Jump to content


Exclusive Interview with Sergey Burkatovskiy, Lead Game Designer


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
51 replies to this topic

DanH #21 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 06:09

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8306 battles
  • 116
  • Member since:
    11-14-2011

View Post7th_Cav_Foxtrot, on Mar 29 2012 - 01:41, said:

Answer: I would say no. The point is the vehicle profitability scheme in World of Tanks presumes that if you fancy playing top tiers you’ll have to spend some gaming time on mid-tier tanks. It’s done with purpose: most of these vehicles — the Sherman, the Tiger, the Panther, and the T-34 — are tank-building legends and we encourage players to choose them. That’s why they get the most credits. We are pretty adamant about it, and won’t change our policy. The same principle holds true for the arty. Players with top tier SPGs have to play medium tiers, thus, providing support for the medium tanks that prevail in the game.


In support of this goal I'd love to see some sort of historical battle or company option. While I love my VK3601, T20 etc my favourites continue to be my Tiger and Panther and it would be great to battle in teams with historical make up. Still I wont hold my breath as I'm sure such a thing would mess with MM balance.

Dan

Valkeiper #22 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 06:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostToothDecay, on Mar 28 2012 - 21:56, said:

I have played the 3rd Test, when 7.2 hits, I will be selling T30 TD, M103, and the T34 if it remains the Pig-of-a-Tank it has become.

Then I will buy REAL tanks.

Dev's you did it again.

Do what the devs want you to... buy soviet.

Valkeiper #23 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 06:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View Postrtp099, on Mar 28 2012 - 23:01, said:

I had hoped that the T34 premium would at least have a slightly improved aim time and turret traverse from 7.2 test 3, but if it remains the same steaming pile of crap I'll be dropping this game like a hot potato. The dev's keep messing with things that already work for balance, and now with 7.2 we'll have even smaller IS-3, IS-4's and IS-7's, larger Tiger 2's (pretty much same size as E-100), and a US line of tanks that just sucks!

Of course, the soviet vehicles get their primary advantage (low profile) improved while the germans get a disadvantage (high profile) increased.

And (of course) the germans don't get the massive ammo loads the REAL tanks had (which required that huge profile). This would be an advantage for the germans if and when that promised 'battle garage' mode ever is implemented (and we all know ANY advantage for a non-soviet would be TOO GREAT an advantage).

Valkeiper #24 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 06:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostAquilaAce, on Mar 29 2012 - 00:59, said:

Emphasis is mine.

Surely the Sturmtiger isn't going to be Tier 5? Unless it is nerfed into oblivion, gets the MM of a Tier 5 light (or higher arty), or Mr. Sergey Burkatovskiy just forgot about it, what's going to stop this thing?

KV, meet my 380mm rocket of doom.

He said the 88mm Jagdtiger (no mention of the SturmTiger at all) was most likely to be a tier 8 TD. I thought the JT was a tier 9 TD.

And why was he answering a question about arty with this, anyway?

Oh, the question was about SPGs and TDs... so he just ignored the SPG side.

Valkeiper #25 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 06:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View Post7th_Cav_Foxtrot, on Mar 29 2012 - 01:41, said:

Question 13: Are there any plans in the works to increase the credit earnings of tier 8 artillery, tier 9 and 10 heavy’s? As it stands right now, many players cannot gain credits when playing these tanks. Even with a win, the loose credits due to ammo cost and high cost of repair.

Answer: I would say no. The point is the vehicle profitability scheme in World of Tanks presumes that if you fancy playing top tiers you’ll have to spend some gaming time on mid-tier tanks. It’s done with purpose: most of these vehicles — the Sherman, the Tiger, the Panther, and the T-34 — are tank-building legends and we encourage players to choose them. That’s why they get the most credits. We are pretty adamant about it, and won’t change our policy. The same principle holds true for the arty. Players with top tier SPGs have to play medium tiers, thus, providing support for the medium tanks that prevail in the game.



According to the "economics" model of the last 7.2 update, almost (I said almost) all medium and many heavy tanks get their credits whacked and their repair costs increased.(easy 8, Jumbo and T29 get slammed)  This is a direct contradiction to what was said in the interview.  I love to play mediums and mid level TDs, upper tiers cost too much to repair and rearm.  The adjustments they have made to the tier 10s still haven't made them appealing to play in my book; they will still cost too much to maintain... just my opinion.  Sold my IS-7 for that reason and will sell my IS-4 when they move it to tier 10.  I will load my garage with T5 and below and have fun down there.  WOT, you havent lost me yet; it is a very fun game to play, but it is becoming harder to justify staying. (of course... if there has been a new economics model posted that I am unaware of... I have egg on my face and a big boot in my mouth)

Well, there is a reason I've had every tier six arty (and below) in my garage, all have been fully upgraded and elited since last October, AND every tier 7 arty researched since last December, BUT I only added a tier 7 to my garage last week.

