision.
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1606986
                             Celestial, on 14 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said: Overlord, is this armor buff on the T110E5 a typo or? From 170mm to
254mm is a HUGE buff. can you clarify this change?
Celestial, on 14 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said: Overlord, is this armor buff on the T110E5 a typo or? From 170mm to
254mm is a HUGE buff. can you clarify this change?
Also, could you please answer the questions of my post #4478, would be really apprieciated.
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1606986
 Celestial, on 14 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said: Overlord, is this armor buff on the T110E5 a typo or? From 170mm to
254mm is a HUGE buff. can you clarify this change?
Celestial, on 14 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said: Overlord, is this armor buff on the T110E5 a typo or? From 170mm to
254mm is a HUGE buff. can you clarify this change?Also, could you please answer the questions of my post #4478, would be really apprieciated.
Overlord: Yes, totally correct 254mm for the beak at front, the front plate
itself will be still 140mm.
Please, copy-paste the question.
Please, copy-paste the question.
                            Subject:  International Forums\Russian-language Community\Спам-уголок\Ассоциации
 International Forums\Russian-language Community\Спам-уголок\Ассоциации
Link on message: #1606956
                             appendix, on 15 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said: песок
appendix, on 15 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said: песок
                            
                        
                     International Forums\Russian-language Community\Спам-уголок\Ассоциации
 International Forums\Russian-language Community\Спам-уголок\АссоциацииLink on message: #1606956
 appendix, on 15 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said: песок
appendix, on 15 March 2012 - 11:56 AM, said: песокOldFox: сахар
                            Subject:  Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
Link on message: #1606946
                             Vipez, on 14 March 2012 - 06:17 PM, said: Hey Ovi
Vipez, on 14 March 2012 - 06:17 PM, said: Hey Ovi  I heard that u are
also a Patton lover (Me too
 I heard that u are
also a Patton lover (Me too  ) If u see the Poll at http://worldoftanks.eu/ don't u think they are all wrong and
to show them that they are wrong, why not give the Patton higher
top speed?
 ) If u see the Poll at http://worldoftanks.eu/ don't u think they are all wrong and
to show them that they are wrong, why not give the Patton higher
top speed?  We Patton lover have to keep
together!
 We Patton lover have to keep
together! 
                            
                        
                     Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & Answers
 Game Discussion\Gameplay Discussion\EU Questions & AnswersLink on message: #1606946
 Vipez, on 14 March 2012 - 06:17 PM, said: Hey Ovi
Vipez, on 14 March 2012 - 06:17 PM, said: Hey Ovi  I heard that u are
also a Patton lover (Me too
 I heard that u are
also a Patton lover (Me too  ) If u see the Poll at http://worldoftanks.eu/ don't u think they are all wrong and
to show them that they are wrong, why not give the Patton higher
top speed?
 ) If u see the Poll at http://worldoftanks.eu/ don't u think they are all wrong and
to show them that they are wrong, why not give the Patton higher
top speed?  We Patton lover have to keep
together!
 We Patton lover have to keep
together! 
Overlord: Not saying they are all wrong, but the results are obviously
surprising. Or probably they meant M26 Pershing. 

Реклама | Adv
    














 
                        


