Jump to content


Game changes, WG, Players' opinion.


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

Poll: Game changes, WG , Players' opinion (90 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

do you think Wg changing the game as players wanted to be ?

  1. yes, they are getting feedback from players and do something similar. (14 votes [15.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.56%

  2. no , they are changing as they want and expecting to players to get it over with it (70 votes [77.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 77.78%

  3. other(make comment) (6 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Do you think WG cares about supporting new and old players.

  1. yes. they are trying to support with events with good prizes. (17 votes [18.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.89%

  2. no. they are making the game more needy for players to spend money on. (70 votes [77.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 77.78%

  3. other. (make comment.) (3 votes [3.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.33%

Vote Hide poll

Neo28 #1 Posted 03 February 2018 - 09:25 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 17416 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011
No change on subject pls and no hate message.

Strappster #2 Posted 03 February 2018 - 09:28 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23685 battles
  • 8,829
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015
You don't know how discussion forums work, do you. That's not hate, that's a simple declaration of a fact.

VsUK #3 Posted 03 February 2018 - 09:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012

View PostStrappster, on 03 February 2018 - 08:28 PM, said:

You don't know how discussion forums work, do you. That's not hate, that's a simple declaration of a fact.

 

Actually, people who post about things that have nothing to do with the topic are trolling. Just a matter of fact.

Back to the subject. Yes, this is turning into a pay to win game. Those who spend the most & lets be honest here. The MM is supportive of those who spend!

Neo28 #4 Posted 04 February 2018 - 12:46 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 17416 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

View PostVsUK, on 03 February 2018 - 08:45 PM, said:

 

Actually, people who post about things that have nothing to do with the topic are trolling. Just a matter of fact.

Back to the subject. Yes, this is turning into a pay to win game. Those who spend the most & lets be honest here. The MM is supportive of those who spend!

 

exactly, for example that new prem tank with new mechanic. they r making premium so ppl will pay. others have to wait for a few more uptades to get new tank tree to have that mechanic. 

DeathMetalDivision #5 Posted 04 February 2018 - 01:03 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 17392 battles
  • 83
  • [NLBP] NLBP
  • Member since:
    11-06-2011

View PostNeo28, on 04 February 2018 - 12:46 AM, said:

 

exactly, for example that new prem tank with new mechanic. they r making premium so ppl will pay. others have to wait for a few more uptades to get new tank tree to have that mechanic. 

 

So you already know that the new premium is OP? So you buy it and those people will have 80% winrate? 

 

View PostVsUK, on 03 February 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

 

Actually, people who post about things that have nothing to do with the topic are trolling. Just a matter of fact.

Back to the subject. Yes, this is turning into a pay to win game. Those who spend the most & lets be honest here. The MM is supportive of those who spend!

 

Nah, it's just you getting worse MM because you are a cheater, a liar and completely stupid. Show me some proof of your MM fantasy for people that buy stuff in this game.



Isharial #6 Posted 04 February 2018 - 02:44 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 18657 battles
  • 2,184
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

if they cared about balance:

they wouldn't have left super heavies as the meta for so long

made/changed maps so that its not just corridors

reduced view range across the board so its an actual mechanic.. not every tank needs or should be able to have max view range or higher...

a bunch of other stuff I cba to type because forum will just eat it again


 

and new players have a hateful and horrible time learning the game, as the tutorial is pathetic and doesn't teach you anything about camo, bushes or how to use the interface or statistics about your tank in the right way. being able to drive and shoot with a T-34-85 is only half the picture



Neo28 #7 Posted 04 February 2018 - 05:42 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 17416 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    06-13-2011

View PostDeathMetalDivision, on 04 February 2018 - 12:03 AM, said:

 

So you already know that the new premium is OP? So you buy it and those people will have 80% winrate? 

i didnt say it is op. its just they kinda forcing ppl to pay if they want to play with new mechanic in game.



Toni112007 #8 Posted 04 February 2018 - 07:20 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9732 battles
  • 422
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013

Its simple. Just compare game in 2013-14 and now. When there strongest premium tanks were like IS-6, T34, JT88 which were never overpowered. And there were no bs tanks without weakspot like Japanese heavies. Almost every tank back then had weakspot and they started removing weakspots (most obvious one being mg port) when they added HD models of the tanks. Not to mention power creep of new premium tanks which make older premium tanks a garbage. 


Edited by Toni112007, 04 February 2018 - 07:21 AM.


Strappster #9 Posted 04 February 2018 - 08:32 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 23685 battles
  • 8,829
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostVsUK, on 03 February 2018 - 08:45 PM, said:

Actually, people who post about things that have nothing to do with the topic are trolling. Just a matter of fact.

 

No surprise that you think that, you're one of the biggest trolls on here. 

 

View PostVsUK, on 03 February 2018 - 08:45 PM, said:

Back to the subject. Yes, this is turning into a pay to win game. Those who spend the most & lets be honest here. The MM is supportive of those who spend!

