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

Nunya_000 #61 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 02:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,771
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostWeSayNotToday, on Jan 16 2019 - 13:35, said:

 

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.

 

You are confusing "Free-to-play" with "Pay-to-win".  This game IS 100% Free-to-play.  There is no monthly fee, no necessities that NEED to be bought, and players can reach the highest level of the game without spending a dime...unlike other games that will only allow a free player to only reach a certain level.. 

 

Even by the Pay-to win definition, this game is only borderline pay-to-win.  While players might achieve marginal better stats by spending money, the slight advantages a paying player might receive CAN be earned by a free player that works harder.  Also, stats are not a factor of the game that gain a player any in-game 'reward'.  



Diesel__2 #62 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 02:55

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4837 battles
  • 270
  • Member since:
    11-12-2018

View PostDVK9, on Jan 16 2019 - 17:19, said:

 

 Sadness is we can have a team of all vets play in the pubbies.

 

Why is that?

 



WeSayNotToday #63 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 06:23

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23463 battles
  • 1,099
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

View PostNunya_000, on Jan 17 2019 - 02:44, said:

 

You are confusing "Free-to-play" with "Pay-to-win". 

 

 

 

Not even a little bit.

 

Block Quote

Even by the Pay-to win definition, this game is only borderline pay-to-win. 

 

It is a problem WoT has, a border WoT dances on both sides of.

 

Block Quote

 While players might achieve marginal better stats by spending money, the slight advantages a paying player might receive CAN be earned by a free player that works harder.  Also, stats are not a factor of the game that gain a player any in-game 'reward'.  

 

The preceding statements are not correct.

 

Facts:

 

  • There are premium tanks that are JUST BETTER than their peers in the tech tree, and these superior tanks are only available for money.  Better as in visibly better in characteristics and better in performance across the spectrum of players.
  • A paying customer who can afford to shoot more premium ammo, more often, and at higher tiers, has an advantage that has been bought.  The free-to-play player cannot afford to shoot as much premium ammo, tank-for-tank, tier-for-tier, match for match.  When the ftp player "drops down" to earn more credits more easily, to afford premium ammo at higher tiers, or even to afford high tier play, the premium player can ALSO drop down, and earn EVEN MORE credits, while still using more premium ammo EVEN AT THE LOWER TIER while grinding credits.
  • Use of more premium ammo IN FACT better allows attaining the medals in game that deliver bonds.
  • Use of more premium ammo IN FACT allows better performance in marathons, with substantial, in-game rewards [direct reflection of stats equalling in-game rewards, specifically, damage per game].
  • Use of more premium ammo IN FACT better allows [or specifically, more quickly allows] finishing such missions as cumulative damage [again, as above], or high damage/ high caliber missions such as in the Festive Atmosphere missions we just had, which had substantial, in-game rewards.  In fact, in WG's own words, earning a High Caliber during the Holiday Event earned one "fine gifts," as they were called in the gift-box-recruit promotion.
  • More than slight advantages can be had if one spends money well, and, of course, gets lucky in the loot-box draw.

 

Last bits here are my opinion:

WoT has several aspects of its game...., dipped, shall we say, in pay-to-win.  They are in this to make money, and have come up with some mostly acceptable forms of somewhat pay-to-win as part of their monetization.  But, some of their choices have been poor, and it shows.

 

Lastly,

 

The Awesome WeSayNotToday said:

 

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.

 

 


Edited by WeSayNotToday, Jan 17 2019 - 06:25.


Blackstone #64 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 14:05

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21413 battles
  • 2,172
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostDoomSquatch, on Jan 16 2019 - 15:45, 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.

 

From one vet to another:



latvius #65 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 15:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 33368 battles
  • 498
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013

All these posts and still not a valid reason to keep ammo in it's current configuration.

 

For all the excuses out there of why a player spams gold I have the trump card - Taugrim.  You can be a Unicom and not fire a single gold round.

 

I will concede that super heavies have overpowered armor and that armor needs to be balanced along with ammo.

 

Final note - Why would any gamer want to play a game where their is a mechanic that has multiple choices but one is clearly superior over the others.  What's the point of having AP if gold (premium/special/whatever) is clearly better?

