Jump to content


not fun anymore


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

droopieface #1 Posted 10 September 2017 - 09:41 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8300 battles
  • 5
  • [FDAD] FDAD
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012

sinds a lot of updates and a lot of buffs and nerfs i am getting more and more disapointed in the game.

i have spend a lot of money in the game in the hope that it would getting better, but no it isn't.


 

the point that anoyes me are :

no new maps in random play. The old maps are gone and the currents maps are borring when you play them allot.

lossing a lot of games. main cause that the enemay have better players. too many times. one team no high players aother team

MM...wel see a lot of tier 10 with my tier 8.

Still many aimbots.

also many shoots going through the tanks without doing damage.

tanks on hills what nobody can reach.

normal tanks has more losing rate in credits then premium tanks.

maybe change the random play mode that no Gold ammo can be used. only in stronghold or other gameplay mode for example


 

too many strange things are happening.

tanks on hills what nobody can reach.


 

ofcourse it could be that i am wrong but the gameplay is no fun anymore

The dislike for this game is groing and groing

also the language in chat and unsporting game play..:(


 

just wanted to ventilate my feelings for the game.

not getting angry or something like that..


 

i hope it will geting better in the near future


 


 


 


 



RamRaid90 #2 Posted 10 September 2017 - 09:50 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19683 battles
  • 5,852
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postdroopieface, on 10 September 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

sinds a lot of updates and a lot of buffs and nerfs i am getting more and more disapointed in the game.

i have spend a lot of money in the game in the hope that it would getting better, but no it isn't.


 

the point that anoyes me are :

no new maps in random play. The old maps are gone and the currents maps are borring when you play them allot. HD maps are due for release later this year, this will bring map reworks along with it.

lossing a lot of games. main cause that the enemay have better players. too many times. one team no high players aother team. Get better. You are the reason you lose so many games.

MM...wel see a lot of tier 10 with my tier 8. A well known problem due to the updated MM parameters, has been improved slightly with the introduction of tier X grand battles.

Still many aimbots. Proof? I have never seen a player who I can say for certain has been using an aimbot.

also many shoots going through the tanks without doing damage. Stop using third world dial-up internet and a potato computer. This is inevitably down to packet loss and lag. Nothing to do with the game.

tanks on hills what nobody can reach. An irritating problem in 1 out of 50 battles, a non issue really. Many of these climbs will be blocked when the map rework is live.

normal tanks has more losing rate in credits then premium tanks Premium tanks make 50% more credits than standard tanks. It has always been that way and it always will, I don't get what your point is here?

maybe change the random play mode that no Gold ammo can be used. only in stronghold or other gameplay mode for example Good luck penetrating Type 5 heavies and Maus' with standard ammo.


 

too many strange things are happening. Examples?


 

ofcourse it could be that i am wrong but the gameplay is no fun anymore A subjective point of view. If the game isnt fun, stop playing it.

 

also the language in chat and unsporting game play..:(Turn chat off.
 


 


 

 



stormermp #3 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:01 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39998 battles
  • 82
  • [S4LT] S4LT
  • Member since:
    03-12-2014

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 September 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

 

 

I think that you have some sort of deformed opinion on how online games work,if a lot of paying customers are not happy with quality of game they stop paying(playing)then player count drops,player quality drops,then only bots and bad players remain and you have the NA scenario of almost dead servers which is only matter of time when they will be shut down.WG needs to listen to player base on the most important parts of problems that ruin the game for 85%of player base(unpaying)or do you think that WG will keep the servers maintained for you and 10% of players

Edited by stormermp, 10 September 2017 - 10:05 PM.


Thuis001 #4 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:06 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5584 battles
  • 383
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 September 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

normal tanks has more losing rate in credits then premium tanks Premium tanks make 50% more credits than standard tanks. It has always been that way and it always will, I don't get what your point is here?

I am not sure (don't know the OP myself) but I think he means the fact that when going to tier VII and up, when not playing a Prem, or with Prem account, you will generally loose money. (IS about 4-6k per game, Comet 2-4k) which isn't very motivating to go up the lines since you are kinda forced to play with a prem account or prem tank or not play it.



RamRaid90 #5 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:13 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19683 battles
  • 5,852
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Poststormermp, on 10 September 2017 - 09:01 PM, said:

 

I think that you have some sort of deformed opinion on how online games work,if a lot of paying customers are not happy with quality of game they stop paying(playing)then player count drops,player quality drops,then only bots and bad players remain and you have the NA scenario of almost dead servers which is only matter of time when they will be shut down.WG needs to listen to player base on the most important parts of problems that ruin the game for 85%of player base(unpaying)or do you think that WG will keep the servers maintained for you and 10% of players

 

I think it is more your outlook which is deformed.

