18 replies to this topic

[Mick666]

Just an idea, but how about adding another area to each tank, detailing their weakspots (and how to combat said tank) and strongpoints (and how to play this tank). And even adding ammo rack locations for each tank.
Im just saying this because ATM all this info exists on places like the forums, and thus digging and googling is needed. Plus it would add a lot of value to the wiki.
Id gladly help out with this, im aiming to collect all tanks in the game.

[sleepyreaper]

Try this website:http://www.wotdb.info/ It's like the tech but with weakspot and ammo rack locations etc.

[Jiri_Starrider]

Mick666, on Jul 13 2012 - 11:45, said:

Just an idea, but how about adding another area to each tank, detailing their weakspots (and how to combat said tank) and strongpoints (and how to play this tank). And even adding ammo rack locations for each tank.
Im just saying this because ATM all this info exists on places like the forums, and thus digging and googling is needed. Plus it would add a lot of value to the wiki.
Id gladly help out with this, im aiming to collect all tanks in the game.

Certainly! There is a section on each tank's wiki page for that info. In the Player Opinion panel there is a section for performance, all that can go there. Remember, the Wiki is player supported, if you are looking for something and are going "Why isn't this on the Wiki?" The answer is, because you haven't added it yet.

[Snib]

Jiri_Starrider, on Jul 13 2012 - 17:41, said:

Certainly! There is a section on each tank's wiki page for that info. In the Player Opinion panel there is a section for performance, all that can go there. Remember, the Wiki is player supported, if you are looking for something and are going "Why isn't this on the Wiki?" The answer is, because you haven't added it yet.

actually in the past you guys have been removing weak-spot info...

In any case be careful, at least on EU forums WG bans for too specific weakspot info, e.g. exact armor thicknesses shown on the model, although they seem to be ok with weakspot skins.

[Jiri_Starrider]

Snib, on Jul 14 2012 - 03:15, said:

actually in the past you guys have been removing weak-spot info...

In any case be careful, at least on EU forums WG bans for too specific weakspot info, e.g. exact armor thicknesses shown on the model, although they seem to be ok with weakspot skins.

If someone removed, "shoot the IS-4 in the drivers hatch", they should hang up their editor's... um. pen? shoes? Anyway was going with things more like this post as far as content ideas. But saying the IS-4 drivers hatch is weak, or the Type 59's ammo rack is vulnerable to a side shot (was it right or left?) just below the rear half of the turret, is fine.

Currently checking on the hitbox skin images.

[Mick666]

See i was going to state it very detailed- i.e. Hit the IS-3 on the hatch on the roof. You can ammo rack it from the sides, the frontal armour can be penned by hitting ...
Is this too detailed?

[Trifler]

Jiri_Starrider, on Jul 14 2012 - 17:17, said:

If someone removed, "shoot the IS-4 in the drivers hatch", they should hang up their editor's... um. pen? shoes? Anyway was going with things more like this post as far as content ideas. But saying the IS-4 drivers hatch is weak, or the Type 59's ammo rack is vulnerable to a side shot (was it right or left?) just below the rear half of the turret, is fine.

IIRC, N1sK had a policy against listing weak spots, but that was a long time ago (over a year) and a lot of things have changed, such as weak spots being more common knowledge on the forums instead of things players have to figure out on their own.

As far as the weak spot skins, my understanding is that WG is not "ok" as such with them, but rather that there isn't really a way to police them since the server cannot detect them. They're entirely client-side.

I personally prefer Jiri's example of detail over Mick666's.

[Snib]

Trifler, on Jul 15 2012 - 03:34, said:

As far as the weak spot skins, my understanding is that WG is not "ok" as such with them, but rather that there isn't really a way to police them since the server cannot detect them. They're entirely client-side.

WG says they won't ban for hitbox skins. WG says they will ban for hitbox models. Both are client-side.

[Jiri_Starrider]

Snib, on Jul 15 2012 - 09:08, said:

WG says they won't ban for hitbox skins. WG says they will ban for hitbox models. Both are client-side.

