Talk:World of Tanks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandalism from Google's IP

ValleyEdits (a twitter bot that tweets Wikipedia edits from Silicon Valley IPs) has been picking up on the repeated vandalism from one of Google's IP addresses, mostly of someone changing the box art to a cartoon of a pig called "Shit.jpg" today I reverted one of them before a wikibot caught it, (my IP is 98.27.4.168, because I forgot to log in). I don't know if many editors follow this account, but I think someone higher up should pay attention to this IP. Sorry if I'm not sounding like a proper Wikipedian in this post. DigChrono (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

IS 7 Penetration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi

I was just wondering why is the penetration of the IS 8's biggest gun higher then the penetration of the IS 7's. this is pathetic because the IS 7 can't penetrate anything. Everything penetrates him.

Please do something about this. oh and WOT really made a mistake adding the KV-85 (bad move making the KV-1S a tier 5).

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliminator0079 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WoT Blitz question

Hi,

I was wondering if I could talk more into detail about Blitz. I think it should get a new page, as its a completely different version then the PC one. Should I just add on more detail in Blitz's subsection?

Lockheedfwmusic (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say add to the Blitz sub-section, and if a move to a separate page is needed at a later time somebody will do it. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

MMO aspects

This article refers to World of Tanks as an MMO on a number of occasions, I suspect because the developer has been trying to brand it that ever since World of Warcraft was still a high profile game, however WoT has none of the traits of an MMO. There is no persistent part of the game world, there are just a handful of small maps like in any shooter, player count is limited to 30 people per game, and the only instance where more than that can meet is in chat channels. This is no more an MMO than IRC is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:9D2F:9900:100F:4259:97BD:6C82 (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Old argument. It meets every requirement for being an MMO. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate. How is this an MMO and any other shooter like Battlefield, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike is not? WoT doesn't offer anything else. And for that matter, is any moderately popular multiplayer game an MMO then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:9D2F:9900:100F:4259:97BD:6C82 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, firstly keep in mind that MMO is - at the core - a relatively meaningless term, and that only a thin line separates it from those other games you gave as examples. This is a known issue with the term.

Basically what is generally accepted as qualifying for being an MMO is that it be "massive" (which is a relative term that doesn't help matters), but WoT seems to qualify in this matter because it has thousands of players logged in at any given time. It is "Online", certainly, and is "multiplayer" as well.

So, like I said: Relatively vague and meaningless.

What seems to be currently accepted as the defining point is that some element of persistence be present. Counter-Strike, for example, has zero persistence. Once a match is done, all the guns, ammo, upgrades, etc are lost and reset for the next round. Whilst in WoT, the tanks you own persist between log-in sessions, as does the ammo, consumables, crew XP, etc.

Even over on the Wiki MMO page itself there is debate as to what exactly the term means, but WoT does meet all the criteria as currently established. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

CSGO, BF4 and COD all have some sort of experience system to grind through in order to achieve either higher levels of combat, better guns and equipment, new skills or a combination thereof. It's the same degree of persistence. CS has the least of it. Tanks is has nothing to do with an MMO, simply because whether there are 250 or 500000 players online concurrently, no more than 30 are ever in the same game together. WoW is an MMO because it's capable of having thousands of players in one spot in the actual game, able to see and interact with eachother.

Besides that, CSGO has a sort of economy for trading weapons, whereas in WoT, no resource whatsoever can be traded or transferred anywhere from an account. Even on that level most shooters qualify better for the term than tanks does. I keep going on about shooters because I don't really play any other genre, but there's also a bunch of MOBAs that persist loads of items and stats and have economies, strategy games, GTA V is the whole package according to that definition. Why is it that only WoT and its wiki page seem to want to appropriate the label?2A02:1811:9D2F:9900:100F:4259:97BD:6C82 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody refers to those other games as MMOs, do they? I agree that those other games also fit the MMO criteria, but I don't see any sources calling the games as such.

And WoT is referred to as an MMO pretty much everywhere, not just here on Wiki.

