PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
Desktop Client | System Req:
World of Tanks General Article: Not Exactly an MMO
In his latest article for MMORPG.com, columnist Bill Murphy takes readers on a brief tour of World of Tanks and tackles the issue of whether or not WoT is truly an MMO. Find out what Bill saw, or didn't see, in his time playing World of Tanks.
By William Murphy on August 19, 2010
We’re often dealing with the question of what games deserve to be called MMOs and what games don’t deserve to be listed on our site. In this particular case, that of World of Tanks, we’re looking squarely at a title that probably shouldn’t be listed on our site. For while it’s a fun death-match style game all about tanks and the havoc they can be a part of, it’s not really anything more than that. Let’s give you a brief little synopsis on what WoT is all about:
Essentially what Wargaming.net is making is the ultimate tank-lover’s combat game. If you ever played and loved the N64 cult classic “BattleTanx: Global Assault” chances are you’ll be right at home in World of Tanks. With over 500 vehicles from light tanks to self-propelled artillery in the game, WoT is all about big damn war machines, big battles, and big explosions. The battles themselves can be randomly match-made, or consist of premade teams or clans.
But you should know right now that there’s no world to roam about, no persistent control points on massive maps to take and hold (yet) and the crux of the game at launch will be pretty much all about death-matches with a slant on gaining new vehicles and upgrades for your own personal garage. It does have promise a “Clan Wars” campaign that sounds similar to the AVA found in Global Agenda, but I was unable to partake in this feature at the time of this writing. So while Wargaming.net wants to expand on the premise and include control points and the like in their system, the base of the game will be built entirely around the death-match system players have come to know and love in titles such as Battlefield and Call of Duty. This is the same reason we struggled for so long with Global Agenda’s categorization, but as that game grew in scope and size, we were able to find reason to keep it listed on the site. World of Tanks would likely need the same sort development.
However, despite its tendency toward more of a “shooter” than an MMO, WoT is not a bad game. In fact, as stated previously, if you were a fan as I was of BattleTanx you’ll probably really enjoy yourself with WoT. It’s free to download and play, with microtransactions driving the revenue for the developer. You’ll presumably be able to buy different tanks, upgrades, and other such additions to your garage. There are however some RPG-like elements to the game. Your crew gains experience through battle, and as they gain levels they’ll gain skills that will help you repair your tank or increase your accuracy in combat.
It’s also worth noting that World of Tanks is very light on system requirements and will probably run well on just about anything. If you’re in the mood for some quick combat with a slant on heavy weaponry that spans the entire history of War, you can’t go wrong with WoT. It’s just not quite an MMO, and instead finds itself more in line with titles such as TF2, Call of Duty, and Battlefield. And I’m guessing that if you like and already play plenty of those titles, you might not have much reason to stray and give World of Tanks a try.
*Editor’s Note: As a result of Bill’s assessment, we will likely be removing the game from our list within the next few days.
*Editor’s Note: As a result of Bill’s assessment, we will likely be removing the game from our list within the next few days.
Why? Thats silly. The term MMO (that really should be MMG, Massively multiplayer games. I don't ever recall playing "onlines".) is ever changing, some of the things he listed are not requirements of that term. If they were, you have more than just this title to remove then. If you really want to get picky, you need to remove any games thats not a MMORPG.
I don't think that assesment is accurate. I'm in beta and there's always around 4000 players online. Also, there will be CLAN WARS involved, which is MMO without a doubt.
http://www.massively.com/2010/06/03/details-announced-for-clan-wars-in-world-of-tanks/
It's not an mmo yet. It will be at launch though. There will be a huge clan battle system with people holding territory and all that. The system is similair to Europa or Hearts of Iron. It is closed beta. Before you make a determination that it won't be an MMO, why don't you look at what it's supposed to be at launch.
If you added a "town" for people to hang out in, this would be more of an MMO than the original guildwars with all it's instancing. You can have more than guild wars numbers in a single zone too. Toss in a few "quests". Albeit I didn't think guildwars was an MMO. Still don't. It's diablo with a 3D chat room and some PvP. But once you see world of tanks clan system, I think you will start to see the massive scope of it.
first of all - thanks for the article, makes me want to give it a shot at least.
second, I kind of wonder the same as Mrbloodworth in as much as that there might be other games as well here which might have to be reconsidered if they should be here or not. Alternatively, that mmorpg might want to adopt to the evolving market. I do though disagree at the same time regarding that notion - things like CoD, BF, basically anything with an online part and a bit of an evolving skill/xp system would end up here, and I don't believe that that should be the scope of this site.
If one wants to be picky, perhaps the MMORPG should have a subtitle such as "persistant online worlds" which would simply the definition of which games to expect to find here.
How about : "persistant(M)MORPG.com" ?
It's beta...
Finally!!! The staff of MMORPG are FINALLY omitting games that attempt to claim the "MMO" title but are actually more than 80% Matchmaking games.
Other games that require your attention to be removed and are NEARLY identicle to World of Tanks include:
-Huxley Online
-Global Agenda
etc etc...
ANY game that does not have a persistant world in which more than 200players CAN reside and INTERACT with each other is NOT an MMO of ANY sort. Trying to support the fact that Global Agenda is an "MMOFPS" would be like trying to defend the argument that Call of Duty is an MMOFPS, and you will be LAUGHED at if you tried to do so.
If you're not an old MMO player I could see how you can confuse what an MMO is considering what WoW has done to the genre.
-Faded
ps: typing this on a shitty computer that's not mine atm :). Sorry for mispellings if any, hard to see.
World of Tanks, not exactly an MMO... GO ON what else? What else doesn't belong on this site even though "gamers want it here"? Are you acutally going to take them off or are you going to keep using them here as an excuess to have something to write about? Yeah, way to stick it to the fans that wanted the GREY-mmo here.
Quite a knee-jerk reaction here by mmorpg.com. The game is in beta and will have the requisite features at release that put it in the category of global agenda, shattered galaxy, navy field, and many other games that are listed on this site. You want to remove it and narrow your definition of MMO's, at least be consistent and go through your entire games list.
I for one applaud this decision. I play almost exclusively MMORPGs so I have no interest in other type of games. There are lots of other sites for those.
However I would like to make it even more narrower. Hyper-instanced games like STO should not be on this site for the same reason. Instancing is the complete opposite of persistant so when a game is COMPLETELY instanced then it lacks a persistant world and should hence be removed from the site.
Yep I have to agree with those people asking for a wait and see before removing the title from your game list. This game (while working remarkably well) is in early stages of Beta with a biggish patch coming in the next month adding more maps and a join with friends option along with various balance tweaks.
