Horrific, fantastic, superb architecture, visually amazing, utterly involving, depressing, don't watch this if you are young, easily upset by scenes of horror. Appallingly negative storyline with a visualisation that sucks you in regardless. The man whounderpinned the creation of this game is a genius. Watch at your peril. Children, do NOT watch, do not take part. LEaVe noW.
A combination of very attractive girls, long hair, short costumes, War of the Worlds, Jeff Wayne's music, steampunk and superb performances, what is there not to like? I often post a musical interlude here just for the sake of it and in this case I could not resist.
The following video has been around for some time but it is rather good so it is worth putting here. Very moody but visually enchanting the imagery works well with the music, in fact the two would be far less without each other. I do hope you find this musically appealing.
Hopefully soon I'll have some new/updated widgets for you. My old Yahoo CPU/GPU Thermometer Widget is being updated..
new graphics and new functionality including working graph and new use
for the gauges. Updating and improving the Yahoo widget now and then
will start to convert it to an Xwidget.
was the second widget that I created and it was little rushed in parts
and as a result I probably didn't think it through enough. It was still a
lovely functioning widget though which has sat on my desktop doing its
job well. The current version shows up to four sensors and displays a
running graph of two of them. When I have the new version rewritten and
updated I will have the thing in my head and I'll be confident to
translate it to the Xwidget engine.
Whilst I am working on the
CPU/GPU Thermometer Widget for Yahoo/Xwidget engines occasionally an
idea comes to mind and if it is worth pursuing then a dalliance is
allowed. In this frame of mind I have opened an old icon PSD file that I
had earlier created and have organised it so that it can be made into a
widget. The idea is that each drawer on the filing cabinet can be
hovered over or clicked upon and the drawer will open and inform you
which folder each drawer refers to. A double click will open the
respective folder. Think of it as a replacement for Explorer, a
steampunk version of a file explorer.
gauge may display CPU as an aside and the bulbs on the top will glow
according to the network adapters that are present in the system,
glowing in strength according to the signal each adapter receives.
Ethernet adapters being permanently connected will glow brightly whilst
wireless adapters may glow dimly. That's it, just a germ of an idea at
the moment but I have knocked up the initial widget and it sits on my
desktop as I write this.
For the Christmas season I have revamped
my Christmas Bauble widgets. The first version was a set of 10
individual widgets, each of which showed a different Christmas image.
That was it, nothing special.
The next revamped version acts more
like an old-style advent calendar. The advent season encompasses the
time from the first four Sundays before Christmas up to Christmas Day.
Those old-style Advent calendars allow you to open a little door that
shows a different Christmas scene every day. My new baubles will allow
of multiple widgets each showing a different bauble there will be just
one widget showing multiple baubles that can still be moved around
individually on the desktop. Each bauble has a door that can be opened
when clicked upon but only when the appropriate date is reached. Each
door has a musical surprise contained within. It is really rather
Christmassy and very pleasant to use. Each bauble can be individually
So what do I have to do to complete it? Add ten
existing bauble images, find thirteen more appropriate bauble images,
create twenty-three glass doors in open and closed states. Find
twenty-five musical elements and convert them for use in the widget. Add
the resizing code, test and tidy up. Package and distribute. A fair
Need to do it before 30th November which is the first day of Advent.
So to answer that question, World of Tanks - is the matchmaker rigged?
Well, I can't actually answer that question as I have no access to
Wargaming.net's code that defines what the MatchMaker does and how it does
it. There is no published and impartial definition of what the MatchMaker
is actually doing. Wargaming has given out ideas and hints as to how it
operates (RNG, random) but if you've played the game for several thousand
games (and if you are an observant person) it should start to become clear
as to how the matchmaker really achieves its aims...
I maintain that the Matchmaker is consistent. It consistently controls
your win rate by the simple expedient of dropping you into games with more
noobs (noob = new player), placing your tank in a non-preferential side of
the map or alternatively by placing your tank in a game with more highly
skilled opponents. This is all conjecture until you use one or more of the
statistical analysis sites that have sprung up with World of Tanks that
have access to WoT's historical data. These sites allow you to view graphs
based upon various performance metrics and it will soon become apparent
that your win rate is controlled.
Who am I to propose this analysis of World of Tanks? I am neither a noob
or a unicum (expert player). I have played 17,000 or so battles in
exclusively low tier (sub tier 6) light and heavy tanks. Unlike most WoT
players I typically play one type of tank consistently, I don't jump
from nation to nation, tank to tank and I do not play the best, most
highly successful tanks. My overall win rate is 55.5% and climbing (over
time) consistently but slowly. My win rate fluctuates from 65-70% to
45%. My average WN8 score is 1,300 but for the last 1,000 battles I
have had a WN8 of approximately 1,700. That currently puts me into the
light blue range, which is actually the top 5% of players. I am not the
best player but these stats show I am not at all bad at low tier (sub VII games).
For the purposes of this analyis I played WoT on an 8 year old laptop with a 2.5ghz core2duo cpu and a
256mb Nvida 8400m GPU. It maintains a frame rate of a mere 19-25fps so it
should be clear that I have limitations imposed upon me by playing on
hardware that is far from being optimised. I am not a dedicated gamer but
I enjoy playing WoT.
My analysis must be taken in this context.
The first time you will start to ask yourself questions as to whether
the MM is rigged or not is when you find yourself playing losing battles
for extended periods of time - ask yourself these additional questions:
o Why do you lose consistently (for tens or hundreds of games)
at a rate that is the ALWAYS the inverse of your previous winning
rate (eg. 40% vs 60%)
o Why does this occur when you reach a win rate of 50%, 55% or some
other arbitrary limit?
o Why does win rate suppression stop suddenly and subsequently
improve meteorically at 60% WR for an equal period?
o Why are so many players experiencing this?
o Why does this up/down oscillation in win rate occur against a
measurable background using other metrics (WN8) that improve gradually
o Why does Wargaming have a patent that describes exactly these sort
of methods for "putting down" players that reach a pre-determined level of
If these questions seem familiar to your experience of playing the game
then this articles serves the purpose of stating for the record what many
I'll give you a typical short term example: Playing in the Crusader with
four skilled 2,500 game crew, I can play consistently with a WN8 of 2,700
(unicum) and an 80% win rate - this can go on for 60 games for a few days.
Then suddenly after a log-out and re-login to WoT the next day, the win
rate drops to 38% as my team (and myself) are all killed within 2 and half
mins in every game for the next 60-100 games. Logging into another account
on another server and my win rate is restored!
