Jump to content


Update 1.0 Q&A With Creative Director Andrey Biletskiy + Transcript of recent Dev Q&A


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

CabbageMechanic #1 Posted Mar 02 2018 - 23:13

    Senior Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 8031 battles
  • 389
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010

Hey Tankers,

As announced earlier this week we held the Update 1.0 Q&A with Creative Director Andrey Biletskiy.  You can view it here.  Transcript to come.

 

In addition, we have a translated transcript of the February 23rd Dev Q&A that addresses a lot of questions we saw that did not relate to Update 1.0:

 

Dev Q&A With Anton Pankov and Andrey Biletskiy

 

Big stream on February 23. Script of the stream

 

The following transcript is from a Feb. 23 livestream with top streamers and key World of Tanks development personnel. Vspishka, Amway921, LeBwa, EviL GrannY, and Jove prepared the questions fueled by the gaming community, while WoT Operation Director Anton Pankov and WoT Creaitve Director Andrey Biletskiy fired back with the answers.

 

About vehicles with preferential matchmaking
 

Amway921: What is the future of vehicles with preferential matchmaking?

Anton Pankov: We surely have a few scenarios and solutions ready, and we already talked about them. We have already tried to test solutions tied to matchmaker (i.e. increase the spread of battle levels, available to premium vehicles), with the following simulation on servers. That actually did not work well, and now we are switching to plan B—rebalancing of characteristics of premium vehicles. We talked about it during the last WG Fest—for example, we said we want to try to rebalance the KV-5 tank.

There are a lot of nuances regarding the rebalance of this tank, and our objective is to understand how to do this without hurting the current owners of KV-5 and, at the same time, to make it appealing to new owners. As discussed before the stream, in the near future, the KV-5 tank will be the first tank with preferential matchmaker to change. This vehicle definitely has some weak points: the front commander's cupola of the Radio Operator or weak penetration. At the same time, it demonstrates decent dynamics (taking into account its dimensions) and all-round armor.

That is why we will try different approaches: We will start with a Sandbox test, and then propose the current owners (and most devoted fans of KV-5) to test a rebalanced version of the tank. We believe that in this way we will reach an agreement and the players will give us a green light. Thus, once the rebalanced vehicle is ready, we will provide some options for the current KV-5: exchange it for gold, exchange it for the rebalanced KV-5 or keep in the Garage the current version of the vehicle. These are the basic conversion option that we are considering at the moment.


Amway921: You mentioned an "improved" KV-5 tank. Is it the old KV-5 without the commander's cupola and with the IS-3 BL-9 powerful gun?

Pankov: There is no final decision yet. We are considering a few options: the most obvious one is to increase the armor of the commander's cupola; another would be to remove this cupola and decrease the side armor at the same time. Unfortunately, there are not many possibilities of changing the KV-5 gun, and this issue will require a separate solution. We also have some ideas to improve its low penetration with a standard shell and reduce the cost of Premium shells, but this will be done in a complex approach, as a part of global solution to Premium ammunition. Why the KV-5 first though? This tank is suffering under the command of inexperienced players. At the same time it demonstrates the best performance when played by experienced players. After that, we will probably switch to IS-6, because it also has too many complaints from our players. Gradually, we will work on solutions to all vehicles and provide players with a number of options.


Amway921: Is there any estimated time of delivery for these changes?

Pankov: The KV-5 tank will be sent to test servers in the nearest future.


Jove: Are you talking about 2018?

Pankov: Indeed. We cannot postpone this any longer, since we spent too much time on matchmaking solutions. In other words, now we will concentrate on balance changes. Continuing the topic of Premium vehicles with preferential matchmaking: another problematic tank is the M6A2E1, which was matched pretty well by the previous matchmaker. But it is a bit under performing in the current matchmaker, despite reliable frontal armor and nice gun characteristics. However, if we return its preferential matchmaking, the tank will be outperforming, and we do not want that.


Jove: You said you will rebalance all vehicles with preferential matchmaking. Will it be one, two, or maybe a few vehicles per update?

Pankov: Indeed, we will do it gradually as not to disturb the matchmaking mechanism of Tier VIII vehicles.


Ushakov: So what should the current owners do? Leave them in their Garages?

Pankov: Yes, of course. Better leave them, because rage selling does not present a good idea, since the tank recovery system has particular limits. Let them stay in the Garage.


Amway921: You introduce Trade-in sometimes, and many players ask: should we just trade-in them or leave in the Garage for the better times?

Pankov: In any event of the tanks being rebalanced, we will allow them to be traded in for something else, most likely without an additional fee. There are a few options, it all depends on which tank you want to return. You will not be able to get the Defender tank since it is quite rare, but we will a decent selection other decent tanks to trade in for.


Vspishka: How many vehicles do you plan to change?

Pankov: All vehicles with preferential matchmaking. If the first reworked KV-5 will have good feedback from players in terms of exchanging the old version to the one with better characteristics, we will speed up. The fact is that each vehicle is very specific, and we will need a lot of time for each one separately. Bu we will definitely start from the most controversial ones. These are the vehicles that were purchased by many players, and that have many complaints so far.


Vspishka: Will the rebalance affect all vehicles with preferential matchmaking or only Tier VIII?

Andrey Biletskiy: This will affect all vehicles with preferential matchmaking. We first have to prepare a methodology and develop the ways how to deal with this problem. After that, we will use it to rebalance the first tank. If the feedback is positive, we will be able to evaluate our work and make some evaluation of the expected time of delivery. The worst option is to rebalance each vehicle separately. The best option: rebalance one vehicle, test it, receive positive feedback from players, and introduce the changes in the nearest update. Probably, the optimal approach lies somewhere between.


Jove: In the end, let us assume the KV-5 tank will be the first one to rebalance. A player will have three options: receive a new rebalanced version, exchange the old one for gold or for some other vehicle, and finally, leave the old tank in the Garage. I am right?

Biletskiy: Possibly yes. At least there will be two options: exchanging the old version for the new one and exchanging it for a new vehicle.


Amway921: Will the new rebalanced vehicle have standard matchmaking then, like the one from the Tech Tree?

Pankov: We are trying to get rid of preferential matchmaking. That is one of the reasons we introduced tier X light tanks: we saw that the three-tier spread for them was really bad in hindsight. And yes, the new vehicles will have the standard matchmaking.


Amway921: But there are already vehicles with preferential matchmaking, which are weak against higher tiers. Take the tier IV Matilda tank.

Pankov: Sure, we know about this issue. We have separate plans for tier III–V vehicles, and it means the rebalancing will also affect the vehicles from the Tech Tree.

 

About experience


LeBwa: Right now there is a Ranked Battles season underway, and I am curious about the principles of calculation of experience. The thing is that when playing in the Random Battles, you see no difference between 190 and 210 of received experience. In Ranked Battles, it certainly has difference: you can either loose, or receive, or retain a chevron. It is quite a common situation when a player called Alex causes 0 damage, has 0 spot, and 0 blocked, and he receives more experience than the players who actually caused some damage or show particular effectiveness. How does this system work?

Biletskiy: There are several variables in the experience calculation system, we even published a separate article on it. There is no secret philosophy here, the problem is some of the logic is nonlinear and not “humane.” In other words: players get experience for caused damage, spot damage, or spotting enemy vehicles for the first time. Thus, Alex could have spotted five or seven enemy vehicles first and get the experience he received in the battle results.

In addition, there is another tricky variable—the active combat. If a player is in the middle of a battle, he will receive experience just for that. This is a rather complicated algorithm.

It’s also important to understand all aspects of a particular battle, make a detailed analyses. The algorithm was introduced to secure an intensive and ordinary gameplay, to master the skill of each particular player. The conclusion can be that experience is not an ideal way to measure your combat effectiveness. At the same time, this is the best available metrics at the moment, and we think that it is more or less reliable. We understand its calculation mechanism and can make particular predictions.


