Talk:World of Tanks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

World record

English is not my native language so is it possbile somebody rewirte the guiness world record part with this primary source? http://worldoftanks.com/news/2120-world-tanks-sets-new-guinness-world-record/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.103.114 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

English Vehicles

just like world of warplanes and world of battleships, all 3 games are WWII sims that put English vehicles to the absolute bottom of the development list and are completely ommited from the entrance survey (which vehicles do you like US, German or Russian?).

Any attempt to state the lack of british vehicles are omitted from these games is edited out of the wiki, surely its worth mentioning to people looking for information on the game or wondering if they want to play, that the signature vehicles of the war like spitfire or matilda are either ommited or placed on the russian tech tree

— There is reason why British tanks are not still here. Because UK guys don't give developers blueprints. French did, that's why it's in game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.42.102 (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this allegation? (Hohum ^@) 11:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

- According to the developers (one of the "Developer Q & A" threads on the official forum, I'll try to find the reference), there are several reasons for prioritizing the German, Soviet, and US tech trees, and then phasing in the French, with Britain, Japan, Italy, Poland, etc., being further down on the scale of importance:

1.) Variety - there are multiple variants of the "Iosif Stalin" (IS) and "Kliment Voroshilov" (KV) platforms, same applies to the German Tiger and Panther lines, while the British tank selection is more sparse. Sorry, Hobart's Funnies don't count as significant variants of a platform.

2.) Historical significance - this is one I personally disagree with, after all the Brits were the first ones to make a tank, as well as develop the basic concepts of armored warfare.

However, I can understand the historical perspective of a group of developers based in one of the republics of the former Soviet Union: the history of WWII for Russia is the history of conflict between Russia and Germany, with the US helping out at the end. Britain is simply too far geographically, and not as tightly interwoven into the Russian military history of WWII as Germany, the direct aggressor, or the US as a supplier of financial and technological assistance.

3.) The above-mentioned difficulty in obtaining accurate technical data for some countries (not only Britain, China and Japan were mentioned as "hard to research", if memory serves). No, I don't have an exact quote, but a definite recollection of something along those lines posted in the Developer Q & A.

4.) Going back to #1, the developers decided to work on the most-popular / most-data-available tech trees, and then "when they got around to it", lump the very few examples of Italian, Czech, etc., tanks into a combined "Europe Tree" - because there aren't enough varieties available per country to justify giving it its own tech tree. (The Type 59 is an exception, they just needed something to make a "premium" vehicle, and the upgraded Chinese clone of the Russian T-34-85 was a perfect candidate. Also, subtle send-up to Tiananmen Square.)

My 3 cents (adjusted for inflation).

1927metropolis (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

It seems that there are a few knuckleheads out there trying to make a point by vandalizing the article in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Such as the recent edit to change the required RAM from 1GB to 8GB, or the required processor from an old Pentium 4 to the $1000 i7, or the required graphics to something that even my rig can't compete against despite playing the game very well. This childish game must be put to an end. There are better ways of communicating grievances than editing Wikipedia articles . . .

To those who still have the rights to edit this article, please watch the revision history well. Hirumaru (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

MMO?

I thought one of the criteria for something to be called an MMO was for the game to have a persistent world. WoT operates on a round-by-round basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.73.40 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's somewhere between an MMO and an instanced matchmaking system for now, but one of the planned features for the full release is the clan wars system, with battles for dominance of a larger map. It also includes RPG-like experience and advancement, and classes in the form of the different types of vehicle. It's an interesting interpretation of the form, and I think it does qualify as an MMO, even if it's not strictly a shared persistent world game. Solipsistnation (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

- Clan wars still doesn't make World of Tanks MMO, because majority (99%) don't participate in them. It's same as calling Unreal Tournament 2004 or Battlefield 3 and MMO (BF3 more massive in player count on same map, and there are also unlocks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.42.102 (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Gold will only be available through purchase with cash. Gold is used to purchase premium items, such as improved HEAT or APCR ammunition, or consumables like medkits and camouflage nets." - wrong. Currently the camouflage nets cost 100,000 credits, not gold. 94.155.75.87 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What is massive in that game? Doub (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

