Developers posts on forum

Subject: World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1635486

_grenadier_, on Mar 26 2012 - 19:23, said: I found it humorous that Komarin is one of the tourney maps.
<3 you guys.

Subject: World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1635486

_grenadier_, on Mar 26 2012 - 19:23, said: I found it humorous that Komarin is one of the tourney maps.
<3 you guys.

Subject: World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1634917

Subject: World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1634917

Subject: World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1634917

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\7.2 Feedback Update
Link on message: #1630483

adjutant, on Mar 25 2012 - 01:04, said: I wonder, do the developers also get to hear feedback that isn't necessarily posted in the 7.2 public test subforum? We've got quite a few things to say about TDs in the American TD section. The M36 in particular has been a long-running source of contention. There are also some suggestions about lesser-used TDs and weapons that you'll never hear discussed here.

Subject: World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1629058

W0lfy, on Mar 25 2012 - 07:20, said: 280 teams.
28 divisions.
10 teams in each.
That means that the season will run for 9 weeks, with only 9 maps to play on?
If so, could you please update the map-schedule so show which will be used and when.
64 teams in the play offs.
Does this mean that the top 2 teams from each division plus 8 wild-card entries will make the play offs?
How will the play offs work?
Will it be a 64 team, 6-week, single battle, immediate elimination tournament?
(Essentially the same as the Challenges, but starting with 64 teams)?
Will the teams that win their divisions (or win the most battles, or meet some other criteria) be given an advantage in the play offs?
(Possible examples: Seeding them against wild card entries or 2nd divisional teams.
A bye the first week of play offs.
A double chance if they lose in the early rounds of the play offs)

Subject: World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1629058

W0lfy, on Mar 25 2012 - 06:20, said: 280 teams.
28 divisions.
10 teams in each.
That means that the season will run for 9 weeks, with only 9 maps to play on?
If so, could you please update the map-schedule so show which will be used and when.
64 teams in the play offs.
Does this mean that the top 2 teams from each division plus 8 wild-card entries will make the play offs?
How will the play offs work?
Will it be a 64 team, 6-week, single battle, immediate elimination tournament?
(Essentially the same as the Challenges, but starting with 64 teams)?
Will the teams that win their divisions (or win the most battles, or meet some other criteria) be given an advantage in the play offs?
(Possible examples: Seeding them against wild card entries or 2nd divisional teams.
A bye the first week of play offs.
A double chance if they lose in the early rounds of the play offs)

Subject: World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1629058

W0lfy, on Mar 25 2012 - 06:20, said: 280 teams.
28 divisions.
10 teams in each.
That means that the season will run for 9 weeks, with only 9 maps to play on?
If so, could you please update the map-schedule so show which will be used and when.
64 teams in the play offs.
Does this mean that the top 2 teams from each division plus 8 wild-card entries will make the play offs?
How will the play offs work?
Will it be a 64 team, 6-week, single battle, immediate elimination tournament?
(Essentially the same as the Challenges, but starting with 64 teams)?
Will the teams that win their divisions (or win the most battles, or meet some other criteria) be given an advantage in the play offs?
(Possible examples: Seeding them against wild card entries or 2nd divisional teams.
A bye the first week of play offs.
A double chance if they lose in the early rounds of the play offs)

Subject: Tournaments & E-Sports\Classic Leagues\World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1628535

stevezaxx, on Mar 25 2012 - 02:58, said: I see where the start had been delayed. Has registration been exetended or not? If it has closed, has it been determined that teams can add too/change their roster, or not?

Subject: World of Tanks News and Information\You Ask - We Reply!\You Ask, We Reply - March 23, 2012
Link on message: #1628521

FaustianQ, on Mar 25 2012 - 01:59, said: T-62 is ~38t, M60A1 is ~47t, both countries classified them as mediums, not sure how that translates into a HT for WoT. As for the T-90(52t) and M1(62t), yeah those would definitely be HT by WoT standards, if not super heavy considering armor/armament.

