User talk:U42773747

Hello, are you changing wiki design to same as Russian one?

I watched some pages a few hours ago, but I have some questions and complaints.

Firsly, is all old data lost or will it be transferred at least in some way? I'm not particularly salty, but remaking pages back/reformatting without some backup data would be extremely frustrating. So far most pages are backed to sept 1 2018... For example, https://wiki.warthunder.com/Hydropneumatic_suspension suspension is backed to jan 2019, but it again says about suspension being on challengers, when it isn't the case. I mean, I can redact it back, but will it be same with every page?... What about enormous pages then? I mean I could recreate striker page just out of spite, lol, but that would take forever.

Secondly, I sincerely hope you realize, that Russian wiki way of depicting and describing vehicles is completely different from EN wiki? As in, they have extremely lean towards history and storytelling type of pages, with minimal usage of statistical spreadsheets and such. Even if they do use them, they follow them up by text most of the time.

To compare: OBJ-120 RU: https://wiki.warthunder.ru/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_120 Matilda 2 EN: https://wiki.warthunder.com/Matilda_Mk_II BMP-2 RU (formatted more like like EN's matilda): https://wiki.warthunder.ru/%D0%91%D0%9C%D0%9F-2

As you can see, their pages are mostly designed to be a guide told with words, not to have spreadsheets with no words on top. Their sidebar also has less info, than old EN's wiki. (well that's probably fixable, but you get the point)

As in, i'm feeling morbidly annoyed by phrase like:

"Describe the tactics of playing in the vehicle, the features of using vehicles in the team and advice on tactics. Refrain from creating a "guide" - do not impose a single point of view but give the reader food for thought. Describe the most dangerous enemies and give recommendations on fighting them. If necessary, note the specifics of the game in different modes (AB, RB, SB).

I suppose, that means we no longer make longposts like https://wiki.warthunder.com/Tiger_II_(P) ? Or rework it around like obj 120 page, but then where do we put spreadsheets? And I'm aware that many people in EU prefer spreadsheets over anything. Especially in planes mode.

Third question: if we keep pages as in, can we at least have "rating" thing like in tiger 2 (P) page?

The main idea is that people read what this vehicle is and what it can, and, If interested, keep reading.

For example, if nothing changes page would go as:

General info: (picture in hangar)

Brief History and What is class/rank/br of this vehicle anyway:

Rating in specific areas for vehicle's class with quick professional explanation:

(for light tank that would be "mobility"/"flank attack capability"/"general firepower rating"/"sniping", for ATGM would be "long range engagement"/"Close quarter engagement"/"mobility", for heavy tank would be "lighter vehicle suppression"/"overall survival ability"/"3d mobility"/"direct engagement survival" or in such manner. Since rank 5/6 add more classes like "ATGM light tank" or "missile artillery" with additional ratings, just to make a point and diffirentiate, if necessary. For example AMX-13 HOT is great as light tank, but amongst other light ATGM tanks it's a potato. Or RPZ2 would be similiar to IT-1 in battle purpouses, if you just compare them as ATGMs, but barging them in same category with Striker is entirely absurd, as it will just steamroll them both before they can even see it. We could work out a list of classes and their stronger points somewhere for people to relate, idk.)

Technical info (I'd still write in help annotation to ask people to explain in words what things and tables mean, because for most cases those numbers mean nothing ingame):

Mobility:

Armour:

Guns:

Shortened strats (for those who can't think of one themselves using info above):

History: ETC: End.

Please consider, I'm not writing like this out of spite or disrespect, just kind of spooked.

--bangerland (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (MSK)

#1 - All old data is currently still accessible. We are planning to open a "restore" section on the forums to get pages which may not have been updated by the time of the transfer to be prioritized in their restoration.

#2 - All the information currently are transferred from the old wiki format, simply adapted to the RU format. As such, the information would not be exactly as that provided by the RU wiki. However, the phrasing "Refrain from creating a "guide" perhaps is more focused on the emphasis of "do not impose a single point of view but give the reader food for thought." As such, guides created with words are fine, but not a very strict guide that follows directly on-the-book like a standard operating procedure, but one that a player could read and be inspired by.

#3 - Unfortunately, the vehicle page format as is now is set in stone. However, writing with words as stated in #2 is still allowed for flexibility in talking about the vehicle's characteristics. In my opinion, ratings set too hard of a "objective" status compared to a thorough explanation of a vehicle can or cannot do, but a well written page can perhaps relay all these information much better than a set of Pros and Cons and ratings.

Inceptor57 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2019 (MSK)

I see. I'm just concerned because most of old pages had nothing or just tables at bottom, which is now first thing people see when open pages, and retrofitting those infos to be dijestable by humans(mainly casual players, who kind of see statistics in game anyway and probably opened page for guidelines or explanations, or something along those lines) is going to take a lot of time. Though having to connect both of these in one is kind of interesting in a way. At the very least i'm now sure that i can write it as it would fit, as long as it's reasonable. Thanks. --bangerland (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2019 (MSK)

Yes, we still have an emphasis on words. Its just that the current iteration of all the tables up front is more to do with the adaption of the old information to the new format than a policy-shift towards more tables. This has a lot to do with how the armor, mobility, and gun sections that used to be in the middle on the older pages are now closer to the top while battle usage are towards the bottom. Pages like M4 that have been better adapted than most do have more words closer to the top explaining the vehicle.

