one major correction-- you dont earn gold from converting exp, gold is used to convert exp but the only way to earn gold is to buy it for real money, win it in a contest, play clan wars and hold territories which only works if you are the top clans in the game because they set clan wars up where only the biggest clans can compete.

I played this game for a while, nearly a year, kind of burned out right now and there are some problems with the game, but the game is/was alot of fun.

gold ammo and hit box skins kind of got me burned out on it though, ill check it out in a few months again to see if anything changed.

It is a fun game, but the clan wars are a joke, only the clans with the big spenders have any chance.  You can play for free, but it really limits you in this game.

"Cars! Fighting! Pie!"

Giggled my ass off! :D

Its ok , but I rather prefer team fortress or counter strike.   Why its being covered as an mmo when its clearly a co-op with a chat lobby is beyond me.

Admitedly I haven't tried this out but having A WWII based tactical wargame where the only playing pieces are tanks is kinda like playing an old school D&D game where the only character type allowed in the game is a halfling rogue.

You're actualy missing about 8/10th's of the tactics/strategy involved in WWII combat...and skewing it pretty badly. WWII combat was all about combined arms....and most of the strategy, tactics & systems developed for it....including those developed by the Armor arm were about facing different sorts of threats. Tanks without infantry, AT Guns, Artillery, Air Power, etc makes for less then half a game.

Heck the whole US armor strategy for pretty much the entire war was that tanks were NOT intended to engage enemy armor. They weren't designed or built for that. That role was intended for dedicated AT weapons (initialy towed AT Guns, later augmented by TD's)...not sure how the game could even cope with that design difference. It wasn't until the M26 came out (with only a few months left in the War in Europe) that the US had a tank which was primarly designed to deal with enemy armor. Earlier estimates were that it took about 5 Shermans to engage and defeat a single Panther. How could the game deal with something like that?

---

Originally posted by erictlewis
Its ok , but I rather prefer team fortress or counter strike.   Why its being covered as an mmo when its clearly a co-op with a chat lobby is beyond me.

---

Agree

Couldn't dis-agree more with this review. All over-hyped. All numbers much too positive. Not going to waste my time going into any details as I have little doubt post would simply be removed for daring to say anything not sparkling-positive. I so very much wish some other company would do a real MMO with tanks. A pity that World War II online hasn't been more successful it would have been a logical place to see a real MMO with integrated tanks. I imagine some day someone will build something much better.

I couldn't AGREE more with this review.  It's definitely not for everyone, but for me, I've highly addicted to this game!!  The learning curve isn't really bad at all, but it does take time to master.  You will NOT be a good player at all when you first start out, so don't get hung up on trying to be the best.  Just try to do your best, and observe what others are doing.  Learn from your mistakes and read their main forums for tips.  Feel free to ask questions there too. 

It's a really fun game if you don't make it to competitive at the begining.  Just try to have fun and you'll have a blast.   Save the seriousness for later on in the game, when you get heavier tanks.

i mostly concur with the review. WoT had an extremely long beta period that saw little changed when it officially went live. a previous post observed that exclusive tank battles were non-existent in WWII, and even primary tank-on-tank conflict was limited. but then there are the examples of kursk, some battle in north africa, and aspects of the battle of the bulge. this is not a tank-sim (but has sim-elements to it). it is a shooter that uses tanks, RPG elements, and action to define it's gameplay. many of the tanks (in order to provide greater variety) saw very little action, or never went past the prototype phase of development.  

i'm not sure i found the learning curve quite as daunting as suggested. generally, tier 1 tanks are matched against those with similar characteristics. oh, sure, there may be some that have upgraded everything from engine to main gun, but there are still ways to score, even without firing a shot. i have most certainly never been bored. i admit i've spent actual money on the this game, but the only real advantage to be had that was worth it, was increased rate of experience, ability to shift gold into points where i could research a higher tier tank, and a more attractive garage. seriously, the game can be played entirely for free, and you can still get the best tanks and get your crew trained. it just will take a bit longer. the only significant pay-to-win items i've noticed are some types of advanced ammo, and a couple tanks you can buy, that are apparently a bit better than usually show up in that tier (e.g. Löwe)

so many new people have been signing up over the last couple months, that there are plenty of tankers learning the ropes in the same battles you might find yourself at first.

most of my MMO time goes into Fallen Earth (and the SWTOR beta right now), but i still return to this game often late at night, after a few beers, when i want to hear that big 88 through my sub-woofer, turning a sherman into a smoking hulk. once you learn the dynamics of each battlefield and a few basic mechanincs, it turns into a beer-and-pretzels shooter version of those old board games and if any of you remember panzer general on the PC over 15 years ago.

 I enjoy the game and play it regularly. I would suggest anyone who likes this type of game to give it a spin. That being said, I will list some 'cons' you should be aware of. 1) Matchmaking: I have seen tanks thrown into matches with tanks 5 tiers above theirs. They are generally light tanks, but games with no more than a 2 tier range are alot more competitive and fun. 2) The Crew: Not a con really, just a note. Your crew matters. You have to get them up to 100% to be the most efficient. You can pay real money or grind them to 100%. Everytime your crew switches tanks they need to be retrained. Then there are also 3 skills you also get to 100%. Very time consuming. 3) Money: Depending on tank class, non-subscribers start loosing money at tier VI if they don't win a match. You combat this buy having 'money making' tanks occupiying some slots in your garage. You only have so many garage slots to start with, unless you pay money to unlock more. 4) Teams: I guess its like most games of this type, you can end up with anything. The clueless, the pro, the griefer, the team player, the afker, ect ect. Making a platoon helps somewhat. If you create a platoon you can join matches with one friend, if you spend money and subscribe you can join with even more friends. 5) Hit Skins: Skins that show weakspots on all the tanks. Not cheating, but frowned upon. Supposedly they are changing some mechanic to make them not work anymore. 6) Tank Moduels: Be aware that only a few modules are removable. If you buy one (they are expensive) it may be bound to your tank. In the future, it's said, there will be a real money item to unbind moduels.

to indagda :number 6: yes if you buy a module say a heavy tank gun rammer its half a mill and gives 10 percent faster firing rate and its nonremovable sounds like a lot of money right? wrong. youll get half of that back when you sell your tank or you can remove it for some gold rl ingame money but if you have half a mill your probably already t5-t7 and youll probably be focusing on your tanks getting them upgraded etc. and so you probably wont spend that half a mill just to get a +10 percent to firing rate youll spend that half a mill on a leopard (t4 german light tank its the end of its line but it owns) or save up some more and buy an is-3 t8 russian heavy though only things that would normally be hard to remove are gold costing a camo net 50k will give you 25 percent more camo when stationary pretty good bonus if your a td or spg there are also some that give bonuses for pretty much everything

:4 teams in about a week they are adding a 2 person platoon for free so me and my bro can play together just not me my bro and my dad and there are tank companys that you can join for free just not make without a premi account. 15 person teams with a set limit of tiers that fight each other all in all you should try it

(btw my username is the same ingame) also you can look up anyone whos bragging he has killed 30000 enemys on the website under players gl hf and i hope to see ya on the field :)

and another afterthought they have contests nearly every week they give double exp /credits for nothing for a certain amount of time or make / do this or that and get voted as the best and you get free gold directly (a pretty good amount for first place i think about a months worth of premium time)  to your account and your username posted online as the 1st 2nd or 3rd as a congrats :)

Originally posted by BillMurphy

...but the gold currency can be earned from converting experience...

 That is just plain wrong. You can convert individual tanks excess experience into global experience (using ONLY gold that is paid for with RL cash), which can then be used on any other tank. There is no way to earn gold other than taking part in clan warfare or by winning contests.

Get your facts straight. ;)

Competitive clan members are REQUIRED to provide themselves with gold ammo in clan matches, otherwise you lose. VERY expensive & shadey system when you look @ how much gold each gold round costs, and how little gold you get pet $1.

The game it self not bad to kill a few hours but if you are looking for end game go find a different game for this monster has huge issues in the end game tons of issues if u don't have a clan of 400 members all with the highest tier tanks you willl have no chance at keeping land might get lucky get 1 chunk but that is about it. also those clans that have 400 members will make alliances with the same guilds so they can control the entire map then you only have 30 or so clans on the map getting all the gold and the small guy gets the crap stick and there are over 1400 clans on NA side and right now less then 3% of those clans own land so yaaaa not very good lol.

Originally posted by erictlewis

Its ok , but I rather prefer team fortress or counter strike.   Why its being covered as an mmo when its clearly a co-op with a chat lobby is beyond me.

ya and that is the one thing that bugged me about this review , many people will react to finding that out the same way they do to cryptic's super bad instancing games.....so how about doing a real review and mentioning things like that......

You can give them 10 out of 10 all you want, for me a game where sucess is based on the amount of money you can spend in it is worth ZERO in my book.

Originally posted by erictlewis

Its ok , but I rather prefer team fortress or counter strike.   Why its being covered as an mmo when its clearly a co-op with a chat lobby is beyond me.

Clearly Wargamming.net paid MMORPG.com for this article. Because I do remember WoT was removed from the site because of it lacked the RPG part.

Meh. This game is a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing FREE game. Its basically a fps with tanks and isnt worth a dime of actual money.

You hop on and just hope to get a match around your tier. More often than not that isnt the case and your one shot fodder for 2/3 or more than enemy team and all your rounds simply bounce. The spotting system is the biggest joke aside from the matchmaker and can really ruin some matches.

Very fun game, concur with most of the review though a few parts have minor errors.  But saw people here correcting those.

Works great as a fast easy to get into PvP fix.  Just be prepared for an overall really bad community, though some people are fine.  Also for frustration at times, it is not a forgiving game if you make a mistake you pay for it in a fiery explosion :P

Also it is much more team oriented than much of any other PvP game I've been in.  You really got to watch what your team is doing and apply your gun at the right time and place.  Also got to hope you don't have too many dumdums on your team who die without contributing much.

Anyways I only tried this because a friend said lets try it.  Had no interest in it whatsoever, now I am hooked on it.  So if you got an open mind give it a try.

Fun game, but it's not an MMO.

With all the positive press this has been getting (maybe it has to do with the little collectible tanks and the rarer larger remote controlled tanks they have been giving out at conventions) lately I will have to give it a look I think.

I'd be very honest about my personal review on this game. I didn't enjoy it at all. To say that it wasn't lacking in something is to exaderate. I was very bored with the little to no customization features the game had. While graphics and visuals were average, the experience was blighted by boredom. I'd only play again if they did a interesting revamp to it, other than that no thank you. You can keep your tanks.