An odd reference to it as an MMORPG: http://www.mmorpg.com/mobile/games.cfm?game=544&ismb=1

Calls it an MMO: http://mmohuts.com/game/world-of-tanks

Even the Blitz version is called an MMO in the Android store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.wargaming.wot.blitz&hl=en

Another site calling it an MMO: http://www.cinemablend.com/m/games/World-Of-Tanks-MMO-Due-Out-This-Fall-22915.htmlhttp://www.onrpg.com/games/world-of-tanks/

And another: http://www.onrpg.com/games/world-of-tanks/

The main problem with this argument is that MMO is a relatively undefined term, but those against applying the term to certain games always argue as if tbe term was clearly defined - it isn't. The stipulation that a huge, persistent world must be in place where all players can see each other is basically arbitrary - there is no consensus on a definition that includes this, and the Wikipedia MMO page itself also states such.If you really want to make a difference here go and debate it on the MMO Wiki page. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am not a gamer and have never played WoT or any MMO, so please forgive me for any false assumptions.

Regarding the question of whether WoT is an MMO, the current article says:

World of Tanks has implemented a never-ending campaign with Clan Wars unfolding on the Global Map. The Global Map with a particular part of the Earth has been introduced and split into certain provinces. Clans, which consist of players with a maximum of up to 100 members, fight over these provinces on the overworld through specialized World of Tanks game battles. A clan must have a minimum of 15 members to participate in Clan Wars.

Currently, each region in which World of Tanks is based (i.e. North America, Russia etc.) has access only to a limited section of the globe which they can strive to conquer, with the Russian server having the largest amount of territory due to the bulk of the player base existing within that country. In the course of time however, other continents will be added so there will be the opportunity to dominate the entire world.

That sounds a lot like an MMO to me. Is there a limit to how many clans there can be in a region or a limit to how large a region can be? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Officially, World of Tanks is a MMOTPS, or "Massive Multiplayer Online Third Person Shooter." So calling it an MMO would be appropriate. Kitsunedawn (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think persoanlly that the more interesting term could/would be to use MMORPG and debate what criteria WoT meets or fails in that regard. I can see, and agree with that WoT is an MMO. but as an RPG is concerned the ball might roll diferently. Personally I think it meets some of the RPG assets because as said: your retain your vehicles, in-game you 'assume a role' in that you being a specific tank that has unique features to it (ie. lots of HP like many German heavies, Tiger I & Tiger II tanks.) Furthermore you earn XP which not only trains your crew, but allows you to acquire better modules for the tank (stronger guns, better engines etc.) These are my 2 cents. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's create a new term for it: MMORPSG >> Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Shooter Game. I wouldn't specifically say it's a Third Person necesarily as you can zoom in close enough to make it show as a first person, especially when viewing through the scope. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day, content must follow what existing literature use. Refer to WP:Original research, WP:Neologism. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Golden Joystick awards

Hello, I noticed the Golden Joystick Awards are mentioned in this article.Iirc WG massively bribed their playerbase to participate in the voting by offering huge bonuses to their players if WoT wins the Golden Joystick.

They refrained from offering these bonuses the following year (external pressure?) and unsurprisingly WoT did not win an award that year.

In my opinion only the bribery of their playerbase made them get a Golden Joystick and I feel the article wouldn't suffer from highlighting this issue.

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/17/golden-joystick-victory-ours/

As you can tell from the link, they promised a reward in case they win. The combined amount of bonuses offered was unprecedented in its scope.

Buntfunk (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You'll need a citation which specifically says this; you can't come to your own unpublished conclusion, per Wikipedia's policy on unpublished synthesis. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

By US law what he put here is now Published and can be referenced.

Page protection.

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#World of Tanks this article has been semi-protected for one week due to vandalism. Could some of you editors who are familiar with the subject read through the article and get rid of any errors that might have been missed during the multiple vandalism reverts? For example, in June the article said "...platoons, groups of two or three players who are put into the same match" but it now says "...platoons, groups of two to five players who are put into the same match". Was that a legitimate change or something a vandal slipped in?

