Jump to content


Planes, Trains and T110s


  • Please log in to reply
35439 replies to this topic

Dragon_Witch #35421 Posted Yesterday, 07:59 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 12109 battles
  • 13,055
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostAvalon304, on Dec 15 2018 - 13:58, said:

Awww... all the codes are used up... why would you have a limit?

 

 

Because it costs them money for each code that is redeemed? 

 



Life_In_Black #35422 Posted Yesterday, 08:02 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,327
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
I don't even know if I want to bother to get the MKA gift tank. It's probably a good thing I guess.

Dragon_Witch #35423 Posted Yesterday, 08:08 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 12109 battles
  • 13,055
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Dec 15 2018 - 14:02, said:

I don't even know if I want to bother to get the MKA gift tank. It's probably a good thing I guess.

 

It's a free garage slot.  That being said, I never sell my tier 2 premiums.  I like keeping them around. 

Life_In_Black #35424 Posted Yesterday, 08:10 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,327
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostDragon_Witch, on Dec 15 2018 - 14:08, said:

 

It's a free garage slot.  That being said, I never sell my tier 2 premiums.  I like keeping them around. 

 

I'm not talking about keeping it or not, I've always kept all of the gift tanks. I mean actually going through the effort of downloading the game again, and playing it enough to get the gift tank. I just don't know if I care that much.

Dragon_Witch #35425 Posted Yesterday, 08:16 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 12109 battles
  • 13,055
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
I don't know about downloading it, but you log in and they give you the gift tank.  Not sure if that's worth your time. 

Life_In_Black #35426 Posted Yesterday, 08:25 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25290 battles
  • 11,327
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
I uninstalled the game two weeks or so ago to make room for Fallout New Vegas. So I would have to download the entire client again.

KilljoyCutter #35427 Posted Yesterday, 08:45 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 25,647
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

WOWS... word is WG is going to cram through the CV rework early 2019... along with all the associated idiotic changes to AA-related captain skills. 

 

And supposedly they took the Halloween submarines debacle as "positive feedback" and will continue work on implementing subs into the game. 

 

Guess I might as well enjoy it while it lasts, and then one less game I have to worry about spending time on.

 



SpectreHD #35428 Posted Yesterday, 09:40 PM

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16710 battles
  • 16,919
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Dec 16 2018 - 03:45, said:

WOWS... word is WG is going to cram through the CV rework early 2019... along with all the associated idiotic changes to AA-related captain skills. 

 

And supposedly they took the Halloween submarines debacle as "positive feedback" and will continue work on implementing subs into the game. 

 

Guess I might as well enjoy it while it lasts, and then one less game I have to worry about spending time on.

 

 

Lol, more invisible crap to mess with my BBs...

Avalon304 #35429 Posted Yesterday, 10:11 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20335 battles
  • 8,713
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Dec 15 2018 - 12:45, said:

WOWS... word is WG is going to cram through the CV rework early 2019... along with all the associated idiotic changes to AA-related captain skills. 

 

And supposedly they took the Halloween submarines debacle as "positive feedback" and will continue work on implementing subs into the game. 

 

Guess I might as well enjoy it while it lasts, and then one less game I have to worry about spending time on.

 

 

Well... thats... not good news...

KilljoyCutter #35430 Posted Yesterday, 10:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 25,647
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostAvalon304, on Dec 15 2018 - 16:11, said:

 

Well... thats... not good news...

 

Yeah.

 



Tupinambis #35431 Posted Today, 03:20 AM

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 35892 battles
  • 15,272
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010
Man the forum blacklash to the gold ammo nerf is the most disappointing sh!tshow I've ever seen on this forum. It would almost be as funny as the backlash to the Object 268 V4 nerfs if it weren't so widespread.

I totally understand the skepticism about WG's ability to properly give superheavies and super-TD's appropriate corresponding nerfs, but the arguments that gold ammo should stay unchanged is absolutely ludicrous. Its like a restaurant getting closed down because there's rat crapin the coffee and people complaining about "But what if it gets replaced by something worse!?"

