Jump to content


Cant take WOT reality..


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

dunniteowl #21 Posted Feb 13 2019 - 16:25

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 30708 battles
  • 7,732
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

From a grognard player since before 1974, I can attest to the truth of pipinghot's comments.

 

OvO



ECA #22 Posted Feb 14 2019 - 01:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Feb 13 2019 - 05:44, said:

Big deal, that's nothing special here. There are lots of us older players in WoT who cut their teeth on video games before cartridges even existed in home systems, played old games on mainframes, and have played on multiple home computer platforms since long before the internet existed, not to mention many hours on old board wargames from the likes of Avalon Hill and SPI. There may well be more grognards per square inch in WoT than nearly any other online game.

 

And frankly, none of that has anything to do with your post or your arguments or this thread. It doesn't matter whether you've played 10 different games or 10,000 different games. Your attempt to portray yourself as a gaming silverback is meaningless, you're still making fundamentally flawed arguments.

 

WoT is not a simulator and was never intended as such. Practically nothing about it is truly realistic and that's how it's been since the very beginning. Any argument based on realism is doomed before it starts because no computer game is truly realistic to begin with. They are all models that make compromises with realism because game play is more important than realism every time. There are at most just a couple of realistic elements in the game, with the rest of it being built on a "look and feel" that tank enthusiasts can enjoy, just like every other tank game in existence.

 

This thread all comes down to one thing, you want WG to buff your pet tank and you're hiding behind "realism" as your argument.

 

It only has to live up to what they said on THEIR wiki..or its just a lie, and not even arcade..

Even arcade has basic rules/design/structure..

If they cant live upto their own wiki info...what type of game are you going to have??

 

I like the idea that when a tank finds something Interesting to do, like Run up a mountain or a great hiding place...That it gets nerfed..SO WHAT ITS ARCADE...

I love that display in the garage, that shows you all these nice numbers...What is 989 concealment mean??  the percentage is over 50%, Which Should mean I can Split the 445 Spotting range to 245, and not be seen by anyone...??  but why is there a 989 up there..I cant see that far, and I dont think my camo is that good.  does 1000 mean Im 100% hidden??



ECA #23 Posted Feb 14 2019 - 01:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

Also reality sys...

that if you folks hadnt commented this thing had a 90% chance of doing nothing but taking space in a forum..



Pipinghot #24 Posted Feb 14 2019 - 02:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,291
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostECA, on Feb 13 2019 - 19:56, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Feb 13 2019 - 05:44, said:

Big deal, that's nothing special here. There are lots of us older players in WoT who cut their teeth on video games before cartridges even existed in home systems, played old games on mainframes, and have played on multiple home computer platforms since long before the internet existed, not to mention many hours on old board wargames from the likes of Avalon Hill and SPI. There may well be more grognards per square inch in WoT than nearly any other online game.

 

And frankly, none of that has anything to do with your post or your arguments or this thread. It doesn't matter whether you've played 10 different games or 10,000 different games. Your attempt to portray yourself as a gaming silverback is meaningless, you're still making fundamentally flawed arguments.

 

WoT is not a simulator and was never intended as such. Practically nothing about it is truly realistic and that's how it's been since the very beginning. Any argument based on realism is doomed before it starts because no computer game is truly realistic to begin with. They are all models that make compromises with realism because game play is more important than realism every time. There are at most just a couple of realistic elements in the game, with the rest of it being built on a "look and feel" that tank enthusiasts can enjoy, just like every other tank game in existence.

 

This thread all comes down to one thing, you want WG to buff your pet tank and you're hiding behind "realism" as your argument.

 

It only has to live up to what they said on THEIR wiki..or its just a lie, and not even arcade..

The wiki contains two kinds of information, historical information and game information, and of course the game information does live up to what they say in their wiki. Surely that's not too difficult a concept for you to understand, two different types of information contained in a single wiki.

View PostECA, on Feb 13 2019 - 19:56, said:

Even arcade has basic rules/design/structure..

Oh now we see, you want rules and structure...

...like this...

http://wiki.wargamin...Matchmaker_(WoT)

...and this...

http://wiki.wargamin...attle_Mechanics

 

Yeah, if only they provided pages and pages of documentation for anyone who wants to learn how the game works. Oh wait, that's exactly what they provide. It sure is a shame you couldn't find all of that extensive documentation while you were looking at the wiki. It must be that you were so busy looking at the historical information on the wiki that you didn't notice all of that extensive game information on the same wiki.



ECA #25 Posted Feb 15 2019 - 03:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11920 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

Then get rid of the wiki..

The history section means nothing..

And the stats mean nothing..

the match maker is always changing...better or worse..

The mechanics keep changing..I have suggested they get rid of View range...just use spotting range..

We have tanks with longer spot range(supposedly) then view range, thats about the affect on the new wheeled tanks..  its the old idea of small tanks and rush to get things spotted...



dunniteowl #26 Posted Feb 15 2019 - 03:25

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 30708 battles
  • 7,732
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostECA, on Feb 14 2019 - 20:19, said:

Then get rid of the wiki..

