Jump to content


Get a Škoda for the New Year

skoda announcement premium shop

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

piratha #1 Posted 02 January 2020 - 01:32 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13043 battles
  • 331
  • [2-KP] 2-KP
  • Member since:
    10-07-2017

Commanders!

New year, new car? Get a versatile one, the Škoda T 27Very agile, this medium tank packs a 3-rounds autoloader with a very fast intra-clip reload, perfect to pin your enemies down. Add it to your collection right now with one of the packages below. 

 

https://worldoftanks.eu/en/news/special-offers/skoda-t27-offers/

 

Strange, there was no offical announcement-post for this Premium offer, so here it is the thread for the Skoda T27: good, bad, average.. not broken? :izmena:

 

Here's a honest review from Claus Kellerman!

 

And here an almost great game:

 

See you on the battlefield! :honoring:



Ceeb #2 Posted 02 January 2020 - 01:45 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 34170 battles
  • 6,496
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011
If I cant use my 40k+ gold to buy it, I'm not even looking, that goes for any tank for sale atm.

Negativvv #3 Posted 02 January 2020 - 01:54 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14822 battles
  • 2,218
  • [KEKE] KEKE
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

Bought it during the Advent with lootbox gold.

 

It isn't a bad tank, but it's a one trick pony. E.g wait for a good moment, unload 3 rounds then GTFO. Usually done from a medium or longer range too.

 

Thing is the Progetto does the above role almost as well but has extra versatility as you can hold back on blowing the entire magazine and the gun is actually more accurate with higher pen. 

 

 



Gardar7 #4 Posted 02 January 2020 - 02:44 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 24867 battles
  • 2,380
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostNegativvv, on 02 January 2020 - 10:54 AM, said:

Bought it during the Advent with lootbox gold.

 

It isn't a bad tank, but it's a one trick pony. E.g wait for a good moment, unload 3 rounds then GTFO. Usually done from a medium or longer range too.

 

Thing is the Progetto does the above role almost as well but has extra versatility as you can hold back on blowing the entire magazine and the gun is actually more accurate with higher pen. 

 

 

 

I did the same, bought it from the calendar for gold. I really wanted to get this tank, it looks magnificent and I like the fast autoloader. Its only problem is that there is the Geppetto. To make it more competitive against the 'talian, they should give Skoda more pen and more accurate gun than the Tuttofrutto's - to compensate for the traditional autoloader. These days at tier 8 there is no point in choosing any other prem meds than Pinocchio if you want to shine with your stats. For fun, it is OK to have the Skoda, Lansen, etc. but don't expect to be as dangerous as this Steroido.


Edited by Gardar7, 02 January 2020 - 02:46 PM.


Cobra6 #5 Posted 02 January 2020 - 02:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16562 battles
  • 17,850
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Skoda T-27 is the vehicle that should be the regular T8 medium tank.

Just like the Mle.49 should be the regular T8 instead of the AMX65t.

 

Neither of the current regular tanks fit the line while the premiums do.... So just the usual obtuse game design.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 02 January 2020 - 02:54 PM.


BrinklyWollox #6 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28367 battles
  • 11,408
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 01:54 PM, said:

Skoda T-27 is the vehicle that should be the regular T8 medium tank.

Just like the Mle.49 should be the regular T8 instead of the AMX65t.

 

Neither of the current regular tanks fit the line while the premiums do.... So just the usual obtuse game design.

 

Tier VIII premiums appear to be the most popular for earning credits so making the premium vehicles better than the regular options seems like good business sense. It's a change from the old better than stock, not as good as fully upgraded approach but a business that refuses to adapt to changing circumstances doesn't tend to last as long.

 

Makes pretty good sense from a game design perspective too. People who buy premium tanks tend to engage more - why else would you spend that much on a pixel tank if you weren't engaged with the game? And if you've got premium tier VIIIs, why would you keep a regular tier VIII when that's a garage slot you don't have to spend another 300 gold on? Keeping your player numbers up is desirable for any game.