The Devs seem to be following a slowly slowly approach making sure all the stuff they have now works before adding new stuff which could make broken things evan more broken. The overview and over reaction of removing the title seems to be extremely pre mature as not all promised features are implimented yet. If your going to remove it based on that then all games still in development/beta need to be removed from the site till people actually get to play said features until then they are just so much hot air.
it is NOT an mmo dammit.
its a multiplayer game internet only on specific maps...
hardly an mmo
Thoes two things are not related.
I didn't realize this was a question....
M - Massive
M - Multiplayer
O - Online
R - Role
P - Playing
G - Game
World of Tanks is more of a
M - Massive
M - Multiplayer
O - Online
F - First
P - Person
S - Shooter
The game is Massive, there quite a few maps
The game is Multiplaer, Many people can log on at the same time
The game is Online, that is where you play it
You play as a TANK, remind you of EVE a bit there so that makes it First Person
Also you Shoot other tanks, THAT IS IT!!! SO it is a shooter.
That should answer the question if it is an MMO right there, it is an MMO just not an MMORPG.
Finally. As previous posters say, now take it to other games in a similar manner.
To defend it the term is MMO. The key phrases are...
Massively
Multiplayer
Online
No one would deny that this is multiplayer on online. But Massively? No. It has 20v20 (if memory serves). Do we consider TF2 an MMO @ 16v16? BF2142 @32v32? No? Why not if titles like Global agenda (10v10) and WoT (20v20) get the moniker? Because everyone is on the same "server". Sorry, I don't consider a global chat room as being multiplayer because we're playing nothing.
It boils down to this. When the players are playing the game what is the limitation? If it is smaller than FPS titles which we don't consider MMOs then just because they retain control over the servers doesn't alter the fact they are not massive. Want massive in that field? Planetside. World War II Online. Hundreds of combatants in a shared world. THAT is massive.
If you think that triditional DIKU games support ever single player on one server or that the zones are trulyseamless, you are mistaken.
Agreed. I'd like to add more, but that about wraps it up.
Aaaand with this im off the mmorpg.com.
Once a great realm, now only ruins remain with savage beasts baiting you at every post, with evil wizards creating illusions of grandeur upon the new king's clothes, with the citiziens who enjoy tearing others to pieces.
Few years in the future this website will only list World of Warcraft, TOR and <insertthegamedevspaidtohypehere>
Hopefully by that time the remaining community will only be the hardcore snobs...oh wait...that already happened.
Obviously world of tanks, a game that will involve thousands of players warring for territories of europe, clans fighting between themselves and players going against each other in graphical enviroinment, is not a mmo game, because:
A) Devs did not pay the website to hype it like most likely happened with TOR/Tera/etc,etc,etc.
B) The Article Author did not like the game.
C) TPTB has a biased view upon this game and would like to write another article about TOR...
They have Need for Speed World on the list so it doesnt make sense to remove World of Tanks.
Or take Lords of Ultima for example. Its not on the list but it qualifies as a MMO.
As soon as WoT gets its ClanWars running its definitely a MMO.
Hopefully you''ll also get rid of all the other non MMO games present in your game list...and there are quite a few of them.
If you have to include anything multiplayer then you have to add all the fps games too. There are plenty of sites that cover those games, I don't see where this site has to do so too. Just makes no sense at all, especially since the primary game choice is MMO for most posters.
As it is currently, think of it as Battlefield with tanks.
I'd agree. If your going to yank WOT then Need For Speed World need to drop as well.
So you expect this site to accept your suggestion or you will call them names...? That's pretty funny
You cant create party without getting premium account for 10$ a month. Is it MMO nao?
Hmm, did anyone ask the russian players if those features are there?
since afterall, the game has reached RELEASE in russia...
Somehow, I could not find the "BIG" features in the patchnotes, despite that the patch for the european beta, will be the version the russian release game is playing on...
Nope, no clans, no clanwars yet, but there may be soon as we are getting 0.5.4 tomorrow. I think international release will include all of the features when its released.
But for all that is good about WoT, being unable to play with friends without paying money, sucks ass.
p.s. nowadays everything that doesnt have a single player is called a MMO.
You cant create a party in a lot of other so-called mmos either without paying more than $10 a month (ie you cant play them at all unless you pay the subscription fee), so whats your point?
Anyway its odd really that a game which clearly seems to be promoting the MULTIPLAYER and TEAMWORK aspect of online gaming and also has the RPG part to offer is being deemed as unworthy. Meanwhile other so-called mmos which promote SOLO or small-scale CO-OP gameplay against the computer (rather like a single player game in co-op mode) is accepted as an mmo with no questions.
"Oh but they have "worlds" you can wander around in"
Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.
Nope I cant see the words "open world where I can meet asshats" in that description. Why is it a neccessity? Those "big open worlds" are static and boring in most mmos anyway.
"Oh but its only an mmo if you can have hundreds of players in the same place"
Yeah cos that happens all the time in mmos doesnt it. What about mmos that have instances of zones to deal with overcrowding? Should they get thrown out as well. Doesnt EQ2 do that?
I agree with Mr Bloodworth. Removing this game from their website is quite silly. What purpose does it serve? Great so a potential good gaming option is removed from the sight of potential buyers. Well done. What an achievement.
It has the MMO aspect. It has the RPG aspect. It should stay.
0.5.4 doesnt say to have that... Sadly.
And still, it is a released game...
and don't get me wrong, I love WoT, but I don't see it as a MMORPG, more like a Battlefield Heroes game.. wich aint a MMORPG either hehe.
WoT is not a MMO. That's correct. I'm in the beta.
Guild Wars is also not a MMO. Why is it still listed here? How many people at a time can you play with in Guild Wars? And the cities don't count; they're just glorified chat and server browser rooms like Diablo's.
Massive refers to how many people at a time you can play with, not how many people total play the game. If it were the latter then online chess and online poker would qualify as MMOs.
If you're going to get rid of WoT, get rid of the other games that don't qualify. Not doing that makes you look bad and/or biased and/or paid to promote certain games only.
EDIT: In Guild Wars the entire game is instanced, or was last time I played. In games like EQ2 or WoW instancing is only part of the game, and you have the potential to see literally hundreds of players at one time in the same place in most of the world. Whether you ever do or not is irrelevant. In Guild Wars the only place you can see lots of players is in the cities, and the cities aren't really part of the game, they're just places to set up parties to go play instances. It's much like playing Diablo, browsing the server list and joining a game only it's done ingame.
It's been done before....