 

I'd ask if you have any evidence to support this assertion but it's clear you don't have anything of the sort. You're just crap-posting in the hope that someone will mention your history so you can show some faux outrage and whine some more. You're pathetic and I'm done bothering with you.



jack_timber #10 Posted 04 February 2018 - 11:11 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31653 battles
  • 1,731
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

It always amuses me about P2W.

It's an individual's choice, you can F2P nothing stopping anyone from not spending a penny or cent on this game.

Or you can buy premium time and every premium tank going or somewhere in between.

But it's your choice, personally I buy premium time every month and consider it a good buy, not an investment though, about the same outlay as buying a Starbucks coffee once a week, to put it into context.



Aikl #11 Posted 04 February 2018 - 11:46 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25150 battles
  • 4,200
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Wargaming aren't dumb, it just looks that way. They seek to make a game for 'casual' players (which is kind of the whole point of WoT to start with) but over the years it's been affecting parts of the game that appealed more to dedicated players. That's the main issue I have. RNG, weird matchmaking and powercreeping would be OK-ish if there was some way to compensate with what you've got between the ears. It feels like it used to be more of that. But, you know, rose-tinted glasses and all that jazz.

 

FWIW: While it might not seem that way, the vast majority of forum users are well above average players. Rather obvious, as most of us are veteran players. I manually checked winrates for ~200 players from a poll about matchmaking, and I think I saw two-three really bad players. Some below-average (10-15), but the vast majority were at 53-58% winrate. Not exactly the target group of WoT - though I insist that creating a game that caters to only one 'type' of players is a terrible way of designing what is ultimately a game. A game with any challenge isn't very fun - and God knows it'll become that way if Wargaming manages to scare off those who don't play games to camp in the base, behind a corner or hull-down behind a hill.



shane73tank #12 Posted 04 February 2018 - 12:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26655 battles
  • 1,934
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014
I went with no and no, but it’s not a surprise is it ? WG exist to make money, they are pretty good at that , what is now interesting is that the latest premiums are not op but still cost the Same “ what the player base really want” will be reflected in the sales figures - we speak with our money - hypocrites that we are

arthurwellsley #13 Posted 04 February 2018 - 12:16 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 50810 battles
  • 2,662
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

1. I like playing World of Tanks, I want the servers to remain running.

2. WG is a commercial organisation that is profit driven. They will only keep the servers running if they continue to make a profit.

3. Urgo I wish WG to continue to make a profit.

4. I would more trust professional game designers who's jobs, salary, mortgage payments rely on them getting it right, than a bunch of amateur players. Plus WG have all their own internal statistics that the players are not privee to.

5. Yes WG makes mistakes, all humans and companies do, no company makes perfect decisions all the time.

6. Overall therefore I am satisfied with what WG is doing since I continue to play, and to pay.



Aim_Away_From_Face #14 Posted 04 February 2018 - 12:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31210 battles
  • 708
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011

View PostIsharial, on 04 February 2018 - 02:44 AM, said:

 

and new players have a hateful and horrible time learning the game, as the tutorial is pathetic and doesn't teach you anything about camo, bushes or how to use the interface or statistics about your tank in the right way. being able to drive and shoot with a T-34-85 is only half the picture

 

That tutorial is long gone, the new one is even worse. Gives even less info.



virusumf #15 Posted 04 February 2018 - 03:44 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 13354 battles
  • 17
  • [RE-RO] RE-RO
  • Member since:
    07-25-2015

Dear WG 

one wish : remove arty stun please 

I am not asking to remove arty sometimes it's usefull , but the stun OMG it's making the game unplayable ! 



LIL_Veky #16 Posted 04 February 2018 - 04:07 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7847 battles
  • 44
  • [-B_B] -B_B
  • Member since:
    10-31-2015

View PostIsharial, on 04 February 2018 - 02:44 AM, said:

if they cared about balance:

they wouldn't have left super heavies as the meta for so long

made/changed maps so that its not just corridors

reduced view range across the board so its an actual mechanic.. not every tank needs or should be able to have max view range or higher...

a bunch of other stuff I cba to type because forum will just eat it again


 

and new players have a hateful and horrible time learning the game, as the tutorial is pathetic and doesn't teach you anything about camo, bushes or how to use the interface or statistics about your tank in the right way. being able to drive and shoot with a T-34-85 is only half the picture

 

Heavies, and superheavies in particular were never and never will be meta. Mobility has been the meta for some time and it will most likely remain that way. 

View range equality is actually a good thing because it's never fair to get shredded to pieces by an invisible tank while you can't do absolutely nothing about it.



unhappy_bunny #17 Posted 04 February 2018 - 04:15 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17528 battles
  • 2,267
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

As fas as WG changing the game to what player want it to be:

1. Why should they? It is their game, they designed and produced it.

2. What do players want it to be? Seriously, is there anything that gets posted here that everyone can agree on? 

Look at the things players say they want (and remeber this forum represents just a small % of the playerbase)

According to what appears on the forum we want:

Arty removed.

