Jump to content


The rift widens - New premium account

premium account p2w review f2p

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

Poll: Premium Account (97 members have cast votes)

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

Do you believe there should be a Standard equivalent for the WoT PA benefits?

  1. Yes, indeed. (27 votes [27.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.84%

  2. No, not at all. (54 votes [55.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.67%

  3. Hard to say. (16 votes [16.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.49%

If so, which? (some are already provided for both. In that case, please, cast a vote on what should be improved for F2P accounts instead)at

  1. Map blocking (26 votes [21.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.67%

  2. Missions (11 votes [9.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.17%

  3. Platoon bonus (8 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

  4. Reserve Stock (5 votes [4.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.17%

  5. Flexible Experience Bonus (11 votes [9.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.17%

  6. None, I have voted "NO" on the previous (51 votes [42.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.50%

  7. Hard to say (8 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Finally, assuming all proposed changes go live, do you believe this sets players further apart (standard X premium)?

  1. Yes, absolutely (21 votes [21.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.65%

  2. In some fields, it does (36 votes [37.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.11%

  3. No, not at all (31 votes [31.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.96%

  4. Hard to say (9 votes [9.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.28%

Vote Hide poll

WindSplitter1 #1 Posted 09 April 2019 - 10:36 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18476 battles
  • 2,930
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

TL;DR on the bottom for those with ADD.

 

Although I am a PA holder myself, I do not agree with most changes proposed. Don't feel offended as this isn't against good/great players but this is just like CW where most rewards go to few. But in that case it's understandable since there are players who really worked their rear armour off to actually get there and should be rewarded for it. Maybe this is a poor example but it shows the gist of what I mean.

 

Personally, in this case I think there should have access to similar rewards but verging on different scales rather than showering one side with all the riches while the other goes cold turkey.

 

Nevertheless, let's review things.

 

 

The Good

 

1 - Missions

Giving missions for WoT PA holders is one of the most requested features. It makes sense. And let's face it, with the Blueprint lootboxes, both sides have something comparable. Although in WoT PA, they are actual missions. PA holders get something on top of that but at least, F2P players also get credits, consumables, Research discounts, crew skins, etc.

 

2 - Platoon Bonus

Nice! Nothing against. A big thumbs up.

Although, I would suggest that, if the platoon leader is a WoT PA holder, then, all members of the platoon would benefit from his/her bonuses as well. Even if just for X amount of battles, during weekends, specials, etc.

 

The Bad
 

1 - Flexible Experience bonus

Again, something asked for, that is popular. It has the effect of accelerating grinds to a line when applied to a single vehicle, but, this is on top of the already existing bonus. There's no counterpart for F2P players.

 

2 - Reserve Stock

Another example is the Reserve Stock/Piggy Bank. F2P players could have the same but with a much lower limit. You can always have a button to ask "Want to increase your earnings further? Invest on WoT PA. Special offer: 1 mo = 7.5€", gold equivalent, etc.

 

75K would suffice and it's a fair figure. Easier to reach so it doesn't compete with the premium one but it's also reset weekly for that marginal boost.

 

3 - Additional Excluded Map

1 is enough. Add more and the MM will become more strained than already is. If the point is to conduct preliminary research, I see no harm in it, so as long as the timing is disclosed. I see this as potentionally gamebreaking as it cleaves the community (Full HTs in Himmels, full clickers on Mali, full TDs in Prokh, etc). This has the opposite effect of improving gameplay.

 

Excluding 1 map for all accounts, premium or free, is what is currently needed, though this feature would not be needed at all if the map design was not so poor and excessively focused on the HTs. The part they mention HT players/people playing HTs not prefering to play on Mali is another example of this internal preference from WG, being the first, Murazor and his policies.

 

Overall...

 

I feel F2P, which are also a part of the playerbase are being left out on several things that they should have access to, instead of having to give up 10€/mo to benefit from them as well.

 

It is Free2Win and Pay2Progress[faster] but increasing the rift between both sides certainly isn't gonna tick a lot of people. And once more, we bear witness to another great idea, that is poorly implemented.

I say so because things tend to remain the same accoss several iterations even though there are claimed changes to be introduced later on. This will hardly be any different.

 

 

 

TL;DR: for every WoT PA benefit, there should be a F2P equivalent of a lesser "strength" bearing similar value for standard point of the scale.

 



Schepel #2 Posted 09 April 2019 - 11:07 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 62621 battles
  • 3,223
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013

I am sorry, I really do not see why F2P users should have equivalent benefits. As long as premium doesn't directly influences battles, there is nothing wrong with premium. Given that credit boosters are easy to come by, not even the argument that premium accounts allow for more gold to be fired holds any water. Premium allows to progress faster through the tech tree. So what? That is the entire reason it exists: pay to spend less time grinding. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

 

The one thing I would like to mention is that this new system is a sneaky way of undoing the unified premium thing. Which is a major scumbag move, imho. I don't play much ships, but if my premium doesn't float there anymore, I am definitely not going to play ships anymore.


