Jump to content


WOT Is A Game of Advantage - And Warfare Isn't Fair

Premium Rounds Advantage Snowflakes

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

DoomSquatch #1 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 21:45

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 56047 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

Recently I was accused of "Abusing Gold Rounds" by an opposing player.  I responded by telling him that in Desert Storm we used Depleted Uranium rounds....and the Iraqis never complained.

 

But the guy literally trolled me for days.  It was comical at first, but then I realized that this player, and plenty more it seems, sincerely believe that the use of premium rounds is some sort of unethical act.  Unfair.  A way to cheat.  In their minds "Abusing Gold Rounds" is a very real and socially loathsome offense.

 

And then I learn that WOT is seriously working on a way to de-emphasize the use of premium rounds to appease this Snowflake Brigade.

 

So I'll point out that this is a bad precedent.  Where does it stop?

 

You see, at it's core, WOT IS A Game of Advantage.  And not just for the guy who can afford premium rounds.

 

What about the guy who:

1.  Has the faster computer, or

2.  Has Google Fiber, giving him a 1 GBS connection speed, or

3.  Lives 1000 miles closer to the NA server, or

4.  Has better perception, situational awareness, physical reflexes, and simply thinks faster; or

5. Has been playing the game longer, or

6. Has a better trained crew with BIA and other skills and perks, or

7. Can afford the best equipment, or

8. Can afford camouflage, or

9. Can afford to use consumable food every battle, or

10. Uses XVM to have the best in-battle intel, or

11. Any number of other things that gives him a competitive advantage over another player?

 

Are you going to take action sequentially over time to minimize all of these advantages?

 

For Pete's sake, Wargaming designed WOT to simulate Warfare.  And Warfare isn't Fair.  Warfare is an Arms Race where each side strives to field the most lethal forces with the best training, logistics, and operational support.

 

And we love it!

 

We work hard to grind through tank R&D to get the best modules - so we have an advantage.

We work hard to train our crews - so we have an advantage.

We work hard to learn as players, to develop our individual skills - so we have an advantage.

 

And that's just a start.  We invest a lot of money in this game too.  

 

And Wargaming loves it!

 

Yet now it seems that because of Snowflake complaints WOT wants to blunt the teeth of a legitimate game mechanic that is based on historical and current day real world tank warfare.

 

That's insane.

 

Who among us wants to be governed by the lowest common denominator?

Who wants to have some guys who are more prone to whine than to dig in and work to improve themselves as we did, dictate to us that we have to come down to their level?

Who wants to play with Snowflakes in a "socially acceptable" sandbox where socially acceptable is defined as not trying to gain advantage over your opponent?

 

Why not, instead, create a Vanilla Server for these kiddies?  Give them all tanks that are exactly the same.  Don't give them any game mechanic that would allow them to earn any advantage over the next guy.  Let them have exactly what they want.  And see how much revenue it generates.

 

Whatever you do, though, don't constrain long-standing and legitimate game mechanics for those of us who have invested months upon months of our time, take this game seriously, and play it with an adult perspective.

 



YANKEE137 #2 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 21:49

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 13987 battles
  • 6,631
  • [6-ACR] 6-ACR
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015
Thank you for your service ! Some folks around here take this game way too seriously, Lord only knows how they'd react to an actual crisis. 

Augustus_Sohn #3 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 21:55

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3364 battles
  • 991
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

Couldn't agree more. 

"Oh, I can't penetrate because their armor is too thick? I mean, I do have HEAT and other rounds that will go through them like butter, but I don't want to be unethical. Guess I'll just deal with it." said no real-life (or fake) tanker ever.

 

It's like the players who come after you after game complaining because you didn't just square up face-to-face against them, but used cover and concealment. "Coward!"
"Right. But I survived and won. You didn't. Gg."



ProfessionalFinn #4 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 21:58

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 26095 battles
  • 2,180
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

You missed an important unfair advantage, a hot wife.

