85 replies to this topic

[Backfire_]

I voted bacon because this isn't a new philosophy. See defender.

[SteelRonin]

I usually buy a tank for how it looks, I stopped putting attention on how it will perform. I remember buying the Progetto 46 and Centurion mk 5/1 just for Frontline mode, I have never used them in Random Battles...

 

I always tend to play with the most underpowered sh1t in a videogame.....I am not that kind of player that buy a Defender just because it is OP as heck...

[Mikosah]

If we're talking about the old scheme where premiums had limited MM but were very crappy for their respective tiers, then you really can't make an apples-to-apples comparison with anything else. And that was the genius of that method- you weren't supposed to ever compare the two directly. This way its a win-win situation, on the one hand you couldn't really say that any of the old limited MM premiums were better than their standard peers, and on the other they still had a valid purpose. 

 

Given the choice I would have wanted premiums to still follow that scheme, but it looks like WG disagrees. And so if the new scheme is to force premiums to compare directly with their standard peers then everything changes. That being the case, the only way to make a good sales pitch is either to now sell premiums that are either A: competitive and effective in their current MM, B: possess some meme-worthy quirk that makes them fun even if they aren't competitive, or C: generate such a ridiculously huge amount of credits/XP that they're still worth playing even if they completely suck.

[jamesdoz]

Trauglodyte, on Nov 16 2018 - 12:44, said:

I honestly don't care.  I mean, Hell, I own the Jagdtiger 88, which is NOT better than the Jagdtiger, and I own the Panther 88 which isn't even as good as the just Panther or Panther/M10, let alone the Panther II.  The truth is that nobody should care about slightly over tuned tier 8 premium tanks in a game where tier 8 continuously gets crapped on by tier 9 and tier 10 matchmaking games.  IF, and that is a big statement, WarGaming can ever get the matchmaker fixed, then they're going to have to look at the tier 8 premium tanks because they're clearly overtuned and, as such, will end up crapping on tier 6 and tier 7 games.

 

Does it make me happy tha the M4 49 is a French Tiger II that is better than the Tiger II?  God no!  But, I can handle an M4 49 in my Tiger II and both tanks get crapped on by 430Us, 277s, IS-7s, 5A, 60 TPs, Super Conquerors, etc.

 

Jag. 88 is a preff tier 8 JagTiger is a Tier 9

[thorus08]

Not my original idea, but I liked the idea of most tanks being obtainable by experience and then able to be made "premium" by a purchase so that they have no weaknesses or strengths compared to anything else in the tech tree.  They also could be nerfed/buffed more easily for balance since you aren't buying a premium tank, but buying premium for a tank you already own.  It would also be a good source of cycling income for WG if they let people sell or trade-in a tank's premium status for putting it on another for a cost.

 

I get that this would take away from the "special tank" or "uniqueness" of premium vehicles, but it would have a lot of advantages as well.  Maybe make the "premium only" tanks all preferential MM so that their stats could be short of the tech-tree counterparts while obviously, any tech tree tank made premium would retain its normal matchmaking. 

[TheManFromKekistan]

Welp looks like the silent voting majority wins. Forumites at least like the limited sale powerful premium marketing strat from wg to further part them from their precious shekels into Scrooge McSerb's vaults.

[NeatoMan]

thorus08, on Nov 16 2018 - 15:51, said:

Not my original idea, but I liked the idea of most tanks being obtainable by experience and then able to be made "premium" by a purchase so that they have no weaknesses or strengths compared to anything else in the tech tree.  They also could be nerfed/buffed more easily for balance since you aren't buying a premium tank, but buying premium for a tank you already own.  It would also be a good source of cycling income for WG if they let people sell or trade-in a tank's premium status for putting it on another for a cost.

 

I get that this would take away from the "special tank" or "uniqueness" of premium vehicles, but it would have a lot of advantages as well.  Maybe make the "premium only" tanks all preferential MM so that their stats could be short of the tech-tree counterparts while obviously, any tech tree tank made premium would retain its normal matchmaking. 

 

I bet if they added "no arty MM" to your premium status, a lot of people would pay for it.

[Rush_91]

I voted bacon. Now that PMM is a thing of the past I don't the premiums should be halfway between a stock and an upgraded as, IIRC, they were originally intended to be. I think for the price payed they should be as good as a fully upgraded tank of their class and tier. Give them some advantages and disadvantages over their closest tech tree counterpart to keep it interesting but keep them balanced. I am against WG selling premiums that are completely all around better than their tech tree counterpart. That seems P2W to me.

[TheManFromKekistan]

Rush_91, on Nov 16 2018 - 22:13, said:

I am against WG selling premiums that are completely all around better than their tech tree counterpart.

 

Well even the defender isn't all round better than the other tier 8 heavies. Its very good on the parts that count but its worse in some areas like module health and for the defender the gun handling is even worse than the normal russian heavy.

[Asassian7]

No.

Pay to win is bad. It always has been bad and will always be bad. WG had no issue with prem tanks or prem sales before they started releasing P2W tanks.

Im okay with a prem being equal to a tech tree tank or balanced fairly (like the cromwell B for example) but they should never be BETTER than a tech tree tank.

