Jump to content


T110`s Armor

Over 5000 pages of comfort!

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
109624 replies to this topic

Reklaw #21 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 00:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12376 battles
  • 827
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View Postnublex, on Nov 05 2011 - 00:05, said:

IDK, since T110 was full of unproven technology a lot can go wrong. And yes, a lot of tanks didn't get their RL features for sake of gameplay/balance/limits.
Except we know that technology would even up being proven. Since, you know... it actually happened, in the past.

The concern is that the T110 will end up not even being a T110. Nerfed armor, nerfed speed, nerfed firepower, nerfed mobility = made up tank that wears the hull like a costume.

iyaerP #22 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 02:06

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5981 battles
  • 226
  • Member since:
    06-03-2011
There are two things that I think we can all agree are what truley defines the T110 when compared with any of the current tanks in game. These being the composite armour, and the penetration on the gun being above and beyond any of the other guns in game, and more importantly, high enough to punch through any armour that exists in the game now.

So long as the T110 has these, I am willing to overlook the horrible cupola design that they are going with despite commander storm presenting us with first-hand evidence from one of the designers who worked on the tank that it would pose a neglibable tactical weakness.

If the T110 that they gives us has the composite armour, and its historical penetration values for its gun. I will be happy.

crnivuk #23 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 02:53

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,307
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
actually what I am really worried about is not so much the front. Seriously most tier 9 and 10 can penetrate each other just fine.

It is the rest of the protection. The M103 for example with "just" 50mm on the sides or rear will be a nice tank to hit for the artillery doing a full damage even with a miss. I have no clue how it will be for the T110. But if it has the same protection on teh rear and sides like the M103 ... then it will be no fun driving that around with artillery in teh same match.

iyaerP #24 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 05:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5981 battles
  • 226
  • Member since:
    06-03-2011
Cept they should be fast enough to dodge arty.

When's the last time you saw arty shoot at somethin that might dodge their shots when they have the super bricks sitting around waiting to soak up their rounds?

Arzoo #25 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 06:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostiyaerP, on Nov 05 2011 - 05:47, said:

Cept they should be fast enough to dodge arty.

When's the last time you saw arty shoot at somethin that might dodge their shots when they have the super bricks sitting around waiting to soak up their rounds?

I have no problem hitting anything but T-50's with my M40/43. Saying that speed/agility protects against arty is ridiculous. Mediums that need open space to be effective are punished by arty far more than anyone else.

SFC_Storm #26 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 07:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postnublex, on Nov 04 2011 - 13:39, said:

Against tier 8+ maybe, tier 7 and lower, things gets very interesting.

And really silicon-core is made against HEAT with stream of jet rather than share shock from HE; but there is just no reason to discourage people buying HEAT (aka gold) rounds.

If RHA version of T110 works as tier 10, then it would proof it is a good design providing all the guts works.

No its great vs heat and HE.

First off if they added BHN scale of steel on top ofjust plain thicknes that would be amazing.

I am and always will be an Eve player but now I too ka break and realized I love WOT.

The Reason Eve is so great are the ships are about Speed/Firepower/Armor but they all have differant versions of each IE some use shields while other Armor and some benefit greatly from adding speed mods and some adding DMG COntrol making the Hull stronger.

Wot needs to add a few more layers to its system to truly set itself apart IMO I love this game anddont want it usurped by a largecompany who realizes just how much they could make if they did more.

The simple fact is saying RHA means absolutely nothing, its all about BHN levels and imperfections in steel not just thickness, its whythe 1943 Panther would murder the 1944 Panther, the 1944 had more steel by a bit but had terribly welded and poorly made steel.

So the easyway is to add bonuses, just like they do in TD`s for camo.

Think about it, its very easy to implement bonuses to tanks to make them not so vanilla.