Not supporting the ammo change is like advocating to have a gun that always pens, you just aim at the enemy tank and click.  Talk about dumb-ing down the game.



NeatoMan #66 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 15:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,427
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostWeSayNotToday, on Jan 17 2019 - 00:23, said:

 

  • A paying customer who can afford to shoot more premium ammo, more often, and at higher tiers, has an advantage that has been bought.  The free-to-play player cannot afford to shoot as much premium ammo, tank-for-tank, tier-for-tier, match for match.  When the ftp player "drops down" to earn more credits more easily, to afford premium ammo at higher tiers, or even to afford high tier play, the premium player can ALSO drop down, and earn EVEN MORE credits, while still using more premium ammo EVEN AT THE LOWER TIER while grinding credits.

 

Why is the free to play player spending time in the higher tiers if they can't afford it?   They are at a disadvantage because of their impatience.  They could easily spend more time in the mid tiers building up credits, and multi skilled crews on fully researched, elited tanks, instead of buying the next tier up as soon as they research it.  By the time they hit the higher tiers they will have enough skills and credits to compete.  It's "free to play", not "free to play tier 10 as much as you want".  They simply have to play lower tiers twice as long as a paying player would



SlappedbyRommel #67 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 15:56

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9588 battles
  • 297
  • [SHRKE] SHRKE
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

Nice post and so true this should be pinned on the opening screen of WOT when all login to see. I had a dumbkof in a heavy tank rage at me for killing him with my hellcat after he put 2 shells into me I had a split second and used APCR to finish him or let him kill me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well he went puff and then proceeded to say I had no honour, morals, etc, etc well umm if I allowed an enemy to gladly kill me so he is all important and fulfills his ego? I would think not its about winning and warfare is not fair period. The worst thing is he then proceeded to say was going to report me to WG so I told him to F off and get a life well that was my bad but don't say you are going to report this or that because it really has no weight and we know nothing will happen to change this.


 

Do you think the Gulf war vets would allow the enemy to shot them while saying its an honorable way to die - I think not either so if WG introduced uranium shells I would gladly use them to.


Edited by SlappedbyRommel, Jan 17 2019 - 15:56.


24cups #68 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 16:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,116
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013

View PostDoomSquatch, on Jan 16 2019 - 17:43, said:

 

You must consider yourself a seal.

2400 battles in the tier 1 Swede ?

On purpose  ?



Nunya_000 #69 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 16:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,771
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostWeSayNotToday, on Jan 16 2019 - 21:23, said:

 

Facts:

 

There are premium tanks that are JUST BETTER than their peers in the tech tree, and these superior tanks are only available for money.  Better as in visibly better in characteristics and better in performance across the spectrum of players.

 

 

This is true.....and would be a valid issue IF those premium tanks only faced their tech tree counter part.  However they do not.  They face other types of tanks, many of them that have no real problem with those "OP premiums".  I would also think that if those "OP premiums" were so invincible that we would see more of them in our battles.  However, that is not the case.  The Defender, for instance, is often see in limited numbers.  I am only seeing about 1 or 2 per team.....if at all.

 

Even so, you have a better WR, WN8 and PR, but I have a better damage per battle (mainly because I have more battles at higher tiers).  We both have about the same number of battles.  If we were to fight....you in a IS-3 and me in my Defender, I suspect it would be a tight battle on who would win.

 

Block Quote

A paying customer who can afford to shoot more premium ammo, more often, and at higher tiers, has an advantage that has been bought.  The free-to-play player cannot afford to shoot as much premium ammo, tank-for-tank, tier-for-tier, match for match.  When the ftp player "drops down" to earn more credits more easily, to afford premium ammo at higher tiers, or even to afford high tier play, the premium player can ALSO drop down, and earn EVEN MORE credits, while still using more premium ammo EVEN AT THE LOWER TIER while grinding credits.

