Developers posts on forum

Subject: Archives\Beta\Cloaking or not
Link on message: #380706

Leroy, on 21 January 2011 - 11:16 PM, said: I am looking for the justification of WOT conclusion of why the spotting system is correct and working as intented.

Subject: Archives\Beta\Rate of Fire Question
Link on message: #380702

ItsGonRain, on 21 January 2011 - 11:31 PM, said: Anyone know what the equation would be to convert the rate of fire into the reload speed. I find it easier if the cannons would have a reload time of 2 seconds compared to 30rounds/minute.

Subject: Archives\Beta\Thank god for the x5 XP it made me realise what this game was about
Link on message: #380674

Wargolem, on 21 January 2011 - 10:59 PM, said: Its pay to win
You wont get the full enjoyment out of the game for 10$ (2500 gold)
You will have to spend way more than that.
Considering what you get for it (small pvp matches with bad balance) its just not worth it.
When you can pay 15$ for a full MMO game will all the extras included, there just isnt
any value in this game.
Want to roll in a high tier tank all the time ? Forget it. Not only will you have to pay
for premium, but you will have to buy extra gold just to keep up with repair costs.
Play a smaller tier tank just to run with your T10 ? Why the hell would you want to do that.
I am not going to work to play. I amm not going to pay to win.
Game will keep a small playerbase, but not a dedicated one.
This is as close to an NFL type bust as you're gonna get in MMO's
Good hype, plenty of potential, but won't last.

Subject: News from the Front\World of Tanks Newsletter\WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380622

Dr_Nooooo, on 21 January 2011 - 09:56 PM, said: The Löwe looks damn nice, what a beauty, any infos on its gold price already?

Subject: WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380622

Dr_Nooooo, on Jan 21 2011 - 20:56, said: The Löwe looks damn nice, what a beauty, any infos on its gold price already?

Subject: WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380622

Dr_Nooooo, on Jan 21 2011 - 20:56, said: The Löwe looks damn nice, what a beauty, any infos on its gold price already?

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\Timeframe of WoT? Alternative History?
Link on message: #380612

imperiumiv, on 21 January 2011 - 08:46 PM, said: wow i feel stupid. it is just individuals driving tanks! I think historically, and assumed that it would be teams of germany vs, russia or the usa.

Subject: Archives\Beta\Suggestions\US Tech Tree Changes And Improvements
Link on message: #380598

SpectreHD, on 21 January 2011 - 04:06 PM, said: I hear the name "Patton" being thrown around and I thought of the M60(which is the US' first official MBT) but then I saw its timeline. Was hopeful for a bit. But how can the M103 be any different from the T30? It suffers from the same weak hull and even if there are slopes on the turret, it doesn't look like it will do much.

Subject: Archives\Beta\Questions\Package Options for Gold and Premium
Link on message: #380586

Raptor, on 21 January 2011 - 09:13 PM, said: Hmm it would be nice if buying 3 months of premium in advance would give us a little discount. For example:
- premium for 1 month 2500 gold
- premium for 3 months 7000 gold instead of 7500
- premium for 6 months 13000 gold instead of 15000
- premium for 1 year 27000 gold instead of 30000

Subject: News from the Front\World of Tanks Newsletter\WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380574

ed_anger, on 21 January 2011 - 09:15 PM, said: http://forum.worldof...-means-for-you/
(should add this thread to the links in the newsletter)

Subject: WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380574

ed_anger, on Jan 21 2011 - 20:15, said: http://forum.worldof...-means-for-you/

(should add this thread to the links in the newsletter)

Subject: WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380574

ed_anger, on Jan 21 2011 - 20:15, said: http://forum.worldof...-means-for-you/

(should add this thread to the links in the newsletter)

Subject: News from the Front\World of Tanks Newsletter\WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380565

VIPER262, on 21 January 2011 - 09:05 PM, said: "During open beta stage all beta testers will be getting 250 gold a day."
250 gold a day is this correct or is this a typing error Mr Vic and should be 150?

Subject: WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380565

VIPER262, on Jan 21 2011 - 20:05, said: "During open beta stage all beta testers will be getting 250 gold a day."

250 gold a day is this correct or is this a typing error Mr Vic and should be 150?

Subject: WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380565

VIPER262, on Jan 21 2011 - 20:05, said: "During open beta stage all beta testers will be getting 250 gold a day."

250 gold a day is this correct or is this a typing error Mr Vic and should be 150?

Subject: Archives\Beta\Questions\Package Options for Gold and Premium
Link on message: #380555

KyleRees, on 21 January 2011 - 12:49 AM, said: There are no package options on the RU server right now. You only exchange USD for Gold at a rate of 1 $USD= 250G.
Then in game you have the same options as the EU/US servers to purchase with gold the premium account for 30/14/7/1 days etc.
The exchange rate in my opinion is very fair.

