For the Record: 5.12.2014
Apparently, Russians are reporting FPS losses in 9.5. - SerB on “anti-bot” system: “The system takes into account that various things happen in life. You have to go to the toilet urgently, your mom called you to eat or your wife needed to turn your attention to her and not to pixel tanks. So if you don’t go AFK regularily (what does “regularily” mean I will not tell, sorry), then an AFKer can be forgiven.” - SerB states that the radius of the render circle be cca 500 meters - the fact that WoWp planes are displayed much further than tanks in WoT doesn’t mean much, as the scale is different for WoWp - apparently, the “XP for tanking” was scrapped? (Q: “How is XP for tanking doing” A (SerB): “About the same as XP for looking badly at the enemy.”) - SerB explains that the upcoming viewrange nerf is not caused by technical limits of BigWorld, the real reason is that currently, high viewrange makes flanking maneuvers much more difficult and the game as a result turned to be too linear. It cannot be however implemented fast, there have to be many calculations and a lot of internal testing. - SerB on possible stronk klanu invidivdual mission rigging (rigged battles): “We record all the proceedings now. Many comrades, considering themselves to be really smart have already felt that on their accounts. I will not share any details. I simply do not recommend trying it.” - Panther 88 will defintely not have limited MM, Storm states that it doesn’t have worse parameters than the regular vehicle – the mobility is worse, but the gun is better - Storm states that 75 percent of players have no idea what battletiers are anyway - Storm states that compared to FCM, Panther 88 is doing fine - the Panther 88 on supertest was bugged, it burned too much – it was fixed - Storm confirms that the tanks were released for test with placeholder stats - it’s possible that the “tank twitching” of vehicles bug is present, but only in replays. In replays, it’s impossible to fix. Storm will however investigate nonetheless. - Storm commenting on players using the “public opinion” and “a lot of people thinks” pseudoargument: “German vehicles were very reliable! China produces only shitty stuff! In WW2, Germans were buried under corpses! Yea… public opinion…” - individual missions in 9.5 test are still placeholders, they will almost certainly change - Storm on the requirement of some IM’s to do them in platoons: “look for a platoon or don’t do them” - platoons were specifically impelemented into the IM’s to “improve socializing” (SS: fucking retards, seriously, as if socializing was a cornerstone of this game) - Q: “Why did you buff FV215b 183?” A: “FV215b 183 players don’t think it was a buff.” - Storm confirms that all the tanks (including mid-tier ones) will have the transmission split from the engine - apparently, the gun list for 9.5 is final (no 20pdr for Challenger) - it’s possible that the minimap tank name color will change before 9.5 release - the individual mission token solution (5*4+1, 20 needed) is final - some people are angry about the token system, Storm replies that you don’t have to play the arty missions (SS: IF you fulfill all the secondary objectives) - Storm states that the placeholder tank stats solution was an unfortunate necessity, as other things than just tanks have to be tested in 9.5 - FV4005 will be rebalanced before release - apparently it will NOT be possible to test the premium tier 8 Panther 88 - Veider states that the render range is not displayed on the new improved minimap since it will be changed to a circle anyway Storm is also commenting on ramming system: the situation where E-50 rams IS-3 and loses as many hp’s as the IS is correct, because it can be explained by lower frontal plate of E-50 ramming upper frontal plate of IS-3, which is thick – so this makes up for the weight difference. Earlier, there were issues with ramming, it was bugged a lot and incorrect armor group was often chosen, when it came to ramming calculations. Very common were the situations where the ramming tank was for some reason ramming with the bottom armor and as a result, it was damaged much more than it was supposed to be. At this moment, this was fixed and the armor groups for ramming purposes are selected more correctly, but there are cases of incorrect armor group selections, resulting in strange cases. As a result of the ramming calculation not using the thin bottom armor but more thick armor, the amount of damage by ramming was somewhat reduced. In order to fix ramming completely, developers will most likely simplify the ramming system – instead of actual armor groups, it will use 3 special armour groups (front/side/rear) and the ramming mechanism will only check from which side the ramming is coming from and use these groups with nominal armor. Without this step, strange cases of ramming with a very small but thin part into a thicker armor part will still happen.