Like
T54
20% bonus to Camo when stopped
5% bonus to bounce chance when moving [It encourages to play like a fast mover and makes sense since it had so many angles etc]
30 Sec Reload after firing 10 Rounds [from cradle being empty and loader having to refil it.
10% bonus to AP rounds fired at it [from Hard BHN steel]
+10% chance to lose crew or mod when hit with HE [Becausehard steel doesnt give

These are just examples butit would give you more to thin kabout and your enemy as well.

T110
20% Bonus to HE/Heat Rounds
15% Bonus to AP rounds
-5% to camo bonus [R2-D2] 10% on movement
30 Sec Reload time after 8 Rounds
10% Bonus to velocity of round [not pen]
20% chance of Mod or Crew wen hit in rear turret.
No loss of speed going up hills [Not super steep ones but this is because Turbo engines keep up Revs]

If we addedbonus`s to each tank it would give small inherint weak+Strong suits and make the game vastly more deep.

But to answer Original question GlassCored Arm was almost 100% bettervs Heat, 20% better vs HE and 20% better vs AP wit same thickness, it also was 8% lighter.

If they do it right it will be a great T110 and like I said gimmi IS4 Armor, Panther Accel/Agility and the 400@7.7 275-280 gun and its toally fair...IS4 is T9 we are just so starved fro any real bruisr T9 Armor seems OP, but trust me if we had E75 and E100 the USSR and German guys would say we are cheaters and those tanks are unstopable etc, E100 is great but it needs a Light/Heavy that can beat it and Pen it, and if played smart Dominate it.

E100 Beats Maus
Maus Beats IS7
IS7 Beats T30
T30 can if its lucky finish all 3 but not really compete in a 1v1

We finally deserve a great tank and our T110 we kinda all made together with IS4 style equal armor [except frontal turret] and a solid .33 400 dmg@7.7 3k DPM would be a great tank but not at all unkillable, in fact if you can kil la IS4 with a Godmode frontturet [which we all can] you could kill this easy

But it needs Some HE resist at minimum the rest are high numbers because Armor was thin compared to a T10 but had way better Armor.

SFC_Storm #27 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 07:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postnublex, on Nov 05 2011 - 00:05, said:

Yes and No, back spalling is just a more visible way a shock wave deliver its power.

I guess I got mix up while talking RL and in game. Unlike RL post war tanks have spall liner as standard, no tank does in game. As for free Spall Liner, it doesn't illustrate the why would it be such a good idea because it is very unlikely something would be release which discourage gold flow.


Well consider it is a RHA version (ala M60 extended), with all the electronics stripped. Maus is that far ahead of its time (even the Panther was a bit ahead as war equipment); and T110 was design as counter to IS-3/10 because we were paranoid about them.

I rather see it worked like an enlarge up M60 with a good 120mm gun.


Tiger I is a 30's design, for all Germans' effort this is the first step to their rather swift and wholly defeat. Tiger II on the other hand is full of breakthroughs.

T110's breakthroughs were concentrated on electronics and new armour material.


IDK, since T110 was full of unproven technology a lot can go wrong. And yes, a lot of tanks didn't get their RL features for sake of gameplay/balance/limits.


Sorry Nub but the ARmor wasnt fro ma decade later, they made composite armor way before, but as in all tings US they tested it to death and made Shermans and P51`s and basically fed war machines to th world, there was no need for ADV armor at that point, then when we coought our breath bam, the start of the Abrams styled layered armor.

It was the best cs Heat stopping 100mm shaped charge with 0 Pen, held HE DMG to barely anything since each layered gave with the blast and was all round the best, its lowest attribute was Solid AP rounds and it was still 20-25% better with same thickness and 8% lighter.

You saying M60 would be ok but it wouldnt vs a IS7 or Maus, it would be great fun but the Glass Armor is what set it apart from the M60 and made it a heavyweight even though it was light.
ANd it wasnt tested as a unti but the T96 which was 1 wheel shorter with same gun and Armor was and it did great.

M60 needs to be T10 Med not T10 Heavy.

crnivuk #28 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 13:01

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,307
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View PostiyaerP, on Nov 05 2011 - 05:47, said:

Cept they should be fast enough to dodge arty.

