20/05/2016 Q&A

71

Hello,

WG RU posted a Q&A on their portal which is basically a copy paste of the answers they gave WG EU and I for the 9.15 WG EU Q&A, but there were a few different bits, I filtered them for you:

-First of all I forgot to warn you, when I told you on the WG EU Q&A that the 112 wont be sold any more in a very near future, I forgot to warn you to wait until last-minute to buy the tank if you are interested, because WG tends to make “goodbye-discounts”, the RU server already has a 30% discount on the 112.

-The team is not planing to make changes on the Valentine.
-Caernarvon turret may be replaced at the end of this year/start of next.
-There are no plans to give the 20 pounder gun to the Challenger.
-There are no plans to give the 121 a 100 mm gun.
-Wargaming is planning to bring a Carousel mode.
-There are no plans for players to vote which maps they want to play on.
-There are no plans to give rewards to players for receiving medals.
-There are no plans to trade commanders between vehicles of different nations.
-Havok was cancelled? “We haven’t cancelled the work on it but there are no news either so far”
-Dev team says that if stats show that CZ tanks need nerf then they will nerf them.
-The team learning to not give “high-sounding titles” to the patches (Rubicon).
-There are no plans to introduce a tier 11-12 fun mode like it was shown in April’s Fool over a year ago but the team is happy that players enjoyed the joke.

Also a couple of my birdies told me:

-American medium tree rework is taking serious form.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!

71 comments on “20/05/2016 Q&A

  1. shadows1995 says:

    -American medium tree rework is taking serious form!!!! maybe a new tier 10 medium? the fatton is quite old and a bit outclassed any chances for an MBT-70?




    0



    0
    • No… That is too modern… Especially the gun which is a 120mm smoothbore or a 152mm guided missile




      0



      0
      • Anonymous says:

        The M48 Patton is older than most tier 9s and how is the MBT70 too modern when its the same age as the T62, leo 1, T95E6, AMX 30B, 121, 113, and younger than the STB-1?




        0



        0
      • Age doesn’t matter. If that were the case, we would have the T-64 at tier 10 since it is a couple years older than the Chieftain and younger than the STB-1

        The MBT-70 along with the T-64 were project way, way ahead of their time. MBT-70 had adavanced FCS and lightning fast mobility (1500hp engine ÷ 45 tonnes = 33 hp/t (not even some light tanks have that acceleration) with 69 kph)

        Not to mention that the German version has a 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun (not allowed) and the Americans had a 152mm missile launcher.

        It could even protect itself from 105mm L7 APDS rounds which has way less penetration in the game than real life.

        It should be tier 12 of at most tier 13.




        0



        0
      • If age mattered to me I wouldn’t be advocating for the introduction of the TR-77-580




        0



        0
      • Anonymous says:

        So the M48 Patton gets to be stuck in the stone age compared to most tier 10s then?




        0



        0
      • There’s tons of tier 10 meds to choose from. M60A1 is an obvious example.




        0



        0
      • Anonymous says:

        If the TR-77-580 gets added the Abrams prototype should definitely be added.




        0



        0
      • I’m basically know the in and out about the TR-77-580.

        The TR-77-580 is archaic. While its put into service in 1977, it uses normal AP rounds with a 100mm gun. It can totally fit as a tier 10 Soviet tank or Romanian tree that I’m trying to find info on. My friend may visit the archives soon.

        Rita won’t like this, but here is an article on the tank I did.

        https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/04/27/can-the-tr-77-580-fit-into-wot/




        0



        0
      • BattleBudgie says:

        They definitely claimed several times they won’t add tanks with composite armor. MBT-70 is a no-go, let it go.




        0



        0
      • Anonymous says:

        In your own article you say its armor is better than most tier 10s. If this thing gets added, which it shouldn’t, then the M1 Abrams should definitely be added.




        0



        0
      • Frontally. Its plagued by a weak engine.

        The M1 Abrams has very good frontal armor even for the original version. About 500-700mm of armor. Plus, the mobility is better than the M1A2 with the 1500hp since it weigh 10 tonnes less. It had composite armor too which they won’t implement. Also, the FCS is insane.

        M1A1 has no place in WoT unlike the TR-77-580. The only strong point of the TR-77-580 is the insane frontal armor which is normal steel armor and the speed. Everything else is mediocre and can totally fit as a good brawler.




        0



        0
    • Xx1Tommy1xX says:

      70mph and a heat spamming 152mm gun…….no I guess.