 

This is also true.  However, a person firing 100% premium rounds is lazy.  There is no reason why a person needs to fire 100% premium rounds (at least at tier 8 and below).  I more of a Free-to-Play player than I am a paying player.  Sure, I buy premium time every once in awhile, but I would suspect that I have played with rewarded premium time more than I have played with bought premium time.  Most of my money is spent on gold and premium tanks.  However, I do not play my premium tanks  as often as I would like as I end up spending most or all of my playing time playing the tanks that I am grinding.  My most played premium tank is my IS-6 with only 457 battles.

 

Even with my limited premium time and not playing my premium tanks very much, I have never felt I was so credit strapped that I could not fire a premium round when I felt the need.  Would I have won more battle if I fired premium rounds more often?  Maybe, but I doubt it would have been enough more wins to even make a blip on my WR.

 

While I do agree that a player having more credits does allow them the option of firing more premium rounds, a Free-to-play person can earn as much credits as they need to fire premium rounds, they just may need to manage their credits a little better than a paying player. 

 

Personally, I do not even pay that much attention to what type of round is fired at my tank.  In any situation where I am fired at, a regular round can penetrate my tank if I am hit.  Yes, a premium round does have a better chance to penetrating, but it not an auto-pen.  The best way to combat premium rounds is to not put yourself in a position to where you are hit, as much as possible.

 

Block Quote

Use of more premium ammo IN FACT better allows attaining the medals in game that deliver bonds.

 

Earning 1 or 2 bonds per medals would take any player years...if not decades...to be able to purchase Improved Equipment that cost 3,000-5,000 bonds.  This point you bring up is laughable to think it is any kind of advantage.

 

Block Quote

  • Use of more premium ammo IN FACT allows better performance in marathons, with substantial, in-game rewards [direct reflection of stats equalling in-game rewards, specifically, damage per game].
  • Use of more premium ammo IN FACT better allows [or specifically, more quickly allows] finishing such missions as cumulative damage [again, as above], or high damage/ high caliber missions such as in the Festive Atmosphere missions we just had, which had substantial, in-game rewards.  In fact, in WG's own words, earning a High Caliber during the Holiday Event earned one "fine gifts," as they were called in the gift-box-recruit promotion.
  • More than slight advantages can be had if one spends money well, and, of course, gets lucky in the loot-box draw.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.  However, a player that struggles at this game is not going to suddenly put up regular 2000 damage battles by firing premium rounds when they have problems even hitting what they are shooting at.  I do agree that they might get more penetrating hits by using premium rounds....which would likely increase their average damage, but that increase is likely not going to increase dramatically.

 

Block Quote

Last bits here are my opinion:

WoT has several aspects of its game...., dipped, shall we say, in pay-to-win.  They are in this to make money, and have come up with some mostly acceptable forms of somewhat pay-to-win as part of their monetization.  But, some of their choices have been poor, and it shows.

 

I disagree.  I feel that, overall, WG has done fairly well with balancing the need to generate revenue without greatly unbalancing the game towards Pay-to-Win.

 

I would be interested in how you would design a game of this nature that would maintain that balance.



Echo_Saber #70 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 16:10

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22162 battles
  • 2,555
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    03-17-2015

View PostNunya_000, on Jan 16 2019 - 20:44, said:

 

You are confusing "Free-to-play" with "Pay-to-win".  This game IS 100% Free-to-play.  There is no monthly fee, no necessities that NEED to be bought, and players can reach the highest level of the game without spending a dime...unlike other games that will only allow a free player to only reach a certain level.. 

 

Even by the Pay-to win definition, this game is only borderline pay-to-win.  While players might achieve marginal better stats by spending money, the slight advantages a paying player might receive CAN be earned by a free player that works harder.  Also, stats are not a factor of the game that gain a player any in-game 'reward'.  

 

I mean if you ignore tier 8 I suppose.  Because the Patriot is a better T32, the IS3A is an IS3 with a broken autoreloader, the LT432 is so incredibly overpowered no tier 8 light holds a candle to it.  The Tiger II is a complete and utter joke compared to the Lowe.  I could go on, but I think it's a little obtuse to say that this game isn't more than a little pay to win when the only meta tier 8s that aren't premiums are artillery.

Nunya_000 #71 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 16:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,771
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostEcho_Saber, on Jan 17 2019 - 07:10, said:

 

I mean if you ignore tier 8 I suppose.  Because the Patriot is a better T32, the IS3A is an IS3 with a broken autoreloader, the LT432 is so incredibly overpowered no tier 8 light holds a candle to it.  The Tiger II is a complete and utter joke compared to the Lowe.  I could go on, but I think it's a little obtuse to say that this game isn't more than a little pay to win when the only meta tier 8s that aren't premiums are artillery.

 

As I mentioned about, I would agree with your statement IF the Patriot ONLY fought against a T32....or a IS3A ONLY fought against a IS3....or the LT432 ONLY fought other tier 8s....or the Lowe ONLY fought against a Tiger II.  

 

We fight against many types of tanks in our battles, not just the tech tree tank that the premium tanks are better than.  For instance, I think the 110 and IS3 are better than the T32 and maybe the Patriot.....and the VK45.02 is better than the Lowe or the Tiger II.



Echo_Saber #72 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 17:11

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22162 battles
  • 2,555
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    03-17-2015

View PostNunya_000, on Jan 17 2019 - 10:18, said:

 

As I mentioned about, I would agree with your statement IF the Patriot ONLY fought against a T32....or a IS3A ONLY fought against a IS3....or the LT432 ONLY fought other tier 8s....or the Lowe ONLY fought against a Tiger II.  

 

We fight against many types of tanks in our battles, not just the tech tree tank that the premium tanks are better than.  For instance, I think the 110 and IS3 are better than the T32 and maybe the Patriot.....and the VK45.02 is better than the Lowe or the Tiger II.

 

Paying money straight up gets you an advantage, if that isn't pay to win I have no idea what is.  I'm saying that if you put down money, you get a tank at its tier is better than any non premium tank.  Better tank = more wins, regardless of your opponent.  The Patriot IS stronger than a T32 agaisnt tier tens, a Lowe IS always a better choice than a tiger 2 against tier tens, the LT-432 without a doubt IS better than any non-premium options fighting against tier tens. 

 

And if the direct comparisons aren't enough, just consider than in every single class save artillery, the best tanks at tier 8 are all premiums.  Best TD is a tie between the SU-130PM and Skorp, the best heavy is the Patriot or Defender, the best light tank is hands down the LT-432, the best medium tank is the Progetto 46 (again, just a straight up better version of the Pantera, the best tech tree medium).  

 

Let me make my point absolutely clear.   If you take equally skilled players in any matchup in a Tier 8 tank, no matter the class (excepting arty for obvious reasons) of tank or their opponent, the best tank for them to be in is a premium tank.  They have an advantage directly over a non-premium tier 8, and they have a relative advantage compared to non-premium tier 8s against more powerful opponents.   Your criteria for pay to win seems to be that since the most powerful tanks in direct matchups aren't premiums it isn't pay to win, but that's kind of ridiculous.  With equal skills, you will do better at tier 8 in a meta premium than a tech tree tank of the same class, and if you don't think that's pay to win I don't know what to tell you.



Nunya_000 #73 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 17:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,771
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostEcho_Saber, on Jan 17 2019 - 08:11, said:

 

Paying money straight up gets you an advantage, if that isn't pay to win I have no idea what is.  I'm saying that if you put down money, you get a tank at its tier is better than any non premium tank.  Better tank = more wins, regardless of your opponent.  The Patriot IS stronger than a T32 agaisnt tier tens, a Lowe IS always a better choice than a tiger 2 against tier tens, the LT-432 without a doubt IS better than any non-premium options fighting against tier tens. 

 

And if the direct comparisons aren't enough, just consider than in every single class save artillery, the best tanks at tier 8 are all premiums.  Best TD is a tie between the SU-130PM and Skorp, the best heavy is the Patriot or Defender, the best light tank is hands down the LT-432, the best medium tank is the Progetto 46 (again, just a straight up better version of the Pantera, the best tech tree medium).  

