Jump to content


The Real Problem with WoT


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

eisen1973 #41 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 07:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 55004 battles
  • 2,416
  • [_B-Z_] _B-Z_
  • Member since:
    11-04-2011
The game is not perfect, but I don't understand why all the hate. IF you don't like it don't play it, go spend your time and money elsewhere. It's been a constant (attempted) boycott and campaign in this forum since the game was released in order to discredit every single move of WG. Are you really here to have fun for a while or is somebody paying you to WASTE your time coming here with the same complaints for 7 years? "Remove arty" "MM sucks", just get the [edited]out of here and live your life IF you have it.

Edited by eisen1973, Jul 12 2018 - 07:54.


anonym_cHaCxLQ6UlZG #42 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 08:23

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    08-29-2018

View PostBillT, on Jul 11 2018 - 22:40, said:

 

Why do fast games make you spend more money?  Can you go through the math for me?

 

 

Because all items in WOT are consumables. Games that focus on micro transactions NEVER gain success other than monetary and games built upon monetary gains FAIL everytime, lets take a look at the latest epic failure which just turned 1.0... 

https://steamcharts.com/app/578080 <-- this is what happens when you focus more on making money, than building a community and its the #1 issue with game development today. And its why Wargaming has 3 failed games that could not get 10k concurrent players even if they were paid to play :P


Edited by B33rcul3s, Jul 12 2018 - 08:23.


anonym_cHaCxLQ6UlZG #43 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 08:27

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    08-29-2018

View Posteisen1973, on Jul 12 2018 - 07:50, said:

The game is not perfect, but I don't understand why all the hate. IF you don't like it don't play it, go spend your time and money elsewhere. It's been a constant (attempted) boycott and campaign in this forum since the game was released in order to discredit every single move of WG. Are you really here to have fun for a while or is somebody paying you to WASTE your time coming here with the same complaints for 7 years? "Remove arty" "MM sucks", just get the [edited]out of here and live your life IF you have it.

 

 

The game is 100% trash, its based upon the idea that is should generate lots of money on short amount of effort for updates and putting lipstick on a pig. The game is fundementally flawed because it was designed around making a crappy game developer lots of money, how did that work out for them. Did it take 10000 man hours to make StarCraft?no but it did last 10 years because it had a strong community and support for that community from its game developers. When your game is 100% created for and centered around profit generation, you get this trash known as WORLD OF TANKS :P

 

Let's start with the first horrible game mechanic ever, disabling tanks, now if this happened once in 1000 games, great but every game you tank gets disabled for taking a paint scratch and you expect me to stay and watch my tank get destroyed? HOW STUPID OF A GAME DEVELOPER ARE YOU? HOW IS THAT FUN?! ITS 100% RETARDED, it shows the complete disconnect from the game developer to the player, instead of drawing upon an enjoyable game experience its based upon gambling and your draw to become addicted to chance. 

 

But Wargaming can prove me wrong, just release all your current player count and new player data over the past 10 years... but they wont as it would show a decline much like a lead balloon and it would be the end of Wargaming :D

 

 


Edited by B33rcul3s, Jul 12 2018 - 08:39.


Rimrender #44 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 13:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7421 battles
  • 1,813
  • Member since:
    11-22-2011
A 'free to play' cash cow and you are demanding that public random battles be restricted to your specific view of higher game play; in a way that would definitely cost the company money? Wow, talk about self entitled.

24cups #45 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 13:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 22963 battles
  • 2,224
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013

View PostB33rcul3s, on Jul 12 2018 - 02:27, said:

 

 

The game is 100% trash, its based upon the idea that is should generate lots of money on short amount of effort for updates and putting lipstick on a pig. The game is fundementally flawed because it was designed around making a crappy game developer lots of money, how did that work out for them. Did it take 10000 man hours to make StarCraft?no but it did last 10 years because it had a strong community and support for that community from its game developers. When your game is 100% created for and centered around profit generation, you get this trash known as WORLD OF TANKS :P

 

Let's start with the first horrible game mechanic ever, disabling tanks, now if this happened once in 1000 games, great but every game you tank gets disabled for taking a paint scratch and you expect me to stay and watch my tank get destroyed? HOW STUPID OF A GAME DEVELOPER ARE YOU? HOW IS THAT FUN?! ITS 100% RETARDED, it shows the complete disconnect from the game developer to the player, instead of drawing upon an enjoyable game experience its based upon gambling and your draw to become addicted to chance. 

 

But Wargaming can prove me wrong, just release all your current player count and new player data over the past 10 years... but they wont as it would show a decline much like a lead balloon and it would be the end of Wargaming :D

 

 

Dude unless this is an alt account you have neither the experience or skill to know what this game needs or doesn't need.

If an alt, grow a pair and post from your real account. If not an alt ......wow.



BillT #46 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26731 battles
  • 4,139
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostOldFrog75, on Jul 11 2018 - 17:49, said:

 

I assume it's because more games => more tank repair costs and more consumables, both of which drain credits.