- Well, the Maus is pretty massive... 1927metropolis (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RPG-like experience, advancement and classes have nothing to do with MMOs (MMO != RPG). As some guy above me said, clan wars are a very minor feature. If this is an MMO, so is CoD, SC2, WC3 etc. I'm removing the MMO part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.135.186 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.gameskinny.com/0coib/why-world-of-tanks-shouldn-t-have-won-the-golden-joystick-for-best-mmo This is an article that touches on this issue. So far the arguments for WoT being an MMO have been the fact that the author of the game says it's an MMO, and the second argument is based on planned future features. To me these arguments aren't strong enough to classify the game as being an MMO, if in the future the features are added that make the game an MMO then sure it can be fair to change the classification, but until then classifying it as an MMO just because the object of the article says so doesn't seem the way wikipedia usually does things. 80.221.243.234 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, and added MMO back to the box based on the very opening text of the article itself, which states that it is a massively multiplayer online game. Wiki's own article itself, on MMO/MMOGs defines them as: "...is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously." --- A persistent world is not a requirement. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see this is still up for quite some debate, and I rather understand why. The basic problem here is that what is defined as being an MMO, and what people's perceptions of it are quite different.

From what I have gathered, the most basic definition of an MMO is that it is merely "a game capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously". This definition comes from Wiki's own MMOG page, but also numerous other sources (too many to reasonably even give - just do a Google search) they almost all give the same basic definition.

Golden Joystick even gave WoT the award for 'Best MMO' - seems they agree with the classification as well.

The core issue here seems to stem from the fact that WoT only has 15 vs. 15 matches, and that doesn't seem to be very 'massive' at all.

BUT, like I said: MMO has nothing in its definition that says that all those thousands of players *must* be gaming in the same persistent world.

In fact, 'persistent world' is a separate definition.

What I've noticed is that most people associate MMO with MMORPGs, which almost universally take place in a persistent world, and are the #1 driving force behind MMOs in general. They are two separate things, though (World of Warcraft is an MMORPG with a large, persistent world).

My conclusion? MMO is a *very* generic, basic, and fairly nondescript term that can be applied to a *lot* of games - even in nonsensical situations.

The most common counter-argument to all this is: By this definition, Call of Duty is an MMO. Or Team Fortress 2 is an MMO.

Not that I can see, though: Every single Call of Duty game has been designed, ground-up, as a single-player experience, with a multiplayer experience also programmed in. MMOs have no such single-player experience available. You cannot play WoT as a single individual - nor World of Warcraft, etc.

(And Team Fortress 2 can be fully played single-player against bots.)

So, I stand by my re-addition of MMO to the World of Tanks page. It's a fairly broad term, but it does actually belong there.

Truth be told, I see more in common with MOBAs when it comes to WoT, but WoT doesn't fit that definition at all... TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian references

References on Russian not good idea for en Wiki. We need to find english refs. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Developer communication and Heavy handed moderation of game and forums

A very common set of themes on the forums, aside from a noticeable soviet bias, is that the Developers do not communicate with the player-base. As well, any criticism, constructive or otherwise on the forums is immediately locked to comments and/or The poster is banned from the forums. IMHO, this is something that is relevant to the wiki (the World of Warcraft page has negative information up front)Stevejsam (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"As well, any criticism, constructive or otherwise on the forums is immediately locked to comments and/or The poster is banned from the forums." This statement is false, as there are several very long topics featuring criticism right on the forums, which are freely navigational. "A very common set of themes on the forums, aside from a noticeable soviet bias, is that the Developers do not communicate with the player-base." this is an opinion. see above and this link in their Q&A topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.128.18 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to assume that you are a sock-puppet until you stop posting anonymously.Stevejsam (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry about that... last time i made a wiki account it got hacked and banned. but if your statement above is your version of being pissed at being contradicted, do not assume i'm a sock-puppet, i just picked apart your argument, as it's one I've seen many times and amounts to a whine post. Improve it, and maybe I'll agree with it, but until then, my above comments stands. 192.197.128.18 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

very well, I will gather up about 100 threads from the forums when I get a chance, specifically showing locked threads and RO bans to illustrate the truth about wargaming.net. Also, I remind you that your IP has been warned for vandalizing edits any disruptive edits will be revertedStevejsam (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Overlord (developer) used the mention of a "statistical anomaly of 4%" to justify a 15% nerf to the fire rate of the main gun of the T29. To which I asked for disclosure of all statistics considered relevant to balance and questioned the methods of using these statistics for balance. I pointed out that statistics can be misleading without any context or thorough inspection. I was given a sarcastic reply by Overlord, asking if we should balance based on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) next, then RO'ed for thirty days until the day after release (April 12).