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\T54 is to small?
Link on message: #380549

Subject: News from the Front\World of Tanks Newsletter\WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380529

Subject: WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380529

Subject: WoT Newsletter Volume #9
Link on message: #380529

Subject: Archives\Beta\Website EU/US is bugged out
Link on message: #380526

TrIpMo, on 21 January 2011 - 05:11 PM, said: Will post screenshot when you I am home.
About clanwars and my timezones, I am kinda a night person. Sleep only 3-4 hours a day so

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\About Open Beta
Link on message: #380506

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\What open beta means for you.
Link on message: #380495

Morrigan, on 21 January 2011 - 06:42 PM, said: So all of this will be added before release?


TheGMasta, on 21 January 2011 - 06:45 PM, said: Excellent to hear these things. More gold is of course always nice, but the implementation of meta-game along with more game types is HUGE and will renew interest in the game for a lot of the veteran beta testers.
Plus it will be nice to explore the Char d'assaut line, along with the US snipesnipepewpews.
Thanks for the info! +1
-G


Gatt, on 21 January 2011 - 07:20 PM, said: Tanitha, is it possible to know how much will the Lowe cost in gold? Even approximately ......


Quote "Quite costly since one will be able to get high tier vehicle with good performance without grinding to it. "

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\Timeframe of WoT? Alternative History?
Link on message: #380438

imperiumiv, on 21 January 2011 - 07:37 PM, said: Does WoT take place in a hypothetical, prolonged WWII? I saw on the poll tanks that had not been built until after the war and tanks that never existed, such as the Panther II.

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\v0632-update-preliminary-discussion
Link on message: #380365

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\v0632-update-preliminary-discussion
Link on message: #380364

MasterWolf, on 16 January 2011 - 01:13 AM, said: The t54 need 100m Armour and NO adjustment - the 120mm armour variant was IRL a one off test vehicle that was rejected as too heavy for service


malacka, on 16 January 2011 - 01:15 AM, said: I don't understand why is IS-7: repair costs increased by 5% and the Т30: repair costs increased by 10%. ?
Can u clarify to us please ?
Thank you !


Diedel, on 16 January 2011 - 01:16 AM, said: Sadly this is only a stats patch, all the bugs aren't touched at all. It's nice that they tweak the stats, but a broken game is still broken if you don't fix it.


Dekurgan, on 16 January 2011 - 01:17 AM, said: My JagdPanther heartily approves


MasterWolf, on 16 January 2011 - 01:20 AM, said: Overlord has already said this is a transition patch - the major bugs are game engine related and require a rebuild, which he has also said is in the works
these are some "tweaks" most likely based on the hard stats from the servers and not forum complaints or suggestions
The Dev's have already posted that they use the overall battle stats and hard figures when evaluating the game before tweaks - we need to live with that or ask better questions of the data


HighFlyer15, on 16 January 2011 - 01:21 AM, said: I like the Battle Tier reduction on those tanks..
Can't wait for more patch notes


Overlord, on 16 January 2011 - 01:21 AM, said: For the sake of game economy, T-30 is most profitable of all tier 10 heavies. Or to be more precise the least unprofitable of them.


VonSchpam, on 16 January 2011 - 01:40 AM, said: Thanks for addressing Ammo Rack and Engine/Fire problems on the Panther II. Boy, are they annoying... but what about the chances for engine and ammo damage through the front of the tank?


6ep3a, on 16 January 2011 - 01:45 AM, said: A rifled barrel thats nearly 1.7 meters (5½~) foot cannot only have 5 more penetration value regardless of ammunition type(no special ammo accounted for). And less accuracy.
Thats just plain weird.
I get your point though.


Omegatronacles, on 16 January 2011 - 01:47 AM, said: Object 212: repair costs increased by 100%, decreased gun armoring.
Is this accurate, or is it a typo? 100% increase on repairs is quite a jump.


OJ191, on 16 January 2011 - 01:54 AM, said: Have fun then, too bad it seems the TD versions of the guns aren't included, only the KwK tank versions. My Jagdpanther is sad.


OJ191, on 16 January 2011 - 01:54 AM, said: Have fun then, too bad it seems the TD versions of the guns aren't included, only the KwK tank versions. My Jagdpanther is sad.


RAZORLIGHT, on 16 January 2011 - 01:56 AM, said: pls do something with arty
no direct hit but gun is down driver killed ...
arty needs bit more accuracy LESS damage more firerate and less module damage
best would be a total rework of the current arty system because it isnt fun to play with or against arty


baki502, on 16 January 2011 - 02:02 AM, said: overlord are u sure the pershing doesnt need any changes? I mean the armor is out of paper and the gun has a dispersion of 0.36 so u have to get close to hit the enemy despite ur paper armour. So pls tell me how this tanj can be the best of the t9 meds? I just cant imagine i always feel sry for this guys when i drive around in my t54 they always die so fast if dont hide in a corner of the map what i myself think explains the survivalrate of it.


Scynscapaene, on 16 January 2011 - 02:12 AM, said: really? I make way more credits in my IS-7 than I do in my T30


grdja, on 16 January 2011 - 02:21 AM, said: Yep those "few tiny insignificant changes" will actually impact T-54 quite hard. Have to wait and see, but not being overly optimistic, T-44 tracks are paper and so now T-54 will be as well. And woohoo higher repair costs than IS-4.