 

The players that do not pay into the game give Wargaming nothing in return. Those who do pay into the game are the only ones worth keeping the servers up for.

 

As an example: This game has 200,000 players online, and only 20,000 of those regularly pay into the game. That means there are 180,000 people using up server space and resources completely free of charge. If those 180,000 people stop playing, Wargaming has lost zero revenue. Therefore they can and will keep the servers open for the remaining 20,000 players. The opposite happens if those 20,000 opaying players leave, Wargaming would shut the servers down as they would not be recieveing any revenue.

 

In short, they are more likely to shut the servers if 10% of the playerbase leave, than if the other 90% leave.

 

 

FYI, listening to what "the players want" is exactly the reason the gameis so unbalanced. 99% of those who come to the forum crying about something they don't like don't actually understand how the game mechanics work in the first place. So how is it you think these players are supposed to aid in improving them.


Edited by RamRaid90, 10 September 2017 - 10:19 PM.


Mike_Mckay #6 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16731 battles
  • 1,009
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2015

Although I wouldn't disagree that silver earning "could" be a tad better to some extent without wrecking the game you "could" look at it as a kind of "free trial" along the lines of "Play up to tier 6 for free, but after that you will most probably need to get a premium account or a premium tank" kind of thing


Premium time itself is like what? $/£ 1.30 ish a week when not on sale and less when it is

 

 


Surely that's good value for most people who spend at least a few hours a week playing the game?


I doubt theres that many who don't drink or smoke, buy other games or whatever so they "could" easily afford it but choose to play for free then have an issue with free members not getting the same benefits as everyone who pays.


Try telling ping plotter its unfair that you don't get the same features in the free version as you do in the bought one and see how that works out lol


I think if anything was worth changing it would be making the weekly and monthly premium time MUCH closer to the annual bundle. I think the bulk cost of the better value and the wallet gouging price of the short periods of time is why so many play for free. And that if there wasn't much difference between the two, maybe just 5% saving for buying annually that a LOT more people would go premium as I doubt very many people who aren't homeless and DO own a PC capable of playing the game and an internet connection able to handle the traffic "genuinely" cant afford it at all, they just choose or prefer to spend money on other things which isn't quite the same thing at all


So I think a better value smaller bundle price with a smaller discount BUT with the extra 5 days thrown in (365 instead of 360) if you buy the annual package would tempt a lot more people into supporting the game


Edited by Mike_Mckay, 10 September 2017 - 10:19 PM.


Hedgehog1963 #7 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50143 battles
  • 6,921
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 September 2017 - 09:13 PM, said:

 

.

 

The players that do not pay into the game give Wargaming nothing in return. Those who do pay into the game are the only ones worth keeping the servers up for.

 

 

Utter BS.   Sorry but this "I don't pay so WG gets nothing from me" crap has to stop.  If you play you give them yourself. If you play for free you populate their servers which is essential to WG maintaining the game.

Hedgehog1963 #8 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:23 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50143 battles
  • 6,921
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View Postdroopieface, on 10 September 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

 

normal tanks has more losing rate in credits then premium tanks.

 

 

 

You think?  You mean there's a reason I might pay for a premium tank rather than playing only the tanks I could get for free???



RamRaid90 #9 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:25 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19683 battles
  • 5,852
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostHedgehog1963, on 10 September 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

 

Utter BS.   Sorry but this "I don't pay so WG gets nothing from me" crap has to stop.  If you play you give them yourself. If you play for free you populate their servers which is essential to WG maintaining the game.

 

A very strange outlook indeed.

 

Please explain how somebody who does not pay into the game can possibly aid in the maintenance of a server?

 

Please also explain how if all the paying players left the game, leaving a high population with zero revenue, the servers would still be maintained?

 

Unless of course you believe in fairies and magical money trees.


Edited by RamRaid90, 10 September 2017 - 10:29 PM.


Hedgehog1963 #10 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:36 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50143 battles
  • 6,921
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 September 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

 

A very strange outlook indeed.

 

Please explain how somebody who does not pay into the game can possibly aid in the maintenance of a server?

 

Please also explain how if all the paying players left the game, leaving a high population with zero revenue, the servers would still be maintained?

 

Unless of course you believe in fairies and magical money trees.

 

I'll explain by pointing your that server population is the biggest thing WG worry about , second only to profit.  People who "play for free" populate the server so that those who do pay have someone to play against. They are vital to the ongoing health of the game.

