Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wot Part Deux

Last one too big

4050 replies to this topic

#61 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 29 January 2013 - 0557 AM

GuP has american tanks now? I must watch.
  • 0

#62 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 29 January 2013 - 0747 AM

On the rear or front transmission of E-50, this pdf posted by alejandro here is very interesting. See p.5.
  • 0

#63 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 29 January 2013 - 0814 AM

Very interesting document, thanks.
  • 0

#64 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 29 January 2013 - 0849 AM


If you give out gold then the limitations won't matter, the big organized clans will rule all the tiers. They might have different clan names and the player accounts may be different but it would still be the same clans top to bottom.


Not really. We never cared about Africa, and the long-standing joke was that clans who were bored would map themselves and go "on safari" and rampage across Africa leaving terribad clans strewn about in their wake, as seen by PBKAC and Reddit wiping out entire alliances in a matter of days.. We've mentioned to the devs how it might be best to have lower provinces have tier caps for tanks and clan members and make them worth credits to allow smaller clans to practice on their own, but were told we don't know what we are talking about. Never mind the fact that the only thing that could pry Moscow from G's cold hands was Wargaming wiping the map clean. I mean, why would they go after a 120-gold province in Africa when they were sitting on 16k gold per day? When the map was wiped Forge and Anvil were sitting on 9k per day each.


The big clans don't care about Africa today because the income isn't worth bothering about, but I suspect that if there were 3 tiers of clan wars (8-10, 7-5, 1-4) that they wouldn't turn their nose up at bringing in an extra 8k gold a day (assuming the income was halved at 7-5) for owning the same territories in the mid tier map. So long as the Russian server (from what I've seen max US concurrent users is just a rounding error for the Russian server) is happy with clan wars as it is it won't change.
  • 0

#65 Max H

Max H

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 29 January 2013 - 0934 AM

Why dont they just remove 215B, and bump the others up a tier? Then between Black Prince and Caernavon, they put in A45. Then put in a seperate line that requires elements of heavy and medium lines to unlock (a 'universal' line), and give a tier10 Chieftain in that. Remove the tier10 Medium (which appears to suck where it is) then drop 40 Ton Cent into the 'universal' tier 9 slot before Chieftain. Thats arguably where it belongs. Maybe replace it in the tier10 slot with the Vickers Main Battle tank Mk3, which used elements of Centurion and Chieftain.

Alright, I know they WONT do that, for a variety of reasons. But its a bit bizarre A45 had got missed out entirely, and this at least rectifies that major mistake.


But what does A45 bring to the table than caernarvon doesn't? It would need access to the 20 pounder, because 17-pdr at T8 would be painful. This would screw over the caernarvon unless it got the conqueror-turm and L1, which begs the question of what is the conqueror for? Devs don't like a TX HT with only 130mm upper glacis either.
  • 0

#66 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1054 AM

On the rear or front transmission of E-50, this pdf posted by alejandro here is very interesting. See p.5.


It's the part of the never endable debate (since E-50/75 remained rather sketchy), sketches of E-50 found by Doyle don't leave space for rear transmission (considering powerplants planned); moving the transmission to the rear would have to shift turret to the front akin to French post-war projects... or at least like Ausf. M ;)
  • 0

#67 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1101 AM

I don't understand what the problem is? It's just clan diplomacy, business as usual. Why the uproar?

Simple. I play WoT because I want to drive and fight in tanks. If I were to to jump into CW I'd want to do the same. I'm not here to see half-ass politics be played.

Watching that video, and going off of what several on here have said about CW, it's clear that the premise is just broke. There's too many games being played, with too harsh of consequences, and too little reward.

The top tier of the game should be about the game, not some wannabe-Game-of-Thrones political BS which limits the actual fighting.
  • 0

#68 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1119 AM

Regarding the clan deals, situation is a bit more volatile in Europe, there are cases of large parts of clan players getting fed up with "diplomatic dancing" and going for "fighting" clans, still there are big NAPlands all over the place.
  • 0

#69 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1143 AM


On the rear or front transmission of E-50, this pdf posted by alejandro here is very interesting. See p.5.


It's the part of the never endable debate (since E-50/75 remained rather sketchy), sketches of E-50 found by Doyle don't leave space for rear transmission (considering powerplants planned); moving the transmission to the rear would have to shift turret to the front akin to French post-war projects... or at least like Ausf. M ;)


Yes, and the deletion of the torsion bars, and the transmission shaft, in E-50 Ausf. M left a hull that is practically as deep as the one in E-50... :D

Edited by sunday, 29 January 2013 - 1144 AM.