Popdart, on 16 January 2011 - 02:25 AM, said: I also found this to be rather surprising. Maybe it's supposed to be 10%.


6ep3a, on 16 January 2011 - 02:29 AM, said: Actually with the module damage in this version its near useless trying to outflank enemies with any tank, they just need to hit the suspension/roadwheels/sprockets/ or tracks and they are gone - happens with all kinds of tanks really.
Sometimes the best moments is when one shot takes out both your tracks when its AP.


Highway_Star, on 16 January 2011 - 02:30 AM, said: Thanks for showing the Panther 2 some love . Being able to fit the 88mm without adding the tracks first is a nice addition. Although I feel the rate of fire of the 10.5 could still be increased further... I'll wait and see.


azren, on 16 January 2011 - 02:47 AM, said: The only change to the overall durability of the tracks was the drop of 5mm worth of track armor. I hardly think that will make the tracks any more paper-like than they were before.


Deugs, on 16 January 2011 - 02:49 AM, said: reality I know very well because you see the account will be reset at the official release of the game, then I do not see how it bothers a soft wipe and 15 k gold, especially when you have to test the balance the games
now the player is limited because it can not be tested due to lack of gold is an MMORPG in beta if you block a single one of the top 150.
then my job as a beta tester I know, I beta test games, you play ball in your schoolyard.
on this .. good game


Agrestic, on 16 January 2011 - 03:02 AM, said: ur crazy man--realy..
t30 have omfg same armor as t29,maybe its profitable,so give him more armor omg, they are PAPER... dont be crazy,paper armor and repair cost same as overarmored maus or is7 ????????????
will you give t30 better armor??if not,is madness pay more repair cost at same armor as tier7 t29 ..
one question??you will ruin US heavy tanks??? t30 have only big gun but this tank will be killed by any tank tier 5 and more..they havent armor,and will increase repair cost.. ahhh MADNESS i thank you for wasting my time with us tanks,will start our favorite overboosted ussr tanks,..its true,ussr overboosted,russian game.. why not


Hazardz, on 16 January 2011 - 03:12 AM, said: I whole heartedly approve of the mainly small incremental changes that you make to tanks each time rather than wholesale alterations in the quest to balance vehicles. I have played far too many MMO's that vastly change a class or game mechanic that will all of a sudden make a certain class impossible powerful and they will then be FOTM.
Now at the moment the T54 is FOTM, I personally have no trouble with them in my IS7 and they rarely kill me in my S-51 but are a danger if they are able to spot me ofc. The small changes to the tank will hopefully bring it in line with the other T9 meds and make it a quick response/forward observer tank rather than the current Steel Wall candidate it actually is ( Have seen more T54 steel walls than IS4 in past few days ). The higher profile will hopefully make it easier to hit and less able to duck into cover, I am not sure what the turret is like on the other T9 meds but I know there is little point shooting the T54 turret so the low profile is a massive advantage.
Looking at how the small incremental changes have worked in the past I also approve. The reduction in arti accuracy has lessened its effectiveness while still giving it a vital and important place on the battlefield. I play an S51 and of course I would love the shell to always land in the circle but I also smile every time a shell misses my IS7. To me the small changes to arti have improved the class and almost perfectly balanced the sub class in the game. I would actually prefer an AOE style from arti but I can live with the current implementation.
All in all few good small improvements and I look forwards to the major changes to the spotting system in the future. Keep up the good work.


Hornet331, on 16 January 2011 - 03:19 AM, said: Lol didn't i say it... T54 only gets placebo nerfs... 10% repair time increase? pfff thats nothing, same for track armor... if you want to track a tank you can track anytank in game, doesn't matter what stats he has. The increased hight may leads to a few more lucky track shots when hes moving across a flat area showing its side... but a half decent T54 always tries to not shows it sides.
The only "nerf" is the repaircost, sure this will lead to fewer tanks in random battles, but it does not adress things like the ultra bouncy front, impenetrable by anthing other medium then T9 etc still remains.
In clanwars/company battles they still will behave the same way..


kikibgd, on 16 January 2011 - 03:20 AM, said: lol p2 will have 2050 hp hahah medium tank almost same HP as IS7


Highway_Star, on 16 January 2011 - 03:38 AM, said: I'm going to wait and see before reacting to this news. The Panther 1 made up for low armour with some HP. The Panther 2 is the same, only without the HP lol. This next patch might fix that.