Vspishka: There is another metrics that has been developed by the company so far. It proved its effectiveness, and in theory, it can be used for calculation of results in each battle. I am talking about Hall of Fame. It provides a particular four-digit number, and is calculated from the aggregate of effectiveness of a particular player, for a particular vehicle, used by a player in a battle. As result, a player has, let us say, the 6,000 rating. Maybe you should implement and test this kind of metric in the Ranked Battles?

Biletskiy: Before switching to this rating, we need to make particular improvements so that it would function during the battle. The thing is that this requires particular time for calculation; we are not able to calculate it and update per-battle.

Pankov: To be more exact, we are not yet able to do it right now.

Biletskiy: But we will try though. The point is that at this moment, the amount of earned experience presents the best metrics for the Ranked Battles. There is also another controversial moment that should be taken into consideration: according to LeBwa, players do not pay much attention to experience during researching process. Actually, this is not quite true. Players analyze the results of sessions and make particular conclusions: I was performing this kind of actions and was effective. I was performing that kind of actions and was not quite effective. In addition, the majority of players are gradually improving their playing skill. This is what we call the behavior pattern. In other words, in the current version of Ranked Battles we use the same type of experience as in the Random Battles, and do not affect the behavior pattern of a player. Every year, the majority of players spend 99 percent of playing time in the Random Battles.


Vspishka: Than why don't you introduce some battle indicators for particular values, that could be visible to players... Why a player cannot see in a battle, on the real-time basis, the number of earned experience, to have the understanding of the current amount of received experience?

Biletskiy: The number of experience is not calculated on the real-time basis, it is calculated from the aggregate contribution of other players.


Vspishka: In other words, a player will receive the detailed information on received experience in the battle results?

Pankov: It is possible to provide the detailed information after a battle, while displaying it in a battle will result in additional confusion. Imagine this situation, when a player holds a position behind a bush. Suddenly, there is a notification on the received 50 experience. And this player wonders: what was done and what to do to receive another 50 experience.


EviL GrannY: The received experience should not be displayed in a battle; it should be displayed in battle results. The principle of receiving of experience should be clear and transparent. The battle results should provide a clear indication what actions resulted in receiving of particular amount of experience. At the moment, players frequently got confused and angry when they check their battle results.

Pankov: Let's sum it up. We will think about the rating system for the Ranked Battles in the next seasons, provided we are able to calculate it on the real-time basis. We will think about expansion of statistics in the battle results. Sure, this is quite a complicated task, but we will try our best to work out a solution. Regarding a review of the experience calculation algorithm, I will say that not now. We are monitoring and try to prevent particular anomalies; at the same time, we are not planning to revise the formula for calculation of received experience in Random Battles right now. That will also mean the formula revision for Ranked Battles and all other types of battles.

 

About matchmaker


EviL GrannY: After having played 10, I will have only 1–2 battles when I am matched to the top of the list. Are there any suggestions to add to the matchmaker the option of matching to different positions on the list?

Pankov: There is quite an obvious solution that would fix many issues, that are associated with the matchmaker: matching to top, middle and bottom of the list of the team. However, when imposing such restrictions, we are facing the risk of significantly increased time in the queue. I think that players will hardly accept the option to wait in the queue for some four or five minutes before they are finally matched to the battle. To say nothing about the other regions, apart from RU servers. In SEA and EU regions, the matching will take even more time, since they have a quite different number of players in queue.

Biletskiy: The main question is the number of players in queue in different regions, in different time of day, as well as the types of vehicles to enter a battle. We introduce additional rules for the matchmaker mechanism in each game update. Reworking of the matchmaking mechanism in the Update 9.18 allowed for establishing of a module system that can and must be configured in course of time. As result, we do not need to rework the whole mechanism from scratch.


EviL GrannY: There are many questions to replacement of Tier X vehicles in Tech Trees, as well as to changes to branch transitions. There are cases when you make particular replacements. As result, a player starts researching one, and receives another vehicle at the end. There are particular branch transitions that have been changed. A player have been earning experience for half a year and was planning to use a particular transition. Now this transition is unavailable; a player was planning to research Object 263, and now he can research only Object 268 variant 4.

Pankov: With Update 9.22 we almost finished edits and replacements of top-tier vehicles. There were quite many of them: changing of vehicle transitions and experience converters, experience transition, etc.


EviL GrannY: What is the purpose of removing some vehicles and reworking of Tech Trees?

Pankov: Our aim is to set the Tech Trees in order. Our aim is to preserve vehicle inheritance. That is why we reworked the FV215b (183) branch, the same principles were used during the balancing of the USSR vehicles with rear turret placement, tank destroyers branch and others. Our aim is to make the branches of vehicles more transparent, and use it in our future improvements.


EviL GrannY: Is there any option to announce such changes in advance, like half a year?

Pankov: A half-year period is hardly possible, I would say we can do it two months in advance.

Biletskiy: After the Update 9.22 we will calm down a little bit and take a long brake. The reworking progress is about 85 percent completed. Right at the moment we understand that these changes resulted in quite a huge destabilization of the system. We need to take some time and let the system stabilize. At the moment, we need to monitor the effect of the current changes before introducing additional changes. Thus, in long-time perspective, we are not planning to change anything.


Vspishka: To continue this question: back in 2017, you did a huge work on Tier X vehicles. At the same time you made almost no changes to low-tier vehicles, as well as Tier VII, Tier VIII and Tier IX vehicles. Is it the result of the fact that low-tier vehicles are not popular among players, and there are few players on this tiers? The thing is that there are almost no changes to low-tier vehicles. There are several vehicles that are good to play in, all other vehicles are pretty bad. The players try to skip these tiers as soon as possible and go to higher tiers. As result, there are few Tier VIII players to match in 3-5-7 battles, and they are matched against Tier X vehicles. Maybe these issues are interrelated?

Biletskiy: All this works differently on different clusters, the same can be applied to the number of players. Loosely speaking, destabilized the system and we have to wait for its stabilization. Once it is stable, we can switch to another segment and start working with it.


Vspishka: In addition, there are particular branches that are not recommended for researching. For example, the branches for Leopard 1 and IS-4: according to statistics (that is quite reliable), their Tier VIII, IX and X vehicles have the lowest win ratio.

Pankov: We are planning to rebalance the vehicles of the middle tiers, i.e. we will start from top and proceed to lower tiers. In addition, we have specific plans that we are working at right at the moment. We develop prototypes for the solutions for the Tier I–V vehicles, a so called Sandbox. We add some options for experienced players to fight in battles, and use some rare vehicles, like Pz. Kpfw. II Ausf J. We also want to provide the less experienced players with a convenient researching path up to the Tier V vehicles, since low tiers provide a complicated gameplay, especially to new players. By the way, this is the reason why we added a new Bootcamp.


Jove: Some question about the restructuring of branches of particular top-tier vehicles. Andrey told that you will take a long pause. At the same time, my subscribers pointed out a heatedly discussed issue on the rotation of ST-1 and IS-4 tanks. In other words, there were plans to transfer the IS-4 to Tier IX, and rework the ST-1 tank. There were crazy rumors that your were planning to add two guns to the latter tank. My quetion is: will you transfer these vehicles in 2018?

Pankov: I would say we will announce these changes half a year in advance.


Jove: I got it, but are there particular plans for IS-4 and ST-1?

Pankov: Sure, there are some plans.


EviL GrannY: To add to this topic—there is quite a simple message from all players: in case there are any changes planned, the players want to know about them in advance.

Pankov: I understand and think that this is quite fair. That is why we make the active use of the Sandbox server: the players can both receive the information on planned changes and test them.

Biletskiy: Speaking about the changes half a year in advance. There are particular moments when we are making decisions on particular aspects, and the decision process lasts until the Super Test. We try various simulations and usually, the results are not satisfying. Do you think we implement the announced changes?

Pankov: I remember the famous plan that was published in December 2011—the schedule for 2011–2012 period. It included Japanese tanks, released back in 2014, or even in 2015; it included the Sturmtiger vehicle, and many other aspects. So far, we did manage to complete only 30 percent of the planned activities. The idea is that we should not promise what we will not be able to implement. Starting from the 10.0 Rubicon update, we try to develop, test, send to Common Test or Sandbox server, test again, send to test servers again. Once we are sure about the quality, we can send it to live servers. In simultaneous development, we have a great many of various features that are at different phases of readiness. As soon as we see that they are ready and can be revealed to players, we show them.

 

EviL GrannY: Currently, both bad and too overpowered vehicles are available in the game. The process of reworking and re-balancing vehicles requires much time. Will nothing be changed here?

Pankov: Let's say calling a vehicle "overpowered" is not accurate enough. An unskilled player will show worse battle results than a skilled player driving the same vehicle.


Jove: Recently, I played together with Liquidator and Strike and constantly caused mored damage than they did, though they drove the Super Conqueror and WZ tanks.

Pankov: You should be happy!


Jove: This is not the way it should be. These guys are more skillful than I. I succeeded due to the vehicle technical characteristics rather than because of my personal skill.

Biletskiy: I like the definition from Vspishka. The Object 268 Variant 4 is special force tank destroyer. This vehicle breaks into battle, which makes players pay special attention to it.

Jove: I get it. The vehicle has some drawbacks, however it is still overpowered. This tank destroyer is superior to the AMX Foch 50B or T110E3.


Vspishka: Players would prefer the Object 268 Variant 4 over other tank destroyers for playing in Ranked Battles.

Pankov: The situation will change in the next season of Ranked Battles. Some new vehicles will be introduced.


Jove: There is a constant armament race in the game.

Pankov: Balance does not exist on its own.

Biletskiy: While we keep introducing new vehicles, the balance will keep changing.


Jove: Do you consider it to be acceptable?

Pankov: Can you name any game that has constant balance? This process is inevitable.

Biletskiy: Balance is a state. It is not a mathematical equality of chances. Thus, we can talk about the state, analyze elements that do or do not fit it. Do we consider it to be normal or not: mathematical balance cannot be achieved. Until the entire system is stabilized, it is an impossible state.


Amway921: The point is that newly introduced vehicles are cool, while the old ones are not.

Pankov: Not exactly. We are aware of such vehicles. The point is that in most games players consider anything new to be better than anything that is already in the game. Skillful players are glad to research and purchase new vehicles.

Biletskiy: Why do we wait. There is one case. An average player needs more time to learn specifics of each vehicle. It is very difficult to separate technical characteristics from personal skill.


Vspishka: The issue seems to be related to the Super Test. The point is about testing vehicles before release.

Biletskiy: We are currently working on an automatic system (bots) that could play at least as good as a player whose victory rate is 48 percent. Thus, players will be able to fight many battles with AI-driven opponents. We can easily create a bot that will make no mistakes in battles. However, it does not correspond to the actual situation in battles.

 

About Premium shells

 

Jove: What are you planning to do with Premium shells?

Pankov: In Update 1.0.1., we will discontinue specifying the cost of Premium shells and consumables in gold! Only the cost in credits will remain.

Why? Some players purchase Premium shells and consumables for gold. Thus, we cannot suddenly decrease their characteristics. Moreover, it is even against the law in some countries. We cannot make changes to property purchased for real money.

Eventually, we have come to the following: we will keep Premium shells. However, we will stop selling them for gold, wait until players spend all Premium shells they've purchased for gold (which will happen quite quickly), and embark on reworking them. Thus, we will be free to rework these shells and consumables at our discretion.

Jove: How?

Pankov: We will carry out tests on the Sandbox server. Currently, we have three options. The first option is to remove Premium shells from the game. The second option is to introduce entirely different type of shells that would feature a different effect.

We are aware that the cost of some Premium shells in credits is inadequate, since the cost in credits depends on the cost in gold. Thus, in Update 1.0.1., we stop specifying the cost in gold, and in the following updates, we will start reworking Premium shells. The first thing that comes to my mind is changing (perhaps, decreasing) the cost of shells. These plans also relate Premium consumables.


Amway921: Are you going to change the cost of demounting equipment?

Pankov: No, the cost of demounting equipment will remain in gold. Currently, we are talking about shells and consumables only.

Biletskiy: The third option is reworking the entire economy of shooting. It includes recalculating costs of all shells, in order to avoid the situation when some shells cost much more (for example, 25 times more) than other shells. However, we consider the first option to be the most appropriate.


Amway921: Profitability of some Premium vehicles is practically the same. It depends on the cost of shells. What will you do under such conditions?

Pankov: We will have to consider it, in order to keep particular profitability of Premium vehicles. We will proceed stage by stage. We will change something, analyze the results, revert or keep changes, and move on.

Ushakov: How much time does this plan cover?

Pankov: One year.

Biletskiy: We hope to finish in this year. The point is that we need to understand the subject of changing and possible consequences. There is always a risk of changing something for worse.

Pankov: As a result of these changes, the economy may change significantly, which possibly may result in changing the gold-to-credits exchange rate. Players start purchasing shells for credits only—the cost of shells has decreased. Thus, players will want to exchange more gold into credits. This case also relates Personal Reserves that increase the amount of earned credits, Specials for credits, and discounts on vehicles. Thus, the process of researching vehicles, as well as their costs may change.


Jove: The main problem about Premium shells is that they spoil the balance rather than their cost. In other words, you are going to rework vehicles with a focus on standard shells, rather than on Premium shells. What do you mean by mentioning a "different type of shells?" Do you mean that it will feature better penetration, while lower velocity?

Biletskiy: The point is that AP and HE shells are different types of shells. They differ in terms of their functions and are used in different situations. Eventually, we want to have several types of shells featuring different functions suitable for different situations and conditions.


Video makers: What if any player purchases many shells for gold and does not spend them?

Pankov: Well, we can always refund these shells with the amount of gold the player has spent for purchasing them.

 

About crew and the perk/skill system


Vspishka: I have a general question on crew and perks. Are you going to improve this system? Why do crewmembers "forget" a previews vehicle after being retrained to a different vehicle?

Pankov: Regarding the second question: this is the very idea. Andrey will tell about the future changes and reasons for them.

Biletskiy: We are currently working on total redesign of the perk/skill system (practically from the scratch). It is rather risky. We want to achieve the following: introduce a proper system of moving crew from one vehicle to another, so that it does not contradict the game logics or actual specifics of tank construction. Currently, all players train the same set of first 4 perks/skills for all vehicles, which is not the way it should be. We want to diversify these 4 perks/skills players train first.

The crew and Barracks interface leaves much to be desired in terms of usability. We need to polish them removing all redundant elements in the interface and player's property. Besides, we want to avoid monotonous gameplay while providing variety of perk/skill builds and ensuring predictability.

The first thing that one may think about: let's introduce a bunch of different perks and skills, and it will be fun. No, it will not. Players should not face enemies having no clue of what perks/skills they have and what they are capable of. There should be particular logic in it: when facing an enemy vehicle, a player should have approximate understanding of its capabilities. There can be 2–3 options of builds, but not 200. What are the difficulties? First of all, the current system has been introduced long time ago, and players have many crewmembers with different number of trained perks/skills. Players have put much efforts training their crewmembers. The new system will differ significantly from the current one, thus we need to arrange proper transition from the current system into new one, so that no one gets frustrated or offended. We are going to test the new system intensively together with players. The tests will definitely start in 2018.

Pankov: The new system is rather complicated and comprehensive. Andrey has discussed the general idea only without specifying the exact details that are currently under development. We want to diversify perks/skills. However, the diversification should be reasonable. We are particularly concerned about the transition process: we need to explain players that the previous crewmembers who have 7 skills/perks will be converted into the new system and the new crew will also be valuable. We also need to work out game balance of new perks/skills. Perks/skills are improvements to vehicles. These changes may result into changes to consumables, technical characteristics of vehicles, etc. Moreover, players convert Free Experience into crew experience for training their crewmembers. We need to arrange transition properly, so that no one gets offended. How to develop a system that would be intuitive and easy to understand for new players?

