It may or may not be a fun game. It's accuracy I definately call into question. Just the few vehicles I happaned to glance at had pretty inexcusable errors...like the M36 starting with a 76MM gun or the Maus being classified as having "good speed" when the Germans could barely get the thing to move.
Stuff like putting in the M7 Tank (which only had 7 models ever built before being dropped) while leaving out very important weapon systems like the M18 Hellcat, the M3 GMC, the M24 Chaffee...I mean c'mon.
Maus by far is the slowest tank in the game, a few TDs and probably SPGs are slower.
M36 with 76mm is a short transient form to ensure a progression process to M36 with [historically correct] 90mm. For me it is pretty accurate, you might need to search another animated history book.
"animated history book." Lol, I think I detect the stench of a viral marketer...or maybe a Dev?
I'll match my history degree against yours any day of the week, pal. Not only did I study history fairly extensively...but I actually had family that served during the war on one of the metal beasts rolling around your game.... so excuse me for thinking I know a little bit about how they work.
The game is rife with historical errors, as anyone that takes a look at their "tankopedia" and has a decent knowledge of history and the equipment of the day will quickly discover.
Note that the only reason I'm beating the "historical accuracy" drum so hard here is that the opening description of this article claims "Adam Tingle takes a look at the tank simulation MMO that's taking the world by storm"
It is most definately NOT a "sim".....it's an arcade style lobby game, in a very beer & pretzels style with some very loose connection to history.
I actualy got the chance to try it for a few hours yesterday..... and while very repetitive it was somewhat fun in a light diversion kind of way. It's definately more in line with arcade style combat. It does manage to catch a few elements that have some relation to real tactics....such as going hull down, shot angles and catching opponents underbelly or top armor. But that's about it.
It most definately is NOT an MMO.
It definately has very limited content and is very repetitive.... I think I counted maybe 4 maps total.....maybe they open up more at later Tiers.
It also seemed to have deinite pay 2 win features.
It's ok for what it is....but it's alot less of a game then the article makes it out to be.
Is it just me or do most of mmorpg.com's articles read more like paid infomercials these days?
Not to be confrontational, but grumpy all of your complaints seem to be based on historical realities when the game isn't trying to be a completely accurate representation of WWII. For heavens sake, when you join a match you WILL have US, Russian and German tanks all on the same team. Your opponents will have all 3 nations on their team as well. Again, the game isn't trying to be an accurate picture of the WWII battlefield as it played out.
The tanks in the game use equipment and designs that were drafted or tested, but never used or completed.
I'm curious if you have played the game or not?
I tried it for a few hours. Like I said, it's very repetitive but can be fun in a very light beer & pretzels sort of way. I wouldn't spend any money on it though. I'm really not taking the game to task so much as the review. The review really doesn't represent the game, IMO. I'm not even sure why it's on MMORPG.com. Nevertheless if Adam thinks it's a ponderous game of deep tactics and a steep learning curve....I'd hate to see how he'd react to something like WWII Online.......or heck anything in the Combat Mission series for that matter.
"animated history book." Lol, I think I detect the stench of a viral marketer...or maybe a Dev?
I'll match my history degree against yours any day of the week, pal. Not only did I study history fairly extensively...but I actually had family that served during the war on one of the metal beasts rolling around your game.... so excuse me for thinking I know a little bit about how they work.
The game is rife with historical errors, as anyone that takes a look at their "tankopedia" and has a decent knowledge of history and the equipment of the day will quickly discover.
Note that the only reason I'm beating the "historical accuracy" drum so hard here is that the opening description of this article claims "Adam Tingle takes a look at the tank simulation MMO that's taking the world by storm"
It is most definately NOT a "sim".....it's an arcade style lobby game, in a very beer & pretzels style with some very loose connection to history.
I actualy got the chance to try it for a few hours yesterday..... and while very repetitive it was somewhat fun in a light diversion kind of way. It's definately more in line with arcade style combat. It does manage to catch a few elements that have some relation to real tactics....such as going hull down, shot angles and catching opponents underbelly or top armor. But that's about it.
It most definately is NOT an MMO.
It definately has very limited content and is very repetitive.... I think I counted maybe 4 maps total.....maybe they open up more at later Tiers.
It also seemed to have deinite pay 2 win features.
It's ok for what it is....but it's alot less of a game then the article makes it out to be.
Is it just me or do most of mmorpg.com's articles read more like paid infomercials these days?
This is exactly the point you are missing. I said few pages back - I am an absolute armature and never had any vested interest in WWII history. You have a history degree and can professionally scrutinize the game - good for you, but I could not care less. For me the game is pretty accurate historically, most of facts pass a quick cross-reference check and I am not offended by starting 76mm gun on M36, especially given that few months ago I didn't even know about M36 or Maus existence.
Even more I am pleased that my kid asks history question after reading the game achievement descriptions, and not the usual "what is the main difference between dark and light elves?"
Popularity shows that the game has some deepness in it. Is it the most sophisticated strategy game on the market? Sure not. WG delivered a very nice mix of different styles. MMO or lobby multiplayer, FPS or RPG, arcade or simulator - it’s a matter of definitions, personally I would not go on a crusade for the purity of genre, you might have other preferences.
Would you mind naming the two pay-to-win features? Given that you played just for few hours, my guess, one will be Hotchkiss.
No, I am not a developer. I gave out my WoT username in the game section and can send it to you personally, if you wish. Looking at the game profile, it’s quite clear I am neither developer nor marketer.
"animated history book." Lol, I think I detect the stench of a viral marketer...or maybe a Dev?
I'll match my history degree against yours any day of the week, pal. Not only did I study history fairly extensively...but I actually had family that served during the war on one of the metal beasts rolling around your game.... so excuse me for thinking I know a little bit about how they work.
The game is rife with historical errors, as anyone that takes a look at their "tankopedia" and has a decent knowledge of history and the equipment of the day will quickly discover.
Note that the only reason I'm beating the "historical accuracy" drum so hard here is that the opening description of this article claims "Adam Tingle takes a look at the tank simulation MMO that's taking the world by storm"
It is most definately NOT a "sim".....it's an arcade style lobby game, in a very beer & pretzels style with some very loose connection to history.
I actualy got the chance to try it for a few hours yesterday..... and while very repetitive it was somewhat fun in a light diversion kind of way. It's definately more in line with arcade style combat. It does manage to catch a few elements that have some relation to real tactics....such as going hull down, shot angles and catching opponents underbelly or top armor. But that's about it.
It most definately is NOT an MMO.
It definately has very limited content and is very repetitive.... I think I counted maybe 4 maps total.....maybe they open up more at later Tiers.
It also seemed to have deinite pay 2 win features.
It's ok for what it is....but it's alot less of a game then the article makes it out to be.
Is it just me or do most of mmorpg.com's articles read more like paid infomercials these days?
This is exactly the point you are missing. I said few pages back - I am an absolute armature and never had any vested interest in WWII history. You have a history degree and can professionally scrutinize the game - good for you, but I could not care less. For me the game is pretty accurate historically, most of facts pass a quick cross-reference check and I am not offended by starting 76mm gun on M36, especially given that few months ago I didn't even know about M36 or Maus existence.
Even more I am pleased that my kid asks history question after reading the game achievement descriptions, and not the usual "what is the main difference between dark and light elves?"
Popularity shows that the game has some deepness in it. Is it the most sophisticated strategy game on the market? Sure not. WG delivered a very nice mix of different styles. MMO or lobby multiplayer, FPS or RPG, arcade or simulator - it’s a matter of definitions, personally I would not go on a crusade for the purity of genre, you might have other preferences.