BigCheese256, on 16 January 2011 - 03:44 AM, said: Economy is what I like most about the IS-7. The fact that getting credit profits even with a Premium account is very difficult, is what makes the IS-7 a tank you have to be skilled with. If you act like an idiot, such as rush out and sit in an open area for artillery shells, you will lose a large amount of credits. However, if you play good, deal a helluvalot of damage, and survive, the IS-7 can be very profitable. But please, don't push it beyond it's limit. The IS-4 is a well known credit farmer, and shouldn't have such a massive statistical bonus over the IS-7.


xecute, on 16 January 2011 - 03:57 AM, said: Is that a long winded way to say it's best to camp?
I am in agreement with these changes for the most part but I do think they encourage camping more. T-54 drivers are just gonna camp along with the IS-4 & IS-7 now to save money. So the camping issue just gets worse


kikibgd, on 16 January 2011 - 03:58 AM, said: T54 is kinda OP at the moment, maus that has 3k hp will shoot faster and mous dings alot witch is retarded because most of tanks edges are 90 degrees.
dont know but seems like they nerfed IS-7 dont ding so much even tiger 1 can penetrate me on most sloped places and take like 15% 20%...
all in all atm maus is king of T10 tanks.
ok also funny thing is i shoot IS-4 i get his 25% i shoot T54 i get 20%, mediums should be more fragile and less HP due their high speed and size
@ xecute
funny thing people camping lose more credits then rushing...
BTW just got obj212 guys that say accuracy is nerfed i killed is3 trough the window in himmelsdorf and same way KT


dreedzik, on 16 January 2011 - 04:23 AM, said: nice...
Maus now have great armor and ~13s reload, ammo cost 1070
IS7 have around 12s reload ammo cost 1118
and T30 --- glass cannon what need to camp and stay back to earn any credits have 16s reload and now will have around 27k for repair and ammo cost 1650 .. nice..
rly good economy balance.

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\v0632-update-preliminary-discussion
Link on message: #380328

devxcil, on 15 January 2011 - 10:40 PM, said: Nice to see something is being done for the Panther II, though I wish the T54 were simply toned down instead. Will there be any additional adjustments to the Pershing?


jackal40, on 15 January 2011 - 10:41 PM, said: Nice to see the upcoming changes, although I'm a bit disappointed there was no mention of matchmaking or the spotting issues. Can we hope that fixes for these are coming soon?


zawisha, on 15 January 2011 - 10:42 PM, said: omg get over it already, t54 is as it is, theyre buffing P2 and you still whine about t54, mby lets all play IS4 instead... seriously.
nice changes overall, seems like you try to balance few things
and yey for clan wars


Overlord, on 15 January 2011 - 10:44 PM, said: Pershing, surprisingly for many, has the best stats of all tier 9 mediums. Nothing is planned for it currently.


UWT4nK, on 15 January 2011 - 10:45 PM, said: why play is-4 when currently a skilled t-54 player can get over an is-4?
I wish I wud have seen some armor been taken from the t-54 honestly...an armor nerf was what I was expecting...but whatever...making it more expensive can and most likely persuade some from playing the dev-54 less...
good job though, look forward to the next one.


_DC_, on 15 January 2011 - 10:46 PM, said: patch v.0.6..3.0:
- Reassembled audio output libraries.
This means artifacts repaired?
I know those patch notes arent complete, but any ETA on the new spotting system?


Overlord, on 15 January 2011 - 10:47 PM, said: 0.6.3.0 is a minor "interim" update, more substantial changes/fixes and content are in development. Need to remove these Christmas trees first. Guess, the majority got tired from them.


zawisha, on 15 January 2011 - 10:47 PM, said: yeah, thx for approving my words, skilled is4 vs skilled t54 and t54 is burning wreck.
skilled t44 > noob is4 so, yeah.


woookash, on 15 January 2011 - 10:49 PM, said: T-54 ... clearance increased by 15 cm.
This means that it will be higher or im wrong?


tuccy, on 15 January 2011 - 10:49 PM, said: Can you keep the girls there, please?


JulianFTW, on 15 January 2011 - 10:50 PM, said: Skilled IS-4 vs skilled T-54 ---> IS-4 wins with 20health left and modules damaged. Consider 2 IS-4= 3 T-54 can't you see the problem? A 20health tank isn't much of a victory bringer.
Enough offtopic.
Why did they buff the 8.8 /71? It was strong enough.


zawisha, on 15 January 2011 - 10:51 PM, said: imo it means that the gap between ground and tanks floor will be 15cm more, overall means tank will be 15cm higher


Iggith, on 15 January 2011 - 10:53 PM, said: Think that means more hitpoints on the gun, not the dmg it does. So it will be less likely to get knocked out now.


Eagle18, on 15 January 2011 - 10:57 PM, said: I've just installed the the russian test patch, but i can't see that:
"Increased hit points for guns: 75mm_KwK_L70, 75mm_KwK45_L100, 88mm_KwK_43_L71, 105mm_KwK45_L52_ausf_B."
The damage is the same. (135, 220, 390)
Iggith: sure, i misunderstood it.