One word "Tanarus"
The game that paid for the making of Everquest 1
Wow, i lol at the reaction. Many people just dont get it, and bravo mmorpg.com for admitting WoT not and mmo"RPG" (just need to remove some other game too eg global agenda).
Now for the ones who detest this, you might wanna consider including CS:S, modern warfare 2, unreal tournament, and other shooters to the list.
Once again, good move by the admins. Suck it up people.
Nice screens. And well 4k Players on 100 battles counts as Massive Multiplayer Online.
Dont be thát picky.
Hey but Guild Wars get to stay?
wouldnt MMO relate to any game that is perpetually online 24/7 and the RPG element being that you have to level up some sort of person/item??
i enjoy WoT, and to my own personal definition it would be an MMO. to some extent, sure its not an MMORPG like EQ or AOC. but you do have crew you have to level up via battles. you have tech trees you unlock with battle field XP. much like you level up in combat arms or other MMOFPS games. they are still listed on the game guides as im aware.
so why target WoT?? did someone get pwned badly by the games SPGs?? or perhaps a noob MS-1 pwned them in their tiger...
i personally dont see how this game can compare to CS or TF at all. they have no leveling up, the only perpetual things is the servers that shut down when people get bored hosting them, there is no costs for anything.
WoT right now the smallest maps they claim it will have. the gold version is said to have way larger maps, and possible country/map captures. that go beyond simply CtF or slug matches, something along the lines of WWII online... so if you want to take off WoT. then mmorpg may as well wipe out every game from their roster and start from scratch..
you're right, world of tanks isn't an mmo.
Now if people can get that, can't they get that Guild Wars isn't an mmo?
I just don't understand.
Because Guild Wars is, with a doubt, an RPG (and with all the excitement building around GW2 they'd be silly to remove it at this point regardless).
Also, both Guild Wars and Global Agenda feature PvP and PvE gameplay elements.
World of Tanks doesn't. I'm sure if the developers expand the game to offer rich campaign modes (either PvP or PvE), some form of PvE scenario play, or deeper Crew progression features the site will more than happily add it back to the list of games they cover.
The term "Massively" ( not "massive" as you incorrectly assigned it ) in MMO means massive amounts of people, not a massive world. "Massively Multiplayer Online" = massive amounts of people playing together at the same time online.
But at least those games are posed as p2p games, not as single player p2p trials masked as a f2p game.
As for MMO part, I agree with you. Lobby MMO's a kinda popular, and when I first saw them on mmorpg.com I was like wtf, but then I got used to them. Same with static worlds - other than having a chat channel, you have a world where you can chat, not as boring, but still a same chat. You are forced to instance anyway, making most MMO's into multiplayer games with a big chat room.
Thus the only truly MMO are the ones where your action can actually make an impact on the world itself, like those sandbox games(Face of mankind, Wurm, EVE (though I hate eve as a game, it truly deserves MMO title)), or Ultima, the 1st MMORPG ever, heh.
Who taught you that? PR? Seeing a huge "players online" number doesnt make me FEEL that I play a MMO game.
edit: sorry, have to finish watching an episode and go to sleep. Didnt quite understand your post, but I mean that you cant go like "massive - check, multyplayer - check, online - check"
This article made my laugh my ass off.
1) half or your list contains games like this, will you remove them :)))?
2) Thats all you can do for the most popular mmorpg portal, 4 random phrases, is this your first article u wrote?
3) MMORPG.com never ceases to amazes me lol (did he get payed for this article, lmao)
Bah! i cant type or even edit. Nice comment system...
Looks like he was. Rather than discussing if this game was MMO, he was like "oh thats cool shiny, go play nao!"
p.s. to edit go to forum->news discussion
I’m gonna make a strange comparison, but stick with me and have faith. It's relevant, I swear.
Everyone has heard the abbreviation BDSM in relation to folks who get their jollies with whips and chains, but what does the abbreviation actually stand for? Well, it has more than one meaning! BD stands for bondage and discipline, DS stands for dominance and submission, and SM stands for sadism and masochism.
Each of the middle letters serves 2 purposes. In much the same way, there are two accepted definitions of what MMOG stands for, and the confusion arises in that they are both similar sounding but mean two totally different things.
Definition 1: Massively-Multiplayer Online Game. This is the most commonly used definition. Here, Massively is an adverb enhancing an adjective. The phrase "massively-multiplayer" refers to the concept that a massive number of people can be playing together at one time. The problem arises here when trying to decide what a massive number of people is. We'll come back to that.
Definition 2: Massive, Multiplayer, Online Game. This definition is a bit less commonly used but just as relevant. Massive and Multiplayer are separate adjectives, both describing the subject noun, "Game". In this definition the emphasis is on the scope and scale of the game itself. Games are considered massive if they have persistent worlds spanning multiple zones capable of getting lost inside, multiple forms of progression and things to spend your time doing (PvE, PvP, Crafting, Gathering, Farming, Questing, Etc.).
So which definition are we officially using? The problem is, when defining MMOs, we're using both without really realizing it. Much like how a person can be a S in the DS but not the SM when talking about folks who only hit them because they love them, MMOs can be massive multiplayer games that are not massively multiplayer like guild wars, or it can be massively multiplayer without being massive like APBs single city capable of supporting 250 players. It's at these edges where the lines of an MMO and non-MMO blur. It then falls to the community to decide for itself, to what measure is a massive?
That cleared some things up, at least for me and my knowledge of english. I loved BDSM part XD You sure know a lot about it. I wish it was you who made an article such as this.
p.s. what do you think about a game where player can make an impact on the world itself? Can it be a requirement for a game to be called MMOG? Because I've been thinking, and more I do, more MMORPGs like WoW or others seem like a multiplayer games with a huge chat rooms.
For me to be a MMO, you have to have persistence. Most of these games just don't have it. World of tanks most certainly does not. So why are we arguing? Show me the persistence. Nothing wrong with it being a multiplayer shooter. A lot of people like those types of games,
With all the existing and upcoming MMO's out there, there is plenty to discuss on this site without adding in games that are not MMO's
Level Progression system needs improvement. Such as you are never going to be attached to any tank crew as you have no point progressing them with your tank. Also learning new tanks does not leave any attachment as its more a collect them all affair.
Room setup also could use improvement, but the speed at which games start is impressive.
As far as twitch based games come, its definetly impressive. I would say more impressive then modern FPS like Modern Warfare 2.
Well World of Tanks is a MMO.. Is it a MMORPG nope not quite so if they want to remove it for that reason oh well.