I myself played for a short time, got bored very quickly.  There is no tutorial to speak of and you have to muddle your way around trying to figure out how to upgrade.  It is fun for a short time...but after awhile, it gets kinda boring.  And as some have mentioned, it is not an MMORPG...those who say it is not an MMO are wrong.  

The game lacks if you dont pay premuim grind takes forever after teir 4. Matcmaking sucks after tier 3. Takes lots of cash at high levels to do good in conquest i know a few people who spent over 100 there first month wich i think is lame and the reason i stoped playing. Also the game needs cheat detection badly. 8.1 score is way over rated.

I beta tested this but have not had time to pick it up again.

After reading this I fell like giving it another go :)

During beta the game worked pretty well i never came accross any major game braknig bugs..

Yes of coruse you have to spend cash to get some thing in game, they are a company out to make money so they cant give everything away for nothing, so i have issues with that.

I think they got the rating just about right i might have scored it a tiny bit lower but as i said i only tested in beta..

Uups... Douple post...

This is a good game. Your clan doesn't need to have 400+ members with premiun accounts, if your clan has skilled players. Teamwork and proper tactics are vital.

Matchmaking... Small percentage will always be higher tiers, but mostly others have same or +-2/3 tier...

Only issue with this game is the insane grind from Tier 7 onwards.

 "mmorpg" stands for "massivley multiplayer on-line roll playing game". every letter in that acronym does apply to WOT.  so go back to playing house with your dress up dolls, im playing tanks!!

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

You're actualy missing about 8/10th's of the tactics/strategy involved in WWII combat...and skewing it pretty badly. WWII combat was all about combined arms....and most of the strategy, tactics & systems developed for it....including those developed by the Armor arm were about facing different sorts of threats. Tanks without infantry, AT Guns, Artillery, Air Power, etc makes for less then half a game.

AT Guns (self-propelled) and Artillery are in the game. Does it make more like a 75% game?

Originally posted by Yellowbeardd

The game it self not bad to kill a few hours but if you are looking for end game go find a different game for this monster has huge issues in the end game tons of issues if u don't have a clan of 400 members all with the highest tier tanks you willl have no chance at keeping land might get lucky get 1 chunk but that is about it. also those clans that have 400 members will make alliances with the same guilds so they can control the entire map then you only have 30 or so clans on the map getting all the gold and the small guy gets the crap stick and there are over 1400 clans on NA side and right now less then 3% of those clans own land so yaaaa not very good lol.

Clans are limited to 100 members. But who cares about the facts, right?

Originally posted by finnmacool1

You hop on and just hope to get a match around your tier. More often than not that isnt the case and your one shot fodder for 2/3 or more than enemy team and all your rounds simply bounce. The spotting system is the biggest joke aside from the matchmaker and can really ruin some matches.

I reckon I saw you yesterday in El Halluf in A-20 camping at the base and sniping King Tiger on the other side.

I'm actually having fun playing this one.  Great to have a game to play for a short time and log out.

However, like others have said, please don't call this an MMO.  It is exactly like any other multiplayer shooter.  For most of us, you click "Battle" and randomly get put into a 15 v 15 match.  That's about as far as the MMO goes.

Good review, just two things that have me a bit confused...

1) You give gamplay an 8/10, but your last sentence of the section says "...surprised, entertained, and engrossed me, but it never really convinced me."  That's a pretty high score for something that doesn't "convince" you.  You must be real easy to shop for.

2) You mention buying the gold, and purchsing the "premium" account, but you never mention that buying this account gives you 50% more credits and experience per battle.  Why would you leave out probably the biggest benefit of the premium account in your article?

WOT is god fun. It is a different kind of fun.

I have played many shooters and the twitch factor and no death penalty in most shooters make them appeal to 14 year olds.

In WOT your strategic thinking is just as important if not more important than your twitch skills. Being at the right place at the right time is crucial. 

When you die in WOT you don't magically reappear 15 seconds later. Your tank is out of action for the duration of the battle. You can leave battle and start a new battle in a different tank. You will also suffer a hefty repair cost if you die in battle. This causes players to be far more careful than any other shooter that I have played. No more kamikaze runs. Playing smart is rewarded.

Try WOT its free and its fun.

Originally posted by comicaze

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

You're actualy missing about 8/10th's of the tactics/strategy involved in WWII combat...and skewing it pretty badly. WWII combat was all about combined arms....and most of the strategy, tactics & systems developed for it....including those developed by the Armor arm were about facing different sorts of threats. Tanks without infantry, AT Guns, Artillery, Air Power, etc makes for less then half a game.

AT Guns (self-propelled) and Artillery are in the game. Does it make more like a 75% game?

 

Tacticaly there is a very significant difference between AT Guns and TD's (what WOT has). The same holds true for SPA and towed Artillery.

The thing about armor is that it has horrible situational awareness, especialy with the crew buttoned up...which they really need to be in combat if there is any possibility of hostile infantry in the area (or just HE rounds landing in the vicinity).

It was very often the case that tanks would roll right up on and even past well concealed AT guns. Giving the enemy point blank shots, often against side or rear armor. This is one of the reasons that AT Guns were so effective in the defense, particulary where plentiful cover exists. It's also one of the reasons it was very important to provide armor with close infantry support, if they were operating anywhere except a wide open field with no cover.

Towed AT guns have a MUCH smaller profile then TD's (or even towed Artillery for that matter). TD's (and SPA's) have pretty much the same profile as most tanks (they were often built on the same chasis). Some of the German TD's, like the Hetzer, did achieve lower profiles by removing the turret.....but even these couldn't compare with the profile of a purpose built AT gun.

Most Allied (and many Axis & Soviet models as well) TD's were basicaly tanks with lighter armor so they could achieve better speed (shoot & scoot was a common tactic) and guns with good armor penetration.

The big thing about artillery (both towed & SPA) was the FO's that could call in indirect fire without exposing the gun and crew to danger. Without having infantry FO's you are really neutering alot of artillerys functionaly. They really were only employed in a direct fire role in an emergency, as they had very limited survivability when exposed to direct attack.

I just took a look at thier site and they also seem to have some pretty bad historical inaccuracies. For instance in the US Arsenal they list a TD called the "M36 Slugger".  The M36's designation was the "Jackson" (as in Stonewall Jackson) and they have it listed as sporting a 76MM gun standard. In reality it NEVER mounted a 76MM gun, it was purpose built for the 90MM and only ever deployed with that gun. Even the early M4 conversions only ever sported 90 MM's.... that was it's reason for existance. At the same time, they have the M46 Patton listed...which wasn't even in the US Arsenal until '49..... yet the M24 Chaffe is completely absent...even though it did see some significant action at the end of the War...including in the Buldge.

On the Axis side they have the Maus listed which only ever had a few proto-types built and never saw action. Even germanys own tank experts regarded it as an extremely impractical machine. Worse yet, they have this listed in the description of it "Good speed allows it to get at most needed place in time." . Yet the actual vehicles engine was only capable of achieving a top speed of 8.1 mph under ideal conditions, which would have made it one of the slowest tanks of the entire War...let alone for '45. The strain on it's power plant caused frequent breakdowns in the proto-types. It was too large to actualy cross most bridges of the day.....and it's high ground pressure meant it was in danger of bogging down even on reasonably firm ground.

World of Tanks may be a fun little arcade game...but it's definately not something that would interest anyone looking for a serious WWII game....MMO or not.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Tacticaly there is a very significant difference between AT Guns and TD's (what WOT has). The same holds true for SPA and towed Artillery.

The thing about armor is that it has horrible situational awareness, especialy with the crew buttoned up...which they really need to be in combat if there is any possibility of hostile infantry in the area (or just HE rounds landing in the vicinity).

It was very often the case that tanks would roll right up on and even past well concealed AT guns. Giving the enemy point blank shots, often against side or rear armor. This is one of the reasons that AT Guns were so effective in the defense, particulary where plentiful cover exists. It's also one of the reasons it was very important to provide armor with close infantry support, if they were operating anywhere except a wide open field with no cover.

Towed AT guns have a MUCH smaller profile then TD's (or even towed Artillery for that matter). TD's (and SPA's) have pretty much the same profile as most tanks (they were often built on the same chasis). Some of the German TD's, like the Hetzer, did achieve lower profiles by removing the turret.....but even these couldn't compare with the profile of a purpose built AT gun.

Most Allied (and many Axis & Soviet models as well) TD's were basicaly tanks with lighter armor so they could achieve better speed (shoot & scoot was a common tactic) and guns with good armor penetration.

The big thing about artillery (both towed & SPA) was the FO's that could call in indirect fire without exposing the gun and crew to danger. Without having infantry FO's you are really neutering alot of artillerys functionaly. They really were only employed in a direct fire role in an emergency, as they had very limited survivability when exposed to direct attack.

I just took a look at thier site and they also seem to have some pretty bad historical inaccuracies. For instance in the US Arsenal they list a TD called the "M36 Slugger".  The M36's designation was the "Jackson" (as in Stonewall Jackson) and they have it listed as sporting a 76MM gun standard. In reality it NEVER mounted a 76MM gun, it was purpose built for the 90MM and only ever deployed with that gun. Even the early M4 conversions only ever sported 90 MM's.... that was it's reason for existance. At the same time, they have the M46 Patton listed...which wasn't even in the US Arsenal until '49..... yet the M24 Chaffe is completely absent...even though it did see some significant action at the end of the War...including in the Buldge.

On the Axis side they have the Maus listed which only ever had a few proto-types built and never saw action. Even germanys own tank experts regarded it as an extremely impractical machine. Worse yet, they have this listed in the description of it "Good speed allows it to get at most needed place in time." . Yet the actual vehicles engine was only capable of achieving a top speed of 8.1 mph under ideal conditions, which would have made it one of the slowest tanks of the entire War...let alone for '45. The strain on it's power plant caused frequent breakdowns in the proto-types. It was too large to actualy cross most bridges of the day.....and it's high ground pressure meant it was in danger of bogging down even on reasonably firm ground.

World of Tanks may be a fun little arcade game...but it's definately not something that would interest anyone looking for a serious WWII game....MMO or not.

Not to knock your historical information, but most of what you are posting about misses the point of this game.

First, the tanks are set up to be balanced, not to be historically accurate in their dates of operation.  Some things are operating with designs that never left the prototype stage or were developed post war.   It really does work nicely for what the game is trying to accomplish.   It is pretty cool to play in some tanks that never actually saw combat or play with variations of equipment on different vehicles.   Most of which I can tell is still historically accurate.

