Jump to content


Why can't we have good things?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

Elhazzared #1 Posted 01 November 2017 - 03:50 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20891 battles
  • 817
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011

It's a good question but it doesn't means much without context I know. So i'll start by dropping the following article.

 

https://thedailyboun...athons-details/

 

Now for those lazy to click the link, it's the thanks givings marathon for the NA server where you can gain the IS6b, the T34b and the Schwarzpanzer 58.

 

It's nothing new that EU is the ONLY server that gets bad marathons. That is to say, we are the only server out of all 4 that gets marathons for rock bottom trash tanks, not to mention we don't even get many marathons anyway. I cannot say this with certainty but I believe we get the least marathons too.

 

Now when we look at this, we just see the huge difference in treatment between servers. The NA server has a marathon that can give you 3 tanks. That's 3 tanks in a single marathon!

 

Now the pz58 is meh, sure, The is6 is ok, bad pen but really good armor even if it's no defender and of course the t34 which is pretty good too.

 

So why can't we have good things? We are the server that spends the most money. In fact the EU server (last time I checked) spent more money than the RU and NA put together. But the fact is, despite the ridiculous amounts of cash WG earns from this server, we gets the worst sale prices (yes I know VAT is included but WG is filthy rich, they could take the hit of the VAT and the EU alone would still beat the RU and NA servers all the same), we get the worst promos, we get the worst and probably least amount of marathons so once again, why can't we have good things too?

 

The only conclusion I can reach is but one. The more we pay WG, the worst we get treated. Perhaps it is time the EU community awakes and stops spending money on this game. I'm, not saying moving on elsewhere, simply saying that we should protest with our wallets to demand nothing more than equal treatment.

 

I'm probably just wasting my time writing this because the fact of the matter is, the people who spend money will continue not to care to be treated like this because after all, they got so much money to burn that they literally do not care to be treated like a milking cow to be abused so long as they get the newest tank that comes out.



Homer_J #2 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:00 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28692 battles
  • 29,991
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

You can.  Just create an account on the NA server.

 

Because that's what it's all about, getting more players over there.



Tipperty #3 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:01 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19599 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    12-27-2013

Simple answer is the NA server has a huge population problem and they are trying to encourage players to stay or come back to the game. EU does not currently have that issue and so WG are content to give us what ever they see fit.

 

On a side note, WG can give all the free goodies away that they like, outside of the wow factor of any free gifts, it won't fix the issue as to why people left the game in the first place. Only hope WG fix that before the well runs dry!


Edited by Tipperty, 01 November 2017 - 05:02 AM.


Elhazzared #4 Posted 01 November 2017 - 06:28 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20891 battles
  • 817
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011

I believe that is incorrect, the last time I saw, the NA server had 1.5x the population of the EU server and the RU server I don't remember if it was 3x or 6x as much as the EU. I think only the asian server had less than us.

 

While I agree that giving free tanks won't solve the current issues with the game, it still does not explain why the server that pays the most is the one that is also treated the worst by a huge margin.



shane73tank #5 Posted 01 November 2017 - 07:39 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28146 battles
  • 2,018
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014
T25 pilot and t34-85m feel hurt by your post you insensitive git 

Elhazzared #6 Posted 01 November 2017 - 07:42 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20891 battles
  • 817
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011

T25 pilot is actually pretty bad as are all but one medium premium tanks. The primo victoria is the only gold medium tank that is decent. All others are paper tanks with bad to average guns and the mobility of a heavy tank for some reason.

 

The t34-85m is merely ok, but then again it's a tier 6, not a tier 8.



Homer_J #7 Posted 01 November 2017 - 07:49 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28692 battles
  • 29,991
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:

I believe that is incorrect, the last time I saw, the NA server had 1.5x the population of the EU server 

Hahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahah.

 

NA server peak numbers are about what we get during the morning.  It's been a failure since they split the EU players from it.


Edited by Homer_J, 01 November 2017 - 07:52 AM.


Elhazzared #8 Posted 01 November 2017 - 08:01 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20891 battles
  • 817
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011

If you are going by what you see in the WG server info, I think that actually is incorrect information there.

 

From what I've seen last which was a study on both active players and money spent on a server by server basis, the NA server had something like 800.000 active players, the EU had around 500.000 active players and I can't remember if the RU was around 1.500.000 or 3.000.000 active players.