I got one.  She is much better than deserved or I could hope for.

This is true.



_Tsavo_ #5 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 21:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 46204 battles
  • 19,697
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

His initials weren't WD were they?  If you shoot him with gold he gets super salty.  Super dooper salty.  

 

Anyhow, gold shells, large kits, and anything else in game is fair game.  Don't let muppets like that guy get you riled up.



sargev55 #6 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 60110 battles
  • 1,446
  • [_CIA_] _CIA_
  • Member since:
    02-22-2012
My favorite tanks get penned easily by normal AP rounds lol, if someone wants to shoot more expensive ammo for the same result it doesn't bother me.

24_inch_pythons #7 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 29922 battles
  • 5,688
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    03-28-2012

 Various ways Wargaming has changed the game to appease Super Heavy Tank Drivers:

Some people may think of these changes as good, some may not, but just look back at all the changes Wargaming has made for the purpose of appeasing Super Heavy tank drivers. Not even really all Heavy tank drivers, but really, specifically, just Super Heavy tank drivers.

 

- Bushes were gotten rid of, open maps gone. Light tanks and TDs wrecked to appease Super Heavy tank drivers.

- TDs lose camo while firing.

- TD lose all view range.

- Artillery damage reduced and AP removed

- Massive armor and HP buffs to Super Heavies

 

 And now Medium tanks and bottom tier tanks aren't safe either with the proposed changes to "special ammo" which effectively buffs all heavies and effectively nerfs all lightly armored tanks. 

 So, to recap, that's every single other class of tank in the game heavily nerfed through the years, neutered one might say, and Super Heavies getting buff after buff. 

 Why? Why Wargaming? Why ruin your game just to appease whiners who feel their tank should never be penetrated under any circumstance and they should just be allowed to roll over everyone in God mode?



rockbutcher #8 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:17

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 22602 battles
  • 1,080
  • [-OPS-] -OPS-
  • Member since:
    03-06-2015
I think that the gorilla in the room is the fact that each of these snowflakes feels that they should be entitled to roll across the battlefield with impunity derping as they go.

DoomSquatch #9 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:22

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 56047 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View Post_Tsavo_, on Jan 16 2019 - 20:58, said:

His initials weren't WD were they?  If you shoot him with gold he gets super salty.  Super dooper salty.  

 

Anyhow, gold shells, large kits, and anything else in game is fair game.  Don't let muppets like that guy get you riled up.

 

Might have been. 

 

Not worried about the muppet, just about the "socially conscious" game designer trying to appease the muppet through knee-jerk changes.

 

Bottom line is that Wargaming will lose revenue if they modify the premium round mechanics as proposed.  That will be the deciding factor.

 

 



RAFOsprey #10 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:26

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4707 battles
  • 226
  • [209RA] 209RA
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

Nope, war is not fair. It is also a very high stakes event with ghastly permanent consequences.

This isn't...it is a game....an admitted "arcade" game at that. It doesn't even rise the the level of dignity to be classified as a "simulator".

That said, players either want a fair game, or a chance at one or they don't.

With the MM, and the seniority system of (encouraged) exploits, a fair game is the last thing we get, a curiously, the last thing some players want. After 10-20k more games than another player are you better than another player because of what you have personally learned or are you just benefiting from super-crew advantage or paid-benefit advantages like the crap you can add for bonds?

Does the "win rate" so valued by many reflect the player, or perhaps what the player has to work with.

Tell you how we find out...a plain vanilla tier with a limited variety of vehicles and a vanilla crew with no perks, skills, etc. I think the results would be surprising.I fact, I think the bravado might just go down a bit from players who aren't really as good a they think they are. Methinks those recoiling from that idea have something to hide.

I would enjoy a competitive fair game where one player's "experience" rich super-crew doesn't allow them to rob another player of the "experience" their new crew needs.