When's the last time you saw arty shoot at somethin that might dodge their shots when they have the super bricks sitting around waiting to soak up their rounds?
Can the T34 or the T30 "dodge" arty shells ? And those are quite fast "heavy" tanks (compared to the others in their tier).

Speed is nice. But the maps dont offer the size to exploit it. You end most of the time in some bottle neck, the edge of the map or other positions that arty are looking at. And then you will get a hit from splash damage. And that is what I am worried about. Not a direct hit. Those will kill everything anyway. IS4, T30 ... any thing can be almost one-shoted by high tier arty. But slpash damage alone will be what I fear with the M103 and T110. That is if the developers decided to give it glass armor all around ... they decided to make HE damage so damn simplified in this game its almost ridiculous. There have been tanks which survived tests of nuclear weapons (1 Centurion served even later in a war after those tests). And here you have 120mm and 150mm guns exploding 5m from the tank killing half of the crew.

SFC_Storm #29 Posted Nov 05 2011 - 20:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
If maps were 2-3-4 times bigger speed and meds would truly be useful, imagine if enemy had 3 routes to go like most maps ecxept each oute had sub routes and were as wide as our curent maps, View rang, Speed, would become paramount.

ALso Arty wouldreally have to commit to 1 spot and support that area nnot sit in a bush or on a elevated rail track and hit the entire map.

crnivuk #30 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 00:15

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,307
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
yes. Map size would fix many issues and open quite many new oportunities. In particular for those tanks that have no armor. Scouts would be come REALLY usefull finally in finding and spotting the enemy. But somehow the developers can not "work around" this engine and many people believe the "engine limitation" myth.

Well to say that ... I have a bit of knowledge with programming (albeit not game engines) but I have seen enough modders doing things for games of which everyone said that it cant be done because of limitations. Games where they pushed the player limit from 32 to 50 (in a single match) with maps double the size compared to before but still keeping a reasonable FPS and look. It is possible. It just depends how much time you spend on it to work around those "limits".

Onyx #31 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 01:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7303 battles
  • 3,356
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

View Postcrnivuk, on Nov 06 2011 - 00:15, said:

yes. Map size would fix many issues and open quite many new oportunities. In particular for those tanks that have no armor. Scouts would be come REALLY usefull finally in finding and spotting the enemy. But somehow the developers can not "work around" this engine and many people believe the "engine limitation" myth.

Well to say that ... I have a bit of knowledge with programming (albeit not game engines) but I have seen enough modders doing things for games of which everyone said that it cant be done because of limitations. Games where they pushed the player limit from 32 to 50 (in a single match) with maps double the size compared to before but still keeping a reasonable FPS and look. It is possible. It just depends how much time you spend on it to work around those "limits".

Well, a modder generally has more time to put forth to it and do something just for fun, whilst a development studio is attempting to maximize profits, which is where the problem comes from.  What it all comes down to is, "is it cost-effective to change this limitation?"  If yes, then they fix it.  If no, then no.

The bigger problem here is probably a conflict of other problems related to memory footprint in general.  I can't speak for how these maps are written, but to double the length it squares the area and, in doing so, the amount of information is increased similarly (probably squared versus linear, though I can't speak for certain of this).  Such a huge increase in memory will affect the minimum and recommended specs for computers running this game, and therein lies probably the biggest problem with increasing map size.  Maps are very detailed.  If you don't use procedural techniques in map design, they hold a lot of information and are, as such, resource hogs.  Increasing the limits would just make that footprint even larger and cause problems there.

Then, with more people per match, you run an ever-increasing chance of causing the server to bog down.  For instance, it already has to run 30 different spotting spheres with multiple conditionals on every tank to see whether it's "spotted" or not.  This takes a lot of resources.  You then have to filter the information that it's constantly chugging repeatedly to disseminate all information to the game client for use on the minimap or in-game map.  Increasing that number severely increases the workload the server has to undergo, since everything is kept strictly server side with as few client-side interactions as possible.

