Comments on: 28.5.2014

By: Skarakien

Skarakien — Thu, 29 May 2014 13:20:27 +0000

Storm explains the infamous “28 bots” video: “It was an staged battle after the restart of the server, where there were practically zero players online. They gathered a few people, they ran a few clients with bots and they entered the battle on the count of three. And they achieved such an effect. We banned the experimenters.”

Because there are no other bots. Sure.

By: Skarakien

Skarakien — Thu, 29 May 2014 13:18:55 +0000

Say that to chess players… or Starcraft pros who played against “probots”. :)

By: Skarakien

Skarakien — Thu, 29 May 2014 13:16:27 +0000

This is what “tanking” is you know…

By: goff0103

goff0103 — Thu, 29 May 2014 04:22:51 +0000

I do not see Tiger 1′s engine sound the same as the Tiger P engine sound as the Tiger P is using a patrol-electric hybrid.

By: nixxxie

nixxxie — Wed, 28 May 2014 23:41:58 +0000

They may well bleed, but they are still humans and there lays the pleasure in playing ;) . There isn’t any competition in playing against the machine.

By: bumblyjack .

bumblyjack . — Wed, 28 May 2014 23:24:21 +0000

I play on RU server. Your RU buddies are wrong. There are 8 RU servers and if the 28 bot guys timed it right when a particular server restarted (i.e. they all logged onto RU5 right when it came back online), ran the same tier (ex. tier 7), and clicked battle at the same time they definitely could wind up in the same battle.

Also, these off times when there are 40k players online: that is spread out over 8 servers…meaning average of 5k players on each server with some a bit higher and some lower than the average.

By: FryaDuck

FryaDuck — Wed, 28 May 2014 21:49:38 +0000

Interesting that Storm inadvertently confirms what I’ve argued with WG about for a long time. This being the coordination of players exploiting the “Hunt me down” for gold event in random battles using a three count.

SS do you have a link for his quote?

By: Beaver157

Beaver157 — Wed, 28 May 2014 21:49:21 +0000

Never said it was OP. I just said it was dominant. Which it most certainly was.
The KV-1S, though, certainly is.

By: Alexander Yordanov

Alexander Yordanov — Wed, 28 May 2014 21:44:35 +0000

I never played KV-1S and the IS-3 was NEVER OP>

By: Beaver157

Beaver157 — Wed, 28 May 2014 21:39:41 +0000

That’s not so bad, considering that though the E 75 is generally given the title of best Tier IX Heavy Tank, the WZ 111 is statistically superior in several aspects. This coupled with the fact that the inferior E 75 is armed with the same 12,8cm gun that is found on the Maus, which negates the “I’m a Tier X, my gun should be bigger and better!” argument would suggest that the IS-7 is fine as it is. People accustomed to the superiority of the KV-1S and (until the frontal armor nerf) IS-3 are just disappointed that after overcoming the IS-8, the IS-7 isn’t as overwhelmingly dominant as they feel they deserved. If you want a better tank that fills the same role, go get a T110E5.