Play the game with your own experience rather than an artificial one.



mlinke #11 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53042 battles
  • 1,567
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Thank you for supporting the game. Ty for disposing US radioactive waste formed in bullets. Please buy as much gold as you can. I kill people with regular ones and love it. I like aiming and getting things the hard way. I do not value things you can get without effort. I am thankfull that there are people like you.

Altwar #12 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 58430 battles
  • 5,301
  • [-GNR-] -GNR-
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostProfessionalFinn, on Jan 16 2019 - 12:58, said:

You missed an important unfair advantage, a hot wife.

I got one.  She is much better than deserved or I could hope for.

This is true.

 

Mmmmhhhhhmmm.  You know the drill.  Picture or you don't really have one!  ;) :teethhappy:

DoomSquatch #13 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 56047 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View PostRAFOsprey, on Jan 16 2019 - 21:26, said:

Nope, war is not fair. It is also a very high stakes event with ghastly permanent consequences.

This isn't...it is a game....an admitted "arcade" game at that. It doesn't even rise the the level of dignity to be classified as a "simulator".

That said, players either want a fair game, or a chance at one or they don't.

With the MM, and the seniority system of (encouraged) exploits, a fair game is the last thing we get, a curiously, the last thing some players want. After 10-20k more games than another player are you better than another player because of what you have personally learned or are you just benefiting from super-crew advantage or paid-benefit advantages like the crap you can add for bonds?

Does the "win rate" so valued by many reflect the player, or perhaps what the player has to work with.

Tell you how we find out...a plain vanilla tier with a limited variety of vehicles and a vanilla crew with no perks, skills, etc. I think the results would be surprising.I fact, I think the bravado might just go down a bit from players who aren't really as good a they think they are. Methinks those recoiling from that idea have something to hide.

I would enjoy a competitive fair game where one player's "experience" rich super-crew doesn't allow them to rob another player of the "experience" their new crew needs.

Play the game with your own experience rather than an artificial one.

 

Every guy you are complaining about was in your position at one time, with more experienced players putting pressure on them to improve themselves.  Is it fair of you to demand an easier path than they walked?

mlinke #14 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53042 battles
  • 1,567
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostAltwar, on Jan 16 2019 - 22:29, said:

 

Mmmmhhhhhmmm.  You know the drill.  Picture or you don't really have one!  ;) :teethhappy:

 

Noooo... We need replay or it did not happen!

stevezaxx #15 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39574 battles
  • 1,282
  • [COD] COD
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011

Wargaming as a strategic learning technique ( generals push "units" around on a map has always been not a "game" or "fair"

which is fine.

Gaming (either gaming of pseudo war 'chess' or more realistic 'PanzerBlitz' or 'World of Tanks;) is INTENDED to be "fair"

and by fair i mean equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of results.

which is fine.

 

WAR is not "fair" ! I want my generals and admirals to use the best they have in the most effective way to WIN

which is fine.

 

so should the changes in WoT (whether  gold rounds or other things) make it more fair? or less fair?

if they reduce gold rounds to "more pen = less damage" they should reduce the cost to the same as the "more damage= less pen" AP rounds. not keep then thousands of times more expensive.



DoomSquatch #16 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 56047 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View Postmlinke, on Jan 16 2019 - 21:27, said:

Thank you for supporting the game. Ty for disposing US radioactive waste formed in bullets. Please buy as much gold as you can. I kill people with regular ones and love it. I like aiming and getting things the hard way. I do not value things you can get without effort. I am thankfull that there are people like you.

 

You think it didn't take effort to acquire premium rounds?  To do so, you either need to play long and well, or you need to work hard to earn the cash you spend on them.

 

I could ask you if you have put as much effort into developing your personal economic position as I have.  If you haven't put effort into long and good gameplay or into earning enough money to afford premium rounds, then don't imply that others haven't expended effort or earned what they enjoy.



