Developers posts on forum

TeriyakiTanker: You are incorrect they can be anything you want them to be. The generic answer to how to lay them out is as commanders and if you don't need commanders the Gunner is potentially the next most important, though drivers aren't a terrible idea either. The real answer though depends on how you play, if you only play a very small number of tanks it might make more sense for you to have 2 or even three members in the same tank be from the Battle Pass.  Also if you play a tank with only 2-3 crew members you wills want to consider making them all from the battle pass too as they will each have a lot of skills you need.  So really just depends on what you got going on.

DeviouslyCursed:
If you are referring to this post, it wasn't there when I started replying. The bold part is the issue, nothing about RNG deliberately does this. You are seeing agency where there is none. If this isn't your intent, then it is your sloppiness with words that is causing the issue. "Whatever RNG uses" implies it is actively doing something specifically to initiate or cause streaks. A better way to say it is "randomness has streaks and its natural variance can limit highs and lows". You say it like that and most aren't going to have a problem with it. You say it like you often do, and people are going to jump on you.

DeviouslyCursed:  Read the last part of my post, I edited it to add the last paragraph. Also, nothing in your post indicates anything dirty, underhanded or fraudulent. Read my post REAL slow and sound out the words.

DeviouslyCursed: past tense: rigged; past participle: rigged manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person. "charges of vote-rigging"     RNG manages player inputs for WG's benefit by supposedly evening out the skill gaps among random players. Rigged by definition  Nothing about Random MM or RNG is managed or conducted fraudulently. NOT rigged by definition. Maybe the issue is you just don't understand the definition you just posted. 

DeviouslyCursed:  The good player and the bad player see the same spread in RNG. The good player and the bad player see the same percentage of perfectly on target shots. They are treated exactly the same by the MM and by the server. The reason why people say RNG helps the baddies is because really good players are likely to be able to aim and lead targets better than a baddie could. But their RNG is the same. In other words, a good player would hit close to 100% of their shots without RNG. For the baddie, if they were going to miss the shot without RNG, RNG becomes a non-factor for that shot. But RNG affects every single shot by both the good and bad player the same. The baddies just miss shots even with a 0% spread on the shot just because they weren't leading correcting, or they were aimed at a point they couldn't pen, etc. There is nothing nefarious, dirty, underhanded, or fraudulent about RNG or Random MM. Thus no rigging. And BTW, you can't remove RNG especially with aiming, without absolutely destroying the game. Accuracy of guns on all tanks becomes meaningless as they are all effectively 0.000001 at 100 meters. Aim time becomes irrelevant as all shots hit direct center, regardless of if you are moving, stationary, whatever. So aim time is effectively 0.0 seconds for all guns on all tanks also. If you want to play something like this, go play an FPS game with lots of bunnyhopping. There are plenty of them out there. Leave WoT alone.

Draschel: By the way, intention and methodology lead to my favor not yours. Most WW II battery howitzers, were provided at least a crude direct fire panoramic setting sight. So if, and many times it did happen, where 25 pdr, LefH18, de 155 C 1917, M-30S, ZiS 3, Flak 36  WHICHEVER, had their barrel level and directly fired onto an armored car or tank, all of sudden this isn't artillery anymore. The intent is out the window. Thats an acting field gun. So by saying LefH18 or 25 pdr destroyed a tank, well how did it? Rarely, like Wespe shooting a vehicle miles away indirectly? Or 25 pdr in the flats of Afrika directly targeting panzer IIIs not even 1,000 yards out. Those aren't artillery kills, the first is.  

Draschel:  Mutant 6, KV4 Kres, Skoda 27, Lorraine I am not too concerned with.I am a big supporter of Elc Even getting DPM though. And Bat Chat 12T.Doesn't have to be much, and I don't see them changing with ~1,700 base

Draschel: Case in point, lets first disregard numerical superiotiy. SU122 and SU152, were capable in temporarily disabling, and/or hurting / maiming crew of even heavy armor like Panther, Tiger H, Ferdinand. But it was frequently found, the abandoned superficially damaged vehicles were recaptured and quite quickly put back into service. Leading Russians to 2 things placed into development / effect. The same actions, of using HE FRAG to disable the tanks, immediately followed by infantry demo teams to use direct charges to blow apart the idle, disabled tanks right after. And.......the kicker, developing HEAT ammunition for dedicated anti-armor performance for M-30S and ML-20 assault guns. Why do you think this would happen?  Watch the video again. The narrator talks about the Tigers apparent ease, in dealing with vehicles VERY SWIFLTY, AND HIGHLY LETHAL in direct fire. Because from the sights, to the ammo, to the barrel it was made to destroy a tank. From afar, and before it got destroyed. Right tool for the f------ job. 