As for Guild Wars half the staff has a hard on for the games and the other half im pretty sure named there children after it so as for removal thats not happening they would sooner sell there sisters in a multi server auction house than remove it
My only question is how much content are they adding before release and does anything they add give it rpg elements i know they are adding guilds but any story leveling or character building in any way? if so keep it if not it probably good to delete it ( give them more time to look for gw info) and fans just keep up in the general forums
Ugh, this old speech again
It's so strange people equate MMO with what they know. Make the proper distinction and everything falls into place and makes perfect sense. Most games aren't MMORPGs, but a lot of them are MMOs. Be more open to the rest of the world and you will see it in a different light. The world isn't just limited to Azeroth (or however you spell it).
I would love to write articles about video games and be taken seriously for them like some sort of snooty art critic who gets to talk down to everyone who paid money to see The Last Airbender, but alas, we're in a recession here.
I was actually having a conversation just recently with a friend about static versus dynamic worlds (unfortunately, the word "persistent" has come to mean something other than what it actually means, so you get flashes of brilliance like the paradoxical "dynamic persistent worlds") and came to some mixed conclusions.
First, and this is key here, dynamism is HARD. World of Warcraft is currently workin away at what could arguably be considered one of the first truly dynamic things since launch (or since AQ, but who's counting?) in its Cataclysm expansion. On the other hand, GW2 is being billed as a truly dynamic game where the INDIVIDUAL player greatly changes the look and feel of the world, but in order for that to be true you're going to either experience a lot of instanced solo play a la Tortage of AoC (in)fame or else have players playing together with radically different maps. That's if individuals are able to effect the world.
A more worthwhile strategy to explore in my mind would be a persistent world that responds dynamically to the body politic of the server. In this sense, expansion packs of new continents would be phased out in favor of expansion packs of new content, similar to a new "season" of a beloved TV show. Old characters would die, new characters would move in to fill the cast, and the story is progressed, rapidly. If there is one medium that should be vehemently pursued by novelists and screenwriters, it's MMOs. Never before has the opportunity to involve the audience with the cast been so blatantly obvious. Tell a good story, and people will preorder the expansion packs you haven't even made yet.
On the other hand, static worlds are safe. Ever hear of the NGE? That's what is risked with every new update of a game seen as too dynamic; exodus, en masse. On the whole, people crave change, but they will pay for the status quo. The genre is about to reach the saturation point where all the possible iterations of medieval elves and sorcerers have been tried, and the only way to stand out is to make something progressive story-wise.
This post brought to you (and sponsored) by parenthetical statements.
Amazing.
We have all pointed out games listed on this site that were not ever mmorpg, or even mmos period. Hellgate: London anyone?
Yet everytime we've asked for a game that was or is not an mmorpg to be removed, the stock mmorpg.com answer has always been "Well, it doesn't really fit, but tons of people asked for it to be here so it will stay.".
So now all of a sudden, we have yet another game that is not an mmorpg, but it is here because people asked for it to be here. And those people are in this thread asking for it to be here. But now mmorpg.com has decided they're going to remove it becaus eit doesn't fit.
Here's my only real response to mmorpg.com on this:
Either remove every other game here that is not an mmorpg, or leave this one the fuck alone. You guys went too far into the rabbithole bringing in every game you could to "broaden your audience".
You don't get to play favorites now, unless you want to finally admit this site is not driven by what the members want, but by what you want. You don't get to let one game slide in while denying another just because you like one but not the other.
So much for your "impartiality", eh?
And for the record, I don't care about this game one way or the other. It doesn't interest me any more than CounterStrike or Battlefield would. To me, it's not an mmorpg. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree vehemently with how you are treating it compared to other similar games which you have listed here.
Edit: And for the record, I'll say it again: your site name is a misnomer. This site hasn't been solely about mmoRPGs for a long, long time.
Is this an mmo? yes.
However, this game imo duz not comply with the "spirit" of what I thought this sight was about.
I play the game with my clan mates, and yea we have fun.. but its a time kill for the true mmorpg's we are waiting patiently for. JGE Earthrise ect.
Hmm... interesting.
Since there are a lot of non-MMOs here that are quite similar to the WoT, I can see several possible explanations.
The Top are:
1. The site is changing the policy and soon some games will go...
2. WoT simply did not pay the site (enough) money to stay on it.
Tanks is an MMO, it is exactly what an MMO is. It has many people playing at one time in the same enviroment via the internet. Who cares if it progresses in maps instead of levels, or if its instanced, or the what the exact number of people that can play together at one time is. Any of those factor can change prior to launch btw.
Tanks is not an RPG. There is no role playing in a game about tanks. Unless everyone who drives a panzer types in german, its kind of difficult to role-play a tank.
So this website has to decide: does a game meet both the MMO and RPG to get recognition here, or is one or the other enough to justify it. I think most of the people on these forums are looking for both. So games that are single player RPG, or any other new sect of MMO, (MMORTS, MMOFPS, etc.) should not be on the site. I love Zelda, I love COD Modern Warfare, but they have plenty of other sites already covering them.
MMO yes.. MMORPG no
Is that what you meant?
Honestly I have to agree. Its important that when a site is defined as www.mmorpg.com that it actually only supports MMORPGs. Having every online game out there defeats the purpose and the site should just be called www.mmo.com.
Personaly I don't have a problem with the assement, perhaps when WoT gets enough content and persistance to be defined as an MMORPG then it can return to the roster.
Yea, it is. I know this can be a heated topic for some, but actually I never would have heard of WoT if it wasnt in this site. Like I said, were having a really good time with the game.. So i suppose I can't really bitch.
No actually the term is Massive, not Massively. People incorrectly call it Massively due to the website by that name.
The correct term is MASSIVE. And don't even think about arguing with me..I'm proly way older than you..lol
Haven't I seen news on this site about Starcraft 2 and Dragon Age ;)
It´s a good game and should stay on the list here as long as GA stays.
period.
You may be way older but that doesn't mean you know jack. Richard Garriott coined the term back in 1997 with Ultima Online. And it is indeed "Massively", not massive. Look it up, it's easy to find.
I think this is more of a fps shooter, that being said, it does have rpg elements to it. The longer you play the more advanced you become. You progress through technology gaining stronger and stronger vehicles. Not only that the crews in your tanks are also gaining experience which drastically changes the outcome of how well your tank can perform.
The big thing is, this isn't high fantasy. I think this is more along an eve type game where it's not based on an orc chasing you on his phantasmal steed or a dreaded troll chasing you with his gnome backup. I think so many people have just automatically decided an RPG is a WoW, EQ II, or FFXI. This is not a traditional RPG in any sense, and like I said I feel it is more of a FPS. But I think it would be a shame to remove games just because it didn't fit into some high fantasy box that we have just accepted because the developers tell us that's what we want to play.