  • 0

#70 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1144 AM

More dev talk:

http://www.reddit.co...ian_qa_2812013/

The ones I'm most interested in (and my comments in parenthesis):
- 30vs30 battles are really badly playable, especially in random battles (I hope this means they never implement it... what a terrible idea for pub games)
- a system is being prepared where everyone will be able to deselect 1 map (for all that is good and right in the universe, please implement this and bump that number up to 2-3)
- Komarin won't return in 0.8.4 (good... kill that map, kill it with fire already)
- there will be hightier premium meds for all nations (nice, now I don't have to wait for the 59 to go on sale again)
- WG will buy rights for some mods and implement them in game (glad to hear, though I'm curious what's taken so long)
  • 0

#71 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1202 PM


I don't understand what the problem is? It's just clan diplomacy, business as usual. Why the uproar?

Simple. I play WoT because I want to drive and fight in tanks. If I were to to jump into CW I'd want to do the same. I'm not here to see half-ass politics be played.

Watching that video, and going off of what several on here have said about CW, it's clear that the premise is just broke. There's too many games being played, with too harsh of consequences, and too little reward.

The top tier of the game should be about the game, not some wannabe-Game-of-Thrones political BS which limits the actual fighting.


So stick to pubs. Which is what I'm doing. You can't have something like Clan Wars without diplomacy and the whole shebang.
  • 0

#72 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1243 PM

You can't have something like Clan Wars without diplomacy and the whole shebang.

Sure you can. It's clear that WG has no interest in trying, though.
  • 0

#73 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1258 PM

What are you proposing?

Organized battles without diplomacy = company battles.

If you want the current CW sans diplomacy, well there is no way you can limit communication and arrangements outside the system. Two clans can make a deal, keep mum about it, do battle, the designated loser can play just a touch worse than usual and make it a nice close loss and nobody can prove they lost on purpose. There's no way to enforce this.

You'd need a completely different CW system and if you prefer one with absolutely no diplomacy and no arrangements you'd find yourself in the minority.
  • 0

#74 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1334 PM

What are you proposing?

A couple things come to mind off the top of my head.

Instead of the never-ending-CW we have now implement 'seasons' like other games. Limit gold rewards till the end of the season. If you use the current landing system they have now you'll still have diplomacy at the start as the bigger clans carve out their holdings, but as the end of the season approaches there's now incentive for these larger clans to engage.

Another idea is the same season idea as above but clans apply to be put on the map and they're seeded randomly throughout the continent. Once your clan's last holding is eliminated you're done for the season. Would have a similar results as the NCAA tournament where 'Cinderella' clans could get a good lucky spot at the start so they have a chance to get bigger and the big ones could end up near each other and we'd see some action early. Same as above withhold the rewards till the end of the season (or give just a fraction of the rewards as the season progresses). Could also have it be last clan standing.

Limit battles, too. Make them less frequent but more rewarding. You could then turn this aspect of these seasons into something others could watch (again, like other games out there).

These ideas aren't hard to come up with. Look at all the other games out there (you'll note the recurring theme here). The fact that the game rewards the big clans from not fighting each other currently is absurd.

You'd need a completely different CW system and if you prefer one with absolutely no diplomacy and no arrangements you'd find yourself in the minority.

If that's true then the top clans really are bullies rather than competitive gamers.

Find me another game where they reward players for not fighting each other. The only one off the top of my head is EVE (and that has no competitive leagues or e-gaming) and some of the lowest shit I've ever heard come out of the gaming world has come from there. Not the greatest company to be associated with. :glare:
  • 0

#75 Max H

Max H

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1336 PM

S'alright, start on the 17 pounder, and work up to 105mm. It would have done if they had kept it instead of A41 anyway. In fact, you know what, drop the tier 10 heavy, and leave the british line as it is. Give Black prince a tree, that leads onto a 'heavy' medium line, consisting of A45, Conway, 40ton Cent and latterly Chieftain. At least that has some resemblance to how it really worked.

See, Im annoyed they even have a separate tank for Caernavon. It was never for anything more than driver training, so frankly if it was a choice between it and A45, id go with A45. That arguably was the first British 'universal' tank, and so of more significance. After all, all the Caernavons got upgraded into Conqueror anyway. Why not start Conq with a Cent turret and work up?