We are working on this feature, we have an approved design concept and Andrey is responsible for it. Will there be tests in this year? Yes, there will. Will we introduce the feature into the game in this year? No, we will not introduce it until it is ready.


Vspishka: We players be able to change nationality of female crewmembers in future?

Pankov: We have discussed the idea, but so far we decided to put it aside, since there are plans for Crew 2.0.  Perhaps, by contacting the Customer Service Center players will be able to change the nation of one unintentionally recruited female crewmember.

Ushakov: Regarding the female crewmembers earned within the Holiday Ops (that should be recruited by mid-March). Can they wait for the release of the Italian Tech Tree, or should they be recruited for other nations?

Pankov: No, recruit them for other nations that already exist in the game. There will be other ways of earning female crew for the Italian vehicles.


LeBwa: Do you plan adding the permanent Sixth Sense perk to the commander?

Pankov: Of course, we do.

LeBwa: This year?

Pankov: No, within Crew 2.0.

Biletskiy: This is a part of the answer to the question about the different crews. This is a good rule: if all players select a particular perk, such perk should be added as default (integrated).


Jove: Will it be possible to customize vehicles to a particular gameplay, for example, by learning a set of perks for gun stabilization?

Vspishka: Tuning a vehicle to perform a particular role.

Pankov: It will be possible.

Biletskiy: There should be a limited and clear number of such options (perk sets). Turning the IS-7 to a scout, it will not work this way. It will be fun for you and pain for other 29 players in battle.

 

Regarding the third-party game modifications


Amway921: Disabling the third-arty modification. Will it be possible to conceal the player's nickname and statistics displayed in battle? Will you lock the game from third-party game modifications and allow only modifications from a catalog?

Pankov: Regarding the first question. Concealing nicknames: presently no work is performed in this direction. it means that such functionality will not be available in the nearest future; yet we know about the problem.

Regarding the second question. Locking the game client. Regarding the prohibited modifications in combat interface: we ban players for them; we work on locking the combat interface and allowing only the verified modifications.


EviL GrannY: What is the progress on the issue?

Vspishka: It was discussed it about two years ago. There was a meeting with the modification developers.

Pankov: We keep working with them. The mod hub is at the stage of its first iteration. It will be available in the Game Center later. The team works on locking the combat interface. No particular terms can be specified. This is a complicated task.


Jove: Will there be a mod. shop in the end?

Biletskiy: Not a shop but a catalog. Why does development take much time? In addition to game modifications, there are many ways of cracking the game.


EviL GrannY: The Global Map has the Fog of War functionality. Why do not implement the Fog of War in the Random Battles.

Pankov: It would consume too much server resources. The number of battles in these two modes cannot be compared. Perhaps, it can be implemented in particular game modes, for example in the Ranked Battles.

 

Regarding toxic behavior


Amway921: The problem is that I fight against the allies and cannot cause damage to them.

Pankov: Talking about toxic behavior, in May we plan a large-scale activity that will include a test of the completely disabled friendly fire. It will include: disabled friendly fire (there were other options) in particular battle modes; at the same time, "friendly stunning" will remain—technically it cannot be to disabled.


Amway921: What about inappropriately behaving Platoons and allies that will be invulnerable to your fire? They will just push your vehicle to the enemy fire.

Pankov: There are technical logging-related aspects. We work but not as quickly as we would like to. The problem of friendly fire will be solved. Next comes pushing and blocking. Disabled damage by ramming is no effective solution. We would like to try the following: we suggest all bloggers to join efforts in a fair play campaign. For example, we want to start receiving replays with "pushing and blocking." A player sends a replay (specifying the time), if the case is approved, such players will be encouraged; if not, they will be punished. It is possible that in future, we may even add some kind of a karma-based system with likes/dislikes.


Amway921: It sounds like a campaign for clean streets: but streets will never be clean this way. Some players simply do not care, others do not know, the rest simply do not want.

Jove: There should be functionality of expressing gratitude to the allies that would affect something in the game (for example in the battle results).

Pankov: If we talk about fair play (excluding the chat), we should start with ourselves. We plan adding "likes," extending the complaint system, perhaps, adding the Thanks button. Only then we can talk about enabling the common (cross-team) chat.


Jove: This is great. You could implement a like-based encouraging system (of course, not a farming system) with stages like in Gett Taxi: earn 1,000 likes to become the king of likes. Talking about the common chat: during steams I really needed it sometimes.

Pankov: Only after solving the issue of toxic behavior in the game.

Biletskiy: We plan an event in May. In the event, we will test the disabled friendly fire, to see how it will work. We do not promise that will be available and we are not going to disable friendly fire in May. Only test of the functionality.


Ushakov: What is the plan against the prohibited game modifications?

Pankov: The plan is simple. We regularly keep banning players according to the logs and we keep working on locking the client.


Ushakov: Digital signature so that players can use only "good" modifications.

Pankov: Yes.


Amway921: A modification: forced magnification in the sniper mode. Another one: limited view range for TD's in the sniper mode: no view range at the rear. Will be implemented in the nearest future?

Pankov: There is a list of modifications that we want to add to the game.


Jove: Can you specify the list of the modifications?

Pankov: Extended game session statistics, perhaps, the commander's camera modification, the option of the forced magnification, perhaps, something related to the view range of the TD's, mini-map, the list is long. We know which modifications are popular and we are ready to implement them. Simply compare the current game client and the client two years ago: they are different. We keep working in this direction.


EviL GrannY: Update 1.0: why cannot you implement all that in this update? Players will return to the game and will have to install the modifications again, other minor issues (like popping reticle): why cannot you do all that in Update 1.0?

Biletskiy: This is a complicated technical task. One year ago we agreed that Update 1.0 will include only the graphics, the new graphics engine and music; not a single additional feature was announced. This is extremely complicated functionality. Every additional element destabilizes the whole game.

Pankov: I will add a little to what Andrew said. Update 1.0: then version stabilization takes some time. The revamped graphics is basically a new game based on WoT. The maps and vehicles looks the same, but everything is different. Optimization requires time: if a particular category of players observes issues, such issues have to be fixed. Only then we will start adding such things.

Biletskiy: Regarding the following updated. Work on update 1.0.1 does not start after releasing update 1.0: it does not work this way.


EviL GrannY: You are already working on it.

Biletskiy: We are finishing working on it. The problem is that stabilization of PC games takes more time than that of console games. Which is related to an extremely vast variety of hardware. All that causes many strange issues in the game. High technical stability is one of the main game's features.

Pankov: Pay attention: technical stability, crashes, FPS. We had much work after the release of update 9.0. We have fixed all that. There are no wide-scale complaints about performance. Now we release the new graphics. So, the graphics first; the rest will be later.

Biletskiy: When everything works properly, other tasks will be accepted for implementation. The key questions is "what should be/should not be done." We have many ideas: the team is big, and every person has their own ideas, so we have to choose. For example, there is a crash with 1.5 percent probability: 1.5 crashes per 100 games (the crash is complicated) or we can implement some kind of additional feedback.  This is the main problem: server, client programmers who solve particular tasks.  Designers need only a few hours to draw the option in Photoshop; yet it will not add the option to the game client.

Thinking about the system of likes we also mean: players will want to view their likes somewhere, preferably on each vehicles, and also displayed them in the profile... All that data should be stored somewhere: each player's profile has a particular size (X Kbyte), the number of profiles is large, and they should be stored somewhere. It means that additional hardware should be installed on each server, etc. Simple things are actually complicated.

Pankov: Returning to Granny's question. If we want to release Personal Missions 2.0 in October, we started the work two months ago. We want to add many things, but we have to schedule them.

