Jump to content


Gamescom 2014: Q&A Sessions’ Recap


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

Community #1 Posted 16 August 2014 - 11:55 AM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 26,042
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
Curious about what the future holds for the game? Read now for red-hot info straight from gamescom!

Full news text


Lorheem #2 Posted 16 August 2014 - 12:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31047 battles
  • 895
  • [SRSLY] SRSLY
  • Member since:
    07-06-2011

"308: Will we see more Bundeswehr tanks like RU251 or Kanonenjagdpanzer?

 It is quite possible. However, it certainly won't happen this year."

 

RU251 is coming in the next patch, or is it?



SilentstalkerCZ #3 Posted 16 August 2014 - 12:24 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 52 battles
  • 1,489
  • Member since:
    12-29-2013

Block Quote

308: Will we see more Bundeswehr tanks like RU251 or Kanonenjagdpanzer?

 It is quite possible. However, it certainly won't happen this year.

 

RU251 is coming in 9.3

 

And seriously - "Will they add Abrams" - who picked the questions?

 

Stronk QA, almost stronker than the stream...


Edited by SilentstalkerCZ, 16 August 2014 - 12:25 PM.


EmEfEs #4 Posted 16 August 2014 - 12:32 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 25430 battles
  • 66
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

Well SS, didnt u block WG EU staff from FTR?

How else should they know whats up?


Edited by EmEfEs, 16 August 2014 - 12:32 PM.


Steiner011 #5 Posted 16 August 2014 - 12:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38708 battles
  • 1,364
  • [SCRUB] SCRUB
  • Member since:
    10-09-2012

Ok, who in the name of Walter Christie keeps asking for Leo2 and similar 1970+ tanks?

 

Brain - not what it used to be...



SilentstalkerCZ #6 Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 52 battles
  • 1,489
  • Member since:
    12-29-2013

View PostEmEfEs, on 16 August 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

Well SS, didnt u block WG EU staff from FTR?

How else should they know whats up?

 

Tried - didn't work (resp. it did, but people I did not want to get banned couldn't get on FTR).



Lorheem #7 Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31047 battles
  • 895
  • [SRSLY] SRSLY
  • Member since:
    07-06-2011
And they still spout wrong info ...

LK_4D4 #8 Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:18 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 41431 battles
  • 162
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    01-07-2012

Will you add the possibility to test tanks or maps in training mode alone?

No, such a feature is not planned.

 

Can you explain why the hell not?



SamanTK #9 Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 56241 battles
  • 497
  • Member since:
    07-03-2011

When will you have a multi-core CPU support in World of Tanks?

 

Multicore support is already partially introduced to the game. In fact, some of the game processes are already managed by the other cores. However, we have plans to extend it with the introduction of Havok effects.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It will be just like that - Havok 2/4 cores + Game 1 core = wow, multicore support :sceptic:



Zedrick #10 Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15260 battles
  • 352
  • Member since:
    11-03-2012

View PostLK_4D4, on 16 August 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

Can you explain why the hell not?

 

You used a low tier font, so let me add/clarify: why the hell not? This would be very useful and I can't imagine any reason for not allowing it.



SilentstalkerCZ #11 Posted 16 August 2014 - 01:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 52 battles
  • 1,489
  • Member since:
    12-29-2013

View PostZedrick, on 16 August 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

 

You used a low tier font, so let me add/clarify: why the hell not? This would be very useful and I can't imagine any reason for not allowing it.

 

Server resources.

 

It takes practically as much server resources to create a full battle for 30 people as it does to create a battle for 1 person, making it 30 times less effective. Plus of course, there is the thing about writing extra coding for an option that will be used by no more than maybe a hundred players.



Zedrick #12 Posted 16 August 2014 - 03:43 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15260 battles
  • 352
  • Member since:
    11-03-2012

View PostSilentstalkerCZ, on 16 August 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Server resources.

 

It takes practically as much server resources to create a full battle for 30 people as it does to create a battle for 1 person, making it 30 times less effective. Plus of course, there is the thing about writing extra coding for an option that will be used by no more than maybe a hundred players.

 

But a single player training map can be run 100% in the client. Basically the way replays are run. If that other company can do it with that other tank game, why not wargaming?

 

If only a few hundred players wants this then sure, I get it - not worth even 5 minutes of coding. But I imagine a lot more players (especially those not in a clan and don't have anyone to platoon with - the majority of the players) would love to be able to drive around and explore new or changed maps without pressure.


Edited by Zedrick, 16 August 2014 - 03:44 PM.


SamanTK #13 Posted 16 August 2014 - 04:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 56241 battles
  • 497
  • Member since:
    07-03-2011

View PostZedrick, on 16 August 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

 

But a single player training map can be run 100% in the client. Basically the way replays are run. If that other company can do it with that other tank game, why not wargaming?

 

If only a few hundred players wants this then sure, I get it - not worth even 5 minutes of coding. But I imagine a lot more players (especially those not in a clan and don't have anyone to platoon with - the majority of the players) would love to be able to drive around and explore new or changed maps without pressure.

It Can't - physic is computed by server.



SilentstalkerCZ #14 Posted 16 August 2014 - 04:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 52 battles
  • 1,489
  • Member since:
    12-29-2013

View PostSamanTK, on 16 August 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

It Can't - physic is computed by server.

 

This.



LK_4D4 #15 Posted 18 August 2014 - 10:53 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 41431 battles
  • 162
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    01-07-2012

View PostSilentstalkerCZ, on 16 August 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

 

Server resources.

 

It takes practically as much server resources to create a full battle for 30 people as it does to create a battle for 1 person, making it 30 times less effective. Plus of course, there is the thing about writing extra coding for an option that will be used by no more than maybe a hundred players.

server resources? from where you have this kind of information? you currently need two accounts to start training room when you need -  which is not a problem to achieve with one person either... if you ever heard about virtualization through vmware software one person can run game klient twice on ONE computer with two different accounts which is like scratching left ear with right hand...server resources my as5, it is complete nonsense... so wg please answer us WHY THE HELL NOT?


Edited by LK_4D4, 18 August 2014 - 10:54 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users