Fig1. If your WN8 and kill/death ratio are rising continuously and you
see a win ratio like the above then perhaps you are being
For my analysis I used the website
noobmeter.com to view the data provided by Wargaming.net. I played
the British Cruiser MKIII and MkIV tanks consistently for approx 1,000
games at a time (I believe that playing lots of tanks of different
types/nationalities as most people do, obscures the cycling effect from
showing on a personal win rate graph). I switched between the two tanks
almost consistently for 8,000 games. When it seemed that my win rate was
being suppressed I then abandoned one tank and switched to another to see
if it would occur there too. I did this analysis specifically to see if
these cycles of win/loss were consistent and were caused by something
within or without of my control. When the downturn occurred I tried
beating it with all the tricks at my disposal, using premium rounds and
doing all I could to optimise my game play. On occasion I deviated from
these two tanks to alleviate the boredom but still the cycling persisted.
The tanks I used in their stead were also low tier British Cruisers...
Covenantor and Crusader.
Note: this is not a statistical analysis, this is an observational
analysis based upon gameplay and experience and observing the statistics
as provided by noobmeter, wotstats and wotlabs.
I chose low tier as I should be able to make a much bigger influence on
the outcome given that my three skill crews in a couple of brawler tanks
should be able to consistently cause more wins. It isn't what I found.
Regardless of any improvement in my own play (or changing between these
two tanks) I found I was bouncing between two win rate thresholds,
the upper limit that I battled to break was 55.10%. I would be playing
consistently at a current 65% WR for several hundred games and then as
soon as the upper threshold was reached the suppression of my win rate
would start. The drop in my win rate could not be stopped, better gameplay
on my part would simply slow or extend the drop for hundreds of
games until the lower threshold was reached. During the period of downturn
it seemed as if the majority of the teams I was inserted into were
consistently losing teams. On the upward swing the opposite, all winning
teams seemed to be on my side providing a consistent WR of 65%.
I could not account for this behaviour in my own mood swings, skill levels
&c as my Win8/7 ratings all climbed consistently during the periods of
continual loss. It was only the win rate that swung wildly.
Result: My analysis of playing WoT in
version 0.8.5 - 0.8.11 seemed to confirm that the MM has an arbitrary
win 'limit' set in % that seems to be defined by tier or type of
tank. My win rate turned out to be 55.10%. When I reached that
limit all subsequent teams were losses until a lower threshold was
reached. This caused a cycling effect of wins followed by losses. The aim seems to be to keep a player within a
narrow win-ratio band.
Now imagine that my chosen tank(s) will have lost consistently for
eight hundred games in a row achieving a win rate of only 45% - As
I am only one player in a team of fifteen I assumed that I personally
cannot have had that much effect on the overall win rate of my teams, if I
had been playing consistently badly I could have contributed to the loss
of one or two games perhaps but not consistently for hundreds of games, my
ego isn't that big - I am not that important in the scheme of things. To
lose so consistently I have to assume it must be an external influence on
the teams I have participated in (especially so if all other
metrics are improving).
Fig 2. The graph above showing the cycling effect on win rate (created
from two graphs).
See the massive troughs of thousands of games losing/winning, losing at
40% and then winning at 60%. Statistically it does not make sense that I
could lose consistently like that as my gameplay and style simply does not
Note:- In the graph above (Fig 2.) the peaks and troughs were originally
much sharper and more defined. WoT has a habit of modifying the historical
data that is provided to 3rd party sites such as Noobmeter.com, in
particular removing the peaks and troughs and smoothing out the graphs. If
you were to analyse the same data from WoT in noobmeter today (Fig 3.) the
peak and trough that occurred at 4,400 games has been completely removed
from the data... which makes no sense. It is as if the historical data has
been deliberately massaged to remove the absolute peaks. Look at the
graphs in the two examples above and below, see the dramatic fall at
approximately 4,400 battles, in the later version below, that whole cycle
of 500 games has simply been removed. The peak did occur and the
only way to know it has occurred is for you (or myself in this case) to
retain your own data or the graph image for later analysis. I have
maintained my own copies of the graph since I noticed this medium-term
smoothing of the data.
Since the final flattening out of the data (from 8,100 games onward) the
changes have been:
1. I have focussed on playing tier III/IV mid-tier cruiser tanks.
2. WoT 0.9 series has been released.
In the above graph you will note a change in the periodicity of the
cycles at the point at which the 0.9.0 patch was released. The graph peaks
have smoothed out considerably but the drop was still inexorably downhill.
Either of the above two changes could have had the effect of removing the
pronounced 'cycling' previously experienced in 0.8.nn. What seems to be
the case is that since 0.9 the upper and lower thresholds seemed closer
together higher but just as in 0.8.nn as soon as the upper threshold was
reached gameplay became distinctly harder and losing teams were more
regularly encountered - same as in the 0.8 series.
(Note for all the forum trolls: These graphs weren't made up, just taken
straight from noobmeter as explained. If you want to disbelieve them,
that's fine, simply do your own analysis before commenting.)
The analysis of win rate does not take into account other metrics that
also indicate performance independently. WoT has a performance rating that
is calculated according to an algorithm owned by Wargaming.net. Two
independent metrics are also maintained that supposedly give a more
accurate estimate of your performance, they are WN7 and WN8, the latter
being the most up to date.
My supposition is that if my win rate is controlled solely by my ability
to play well within the game, then my other performance metrics (average
damage, no of kills, experience &c) should all fluctuate in
synchronisation with the cycling win rate. However, this does not occur,
indicating the cycling is clearly artificial. My performance as measured
by all metrics including WIN7/8 are consistently climbing despite all the
win rate peaks and troughs. In fact, prior to the nerf starting my win
rate consistently rose and rose until it reached 55.1%. At approx 2,000
games then it simply stopped climbing and stayed just below 55.1% WR and
then cycling up and down. That isn't statistically possible if the MM is
even-handed. It indicates an algorithm coming into play. These sorts of
heavy losses can only be achieved by the match maker putting me against
tougher opponents or simply put, dropping me into loser teams or
manipulating the outcome of the battle in some other way.
Fig 3. The other performance metrics showing a steady climb - (graph
extracted from noobmeter, no modifications to the data other than adding
my text and an average win rate over time)
On average the win rate graph does show an average climb (the blue line
that I have drawn myself onto the win rate graph). That climb equates well
to the other metrics showing that overall my win rate is improving
consistently and inline with expectations. The trouble is the massive
cycles up and down just should NOT be present unless they are
artificially induced by the matchmaker. Remember, some of those
troughs are six or seven hundred games long, that is far too long to play
consistently losing matches. Conversely, in the upward climbs it seems as
if I am playing like a 'god' with a 65-70% win rate for hundreds of
matches, both are unbelievable.
This cycling only seems to show its head when you play one or two tanks
consistently. If you play many different tanks you may not notice the
effect. With all statistical cycles if you have multiple sources it tends
to flatten out to a curve when all the cycles are combined - as each
occurs at a different frequency. IF you want to replicate this analysis,
simply play two tanks of the same type consistently for thousands of
games, the cycling effect will then show. On the forums it seems to be
known as the saw tooth effect. I like to call it "cycling".
