Mo, our beloved Head of Community and a regular on our videos, met with Wargaming’s CEO to discuss the future of Wargaming and World of Tanks! During this interview we asked him a lot more of your questions! Watch this video to see his answers.
All in all not to bad a video this time round "yes Ectar I said that for real" just dont tell everyone so shhhhhh !!
im gona watch it again when im at home though so I can hear it again and in full with out headphones.... who knows I might find fault with it somewhere !!
To weaken or make less dangerous. Taken from the "Nerf" brand name, which makes sports equipment toys out of a soft foam (e.g., the Nerf football is soft foam rather than the hard leather of a real football). Used frequently in the context of computer game balance changes.
Is that the guy who drives a Lamborghini and sleeps, while the whole community waits for patches, fixes and features?
Fog of War - Some good toughts but I'm not sure Victor dares to comprehend the power of combined stupidity.
Mercenaries - great idea, but does it add any benefit? What if I am a member of another clan, I don't want to leave it, but I want to help my mates on other clans. What do I do?
Nerfs based on statistical data - You should discuss this in more details! People would enjoy it and probably quitely understand your steps. Some people just bitch on, but most of us would feel much better if we knew more details on such decisions.
Modified tanks and other vehicles - Good way to keep the game alive. You need them if historical battles are ever going to be part of WOT.
Commander Mode - Technical difficulties, sure... Like not allowing them in chat? please... Still it would be great if we could spectate or even control battles.
Use the 30 sec countdown for comms - believe me, I tried! Truth is, about 20% of the people don't even load until it's like 10 left. And then, most people just ignore comms. As it stands, the most frustrating part of the game is not missing a solid aimed shot, but waiting that 30 seconds before you can start rolling
You knooow, tank projects are kinda SECRET. I doubt that Japanese goverment are this open, even if it's about WW2 tanks. I am actually amazed that WG guys are trying so hard that they employ historians to find good tank projects.
But deeply there is something i don't agree with WG way of thinking, i mean the answer of the obvious number of arty problem is: we will nerf them enough so a lot of players will be disgusted about arty so we will have less arty in game...
I really believe that a deep problem in WG logic here. The answer of a problem can't be: "let's make arty (or any other tank) less fun" because the purpose of a game is to be fun ! SO a better answer might be: "let's make other tanks more fun" or "let's make scouts more profitable or better so we will have more scout to kill arties" or "let's limit the number of arties per game" (more waiting time maybe but you still have a good tank when you play it).
Also the nerfing of tanks based on statistic is an actual statistical mistake. Because if all tanks were perfectly balanced it will be statisticly correct than some have better win stats than others !
I believe our dear CEO hit a more accurate target when he quickly talk about some tanks that players use less and less.
When a lot of player just stop to playing a tank because it's no more fun, that's a real problem ! More important than hypothetical balance you'll never reach, because your objective is to provide a fun game not a boring balanced game...
So a tank with 75% win ratio but played only by 3 players it's a bad tank and a tank with 35% win ratio but played by a lot of player is a good tank...
Also the nerfing of tanks based on statistic is an actual statistical mistake. Because if all tank were perfectly balanced it will be statisticly correct than some have better win statistic than others !
I believe our dear CEO hit a more accurate target when he quickly talk about some tanks that players use less and less. When a lot of player just stop to playing a tank because it's no more fun that's a real problem, more important than hypothetical balance you'll never reach because your objective is to provide a fun game not a boring balanced game...
And that's wh they need to talk more about their statistics... I know I am interested in their metrics. Maybe players could comment on them and help them increase the fun factor of the game?
And if those tanks are so secret, they could have known that when they first mentioned other nations. Why not ask for material from the players then? It still feels an excuse, and that's my concern.
Invite one or more persons you want to have exclusive debate with by name. Only those whom you invite will be allowed to post here. Others will be removed if you ask the moderators.
I find it truly amusing when religious Christians condemn the secular ways every chance they got but then attribute all the advantages of secularism to Christianity whenever it suits them. They completely forget how extremely savage the Christians were until Europe finally rebelled against the power of the Church and curtailed it to within the confines of an evil sacred book known as the Bible.
Like I said, when I have time my next post will be about how supposedly religious Christians use the Bible to justify their crimes. But I was mainly thinking about the crimes against the others... but thanks to you Chief, you alerted me to add crimes of Christians against other Christians. This'll take me a while.
By the way, Winston. I have raised many points in my posts. The divinity of Jesus and Salvation were only two of them... It wasn't me who insisted on discussing these two points only.... anyway, suit yourself.
1) The theocratic power of the Christian Church WAS dismantled (a long time ago now). Why? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Christians acted hypocritcally against Jesus' teachings and thus had no real mandate for their tyranny?
2) This has NOT happened with the Islamic faith. Why? Are it's commands inherently violent and hateful in a prescriptive and persisting way meaning no reform is possible. Perhaps 'those who slay and are slain in making all worship for Allah alone' have a powerful justification within the Islamic texts to constantly wage war against and subjugate unbelievers? Forgive me for posting this point in this thread but it would be very disjointed to break the two up.
debunker wrote: Like I said, when I have time my next post will be about how supposedly religious Christians use the Bible to justify their crimes. But I was mainly thinking about the crimes against the others... but thanks to you Chief, you alerted me to add crimes of Christians against other Christians. This'll take me a while.
If they are supposedly religious ie hypocrites then why waste you time ranting about them? Do you like defending true Christians? Maybe you're secretly an Evangelical like me? Note: That was a joke and not a declaration of faith.
debunker wrote: By the way, Winston. I have raised many points in my posts. The divinity of Jesus and Salvation were only two of them... It wasn't me who insisted on discussing these two points only.... anyway, suit yourself.
Actually Christians did act hypocritically against Jesus teachings but that is NOT the reason why the power of the Church was dismantled. The people rebelled against the Bible without even bothering about the true teachings of Jesus. This reform was purely secular. If indeed it was a religious reform, then we wouldn't have seen Europe endorsing its loose moral values (as per Biblical teachings). The whole Bible was simply put aside.
First, posting this point in this thread about Muslims is very relevant to the subject at hand because you wanted to make a point by way of comparison which is valid (at least to me). Now, allow me to make another comparison of my own. The Hebrew Bible (perhpas the most violent scripture ever written) didn't prevent the Jews from completely adopting secularism. The Hebrew Bible cannot take credit for secularism in any way, shape or form. Why am I making this comparison? To point out the fact that non of the scriptures (OT, NT or Quran) allow for secularism. Secularism requires the will of the people to revolt against their scriptures. This comparison serves to assert my point that religious Christians cannot take credit for secularism. It was not an option for them as it was not an option for religious Jews and it will not be an option for religious Muslims. Secularism imposes itself on all religions.
Well, you raise an excellent point. Indeed there's no need to bring evidence as to how hypocitical Christians use Jesus' teachings in vain to justify their violence. But it's Chief who's interested in this. If he simply makes a similar statement like yours then I will not bother to rant about the hypocracy of Christians.
Others: Counter assertion with ample Biblical references <--- you mean: others evade the assertions.
Debunker: Restate initial assertion <----- only when the counter assertion is simply circular reasoning.
Others: Offer further references and analogies to explore other perspectives <----- more of the same circular reasoning.
Others: Yawn <----- I already said it, others could have moved to discuss other points but they got stuck only on two of them using more and more circular reasoning.
If the Christian texts encourage pasifism and a personal relationship with God, whilst 'giving Ceaser his due' then how is this incompatible with Secularism? There is no Christian law which is to applied to non-Christians. Wasn't America founded on those principles by both religious and non-religious people who fled the hypocritical theocracy of the European Churches?
debunker wrote: First, posting this point in this thread about Muslims is very relevant to the subject at hand because you wanted to make a point by way of comparison which is valid (at least to me). Now, allow me to make another comparison of my own. The Hebrew Bible (perhpas the most violent scripture ever written) didn't prevent the Jews from completely adopting secularism. The Hebrew Bible cannot take credit for secularism in any way, shape or form. Why am I making this comparison? To point out the fact that non of the scriptures (OT, NT or Quran) allow for secularism. Secularism requires the will of the people to revolt against their scriptures. This comparison serves to assert my point that religious Christians cannot take credit for secularism. It was not an option for them as it was not an option for religious Jews and it will not be an option for religious Muslims. Secularism imposes itself on all religions.
The reason why the OT didn't prevent the Jews from completely adopting secularism is because the violent passages are descriptive only. There was a period of conquest of the land of Canaan a very long time ago and that was essentially the end of it. By comparison the commands of the Quran are seen as absolute and eternal, Islamic law is to be forced upon non-Muslims by violence if necessary until the entire world is under its rule. The governments of Islamic nations with secular-minded leaders have always struggled (unsuccessfully) against the majority of citizens who simply can't get enough Shariah. The doctrine of continued conquest and subjugation is prevelant in the Islamic texts ONLY. Anyone can see this is being manifested all over the world wherever there is a Muslim population capable of fighting their non-Muslim neighbours.
Ok, you make almost perfect assertions. You neglected, however, to emphasize that Christianity orders its true followers to not resist secularism or any non-Christian authority. That much is very true. The key thing here is: Don't resist secularism. So again, I reassert my point that if true Christians could peacefully make people adopt true Christian moral conduct (no fornication, etc) then they would have done it. But secularism doesn't care what Christianity thinks about the boyfriend/girlfriend system for example... This to me is a proof that Christianity cannot take credit for secularism. Secularsism was enforced on Christians and true Christians abided by Jesus' teachings and gave Ceasar his due. Please forgive me for repeating myself but my objection was to how Christians take credit for secularism when they only "tolerate" it because Jesus told them to give Ceasar his due.
The reason why the OT didn't prevent the Jews from completely adopting secularism is because the violent passages are descriptive only.
There was a period of conquest of the land of Canaan a very long time ago and that was essentially the end of it.
Actually I can list some verses for the truly horrific Jewish version of Islamic conquest outside the Promised Land but I know you won't care for them. Anyway, let's ignore the Jewish conquest (of cities outside the Promised Land) and concentrate on the Jewish Law! Do you think it was descriptive too? Is that why the Jews don't stone people for going to work on Saturday these days? Or is it because they completely ignored their scripture?
debunker wrote: Ok, you make almost perfect assertions. You neglected, however, to emphasize that Christianity orders its true followers to not resist secularism or any non-Christian authority. That much is very true. The key thing here is: Don't resist secularism. So again, I reassert my point that if true Christians could peacefully make people adopt true Christian moral conduct (no fornication, etc) then they would have done it. But secularism doesn't care what Christianity thinks about the boyfriend/girlfriend system for example... This to me is a proof that Christianity cannot take credit for secularism. Secularsism was enforced on Christians and true Christians abided by Jesus' teachings and gave Ceasar his due. Please forgive me for repeating myself but my objection was to how Christians take credit for secularism when they only "tolerate" it because Jesus told them to give Ceasar his due.
Fair point. I'm not trying to give Christianity undue credit for secularism either, i'm just saying that it's teaching are compatible with it whilst Islamic teachings are not. It's the threat to my freedom which concerns me and Islamic conquest is the primary danger for everyone who values their freedom. Islamic conquest is intrinsically and permanently linked with the Quran and Hadith and so will always be a destructive and oppressive force as long as people follow these books.
Winston wrote: The reason why the OT didn't prevent the Jews from completely adopting secularism is because the violent passages are descriptive only.
You're right I wouldn't really care for them and nor do I care to defend those assertions you just made simply because (as you have said before) the Jews do not really follow the OT anymore. If there are indeed verses of conquest or violence which are to be followed for all time in the OT they are being (and have been) ignored for a very long time. Sadly, the same can not be said for the Islamic texts and people are suffering as a result.
Actually right now, dear Winston, the only conquest going on is American conquest... and that's why countries in "Old Europe" (France and Germany) objected to this.
Let me predict the future for you dear Winston. The whole world will make the Middle East its battle ground not because of the "Islamic danger" but because of the "Islamic oil fields".
So please stop playing the role of the victim when the leader of the civilized world is very much in the act of ravaging the Middle East (starting with Iraq). 65 % of the world's oil reserves is in the Persian Gulf! No wonder the Americans were so concerned about the Freedom of Iraqis!
Now you are sounding a bit more like a typical Muslim. Shifting responsibilities for the actions of Islamic jihadists and blaming America for everything may be comforting but it's not going to change the motivations of...
Different countries, different races, different languages but SAME religion and SAME goal, conquest and subjugation...Where did they get their ideas from?
Oh you missed my point I'm not shifting responsibilities... I'm only telling you don't worry. It is Muslims who are being conquered.
I'm not blaming their terrorism on the West. I'm just saying that their terrorism is NOT "why" the West is interested in the Middle East.
winston wrote: Now you are sounding a bit more like a typical Muslim. Shifting responsibilities for the actions of Islamic jihadists and blaming America for everything may be comforting but it's not going to change the motivations of...
Truly is really amazing I never knew all of those names about the Islamis terrorist movements. I do believe there are so many groups linked to one group or another. Thanks for your info
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
debunker wrote: Oh you missed my point I'm not shifting responsibilities... I'm only telling you don't worry. It is Muslims who are being conquered.
You give the Mujahadeen little credit...they are making progress every day across the world now that they are being aided by a multitude of 'useful idiots' within the U.N.
You could be right about the Wests true interests in the Middle East. If you are, then we in the West are bigger fools than those who think the world will be at peace when Islam dominates it.
BTW, I know you are agnostic, but you seem to care about the Bible. Therefore, for you only, I'll stop criticizing the Bible. I will never criticize it ever again.
Hell no debunker, have at the Bible as much you want! If I ever really get round to studying the Bible properly i'll want as much ammunition against it as I can find for balance...and you provide lots.
well, regardless... you're previous comment has extinguished all the anger inside me. Thanks friend. Good Bye.
The page you have requested is available with a Premium Access Subscription (starting at just $1.59.)
Counter strike story start with half life modification first version counter strike is 1.5, counter strike 1.6 come after that in year 2000 first release and followed versions are Counter Strike Condition Zero, counter strike: source and counter strike: global offensive newest version.