Jump to content


Changes to Vehicles With Preferential Matchmaking + Notes on Trade-in


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1086 replies to this topic

TinWorm #1021 Posted Jun 27 2018 - 21:31

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 55 battles
  • 35
  • Member since:
    11-04-2015

View Postdarthmetall, on Jun 27 2018 - 20:01, said:

Let me go off on a tangent here. Is it only Tier 8 premiums that will be losing Preferential MM or is it all premiums? Because I have some lower tier premiums that I enjoy playing and am wondering if I should bother continuing to train those crews or not.

 

 

While WG has had precious little to say since they announced this travesty, it was made clear that their intent is to remove PMM from all vehicles in all tiers, starting with T-VIII.

Omega_Weapon #1022 Posted Jun 28 2018 - 03:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 48473 battles
  • 2,064
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostCapPhrases, on Jun 27 2018 - 08:14, said:

hmmm 4 weeks now and still silence.

 

 

Its clear that they are trying to wait it out now, hoping that players forget the whole controversy without wargaming needing to apologize, admit fault, or even change their goal of removing Pref MM tanks. The backlash scared them, but not enough for them to course correct, so it seems they are working on a slow but stealthy approach for their plan.



scottie_ #1023 Posted Jun 28 2018 - 09:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16125 battles
  • 293
  • [T-GBU] T-GBU
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012


AtreidesN7 #1024 Posted Jun 30 2018 - 15:10

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 846 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    06-30-2014

As a random idea from a newbie who purchased the less than stellar jagdtiger 8.8 not long ago to realize... the 88 is not the greatest gun against T9.

The Pref MM gives this tank 'a shot in hell.'

 

A decent/good option for these Pref MM tanks... if they do something as dumb as removing their special status... reduce the cost of the premium shells by, say 50%...

Leave the rest of the tank in the shape it's in, especially historically 'accurate' tanks, and just greatly cheapen the premium shell cost, this does a couple things;

it maintains one of the key point to a Premium tanks, credit earning potential and at the same time, keeps the tanks competitive. 

As much as i'd love to have more armor so it maintains higher survivability, the draw back of a tank like the Jagdtiger 88 is it becomes a 'fake tank' of sorts.

 

Just a thought.



_tube_ #1025 Posted Jun 30 2018 - 15:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11868 battles
  • 56
  • [AR-15] AR-15
  • Member since:
    03-10-2011

My suggestions are thus:

 

  1. First alternative, if people still want to keep their clunky and outdated (due to power creep) PMM tanks at Tier VIII, let them. Very few - if any - people will go for this option, if they see what they can get for them in the other alternatives that I have to offer.
  2. Second alternative is to just buff them to Tier IX status, and keep their Premium earning/crew training status. That way, these premium Tier IX tanks are never going to see higher than one tier higher.
  3. Third alternative, is to have your tank designers create new premium Tier IX tanks to trade these tier VIII PMM tanks in for, and then offer existing Tier VIII w/PMM tank owners a free upgrade - not a trade-in with gold "upgrade" . Ammunition and vehicle repair costs are very high at Tiers IX and X, and I frequently find myself playing lower tier premiums to try to offset the expense of playing at higher tiers. Offering replacement premium tier IX tanks will solve what WG considers to be their problem with premium MM tier VIII tanks, and make playing at Tier IX less costly. This way, it can be done gradually, too. Less financial impact and game disruption for players.
  4. Fourth alternative is to offer a full refund for the amount spent on those PMM tanks in the cash equivalent of premium membership time. 

 

 

 


Edited by _tube_, Jun 30 2018 - 15:36.


Omega_Weapon #1026 Posted Jul 01 2018 - 01:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 48473 battles
  • 2,064
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostAtreidesN7, on Jun 30 2018 - 09:10, said:

A decent/good option for these Pref MM tanks... if they do something as dumb as removing their special status... reduce the cost of the premium shells by, say 50%...

Leave the rest of the tank in the shape it's in, especially historically 'accurate' tanks, and just greatly cheapen the premium shell cost, this does a couple things;

it maintains one of the key point to a Premium tanks, credit earning potential and at the same time, keeps the tanks competitive. 