Draschel: I have read lots of documentation about Tobruk, Kursk, Berlin, Kharkov, Iwo Jima, Ardennes  And I see mainly the same things. Artillery was able to deal with tank assault. But lets minus the generic term, artillery and classify it as "direct fire, anti-armor munitions''  VS  ''indirect fire, FRAG''  and lets classify too, tank disabled or crew possibly hurt/killed  VS  tank catastrophic destruction and wrecked. Dedicated anti-tank teams, weapons, direct fire guns grossly, f------ GROSSLY outweigh indirect saturation bombardment in lethality against vehicles.  You are arguing a means to an end. Use the right tool for the job. Guarantee your success with best odds, quickly, efficiently. Can a baseball bat crush a fly? Sure can, but hows a fly swatter compare? A magnesium underwater flare, great for lighting your cigarette? Wait, what about about a lighter?    

Draschel: Chose the wrong tanks. VK3001P is what you want, or ARL44. A few things for more success.1  -Make sure your intended targets is downhill. Ideally, you want a stationary, tracked, target.2  -Try to have the target against objects / walls for extra ''crush'' damage3  -Strike them preferably in the side/rear with the front of your tank, listing no more than 30' to any side using the left or right track edge as point of strike4  -Tanks that are distracted, firing, tracked are ideal.K3001P and ARL44 will benefit immensely with a turbocharger for this 

Draschel: 122TM for an odd reasons, has very high 3-mark expected. This could just be that it was a late release. Give it 1-2 years, and the expected will drop when they saturate playing field and people realize its bad. Frankly, it is just a bad 274A. It offers more protection yes, but is the mobility and DPM trade worth it, for a medium?I think minor buffs aren't a bad idea, like 10m VR, 20 horsepower like WZ111 engine, terrain resistance improvements. But I wouldn't touch the DPM, unless WG collectively wakes up and assesses all T77, T34, Lowe DPM too.  

Draschel:  Tank damage, disability, not destruction. 

Draschel:  Artillery means EVERYTHING, professor. A towed anti tank gun, is artillery. A towed field gun, is artillery. You mean to say, you only think of howitzers and mortars, as artillery? A simple platoon mortar crew manning a 60mm light mortar, is artillery. A towed nebelwerfer, is artillery. That goes the same with land mattress or calliope. Naval 12in to 16in shells landing, are artillery. Railway gun cars, are artillery, AA flak positions, are artillery. You see where this is going? The video itself stated the mere facts. "they retreated or risked damage from artillery barrage"  VS  "tanks immediately getting knocked out by incursion against Koning Tiger" You see the immediate difference, and lethality. "RISK GETTING DAMAGED"  <-->  "IMMEDIATELY GETTING KNOCKED OUT" An armoured vehicle, in onset, was designed 100 years ago to protect occupants from principally, artillery. The fragmentation, low velocity splintering across the battlefield. This was the primary concept, which artillery primarily does. Even today, light vehicle like M113, their principal protection package, is protection against small arms fire, and shell splinters. Not surviving AP cored heavy machine gun fire or various medium bore automatic cannon fire. Smalls arms and splinters.  This is what we call, artillery protection, frag protection. Saturation fire, can deal damage to a great many things, but is horridly wasteful and inefficient, at dealing with one particular small thing made to resist it by design. Can an  4.7in heavy mortar or 5.5in minewurfer crew which lob massive HE FRAG projectiles knock out Ferdinand 1 mile away? Sure can. But whats the cost, luck, efficiency, timing, manpower needed for such an act? You can have 3 crews firing non stop for hours before directly hitting the vehicle. Replace these saturation fire area denial anti-infantry means with a single M2 90mm anti tank gun and crew, and it will strike and do severely more damage if not destroy the Ferdinand in 5 shots with a dedicated trig sight made for anti-tank warfare.  Tanks weren't made to just combat tanks, but a big part of tanks doctrine, were to DEAL WITH OTHER TANKS. The doctrine of artillery, isn't to deal with tanks. But dispersing enemies and breaking up formation, can certainly disuade tank companies. An anti-tank gun was amde to fire at vehicle with solid shot, but if they weren't present and other targets were, they were also provided other types of ammunition that made them no practically different than a field gun, just smaller. But it ALL COMES DOWN TO DESIGN, EFFICIENCY. Wars are not won by the inefficient, time consuming, non purposed expenditure of munitions against targets not effectively engaged with what you are using. 

Draschel:  you are posting from an alt account. You do know that, yes? In what you are saying? You know how it makes you look?    

Draschel:   Who said anything about court? And you said it yourself, genius. THEY MAKE the decision. Not someone make threads about ignorant claims. Not you, I, him, her. Do you even read posts? 