 

In fact - no.  No one plays  for free.  You spend your time playing, so you have a presence in game.  WG profits from that because the people who do pay have plenty of people to play against. 

 

The in game economy derives largely from credits earned for damaging enemy vehicles.  Most vehicles are driven by standard account players. The upshot of all this is that playing without paying makes you part of the product. The system works very well with a majority of players who pay nothing. Therefore people who shout and bawl and seek attention, saying they are not going to pay are doing no real damage, as long as they play.

 

Paying servers will always be here, so null question.


Edited by Hedgehog1963, 10 September 2017 - 10:38 PM.


stormermp #11 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:38 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39998 battles
  • 82
  • [S4LT] S4LT
  • Member since:
    03-12-2014

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 September 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

 

A very strange outlook indeed.

 

Please explain how somebody who does not pay into the game can possibly aid in the maintenance of a server?

 

Please also explain how if all the paying players left the game, leaving a high population with zero revenue, the servers would still be maintained?

 

Unless of course you believe in fairies and magical money trees.

 

what a elitist and failed opinion pls tell me your line of work,you'd be great as WG's staff,Blyat da we make prems for our 20 k players da komrade,we shoot gold at each other all day long game dies within a month GG

RamRaid90 #12 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:39 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19683 battles
  • 5,852
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostHedgehog1963, on 10 September 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

 

I'll explain by pointing your that server population is the biggest thing WG worry about , second only to profit.  People who "play for free" populate the server so that those who do pay have someone to play against. They are vital to the ongoing health of the game.

 

Paying servers will always be here, so null question.

 

Absolute nonsense. Like any business the only thing Wargaming worry about is how much money is coming in vs how much is going out.

 

If that balance tips the wrong way, it's game over.

 

Running servers, developing content, putting on events and paying staff costs money.The only way to offset that is getting people to spend money. That is it.

 

Server population keeps a game running is bullcrap. Wargaming could populate the servers with differing levels of AI if they wanted to and you wouldn't know the difference.


Edited by RamRaid90, 10 September 2017 - 10:41 PM.


Spurtung #13 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:42 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60111 battles
  • 5,479
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postdroopieface, on 10 September 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

lossing a lot of games. main cause that the enemay have better players. too many times. one team no high players aother team

Yup, the game is rigged and unfortunately for you, you got chosen to have mainly bad teams. Perhaps make a new account and maybe that one will have better luck?

 

/s



TungstenHitman #14 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:42 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18619 battles
  • 3,453
  • [TKSV] TKSV
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postdroopieface, on 10 September 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

 

i have spend a lot of money in the game in the hope that it would getting better

 

 

 

War Games likes this



Mike_Mckay #15 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16731 battles
  • 1,009
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2015

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 September 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

 

A very strange outlook indeed.

 

Please explain how somebody who does not pay into the game can possibly aid in the maintenance of a server?

 

Please also explain how if all the paying players left the game, leaving a high population with zero revenue, the servers would still be maintained?

 

Unless of course you believe in fairies and magical money trees.

 

To be fair I can see what he is trying to claim there

If only 25% of people pay to play the game and everyone playing for free didn't play at all the servers could probably start shutting down overnight due to low numbers being online, I think something almost happened with one or more of the American servers a while back

You do kind of need a decent amount of people playing at any given time irrespective of whether they pay to play or not. And if 75% of the people playing weren't I am not sure if what was left would be enough of a player base. Plus you might also lose some of the paying players whose only real fun is seal clubbing, which would then be impossible with no "seals" and just other players who probably are much better at clubbing than they are so they would become the new "seals" effectively which I doubt they would enjoy

If it was me though I would try to tempt more people to pay for premium by making the smaller bundles much closer to the per week cost of the annual one, maybe even introduce the option to buy premium time but then switch the count down on and off for people so they could buy say 30 days but use them one at a time when they have time to play rather than it ticking away if you don't even have the time to log in

Hell, the whole premium thing could probably be done that way so that the annual one would actually be something like 6 hours x 365, and the hours only tick away when you log in as not wanting to pay through the nose to buy single days and only being online sporadically is a common reason I have heard people give for not buying premium time as they either get fleeced for the single days or most of the time they buy ticks away on days they cant play
 

RamRaid90 #16 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:46 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19683 battles
  • 5,852
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostMike_Mckay, on 10 September 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

 

To be fair I can see what he is trying to claim there

If only 25% of people pay to play the game and everyone playing for free didn't play at all the servers could probably start shutting down overnight due to low numbers being online, I think something almost happened with one or more of the American servers a while back