 

But my net credits per game are positive, except sometimes at Tier 10.  So faster games = more credits and XP for me.  And below Tier 8, net credits should be positive even without a premium account.   So at first blush, shorter games should increase the earnings rate.  Shorter games at Tier 10 might reduce players profits -- but see my penultimate paragraph.

 

Here's how credit and XP earnings are calculated:   ( http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Battle_Mechanics#Experience_and_Credits ;)   It's a wall of text, or I'd repost it here.   The thing is, a lot of the payment only happens once per battle, including credit and XP  bonuses for:

 

 - joining the battle

 - being the first to spot an enemy tank

 - killing an enemy tank

 - base capture

 - base defense

 - winning credit bonus (The "Joining a battle" reward is multiplied by 1.85. No bonus to other rewards earned during the battle.)  

 

So here too, longer games mean you earn fewer of these bonuses per unit time.

 
Much of the income, of course, is based on damage done and received.  But each team only has so many hit points.  If you win, your team usually destroys all enemy tanks, so stretching the game out doesn't earn more credits.  You either do 2000 damage in 5 minutes, or 15  minutes.  If you die, the most you can lose is your own tank's health, so stretching the game doesn't save you any money -- indeed, it can only increase the amount of damage you receive.

 

And mind you, all of this is irrelevant, because WG can set the credit earnings wherever they want -- it's all arbitrary.  They can decrease the "joining the battle" bonus if they want players to earn fewer credits, or decrease the amount of credits you get per damage done, or increase the cost of ammo, tanks, and modules...  I don't see any reason for them to meddle with the length of matches to control earnings, when there are much more direct ways to do it.
 

I'm still open-minded on this, but I have yet to hear a cogent or quantitative explanation for how short games make money for WG, so I'm inclined to dismiss the meme as paranoia.



Flarvin #47 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 17:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 51489 battles
  • 13,237
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostGunadie, on Jul 12 2018 - 01:38, said:

 

But many players want some level of competitiveness, I know I do!

What "spoil" every tier or game with the likelihood that there are some that just want to PEW PEW and have a Sunday drive!

Maybe the game should be changed to "World Of Tankies" in that case!  

 

Sorry, but WG defines the rules we play under. Not you. 

 

As long as I play by the rules, I can “PEW PEW and have a Sunday drive” every match. 

 



BillT #48 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 18:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26731 battles
  • 4,139
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostGunadie, on Jul 12 2018 - 01:46, said:

 

I think War Gamings reasoning is to improve Que times so there is reduced waiting to play!

 

Now that is a sound theory.  Short games mean you hop into queue more often, so the queue size stays larger and matches form quicker.



BillT #49 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 18:14

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26731 battles
  • 4,139
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostB33rcul3s, on Jul 12 2018 - 02:23, said:

View PostBillT, on Jul 11 2018 - 22:40, said:

 

Why do fast games make you spend more money?  Can you go through the math for me?

 

Because all items in WOT are consumables. Games that focus on micro transactions NEVER gain success other than monetary and games built upon monetary gains FAIL everytime, lets take a look at the latest epic failure which just turned 1.0... 

 

A simple "No, I can't," would have sufficed.



Kenshin2kx #50 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 18:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostBillT, on Jul 12 2018 - 07:10, said:

 

Now that is a sound theory.  Short games mean you hop into queue more often, so the queue size stays larger and matches form quicker.

 

... add to this, costing factors per match ... 1 game lasting 60 minutes (hypothetically) would potentially bring in at most, 25% of what 4 games x 15 minutes could bring in, all consumption models being equal ...

Edited by Kenshin2kx, Jul 12 2018 - 18:20.


Gunadie #51 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 19:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 40700 battles
  • 4,796
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostRimrender, on Jul 12 2018 - 04:46, said:

A 'free to LOG-IN' cash cow and you are demanding that public random battles be restricted to your specific view of higher game play; in a way that would definitely cost the company money? Wow, talk about ASTUTE.

There fixed it for you to show actuality and reality, not the smoke and mirrors WG wants you to believe.

After about tier 3, the use of premium round and the accelerated exp. gain for players that use premium accounts and premium tanks allows a significant advantage over those that do not have them..IE free to play players.

One certainly can play with free to log-in, but they hardly can compete fairly as they move up into upper tier games.



SwedishEOD #52 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 20:08

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 58566 battles
  • 1,550
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010

View PostGunadie, on Jul 12 2018 - 07:27, said:

 

Then why are you not sitting at tier 1 and 2 and farming stats??

Because Stats does not make for good games and neither do inexperienced players!

Inexperienced players in higher tier games are only good for stat farming

Its a game and its meant to be fun..I guess you find your fun by preying and beating up the smaller kids on the block, huh?

 

 

Curious what in my post made you jump to these conclusions?

I play all tiers depending on what I feel to play that day/week/battle...