DeviouslyCursed:  Translation: Life is too short to care about whether what I believe is true. I just want to believe what I want to believe. I don't care if it is wrong, it serves some sort of comforting purpose so I'm going with it no matter what. I'm also going to act like this position gives me some sort of moral high ground, instantly making me better than anyone who disagrees.

DeviouslyCursed: Then it's not seal clubbing. Pub-stomping might be a more appropriate term.

DeviouslyCursed:  This is not an opinion. Whether the patent is in use or not is a factual, objective thing. Having a position or belief on whether it is or not, is also NOT an opinion. It is a position that you have taken that either has support, or it does not. You have no basis for claiming that the win rates would be 20% to 80%, you just made that up. So lets review: you have a position whose only support is some numbers that you just made up. That's not an opinion, it is a belief formed by flawed reasoning. If you don't give a crap about what's true, go ahead and keep using that type of bad logic. If you care about what is actually true, you need to find a better way to form your beliefs. If the patent was implemented, or if it was not implemented, whether either one of those is a good or bad thing, THAT is an opinion. A subjective statement on the value of something.

DeviouslyCursed:  Because I'm tired of posting it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Just so some new twit will come in and not do a single bit of research on the thing he is about to post. You chose to be ignorant and lazy, I just called you out on it.

DeviouslyCursed:  Because I pointed out that bad players are accusing people of cheating at all tiers?

DeviouslyCursed:  It's not seal clubbing if they are playing tier 8-10 tanks.

DeviouslyCursed:  Aimbot doesn't, and can't, remove RNG. Most shots an aimbot can make a good player can make as well. This game isn't that twitch dependent.

DeviouslyCursed:  When I played the original CoD and was extremely good at it, people accused me of cheating constantly, especially in public games. I found it was the ones who were most insistent that I cheated, that they know I was cheating, were often the ones I caught later using a cheat. They were the ones cheating and just assumed I was too because I was still so much better than them. For the record, I never touched any cheat. Hell I never even ran any scripts, even the legal ones. I did optimize my game through console settings. Anyone who takes a game seriously will do that. Did that give me an advantage over players who didn't? Absolutely. But it's their own fault for not learning what to do. I would post threads in popular public clans' forums instructing people exactly how to change what I changed, and why you want to set things that way. And about people being outraged at the "suggestion" of cheating... Nice change of words to make him look bad. You know damn well there was no "suggestion" with OP, but outright proclamation. And yes, people get outraged at baseless accusations for the same reason people get worked up over "it's rigged!" proclamations with no proof: it's nothing but ignorance and stupidity running rampant. Is it any surprise that it is often the same people doing both things? EDIT: I've played probably more than 40K games on all my accounts when combined. I think I have confirmed a cheat twice. Once was a laser pointer (that was recent, in the Recon game mode) and once was the mod that shows where terrain gets destroyed on the mini-map. 

Jaguarz: I got it after 6 days, played too much, day 1 ended with a mighty 42% on the day and fluctuated from there to 93% for the rest. Dont know my precise figures, played too much, I wanted it for free even though I have no intention of playing it.

1LT_Dwayne: I don't sleep at home while working sadly.

Jaguarz:  Oh yeah, durrr, that kinda blows for those trying them then.

churchill50:  Will the chances of winning be lower if we split up rather than if we stayed together (and picked compatible tanks)? Sure, I'd say that's reasonable to assume.But who actually cares? As I said, the goal of platooning, for me, is to play with friends. That's it. Winning is at best a tertiary consideration.Even when we're just randomly picking tanks and going wherever works best for our tanks on the map, we're still winning upwards of 70% of our battles without even trying. Why do I care to win more than that?I could win more than that. For instance, the evening we pulled a tryhard triple 703 II platoon and won ~82% of our battles. But why would I care to do that 90% of the time?

TeriyakiTanker: Excellent responses guys, really appreciate it.

1LT_Dwayne: For the daily gold it would have been way better to limit the mission to 30 times instead of running it for 30 days. I can't play every day so I will not buy this bundle. Like for the free premium time it would be nice to be able to activate them and make an expiration date of let's say 7 days? How many times I had unlocked a free day but I had to go to work for 3 straight days. I'm doing 14 hour shift so no chance to play.

TeriyakiTanker: Really like the title says, has anyone?  Have multiple tanks that have them maxed out but was wondering which ones were good for what tanks.

Draschel: Do you think its premium ammunition only, holding you back and having you average only 1700-1800 a game, in pubs?  I said it, -pubs- nevermind the more competitive ranked. You don't even pull 1,500 in there. And let me be a nice guy and point out to you, its not just because of premium ammunition.   