I do agree that adding infantry, long range artillery, AT guns and things of that nature would add new dynamics to the game, but again that isn't the goal of this game.  It is a tank shooter and not a military campaign simulation. 

There are already plenty of serious WWII games that fill the gamespace for those types of games.  That does not diminish what this game is trying to be, which is a lobby style tank shooter and it achieves that very well. 

Personally I find it an exceptionally fun game.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Tacticaly there is a very significant difference between AT Guns and TD's (what WOT has). The same holds true for SPA and towed Artillery.

The thing about armor is that it has horrible situational awareness, especialy with the crew buttoned up...which they really need to be in combat if there is any possibility of hostile infantry in the area (or just HE rounds landing in the vicinity).

It was very often the case that tanks would roll right up on and even past well concealed AT guns. Giving the enemy point blank shots, often against side or rear armor. This is one of the reasons that AT Guns were so effective in the defense, particulary where plentiful cover exists. It's also one of the reasons it was very important to provide armor with close infantry support, if they were operating anywhere except a wide open field with no cover.

Towed AT guns have a MUCH smaller profile then TD's (or even towed Artillery for that matter). TD's (and SPA's) have pretty much the same profile as most tanks (they were often built on the same chasis). Some of the German TD's, like the Hetzer, did achieve lower profiles by removing the turret.....but even these couldn't compare with the profile of a purpose built AT gun.

WoT TDs have much better camo value that tanks, which addresses your point  AT vs TD.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
The big thing about artillery (both towed & SPA) was the FO's that could call in indirect fire without exposing the gun and crew to danger. Without having infantry FO's you are really neutering alot of artillerys functionaly. They really were only employed in a direct fire role in an emergency, as they had very limited survivability when exposed to direct attack.

SPGs in the game use "indirect fire without exposing the gun and crew to danger", any allied tank can call the fire. You should really try playing the game.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

I just took a look at thier site and they also seem to have some pretty bad historical inaccuracies. For instance in the US Arsenal they list a TD called the "M36 Slugger".  The M36's designation was the "Jackson" (as in Stonewall Jackson) and they have it listed as sporting a 76MM gun standard. In reality it NEVER mounted a 76MM gun, it was purpose built for the 90MM and only ever deployed with that gun.

Slugger is British for Jackson. 90mm is the second gun and no one really play with the stock one for long.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

At the same time, they have the M46 Patton listed...which wasn't even in the US Arsenal until '49.....

If you read something about the game, you'll find that the game encompasses period from 30's to 50's, and Patton is a direct competitor to T-54 of approx the same period.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

On the Axis side they have the Maus listed which only ever had a few proto-types built and never saw action.

Two tanks were actually deployed.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

World of Tanks may be a fun little arcade game...but it's definately not something that would interest anyone looking for a serious WWII game....MMO or not.

Well, Captain Obvious tells me that WoT is definitely not a Uni historic student's tutorial, but for armatures, like me, it gives an interesting and pretty accurate incursion into the history of mid-XX.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Admitedly I haven't tried this out but having A WWII based tactical wargame where the only playing pieces are tanks is kinda like playing an old school D&D game where the only character type allowed in the game is a halfling rogue.

You're actualy missing about 8/10th's of the tactics/strategy involved in WWII combat...and skewing it pretty badly. WWII combat was all about combined arms....and most of the strategy, tactics & systems developed for it....including those developed by the Armor arm were about facing different sorts of threats. Tanks without infantry, AT Guns, Artillery, Air Power, etc makes for less then half a game.

Heck the whole US armor strategy for pretty much the entire war was that tanks were NOT intended to engage enemy armor. They weren't designed or built for that. That role was intended for dedicated AT weapons (initialy towed AT Guns, later augmented by TD's)...not sure how the game could even cope with that design difference. It wasn't until the M26 came out (with only a few months left in the War in Europe) that the US had a tank which was primarly designed to deal with enemy armor. Earlier estimates were that it took about 5 Shermans to engage and defeat a single Panther. How could the game deal with something like that?

 

I do see your point about the game missing some elements, but if you threw in all of the stuff you're talking about then it wouldn't be a "tank game" -- it would be Battlefield 2, or Bad Company, or some other game who has ran that genre into the ground.

Who cares about the realism of "tank-on-tank" battles, and how they were deemed inneffective in real war, so long ago. If I wanted realism, I would watch the Military Channel.

But, I blow up some fricking tanks, so I play World of Tanks.

Re:  The "Slugger". The M36, unlike the M10 never entered British Service. The British had thier own TD's the Archer & the Achilles. Thier listing the U.S. arsenal...so it should be the "Jackson".  I've never seen any evidence that the British used the designation "Slugger" when refering to the U.S. weapon system. They did have a tendency to avoid using designations of confederate generals (They redesignated the M3 from Lee to Grant in British Service) so maybe it's possible ...but WoT lists the US arsenal and the designation for the M3 is "Lee" not "Grant" so they should be using the "Jackson" instead.

That also doesn't forgive alot of the other bad historical inaccuracies in the game.

Re: The "Maus". Nope only 3 proto-types were ever built. The first was a wooden mock-up. The second had a dummy turret. Only the 3rd was functional. None of them ever left the factory grounds. They were captured by the Soviets when they occupied the factory.  You're probably thinking of the VK series, another German tank that was proto-typed and makes an appearance in WoT. The VK was dropped in favor of the Tiger I. Two proto-types were built and thier chasis were cashiered into service for 2 mashed together TD's, similar in design to the Elephant that saw service on the Eastern Front.

I get what WoT is....point is it's not a "tank simulation" as stated in the title of the article. At best it's a lobby based arcade game that doesn't do a very good job of "simulating" the dynamics of armored combat of the period or the ways that many of the weapon systems of the period actualy functioned. At that, it's rife with historical errors. Many of which don't even need to be made.

I'm not trying to put the game down, it may indeed be fun. But the article seems to be glossing over some points about it.

Now you want an MMO that actualy captures the dynamics of WWII combat...including armored combat. WWII Online, despite it's dated engine...actualy does a pretty decent job of that...at least for the early war. Guess they are not paying for enough ad space here.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Re:  The "Slugger". The M36, unlike the M10 never entered British Service. The British had thier own TD's the Archer & the Achilles. Thier listing the U.S. arsenal...so it should be the "Jackson".  I've never seen any evidence that the British used the designation "Slugger" when refering to the U.S. weapon system. They did have a tendency to avoid using designations of confederate generals (They redesignated the M3 from Lee to Grant in British Service) so maybe it's possible ...but WoT lists the US arsenal and the designation for the M3 is "Lee" not "Grant" so they should be using the "Jackson" instead.

Jackson/Slugger

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Re: The "Maus". Nope only 3 proto-types were ever built. The first was a wooden mock-up. The second had a dummy turret. Only the 3rd was functional. None of them ever left the factory grounds. They were captured by the Soviets when they occupied the factory.  You're probably thinking of the VK series, another German tank that was proto-typed and makes an appearance in WoT. The VK was dropped in favor of the Tiger I. Two proto-types were built and thier chasis were cashiered into service for 2 mashed together TD's, similar in design to the Elephant that saw service on the Eastern Front.

"Some sources state that the Panzerkampfwagen VIII saw combat while defending the facility at Kummersdorf". Anyway Maus is in much better position here than some American tanks.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

I get what WoT is....point is it's not a "tank simulation" as stated in the title of the article. At best it's a lobby based arcade game that doesn't do a very good job of "simulating" the dynamics of armored combat of the period or the ways that many of the weapon systems of the period actualy functioned. At that, it's rife with historical errors. Many of which don't even need to be made.

I'm not trying to put the game down, it may indeed be fun. But the article seems to be glossing over some points about it.

Now you want an MMO that actualy captures the dynamics of WWII combat...including armored combat. WWII Online, despite it's dated engine...actualy does a pretty decent job of that...at least for the early war. Guess they are not paying for enough ad space here.

First and foremost it's a fun game. Having it's based on pretty accurate historical facts is a very nice perk.

It may or may not be a fun game. It's accuracy I definately call into question. Just the few vehicles I happaned to glance at had pretty inexcusable errors...like the M36 starting with a 76MM gun or the Maus being classified as having "good speed" when the Germans could barely get the thing to move.

Stuff like putting in the M7 Tank (which only had 7 models ever built before being dropped) while leaving out very important weapon systems like the M18 Hellcat, the M3 GMC, the M24 Chaffee...I mean c'mon.

Not to be confrontational, but grumpy all of your complaints seem to be based on historical realities when the game isn't trying to be a completely accurate representation of WWII.  For heavens sake, when you join a match you WILL have US, Russian and German tanks all on the same team.  Your opponents will have all 3 nations on their team as well.  Again, the game isn't trying to be an accurate picture of the WWII battlefield as it played out. 

The tanks in the game use equipment and designs that were drafted or tested, but never used or completed. 

I'm curious if you have played the game or not?

Im sorry, but there is nothing innovative about it. Its basically a rip of the Direct Control system used for vehicles in Men of War and previous games in that series turned into its own game. The balancing is sporadic and shoddy across the tiers and with an abysmal matchmaking system designed for only a few tanks to dominate. This is not a game for anyone who can get frustrated easily.

I am actually quite a WW2 hater, because it's the most overdone setting ever. so i had great reserves when trying the game out and was quite surprised.

no it is not a fps, it's not all about reflexes and spinal cord (although they help)

no it is not a ww2 sim, not about US vs. Wehrmacht vs. Soviet.

if there is any realism in it, it focuses on the characteristics of the various vehicles, but i would not dare to claim that.

what it is: it is a nice MIX between arcade fps, tank sim and rpg. it is not a mmo at all. it has a suprising depth regarding tactics. it may not be a combined weapons simulation, but there is a degree of that in it, mainly in the physics how damge works, how you have to use the terrain but also in the collaboration of reconnaisance, MBTs and artillery. you wont see this kind of co-op too often, since like in most shooter games, it is dominated by trigger-happy forward-charging morons. chances are, more of these are on your side. but even if you lose, it is not a big deal (unless you are an overly ambitious laddie). this is what i like most in this game. it is extremely casual. even if you suck and get yourself killed in the first 2 minutes, just exit the battle hop in the next tank and get into the fray again. there is no respawning and ticket bleeding, it's always 15 vs. 15.  this makes the battles most of the time short and intensive. you can play the game on a 20 minute base. and it still gives you some persistency in your advancement toward better tanks, teams and equipment.

what I need next is "World of BattleMechs". srsly! or some combined weapons sim (i.e. with some more sim elements) in a sci-fi setting. still, it can be suprisingly amusing to crawl around in a tracked tin-can with <20 mph, hearing how the diesel combustion engine is howling like in great pain when climbing even the smallest slope. and the thundering of the artillery when you kill a tank that tried to charge you on a short distance is one of the greatest moments you can have in games. but ww2 is still old and done.