      0



      0
    • finaly, I just hope they extend it to the rest of the tree in the future




      0



      0
    • the issue isn’t really if it’s “new” or “old” but the technology used on them, while the MBT-70 wasn’t designed with composite armor and used a rifled gun (the 152mm) the problem is that WG wouldn’t be able to “balance” it by giving longer aim time or worse accuracy, with the technology used on the MBT-70 you could pretty much expect a hit with at least 80% of your shots, then comes the type of ammo it used and at least on the HEAT side(don’t know if it used normal AP or APDS [SABOT]) no tank in the game would be able to resist it, we are talking about 400 or 500mm of penetration at least and would probably be HEAT-FS wich doesn’t seem to bounce of armor like normal HEAT does




      0



      0
    • taief98 says:

      Patton is one of the best mediums for random battles




      0



      0
    • Eht Edom says:

      M48 Patton is great tier X after its most recent buff.




      0



      0
    • dinepada says:

      this is more like the end of the M4 E2…




      0



      0
    • I would love to see a huge rework of the American medium line. It’s good as it is now, but it can be made much better.




      0



      0
  2. Hell yeah… The American tree needs serious reworks in the medium department. Pershing, M47/M46, M48/M47 (M47 with 90mm M41), and M60A1




    0



    0
    • yeah it needs, if they want to they can make a second tech tree based on more mobile tanks, unlike how you now go from the M46 with good mobility and not as good firepower to the M48 wich is the oposite, bad mobility and good firepower
      they could rework it like this:
      M4A3E2>>T20>>M26>>T26E5 (152mm of frontal armor + Pershing strong turret + same guns as M46?)>>M48
      M7>>T22 (tier 6)>>T23>>T42>>M46 or M47 or M47E (Spanish M47 with 105mm gun, I think the gun is of French origin and might be similar to the AMX-30B gun)>>M60A1 or M47E
      3rd line with T77 (120mm autoloader would need a huge nerf, from clip size to reload timer between clips) as tier 10?? or the other T54 autoloader with a conventional turret (possibly similar to M48 in terms of armor values)?? following T54E1
      4th line with T95 (one of the many configurations still available) following T54E2 as tier 9? or maybe with a weaker T95 configuration at tier 9?

      at least 3 medium lines are viable with all having different “flavours”/playstyles, one autoloading line, one “hard-hitting” line and one more mobile line




      0



      0
      • T20, T23, and T22 are all tier 6 material.

        I would propose…

        Tier 5: M4 Sherman and/or T22E1>>Tier 6: M4A3E8 and/or T20/T20E3>>Tier 7: Super Pershing/Pershing (with no spaced armor)>>Tier 8: M46/M46E1 and/or M47>>Tier 9: M47 (90mm M41 with extra damage) and/or M48 Patton>>Tier 10: M60A1




        0



        0
      • I also allways thought the T20 would only fit tier 6 but WG buffed it to be similar to the T23 and that’s why we have it at tier 7, just like I propose the T23 as tier 7 for the second medium line
        the T22 is ideal for tier 6 since it has the same protection and mobility as the “Easy 8” and offers a different aproach with the 76mm gun or a autoloader 75mm M3




        0



        0
  3. Anonymous says:

    China 121 direct formal replaced Type 69




    0



    0
  4. marianr87 says:

    Yes tell us more about this American medium rework. 😀




    0



    0
    • BattleBudgie says:

      Why is there all that hate toward the M48? It’s one of my favourite tanks, and definitely my favourite T10 med (I had the T-62A, STB-1, E 50M and AMX 50B which classifies as a med for me). That gun is the dream deal, and the mobility and depression make up for a perfect combo, at least for me.




      0



      0
    • we can expect more than the medium lines rework, they have said a new tier 8 heavy would be introduced with both armor and a powerfull/high penetrating gun, on the other hand it was an answer to the common “M6A2E1 needs a buff to it’s gun” so it might be a premium but with those specs it would be more suitable to replace the T32
      maybe in the future the US tech tree heavies will see some “love” from the devs (not really in quality, because they are good, but in quantity)




      0



      0
  5. sgtyester says:

    what cearnavarpn turret replacement? with the current turret is actually a good playable heavy instead of the old turret which was so easy to pen




    0



    0
  6. ArkSyve says:

    Noooo don’t touch me Pershing. 🙁




    0



    0
  7. fighting_falcon93 says:

    “There are no plans to introduce a tier 11-12 fun”
    Now this is typical WG decoying 😀 There are no plans to introduce a tier XI-XII FUN mode, and they speak the truth, because they plan to introduce a tier XI-XII NORMAL mode 😀 No, I have no source on that, but I honestly doubt that they will make an entire separate game just for modern tanks 😀




    0



    0
    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah they are making a completely separate game. WoT 2.0 is being developed in Seattle. Now for my second conspiracy debunking, I’ll dissect the JFK “magic bullet” theory.




