****** Official World of Tanks OcUK Clan ******
- Thread starter Datamonkey
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 6,130
- Location
- Birmingham
OK we get it arknor, you have a chip on your shoulder but your screaming and stamping your feet in the middle of the playground is becoming a tad tedious now.
Making more money doesn't make it a better game or mean it has more content or make it an MMO though...
COD makes millions every year and the new ones are some of the worst fps games available in terms of content and gameplay.
I don't care that you don't think it is an MMO, I don't care that they call it an MMO. There is no pricing structure that an MMO (or any game) has to adhere to. They market what they have, if you like it buy it.
They will have done the math on whether they would make more selling increased Premium accounts at less price. The current level will be what they decided they would maximise profit at.
Where does one find a definition of MMO?
I don't see WoT as being hugely different to GW. RA, TA and HA are similar to randoms and TC. You can't buy and sell stuff between players and there is no PvE though.
You don't need premium to play the game; you only really need it if you want to grind up the tiers quickly.
I don't see WoT as being hugely different to GW. RA, TA and HA are similar to randoms and TC. You can't buy and sell stuff between players and there is no PvE though.
You don't need premium to play the game; you only really need it if you want to grind up the tiers quickly.
Massively Multiplayer Online, where you can come across hundreds of players in an open world.
WoT doesn't do this unless they class being in a lobby with thousands means the same, if that's the case then you can class nearly every online shooter and whatever else as an MMO.
I don't think they are as good as they once were either, but the sales figures back up what they are doing. If we don't like something as consumers don't buy it. Once the money train stops they'll revisit what they're producing or go bust.
It's probably also the definition on competing against hundreds of players, the clan wars side of things lets you do this in a persistent world. It's stretching it as its obviously not all at the same time but carried out in rounds.
No that's not the definition at all sorry, nice try though. FPS games you compete against hundreds and have clans, they aren't MMO's.
I'm sorry oh god of MMO definitions
Which of those FPS games have a persistent world map that you battle over?
I read WOT set the record for the most uses online in an mmo
with some 100k people in a queue...
apparently it even made the guineas world records.
it's a known fact eve-online has the highest concurrent uses in an mmo and it's a known fact the server cluster eve-online uses i massive and likely makes the WOT server look like it should be powering a bulletin board.
people seem to be taking what mmo stands for and completely *******ising it
for a start WOT does not have a world it has a handful of maps much like 100% of regular online games
there is no persistent world.
there is no very large number of players interacting with anyone because they only exist in a queue they are not even playing the damn game they are waiting for the match making to assign them a team.
it is counter strike with tanks and instead of lobbies match making.
You could claim any random chatroom with thousands of users is about as mmo as people sitting in a queue waiting for the match making.
I'm sorry oh god of MMO definitions
Which of those FPS games have a persistent world map that you battle over?
Planetside 2
it is? can we all go inside it together?
you realise minecraft has persistant worlds right?
you realise minecraft actually has a world instead of a tiny map?
you realise minecraft is played by millions of players?
you realise it's closer to an MMO than WOT is yet it still is nothing like one?
to be an MMO a game must
be able to support a massive amount of players in the same open game world which is persistent as a bare minimum
most MMO servers can support thousands of players at the same time and hundreds of players can be in the same area at the same time fighting , trading or doing whatever they like just like in real life.
an MMO is essentially a simulation of an actual world where thousands of players can live together you won't find many game devs who will argue against that
what WOT does is have one big ass lobby server that is basically a glorified chatroom/match making experience
then you get designated onto a map which is pretty much it's own server for all intents and purposes where you fight in a small battle ground with 30 other players
some people seem to think that is what makes an MMO and they are dead wrong
you realise minecraft has persistant worlds right?
you realise minecraft actually has a world instead of a tiny map?
you realise minecraft is played by millions of players?
you realise it's closer to an MMO than WOT is yet it still is nothing like one?
to be an MMO a game must
be able to support a massive amount of players in the same open game world which is persistent as a bare minimum
most MMO servers can support thousands of players at the same time and hundreds of players can be in the same area at the same time fighting , trading or doing whatever they like just like in real life.
an MMO is essentially a simulation of an actual world where thousands of players can live together you won't find many game devs who will argue against that
what WOT does is have one big ass lobby server that is basically a glorified chatroom/match making experience
then you get designated onto a map which is pretty much it's own server for all intents and purposes where you fight in a small battle ground with 30 other players
some people seem to think that is what makes an MMO and they are dead wrong
Last edited:
Which is an MMO?
Yet they still get away with calling it an MMO...
No it's an MMOFPS as Sony have rightly categorized their game.
btw PS2 has a 64 square km game world with thousands of players
WOT has like a 4 km square map with 30
Last edited: