World of Tanks Sets Record For Most Players on a Single Server

[BoogieManFL]

The game seemed cool, but had a pay to win feel to it. And very grindy. And I routinely died extremely fast from even head on shots, while I'd sneak up and rear attack people and get 2 shots off before the reacted only to still lose to comparably classed tanks..

 

[Olas]

Russian MMO, World of Tanks, has staked out its place in gaming history by securing the Guinness World Record for the most players logged onto a single MMO server.

The record will just be beaten again by someone else sooner or later, probably sooner. I guess it'll always be the first game to reach 6 digits though.

 

[DracoSuave]

The real news of this story is that MMO got expanded to include matchmaking lobbies regardless of the size of the matches, which makes me wonder why League of Legends hasn't stolen this honor by beating that on a daily basis.

 

[Strazdas]

I wonder what the definitions of a "server" and an "MMO" is in regards to that. 190.5k seems ridiculously low for what afaik is a cluster not a single server. It's also a lobby-based game, not an MMO in the strictest sense ...

Fishy, but obviously kudos to them for being credited for this.

not the first time they claim this achievement. yet that is pointless, as the most players you cna have on one server cell is 30 by design. it does not matter if you cna have a 40.000 players chat really. Eve still holds the true record here where it matters, by being able to have 5000 players interracting with ships in space in same location at once. imagone WOT battles with 2500 tansk on each side. yeah, WOT is still a long way.

The real news of this story is that MMO got expanded to include matchmaking lobbies regardless of the size of the matches, which makes me wonder why League of Legends hasn't stolen this honor by beating that on a daily basis.

LOL is considered a MMO you know. in fact it is the BIGGEST mmo out there, beating World of warcraft last year. they even wrote multiple articles about it here on escapist.

The game seemed cool, but had a pay to win feel to it. And very grindy. And I routinely died extremely fast from even head on shots, while I'd sneak up and rear attack people and get 2 shots off before the reacted only to still lose to comparably classed tanks..

sneaking up only works in the end of match and mostly for snipers. the key is to ram them so they cant turn around and then just shoot the softspots in the back. it kinda was a pay-to-win, but now since you cna buy the gold ammo with regular credits its more like pay-not-to-grind-for-1000-hours. but this is oen of those rare games where grind is worth it, since clan battles/ clan wars are simply amazing experience.
gosh, i have to install WOT again.

Just because there is a giant map with 190k tanks on the screen doesn't make this any less impressive. Think about it for a minute. Almost two-hundred thousand clients being supported by a single server. Even if it is a lobby, that's still very impressive.

now i dont know then numbers but im guessing the daily visitors on escapist exceed that by a large margin. how many servers does this site run? its not really a big deal to have a single purpose-built server to have a large lobby.

 

[Hagi]

Just because there is a giant map with 190k tanks on the screen doesn't make this any less impressive. Think about it for a minute. Almost two-hundred thousand clients being supported by a single server. Even if it is a lobby, that's still very impressive.

It's not being run on a single server.

It's being run on a single server cluster (check the WoT Wiki).

Which is the second part of this announcement that's rather off. If server clusters count as servers then there's no shortage of other games that manage many more concurrent users, LoL just to name one.

This really is probably much more of a case of Wargaming.net applying to the Guinness Book of World Records. Their application being handled by someone with neither any real knowledge in ICT or Games and subsequently approving it. Because hey, those numbers are pretty big right?

 

[DracoSuave]

The real news of this story is that MMO got expanded to include matchmaking lobbies regardless of the size of the matches, which makes me wonder why League of Legends hasn't stolen this honor by beating that on a daily basis.

LOL is considered a MMO you know. in fact it is the BIGGEST mmo out there, beating World of warcraft last year. they even wrote multiple articles about it here on escapist.

No.

Words MEAN things.

MMOs don't refer to multiplayer games that have large bases and matchmaking capabilities.

MMOs mean that the Multiplayer is Massive. That's why they're called Massively Multiplayer.

Instead of simply being spoonfed the garbage marketroids hand people... we should actually use proper terms for things. Otherwise, 5v5 games are 'massively multiplayer', a game you buy at retail is 'free to play', and other such nonsense.