 

 

Regarding inflation of the technical characteristics and about turbo-victories/turbo-defeats.


EviL GrannY: My question is related to the following problem: Inflation of technical characteristics. Newly released vehicles overpower the old ones. In this case you should either improve old vehicles, or the newly added ones should be nerfed. Another issue: when you rework something, as a rule, you improve branches. Why don’t you do it in a certain type of vehicles? Look at the IS-4 and E 100— they are inferior to other vehicles—maybe you should improve these two and reduce the characteristics of others. You should rebalance all tanks of a certain type.

Pankov: It is too complicated. Not so easy.  We have to research the topic first. There are many candidates. Such issues should be considered without haste. We have to be careful in our approach.

Biletskiy: What drove us during the branch changes? We wanted to achieve a situation where starting a line, you could imagine what’s at the end, so that you would use a specific play style from beginning to end. However, there are still things that we are not satisfied with. We have deep concerns about some points. Anyway, players need time to get used to this system.


EviL GrannY: The question is about an arms race in the game. The vehicles become more and more powerful. There is a problem of unexpectedly fast battles. Instant victories and defeats are commonplace now.

Pankov: We are analyzing instant defeats very carefully. We received a report of 80 pages. It includes different hypotheses. It is hard to classify and identify such battles, because we are dealing with different players, tanks, maps, and dynamics, etc. In a moment instead of instant victories, we will have mega camps. That's a matter of perspective.

Biletskiy: Regarding the instant battles. Looking into the past, the last one-and-a-half year, the battle became slower, depending on the region. I am speaking about the duration of battles.

Pankov: I would like to add some information. The average duration of battles was 6.5 minutes four years ago and gradually increased to 7 minutes 40 seconds. Since 9.18 Update was released, players have become to monitor instant defeats intentionally; the same situation was earlier when SGPs could easily destroy a vehicle with a single shot.

Biletskiy: Back in the day, you remembered such a oneshot for two days. Figuratively speaking.

Pankov: Players began to pay attention to it. It is hard to find the reason for this. The same situation was with bots. The statistics indicates that the number of instant defeats has decreased. We are working on the solution to his problem.

Biletskiy: Regarding the arms race: Anyway, we have plans. We know what the arms race is. It is partially due to the fact that the number of vehicles has increased gradually in the game. Just like the Type 59: first, it was considered as an overpowered vehicle, but became average, and now it is just boring. However, we did not change anything.


Vspishka: The ecosystem сhanged.

Biletskiy: Yes, it did. Since the changes in the Swedish branch, we have experimented with new mechanics. It is a very careful process. We introduce new mechanics, for example, the Siege mode when playing in the Swedish vehicles. This mode will be also available to the Italian vehicles. We should be cautious about this feature.


EviL GrannY:  Then what? To see 10 OP tanks in one Ranked Battle—priceless

Biletskiy: We know about it. Currently, we are closely following the situation. We should make well-considered decisions. Because if we change something, or remove two-thirds of vehicles from the game—it will result in players' discontent.

Pankov: Typical battle mode… If we recall the situation on the the Global Map. Players preferred to play in the Maus on Himmelsdorf and block bridges on Erlenberg. Meta-Gameplay is changing. New vehicles are being introduced to the game, the ecosystem is developing. This is an endless process.

Biletskiy: If we compare the first season of the Ranked Battles with the current one, we can see the lineups are changing. Some vehicles become obsolete, some are still used. For example, the appreciated Object 907. The IS-7 is selected more and more often. The best among new vehicles is the Object 268 Version 4.

 

About maps


Ushakov: I understand that we can endlessly talk about balance. We will stop, until the entire system is stabilized. This is about vehicles. What about maps?

Pankov: Let’s talk about maps then.


Vspishka: 1.0 Update is coming. There is a new type of tree—fir.  They have a different size and can hide a vehicle completely. We did not have such objects before. Why were they introduced to the game and still used?

Jove: I would like to add. Let's talk about the map developing. Some maps are completely changed. For example, Redshire. Or Erlenberg.

Pankov: Regarding collision models. That makes sense. That’s why we carry out tests on the Sandbox server. The trees look just like in real life.


Vspishka: On some maps they affect concealment characteristics. They give an advantage because it is impossible to detect an enemy.

Pankov: Let's wait for the release. The Common test provides insufficient information, so we should not jump to any conclusions. If needed, we will fix everything.

The cost of Premium shells will not be changed in 1.0 Update. It will be done later, maybe in 1.0.1 Update. Unfortunately, different kinds of tests do not allow us to foresee players' behavior and tactics on a particular map. We have to release them.

About the reworked things that we promised not to change. It is not enough to change only artistic setting of maps. Old maps are completely reworked. Some changes were needed to remove high ground positions.


Amway921: Why don't you create mirror-like maps?

Pankov: We tried, it is not a good idea. We created one map like that, but there is no balance even there. Such factors as player's mood can influence the battle. For example, a player wants to enter a new battle—the type of behavior in a battle will differ from the predicted one, even on mirror-like maps. Currently, we are developing five brand new maps, not only the city ones. It should diversify the gameplay significantly.


Vspishka: There are small maps like Mines or Ensk—why are they available to play in Tier X vehicles?

Pankov: We will still use them. However, we started expanding their areas. Previously, the map size was limited—1.2×1.2 km. Now we have solved this issue.

Biletskiy: The new engine not only allows us to introduce maps in HD quality, but also provides a wide range of tools to edit these maps. It means that we will be able to improve everything faster and better.

 

About SPGs


Amway921: A few words about SPGs. The fact that they do not cause significant damage is fine, we are grateful. But it seems to be a problem that they do it more accurately and with a larger burst radius stunning enemy vehicles. Why don’t you reduce the stun effect if several SPGs are firing at you at the same time?

Pankov: When analyzing performance of SPGs after releasing Update 9.18, we decided that stun mechanics is what makes these vehicles useful for a team. Currently, we think the situation with SPGs has calmed down. There are some issues with SPGs of the low and middle tiers, but we will find a good solution for each particular case.

Biletskiy: Maybe we will reduce the stun coefficient with some new perks or equipment. We are going to test these changes on the Sandbox Server.


Amway921: Why don't you organize Day Without SPGs event?

Biletskiy: The thing is that playing experience will be reduced. As in any shooter, players tend to stay together as a flock in the open. This tactics is obvious when large open areas are provided in the game. SPGs prevent from playing as a flock.

If we remove SPGs, players' behavior in a battle will be changed. After a while, two large groups of armored vehicles will fight against each other. If teams select opposite flanks to attack, the team in which players make more tactical mistakes by separating from the group will lose. All vehicles should move together in one particular direction.

Pankov: It looks like an instant defeat.

Biletskiy: That's why we need SPGs. Removing these vehicles will harm the game.

Pankov: SPG a are an integral part of the gameplay.

 

About eSport, events, and tournaments


LeBwa: I would like to ask about eSport. Those who are in it know why the WoT part of it got shut down. The question is: what can eSport players expect?

Pankov: Well. We have a system to replace the current Wargaming.net League. No details for now. We will keep the monetary rewards, and there will be certain offline events that will be the Finals.


LeBwa: Does it mean that this kind of activities will be profitable?

Pankov: Sure, you will still be able to make some profit. Maybe, some of your former colleagues will come back and make money on these activities. The fact that this kind of format is outdated has been known for quite a long time. It is obvious, that many players are a little bit tired, and we have to find a way how to refresh the format... Unfortunately, I cannot provide any additional information right now. We will try to do our best to make an interesting activity that is close to the very game that is so familiar and appreciated by our players.


LeBwa: Where can we expect the announcement?

Pankov: Speaking about announcement... Well, under favorable conditions, we will try to announce it at the end of the summer 2018. In other words, we will provide detailed information about our vision and plans.


Jove: Are you talking about this year?