Avalon304 #35432 Posted Today, 03:42 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20335 battles
  • 8,713
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostTupinambis, on Dec 15 2018 - 19:20, said:

Man the forum blacklash to the gold ammo nerf is the most disappointing sh!tshow I've ever seen on this forum. It would almost be as funny as the backlash to the Object 268 V4 nerfs if it weren't so widespread.

I totally understand the skepticism about WG's ability to properly give superheavies and super-TD's appropriate corresponding nerfs, but the arguments that gold ammo should stay unchanged is absolutely ludicrous. Its like a restaurant getting closed down because there's rat crapin the coffee and people complaining about "But what if it gets replaced by something worse!?"

 

The more disappointing part about said backlash is the solution that WG has put forth is one that players themselves have consistently put forth for literally years: Lower damage, but keep pen.



godofdun #35433 Posted Today, 04:08 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14660 battles
  • 5,413
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostAvalon304, on Dec 15 2018 - 19:42, said:

 

The more disappointing part about said backlash is the solution that WG has put forth is one that players themselves have consistently put forth for literally years: Lower damage, but keep pen.

 

Exactly, I have to think very far back to even think of a time people WEREN'T asking for that.

Taiho #35434 Posted Today, 04:16 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3081 battles
  • 623
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

I'm thinking "there's backlash to the exact idea that players have been putting forth for years to this issue?" Man, so glad I don't generally look outside of Chieftain's domain.

 

And I can't help but think, if they're nerfing gold ammo to be a pen vs dmg choice, why should it be called "special ammo/rounds" at all? Just make it similar price tag to regular rounds, and call it ammo. Saying that it should be referred to as "special" implies it's still better than regular rounds so to speak instead of a normal ammo choice.



stevezaxx #35435 Posted Today, 04:48 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38752 battles
  • 966
  • [COD] COD
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Dec 14 2018 - 17:37, said:

 

Okay,

The Bad Ace Tanker camo the one with the trees and white is from the New Year.

 

The Tempered Glass camo which is a blue white mix is from the Christmas.

 

The Sparkling Night camo which is the fireworks one is from the Lunar New Year.

 

The Heavy Present Style camo which I don't know looks like what is from the Magic New Year.

 

so the "Heavy Present" (Magic New Year) is this one???   at 1:13

 

and the Bad Ace tanker (New Year) is at 01:18

and the Tempered Glass (Christmas) is at 01:16

and the Sparkling Night  (Lunar New Year) is at 01:20

 



Avalon304 #35436 Posted Today, 05:35 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20335 battles
  • 8,713
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postgodofdun, on Dec 15 2018 - 20:08, said:

 

Exactly, I have to think very far back to even think of a time people WEREN'T asking for that.

 

Honestly when people ask me why I blame the playerbase for where WoT has gone, its reasons like this. WG has put forth a solution to a "problem" that players themselves have suggested, but somehow thats not good enough and wither a whole new subset of players complain or the same group that outright says that the onces commonly suggested solution is not acceptable any longer.

 

WoTs single biggest problem will always be the playerbase.

 

(Also Ive seen people suggesting that WG announced all this because they felt the heat from all the drama stirred up by Quickybaby and other CCs over the past week... and thats just absolutely hilarious... because they clearly dont understand how large corporations and game development actually work).



SpectreHD #35437 Posted Today, 07:54 AM

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16710 battles
  • 16,919
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View Poststevezaxx, on Dec 16 2018 - 11:48, said:

 

so the "Heavy Present" (Magic New Year) is this one???   at 1:13

 

and the Bad Ace tanker (New Year) is at 01:18

and the Tempered Glass (Christmas) is at 01:16

and the Sparkling Night  (Lunar New Year) is at 01:20

 

 

Yes, that would be the Heavy present one. Really, the Tempered Glass one is the most coolest looking.