I simply didn't feel like fooling around with the blasted higher tiers. I saw the costs of operating the monsters and decided not to try.

Valkeiper #26 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 06:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostForce440, on Mar 29 2012 - 02:05, said:

Loved the interview.. answered alot of questions... But instead of sitting down with Sergey... How about sitting down and updating your web site (outpostgamez.com). :huh: ... They still have WOT listed as a beta and alot of other games from 2010... Oh My! ... WOT deserves better!!!!!

It does? sorry, but the problems WoT has would have been essentially solved by an american or european company BEFORE the game finished Beta. Notice most of the industries' magazine report the same 'in beta' standing for WoT.

This is simply because they think a game with this many SERIOUS problems (a couple of which were even addressed in the interview) should NOT be out of beta.

Valkeiper #27 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 06:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostKnightFandragon, on Mar 29 2012 - 02:27, said:

Lol a JagdTiger with an 88mm Cannon? There goes the "historically accuracte" loadouts that premiums are supposed to mount....besides...who would buy a JT with an 88?

True, The real life JT NEVER carried an 88mm of any length. It's 'stock' gun was the 128mm.

Valkeiper #28 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 06:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostMarseille, on Mar 29 2012 - 03:01, said:

No, no, a historical variant of the Jagdtiger DID mount the L/71 due to a lack of 128mm cannons, but didn't see service, and was few in number.

But the real problem is that this Q&A didn't really address any new questions. It's all just a rehash of what's already been answered before.

The questions that were answered were indeed just rehashes.

The new questions (which actually addressed the MM and other problems) were squirmed away from.

djuice1701 #29 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 07:28

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8149 battles
  • 887
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
Never did like SerB, he never seems to take people's feedback into consideration even though they want people to provide them.

Mow_Mow #30 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 08:26

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11515 battles
  • 14,802
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View Postthehobbet, on Mar 29 2012 - 04:49, said:

WHEN ARE WE GETTING THE NEW GERMAN TDs!!!??!??!

Look at the M103, T34, and T110... be careful what you wish for <_<

Steeltrap #31 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 10:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 5548 battles
  • 3,646
  • Member since:
    08-23-2010
Matchmaking, LOL.

We're sorry to admit the MM is FUBAR for the NA server because we designed it so it doesn't work well without a population of X. Of course we've seen the gazillion threads saying 'MM SUCKS' and that it's THE main reason people quit.

Are we changing MM? Not really. We're crossing our fingers there will be more players on the NA server.

We'll also ignore the fact that MM TIER SPREAD still causes huge volumes of threads on EU AND RU forums.


Can't have different MM on different servers? BOLLOCKS. Can't be bothered, you mean.

So their design requires X pop to 'function correctly' and they have NO answer when pop is LESS THAN REQUIRED?

Wow. So much fail right there.

LOL

fiddler54 #32 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 13:57

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 33055 battles
  • 819
  • [TDC-H] TDC-H
  • Member since:
    05-25-2011

View PostAquilaAce, on Mar 29 2012 - 00:59, said:

Emphasis is mine.

Surely the Sturmtiger isn't going to be Tier 5? Unless it is nerfed into oblivion, gets the MM of a Tier 5 light (or higher arty), or Mr. Sergey Burkatovskiy just forgot about it, what's going to stop this thing?

KV, meet my 380mm rocket of doom.

I think he is mixed up with the Sturmpanzer (Brummbar) which will be based on the PZ4 chassis.
MisTranslation from the Russian seems to go hand in hand with WOT.

Otto_manipulation #33 Posted Mar 29 2012 - 18:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 26948 battles
  • 1,240
  • [ARRG] ARRG
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostNoblePlatoon, on Mar 29 2012 - 05:31, said:

EVE....EVE....paging EVE. :unsure:
Play your little fantasy space MMO if you want, but I play WoT because I've always loved armored warfare history. I have a lot of issues with the devs and what we were promised that hasn't been delivered yet, but I don't play any other MMO - just this one, because it's about tank warfare.

