World Of Tanks Claims Important Number

Hmm. So we just read this: “ is glad to announce that the company’s MMO action game World of Tanks has set up the new world record for the maximum number of users playing concurrently on the same game server. The peak of 74,536 online players was recorded on January 5, 2011 by the Russian release version of World of Tanks.” Which is interesting, I suppose, because it shows how popular WoT is, and strictly speaking it is a world record, but it’s not really an interesting record in the same way that Eve’s concurrent users is (and Eve itself is lots of separate systems, each of which is essentially its on server, albeit connected to the wider world). WoT’s structure means that these people aren’t connected in a world, so much as available to the same set of games, something like that. When a server for a game like World Of Warcraft can have 70k+ people online and in the same space/world together, then we can get excited.

Still, ‘grats, WoT. The game has also passed one million totally registered users.


  1. bit_crusherrr says:

    Doesn’t EVE have about 50-60k people on at one time in the same game world?

  2. Starky says:

    Eve doesn’t really count though given the way it works – yes everyone shares the same universe and 50k people can easily be online, but they are all instanced from one another, and if they try to all enter the same system/server they get locked out.

    As in they are unable to use the gates to enter a system/server that is maxed out – And any system that is at even half that limit will be a laggy unplayable hellhole.

    • zergl says:

      While yes, EVE does have “instances” which boil down to the different star systems, it’s still vastly more impressive, especially when you consider that 1000ish people on a reinforced node are supposed to be playable nowadays (if it’s not reinforced the node will be thoroughly screwed and lag to hell and back, though). Show me any comparable game that supports this kind of large scale player interaction.

      Just for the sake of comparison, what’s the max size of a PVP battleground or wossname in WoW or any other current generation MMOs?

    • Sassenach says:

      With WoW I think about 80 people is the largest population in a single instance, but it’s possible to have any number of people in the actual game world, I think. This is the world PvP of legend (which is supposedly dead), and it generated levels of lag that WoW will likely never surpass again.

      Sometimes in the genre the description of ‘massive’ seems to have been a bit of a misnomer. It’s a semantic point, though.

    • kyrieee says:

      The fact that you can’t have 50k people in the same spot is sort of inconsequential. If you take the entire population of a WoW server and have them stand in the same spot the servers will go down just the same.

    • Ludden says:

      EVE is not instanced. Instancing would be if there were several copies of for example Jita.

      The important difference is that all locations within the game world are unique. Everyone can go there; that everyone can’t at the exact same time is beside the point.

      It’s the same with WoW’s open world, only without the gates locking you out and the zone server going lagging out in its stead.

    • Starky says:

      Eve may seem vastly more impressive, but you’ve got to remember that the amount of data Eve needs to transmit is TINY compared to WoW, or an FPS or any other WASD control system game.
      Every ship doesn’t require spell/animation info (well it does but not in the same volume, and the specifics can be handled client side) – combat is a lot more sedate, allowing less updates per second and client side interpolation without as many noticeable glitches. Hell, half the time the ship in eve is just a dot with targeting info anyway, not a running, jumping strafing player.
      It doesn’t have the range of customization options (visible ones that need to be sent to every client) of something like WoW and APB.

      I’d wager that it is a lot more CPU friendly too for the servers.

      Oh and I believe the record in WoW for number of players in a single zone is something like 1500.
      During the Opening of the Gates of Ahn’Qiraj – way back in the day.
      My server had about 1000 people on it for the event, the server crashed 3 times, and the GM’s had to kick anyone under level 55 from the zone to manage it, and the lag was epic.
      But so was the event.

      Eve is also very impressive when you get into a 100+ vs 100+ pvp battle, but my experience of those was also laggy beyond belief.

  3. Torgen says:

    They are having massive problems with latency the last several weeks, at least on the US server. Last night, I gave up after 3 games, all of which had ping of not less than 400ms and most of the time 800-999ms. The chat lobby of our clan was completely empty, and most have stopped playing due to balance issues, where your midrange tank is routinely tossed into rounds with Tier 8-10 tanks.