More recently I made a private message to another player regarding the censorship of profanity and their vulgar use of weasel words to justify it. In a thread commenting on the heavy-handed overzealous administration of bans in regards to "language" the user had replied that it "served them right" for daring to use naughty words. What I presented was a solid argument against censorship. What I received an account suspension until May 9.

They may be Belorussian on the outside but they are all Soviet on the inside. Propaganda, censorship, and fascism. These are not exaggerations. That they allow some topics to live doesn't mean they aren't banning the dozen other users with the same or stronger sentiments. Honesty is apparently against the rules as is criticizing or questioning any rule or the judgement of any staff. It is very hard to prove that you are being censored since the point of censorship is to erase everything. 70.173.19.6 (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most certainly something that should be noted is the fact that they do not enforce their EULA, that they hold so dear, fairly or with any uniformity. For instance, the EULA forbids clans tags to have various symbols and letters in them, including SS. Oddly enough, WOT does not enforce this rule against a clan unless they, their moderators, game masters, or someone from a big clan complains that your clan name has SS in its title. Had this happen to me, all the while, there are 3 pages of other clans that start with SS. Honestly, if a company is going to solicit money, take said money, and publish a set of game and forum rules, those rules should be enforced uniformly and with total impartiality. Not doing this makes Wargaming USA look very unprofessional and more like a business run out of someones basement by a few buddies as opposed to a legitimate global gaming company. As for the forums, if you post anything remotely close to criticism, a moderator will jump on it quickly, delete it, warn you, and move on. The company wants your money, but wont accept your opinion. Many complaints have been filed with the California Better Business Bureau in regard to their business practice, including the one I filed tonight. It is time they either operate like a professional company, treating all their customers equally, or simply get out of business. 99.66.13.104 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reads like an advertisement and needs to be wikified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobyDZ (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Currently the "Custom Content" section isn't very accurate. WoT's development team still hasn't finalized plans for implementing their own system for using predefined alternate skins, "slogans", or clan tags. Currently, the only support is non-interference in the user-initiated manual modification and replacement of the texture files, that effect only client-side changes.

Definitely need someone who isn't supposed to be studying for a final to rectify that glaring spot of misleading advertisement. 68.104.121.229 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading informations

"Every unit has about 10 modifications with different combat characteristics and all modifications are historically grounded, meaning they were either implemented in real life or existed as prototypes"

LOL'd hard.

IS-4 with 130mm gun = NOT historical accurate at all.

Object 704 with 152mm BL-10 gun = Not accurate as well.

These vehicles were not designed to carry those guns.

Also, 122mm D-25 weapon for IS-2 got a penetration boost of + 25mm, something that should be noted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.241.237 (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

worldoftanks tips for new players

when your first start you need to focus on what country to want (USSR,Germany,America) and what type of tank you want to use you can do different types (regular,td,spg) of tanks but it takes up more time that way. Once you did that you need to make your tank better by upgrading the gun and the armor then it will be easier to fight in battles,and after you do that you can then save up credits (money) for new tanks then get bigger and better tanks.

     Here is some battle tips 

tip #1- don't rush unless you have a fast tank like a leopard tip #2- the side and the back armor is the weakest on any tank don't try to shoot the front unless you are face to face with the enemy or you are a spg tip #3- hiding behind rocks and building can help you to hide from spg fire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.235.109 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian bias section

I will no doubt receive heavy resistance on this, but that entire section is based on opinion. Please, for the sake of the neutrality of the article, can this section be removed? Leave new players to their own devices in deciding whether or not there is a bias present in the game. That discussion belongs on the game forums, not a wikipedia article. The section isn't even written well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.137.203 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I really dont think that the fact they will allow communist references but no nazi ones, even tho the game is filled with nazi war machines, supports your idea that there is not a Russian bias. The facts speak for themselves. Facts like, in the updates, tanks of the American line, German line and French line all get "nerfs" while the Russian tanks get nothing, or even worse, buffed. It happened to the American tier 10 heavy, the T110E5. It took a nerf in the 7.5 update all the while the IS4 took great buffs. We should also mention the American tier 9 turreted tank destroyer the T30. It is nerfed in just about every update however its Russian counterpart, the Obj 704, which has a much higher global win rate, never takes any nerfs. Oh yes my friend, the Russian bias is quite clear and they certainly do not to anything to hide it. 99.66.13.104 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the article

Not sure If I am posting correctly and if I am not please forgive me. There appears there has been some changes to the article. The sentences that reference 17,18,19,20,21, and 22 appear to have been changed. After reading the statements in the article. I went to the linked sources and they do not support the claims in the article. How can this be fixed? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.65.68 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Jihashi needs to be reverted

These were clearly vandals.