KnightFandragon #34 Posted Mar 30 2012 - 08:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 4603 battles
  • 6,572
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostDanH, on Mar 29 2012 - 06:09, said:

In support of this goal I'd love to see some sort of historical battle or company option. While I love my VK3601, T20 etc my favourites continue to be my Tiger and Panther and it would be great to battle in teams with historical make up. Still I wont hold my breath as I'm sure such a thing would mess with MM balance.

Dan

Lol, would historical make up include numbers?!  Cuz if they made some historical engagements itd be like 2 Tigers holding off wwaves of T34s =D  2 Tigers Vs 15 T34s...just regular T34s with the 76mm F32...

DanH #35 Posted Apr 01 2012 - 05:56

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8306 battles
  • 116
  • Member since:
    11-14-2011

View PostKnightFandragon, on Mar 30 2012 - 08:46, said:

Lol, would historical make up include numbers?!  Cuz if they made some historical engagements itd be like 2 Tigers holding off wwaves of T34s =D  2 Tigers Vs 15 T34s...just regular T34s with the 76mm F32...

Or Pz 2s and 3s v BT's, t34s and Kv's but the russians have to have thier crews nerfed:)

Or Five Panthers plus a couple of arty v a full allied teamm of M4's plus arty

Dan

KnightFandragon #36 Posted Apr 01 2012 - 07:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 4603 battles
  • 6,572
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostDanH, on Apr 01 2012 - 05:56, said:

Or Pz 2s and 3s v BT's, t34s and Kv's but the russians have to have thier crews nerfed:)

Or Five Panthers plus a couple of arty v a full allied teamm of M4's plus arty

Dan

Something like that..The German Crews would all be like Maxed Crew on the Tigers, the US And Rus crews would be like maybe 75%, and the EArly war Rus Crews..50%....cuz they were just bad....US would have prolly like 2 Arty....then 13 M4s...or 4 Arty and 11 M4s....

KnightFandragon #37 Posted Apr 01 2012 - 07:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 4603 battles
  • 6,572
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostValkeiper, on Mar 29 2012 - 06:38, said:

True, The real life JT NEVER carried an 88mm of any length. It's 'stock' gun was the 128mm.

128mm Kwk44 L/55 was it?  Pretty beasty thing =D  Either way, WG...if they do actually mount the 88 on the Premium JT...I will have to officially slap them the next time they mention Historical accuracy for any excuse as to why they nerf the US line or any line for that matter.....It had best be a 128mm.......

GearaDoga #38 Posted Apr 02 2012 - 02:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 7774 battles
  • 2,472
  • [ODIN] ODIN
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
There were about a dozen JT's built with 88L/71 guns due to shortages of the 128mm.  Other issues kept them out of combat, but they DID exist.

swingshift #39 Posted Apr 05 2012 - 01:11

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16286 battles
  • 660
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostSteeltrap, on Mar 29 2012 - 10:01, said:

Matchmaking, LOL.

We're sorry to admit the MM is FUBAR for the NA server because we designed it so it doesn't work well without a population of X. Of course we've seen the gazillion threads saying 'MM SUCKS' and that it's THE main reason people quit.

Are we changing MM? Not really. We're crossing our fingers there will be more players on the NA server.

We'll also ignore the fact that MM TIER SPREAD still causes huge volumes of threads on EU AND RU forums.


Can't have different MM on different servers? BOLLOCKS. Can't be bothered, you mean.

So their design requires X pop to 'function correctly' and they have NO answer when pop is LESS THAN REQUIRED?

Wow. So much fail right there.

LOL


As someone who has lost track of how many posts I've made about matchmaker, this left me shaking my head too.

As for a more detailed “tougher” matchmaking, the current balancer is tuned up for bigger online numbers and won’t act perfectly with low PCCU, and it’s impractical to have two different matchmakers, because they would fail at “borderline” online numbers.

Yep, we know people are pissed off about the situation & lots of them are leaving the game, but if MORE people played, the problem would be solved.  There's a little bit of Nero & his fiddle in that.  Surely, if your focus is to draw more players into the NA server then you'd do anything in your power to address the issue that causes so much dissatisfaction amongst the player base.  Despite the frustration of matchmaker, I love this game but despair of the future for the American server if people are allowed to walk away from the game as easily as they are now.  I can't help but wonder what the game will look like in 12 months or so if this problem goes unaddressed.  Assuming the other World of games impact on WoT numbers, (not to mention other game options available to players), the future for the "low population" server is sadly quite bleak in my opinion when the opposite should be the case.

9teenKILo #40 Posted Apr 06 2012 - 03:26

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6613 battles
  • 772
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011
yet another link to a link....  the idocracy never ceases.