Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

World of Tanks: Not Exactly an MMO

1246

Comments

  • ZarynterkZarynterk Member UncommonPosts: 398

    To be honest, I can care less how you quantify or label this game... It is a blast to play, and is one of the most enjoyable games I have played in a while.

    image

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,900

    My god people, get a new argument... the MMO community is so stagent in it's petty squabbles.

  • shr4pnelshr4pnel Member UncommonPosts: 99

    This game will shut down in less than a year.

    STOP MAKING MMOs! YOU ARE ALL NO MATCH FOR WOW, SW: TOR, GW2, ETC.

  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Member Posts: 2,697

    Originally posted by wizyy

    I don't think that assesment is accurate. I'm in beta and there's always around 4000 players online. Also, there will be CLAN WARS involved, which is MMO without a doubt.

    http://www.massively.com/2010/06/03/details-announced-for-clan-wars-in-world-of-tanks/

     Poker sites have over 100,000 players on at a time should they be MMOs?

    CoD MW2 most likely has 100,000s of players playing at most times of the day, is that an MMO?

     

    Players online does not equal MMO.

     

    They have said before what their requirements are for an MMO, and some of them definetly are correct. One of them is a world you can go wander around in and run into other players that isn't simply a match making visual lobby. From the sounds of it WoT doesn't even come close to that requirement at all.

     

    I am one of those people who thinks far too many games try to say they are an MMO when they aren't anything more then a regular game that has some sort of lobby to interact with other players. The term should be reserved for games that are true to the genre. It would be like someone trying to call Gears of War an FPS even though you don't play from the first person perspective.

  • Lan_EXLan_EX Member Posts: 1

    ^ lol

    Opinions and qualifications...

     

    All non MMORPGs should be taken out the list. WoT is a great MMOFT[ank]S.

  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136

    Remove them all , or leave this one too.

    I suspect someones fishing for endorsement money.... /shrug.

     

    Or ... Charge them AD money ,  then fix your forums. Win Win .

  • Xondar123Xondar123 Member CommonPosts: 2,543

    Good! Remove the game from the list! It shouldn't be here, so get rid of it!

  • ToothmanToothman Member UncommonPosts: 76

    People just have their undies in a bundle because they released ads making fun of  WoW.  Nothing more fun than the Orc smashing the elves only to be run over by a tank.  The game world is changing.  Get over it, or get back in the basement and and go raiding so you can get your cool 6 ton ax like everyone else has.

  • KhaosRJAKhaosRJA Member Posts: 20

    This is even an arguement? Wow...

     

    Listen, FPS games like Battlefield, Call of Duty, etc have no presistance, though you might have a flimsy leveling system, they have servers hosted by players (99% of the time) which follow their own rules and can hold at most 64 people, though on average 32, and once they've been milked for a few expansions or DLCs support ends and the company has nothing to do with it anymore. They are nowhere near MMOs and if you confuse them with a game which can hold hundreds of people in an area, has a built in social system, company run and regulated servers that are up 24/7, and constant support and new content until the game shuts down, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

    As with always on this site the conflict seems to be driven by a group of people who think if it actually takes some kind of twitch skill to play a game and not simply mashing three attack buttons while autoattacking an orc its not an MMO, regardless of the actual mechanics of the game. So please staff, end the debate once and for all, either take this game and the 50 other games on the list that are not EQ clone, autoattacking, grinder RPGs off your site so those of us without such a narrow view of games can be on our way to search for a better site, or leave them all and accept that there is more to MMOs than smacking elves with lightning bolts.

  • Chivalry1978Chivalry1978 Member Posts: 184

    OK I HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES NOW.

     

    When I posted my own synopsis of this game and its ups and downs it was yanked off the forums for NDA. Now as I know its stil in Beta as I stil have my muas tank and ferdinand td, wouldnt nda have hold here. I mean your posting pics of combat and that is covered under nda, funny how this site suits its writers and not its patrons....Moving on....

     

    This game is fun but needs so much work and be wary of the forums. They are being patroled and controlled by mods who will ban you for not having the same opinion they do. I have already spoken with Wargaming.net about this and they have since removed the offending Mod, but stil the issue remains.

     

    The fact its a shooter game with friendly fire on, ALWAYS. It seems just obsurd you can be banned for tking some one.