 

[Strazdas]

The real news of this story is that MMO got expanded to include matchmaking lobbies regardless of the size of the matches, which makes me wonder why League of Legends hasn't stolen this honor by beating that on a daily basis.

LOL is considered a MMO you know. in fact it is the BIGGEST mmo out there, beating World of warcraft last year. they even wrote multiple articles about it here on escapist.

No.

Words MEAN things.

MMOs don't refer to multiplayer games that have large bases and matchmaking capabilities.

MMOs mean that the Multiplayer is Massive. That's why they're called Massively Multiplayer.

Instead of simply being spoonfed the garbage marketroids hand people... we should actually use proper terms for things. Otherwise, 5v5 games are 'massively multiplayer', a game you buy at retail is 'free to play', and other such nonsense.

Word meanings change. thats how language evolve.

If we used "proper terms" then gay = happy, fag = stick and so on. now try telling people to use it like that.

MMO has evovled to include massive multiplayer games with matchamking. essentialy people are in same world - they can interact. like, say, a single COD server, but the matchmaking is limited.

 

[DracoSuave]

The real news of this story is that MMO got expanded to include matchmaking lobbies regardless of the size of the matches, which makes me wonder why League of Legends hasn't stolen this honor by beating that on a daily basis.

LOL is considered a MMO you know. in fact it is the BIGGEST mmo out there, beating World of warcraft last year. they even wrote multiple articles about it here on escapist.

No.

Words MEAN things.

MMOs don't refer to multiplayer games that have large bases and matchmaking capabilities.

MMOs mean that the Multiplayer is Massive. That's why they're called Massively Multiplayer.

Instead of simply being spoonfed the garbage marketroids hand people... we should actually use proper terms for things. Otherwise, 5v5 games are 'massively multiplayer', a game you buy at retail is 'free to play', and other such nonsense.

Word meanings change. thats how language evolve.

If we used "proper terms" then gay = happy, fag = stick and so on. now try telling people to use it like that.

MMO has evovled to include massive multiplayer games with matchamking. essentialy people are in same world - they can interact. like, say, a single COD server, but the matchmaking is limited.

No.

We don't automatically accept the marketting claims of companies that wish to call themselves the largest X simply as a marketting blurb when they are not an X, never have been an X, and the only reason X could evolve to include them is so that they can claim a record they do not deserve.

The ONLY reason it's an MMO is so that it can claim stupid accolades like this. It is NOT ACTUALLY an MMO.

It's not even borderline. If WoT is an MMO, then LoL is an MMO (it isn't), Call of Duty is an MMO (it isn't) and Starcraft 2 is an MMO (it isn't) because the very thing you're using to define WoT as an MMO is shared by all these games. However, the one thing ABSENT from all these games, is being massively multiplayer. WoT is not massively multiplayer, thus it is not an MMO.

Stop. Defending. Marketing. Fail.

 

[Strazdas]

No.

We don't automatically accept the marketting claims of companies that wish to call themselves the largest X simply as a marketting blurb when they are not an X, never have been an X, and the only reason X could evolve to include them is so that they can claim a record they do not deserve.

The ONLY reason it's an MMO is so that it can claim stupid accolades like this. It is NOT ACTUALLY an MMO.

It's not even borderline. If WoT is an MMO, then LoL is an MMO (it isn't), Call of Duty is an MMO (it isn't) and Starcraft 2 is an MMO (it isn't) because the very thing you're using to define WoT as an MMO is shared by all these games. However, the one thing ABSENT from all these games, is being massively multiplayer. WoT is not massively multiplayer, thus it is not an MMO.

Stop. Defending. Marketing. Fail.

I dont know why you think that it is marketing that called them a MMO.

Lol IS a MMO. COD and SC isnt. the difference? servers. both LOL and WOT run on the main server where everyone is located on (well regions are differentiated, like most MMOs). COD and SC have at best a lobby and the gameplay happens on third party servers, each of whom can have their own rules and mods. there is only one masterserver where matches happen in WOT and LOL.

Capcha: Remain calm.
Well thank you.

 

[DracoSuave]

No.

