World of Tanks News of The Week By Ghost_12
video games and profound thoughts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
WoT: Must See Fan News Video: WoT New of The Week March 25, 2012
This is well done and a must see. Good info. Good fights. Just gd good....
Sunday, March 25, 2012
WoT: PAX East passes and VIP Party invites!
Back stage passes are being made available to PAX East.
And on, Slickdeals.net.
Mingle, mingle, mingle, mingle, mingle ... ayeday I'm minglin'....
Witha dev.
And on, Slickdeals.net.
Mingle, mingle, mingle, mingle, mingle ... ayeday I'm minglin'....
Witha dev.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
WoT: The British Are Coming!
Regarding the recent World of Tanks, YAWR (You Ask We Raff):
- Finally, World of Tanks will be paying homage to the guys who actually first applied a tank in combat: The British.
- An OP French premium is coming comparable to the Lowe/KV-5
- War Gaming finally puts the bottle down and will be buffing the much UPed T14 and Churchill (it took, what, just a million battles?)
- And WG.net discusses a "Hardcore" mode, set for the future. Cuz, so far, we've all been doing it softcore....
She popped-up in a search for british people. Like I said, the British are coming....
Friday, March 23, 2012
WoT: The Fadin' Fadin's
Irony: it either proves there's a god, or it proves that, well, some things that line-up in life are just freaky.
Waaay back in the early '80s, my uncle -- who worked at NASA at one point and an elder geek -- talked my Dad into buying me a TI994A, Texas Instruments computer (the makers of the original integrated circuit if I remember). I fell in love with it. My uncle had gotten one too, and gave me some software: Parsec and Zork.
I played Zork for hours on end. Why? Because, when I discovered the right combination of words it gave me a reward: it let me advance. It gave me an achievement. Or, if I were a monkey, a bean.
It satisfied that reward centered part of my brain. This continued on throughout my geek life, throughout all gaming. We played for the reward of more frags than our buddy, more gold and cities than our rival computer-controlled civs, more levels and gear in our fav MMOG, and then, catching on, game makers actually began giving us, get ready for ... achievements. I.e., they finally began naming these things that.
It stands to reason that we are rewarded for accomplishment. In real life (that thing outside of a video game), we get raises and promotions at work. We workout and dress well to get that better girl. We do stuff to our cars and trucks like wheels -- all to reward that thing in us that Darwin explained was based in competition and survival of the fittest.
So, we carry this on to video games, and all games seemingly now have this -- even silly ones, like, in Civ 5 I noticed some strange achievements that were like, anti-achievements. Like, congo rats! You were beat 10 times by all the other civs! Srsly?
But Idt any game has given me, personally, that sense of achievement -- pun intended -- as World of Tanks. In it, more than any, there is a reward tied to performance. The achievements look real. They resemble the medals the men who really operated these vehicles received. They are shiny, and have names on them of guys from history with stories behind their names. Some are more common to get, but some are rare. The rarer the more we want, and, the more disappointed we are when we don't get.
Oh, how many of us have been robbed of that Boelter's? Oh the agony!!!
^getit?^
What am I talking about? In World of Tanks, you can get an achievement called Fadin's Medal, and it's, well, it's fading....
It's gets better. It's a medal you get for running out of ammo, but still defeating the enemy. That is, you're down to your last round, and you kill the last enemy. Your fading ammo kills the fading enemy and you get the Fadin's Medal for that.
But, it gets ... still better!
And it's ... it's fading. How so? You might not get it, lemme keep typing.
Time to reminisce:
Waaay back in the early '80s, my uncle -- who worked at NASA at one point and an elder geek -- talked my Dad into buying me a TI994A, Texas Instruments computer (the makers of the original integrated circuit if I remember). I fell in love with it. My uncle had gotten one too, and gave me some software: Parsec and Zork.
I played Zork for hours on end. Why? Because, when I discovered the right combination of words it gave me a reward: it let me advance. It gave me an achievement. Or, if I were a monkey, a bean.