Yes, but there's client side, then there is client side. I know you know Snib, but for the audience, They consider skins to be an "ok" violation of the EULA (would be nice if they put that in the EULA, but I guess they are reserving the right to fully enforce it - not like it couldn't be rewritten to support any stance, but I'm not in charge of that), they also consider swapping the 3d model ok (the various added armor/camo/crew/etc. (including totally swapping it for something else) models out there). However they have been clear that displaying what's inside the tank to not be ok.

Anyway, have heard it from on high. No hitbox skins on the wiki. Text descriptions, Images with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each, like the link above, good to go.

[Mick666]

Jiri_Starrider, on Jul 15 2012 - 18:38, said:

Yes, but there's client side, then there is client side. I know you know Snib, but for the audience, They consider skins to be an "ok" violation of the EULA (would be nice if they put that in the EULA, but I guess they are reserving the right to fully enforce it - not like it couldn't be rewritten to support any stance, but I'm not in charge of that), they also consider swapping the 3d model ok (the various added armor/camo/crew/etc. (including totally swapping it for something else) models out there). However they have been clear that displaying what's inside the tank to not be ok.

Anyway, have heard it from on high. No hitbox skins on the wiki. Text descriptions, Images with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each, like the link above, good to go.

Ill get started then. Probably on tanks i have so i can get pics...
EDIT: I did the Pz 4 page first, since i know it well. Is that appropriate?

Edited by Mick666, Jul 15 2012 - 23:25.

[Snib]

Mick666, on Jul 15 2012 - 23:09, said:

EDIT: I did the Pz 4 page first, since i know it well. Is that appropriate?

Kinda replicates what's written in the paragraphs above. Also when you say:

Mick666 said:

The PzKpfw IV suffers from low hitpoints, and an exposed fuel tank at the rear is a possible one shot kill.

I'll just point out that the PzKpfw IV (along with the M4 Sherman) has the highest hitpoints of all researchable tier 5 mediums, and that no tank in the game has an exposed/external fuel tank hitbox.

Just mentioning it - as far as I'm concerned you guys can do whatever you want in those player opinion panels, there's plenty of them which are somewhat removed from reality.

PS: Oh, something like the lower glacis is not typically called a weak spot. A weak spot is an unarmored/weakly armored part inside of an otherwise stronger armored area. E.g. for the PzIV the machine gun mount in the front plate, the driver's view slot, or the hatch on the rear of the turret. Also due to the strong angle the PzIV's lower glacis is actually rather difficult to hit without a ricochet and the angle gives it an effective armor strength on par with the strongest frontal hull armor.

[Mick666]

Snib, on Jul 16 2012 - 00:13, said:

Kinda replicates what's written in the paragraphs above. Also when you say:

I'll just point out that the PzKpfw IV (along with the M4 Sherman) has the highest hitpoints of all researchable tier 5 mediums, and that no tank in the game has an exposed/external fuel tank hitbox.

Just mentioning it - as far as I'm concerned you guys can do whatever you want in those player opinion panels, there's plenty of them which are somewhat removed from reality.

PS: Oh, something like the lower glacis is not typically called a weak spot. A weak spot is an unarmored/weakly armored part inside of an otherwise stronger armored area. E.g. for the PzIV the machine gun mount in the front plate, the driver's view slot, or the hatch on the rear of the turret. Also due to the strong angle the PzIV's lower glacis is actually rather difficult to hit without a ricochet and the angle gives it an effective armor strength on part with the strongest frontal hull armor.

I was just stating the hp from experience, ive lost greater than half of my hp in a single shot many times. Its really two shots = dead. But if its actually high for a T5 medium, ill remove it.
I thought the fuel tank was the big round drum attached to the rear, ive updated that accordingly.
And the lower glacis plate keeps getting penetrated for me, ive lost the engine a lot of times. A bouncy spot for me was those angled side plates- bounced a Jagdpanther shot off that the other day- but not the lower glacis plate.
PS- some are a tad removed, the Leopard page still mentions the KV.. not the KV-1
Thanks for the feedback, ill try improve.