Each new tank adds a larger footprint to the game.  Each new map, each bigger map.  These footprints affect the client and server, and causes more and more problems as it balloons and the size gets larger.  This is one reason why a game like World of Warcraft launched perfectly fine, but the mimimum specs to run it kept increasing as more and more stuff kept getting added.  These are things modders don't normally or necessarily take into consideration, and they just do it when they can.

It's a constant balancing act between what is feasible and what is practical, only implementing what actually makes sense to implement, and delaying all else until such a time as it is viable.

To that end, you could say that it is, in fact, an engine limitation, because the engine is limited by not only itself; but the hardware it is placed on as well.

VirgilHilts #32 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 01:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Postcrnivuk, on Nov 05 2011 - 13:01, said:

Can the T34 or the T30 "dodge" arty shells ? And those are quite fast "heavy" tanks (compared to the others in their tier).

Speed is nice. But the maps dont offer the size to exploit it. You end most of the time in some bottle neck, the edge of the map or other positions that arty are looking at. And then you will get a hit from splash damage. And that is what I am worried about. Not a direct hit. Those will kill everything anyway. IS4, T30 ... any thing can be almost one-shoted by high tier arty. But slpash damage alone will be what I fear with the M103 and T110. That is if the developers decided to give it glass armor all around ... they decided to make HE damage so damn simplified in this game its almost ridiculous. There have been tanks which survived tests of nuclear weapons (1 Centurion served even later in a war after those tests). And here you have 120mm and 150mm guns exploding 5m from the tank killing half of the crew.

Hit the nail on the head. The U.S. tanks have so little armor that artillery is as big or bigger an enemy than other tanks. High tier artillery has far too large and too powerful blast radius. A shot that lands 5M to the right side of your tank takes out your right track, does 500HP of damage to your tank, plus modules and crew health, and then knocks your left track off. Your tracked, torn all to Hell, can't use a repair kit to get moving, and the other high tier artillery will do the same thing again, so you're down 1000HP, nothing works anymore, and you're stuck. That's if there are only two of them, and by the time you can move, the first guy who blasted you has reloaded.

SFC_Storm #33 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 03:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postcrnivuk, on Nov 06 2011 - 00:15, said:

yes. Map size would fix many issues and open quite many new oportunities. In particular for those tanks that have no armor. Scouts would be come REALLY usefull finally in finding and spotting the enemy. But somehow the developers can not "work around" this engine and many people believe the "engine limitation" myth.

Well to say that ... I have a bit of knowledge with programming (albeit not game engines) but I have seen enough modders doing things for games of which everyone said that it cant be done because of limitations. Games where they pushed the player limit from 32 to 50 (in a single match) with maps double the size compared to before but still keeping a reasonable FPS and look. It is possible. It just depends how much time you spend on it to work around those "limits".

I still want 15 v 15 just alot bigger

Also Eve is 1server unlike WOW and others and u can have 2-400 people playing with dcent lag and the maps are 3d and 500km across and tall and wide in alot of cases

So 30 people on a 3x sized map or even double should be fine

SFC_Storm #34 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 03:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostOnyx, on Nov 06 2011 - 01:28, said:

Well, a modder generally has more time to put forth to it and do something just for fun, whilst a development studio is attempting to maximize profits, which is where the problem comes from.  What it all comes down to is, "is it cost-effective to change this limitation?"  If yes, then they fix it.  If no, then no.

The bigger problem here is probably a conflict of other problems related to memory footprint in general.  I can't speak for how these maps are written, but to double the length it squares the area and, in doing so, the amount of information is increased similarly (probably squared versus linear, though I can't speak for certain of this).  Such a huge increase in memory will affect the minimum and recommended specs for computers running this game, and therein lies probably the biggest problem with increasing map size.  Maps are very detailed.  If you don't use procedural techniques in map design, they hold a lot of information and are, as such, resource hogs.  Increasing the limits would just make that footprint even larger and cause problems there.