Stevies_Team #7 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15765 battles
  • 1,821
  • Member since:
    07-14-2016
It's a good tonk but the clip reload severely restricts its versatility

Cobra6 #8 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:16 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16562 battles
  • 17,850
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostBrinklyWollox, on 02 January 2020 - 02:07 PM, said:

 

Tier VIII premiums appear to be the most popular for earning credits so making the premium vehicles better than the regular options seems like good business sense. It's a change from the old better than stock, not as good as fully upgraded approach but a business that refuses to adapt to changing circumstances doesn't tend to last as long.

 

Makes pretty good sense from a game design perspective too. People who buy premium tanks tend to engage more - why else would you spend that much on a pixel tank if you weren't engaged with the game? And if you've got premium tier VIIIs, why would you keep a regular tier VIII when that's a garage slot you don't have to spend another 300 gold on? Keeping your player numbers up is desirable for any game.

 

Indeed yet Wargaming is failing to do that since 2015 as we learned from the latest interview.

So to see why WoT has quite rapidly began shedding players, it's important to see what changes they made between 2013 and 2015 that apparently, the community didn't like since they began to leave en-masse. Consequent changes since 2016 have done nothing to slow down or stem this exodus.

 

One of those is letting go of the "premiums should be inferior to fully upgraded same tier tanks".

 

And the issue is, the more players this game sheds, the less forgiving the remainder of the players (and those who left but are thinking of coming back) will be of new mistakes. So implementing "free XP sinks" and making the premiums blatantly better (definition of Pay-2-Win) will not help this game in trying to retain player numbers. It will only piss off the players remaining even further.

Thing is, the sudden reverse in the player number was not a natural gradual start of a decline, it was a rather swift reversal. This should tell people who are paying attention that changes that WG made to the WoT were not liked by the player base at large.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 02 January 2020 - 03:20 PM.


BrinklyWollox #9 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28367 battles
  • 11,408
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 02:16 PM, said:

Indeed yet Wargaming is failing to do that since 2015 as we learned from the latest interview.

So to see why WoT has quite rapidly began shedding players, it's important to see what changes they made between 2013 and 2015 that apparently, the community didn't like.

 

One of those is letting go of the "premiums should be inferior to fully upgraded same tier tanks".

 

And the issue is, the more players this game sheds, the less forgiving the remainder of the players (and those who left but are thinking of coming back) will be of new mistakes. So implementing "free XP sinks" and making the premiums blatantly better (definition of Pay-2-Win) will not help this game in trying to retain player numbers. It will only piss off the players remaining even further.

Thing is, the sudden reverse in the player number was not a natural gradual start of a decline, it was a rather swift reversal. This should tell people who are paying attention that changes that WG made to the WoT were not liked by the player base at large.

 

Correlation does not imply causation. You're also imposing your personal view on the community at large, another fallacy. 

 

The game's been around for 10 years. Players come and go, populations grow and shrink. WoT may well have had its heyday but there's still life in the game, otherwise we wouldn't have seen over 150k players regularly over Christmas. Whatever problems the game has with player numbers, a couple of premium tanks being better than their regular equivalents has very little to do with it. It's merely something easy for tub-thumpers to point at instead of constructing an argument that's compelling on its own merits.



tajj7 #10 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:31 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28861 battles
  • 16,958
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014
It's just a worse Progetto. 

Cobra6 #11 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16562 battles
  • 17,850
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostBrinklyWollox, on 02 January 2020 - 02:27 PM, said:

 

Correlation does not imply causation. You're also imposing your personal view on the community at large, another fallacy. 

 

The game's been around for 10 years. Players come and go, populations grow and shrink. WoT may well have had its heyday but there's still life in the game, otherwise we wouldn't have seen over 150k players regularly over Christmas. Whatever problems the game has with player numbers, a couple of premium tanks being better than their regular equivalents has very little to do with it. It's merely something easy for tub-thumpers to point at instead of constructing an argument that's compelling on its own merits.