Just as a reminder to all who see this thread, here's Wargaming's patent
on the MatchMaker and how it operates, supporting observed behaviour:
"According to another aspect, the
matchmaking server may store a win/loss percentage for each user (or
vehicle) at a given battle level. As the player's win/loss ratio
decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles
having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas
as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more
likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end
of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put
into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of
easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an
easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been
repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in
favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged
instead of letting the player become bored with easy games."
Note: You only patent your most precious intellectual resources. The
work to patent something is not inconsiderable. Why does the patent match
real-life observation? Well, I would suggest that it's in use - otherwise
why bother to patent it? Occam's razor states the solution with the fewest
assumptions should be selected, ie - as the patent exists, it is much more
likely that it is in place in the game - than it isn't.
Ask yourself this simple question: If Wargaming has a patent for a
mechanism they say they don't use, why don't they patent the method they
say they actually do use? This is all back-to-front and frankly I don't
In any case, Wargaming admits that the patent IS actually in place in
World of Tanks. In the court case against "Beijing Gamease Age Digital
Technology Co., Ltd. (“Gamease”)" for copyright theft against their clone
game, Project tank, Wargaming states in a legal statement that the patent
is in operation. To quote Wargaming's own petition to the United States
District Court Northern District Of Illinois Eastern Division:
44. Wargaming.net also has
intellectual property protecting one or more innovative nd novel
features that upon information and belief are utilized within at least
the most recent version of World of Tanks®. For example, Wargaming.net
is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,425,330 (“the ‘330
patent”), issued April 23, 2013, and entitled “Dynamic Battle Session
Matchmaking in a Multiplayer Game,” a copy of which is attached as
45. The ‘330 patent is directed to methods and systems for matching
client devices based on a permissible range of battle levels for each
vehicle based on vehicle type and vehicle
This lets us know that the patent is in operation in WoT and Wargaming
is prepared to fight competitors using it. You can't have your cake and
If you mention any of this on the World of Tank's forums you will
receive a lot of counter feedback, some of it rude and some of it very
persistent. It seems that there are some that appear on every discussion
of the matchmaker putting down any possibility that the matchmaker is
'rigged' in any sort of way. They appear to want to suppress discussion on
the matter. These trolls state that the patent is not in operation when
Wargaming itself says it is. Other posters on the forum have suggested
that they are 'shills ' whose role
it is to provide disinformation and to rubbish other's suggestions as to
the extent of the rigging of the Matchmaker. I won't comment except to say
that it does seem strange that they appear on every such thread
where the Matchmaker is mentioned. I do wish they wouldn't as it reduces
the effect of their contribution and often turns any discussion to a
The Match Maker conversations on the forum could be generally more
appreciative of the other's opposing opinions and less dismissive or
insulting. I find the US forum is quite a trollish place and not the most
receptive place for discussion. If you do post there do not expect much
more than invective and trollish one-liners as a return, especially from
those that we all suspect to be known-shills. These shills do exist, three
of them inhabit the NA Matchmaker threads and two live on the EU forum.
You'll soon see who these people are as they post on EVERY matchmaker
thread: Ub.rd... and Fl..bf... are the main disemminators of
disinformation on the NA forums with a chap named Ne.to... assisting.
There is a suggestion that these veteran trolls are put in-place to
cause arguments and foster insulting behaviour. In this way they can cause
the moderators to shut down threads or simply embroil the original posters
in invective, essentially smothering any logical argument.
Regardless of their reasons, what I cannot believe is how many are
prepared to continually argue the point as to the veracity of people's
claims to Matchmaker fixing. From normal gameplay I witness and
experience the peaks and troughs occurring on an almost continuous
basis. How some other players do not see it occurring themselves, is
beyond me. The cycling is part and parcel of playing WoT on a daily basis.
For those few to not see the patterns? Well, that tells me they are
seriously blinkered, playing another game with the suppression somehow
magically switched off or could it be they are paid by Wargaming.net not
to see it at all?
For these trollish people I have a snippet of information, an email from
a Wargaming.net support employee to a WoT player that refers to the
patent. In the email the employee admits that the matchmaker's patented
function is in operation in the game itself today (the game you are
playing right now) and how it places in you in progressively harder
matches, where teams of harder opponents simply 'challenge' you to do
better (his words). He states that it is perfectly normal for this
practice to be in place and that is exactly in line with all the other MMO
games out there.
W*** C*******t 27 September 2013
09:52 (name withheld)
Dear v*********1, (name withheld)
Thank you for your reply.
I apologize that I did not get to your ticket yesterday.
We do not fully need the old replays as (name withheld)
let me know he went through your chat logs for the past 2 months. As
said before however, we are not allowed to disclose what punishments
are handed to players.
The only thing we would need replays for is to investigate physics
abuse. (like a teammate pushing you into water so you drown etc)
As for the patent regarding the matchmaker, this does state that:
“According to another aspect, the matchmaking server may store a
win/loss percentage for each user (or vehicle) at a given battle
level. As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes
more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower
end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration
increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles
having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range.”
This does not mean that the matchmaker “Rigs” games, it just means
that the better a player is doing, the more of a challenge they are
presented with and ultimately the results of a battle still are in
control of the players and now well they perform with their team.
We see this in many games, and it is not there to force a player to
lose, but simply to provide a challenge. Here are some examples:
-In Mario Kart, when you are in last place you have a high probability
to gain a bullet powerup or red shell, however if you are in first
place you have a higher probability to get bananas.
-In Tera, when one team captures the flag against another team, the
team who had their flag captures is granted a “loser buff” that makes
them more powerful for a determined time.
-In Final Fantasy XIV, if your group wipes while attempting to kill an
enemy monster, the group is then granted an aura buff to make the next
battle a little easier.
I hope this clears up any confusion and rumors being spread about our
Please let me know how it goes.
Wargaming America Support Service
To reply, please log in at https://support.worldoftanks.com using your
registered account email and password.
I feel that email is quite clear in WGs admission that the Matchmaker is
Further confirmation that this cycling is artificially induced and is
not attributable to your own state of mind, poor mental health or
environmental factors (!) can be found by taking the following actions:
o Leaving a particular server unplayed for a period of at least two
o Logging onto an alternative server, EU, SEA &c (a re-roll).
If you leave a game server entirely and stop playing for two/three
months, when you return you will find that the MM has forgotten about you,
the suppression of your win rate has been curtailed and that your win rate
will be back to the levels that is was pre-suppression. This indicates
that the MM looks at your win rate values over a period of time to
determine whether to suppress you or leave you alone. If your current win
rates are low (or you haven't had any for a while) then matchmaking is
switched back to normal or 'preferential'. When your win rate rises
consistently and surpasses the threshold for a period of time then it
switches the suppression back on.
When you log into another server (EU, SEA) you may find that your win
rates are similar to what they were prior to the suppression. Give this
course of action a go and see if it helps your win rate and report back
Note: Some recent testing shows that Wargaming appears to suppress win
rate not only by account ID but also by IP address to prevent people from
doing a re-roll - so I suggest changing your ip address regularly.