Then, with more people per match, you run an ever-increasing chance of causing the server to bog down.  For instance, it already has to run 30 different spotting spheres with multiple conditionals on every tank to see whether it's "spotted" or not.  This takes a lot of resources.  You then have to filter the information that it's constantly chugging repeatedly to disseminate all information to the game client for use on the minimap or in-game map.  Increasing that number severely increases the workload the server has to undergo, since everything is kept strictly server side with as few client-side interactions as possible.

Each new tank adds a larger footprint to the game.  Each new map, each bigger map.  These footprints affect the client and server, and causes more and more problems as it balloons and the size gets larger.  This is one reason why a game like World of Warcraft launched perfectly fine, but the mimimum specs to run it kept increasing as more and more stuff kept getting added.  These are things modders don't normally or necessarily take into consideration, and they just do it when they can.

It's a constant balancing act between what is feasible and what is practical, only implementing what actually makes sense to implement, and delaying all else until such a time as it is viable.

To that end, you could say that it is, in fact, an engine limitation, because the engine is limited by not only itself; but the hardware it is placed on as well.


No, you still can only see 500m and only see red dots 850 away but with same amount of players....Its just there would be areas left uncheck etc, right now arty can hit 90% of the map and there are basically 3 paths left middle right, but like Ensk imagine if that were 4 times bigger, each way mddle has 4 different lanes to choose from city has multiple paths and forest has constructon yard and open frest.....make that 4x as big with 2x more alleys etc on each of the 3 approaches and bam arrty fixed, also in RL battlefields usually the hill was the center and except for mines all the other hills are left or right bt with hill at center and maps where arty cant reach the only place to hit a 300 degree view would be the ceter hill, big risk=big reward.

ALso they need more cover in open areas terrain being huge.

SFC_Storm #35 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 03:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Nov 06 2011 - 01:37, said:

Hit the nail on the head. The U.S. tanks have so little armor that artillery is as big or bigger an enemy than other tanks. High tier artillery has far too large and too powerful blast radius. A shot that lands 5M to the right side of your tank takes out your right track, does 500HP of damage to your tank, plus modules and crew health, and then knocks your left track off. Your tracked, torn all to Hell, can't use a repair kit to get moving, and the other high tier artillery will do the same thing again, so you're down 1000HP, nothing works anymore, and you're stuck. That's if there are only two of them, and by the time you can move, the first guy who blasted you has reloaded.


See Virgil with a huge map All the Arty`s couldnt hit you only 1 at a time otherwise the approach to there base would be unmanned. It would force arty to chose where to go and if they wanted to get kills in the citys they would have to come out 1/3rd the distance and be exposed.

Biggermaps=Tough arty choices its to ez for them now.

Onyx #36 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 03:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7303 battles
  • 3,356
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

View PostCmd_Storm, on Nov 06 2011 - 03:09, said:

No, you still can only see 500m and only see red dots 850 away but with same amount of players....Its just there would be areas left uncheck etc, right now arty can hit 90% of the map and there are basically 3 paths left middle right, but like Ensk imagine if that were 4 times bigger, each way mddle has 4 different lanes to choose from city has multiple paths and forest has constructon yard and open frest.....make that 4x as big with 2x more alleys etc on each of the 3 approaches and bam arrty fixed, also in RL battlefields usually the hill was the center and except for mines all the other hills are left or right bt with hill at center and maps where arty cant reach the only place to hit a 300 degree view would be the ceter hill, big risk=big reward.

ALso they need more cover in open areas terrain being huge.

That's hardly relevant, as the game still has to make checks such as who has radio range to what of what, whether anyone's within visual range of each other, and it has to chug this multiple times per second.

I mean, having a spotting limitation of 500m but a visual range limitation of 650-700m has to be checked by the server.  Radio range requires you to be within the combined range of both radios, and each interaction has to be checked on by the server.