Overlord, on 15 January 2011 - 10:59 PM, said: See the post above. Not damage, but hit points. They are not displayed.


devxcil, on 15 January 2011 - 11:03 PM, said: This increase, how much of an increase is it? Is it a big increase, or just a minor adjustment?


needtohate, on 15 January 2011 - 11:04 PM, said: nice work guys


andrzejas, on 15 January 2011 - 11:08 PM, said: why t54 got only 15% where Object 212 got 100% or maybe that is mistake and that is 10%?
next overlord please give us a new values hit points for guns: 75mm_KwK_L70, 75mm_KwK45_L100, 88mm_KwK_43_L71, 105mm_KwK45_L52_ausf_B.
and why there is no new values for 10,5 cm KwK 46 L/68? when buffs get 8,8 cm KwK 43 L/71 and 105mm_KwK45_L52_ausf_B?
the 105mm_KwK45_L52_ausf_B. use only panther II
the 10,5 cm KwK 46 L/68 use king tiger II, VK 4502 (P) Ausf. B
and why that big buff for panther II? Pershing is weaker and nothing for him?, that same with VK 4502 (P) Ausf. B . VK 4502 (P) Ausf. B vs is4 or t54 is like free frag


Charcharo, on 15 January 2011 - 11:10 PM, said: Can we make it so that T54 has 100mm of frontal armor and moves as fast as it does now OR give it the 120mm but decrease speed and turning?


sastusbulbas, on 15 January 2011 - 11:10 PM, said: The 88's do not do enough damage, and bounce too many shells.
Tiger armour and tier should be reviewed. It is not good enough, at least seems out of it's class.
Spotting and invisible tanks is still an issue.
Track and module damage from arty should be reviewed. It is too frequent, and at times regardless of objects.
Memory leaks still not addressed.
T-54 and IS-4 etc are scary, can pump 88's into them all day in average battle conditions, HE is useless in that gun, and I ain't paying for premium.
No option to quit a game you have no place in, where you cannot do any damage, nor spot, nor make any XP or credits.
Rounds that bounce of etc, this should be reviewed regarding XP gained. I did not choose to be put in with vehicles my gun cannot scratch, yet after numerous spot on hits I get no XP but still a 2700 credit bill for my A-20's ammo use?
Costs of modules? Why does a US heavy get a medium rammer? Yet The VK has an 88 with medium rammer, the Tigers a heavy rammer with the same gun?
Sorry to sound dissapointed, but have any of this patches developers read any of the forum complaints? I do not see any real improvement for gameplay regarding the average user. Oh and we are losing the girl posters too?


OJ191, on 15 January 2011 - 11:10 PM, said: Yeaaaah I just wish they would do the same thing for the tank destroyer versions of the guns. Not fun getting the gun on your Jagdpanther knocked out in one hit by just about anything short of a loltraktor.


6ep3a, on 15 January 2011 - 11:10 PM, said: If the pantherII gun gets buffed to compensate for its price per shot or what the reason is, why doesnt the 10.5 used by TigerII, Panther, VK4502 get same bonuses or lower their shell cost?
Its mathematically impossible to say yes to using 10.5 L52 mostly L68 when its less then 20%(approx) "better" then 88mmL71 at 400% the cost.
Paying 1050 credits per shot hurts if you know you can do more damage with 4 shots 88mm AP rounds.
Also noted that the L52 gun of the pantherII has same "damage modeling" as a 122mm (avg.390dmg) where a longer gun same calibre has less (320dmg)(L68-105mm.


Doomlord52, on 15 January 2011 - 11:14 PM, said: Hm... not much gameplay changes for most tanks, but im surprised at the nerfs to russian tanks (repair cost, etc.). Maybe there is hope left.
Anyway, what about making it so the Panther 2 doesn't start with a tier 5 gun (or whatever the l/70 is)...


exoriou, on 15 January 2011 - 11:16 PM, said: T-54 model should be enlarged to real sizes, so would go with enlarging hitboxes and less T-54 is OP whines.


Overlord, on 15 January 2011 - 11:16 PM, said: T-54 will become higher, allowing enemies to shot its sides a bit easier. Its height should be approx the same as T-44 now.
If you have access to RU open server (your account on main RU server was created prior to January 14), you can compare the models.


Diastant, on 15 January 2011 - 11:19 PM, said: Great, thank you, the T-54 does have a very low profile. What does the UI web-thing mean?


WolfHeart, on 15 January 2011 - 11:19 PM, said: Hmmm may I ask about average survival rate for Tier IX mediums?
It was pretty obvious that the Pershing would have the best damage output... but how often does it survive a battle in comparison to other tanks? If that's not confidential
EDIT: Also, Panther II's poor average performance is probably caused by its stock cannon. Not everyone can use free xp to mount a 75/l100...


Tzorion, on 15 January 2011 - 11:20 PM, said: kinda funny to read that the T30 got a increased repair cost.... guys, it is paper thin, or as some of my friends says "its a moving free xp powerup box..."
Why increase its repair cost when you have stated it is currently not worth its place in T10 heavy line?
atleast wait untill you move it to TD tree (if it happens)


Overlord, on 15 January 2011 - 11:21 PM, said: The game client is being prepared for clan wars beta. Initial "web<->client" integration.


boggintuff, on 15 January 2011 - 11:21 PM, said: Seriously? As if the IS7 wasnt expensive enough to repair? Now an additional 5%? Lame


Overlord, on 15 January 2011 - 11:23 PM, said: Pershing - 37%, Panther II and T-54 - 35% each.