Subject: Tournaments & E-Sports\Classic Leagues\World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1628288

TurboT, on Mar 25 2012 - 00:57, said: This is all humorous to me.
You announce a tournament and post it on your website, start accepting teams. Then you change the payout and the rules, to accommodate the big clans. You supposedly set this up so players from all clans, or no clans, could join whatever team they liked... but then caved, and allowed more per team to just push the big clans into favor again with their dummy/shared accounts with tanks so anyone can play.
Now you're handicapping and seeding teams based on their clans.
I don't get why this is so complicated, announce a tournament, set the rules, and live by them. You also changed the payout from 97K gold PER player, to 1.4 million per team which works out to 10K and change per player.
So how would my team be seeded? I've been running and playing in tank companies for months, I'd say my win % is about 85-90% calling a map in 30 seconds not knowing the map or the other team before load in. I have experience with these style TC's before they were removed from the game (sadly) in favor of smaller tanks. I have a team of 14 players with nothing but tier 10 heavies, 9 meds and 8 arty... Here's the kicker, my clan is not on the map.. so I guess we suck. I'd caution anyone to overlook us, as the main reason we're not on the map is the stupid time zone problem this game has for PST located players. I'm not alone here, there are many good players in this game NOT in the big clans, so handicapping this would be impossible, and you shouldn't even try.
As devs, you need to man up, say we're randomizing the teams, playing at this time, with this amount. If you don't like the rules, don't sign up. Getting lobbied here is very sad. Inmates should never run the asylum. Stick to your guns and do what you announce. If you're not happy with it, don't announce it.. or, live by it and change the rules and tweak the next one to make it what you think is best.

Subject: Tournaments & E-Sports\Classic Leagues\World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1627256

Subject: Tournaments & E-Sports\Classic Leagues\World of Tanks Classic, Season I
Link on message: #1627234

RedPrince42, on Mar 24 2012 - 10:51, said: Do they pull the Red Sox out of the American League East Division, just because the Yankees are there, too? No. I agree with utterly random selection, and if that means one of the top teams will likely be left out of the playoffs, so be it. That's the point of divisional play -- a mediocre team can make the playoffs, as long as it is playing in a mediocre division.


W0lfy, on Mar 24 2012 - 19:18, said: Best way to do it (and make everyone happy):
WoT staff randomize the divisions, 536 teams = 33 divisions.
Identify (from CW, 5v5, Clan Torny) 10 to 15 teams that might be expected to do well.
Confirm that the majority of those teams are in independent divisions (and slide one or two into a different division if required).
The result is randomized selection, with preferential seeding - but nobody needs to say what way it was done, or even which teams were identified for seeding selection.
Everyone is happy and we can go back to blowing up stuff and not have to think much more about it.

Subject: Tournaments & E-Sports\Classic Leagues\Should the Classic League have Alphabetical or Random Sorting?
Link on message: #1627210

Subject: World of Tanks News and Information\You Ask - We Reply!\You Ask, We Reply - March 23, 2012
Link on message: #1627143

tlun315, on Mar 23 2012 - 23:21, said: Hi, dear Devs, Would you mind to tell us when will the second Germany TD line comes out? Will it after the Soviet heavy or the same time?


Skeleton, on Mar 23 2012 - 23:41, said: "New crew skills will not be purchasable with gold as it could be an essential combat advantage."
I thought they were in this buisness to make money no?
What I was wondering is what do gold rounds do?
What do gold consumables do?
Do they not increase combat advantage?
Seems to me they are two in the same, and would be a great way to make money off of players, 200 gold per crew, per new skill.
Lot's and lot's of gold would be being spent by a lot of players, which is money money money for WG.
They going to in the end have all these skills trained up anyways, and then what? The 'essential combat advantage' would suddenly not exist?
They expect by that time NO NEW players will be in the game and such no-one will be getting matched with 10+ crew skills in a say IS3 vrs a new player they get to own in an IS3 with a 67% crew....
How will delaying what they can have vrs buying it right now change the 'essential combat advantage'?
Because in the end players will have trained up all those skills anyways.


jrschoolname, on Mar 23 2012 - 23:49, said: Will the Churchhill and the Valentine become British Tanks in the British Tank Tree Update?


awesomeguy1113, on Mar 24 2012 - 00:09, said: will there be 4 players in platoon in update 7.2


SuperJaws100, on Mar 24 2012 - 00:14, said: Devs,
Will there be Teir 11+ tanks? I know that you couldnt possibly add the M1A1 or Leopard II, but other tanks?


egikov, on Mar 24 2012 - 01:37, said: Here is what I'd like tier 10 mediums be: T-62 and M60. Edit: Even cooler would be T-90 and Abrams M1A2.
However, knowing WG, we will probably get T-55 and M48.


johnt69, on Mar 24 2012 - 11:12, said: Will there be a chance for the mounting of consumeables and equipment to be changed...for instance allowing a person to carry a repair kit in all three consumeable slots? or increasing the number of slots for equipment?

