bit-gamer.net

World of Warplanes Review

Comments 1 to 24 of 24

Reply
DeckerdBR 19th December 2013, 11:54 Quote
It looks terrible compared to War Thunder. Although hopefully the competition between Wargaming and Gaijin will only be a good thing for both developers products.
Panos 19th December 2013, 12:43 Quote
Since patch 0.3.1 became world of UFOs.
Before that was good. War Thunder is far better.
sandys 19th December 2013, 12:57 Quote
Not played this one but have been enjoying War Thunder on PS4.
greypilgers 19th December 2013, 14:23 Quote
Shame they can't blend WoW and WoT. Simultaneously. Would add another element of air>ground / ground>air combat. Lot of work though I suppose...
23RO_UK 19th December 2013, 15:42 Quote
Ah another p*ss poor offering from WARGAMING (we patent match rigging into our products) . NET


WarThunder all the way thank you, in comparison Gaijin makes Wargaming.net look like an overweight lop eared bunny rabbit attempting to mount a rugby ball!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by greypilgers
Shame they can't blend WoW and WoT. Simultaneously. Would add another element of air>ground / ground>air combat. Lot of work though I suppose...


Erm, pardon me for asking but why would you want to incorporate a sh*te (IT SUCKS DONKEYS SCROT*M) product into a quality premium product???


Especially when the ground forces element is now in Beta testing...???
greypilgers 19th December 2013, 18:58 Quote
Well, one of the criticisms was that there seemed to lack tactical or strategic scope compared to WoT. My thought process was if the two were blended, it would broaden the tactical scope of both. I wasn't making a judgement on the overall quality of either game, don't worry your lil' head...
:)
SchizoFrog 19th December 2013, 19:13 Quote
Off topic but wasn't there supposed to be a Christmas Comp today?
23RO_UK 19th December 2013, 19:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greypilgers
Well, one of the criticisms was that there seemed to lack tactical or strategic scope compared to WoT. My thought process was if the two were blended, it would broaden the tactical scope of both. I wasn't making a judgement on the overall quality of either game, don't worry your lil' head...
:)

Worry my lil head???

Tactical and strategic scope in WoT??? LMFAO now that is truly funny

WoT is a fifth rate product in all aspects if put in direct comparison to WarThunder, further still WarThunder is still a Beta product; WoT however is allegedly a finished product...

There is absolutely no comparison between them.
jrs77 19th December 2013, 20:16 Quote
This is just as bad as WoT tbh and I can't understand why there's so much people spending money on bad games like that.

No offense to the people playing WoT or WoWarplanes, but I generally blame people spending money on F2P-titles for ruining the MMORPG-genre.
greypilgers 20th December 2013, 00:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by greypilgers
Well, one of the criticisms was that there seemed to lack tactical or strategic scope compared to WoT. My thought process was if the two were blended, it would broaden the tactical scope of both. I wasn't making a judgement on the overall quality of either game, don't worry your lil' head...
:)

Worry my lil head???

Tactical and strategic scope in WoT??? LMFAO now that is truly funny

WoT is a fifth rate product in all aspects if put in direct comparison to WarThunder, further still WarThunder is still a Beta product; WoT however is allegedly a finished product...

There is absolutely no comparison between them.

You are completely missing my point, still, and proving why internet forums are mainly full of fools intent on their own agenda. (Sigh).
23RO_UK 20th December 2013, 00:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greypilgers
You are completely missing my point, still, and proving why internet forums are mainly full of fools intent on their own agenda. (Sigh).

Your point is wargaming.net have failed to create the combined arms enviroment that Gaijin are...

As for fool???

As for agenda???

I'm neither and have none...

My point is purely wargaming.net's products are sub standard
greypilgers 20th December 2013, 21:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
Your point is wargaming.net have failed to create the combined arms enviroment that Gaijin are...

As for fool???

As for agenda???

I'm neither and have none...

My point is purely wargaming.net's products are sub standard

No. It wasn't my point. I have no idea who Gaijin are, so I'm fairly sure it wasn't my point.
23RO_UK 21st December 2013, 11:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greypilgers
"I have no idea who Gaijin are"

^^^ That pretty much says it all...
greypilgers 21st December 2013, 21:42 Quote
Apologies - I am unfortunate enough to have a life outside of gaming that means, I'm sorry to say, I'm not some kind of gaming anorak. At least you clearly fly the flag for them though!

;)
lilgoth89 21st December 2013, 21:54 Quote
^ word to the wise, 23RO_UK isn't the kind of person you call a troll

he is comparing WOWP to its closest rival ( WarThunder ) and WOWP is by far the inferior product.

23RO has also been burned playing WOT that is becoming increasingly rigged in an effort to squeeze any money out of anyone that will give it. WOWP is much the same system...I hold out much hope for WOWS as its run by a totally different dev team
greypilgers 22nd December 2013, 00:39 Quote
:)

Wasn't calling him/her a troll. I inferred they were a fool for continuously making out the point of my initial throwaway statement was different than it was. Even when I pointed it out. Driven further home by the fact he/she referred to some niche game/studio as if it were common and everyone would know about it.

I couldn't honestly give a rats ass about WoT, WoW, or WarThunder. I simply said if the review highlighted a lack of tactical scope in WoW, then a blend with WoT might go some way toward reconciling that.