Would you mind naming the two pay-to-win features? Given that you played just for few hours, my guess, one will be Hotchkiss.
No, I am not a developer. I gave out my WoT username in the game section and can send it to you personally, if you wish. Looking at the game profile, it’s quite clear I am neither developer nor marketer.
You're a real piece of work. First you try to insinuate he doesnt know what he is talking about wth your ridiculous "animated history book" comment only to admit now its actually you that dont have a clue what you're talking about. You do not need a degree to know they played fast and loose with both history and acuracy in the game, they themselves will be the first to admit it.
The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.
Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.
You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.
The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.
Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.
You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.
The matchmaker has a few issues, but it does a fine job. People seem to cry about any match where they are not the top tier tank and then complain about how "broken" the matchmaker is. Not saying you, but in general I see that alot.
The matchmaker occasionally will put to many Tank Destroyers on one team or match up to many of the same tanks on one side/both sides, but overall matches are relatively balanced. Aside from Tier 4 light tanks that get elevated to high teir matches as scouts, I don't really get into any matches where I can't at least contribute and support my team.
I think the diversity of tanks in each match makes it more interesting. As for the Tier 4 scouts, they are perhaps the single best asset when player properly, but very very few people can do it. It really can be a force multiplier when executed properly.
Cash ammo is not 50% better than other ammos. It has a slightly higher armor penetration. It does qualify for the definition of pay to win, but honestly isn't going to give its intended bonus in the majority of situations.
100% crew is a slight advantage over 75%, but that only lasts a few matches. Hardly paying for victory IMHO, but an interesting observation I never really thought about.
The rest of the pay 2 win you list doesn't matter once the match starts. Someone earning more credits or xp doesn't make them better when we are actually playing. All the tanks in the match are at different levels, equipment and tiers and that is all factored into the matchmaking.
People paying money for faster advancement allows others to play for free. Seems a fair trade off.
You're a real piece of work. First you try to insinuate he doesnt know what he is talking about wth your ridiculous "animated history book" comment only to admit now its actually you that dont have a clue what you're talking about. You do not need a degree to know they played fast and loose with both history and acuracy in the game, they themselves will be the first to admit it.
Clearly you did not understand what I meant. The guy demands accuracy of an academic history book from a computer game, so I assumed he is on the market for some iPad tutorials for his history students, you know - with colorful pictures, animation...
Originally posted by finnmacool1
The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.
Yes, it's disappointing that I can't put on my hard grinded epic armor and go into level 19 dungeon. You fill intimidated in low level tanks you are now playing, but trust me, it's a way more embarrassing to get killed by a tank few levels lower than you. You should have heard that guy in KV screaming in chat when he killed (finished off, actually) my Maus.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.
If you manage you crew and tanks properly, you will start most of tanks with 90% crew without any gold.
Gold ammo is not 50% better. Slightly increased penetration with the same damage is a very marginal advantage and means much less than your and your teammates skills.
Gold ammo does not pass cost-benefit analysis. I tried it actually in VK3601 (famous konisch gun) and Maus. You may shoot gold all game long and then your team dead, match lost and all you money went down the drain. So I decided not to put bets against statistics.
How exactly increased experience and credits (you don't earn gold in the game) help you in a particular match? It will get you in a higher tank faster, but it doesn't help your win/lost ratio.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.
"Lies" you mean 50% better ammo? Well, the little kids spending money on it, will be right asking you in a few months - "what the hell you were talking about"
Im sure your an wargaming member of staff, as you seem to patrol these forums defending
the game from any negativity at all.
From my point of view it's much more natural for someone, who loves the game and played almost 6k matches by now, to defend it knowledgably, than for someone, who played few low level battles, spread nonsense persistently.
Actually my participation in the discussion fueled partially by my interest to find out (not that I believe I can acheive it) who is paying you, folks. You are, forgive me if I am mistaken, that guy who asserted that he rarely sees any american tanks in the game, right? But "16 vs 16" is definitely yours, isn't it?
Originally posted by ukforze
F2P is a legitiamte business model, but its also a joke, I would of prefered to buy the box &
pay a monthly sub as it is CHEAPER! ...but warghaming know that!
Premium account ($10-15 a month) is all you need to spend in this game to play comfortably. Which is (who would guess) very well within the most common monthly subscription rate.
Want to have a full collection of German tanks in your garage? Want to be the first guy on NA server to get E100? Want to have 52% win ratio instead of 51.5%? Well, it's such an expensive game, mate, you better start looking for a new job.
The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.
Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.
You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.
The matchmaker has a few issues, but it does a fine job. People seem to cry about any match where they are not the top tier tank and then complain about how "broken" the matchmaker is. Not saying you, but in general I see that alot.
The matchmaker occasionally will put to many Tank Destroyers on one team or match up to many of the same tanks on one side/both sides, but overall matches are relatively balanced. Aside from Tier 4 light tanks that get elevated to high teir matches as scouts, I don't really get into any matches where I can't at least contribute and support my team.
I think the diversity of tanks in each match makes it more interesting. As for the Tier 4 scouts, they are perhaps the single best asset when player properly, but very very few people can do it. It really can be a force multiplier when executed properly.
Cash ammo is not 50% better than other ammos. It has a slightly higher armor penetration. It does qualify for the definition of pay to win, but honestly isn't going to give its intended bonus in the majority of situations.
100% crew is a slight advantage over 75%, but that only lasts a few matches. Hardly paying for victory IMHO, but an interesting observation I never really thought about.
The rest of the pay 2 win you list doesn't matter once the match starts. Someone earning more credits or xp doesn't make them better when we are actually playing. All the tanks in the match are at different levels, equipment and tiers and that is all factored into the matchmaking.
People paying money for faster advancement allows others to play for free. Seems a fair trade off.
The match maker throws whatever it can into a match in the shortest amount of time, thats how it was designed. When i say its abysmal its not because im not in the top tier vehicle and ive seen no one make that argument. Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6. Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums. Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.
Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.
100% crew that immediatley starts leveling the specialties(camo,repair,fire) vs 50% crew is also a more than slight or inconsequential. Even if you grind extra creds to start at 70% its noticable.
150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.
Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.
Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6.
It can only happen when tier 1 platooned with a higher level tank. Platoons matched by thier highest tank. People are well aware of that and do it sometime just for lulz. I saw screenshots of IS-7 with 2 platooned MS-1s, it was absolutely hilarious.
Tier 1 alone can never ever get in with 5s and 6s.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums.
Happens very rarely. Recently it became boringly symmetrical.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.
Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.
Sherman and PzIV (level 5 meds) can penetrate side armor of all heavies up to and including level 9. The only exceptions KV-5 and IS-4, where you have to aim weak spots, but in Panther 2 I have the same problem. If you need gold ammo to shoot heavies' front armor, I am not surprised that you are one-shot most of the matches.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.
This is basically definition of the grind. You have to work in a game to get resources "for free". But you eventually and essentially have access to the same modules and tanks. When you fully upgrade your tank, there is absolutely no difference whether you are playing free or not.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.
I guess I know a little bit more about the game than you to decide for myself who is kidding himself.
Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6.
It can only happen when tier 1 platooned with a higher level tank. Platoons matched by thier highest tank. Tier 1 alone can never ever get in with 5s and 6s.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums.
Happens very rarely. Recently it became boringly symmetrical.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.
Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.