Edited by Schepel, 09 April 2019 - 11:08 PM.


PervyPastryPuffer #3 Posted 09 April 2019 - 11:15 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32757 battles
  • 3,252
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

Platooning should provide a bonus for everyone...this game desperately needs people to play together as a team, if even in small groups...many platoons in a team should be an advantage, it needs to be encouraged.

 

Also blocking the same amount of maps could be done for both types of players, at least from the start...hoping they fix/remove some of the most hated/blocked maps. There's free feedback for ya WG. Track it.


Edited by PervyPastryPuffer, 09 April 2019 - 11:16 PM.


Schepel #4 Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:29 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 62621 battles
  • 3,223
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013

View PostPervyPastryPuffer, on 09 April 2019 - 11:15 PM, said:

Platooning should provide a bonus for everyone...this game desperately needs people to play together as a team, if even in small groups...many platoons in a team should be an advantage, it needs to be encouraged.

 

Also blocking the same amount of maps could be done for both types of players, at least from the start...hoping they fix/remove some of the most hated/blocked maps. There's free feedback for ya WG. Track it.

 

It is BS feedback, though. Do you really want WG to listen to the feedback from hordes of rotten tomatoes who want nothing more than to hide their MAUS in A0? I sure don't, because that is how we gotten to the point of a large pool of strictly linear maps.

Homer_J #5 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:39 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31189 battles
  • 33,735
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

They talked about making premium account better ever since they gave most of it's benefits to freeloaders.

 

The one thing I don't like is that to get these new benefits I have to forego the benefits in other titles.


Edited by Homer_J, 10 April 2019 - 01:40 AM.


mjs_89 #6 Posted 10 April 2019 - 04:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6946 battles
  • 604
  • [95137] 95137
  • Member since:
    08-16-2017

I don't see anything wrong with the coming changes. At the very least it should encourage more people to buy premium time wich means more profit for WG and a decresed need to sell new OP tanks every week.

The way I see it, the new premium account is a way to monetize the game without breaking it further. That should definitely be the way to go, add fancy skins and other cosmetic stuff and we're golden.

 

As for the freeloaders - they already get a lot of freebies anyways, especially since the "rewards for merit" were introduced. Really no need to give them any of the new premium features imo.



tajj7 #7 Posted 10 April 2019 - 08:24 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27094 battles
  • 14,661
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

I am not really seeing an issue, as others have mentioned, with all the boosters etc. WG give out premium account has less value than it used to, especially as boosters are a lot more flexible.

 

This just makes it like before, a proper pay to save time feature and value for parting with your hard earned cash. 



Signal11th #8 Posted 10 April 2019 - 08:48 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40862 battles
  • 6,267
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
People pay to play this game so others can play for free. Jesus where has this entitled attitude come from these days. You aren't owed anything just for existing.

jimbobjammybob #9 Posted 10 April 2019 - 08:50 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 620 battles
  • 258
  • [TH1NK] TH1NK
  • Member since:
    12-28-2015

View PostSignal11th, on 10 April 2019 - 08:48 AM, said:

People pay to play this game so others can play for free. Jesus where has this entitled attitude come from these days. You aren't owed anything just for existing.

 

air,sunlight,?

G01ngToxicCommand0 #10 Posted 10 April 2019 - 08:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 37465 battles
  • 757
  • Member since:
    11-03-2011
Utterly worthless changes when you can't block bad players from joining your team.

Signal11th #11 Posted 10 April 2019 - 08:54 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40862 battles
  • 6,267
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

View Postjimbobjammybob, on 10 April 2019 - 07:50 AM, said:

 

air,sunlight,?

 

No those are there whether or not you exist at all.

Hedgehog1963 #12 Posted 10 April 2019 - 09:04 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 52407 battles
  • 7,838
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostRilleta, on 09 April 2019 - 09:36 PM, said:

 

I feel F2P, which are also a part of the playerbase are being left out on several things that they should have access to, instead of having to give up 10€/mo to benefit from them as well.

 

 

 

 

On the forums of just about any game with premium content there is always someone saying that the benefits enjoyed by premium players should be available to those who don't pay...  without recognising that this couldn't work.  The game relies on people buying premium product.  That is why this is being introduced.

 

That being said this is a bad move.  Being able to exclude two maps will significantly increase the ability of the player to perform well if they play specific tank types.  Imagine being in a HT and never playing Prokhovoka or Malinovka again.  A LT with no Himmelsdorf or Ensk.  At the lower tiers you can even exclude maps where higher tier tanks play which will improve your MM.  This will increase performance of the player and is too much of a benefit.

