Jump to content


Roll out: Facts and Figures for World of Tanks


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

Community #1 Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:23 PM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 25,030
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
Learn some amazing facts and figures that we've gathered from the past year, 2013.

Full news text

Monster95alpha19 #2 Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:27 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 35389 battles
  • 4,000
  • [TKEA] TKEA
  • Member since:
    10-28-2011
i liked the first comment

TiMmY007 #3 Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10013 battles
  • 677
  • Member since:
    12-05-2011

Nice video! But 1 thing is missing: How much shells were shot since the launch of WoT?



domidawi #4 Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:33 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19416 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    03-05-2012
"Historical accuracy" I liked that part.

general2000 #5 Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 3428 battles
  • 1,877
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010

"Historical accuracy" , "cough" "cough".

 

Edit :Grilled


Edited by general2000, 30 December 2013 - 05:33 PM.


mohammacl #6 Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:43 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17929 battles
  • 45
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

Historical accuracy EXCEPT russian tank for OverPower and Germans for UnderPowered tanks .

TNX WG



leggasiini #7 Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:44 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11661 battles
  • 6,021
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

WG failed pretty many times on video.

Firstly: ''Historical accuracy'' wut? tell this for T28 proto or WT auf E-100.

Secondly, why does T-54, FV215b and Sherman have same stats as Pz III? Was WG too lazy to change them?

And thirdly, tank shown as FV215b 183 is not FV215b 183, it is just FV215b.

And most funny thing that they says historical accuracy just when they show that fictional tank a.k.a FV215b.

 

GJ WG again, GJ.

Have nice New Fail Year too.



3elgian3lite #8 Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:49 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 34712 battles
  • 94
  • Member since:
    12-14-2011
1,300,000 players online at the same time.. that's unbelievable. I think not even 1 game achieved that. WoW and LoL aren't that popular, RS WAS popular in the past but not with so many players online at the same time.

BodyGuardOfLies #9 Posted 30 December 2013 - 06:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 78639 battles
  • 1,130
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011

That is not how you pronounce Milan

 



_Tazi_ #10 Posted 30 December 2013 - 06:11 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19183 battles
  • 159
  • [KLF] KLF
  • Member since:
    03-14-2011

Well yes, WoT is popular.

Espec for new players.

 

Just fingers crossed for WG keeping veteran players loyal in the upcoming year.

They are the core of competetive gamplay here. (no competition > no fun)

 

Game is not historically accurate but it is a game huh..

Just WG statements about such accuracy should be skipped I guess.

 

Happy new one ...

 

 



artjomski #11 Posted 30 December 2013 - 07:45 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24089 battles
  • 46
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012
''75 million signups'', I've only seen like 300.000 online on EU server alone, dunno where the 75 million comes from.

Gooner_J #12 Posted 30 December 2013 - 07:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Commander
  • 38915 battles
  • 538
  • [-TTK-] -TTK-
  • Member since:
    02-21-2012

Historical accuracy lol,  dont remember prem ammo in any war and how can you measure accuracy on tanks that were never built/produced

and were only ever designed on bluprints


Edited by Gooner_J, 30 December 2013 - 07:52 PM.


NikLemos #13 Posted 30 December 2013 - 08:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 52672 battles
  • 696
  • Member since:
    07-17-2011

View Postartjomski, on 30 December 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

''75 million signups'', I've only seen like 300.000 online on EU server alone, dunno where the 75 million comes from.


1. RU (Russia)  - 8 servers

2. EU (Europe) - 2 servers (Germany and Netherland)

3. China - 4 servers (North China, East China, West China, South China)

4. Korea - 1 server

5. Singapore - 1 server

6. Vietnam - 1 server

7. USA - 2 servers (Los Angeles and New York)

8. Japan - 1 server

 

Total: 20 servers in world.

 

 

Simulationary is 1.3 million players (now in this second), not sumulationary is 1.5 millions players.  9 millions active players (who plays every week). 75 millions registration.

 


Edited by NikLemos, 30 December 2013 - 08:17 PM.


rududu077 #14 Posted 30 December 2013 - 08:43 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 29828 battles
  • 28
  • Member since:
    08-26-2011
I hope those facts will still remain positive after the War Thunder ground forces release ( I mean that WG should improve game more seriously to save the players)

Edited by rududu077, 30 December 2013 - 08:46 PM.


WarxOfx23th #15 Posted 30 December 2013 - 09:53 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10063 battles
  • 350
  • Member since:
    08-15-2012

Be right back, gonna buy the FV215 and the T-54 for 138k creds as stated in the video.

 

They also leaked the British Sherman with fake stats. :hiding:


Edited by WarxOfx23th, 30 December 2013 - 10:00 PM.


Merdis #16 Posted 30 December 2013 - 10:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 26432 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

View PostCommunity, on 30 December 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Learn some amazing facts and figures that we've gathered from the past year, 2013.
Full news text


...and learn about incompetence of film creator. It looks like someone just googletranslated some text and had no idea about game. @Paris Office: Watching your own video for mistakes should be compulsory before release. Looks like NO ONE did this.

 

So we have (1.11):

- 'Aimer' (should be: gunner) 

- 'Charging'  (loader)

-'carriage' ( crew)

and probably more mistakes, which I haven't spotted on first sight

 

and 1.17: there is M4 Sherman, 'USA' on its side but 'Great Britain' above (should be 'medium tank'). And what the hell is 'PT-ACS' above FV215b 183. Is it acronym from Russian?  

 

Greetings

 

EDIT: I checked RU WoT wiki. If you googletranslate page about FV215B (183) you will see (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.worldoftanks.ru%2FFV215b_%28183%29)

 

that PT-ACS means our TD. What is more funny, crewmembers roles are translated exactly like on video:

we have  'Aimer', 'The driver' and 'Charging'

 

To me it is a proof that you, Paris Office Staff really used Google translate...

It is mocking your playerbase.


Edited by Merdis, 30 December 2013 - 11:15 PM.


Cyclotol #17 Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:58 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9184 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    04-24-2013
Yeah sure, historically accurate. So tell me why you basically invented the FV215b or messed up the entire British tree. For instance the QF17 pounder was the most effective Allied gun in WW2 that was even able to penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger II at 500 metres but it's a different story in WoT.
 
Where is APCBC, APDS, Armour Piercing Incendiary ammo etc? Moreover this video was badly made, whoever translated this from Russian made a terrible job. Carriage, CHARGiq, Strenght, Aimer? Seriously WG, learn proper English.
 
Oh and the M4 = British tank? Rly?

Edited by yowanvista, 30 December 2013 - 11:59 PM.


DobbysWrath #18 Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:09 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10249 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
WG,the loveable idiots! :D 

Edited by DobbysWrath, 31 December 2013 - 12:11 AM.


zmeul #19 Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:23 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 19552 battles
  • 2,133
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010
it cracks me up every time I hear WG selling WoT as an MMO :trollface:

Conte_Vincero #20 Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:32 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10402 battles
  • 1,893
  • [BAOR] BAOR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011
I dunno about the history fail, WG put the unhistorical name with the unhistorical tank. It's the devs fault for putting the historical name on the unhistorical tank.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users