There are sooo many games that are pushing the bounds of what an MMO and MMORPG can do. This is something that hasn't been seen. Not only that, as others have said, it is beta. There will be clan controlled point's clan's can form massive alliances to take over entire area's of the map. I mean if thousands of people forming massive alliances and raiding the opposing alliances territory isn't an MMORPG theme, then you mind as well take Warhammer off, because honestly i think WoT's beta has more people playing at this point.
Another big contention people have is that this isn't an MMO. That's utter crap. when thousands of people can play online at the same time it's 1) massive, 2) multiplayer and 3) online. It meets the criteria. Not only are there tons of people, they are all playing together through random matchmaking systems. And with the ability to join with friends, which should be in the next patch here this week or next, you are establishing the ability for certain guilds to control maps and play. I think the reasoning people don't like non AAA games being called MMO's is because most of the younger crowd assumes if it doesn't have 9 million people like WoW it isn't an MMO. The old farts here probably remember Ultima Online which boasted 250,000 people at max sub base. Even the mighty EQ, the reveloution itself only had around 250,000 for a long time reaching its max of 450,000 subs.
To give some perspective, WoT has at any one point from 7,000 to around 25,000 online at any point. Mind you this is a closed beta. The max amount of subs for any game online at any point for one server is 60,413 people. Also to put it in perspective those numbers for WoT are for the European beta ONLY, they are also concurrently running a russian beta (i'm sorry, I don't have the numbers on that beta). So WoT while it isn't WoW, certain is a pretty massive game in context.
Now as far as the persistent world argument goes, I don't know what to say to it. I mean they are planning on having a persistent world in some fashion at launch. One of the first recognized MMO's was a game called Air Warrior, this is important because it was a flight simulator. The world was even less persistent then WoT's is. So this argument is a bit tricky to argue for either side. I do think it is a bit hypocritical for people to automatically remove this game from any sort of list because of it's state of development in beta. I mean heck, look at FFX!V, I can't wait to play it, but let's be honest people, it's a turd in a box. Even fanboys are pissed at how craptastic it's going to be at release.
So in summation. This game does meet the criteria to be on this list. It may not be the editor's cup of tea and in all truth if they decide they don't like a game they have the right to display it or not. I do think though that this game is an MMO and does contain enough RPG elements to blur the line. While some people may scream it's not true and throw a tantrum of the technicalities they believe they see, there are a lot of people who are happy this game is displayed here. Those people are happy it has a place in a list with other games that may not fit any particular mold. I would think that waiting to judge the merits of this game, or to define what it is or isn't should at least be postponed until release of the game. One could argue that if you are going to take one beta off the list, you should take all beta's off the list, because by definition, non of them are ready for release.
Here are some source's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
http://geekdictionary.computing.net/define/mmorpg
Oh and there are two refrences there showing it is Massively Multiplay Online. Not Massive. Age has nothing to do with it, all the sources say it is the same thing. You can't redefine an acronym because what you believe or 'know' it to be. Google something if it's in doubt. The internet is our friend... we are nerds.
I meant to include these sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Warrior
for some reason copy and paste were holding a revolution and didn't bother to tell me.
I don't understand why "shooter" types of games are now considered MMOs.
because 'shooter' has nothing to do with the amount of people that play it. The MMO is a modifier to what ever comes after it. If it has thousands of people playing at the same time it's an MMO. 'shooter' or I am assuming FPS (first person shooter) refers to the type of game. You can have a MMOFPS or just a FPS depending on if the game is online and how many people it hosts on a server at anypoint. In the early days of online games, games that had 50 people online at once were considered massive. For some reason people equate MMO with WoW. While WoW is an MMO, all MMO's are not WoW.
So this sight is taking down a game that is actually fun, stable, and will have a costing structure at release which is not a blatent rip-off?
Well done!
Please be sure to leave the crap dripping F2P Asian grinders that you folks so love to shill!
If your age is correct at 45, you have a whole 7 years on me. I don't think you quite qualify for the "old sage" title yet.
You bumped your head dude. It's been "massively multiplayer" since Meridian 59/UO/EQ days, just a tad bit longer than massively.com has been around.
... Its only a joke for only "3 letters"
"This is the same reason we struggled for so long with Global Agenda’s categorization, but as that game grew in scope and size, we were able to find reason to keep it listed on the site. World of Tanks would likely need the same sort development."
Even by Mr Murphy's own words they gave Global Agenda time to develop, this games still in Beta so why cant they at least allow it the chance to go into full release and with the features promised that would bring more into line with the title MMORPG and then decide if it still as a place on the site?
Like others have suggested why not remove the "other" games that dont fit MMORPG'S new rigid criteria the ones that are already released?
That is great, if it is not a mmo that makes it better than ever mmo on the market.
To be honest, I can care less how you quantify or label this game... It is a blast to play, and is one of the most enjoyable games I have played in a while.
My god people, get a new argument... the MMO community is so stagent in it's petty squabbles.
This game will shut down in less than a year.
STOP MAKING MMOs! YOU ARE ALL NO MATCH FOR WOW, SW: TOR, GW2, ETC.
Poker sites have over 100,000 players on at a time should they be MMOs?
CoD MW2 most likely has 100,000s of players playing at most times of the day, is that an MMO?
Players online does not equal MMO.
They have said before what their requirements are for an MMO, and some of them definetly are correct. One of them is a world you can go wander around in and run into other players that isn't simply a match making visual lobby. From the sounds of it WoT doesn't even come close to that requirement at all.
I am one of those people who thinks far too many games try to say they are an MMO when they aren't anything more then a regular game that has some sort of lobby to interact with other players. The term should be reserved for games that are true to the genre. It would be like someone trying to call Gears of War an FPS even though you don't play from the first person perspective.
^ lol
Opinions and qualifications...
All non MMORPGs should be taken out the list. WoT is a great MMOFT[ank]S.
Remove them all , or leave this one too.
I suspect someones fishing for endorsement money.... /shrug.
Or ... Charge them AD money , then fix your forums. Win Win .
Good! Remove the game from the list! It shouldn't be here, so get rid of it!
People just have their undies in a bundle because they released ads making fun of WoW. Nothing more fun than the Orc smashing the elves only to be run over by a tank. The game world is changing. Get over it, or get back in the basement and and go raiding so you can get your cool 6 ton ax like everyone else has.