 

It is, you are just not reading properly :)

 

A sudden drop in player numbers, as was visible in the charts, *DOES* have causes and those causes are very simple: More negative changes happening then positive changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for players to leave.

The player-base does not suddenly lose interest en-masse, you'll have to forcefully *make* them lose interest if you want them to leave in large numbers, as has been happening.

 

Cobra 6



demon_tank #12 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:40 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27879 battles
  • 1,753
  • [3ADS] 3ADS
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012

View Posttajj7, on 02 January 2020 - 02:31 PM, said:

It's just a worse Progetto. 

Exactly. No point getting the Skoda when the Progetto exists.

Unless ofcourse you desperately want to have a TVP trainer. I dont.



BrinklyWollox #13 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28367 battles
  • 11,408
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 02:36 PM, said:

It is, you are just not reading properly 

 

Ah, the old "you'd agree if only you understood" gambit. Much easier than providing a comprehensive argument showing sources and engaging in dialogue with the added bonus of opening up the "you'll never understand so I'm out" jibe when you realise you can't support your case. Can't beat the classics. :rolleyes:

 

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 02:36 PM, said:

A sudden drop in player numbers, as was visible in the charts, *DOES* have causes and those causes are very simple: More negative changes happening then positive changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for players to leave.

 

Player numbers drop significantly every summer because players do things outside on warm evenings. That's a cause, it's very simple and yet it doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it in favour of insisting that the game's dying. You need to take a step back and realise that simply because you think something, that doesn't make it true.

 

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 02:36 PM, said:

The player-base does not suddenly lose interest en-masse, you'll have to forcefully *make* them lose interest if you want them to leave in large numbers, as has been happening.

 

Why? What possible interest could WG have in shooting their cash cow in the face? Calibre hasn't set any tongues wagging as far as FPS news goes from what I've seen, no one's particularly interested in Masters of Orion, Pagan Online and Steel Division II appear in my game launcher but I've no interest in either of them and it seems many others share that view.

 

It seems that you're so adamant that WG are sabotaging their biggest title because you don't like recent premium tanks. That's it. You've got nothing to back that up except the correlation with a drop in player numbers and your personal "feels". You need to do a lot more than point at a coincidence and claim it confirms your case.



Cobra6 #14 Posted 02 January 2020 - 03:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16562 battles
  • 17,850
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostBrinklyWollox, on 02 January 2020 - 02:48 PM, said:

 

Ah, the old "you'd agree if only you understood" gambit. Much easier than providing a comprehensive argument showing sources and engaging in dialogue with the added bonus of opening up the "you'll never understand so I'm out" jibe when you realise you can't support your case. Can't beat the classics. :rolleyes:

 

No at all, I'm just pointing out you are not reading what I said. You are fighting a straw man at the moment.

 

View PostBrinklyWollox, on 02 January 2020 - 02:48 PM, said:

Player numbers drop significantly every summer because players do things outside on warm evenings. That's a cause, it's very simple and yet it doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it in favour of insisting that the game's dying. You need to take a step back and realise that simply because you think something, that doesn't make it true.
 

 

They do indeed but we are not talking about that, we are talking about the entire playerbase going from exponential growth, suddenly into a sharp decline over the course of a very short period. This has nothing to do with seasonal dips.

 

Here is the graph by the way, for your convenience. Besides the seasonal dips you can quite clearly see a sudden halt in a stellar growth curve. The seasonal dips start afterwards on top of the sharp decline that characterises the trend.

 

View PostBrinklyWollox, on 02 January 2020 - 02:48 PM, said:

Why? What possible interest could WG have in shooting their cash cow in the face? Calibre hasn't set any tongues wagging as far as FPS news goes from what I've seen, no one's particularly interested in Masters of Orion, Pagan Online and Steel Division II appear in my game launcher but I've no interest in either of them and it seems many others share that view.
 