 



Battlecruiser_Hawaii #53 Posted Jul 12 2018 - 20:12

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 4054 battles
  • 13
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    03-12-2015
i don't think they can really ever change the way players play. but if i could change one thing it would be how much premium ammo you can carry into the game. it would force people to be smarter about their ammo selection when playing and if you load your premium rounds at the start and unload them all into the M49, oops now you don't have any the help with the T95 and the type 5 now....

anonym_cHaCxLQ6UlZG #54 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 03:45

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    08-29-2018

View Post24cups, on Jul 12 2018 - 13:54, said:

Dude unless this is an alt account you have neither the experience or skill to know what this game needs or doesn't need.

If an alt, grow a pair and post from your real account. If not an alt ......wow.

 

You are a pathetic NOOB, I dont have another account and wouldnt give Wargaming the cents in my pocket. This game is garbage pure and simple and the proof are in the numbers the game hasnt had positive revenue since they stopped with TV advertising nearly 2 years ago, Wargaming just needs to release the numbers and we'll all know how terrible the game really is... SO EITHER WARGAMING GROWS A PAIR or we'll assume since they wont share that the content would be damaging to their game :P

anonym_cHaCxLQ6UlZG #55 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 03:48

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    08-29-2018

View PostRimrender, on Jul 12 2018 - 13:46, said:

A 'free to play' cash cow and you are demanding that public random battles be restricted to your specific view of higher game play; in a way that would definitely cost the company money? Wow, talk about self entitled.

 

If you give a game away for free, its what people expect. If you give a game away for free and expect micro transactions, you get this garbage, if you want to do continue development of your game and get paid for it, charge a monthly access fee. The idea I should pay you for slapping some paint on a graphics model is the most idiotic idea and only IDIOTS pay for them :P



Araido #56 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 04:06

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 15972 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    06-17-2016

View PostBlackeagle902, on Jul 11 2018 - 18:02, said:

 

That would be totally unfair and discriminative against those players. They cannot play because they are not above 5K PR. I am not and if I want to play T9, I have that chance to do so.  You just have to know when you are out of your league and stop at a certain tier.   

 

its always about being 'fair and unfair' right? What a ridiculous statement.. "You just have to know when you're out of your league"..  news flash.. they don't.. that's why they buy tier 8 premium tanks and come waltzing into your random pub and send you and your team down the drain.. it only takes a few dummies to ruin an entire match..  Im fine with being outplayed by a better team..  but having to carry 3 or 4 slobs and fight against tanks I have no hope of penning and a whole other list of issues with this game just becomes TOO much.. it results in a win rate that I cant break no matter how well I play.. and WOT keeps me there at that rate no matter what I do.. and I am sick of it.. the amount and number of WOT apologia fanboy defenders on this site is also sickening..  

Edited by Araido, Jul 13 2018 - 04:14.


WolfAttack_1 #57 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 05:52

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 35926 battles
  • 364
  • [-RS-] -RS-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View Postgoldfinger_555, on Jul 11 2018 - 18:09, said:

So who decides what the criteria is for advancing to the next tier? One of the elitist here on the forum? No thanks. For how bad some think the game is currently (and yet they still play) it could be a lot worse.

 

How bad some think the game is?  Really, think the game is?   Uhm, sorry to parade on your reign but the game is not getting any better and the playerbase population in the NA is abysmal.  Just because it "could be alot worse" does not mean it is good.  Sure, WWII could have been alot worse with a land invasion on mainland Japan.  The Atomic bombs were used but was that good?

LintinPocket #58 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 06:02

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 449
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015
Worst problem right now is the players crap poor attitude in the game. Not sure why many even play because to hear them tell it the game is garbage, players are trash, company is cash [edited].

LintinPocket #59 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 06:05

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 455 battles
  • 449
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015

View PostWolfAttack_1, on Jul 12 2018 - 22:52, said:

 

How bad some think the game is?  Really, think the game is?   Uhm, sorry to parade on your reign but the game is not getting any better and the playerbase population in the NA is abysmal.  Just because it "could be alot worse" does not mean it is good.  Sure, WWII could have been alot worse with a land invasion on mainland Japan.  The Atomic bombs were used but was that good?

 

I would say a million US casualties and untold number of Japanese dead is a little bit more than worse. Oddly yes the bomb was good it convinced Japan to surrender and saved countless lives at the cost of many lives. As with all wars the ones who start it are not the ones who die.

eisen1973 #60 Posted Jul 13 2018 - 06:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 55004 battles
  • 2,416
  • [_B-Z_] _B-Z_
  • Member since:
    11-04-2011

View PostLintinPocket, on Jul 13 2018 - 00:02, said:

Worst problem right now is the players crap poor attitude in the game. Not sure why many even play because to hear them tell it the game is garbage, players are trash, company is cash [edited].

 

Exactly. If they hate the game so much why bothering wasting precious time coming to the forum and spitting all their hate and frustrations?  When I go to the mall and get the little free portions of food from staff outside the different business  I taste them and if I like em I enter the place. The thought of going to their website and write a furious post about their FREE product has never crossed my mind.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users