This is even an arguement? Wow...
Listen, FPS games like Battlefield, Call of Duty, etc have no presistance, though you might have a flimsy leveling system, they have servers hosted by players (99% of the time) which follow their own rules and can hold at most 64 people, though on average 32, and once they've been milked for a few expansions or DLCs support ends and the company has nothing to do with it anymore. They are nowhere near MMOs and if you confuse them with a game which can hold hundreds of people in an area, has a built in social system, company run and regulated servers that are up 24/7, and constant support and new content until the game shuts down, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
As with always on this site the conflict seems to be driven by a group of people who think if it actually takes some kind of twitch skill to play a game and not simply mashing three attack buttons while autoattacking an orc its not an MMO, regardless of the actual mechanics of the game. So please staff, end the debate once and for all, either take this game and the 50 other games on the list that are not EQ clone, autoattacking, grinder RPGs off your site so those of us without such a narrow view of games can be on our way to search for a better site, or leave them all and accept that there is more to MMOs than smacking elves with lightning bolts.
OK I HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES NOW.
When I posted my own synopsis of this game and its ups and downs it was yanked off the forums for NDA. Now as I know its stil in Beta as I stil have my muas tank and ferdinand td, wouldnt nda have hold here. I mean your posting pics of combat and that is covered under nda, funny how this site suits its writers and not its patrons....Moving on....
This game is fun but needs so much work and be wary of the forums. They are being patroled and controlled by mods who will ban you for not having the same opinion they do. I have already spoken with Wargaming.net about this and they have since removed the offending Mod, but stil the issue remains.
The fact its a shooter game with friendly fire on, ALWAYS. It seems just obsurd you can be banned for tking some one.
And to this extent people will actually try to get you to tk them so they can set you up for the ban. I have seen it done and rather then do a conflict resolution like every other game out there they just ban the tker and move on....
As for light weight on system requirements....LOL I had more then min and it ran like crap. I even put it on my new 6 core machine...and it ran like CRAP still, this tells me alot about the programers.....
Now the game is fun but needs so much work and they need to either make ff off or ff on rooms....something cause this is insane how they work.....
Also MMO= MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE......No persistant worlds leveling or what ever long as more then 1k people play it at a time online its and mmo....plain as that....
No persistence = no MMO. Been that way forever. There are plenty of sites that cover shooters, go to those sites if you want to discuss this game.
Guild Wars. Take it off the list plox.
The creators of Guild Wars themselves admitted, long time ago, that GW was not an MMO. So yeah, it should be taken of the list.
What people need to realise is that it is not enough to just have alot of people playing the game online for it to be an MMO. Lots and lots of games are played online, from Diablo to FIFA soccer on XBox. But that does not make them MMOs. A minimum requirement for MMO should be persistent worlds.
I.e. the world must be, largely, non instanced and available at all times for the people playing on that server. STO and GW does not have persistant zones because 99% of the world consists of average of 8-16 player instances, which are continually reset and recreated, hence NOT persistent. And nowhere can 8-16 players be considered massive.
Well then, we will just have to agree to disagree.:)
Since I have gotten my hands on a key for WoT beta, my brand new StarCraft2 has been collectiong dust, I am over the 1000 battles played mark I have to say that World of Tanks is a great game, sure many features are not yet implemented, but the game's fundation is rock solid. It is fun, addictive and offers many options, you can 'juggle tanks' so there is very little downtime, and as mentioned in the article, the game runs great. If you like armored combat, or world warld 2 games do give it a shot.
Amazing, simpply amazing. Are you sure you arent a writer for some mmo site? ^^ Thnx, I really enjoyed it.
Diablo 2 has persistance. I think Dietaether's posts covered this topic much better than any of the posts here or the article itself (as it was a simple advertisment like the most of other articles).
There is persistence, Oz. Each tank has a crew that goes up in skill level per what they do (Loader, Gunner, etc.). You can also pickup enhancements that give a tank bonuses in a given area that stick with the tank.
Unless Bill had been testing the game for more than a few hours he probably never experienced those bonuses. It's also easy to see where one may trivialize the tank crew skill ups but they do matter.
That is wonderful and all, but you are missing out on one key bit: Persistence has nothing to do with a leveling system or ability based combat, or passive bonuses, or even classes. Take a look at The Secret World, a game in development that completely lacks levels and classes but is still considered an MMO. Or even A Tale In The Desert, which has NO combat whatsoever, in addition to lacking a leveling system in its first few iterations.
No, persistence has nothing to do with the character, and everything to do with the setting. Persistence is defined simply as "existing or continuing for a long time", and wikipedia even has an article on persistant worlds. It does a much better job summing the concept up than I ever could: A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent. The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games.
So the DEFINITION of an MMOG must contain a persistent world, not a series of maps, not levels, not floating platforms in space and magic mushrooms. If World of Tanks is able to show me that you can wander around at your leisure and explore different areas of the game, then come back without hesitation or loading screens to where you originally started, and if they can show that said world remains active even when its users are offline, then and only then will it get the graMMOr police stamp of approval from me.
Even wow is not mmorpg. Is it mmo? yes. rpg? no.
If wow is rpg then modern warfare is rpg too. Mw2 have leveling, you get new items, and skills, and you can talk to other players. So it's a rpg like wow.
In this site there is many games that are not RPG. And every one talks only MMO part of the MMORPG.
I don't think this game should be counted as a mmo though in the same breath i would not count sto as a mmo as it's even less effected by other players (at least in wot other players can effect me by killing and costing me money) same as half of the offers of games that are on the front page of this site (even some which are webpage games)
For me a mmo needs to have somthing that is changable by the players maybe if they every put in a clan war system where you can fight over maps and control areas then it can be counted as mmo but when players can change noting then it's not a mmo in my eyes and just a online game.
TThis has to leave but Global Agenda gets to stay? thats bullshit
Not sure if it should be here or not. Don't care. Glad I found it. Amazing fun game.
I play with lots of other players, I progress and level up the tanks and the crew.
It's fun.
Happy to pay for it.
Hmm. come to think of it, it has just as much in thegame as it is to include it on here, when the clan and grouping aspects come in, it is similar in game progression to something like APB. Is APB on here?
APB is not on here but WW2 On line is. When the clan system comes in to WoT I don't see much of a difference.
Many people pay attention only at MMO and RP side of the abtrviation. But it has to be first of all playable and interesing GAME. If u take a look at the game list on the web-site, 90% of them is BS and can hardly be considered as a game. They look more like couple of fat bearded dudes get together and compiled piece of useless crap to earn some money. They put bunch of retarded elves in there, or robots who cares, added cash shop - and call it MMORPG. These games has to go away first, and then u can be picky about games that worth mention.