The current observation on using a re-roll account on the EU server is
that this solution definitely works, at least in the short term. My
current Win Rate is 65-70% over the last 200 games and averages 56% over
the total 500 games played in each tank used (limited to two). I need to
do more analysis on this proposition over a longer period of time (4,000
games or so) to state that this latter course of action definitely works
in the long term.
CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO CYCLING:
Looking at the extreme cycles that could be found in 0.8.nn. It seems
obvious that the MM can only achieve this perceived threshold win rate
throttling by placing artificial limitations upon a player. IF you agree
that this is being done then you must ask yourself why do they do it?
Well, one answer might be that Wargaming.net is a commercial organisation
and it can make money by giving you the incentive to play using a premium,
paid account or by using enhanced resources bought using real cash
(in-game gold). I believe this win rate threshold limit is designed to
encourage you to do exactly that.
It has been stated on the forums that
this cycling is the result of Wargaming.net averaging out your win rate
"in the long run". I am quite prepared to accept that statement
yet I am not quite sure what it means. Due the continuous nerfing my win
rate has been steadily climbing throughout all the cycling but it has
been slow and the result is yet another example of the long and painful
grind that is World of Tanks.
The fact that win rates do climb
progressively is not actually in dispute, it is the method by which
Wargaming achieves moderation of the win rate over time that is.
There appears to be a difference in the way the cycling operates between
the 0.8 series and the later 0.9 series. During the 0.8 series the upper
and lower thresholds were farther apart meaning that the wild swings in
win rate were highly pronounced, lasting for hundreds if not thousands of games. The
controlling mechanism appears to have been changed in 0.9 and is being refined to make the rigging less obvious. The upper
threshold seems slightly higher (still arbitrary?) but the lower threshold
is much closer to the upper. This means that losing/winning cycles appear
much closer together, you may now have losing streaks for a day or only 50-100 games or so.
The length of these cycles depends upon how well you play and how long you
take to be suppressed down to the lower threshold.
The observation of 0.9.n is limited as the number of games/cycles I have
experienced in 0.9 is simply far less than in 0.8. The win/loss cycling
effect is still present but perhaps slightly less pronounced? I am still
performing limited tests on different servers to see how the suppression
is being implemented and will update this article as more information is
Matchmaker changes are never announced to the general public in
Wargaming's brief release notes. They are unrelated to any game patches as the changes take place on the Matchmaking server. Changes to the MatchMaker are expected in
any one of the near future releases as it has been suggested that even
Wargaming.net's devs realise that the MatchMaker is broken in some way
(not admitted officially) and it has been mooted that changes are
underway. To many, the MatchMaker does seem broken in many respects,
uneven teams and broken platoons (failtoons) are oft quoted as being
examples of real failure. I doubt that any potential changes will remove
the cycling but we can assume that the process will be modified somewhat
without informing the community.
What does this mean to you? It means a day's worth of games may be played at a 60% win rate and the very next day? a 40% win rate. On a day when I play 30 games of WoT using my favoured 2-barrel-stripe tank at 61% and the very next day I play 25 games but lose 70% of them - I know that my account is being nerfed.
CUT-OFF POINTS/PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT:
Not only are you 'nerfed' according to your win rate but there also
exist some arbitrary nerf points at which games will start to get tougher.
Serb has already admitted that new players receive preferential treatment
for the first 80-100 games. So, we know the first nerf point is
approximately 80 games, you can test this by playing the medium MkI on a
new account. You should be able obtain a win rate of 67% until the 80 game
cut-off point then you'll see the win rate drop.
The second nerf point is at 1,000 games. Up to this point it should be
possible to attain a 67% win rate on a re-roll account playing by a
reasonably good player on a few good tanks. From 1,000 games onward things
will toughen and the games will harden.
It appears that 'types' of tanks are allowed preferential treatment from
the start. I have exclusively used 'real' tanks as opposed to SP guns and
arty. Playing on an account that was being nerfed (struggling to achieve a
45% win rate over an extended period in my overall 56% tanks) I switched
to a tier II arty. Having never played arty before I expected a low-ish
win rate. However, my win rate was 65% over 100 games. Admittedly I killed
a couple of tanks every now and then but nowhere near enough damage to
cause that win rate. Just as before, amazing teams that carried the game,
time and time again. I will keep playing this tank to see at what point
the nerf point seems to occur.
It has been related that the MM 'nerf' also comes hand in hand with an
accuracy/penetration/damage 'nerf'. I cannot state that I have encountered
this nor have I tested for it in my analysis. Personally, I do not think
it is required as the MatchMaker is able to control your win rates more
effectively by simply putting you into teams with slightly more low
experience players. An accuracy nerf would seem be too obvious and too
easy to discern. I am not saying it doesn't happen, for the purposes of
this analysis I am simply not taking it into account (if it exists) nor
have I been looking for it.
Personally I do not think the accuracy nerf exists. It is possibly just
frustration on the part of the gamer highlighting the 25% RNG nature of
the game. It could be manipulation of the RNG figure but the MM cycling is
enough to frustrate by itself.
I believe it may be possible to defeat the cycling. Switching to your
very best tank appears to be a potentially successful tactic but only in
the short term. Choosing one of the very best of the OP (over-powered)
tanks that suits your own personal style seems to be one tactic. Some of
the best Russian tanks (KV1 &c) seem to be good places to retreat to
when the 'nerf' starts.
So, not only do you need to beat your enemies but you also need to beat
the MatchMaker. Another way of achieving this is simply to abandon a
server for two months or so, it seems to be a good and workable tactic.
You simply have to be able to recognise when a nerf has started... that is
the sign to stop playing. For example, recently, I played 373 games at an
average of 58% win rate running just three lower tier (II-V) British
Cruiser tank. After a series of 65%-100% evenings consistently able to
carry the game I began to experience a severe downturn, playing 30 games
but winning only 10... with one continuous losing streak of 15 games
in a row. This was the start of the downturn.
You can tell when the MM has decided to put you down in that it selects
losing teams for you consistently. You'll find that even at tier 2/3 it
will be very hard to win, that your enemies will consist of teams of
'sealclubbers', seasoned players in platoons and groups that will wipe the
floor with your team. You will be placed consistently into higher tier
games where your newly adopted light tank status emasculates your ability
to influence the game. You will find your chosen tank playing in
consistently higher tier games where it is simply unable to contribute as
effectively. You may do well personally but you still won't be able to win
the game. You'll be doing more damage than everyone else but you will
still be losing.
You'll be just as stunned by your opponent's steamroller capabilities as
you were when your own teams consistently played like 'gods'.