Sherman and PzIV (level 5 meds) can penetrate side armor of all heavies up to and including level 9. The only exceptions KV-5 and IS-4, where you have to aim weak spots, but in Panther 2 I have the same problem. If you need gold ammo to shoot heavies' front armor, I am not surprised that you are one-shot most of the matches.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.
This is basically definition of grind. You have to work in a game to get resources "for free". But you eventually and essentially have access to the same modules and tanks. When you fully upgrade your tank, there is absolutely no difference whether you are playing free or not.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.
I guess I know a little bit more about the game than you to decide for myself who is kidding himself.
{mod edit} Matchups with one sided having a lot of one vehicle type against a team with few are not rare, they are quite common.
Where i or anyone else shoots an enemy vehicle has nothing to do with their ability to one shot us in return. When i mention matches where you are pitted against teams 2/3 you can barely damage im not talking long range frontal turret shots. Im talking 100m to point blank side and rear shots, and yes over half my matches fall in that category. Stop spreading this bs like i havent played the game and you can con me by the volume of your posts and vehemence within them.
There are expendables only avail with gold, so no you are wrong/lying again about everyone being the same in "elite" maxed vehicles.
None of the "perks" gold buys on its own is omg overpowered. The cumulative effect of all things gold does is, and as such the definition of pay to win.
I have played 4-5 hours of WoT now. I must confess to being a fan of games based around WW2 and of armored vehicle combat & sims. I am quite enjoying the game.
At first my opinion was that the cash shop Rub was strong early and this worried me as usually in F2P the push into microtransactions gets stronger the further you play. Happily a friend who plays enlightened me on a few things and I realised the need to purchase with cash is not that great afterall.
In my first 12 matches I managed to kill 8 enemy vehicles which I am led to believe is a pretty good result for my light tank and first time play. Where I had trouble was against the common medium tanks and the occasional heavy tank which turned up in the matches I was part of. No ammount of tactics can overcome enemy armour your gun just cannot seem to penetrate. Most matches I lasted on average 8 minutes jaded somewhat by a couple of times where I got killed in the opening 120 seconds by invisible forces (artillery I am told) which was not much fun then having to sit & wait.
Anyone seeking a slightly slower paced more tactical game that is not all about how many kills you got, world of tanks is for you.
Now I am looking forward to earning a medium tank.
Every time you post your lies, im going to respond. Matchups with one sided having a lot of one vehicle type against a team with few are not rare, they are quite common.
You were talking about TDs vs Meds match up, weren't you? "zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums." in this scenario the first team has a significant disadvantage. Now it became "one vehicle type against a team with few". And you call me liar?
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Where i or anyone else shoots an enemy vehicle has nothing to do with their ability to one shot us in return.
It has everything with it. If you are desperately trying to penetrate heavies from the front, it means you are staying in the front of them. And this is not the place a skilled med/light tanker wants to be. If you are taking a lot of hits from heavies, it means you can't maneuver properly.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Im talking 100m to point blank side and rear shots
If most of everything you said before was a biased opinion of an irritated player, this one is a plain lie, which you so often mention.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
There are expendables only avail with gold, so no you are wrong/lying again about everyone being the same in "elite" maxed vehicles.
Advantage of the gold consumables is even tinier than that of the gold ammo.
Fire Extinguishers - gold ones work automatically. Have a problem to use a hotkey with credit ones?
Aid Kit - gold heals all crew members, credit - only one. Gunner, Loader, and Driver are very rarely injured simultenously. Commander and Radioman don't matter in the middle/end of the match.
Same about the repair kits. Gold repairs all module, credit - one. You spend them either on gun, ammo rack, or tracks when under fire. All of them damaged at the same time when you get a present from artillery, but in this case you are pretty much dead anyway.
You are right about the cumulative effect. And if you would be in a one-on-one game, they would play their role. But in random 15-vs-15 battles they give a fraction of a percent better win chances and as a result they are not used on a massive scale.
You call it pay-to-win? Well, let me just kindly disagree.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Stop spreading this bs like i havent played the game and you can con me by the volume of your posts and vehemence within them.
I actually never said you haven't played the game, I even didn't call you liar, so not sure where "vehemence" came from. You just lack understanding of the basic mechanics of the game to make such conclusive arrogant statements about it.
I have played 4-5 hours of WoT now. I must confess to being a fan of games based around WW2 and of armored vehicle combat & sims. I am quite enjoying the game.
At first my opinion was that the cash shop Rub was strong early and this worried me as usually in F2P the push into microtransactions gets stronger the further you play. Happily a friend who plays enlightened me on a few things and I realised the need to purchase with cash is not that great afterall.
In my first 12 matches I managed to kill 8 enemy vehicles which I am led to believe is a pretty good result for my light tank and first time play. Where I had trouble was against the common medium tanks and the occasional heavy tank which turned up in the matches I was part of. No ammount of tactics can overcome enemy armour your gun just cannot seem to penetrate. Most matches I lasted on average 8 minutes jaded somewhat by a couple of times where I got killed in the opening 120 seconds by invisible forces (artillery I am told) which was not much fun then having to sit & wait.
Anyone seeking a slightly slower paced more tactical game that is not all about how many kills you got, world of tanks is for you.
Now I am looking forward to earning a medium tank.
Not sure how you got into matches with heavies in your first hours. Platooned with you friend?
You don't have to sit and wait, just exit the battle and hop into another tank.
The match maker throws whatever it can into a match in the shortest amount of time, thats how it was designed. When i say its abysmal its not because im not in the top tier vehicle and ive seen no one make that argument. Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6. Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums. Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.
Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.
100% crew that immediatley starts leveling the specialties(camo,repair,fire) vs 50% crew is also a more than slight or inconsequential. Even if you grind extra creds to start at 70% its noticable.
150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.
Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.
I'm not sure why, but you are flat out misstating numbers and information and it is coming off more as hyperbole than a well reasoned argument.
Crews never start at 70%. Tier 1 vehicles will never randomly get throwin into a match with T5/T6 vehicles. Their are tier limits of what can and cannot be put together in a match. The only exception is if your T1 tank is in a platoon with tanks that can be placed in T5/T6 battles. People seem to think it is funny, so you see it once in a while as a joke.
The gold ammo for a TigerII has armor pen of 183 vs the normal ammos armor pen of 150. Both have the exact same damage. Hardly 50% better and hardly worth paying $.10 when the majority of the time it won't make a difference.
I don't think I have ever been in a match where I can't damage 2/3 of the enemy forces, let alone 50% of the matches being that way. Tier4 can be a real pain in the ass, but beyond that your numbers are not even close to being realistic.
If you look at the actual composition of the groups you will see a decent spread. One side might have more heavies or an extra max tier, but the other will have fewer or no low tier tanks, so they all average out. Maybe through TD's, speed, etc.
I'm not saying it is perfect or anywhere close. I've personally seen games with 15 artillery split evenly between two teams (7 vs 8), 1 side has all 9 TD's in the game or some other crazy stuff, but those are the exception and not the rule.
Mix in a large dose of rash judgement, a few bad cases and a massive dose of completly random quality from pick up groups and what happens is wildly unpredictable results. I really think the matchmaker gets a much worse reputation than it deserveres.
Personally I know I can remember most of the really bad matches that it made up for me, but I can't remember all the relatively even matches it makes. Those few bad ones tend to stick out in my mind, because I'm human and that is what humans tend to do. We remember the exceptional moments.
Every time you post your lies, im going to respond. Matchups with one sided having a lot of one vehicle type against a team with few are not rare, they are quite common.