It satisfied that reward centered part of my brain. This continued on throughout my geek life, throughout all gaming. We played for the reward of more frags than our buddy, more gold and cities than our rival computer-controlled civs, more levels and gear in our fav MMOG, and then, catching on, game makers actually began giving us, get ready for ... achievements. I.e., they finally began naming these things that.
It stands to reason that we are rewarded for accomplishment. In real life (that thing outside of a video game), we get raises and promotions at work. We workout and dress well to get that better girl. We do stuff to our cars and trucks like wheels -- all to reward that thing in us that Darwin explained was based in competition and survival of the fittest.
So, we carry this on to video games, and all games seemingly now have this -- even silly ones, like, in Civ 5 I noticed some strange achievements that were like, anti-achievements. Like, congo rats! You were beat 10 times by all the other civs! Srsly?
But Idt any game has given me, personally, that sense of achievement -- pun intended -- as World of Tanks. In it, more than any, there is a reward tied to performance. The achievements look real. They resemble the medals the men who really operated these vehicles received. They are shiny, and have names on them of guys from history with stories behind their names. Some are more common to get, but some are rare. The rarer the more we want, and, the more disappointed we are when we don't get.
Oh, how many of us have been robbed of that Boelter's? Oh the agony!!!
^agony of defeat and stuff^
And then there were those times when, I got 6 kills, and no Top Gun. I pour over the screen shots, trying to understand. Ah, that other guy had 6 kills too, and he had a bit more experience that game than me, so that's why.
When it makes sense, we move on.
But recently, it didn't make sense
ATTENTION: Prepare for yet another fatkiddown QQ
^haha! last kill last bullet last enemy haha!^
And you open the door and you
step inside. We’re inside our
hearts. Now, imagine your pain as a
white ball of healing light. That’s
right, it’s your pain the pain itself is a ball of
healing light.
I don't think so....
Searching the forums, there's a lot of posts of people going, "hey! I got no Fadin's!" And lots of people offering solutions:
- Maybe an enemy disconnected, so you didn't kill all?
- Maybe you didn't have all ammo loaded, and you gotta have a full clip?
- Maybe god hates you. I hate you. He doesn't like you either
It is none of the above:
Dear Player,
Thank you for contacting World Of Tanks Support.
We are aware of a bug with Fadin's medal and are actively working to resolve the problem.
Unfortunately, we do not currently have a way to manually give you the medal.
Thank you for reporting this to us and thank you for your continued patronage.
Best Regards
Solution time:
Devs at World of Tanks: give support people the ability to manually add these achievements, when it is an obvious bug.
This concludes our solution time....
They should do this, and/or, they should at least promise to do it.
I disagree with the whole, "yea, you shoulda got it, you didn't, sry bro...."
fatkiddown, why do you care so much about an achievement? Ya, just me, only me, I'm the only one who cares. Or, wait, no, it's for you others that I'm doing this!
Stfu. You care too. We all do. We all loves our stats and achievements. Let's stop playing these love games and do eet already....
But, for all those like me who got robbed of this due to a game bug, and with no hopes of getting, I'll provide it here for you. Enjoy:
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
WoT: The "He Sucks & He Don't" Mod ... AKA, The Win Rate Mod
Boobs and stats don't matter. I mean, they really don't at all. "No honey, I love your little boobs." (Or, we could inverse this for the women and talk about weiners). Size, stats, same thing, dunnot matter.
Let's be honest, they do help, I mean, initially. Sure, we all like Ricky Gervais. Funny, funny guy -- proof positive that, if you judge a boob, I mean a book, by it's cover, you'll miss out. Still, you have to admit, there's a striking resemblance:
Has anyone seen them together? Could it be ... the same person?
So, the Win Rate Modification for World of Tanks: Yes, after .7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. came out, I installed it, but not before the mod was truly fixed, although, the dude that put it up claimed he had fixed it, to find out later, he realized he hadn't, but now he did. I did suffer a night of frustration trying to get it to work before he got it right:
It's ready for press! No wait, stop the presses! No, it's ready again, wait, no, ok, now it is....