The history section means nothing..

And the stats mean nothing..

the match maker is always changing...better or worse..

The mechanics keep changing..I have suggested they get rid of View range...just use spotting range..

We have tanks with longer spot range(supposedly) then view range, thats about the affect on the new wheeled tanks..  its the old idea of small tanks and rush to get things spotted...

 

Salty, salty, salty.

 

Ain't getting your proper Ego Stroke from this thread, so just going to actually have a textual tantrum, I see.

 

My suggestion:  Next time you decide you can't handle "WoT" reality, bear in mind it's a game that is only historically BASED and it is not a tank combat simulator, it is a tank combat GAME.


If you want greater 'reality' please, if you are of the appropriate age, join a military service that has armored vehicles and get yourself some good old fashioned, Real Reality.

 

 

OvO



Pipinghot #27 Posted Feb 15 2019 - 12:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,291
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostECA, on Feb 14 2019 - 21:19, said:

Then get rid of the wiki..

The history section means nothing..

Again, wrong. The wiki includes both historical and game information, if you can't tell the difference then that's your problem.

View PostECA, on Feb 14 2019 - 21:19, said:

the match maker is always changing...better or worse..
Which has nothing to do with anything you're talking about, nothing to do with the wiki and nothing to do with your tank. Of course the MM is always changing, just like every online game is always changing. If you want a game that doesn't change then stick to solo games. Now you're just kvetching for the sake of having something to complain about.

View PostECA, on Feb 14 2019 - 21:19, said:

The mechanics keep changing.

Wow, just like every other online game, shocking.

View PostECA, on Feb 14 2019 - 21:19, said:

I have suggested they get rid of View range...just use spotting range..

So really the problem is that you have trouble understanding the game mechanics. The wiki explains them quite well, there are good reasons why "view range" and "spotting range" two different things.

View PostECA, on Feb 14 2019 - 21:19, said:

We have tanks with longer spot range(supposedly) then view range

You have that backwards, some tanks have a longer view range than the actual maximum spotting range. Again, there are reasons for that, you just have to take responsibility for understanding the game mechanics and the reasons for that design decision.



OlTanker #28 Posted Feb 15 2019 - 16:37

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21400 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    01-17-2016
WOT and reality are contradictory terms.

Cargo_Joe #29 Posted Feb 16 2019 - 23:19

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12365 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    03-06-2016

View PostECA, on Feb 12 2019 - 02:33, said:

http://wiki.wargamin...08_Ikv_65_Alt_2

This is a lovely TD..

Its based on a APC frame from the 60's and still used today...with a few mods..

It has a very strange gun on it...its called a Recoil-less rifle..  and its a very neat weapon..

90mm, abit heavy for 1 man, but can be mounted on Just about anything, because it has NO RECOIL, and can be aimed quickly, even by 2 men sitting on the ground..

https://www.youtube....XyBnfoKJk&t=97s

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=sPKq_jFBZ1w

https://youtu.be/BjkWgek6UXU?t=1534

 

This is a very light vehicle...at around 19 tons..Designed for fighting in Sweden, in snow and soft soils..

60kph is pretty good, but do you think it should be quick to turn??  NOT in this game.

Think a person inside a TD with a good amount of room, and ammo sitting near and around them, can Aim/load/fire in less then 8-10 seconds??  This is not a REAL tank round. with a full casing and soforth.  It dont weight 40-50pounds, about 20kg..

 

What should the accuracy be like???  a small team can aim it with Basic 7.62 sights, and ranged at <1000m(1k)...

Go try it out...see how this handles and tell me If I should higher a team of 5 to run around on foot and shoot tanks..

Cause this tanks can REALLY suck...and it hates reverse and turning from stand still..

 

I think WOT considers this BALANCE..

Good luck people..I cant take this reality any more..

 

Well said.  All "vehicles" should be re-balanced.  The fan=boys who disagree with you are schills.

Tolos #30 Posted Feb 16 2019 - 23:22

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,398
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostGus_Polinski, on Feb 16 2019 - 22:19, said:

 

Well said.  All "vehicles" should be re-balanced.  The fan=boys who disagree with you are schills.

 

Or, they are people with a different opinion....

Pipinghot #31 Posted Feb 17 2019 - 03:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,291
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostGus_Polinski, on Feb 16 2019 - 17:19, said:

Well said.  All "vehicles" should be re-balanced.  The fan=boys who disagree with you are schills.

So how much do AW and WT pay you to garbage post on these forums?

 

After all, according to your (terrible) logic anyone who disagrees with you must be getting paid by WG, so according to your own (terrible) logic that proves that you're getting paid by other companies to garbage post here. Or, if you're not a shill, if you're just garbage posting for free, then you really need to wake up and understand that people can disagree with you for their own reasons.

 

Therefore, either it's time for you to admit that you're a paid shill or admit that you're garbage posting and making false accusations.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users