    You have approximately zero chance of even damaging a tank 3 tiers above you (I’ve shot tier 8 tanks point-blank in the side/rear in a Tier 5 tank while their attention was elsewhere, 7 times for no damage) while they one-shot you. Which is as it should be, but you should NOT be facing 8 tanks three tiers above you in a match. I’ve often faced T-44s and T-54s while in a T-34, not to mention IS-4s, etc.

    With so many people online, there’s no excuse for having a four tier spread in a match.

    • zergl says:

      I’m pretty certain that I managed to kill Tigers in my T-34 of doom and at least hurt/damage/track various Tier 8s.

      Though I do fully agree that the balancer is a massive load of bollocks.

      ninja edit: Especially when the balancer thinks that when there’s x tanks of Tier n it’s cool to put them all on the same side and give the other side more tanks of Tier n-1 instead. It just makes no sense from time to time.

    • Torgen says:

      Tigers are only tier 6 though. I have little problem giving them a severe hurting either, and have killed plenty. Try killing IS4s or T54s, or even a T44 before you get blown away. I have a T34 with gun-laying drive and shell rammer, and it used to be a joy to drive. Nowadays, it often just a matter of trying to score a damage on *anything* before padding someone’s kill count.

      I also have a KV3 that is similarly pimped out, that used to be my favorite tank (107mm over 122mm, because of the greater ROF.) Now I’m slogging through upgrading an IS on the way to IS3, because the KV3 is outclassed by too many others with the introduction of the Cold War tanks.

    • zergl says:

      Tigers are Tier 7 and I’m pretty sure I managed to solo bad King Tigers before in the T-34.

      But yeah, driving anything light or light/medium, especially in the Tiers 5/6, is horribly annoying when you get mostly dropped in the high tier battles.

    • Nick says:

      Tier 5s can hurt Tier 8s in the side/rear and some frontal weakspots. But yeah, its not a huge amount of fun attempting to live very long in those matches. One of the reasons I sold my Stug was attemping to be a tank destroyer in matches with IS4s and 4502s was laughable, already went through it once with the russian TDs and was hoping the last patch might have helped, but no.

      Still, at least they added some new tier matches where tier 6s can be top, its just a matter of getting into one of those instead of tier 6 – 9, where the KV3 is ok (the 107 is a great gun), but often too slow to get into cover when it needs to and unable to take the beating it can from lesser tanks.

  4. Om says:

    One thing that I think is interesting is the degree to which its growth from Eastern Europe that’s driving a lot of these games. It seems to me that this part of the world, and Russia in particular, is far more represented in the world of computer games than it was just a few years ago

  5. HansDampf says:

    The number of concurrent users is useless without further explanation. From my understanding WoT consist small scale skirmishes with less 30 player interacting directly, right?

    The number 50k – 60k concurrent users for EvE is also misleading as Starky mentioned above. To state some usefull numbers:
    Biggest Fleetbattle: ~2000 players, heavy delay (several minutes for pushing a button etc.)
    Most active Solar System: Jita ~1600 players, I would guess 300 in space and 1300 in docked, very small delay (complex trading action < 3 sec, pew pew in space in real time)
    Trading Regions packs more than 100 solar system in a single Market and player are affecting each in directly. Inter Region Trading is possible anytime anywhere, but physical transport of goods or player character is mandatory.

    On thing is for sure in EvE you get most epic battles and biggest economy, but this comes with various tradoffs. CCP is working constantly to improve concurrency. AFIK no other game provide this massive scale.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Right, but Eve’s concurrency is more interesting as a fact about the game world than WoT’s is, since the experience of the game would be no different if WoT was lots of smaller servers.

    • Swyyw says:

      By that reasoning, would you say that a game like Everquest (which used a zone system), never had more than 100 concurrent users?