If you continue to play you may find that downturn lasting for tens if
not hundreds of games. At this point the only thing to do is to abandon
the game and stop playing that particular account for approximately 8
weeks. I suggest that instead you simply open an account on another
server, reset your ip address so that Wargaming does not know it is still
you, and play there instead. Use a different username and if possible an
unrelated email address. It may take some time to train another crew to
100% experience but when you do, sit back and watch your win rate
Don't think you can simply open an account on the same server -
that does not seem to work. Initially, you may get the positive
preferential treatment that the MM gives to new players (50-80 games or
so) but as soon as you start to do well (high win rate overall) you may be
nerfed once again.
If you do open a re-roll on the same server, it will take about 50 -80
games playing at high average and current win rates before the nerf
starts. I have tried this option and it does not seem to be of great
benefit unless you change your IP address at the same time. To achieve
this simple reboot your router - pull the plug!
AN EXAMPLE OF A RE-ROLL ACCOUNT:
To show you how the re-roll works an example would seem to be best:
I have two accounts that I have available for testing. Account 1 is an
old account that has seen some hard wear from one of my older children,
2,200 games @ 51% win rate. This account was one that I deliberately set
up to be 'nerfed' so that for the period of this test it is currently
under suppression from the MatchMaker. To deliberately achieve this
suppression I played 100 low-tier cruiser games at a 65% current win rate
until it reached an overall 51% win rate for the account. At that point
the Matchmaker noticed the high win rate and the 'nerf' was imposed. For
100 games all subsequent matches for this account hardened and I was
unable to achieve a win rate above 38% no matter what I did.
To prove that my tanking skills were not in question, I had previously
opened a second re-roll account (account 2) and obtained the same low
level British cruisers to fight and use there. I had trained two crews up
to 100% standard with one perk and had left that account 'fallow' for some
months so that it was invisible to the Matchmaker. I played this account
instead, participating in 85 games. As expected, the games encountered
were standard games with normally-skilled opponents, normal gameplay, no ROFLstomps by
the enemy, no collapsing paper-bag teams, just normal games. On this
account, (miracle of miracles) I was able to restore my win rate and
obtain a consistently high 75% win rate throughout - seal-clubbing as
Finally, just to confirm the 'nerf' was still in place on account 1 - I
returned to account 1 to play another 50 games and sure enough the
suppression continued at the very low 38% win rate. Conclusion: One
account was nerfed, the other was not. For me, simple gameplay with
results like these are proof enough.
Note there is nothing different between the two accounts, my skills are
the same. Average damage, no. of kills, WN8 &c over the period are
pretty much all the same on both accounts, the only difference is the win
rate. If I had been tired, playing badly or if some other environmental
factor had been influencing me then the issue should have affected both
accounts. As I was able to play well on one account but not on the other
then this implied an obvious manipulation of my win rates by the
The above example is not made up. I have just completed this
mini-analysis and it still stuns me how easy it is is to defeat the
Matchmaker simply by opening and playing another account on another
server. I wish someone had told me this 10,000 games ago. This I believe,
is the reason why Wargaming prohibits users having multiple accounts on
the same server. If you do create multiple accounts, whatever you do,
don't admit to it.
What do bots have to do with it? Nothing obviously unless you have a
suspicion that WG is using bots to pad the teams. I recently had a game
where the whole tier 5 team was slaughtered within three minutes with
eleven of the team doing zero damage. They didn't suicide - they just
stood there and took it, faced the wrong way, did everything that a bot
might do. Just played badly. The other team actually made an attempt
to fight back, regardless of the attempt they were all killed in very
short order. Some seriously hard tanks (S35A, O-I, T67, Stug, Hetzer)
failed even to make a hit connect, let alone count. I did as much damage
as I could but frankly it was hard to keep up as each tank died just at
the moment I arrived. It was as if I had a team with super-powers granted
by God and an enemy team of people who just returned late from making a
cup of tea.
I did some analysis using Wotlabs stats. The whole enemy team were bots. I
suggest that WG was testing its AI bot technology in advance of the
release of the training room with AI bots. I can't believe that the whole
team would be generated by 3rd party bots at this tier level, no gold
spammers! They MUST be WG bots. None of the players had generated
ANY recent stats, so as far as the statistics sites go, none of the
players have played any games recently. As the screenshot was from
Wednesday the 23rd this makes no sense. Simply put, according to the stats
none of these players has played any games recently but I can testify that
I played a match with a team of them - all the same, all bots.
So, now we now have a new mystery - is this the effective level of WG's
training bot AI? - ie. really poor? Does this explain why we have so many
blow-out matches (real teams padded with bots)?. Is this the reason we see
25,000 players concurrently (lots of bots instead of real players)?
It could be just 3rd party bots but why don't their recent stats show
after a week has passed? Could it be that WG is suppressing their stats?
OK, this is all speculation so just assume that they exist but we don't
yet know why.
WHY IS ALL THIS IMPORTANT?
It is important because it is a game that is designed to draw players
in, it entices you to pay money to perform better, ie
Wargaming.net's profits are tied to your ability/inability to win. The
more you lose the more you will want to tip the balance in your favour by
paying money for premium shells and accounts in the hope that you may find
your win rate improves. That is the idea. It affects you as it extracts
real cash from the wallet of many an unsuspecting player in the most
devious manner - by statistical manipulation.
What it has told me is that the only way to win at WoT is to follow the
grind to the upper tanks. You can't build up your skill level at tiers 1-6
and expect to win more and more as you improve and become more efficient. At
some point you may simply stop winning and find yourself on massive
artificial losing streaks due to crumbling teams.
Once you know this is in place, you may be able to relax and enjoy the
game, play to have fun - but whatever you do don't follow win ratios
unless you want a serious battle with the matchmaker. For me, the
realisation of rigging leads to some disenchantment, I know that other
seasoned players are also disillusioned and look around hoping to find
some reason to continue playing WoT but not finding any.
WHY DID I WRITE THIS ARTICLE?
Well, I am hoping that it will
open your eyes to what seems to be Wargaming's sharp business practices
and stop you from wasting your time and your hard-earned cash when you are
bashing your head on WoT's losing brick wall. The fact remains that the MM appears
to be fixed, rigged, manipulated, managed,
whatever you call it. Wargaming.net appear content to take your money but
at the same time possibly fool you into thinking you can play well and
still win. In actual fact, in the long run
you probably can expect a slow increase in win rates but do not expect
those short-term high percentage winning streaks to be reflected in the
longer term. It just won't happen.
It would be preferable if these sharp
practices could be curtailed and WoT be transformed into a more open and
less manipulative game.
Ultimately you must decide whether the MatchMaker is rigged or not.
It may well be rigged for you or it may not. It is up to you to
determine how the game is treating you personally. I clearly believe it is
rigged for the accounts I use and my analysis seems to support that
belief. However, rather than believe or disbelieve anything I have written
here I suggest you do your own analysis and then make your own
Now that I have realised the game is rigged I no longer spend any
money on it. To quote from the forum: "People pay while under the
spell, then stop when they see it's a sham."
Occasionally I still play WoT but as the experience of winning
then losing continuously is so down-heartening I now play very seldomly.