 

Inexperience at this type of game would be the root cause. Before WoT they basically only made single player RTS games. Due to this inexperience they basically went for decisions based on short term financial gains rather then long term growth. Since then they've tried to attract outside talent with experience to try and stem the tide but it's not really working as is evident by the graph.

 

This is also why they haven't managed to create a really successful game since.

WoWs is mildly successful, but too slow for most players.

 

View PostBrinklyWollox, on 02 January 2020 - 02:48 PM, said:

It seems that you're so adamant that WG are sabotaging their biggest title because you don't like recent premium tanks. That's it. You've got nothing to back that up except the correlation with a drop in player numbers and your personal "feels". You need to do a lot more than point at a coincidence and claim it confirms your case.

 

Incorrect, I love his game to bits and have been playing it since it was in Closed Beta, however I've been also seeing Wargaming make progressively worse decisions balancing/mechanic wise over the years which I (over the same amount of years) have been warning would lose them players in the long run.

 

It's got little to do with feels, rather:

- Observation (change in mechanics/balancing).

- Thinking it through and pointing it out on the forums why this would be a bad idea long-term.

- Player number declining and thus confirming the observations over time.

- Rando's attributing it to feels.

 

This has been the same loop for close to 10 years now.

 

It's not about premium tanks, that is just one of the little cogs in the machine. It's everything, from the way they implemented physics to trying to fit tanks in classes (over armoring, making lights unable to engage long range etc.) to bad map design (corridors, removal of cover, favouring close range brawls) to making premium ammo available for credits instead of removing it to changing the way premium tanks are balanced to making the new-player-experience rather horrible up until tier 6 to implementing free-xp sink tanks in lines etc. The list is ever growing.

 

And just to be on the same page:

I'm not saying WoT is dying because of these bad decisions, every product has a curve to it.

What I'm saying is that due to WG's bad decisions, all of them, this product is dying faster then it should.

Had better decisions been made with more focus on longevity rather then short term financial gains, the reversal especially would have been much more gradual and soft.

The graph supports this observation, the sudden reversal is the clue, it's not a gradual declining curve as would be normal.

 

Cobra 6

 


Edited by Cobra6, 02 January 2020 - 04:14 PM.


BrinklyWollox #15 Posted 02 January 2020 - 04:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28367 battles
  • 11,408
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 02:58 PM, said:

No at all, I'm just pointing out you are not reading what I said. You are fighting a straw man at the moment.

 

We're going nowhere if you think that. I've read your argument, I don't agree with it and I've explained why. That's not putting up a straw man, that's me disagreeing with you. You're claiming I don't understand it because you can't defend it, which is understandable given it's little more than your personal bias coupled with pointing at player numbers and claiming proof where only coincidence exists.

 

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 02:58 PM, said:

They do indeed but we are not talking about that, we are talking about the entire playerbase going from exponential growth, suddenly into a sharp decline over the course of a very short period. This has nothing to do with seasonal dips.

 

Here is the graph by the way, for your convenience. Besides the seasonal dips you can quite clearly see a sudden halt in a stellar growth curve. The seasonal dips start afterwards on top of the sharp decline that characterises the trend.

 

So a game that had a lot of interest saw that interest drop off after a point of popularity following which casual gamers moved on. Shocking. Look at the Google Trends graphs for PUBGFortnite or Rainbow 6 Siege and you'll see similar curves. Presenting one graph in isolation doesn't support your case, particularly when it follows what's practically an industry standard.

 

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 02:58 PM, said:

Inexperience at this type of game would be the root cause. Before WoT they basically only made single player RTS games. Due to this inexperience they basically went for decisions based on short term financial gains rather then long term growth. Since then they've tried to attract outside talent with experience to try and stem the tide but it's not really working as is evident by the graph.

 

This is also why they haven't managed to create a really successful game since.

WoWs is mildly successful, but too slow for most players.

 

Agreed, they weren't looking at the bigger picture in the past but recent interviews have highlighted that they are aware of this and are making moves to change direction. WG is a big ship, turning it takes time. I'd say the Game Centre is a great example of where they're looking to go - providing access to their own titles while publishing other games. I'd be amazed if WG wasn't aware that they haven't had a killer app since WoT, diversifying seems like a good move in the meantime while they look for the next one.