Draschel: I think it could do with a few things it deserves, that really won't impactfully change tier 9 sway or meta either. Since it has kran wan hull, it should have Kran wan engine. They didn't skimp out on T55A, AE 1, Con 1, Kamp pz, K91T engines, neither should they with Strv. 810 horsepower.Again, a kran wan hull. I do think that 56-60km/hr like Emil II and Kran would be too much, but why not at least 45-50km like Emil I and 1951? What is with the 40km?Buff the cupola to like the Action Xs, 127mm. So you aren't getting penned by something dumb like RU251 or HK30 shooting HE at your cupola 

Draschel:  So looking more into the detail of it, the tier 9 Vz51 actually has 15mm more UFP, but is angled 6' less. Vz 55 is more angled than 113, which is 67-68 itself, at 120mm. This puts Vz55 like FV4202, but instead of 51mm thick, its a whopping 115. Another tank exists like this, with that upper plate already, the Lewandow. But imagine Lewandow, without the driver position weakness to shoot at. Vz55 does have a disappointing LFP though, collectively weaker than Lewandow, IS4, IS7, WZ1115A, 277, 260.  The armor profile really resembles a 113, nice turret and UFP, but even tier 8s will threaten your LFP. Pan 88 with 203 pen will make cheese out of it. Like British tanks (non-chieftain ones) and their LFP 

Draschel:  It is not opinion. It is fact. Maintaining and posting a result of over 3,500 DPG in my 10s are perfectly obtainable. And there are people much better than my potato self, that do 4,000-5,000But put them into Conqueror Gun C or 261, and they'd be lucky if they even sustain 2,300. Even before the damage nerfs 9.18,  steady DPG of 2,750.was enough for sustained 3-MOE Think of artillery as a shot glass. Pick your poison, but if I'm playing tanks I fancy Golden Pear. Imagine a shot of the creature, representing a capable tanker. Even half a fluid ounce, would be a near neat fill for this shot glass. Imagine this divine warmly liquid, represents embodied skills, skills needed for World of Tanks. Again, half an ounce still does the job pretty much for a shot glass, it can seem quite full. Now imagine that extremely skilled, keen, anticipatory player who explosively does tonnes of damage per game, assistance damage, knows how to block damage, and survives and wins over 60%. This guy is gold, worth his weight. Now place him into the bottle of skill, and he comes out as not half an ounce or 1 ounce or 2, but he's poured out as 5. Could be 10. How's 5 ounces to fit in the shot glass? There you have it, tanks unlike artillery....The skies the limit. There is no shot glass. Maybe an actual 2-6. It can be filled with any amount of aftertasting potential, and won't start over filling and get wasted  

DeviouslyCursed: You survive 27%. Do you have another account that you play? I don't have any judgement if you do, I don' tgive a crap. Just wondering. B/c my survival rate is 17% with a 53% win rate. That is aggressive. For the record, my main has a 21.75% survival with 56% win rate. Ironically, the 4% difference is in both the survival rate and the win rate difference. I don't know what to make of that. Too much drink att.

DeviouslyCursed:  That doesn't change them in the tab I'm talking about, but thanks...  I guess.... You use whiteout on your screen, don't you?

DeviouslyCursed:  OMG! THERE'S A PATENT! HOLY CRAP THAT'S NEW INFORMATION!!!!!! Seriously, that crap has been debunked so many times. If you quote that patent at this point, you reveal yourself to be a completely clueless, cotton-headed ninnymuggin.

Draschel:  war gaming should also ban users falsely laying claims and accusations of cheating without proof. What gives you the right?Its called slander. It is a real thing. 

Draschel:  This post is nonsense. Nebelwerfers and wurfra, 76-203mm howitzers, 100lb-1000lb bombs, 60-120mm mortar bombs, 4-5in rockets, 23-57mm aerial cannons, naval gunfire Any number of things COULD 1-mobility kill, trapped in crater, or disabled  2-moderate damage and service man casualties  3-ultimately destroy medium and heavy tanks in WWIIBut what was their probability in occurring? What was their ratio, of expenditure of munitions per successful result?  lol...... The real destructions of tanks efficiently-> came on tank on tank battles, field guns and anti-tank gun setups, anti-tank equipped infantry, mines.  Even planes like Ju-87, P47, Fw190, IL2, Typhoon had significant difficulty in WWII dealing with small targets like halftracks or tanks. This isn't TV, and things then weren't A10 or F15E or SU25 .....Sure arty can damage, cause crew kills, and even destroy tanks. Can still do it today. But efficiently? Effectively? AND DESTROYING it, vs just disabling or damaging? Not well at all   

Jaguarz: Play a Pz7, poke nose out angled properly, profit, everyone loves shooting at Pz7 lower plates which can be impenetrable angled.

Jaguarz:  I do, everyone who shoots and pens me must be cheating, theres just no other logical alternative!!!!

Jaguarz:  I think a whole lot of people have been banned that chat is pretty moot now, the automatic chat ban system is a bad joke