    And to this extent people will actually try to get you to tk them so they can set you up for the ban. I have seen it done and rather then do a conflict resolution like every other game out there they just ban the tker and move on....

     

    As for light weight on system requirements....LOL I had more then min and it ran like crap. I even put it on my new 6 core machine...and it ran like CRAP still, this tells me alot about the programers.....

     

    Now the game is fun but needs so much work and they need to either make ff off or ff on rooms....something cause this is insane how they work.....

     

    Also MMO= MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE......No persistant worlds leveling or what ever long as more then 1k people play it at a time online its and mmo....plain as that....

  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,548

     No persistence = no MMO.  Been that way forever.   There are plenty of sites that cover shooters, go to those sites if you want to discuss this game.

  • DKTuesdayDKTuesday Member UncommonPosts: 15

    Originally posted by Yamota

     Hyper-instanced games like STO should not be on this site for the same reason. Instancing is the complete opposite of persistant so when a game is COMPLETELY instanced then it lacks a persistant world and should hence be removed from the site.


     

    Guild Wars.  Take it off the list plox.

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593

    Originally posted by DKTuesday

    Originally posted by Yamota

     Hyper-instanced games like STO should not be on this site for the same reason. Instancing is the complete opposite of persistant so when a game is COMPLETELY instanced then it lacks a persistant world and should hence be removed from the site.


     

    Guild Wars.  Take it off the list plox.

    The creators of Guild Wars themselves admitted, long time ago, that GW was not an MMO. So yeah, it should be taken of the list.

    What people need to realise is that it is not enough to just have alot of people playing the game online for it to be an MMO. Lots and lots of games are played online, from Diablo to FIFA soccer on XBox. But that does not make them MMOs. A minimum requirement for MMO should be persistent worlds. 

    I.e. the world must be, largely, non instanced and available at all times for the people playing on that server. STO and GW does not have persistant zones because 99% of the world consists of average of  8-16 player instances, which are continually reset and recreated, hence NOT persistent. And nowhere can 8-16 players be considered massive.

  • FishmittsFishmitts Member CommonPosts: 227

    Well then, we will just have to agree to disagree.:)

  • GnazonGnazon Member Posts: 442

    Since I have gotten my hands on a key for WoT beta, my brand new StarCraft2 has been collectiong dust, I am over the 1000 battles played mark I have to say that World of Tanks is a great game, sure many features are not yet implemented, but the game's fundation is rock solid. It is fun, addictive and offers many options, you can 'juggle tanks' so there is very little downtime, and as mentioned in the article, the game runs great. If you like armored combat, or world warld 2 games do give it a shot.

    image

  • Cirn0Cirn0 Member Posts: 162


    Originally posted by Dietaether

    Originally posted by Vesper11



    Originally posted by Dietaether
    I’m gonna make a strange comparison, but stick with me and have faith. It's relevant, I swear.
    Everyone has heard the abbreviation BDSM in relation to folks who get their jollies with whips and chains, but what does the abbreviation actually stand for? Well, it has more than one meaning! BD stands for bondage and discipline, DS stands for dominance and submission, and SM stands for sadism and masochism.
    Each of the middle letters serves 2 purposes. In much the same way, there are two accepted definitions of what MMOG stands for, and the confusion arises in that they are both similar sounding but mean two totally different things.
    Definition 1: Massively-Multiplayer Online Game. This is the most commonly used definition. Here, Massively is an adverb enhancing an adjective. The phrase "massively-multiplayer" refers to the concept that a massive number of people can be playing together at one time. The problem arises here when trying to decide what a massive number of people is. We'll come back to that.
    Definition 2: Massive, Multiplayer, Online Game. This definition is a bit less commonly used but just as relevant. Massive and Multiplayer are separate adjectives, both describing the subject noun, "Game". In this definition the emphasis is on the scope and scale of the game itself. Games are considered massive if they have persistent worlds spanning multiple zones capable of getting lost inside, multiple forms of progression and things to spend your time doing (PvE, PvP, Crafting, Gathering, Farming, Questing, Etc.).
    So which definition are we officially using? The problem is, when defining MMOs, we're using both without really realizing it. Much like how a person can be a S in the DS but not the SM when talking about folks who only hit them because they love them, MMOs can be massive multiplayer games that are not massively multiplayer like guild wars, or it can be massively multiplayer without being massive like APBs single city capable of supporting 250 players. It's at these edges where the lines of an MMO and non-MMO blur. It then falls to the community to decide for itself, to what measure is a massive?