Schurmeyer, on 15 January 2011 - 11:28 PM, said: Not a single nod of the head about the biggest gamebreaker of them all, SPOTTING.
Hi Overlord, can you advise if the daft spotting thing is going to be fixed?
Cheers
Stevie


WolfHeart, on 15 January 2011 - 11:32 PM, said: Thanks for the reply Overlord
P II buffs are quite nice, considering they aren't going to make it unstoppable. Reduced dispersion for the 10.5 probably wasn't needed, but still very welcome, as well as reduced repair cost.
What pleases me the most however, are the tweaks to the engine. Countless times I've had mine damaged.


FlatCat, on 15 January 2011 - 11:34 PM, said: yes the 88 gets some more bang.


Taxen0, on 15 January 2011 - 11:39 PM, said: will anything be done to the JagdTigers weak front before the release? also the "gearbox" aka engine should be removed in my opinion (on all tanks that have it in the front, not only JT), even a MarderII can cause engine fire on the JT frontally, (I have tested this, and yes, its sad).
if the lower body weak-spot and the gunmantle ones are removed it will be on par with the obj704, only keep the MG weak-spot.


6ep3a, on 15 January 2011 - 11:41 PM, said: *105mm L68*
Penetration 169-281
Damage 240-400
Cost credits 1030
Rate of fire 6.32 rpm
How come pantherII has better statistics all around in general when the L68 is 1680mm "longer" barrel? Oh wait the L68 has 5 more average penetration?
I still wonder this.


SkttLes, on 15 January 2011 - 11:48 PM, said: Clearly the panther II is overpowered and should be nerfed.


6ep3a, on 15 January 2011 - 11:54 PM, said: Im not saying that PantherII needs nerf - im saying its more important to explain how a shorter barrel can have such a statistical advantage over a longer barrel if all game revolves around the biggest longest fattest gun.
Its physically impossible to grant a L52 better long range characteristics over a L68 unless motivated by something. 1680mm(7½foot~~) of gun barrel only gives 5 more average penetration in advantage to a shorter barrel? With worse accuracy, worse damage, worse everything really? - And this is before the buff of the P2 gun?


skilshaw, on 15 January 2011 - 11:57 PM, said: Maus gets to reload faster? Wth? It already has 1k more HP than IS7, and bounces nearly every IS7 shot...
So much for the russian tanks being OP... German ones are OD..


JerryLopez, on 15 January 2011 - 11:57 PM, said: wait they complained last patch about russian tank buffs, maus gets a buff and now this? make up your minds please


Agnellini1021, on 16 January 2011 - 12:05 AM, said: You know what can really help the Panther II? Not making people who have grinded 164,535k xp use a tier 6 gun... With the change coming with this patch (being able to mount the turret w/o the new suspension) will help a lot, but I literally JUST got my Panther II and it is almost impossible to do anything with the fragile build and pathetic gun. Don't tell me that I have to flank , even if I somehow manage to survive flanking something w/o getting tracked or being lit on fire, I will barely damage anything. And seeing as I'm placed with tier 7-10, there aren't many options to engage the enemy.
And anyways, whats the point of putting the L/100 (16,100xp) as an upgrade if you will rush to get the suspension(23,500xp) and then the turret (23,670xp)? I could see it being relatively useful if someone uses free xp to get the L/100 and then grind 46k+ xp for the suspension and turret but that is still a stretch.


Benden, on 16 January 2011 - 12:06 AM, said: No change to the T54 track repair time yet ? You said it would be corrected.
Also there's no information nor acknowledgment about Jagdtiger's problems despites tons of report. Any agenda on fix for mantlet problem, visibility... ?


haineken, on 16 January 2011 - 12:11 AM, said: will this new ground clearance for t-54's affect their abilities fighting Maus tank? couse now if i see maus alone i just go to his side and kill him, without getting hit.


SgtNuker, on 16 January 2011 - 12:14 AM, said: I'm actually surprised there's no mention of the T-54's armour getting a de-buff. I won't mention how far the T-54's armour is above 100% (because apparently that information isn't allowed to be posted on the forum), but if the American heavies got taken down from 120% to 100%, then the T-54 should be put back in line as well
At least the L/71 is getting shown some love. Now if only the Tiger's L/56, or the Tiger itself would get a bit of a buff.
Also see no mention about correcting the T29/T32/T34/T30's and Tiger I's tracks. The tracks are far too thin, and each tank is using its transport tracks. The Tiger II's were fixed last patch, how about fixing the US heavy's and Tiger I's this patch?


WolfHeart, on 16 January 2011 - 12:22 AM, said: Rifling? Better compression in the loading chamber? Just some thoughts.


Benden, on 16 January 2011 - 12:25 AM, said: Yes it's surprising. Survivability of 37 compared to 35, not related to play style ?
Any information about population of T54 vs Panther 2 vs Pershing available ?


Overlord, on 16 January 2011 - 12:28 AM, said: Good point. Included this into patch notes:
T-54:
- decreased armor of tracks by 5mm (now the same as for T-44)
- track repair time increased by 10% (now the same as for T-44)
JT does have some performance issues. The list of adjusments is not complete.


