Silentstalker

Strange. Because I am 100 percent sure we didn't touch any values or mechanics since January or so.

Improvement is improvement, comrade!

Norse_Viking, in my research into this camouflage, I found at least 4 pattern variations with major differences and several smaller ones. My conclusion is that while the "general pattern" seems to be roughly the same, the color shades on lots of these photos depend on actual light. Furthermore, like in any military, this pattern differs from vehicle to vehicle the way the crew saw fit to paint it (such is the case of that "more black" pattern above). This is fairly normal, pretty much every army does that and the colors differ as well in real life depending on what's at hand. Conclusion: the way it's done, it's legit. We might make a different Norwegian pattern in the future as a separate camo but right now, it seems okay.

No. That happens almost exclusively on supertest and we never release info from there.

They aren't "driving it" - they just copied the vehicle model to another vehicle. So don't take the video seriously, please.

Hm. Sometimes the game minimizes to desktop with an error message that awbrowser.exe stopped working. Did this happen to you?

As enlightened as this might be (and as dumb as various things like ufos are), yours is not the majority community opinion.

I am not really worried about WT. Their toxic progression model basically prohibits normal players from reaching so high in any reasonable amount of time. Sure, you CAN get there, but unlike in AW, those top vehicles aren't an integral part of the game. They are more like a cherry on the top. And yes, WT can totally add new vehicles as well, but they are so far behind us in this regard they'll never catch up. And even when we add vehicles WT already has, it usually doesn't affect us in the slightest The thing we were actually worried about was Modern WoT, which you probably heard of as "Excalibur" - but that was like 2016 or so (we knew about it far sooner than players, you don't really hide much in this industry). Their development collapsed long time ago, so that's not going anywhere. Console WoT is its own thing that has almost nothing to do with the PC version so it's unlikely that these are coming to PC. And even if they were, it wouldn't really affect us. AW players play AW because it's not WoT. We have many flaws, but not the WoT ones, like arty in PvP on gold ammo.

This is not a matter any amount of feedback short of game-wide uprising (don't...) would solve, and you won't organize that because even our official channels only reach a fraction of players. It's about mathematics, which you cannot do either because you do not have the right input.

Yes, that is an element of the game that I like to call "core narrative" - it's a topic I was trying to explain to the developers and producers for two years now. So far without success. It seems really simple at first glance, but it isn't, there are a lot of underlying nuances, some of which I am not at liberty to explain. Suffice to say, the way things are done currently do work. We are not morons (contrary to what some simpler players believe - Dunning Kruger and all that), we see the results of our actions and what works and what does not. The most I can say right now is that it's an ongoing discussion.

Well, I am going to tell you the same thing I told one of the influencers this morning. A new progression line is theoretically possible, but honestly, how will you convince the devs it's worth it when you have models that are on one hand super expensive and on the other hand bring little? Especially the low Tiers, anything below Tier 5 is money thrown out of the window. When I first heard of the plans that there would not be any more progression lines, which was like, hmm, mid-2019, the assumption was that the resources would be pooled into something different. It is completely true that this game does have enough progression vehicles and the current progression system is obsolete. Those are completely rational arguments why more progression lines were scrapped. When you have the core playerbase with billions of XP, well, it's like inflation. It's not worth anyhting. We do not introduce new free content just for our love of the game, we want players to actually play it. But following various balance 2.0, server reset and other compensations, a significant portion of core players has enough XP/credits to unlock the entire new line right away, resulting in zero gain but huge expenses. It's not like that it wasn't given any though, I mean... I personally proposed a draft of something like a superprogression, where the vehicles would be basically "free" (as in, available for XP/rep/credits) but very expensive. It was a bit more complicated than that, but anyway, it was rejected. But if something like that ever happens, it'll be along those lines. But the same way it was introduced earlier? Forget it. Or you can take a look at it from a different perspective. The BP entry fee is basically so low (and for Gold, which we give out for free every week) that BP vehicles basically ARE progression vehicles with premium status. All you have to invest is your time.

I think we have a good amount of realistic designs to implement yet, this year. Next year is going to be more interesting. But we have one massive advantage over WoT or WT. New tech is being unveiled all the time. Armata, VT-5, ZTQ-15, Type 96B, Kurganets... all these designs were unveiled basically during the development process and all of these are high Tier. Running out of interesting designs? All we have to do is wait for the next major expo and voila.

Yes. This basically slipped me by. The devs wanted a tracked Kornet and added it to their plans and when I was looking at it, I totally assumed it was real because it had some render next to it which looked like a photo. A year later, here I am on my old blog ranting about fake Wargaming tanks and how I hate this shit. Boom, two days later, I find out that this is fake but the model is already made (at least it's realistic and designed by a guy who actually understands tank design, unlike the WG shit, but that's just cope), so too late to change anything (and they probably wouldn't anyway since the objective was "tracked Kornet"). So.... sorry.

Needless to say, no such thing happened. If anything, the MBT-70 was seriously buffed in the (albeit distant) past.

Nope. That would be a great recipe for a ton of refund requests.

Yup

Known issue. Will be fixed.

Huh. Interesting.

Hello guys, if you feel so inclined, please do share what you think of the new War special operation. Good things, bad things... everything that comes to your mind. And please rate it in your post with points out of 10 (for example 8/10).

Regarding the 6 minute rotation, here's an official developer quote in case you missed it:

Enough to make content for them in the future. Damn, that forum looks good actually... really impressive.

Skins can alter just visual model geometry, but not performance. So, adding a giant spike or a dragon mouth to the gun is okay, but you can't add ERA elements as a part of a skin. Or remove them. You also cannot skin-lock certain configurations (this is a bit non-intuitive and I am not entirely sure why because it was possible in the past). So, for example, you cannot make a T-72M1 skin for the T-72A because then you'd end up with T-72M1 with ERA, which is technically a nonsense (it isn't, but let's say it is). Skins also cannot alter the base armor perception. For example, for one skin (the Warhammer), I wanted the devs to remove the rearmost side panel so that the drive sprocket was completely uncovered. I argued that this would have almost no effect on the gameplay and that it was possible to leave that armor there "virtually" (changing the visual model but not the collision one). This was rejected. The T-72M1 is my personal idea - I have long argued that we need a "skin carrier" basic Leopard 2A4, basic Abrams and basic T-72M1. The skins can then not only propell the vehicle sale itself, but can act as standalones. While this may sound strange, it can be justified when you look at some internal considerations, but that's obviously not something I can share. We'll see how it goes.

Aye, the Ural performance is an issue that we'll be dealing with separately (we know it sucks), but I have no definitive answers as to how. The T-72M1 will come out in "pre-rebalance" standard (so will really just match the current T-72A). And yes, the whole vehicle being a platform for future skins that players from specific nations will enjoy is definitely one of its main raisons d'etre. Might even become a foundation of new separate vehicles. We'll see.

Would it make any difference if we upgraded the chassis? I mean, you'd still be stuck with a paper turret...

Judging by the popularity of battle paths and battle coins in general, I feel that it's still very useful. But I haven't run the numbers to see how much LESS profitable it is. Not that it matters, the shop wasn't made with BC purchases only in mind.