Here are the changes made since the end of June:[1] I am pretty sure the gamespot reference now has an incorrect title. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there's still something of a problem with the page, in that the "World of Tanks Blitz" section really does not cover enough of the differences between the two games. For example, due to the touch screen type control system, artillery aren't present in Blitz. There's a few other graphical differences as well, which might bear mention. I'd say expanding the Blitz section would be helpful as well. Kitsunedawn (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

also, wrong year as Season 2 is still 2016-17 WGL, and missing ASIA Region external links. CHAKA248 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with World of Tanks: Xbox 360 Edition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Mika1h (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

---

I don't see a compelling reason for the console versions to have their own article. I haven't played the game but reading the articles they seem like the same game. --Mika1h (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Do not see the need of having a separate article for this version of the game. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• The compelling reason is that the 360 version has its own development history and over a dozen of its own reviews. The port should certainly be mentioned in the main WoT article (as a summary), but the 360 article has plenty of detail from secondary sources that need not be mentioned in the main article. Oppose unless there is a compelling reason to disregard the significant coverage that the port has received on its own.  – czar 14:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support The 3DS port of Hyrule Warriors has coverage from secondary sources, yet it only has a paragraph mentioning it in the main article. Unless this 360 version has substantial differences than the PC version, it shouldn't be separate. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support The specific info for xbox 360 can be condensed into a section of the main article. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ ^(Talk) 10:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is SOP for articles on multiple-platform games. Erik Carson (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CW change

Wargaming over recent months has gone from CW 1.0 to a new version called CW 2.0. This new version has completely revamped (for the worse in my opinion.) how CW works. I propose that we change this subsection of the article to be more true to the real state of CW at this time.

Regards, William_Of_Orange99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Of Orange99 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2015

Change the CW section of this article to: CW is dead, wargaming kill game rip rip rip ffffff. William Of Orange99 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: Well that isn't going to happen. If you want to contribute to this page please do so constructively. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mac OS also but indirectly

MacOS is also supported but by a wrapping. 198.217.118.103 (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a reason to state that there is OS X support, since there is no native support for the binaries. Otherwise, you could almost state that every single Microsoft Windows application is a GNU/Linux program, since Wine (software) similarly allows non-native Win32 executables to be run on a different OS. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2015

"Czechoslovakian vehicles are also due by the end of 2015." should be changed to "Czechoslovakian vehicles have been added as of patch 9.13 in December 2015." due to the game being updated to 9.13 and including the Czech tree. 

HaziqRA (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

The czech vehicles were released in the newest update. Please update this. Samgeraghty20000 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World of Tanks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100524183402/http://www.worldoftanks.com:80/news/kri_2010_results to http://www.worldoftanks.com/news/kri_2010_results

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

PS4

Playstation 4 version has been out for a month, lead need revised. 104.128.34.98 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

need official website for ASIA Server

I'm from PH, and need official website in ASIA, cause of this, ASIA player can view either NA or EU website and gonna switch to ASIA via detect on that location. So need another link. Thanks. CHAKA24 (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding some information

I am completely new Wikipedian. How can I add a infromation on a page like closed to changes due to vandalism. I want to add that World Of Tanks Blitz released on steam for Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and MacOsX. Cefm0002 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

G'day, to make changes to WP:SILVERLOCK pages your account needs to be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED ie. is atleast 4 days old and has made atleast 10 edits (another 8) to wikipedia. IVORK _Discuss 20:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WoT is not an MMO

The main gameplay consists of battles between two teams of about 15 players. The gameplay takes place in non-persistent instances. Therefore, if you go by the definition of MMO from wikipedia, WoT is not an MMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.79.47 (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

See the above post for the ruling on this. IVORK _Discuss 21:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2017

Change This

The game also features conjectural vehicle designs such as the Jagdpanther II, which never existed.[17]

To

The game also features conjectural vehicle designs such as the Jagdpanther II, which never existed

BLUE beep (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC) and now includes a large part of the Japanese line based on drawings alone. The Japanese line also now includes two total anime-based fantasy tanks.BLUE beep (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[17]

BLUE beep (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Fictional tier 8 premiums need citations

I made an edit, Im sure it needs citations and references, please fix the edit for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royroxas2 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Xbox 360 Edition is not linked with the PC game"

That's simply bullshit. Fix it.