KoenigsTiger1944, on 16 January 2011 - 12:33 AM, said: Hmmmmmm yes sure i think the ammunition costs for german 105mm L52 and L68 is a little bit to expensive also the russian 100 mm shell ammunition!
As a non Premium Player you can't earn enough credits to cover your costs for shells.
Also i understand why the German Guns a little bit weaker as the Russians, because German Tanks got more HP as a Russian Tank or a American Tank, but i think for the reload times, the guns should do a little bit more Damage. Aehm the 105mm German L52 and L68 should do 350 to 370 Dmg per shell.
And now to the 88mm gun L56 and L71 of the german tanks. Historically this gun was the best gun on the Battlefields of Second World War and so i think this guns should do also more Dmg than 220!!!
I know the Tiger got only the L56 in real but with this gun the Tiger can penetrate the russian T34 or a Sherman over a distance of 2,5 km and in the best Situation over a Distance of 3,5 Km. So i Think in refer to the INCREASE of the IS-4 front Armor (Historically) the German 88's should increase the Dmg to 250 or 270 Dmg per Shell.
The best Solution was to give a alternative Shell Type (Panzergranate 40) For the German 88 L71 and the penetration Rate and Dmg Rate was real in fact of historically Data.
And Now to the Last fact. The German 7,5mm L70 who was in first Action on the Battlefield and used by a Panther in 1943, should also increase the Dmg to 150 to 170 Dmg per Shell.
Best wishes
KoenigsTiger


Overlord, on 16 January 2011 - 12:34 AM, said: Overall battles: Pershing - X, Panther - 2.5X, T-54 - 4X.


Ivin, on 16 January 2011 - 12:37 AM, said: really you both want to whine...what about the T30? talk about a tank needing some love!


Badnewcastle, on 16 January 2011 - 12:45 AM, said: Ouch... I agree with the repair time increase and height increase, but DAMN! The tracks were the only weak point now they will be weaker? People that don't drive the 54 will underestimate this nerf.


ady5, on 16 January 2011 - 12:48 AM, said: You can't have too many changes from 0.6.27 to 0.6.32, it's just a minor patch, so guys, I really don't see the point of arguing why the game is not like you want it to be just yet. Also, you are not the only ones who are playing the game, and your point of view is not necessarily the good one, in terms of balance and whatnot. I'm not saying that there are no problems, I play mainly german, and what russians I have for moneymaking are OP(KV, T-34), but don't expect great changes in such a short patch. You asked for more frequent minor patches instead of big rare ones, so here you go.
Anyway, i say good mini patch so far. I like the stug being decreased in battle tiers, i often got him against tier8-9s, with no hope of at least putting some damage out there.
Also, I like the increase in repair costs. This way, A T54 won't just rush in without considering what's infront of it, and it'll play more cautiously. Subtle changes like these are what makes the balance in a game.
Exactly, that was THE ONLY weak point of a T54


zayack, on 16 January 2011 - 12:49 AM, said: Wrong. The guns may be the same but did you ever consider the round was diffrent?. Good example 128 L/55 shoots diffrent rounds then the 128 L/61.
Also is there any change coming to the German gun mantles?


Homer_J, on 16 January 2011 - 12:54 AM, said: Will 5mm of armour make any difference when you are facing guns with 200mm+ penetration?


Benden, on 16 January 2011 - 12:56 AM, said: Thank you for answering those points. I'm damn glad JT issues are acknowledged. errr btw aren't we saturday late evening ?
Mate, T30 is about to be moved to Tiers 9 Tank destroyer so I doubt they'll work on balancing it as a tiers 10 heavy. I dont know though about what term.


ramp4ge, on 16 January 2011 - 01:03 AM, said: Wait what? They were quick to jump down the throats of the US tanks for having the armor bugged..Can anyone confirm this?


Troika, on 16 January 2011 - 01:04 AM, said: I am cautiously optimistic about these changes thus far. Any particular reason for the StuG one? Not that I'm complaining, just that it is already quite nice and being tiered lower will make it even nicer. :>


vcadoda, on 16 January 2011 - 01:10 AM, said: IS-7: repair costs increased by 5%.
Т30: repair costs increased by 10%.
I see what you did there


ramp4ge, on 16 January 2011 - 01:11 AM, said: Did we need any less reason to play US heavies above tier 8?

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\v0632-update-preliminary-discussion
Link on message: #380325

Subject: Archives\Beta\Questions\Account question
Link on message: #380309

TStick, on 21 January 2011 - 05:51 PM, said: No close please, i have another question: can i have multiple accounts on one ip-adress ? My son also would like to play W.o.T. (open beta) and we are on the same I.P. Adress.