Im also going to proudly vote no in your bias poll because quite frankly your condesending "No" option is actually correct! Paying players should NOT get an effectively unobtainable advantage compared to free players. Because it IS unfair. This is a game designed to provide a fair, competitive competition for everyone. Its a game trying to be an esport, it has to be.

Im going to give you an example: Car Racing, which I watch a lot of. In endurance racing, they have a rule that requires pitstops to take a certian period of time. It has to be AT LEAST X number of seconds, also, they have a rule that when teams do a change of their brake discs in 24hr races, there is a minimum time of 5 minutes the car has to be stopped for.

You know what these rules are for? To make it so that the teams with all the money to be able to afford all the expensive equipment which makes doing this pitwork much quicker, from gaining the significanr advantage from that thus meaning there is little point in any smaller team that cant afford that equipment from bothering to compete. It creates a much larger, fairer, and more exciting competition.

And so similar rules should exist in tanks. Being able to buy an advantage is a big no no.

[TheManFromKekistan]

Asassian7, on Nov 17 2018 - 03:00, said:

No.

 

Apparently the majority disagrees. Also nice obj 252u you got there. 

[Asassian7]

TheManFromKekistan, on Nov 17 2018 - 20:15, said:

 

Apparently the majority disagrees. Also nice obj 252u you got there. 

The majority that voted in the poll. If you made it an unbiased poll with a simple yes/no answer and no stupid side notes you'd find that more people that disagree would vote in it. 

 

And I would have no complaints if my 252 gets nerfed. 

[TheManFromKekistan]

Asassian7, on Nov 17 2018 - 05:15, said:

The majority that voted in the poll. If you made it an unbiased poll with a simple yes/no answer and no stupid side notes you'd find that more people that disagree would vote in it. 

 

And I would have no complaints if my 252 gets nerfed. 

 

How is it biased? There is a simple yes no bacon choice with entertainment bits after the choices to entice discussion. No matter what your personal feelings are about the entertaining bits the only choices are yes or no or bacon.

 

Also no one is asking you if you would care about the 252 getting eventually nerfed. You stated you do not agree with the powerful premium policy but bought one anyways knowing full well its the poster child tank for the triggered p2w segment of the forums.

 

But hey do as I say and not as I do works if people buy into I suppose. 

[Dain_Ironfoot_]

I'd rather have a premium that is worth spending money on and is actually better than average... because there are usually plenty of tech-tree tanks that are just as good as the so-called "OP" premiums anyway.  Having premiums that are purposely worse than the tech tree tanks is just awful, in my opinion.

 

For example, it would absolutely ridiculous to me for the Centurion 5/1 to be the same or worse than the tech tree Centurion - mostly because that tank is below average compared to other nations as it is.  I wouldn't have bought the 5/1 if that was the case... the extra credits just wouldn't be worth it to me.  Again, you could do just as good or better in some of the tech tree tanks, so the whole "pay to win" claim is just not true.

[Asassian7]

TheManFromKekistan, on Nov 17 2018 - 22:20, said:

 

How is it biased? There is a simple yes no bacon choice with entertainment bits after the choices to entice discussion. No matter what your personal feelings are about the entertaining bits the only choices are yes or no or bacon.

 

Also no one is asking you if you would care about the 252 getting eventually nerfed. You stated you do not agree with the powerful premium policy but bought one anyways knowing full well its the poster child tank for the triggered p2w segment of the forums.

 

But hey do as I say and not as I do works if people buy into I suppose. 

Actually I was gifted it, I wouldnt of bought it otherwise. 

[riot_evo]

I have both premium account and tanks. Don't really care either way. So I voted for bacon because that's my dog's name.

[TheManFromKekistan]

Asassian7, on Nov 17 2018 - 16:21, said:

Actually I was gifted it, I wouldnt of bought it otherwise. 

 

So it being a gift makes it ok? Why didn't you refuse it if you feel so strongly about powerful premiums? Wg was still paid for it so their enticement to continue along these lines was confirmed. 

[Flarvin]

I prefer what seemed to be the original intent for prem tanks, better than stock and not as good as fully elited tech tree tanks. 

 

The bonus prem tanks gave was crew training, credit maker and a way to built up free xp to convert. 

 

Not to own the tier. 

[TheManFromKekistan]

Flarvin, on Nov 17 2018 - 17:52, said:

I prefer what seemed to be the original intent for prem tanks, better than stock and not as good as fully elited tech tree tanks. 

 

The bonus prem tanks gave was crew training, credit maker and a way to built up free xp to convert. 

 

Not to own the tier. 

 

Apparently premiums that are able to compete and excel at tier sell much better than the pref mm tanks with gimped stats. Which is wg going to make to sell?

 

We can write flowery posts all day long opining on the fairness and balance of the wot universe but in the end wg only really cares about your shekels.

[Flarvin]

TheManFromKekistan, on Nov 17 2018 - 18:07, said:

 

Apparently premiums that are able to compete and excel at tier sell much better than the pref mm tanks with gimped stats. Which is wg going to make to sell?

 

We can write flowery posts all day long opining on the fairness and balance of the wot universe but in the end wg only really cares about your shekels.

 

Yes, it’s great allowing players to pay for an advantage. 

 

Screw balance as long as WG makes more money. lol