Jump to content


COLLABORATION WITH WARHAMMER 40,000!


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

Birdistheword15 #21 Posted 16 August 2017 - 08:42 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37719 battles
  • 1,227
  • [BRIT6]
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015
With this announcement its finally time 'ww2-based' was dropped from all of the wotb material. Why keep up the pretence.

Edited by Birdistheword15, 16 August 2017 - 08:44 AM.


Bada__Bing #22 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:14 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8332 battles
  • 304
  • [B-B-B]
  • Member since:
    09-22-2016

View PostArth_Vader, on 15 August 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

 

....make this WH/fantasy stuff an option like supremacy.

 

Some people might not mind it, but many will.

 

And put lupus, helsing, Dracula, nameless, gnome tank in the fantasy battles too.

 

i have them all, but they shouldn't be in the mix with Panthers, Comets and Tigers.

 

Cant you see that??????

 

 

 

Take a look at the replies from WG on the NA forum. Basically they claim a fantasy tank on /off switch is not possible ( ? ! ) and that we should all embrace this awesome new line.



DoomsDay_Steel #23 Posted 16 August 2017 - 11:32 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 31248 battles
  • 38
  • [PINK]
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015
Don't play low tiers. lol. I don't so I don't care either way. But let me put this out there. For those players that actually play lower tiers, surely they should be listened to? Wait sorry, I forgot the component of WG.

Statistics don't mean anything. Don't get caught in the trap that you are only as good as your WR. Statistics can be stat padded. 

 


Birdistheword15 #24 Posted 16 August 2017 - 01:01 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37719 battles
  • 1,227
  • [BRIT6]
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostBada__Bing, on 16 August 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

 

Take a look at the replies from WG on the NA forum. Basically they claim a fantasy tank on /off switch is not possible ( ? ! ) and that we should all embrace this awesome new line.

Do WG ever look at the player numbers/stats for these tanks on blitzstars and wotbstars? Some of the lowest. Hardly flying off the shelves, so why keep churning them out? The majority have rejected them. I am no businessman but to me that don't make alot of economic sense to continue to produce something that there is little or no market for. Surprised the wg bean counters haven't stepped in and done something about it.


Edited by Birdistheword15, 16 August 2017 - 01:06 PM.


HeadWalker #25 Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:02 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 50875 battles
  • 148
  • [--MVT]
  • Member since:
    04-25-2015


sixty_three #26 Posted 16 August 2017 - 09:22 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12321 battles
  • 1,357
  • Member since:
    04-29-2017

View PostBada__Bing, on 16 August 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

 

Take a look at the replies from WG on the NA forum. Basically they claim a fantasy tank on /off switch is not possible ( ? ! ) and that we should all embrace this awesome new line.

 

Thanks Bada_Bing for the heads-up.  

 

The big cheeses behind 40K and WG have clearly agreed the deal.  I'd imagine the new fantasy tank aspect will be sold very hard by both companies to potential younger new gamers.  The existing player base for 40K will ensure fantasy tanks appear in more battles than they do at present. The only thing I'm now hoping for is that the new 40K AFV's aren't OP.  

 

 

 

 


Edited by sixty_three, 16 August 2017 - 09:23 PM.

One of life’s challenges — knowing enough to think you are right, but not enough to know that you are wrong.

 


Skullcandy #27 Posted 17 August 2017 - 05:37 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22405 battles
  • 1,249
  • [1RTR]
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011
When WG made a thread a few months back asking what changes we want to see most in the game, at least 1 in 3 said no more fantasy tanks.

Leader of 1RTR. | 1RTR on Discord "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." – Winston Churchill


Birdistheword15 #28 Posted 17 August 2017 - 09:37 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37719 battles
  • 1,227
  • [BRIT6]
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostSkullcandy, on 17 August 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

When WG made a thread a few months back asking what changes we want to see most in the game, at least 1 in 3 said no more fantasy tanks.

And we should be equally receptive as WG have been and not buy these fantasy tanks. 



Mark_Collins #29 Posted 17 August 2017 - 11:44 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26931 battles
  • 131
  • [GRAVE]
  • Member since:
    05-18-2015

View PostSkullcandy, on 17 August 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

When WG made a thread a few months back asking what changes we want to see most in the game, at least 1 in 3 said no more fantasy tanks.

 

Meaning that perhaps 2 in 3 aren't that bothered?

Considering that the game already has a fair few fantasy, or drawing board, tanks in it I can't see why people are getting shirty about it.

Then again, I have been a 40k player for 30 years so that may have something to do with it :-)

 

 


Edited by Mark_Collins, 17 August 2017 - 11:50 AM.

Alea Iacta Est

Peddy_tanj_it #30 Posted 17 August 2017 - 08:50 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 49356 battles
  • 749
  • [TANG]
  • Member since:
    05-20-2015

I hate fantasy tanks. Yes I have a couple from grinding events and will use them. Because they give me an advantage as they are often OP Dracula and Lupus in particular. 

 

However if we can arrange a automatic down vote in military honour, provocative communication seems appropriate, they offend me by existing and try to kill them at the first opportunity I would be happy. 

 

Or have a fantasy only option the same as supremacy as below. 

View PostArth_Vader, on 15 August 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

 

....make this WH/fantasy stuff an option like supremacy.

 

Some people might not mind it, but many will.

 

And put lupus, helsing, Dracula, nameless, gnome tank in the fantasy battles too.

 

i have them all, but they shouldn't be in the mix with Panthers, Comets and Tigers.

 

Cant you see that??????

 

 

Allow people to have regular historical tanks fighting fantasy tanks if they want, but have an option to avoid them as you can opt out of supremancy battles. 

 

 


There Ain't No Justice = TANJ 

Calisota #31 Posted 18 August 2017 - 07:54 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 19083 battles
  • 529
  • [NERV]
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostOberst_Leutnant1, on 15 August 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

I really hope not that the WH40k tanks meet our WW2 tanks. It would ruining the historical aspects of this game.

WG.net should develop better camo's based on WW2 tanks instead of developing sci-if tanks. 

 

But if they do introduce more sci-if tanks, and they will, why don't' they give them their own queue like they did with the MarkI?

This way we can choose what we want to play.

 

The majority only wants to play with WW2 tanks otherwise we would have installed an other tank game.

 

Fingers crossed I say or maybe start to search for an other game.......

 

historical aspects of WW2?

Tell me how a T110Ex is WW2 or a E50M is more historically accurate as a Leman Russ?*

T-62 is a Tank from 1972 and has nothing to do with WW2 either, even the T-54 was a 1963 tank and the T-44 was built between 1945 and 1947.

everything behind the SU-101 is completely bullshiet and even the SU-100 was a damm late WW2 tank of 1944 to 1946. There were no E-Tanks in germany. The whole T-xx series of american tanks was full experimental and never saw any enemy. 

 

To be historically accurate you shall fight a Tiger II with 8.8 PaK L/71 in your puny M4 Sherman and M4E2A4 Sherman. Let them Ferdinant's kill those Stuart's, Mathildas, Valentines, MK II A A10's and MK VI A Crusader A15's as they were the MBT's of GB in WW2. Sure they had even more modern like tanks like Cromwells with the 95mm L/23 howitzer or ''Challenger'' A30 tanks with a huge turret and a 76.2mm 17pdr gun on a Cromwell chassis but they were just existing in little numbers. Panthers would've rushed them to death or even killed them before they had the option to aim for the cupola. Even Jagdtigers fought T-34's and BT-7's along SU-152 and KV-1's so what do u want? Historically accurate but broken as fck Matchmaking without FV's or Centurions or russian tanks after Tier VIII or american tanks after VI, or do you want a good playable game with more or less working matchmaking? 

World of Tanks: Blitz is NOT a MIL-SIM game! It was never one and it won't be one in any future scenarios. If WG decides to put in tanks from 40K, then that's what they gon' do. If you hate it, feel free to leave - That's how it usually works for you as customer.