Content dispute

Here's the way I see it: We have the addition of a tank. The tank is golden and it apparently has some other features that make it stronger than the other tanks. I don't see how this affects gameplay in any major way discernable to the end user or the general reader. The two sources[1][2] that talk about this are in Chinese. The other editor is apparently fluent in Chinese, but I'm wary of trusting their interpretation of the material since they're trying to advance a point of view; that this is somehow so significant that it damages the game itself. Eik Corell (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Third-party opinion provided on your talkpage, per your request. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added mention of it in the article, but I've changed the sentence to avoid commenting on historical accuracy, etc since I haven't been able to see any mention of it in the sources. I'm gonna add the second source(the sina.com.cn article) as a secondary source after the first one. Eik Corell (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your edition. I'm gald to see it could be handled by some professional. The existence of this event is basically all I want to add.142.151.134.209 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not to beat a dead horse but if you make a metion of this gold tank Type 59, why is there no mention of other item mall tanks, LOWE, KV-5 for example. I do play this game and it seems to me that this gold Type 59 is just another Tier 8 item mall tank. All premium tanks make more then normal tanks. I dont see what makes the gold Type 59 notable enough to mention in the article. If you like I can provide links to the cost page of the item mall to support what I am talking about. Thank you for your time. TSG  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeSidedGolem (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 

Wargaming America's business practices

It should be noted by players, especially those planning on spending money with World of Tanks that Wargaming America, aka, World of Tanks, has 5 complaints filed against them currently with the Better Business Bureau of California. 4 of them have gone unresolved and unanswered by Wargaming America. Clearly they do not deal with business disputes filed by customers and customer satisfaction and fairness are not a concern for this company. Once they have your money, the deal is sealed.99.66.13.104 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"It should be noted" - Why? What does the fact that complaints have been lodged add to this article, which is about the game, not the company? We have no idea what kind of complaints they were, we have no idea why they were lodged, we only know that they're there. Unless this ties into coverage by reliable, third-party sources of issues related to these complaints, I don't see a reason to include mention of them here, other than using this article to grind your axe. Eik Corell (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It has total relevance here as Wargaming America is a business and solicits money from its customers. The fact that complaints regarding financial transactions were not addressed and ignored by Wargaming shows poor business practices and a lack of customer care. If you follow the link you can clearly see what complaints were filed and which ones were not addressed by Wargaming. As little kids do not file complaints with the Better Business Bureau, it is easy to assume that the complaints were filed by working adults who had legitimate complaints that Wargaming wouldnt address thru their ingame system. Stating a fact here regarding how they do business is not grinding an axe, it is simply posting information about the company. Im sorry those facts insult you so. 99.66.13.104 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits thus far paint a picture of tendentious editing. What I said still stands: If any of this is to be included, it needs reliable, third-party sources that cover how and why this is important. The purpose of this is so we don't have to rely on editors' interpretations of things such as this. Eik Corell (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the Better Business Bureau site isnt a reliable source? What do you need, a picture book? The subject is that they have complaints and have not resolved them. It is in black and white on the BBB website. Exactly what more reference do you require? court testimony?? And it is important, again (since you didnt get it the first time) because this company advertises their game as free but solicits and accepts money from its customers. 99.66.13.104 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, you cannot talk about the game and company as separate entities. They are one in the same. One runs the other. World of Tanks solicits money from its users. Should I change it to World of Tanks instead of Wargaming America?? Would that please you??99.66.13.104 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A Section for the Tech Trees, Complete with Links

Seeing as almost every, if not every tank in World of Tanks has a Wikipedia article or at least section about it, and seeing as many players undoubtedly search Wikipedia for the tanks in this game, I propose making a section of this article that shows the tech trees as one or more charts, with each tank's name linking to the article or article section about that vehicle. RMS Gigantic (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Python

According to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Python_software#Video_games

(look at the end), Python was used in the development of this game, shouldn't this be included? 2.103.23.39 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