WeSayNotToday #17 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:35

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23516 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

LOOK YOU!

 

This is a GAME.  Advantage should be MADE or TAKEN during the match, and long-term advantage should be EARNED or LEARNED.

 

NOT GIVEN NOR BOUGHT.

 

Because it's a game, and there SHOULD BE some initial, consistent, starting point of fairness.

 

That is the basis of actual fair games.

 

So, EVERYTHING that costs extra, that allows premium time players to use more of, more of the time, is fodder for discussion and balancing in a game, that is at its base, and is advertised as, free-to-play.  Everything.  People trying to foment discussions about mechanics/ units THAT WORK BETTER OR MORE OFTEN for pay, people that try to get WG to hew more closely to the free-to-play model, are starting legitimate discussions, by and large.

 

/rant

 

That said, much of your post is sensible, although, I suspect the Iraqis, in fact, were pretty upset about the [edit: depleted] uranium rounds.


Edited by WeSayNotToday, Jan 16 2019 - 22:48.


latvius #18 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 33970 battles
  • 501
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013

Insults aside everything you're comparing war with a game - it just doesn't work.  A game is designed to have some type of level playing field, I'm not saying WOT is balanced it will never be but it is a constant attempt to get it as balanced as they can.

As far as gold rounds or rounds available it is not balanced, the gold round is clearly superior hence the spam, why not balance that?  Give players a reason to choose which round to use.

 



DoomSquatch #19 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:48

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 56047 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View PostWeSayNotToday, on Jan 16 2019 - 21:35, said:

LOOK YOU!

 

This is a GAME.  Advantage should be MADE or TAKEN during the match, and long-term advantage should be EARNED or LEARNED.

 

NOT GIVEN NOR BOUGHT.

 

Because it's a game, and there SHOULD BE some initial, consistent, starting point of fairness.

 

That is the basis of actual fair games.

 

So, EVERYTHING that costs extra, that allows premium time players to use more of, more of the time, is fodder for discussion and balancing in a game, that is at its base, and is advertised as, free-to-play.  Everything.  People trying to foment discussions about mechanics/ units THAT WORK BETTER OR MORE OFTEN for pay, people that try to get WG to hew more closely to the free-to-play model, are starting legitimate discussions, by and large.

 

/rant

 

That said, much of your post is sensible, although, I suspect the Iraqis, in fact, were pretty upset about the uranium rounds.

 

WOT isn't a game.  It is a Wargame.  It was developed by a company named Wargaming.  Wargaming is also a business.  Though WOT is free to play, Wargaming EARNS revenue by selling items that offer advantage.  But you can acquire premium rounds, equipment, etc,, with credits that you can earn in game, so you have access to them as well under the Free-to-Play design.  Wargaming cares about you as a Free-to-Play player, but if you don't think that they would like you to spend a little money too, and encourage you to do so, so that they can stay in business and continue to provide this game for you, then you are crazy.

 

So, LOOK YOU!  Maybe you should look at those who are using premium rounds as the ones who subsidize your ability to enjoy this game on a Free-to-Play basis.  Maybe we should look at you as a whining freeloader until you accept that.

 



RAFOsprey #20 Posted Jan 16 2019 - 22:50

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4707 battles
  • 226
  • [209RA] 209RA
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

View PostDoomSquatch, on Jan 16 2019 - 16:31, said:

 

Every guy you are complaining about was in your position at one time, with more experienced players putting pressure on them to improve themselves.  Is it fair of you to demand an easier path than they walked?

 

It was never fair. It's like a pyramid scheme...come late, you completely lose. If folks don't want a fair game, fine. Just admit it.

If you want this game to continue, what's the strategy for attracting new players?

"Hey kids! Join a game you where you can't hope to ever catch up!

Sounds great huh?

Some of you don't like the reality that the King has no clothes.







Also tagged with Premium Rounds, Advantage, Snowflakes

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users