Reminds me of Lou:
Needless to say, after all that torture, it does work, and now, I can clearly see the win rates of the people I'm playing with, and against, in game....
I have to say, srsly, this has changed my World of Tanks play more than any other mod (no, I never did clown skins). Why? Good question.
I admit and do agree with those that state that when w/r mod shows a player with skills, he does indeed do good in game. I.e., high w/r + high number of games = better player. In contrast, someone with low w/r -- in the red -- does do worser. It's just how it is. Or is it?...
(Note: the % of wins appears to be inaccurate for new players. I.e., people under 500 battles, tend to show wild swings in their win rates. This has to be a caching discrepancy between WoT server stats and the w/r mod stats caching of those figures that are, some how, delayed -- my best guess).
Now, two factors matter here: % of w/r + number of games played. Simply put, the more games/battles someone has (indicated in that screen shot by the number after the icon graphic and typically followed by a "k" -- no "k" if under 500 games), the more you can trust the % of wins -- that's the theory anyhow. I.e., "wow" in that screen shot (no, that's not his name -- I wrote "wow" there), with 2k games (rounded) and 56% w/r, will very likely do better than sucks with 44% and 2k games on my team, or so we are lead to believe.
However, I disagree, in part, that you can bank on this as far as your personal ability to win just because of your or the other teams win rates. I'm still testing, but from what I've seen, teams with great players -- great w/r % -- do and can lose. The fog and blur of war is simply too great of a factor, it's like weather. Duh right? Don't read that too literally. Of course there's variation. My point is, just how accurate are these win rates?
I'm not tallying this fact, I've just seen it, and, honestly, think about it. Like, do good-looking people tend to get better jobs/make more money than ugly people? Sure they do, but then, look at Ricky O'Donnell above....
But bear with me here. Do you honestly think I'm telling you what you already know, that win rate is just an indicator of the chances someone will win or lose in battle? Maybe I am, or maybe I'm trying to point out, that win rate don't mean shiz. You be the judge.
Finally, I want to add here, it'd be nice if this mod could do a tally-line, average each team's w/r. I.e., adding all win rate percentages together, and then dividing by 15, and having that on a line beneath, or above, each team. Just do that, magically, thru your l33t programming/coding skillz k?
As for what does w/r really reflect: it could be, that those are right who state that win rate just doesn't matter. What if it represents an account where the person played only one or two specific vehicles? What if they were always platooned? What if they were -- imagine this -- "carried" by a god-like player forever? (Note: the concept of "a carry" in on-line gaming is nothing new; it does seem to be something unthinkable in World of Tanks -- it's like, violating the holy word or holy temple if you dare claim someone's w/r is affected by a "carry" or "platoon/clan" /boggle). Could/can people play with their win rates? What if the differences between a good and bad and so-so win rate is about like this:
Maybe, it's all of _the_ above. Maybe some folk's win rate reflect their true level of play, some reveal a "playing" of the numbers to get the best possible, and some are just luck....
For sure, the fewer games played the less reliable, as stated.
Still, I like this mod, and use it, and like it. I am not knocking it, and I do not think using the mod makes one "bad." I like stats, measurements, analysis. I do not think it deserves the same stigma as clown skins.
(What am I, a clown?!?)
What'd I like to see as well (if these exist already, do share):
DO AS I SAY WOMAN!!!
Let's be honest, they do help, I mean, initially. Sure, we all like Ricky Gervais. Funny, funny guy -- proof positive that, if you judge a boob, I mean a book, by it's cover, you'll miss out. Still, you have to admit, there's a striking resemblance:
Has anyone seen them together? Could it be ... the same person?