Arty kept.

Arty returned to pre-stun format.

Premiums to be better than standard equivalent tanks.

Premiums to be worse than standard equivalent tanks.

Premium ammo to be removed.

Premium ammo to be only paid for in gold.

Premium ammo to be left as it is.

Premium ammo to be nerfed.

Maps to be removed.

Maps to be kept.

Maps to be returned.

Skill based MM to be implemented.

No skill based MM to be implemented.

and the list goes on and on.

 

I do think that most players would welcome more maps, and more varied maps, but even then you can bet your house on someone finding fault in a map.

 

I do not say that the game is perfect, I dont think any game can be, and equally, I dont think any game can satisfy the wants of everyone, all they can do it try to appeal to as many as possible. 

 

 



Haikonnen #18 Posted 04 February 2018 - 04:20 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 25023 battles
  • 154
  • Member since:
    08-01-2013

View Postarthurwellsley, on 04 February 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

1. I like playing World of Tanks, I want the servers to remain running.

2. WG is a commercial organisation that is profit driven. They will only keep the servers running if they continue to make a profit.

3. Urgo I wish WG to continue to make a profit.

4. I would more trust professional game designers who's jobs, salary, mortgage payments rely on them getting it right, than a bunch of amateur players. Plus WG have all their own internal statistics that the players are not privee to.

5. Yes WG makes mistakes, all humans and companies do, no company makes perfect decisions all the time.

6. Overall therefore I am satisfied with what WG is doing since I continue to play, and to pay.

 

1. So do the people who complain about things on forums... difference is, these people want the game to stay playable. WG is doing its best to make it unplayable...

2. Which they won't if they continue screwing the game up.

3. ...

4. Professional game designers who design tanks such as Chrysler GF with no weakspots whatsoever... GG... or designing maps with corridors only, so any other tank than a super-heavy is practically useless... GG... and I could continue but I won't waste my time anymore.

5. It's not a mistake if you make a tank without weakspots... its not a mistake if you push the game to the point (adding tanks with too much armor) where everyone has to shoot gold ammo to be competitive... it's not a mistake if you make arty mechanics that NO ONE asked for... while all it really took was to reduce the number of arties per team to 1 or 2 max.... and guess what.. yeah i could go on...

6. Overall therefore I don't know if you are a troll or if your standards are really that low.... but don't be surprised if this game dies, bcs of WG policy... and WG policy is one and only...

 

 



Strappster #19 Posted 04 February 2018 - 04:33 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23685 battles
  • 8,829
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostHaikonnen, on 04 February 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

1. So do the people who complain about things on forums... difference is, these people want the game to stay playable. WG is doing its best to make it unplayable...

 

Why on earth would WG want to make the game unplayable? Have they suddenly developed an allergy to money? Why do you post a song to back up your point that all WG want is money when in the same post you're complaining that they want to make their game unplayable?

 

Players who moan about changes often want the game to remain in the state they are used to so that they can continue to do well. Sure, some of the changes may look like dumbing down ... or you could look at it as providing an accessibility gate for more casual gamers. All games suffer player churn to some degree; keeping a game inaccessible to a wider playerbase means less growth and reduced longevity.

 

View PostHaikonnen, on 04 February 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

2. Which they won't if they continue screwing the game up.

 

I don't see how they're screwing any of it up. Sure, they've made errors, show me a company which hasn't. They don't tend to own their errors as openly as some other companies but that's hardly restricted to WG - EA weren't exactly falling over themselves to backtrack from their loot box fiasco. WG could work on their comms but actively screwing the game up? That's subjective hyperbole.

 

View PostHaikonnen, on 04 February 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

4. Professional game designers who design tanks such as Chrysler GF with no weakspots whatsoever... GG... or designing maps with corridors only, so any other tank than a super-heavy is practically useless... GG... 

 

When was the last time you saw a Chrysler in game? Even when they do appear, they're hardly dominating anything, they usually hold a point for a short while and then get wrecked.

 

View PostHaikonnen, on 04 February 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

... and I could continue but I won't waste my time anymore.

 

Yeah, neither will I. There's none as blind as those who refuse to see.



ZlatanArKung #20 Posted 04 February 2018 - 05:18 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostLIL_Veky, on 04 February 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

 

Heavies, and superheavies in particular were never and never will be meta. Mobility has been the meta for some time and it will most likely remain that way. 

View range equality is actually a good thing because it's never fair to get shredded to pieces by an invisible tank while you can't do absolutely nothing about it.

Which of course is why all the OP tanks in the game are heavies or frontally heavily arumoured tanks.

Why heavies and heavily armoured tanks perform better for players in general across the entire skill spectrum.

 

META = Most EFFICIENT tactic available. And currently, the most efficient tactic is to play heavy or other heavily armoured tanks.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users