Some of you seem to forget it is a game not a simulation.  What I do not like about the game, it is basically a pay to win game.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

it is basically a pay to win game.

It is not. You pay only to reduce grind, which is a perfectly legitimate business model.

No OP "gold" modules, ammo, or tanks.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

It may or may not be a fun game. It's accuracy I definately call into question. Just the few vehicles I happaned to glance at had pretty inexcusable errors...like the M36 starting with a 76MM gun or the Maus being classified as having "good speed" when the Germans could barely get the thing to move.

Stuff like putting in the M7 Tank (which only had 7 models ever built before being dropped) while leaving out very important weapon systems like the M18 Hellcat, the M3 GMC, the M24 Chaffee...I mean c'mon.

Maus by far is the slowest tank in the game, a few TDs and probably SPGs are slower.

M36 with 76mm is a short transient form to ensure a progression process to M36 with [historically correct] 90mm. For me it is pretty accurate, you might need to search another animated history book.

Originally posted by razrwolf

The balancing is sporadic and shoddy across the tiers and with an abysmal matchmaking system designed for only a few tanks to dominate. This is not a game for anyone who can get frustrated easily.

The matchmaking is not abysmal or broken. It's just different from your usual "fight mobs of my level only" and "select target, mash skill buttons", or even from FPS' headshots.

Originally posted by comicaze

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

It may or may not be a fun game. It's accuracy I definately call into question. Just the few vehicles I happaned to glance at had pretty inexcusable errors...like the M36 starting with a 76MM gun or the Maus being classified as having "good speed" when the Germans could barely get the thing to move.

Stuff like putting in the M7 Tank (which only had 7 models ever built before being dropped) while leaving out very important weapon systems like the M18 Hellcat, the M3 GMC, the M24 Chaffee...I mean c'mon.

Maus by far is the slowest tank in the game, a few TDs and probably SPGs are slower.

M36 with 76mm is a short transient form to ensure a progression process to M36 with [historically correct] 90mm. For me it is pretty accurate, you might need to search another animated history book.

 

"animated history book." Lol, I think I detect the stench of a viral marketer...or maybe a Dev?

I'll match my history degree against yours any day of the week, pal. Not only did I study history fairly extensively...but I actually had family that served during the war on one of the metal beasts rolling around your game.... so excuse me for thinking I know a little bit about how they work.

The game is rife with historical errors, as anyone that takes a look at their "tankopedia" and has a decent knowledge of history and the equipment of the day will quickly discover.

Note that the only reason I'm beating the "historical accuracy" drum so hard here is that the opening description of this article  claims "Adam Tingle takes a look at the tank simulation MMO that's taking the world by storm"

It is most definately NOT a "sim".....it's an arcade style lobby game, in a very beer & pretzels style with some very loose connection to history.

I actualy got the chance to try it for a few hours yesterday..... and while very repetitive it was somewhat fun in a light diversion kind of way. It's definately more in line with arcade style combat. It does manage to catch a few elements that have some relation to real tactics....such as going hull down, shot angles and catching opponents underbelly or top armor. But that's about it.

It most definately is NOT an MMO.

It definately has very limited content and is very repetitive.... I think I counted maybe 4 maps total.....maybe they open up more at later Tiers.

It also seemed to have deinite pay 2 win features.

It's ok for what it is....but it's alot less of a game then the article makes it out to be.

Is it just me or do most of mmorpg.com's articles read more like paid infomercials these days?

Originally posted by Daffid011

Not to be confrontational, but grumpy all of your complaints seem to be based on historical realities when the game isn't trying to be a completely accurate representation of WWII.  For heavens sake, when you join a match you WILL have US, Russian and German tanks all on the same team.  Your opponents will have all 3 nations on their team as well.  Again, the game isn't trying to be an accurate picture of the WWII battlefield as it played out. 

The tanks in the game use equipment and designs that were drafted or tested, but never used or completed. 

 

I'm curious if you have played the game or not?

 

I tried it for a few hours. Like I said, it's very repetitive but can be fun in a very light beer & pretzels sort of way.  I wouldn't spend any money on it though. I'm really not taking the game to task so much as the review. The review really doesn't represent the game, IMO. I'm not even sure why it's on MMORPG.com. Nevertheless if Adam thinks it's a ponderous game of deep tactics and a steep learning curve....I'd hate to see how he'd react to something like WWII Online.......or heck anything in the Combat Mission series for that matter.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

"animated history book." Lol, I think I detect the stench of a viral marketer...or maybe a Dev?

I'll match my history degree against yours any day of the week, pal. Not only did I study history fairly extensively...but I actually had family that served during the war on one of the metal beasts rolling around your game.... so excuse me for thinking I know a little bit about how they work.

The game is rife with historical errors, as anyone that takes a look at their "tankopedia" and has a decent knowledge of history and the equipment of the day will quickly discover.

Note that the only reason I'm beating the "historical accuracy" drum so hard here is that the opening description of this article  claims "Adam Tingle takes a look at the tank simulation MMO that's taking the world by storm"

It is most definately NOT a "sim".....it's an arcade style lobby game, in a very beer & pretzels style with some very loose connection to history.

I actualy got the chance to try it for a few hours yesterday..... and while very repetitive it was somewhat fun in a light diversion kind of way. It's definately more in line with arcade style combat. It does manage to catch a few elements that have some relation to real tactics....such as going hull down, shot angles and catching opponents underbelly or top armor. But that's about it.

It most definately is NOT an MMO.

It definately has very limited content and is very repetitive.... I think I counted maybe 4 maps total.....maybe they open up more at later Tiers.

It also seemed to have deinite pay 2 win features.

It's ok for what it is....but it's alot less of a game then the article makes it out to be.

Is it just me or do most of mmorpg.com's articles read more like paid infomercials these days?

This game is like crack. I had to uninstall it yesterday after playing for 2 weeks. I have a job, wife and kid... a life!

Originally posted by comicaze

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

"animated history book." Lol, I think I detect the stench of a viral marketer...or maybe a Dev?

I'll match my history degree against yours any day of the week, pal. Not only did I study history fairly extensively...but I actually had family that served during the war on one of the metal beasts rolling around your game.... so excuse me for thinking I know a little bit about how they work.

The game is rife with historical errors, as anyone that takes a look at their "tankopedia" and has a decent knowledge of history and the equipment of the day will quickly discover.

Note that the only reason I'm beating the "historical accuracy" drum so hard here is that the opening description of this article  claims "Adam Tingle takes a look at the tank simulation MMO that's taking the world by storm"

It is most definately NOT a "sim".....it's an arcade style lobby game, in a very beer & pretzels style with some very loose connection to history.

I actualy got the chance to try it for a few hours yesterday..... and while very repetitive it was somewhat fun in a light diversion kind of way. It's definately more in line with arcade style combat. It does manage to catch a few elements that have some relation to real tactics....such as going hull down, shot angles and catching opponents underbelly or top armor. But that's about it.

It most definately is NOT an MMO.

It definately has very limited content and is very repetitive.... I think I counted maybe 4 maps total.....maybe they open up more at later Tiers.

It also seemed to have deinite pay 2 win features.

It's ok for what it is....but it's alot less of a game then the article makes it out to be.

Is it just me or do most of mmorpg.com's articles read more like paid infomercials these days?

 

This is exactly the point you are missing. I said few pages back - I am an absolute armature and never had any vested interest in WWII history. You have a history degree and can professionally scrutinize the game - good for you, but I could not care less. For me the game is pretty accurate historically, most of facts pass a quick cross-reference check and I am not offended by starting 76mm gun on M36, especially given that few months ago I didn't even know about M36 or Maus existence.

Even more I am pleased that my kid asks history question after reading the game achievement descriptions, and not the usual "what is the main difference between dark and light elves?"

 

Popularity shows that the game has some deepness in it. Is it the most sophisticated strategy game on the market? Sure not. WG delivered a very nice mix of different styles. MMO or lobby multiplayer, FPS or RPG, arcade or simulator - it’s a matter of definitions, personally I would not go on a crusade for the purity of genre, you might have other preferences.

 

Would you mind naming the two pay-to-win features? Given that you played just for few hours, my guess, one will be Hotchkiss.

 

 

No, I am not a developer. I gave out my WoT username in the game section and can send it to you personally, if you wish. Looking at the game profile, it’s quite clear I am neither developer nor marketer.

You're a real piece of work. First you try to insinuate he doesnt know what he is talking about wth your ridiculous "animated history book" comment only to admit now its actually you that dont have a clue what you're talking about. You do not need a degree to know they played fast and loose with both history and acuracy in the game, they themselves will be the first to admit it.

The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.

Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.

You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.

16v16 player battles & a basic chat box, it makes COD or CSS look more like an

MMO than World of Tanks ffs!!!

It's not an mmo & is so far from being one although the game is fun at the start but

becomes boring fast & is a big grind fest within a short time.

This is minly due to the F2P system, its a case of pay to win, as you need gold &

ingame creds to keep up, plus the pvp matchmaking is a farce.

It's worth a download but is not a serious MMO gamers game imo

(i played beta & stopped playing recently, just for the trolls benefit)

*additionally*

mmorpg.com stated themselfs it's not an mmo back last October & said they would

"declasify" it as an mmo ...still waiting....

Originally posted by comicaze

Originally posted by Ozmodan

it is basically a pay to win game.

It is not. You pay only to reduce grind, which is a perfectly legitimate business model.

No OP "gold" modules, ammo, or tanks.

Im sure your an wargaming member of staff, as you seem to patrol these forums defending

the game from any negativity at all. 

F2P is a legitiamte business model, but its also a joke, I would of prefered to buy the box &

pay a monthly sub as it is CHEAPER! ...but warghaming know that!

Most the lads i know have spent a minimum of £70 just on premium & the odd xp transfer,

some lads i know have spent hundreds, theres a few ive spoke to ingame who have spend

more than that, which i agree is just personal choice.

But they have made the game such a grind you need premium to get decent xp & creds,

You cant sustain any tier 8+ tanks in battle & be able to save up for other tanks & mods,

you just dont earn enuff vs the repair costs if you dont have premium, plus the tier 9 & 10

tanks are like 3-6million, without premium or gold to convert it takes a long time to grind

the XP & creds to get a high tier tank.