 

I also can't remember the exact stats of the money spend on a year per server, but I remember that the EU server, despite being the smallest of the 3 it still spend so much more money than both of them put together. The only way to make the EU server lose was to join both RU, NA and asian server together and they only beat the EU marginally.

 

Let's not forget that the RU server gets incredible deals and really good marathons too even if you want to go by whatever numbers you can read at this precise moment in the servers statistics provided by WG.



Sfinski #9 Posted 01 November 2017 - 08:06 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31689 battles
  • 2,610
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

If you are going by what you see in the WG server info, I think that actually is incorrect information there.

 

From what I've seen last which was a study on both active players and money spent on a server by server basis, the NA server had something like 800.000 active players, the EU had around 500.000 active players and I can't remember if the RU was around 1.500.000 or 3.000.000 active players.

 

I also can't remember the exact stats of the money spend on a year per server, but I remember that the EU server, despite being the smallest of the 3 it still spend so much more money than both of them put together. The only way to make the EU server lose was to join both RU, NA and asian server together and they only beat the EU marginally.

 

Let's not forget that the RU server gets incredible deals and really good marathons too even if you want to go by whatever numbers you can read at this precise moment in the servers statistics provided by WG.

 

That doesnt sound anywhere close to being right. Maybe source on that.

 

//According to WG theres 5k or so at NA, 100k or so at EU and 500k on RU on average online. That's from the ingame counter.


Edited by Sfinski, 01 November 2017 - 08:09 AM.


Tipperty #10 Posted 01 November 2017 - 08:22 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19599 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    12-27-2013

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:

I believe that is incorrect, the last time I saw, the NA server had 1.5x the population of the EU server and the RU server I don't remember if it was 3x or 6x as much as the EU. I think only the asian server had less than us.

 

While I agree that giving free tanks won't solve the current issues with the game, it still does not explain why the server that pays the most is the one that is also treated the worst by a huge margin.

 

NA server population has dropped so dramatically, they had to merge NA1 and NA2 in to one central server because queue wait time was getting ridiculous.

 

And yes it does explain why EU might get less giveaways, no need to tempt people into playing the game, if the servers have a healthy server population or are spending enough to fill WG coffers.

 

 

Edit to add point:

 

It is not that the NA has less players than EU, it is the fact the the NA used to have a huge population, but now have a relatively smaller population than it once was. going from 1 million players to 500K is a sure sign that the server is in decline. I don't have the exact numbers, mine was just an example, but the population drops so much they had to merge the servers!


Edited by Tipperty, 01 November 2017 - 08:27 AM.


Elhazzared #11 Posted 01 November 2017 - 08:37 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20891 battles
  • 817
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011

View PostSfinski, on 01 November 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

 

That doesnt sound anywhere close to being right. Maybe source on that.

 

//According to WG theres 5k or so at NA, 100k or so at EU and 500k on RU on average online. That's from the ingame counter.

 

I would give you a source but I don't have it anymore, it was an article I saw a few months ago about the beginning of summer if memory serves me right. Even assuming population might have fallen, it would seem a little too much on the spawn of a few months.

 

Tipperty, Even assuming that the NA may have dropped bellow the EU which I still seriously doubt it. they still always had more marathons and for much better tanks than we at all points. For that matter so does the RU server and they have so many players that they need 7 servers and from what I hear it's always bursting at the seams at peak hours with millions of players logged in.

 

As odd as it may seem, for some reason it seems that the more a server is worth, the more poorly it is treated. It's like the reverse of what you expect of any sane developer.



Tiger_Panzermeyer #12 Posted 01 November 2017 - 08:41 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 11114 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    04-06-2017

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

If you are going by what you see in the WG server info, I think that actually is incorrect information there.

 

From what I've seen last which was a study on both active players and money spent on a server by server basis, the NA server had something like 800.000 active players, the EU had around 500.000 active players and I can't remember if the RU was around 1.500.000 or 3.000.000 active players.

 

I also can't remember the exact stats of the money spend on a year per server, but I remember that the EU server, despite being the smallest of the 3 it still spend so much more money than both of them put together. The only way to make the EU server lose was to join both RU, NA and asian server together and they only beat the EU marginally.