We understand also that you have a lot of older pages that you have worked on that may not have been transferred, we opened a section on the forums to allow for any requests on page/edit restorations. Inceptor57 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2019 (MSK)

I'm pretty sure everyone is still busy with restoration, but I got a few mins off, so I wanted to ask, if there are any graphs around wiki with MG penetration values? At least per caliber? Because since I use a lot of light vehicles I'd like to actually try and estimate which vehicles are a potential danger to them (like French rank 6 tanks with 20mm autocannons for mg, speaking of overkill, lol), and which aren't really (so you can just laugh at them and wait for your reload as they don't use main weapon). I remember someone wrote on one of end-game French tank page (all of which are dead now, as well as jap, lol.) that 20mm gun coaxials only pen up to 34mm point blank, but I think I got incinerated through angled 35mm (so basically 65). Or it was lag and I got side-breached, despite insane angling (again, at 60 degrees it's probably around 40mm too). Comparing to AA pen value doesn't make a lot of sence with that either, as in attempt to bait enemy AA to test it's guns on me even soviet shilka seemed to wreck angled armor in about 3 seconds, so either it can deteriorate armor, or I'm just missing something. I am aware of https://wiki.warthunder.com/Category:Tank_machine_guns , but it was pretty much empty before (like, all the pen tables were on tank pages and not linked from gun pages), and now it's surely dead. --bangerland (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2019 (MSK)

Do you mean just tables with the specified pen at each range, or proper nice line graphs? Creating tables like this for each tank machine gun shouldn't be too hard (I could probably write a program to read the game files then generate all the tables, that said may be quicker to just make them manually). I imagine it would be best to include such tables in the article for the machine guns themselves as it would add something of note to those pages, also having to update practically every US tank page on the wiki if Gaijin change the pen of an M2 50cal would be a right pain (obviously tanks which use the MGs as their main weapon, instead of as a secondary, should have the table on their page).

--Flame2512 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, having at least one table with general info per caliber at 10 and 100m would be nice (as i try to fill out on my page), just to know what they can or can't do. I also would like to know if those tables represent damage to rolled homogenous armour or aluminium (which one then?) or something else, because aluminium seems to have 30% or heavier penalty to armour, compared to homogenous, at least from what i gathered. Also i noticed, that AP-I does more pen for some reason( i mean, when you actually use it in game, not look at numbers), but ricochets more frequently and damage falloff is heavy. Though filling each MG's page would be nice, esp. if the table could be pulled out of there automatically, i guess.

I just wish i knew where to find proper info on them, because i'm tired of having random "LOL YOU DIED" moments, whenever i test them (that moment when i specifically let BMP-2 fire cannon at me on max ROF mode, just to test if it can pen striker at angle is flat out suicidal), so i wanted to make an easily fillable graph or coloured table, so people would know, what to be afraid of in certain light vehicles at their rank/BR, if you get what i mean. So that would be 6 or 10 tables/graphs, make it double if count aluminium armoured vehicles, unless someone goes out of their way and make one for each vehicle. Though it seems like the borderline numbers (like 33 armour vs 32 pen) aren't in favour of armour anyway, because it's then RNG if it pens or not and ROF is usually too high (so that must be included in pen table, even if there is one). Also would be interesting to see how vehicles with internal armour (like type 89) interact with those.

I hope that helps to understand what i meant. --bangerland (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The way armour works is each shell has a penetration value and each armour type has a armour modifier. You take the thickness of the armour, multiply that with the modifier and then compare that to the penetration of the shell. RHA has a modifier of 1.00 so in effect everything is given relative to RHA. So if you have 100mm of RHA (modifier of 1.00) a shell needs 100mm (100 x 1.00) of pen to get through it; if the armour is High Hardness RHA (modifier 1.25) you need 125mm (100 x 1.25) of pen to get through, and if it is structural steel (modifier 0.45) you need 45mm (100mm x 0.45) of pen to get through. Obviously once you take into account angling and other stuff it gets more complicated but that is the basic gist of it. A list of all the armour modifiers can be found here, although I am unsure how up to date it is. Here are the aluminium ones:

• Aluminium Alloy AA 7039 - 0.47
• Aluminium Alloy AA 7017 - 0.80
• Aluminium Alloy ABT-10 - 0.53
• Aluminium - 0.20

If I have time I will have a look at making penetration tables (like the one I linked to previously) and putting them on the page for each tank MG and auto-cannon.

--Flame2512 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, i figured RHA is the baseline for everything, but wasn't 100% sure. Thanks, that really helps a lot! --bangerland (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

On top of previous question: does type 89's and M113A1 (TOW) ATGMs have assault launcher (like warrior's which launches them out on max speed) or more passive one? Pondering whether to research Italy or Japanese tree... --bangerland (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It would seem that they're both horizontal assault launchers, type 89's missile speed initially is about 200 m/s and m113a1 is about 300m/s (ouch), but M113a1 has one TOW with 2.4kg explosives, or I-tow with more pen but 2kg explosives (so basically weak MILAN ripoff?), and other is a combat IFV murderbot, with autocannon and 4kg dual launchers 700 pen, which also can fly for 4km =/.

Seems legit (coughes frantically). WEll I MEAN in RB you can make anything work, since TOW would just reach target before it could react to missile and trace back the vehicle, and ranges in RB seem to be extreme, so it makes sence to abuse 300m/s direct launcher there, and it could easily chase helicopter out of the sky, but for AB i guess i'll have to farm japanese.

LOL. I wish i could find out about their mobility to learn about their ability to fire into/out of cover and all that, but in all the videos people are just firing them by direct sniper aim, from open field, while standing still and waiting to get sniped in face, like they're using ATGM for the first time in life...--bangerland (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)