So, the Win Rate Modification for World of Tanks: Yes, after .7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. came out, I installed it, but not before the mod was truly fixed, although, the dude that put it up claimed he had fixed it, to find out later, he realized he hadn't, but now he did. I did suffer a night of frustration trying to get it to work before he got it right:
It's ready for press! No wait, stop the presses! No, it's ready again, wait, no, ok, now it is....
Reminds me of Lou:
Needless to say, after all that torture, it does work, and now, I can clearly see the win rates of the people I'm playing with, and against, in game....
I have to say, srsly, this has changed my World of Tanks play more than any other mod (no, I never did clown skins). Why? Good question.
I admit and do agree with those that state that when w/r mod shows a player with skills, he does indeed do good in game. I.e., high w/r + high number of games = better player. In contrast, someone with low w/r -- in the red -- does do worser. It's just how it is. Or is it?...
(Note: the % of wins appears to be inaccurate for new players. I.e., people under 500 battles, tend to show wild swings in their win rates. This has to be a caching discrepancy between WoT server stats and the w/r mod stats caching of those figures that are, some how, delayed -- my best guess).
Now, two factors matter here: % of w/r + number of games played. Simply put, the more games/battles someone has (indicated in that screen shot by the number after the icon graphic and typically followed by a "k" -- no "k" if under 500 games), the more you can trust the % of wins -- that's the theory anyhow. I.e., "wow" in that screen shot (no, that's not his name -- I wrote "wow" there), with 2k games (rounded) and 56% w/r, will very likely do better than sucks with 44% and 2k games on my team, or so we are lead to believe.
However, I disagree, in part, that you can bank on this as far as your personal ability to win just because of your or the other teams win rates. I'm still testing, but from what I've seen, teams with great players -- great w/r % -- do and can lose. The fog and blur of war is simply too great of a factor, it's like weather. Duh right? Don't read that too literally. Of course there's variation. My point is, just how accurate are these win rates?
I'm not tallying this fact, I've just seen it, and, honestly, think about it. Like, do good-looking people tend to get better jobs/make more money than ugly people? Sure they do, but then, look at Ricky O'Donnell above....
But bear with me here. Do you honestly think I'm telling you what you already know, that win rate is just an indicator of the chances someone will win or lose in battle? Maybe I am, or maybe I'm trying to point out, that win rate don't mean shiz. You be the judge.
Finally, I want to add here, it'd be nice if this mod could do a tally-line, average each team's w/r. I.e., adding all win rate percentages together, and then dividing by 15, and having that on a line beneath, or above, each team. Just do that, magically, thru your l33t programming/coding skillz k?
As for what does w/r really reflect: it could be, that those are right who state that win rate just doesn't matter. What if it represents an account where the person played only one or two specific vehicles? What if they were always platooned? What if they were -- imagine this -- "carried" by a god-like player forever? (Note: the concept of "a carry" in on-line gaming is nothing new; it does seem to be something unthinkable in World of Tanks -- it's like, violating the holy word or holy temple if you dare claim someone's w/r is affected by a "carry" or "platoon/clan" /boggle). Could/can people play with their win rates? What if the differences between a good and bad and so-so win rate is about like this:
Maybe, it's all of _the_ above. Maybe some folk's win rate reflect their true level of play, some reveal a "playing" of the numbers to get the best possible, and some are just luck....
For sure, the fewer games played the less reliable, as stated.
Still, I like this mod, and use it, and like it. I am not knocking it, and I do not think using the mod makes one "bad." I like stats, measurements, analysis. I do not think it deserves the same stigma as clown skins.
(What am I, a clown?!?)
What'd I like to see as well (if these exist already, do share):
- Accuracy rate
- Win rate for that vehicle only or option to toggle between global and vehicle
- True number of games (not rounded)
- Age of account
- How often the account is played maybe
- Latency of the player -- unpossible to get I'd assume (Quake 1, over a decade ago, would show this; i.e., you could ping other player's IP address and mod from there)
- The number of vehicles played by that player
- How many games the player has in that vehicle
DO AS I SAY WOMAN!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)