 

Let's not forget that the RU server gets incredible deals and really good marathons too even if you want to go by whatever numbers you can read at this precise moment in the servers statistics provided by WG.

 

800k players on na?lol what are you smoking dawg,i play on na and the highest numbers of players on us central i saw was on sunday -15k,the rest of the days is mostly 5-10k players.

250swb #13 Posted 01 November 2017 - 08:47 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 22605 battles
  • 5,048
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

If you are going by what you see in the WG server info, I think that actually is incorrect information there.

 

From what I've seen last which was a study on both active players and money spent on a server by server basis, the NA server had something like 800.000 active players, the EU had around 500.000 active players and I can't remember if the RU was around 1.500.000 or 3.000.000 active players.

 

I also can't remember the exact stats of the money spend on a year per server, but I remember that the EU server, despite being the smallest of the 3 it still spend so much more money than both of them put together. The only way to make the EU server lose was to join both RU, NA and asian server together and they only beat the EU marginally.

 

Let's not forget that the RU server gets incredible deals and really good marathons too even if you want to go by whatever numbers you can read at this precise moment in the servers statistics provided by WG.

 

 

Show source or it didn't happen.



jabster #14 Posted 01 November 2017 - 09:07 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,379
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

If you are going by what you see in the WG server info, I think that actually is incorrect information there.

 

From what I've seen last which was a study on both active players and money spent on a server by server basis, the NA server had something like 800.000 active players, the EU had around 500.000 active players and I can't remember if the RU was around 1.500.000 or 3.000.000 active players.

 

I also can't remember the exact stats of the money spend on a year per server, but I remember that the EU server, despite being the smallest of the 3 it still spend so much more money than both of them put together. The only way to make the EU server lose was to join both RU, NA and asian server together and they only beat the EU marginally.

 

Let's not forget that the RU server gets incredible deals and really good marathons too even if you want to go by whatever numbers you can read at this precise moment in the servers statistics provided by WG.

 

Have a look at WoT News as that gives roughly 175k for NA and 800k for the EU. I’m really not sure where you’ve got your figures from.



krismorgan #15 Posted 01 November 2017 - 09:11 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32218 battles
  • 389
  • [UKT] UKT
  • Member since:
    10-18-2013
Most i saw on na was 15-17k last weekend.

ogremage #16 Posted 01 November 2017 - 09:13 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33429 battles
  • 1,415
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 02:50 AM, said:

It's nothing new that EU is the ONLY server that gets bad marathons.

 

T-34-85M marathon got a good, useful reward. It was too easy, true, but otherwise it was a good marathon.



FluffyRedFox #17 Posted 01 November 2017 - 09:13 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 22958 battles
  • 8,378
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012
because we're not on a dying server

gunslingerXXX #18 Posted 01 November 2017 - 09:15 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11027 battles
  • 1,995
  • [GUNSL] GUNSL
  • Member since:
    11-16-2014
We will get a free female and order. Those are nice things imo.

Jigabachi #19 Posted 01 November 2017 - 09:15 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 19,013
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 03:50 AM, said:

The only conclusion I can reach is but one. The more we pay WG, the worst we get treated. 

And the Oscar for realizing the most obvious thing everybody already knows since ages goes tooooo....

 

Block Quote

Perhaps it is time the EU community awakes and stops spending money on this game. I'm, not saying moving on elsewhere, simply saying that we should protest with our wallets to demand nothing more than equal treatment.

Maybe, just maybe, we should first protest to get the game fixed. THEN we can protest for getting lots and lots of free stuff.

 


Edited by Jigabachi, 01 November 2017 - 09:16 AM.


shane73tank #20 Posted 01 November 2017 - 09:22 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28146 battles
  • 2,018
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014

View PostElhazzared, on 01 November 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

T25 pilot is actually pretty bad as are all but one medium premium tanks. The primo victoria is the only gold medium tank that is decent. All others are paper tanks with bad to average guns and the mobility of a heavy tank for some reason.

 

The t34-85m is merely ok, but then again it's a tier 6, not a tier 8.

 

but you're giving out that we don't have a mutz marathon ? 

 

Also tier 6 marathon is no bad reward given current mm and the fact it's a more forgiving crew trainer, so which tanks would make you happy if on eu marathon ? 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users