We don't automatically accept the marketting claims of companies that wish to call themselves the largest X simply as a marketting blurb when they are not an X, never have been an X, and the only reason X could evolve to include them is so that they can claim a record they do not deserve.

The ONLY reason it's an MMO is so that it can claim stupid accolades like this. It is NOT ACTUALLY an MMO.

It's not even borderline. If WoT is an MMO, then LoL is an MMO (it isn't), Call of Duty is an MMO (it isn't) and Starcraft 2 is an MMO (it isn't) because the very thing you're using to define WoT as an MMO is shared by all these games. However, the one thing ABSENT from all these games, is being massively multiplayer. WoT is not massively multiplayer, thus it is not an MMO.

Stop. Defending. Marketing. Fail.

I dont know why you think that it is marketing that called them a MMO.

Lol IS a MMO. COD and SC isnt. the difference? servers. both LOL and WOT run on the main server where everyone is located on (well regions are differentiated, like most MMOs). COD and SC have at best a lobby and the gameplay happens on third party servers, each of whom can have their own rules and mods. there is only one masterserver where matches happen in WOT and LOL.

Capcha: Remain calm.
Well thank you.

And where, exactly, in 'massively multiplayer' does it refer to server use?

It doesn't. You can have multiple server clusters. Hell, Guild Wars WAS an MMO and it didn't use that sort of server structure at all.

If you look at ACTUAL MMOs, they don't have this server set up you seem to think they need to be MMOs. What they have, and this is very frikken simple, is MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER elements.

That's it. Can your multiplayer be described as massive? If yes, you're an MMO. If no, you're not.

15v15 is NOT massive. 5v5 is not massive. Thus, their multiplayer aspects, NOT BEING MASSIVE, disqualify them from being an MMO.

Because that's what it means.

MASSIVELY. MULTIPLAYER. ONLINE.

So far, the best you've got is an MO. Multiplayer Online.


Server structure is COMPLETELY irrelevent.

 

[Strazdas]

I dont know why you think that it is marketing that called them a MMO.

Lol IS a MMO. COD and SC isnt. the difference? servers. both LOL and WOT run on the main server where everyone is located on (well regions are differentiated, like most MMOs). COD and SC have at best a lobby and the gameplay happens on third party servers, each of whom can have their own rules and mods. there is only one masterserver where matches happen in WOT and LOL.

Capcha: Remain calm.
Well thank you.

And where, exactly, in 'massively multiplayer' does it refer to server use?

It doesn't. You can have multiple server clusters. Hell, Guild Wars WAS an MMO and it didn't use that sort of server structure at all.

If you look at ACTUAL MMOs, they don't have this server set up you seem to think they need to be MMOs. What they have, and this is very frikken simple, is MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER elements.

That's it. Can your multiplayer be described as massive? If yes, you're an MMO. If no, you're not.

15v15 is NOT massive. 5v5 is not massive. Thus, their multiplayer aspects, NOT BEING MASSIVE, disqualify them from being an MMO.

Because that's what it means.

Servers are used by massive amount (many) people at the same time that are playing together online (in multiplayer) therefore Massive Multiplayer fits very well. in fact the most argument can be caused about the RPG part of MMORPG, but we can shove it to anything that isnt playing outsselves is role playing.
15v15 is not massive. ALtrough its far more than most online games. 100v100 is massive enough? becasue there are litterary thousands of clans fighting clan wars 100v100 (not all 100 at same time, but for example 5 clan vs clan battles at same time) in WOT clan wars. The actual 15v15 fight is nto what makes it a MMO. persisten world they can affect competing with millions of players is what makes it a MMO.

 

[DracoSuave]

Servers are used by massive amount (many) people at the same time that are playing together online (in multiplayer) therefore Massive Multiplayer fits very well. in fact the most argument can be caused about the RPG part of MMORPG, but we can shove it to anything that isnt playing outsselves is role playing.
15v15 is not massive. ALtrough its far more than most online games. 100v100 is massive enough? becasue there are litterary thousands of clans fighting clan wars 100v100 (not all 100 at same time, but for example 5 clan vs clan battles at same time) in WOT clan wars. The actual 15v15 fight is nto what makes it a MMO. persisten world they can affect competing with millions of players is what makes it a MMO.