Subject: Tournament Rules
Link on message: #1626582

5_Stars, on Mar 24 2012 - 14:37, said: "Teams can receive a warning for other reasons decided by the league administration." What are these other reasons? Please don't have us going into battle with some very vague rules and reasons for disqualifications.
"Teams can receive a  disqualification if they intentionally use any prohibited bugs,  exploits, hacks or are found to be utilizing unfair methods of  competition by the league administration." Are you saying that there are currently known hacks to the game?

Subject: Tournament Rules
Link on message: #1626582

5_Stars, on Mar 24 2012 - 13:37, said: "Teams can receive a warning for other reasons decided by the league administration." What are these other reasons? Please don't have us going into battle with some very vague rules and reasons for disqualifications.

"Teams can receive a  disqualification if they intentionally use any prohibited bugs,  exploits, hacks or are found to be utilizing unfair methods of  competition by the league administration." Are you saying that there are currently known hacks to the game?

Subject: Tournament Rules
Link on message: #1626582

5_Stars, on Mar 24 2012 - 13:37, said: "Teams can receive a warning for other reasons decided by the league administration." What are these other reasons? Please don't have us going into battle with some very vague rules and reasons for disqualifications.

"Teams can receive a  disqualification if they intentionally use any prohibited bugs,  exploits, hacks or are found to be utilizing unfair methods of  competition by the league administration." Are you saying that there are currently known hacks to the game?

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Crew Skill Feedback 7.2 V3
Link on message: #1626129

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\T34 feedback 7.2 V3
Link on message: #1626092

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Economics 7.2 V3
Link on message: #1626055

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Interface changes 7.2 V3
Link on message: #1626044

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\7.2 Feedback Update
Link on message: #1626038

Jay4hand, on Mar 24 2012 - 07:40, said: Thank you Tanitha, I really hope they listen to us!

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\T110& M103 Feedback V3
Link on message: #1626036

FaustianQ, on Mar 24 2012 - 11:17, said: I just got done putting this up Tan and you go and lock the previous thread :\.

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Second American TD line Feedback 7.2 V3
Link on message: #1626029

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Public Test 7.2 Archive\T110 and M103 #3
Link on message: #1626019

Tanitha, on Mar 24 2012 - 11:10, said: All comments, suggestions and feedback previously in this thread have been compiled and sent off to the developers for further investigation.
As such the previous posts in this thread have now been moved to the archive section.
Thank-you for partaking in the 7.2 public test, and taking the time to provide your feedback.
If you have any new information, or any any further information on previously reported issues that you have more information on, then please feel free to continue the discussion here.
Thanks & Regards
Tan.

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\T110& M103 Feedback V3
Link on message: #1626012

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\T110 and M103 #3
Link on message: #1626000