As soon as the losing streak returns (which it always does) I
abandon the game, deinstall entirely and do something more fulfilling. I wish Wargaming
understood that the poor and rigged Matchmaker is the main reason why many
of stop playing altogether. If the Matchmaker was done away with I would
play this game all the time and I'd be willing to invest in it. As it is, there is no point in playing.
WHAT AM I DOING NOW INSTEAD?
There are few alternatives, one was War Thunder another
was Project Tank. This latter alternative was so similar to WoT that it
was quashed by Wargaming.net for being an intellectual copyright theft of
World of Tanks. War Thunder shows promise but is not a direct alternative
as the mechanics are far more realistic. It also uses more GPU resources
and is unplayable on the lower performance laptops that can run WoT.
Project Tank evolved and became
Ground War Tanks but there is a good chance that it may be feeling
Wargaming's claws next - we shall see. Armored Warfare is
coming but supposedly it will solely cater for Modern tanks and I imagine
it will be built for the higher spec machine generally used for gaming in
the US - Modern tanks are not really my interest but they may interest
Games like these are cheaper to play and while WoT has this awful
Matchmaker I cannot justify playing as much as I used to. I certainly
cannot justify spending any money there.
World of Tanks does have some good alternatives if the genre tickles your fancy. Most of these are single person PC games, some have multiplayer options. The following videos might whet your appetite for what the competition has to offer!
Video 1: Steel Armor - Blaze of War - You can buy this one on ebay - dirt cheap. Runs on your PC locally.
Complex, not an arcade game. A very good looking simulator with high
graphics, good sounds and ultra realism. Requires a good quad core
machine of 2.6 ghz or more and a decent graphics card. Not a game for a
standard core2duo, i3 or i5 laptop. There is NO similarity whatsoever with WoT. The controls and gameplay
are alien to any WoT-er, you'd have to spend a lot of time mastering
the controls and the result is utterly different to WoT. Change your
expectations and you'll have a interesting time but don't pick this game
up and expect to be able to play it in an hour. It will take a few
hours just to get familar with the controls and the method of operation.
It is almost not a game.
Video 2a: Iron Front Liberation 1944 - You can obtain this game on steam or ebay. Runs on your PC locally. Multiplayer is available.
More complex than WoT, a cross between a simulator and an arcade game. Allows you to access and use any weapon not just tanks. If this appeals to you then you might well have fun.
Video 2b: Iron Front Liberation 1944 - Another one showing this fine game.
Video 3: Ground War Tanks - This is the one that Wargaming does not
like, online and accessible now.
Basically you can leave WoT and play GwT and use such skills and
familiarity that you have with this new game - It is almost a clone of
woT. It has lower graphics, fewer enemies/allies per team, smaller maps,
tech trees for only a limited amount of nations, identical controls,
very similar interface. Easy to play and
available to download and play within 3 mins. It will never be a real
competitor to WoT as is it is a bit rubbish. Lagging and late-starts to
the game mean that you always seem to be one step behind your enemy. A
different spotting mechanism seems to make tanks appear from nowhere,
regular crashes will soon disenchant you. Think of it only as a WoT-Lite
for kiddies and you won't be
Video 4: War Thunder- an amazing online tank game. A realistic
competitor to WoT. Needs a powerful GPU and quad core machine to run
smoothly. Don't expect to do well at War Thunder just because you are a
unicum in WoT. A shot that penetrates armour will do serious simulated
damage and not just reduce your pool of HP. Expect to be one-shotted.
The spotting and camouflage system is completely different. Foliage is
extensive and actually blocks your LoS (Line of Sight) to the enemy
meaning all tanks are invisitanks here.
I'm still getting to grips with Wah Funder. At first I hated the game as my toaster laptop could only run on minimum graphics, the lag was massive and I could not a grip of the controls (slippy tanks) and the fact that the tanks were so much more reactive to input from the mouse and keyboard. With a newer model lappie, quad core 2.5-3ghz, a NVidia 650GTX and an SSD, combined with a set of more delicate fingers, War Thunder became playable and fun.
The sensitive controls take some adjustment, the interface is not as mature as WoTs but playing the tanks is a new and refreshing experience. I'm killing 4-5 per game and enjoying the game at low tier, researching modules seems a lot quicker, the tank driving is less precise than WoT but I have always thought that WoT's tanks are a little too firmly planted in the ground and possibly too easy to drive. War Thunder's maps are huge!
So far I have only played arcade mode but with my new non-toaster laptop it is an enjoyable game. WoT for me became too depressing to play when (due to experience) you are made aware of its shortcomings (the Match Maker, tinsy, tiny maps, Russian tech. bias, map removal, failure to deliver key promises on game improvements &c). The experience of the grind in WoT is utterly depressing and each time you start a new tech tree it is back to the worst map of them all "Mittengard/Crappengard" for hundreds of games. I fail to see how that is an incentive to try a new nationality or tech tree.
WoT compares successfully to War Thunder but comes out the loser despite all its glitz and UIX-competence but only because of WoT's above-listed shortcomings. If WG would put some effort into solving them then WoT would be the hands-down winner. War Thunder's UIX is clumsily executed and the technology tree is massively incomplete in tanks and other nationalities.
It is worthwhile noting I paid money, spondoolics, wonga, cash, money, pounds, sterling on both Armoured Warfare and War Thunder to obtain founders packs. I haven't spent any money at WG's offering for at least two years now as I feel that Warganing.net is simply 'shafting' me by not improving key areas of the game whilst repeatedly damaging others.
Finally, in War Thunder I can hop in a plane if I want to just to try it out!
Video 5: Armoured Warfare -
A new contender to the genre of tanks vs tank games that has only recently entered an open beta phase. It is another amazing online tank game that you can play for free. It is a realistic
competitor to WoT but one that needs a powerful GPU and quad core machine to run
The graphics will draw a "WoW!" from you the first time you see them. You'll see rain, mist and other weather effects, light and dark days and deep shadows unlike WoT's eternal daylight. A problem playing World of Tanks is that you get used to the (not great) graphics and you expect everything to look like that. AW's better graphics actually take some getting used to. My own laptop is a quad core 2.5ghz i7 with an Nvidia GTX 650 GPU. It handles Armoured Warfare's graphics competently. Playing World of Tanks on the best graphics setting has never been an option as it taxes the GPU too much but AW's graphics appear to be higher resolution even at its lower settings.
WoT compares well with Armoured Warfare but WoT comes out the loser on graphics and Match Maker, because of these two points alone, Armoured Warfare would win hands down except that the game currently has no WW2 tanks and an unhappy way of allowing you to select which tank to grind. AW forces you to play tanks you potentially have no interest in whatsoever. WoT's grind may be painful but at least you choose which nation's tanks you get to play. In addition Armoured Warfare's UIX is blocky, a little confused but in-game the interface is directly copied from WoT's and as a result all is well.