But in the land of the internet everyone must have the last word, no one can ever be wrong. And so I get sucked into it as well. Tsk tsk...
StoneyMahoney 22nd December 2013, 22:26 Quote
Out of interest, in your opinion, why is WoT "rigged?"
23RO_UK 22nd December 2013, 22:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
Out of interest, in your opinion, why is WoT "rigged?"

http://www.google.com/patents/US8425330?dq=8,425,330&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OIaMUeWBAuLIigK32ICYDw&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

Take a look for yourself...
StoneyMahoney 22nd December 2013, 23:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
Out of interest, in your opinion, why is WoT "rigged?"

http://www.google.com/patents/US8425330?dq=8,425,330&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OIaMUeWBAuLIigK32ICYDw&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

Take a look for yourself...

I'm familiar with the matchmaking system. Posting the patent application doesn't explain your claim of rigging.
23RO_UK 22nd December 2013, 23:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
I'm familiar with the matchmaking system. Posting the patent application doesn't explain your claim of rigging.

Ok here's my own research which also coincides with that of many others.


My Original account -

http://worldoftanks.eu/community/accounts/500225530-23RO_UK/


A second account I then created -

http://worldoftanks.eu/community/accounts/505495971-R0N1N_UK/


Please note the Victories/Battles stats for both, both played over different durations of time...


Myself and a few of the other guys on the forum were some of the original Alpha and Beta testers, lets just say first hand knowledge of the way things were and still are was reason enough for us to quit playing.
Panos 23rd December 2013, 10:25 Quote
After 15K battles, I have quit also. The game was at it's best between May 2011 to January 2012. Afterwards became Russian vehicle power creep and German tank constant nerf, patch after patch.

And the new version (8.10) cripples even my rig with the new graphical changes. It drops the fps of my max out settings from 80fps to 25-30fps at 1080p. And I do have a pretty good system. (i7 4820K @ 5Ghz, GTX780 @ 1.293Ghz)
StoneyMahoney 23rd December 2013, 21:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
I'm familiar with the matchmaking system. Posting the patent application doesn't explain your claim of rigging.

Ok here's my own research which also coincides with that of many others.

That's not research, it's just some raw stats - what are you interpreting them to mean? And explain it properly or I'm calling troll.

The only observations I can make are that your second account benefits from your prior experience and your averages don't suffer from clueless noob syndrome dragging them down at the start (and therefore overall) like they did for your first account. I would also point out that your vehicle selection is significantly different between the two accounts.

No smoking gun to see here, move along...
23RO_UK 24th December 2013, 00:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
That's not research, it's just some raw stats - what are you interpreting them to mean? And explain it properly or I'm calling troll.

The only observations I can make are that your second account benefits from your prior experience and your averages don't suffer from clueless noob syndrome dragging them down at the start (and therefore overall) like they did for your first account. I would also point out that your vehicle selection is significantly different between the two accounts.

No smoking gun to see here, move along...


Raw stats as you put it and first hand experience of the BS which is World of Tanks



My point was if you look at both accounts -


Victories/Battles 23RO_UK 54.21%
Victories/Battles R0N1N_UK 54.86%

Defeats 23RO_UK 44%
Defeats R0N1N_UK 44%

Battles fought 23RO_UK 9920
Battles fought R0N1N_UK 2202


Irrespective of my previous experience and irrespective of my chosen vehicles with the second account (which were purposely chosen for their effectiveness) the win/lose level pretty much stays constant at a set threshold; this is a result of the matchmaker and things such as zero hit criticals etc etc etc.

Not conspiracy theory, FACT.

If you'd ever played the game you would understand exactly the point I'm making and where I'm coming from.
StoneyMahoney 24th December 2013, 13:54 Quote
Fact? Hah! Don't make me laugh.

Firstly, I do play WoT - not as much as you or for as long, but look me up, same nick as here, EU cluster. My Minecraft server (FTB Unleashed) takes more of my time, and when I do roll out it's usually in a platoon with a friend who has about 5-6x the games I do under his belt, hence I play with light tanks so much and have such awful-seeming stats.

Secondly, you obviously don't know squat about statistical analysis. If you did, you'd realise you've got the wrong data and it doesn't support your conclusion. If you're suggesting the game dynamically biases the deviation of your tank tier against the average on a per-match basis, the data you need to gather to support your hypothesis is a comparison using a single vehicle without variation of type or configuration* in random battles over at least 1000 games of tier deviation against some cooked-down version of your win/loss ratio - I'd guess a rolling figure over the last 1000 or 100 games would be fairly likely to show a correlation, if it's there. Practically, you need to do collection runs for vehicles not included in any missions, without any hand-rebalancing (check WoTwiki), across several tiers (I'd say 6+) and for all vehicle classes. Once you've got at least 10 data runs that correlate, then you can say "hey, my data correlates". Fact.... Ha! So naive...

Thirdly, if the above is true, in my eyes that's evidence of an attempt at a dynamic difficulty factor in the MM system, not rigging. Statistically, that will compress everyone's win/loss ratio closer to 50% (from both directions). I have no problem with dynamic difficulty in random battles - in theory, it makes the game more accessible to people who suck (like me) while keeping the game challenging for people who kick ass (like you).

*You can have your selected tank totally tricked out, you can't change the load out at all once you start collecting data. Concerning crew, removing their XP from the equation means buying a new set before every game. Ouch!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums