Jump to content


How WG can make money without adding tier 8 (OP) premiums?

op premiums premiums op tanks tier 8 premiums

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

davidblader #1 Posted 19 July 2017 - 02:53 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6616 battles
  • 236
  • [DRAKL] DRAKL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

So you know that for some time, WG has been adding a lot of OP premiums, like:
-Skorpion G

-Defender

-Chrysler K

-Fake Anime tanks (luckily not on EU)

etc

 

It's said they are even planning to add the WT E-100 as a tier 8 premium  ( https://thearmoredpa.../#comment-78034 )

Everyone is telling them to stop, but they aren't stopping, despite knowing what they are doing.

So, instead of countless tier 8 premiums, why don't they try getting money in a different way, that will not ruin the gameplay?
My suggestion is the following: Add many Polish and Czechoslovakian premiums
They could be of any tier, but NOT OP.
And why would they get bought if they are not OP?
Because the Polish and Czechoslovakian communities are very big, of course.

Czechoslovakia has for now only gotten 10 standard tanks, which means there is plenty more that can be added. This of course means that Czechoslovakia can also have a lot of premiums, so why not add them?

 

Next, there is Poland, which is already in the game as a nation, and which's tech tree might be added soon. If a Polish tree gets added, there won't be so many premium tank options left as for the Czechoslovakian nation, but considering how big the Polish community is, WG is still going to get money.

Another way would probably be adding premium nations (like France in World of Warplanes). This means, the nation only gets few premiums, and not a whole tech tree.

This doesn't include countries like Switzerland or Italy, which can build whole trees, it only includes countries that don't have enough. Such vehicles could be:
-BT-42 (Finland)
-NM-116 (Norway)

-Panzer IV/ZiS-3 (Bulgaria)

-Koksan (North Korea)

-Schofield Tank (New Zealand) (They will probably not add a combined Commonwealth tree, considering the Sentinels are British premiums)

 

And no, these should not be added to nations already in-game, they should have their own nation. Why? Because like this, they will be more interesting, especially for people from their countries (except North Korea ofc), and they will get bought more, meaning WG will get money without needing to add OP tier 8 premiums.

 

What do you think about these ideas? If you have your own idea for this subject, why not leave it in the comments?


Edited by davidblader, 19 July 2017 - 02:55 PM.


CoDiGGo #2 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14715 battles
  • 554
  • [MOARR] MOARR
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015
First nerf defender, after buff underpowered tier 8 meds, sell tier 8 prem. meds. Who want to buy-play tier 8 med now?

Edited by CoDiGGo, 19 July 2017 - 03:29 PM.


RamRaid90 #3 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:27 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19683 battles
  • 5,858
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostCoDiGGo, on 19 July 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

First nerf defender, after buff underpowered tier 8 meds, sell tier 8 prem. meds. Who want to buy-play tier 8 med now?

 

Yes lets commit financial suicide by nerfing a premium tank which we will then have to refund the cost of to everyone who purchased it. After what they did to the DoofusPershing they will never do that again.

 

So If i read right...your idea to m ake more money for wargaming, is to release tanks that people can purchase for real money, but that are worse than the Defender, Patriot and Skoprion G......

 

:amazed:


Edited by RamRaid90, 19 July 2017 - 03:29 PM.


davidblader #4 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:32 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6616 battles
  • 236
  • [DRAKL] DRAKL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostCoDiGGo, on 19 July 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

First nerf defender, after buff underpowered tier 8 meds, sell tier 8 prem. meds. Who want to buy-play tier 8 med now?

 

Don't nerf it, just stop it from being sold, like they did with the E25

Tinbawx #5 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14710 battles
  • 1,207
  • [SNOB] SNOB
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

Yeah, WGs probably really hurting for money.

 

Game was almost close to a commercial flop before they started releasing Patriots, Defenders and Cystlers.....:trollface:



Snake_Keeper #6 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8400 battles
  • 680
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View Postdavidblader, on 19 July 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

-Panzer IV/ZiS-3 (Bulgaria)

 

Tanks converted into bunkers. Not a mobile design.



CoDiGGo #7 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14715 battles
  • 554
  • [MOARR] MOARR
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015

View PostRamRaid90, on 19 July 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

 

Yes lets commit financial suicide by nerfing a premium tank which we will then have to refund the cost of to everyone who purchased it. After what they did to the DoofusPershing they will never do that again.

 

So If i read right...your idea to m ake more money for wargaming, is to release tanks that people can purchase for real money, but that are worse than the Defender, Patriot and Skoprion G......

 

:amazed:

 

Defender´s superiotity makes other prems obsolete-not attractive. And I call to balance defender, not nerf it to the ground, not the same. 

 

280-300 alpha, pen buffed and dpm buffed tier 8 meds will not be a joke like nowdays.


Edited by CoDiGGo, 19 July 2017 - 03:37 PM.


davidblader #8 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6616 battles
  • 236
  • [DRAKL] DRAKL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostRamRaid90, on 19 July 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

 

So If i read right...your idea to m ake more money for wargaming, is to release tanks that people can purchase for real money, but that are worse than the Defender, Patriot and Skoprion G......

 

:amazed:

Yes. Like the tanks you can buy for gold. They are not too OP. Especially with communities like PL and CZSK, they will get bought



davidblader #9 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:39 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6616 battles
  • 236
  • [DRAKL] DRAKL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostSnake_Keeper, on 19 July 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

Tanks converted into bunkers. Not a mobile design.

 

Afaik, the bunker was movable
notice the wheels
Imagini pentru bulgarian bunker panzer iv su-76 movable

the ''bunker'' was suppossed to move along the turkish border


Edited by davidblader, 19 July 2017 - 03:41 PM.


Snake_Keeper #10 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8400 battles
  • 680
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016
But they were not intended to be moved in battle. They were used as bunkers. Not tanks.

davidblader #11 Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:50 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6616 battles
  • 236
  • [DRAKL] DRAKL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013
If they add blueprints, fake tanks, SPGs that are TDs, TDs that are LTs, etc, I don't see the problem with adding a movable bunker that works in the game

WindSplitter1 #12 Posted 19 July 2017 - 06:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14302 battles
  • 1,723
  • [RYNO] RYNO
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

Me wants Koksan nao

 

But on a serious note, this has been made in WoWP too. I am not certain why it hasn't been made in WoT. Probably because of the purists or die-hards who want to keep the "balance" of the game...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users