(And no, idiot, the source does not contain the word "link".) 217.248.11.246 (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The source uses the word "connected", which more or less gives the same meaning. Is that all you want changed? -- ferret (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's Bullshit either way. Both games run on the same server software, to name but one detail that connects them.----217.248.11.246 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're taking an awfully literal view on the word link/connect. Pretty sure its simply meant that there's no crossplay and the user bases are separate, as the source states. I've expanded it. -- ferret (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So you think that "not linked" means "linked in some way, but not in others"? --217.248.11.246 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the authors clearly meant that the game's user base and matches aren't linked, not that the software has no relationship at all, which is why I added the rest of that detail from the source. -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

I would like to add the fact that Italy is an upcoming country in addition to the ones we already have. Uh...that's pretty much it. WorldOfTanksGuy (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Section "Playstation 4"

"As with the PC, Xbox One, and Xbox 360 versions, the major features of the game, such as the UI, game mechanics, and gameplay are synced across all of the platforms, however there is no cross-platform play."

That is pure bullshit. The UI was never "synced", but recreated in a similar fashion. More importantly, the game is identical on Xbox and PS4, running on the same servers using the same software. According to an unWP:RS, they even run cross-platform (but are not allowed to publish due to restriction by at least one of the platform owners). 91.10.15.123 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Partnership with Sabaton

This partnership received covery in many countries: the Czech Republic: [2]; Finland: [3]; France: [4]; Germany: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]; [11]; Greece: [12]; Poland: [13], [14], [15]; Russia: [16]; Sweden [17], [18]; the USA: [19] and of course in other English speaking sources: [20]; [21]; [22]. --Merkið (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Searching around, the best video-game related source I found was this one which is listed as a reliable source on WP:VG/S. With that, and the PCGamer.se article, the info might fit in somewhere, but not as a separate category as this would be putting undue weight on a relatively minor aspect of the game. Eik Corell (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

[REDACTED]

You're welcome, now expand and updated as tagged. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@SNAAAAKE!!: The userbase section is by and large in large not appropriate - VG247 is listed as an unreliable source on WP:VG/S, the stuff about "this is an increase from X" is original research, also have a look at what you're restoring - One of the paragraphs, the "as of December 2013" one, goes on to repeat itself in its entirety, same sources and everything. The other stuff I removed is largely because most of it is simply sourced to the developer website itself. The last paragraph mentioning its revenue and so on might be relevant, but it's so outdated. All of this stuff is, as you correctly tagged it. Lastly, all of this stuff taking up an section of its own seems problematic as well, which is why I took the latest number that had reliable sources and put it in the lead of the article, because branching off stuff like this to a separate, non-standard category(i.e outside of the lead, Plot, Gameplay, Reception, Development, etc) is to be avoided. Eik Corell (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: Uh, VG247 is listed as a reliable source. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Weird, I must have confused it with some other source then, or the site was listed as unreliable earlier I confused it with VGChartz, my bad. Eik Corell (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The article needs to follow the growth (or otherwise) over the years. "Sales" is a standard "category" (section), but it's only for the games that are being sold. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the section still has all the problems I detailed. Without third-party sources, it's not appropriate to simply cite the developer website for numbers like this without any indication of how or why they are notable. The second paragraph cites gamershell to prop up one such number, but gamershell is listed on WP:VG/S (for real this time) as unreliable. The second part, the Guinness records thing seems barely notable as I explained above, and it is being propped up by a link to the developer. Lots of primary sources for all of these numbers, only VG247 turned out to be rebliable. I would start by removing the numbers only sourced to the developer website, and the one cited to gamershell. Eik Corell (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

What "turned out to unreliable"? (I'm not even a fan of RIAN for example at all, as I personally hate the Russian government and all of its agancies, but so I hate almost all of modern "game journalism", however I put my personal biases aside.) SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources in the "revenue" part seems fine, but seem kind of out of place here - this stuff should be on the developer article, especially given that it's not standard to make a separate section for userbase statistics on video game articles. Save for the stuff that does not have third-party sources, which I still think should be removed, would you be opposed to moving the third-party sourced content there? I'm still ok with including the latest available player numbers with third-party sources (this stuff).

I would, because they operate also other popular games. (And I did a thorough cleanup + copyedit on Wargaming (company) recently, used to be just awful.) The money is the real mark of a F2P game's success, even if they had a billion players but not much money coming it would be a failure because they're not running a charity. But the sheer popularity of the game still has encyclopedic value as of itself, especially since its some actual record numbers. The most important thing for me is how much it's all just extremely outdated for WoT (several years behind on every count, not just that). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• @SNAAAAKE!!: I get that you were irritated when you created this section, but could you please tone down the subject line. Using the word rape in this context is not acceptable.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)