You could still have twice as many people on a map with 4x the area, and it'd add significantly more workload to the server because of those players.

Don't get me wrong, I understand and want larger maps, I see the potential.  The problem is what it would do to the server as a whole to have playing areas 4x as larger and having to keep track of every single complex interaction that is left to the server with twice as many people in play.  It doesn't just stop those calculations because they're not in range, and I imagine things like the 500m spot range are specifically kept that low just so thet server's max viewrange sphere is kept low enough to not reduce the server to its knees.

SFC_Storm #37 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 04:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostOnyx, on Nov 06 2011 - 03:44, said:

That's hardly relevant, as the game still has to make checks such as who has radio range to what of what, whether anyone's within visual range of each other, and it has to chug this multiple times per second.

I mean, having a spotting limitation of 500m but a visual range limitation of 650-700m has to be checked by the server.  Radio range requires you to be within the combined range of both radios, and each interaction has to be checked on by the server.

You could still have twice as many people on a map with 4x the area, and it'd add significantly more workload to the server because of those players.

Don't get me wrong, I understand and want larger maps, I see the potential.  The problem is what it would do to the server as a whole to have playing areas 4x as larger and having to keep track of every single complex interaction that is left to the server with twice as many people in play.  It doesn't just stop those calculations because they're not in range, and I imagine things like the 500m spot range are specifically kept that low just so thet server's max viewrange sphere is kept low enough to not reduce the server to its knees.


Wait doublng the size of the map without changng anything else in your opinion what would happen? Would it actually matter? Because in soooooo many ways it would fix the game...Meds would now be the Battlecruisers, lights would truly be scouts and able to escape after doing so, Arty would have to choose what was important and where to go not camp base and just wait, also Lights would Bline it to those old fashioned arty areas. TD`s could actually snipe more tan jst getting flanked, Arty wouldnt be immedately counter Artied unless they moved wy up in position and heavies could be flanked alot easier nd have multiple threats from differant angles raher than Peekaboo the 1 of 2 "Tunnels" thatall maps have for Heavies.

If they could double size without changing anything else you really think it would hurt badly?

Oh yeah and Germans 105mm and 88`s like tiger would actually be effective, it would balance so so many things, Tanks with no Armor and speed ould have many escape plans not just 2 right or left etc.

Batosi #38 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 06:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 38129 battles
  • 2,811
  • [MUPS] MUPS
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Sounds like what is going on is a hardware issue for other games can do far more with both eviromental and people load with all the checks that go on for cloaking devices, range, etc, etc.

And this is probably a good lesson if they are having issues here at this level.  World of Ships are going to need much much larger maps for just starters.

crnivuk #39 Posted Nov 06 2011 - 12:30

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,307
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View PostOnyx, on Nov 06 2011 - 01:28, said:

Well, a modder generally has more time to put forth to it and do something just for fun, whilst a development studio is attempting to maximize profits, which is where the problem comes from.  What it all comes down to is, "is it cost-effective to change this limitation?"  If yes, then they fix it.  If no, then no.

The bigger problem here is probably a conflict of other problems related to memory footprint in general.  I can't speak for how these maps are written, but to double the length it squares the area and, in doing so, the amount of information is increased similarly (probably squared versus linear, though I can't speak for certain of this).  Such a huge increase in memory will affect the minimum and recommended specs for computers running this game, and therein lies probably the biggest problem with increasing map size.  Maps are very detailed.  If you don't use procedural techniques in map design, they hold a lot of information and are, as such, resource hogs.  Increasing the limits would just make that footprint even larger and cause problems there.

Then, with more people per match, you run an ever-increasing chance of causing the server to bog down.  For instance, it already has to run 30 different spotting spheres with multiple conditionals on every tank to see whether it's "spotted" or not.  This takes a lot of resources.  You then have to filter the information that it's constantly chugging repeatedly to disseminate all information to the game client for use on the minimap or in-game map.  Increasing that number severely increases the workload the server has to undergo, since everything is kept strictly server side with as few client-side interactions as possible.

