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 definess 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 14,000 or so battles in
exclusively low tier (sub tier 6) light and heavy tanks. Unlike most WoT
players I 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%. I
play 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
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 that improve gradually over
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 have experienced.
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 nerfed !
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
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
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
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 change.
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 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.
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
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 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
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
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.
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 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
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, both are unbelievable.
This cycling only seems to show its head when you play one or two tanks
consistently. With all statistical cycles if you have multiple sources
it tends to flatten out to a curve when all the cycles are combined - as they occur 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.
Wargaming's Intellectual Property.
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."
Link here: http://www.google.co...ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA
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?
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. 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 mud-slinging argument.
I can say this, I do wish that 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.
What I cannot believe is how many are prepared to argue the point. From normal gameplay I witness and experience the peaks and troughs occurring on a continuous basis. How some other players do not see it occurring is beyond me. It is part and parcel of playing WoT on a daily basis. For those few to not see the patterns - 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?
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 months
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 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. My
win rate has been steadily climbing throughout all the cycling but it
is 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 this moderation 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
were highly pronounced, lasting for hundreds of games. The
controlling mechanism appears to have been changed in 0.9. The upper
threshold seems slightly higher (still arbitrary?)
but the lower threshold is much closer to the upper. This means that
appear much shorter, you may now have losing streaks for only 50-70
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.
It appears that individual tanks are being suppressed rather than the
whole account as before. For example, if you have been playing at 65%
win rate (current) for an extended period of time in one particular tank
then that tank will start to experience a 40% win rate for a period,
whilst another very similar tank just one tier up, may still receive a
good win rate. Even your favourite tank, one that you play well, may be
affected. (Note: This is unconfirmed and still under analysis).
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. 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 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.
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.
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
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
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
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 magically
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:
show you how the re-roll works an example would seem to be best:
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 expected.
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 MatchMaker.
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.
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
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. I clearly
believe it is rigged 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 determination.
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."
WHAT AM I DOING NOW INSTEAD?
It may seem surprising but occasionally I still play WoT but now
only with one of my alternate accounts and only while each
is winning. As soon as the losing streak returns (which it always does)
I abandon the game and do something more fulfilling. There are
few alternatives, one was War
Thunder another was Project Tank. The latter was quashed by Wargaming.net
for being an intellectual copyright theft of World of Tanks. The former
shows promise but it uses more GPU resources and so is unplayable on
some lower performance laptops. Project Tank evolved and became Ground War Tanks but it may also be feeling Wargaming's claws next - we shall see. Armored Warfare
is coming but supposedly it will solely cater for Modern tanks - not really
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 2: 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 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 multicore 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.
Video 5: Panzer Elite
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 6: 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 7: 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 8: 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 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.
I hope this
helps in what you are about to do in your search for a good unbiased tank game! Play on, play the game! (or not).
I'd love to have your feedback, use the comment form below -