You were talking about TDs vs Meds match up, weren't you? "zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums." in this scenario the first team has a significant disadvantage. Now it became "one vehicle type against a team with few". And you call me liar?
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Where i or anyone else shoots an enemy vehicle has nothing to do with their ability to one shot us in return.
It has everything with it. If you are desperately trying to penetrate heavies from the front, it means you are staying in the front of them. And this is not the place a skilled med/light tanker wants to be. If you are taking a lot of hits from heavies, it means you can't maneuver properly.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Im talking 100m to point blank side and rear shots
If most of everything you said before was a biased opinion of an irritated player, this one is a plain lie, which you so often mention.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
There are expendables only avail with gold, so no you are wrong/lying again about everyone being the same in "elite" maxed vehicles.
Advantage of the gold consumables is even tinier than that of the gold ammo.
Fire Extinguishers - gold ones work automatically. Have a problem to use a hotkey with credit ones?
Aid Kit - gold heals all crew members, credit - only one. Gunner, Loader, and Driver are very rarely injured simultenously. Commander and Radioman don't matter in the middle/end of the match.
Same about the repair kits. Gold repairs all module, credit - one. You spend them either on gun, ammo rack, or tracks when under fire. All of them damaged at the same time when you get a present from artillery, but in this case you are pretty much dead anyway.
You are right about the cumulative effect. And if you would be in a one-on-one game, they would play their role. But in random 15-vs-15 battles they give a fraction of a percent better win chances and as a result they are not used on a massive scale.
You call it pay-to-win? Well, let me just kindly disagree.
Originally posted by finnmacool1
Stop spreading this bs like i havent played the game and you can con me by the volume of your posts and vehemence within them.
I actually never said you haven't played the game, I even didn't call you liar, so not sure where "vehemence" came from. You just lack understanding of the basic mechanics of the game to make such conclusive arrogant statements about it.
I wasnt talking meduims vs td specifically. I was talking lopside unbalanced teams. One side with a bunch of one vehicle type and the other having few to none which the matchmaker tries to make up for by overloading a different vehicle type on the opposing side.
Where i shoot from has nothing to do with an enemy one shoting me period. Tanks have 360 degree firing arc, if im manuevering behind a heavy in my medium and shooting the rear close range it is no less able to one shot me than if im firing point blank from the front. The only thing my position affects is MY ability to do damage.
{mod edit}
The one and only true statement youve said here has been the 15 x 15 teams mitigating to some degree the advantages of the pay to win. Where you are wrong once again however is your attempt to minimize everything else and maximize this impact. You can disagree all you want about this not being play to win and you will still be wrong. Just as you are wrong about a fully equipped gold enhanced "elite" vehicle being identicle to a freebie. Btw you're missing quite a few gold consumables.
The match maker throws whatever it can into a match in the shortest amount of time, thats how it was designed. When i say its abysmal its not because im not in the top tier vehicle and ive seen no one make that argument. Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6. Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums. Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.
Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.
100% crew that immediatley starts leveling the specialties(camo,repair,fire) vs 50% crew is also a more than slight or inconsequential. Even if you grind extra creds to start at 70% its noticable.
150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.
Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.
I'm not sure why, but you are flat out misstating numbers and information and it is coming off more as hyperbole than a well reasoned argument.
Crews never start at 70%. Tier 1 vehicles will never randomly get throwin into a match with T5/T6 vehicles. Their are tier limits of what can and cannot be put together in a match. The only exception is if your T1 tank is in a platoon with tanks that can be placed in T5/T6 battles. People seem to think it is funny, so you see it once in a while as a joke.
The gold ammo for a TigerII has armor pen of 183 vs the normal ammos armor pen of 150. Both have the exact same damage. Hardly 50% better and hardly worth paying $.10 when the majority of the time it won't make a difference.
I don't think I have ever been in a match where I can't damage 2/3 of the enemy forces, let alone 50% of the matches being that way. Tier4 can be a real pain in the ass, but beyond that your numbers are not even close to being realistic.
If you look at the actual composition of the groups you will see a decent spread. One side might have more heavies or an extra max tier, but the other will have fewer or no low tier tanks, so they all average out. Maybe through TD's, speed, etc.
I'm not saying it is perfect or anywhere close. I've personally seen games with 15 artillery split evenly between two teams (7 vs 8), 1 side has all 9 TD's in the game or some other crazy stuff, but those are the exception and not the rule.
Mix in a large dose of rash judgement, a few bad cases and a massive dose of completly random quality from pick up groups and what happens is wildly unpredictable results. I really think the matchmaker gets a much worse reputation than it deserveres.
Personally I know I can remember most of the really bad matches that it made up for me, but I can't remember all the relatively even matches it makes. Those few bad ones tend to stick out in my mind, because I'm human and that is what humans tend to do. We remember the exceptional moments.
Well i havent played every vehicle or used every gun but i have used a couple dozen and going from that selection group most gold ammo penetration factor is around 50% better. Ive played primarily german and russian vehicles up to tier 5-6 and while i havent used every gun available on every model, i have compared them all when determining which to use while leving them up. No hyperbole here
Crews start at 50% by default but if you spend extra credits when purchasing a new vehicle you can start at 70 or 75%(cant remember which) Gold can start at 100%, combined with 150% exp gain and your pay to win crew will always be much better than free. Crew experience does make a big difference. No hyperbole here.
When i say 50-70% matches where you are one shot fodder but cant damage 2/3 the opposing forces, im not talking complete inability to ever get a lucky round. Im talking hitting 5-8+ times with little to no effect. Sure you might get lucky and knock off 5-10% total and that does include shots from the front(not ideal) but the point remains you are stuck in a match where even when you are able to manuever for good shots and get many shots on target it matters not. Slight hyperbole perhaps but the point is still valid.
You can defend the spotting system and matchmaker to your hearts content but most players will disagree with you.
I guess I just don't understand what people are complaining about with the "pay 2 win" thing. What exactly is meant by "pay 2 win?"
I have been playing for exactly a year including beta and since actual launch I have bought gold so I could be premium player. At the price of gold I buy 3000 for $14.95 us. Each 30 day play at premium level is 2500 of that so I have 500 left over. So every 5 months I get one month free. Does that make me a pay 2 win player because I pay 12 bucks a month to be entertained? My WoW sub used to cost me $14.99. I don't think that was considered "pay to win"
I have yet to ever buy premium "gold" shells, I have never bought any consummable ever, I have never paid gold for my crew but do often buy them at 75% trained which is 20k credits per person and always do what I can to keep trained crew in my barracks (again I never bought extra space either) ( no gold for that just earnings from game play). I DO spend credits that I earn from play to get the extra goodies like camo nets, binoculars etc, all available to anyone who plays and makes credits. One thing I did do was buy a Lowe as a credit maker but really hated being in it after a while as it does not suit my game style so I sold it in game for 2,500,000 credits (won't make that premium buy-a-tank mistake again)
Despite not spending real money on anything but my monthly costs I have the same or VERY close to the same win/defeat percentages as my friend and others I have seen that I know for sure pay for the extras sometimes. I do not feel they have a noticable advantage on a 15vs15 playfield. More often I see people getting killed cause of positioning and being exposed to more than one enemy at a time than anything.
The other thing I see people whining about is the grind. Do you people even play other MMO's? (Yes I agree this is not an MMO as we know it and also wonder why the game is still listed here but besides the point for now). How many MMO's let ya level 1-10 in like 30 minutes... and then take longer and longer as you gain levels..I think all of them or close to it. I know we all played wow. how about that 70-80 run?...yeah same thing applies to this game as all others. Gets grindy as ya get up in the tiers.