 

If Dunkin Donuts would change their fluffy donuts, then it's their descision and if I don't like it I need to search for another donut store with fluffy donuts as it's not my company - I'm just one of hundreds of thousand customers and nothing more.

another example of strange descisions: McDonalds didn't restored the Szechuan sauce - even after it got such a legendary status and so damm many willing customers waiting for a comeback of the delicious teriyaki nugget sauce of 1998. 

 

It's literally the same as you are waiting for Wargaming bringing historically accurate gameplay back...

The chances of Wargamings Historical Matches getting a resemblance in a 'Rick and Morty' episode are not so small if you now think about it...

Cheers:B

 

*:for all that didn't know: E50M is a full Wargaming fantasy and is the first full fantasy tank ingame even before Tankensteins. Germans wouldn't call it E50M, tehy would call it E50 Ausf. B like the VK 45.02 P's. the M is the russian modernization label like T-54 Mod 1, SU-100M1, T-34-85M etc. pp


Edited by Calisota, 18 August 2017 - 08:04 AM.

Check out some sneeki breeki insights(WG approved) for upcoming Updates of World of Tanks: Blitz and World of Warships: Blitz or simply find other cool users to talk with.

                                                                            The Blitz Post Discord 


Birdistheword15 #32 Posted 18 August 2017 - 08:16 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37719 battles
  • 1,227
  • [BRIT6]
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

'Ready to cause some havoc in the ultimate WORLD WAR 2 military tank shooter? World of Tanks Blitz is here!'

 

- copied from the google play store today.



Calisota #33 Posted 18 August 2017 - 08:33 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 19083 battles
  • 529
  • [NERV]
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

That doesn't mean it has to be WW2 only...

That just means its WW2 themed - Or do u see space-maps? Most tanks are WW2 based or can fit into the gameplay but it doesn't mean there is no space for limited premium space tanks which are just given by a short amount of time called event and are not obtainable for everyone like in techtree.;)

 

There are plenty of Blitz copycats out with space tanks or M1Abrams and Leopard 2A5s and T-80s; Blitz has it's root in WW2 - That's what the sentence means.:great:


Edited by Calisota, 18 August 2017 - 08:34 AM.

Check out some sneeki breeki insights(WG approved) for upcoming Updates of World of Tanks: Blitz and World of Warships: Blitz or simply find other cool users to talk with.

                                                                            The Blitz Post Discord 


Birdistheword15 #34 Posted 18 August 2017 - 01:10 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 37719 battles
  • 1,227
  • [BRIT6]
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostCalisota, on 18 August 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

That doesn't mean it has to be WW2 only...

That just means its WW2 themed - Or do u see space-maps? Most tanks are WW2 based or can fit into the gameplay but it doesn't mean there is no space for limited premium space tanks which are just given by a short amount of time called event and are not obtainable for everyone like in techtree.;)

 

There are plenty of Blitz copycats out with space tanks or M1Abrams and Leopard 2A5s and T-80s; Blitz has it's root in WW2 - That's what the sentence means.:great:

They forgot 'based' after world war 2. Someone needs to have a quiet chat with the wg comms team me thinks.

 

I recall a video from 48 ton ruckus sometime ago that summed up quite well criticisms of the introduction of fantasy tanks. Paraphrasing, it suggests a confusing  approach by wg towards blitz - is it a ww2-based shooter or any-type-of-tank shooter? Its one or the other.

 

If its the latter then remove all reference to ww2 in the game material.  

 


Edited by Birdistheword15, 18 August 2017 - 01:29 PM.


Chairman_merpug #35 Posted 18 August 2017 - 03:24 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 36633 battles
  • 8,139
  • [AFK]
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013
Sherman Firefly, please,for a real WW2 tank we haven't seen yet.

Denoobing member of the Active Frontline Klan - and proud of it. Be nice to me..https://www.blitzstars.com/player/eu/Chairman_merpug


Bada__Bing #36 Posted 19 August 2017 - 10:25 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8332 battles
  • 304
  • [B-B-B]
  • Member since:
    09-22-2016

View PostMark_Collins, on 17 August 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

 

Meaning that perhaps 2 in 3 aren't that bothered?