Pankov: Sure, this year. Our aim is to test this kind of format before the end of the year, and hold the first competitions. We want to refresh and make it more interesting and simple for a common player at the same time, so that they could learn some useful experience and apply it in the game. This is the most valuable thing your streams give. People can see aiming, shooting from the first-person perspective. This is the goal. To provide more training and fun content. And, of course, the recently added customization system gives more opportunities for introducing additional content in the game. We're working on it. We'll show it.


EviL GrannY: By outdated format, do you mean League and team battles in general?

Pankov: Yes.


EviL GrannY: Will it be something absolutely different?

Pankov: It will differ a lot from what we have now. Plus it's a complex issue. When it comes to updating the competitive apect in our game, the problem is related to the server-mod and all that. That means the opportunity to watch from the first-person perspective and all that.

Ushakov: What do we have now? The void is filled with clan scuffles. How does it look? Maybe it will be interesting? Maybe it will be supported, but not on a private basis, not on private channels?

Pankov: We are ready to provide support. We have already talked to LeBwa. Yes, we are ready to sponsor, support, demonstrate. It's interesting, it's fun.


EviL GrannY: WG didn't show much interest in third-party tournaments before.

Vspishka: You were trying to make it your prerogative.

Pankov: Not all tournaments are equal. I have an idea to support Chuck Norris tournaments. Individual achievements, replays. It is about a solo player in a random battle playing a normal vehicle but behaving in a different manner.


Ushakov: We are talking about in-game events that require almost nothing, for example, March of Nations. My question is about modes, past fun events in the region, for example, Halloween. What are your plans on such events? I have good time taking part in them.

Pankov: I can answer this question in a few words: there will be events this year. What mechanics... Fun events are good thanks to the opportunities they provide in terms of maneuvering, testing something.


LeBwa: While eSport is being revamped, we spend much time playing Absolute Superiority, the Global Map, and Stronghold. Recently, we held showmatches, but we faced the lack of tools for this: Attack/Defense is unavailable in training rooms, and so on.

Pankov: Our tournament system on the Global Map has such tools, but they are unavailable on a private basis. We will try to do it another way: we will gather all your suggestions and will try to create a common open platform for such activities.

 

Rapid-Fire Questions


Vspishka: HD-client: where is the the normal scaling?

Pankov: We are working on it.


EviL GrannY: Will players be able to purchase Premium vehicles using bonds?

Pankov: Premium vehicles as they are now—no. Plans to integrate vehicles in exchange for bonds—yes.


LeBwa: I am playing Tier X in a Platoon and always matched with Tier VIII. Is this normal?

Pankov: Yes, it's normal.


Amway921: I have played 40,000 battles, and I normally spend 40 seconds waiting for a battle to start. Do you plan to reduce the waiting time?

Pankov: No.


EviL GrannY: What about changing it somehow?

Pankov: Do you mean pre-battle time? We might add a mini-game in the future. The waiting time for computers with SSDs will increase before a 30-second countdown starts. They will have to wait longer. Maybe about a minute. We'll check the statistics and see how can we reduce it. But it it necessary to take into account that not everyone has an SSD. Eighty percent of a team need to load on the battlefield in time. Players use different hardware.


Amway921: People are buying new PCs. Can't you reduce this time?

Pankov: You even cannot imagine how the statistics look.


Amway921: Average battle loading time?

Pankov: Starting from when?


Amway921: How long does an average player wait before a battle starts?

Biletskiy: What do you mean by an average player?


Amway921: I mean the fastest 80 percent. How long do they wait?

Pankov: It is hard to say. As far as I can remember, about 15–20 seconds.


Amway921: 15 seconds that you can cut?

Pankov: They can be cut as long as all players in your battle load faster. The worst PCs, on which people try to play WoT, are those on which battles on some maps do not load at all. For example, battles load on Steppes, but not on Himmelsdorf.


EviL GrannY: Do you plan it or not? If yes, then when? Premium account for several hours, several battles?

Pankov: No, we don't. There are reserves in the game.


EviL GrannY: Loot boxes: were they a succes or not? Do you plan introducing them on a regular basis? Will they be available in the future?

Pankov: Yes, they were. They will not be introduced on a regular basis. Most likely, only as part of the holiday season event.

Biletskiy: There are two entities. One entity is a loot box as a good that can be sold or purchased. The other entity is a loot box as a way of distributing awards. As a way of distributing awards, they were a success and there are plans about them. As Anton said, as a good, they will be only as part of the holiday season event.


EviL GrannY: What about +/-15 percent penetration like in Blitz?

Pankov: No.


EviL GrannY: When will you fix the jumping reticle in sniper mode?

Pankov: It's hard to fix it, but we want to fix it.


EviL GrannY: There is already a mod for this.

Biletskiy: This mod is unreliable in three-dimensional space. Because in fact you have two points of view. You have a vehicle with a beam (gun) and a camera that is placed in a different way. This effect is called hysteresis. It means that what you see is distortion. When there is a certain ratio between the camera and vehicle angles, a jump in effect recalculation happens. You can try to smooth it, but at this moment the reticle starts to be inaccurate. We've been thinking over this issue for a long time and decided not to change anything at the moment, because a reticle correctly showing where you will fire is more important than the jump.


LeBwa: Do you plan to introduce a PvE mode?

Pankov: Yes, we do.


Jove: How did the tests on the Ensk map where bots attacked from all sides turn out?

Pankov: We checked the results and got more or less satisfied. Working on PvE.


Jove: Will it be like in WoT Console?

Pankov: No comment at the moment. The work is in progress.


EviL GrannY: Are you going to combat cheats somehow along with redeveloping mods?

Pankov: We do analysis every day.


EviL GrannY: It's clear, but what about tougher measures?

Pankov: What do you mean? Do you mean banning?


EviL GrannY: Banning websites, banning more players. Banning YouTube channels.

Pankov: We report such issues on a regular basis and ban such channels. The matter is that they can appear much faster. It's no big deal to register a new channel and start a stream with OBS.


EviL GrannY: I mean not pseudos. They say that cheaters are bad, but in fact show an image before and after cheating. And a player thinks: "This one got caught because he posted his replay. I'm not gonna post mine and will not get caught."

Pankov: Yes, we will continue to work in this direction. We are working a lot on issues with YouTube and such websites. And we continue to improve our functionality. I mean ban waves, sudden ban waves, regular bans, and so on. The current system is very simple: you get caught for the first time—a 7-day ban, second time—a 60-day ban, third time—a permanent ban.


Vspishka: What's the point of this?

Pankov: Everyone has a right to make mistakes.


Amway921: Previously, we were promised server replays that will allow to watch a battle of any player. What about them?

Pankov: We are currently working on them.


LeBwa: Does it mean that we will be able to watch a replay of any player in the future?

Pankov: Certainly. Firstly, they are needed for new eSport. Secondly, they are already implemented in WoT Console, and there is something we can borrow from it.


Amway921: There are killcams in some games. It would be great to see how your vehicle has been destroyed and prevent an enemy vehicle from aiming at you through any bushes.

Biletskiy: In fact, it is the same technology. It has several tricky aspects. Aspect number one is that we need to make it in a way that will allow us to redevelop it as seldom as possible. Because we change versions (replays is quite a strange thing). We should be sure that we will not have to fix server replays many times. It means that the technological solution should always remain up-to-date. That is the reason we are so cautious about the implementation. We are cautious just to maintain the stability of the client at a very high level. I mean the client-server system in this case. I mean a player and a server that a player plays on.


Jove: In a few words. Will there be fun modes this year?

Pankov: Yes, sure.

Biletskiy: Anton has just spoiled. Yes, in May. What do we have in May (Jove: Day of Berlin's surrender!) Yes, Victory Day broadly speaking.

Pankov: Something will be available in June-July, something—during the holiday season, something—between June and holiday season. There will be plenty of everything.


Jove: What about vehicle customization?

Pankov: Customization is divided into three stages. The first stage is what we have already released. This platform includes a very small number of functionalities, but it is a system itself. The second part of this system includes large opportunities provided by 2D-customization. Crewmembers, voiceovers, emblems.