Doctuer, on Mar 22 2012 - 19:16, said: We need to see a list of what was changed. Otherwise we have to make assumptions which will be (correctly, because they are not facts) ignored.
We have a list of what we feel needs changing. While there are variations of this some of them have been analysed very carefully and represent exceedingly reasonable changes that would reduce the glaring disadvantages of arguably poor initial modeling choices put into the two American tanks in question, while at the same time keeping them different to the other tank contempories (Wargaming's original desire or intent) and not making them overpowered.
Looking at the T110E5, these would be:-
Speed. The design is meant to operate as a sort of hybrid Heavy/Medium and that's fine. It augers well for the game to have greater variety in tank attributes at any tier, to cover a wider variety of roles in how they can acchieve success in combat by utilizing these differances best. In REVERSE GEAR the T110E is slower than an E100, a tank with a lower power to weight ratio and carrying much more mass than the T110E5. The T110E5 cannot operate well in it's intended role while it is being restricted to less manoevre in reverse than an E100. How can this be jsutified in the name of good game balance ? The E100 is much larger, heavier and slower than a T110E5, but trades manourvre for armour protection far superior to the T110E5, which should trade armour protection for speed. By the terms of game balance itself a 2 km/h increase in reverse (granted for test 3) is clearly inadequate. It must at the very LEAST be the equivalent of the heavier E100 (which can do 15 km/h in reverse) and in all probablity should be even higher given it is a lighter tank, far smaller, and with a better power to weight ratio. AND it's operating principle is that of a much more mobile tank by virtue of what it is and how it is intended to operate in the game.
Requirement 1. The T110E5 should be capable of 15-18 km/h in reverse gear.
The gun. When the first iteration of the M58, as the SA47 French 129mm gun (the same gun as the M58 apart from the breech loading mechanism) was built by Wargaming, the estimare was that it would need 280mm AP penetration to fit into the game equitably with the lowest damage alpha of all the tier 10 guns (400) ... after testing and finding the new autoloader burst strike of the French version was exceedingly overpowering, the penetration was reduced to 268mm (arguably no real differance from the 269mm the American version carries) but that this is attributed to the 6 rounds in less than 15 seconds power of the autoloader mechanism. Without that function the American version has to rely on not bouncing rounds or it's DPM advantage is eliminated. If it is going to be balanced with the smallest aplha strike of all tier 10 guns it makes sense on every account (including and primarily GAME BALANCE) to give it the original estimate of what would be ideal, that being 280mm penetration with AP. If we take into account that the drop off over range of the M58 gun is TWICE that of the other high velocity guns it faces such as the S70 (IS7) 130mm gun and the Maus 128mm (for example) then the need to have a higher penetration is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.
Requirement 2. The T110E5 M58 gun should be capable of 280mm penetration at 100 meters -or- have it's penetration over range percentage HALVED (like the others do) to compensate. Even game balance alone notwithstanding the reality of a modern high velocity cannon of the M58s ability says this must be the case.
Armour. The T110E5 is improved in the front hull over test 1. However, the turret is still inadequate, and the rest of the tank is much less well protected than it's contemporaries except for the AMX50B, which has speed in forwards and reverse that the T110E5 cannot rely on. The T29 American heavy had the rangefinder ears on the turret top/sides taken OUT OF THE HIT BOX because they were a weakness that was far too great in the end. This same lesson applies to the commander cupola on the T110E5. It will be too great a liability when all the other armour weaknesses are taken into account. Even if the hull and turret were better protected than they are now, the cupola would still be too great a weakness. The lesson from the T29 is clear and obvious. If it cannot be remodeled (and we undertsand this to be the case if v 7.2 patch release be possible ASAP as it is) then at LEAST it could be made thicker to ACT like it isn't a weakspot hitbox. That would adequately correct the problem and require almost no work as armour thickness is a number in a data field and not a remodeling task of the tank 3D model itself.
Requirement 3. Take the 10mm increase in cupola armour and increase it a further 30mm. It would be a weakspot still but far less so and with much less frequency. Only the biggest guns and at close range would be a worry and while still not correct, it would be acceptable.
We could also ask for better front turret armour, and a small increase in damage alpha (say 440, which is the midpoint between the 105mm guns and the 128mm guns on other tanks) which for a high velocity 120mm gun fits perfectly inside current game mechanics. But in deferance to the developers being reluctant to make any changes at all greater than the tiny ones so far mentioned, I will focus on the 3 points above which will at least give the tank an acceptable level of ability as a hybrid heavy/medium based on it's core design attribtres.
So that's a list culled from a compendium of all the things discussed previously about the T110E5 as feedback. It's pretty modest really. It isn't going to introduce any work that will delay the release of the v7.2 patch as it is all data work. Above all it is conservative enough to be considered NOT overpowering to the tank itself (as a competitior) and to NOT unbalance the game, while at the same time improving the T110E5 so that it is NOT UNDERBALANCED as it is in it's current form.
Would you be so kind as to obtain a list from Wargaming that deal with the discussion from THEIR point of view ?