As much as i'd love to have more armor so it maintains higher survivability, the draw back of a tank like the Jagdtiger 88 is it becomes a 'fake tank' of sorts.

 

Mostly agree but I'd go a bit further. Most of the Pref MM tanks should have their premium APCR ammo considered as their standard ammo and it should only cost what standard shells cost now. The premium ammo slot should be taken up by Heat or improved types of APCR that have even better pen. That simple change would make the Pref MM tanks much more relevant.

RagnarokBazil #1027 Posted Jul 01 2018 - 03:21

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22681 battles
  • 232
  • [PUBBY] PUBBY
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012
You could instead just FIX THE MM... Sheesh... i dont believe the crapWG is doing touching the Pref mm tanks :/ just buff there pen on the gun thats it Its not that damn hard...and LEAVE THERE MM ALONE TY!

Git7 #1028 Posted Jul 01 2018 - 20:03

    Private

  • Players
  • 9951 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    10-16-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jun 28 2018 - 02:33, said:

Its clear that they are trying to wait it out now, hoping that players forget the whole controversy without wargaming needing to apologize, admit fault, or even change their goal of removing Pref MM tanks. The backlash scared them, but not enough for them to course correct, so it seems they are working on a slow but stealthy approach for their plan.

 

It would serve them well to recognize that with controversies such as this, the real number of players concerned about PMM changes dwarf those who decide to post about it when announced.  I’ve been following this thread very carefully for the last month, despite having not posted yet, and consider myself a member of this “silent majority”.  

 

To Wargaming I say this:  I am not here to issue ultimatums, but until you publicly address the concerns of the community in a meaningful way, my wallet is closed.  No amount of time is going to change this.  I’m simply too uncomfortable investing in a title with players perceived as “disenfranchised”.



AtreidesN7 #1029 Posted Jul 02 2018 - 01:34

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 846 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    06-30-2014

View PostGit7, on Jul 01 2018 - 20:03, said:

 

It would serve them well to recognize that with controversies such as this, the real number of players concerned about PMM changes dwarf those who decide to post about it when announced.  I’ve been following this thread very carefully for the last month, despite having not posted yet, and consider myself a member of this “silent majority”.  

 

To Wargaming I say this:  I am not here to issue ultimatums, but until you publicly address the concerns of the community in a meaningful way, my wallet is closed.  No amount of time is going to change this.  I’m simply too uncomfortable investing in a title with players perceived as “disenfranchised”.

 

​Yup, the amount of posters/players that disagree in any form or fashion are probably just a sliver of the player base that wont like that status.

They need to get a solid feeling from the player base that owns these PMM tanks, CC are nice to have but it still does not fully reflect the player base.

 

Outside of the higher tier PMM tanks, there are a numerous amount of low tier tanks that were purchased in part or even completely because of the PMM status.

 

The chances that they can buff all those PMM tanks to a satisfactory level are generally slim.

I understand its a touchy issue for players are the company, but damn, its probably not worth the effort of flashback (for them).

 

However, WG has endured a lot of mistakes and falling out before, but still not a good business technique. 



Richster74 #1030 Posted Jul 02 2018 - 06:04

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 10644 battles
  • 4
  • [KIHA] KIHA
  • Member since:
    06-01-2015

I fully agree with all said comments. We purchased these tanks because of their pref mm. To go and change that to me is False Advertisement !!



RagnarokBazil #1031 Posted Jul 02 2018 - 07:55

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22681 battles
  • 232
  • [PUBBY] PUBBY
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

View PostRichster74, on Jul 02 2018 - 00:04, said:

I fully agree with all said comments. We purchased these tanks because of their pref mm. To go and change that to me is False Advertisement !!

 

yep!

Cognitive_Dissonance #1032 Posted Jul 02 2018 - 13:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 40019 battles
  • 6,356
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

Just checking in, yup nothing from WG. Hands down the nerfs/buffs will start with no further explanations . . . except maybe circular arguments from WG why this needs to happen.

 

Or like Ford and the Pinto, they are still calculating how much financial damage they can withstand and still come out without admitting to anything.



Mikosah #1033 Posted Jul 02 2018 - 19:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,026
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

My current theory is that they're still weighing their options. Had their original proposal been pitched the same way again but with the one difference being that the trade-in wouldn't cost additional gold, the reaction would have been more positive but we're still talking about a very controversial subject. 