But wargaming knew that by making this a F2P they would get tripple the income from the

average gamer, F2P it a dangerous system thats started a slippery slope to a dark place,

PC gaming has took enough knocks over the past 5 years without this crap.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.

Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.

 

You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.

The matchmaker has a few issues, but it does a fine job.   People seem to cry about any match where they are not the top tier tank and then complain about how "broken" the matchmaker is.  Not saying you, but in general I see that alot.

The matchmaker occasionally will put to many Tank Destroyers on one team or match up to many of the same tanks on one side/both sides, but overall matches are relatively balanced.  Aside from Tier 4 light tanks that get elevated to high teir matches as scouts, I don't really get into any matches where I can't at least contribute and support my team. 

I think the diversity of tanks in each match makes it more interesting.  As for the Tier 4 scouts, they are perhaps the single best asset when player properly, but very very few people can do it.  It really can be a force multiplier when executed properly. 

Cash ammo is not 50% better than other ammos.  It has a slightly higher armor penetration.  It does qualify for the definition of pay to win, but honestly isn't going to give its intended bonus in the majority of situations. 

100% crew is a slight advantage over 75%, but that only lasts a few matches.  Hardly paying for victory IMHO, but an interesting observation I never really thought about. 

The rest of the pay 2 win you list doesn't matter once the match starts.  Someone earning more credits or xp doesn't make them better when we are actually playing.  All the tanks in the match are at different levels, equipment and tiers and that is all factored into the matchmaking. 

People paying money for faster advancement allows others to play for free.   Seems a fair trade off. 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

You're a real piece of work. First you try to insinuate he doesnt know what he is talking about wth your ridiculous "animated history book" comment only to admit now its actually you that dont have a clue what you're talking about. You do not need a degree to know they played fast and loose with both history and acuracy in the game, they themselves will be the first to admit it.

Clearly you did not understand what I meant. The guy demands accuracy of an academic history book from a computer game, so I assumed he is on the market for some iPad tutorials for his history students, you know - with colorful pictures, animation...

Originally posted by finnmacool1

The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.

Yes, it's disappointing that I can't put on my hard grinded epic armor and go into level 19 dungeon. You fill intimidated in low level tanks you are now playing, but trust me, it's a way more embarrassing to get killed by a tank few levels lower than you. You should have heard that guy in KV screaming in chat when he killed (finished off, actually) my Maus.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.

 

If you manage you crew and tanks properly, you will start most of tanks with 90% crew without any gold.

Gold ammo is not 50% better. Slightly increased penetration with the same damage is a very marginal advantage and means much less than your and your teammates skills.

Gold ammo does not pass cost-benefit analysis. I tried it actually in VK3601 (famous konisch gun) and Maus. You may shoot gold all game long and then your team dead, match lost and all you money went down the drain. So I decided not to put bets against statistics.

How exactly increased experience and credits (you don't earn gold in the game) help you in a particular match? It will get you in a higher tank faster, but it doesn't help your win/lost ratio.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.

"Lies" you mean 50% better ammo? Well, the little kids spending money on it, will be right asking you in a few months - "what the hell you were talking about"

Originally posted by ukforze

 Im sure your an wargaming member of staff, as you seem to patrol these forums defending

the game from any negativity at all. 

 

From my point of view it's much more natural for someone, who loves the game and played almost 6k matches by now, to defend it knowledgably, than for someone, who played few low level battles, spread nonsense persistently.

Actually my participation in the discussion fueled partially by my interest to find out (not that I believe I can acheive it) who is paying you, folks. You are, forgive me if I am mistaken, that guy who asserted that he rarely sees any american tanks in the game, right? But "16 vs 16" is definitely yours, isn't it?

Originally posted by ukforze

 F2P is a legitiamte business model, but its also a joke, I would of prefered to buy the box &

pay a monthly sub as it is CHEAPER! ...but warghaming know that!

Premium account ($10-15 a month) is all you need to spend in this game to play comfortably. Which is (who would guess) very well within the most common monthly subscription rate.

Want to have a full collection of German tanks in your garage?  Want to be the first guy on NA server to get E100? Want to have 52% win ratio instead of 51.5%? Well, it's such an expensive game, mate, you better start looking for a new job.

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by finnmacool1

The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.

Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.

 

You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.

The matchmaker has a few issues, but it does a fine job.   People seem to cry about any match where they are not the top tier tank and then complain about how "broken" the matchmaker is.  Not saying you, but in general I see that alot.

The matchmaker occasionally will put to many Tank Destroyers on one team or match up to many of the same tanks on one side/both sides, but overall matches are relatively balanced.  Aside from Tier 4 light tanks that get elevated to high teir matches as scouts, I don't really get into any matches where I can't at least contribute and support my team. 

I think the diversity of tanks in each match makes it more interesting.  As for the Tier 4 scouts, they are perhaps the single best asset when player properly, but very very few people can do it.  It really can be a force multiplier when executed properly. 

 

Cash ammo is not 50% better than other ammos.  It has a slightly higher armor penetration.  It does qualify for the definition of pay to win, but honestly isn't going to give its intended bonus in the majority of situations. 

100% crew is a slight advantage over 75%, but that only lasts a few matches.  Hardly paying for victory IMHO, but an interesting observation I never really thought about. 

The rest of the pay 2 win you list doesn't matter once the match starts.  Someone earning more credits or xp doesn't make them better when we are actually playing.  All the tanks in the match are at different levels, equipment and tiers and that is all factored into the matchmaking. 

 

People paying money for faster advancement allows others to play for free.   Seems a fair trade off. 

The match maker throws whatever it can into a match in the shortest amount of time, thats how it was designed. When i say its abysmal its not because im not in the top tier vehicle and ive seen no one make that argument. Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6. Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums. Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.

Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.

100% crew that immediatley starts leveling the specialties(camo,repair,fire) vs 50% crew is also a more than slight or inconsequential. Even if you grind extra creds to start at 70% its noticable.

150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.

Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6.

It can only happen when tier 1 platooned with a higher level tank. Platoons matched by thier highest tank. People are well aware of that and do it sometime just for lulz. I saw screenshots of IS-7 with 2 platooned MS-1s, it was absolutely hilarious.

Tier 1 alone can never ever get in with 5s and 6s.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums.

Happens very rarely. Recently it became boringly symmetrical.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.

Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.

Sherman and PzIV (level 5 meds) can penetrate side armor of all heavies up to and including level 9. The only exceptions KV-5 and IS-4, where you have to aim weak spots, but in Panther 2 I have the same problem. If you need gold ammo to shoot heavies' front armor, I am not surprised that you are one-shot most of the matches.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.

This is basically definition of the grind. You have to work in a game to get resources "for free". But you eventually and essentially have access to the same modules and tanks. When you fully upgrade your tank, there is absolutely no difference whether you are playing free or not.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.

I guess I know a little bit more about the game than you to decide for myself who is kidding himself.

Originally posted by comicaze

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6.

It can only happen when tier 1 platooned with a higher level tank. Platoons matched by thier highest tank. Tier 1 alone can never ever get in with 5s and 6s.

 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums.

Happens very rarely. Recently it became boringly symmetrical.

 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.

Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.

Sherman and PzIV (level 5 meds) can penetrate side armor of all heavies up to and including level 9. The only exceptions KV-5 and IS-4, where you have to aim weak spots, but in Panther 2 I have the same problem. If you need gold ammo to shoot heavies' front armor, I am not surprised that you are one-shot most of the matches.

 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.

This is basically definition of grind. You have to work in a game to get resources "for free". But you eventually and essentially have access to the same modules and tanks. When you fully upgrade your tank, there is absolutely no difference whether you are playing free or not.

 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.

I guess I know a little bit more about the game than you to decide for myself who is kidding himself.

{mod edit} Matchups with one sided having a lot of one vehicle type against a team with few are not rare, they are quite common.

Where i or anyone else shoots an enemy vehicle has nothing to do with their ability to one shot us in return. When i mention matches where you are pitted against teams 2/3 you can barely damage im not talking long range frontal turret shots. Im talking 100m to point blank side and rear shots, and yes over half my matches fall in that category. Stop spreading this bs like i havent played the game and you can con me by the volume of your posts and vehemence within them.

There are expendables only avail with gold, so no you are wrong/lying again about everyone being the same in "elite" maxed vehicles.

None of the "perks" gold buys on its own is omg overpowered. The cumulative effect of all things gold does is, and as such the definition of pay to win.

I have played 4-5 hours of WoT now. I must confess to being a fan of games based around WW2 and of armored vehicle combat & sims. I am quite enjoying the game.

At first my opinion was that the cash shop Rub was strong early and this worried me as usually in F2P the push into microtransactions gets stronger the further you play. Happily a friend who plays enlightened me on a few things and I realised the need to purchase with cash is not that great afterall.

In my first 12 matches I managed to kill 8 enemy vehicles which I am led to believe is a pretty good result for my light tank and first time play. Where I had trouble was against the common medium tanks and the occasional heavy tank which turned up in the matches I was part of. No ammount of tactics can overcome enemy armour your gun just cannot seem to penetrate. Most matches I lasted on average 8 minutes jaded somewhat by a couple of times where I got killed in the opening 120 seconds by invisible forces (artillery I am told) which was not much fun then having to sit & wait.

Anyone seeking a slightly slower paced more tactical game that is not all about how many kills you got, world of tanks is for you.

Now I am looking forward to earning a medium tank.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Every time you post your lies, im going to respond. Matchups with one sided having a lot of one vehicle type against a team with few are not rare, they are quite common.

You were talking about TDs vs Meds match up, weren't you? "zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums." in this scenario the first team has a significant disadvantage. Now it became "one vehicle type against a team with few". And you call me liar?

Originally posted by finnmacool1

 

Where i or anyone else shoots an enemy vehicle has nothing to do with their ability to one shot us in return.

It has everything with it. If you are desperately trying to penetrate heavies from the front, it means you are staying in the front of them. And this is not the place a skilled med/light tanker wants to be. If you are taking a lot of hits from heavies, it means you can't maneuver properly.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Im talking 100m to point blank side and rear shots

If most of everything you said before was a biased opinion of an irritated player, this one is a plain lie, which you so often mention.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

There are expendables only avail with gold, so no you are wrong/lying again about everyone being the same in "elite" maxed vehicles.

Advantage of the gold consumables is even tinier than that of the gold ammo.