 

Let me make my point absolutely clear.   If you take equally skilled players in any matchup in a Tier 8 tank, no matter the class (excepting arty for obvious reasons) of tank or their opponent, the best tank for them to be in is a premium tank.  They have an advantage directly over a non-premium tier 8, and they have a relative advantage compared to non-premium tier 8s against more powerful opponents.   Your criteria for pay to win seems to be that since the most powerful tanks in direct matchups aren't premiums it isn't pay to win, but that's kind of ridiculous.  With equal skills, you will do better at tier 8 in a meta premium than a tech tree tank of the same class, and if you don't think that's pay to win I don't know what to tell you.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that there is NO pay-2-win aspect of this game.  What I am saying that there are many other things about this game that soften those Pay-to-win aspect.  Personally, I feel that WG made a mistake by deviating from their policy of premium tanks being slightly worse than tech-tree tanks, but I after seeing thread after thread of people complaining about impotent premium tanks (looking at you, Panther 8.8), I can understand why.

 

Block Quote

If you take equally skilled players in any matchup in a Tier 8 tank, no matter the class (excepting arty for obvious reasons) of tank or their opponent, the best tank for them to be in is a premium tank.

 

That is exactly my point.  In random battles these "matchups" do not happen that often.....and when they do, the premium tank is not guaranteed to win, even if the player skills are equal.



spud_tuber #74 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 17:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 58432 battles
  • 8,410
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
I mean, it is not like pay to win vs pay for cosmetics is a binary question.   It's a scale.  Some of WoTs mechanics fall closer towards the P2W side, such as premium ammo, premium consumables*, and OP premium tanks.  Some are closer to P4C, such as camo, which once you've built up a little credit reserve, only cost 750cr/battle, but has to be bought in 100 battle lots up front.  Same are purely P4C, such as non camo customization elements.  Personally, for a long time, I've described WoT as pay to pad stats.  Those who spend real money gain enough advantage to artificially inflate their stats similar to how seal clubbing, old school LT WNx padding, or WR padding via being carried by platoonmates works, but they still have to go out and play their best to fully utilize those advantages.

And of course, every player has a range on that scale he or she is willing to tolerate, as well as a preference for where on that scale they prefer WoT was. Personally, I'd prefer to sit all the way at P4C, but I am more than able to tolerate the current point on the scale.

This is actually for the most part not why I'm glad WG is looking at the balance of premium ammo.  I simply don't like 2 of 3 ammo choices being so similar except for pen(in this HEAT is less of an issue than APCR/105mm HESH, but due to the usually massive gains still remains an issue in my mind).  OTOH, the above is a large part of why I'm concerned about WG's current plans.  Both the lack of any mention of a decrease in price, even just relative to the decreased damage, and the knock off effect on well armored premium tanks, especially those already OP like the defender, could slide the game further along the scale towards P2W.

*AFE may be an exception to the premium consumable comment.  It may be cheaper to run in the long run as it decreases the chances it will be needed.   Also, food is less of a concern to me as running food requires sacrificing one of the main 3(FE, repair, med)



In the end, WG will (try to) do whatever they feel is best for their bottom line. While we're free to give our thoughts to WG on their plans, in the end all those of us who enjoy the game can realy do is hope that A) any changes don't result in us no longer enjoying the game, B) that WG takes a long enough view of that bottom line so their plan is aimed to keep the game healthy for years to come, and C) WG doesn't screw it up due to either misjudging the players(both those who are content and those who are customers) or via simply poorly implanting their plan.  I realize that everything up to this last paragraph is probably controversial, I hope at least we can all agree on this last paragraph at least.

Thanks for reading, and have a good day.

DoomSquatch #75 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 19:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 55694 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View Post24cups, on Jan 17 2019 - 15:06, said:

2400 battles in the tier 1 Swede ?

On purpose  ?

 

I was trying to Ace the dang thing.  That was back when they were rolling the scores in from people who were playing in the proving grounds against bots and the experience required to Ace it was insanely high.

 

They fixed that when they introduced 1.0 and I Aced it two battles later with about a third of the experience that I had been routinely getting in battles with it.  Haven't played it since and have absolutely no desire to do so.


Edited by DoomSquatch, Jan 17 2019 - 19:44.


