Saturday, September 28, 2013

28.09.13.

- it’s technically possible to make a 1200*1200m WoT map
- Storm states that it’s not necessery to add the AAMG to some tanks, but it’s pretty (SS: as in that pintle-mounted MG, that isn’t a part of collision model anyway)
- it’s completely possible that when tank overturning is implemented, a tank, going down hill full speed will roll on its back if it gets detracked by intertia
- for now there are no plans for more TD’s with more alpha than Jpz E-100
- for now, it’s not planned to delete inactive accounts, that are “blocking” attractive names, as there are difficulties connected with that
- MM weight of vehicles will not be officially disclosed

- the 60mm frontal armor T-34 variant (intended as the hull option for T-34) is not the Leningrad “s ekranami” variant (with spaced armor), the 60mm plate is apparently homogenous
- optional hull variants with spaced armor will be kept separate from turrets with spaced armor apparently (SS: as in, there will be an option to install only the hull with spaced armor, while the spaced armor on the turret (where possible) might appear either as equipment, or as a separate turret module)
- SerB states that he doesn’t consider earlier-implemented vehicles to be obsolete by the fact WG implemented newer high alpha vehicles
- T-34-2 is worse than Type 59? “Don’t play T-34-2″
- the gold ammo for credits statistics are “fine”, which also means WG won’t be limiting this in high tiers (SS: some player was whining that too many people shoot gold on tier 10)
- NPC tanks won’t be introduced to WoT, as it is much complicated to make AI tanks than AI planes (like in WoWp)
- SerB states that this MM is normal
- Q: “Will there be a post-battle player performance rating by other players, something like the reputation on forums?” A: “‘I WILL NEGREP YOU YOU CAMPING BUSH-LOVING WANKER!!111!!’ yea right…”
- Japanese planes in WoWp being fragile is an intended feature
- T-34-3 price is fine