You do kind of need a decent amount of people playing at any given time irrespective of whether they pay to play or not. And if 75% of the people playing weren't I am not sure if what was left would be enough of a player base. Plus you might also lose some of the paying players whose only real fun is seal clubbing, which would then be impossible with no "seals" and just other players who probably are much better at clubbing than they are so they would become the new "seals" effectively which I doubt they would enjoy

If it was me though I would try to tempt more people to pay for premium by making the smaller bundles much closer to the per week cost of the annual one, maybe even introduce the option to buy premium time but then switch the count down on and off for people so they could buy say 30 days but use them one at a time when they have time to play rather than it ticking away if you don't even have the time to log in

Hell, the whole premium thing could probably be done that way so that the annual one would actually be something like 6 hours x 365, and the hours only tick away when you log in as not wanting to pay through the nose to buy single days and only being online sporadically is a common reason I have heard people give for not buying premium time as they either get fleeced for the single days or most of the time they buy ticks away on days they cant play
 

 

As I said, server population can be artificially increased by running AI accounts with differing levels this would also not cost them any more money than the players who play for free do. The paying players would not know the difference.



stormermp #17 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:47 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39998 battles
  • 82
  • [S4LT] S4LT
  • Member since:
    03-12-2014

View PostMike_Mckay, on 10 September 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

 

To be fair I can see what he is trying to claim there

If only 25% of people pay to play the game and everyone playing for free didn't play at all the servers could probably start shutting down overnight due to low numbers being online, I think something almost happened with one or more of the American servers a while back

You do kind of need a decent amount of people playing at any given time irrespective of whether they pay to play or not. And if 75% of the people playing weren't I am not sure if what was left would be enough of a player base. Plus you might also lose some of the paying players whose only real fun is seal clubbing, which would then be impossible with no "seals" and just other players who probably are much better at clubbing than they are so they would become the new "seals" effectively which I doubt they would enjoy

If it was me though I would try to tempt more people to pay for premium by making the smaller bundles much closer to the per week cost of the annual one, maybe even introduce the option to buy premium time but then switch the count down on and off for people so they could buy say 30 days but use them one at a time when they have time to play rather than it ticking away if you don't even have the time to log in

Hell, the whole premium thing could probably be done that way so that the annual one would actually be something like 6 hours x 365, and the hours only tick away when you log in as not wanting to pay through the nose to buy single days and only being online sporadically is a common reason I have heard people give for not buying premium time as they either get fleeced for the single days or most of the time they buy ticks away on days they cant play
 

 

My point exactly,if things don't start to change with quality of game and mad premium tank spam agenda, EU will face the NA server scenario within a year

stormermp #18 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:48 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39998 battles
  • 82
  • [S4LT] S4LT
  • Member since:
    03-12-2014

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 September 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

 

As I said, server population can be artificially increased by running AI accounts with differing levels this would also not cost them any more money than the players who play for free do. The paying players would not know the difference.

 

WTF are you on about,who in the right mind would play with and against bots.Then play SP games ffs

Hedgehog1963 #19 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:49 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50143 battles
  • 6,921
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostRamRaid90, on 10 September 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

 

Absolute nonsense. Like any business the only thing Wargaming worry about is how much money is coming in vs how much is going out.

 

If that balance tips the wrong way, it's game over.

 

Running servers, developing content, putting on events and paying staff costs money.The only way to offset that is getting people to spend money. That is it.

 

Server population keeps a game running is bullcrap. Wargaming could populate the servers with differing levels of AI if they wanted to and you wouldn't know the difference.

 

You don't even understand the model.  For there to be "Whales" there have to be players for the whales to play.  The game can't survive only on premium players.  How long would the game last if you logged in and there was a ten minute wait for a battle?  The reason there is a short wait is servers with healthy populations, most of who are free to play customers.

 

You're just ignorant.  And you're not open to learning anything.  This is illustrated by your suggesting that bots could make up the numbers.


Edited by Hedgehog1963, 10 September 2017 - 10:50 PM.


Spurtung #20 Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:53 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60111 battles
  • 5,479
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Poststormermp, on 10 September 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

 

I think that you have some sort of deformed opinion on how online games work,if a lot of paying customers are not happy with quality of game they stop paying(playing)then player count drops,player quality drops,then only bots and bad players remain and you have the NA scenario of almost dead servers which is only matter of time when they will be shut down.WG needs to listen to player base on the most important parts of problems that ruin the game for 85%of player base(unpaying)or do you think that WG will keep the servers maintained for you and 10% of players

 

He has a deformed opinion, but you're making a correlation between paying customers and quality of players. Funny.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users