DoomSquatch #76 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 19:49

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 55694 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View PostThaneTyrian, on Jan 17 2019 - 01:27, said:

Well said DoomSquatch!  West Point Grad Class of '87 here.  Served in the 7th ID as a Light Infantry Platoon Leader and Company executive Officer after Airborne, Pathfinder and Ranger Schools.  It's cool your CLAN is made up of a lot of Vets!  Are you Long Grey Line?  Ya sound like ya are...

 

Class of '82.  Went back to teach there from '93 to '97.

Mac_1952 #77 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 19:59

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 57580 battles
  • 400
  • [DADS] DADS
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011

View PostRAFOsprey, on Jan 16 2019 - 16:50, 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.

 

I admit it.. my Ferdinand with the crew on their 6th skill/perk at 85% is not fair to a player just starting with their Ferdinand; and that, is the way the world works.

DoomSquatch #78 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 20:24

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 55694 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View PostRHeadshot, on Jan 16 2019 - 23:14, said:

 

Nope.  I consider myself to be fair, however, and abusing noobs in a game is a classless act of a jerk.

 

And what do you say about a guy who is trying to play Tier 8 with a 670 WN8 rating?  That's yours, in case you didn't know.  

 

That's an orange rating on the 6 color scale.  Yellow is considered average with a range between 981 and 1575.  https://modxvm.com/e...-scale/colors/ 

 

If your WN8 rating is that low, you should expect to get destroyed by players at higher tiers, where there is a higher population of players who are rated green, blue and purple no matter which tank they play.

 

And yes, yes, there are players of those colors even down to Tier 1.  But those are most often the guys who only play low tiers and have around 20k battles in a specific tank.  They specialize in that and they're free to do so.  It's their thing.  Other times, they are clan officers helping to train new members, or dads platooning with their kids.  

 

I've got a 1465 WN8 overall.  That's just average.  True, I do average green or blue these days on a monthly basis, and sometimes purple on a given day - a good day.  But even so, I don't play Tier 9 or 10 yet, because I don't consider myself ready for it.  You might consider that you aren't yet ready for tier 8 based on your WN8.

 

There may be things to complain about in WOT, but when a guy disadvantages himself by playing at tiers above his competence level and then complains about it, I just have to shake my head.

 

Bottom line is that you give a guy with a 2000 WN8 regular rounds and he is going to kick your butt even if you are firing only premium rounds.  

 

Premium rounds do not make a player better.  A bad player with premium rounds will still be a bad player.

 

One thing I've noticed though, is that as I've learned to angle my armor properly and bounce a couple of AP rounds, guys will switch to APCR even though they don't technically need them to kill my tank.  I consider it a compliment.  They must think I'm dangerous or something.

 

Or maybe they just fire APCR at you and I because we're annoying.



DoomSquatch #79 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 20:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 55694 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View PostMac_1952, on Jan 17 2019 - 18:59, said:

 

I admit it.. my Ferdinand with the crew on their 6th skill/perk at 85% is not fair to a player just starting with their Ferdinand; and that, is the way the world works.

 

It's also the way of the real world.  Look at the Stage awards and Battle Hero awards.  They're all named after good tankers who killed a lot of tankers that weren't as good.

 

There ought to be a snowflake award for people who complain a lot.  Use up your ten daily complaints and you get it for the day.

 

If it were up to me, a guy who files a complaint and the guy who is complained about should be put into a less than favorable matchmaking bracket for a prescribed number of battles.  If a guy is a regular complainer, or is regularly complained about, then maybe he will get tired of losing all the time and remove himself from the game.

 

Sometimes I think Wargaming actually does this.  I have one friend who isn't that good, and does complain regularly, and about whom people sometimes complain in chat.  It seems that every time I platoon with him, XVM predicts a loss and we do, in fact, lose.


Edited by DoomSquatch, Jan 17 2019 - 20:35.


Mac_1952 #80 Posted Jan 17 2019 - 20:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 57580 battles
  • 400
  • [DADS] DADS
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011

View PostRAFOsprey, on Jan 16 2019 - 16:50, 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.

 

I admit it.. my Ferdinand with the crew on their 6th skill/perk at 85% is not fair to a player just starting with their Ferdinand; and that, is the way the world works.





Also tagged with Premium Rounds, Advantage, Snowflakes

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users