Each new tank adds a larger footprint to the game.  Each new map, each bigger map.  These footprints affect the client and server, and causes more and more problems as it balloons and the size gets larger.  This is one reason why a game like World of Warcraft launched perfectly fine, but the mimimum specs to run it kept increasing as more and more stuff kept getting added.  These are things modders don't normally or necessarily take into consideration, and they just do it when they can.

It's a constant balancing act between what is feasible and what is practical, only implementing what actually makes sense to implement, and delaying all else until such a time as it is viable.

To that end, you could say that it is, in fact, an engine limitation, because the engine is limited by not only itself; but the hardware it is placed on as well.
Well if they want to keep their game and gameplay intersting for the future then they WILL have to work around it one way or another and to improve both the visuals and the characteristics of the engine. Like supporting eventually 64 people in one game and giving us larger maps. I mean even WoW is today not the same game like it was years ago. And many other MMOs evolved with time. Take WW2 online as example. They changed much in the visuals not long ago. Americans Army, Counter Strike, Unreal etc. many games change with patches or new updates as well working with the engine to offer more possibilities. - And it seems not to be that impossible afterall to work on the engine as we will get now "physics" for the vehicles in the near future. Map size is just another step. Though it is such an important part of the game that I am surprised they have not spend more time to work on it so that we could enjoy maps with a size that is at least double compared to the current maps.

I know a developer has only so much time and has to work with deadlines. Though one should not forget that many modders do their work in their free time often enough after a usual work day. So I am not sure if they really have that much more time as well when you directly compare it.

But as said. At some point the game has to evolve regardless if mod or full price game. If it proves to be that hard to change things then maybe the devs chose eventually the wrong engine in the first place. Would not be the first game which did such a "mistake".

SFC_Storm #40 Posted Nov 07 2011 - 06:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
Like I said if Eve can have 3k Players in 1 Area [Not on 1 server but 1 Area] And the room size is basically 500klicks in a 360 degree area then they should be able to have a 2d Surface area of equal size with 15 vs 15 easy.

And as pointed out before When World of Planes comes out it will be huge and 3d with 20k ft altitude and a huge area.

Increasing size would make Germans Niche stronger because Tger could snipe, US could truly flank [not just flank a rock area 30 meters wide] and Russains Rushing open ground like in RL.

Arty would have to choose carefully where to go or die, scouts wouldnt just go to edge of enemy base and uncover all arty as they insta pop from other arty, and TD`s would also have real areas to hide and shoot.

500m View range is ok but the maps need to be 10x the 500m veiw range in all directions now its about 2x on campinova and less on Ensk etc.

There needs to be huge maps like Kursk and Provanovka, also hedge row maps that are small like 2-3 Hedge row`d areas. Variety makes a game worth it , the game now just is to bland/the same.


Seriously guys play Eve turn your spaceship up 90 degrees and go 500km before other ships disapear, same with down forwrd back and fourth.

It has 400+ Star systems and 260+ orbital bodies ie Asteroids+Moons+suns etc then they fill it with 100 vs 100 and lag is only 200 ms, get it down to 20 vs 20 and its 45 FPS with 100ms lag on a 500km cubed area and Cruisers=340 meters a sec battle cruisers=300 Battle ships [Size of 2 Iowas stacked ontop of eachother]=200 m/s Dreadnaughts=80m/s Carriers=80 m/s [3 Nimitz stacked]

Watch how big a batlleship is with all its turrets etc working, and the [small one is only the equive of a T8 Heavy] Then Dreadnaught [whoes turretsare as big as 747`s] then Titan [13km lone...] amazing this i compared to a crysis/farcry map and imagine these x500 having battles. And tell me they cant maje maps bigger to make it more dynamic.

Make em bigger MOARRRRR

Think guys 300 vs 300 battles happen daily on maps with 500km cubed and look at the size ofthem all firing at differant angles with not 1 gun to shoot but upto 8 different once




9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users