Fire Extinguishers - gold ones work automatically. Have a problem to use a hotkey with credit ones?

Aid Kit - gold heals all crew members, credit - only one. Gunner, Loader, and Driver are very rarely injured simultenously. Commander and Radioman don't matter in the middle/end of the match.

Same about the repair kits. Gold repairs all module, credit - one. You spend them either on gun, ammo rack, or tracks when under fire. All of them damaged at the same time when you get a present from artillery, but in this case you are pretty much dead anyway.

You are right about the cumulative effect. And if you would be in a one-on-one game, they would play their role. But in random 15-vs-15 battles they give a fraction of a percent better win chances and as a result they are not used on a massive scale.

You call it pay-to-win? Well, let me just kindly disagree.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Stop spreading this bs like i havent played the game and you can con me by the volume of your posts and vehemence within them.

I actually never said you haven't played the game, I even didn't call you liar, so not sure where "vehemence" came from. You just lack understanding of the basic mechanics of the game to make such conclusive arrogant statements about it.

Originally posted by TheCrow2k

I have played 4-5 hours of WoT now. I must confess to being a fan of games based around WW2 and of armored vehicle combat & sims. I am quite enjoying the game.

At first my opinion was that the cash shop Rub was strong early and this worried me as usually in F2P the push into microtransactions gets stronger the further you play. Happily a friend who plays enlightened me on a few things and I realised the need to purchase with cash is not that great afterall.

In my first 12 matches I managed to kill 8 enemy vehicles which I am led to believe is a pretty good result for my light tank and first time play. Where I had trouble was against the common medium tanks and the occasional heavy tank which turned up in the matches I was part of. No ammount of tactics can overcome enemy armour your gun just cannot seem to penetrate. Most matches I lasted on average 8 minutes jaded somewhat by a couple of times where I got killed in the opening 120 seconds by invisible forces (artillery I am told) which was not much fun then having to sit & wait.

 

Anyone seeking a slightly slower paced more tactical game that is not all about how many kills you got, world of tanks is for you.

 

Now I am looking forward to earning a medium tank.

Not sure how you got into matches with heavies in your first hours. Platooned with you friend?

You don't have to sit and wait, just exit the battle and hop into another tank.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

The match maker throws whatever it can into a match in the shortest amount of time, thats how it was designed. When i say its abysmal its not because im not in the top tier vehicle and ive seen no one make that argument. Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6. Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums. Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.

Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.

100% crew that immediatley starts leveling the specialties(camo,repair,fire) vs 50% crew is also a more than slight or inconsequential. Even if you grind extra creds to start at 70% its noticable.

150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.

Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.

I'm not sure why, but you are flat out misstating numbers and information and it is coming off more as hyperbole than a well reasoned argument. 

Crews never start at 70%.  Tier 1 vehicles will never randomly get throwin into a match with T5/T6 vehicles.  Their are tier limits of what can and cannot be put together in a match.  The only exception is if your T1 tank is in a platoon with tanks that can be placed in T5/T6 battles.  People seem to think it is funny, so you see it once in a while as a joke. 

The gold ammo for a TigerII has armor pen of 183 vs the normal ammos armor pen of 150.  Both have the exact same damage.  Hardly 50% better and hardly worth paying $.10 when the majority of the time it won't make a difference. 

I don't think I have ever been in a match where I can't damage 2/3 of the enemy forces, let alone 50% of the matches being that way.  Tier4 can be a real pain in the ass, but beyond that your numbers are not even close to being realistic.  

If you look at the actual composition of the groups you will see a decent spread.   One side might have more heavies or an extra max tier, but the other will have fewer or no low tier tanks, so they all average out.  Maybe through TD's, speed, etc. 

I'm not saying it is perfect or anywhere close.  I've personally seen games with 15 artillery split evenly between two teams (7 vs 8), 1 side has all 9 TD's in the game or some other crazy stuff, but those are the exception and not the rule. 

Mix in a large dose of rash judgement, a few bad cases and a massive dose of completly random quality from pick up groups and what happens is wildly unpredictable results.  I really think the matchmaker gets a much worse reputation than it deserveres.

Personally I know I can remember most of the really bad matches that it made up for me, but I can't remember all the relatively even matches it makes.  Those few bad ones tend to stick out in my mind, because I'm human and that is what humans tend to do.  We remember the exceptional moments. 

Originally posted by comicaze

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Every time you post your lies, im going to respond. Matchups with one sided having a lot of one vehicle type against a team with few are not rare, they are quite common.

You were talking about TDs vs Meds match up, weren't you? "zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums." in this scenario the first team has a significant disadvantage. Now it became "one vehicle type against a team with few". And you call me liar?

 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

 

Where i or anyone else shoots an enemy vehicle has nothing to do with their ability to one shot us in return.

It has everything with it. If you are desperately trying to penetrate heavies from the front, it means you are staying in the front of them. And this is not the place a skilled med/light tanker wants to be. If you are taking a lot of hits from heavies, it means you can't maneuver properly.

 

 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Im talking 100m to point blank side and rear shots

If most of everything you said before was a biased opinion of an irritated player, this one is a plain lie, which you so often mention.

 

 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

There are expendables only avail with gold, so no you are wrong/lying again about everyone being the same in "elite" maxed vehicles.

Advantage of the gold consumables is even tinier than that of the gold ammo.

Fire Extinguishers - gold ones work automatically. Have a problem to use a hotkey with credit ones?

Aid Kit - gold heals all crew members, credit - only one. Gunner, Loader, and Driver are very rarely injured simultenously. Commander and Radioman don't matter in the middle/end of the match.

Same about the repair kits. Gold repairs all module, credit - one. You spend them either on gun, ammo rack, or tracks when under fire. All of them damaged at the same time when you get a present from artillery, but in this case you are pretty much dead anyway.

You are right about the cumulative effect. And if you would be in a one-on-one game, they would play their role. But in random 15-vs-15 battles they give a fraction of a percent better win chances and as a result they are not used on a massive scale.

You call it pay-to-win? Well, let me just kindly disagree.

 

 

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Stop spreading this bs like i havent played the game and you can con me by the volume of your posts and vehemence within them.

I actually never said you haven't played the game, I even didn't call you liar, so not sure where "vehemence" came from. You just lack understanding of the basic mechanics of the game to make such conclusive arrogant statements about it.

I wasnt talking meduims vs td specifically. I was talking lopside unbalanced teams. One side with a bunch of one vehicle type and the other having few to none which the matchmaker tries to make up for by overloading a different vehicle type on the opposing side.

Where  i shoot from has nothing to do with an enemy one shoting me period. Tanks have 360 degree firing arc, if im manuevering behind a heavy in my medium and shooting the rear close range it is no less able to one shot me than if im firing point blank from the front. The only thing my position affects is MY ability to do damage.

{mod edit}

The one and only true statement youve said here has been the 15 x 15 teams mitigating to some degree the advantages of the pay to win. Where you are wrong once again however is your attempt to minimize everything else and maximize this impact. You can disagree all you want about this not being play to win and you will still be wrong. Just as you are wrong about a fully equipped gold enhanced "elite" vehicle being identicle to a freebie. Btw you're missing quite a few gold consumables.

Originally posted by comicaze

Originally posted by Ozmodan

it is basically a pay to win game.

It is not. You pay only to reduce grind, which is a perfectly legitimate business model.

No OP "gold" modules, ammo, or tanks.

Sorry but if you don't think this game is pay to win, then you are not playing World of Tanks, because that game most definitely IS pay to win.

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by finnmacool1

The match maker throws whatever it can into a match in the shortest amount of time, thats how it was designed. When i say its abysmal its not because im not in the top tier vehicle and ive seen no one make that argument. Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6. Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums. Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.

Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.

100% crew that immediatley starts leveling the specialties(camo,repair,fire) vs 50% crew is also a more than slight or inconsequential. Even if you grind extra creds to start at 70% its noticable.

150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.

Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.

I'm not sure why, but you are flat out misstating numbers and information and it is coming off more as hyperbole than a well reasoned argument. 

Crews never start at 70%.  Tier 1 vehicles will never randomly get throwin into a match with T5/T6 vehicles.  Their are tier limits of what can and cannot be put together in a match.  The only exception is if your T1 tank is in a platoon with tanks that can be placed in T5/T6 battles.  People seem to think it is funny, so you see it once in a while as a joke. 

The gold ammo for a TigerII has armor pen of 183 vs the normal ammos armor pen of 150.  Both have the exact same damage.  Hardly 50% better and hardly worth paying $.10 when the majority of the time it won't make a difference. 

I don't think I have ever been in a match where I can't damage 2/3 of the enemy forces, let alone 50% of the matches being that way.  Tier4 can be a real pain in the ass, but beyond that your numbers are not even close to being realistic.  

If you look at the actual composition of the groups you will see a decent spread.   One side might have more heavies or an extra max tier, but the other will have fewer or no low tier tanks, so they all average out.  Maybe through TD's, speed, etc. 

 

I'm not saying it is perfect or anywhere close.  I've personally seen games with 15 artillery split evenly between two teams (7 vs 8), 1 side has all 9 TD's in the game or some other crazy stuff, but those are the exception and not the rule. 

 

Mix in a large dose of rash judgement, a few bad cases and a massive dose of completly random quality from pick up groups and what happens is wildly unpredictable results.  I really think the matchmaker gets a much worse reputation than it deserveres.

Personally I know I can remember most of the really bad matches that it made up for me, but I can't remember all the relatively even matches it makes.  Those few bad ones tend to stick out in my mind, because I'm human and that is what humans tend to do.  We remember the exceptional moments. 

 

Well i havent played every vehicle or used every gun but i have used a couple dozen and going from that selection group most gold ammo penetration factor is around 50% better. Ive played primarily german and russian vehicles up to tier 5-6 and while i havent used every gun available on every model, i have compared them all when determining which to use while leving them up. No hyperbole here

Crews start at 50% by default but if you spend extra credits when purchasing a new vehicle you can start at 70 or 75%(cant remember which) Gold can start at 100%, combined with 150% exp gain and your pay to win crew will always be much better than free. Crew experience does make a big difference. No hyperbole here.

When i say 50-70% matches where you are one shot fodder but cant damage 2/3 the opposing forces, im not talking complete inability to ever get a lucky round. Im talking hitting 5-8+ times with little to no effect. Sure you might get lucky and knock off 5-10% total and that does include shots from the front(not ideal) but the point remains you are stuck in a match where even when you are able to manuever for good shots and get many shots on target it matters not. Slight hyperbole perhaps but the point is still valid.