Subject: Off-Topic Discussion\Junkyard\Stop Hating on WG
Link on message: #1625971

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Tank rebalancing 7.2 v3
Link on message: #1625851

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Public Test 7.2 Archive\Tank rebalancing in 7.2#3
Link on message: #1625820

Mancu, on Mar 22 2012 - 19:07, said: Here are the test server 2 comparison numbers copied from the link below. All created by Terminator210. Just adjust the T34's stats down appropriately for the test server 3 nerfs.
http://forum.worldof..._1#entry1616498

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Snap Shot skill - does it work for arty?
Link on message: #1625743

joel9507, on Mar 23 2012 - 22:19, said: The description says ' Improves accuracy during turret rotation' .... no turrets on the arties so this would indicate no effect on them.
That said, this could be very useful for arties if it did apply ...is there any definitive answer anywhere?

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Public Test 7.2 Archive\Secret Update of the Type 59 in 7.2?
Link on message: #1625622

M18HellCat, on Mar 22 2012 - 21:30, said: All that was said in the most recent update to the 7.2 test, was a Type 59 texture fix. But it looks more like a model fix. Pay close attention to how the turret in 7.1 is lower, and the turret in 7.2 is raised higher.
7.1

7.2

Again, the only thing changed in with the Type 59 in 7.2 is a texture fix. (I'm assuming its the change of the camo pattern I am using in these pictures.)
Edit: These pictures were both taken from the same angle, the reason the second Type 59 looks as if its showing at a different angle, is because it's turret has been increased in size.
You can also refer to this picture (a user posted picture, props to him.)

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Public Test 7.2 Archive\American Heavies: Speak loud now
Link on message: #1625609

SpectreHD, on Mar 24 2012 - 06:38, said: Sorry aw_man but you are living in a dream world. There have been COUNTLESS of civil posts by some of the more prominent players in the forums like FaustianQ and Onyx. Whether the fine primates (keepin' it classy) in Minsk would listen is a whole other story and with the release of the T110 and M103 based on their Test 3 stats, Minsk sure did listen!
But now the Test 3 M103 and T110 will be released and what are they missing?
T110
The T110 DOES NOT have -10 degree gun depression when the T110 project has specifically stated it was to have -10 degrees.
The T110 still reverses SLOWER than the Maus. Seriously, he have been fed lots of bravo sierra on how this 58ton vehicle would be highly mobile but it reverses SLOWER than a 188 ton tank?
The tumor cupola will already remove the T110's ability to hull down.
The 120mm is EXACTLY the same as the French one but does not have an autoloader. The 120mm on the M103 and T110 needs 280mm penetration since it loses MORE penetration over distance than the glorious 130mm S70.
M103
Has the weakest turret armour amongst all its peers and even FAR WORSE than on the T34. The IS-4 and E-75 can and WILL hull down far better than the M103.
Does not get the preferential treatment Soviet vehicles like the T-54 enjoy for its speed. Why exactly does the M103 not go the 37km/h speed the M103A3 has?
The M103 SHOULD get -10 degrees if the IS-4 can get its magical -8 depression with the 130mm S70 gun which would not even fit in the turret in the first place.
At the moment, the Soviet line enjoys FAR too many concessions to their balance while the US line gets balanced to historical spec or lower. Don't get me started on the butchered M10, M36 and M18.

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\7.2 Feedback Update
Link on message: #1625585

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Public Test 7.2 Archive\Proposal for perfect balancing of M18 Hellcat and T25/2
Link on message: #1625551

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Public Test 7.2 Archive\Exit to Garage
Link on message: #1625507

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Public Test 7.2 Archive\[Poll] Checking satisfaction with american tree changes..
Link on message: #1625495

9teenKILo, on Mar 23 2012 - 19:16, said: Just throwin a lil poll together to get everyones feelings on the american tree changes... Overall I'm not quite really impressed myself and in some cases am quite letdown by the implementations.. But lets see what the community more or less thinks about the whole deal..

Subject: World of Tanks Game Discussion\Testing Grounds (7.2 Public Test )\Public Test 7.2 Archive\If at first you don't succeed.....
Link on message: #1625399

Steeltrap, on Mar 23 2012 - 03:42, said: As this was moved to archive within 24hrs,