The game is in open beta which means that the game is playable but anyone joining hhe community must expect changes to the gameplay, game elements and the interface.
In comparison to Armoured Warfare and War Thunder, WoT has the advantage in sheer playability which helps noobs and newish players. The experienced players (10,000 and above games) will want to try War Thunder or Armoured Warfare but once gone, they may not come back. Personally, I uninstall WoT regularly and leave the game untouched for three months but in the past I have always come back to WoT for my 'tank fix'. Of course now, I don't need to anymore, I can get my fix from playing War Thunder whilst testing Armoured Warfare.
Video 6: Panzer ElitePP2-X
Panzer Elite PP2-X is a reskinning of Panzer Elite SE and it provides gameplay that is not so far from what is offered by WoT. The controls though are keyboard-based and vastly, and I mean vastly
different from WoT. A dyed-in-the-wool WoT-er will have severe control
transfer problems. You simply have to forget the arcade style of WoT and
start with a completely new game and method of control. The PE maps are huge, the graphics generally inferior but they do the
job. Realism is better but it is hard to play. A good diversion though.
Any PC will be able to cope with the graphics. Panzer Elite runs on
your PC, you'll need to buy a copy on ebay, the game needs the 1.2 patch and
then the PP2X mod to be downloaded in order for the game to be playable. End result is quite good though.
Video 7: Panzer Elite Dunes of War - a completely different game to the
original Panzer Elite as shown in video 5. This version is definitely an arcade game with
gameplay similar to WoT. It will feel at home to WoT-ers but the aiming
is arbitrary and the one-shotting of enemies happens too often. Your
tank is pretty much indestructible. too much of an arcade game to keep
your interest but a diversion nonetheless. It has a good multiplayer
Runs virtually on any half decent PC. Found on ebay aplenty. Requires Windows XP to run well.
Video 8: T-34 vs Tiger
I've not been able to try T-34
vs. Tiger as it is not readily on sale anywhere except occasionally on
fleabay. the company that created it went bust shortly after it was
released. Expect to pay full prices for this game. With regard to
graphics it looks to be the dog's testicles, and even more attractive. Certainly
more of a simulator and I expect it will need a decent PC to get the
best from it. Looks easier to play than Steel Armor Blaze of War but
possibly the same level of complexity as Panzer Elite SE. Notice the GUI similarities to WoT, the minimap and the rotating tank
in the same positions as WoT. Looks as if the layout has fast become
Video 9: Steel Beasts Pro
Wargaming has to realise there will always be a tank game out there
to compete with it in one way or another. There is a current simulator,
Steel Beasts Pro, that has been going for a few years now, that provides
an advanced simulation of modern tanks. Used by some military types to
evaluate the effectiveness of certain tactics it conveys the idea of
real tank to tank warfare. Not an arcade game in any sense, does not
compete with WoT in any manner whatsoever. Some Steel Beast players
might play WoT as light relief.
The GUI has no
comparison with WoT, the controls are unique and the audience has no
commonality. Nothing for Wargaming to worry about there. This
simulator is expensive too at over $100 for a single dongle-protected
licence. In the past this would be considered very expensive for a game
but the way that WoT sucks in players into the whole tanking experience
makes $100 quite cheap nowadays. The average premium WoT-er probably
spends this much on the game yearly. In this context Steel Beasts Pro is
quite a bargain.
I can't imagine this simulator taking
any of WoT's cash so there should be little for Wargaming's lawyers to
worry about nor much for them to sink their teeth into. Very little
commonality other than the tanks themselves and they are too modern for
WoT to compare. So what would Wargaming.net's
lawyers have to work with? GUI infringements - nope, gameplay, nope as
most games use the mouse point and shoot method for control. The tier and purchasing infrastructure - nope as it is part of the GUI and a reflection of reality and history, the game-tiering and matchmaking (possibly due to the patents they have in place with regard to the matchmaker - but which they say they don't actually use), which leaves the in-game 2D and 3D resources such as images, sounds &c. Not much to go the courts with I should imagine.
Two more games that I will leave you with, Red Orchestra 2: Armored Assault and Heroes & Generals. I have tried neither game so will provode a comment wheneach has been tested.
Video 10: Red Orchestra 2 Armored Assault
Video 11: Heroes and Generals
Video 12: World of Tanks Blitz
I'm not sure what effect this article will have on you, some will
disbelieve it saying I have fabricated parts - I haven't. Some will talk
about it for days but there is no need. Rather than go on and on
discussing it on Matchmaker threads on the forum, simply do your own analysis.
If you are even slightly into the genre known as Steampunk then Iron Sky is definitely a film for you. This video has almost everything you need, steampunk, almost gothic technology, airships in space, Nazis in full uniform being very very nasty, hauntingly beautiful music. What's not to like?
Well, up to two minutes the song from the original Iron Sky film teaser is both haunting and beautiful, hinting at more deep and meaningful music yet to
come. However, I was deeply disappointed in the unoriginality of the
remaining three and a half minutes, merely a repetition of the main
theme and discordant notes to deliberately alienate and disturb the
listener. I had hoped for new music, a more lyrical theme with perhaps
an occasional repetition of the first two minutes as some sort of
chorus. An exploration of the original theme perhaps but what we finally
received was a sort of padding-out to fill a five minute track. I
really still do like the first two minutes but the rest... not really
worth listening to. Disappointing.
Some more War of the worlds imagery, a render that was not shown here
before: The Thunderchild prior to battle. Complete with music.
Officionados of Jeff Wayne's War of the worlds music will appreciate
I don't think I ever managed to post this version here
before, a reinterpretation of HG Wells/Jeff Wayne's thunderchild. Just a render of a scene
with some animation tools used to make the scene come to life. No real
animation yet of the Tripods nor the ship but some nicely performed
music added to give the scene some depth and emotional appeal.
An image will do as a taster:
The video was a germ of an idea, a low res short period-shot movie based on 2D and 3D models. Note the low quality period-film effect is
deliberate, there are a few errors, long range smoke visibility and the prow of the
steam packet but please ignore these.
were originally thinking about a kickstarter to get it off the ground. A
very short film sequence, a couple of minutes long, Pathe-news style,
sound effects, moody music, somewhat similar to the more moody bits in
this Jeff Wayne reinterpretation. What do you think?
Whether or not it will develop is all down to time (and money) It is
quite difficult to make progress on a project unofficially unless it is
all done by one man and that simply takes a lot of time. If it was real
project with defined goals, cash to spend &c it could be done
relatively much quicker.
The idea was that it would start on a
sailor's desktop with orders requiring his immediate return to ship for
sailing, the scene would then zoom into the photo on the desktop and
then it would come alive and open to the scene of the Thunderchild in
action against the Martians.
date was to be 1921-25, the time of the second Martian invasion where
they come equipped with the same technology (realising the overwhelming
superiority of their machinery) but fitted with bacteriological filters
allowing them to survive in Earth's germ-laden atmosphere. This time
they come in fewer numbers having almost exhausted their resources in
the first invasion and of course, this time the human defences are
better-prepared. In this timeline we get to see Thunderchild II in
action. Anyhow, that was the vague idea.