If they made the game so you could whip through to 10th tier in a very short time there would be nothing left and people would move on to other games.
If they let ya whip through without any reason to pay them money for their work, would anybody pay? shit no most of us would play it, reach the end then move on. I mean seriously, you are playing FOR FREE, did you honestly expect to have the same benefits as the paying guy like me?
I hear people whining about how the matchmaking system is off and they get put into battles where they cannot do much. Yer right there are some like that...but ya know what? for every one of those there are an equal number the other way around which is why almost the whole game database of players hovers around the same percentages of wins and defeats whether ya pay or not. I don't hear people talking about they games they played where they were near or at the top of the battle list and pulled off 4-7 kills. nope just the times they got their ass blown off just like you have done to others in some battles.
It is far from perfect but it evens out. It is a form of ENTERTAINMENT where a company has invested a lot of their time and money in hopes of making lots of money back. Isn't that what we all work for?
I am sorry guys but the most complaining I see is from the people who just wanna play for free or have issues with dying on the battlefield more often than surviving. (my actual survival rate is only 36% - I really could care less cause I had fun the whole time I played...)
Just play it and have fun for what it is, if ya don't like it move on and find something that works for ya. There is a shit ton of stuff out there to choose from.
Cheers and I hope to blow yer ass up on the battlefield!
Well i havent played every vehicle or used every gun but i have used a couple dozen and going from that selection group most gold ammo penetration factor is around 50% better. Ive played primarily german and russian vehicles up to tier 5-6 and while i havent used every gun available on every model, i have compared them all when determining which to use while leving them up. No hyperbole here
Crews start at 50% by default but if you spend extra credits when purchasing a new vehicle you can start at 70 or 75%(cant remember which) Gold can start at 100%, combined with 150% exp gain and your pay to win crew will always be much better than free. Crew experience does make a big difference. No hyperbole here.
When i say 50-70% matches where you are one shot fodder but cant damage 2/3 the opposing forces, im not talking complete inability to ever get a lucky round. Im talking hitting 5-8+ times with little to no effect. Sure you might get lucky and knock off 5-10% total and that does include shots from the front(not ideal) but the point remains you are stuck in a match where even when you are able to manuever for good shots and get many shots on target it matters not. Slight hyperbole perhaps but the point is still valid.
You can defend the spotting system and matchmaker to your hearts content but most players will disagree with you.
Gold ammo is a slight advantage that is very cost prohibitive for normal gameplay. It is also a slight advantage that is useless in any situation where a tanks gun penetrates an enemy. That is going to cover most gameplay to be honest.
I can't even think of any match I join where I am 1 shot bait to a significant portion of the enemies (if any) and I can't reliably land shots on almost everything I go up against. Sure if I am the low tier tank I am not going to solo the high tier tank, but thats what teamwork and tactics are for. Also high explosive damages everything and shreds module and crew. Again I just don't buy into the hyperbole that people are stuck in so many matches where they can't do anything and are constantly 1 shot killed.
As for crews, 75% is very servicable and it takes almost no time to get to 100%. It isn't like someone buying a 100% crew drives around laying waste and is unstoppable or that free players don't have 100% crews also. I've never bought a single 100% crew, but I have at least 8 crews at 100% right now with half a dozen more in 95+ range. 50% crews are a rather difficult in comparison to 100%. No argument there, but it only takes a little extra time to save up some money for a few 75% members. It just takes more time playing lower tier tanks, which isn't a big problem is it?
Again I'm not saying the matchmaker doesn't have issues or that it doesn't throw out some terrible matches on occasion, but not to the extent or extreme that many people try to make it out.
"Pay to Win" is any feature or function bought with real cash that provides an advantage in gameplay over another player who has not spent such cash.
It's like playing chess with an extra pawn or football with an extra man on the field.
Ammo that features extra penetration power, tanks that have better statistics or consumables that can be used in combat are all examples of "pay 2 win".
This would be opposed to cash shop items that would be purely cosmetic in nature like a fancy paint job, or a commanders flag on an antenna or a custom decal..... or things that provide the player with more play opportunities like content (special maps to play on) or different modes of play.... which may enhance a player enjoyment of the game but don't effect the players ability to compete.
"Pay 2 Win" is bad enough in PVE focused games, but in pure PvP games it's the anthesis of what a PvP game should be about...which is sportsmanship and fair and freindly competition. In such games, the only difference between the players should be the skills they bring to the field....and their determination to win. It's why football teams have to play with the same number of players on the field and baseball players aren't allowed to "cork" thier bats.
IMO, saying something is only "slightly" pay to win is kinda like saying someone is "slightly" no longer a virgin. Either you are or you aren't. The idea that the advantages may only be rather small is no excuse when it comes to fair competition.
In games, when did "winning" or the ability of a company to make money start to take precedence over sportsmanship? There is nothing wrong with companies wanting to make money....and many have and do that without compromising the principles of fair play. However as gamers, our highest goal should be maintaining the ideal of good "sportsmanship"..... and when game companies start sacrificing the principle in order to make money....our response should be a firm "no thank you. That's not how WE want to play games."
The INDUSTRY may be concerned with maximizing profits.....but as gamers and hobbiests....our interests aught to be preserving the integrity and purity of game play. /rant.
Comments
"animated history book." Lol, I think I detect the stench of a viral marketer...or maybe a Dev?
I'll match my history degree against yours any day of the week, pal. Not only did I study history fairly extensively...but I actually had family that served during the war on one of the metal beasts rolling around your game.... so excuse me for thinking I know a little bit about how they work.
The game is rife with historical errors, as anyone that takes a look at their "tankopedia" and has a decent knowledge of history and the equipment of the day will quickly discover.
Note that the only reason I'm beating the "historical accuracy" drum so hard here is that the opening description of this article claims "Adam Tingle takes a look at the tank simulation MMO that's taking the world by storm"
It is most definately NOT a "sim".....it's an arcade style lobby game, in a very beer & pretzels style with some very loose connection to history.
I actualy got the chance to try it for a few hours yesterday..... and while very repetitive it was somewhat fun in a light diversion kind of way. It's definately more in line with arcade style combat. It does manage to catch a few elements that have some relation to real tactics....such as going hull down, shot angles and catching opponents underbelly or top armor. But that's about it.
It most definately is NOT an MMO.
It definately has very limited content and is very repetitive.... I think I counted maybe 4 maps total.....maybe they open up more at later Tiers.
It also seemed to have deinite pay 2 win features.
It's ok for what it is....but it's alot less of a game then the article makes it out to be.
Is it just me or do most of mmorpg.com's articles read more like paid infomercials these days?
I tried it for a few hours. Like I said, it's very repetitive but can be fun in a very light beer & pretzels sort of way. I wouldn't spend any money on it though. I'm really not taking the game to task so much as the review. The review really doesn't represent the game, IMO. I'm not even sure why it's on MMORPG.com. Nevertheless if Adam thinks it's a ponderous game of deep tactics and a steep learning curve....I'd hate to see how he'd react to something like WWII Online.......or heck anything in the Combat Mission series for that matter.
This is exactly the point you are missing. I said few pages back - I am an absolute armature and never had any vested interest in WWII history. You have a history degree and can professionally scrutinize the game - good for you, but I could not care less. For me the game is pretty accurate historically, most of facts pass a quick cross-reference check and I am not offended by starting 76mm gun on M36, especially given that few months ago I didn't even know about M36 or Maus existence.