    That cleared some things up, at least for me and my knowledge of english. I loved BDSM part XD You sure know a lot about it. I wish it was you who made an article such as this.

    p.s. what do you think about a game where player can make an impact on the world itself? Can it be a requirement for a game to be called MMOG? Because I've been thinking, and more I do, more MMORPGs like WoW or others seem like a multiplayer games with a huge chat rooms.




    I would love to write articles about video games and be taken seriously for them like some sort of snooty art critic who gets to talk down to everyone who paid money to see The Last Airbender, but alas, we're in a recession here.
    I was actually having a conversation just recently with a friend about static versus dynamic worlds (unfortunately, the word "persistent" has come to mean something other than what it actually means, so you get flashes of brilliance like the paradoxical "dynamic persistent worlds") and came to some mixed conclusions.
    First, and this is key here, dynamism is HARD. World of Warcraft is currently workin away at what could arguably be considered one of the first truly dynamic things since launch (or since AQ, but who's counting?) in its Cataclysm expansion. On the other hand, GW2 is being billed as a truly dynamic game where the INDIVIDUAL player greatly changes the look and feel of the world, but in order for that to be true you're going to either experience a lot of instanced solo play a la Tortage of AoC (in)fame or else have players playing together with radically different maps. That's if individuals are able to effect the world.
    A more worthwhile strategy to explore in my mind would be a persistent world that responds dynamically to the body politic of the server. In this sense, expansion packs of new continents would be phased out in favor of expansion packs of new content, similar to a new "season" of a beloved TV show. Old characters would die, new characters would move in to fill the cast, and the story is progressed, rapidly. If there is one medium that should be vehemently pursued by novelists and screenwriters, it's MMOs. Never before has the opportunity to involve the audience with the cast been so blatantly obvious. Tell a good story, and people will preorder the expansion packs you haven't even made yet.
    On the other hand, static worlds are safe. Ever hear of the NGE? That's what is risked with every new update of a game seen as too dynamic; exodus, en masse. On the whole, people crave change, but they will pay for the status quo. The genre is about to reach the saturation point where all the possible iterations of medieval elves and sorcerers have been tried, and the only way to stand out is to make something progressive story-wise.
    This post brought to you (and sponsored) by parenthetical statements.

    Amazing, simpply amazing. Are you sure you arent a writer for some mmo site? ^^ Thnx, I really enjoyed it.


    Originally posted by Ozmodan
     No persistence = no MMO.  Been that way forever.

    Diablo 2 has persistance. I think Dietaether's posts covered this topic much better than any of the posts here or the article itself (as it was a simple advertisment like the most of other articles).

    IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!

  • KhalathwyrKhalathwyr Member Posts: 3,138

    Originally posted by Ozmodan

     No persistence = no MMO.  Been that way forever.   There are plenty of sites that cover shooters, go to those sites if you want to discuss this game.

    There is persistence, Oz. Each tank has a crew that goes up in skill level per what they do (Loader, Gunner, etc.). You can also pickup enhancements that give a tank bonuses in a given area that stick with the tank.

    Unless Bill had been testing the game for more than a few hours he probably never experienced those bonuses. It's also easy to see where one may trivialize the tank crew skill ups but they do matter.

    "Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."

    Kickstarter 2 / Naysayers 0

  • DietaetherDietaether Member Posts: 36

    Originally posted by Khalathwyr

    There is persistence, Oz. Each tank has a crew that goes up in skill level per what they do (Loader, Gunner, etc.). You can also pickup enhancements that give a tank bonuses in a given area that stick with the tank.

    Unless Bill had been testing the game for more than a few hours he probably never experienced those bonuses. It's also easy to see where one may trivialize the tank crew skill ups but they do matter.


     

    That is wonderful and all, but you are missing out on one key bit: Persistence has nothing to do with a leveling system or ability based combat, or passive bonuses, or even classes. Take a look at The Secret World, a game in development that completely lacks levels and classes but is still considered an MMO. Or even A Tale In The Desert, which has NO combat whatsoever, in addition to lacking a leveling system in its first few iterations.

    No, persistence has nothing to do with the character, and everything to do with the setting. Persistence is defined simply as "existing or continuing for a long time", and wikipedia even has an article on persistant worlds. It does a much better job summing the concept up than I ever could: A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent. The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games.