We also had an idea of an old stamp album showing this stamp with the following description:
is a stamp created by Eric Gill in 1924 for the British Empire
Exhibition with the emergency overprint "under martian rule" for a set
of stamps which were produced in that portion of the British Isles still
allowed to function - whilst operating under the yoke of the Martian
Empire subsequent to the second Martian invasion in 1925.
many items survive from this period and this is reflected in the
condition of the stamp. The bottom right hand corner is severely burnt
as the stamp was recovered from the remains of Plymouth Post Office
destroyed during the battle for the Tamar Bridge at Saltash. Approximate
value £26 guineas."
I have been watching the progression of Joomla for years now and I am of the firm opinion that there is room for a CMS that Joomla used to be. I mean, of course, Joomla 1.0. A pretty, good-looking, easy to use, straightforward CMS with no frills, none of the later features that grown-up Joomla has today. Most of the core hacks have been discovered and locked-down. There are still a lot of extensions available that need no re-engineering to function.
It could suit the purpose well. It would have no overlap with the core mainstream Joomla, so no disturbance or friction would be caused between the two. JoomlaLite might require minimal development and simply just maintenance. It could become the feeder project to its bigger brother. As people require more functionality then they simply migrate upward.
Mambo and Joomla 1.0 were both good CMS and as simple website-building tools they are still unmatched. I recently visited a few of my old websites (totally secure and hosted under PHP 5.3) and was amazed at the speed and functionality of the things. The back end flies in comparison to the current Joomla offerings, the front end is practically instant, with no cacheing. All the tools work beautifully.
Big grown up Joomla is not a tool I would use now for small sites nor for bigger ecommerce sites. I would use a blogging tool or any smaller lightweight alternative for a simple site. For an ecommerce site the combination of VM and Joomla 3.0 is too risky due to potential unscalability and the slow running of Joomla. My experience of the new Joomla back end has been unsatisfactory (slow and weird-looking). For ecommerce Magento or OScommerce would be my target of choice.
Do you remember those days when you had a fairly simple shopping cart in a fairly simple CMS? It all ran quick and was easy to knock them out? I want something like that.
Resurrect Joomla 1.0, give it to a smaller team with a mandate to maintain, only develop within strict defined boundaries to avoid duplication of effort and competition (tools only) and call it JoomlaLite.
I know that others have tried and failed/succeeded in making a Joomal 1.0 clone (Joostina and Elxis) but that was due to them taking the wrong path (Russian language CMS rather than an International CMS) but the work they did on the improved tools proved that it can be done and their best work is available to port back. They also didn't have the Joomla name, a guarantee to success for a 'lite' version of Joomla.
At last I've managed to get the steampunk orrery into a reasonable
shape, good enough to release in any case. The memo taker which worked
in the old version does not work in this one, it is still waiting for me
to finish re-skinning that part of it. However, the animation and the
general 'prettiness' of the thing have been enhanced somewhat to match
the functionality that you will see in this video :
is the orrery plasmoid - The functionality isn't quite the same but it
pretty much brings it up to scratch and it is now on par with the
plasmoid. I will post a new video soon, same music but showing the
enhance functionality in the yahoo/konfabulator version of this widget.
you install all three of these they will work together and will allow
you to look at the moon phases in an animated fashion, good grief the
thing is actually useful! The Moon widget will automatically position
itself on top of the orrery widget when it is called into operation. The
Underwidget needs to be layered underneath the Orrery and then the
Orrery's glass panel needs to be made translucent using the opacity
slider. You'll then be able to see the underwidget showing through the
Please try them out and test them and if you have any
problems do let me know. If you like them all working together do also
let me know as this stuff has taken a long while to do. I've taught
myself a lot in the process and I do love designing these steampunk
My collaborator, Harry Whitfield is like a Victorian steam-powered brass
coding engine, you only have to feed him a good idea and a method of
doing it then all of a sudden he's done it. The result is compact,
perfectly ordered and logical code, beautifully done, no spaghetti, all
created with years of experience and wisdom.
I had a simple
magnifier widget that did nothing at all. I was disappointed with it as I
could find no function for it other than to run a command to initiate a
utility of some sort, a simple launcher, a big icon as it were. When I
created the magnifying glass image I had intended to add code that would
allow the widget to identify what was beneath it and give an enlarged
version just as a real magnifying glass would do. However the widget
engine does not give the widget the power to identify what is beneath
it, it does not interact with the windows desktop in any way so that
idea was gone. We cannot magnify the Windows desktop.
thought was to magnify the other widgets in the Konfabulator engine,
However, the widget engine does not give the widget the power to
identify any other widget above or below it so it cannot interact with
or magnify any other widget in a graphical sense. There is some
inter-widget communication allowed but it would not be fast enough to
allow real-time magnification of another widget, it would also be
horrendously complicated, so, that idea was gone too.
I sat on
the idea and deliberated with Harry and he confirmed all the above, in
fact he confirmed it several times but the idea would not leave my head.
The magnifying glass sat there on my desk saying "use me, use me! but
only for magnification purposes..." and I absorbed what it was saying
but unable to do anything about it. It also said "Twiddle the basset
pipes" - but I ignored that as it was rubbish.
So, the day before
yesterday, a germ of a thought grew into an actual idea as to how to
overcome this problem and then I had it. It could be done. Simply put,
if the magnifying glass and the image it needs to magnify, sit within
the same widget, they can find information about themselves, size,
position &c and the therefore the magnification can be achieved. All
that needs to be done is to drop an image into a window and then the
magnifier can interact with it as they are all within the same widget.
was the idea, I put it to Harry and a day later the widget was designed
and coded and released for testing. Crikey he's fast. Using the
graphics from my widget and the code from one of his previous image
display widgets he banged in his new code and hey presto! we have a
lightbox into which we can drag/drop any image. The magnifying glass is
slidable and moves around the image by dragging the handle. The glass
lens magnifies the image underneath! It is done, it works.
Testing it now. Adding some steampunk controls and completing the functionality. We have a new widget.
By EU law we have to leave this message about cookies - In order to deliver a personalised, responsive service and to improve
the site, it remembers and stores information about how you use it. This
is done using simple text files called cookies which sit on your
computer. These cookies are completely safe and secure and will never
contain any sensitive information. They are used only by Lightquick or
the trusted partners we work with ie. Google. By continuing to use this site you accept the use of these cookies. Remember all sites use these cookies but if you are unhappy with this cookie usage, then unfortunately we have to ask you to leave the site.
RSS feeds listed below - Select the format of feed that you require.
Steampunk Yahoo Widget
How about something special for the weekend sir?
Lightquick have a nice little Yahoo widget for you to download. Click on the image above.