Subject: Archives\Beta\problem with letters and numbers
Link on message: #380307

DragonSoul, on 21 January 2011 - 05:53 PM, said: eu version in Spanish, and reinstall and no fix, I think it's related to windows and sources

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\What open beta means for you.
Link on message: #380284

Subject: Archives\Beta\0.6.3.0 Discussion thread missing?
Link on message: #380264

RokRoland, on 21 January 2011 - 05:06 PM, said: The link posted by Overlord in the patch notes forum does not work. Furthermore, that thread is locked. Thought to state this here, as game discussion is where the patch discussion belongs to.
Anyway, I wanted to ask about what does "Increased clearance by 15 cm" mean on the T-54. Clearance of what?

Subject: Archives\Beta\problem with letters and numbers
Link on message: #380248

Subject: Archives\Beta\Open Beta Jan. 27th! Thank you for the greatest Beta!
Link on message: #380235

Heimer_Drago, on 21 January 2011 - 02:09 AM, said: Does this "Open Beta" mean they will finally remove the dang Christmas trees from the maps and the hangars? If so just remove the trees from both and the snow from the hangar. Leave the hottie posters on the walls

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\Afkers everywhere.
Link on message: #380217

Starscr3am, on 19 January 2011 - 10:07 PM, said: Ye, really.
What the **** is this. Doesn't matter if im playing ISU or T32. Im always getting 1-2 HIGHEST tier afkers.
Last game i had afk IS7, previously it was Maus.
I've never seen so many afkers in WoT. Can't there be like a "1 min AFK = Kick" system?
I'm really trying to understand why people join a game with an IS3/4/7, VK 45/Maus and go afk. Not like they get a lot of credits...

Subject: Archives\Beta\EXP and Credits issue
Link on message: #380174

Subject: Archives\Beta\Unfair advantage for when this goes retail.
Link on message: #380173

Tanitha, on 21 January 2011 - 01:02 PM, said: I believe the full blown clanwars will be released with a world map after release, and will include the three servers USA, EU, Russia.
So based on that i have a few questions please.
1. I guess it will have to be released sufficiently after release to give the USA and EU players enough time to level up T10 tanks. Since they will be competing against the russians who have been playing for approximately 4? months. So the question is, is there any plans to make the US and EU crew additional skills (fire/repair/camo) level up a lot quicker than russias did? So the Eu and USA players can compete with similar additional crew skill levels? Otherwise the russian's will be playing with 100% 100Fire/100Repair/100camo crews And the usa/euros might only be on 100% 100 in (one) skill. If only the additional skills training is quickened and not the overall basic skill level. It wouldn't effect whether people pay gold for 100% crews or not.
2. Would the world map, be a "world map" covering Australia / Asia etc? So a all Australian clan can take Australia and have battles in their time zone? Or will it only be a map that contains Europe Russia and USA.? So an all Australian clan could still be viable for clanwars?
3. I think wot want clan battles to be unlimited levels, and a lot of the casual players want it to have levels restrictions. So in the end do you think it will be a mix? Like coastal starting land having a limit on the tiers? and the more valuable land having no limits?
4. I believe land will have different values, like some will produce credits, some produce credits and gold. Since clans start on the coast, will the coastal land be less valuable and the valuable land be inland? Or will it be historical, like major coastal cities that produce a lot in real life, will produce a lot in game.
5. Is there plans for clans to be able to enhance their land? like building factories to produce ammo, tank parts etc.. Would this be a release feature? or much further down the road?
6. I believe clan members are tokens on the map. So i assume they are "stationed" in land the clan owns, and are called on to do a defense if that land is attacked. How freely can these clan members / tokens be moved around. If for example you had a international clan, and owned two pieces of land, one in Germany and one in Russia. If Russia is attacked, would the players in the Germany land be able to be moved to do the defending battle in russia? or is it best for clans to own land next to each other so clan members can easily be moved around to defend.
7. Is it a max of 15 players stationed in one piece of land?
8. For international clan wars, who's server will the battle be on? Will it be like the timezone? IE played on the server of the country that is attacked? So if a Russian clan attacks a USA country, the game will be played in usa prime time on a usa server?
Thanks.


Overlord, on 21 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said: 1. Projected timeline for integration of all server-based clan wars into global clan wars is currently unknown. There will be enough time to maximize any tanks and crews.
2. At early stage only Europe map is going to be available. Later all other regions will be added (apart from Antarctic perhaps).
3. To start clan wars at least 15 tier 5+ vehicles required. It is going to be the only limitation.
4. All porvinces will produce certain income in gold (only in gold). The amount of gold depends on the type of the province. Starting provinces produce less income than capital ones (eg Paris region is more important than Brittany).
5. Yes, this fearures will be added in future.
6. In order to move your troops from one owned province to another they both must have common border (the same goes for islands, they can connected with several coasts). Moreover, if the province you own is not connected with capital directly or through the chain of your provinces it doesn't produce any income, ie it is blockaded.
7. Up to 15 tokens per province.
8. Yes, the example is correct. We are going to use account roaming.

Subject: Off-Topic Discussion\Tanks Throughout History\Other Weaponry\The Goliath Tank Buster
Link on message: #380154

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\A Plea for the Meta Game
Link on message: #380144

Subject: Archives\Junkyard\Less XP/Cash since before x5 3day XP/Cash freenzy?
Link on message: #380126