Jump to content


Dev. Q&A 23.02.18 (WoT dir. Anton Pankov, creative dir. Andrey Beletsky)

2018 q&a qna

  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

Aikl #1 Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25540 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Quite a lot of interesting stuff here, so no real tl;dr. Most of it could be heard through the grapevine, so strictly speaking it's not news, but Pankov and Beletsky confirming them is good. That's the surprising part; most of the listed things are what most of us could agree are good changes - at least if implemented correctly.

 

 

 Note: Two articles on the same topic, because they differ in some areas:

  •  KV-5. One states that PMM will be removed (and is planned abandoned for all tanks) and refund/exchange offered - the other says that PMM will stay.
  • Premium ammo. One states that an option is removal (no details), the other removal with new prem ammo added (???)
  • "Programs for the elderly" as stated in the first article is more than likely for veteran players. Could also refer to a 'daily login' bonus.

 

The two spoilers are from each linked article; most of the content is identical. The quote right below is from someone who happens to translate better than most blogs- I recommend cross-checking the articles and the input from our resident Russian before you fire up the incinerators.

 

 

View Post_EXODUZ_, on 24 February 2018 - 12:39 AM, said:

Corrections and additional info:

- SMM will be removed eventually, they want to step away from it.

- XP system is too complex and has many algorithms.

- MM problems arise because of differences among clusters and availability of lower tiers. They are content with how the new MM works because it has a modular system and allows tweaking, they will keep working on improvements.

- They will think about a possibility to change nationality of crews.

- Hiding name/stats - not in the near future, they simply acknowledge this issue.

- In-game karma was used as a metaphor, no current plans for anything like that.

- General chat will only be considered if they will manage to decrease overall toxicity.

- They're monitoring 'rofltstomps' issue, however current stats show that average battle time has increased over past year.

- "48% bots" are created for simulation purposes to run thousands of games in order to test tanks.

 

 

 

https://www.tracks-u...with-developers

 

https://www.tracks-u...with-developers

 oly;font-size:16px;text-align:justify;background:none;">On February 23rd, Wargaming organized a big Questions & Answers session with Russian Community Contributors Vspishkaoly;font-size:16px;text-align:justify;background:none;">, Amway921, LeBwa, EviL GrannY and Joveoly;font-size:16px;text-align:justify;background:none;">. The questions were presented to Anton Pankov, World of Tanks director and Andrey Beletsky - World of Tanks creative director.

 

 

Spoiler

 

https://thearmoredpa...-conference-qa/

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by Aikl, 24 February 2018 - 05:16 PM.


Erwin_Von_Braun #2 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:02 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 38254 battles
  • 4,952
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

Lots of words like 'possibly' + 'could be' + 'maybe'

LARGE pinch o' salt required here.



FluffyRedFox #3 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:06 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22967 battles
  • 8,378
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

"no changes planned for the Type 5" 

Great. /s



Aikl #4 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:08 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25540 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostErwin_Von_Braun, on 23 February 2018 - 09:02 PM, said:

Lots of words like 'possibly' + 'could be' + 'maybe'

LARGE pinch o' salt required here.

 

I actually thought about mentioning that, but most of those commenting on the Q&As have the salt in the ready rack.

 

After all, there are three-four year old Q&As that mention certain changes happening now - though one could always hope Wargaming's figured out some parts of their PR. Almost had a hope back when the forum charm offensive was launched a couple of weeks ago.



Erwin_Von_Braun #5 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:10 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 38254 battles
  • 4,952
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View PostAikl, on 23 February 2018 - 09:08 PM, said:

 

I actually thought about mentioning that, but most of those commenting on the Q&As have the salt in the ready rack.

 

After all, there are three-four year old Q&As that mention certain changes happening now - though one could always hope Wargaming's figured out some parts of their PR. Almost had a hope back when the forum charm offensive was launched a couple of weeks ago.

 

You would almost think they were telling us exactly what we want to hear...

Archaean #6 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15179 battles
  • 1,181
  • [S4LT] S4LT
  • Member since:
    04-25-2015
FINALLY [edited]REMOVAL OF ABSOLUTELY FREAKING TEAM DAMAGE.

Browarszky #7 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:15 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16096 battles
  • 3,731
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

'Program for the elderly'?... so this is what it has come to, izzit? :(

 

  • There’s a bot under development, which will play like a 48% WR potato to test tanks.

Oh...

 

  • Historical battles only in PvE

This actually sounds promising.

 

 

  • There will be a review of all special and personal mission tanks

Good.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #8 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49535 battles
  • 1,750
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostBrowarszky, on 23 February 2018 - 11:15 PM, said:

'Program for the elderly'?... so this is what it has come to, izzit? :(

 

 

I am not leaving my house. :angry:

jack_timber #9 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:36 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 33432 battles
  • 2,073
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

Program for the elderly... We all have to drive either Togs or Tortoise and wear driving gloves, you know the ones with the perforations, wearing of flat caps is also mandatory. Is there going to room for me whippet?

Perhaps some won't get the inference as it is a northern phenomena...



