81 replies to this topic

[GeorgePreddy]

Young Sigourney loves tankers who "abuse" gold rounds...

 

 

She's lookin' at you !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Festung]

I use gold rounds and, as a result of armor creep, i.e., newer tanks have heavier armor, I get "We didn't penetrate"  or "We didn't even scratch their paint" frequently. When they reduce gold rounds' effects, I will buy only regular rounds and become a camper.  

[WeSayNotToday]

DoomSquatch, on Jan 16 2019 - 22:48, said:

 

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.

 

 

Statement of principles, man.  Grab that idea.

 

Nothing specific to my playing was in that post, so you have made some mistakes in your post.

 

Now, as to more of your post:

• It's a GAME, that invites and tries to retain ALL players, and needs to retain FTP players for size game it is designed to be, for instance keeping the queues moving along, the matchmaker working well, and keeping the game hopping more hours of the day/ night.  FTP players ARE CONTENT, and driving them away, doing ANYTHING that does not encourage them to stay, needs to be examined closely.
• I am a subsidizer.  I am willing to support WG at this point, but I STRONGLY believe that free-to-players need to be treated well, and the game should not be rigged against them [in favor of those that pay], for the health, quality, and longevity of this game.

Edited by WeSayNotToday, Jan 16 2019 - 22:58.

[the_Deadly_Bulb]

DoomSquatch, on Jan 16 2019 - 12:45, said:

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.

 

 

[KingOfBadlands]

Nothing in life is free, someone pays for it. The people that support this game are facing Tranny and Bias Ridicule by the ones that think it's a free game, someone has to pay for it. The servers are not free, the internet bandwidth isn't free, developers do not work for free and time is precious. Where is all that funding gonna come from?

 

[Zugzwang]

I agree with the OP... Advantages are earned. Remember on your first day as on my first day we were equal... after that all bets are off.

[DoomSquatch]

RAFOsprey, on Jan 16 2019 - 21:50, said:

 

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.

 

It's not a pyramid scheme. 

 

I took a peak at your stats and battle record.  You are trying to advance to higher tiers too quickly in my opinion.  It's a good idea to play a tier until you master it before moving up.  A lot of us do that.  The same goes for individual tanks.  My original criteria was that I would play a tank until it was fully researched, I had at least a 50% win rate, and that I had Aced it.  I've now changed that to include achieving at least a 1600 WN8 rating in the tank.  So now I'm going back and playing some of my old tanks to bring them up to that standard.  My overall WN8 rating at present is 1465, but I average 2200 or better now on a daily and monthly basis.

 

You will improve, but don't force yourself into higher tiers too early.

 

Personally, I believe that the clan system induces people to play higher tiers earlier than they are ready, so it is natural that you believe the more experienced players, who have tens of thousands of battles more than you at the higher tiers you are attempting too early are taking advantage of you.  In actuality, you are placing yourself at a disadvantage by tying to play Varsity football when all you have is Pop Warner experience.

[NeatoMan]

Think of them as the final (expensive) upgrade to your gun.  You don't run around with the stock gun when you can afford to mount the top gun, do you?  so why treat ammo differently?   If you are cheap like me, you only use it sparingly, but that doesn't mean those who do are doing something wrong.

[sargev55]

Sometimes I shoot Winchester white box, sometimes I shoot Hornady Match  

[WeSayNotToday]

KingOfBadlands, on Jan 16 2019 - 23:01, said:

Nothing in life is free, someone pays for it. The people that support this game are facing Tranny and Bias Ridicule by the ones that think it's a free game, someone has to pay for it. The servers are not free, the internet bandwidth isn't free, developers do not work for free and time is precious. Where is all that funding gonna come from?

 

 

A lot of WG's income methodology is not blatantly pay-to-win, there is a lot of the game that is great.  That is where the funding should come from, in many players' opinions.

 

Zugzwang, on Jan 16 2019 - 23:02, said:

I agree with the OP... Advantages are earned. Remember on your first day as on my first day we were equal... after that all bets are off.

 

Actually, inequality is there at the start, based on your invite code, or lack thereof.

 

Also, it is the advantages that are not earned in-game, but are paid for, that are the problem.

 

In an ammo discussion, it is the fact that premium customers can carry and use more premium ammo, more of the time, and at higher tiers, than free-to-play players can afford, that is the basis of the problem.

Edited by WeSayNotToday, Jan 16 2019 - 23:12.

[_Misaki_Kun_]

Players with premium accounts will have more credits and experience than free-to-play players. 

Players with gold will have premium tanks and can convert xp to free xp so they will have better tanks than free-to-play players. 

 

Players that spend money on this game is the reason why WOT is here and continues to be here.

Why must WOT always appease the players who do not add anything to Wargaming's revenue and punish those that do?

 

The special rounds are fine as they currently are. The cheap players can easily address their fairness concerns themselves. All they have to do is spend some money and shoot special rounds as well. Special rounds is not the problem. The problem is that people are cheap. I would rather have bots in the game than these whiny cheap players. 

[SnakePliskan]

WeSayNotToday, on Jan 16 2019 - 23:11, said:

 

A lot of WG's income methodology is not blatantly pay-to-win, there is a lot of the game that is great.  That is where the funding should come from, in many players' opinions.

 

 

Actually, inequality is there at the start, based on your invite code, or lack thereof.

 

Also, it is the advantages that are not earned in-game, but are paid for, that are the problem.

 

In an ammo discussion, it is the fact that premium customers can carry and use more premium ammo, more of the time, and at higher tiers, than free-to-play players can afford, that is the basis of the problem.

So the Welfare Warriors should be catered to an the people that can afford the ammo should relinquish their Prem ammo so the Welfare Warrior gets a fair break in the game?

This is so reflective of the entitlement attitude in the world today. Those that have must be forced to give to those who do not.

How about this. I fire as much Prem as I want on a FTP account on EU. Why because I worked the game an got into a position to do so. It takes more effort. I know actually having to work for something more than the next person is considered an outrageous concept anymore.

Then there is the option of using a code I will provide to assist folks with that. GetAJob use it an it will eliminate much of issues of FTP.

Either way use the code or work harder in game to acquire the skill/credits needed it can be done by Prem or FTP folks.

[sargev55]

Premium account is like 12 bucks or 15 bucks a month, that's the cost of a cheap 12 pack of beer.  Also you can earn gold for free in this game and purchase premium time that way as well.

[DoomSquatch]

WeSayNotToday, on Jan 16 2019 - 22:11, said:

 

A lot of WG's income methodology is not blatantly pay-to-win, there is a lot of the game that is great.  That is where the funding should come from, in many players' opinions.

 

 

Actually, inequality is there at the start, based on your invite code, or lack thereof.

 

Also, it is the advantages that are not earned in-game, but are paid for, that are the problem.

 

In an ammo discussion, it is the fact that premium customers can carry and use more premium ammo, more of the time, and at higher tiers, than free-to-play players can afford, that is the basis of the problem.

 

Being a premium account holder has nothing to do with being able to load more premium rounds.

 

I guess you want me to apologize to you for my economic status.  Well, between Federal and State Income taxes I paid over $190,000 last year.  I hope that's apology enough.

 

Play free.  Don't criticize those who subsidize the game.  For Pete's sake, every other MMO and app game I see uses the same business model.  If you had your way, there would be no profit in game development and there would be no game.

[WeSayNotToday]

Craig_Tucker, on Jan 16 2019 - 23:15, said:

Players with premium accounts will have more credits and experience than free-to-play players. 

Players with gold will have premium tanks and can convert xp to free xp so they will have better tanks than free-to-play players. 

 

Players that spend money on this game is the reason why WOT is here and continues to be here.

Why must WOT always appease the players who do not add anything to Wargaming's revenue and punish those that do?

 

The special rounds are fine as they currently are. The cheap players can easily address their fairness concerns themselves. All they have to do is spend some money and shoot special rounds as well. Special rounds is not the problem. The problem is that people are cheap. I would rather have bots in the game than these whiny cheap players. 

 

The foundational weakness to your argument is that WoT advertises as, portrays itself as, free-to-play.

 

Free-to-play players are content, a hugely important part of the game, outnumbering us paying customers, and should be encouraged, retained, as much as possible, so as to maintain sever population, and, maybe, convert them to paying customers after they are emotionally and intellectually invested in the game.

[Plato_1992]

I admit that I get a little grumpy about premium rounds when I'm in the Maus.  That armor is the only thing you have going for you, and it's frustrating when you get penned like a pin cushion.  In any other tank I don't pay attention -- the name of the game is "don't get hit."  Whether they are shooting "gold" or not doesn't really matter.  If they want to spend credits on premie rounds, that's their choice.

 

[SnakePliskan]

WeSayNotToday, on Jan 16 2019 - 23:26, said:

 

The foundational weakness to your argument is that WoT advertises as, portrays itself as, free-to-play.

 

Free-to-play players are content, a hugely important part of the game, outnumbering us paying customers, and should be encouraged, retained, as much as possible, so as to maintain sever population, and, maybe, convert them to paying customers after they are emotionally and intellectually invested in the game.

 

It is FTP. There is almost nothing that a person who has paid nothing to play cant aquire at some point. On my FTP EU account I have over 30 Prem tanks. Many given to me by WoT for completion of various missions. The others by the Gold I earned in game an purchased from the Tech tree. I have 100% crews acquired same way. I have Gold rounds, Prem time off an on, every piece of equipment I need. I can earn bonds. There is virtually nothing except that shinny new Prem tank that is offered for sale with RL money I cant get in this game for nothing.

 

Nothing spent except the work required. There is the catch. The work.

Edited by SnakePliskan, Jan 16 2019 - 23:34.

[WeSayNotToday]

DoomSquatch, on Jan 16 2019 - 23:25, said:

 

Being a premium account holder has nothing to do with being able to load more premium rounds.

 

 

It absolutely does, you almost could not be more wrong.

 

A player can afford more premium rounds at higher tier, more of the time under premium time, than he can without premium time, period.

 

Block Quote

 

I guess you want me to apologize to you for my economic status. 

 

Not in the slightest, in fact, I do not even care, although, I pretty much hope everybody is at least getting by.

 

Block Quote

 Play free. 

 

Read more and better.  I do not play free.

 

Block Quote

 Don't criticize those who subsidize the game.  For Pete's sake, every other MMO and app game I see uses the same business model.  If you had your way, there would be no profit in game development and there would be no game.

 

What are you talking about?  I am criticizing some of WG's practices, and saying that discussion about how the free-to-play aspect of the game is being affected is valid discussion.  I am not criticizing premium customers.

[DoomSquatch]

Ok

[WeSayNotToday]

SnakePliskan, on Jan 16 2019 - 23:24, said:

So the Welfare Warriors should be catered to an the people that can afford the ammo should relinquish their Prem ammo so the Welfare Warrior gets a fair break in the game?

 

Not necessarily.  The game should be monitored, and monitor itself, so that free-to-play players are not at any significant disadvantage vis-a-vis paying customers.

 

... BECAUSE it is advertised as, and portrayed as, FREE-TO-PLAY.  If it is not fair for the free-to-play player, then there needs to be evaluation about how much the free-to-play players, WHO ARE CONTENT AND THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION OF THE GAME, are being disadvantaged, and what policy it is that does this, and how it can be changed.