Even more I am pleased that my kid asks history question after reading the game achievement descriptions, and not the usual "what is the main difference between dark and light elves?"
Popularity shows that the game has some deepness in it. Is it the most sophisticated strategy game on the market? Sure not. WG delivered a very nice mix of different styles. MMO or lobby multiplayer, FPS or RPG, arcade or simulator - it’s a matter of definitions, personally I would not go on a crusade for the purity of genre, you might have other preferences.
Would you mind naming the two pay-to-win features? Given that you played just for few hours, my guess, one will be Hotchkiss.
No, I am not a developer. I gave out my WoT username in the game section and can send it to you personally, if you wish. Looking at the game profile, it’s quite clear I am neither developer nor marketer.
This game is like crack. I had to uninstall it yesterday after playing for 2 weeks. I have a job, wife and kid... a life!
You're a real piece of work. First you try to insinuate he doesnt know what he is talking about wth your ridiculous "animated history book" comment only to admit now its actually you that dont have a clue what you're talking about. You do not need a degree to know they played fast and loose with both history and acuracy in the game, they themselves will be the first to admit it.
The matchmaker isnt broken by their definition. It works exactly as they designed it to, but it most certainly is abysmal.
Im sorry if you dont think starting with 100% crew, using ammo that is 50% better,earning 150% exp and gold per match, etc isnt pay to win. Your wrong of course, it is pay to win and not simply a grind reducer.
You like the game and thats all well and good but dont spread lies trying to convince others. The game is what it is, a deeply flawed yet mildly amusing game at lower tiers. Its not worth a dime of real money and i bet most the little kids dropping serious cash to win now, will be asking themselves "what the hell was i thinking" in a few months.
16v16 player battles & a basic chat box, it makes COD or CSS look more like an
MMO than World of Tanks ffs!!!
It's not an mmo & is so far from being one although the game is fun at the start but
becomes boring fast & is a big grind fest within a short time.
This is minly due to the F2P system, its a case of pay to win, as you need gold &
ingame creds to keep up, plus the pvp matchmaking is a farce.
It's worth a download but is not a serious MMO gamers game imo
(i played beta & stopped playing recently, just for the trolls benefit)
*additionally*
mmorpg.com stated themselfs it's not an mmo back last October & said they would
"declasify" it as an mmo ...still waiting....
The Deathstar destroyed planets...Lucas Arts destroyed Galaxies
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Played:
SWG | EVE | WOW | VG | LOTRO | WAR | FML | STO | APB | AOC | MORTAL | WOT | BP | SW:TOR
Im sure your an wargaming member of staff, as you seem to patrol these forums defending
the game from any negativity at all.
F2P is a legitiamte business model, but its also a joke, I would of prefered to buy the box &
pay a monthly sub as it is CHEAPER! ...but warghaming know that!
Most the lads i know have spent a minimum of £70 just on premium & the odd xp transfer,
some lads i know have spent hundreds, theres a few ive spoke to ingame who have spend
more than that, which i agree is just personal choice.
But they have made the game such a grind you need premium to get decent xp & creds,
You cant sustain any tier 8+ tanks in battle & be able to save up for other tanks & mods,
you just dont earn enuff vs the repair costs if you dont have premium, plus the tier 9 & 10
tanks are like 3-6million, without premium or gold to convert it takes a long time to grind
the XP & creds to get a high tier tank.
But wargaming knew that by making this a F2P they would get tripple the income from the
average gamer, F2P it a dangerous system thats started a slippery slope to a dark place,
PC gaming has took enough knocks over the past 5 years without this crap.
The Deathstar destroyed planets...Lucas Arts destroyed Galaxies
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Played:
SWG | EVE | WOW | VG | LOTRO | WAR | FML | STO | APB | AOC | MORTAL | WOT | BP | SW:TOR
The matchmaker has a few issues, but it does a fine job. People seem to cry about any match where they are not the top tier tank and then complain about how "broken" the matchmaker is. Not saying you, but in general I see that alot.
The matchmaker occasionally will put to many Tank Destroyers on one team or match up to many of the same tanks on one side/both sides, but overall matches are relatively balanced. Aside from Tier 4 light tanks that get elevated to high teir matches as scouts, I don't really get into any matches where I can't at least contribute and support my team.
I think the diversity of tanks in each match makes it more interesting. As for the Tier 4 scouts, they are perhaps the single best asset when player properly, but very very few people can do it. It really can be a force multiplier when executed properly.
Cash ammo is not 50% better than other ammos. It has a slightly higher armor penetration. It does qualify for the definition of pay to win, but honestly isn't going to give its intended bonus in the majority of situations.
100% crew is a slight advantage over 75%, but that only lasts a few matches. Hardly paying for victory IMHO, but an interesting observation I never really thought about.
The rest of the pay 2 win you list doesn't matter once the match starts. Someone earning more credits or xp doesn't make them better when we are actually playing. All the tanks in the match are at different levels, equipment and tiers and that is all factored into the matchmaking.
People paying money for faster advancement allows others to play for free. Seems a fair trade off.
Clearly you did not understand what I meant. The guy demands accuracy of an academic history book from a computer game, so I assumed he is on the market for some iPad tutorials for his history students, you know - with colorful pictures, animation...
Yes, it's disappointing that I can't put on my hard grinded epic armor and go into level 19 dungeon. You fill intimidated in low level tanks you are now playing, but trust me, it's a way more embarrassing to get killed by a tank few levels lower than you. You should have heard that guy in KV screaming in chat when he killed (finished off, actually) my Maus.
If you manage you crew and tanks properly, you will start most of tanks with 90% crew without any gold.
Gold ammo is not 50% better. Slightly increased penetration with the same damage is a very marginal advantage and means much less than your and your teammates skills.
Gold ammo does not pass cost-benefit analysis. I tried it actually in VK3601 (famous konisch gun) and Maus. You may shoot gold all game long and then your team dead, match lost and all you money went down the drain. So I decided not to put bets against statistics.
How exactly increased experience and credits (you don't earn gold in the game) help you in a particular match? It will get you in a higher tank faster, but it doesn't help your win/lost ratio.
"Lies" you mean 50% better ammo? Well, the little kids spending money on it, will be right asking you in a few months - "what the hell you were talking about"
From my point of view it's much more natural for someone, who loves the game and played almost 6k matches by now, to defend it knowledgably, than for someone, who played few low level battles, spread nonsense persistently.
Actually my participation in the discussion fueled partially by my interest to find out (not that I believe I can acheive it) who is paying you, folks. You are, forgive me if I am mistaken, that guy who asserted that he rarely sees any american tanks in the game, right? But "16 vs 16" is definitely yours, isn't it?
Premium account ($10-15 a month) is all you need to spend in this game to play comfortably. Which is (who would guess) very well within the most common monthly subscription rate.
Want to have a full collection of German tanks in your garage? Want to be the first guy on NA server to get E100? Want to have 52% win ratio instead of 51.5%? Well, it's such an expensive game, mate, you better start looking for a new job.
The match maker throws whatever it can into a match in the shortest amount of time, thats how it was designed. When i say its abysmal its not because im not in the top tier vehicle and ive seen no one make that argument. Its throwing tier 1 vehicles in with tier 5 and 6. Its putting zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums. Its putting whatever tier vehicle in over half its matches where they cant damage 2/3 the enemy force yet can be 1 shot by that same 2/3. Its not the occasional bs match we are talking about its 50-70% the matches. I typically only play low tier matches because past tier 5-6 there really is no reason or much fun to play, especially free.