    So the DEFINITION of an MMOG must contain a persistent world, not a series of maps, not levels, not floating platforms in space and magic mushrooms. If World of Tanks is able to show me that you can wander around at your leisure and explore different areas of the game, then come back without hesitation or loading screens to where you originally started, and if they can show that said world remains active even when its users are offline, then and only then will it get the graMMOr police stamp of approval from me.

  • jesusdiedjesusdied Member Posts: 1

    Even wow is not mmorpg. Is it mmo? yes. rpg? no.

    If wow is rpg then modern warfare is rpg too. Mw2 have leveling, you get new items, and skills, and you can talk to other players. So it's a rpg like wow.

     

    In this site there is many games that are not RPG. And every one talks only MMO part of the MMORPG.

  • tinman00tinman00 Member Posts: 18

    I don't think this game should be counted as a mmo though in the same breath i would not count sto as a mmo as it's even less effected by other players (at least in wot other players can effect me by killing and costing me money) same as half of the offers of games that are on the front page of this site (even some which are webpage games) 

     

    For me a mmo needs to have somthing that is changable by the players maybe if they every put in a clan war system where you can fight over maps and control areas then it can be counted as mmo but when players can change noting then it's not a mmo in my eyes and just a online game.

  • guy232guy232 Member UncommonPosts: 345

    TThis has to leave but Global Agenda gets to stay?  thats bullshit

    image

    image
    It..Burns..

  • DraigUKDraigUK Member Posts: 20

    Not sure if it should be here or not. Don't care. Glad I found it. Amazing fun game.

     

    I play with lots of other players, I progress and level up the tanks and the crew.

     

    It's fun.

     

    Happy to pay for it.

     

    Hmm. come to think of it, it has just as much in thegame as it is to include it on here, when the clan and grouping aspects come in, it is similar in game progression to something like APB. Is APB on here?

  • DraigUKDraigUK Member Posts: 20

    APB is not on here but WW2 On line is. When the clan system comes in to WoT I don't see much of a difference.

  • djajikdjajik Member UncommonPosts: 10

    Many people pay attention only at MMO and RP side of the abtrviation. But it has to be first of all playable and interesing GAME. If u take a look at the game list on the web-site, 90% of them is BS and can hardly be considered as a game. They look more like couple of fat bearded dudes get together and compiled piece of useless crap to earn some money. They put bunch of retarded elves in there, or robots who cares, added cash shop - and call it MMORPG.  These games has to go away first, and then u can be picky about games that worth mention.

    As many ppl mentioned b4 - this game is not that differ from most of the other on market. It's just ommit that useless travel from instance to instance to get into the battle. I played majority of the "real MMORPG" listed on this web-site, so I know what I'm talking about - DDO for example, or GW, or GA. 

    Biggest difference of this game is that it requires a little higher IQ then just single button clicking. Even cash shop will not help u if u dump and both of ur hands - left . You cannot jump out of bushes and harase new players. And this is definetly u will not find in any other MMORPG nowadays.

    It's not RPG? The battle balance system enforcing RPG - coz it's not going to happen that artlery will fight against heavy tanks only, and vice versa. Every player on the battlefield has it's on role, and he is not only responsible for his own success, but for the result of the team.

    Just take a look at number of supporters in comments of this game and think about how smart ur decisions.

    Go ahead and remove this game, and after that - ask those "philosophically" oriented authors to write couple of hundrends of articles about how normal games are dead, and people addicted to the braindead crap.

  • GyrusGyrus Member UncommonPosts: 2,413

    Originally posted by eyeswideopen

    Amazing.

    We have all pointed out games listed on this site that were not ever mmorpg, or even mmos period. Hellgate: London anyone?

    Yet everytime we've asked for a game that was or is not an mmorpg to be removed, the stock mmorpg.com answer has always been "Well, it doesn't really fit, but tons of people asked for it to be here so it will stay.".

    So now all of a sudden, we have yet another game that is not an mmorpg, but it is here because people asked for it to be here. And those people are in this thread asking for it to be here. But now mmorpg.com has decided they're going to remove it becaus eit doesn't fit.

     

    Here's my only real response to mmorpg.com on this:

    Either remove every other game here that is not an mmorpg, or leave this one the fuck alone. You guys went too far into the rabbithole bringing in every game you could to "broaden your audience".