 

View PostAvalon304, on Dec 16 2018 - 12:35, said:

 

Honestly when people ask me why I blame the playerbase for where WoT has gone, its reasons like this. WG has put forth a solution to a "problem" that players themselves have suggested, but somehow thats not good enough and wither a whole new subset of players complain or the same group that outright says that the onces commonly suggested solution is not acceptable any longer.

 

WoTs single biggest problem will always be the playerbase.

 

(Also Ive seen people suggesting that WG announced all this because they felt the heat from all the drama stirred up by Quickybaby and other CCs over the past week... and thats just absolutely hilarious... because they clearly dont understand how large corporations and game development actually work).

 

Quite the generalisation. Those who are unhappy are the ignorant ones that are too reliant on it and always loves to fall back to the argument that it is fine because everyone can use it. There are equally as many if not more that are at least happy something is being done.

 

I am only half happy. Because I doubt reducing the damage will bring nerfs to some of the averarmoured vehicles in the game. They will maybe see a slight improvement to their survivability but will they see enough of an improvement to warrant a nerf? I doubt it. I was never fully on board with just nerfing the damage. But it is the most suggested because it is the simplest solution. But that was before they decided to make armour a balanceable stat.


Edited by SpectreHD, Today, 07:55 AM.


Avalon304 #35438 Posted Today, 09:08 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20335 battles
  • 8,713
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostSpectreHD, on Dec 15 2018 - 23:54, said:

Quite the generalisation. Those who are unhappy are the ignorant ones that are too reliant on it and always loves to fall back to the argument that it is fine because everyone can use it. There are equally as many if not more that are at least happy something is being done.

 

Its also a correct one. The point is for YEARS players have been suggesting this exact solution, and now, when this solution has finally been put forth by WG as something they intend to do... players are all of a sudden unhappy. It would be hilarious if it wasnt so predictable. And it is predicatable: Players make suggestion. WG eventually does suggested thing. Players unhappy with thing they previously suggested. Its happened in the past, and it'll happen in the future. And its the major reason players arent game developers.

 

Their announcement literally says they will be addressing tanks on an individual basis when the changes occur... including tank characteristics. But everyone would rather herp derp about how this is going to be an indirect buff to Super Heavy survivability when theres no current indication that it will be.



SpectreHD #35439 Posted Today, 09:12 AM

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16710 battles
  • 16,919
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostAvalon304, on Dec 16 2018 - 16:08, said:

 

Its also a correct one. The point is for YEARS players have been suggesting this exact solution, and now, when this solution has finally been put forth by WG as something they intend to do... players are all of a sudden unhappy. It would be hilarious if it wasnt so predictable. And it is predicatable: Players make suggestion. WG eventually does suggested thing. Players unhappy with thing they previously suggested. Its happened in the past, and it'll happen in the future. And its the major reason players arent game developers.

 

Their announcement literally says they will be addressing tanks on an individual basis when the changes occur... including tank characteristics. But everyone would rather herp derp about how this is going to be an indirect buff to Super Heavy survivability when theres no current indication that it will be.

 

The players who are unhappy are not the one who suggested it. Heck, some of those who are unhappy are unhappy because they don't trust WG to do things correctly. Really, it is not "everyone".

KilljoyCutter #35440 Posted Today, 02:45 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 25,647
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Dec 16 2018 - 03:12, said:

 

The players who are unhappy are not the one who suggested it.

 

That's what gets lost in so many of these situations. 

 

There is not giant monolith named The Players. 

 

If half the players really want something and half the players hate the idea, it's going to sound like "everyone" is calling for it when the company won't do it, and sound like "everyone" objects to it when the company decides to do it.   I'm sure a few players could be found who flipped because people are strange and sometimes stupid, but that's not the root cause.






42 user(s) are reading this topic

2 members, 39 guests, 1 anonymous users


    akh101, cipher12