Gold rounds give about 50% better penetration depending on the gun, thats far more than slight. Considering armor piercing rounds that dont penetrate do little to no damage and cant crit crew or modules, id say thats a pretty substantial advantage over free rounds.
100% crew that immediatley starts leveling the specialties(camo,repair,fire) vs 50% crew is also a more than slight or inconsequential. Even if you grind extra creds to start at 70% its noticable.
150% creds and exp does more than simply allow people to advance faster. It buys expendables and modules that free players either outright cant get or simply choose not to get due to limited resources.
Obviously the designers want to make money and thats fine. There is nothing this game offers i feel is worth real money. I can get the same fps fix from dozens of non sub, non pay to win games. If someone wants to dump cash into this, more power to them but dont kid yourself this isnt a pay to win game.
It can only happen when tier 1 platooned with a higher level tank. Platoons matched by thier highest tank. People are well aware of that and do it sometime just for lulz. I saw screenshots of IS-7 with 2 platooned MS-1s, it was absolutely hilarious.
Tier 1 alone can never ever get in with 5s and 6s.
Happens very rarely. Recently it became boringly symmetrical.
Sherman and PzIV (level 5 meds) can penetrate side armor of all heavies up to and including level 9. The only exceptions KV-5 and IS-4, where you have to aim weak spots, but in Panther 2 I have the same problem. If you need gold ammo to shoot heavies' front armor, I am not surprised that you are one-shot most of the matches.
This is basically definition of the grind. You have to work in a game to get resources "for free". But you eventually and essentially have access to the same modules and tanks. When you fully upgrade your tank, there is absolutely no difference whether you are playing free or not.
I guess I know a little bit more about the game than you to decide for myself who is kidding himself.
{mod edit} Matchups with one sided having a lot of one vehicle type against a team with few are not rare, they are quite common.
Where i or anyone else shoots an enemy vehicle has nothing to do with their ability to one shot us in return. When i mention matches where you are pitted against teams 2/3 you can barely damage im not talking long range frontal turret shots. Im talking 100m to point blank side and rear shots, and yes over half my matches fall in that category. Stop spreading this bs like i havent played the game and you can con me by the volume of your posts and vehemence within them.
There are expendables only avail with gold, so no you are wrong/lying again about everyone being the same in "elite" maxed vehicles.
None of the "perks" gold buys on its own is omg overpowered. The cumulative effect of all things gold does is, and as such the definition of pay to win.
I have played 4-5 hours of WoT now. I must confess to being a fan of games based around WW2 and of armored vehicle combat & sims. I am quite enjoying the game.
At first my opinion was that the cash shop Rub was strong early and this worried me as usually in F2P the push into microtransactions gets stronger the further you play. Happily a friend who plays enlightened me on a few things and I realised the need to purchase with cash is not that great afterall.
In my first 12 matches I managed to kill 8 enemy vehicles which I am led to believe is a pretty good result for my light tank and first time play. Where I had trouble was against the common medium tanks and the occasional heavy tank which turned up in the matches I was part of. No ammount of tactics can overcome enemy armour your gun just cannot seem to penetrate. Most matches I lasted on average 8 minutes jaded somewhat by a couple of times where I got killed in the opening 120 seconds by invisible forces (artillery I am told) which was not much fun then having to sit & wait.
Anyone seeking a slightly slower paced more tactical game that is not all about how many kills you got, world of tanks is for you.
Now I am looking forward to earning a medium tank.
You were talking about TDs vs Meds match up, weren't you? "zero heavies and 8 at vehicles against 2 heavies and a bunch of mediums." in this scenario the first team has a significant disadvantage. Now it became "one vehicle type against a team with few". And you call me liar?
It has everything with it. If you are desperately trying to penetrate heavies from the front, it means you are staying in the front of them. And this is not the place a skilled med/light tanker wants to be. If you are taking a lot of hits from heavies, it means you can't maneuver properly.
If most of everything you said before was a biased opinion of an irritated player, this one is a plain lie, which you so often mention.
Advantage of the gold consumables is even tinier than that of the gold ammo.
Fire Extinguishers - gold ones work automatically. Have a problem to use a hotkey with credit ones?
Aid Kit - gold heals all crew members, credit - only one. Gunner, Loader, and Driver are very rarely injured simultenously. Commander and Radioman don't matter in the middle/end of the match.
Same about the repair kits. Gold repairs all module, credit - one. You spend them either on gun, ammo rack, or tracks when under fire. All of them damaged at the same time when you get a present from artillery, but in this case you are pretty much dead anyway.
You are right about the cumulative effect. And if you would be in a one-on-one game, they would play their role. But in random 15-vs-15 battles they give a fraction of a percent better win chances and as a result they are not used on a massive scale.
You call it pay-to-win? Well, let me just kindly disagree.
I actually never said you haven't played the game, I even didn't call you liar, so not sure where "vehemence" came from. You just lack understanding of the basic mechanics of the game to make such conclusive arrogant statements about it.
Not sure how you got into matches with heavies in your first hours. Platooned with you friend?
You don't have to sit and wait, just exit the battle and hop into another tank.
I'm not sure why, but you are flat out misstating numbers and information and it is coming off more as hyperbole than a well reasoned argument.
Crews never start at 70%. Tier 1 vehicles will never randomly get throwin into a match with T5/T6 vehicles. Their are tier limits of what can and cannot be put together in a match. The only exception is if your T1 tank is in a platoon with tanks that can be placed in T5/T6 battles. People seem to think it is funny, so you see it once in a while as a joke.
The gold ammo for a TigerII has armor pen of 183 vs the normal ammos armor pen of 150. Both have the exact same damage. Hardly 50% better and hardly worth paying $.10 when the majority of the time it won't make a difference.
I don't think I have ever been in a match where I can't damage 2/3 of the enemy forces, let alone 50% of the matches being that way. Tier4 can be a real pain in the ass, but beyond that your numbers are not even close to being realistic.
If you look at the actual composition of the groups you will see a decent spread. One side might have more heavies or an extra max tier, but the other will have fewer or no low tier tanks, so they all average out. Maybe through TD's, speed, etc.
I'm not saying it is perfect or anywhere close. I've personally seen games with 15 artillery split evenly between two teams (7 vs 8), 1 side has all 9 TD's in the game or some other crazy stuff, but those are the exception and not the rule.
Mix in a large dose of rash judgement, a few bad cases and a massive dose of completly random quality from pick up groups and what happens is wildly unpredictable results. I really think the matchmaker gets a much worse reputation than it deserveres.
Personally I know I can remember most of the really bad matches that it made up for me, but I can't remember all the relatively even matches it makes. Those few bad ones tend to stick out in my mind, because I'm human and that is what humans tend to do. We remember the exceptional moments.
I wasnt talking meduims vs td specifically. I was talking lopside unbalanced teams. One side with a bunch of one vehicle type and the other having few to none which the matchmaker tries to make up for by overloading a different vehicle type on the opposing side.
Where i shoot from has nothing to do with an enemy one shoting me period. Tanks have 360 degree firing arc, if im manuevering behind a heavy in my medium and shooting the rear close range it is no less able to one shot me than if im firing point blank from the front. The only thing my position affects is MY ability to do damage.
{mod edit}
The one and only true statement youve said here has been the 15 x 15 teams mitigating to some degree the advantages of the pay to win. Where you are wrong once again however is your attempt to minimize everything else and maximize this impact. You can disagree all you want about this not being play to win and you will still be wrong. Just as you are wrong about a fully equipped gold enhanced "elite" vehicle being identicle to a freebie. Btw you're missing quite a few gold consumables.