[Trifler]

Quote

PS- some are a tad removed, the Leopard page still mentions the KV.. not the KV-1

Leopard is currently just a copy/paste job from a Google translation of the Russian wiki someone added. That's fine, but it should be edited into proper English before you consider it done. I'll fix it up when I get to the Leopard.

I've been going through the tanks and doing a more proper and time consuming job on each. Currently I've done all of the tier 5 and 6 mediums and heavies, except for the French. I've also more recently done all of the tier 1s and tier 2s. For the lower tiers I've given up on trying to translate from the Russian wiki because that's extremely time intensive and instead I'm going from actual experience.

For anyone reading this, if you see the word "average" in the Pros and Cons, then that is not an example to follow. I will be changing those as I go.

[Trifler]

Snib, on Jul 15 2012 - 09:08, said:

WG says they won't ban for hitbox skins. WG says they will ban for hitbox models. Both are client-side.

Jiri_Starrider, on Jul 15 2012 - 18:38, said:

Yes, but there's client side, then there is client side. I know you know Snib, but for the audience, They consider skins to be an "ok" violation of the EULA (would be nice if they put that in the EULA, but I guess they are reserving the right to fully enforce it - not like it couldn't be rewritten to support any stance, but I'm not in charge of that), they also consider swapping the 3d model ok (the various added armor/camo/crew/etc. (including totally swapping it for something else) models out there). However they have been clear that displaying what's inside the tank to not be ok.

Anyway, have heard it from on high. No hitbox skins on the wiki. Text descriptions, Images with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each, like the link above, good to go.

Just in case anyone misunderstood, my comment above was merely saying that not banning and/or not calling something an offense is not the same as being fine and dandy (i.e. "ok) with something. It was not a comment on how any rules are applied.

[Mick666]

KK, i did the Hetzer page, but the wotDB site didnt have its ammo rack location- does anyone know where it is?

[Snib]

Mick666, on Jul 16 2012 - 01:21, said:

I thought the fuel tank was the big round drum attached to the rear, ive updated that accordingly.

If you look closely you can see that's just the exhaust muffler.

This here would be fuel tanks:



However, both the muffler of the PzIV or the fuel tanks of the IS or all similar external gimmicks on other tanks are all just decoration. The real hidden hitboxes that we are not allowed to show are very simple and do not include any of that, meaning your shot passes straight through without even being noticed. Actual fuel tank hitboxes are always inside of the tanks. Would love to illustrate that with a picture but am of course not allowed to.

[Trifler]

Snib, on Jul 16 2012 - 08:04, said:

Would love to illustrate that with a picture but am of course not allowed to.

Safe to say that basically, if you could see the hitboxes, and you removed the tank, you'd see a group of boxes moving around in formation. Add the tank image, make the boxes invisible, and that's what you see. So, rather than thinking of the hitboxes as sections of the image, think of them as being in addition to the image.

[Snib]

Trifler, on Jul 16 2012 - 13:00, said:

Safe to say that basically, if you could see the hitboxes, and you removed the tank, you'd see a group of boxes moving around in formation. Add the tank image, make the boxes invisible, and that's what you see. So, rather than thinking of the hitboxes as sections of the image, think of them as being in addition to the image.

I'm saying nothing of this sort.

[Jiri_Starrider]

Well, look at it from a real world perspective.

The tanks on the IS were to simplify logistics for longer distance, not combat maneuvers. Poke a hole in one, or set it on fire, and it's on the outside of the tank. Plus I'm pretty sure they were jettisonable from the inside when you got into combat.

And a muffler hit wouldn't do anything but make the tank louder and/or mess up it's ability to lay a smokescreen. And while though a louder tank should have less of a camouflage coefficient, I don't think WG is going to dynamically change that based on battle damage.