Considering that the game already has a fair few fantasy, or drawing board, tanks in it I can't see why people are getting shirty about it.

Then again, I have been a 40k player for 30 years so that may have something to do with it :-)

 

 

 

And if Games Workshop introduced a tellytubby army into 40K ?

Peddy_tanj_it #37 Posted 20 August 2017 - 11:53 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 49356 battles
  • 749
  • [TANG]
  • Member since:
    05-20-2015

View PostBada__Bing, on 19 August 2017 - 10:25 AM, said:

 

And if Games Workshop introduced a tellytubby army into 40K ?

 

Nice thinking but I would prefer a "My Little Pony" army. I then might just have to become a Brony. LOL!
There Ain't No Justice = TANJ 

Blue_Snail #38 Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:51 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4495 battles
  • 364
  • Member since:
    05-21-2017

View PostVerblonde, on 15 August 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

Colmain's idea sounds fun - as well as not spending any money, let's do our utmost to royally muck up any game where we see any of these new fantasy tanks. If *everyone* tries to slaughter them at the first opportunity, and at the expense of all else (including winning, missions etc), I suspect the experiment is unlikely to be repeated...

Also, does the reputation thing in game do anything? I would suggest a down-vote for anyone who fields a 40K tank...?
 

These are very interesting ideas.  This would certainly startle WG HQ.

 

Story from Wot.  The #1 clan world-wide is [FAME].  There is a downside to being in this OP clan; everyone targets you.  So if any FAME tanker shows up in a public battle, everyone targets them.  [FAME] has partially earned this through their OP arrogance, though a few of them seem very nice from their posts.

 

There is one major weakness to agreeing to target WH 40K tanks.  That is that the proportion of players that even look at this Forum seems rather small.  I suspect that many devices this game is played on are not great for accessing the Forum.  Often, when I try to send Player Mail, I find that folks have not activated their forum profile.  So even if the Forum participants agreed to target 40K tanks, the effort would probably only account for about 10% of the total player base.

 


Edited by Blue_Snail, 20 August 2017 - 01:53 PM.


 


MarsIsBrightTonight #39 Posted 20 August 2017 - 03:54 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22251 battles
  • 499
  • [OBB]
  • Member since:
    11-03-2016

View PostBlue_Snail, on 20 August 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

These are very interesting ideas.  This would certainly startle WG HQ.

 

Story from Wot.  The #1 clan world-wide is [FAME].  There is a downside to being in this OP clan; everyone targets you.  So if any FAME tanker shows up in a public battle, everyone targets them.  [FAME] has partially earned this through their OP arrogance, though a few of them seem very nice from their posts.

 

There is one major weakness to agreeing to target WH 40K tanks.  That is that the proportion of players that even look at this Forum seems rather small.

Oh but a nice "DOGPILE ON THE CLOWN" thrown in chat before battle does spread the Word rather fast. And then there's clan chat, and at the tiers these tanks are likely to appear, most players belong to a clan.

How many O-47s have you seen in battle lately?


"Gambling: The sure way of getting nothing for something." (Wilson Mizner, US playwriter, 1876-1933)


Mark_Collins #40 Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:28 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26931 battles
  • 131
  • [GRAVE]
  • Member since:
    05-18-2015

View PostBada__Bing, on 19 August 2017 - 10:25 AM, said:

 

And if Games Workshop introduced a tellytubby army into 40K ?

 

Then I would say that you should feel free to spend your own hard earned cash in any manner you like, even buying something like that.

I would then promptly ignore the tellytubby army as it doesn't fit MY idea of what 40k is about.

I would not however have a tantrum, threaten to quit playing and look for a way to make life difficult for those that did choose to play such an army.

I like the idea of 40k vehicles. Others don't. Each to their own.


Edited by Mark_Collins, 21 August 2017 - 01:41 PM.

Alea Iacta Est




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users