Sorry but if you don't think this game is pay to win, then you are not playing World of Tanks, because that game most definitely IS pay to win.
Well i havent played every vehicle or used every gun but i have used a couple dozen and going from that selection group most gold ammo penetration factor is around 50% better. Ive played primarily german and russian vehicles up to tier 5-6 and while i havent used every gun available on every model, i have compared them all when determining which to use while leving them up. No hyperbole here
Crews start at 50% by default but if you spend extra credits when purchasing a new vehicle you can start at 70 or 75%(cant remember which) Gold can start at 100%, combined with 150% exp gain and your pay to win crew will always be much better than free. Crew experience does make a big difference. No hyperbole here.
When i say 50-70% matches where you are one shot fodder but cant damage 2/3 the opposing forces, im not talking complete inability to ever get a lucky round. Im talking hitting 5-8+ times with little to no effect. Sure you might get lucky and knock off 5-10% total and that does include shots from the front(not ideal) but the point remains you are stuck in a match where even when you are able to manuever for good shots and get many shots on target it matters not. Slight hyperbole perhaps but the point is still valid.
You can defend the spotting system and matchmaker to your hearts content but most players will disagree with you.
I guess I just don't understand what people are complaining about with the "pay 2 win" thing. What exactly is meant by "pay 2 win?"
I have been playing for exactly a year including beta and since actual launch I have bought gold so I could be premium player. At the price of gold I buy 3000 for $14.95 us. Each 30 day play at premium level is 2500 of that so I have 500 left over. So every 5 months I get one month free. Does that make me a pay 2 win player because I pay 12 bucks a month to be entertained? My WoW sub used to cost me $14.99. I don't think that was considered "pay to win"
I have yet to ever buy premium "gold" shells, I have never bought any consummable ever, I have never paid gold for my crew but do often buy them at 75% trained which is 20k credits per person and always do what I can to keep trained crew in my barracks (again I never bought extra space either) ( no gold for that just earnings from game play). I DO spend credits that I earn from play to get the extra goodies like camo nets, binoculars etc, all available to anyone who plays and makes credits. One thing I did do was buy a Lowe as a credit maker but really hated being in it after a while as it does not suit my game style so I sold it in game for 2,500,000 credits (won't make that premium buy-a-tank mistake again)
Despite not spending real money on anything but my monthly costs I have the same or VERY close to the same win/defeat percentages as my friend and others I have seen that I know for sure pay for the extras sometimes. I do not feel they have a noticable advantage on a 15vs15 playfield. More often I see people getting killed cause of positioning and being exposed to more than one enemy at a time than anything.
The other thing I see people whining about is the grind. Do you people even play other MMO's? (Yes I agree this is not an MMO as we know it and also wonder why the game is still listed here but besides the point for now). How many MMO's let ya level 1-10 in like 30 minutes... and then take longer and longer as you gain levels..I think all of them or close to it. I know we all played wow. how about that 70-80 run?...yeah same thing applies to this game as all others. Gets grindy as ya get up in the tiers.
If they made the game so you could whip through to 10th tier in a very short time there would be nothing left and people would move on to other games.
If they let ya whip through without any reason to pay them money for their work, would anybody pay? shit no most of us would play it, reach the end then move on. I mean seriously, you are playing FOR FREE, did you honestly expect to have the same benefits as the paying guy like me?
I hear people whining about how the matchmaking system is off and they get put into battles where they cannot do much. Yer right there are some like that...but ya know what? for every one of those there are an equal number the other way around which is why almost the whole game database of players hovers around the same percentages of wins and defeats whether ya pay or not. I don't hear people talking about they games they played where they were near or at the top of the battle list and pulled off 4-7 kills. nope just the times they got their ass blown off just like you have done to others in some battles.
It is far from perfect but it evens out. It is a form of ENTERTAINMENT where a company has invested a lot of their time and money in hopes of making lots of money back. Isn't that what we all work for?
I am sorry guys but the most complaining I see is from the people who just wanna play for free or have issues with dying on the battlefield more often than surviving. (my actual survival rate is only 36% - I really could care less cause I had fun the whole time I played...)
Just play it and have fun for what it is, if ya don't like it move on and find something that works for ya. There is a shit ton of stuff out there to choose from.
Cheers and I hope to blow yer ass up on the battlefield!
Gold ammo is a slight advantage that is very cost prohibitive for normal gameplay. It is also a slight advantage that is useless in any situation where a tanks gun penetrates an enemy. That is going to cover most gameplay to be honest.
I can't even think of any match I join where I am 1 shot bait to a significant portion of the enemies (if any) and I can't reliably land shots on almost everything I go up against. Sure if I am the low tier tank I am not going to solo the high tier tank, but thats what teamwork and tactics are for. Also high explosive damages everything and shreds module and crew. Again I just don't buy into the hyperbole that people are stuck in so many matches where they can't do anything and are constantly 1 shot killed.
As for crews, 75% is very servicable and it takes almost no time to get to 100%. It isn't like someone buying a 100% crew drives around laying waste and is unstoppable or that free players don't have 100% crews also. I've never bought a single 100% crew, but I have at least 8 crews at 100% right now with half a dozen more in 95+ range. 50% crews are a rather difficult in comparison to 100%. No argument there, but it only takes a little extra time to save up some money for a few 75% members. It just takes more time playing lower tier tanks, which isn't a big problem is it?
Again I'm not saying the matchmaker doesn't have issues or that it doesn't throw out some terrible matches on occasion, but not to the extent or extreme that many people try to make it out.
wow sold your lowe for 2.5 mil?? i can usually make that in about 20-30 matches with my lowe.
oh yeah great money maker. I didn't sell if for any other reason than I just didn't like it. Didn't match the way I like to play at all.
"Pay to Win" is any feature or function bought with real cash that provides an advantage in gameplay over another player who has not spent such cash.
It's like playing chess with an extra pawn or football with an extra man on the field.
Ammo that features extra penetration power, tanks that have better statistics or consumables that can be used in combat are all examples of "pay 2 win".
This would be opposed to cash shop items that would be purely cosmetic in nature like a fancy paint job, or a commanders flag on an antenna or a custom decal..... or things that provide the player with more play opportunities like content (special maps to play on) or different modes of play.... which may enhance a player enjoyment of the game but don't effect the players ability to compete.
"Pay 2 Win" is bad enough in PVE focused games, but in pure PvP games it's the anthesis of what a PvP game should be about...which is sportsmanship and fair and freindly competition. In such games, the only difference between the players should be the skills they bring to the field....and their determination to win. It's why football teams have to play with the same number of players on the field and baseball players aren't allowed to "cork" thier bats.
IMO, saying something is only "slightly" pay to win is kinda like saying someone is "slightly" no longer a virgin. Either you are or you aren't. The idea that the advantages may only be rather small is no excuse when it comes to fair competition.
In games, when did "winning" or the ability of a company to make money start to take precedence over sportsmanship? There is nothing wrong with companies wanting to make money....and many have and do that without compromising the principles of fair play. However as gamers, our highest goal should be maintaining the ideal of good "sportsmanship"..... and when game companies start sacrificing the principle in order to make money....our response should be a firm "no thank you. That's not how WE want to play games."
The INDUSTRY may be concerned with maximizing profits.....but as gamers and hobbiests....our interests aught to be preserving the integrity and purity of game play. /rant.