As many ppl mentioned b4 - this game is not that differ from most of the other on market. It's just ommit that useless travel from instance to instance to get into the battle. I played majority of the "real MMORPG" listed on this web-site, so I know what I'm talking about - DDO for example, or GW, or GA.
Biggest difference of this game is that it requires a little higher IQ then just single button clicking. Even cash shop will not help u if u dump and both of ur hands - left . You cannot jump out of bushes and harase new players. And this is definetly u will not find in any other MMORPG nowadays.
It's not RPG? The battle balance system enforcing RPG - coz it's not going to happen that artlery will fight against heavy tanks only, and vice versa. Every player on the battlefield has it's on role, and he is not only responsible for his own success, but for the result of the team.
Just take a look at number of supporters in comments of this game and think about how smart ur decisions.
Go ahead and remove this game, and after that - ask those "philosophically" oriented authors to write couple of hundrends of articles about how normal games are dead, and people addicted to the braindead crap.
I have to side with eyeswideopen/Zorvan here. 100% Correct. MMORPG.com gave up any claim on being and exclusively MMORPG site long ago.
The site also gave up any pretense of being any kind of authority on the subject by allowing games like Travian and Evony here while NOT including games like NexusWar, Pardus, Urban Dead and a ton of others.
Not because Travian and Evony are not MMORPGs (in some ways they are more MMORPGs than some of the newer Triple A titles listed here) but because it showed MMORPG.com had lost touch with what the site was all about - which audience it was trying to reach.
Some of you may even remember this thread?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/247530/page/1
To see why I started that thread look at posts 18, 25, 26 and 40 in that thread.
Since that thread I have put a lot of thought into what an MMO is.
This is along the right direction:
Originally posted by Ozmodan
No persistence = no MMO. Been that way forever. There are plenty of sites that cover shooters, go to those sites if you want to discuss this game.
But 'persistence' is something I think many MMO devs are exploiting at the moment.
Are instanced worlds persistent?
For example DDO. It's a persistent world because there is always someone in Stormreach Harbour and the Market etc... but those are instances.
And some recent games work on engines that are what I call Instance Managing Software (Cryptic's STO and CO)
Are the 'worlds' in these games really persistent?
Clearly, that definition sets the bar too low.
Then we have character advancement of a 'persistent character'.
But again, if I leave Dragon Age or even Silent Hunter running in the background does that make a 'persistent world with persistent characters which can be advanced'?
Because if so, we are only weeks away from a Silent Hunter MMO.
Again, I think that sets the bar too low.
After much thought I found what I think should be the solution:
In order to claim 'persistence' there must be a persistent presence
That is, other players must be able to interact with your character, your assets, or something you achieved even when you are logged out.
I will use Pardus (www.pardus.at) as an example of this. Your ship NEVER logs out. You can dock, you can park in a 'safe' location - but you are always there. People can find you and if you dock at a building that can be destroyed they can destroy that building and destroy you.
Your buildings are always there. Players can continue to trade and interact with them even while you are off line.
So, as part of this persistent presence you could include an Auction House (depending on how it is run?) because people can continue to trade with you (purchase your loot) while you are not there. This is possibly exploitable though - so more thought needs to go into that aspect.
Then there is the last element of persistence:
Originally posted by DraigUK
APB is not on here but WW2 On line is. When the clan system comes in to WoT I don't see much of a difference.
What makes WWIIoL a 'persistent presence' game?
The RvR conquest.
As I said:
"In order to claim 'persistence' there must be a persistent presence.
That is, other players must be able to interact with your character, your assets, or something you achieved even when you are logged out."
In WWIIoL while I am logged in I can capture towns (or prevent the enemy capturing towns). Lets say that while I am on I help capture Antwerp, Bergen Op Zoom and Willemshaven. When I log off - those captures remain. I have a persistent presence in that world.
And the 'enemy' can interact with that by capturing them back.
Interestingly too, PotBS also offers RvR capture this way in a 'persistent world' despite being heavily instanced.
So, MMORPG.com, as I have said before - you need to review your definition / rules of what makes a game an MMORPG. I told you so. :P
If you want to be an 'authority' on this then you need to set a standard - a consistent standard.
I would also suggest you review the requirements to be listed here during development.
As I suggested earlier:
Stop listing games based on a couple of grainy screen shots (or a possibly scripted Gameplay vid) - Perpetual's STO anyone?
For a listing here you should require nothing less than 'proof of concept' - at the very least and independently verified Alpha.
But until you do all that - WoT stays IMHO.
And get on and list Farm Town while you are at it. :D
Always good to see something new in online play, it may not be a MMO, but MMO's are not the only way people play online these days.
Not defending the game in anyway. But.
Bill, did you realize that the thing you've tested is a particular functionallity of the whole game?
That thing you've experienced is called a "random battle" and it seems it's a part o a much more wider game according to the game developers and a lot of interviews. From historical missions to actually take care of an rather intresting strategic "clan war" PvP area.
Anyhow it's pretty absurd that you guys in the community base the whole "name tagging" of a game just because you've tested a core componet of the game "tank battles" including "balance", "video engine issues", "server stress". You knwo the things you ussually test on a beta...Oh wait, it's a beta! *doh*, now. Bill, did you expect to play a released game...or it is just not a mmo because it just does not follow the "nowadays" way. Pfff, i would expect more journalism and less fanatism?
I would guess that before anyone from this community write such a shallow and "just not quite true" article would have to research a little and swim in the forums of the game, reading news concerning the actual development state of it, etc etc... oh wait that's called *shocker* investigative journalism and it actually include researching.
And i migth say that this is the first time i read something on this web-page (not couting forums) that seriously dissapointed me.
For all I know they "plan" to add persistent element and "massive interaction" (read - trading) later.
As it is now it's less of an mmo then diablo 2:
-you grind
-you evolve your combat strength
-you cant play with more than 31(if memory serves) other players at a given time
-With exception of direct effect on your combat strength (and that of your opponent) nothing that you do in a battle matters beyond the scope of that battle.
In WoT... what you did affects up to 31 player for around 10-20 minutes + slightly impacts their finances and research (which is call exp. in there).
Even D2 had more than that.
If we complicate battlefield to try and make money out of it by making people grind for and/or spend cash on their loadouts we'd land about as close to an MMO as WoT currently is.
I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, but my verdict is - that's called MMO so that people would ask less questions as to why they are supposed to pay for grinding in an simple MP game.