      0



      0
  8. Pavey Yip says:

    Caernarvon turret replacement? That tank really needs it, it is a bit underwhelming compared to other tier 8 heavies.




    0



    0
    • Anonymous says:

      With the older turret it was one of the best tier 8 heavies. With the new turret it’s one of the worst tier 8 mediums.




      0



      0
    • zombietropa says:

      A way to make the Caenarvon less underwhelming is to give it a bigger gun. While the Churchill type heavies you get earlier on in the tech tree can get away with the med guns is because they have 1)The armour to get away with it, 2)The top gun of the med a tier above it. Since the Caern doesn’t have much in the way of armour, why not give it the 105mm? It won’t be OP, because of it has near paper armour (slow reload to), but will become one hell of a support heavy. (If my memory serves me correctly, the 20pdr and 105mm breeches were interchangeable, but don’t quote me on that)




      0



      0
    • neon toad says:

      Yep, Caernarvon’s turret is definitely OP as hell as Russian guns can bounce off it sometimes if you forget to sacrifice enough dissidents to Stalin, so yeah, it should be nerfed immediately. I really doubt replacement = buff xD And since barely anyone plays British heavies, barely anyone would care, so why not. Soviet tanks will have more cannon fodder to prey on and everyone will be happy. And if Caernarvon’s turret gets replaced so should AX’s turret as well because world of tanks…

      And for the gun on Caernarvon. It obviously could have better alpha or RoF. High RoF even with low alpha worked reasonably well on BP, at least for me, as long as you could find something to pen with that crappy gun and the enemy didn’t know how to pen you, which at tier 7 and below can happen quite often 😛




      0



      0
  9. Hedgehog1963 says:

    Why does WoWS have a customisable carousel and WoT not by now?




    0



    0
  10. uberfrenchtoast says:

    Can you get us some more definitive answers regarding the development and placement of the Chieftain Mark 6? Would appreciate it.




    0



    0
  11. i herz boobies says:

    1- RUBICON… – lend from “Eve Online” … which made something out of it.

    2- There are no plans for players to vote which maps they want to play on.
    …… i wouldn’t care which map i play, as long i can downvote Prokhorvka… – it sucks.
    Its extreme static gameplay in the corners… and if there are 2 flag poles… gosh…… -i suicide on start.
    Even paying 10~30k for repairs… IS worth, not playing that crap<.<




    0



    0
  12. -There are no plans to trade commanders between vehicles of different nations.

    How about letting us trade crew between tanks have been previously trained in with no penalty to stats? Like moving them from regular to premium tanks.




    0



    0
    • -American medium tree rework is taking serious form.

      What about the American TD lines? Half of them are fake and the other half are unhistorical;
      T28 (fake)
      T28 Prot (fake)
      T95 (unhistorical 120mm/155mm guns)
      T30 (it’s a fucking HT not a TD… WTF WG)
      T110e4 (fake; e5 was the only turreted T110 design)
      T110e3 (unhistorical; all T110 projects were designed to have a 120mm gun, nothing else

      And that’s only covering from tier 8 up… WG fucked up hard when they decided to make T30 from tier 10 HT to tier 9 TD… Made up fake tanks just to make a line that shouldnt exist…




      0



      0
      • DoesNotCompute says:

        the ISU – 152 used the SU – 152’s short 152mm “mortar” as I recall, only two or three were ever fitted with experimental BL-10’s and they did not work and were sent for modifications. the obj 704 was also fitted with the short 152mm “mortar”. they were able to shoot in direct and indirect fire mode. the un historical stuff is on all nations pretty much so I dont really care that much. I mean, what would you replace all those tanks with? (and the guns on the ISU and obj 704 that make them what they are)




        0



        0
      • Well, tanks wouldn’t need unhistorical guns if the guns had historical penetration on their rounds, I’m not saying tanks with unhistorical modules need to be replaced. Just the tanks that are fake and not classed correctly.