You can defend the spotting system and matchmaker to your hearts content but most players will disagree with you.

I guess I just don't understand what people are complaining about with the "pay 2 win" thing. What exactly is meant by "pay 2 win?"

I have been playing for exactly a year including beta and since actual launch I have bought gold so I could be premium player. At the price of gold I buy 3000 for $14.95 us. Each 30 day play at premium level is 2500 of that so I have 500 left over. So every 5 months I get one month free. Does that make me a pay 2 win player because I pay 12 bucks a month to be entertained? My WoW sub used to cost me $14.99. I don't think that was considered "pay to win"

I have yet to ever buy premium "gold" shells, I have never bought any consummable ever, I have never paid gold for my crew but do often buy them at 75% trained which is 20k credits per person and always do what I can to keep trained crew in my barracks (again I never bought extra space either) ( no gold for that just earnings from game play). I DO spend credits that I earn from play to get the extra goodies like camo nets, binoculars etc, all available to anyone who plays and makes credits. One thing I did do was buy a Lowe as a credit maker but really hated being in it after a while as it does not suit my game style so I sold it in game for 2,500,000 credits (won't make that premium buy-a-tank mistake again)

Despite not spending real money on anything but my monthly costs I have the same or VERY close to the same win/defeat percentages as my friend and others I have seen that I know for sure pay for the extras sometimes. I do not feel they have a noticable advantage on a 15vs15 playfield. More often I see people getting killed cause of positioning and being exposed to more than one enemy at a time than anything.

The other thing I see people whining about is the grind. Do you people even play other MMO's? (Yes I agree this is not an MMO as we know it and also wonder why the game is still listed here but besides the point for now). How many MMO's let ya level 1-10 in like 30 minutes... and then take longer and longer as you gain levels..I think all of them or close to it. I know we all played wow. how about that 70-80 run?...yeah same thing applies to this game as all others. Gets grindy as ya get up in the tiers.

If they made the game so you could whip through to 10th tier in a very short time there would be nothing left and people would move on to other games.

If they let ya whip through without any reason to pay them money for their work, would anybody pay? shit no most of us would play it, reach the end then move on. I mean seriously, you are playing FOR FREE, did you honestly expect to have the same benefits as the paying guy like me?

I hear people whining about how the matchmaking system is off and they get put into battles where they cannot do much. Yer right there are some like that...but ya know what? for every one of those there are an equal number the other way around which is why almost the whole game database of players hovers around the same percentages of wins and defeats whether ya pay or not. I don't hear people talking about they games they played where they were near or at the top of the battle list and pulled off 4-7 kills. nope just the times they got their ass blown off just like you have done to others in some battles.

It is far from perfect but it evens out. It is a form of ENTERTAINMENT where a company has invested a lot of their time and money in hopes of making lots of money back. Isn't that what we all work for?

I am sorry guys but the most complaining I see is from the people who just wanna play for free or have issues with dying on the battlefield more often than surviving. (my actual survival rate is only 36% - I really could care less cause I had fun the whole time I played...)

Just play it and have fun for what it is, if ya don't like it move on and find something that works for ya. There is a shit ton of stuff out there to choose from.

Cheers and I hope to blow yer ass up on the battlefield!

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Well i havent played every vehicle or used every gun but i have used a couple dozen and going from that selection group most gold ammo penetration factor is around 50% better. Ive played primarily german and russian vehicles up to tier 5-6 and while i havent used every gun available on every model, i have compared them all when determining which to use while leving them up. No hyperbole here

Crews start at 50% by default but if you spend extra credits when purchasing a new vehicle you can start at 70 or 75%(cant remember which) Gold can start at 100%, combined with 150% exp gain and your pay to win crew will always be much better than free. Crew experience does make a big difference. No hyperbole here.

When i say 50-70% matches where you are one shot fodder but cant damage 2/3 the opposing forces, im not talking complete inability to ever get a lucky round. Im talking hitting 5-8+ times with little to no effect. Sure you might get lucky and knock off 5-10% total and that does include shots from the front(not ideal) but the point remains you are stuck in a match where even when you are able to manuever for good shots and get many shots on target it matters not. Slight hyperbole perhaps but the point is still valid.

You can defend the spotting system and matchmaker to your hearts content but most players will disagree with you.

Gold ammo is a slight advantage that is very cost prohibitive for normal gameplay.  It is also a slight advantage that is useless in any situation where a tanks gun penetrates an enemy.   That is going to cover most gameplay to be honest.

I can't even think of any match I join where I am 1 shot bait to a significant portion of the enemies (if any) and I can't reliably land shots on almost everything I go up against.    Sure if I am the low tier tank I am not going to solo the high tier tank, but thats what teamwork and tactics are for.  Also high explosive damages everything and shreds module and crew.  Again I just don't buy into the hyperbole that people are stuck in so many matches where they can't do anything and are constantly 1 shot killed. 

As for crews, 75% is very servicable and it takes almost no time to get to 100%.  It isn't like someone buying a 100% crew drives around laying waste and is unstoppable or that free players don't have 100% crews also.  I've never bought a single 100% crew, but I have at least 8 crews at 100% right now with half a dozen more in 95+ range.    50% crews are a rather difficult in comparison to 100%.  No argument there, but it only takes a little extra time to save up some money for a few 75% members.   It just takes more time playing lower tier tanks, which isn't a big problem is it?

Again I'm not saying the matchmaker doesn't have issues or that it doesn't throw out some terrible matches on occasion, but not to the extent or extreme that many people try to make it out.

wow sold your lowe for 2.5 mil?? i can usually make that in about 20-30 matches with my lowe.

Originally posted by vonslasha

wow sold your lowe for 2.5 mil?? i can usually make that in about 20-30 matches with my lowe.

oh yeah great money maker. I didn't sell if for any other reason than I just didn't like it. Didn't match the way I like to play at all.

"Pay to Win"  is any feature or function bought with real cash that provides an advantage in gameplay over another player who has not spent such cash.

It's like playing chess with an extra pawn or football with an extra man on the field.

Ammo that features extra penetration power, tanks that have better statistics or consumables that can be used in combat are all examples of "pay 2 win".

This would be opposed to cash shop items that would be purely cosmetic in nature like a fancy paint job, or a commanders flag on an antenna or a custom decal..... or things that provide the player with more play opportunities like content (special maps to play on) or different modes of play.... which may enhance a player enjoyment of the game but don't effect the players ability to compete.

"Pay 2 Win" is bad enough in PVE focused games, but in pure PvP games it's the anthesis of what a PvP game should be about...which is sportsmanship and fair and freindly competition. In such games, the only difference between the players should be the skills they bring to the field....and their determination to win. It's why football teams have to play with the same number of players on the field and baseball players aren't allowed to "cork" thier bats.

IMO, saying something is only "slightly" pay to win is kinda like saying someone is "slightly" no longer a virgin. Either you are or you aren't. The idea that the advantages may only be rather small is no excuse when it comes to fair competition.

In games, when did "winning" or the ability of a company to make money start to take precedence over sportsmanship?  There is nothing wrong with companies wanting to make money....and many have and do that without compromising the principles of fair play. However as gamers, our highest goal should be maintaining the ideal of good "sportsmanship"..... and when game companies start sacrificing the principle in order to make money....our response should be a firm "no thank you. That's not how WE want to play games."

The INDUSTRY may be concerned with maximizing profits.....but as gamers and hobbiests....our interests aught to be preserving the integrity and purity of game play.  /rant.

Those are all great points Grumpy.  Wish those things didn't exist in the game. 

Edit:  I don't think the advantages are as big as having an extra pawn or player in a football game.  Still think they are very minor and I've never noticed it, but still good points.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

"Pay to Win"  is any feature or function bought with real cash that provides an advantage in gameplay over another player who has not spent such cash.

It's like playing chess with an extra pawn or football with an extra man on the field.

Ammo that features extra penetration power, tanks that have better statistics or consumables that can be used in combat are all examples of "pay 2 win".

This would be opposed to cash shop items that would be purely cosmetic in nature like a fancy paint job, or a commanders flag on an antenna or a custom decal..... or things that provide the player with more play opportunities like content (special maps to play on) or different modes of play.... which may enhance a player enjoyment of the game but don't effect the players ability to compete.

"Pay 2 Win" is bad enough in PVE focused games, but in pure PvP games it's the anthesis of what a PvP game should be about...which is sportsmanship and fair and freindly competition. In such games, the only difference between the players should be the skills they bring to the field....and their determination to win. It's why football teams have to play with the same number of players on the field and baseball players aren't allowed to "cork" thier bats.

IMO, saying something is only "slightly" pay to win is kinda like saying someone is "slightly" no longer a virgin. Either you are or you aren't. The idea that the advantages may only be rather small is no excuse when it comes to fair competition.

In games, when did "winning" or the ability of a company to make money start to take precedence over sportsmanship?  There is nothing wrong with companies wanting to make money....and many have and do that without compromising the principles of fair play. However as gamers, our highest goal should be maintaining the ideal of good "sportsmanship"..... and when game companies start sacrificing the principle in order to make money....our response should be a firm "no thank you. That's not how WE want to play games."

The INDUSTRY may be concerned with maximizing profits.....but as gamers and hobbiests....our interests aught to be preserving the integrity and purity of game play.  /rant.

 

This is a nice theory, but in practice it looks quite different.

First of all, the very definition of the "win" in WoT is rather vague. In one match I got killed at the very first seconds of the battle just by a blind artillery shot, but my team won. Did I win or lose?
Another match I made 7 kills, got Top Gun, Sniper and Steel Wall, but our base was captured and our team lost. Did I personally win or lose?

There are game ratings across 10 statistical categories, plus secondary measures, like hit and survaval ratio, plus global rating, which I have no idea how it's calculated, plus a wide range of achievements of very different values. Some of them don't even require to shoot or take any shots, but extremely sought for, like Raider, for example.
People incline to look at the win/loss ratio first, because it's the easiest to interpret. But most personal rates in this category fall within a very narrow range.

Speaking about gold consumables and ammo, they don't have any reliable effect at all for a single match. You can get a team of complete noobs and/or stock config tanks and all your money go directly to waste.

To achieve any noticeable effect players have to buy gold stuff consistently across hundreds of matches. And it is

1. Very expensive for this kind of entertainment. I can't tell you exact figures, but my 30 bucks evaporated in a few hours of gameplay, when I tried the gold ammo.
2. Returns are very deferred. You can feel any outcome only after, at least, a few weeks of paying and playing.