    • The_Terminator says:

      The thing to remember about Eve is that while the computing cluster that runs it is spread out over multiple nodes (as most supercomputers these days are), and has been designed so that if one node goes down it doesn’t kill the entire server, it is technically still one server. And even if the system you’re in is hosted on a separate node to everything else, that only handles what is going on physically in space. Things like the markets, contract system, character services, etc are all hosted on their own groups of nodes. The game uses one central database for storing all game data too, which isn’t spread out over multiple nodes.

      Most high-performance servers work like that these days – I’m sure WoT’s server is the same, spread out over multiple nodes so that if one goes down it doesn’t take the whole server with it. A lot of major websites do it too, such as Twitter and Facebook.

    • HansDampf says:

      IT depends which measure you want to use.
      The last viral video of WoW, showed 300 naked lvl 1 orks killing a boss character, plus bystanders. This would “physical” interaction with avatars. It produces the highest server load of all player interactions.

      WoW game design is focused on small groups in raids, battelground, etc. In Questhubs and alike you see more people, but they don’t want interact actively (running to questgiver, walking by,…).

    • Bassism says:

      Actually, your largest fleet battle numbers are slightly off. There was a battle not too long ago that peaked at over 3100 people. Some of my friends in the fight say that it managed to stay playable well over 2000 people, which is pretty impressive in itself, and despite lag times in minutes, the servers actually stayed up.

      However, Eve’s 50-60k concurrent users is far more interesting to me. While it’s true that they’re not all in the exact same place, everybody in the game is able to interact with everybody else. You could have theoretically have a massive chat channel with 50k users, then all decide to converge in one place. Of course, this wouldn’t work, because the node would crash before too long. But the key thing here is that you could -try- it, which I think is pretty cool.

  6. Dreamhacker says:


  7. Wilson says:

    I quite enjoyed trying out WoT a while back in the open beta, but I eventually got bored, partly because I so rarely got a chance to engage tanks that I could really damage. I don’t see how they can’t manage a decent balancing system for matches. Maybe they’re trying to balance skill as well using some dodgy numbers, but I lost interest not long after getting a nice new tank destroyer and being moved into higher tier matches, where I could hardly damage anything. The prospect of grinding my way to the next level (or sideways to a normal tank) was not appealing.

  8. Josh Brandt says:

    Hetzers gonna Hetz…

  9. Daniel Klein says:

    Yeah. Not a world record, this. But quite an impressive number :) Glad to see they’re doing well for themselves. This is a game I’ve been meaning to check out for the longest time.

  10. durns says:

    Fences, like angry sticks.

  11. Dozer says:

    Time for a Private Eye number-crunching session:

    75,000: number of people playing WoT at one point in time
    50,493: number of tanks produced by Germany between 1933 and 1945

  12. rammjaeger says:

    Jim you missed an opportunity for a funny headline give the name of this game:
    “Wot I think about WoT” :)

  13. bartleby says:

    Speaking of tanks:

    link to

    Where’s Mr. Stone, anyway?

  14. minming says:

    Hello. My friend

    w w w . a e o o e . c o m

    Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!



    thank you !!!

    w w w . a e o o e . c o m

  15. tigershuffle says:

    The key to enjoying WOT is by having a nice balanced garage.
    a TD , an Arty and some Tanks across the tiers. At least then you can change tanks if you get put in a badly balanced game…..and most are over in under 10mins anyway.

    There is a server switch coming soon……..Euro/US …..and i dont think the lag is as bad as the pre-xmas patches
    currently there are usually 13,000 ish players and about 300 battles running at peak times, which is double what it was just a couple of months back

  16. darthmajor says:

    In EVE the 50-60k people are actually in the same universe, they can interact directly, and had battles with 3200+ people in the same system, murdering eachother. In WOT, it’s like 70k people are sitting in the same lobby waiting for a match with 29 other guys. It’s like comparing apples and pirates, it can’t be done!
    Grats to WoT tho, it’s a fun game if you can live with how grindy it is.