Ooh, I'd forgotten about the possibility of the L7 on heavies. What's conway doing it there though? surely it would make a better T8 TD from the challenger line leading to fv4005? BP -> A45 -> 4202 -> chieftain sounds good to me, but where would the conq fit (a branch from A45 to the FV215b at the top of the TD tree makes me happy, but WG would never allow it - there would be no reason to grind TD's when you can grind HT's and get two TX's)?

BTW, have any of the Centurions have the Active X turret included? Am I right in thinking they dont?


Wut dat?
  • 0

#76 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Goldmember

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1337 PM

There was (is?) a freeware game called "Astrowars". When I started it was about winning through fighting. Then it turned to "I got more and bigger friends than you, don't attack me." For me that is boring.
To me that is what CW looks like?
  • 0

#77 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westminster, Colorado (Not by choice)
  • Interests:Tanks, Trains, Planes, and boats(Big boats)

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1410 PM

Still slowly grinding the KV-4 (Very slow). I have the turret, engine and gun to get still. Since I believe the stock turret can take the better 107mm I thought I would make that my main goal. Am I correct that the better 107mm will fit the stock turret?

It will. You can check which guns will work in a turret by right-clicking on it. At the bottom of the new window you'll see which guns are compatible with the turret. In this case, the 107mm ZiS-24 fits in the turret KV-4. Remember, it's always best to get the top gun first.


Thanks. Last few battles with the KV-4 were horrible. In all of them my team was rolled on the oppisite side and then my side was crushed. Had one were I was fighting 3 tanks alone and surviving. But then the other team rolled up on my rear and then 6 or more were pounding my poor tank. It didn't end well. :( Going to work on the improved 107mm. I have been using the 122mm for damage and pen (Although not that much better). Tried the 107mm with both ap and he. Wasn't happy. Tried he on the 122mm but the shell was slow. No gold shells.

Edited by Edmund, 29 January 2013 - 1422 PM.

  • 0

#78 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1413 PM

I would like to see Contentious. In the variant I was reading about it would be rather TD, with limited traverse 120 mm gun, autoloader and, may be difficult, hull elevation instead of just gun (in fact, there was some very limited vertical movement for fine aiming).

I found a problem with WOT is symetry. All nations MUST have X tier, all trees MUST end at X tier. This lead to tanks unifications, artificial data changes for ballance and making such never-ever-were monsters like E-50 Ausf. M and 120 mm FV 215b. End UK heavy tree at IX tier Conqueror, but make that tank right!
  • 0

#79 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westminster, Colorado (Not by choice)
  • Interests:Tanks, Trains, Planes, and boats(Big boats)

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1426 PM



........Fair point on Conway, though It was supposedly a standin for failure of Conqueror as I understand it, so you can make a case for it being alongside Conqueror in one tier or another.


By failure of Conqueror, I presume you refer to it taking so long to be built. Not the failure of the Conqueror tank itself. Correct?
  • 0

#80 Max H

Max H

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 29 January 2013 - 1534 PM

limited traverse 120 mm gun,


Are you sure? it's got an L7 at bovvy and used a 20 pdr for testing IIRC. It would e nice to see in game, along with the s-103, but it would be very much a fantasy tank - there was very little armour fitted, the gun was strapped on top without a proper fighting compartment and the engine had no protection from artillery whatsoever - unless of course someone found the design for the rest of the hull somewhere in the archives

Sorry, I mean Action X. It was a turret for the Centurion that looked very similar to the one on 40 ton Centurion, though it was different. Picture of it on page 100 of Simon Dunstans ian allan centurion book, mounting what looks like a 20pdr. Looks like it was capable of a 105mm as well.


Aah, thanks. Centurions in-game don't have anything like that, other than the 40 tonne cent.

Fair point on Conway, though It was supposedly a standin for failure of Conqueror as I understand it, so you can make a case for it being alongside Conqueror in one tier or another.


IMO for a unarmoured (for a TD, at least) turreted slow TD with a 120mm gun T8 would be best - like a faster less armoured t28p. Dunno what would plug the gap at T9 in that tree though between it and the 4005

By failure of Conqueror, I presume you refer to it taking so long to be built. Not the failure of the Conqueror tank itself. Correct?


si. They wanted the 120mm fielded ASAP, on a pig if necessary, and were looking into how best to do so AIUI

Edited by Max H, 29 January 2013 - 1536 PM.

  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users