People are very hesitant to pay for something they can't unwrap or scroll through immediately after the CC transaction confirmation screen.

And in reality, I am speaking from my somewhat considerable WoT experience, people using gold consumables and ammo are very, very rare.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

I wasnt talking meduims vs td specifically. I was talking lopside unbalanced teams. One side with a bunch of one vehicle type and the other having few to none which the matchmaker tries to make up for by overloading a different vehicle type on the opposing side.

You gave an example where one side was at a very clear disadvantage. It happens very rarely, especially recently.
Nothing wrong with unbalanced by type teams in general. In "all meds vs all heavies" or "all TDs vs all heavies" situations both sides can win, tactics and personal skills will decide.

Originally posted by finnmacool1

Where  i shoot from has nothing to do with an enemy one shoting me period. Tanks have 360 degree firing arc, if im manuevering behind a heavy in my medium and shooting the rear close range it is no less able to one shot me than if im firing point blank from the front. The only thing my position affects is MY ability to do damage.

Again, it has everything to do with your position. Most of the games heavies are spending thier time, simplistically speaking, facing each other, and it's not a bid deal to shoot a med in front, but if you are flanking, to shoot you they have to turn and most likely expose weak spots to the opposing heavies. If you get into one-on-one with a heavy, which you can't circle safely, you are again doing it wrong.

In my honest opinion...I like it.  I can't say loved because it does have it's flaws but after you actually get a feel for the game it's hard to not like it.  I thought the review was spot on.  I have a beast of a PC I play this on so I don't really recognise the issues with the higher graphical settings. 

Being an avid MMO gamer I wouldn't really call this an MMO.  There's really nothing Massive about this.  It'd be like calling Team Fortress 2 an MMO.  The battles don't involve a massive amount of players but it's just the right number to make it interesting.  It is a brutally unforgiving game for the newbie, though.  Prepare to die...a lot.  I think I have survived only 12% of the battles I've fought in.  My buddy had probably died 25 times before getting his first kill.  The game does have a steep learning curve as it requires some thought.  There will also be instances if you're new where you're in your new shiney Tier 1 tank and a Tiger rolls up on you.  Not much you can do but just accept the fact you will not win that fight.

But there is a little hope.  If you spend the money, premium offers 50% xp and money gained from rounds as well as offer a nice big hangar for your tanks.  But if you don't want to spend the money the Tank Destroyer class tanks are the money makers.  I am currently in a Tier 5 heavy but my garage holds my Tier 3 Artillery (good for picking off incoming tanks to your base, especially if you have upgraded radios), my Tier 4 Tank Destoryer (think Tank Sniper), the aforementioned Tier 5 Heavy Russian, and my Tier 3 Light tank I use when I'm playing with the newer players in my clan.  And that's about 2 weeks of casual playing.

Once you get into the game it's a lot of fun.  I suggest everyone to at least try it.  It gets better as you go up in Tier and get the more powerful tanks.

Game had potential but is not living up to its billing. Maps and tanks graphicly are excellant Play is severly laking and hampered by a host of glitches and bugs that at times makes the game extremely frustrating. The maps for the scale of the tanks are just to small. the play focuses on heavy expensive tanks slugging it out on a postage stanp piece of land and the biggest and strongest wins the rest are left as burning wrecks. The other factor that leaves the game disappointing is the fact the Russian tanks are Buffed to the max and German and American are nerfed to aasure a less then 50% success rate in head to head. Clan Wars for the majority of players costs a minimum of 20-30 US dollars a week and to get to the top tiers to compete you are spending real money every week for a premium account. Other wise your month away from a tank tier that a group would even allow on the field. The premise was a good one the current package is not maybe with a little customer service and a more objective balance or historical balnace the game may last. But for now it is just a game of the week and save your pennies for something that has more promise.

Originally posted by Rustybucket

Game had potential but is not living up to its billing. Maps and tanks graphicly are excellant Play is severly laking and hampered by a host of glitches and bugs that at times makes the game extremely frustrating. The maps for the scale of the tanks are just to small. the play focuses on heavy expensive tanks slugging it out on a postage stanp piece of land and the biggest and strongest wins the rest are left as burning wrecks. The other factor that leaves the game disappointing is the fact the Russian tanks are Buffed to the max and German and American are nerfed to aasure a less then 50% success rate in head to head. Clan Wars for the majority of players costs a minimum of 20-30 US dollars a week and to get to the top tiers to compete you are spending real money every week for a premium account. Other wise your month away from a tank tier that a group would even allow on the field. The premise was a good one the current package is not maybe with a little customer service and a more objective balance or historical balnace the game may last. But for now it is just a game of the week and save your pennies for something that has more promise.

You forgot to say about the broken abysmal matchmaker.

 Successfully brings FPS and RPG elements together = FPS with lots of grind, not that much of a pros... Dont forget that you'll often face enemies few tiers higher to get your face rolled just so you feel weak and grind for next tier. You might be the top tank sometimes but is it what most people want? To beat kids in a kindergarden? bleh

Men of War > WoT in all aspects of tank warfare and its RTS...

Originally posted by comicaze

Originally posted by Rustybucket

Game had potential but is not living up to its billing. Maps and tanks graphicly are excellant Play is severly laking and hampered by a host of glitches and bugs that at times makes the game extremely frustrating. The maps for the scale of the tanks are just to small. the play focuses on heavy expensive tanks slugging it out on a postage stanp piece of land and the biggest and strongest wins the rest are left as burning wrecks. The other factor that leaves the game disappointing is the fact the Russian tanks are Buffed to the max and German and American are nerfed to aasure a less then 50% success rate in head to head. Clan Wars for the majority of players costs a minimum of 20-30 US dollars a week and to get to the top tiers to compete you are spending real money every week for a premium account. Other wise your month away from a tank tier that a group would even allow on the field. The premise was a good one the current package is not maybe with a little customer service and a more objective balance or historical balnace the game may last. But for now it is just a game of the week and save your pennies for something that has more promise.

You forgot to say about the broken abysmal matchmaker.

Not broken, just abysmal.

*shakes head* This game isn't an MMO. This game is a instanced tank simulation game played with other people just like most fps games. Theres nothing about this game that makes it an MMO. I think the people working at mmorpg really need to start doing some research of their own. No offence.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

"Pay to Win"  is any feature or function bought with real cash that provides an advantage in gameplay over another player who has not spent such cash.

It's like playing chess with an extra pawn or football with an extra man on the field.

Ammo that features extra penetration power, tanks that have better statistics or consumables that can be used in combat are all examples of "pay 2 win".

This would be opposed to cash shop items that would be purely cosmetic in nature like a fancy paint job, or a commanders flag on an antenna or a custom decal..... or things that provide the player with more play opportunities like content (special maps to play on) or different modes of play.... which may enhance a player enjoyment of the game but don't effect the players ability to compete.

"Pay 2 Win" is bad enough in PVE focused games, but in pure PvP games it's the anthesis of what a PvP game should be about...which is sportsmanship and fair and freindly competition. In such games, the only difference between the players should be the skills they bring to the field....and their determination to win. It's why football teams have to play with the same number of players on the field and baseball players aren't allowed to "cork" thier bats.

IMO, saying something is only "slightly" pay to win is kinda like saying someone is "slightly" no longer a virgin. Either you are or you aren't. The idea that the advantages may only be rather small is no excuse when it comes to fair competition.

In games, when did "winning" or the ability of a company to make money start to take precedence over sportsmanship?  There is nothing wrong with companies wanting to make money....and many have and do that without compromising the principles of fair play. However as gamers, our highest goal should be maintaining the ideal of good "sportsmanship"..... and when game companies start sacrificing the principle in order to make money....our response should be a firm "no thank you. That's not how WE want to play games."

The INDUSTRY may be concerned with maximizing profits.....but as gamers and hobbiests....our interests aught to be preserving the integrity and purity of game play.  /rant.

 

 

grumpy you are the most educated gamer here. I think maybe if mmorpg hired you maybe you could give some of these 20 year olds a history lesson.

I have been playing this game for about a month and from playing it that amount of time I have to say  It is the biggest pile of cow dung i have played!!!!

If anyone remember's APB when RTW had it, The mtachmaking system was a total fail. Well this game has almost the same matchmaking system and it is 2 times as bad as APB was. 

I dont see it being around much longer. No one wants to play a game where you have no chance of doing any damage to the other tanks and you get one shooted when you try and take on any tank form the other side.

/rant

I am playing this game since its beta release.
 
1) Whether its MMO or not? Well I am not the only one playing it at one particular instance of time..and ya I need internet connection to play... so well ya its MMO... Some1 pointed it as co-op.. i aint playing with a couple of friends on LAN.
2) learning curve and online tutorials: its not that big of a learning curve.. very simple controls and click to shoot.... Getting a kill is tough and that shouldnt be thought of as learning curve... its more about players tactics and skill.
3) the graphics: absolutely awesome, notice the dust from the tracks, the holes in the tank when shells come right through them.
 
About this review: Its a bad review.
 
Whats really painful about this game is long grinding to get the necessary  credits for research when you reach tier 5 (for f2p).
Other than that its a perfect game. There is a strategy involved for each kind of tank..How skilled you are in playing that makes the difference.
 
 

This game has nothing to do with a simulation as it says in the mmorpg newsletter. I remember being very excited about WoT when I first heard of it. That's until I got to try it myself that is. This game is a heresy to anyone who knows only just a little about WWII.

Let me recap a few points:

- hitpoints. Tanks shouldn't have hitpoints. You either hit and penetrate or you don't. If you penetrate you do x amount of damage depending on shell, where you hit, what kind of vehicle and the chance factor. I'm also impressed at how your crew manage to repair your tracks within seconds.

- The game is set during WWII as apparent by the locations. Mixing up tanks from all different nations is ridiculous. You have battles where your side has tigers, jagdpanthers, IS and Shermans. It's just dumb and totally breaks immersion. It should've been broken down into different eras and sides. You pick the german side you will only have german tanks available to you etc.

- There's prototype tanks everywhere. It's stupid. Most of these tanks didn't even get off the drawing board. Hell if your side has 5 tiger tanks you will probably loose because in this company that's like a light tank. And anything Soviet is über. Russian devs so I guess that explains itself. It does make their product worse nevertheless.

- Artillery in this game is just incredibly gay. It uses some kind of GPS system to target enemy tanks. Artillery shouldn't be used in a direct capacity like you do in WoT at all.

There's a lot more about this game that is retarded. I really wanted to enjoy the game but the lack of realism prevented me no matter how much I tried.