New Sections Needed

This article makes no mention of many of the very important parts of the game: Medals/Achievements, Crew Members and Training, Modules and Research, Consumables, Exterior Vehicle Modifications (camouflage, inscriptions, emblems), game currencies (both credits and gold, as well as experience and free experience). I will work on these some, but thast is a lot of information for a single person to add, any help would be much appreciated! Jchap1590 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not a game guide. Going into too much niche detail would be counter-productive, and not in line with Wikipedia's core policies. If you would like to write about the game in extreme detail, by all means do so on the appropriate website. If you really are going to write about things such as consumables, modules, research and all that, I would suggest that you should think twice about doing so; it is quite likely that large quantities of uncited material based on in-game cruft will be swiftly removed by passing editors. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

hmm, alright, fair enough I suppose. I won't waste my time then. Jchap1590 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Excessive Content Removed"

I had added some content the other day pertaining to the rules of Tank Companies, which was subsequently removed and cited as being "excessive content" not in accordance with an encyclopedia-type article. I really do not understand why the content I added was unacceptable, while other sections seem to follow the same style. If this is to be a strictly encyclopedia-type article, the only relevant sections would then be the introductory overview, an abridged history of the game and the 'Reception/Awards' section, would it not? Sections such as 'Game Modes', 'Vehicle Types', 'Clan Wars', and 'Custom Features' contain extraneous information and detail about the game and are only relevant to specific gameplay, as if the article was a "game guide". Jchap1590 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I've been meaning to find time to actually improve this article up to satisfactory standards, but haven't been able to find the appropriate time. At this stage, this article is below standards, and I have only been able to put in enough effort to prevent the article from becoming any worse, even though the quality of the article hasn't been improving. It is a fact that this article definitely needs work, however the article being bad doesn't mean that other people should make it worse by continuing to add cruft to it, which is why myself and other editors have been reverting such edits. In the case where an article becomes really poor in quality, it may run the risk of being deleted. I suggest that other editors who are interested in improving the article (by cleaning it up, adding reliable references and citations, et cetera) to be bold and do so. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just didn't know if I was misunderstanding why my content was removed or, if the content I mentioned remains simply because no one has gotten around to removing it yet. You seem much more experienced than I with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so I'll let someone such as yourself edit the page accordingly. Thanks for the helpful responses though! Jchap1590 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

reason to elaborate gold model

To non-players the most interesting features of this game are its value as a historical simulation, and as an example of an in-game economy.

To players considering playing the game, the most interesting element is whether they can play competitively without paying. The "gold" section is now possibly the best explanation of how the paid vs. unpaid abilities are balanced. The facts in it are easily verifiable if more references are required.

As this "gold" element is of interest to cultural and economic observers, game designers, etc., and is widely being emulated by other companies, and often controversial in MMO games generally, this should remain a feature section. Strategies for minimizing use of gold or maximizing effectiveness of it should not be added however except for nominal mention of the way free players use their free gold commonly (barracks expansion, vehicle slots) which is of interest to anyone who considers playing the game.

Sections like clan wars are only of interest to experienced players so mention of that should possibly be scaled back except for mentions of key differences and the basic game model. The detailed version history is also not of much interest unless the reasons for the changes can be cited, which is of interest to those watching the video game field professionally or culturally or economically.

The dual form of currency in-game is less of an "economy" within the game and more of just a business model by Wargames used for this game, known as freemium. The existence of gold in the game does not constitute an economy; economies, even virtual ones, must involve the trade or exchanging of goods. Gold only buys you things in-game, you can not purchase(sell) things from(to) other players with gold OR credits (silver).

Also, please sign your posts. If you are unfamiliar with how to do this, please see the 'how to sign your posts' page.

Jchap1590 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally agreed, but this is just a distinction between a more and less controlled economy, with WG using a more extreme centrally controlled model.

Thoughtless reverting of edits that corrected vendor POV is not of any value at all. If you think the gold section should be cut down or a different article on the various ways games use internal ::currencies or credits ought to exist, fine.

Such mindless damage to articles (putting vendor POV back in, etc.) tends to spread to every article edited by the attacked editor, so no good reason to sign a post for now.