Biletskiy: I wouldn't rush with crewmembers. Everything related to two-dimensional graphics on a vehicle is the second stage.

Pankov: The third part is 3D-exterior elements. This is the most difficult part, which will increase the size of the game client and require additional efforts in development. Yes, we're working on it.


EviL GrannY: About HE-shells: Type 5 Heavies, derp guns—it's not cool.

Pankov: Currently, there are no improvements for the Type 5 Heavy. As for HE-shells, we just think about them and try to do some experiments.

 

EviL GrannY: Don't you want to make 1100 alpha damage caused by gold shells instead of 1400 alpha damage?

Pankov: No, not yet. We want it to settle down a bit, after the significant rebalance of top tier vehicles. Then, we'll see.


EviL GrannY: Not only the Type 5 Heavy, but HE-shells in general.

Pankov: Yes, we do.


EviL GrannY: In what direction?

Pankov: I'm not sure yet.


EviL GrannY: What don't you like?

Pankov: I don't like the fact that in 95 percent of cases, HESH-shells may either provide a significant advantage or be of no use. The same is with HE shells. From my point of view, HE-shells are not effective, except when you shoot at the Grille, Lorraine's side, or BatChat, which also doesn't guarantee penetration. Currently, HE-shells are not effective and they require improvement.

However, there's a risk to spoil everything. It's a long process to make it right.


Vspishka: There is a rolling problem. And I can't cope with it. What I suggest: Use a Repair Kit, then roll back on the chassis. While the Repair Kit is on cool down, your tracks are still off. Repair the tracks and move again. Because it's lame to wait until your ally turns you over.

Pankov: I don't like the idea of using the Repair Kit, but the rolling problem does exist and requires consideration.


Vspishka: Maybe we should lower the price of Directives purchased for Bonds?

Biletskiy: We're monitoring the economy issues now. When we were implementing the prices, we were afraid of negative response from the audience about Directives themselves and the things they provide to players. Now, there is a definite demand for Directives, but it's irregular. We will turn to Bonds (Anton says that we should sell vehicles for Bonds), after we introduce more items that can be purchased for them. We also don't want Directives spamming: "DIRECTIVES FOR EVERYBODY, FREE, AND NO ONE WILL GO AWAY UNSATISFIED!"

Pankov: We tried to implement purchasing vehicles for Bonds during a game event on the Global map, when players could purchase clan vehicles. I can't say whether it was good or bad. We need to try further.


Vspishka: Personal Missions. The main problem about Personal Missions is the choice of a specific mission. Will it be possible to chose several missions during the second season, or all missions assigned to a vehicle will be listed automatically?

Pankov: We did simplify Personal Missions during the first season, we introduced lists that allowed players plan or skip missions, and so on. It's OK here. Personal Missions 2.0 will also allow you to chose one mission.


Vspishka: There are many players who've upgraded to Tier X and don't understand what to do now. Because they skipped lower levels and learned nothing. What do you think about players with the 40 to 44 percent victory rate on Tier VIII, Tier IX, and Tier X top vehicles?

Pankov: It doesn't always depend on learning. First, it depends on the way of playing, on the player's attitude toward the game.


Vspishka: In-game training?

Pankov: We're working on it, trying to develop and implement. There will be changes this year. We're currently working on the Knowledge Database library.

Biletskiy: I can't remember when it was renamed once again. Actually, there are a few sections we're currently working on. Soon, they will be implemented. One section is the advanced tooltips section. After clicking the Alt key, the majority of tooltips will spread and show a short video with the description of functions. For example, tooltips for crew skills, equipment, consumables, etc. We're working on suggestions about training, and we'll return some logics. Something like micro-personal-missions for newcomers. Perhaps, we'll use bots for training.

We want to create a quick reference book for newcomers, which will show tooltips: if we see that a player does something wrong, we'll tell them what to do.


Amway921: Will there be changes in the referral program?

Pankov: We're going to implement a different system.


Amway921: What about Historical battles?

Biletskiy: In the PvE mode only.


Amway921: Many players get angry when someone constantly click the minimap. It would be great if a player who clicked the minimap more than three times, got a ban for five seconds or even for one minute.

Pankov: Yes, we have to do it. Perhaps, we won't implement a ban for three clicks, but for more. However, this won't be implemented in version 1.0.


LeBwa: What should players on Tier VIII to X vehicles do without Premium accounts?

Pankov: According to the original idea (and it was never a secret for anybody), Tier VIII to X vehicles are unprofitable without the Premium account: they don't allow players to earn much and require lots of spending. This concept will be preserved for now. We actively give away Premium accounts as part of special offers, during marathons and quests, we provide boosters, etc. Marathons allow players to farm Premium vehicles.


LeBwa: Will you change the economy for Tier X vehicles?

Biletskiy: No, we won't for now. Such changes in the economy can have long-term consequences that are difficult to predict.


LeBwa: What about the T-22 sr?

Pankov: Forget about it. We don't have any plans for it.


EviL GrannY: Upgrading hulls and removing a hated map?

Pankov: We removed the option of upgrading hulls in favor of 3D customization. This will become part of 3D customization, actually.

As for removing a hated map, we're not currently working on this option, because it will hinder the matchmaker functioning. For example, in version 1.0, we won't release all maps that currently exist in random, but only 28 of them. Perhaps, we'll implement it as part of a new Premium account. As soon as we learn how to work with the matchmaker.

Biletskiy: It is not necessarily like this. For example, it could be like "details of a certain map."


EviL GrannY: Are there any plans to make changes to Improved Equipment?

Pankov: Not right now; right at the moment we are waiting for a particular pool of information on its use to analyze.


EviL GrannY: Is there any information on the combat effectiveness of this type of equipment? Is it worth earning?

Pankov: Of course it is worth earning.

Biletskiy: In a particular situation, when you are in a solo fight and one shot has the decisive importance, and if you can reload a second faster, you will be able to destroy this vehicle and stay alive. This equipment provides a considerable advantage in this case.

Speaking about some permanent advantage in each battle, we can draw a parallel to the question on the inflation. We deliberately developed the equipment in such a way, so that it provides a considerable advantage in a particular situation, while in long lapse of time/experiment, it will provide the minimal advantage.


EviL GrannY: Will the hull visualization provide some advantage to vehicles?

Pankov: Speaking about the visual part, we have the idea to add the option of reinforcing hulls with some sand bags, but not in the first iteration.

Biletskiy: When we started our work with 3D customization, when reworking vehicles into HD quality, we started removing armor from trucks. Right at the moment they have no armor.

Pankov: In some vehicles there is still some armor on tracks.

Biletskiy: Sure, in some old collision models, there are still some armored tracks. Actually, a track presents a nice customization object. But if we add some armor, like 6, 8, 20 mm of armor, all players will mount these tracks, and mount them as many as possible.

Pankov: Many players will want to take the advantage and mount as many tracks as possible. That is why we will remove them in the current iteration.


Ushakov: Personal Missions 2.0 What are the plans for the first iteration—will it be removed?

Pankov: Not at all, they will remain and function simultaneously.


Jove: What will the second iteration of personal missions look like?

Pankov: New Personal Missions will be great, they will be quite different.


Jove: Are you planning to rework the characteristics of vehicles received for completion of Personal Missions 1.0?

Pankov: Actually, we are planning to rework all 4 reward vehicles. The same relates to the clan vehicles: many players suggest reworking of 121B and M60, and they are in our schedule. We will also work with the vehicles for completion of Personal Missions.

Personal Missions 2.0 will be quite different. At the moment, the idea is that they will function simultaneously, which means there will be the option to complete two separate missions at the same time. They will be quite different.


EviL GrannY: What is the hidden vehicle, that goes after the T-10 tank?

Pankov: It will be introduced pretty soon.


Vspishka: Clans suggest adding a bulletin board for recruiting, they are tired of sending endless messages in the Chat.