 

Besides the issues with the trade-in, there's still several other elephants in the room. The obvious one being that limited MM is not the cause of our problems, 3/5/7 is. And another being that the rebalanced premiums would be thrust right into the worst of 3/5/7, that's a great sales pitch. Not to mention that even if something like a KV-5 was properly buffed to be even remotely fun to use against tier 10s, that would in all likelihood make it game-breaking against its own tier, let alone one or two tiers lower. If somehow it all worked out, there'd still be the problem that the tank will have lost whatever character it once had and will become something completely different. 

 

So if I was on the dev team and this problem was my business, it would only make sense to wait until a few other things are resolved first. For starters, the premium ammo rework. And secondly, if Frontline is established to return regularly. These issues do make a major difference to how tier 8s will have to be balanced, and have the potential to improve the situation.



scottie_ #1034 Posted Jul 02 2018 - 22:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16125 battles
  • 293
  • [T-GBU] T-GBU
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012

Two things that might temporarily fix MM and the PMM. 

1) tier 11 - introduce tier 11 tanks and tier 9 becomes the new tier 8.

2) introduce tier 9 premiums, hell, some tanks are almost there (defender).  This might help the tier 8 tanks that have been powercreeped and PMM as well.



TheShortHobbit #1035 Posted Jul 03 2018 - 20:27

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 4267 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    02-28-2018

3 days of premium left on the NA server - getting ready to wrap up WOT/WOWs on the NA server

107 days of premium left on the EU server

Still no official answer/statement from Wargaming on the PMM issue, nobody know were they stand

Tick Tock Wargaming Tick Tock ... Time is running out

Still selling PMM tanks in store though ...

 

Wargaming NA are selling THE FIREWORKS Tank bundle - 3 very good tanks and 1 mediocre tank + 20x missions 5xp for a victory for each tank

It's a great deal, and I would love to buy this super bundle, but I have only got 13 days of Premium Service left on my NA account.

So it makes no sense at all to buy this bundle just to play it for 13 days

I get it now Wargaming, you do not care about 1 player, but maybe we are 1x10x100x1000 players, that would be scary right, and deserving of some concern

--- We will never forget ---



Omega_Weapon #1036 Posted Jul 04 2018 - 10:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 48473 battles
  • 2,064
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostTheShortHobbit, on Jul 03 2018 - 14:27, said:

I get it now Wargaming, you do not care about 1 player, but maybe we are 1x10x100x1000 players, that would be scary right, and deserving of some concern

--- We will never forget ---

 

What they tried to pull was really crummy. But they could have made amends. The fact that they refuse to talk about it or address the community's concerns more than 6 weeks later is now rubbing salt in the wounds.

CapPhrases #1037 Posted Jul 04 2018 - 16:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7276 battles
  • 3,492
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015
"if we ignore problem it goes away da? then we install changes with no complaints!" - WG probably

Tod_kommt #1038 Posted Jul 04 2018 - 16:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 1381 battles
  • 48
  • Member since:
    04-29-2013

Ich bin mit cloudwalkr zu diesem thema.
Tod_Kommt



BeastsOfBattle #1039 Posted Jul 04 2018 - 19:30

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 12843 battles
  • 545
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    12-08-2016
I am against anything that result in any sort of buff for the e25, a buffed e25 agaist lower tiers would be messed up. Pen buff might be the least harmful if they do it .

Edited by BeastsOfBattle, Jul 04 2018 - 19:31.


scottie_ #1040 Posted Jul 05 2018 - 09:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16125 battles
  • 293
  • [T-GBU] T-GBU
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012

View PostBeastsOfBattle, on Jul 04 2018 - 18:30, said:

I am against anything that result in any sort of buff for the e25, a buffed e25 agaist lower tiers would be messed up. Pen buff might be the least harmful if they do it .

 

have you ever faced a E25 in a tier 9/10 tank?  I've faced a few when they platoon and they are garbage past tier 8 MM, they don't hold up when everyone has max view range, after the first shot they are toast unless double bushed.  They would need to significantly buff the ammo pen for them to face tier 9 tanks regularly and they would lose that camo advantage that just wrecks and frustrates tier V/VI tanks.




5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users