I dunno about international testing but from what I've seen and heard in Russia the game isn't even close to being ripe and they are taking money for it already... Heck, they were pre-selling premium accounts before the testing was finished.
Also take a look at their trailers - those guys repeatedly made fun of other genres (realistic simulators, fantasy RPGs, even EVE) those trailers are somewhat funny but they are also plainly rude. And this is from someone who haven't even made something worth mentioning yet. IMHO they need to stuff their ambitions where no one can see them and do some good old-fashioned decent work for a change.
WoT has got some funny PR people. And i like the idea of blending RTS elements with MMORPG. I enjoy the stabs at other games. I havent seen it implemented yet. And lately these supposed Hybrid games are great in ideas but short on execution (GA and APB). This smells like another one. I could be wrong but...Careful where you step and check your shoes when you come inside.
This game involves level upgrades and equipment, it will also involve other minor tweaks to your tanks, thus developers in almost any part of the world want to consider this game and similar ones to be a full MMORPG< but since its not really the case they tone down the genres to MMO or MMOFPS. But all in all this game does have upgrades and costumization options which is the heart of any RPG, and thats what makes thhis game fun.
get a beta key, and see this game for yourself, its alot of fun. It doesnt promise you what it cant deliver like APB and Crimecraft with huge cities where tehres nothing to do but missions.
What I think is that WOT isn't really a Massive Multiplayer Online it's just a Multiplayer Online First/Third Person Shooter even thought it can have a 100v100 Battle. Also it doesn't consider itself a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game or Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game because the game doesn't have any level up system, its just a tier level limit.
level up or tier is exactly same thing.
APB has been on here for a long time now.
Why remove WoT while you got games like APB, GA (not yet an MMO), GW 1, COH, STO here? :x
If you remove such a game you should remove them all and not only who didnt pay you to be on the list ...
going to have to remove STO too -- all instanced zones, can't fit 200 ppl in any of them...
And don't even THINK of adding Cryptic's Neverwinter disaster to the site.
You're limiting your definition of a MMO. It's massively multiplayer online. That doesn't mean everyone has to be in a persistant world. Take for instance: Star Trek Online. By your same definition, it is NOT a MMO. Everything is instanced.
Also, your comparison with games like TF2, Call of Duty, and Battlefield are off. This isn't a box game.
I would hope for more accurate and less biased reviews of games in the future from this site.
Agreed with many- mmorpg.com should contain information about mmorpgs only. It might be a good investment to buy the domain 'mmofps.com', however (if it isnt taken, of course)
This site could use a good clense if you catch my meaning =)
"Reading, Scrolling....scrolling fast......skipping to the end.
Who cares what you call it. I like it. That is all that matters.
Have a happy day people.
this page needs a clear declaration of what they need to be checked to be an mmo. but this wont happen, because you dont want to loose members. so go on, evolve more into a joke page and please all members so you can gain more weight in negotiations with developers and publishers about promoting their games....
just like gamesspy and all the other pages that are paid to please the industry not the player.
mmorpg = massive muliplayer online role playing game
so really anything with massives muliplayer base is a mmo that includes games like cod mmorpg was the term they used sheerly because loads played it and rpg is the term for pretty much anygame
so argue over weather it is or isn't a mmo is pointless and seeing as it is still in beta it would be the smarter option to give it time until it realises before making any judgement on weather or not it is quallified
and sheerly having it on here will not do any harm to mmorpg nor any harm to wargaming.net
but my opinion it doesn't matter if it is a mmo or not if you have tried it and had fun if you did you then keep playing if you didn't then dont pay any attention too it again
The game is a MMOFPS with rpg elements. mmorpg.com really can't decide what's a MMO or what's not if they don't use their heads.
Basic definition is what it is: Massively Multiplayer. There are over a thousand players connected at one time to ONE server.
Doh where is the persistence? Right there is none, hence not a MMO period! They did say they have some changes coming down the road that might change that, but at the moment it just is not a MMO.
Then I suppose we should add Pogo.com games and every online poker site here as well?
And here we have an example of why newer rpgs suck most of the time, they're made by people who share the same ignorance of what the term means.
here's a thread with devs talking about clan war mode:
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/61-clan-wars-mode/
there will be persistent territory that clans will fight over and capture. yes, this feature is not in the beata now, but it definitely is coming. It will be as much an MMO as Global Agenda is.
role playing game is were you play a role in a team or in a battle all mmos you are playing a role like healer tank so it is the exact same for world of tanks for there are long range support damage dealers
so dont thing i dont know what the term means and the reason most new mmos suck is because they are either aiming for the wrong market or they are made poorly there are hardcore and casual gamers in mmos hardcore is anyone who intends to spend alot of time playing casual when they have a 1 or 2 too kill
official post on clan wars (persistent territory gain/loss):
http://game.worldoftanks.com/news/general_news/clan_wars_details_revealed
Excuse me while I chortle at such an inane attempt to achieve persistence. They don't even understand what the word means in the genre. But in your defense, MMORPG already covers games that really fall far short of what persistence really means.
Thing is, MMORPG.com is bloated with all the poor quality MMOG (no RPG) that shouldn't be there at all, IF MMORPG.COM really cares about the RPG part.
In my opinion, RPG part is too limiting nowadays, MMO games aren't niche anymore - and there's almost no trace of roleplaying in most popular MMO games today.
What is even worse, MANY of popular "MMO" games are lobby-type and most likely won't EVER be removed off the mmorpg.com list of games.
So, MMORPG.com, why are you even considering removing this QUALITY game (I'm amazed that game of this polish is F2P, honestly) and not even considering removing many other games which are really badly done and hardly popular?
I read this too and a couple of thoughts came to mind;
They talk about battles 'once per day'? I wonder how they will schedule that?
It will either lock out the low pop time zones...
OR
people will rapidly become annoyed by the '3am Ninja attacks'
Other games have tried this mechanic and it has caused all sorts of problems.
yeah, there's no elves, i got it.
there will be a world map, and you can only attack a territory in the evening that territory is set in. so for a US territory, US evening, russian territory, russina evening. basically clans will end up fighting over territories in their own time zone, but if you want to attack at noon in europe from the US nothing is stopping you.
Yes there is. I think you have your definitions confused.
WOT is really great game. It has won best concept award on E3 2010.
Depsite mmorpg.com editors saying they would remove it in a 'few days' ...its over 9 months on & still
no sign of being declassified as an MMO?
*Edit*
Before i get trolled, I am playing WoT & enjoying it, depesite it's frustrations,
but its no more of an mmo than CoD or BF2