Please sign your posts, it is proper talk page ettiquette, and enforced by Wikipedia policy. It is not something that it optional. Keep in mind that even though you don't sign your posts, I can still find out who you are in the page records. As for why your additions were removed, we have policies prohibiting original research. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and much of the additions constitute WP:GAMECRUFT. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Advertising

Come on guys, this page is a true advertising like all the things on youtube and addsense for google. I was in the game and it is not even close to what the page or the homepage is promissing. The controls in the game are crazy and not very intuitive. The help file from the site is far away to clarify confusions. They are explaining a little bit the algorithm behind the game decissions, but this is an even greater confusion. All you can do is to learn by playing, consuming a lot of money on tries and dismiss a lot of crew. The mechanics are rusty too, the tanks are very hard to steer and guide. From nothing it will stop and get you expossed to the enemy. There are many other buggy things or to say better, not documented. The kind of things that will make some players to move away and leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.129.54 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you're posting this on an encyclopedia page. This is not the place to air the grievances you take with the game or gameplay. There is an official WoT Forum for that... Jchap1590 (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am used with other pages for games, they are presenting the game together with good and bad points. I mean they are talking about reception, too with problems and so on. This is not a complain about the gameplay. It is a request for a fair description of the game.

Well, seeing as this an encyclopedia-type page, there should be no presentation of bias. I really don't see anything in the article which portrays the game as being good or bad, is there a specific paragraph you could cite so I know what you are referring to? Also, please sign your posts. If you are unfamiliar with how to do this, please see the 'how to sign your posts' page. Jchap1590 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: since wikipedia is equidistant and non biased, please add a statement in the main article that this game is "in development". This is the fact, the developers are still adding something by time passing and the users are still some beta testers. They say it is released, but judging from the modification, it is still in development.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.85.59 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 August 2013‎ (UTC)

The game has a stable, released version, despite the fact that new versions come out on regular basis. The facts that the game is "released" and "in development" are not mutually exclusive. The development section explains the release model, although I suppose it could use editing for clarity.  — daranz [ t ] 12:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The game is still technically "in development" due to the simple fact that only beta versions of the game exist. There have been no "stable" versions of the game as of yet. Notice the current PC version is 0.8.7 where the "0" prefix denotes that the game is still in beta testing/developmental stages. Now, I know it's been released on XBox and I don't believe that platform receives updates like the PC will so there is some gray area in that respect. Jchap1590 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting article to be restricted for edits

This article has run amok with edits which do not comply with encyclopedic content. Very few citations are used and edit wars have the article going back and forth between a game-guide and an encyclopedia article. I would like to request the article be restricted for edits in attempt to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, for as of right now, it is severely lacking. Jchap1590 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE drama regarding the Stalin inscriptions

Today a number of IP contributors added a giant section about drama arising from a recent event, where Wargaming has reintroduced inscriptions relating to Josef Stalin. This section is extremely problematic for a number of reasons:

• It forms undue weight within the article, as it takes up a large chunk of text despite a complete lack of importance being demonstrated;
• It is unencyclopedic (remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not your drama blog);
• It falls under WP:RECENTISM, and potentially WP:NOTNEWS;
• It is heavily opinionated, and contains plenty of original research (looking at primary sources such as Polish law, and then creating your own synthesis constitutes original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia)

This nonsense belongs on an internet forum or a blog, and not on Wikipedia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am the guy from France responsible for the apparition of the "Controversies" section. People from Wikipedia tell me that Youtube and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. Ok, I understand. The problem is that Pravda's video is only easy to find on Youtube, and they seem to have removed the English version of it ... how can I quote it ? I don't want to leave some parts without justifications.90.44.161.67 (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Massive clean-up to remove violation of guidelines tag

There was a ton of material in this article that caused it to receive the "Does not meet Wikipedia guidelines" box at the top of the article.

I believe that I have corrected this issue, and I left good editing points and notes on each individual edit made.

Things that need to be avoided in the future: - Game articles on Wikipedia frequently have a tendency to become long, and bloated, by listing every single thing changed in them with each patch/revision made to a game. Wiki isn't the place for this. The tank that was removed back in (for example), patch 8.0 (or whatever) does not need to be listed here.

- This isn't the game manual. Excessive details on how things work, strategies, every single available tank customization option, etc. Should not be included. This isn't a game guide.

Now, as for the lack of reliable sources ... somebody else want to tackle that? TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

for player's

world of tanks is a game where you can show skill and power in a tank.There are seven country's that you can play such Britain Russia and U.S.A.You start from the level one and finish at level ten. When you start the game you get all level one tanks you choice the country you want to explore and find about those tanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.4.135 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use this area as a message board, or for nonconstructive talk. Thanks. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)