Which then allows CoD to be an MMO again. And hell, MAG would be considered an MMO because it actually has 3 player factions that are fighting over persistant objectives... and actually HAS 64v64 player battles as part of its design.

But it isn't--because its multiplayer, which is FAR more massive than world of tanks on every possible scale (design-wise, not disputing that WoT has a large player base).... isn't massive enough.

It's not how many people log into their matchmaking server at any time. You can talk about the matchmaking servers all you like--the MATCH is NOT persistant, the MATCH is NOT massive, the actual gameplay is NOT massively multiplayer, and if the GAMEPLAY is not massively multiplayer, it is not a massively multiplayer game.

 

[Thrair]

I'm going to side with Draco on this one. Marketing can advertise things however they damn well please. Sure, language evolves, but if we assumed every time marketing twists the meaning of a word for their own purposes, "communication" would be reduced to random buzzwords within a year. If you'll pardon the slippery slope jest argument here and follow the spirit of what I'm getting at.

I love WoT. LoL as well. But neither of them can truly be called an MMO. As Draco said, you need to talk about how many players can interact with each other in the multiplayer at the same time. 15v15 doesn't really cut it.

If you're going by those persistent worlds as your definition of an MMO, then half the browser games out there would qualify. Take Farmville. Persistent micro worlds, and you can trade resources with theoretically anyone who plays. Does that make it an MMO? I would say it does not. I remember trading pokemon on my gameboy as a kid, and I could do it with theoretically anyone else who had one. Didn't make it massively multiplayer.

To be massively multiplayer, you need a large (admittedly vaguely defined) number of players who can all interact online and play with/against one another WITHIN THE GAME at the same time. World of Tanks doesn't really let you do that. I can't be playing a battle in Malinovka, leave the map, and wander off into some battle in Komarin or Prokhorovka. The actual gameplay is in functionally separate worlds.


Ultimately, however, this argument can be said to boil down to semantics. The term MMO isn't exactly precisely defined, which is part of what allows marketing executives to play their games with the term so easily. So to an extent this is a matter of opinion. As I said earlier, I think I'm going to side with Draco's definition.

 

[Strazdas]

Servers are used by massive amount (many) people at the same time that are playing together online (in multiplayer) therefore Massive Multiplayer fits very well. in fact the most argument can be caused about the RPG part of MMORPG, but we can shove it to anything that isnt playing outsselves is role playing.
15v15 is not massive. ALtrough its far more than most online games. 100v100 is massive enough? becasue there are litterary thousands of clans fighting clan wars 100v100 (not all 100 at same time, but for example 5 clan vs clan battles at same time) in WOT clan wars. The actual 15v15 fight is nto what makes it a MMO. persisten world they can affect competing with millions of players is what makes it a MMO.

Which then allows CoD to be an MMO again. And hell, MAG would be considered an MMO because it actually has 3 player factions that are fighting over persistant objectives... and actually HAS 64v64 player battles as part of its design.

But it isn't--because its multiplayer, which is FAR more massive than world of tanks on every possible scale (design-wise, not disputing that WoT has a large player base).... isn't massive enough.

It's not how many people log into their matchmaking server at any time. You can talk about the matchmaking servers all you like--the MATCH is NOT persistant, the MATCH is NOT massive, the actual gameplay is NOT massively multiplayer, and if the GAMEPLAY is not massively multiplayer, it is not a massively multiplayer game.

Not really. Can you cpature teirrtory from any other clan in COD that they can try recapturing the next day, get income (gold) for it that you use to buy ammunition and modules (guns for COD i guess) and hold your ground from others in a persisten world? no. you go on servers, where you shoot people, by doing teamwork or by not doing it. each server admin has its own rules and can ban anyone he wants.
i dont know what is MAG.

 

[DracoSuave]

MAG is a first person shooter for PS3 that -starts- with 16v16 battles, goes up to full 64v64 large scale fights, squad-based tactics... it was actually a pretty awesome game in terms of scope--where the small scale battles mattered to the large scale was well.

And it had persistancy in that the battles and how well your faction did mattered and affected overall gain of XP, resources in fights, etc.