Steve8066 #10 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12415 battles
  • 830
  • Member since:
    10-06-2015

View Postjack_timber, on 23 February 2018 - 10:36 PM, said:

Program for the elderly... We all have to drive either Togs or Tortoise and wear driving gloves, you know the ones with the perforations, wearing of flat caps is also mandatory. Is there going to room for me whippet?

Perhaps some won't get the inference as it is a northern phenomena...

 

eeh by gum

 

or ee ba gum depending on where you are.


Edited by Steve8066, 23 February 2018 - 10:39 PM.


ExistanceUK #11 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:40 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14783 battles
  • 169
  • Member since:
    08-29-2015
Super Conq is being investigated but Type 5 is ok? Come on that's the wrong way around. 

DracheimFlug #12 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:43 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8957 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014
A lot of that (like wanting to get rid of PMM and wanting to change the crew skills, including making 6th 'free;) has been around for years. 

Balc0ra #13 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66269 battles
  • 16,249
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

It's about time they start to look at the KV-5 and the IS-6 etc. As they have been talking about it for a year. But going by this it seems they still can't agree on what to do. Personally I want the pref MM gone from my IS-6 if they give it good enough buffs.

 

WG have not like pref MM for ages, and have always seen it as a problem.

 

As for the gold ammo removal idea? Sure.. but they need to do some major normal ammo and armor re-balance first. As some high tier heavies can't even pen them self.


Edited by Balc0ra, 23 February 2018 - 10:49 PM.


TheWarrener #14 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:54 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3359 battles
  • 355
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017

View PostExistanceUK, on 23 February 2018 - 10:40 PM, said:

Super Conq is being investigated but Type 5 is ok? Come on that's the wrong way around. 

Nothing unexpected, SC is just broken in hands of a good player meanwhile type is a shameless noobtube. We all know WG's priorities huh?



XxKuzkina_MatxX #15 Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49535 battles
  • 1,750
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016
What will the E25 look like without PMM?

Zoggo_ #16 Posted 23 February 2018 - 11:09 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28054 battles
  • 269
  • Member since:
    05-11-2013

Playing a t-80 tier 4 and getting gold spammed by a Type 64 at tier 6 makes my head explode. Roll on this -

 

  • The premium ammo/consumable changes will be introduced after 1 
  •  
  • a) removing prem ammo (new would appear in its place)
  • b) making gold-only prem ammo
  • c) rework prem ammo economy completely
  •  
  • Option A would be my choice.


Bucifel #17 Posted 23 February 2018 - 11:20 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 30932 battles
  • 1,373
  • [B4DD] B4DD
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

FINALLY SOME LIGHT !!!

 

damn son...i think this time im drunk and cant see straight, not WG..

 

changes to prem ammo?? REALLY ???? FINALLY SOME COMPETENCE and professionalism!!!!

btw...best option is to rework it entirely AND remove completely P2W factor...that means STANDARDIZE all prices and ADD DISADVANTAGES .

SIMPLE !

 

 

the only part wich still remain wrong (but after i saw this i still hope) is the Type5...

cmon...if you can change prem ammo you CAN BALANCE ALL TANKS !!

everything is possible !! you just need to...WANT !!

 

thumbs up this time for wg !

 

*damn son...i still cant believe what i see..."changes to p2w prem ammo" ..??

ok, all what you need next are WEAKPOINTS ! ;) (RELEVANT ONES ON ANY TANK ! )

 

KEEP LIKE THAT WG !

 

(and sure...i just HOPE thats not a moronic change again what makes ALL ammos premium...:facepalm:. i still expect any incompetent, greed and p2w change from wg...i cant believe untill i see, i just hope...)


Edited by Bucifel, 23 February 2018 - 11:27 PM.


_EXODUZ_ #18 Posted 23 February 2018 - 11:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34979 battles
  • 1,938
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014
I was gonna write up my own translation, lel. Well this is good enough. I'm re-watching the stream right now cause I missed some parts, I'll update you guys if anything is different.

Edited by _EXODUZ_, 23 February 2018 - 11:48 PM.


Shivva #19 Posted 23 February 2018 - 11:51 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29794 battles
  • 1,958
  • [J_A_G] J_A_G
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012

View PostZoggo_, on 23 February 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

Playing a t-80 tier 4 and getting gold spammed by a Type 64 at tier 6 makes my head explode. Roll on this -

 

  • The premium ammo/consumable changes will be introduced after 1 
  •  
  • a) removing prem ammo (new would appear in its place)
  • b) making gold-only prem ammo
  • c) rework prem ammo economy completely
  •  
  • Option A would be my choice.

he would have penned you with AP anyway and you'd take the same dmg...I  don't see a problem, the only loser here was the Type 64 who wasted credits.



Zoggo_ #20 Posted 24 February 2018 - 12:37 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28054 battles
  • 269
  • Member since:
    05-11-2013

View PostShivva, on 23 February 2018 - 10:51 PM, said:

he would have penned you with AP anyway and you'd take the same dmg...I  don't see a problem, the only loser here was the Type 64 who wasted credits.

 

Just an example from this evening, the problem is more relevant at high tiers. The point is too many players just autoaim and load gold without any concequence apart from costing more credits. I would love to see an over penetration penalty. In other words you fire a shell with way too much pen it does a lot less damage as it goes straight through the tank.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users