    You don't get to play favorites now, unless you want to finally admit this site is not driven by what the members want, but by what you want. You don't get to let one game slide in while denying another just because you like one but not the other.

    So much for your "impartiality", eh?

    And for the record, I don't care about this game one way or the other. It doesn't interest me any more than CounterStrike or Battlefield would. To me, it's not an mmorpg. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree vehemently with how you are treating it compared to other similar games which you have listed here.

     

    Edit: And for the record, I'll say it again: your site name is a misnomer. This site hasn't been solely about mmoRPGs for a long, long time.



    I have to side with eyeswideopen/Zorvan here.  100% Correct.  MMORPG.com gave up any claim on being and exclusively MMORPG site long ago. 

    The site also gave up any pretense of being any kind of authority on the subject by allowing games like Travian and Evony here while NOT including games like NexusWar, Pardus, Urban Dead and a ton of others.

    Not because Travian and Evony are not MMORPGs (in some ways they are more MMORPGs than some of the newer Triple A titles listed here) but because it showed MMORPG.com had lost touch with what the site was all about - which audience it was trying to reach.

    Some of you may even remember this thread?

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/247530/page/1

    To see why I started that thread look at posts 18, 25, 26 and 40 in that thread.



    Since that thread I have put a lot of thought into what an MMO is.

    This is along the right direction:

    Originally posted by Ozmodan

         No persistence = no MMO.  Been that way forever.   There are plenty of sites that cover shooters, go to those sites if you want to discuss this game.





    But 'persistence' is something I think many MMO devs are exploiting at the moment.

    Are instanced worlds persistent?

    For example DDO.  It's a persistent world because there is always someone in Stormreach Harbour and the Market etc... but those are instances.

    And some recent games work on engines that are what I call Instance Managing Software (Cryptic's STO and CO)

    Are the 'worlds' in these games really persistent?



    Clearly, that definition sets the bar too low.



    Then we have character advancement of a 'persistent character'.

    But again, if I leave Dragon Age or even Silent Hunter running in the background does that make a 'persistent world with persistent characters which can be advanced'?

    Because if so, we are only weeks away from a Silent Hunter MMO.



    Again, I think that sets the bar too low.



    After much thought I found what I think should be the solution:

    In order to claim 'persistence' there must be a persistent presence

    That is, other players must be able to interact with your character, your assets, or something you achieved even when you are logged out.

    I will use Pardus (www.pardus.at) as an example of this.  Your ship NEVER logs out.  You can dock, you can park in a 'safe' location - but you are always there.  People can find you and if you dock at a building that can be destroyed they can destroy that building and destroy you.

    Your buildings are always there.  Players can continue to trade and interact with them even while you are off line.

    So, as part of this persistent presence you could include an Auction House (depending on how it is run?) because people can continue to trade with you (purchase your loot) while you are not there.  This is possibly exploitable though - so more thought needs to go into that aspect.

    Then there is the last element of persistence:



    Originally posted by DraigUK

        APB is not on here but WW2 On line is. When the clan system comes in to WoT I don't see much of a difference.



    What makes WWIIoL a 'persistent presence' game?

    The RvR conquest.

    As I said:

    "In order to claim 'persistence' there must be a persistent presence.

    That is, other players must be able to interact with your character, your assets, or something you achieved even when you are logged out."

    In WWIIoL while I am logged in I can capture towns (or prevent the enemy capturing towns).  Lets say that while I am on I help capture Antwerp, Bergen Op Zoom and Willemshaven. When I log off - those captures remain.  I have a persistent presence in that world.

    And the 'enemy' can interact with that by capturing them back.

    Interestingly too, PotBS also offers RvR capture this way in a 'persistent world' despite being heavily instanced.





    So, MMORPG.com, as I have said before - you need to review your definition / rules of what makes a game an MMORPG.  I told you so.  :P



    If you want to be an 'authority' on this then you need to set a standard - a consistent standard.



    I would also suggest you review the requirements to be listed here during development.

    As I suggested earlier:

    Stop listing games based on a couple of grainy screen shots (or a possibly scripted Gameplay vid) - Perpetual's STO anyone?

    For a listing here you should require nothing less than 'proof of concept' - at the very least and independently verified Alpha.



    But until you do all that - WoT stays IMHO.









    And get on and list Farm Town while you are at it. :D

    Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.

Sign In or Register to comment.