 

I never did like the bond system and the new premium time also gives access to more bonds.  That advantage is too much.

 

And as has been observed buying this WoT specific premium does not sit well with those like me who span WoWS with the premium time. I don't see me buying WoT Premium time and WoWS premium time.  This is cynical and it won't work.

 

One final thing is that anyone who pays €10 a month is really missing the discount buying a yearly account.  You shouldn't be paying more than €5.64.  This is actually great value, or used to be when it covered all WG "World of..." games.


Edited by Hedgehog1963, 10 April 2019 - 09:10 AM.


tajj7 #13 Posted 10 April 2019 - 09:34 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27094 battles
  • 14,661
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostSignal11th, on 10 April 2019 - 07:48 AM, said:

People pay to play this game so others can play for free. Jesus where has this entitled attitude come from these days. You aren't owed anything just for existing.

 

Also this, if premium account didn't come with benefits it would be pointless, if it was pointless people would not buy it and the game basically wouldn't exist for all those players to play for free. 

 



Del059 #14 Posted 10 April 2019 - 09:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33395 battles
  • 515
  • [REBRN] REBRN
  • Member since:
    12-15-2013
As it prevents me from enjoying my current premium account on WoWS or if I keep them WG expect me to pay twice for these new benefits, this looks like a simple money grab to me.

Suurpolskija #15 Posted 10 April 2019 - 10:06 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21094 battles
  • 1,766
  • [KANKI] KANKI
  • Member since:
    01-26-2016
Well, in a long run, the missions for free to play would kinda solve most of the argument anyway. I mean, if you can get the bonds free to play, it's all good. Obviously it's also more incentive to keep playing the game, so that's good for WG too. 

Geno1isme #16 Posted 10 April 2019 - 10:20 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 45880 battles
  • 9,532
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

Don't really care one way or the other. The only potentially problematic aspect are the missions if they are too rewarding, we'll have to wait for details on that.



smokeytheband1t #17 Posted 10 April 2019 - 10:35 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9381 battles
  • 103
  • Member since:
    12-05-2016
I use a PA .. i don't think the extra map block part is a good plan.. also i think we are going to be able to earn bonds with PA .. also something i'd be against >.> (if the bonds part is true)

Cobra6 #18 Posted 10 April 2019 - 10:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16463 battles
  • 16,707
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

I don't like map exclusions at all, while it's annoying for you to spawn on a city map in a light and on an open map in a heavy, for other players it's a blessing. The system evens everything out in the end.

 

Just imagine all the lights excluding city maps and heavies excluding open maps. You'd get Prokh filled with lights so goodbye to spotting damage and city maps filled with only heavy armor which means it ends in a boring camp-fest for everyone.

 

At first map exclusion might seem like a good idea but it will not benefit general gameplay as a whole at all, it will actually make it worse.

 

Cobra 6



tajj7 #19 Posted 10 April 2019 - 10:53 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27094 battles
  • 14,661
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostCobra6, on 10 April 2019 - 09:44 AM, said:

I don't like map exclusions at all, while it's annoying for you to spawn on a city map in a light and on an open map in a heavy, for other players it's a blessing. The system evens everything out in the end.

 

Just imagine all the lights excluding city maps and heavies excluding open maps. You'd get Prokh filled with lights so goodbye to spotting damage and city maps filled with only heavy armor which means it ends in a boring camp-fest for everyone.

 

At first map exclusion might seem like a good idea but it will not benefit general gameplay as a whole at all, it will actually make it worse.

 

Cobra 6

 

I think you are over estimating how observant the playerbase is, people have to remember to select maps to blacklist and most players barely open their options or increase the size of their mini-map.

 

Realistically I doubt more than about 30% of players will actually end up using this option, half or less will have the improved premium account and even less will remember to change this depending on the tanks they play. 



Hedgehog1963 #20 Posted 10 April 2019 - 10:57 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 52407 battles
  • 7,838
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostCobra6, on 10 April 2019 - 09:44 AM, said:

I don't like map exclusions at all, while it's annoying for you to spawn on a city map in a light and on an open map in a heavy, for other players it's a blessing. The system evens everything out in the end.

 

Just imagine all the lights excluding city maps and heavies excluding open maps. You'd get Prokh filled with lights so goodbye to spotting damage and city maps filled with only heavy armor which means it ends in a boring camp-fest for everyone.

 

At first map exclusion might seem like a good idea but it will not benefit general gameplay as a whole at all, it will actually make it worse.

 

Cobra 6

 

I agree with this.  Seemed like a good idea when it was first announced.  So good I thought it part of the April Foolery from WG.  But on consideration it won't be good.





Also tagged with premium account, p2w, review, f2p

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users