Pankov: Some time ago, we had a meeting with the representatives of the CONTRAS movement. They provided a huge number of suggestions, including this one. We introduced particular changes with the launch of the season, and used their feedback when launching the event, that was pretty hardcore. We will gradually add this to the game.


Vspishka: There are situations when a vehicle falls on another one, and both vehicles receive the same damage. While logically, the top vehicle should receive less damage as the bottom one. Are there plans to fix this situation?

Biletskiy: At the moment this will work as it is.


Vspishka: When will you display to players the stabilization, terrain resistance and other hidden parameters?

Pankov: We may display these parameters in the future, with the next reworking of Garage lobby. It does not mean we will add all, but some parameters will be certainly added.


Vspishka: Are there any plans to add the Tier VIII, IX and other vehicles to participate in the Ranked Battles?

Biletskiy: We consider this opportunity each time, especially, when analyzing the distribution be regions, but we steel have no decision.

Pankov: Let us have a look at World of Warships: the Ranked Battles seasons are played in various Tiers. This season will be definitely for Tier X vehicles only, since it is already in progress. The next season will be also for Tier X vehicles only. We will see in the future. At the moment we do not have any specific plans.


 

 


See you on the Battlefield!
 


Edited by CabbageMechanic, Mar 02 2018 - 23:31.


__WarChild__ #2 Posted Mar 02 2018 - 23:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17959 battles
  • 2,457
  • [FGTVE] FGTVE
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017
Thanks for posting, Cabbage!

riff_ #3 Posted Mar 02 2018 - 23:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 27280 battles
  • 9,842
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

I am not a conspiracy type of person or one to bash WG.  I like playing WoT's, with it's faults.  I believe that the game is kind of cool.

 

BUT, sometimes, I feel that when WG speaks to us, that WG is the Bureau of Indian Affairs and we are the Native Americans.



ShookYang #4 Posted Mar 02 2018 - 23:39

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 9520 battles
  • 1,388
  • [5LINE] 5LINE
  • Member since:
    09-07-2014

So, if we choose to do nothing, will the original pref mm tank retain their pref mm?

 

I'd rather keep my pref mm tank then get a buffed Tier 8 version that sees Tier 10.



Cornish_Pirate #5 Posted Mar 02 2018 - 23:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 35036 battles
  • 906
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
 ITS BEEN 6 MONTHS WITH NO UPDATE and we get 'working on it'

Edited by Cornish_Pirate, Mar 02 2018 - 23:47.


Creeper_Peaper_Reeper #6 Posted Mar 02 2018 - 23:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9914 battles
  • 454
  • [TURK_] TURK_
  • Member since:
    08-03-2012
Some nice features in the works. We will have to wait and see. 

View Postriff_, on Mar 02 2018 - 17:38, said:

I am not a conspiracy type of person or one to bash WG.  I like playing WoT's, with it's faults.  I believe that the game is kind of cool.

 

BUT, sometimes, I feel that when WG speaks to us, that WG is the Bureau of Indian Affairs and we are the Native Americans.

 

I know right. Thanks for the talk dad.

black_colt #7 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 00:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3704 battles
  • 2,621
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View Post__WarChild__, on Mar 02 2018 - 14:17, said:

Thanks for posting, Cabbage!

 

Agreed.



Maegenwulf #8 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 00:45

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 846 battles
  • 162
  • Member since:
    02-24-2018

Biletskiy, they DID change the Type 59 characteristics long ago and the owners were never compensated in ANY fashion.  No refund option, no coupon, no camo, not even an explanation or apology for why it was required.  

 

 



Tupinambis #9 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 01:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 35630 battles
  • 15,260
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View PostMaegenwulf, on Mar 03 2018 - 00:45, said:

Biletskiy, they DID change the Type 59 characteristics long ago and the owners were never compensated in ANY fashion.  No refund option, no coupon, no camo, not even an explanation or apology for why it was required.  

 

 

 

Because the Type 59 got improved by the changes, even after the “mixed bag” of changes years ago.

kihew #10 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 01:24

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6830 battles
  • 180
  • Member since:
    02-16-2015
As a collector of cyber tanks and one of the "just here for the fun of it" players [while I try hard to improve, I really don't care how well I rank], I am in awe of the efforts made by Wargaming to continuously improve World of Tanks, especially the graphics. Any criticisms or complaints I may have aside, I really appreciate the efforts by the Wargaming team to keep this game relevant and fresh. Most video games I've encountered are quickly flushed out to the public by the developer to earn quick dollars, and then generally left to flounder, until the public loses interest and stops spending money on the game. Although I've spent my fair share of coin on World of Tanks [hopefully my wife never finds out how much I've actually spent or I'm a dead man], I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. Thank you very much Wargaming for the incredible job you do keeping World of Tanks going.

Maegenwulf #11 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 02:51

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 846 battles
  • 162
  • Member since:
    02-24-2018

View PostTupinambis, on Mar 03 2018 - 01:21, said:

 

Because the Type 59 got improved by the changes, even after the “mixed bag” of changes years ago.

 

Nope, the original changes were a straightup nerf. 

KaiserWilhelmShatner #12 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 09:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 15711 battles
  • 4,188
  • [F_O_G] F_O_G
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

I am confused on this

Some players purchase Premium shells and consumables for gold. Thus, we cannot suddenly decrease their characteristics. Moreover, it is even against the law in some countries. We cannot make changes to property purchased for real money.

Yet they talk about re-balancing premium vehicles which were bought with real money.  Also, why was the Type-59 touched in the first place then.



bockscar43 #13 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 10:09

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 29027 battles
  • 1,321
  • [PL1AR] PL1AR
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015
Well they sure spend a lot of time discussing this and that, kinda like the dev with the pony tail, sayn everything is done incrementally. These people would not work out well with my employer, cause they would be let go for lack of progress in a timely manner. But then who am I, just an outsider looking in their window. Good luck with your task.

Whisky_A_Go_Go #14 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 12:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 9939 battles
  • 2,170
  • Member since:
    12-24-2011
What a bunch of scripted crap this is.

JTM78 #15 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 14:46

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 19991 battles
  • 936
  • [OBSCN] OBSCN
  • Member since:
    08-16-2013
WOW!!! Not one question I asked in the other post was asked to the dev!!! I am so sick of WoT asking for stuff questions/feedback/eta and not doing poop with it. I am really learning to hate WoT!

BlackFive #16 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 18:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 27869 battles
  • 3,263
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

This is merely a transcript of the interview posted BEFORE we had a chance to ask questions.

 

Where are the NA questions?



_BOROMIR_ #17 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 20:00

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 3680 battles
  • 3
  • [MAD-] MAD-
  • Member since:
    09-13-2017

View PostBlackFive, on Mar 03 2018 - 18:40, said:

This is merely a transcript of the interview posted BEFORE we had a chance to ask questions.

 

Where are the NA questions?

 

Yes! Where are ours Q&A stream?? 

scamper0914 #18 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 20:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12238 battles
  • 27
  • [GNZX2] GNZX2
  • Member since:
    03-02-2012
**** wot spgs will forever suck

HighCharity_AkemiHomura #19 Posted Mar 03 2018 - 22:20

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 10591 battles
  • 1,550
  • [OHARU] OHARU
  • Member since:
    12-21-2016

View Postscamper0914, on Mar 04 2018 - 04:12, said:

**** wot spgs will forever suck

 

+100

LeaveIT2Beaver #20 Posted Mar 04 2018 - 03:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 30671 battles
  • 8,458
  • [J4F] J4F
  • Member since:
    07-04-2014

Biletskiy: That's why we need SPGs. Removing these vehicles will harm the game.

Pankov: SPG a are an integral part of the gameplay.

 

:popcorn:

 

ZERO N/A  questions answered.  I knew that was coming. 


Edited by LeaveIT2Beaver, Mar 04 2018 - 03:36.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users