        0



        0
      • Game balance is the main motivator for these changes. They never meant to be a simulator, like War Thunder, and had to use their imaginations to flush out tech trees. In addition, the use of these unhistorical guns, while terrible from a history reenactment standpoint, allows these machines to compete, because I would not like to have to shoot at Tier 10s with the T29’s cannon.

        Have Wargaming gone to extremes? Yes. The recently removed Waffentrager auf. E 100 is a shining example of this. But for the most part, the vehicles do have some basis in reality, and are what we call artistic liberties.

        While I find the T28’s implementation curious, I do not find trouble with it, although I would not mind a change to a more historical implementation of the T28 (it DOES need a buff).

        And while we can argue that tanks like the Tiger and Panther should be at Tier 6, it can also be argued that these tanks in their current standing are perfectly adequate with the buffs they received. The Tiger is a true sniper, the IS a great brawler, and the T29 a great support heavy. The British Black Prince is a perfect roadblock, and the AMX M4 45 is essentially a Tier 8 medium masquerading as a Tier 7 heavy tank. It is this sort of balance that has existed in the game for a long time which is the reason why many of these vehicles are not historically accurate.

        The T29, T34, and T30 all have 279mm, or 12 inches, of frontal turret armor in the game. These are also the values stated by Hunnicutt, a detailed and informative book about American tanks from this era. When these tanks were implemented, WG did not have the resources it has now, and this 12-inch value was taken at face value. However, when they actually got a chance to measure the armor on these tanks, it turns out that it was only 8 inches, or 203mm, thick. The issue behind changing this value is that the T29, T30, and T34 have been in the game for a very long time, and the game has already been balanced around the incorrect figure.




        0



        0
      • Rita Sobral says:

        Your comment got caught by spam, you shouldn’t have a problem from now on. Welcome. 🙂




        0



        0
  13. taief98 says:

    Why rework the American medium line???
    Unless you add more tanks the current tanks are perfect. The m48 is on of the best tier 10s for stomping randoms. It’s a slower stb1 which can snapshot.
    The m46 is king of tier 9 mediums.
    The pershing is with the 416 and sta1 for the best tier 8 mediums.
    The t20 on league with the t34-1 the best tier 7 med.
    The tier 6s are meh but unique and have a good role in the game
    The tier 5 is pretty sweet




    0



    0
  14. bellzidanto says:

    Remain M48 and implement M47 is my best episode.




    0



    0
  15. “-American medium tree rework is taking serious form.”

    This is a very intriguing rumor, especially for me. See, the only reason I started playing WoT was to play the American medium tank line and get to the tier 10 tank. Originally, I misread the list of available tanks and got really excited that I’d eventually be able to unlock the M60, the same tank my father worked on while he was serving in the US Army and stationed in Korea. Razzum frazzum clan war gift tank only thing. I had to settle for the M48A1 Patton. Fortunately, my father worked on that one, too.

    All I ever hear is how bad the American medium tanks are, how fat and slow they are compared to this and that, how easily spotted they are compared to this and that, etc. I don’t care. I like my Easy 8, enjoy my Jumbo, and love my M48A1. My friend gifted me the Ripper Patton and I play the crap out of it, too. WoT may have Russian bias; I have American medium bias!

    I’m going to keep my eyes peeled for any changes since they’ll be exciting, good or bad. And the nice thing is, even if the changes are utterly horrific, I already have all the tanks I ever wanted from the game. Unless they completely remove the Patton from the game (and seriously, why would they?), any changes to the tech tree can only benefit my collection.




    0



    0
    • Well it may have not been the M60 your dad as it was a pilot vehicle. It was most likely a M60A1 or A3.




      0



      0
      • Undoubtedly true.

        On a related note, the main reason I don’t play Armored Warfare anymore? I got to the M60A1 within a week of starting the game. There’s simply zero incentive for me to progress beyond tier 3 because, check it out, I unlocked the exact tank I always wanted to unlock in World of Tanks! And it didn’t take years, it only took a week. How about that?

        “But what about the Abrams and modern main battle tanks and guided missiles and artillery that isn’t broken and–”

        None of that matters. I achieved my goal. I got the tank I was gunning for. I got exactly what I wanted out of that game. It’s a solid game, don’t get me wrong. There’s simply no draw for me to play modern-era MBTs.




        0



        0
  16. Jens Schaub says:

    When will patch 9.15 come?




    0



    0

Leave a Reply