 

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 02:58 PM, said:

Incorrect, I love his game to bits and have been playing it since it was in Closed Beta, however I've been also seeing Wargaming make progressively worse decisions balancing/mechanic wise over the years which I (over the same amount of years) have been warning would lose them players in the long run.

 

It's got little to do with feels, rather:

- Observation (change in mechanics/balancing).

- Thinking it through and pointing it out on the forums why this would be a bad idea long-term.

- Player number declining and thus confirming the observations over time.

- Rando's attributing it to feels.

 

This has been the same loop for close to 10 years now.

 

It's not about premium tanks, that is just one of the little cogs in the machine. It's everything, from the way they implemented physics to trying to fit tanks in classes (over armoring, making lights unable to engage long range etc.) to bad map design (corridors, removal of cover, favouring close range brawls) to making premium ammo available for credits instead of removing it to changing the way premium tanks are balanced to making the new-player-experience rather horrible up until tier 6 to implementing free-xp sink tanks in lines etc. The list is ever growing.

 

And just to be on the same page:

I'm not saying WoT is dying because of these bad decisions, every product has a curve to it.

What I'm saying is that due to WG's bad decisions, all of them, this product is dying faster then it should.

Had better decisions been made with more focus on longevity rather then short term financial gains, the reversal especially would have been much more gradual and soft.

The graph supports this observation, the sudden reversal is the clue, it's not a gradual declining curve as would be normal.

 

I didn't say anything about your love for the game (or not) so I'm not sure why you put that in. :confused:

 

Your argument is based on a fallacy from the start, however. You claim that you've seen all these poor decisions and have decried them to deaf ears, setting yourself up as some sort of WoT-Cassandra, doomed to forever be disbelieved when really all you've done is stamp your feet and shout that you don't like change. You grasp the graph of interest over time as though it's a set of stone tablets engraved with the truth, proving that you were right all along so it's not surprising that you appear delighted when player numbers drop because you see it as some sort of vindication.

 

If there had been no changes to the game, it would have died long ago. The fact that the changes which have been made aren't the ones you wanted means nothing.

 

As for dying "faster than it should", what do you put forward as a measure of how fast it should be dying? How do you gauge interest over time against a metric to show it's progressing faster or slower than you'd otherwise expect? Or did you see a steep drop on the magic graph and leap on it as definitive proof?

 

The trouble with the argument you're advancing is that you started with your conclusions and you're trying to fit the facts to them.



Stevies_Team #16 Posted 02 January 2020 - 04:42 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15765 battles
  • 1,821
  • Member since:
    07-14-2016
Wait until we get the HE rebalance...

snowlywhite #17 Posted 02 January 2020 - 05:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26787 battles
  • 633
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 03:16 PM, said:

One of those is letting go of the "premiums should be inferior to fully upgraded same tier tanks".

 

asking for something that gets played about 10 times more than your average tech tree tank to be inferior is pretty big. You can't sell something that already costs more than a standalone game and make it worse than a free tank too.

 

works at the start when ppl. that don't want to buy premium get their premium tank and grind credits in it instead. But it'll dry up after a while.

 

Had the gold for buying stuff this year. Also have the money to afford anything anyway. But didn't buy any premium lately. Why would I when I already have the ones that are good? To get some that are... worse? And pay for that too? Seriously; why would I ever do that? :P

 

the problem is when premiums are better than tech tree. Being worse has no justification; but they shouldn't be better either. And frankly, proseco ain't much better than pantera(imho). Some pluses, some minuses. Sure, .5s intraclip is big, but pantera can somewhat bounce when top tier plus faster reload after 2 shots helps a bit(and the extra speed).

 

the other problem is when you release a tank for '19 meta while the tech tree counterpart wasn't reviewed in 6+ years and it's totally outdated. Which also I don't think it's a problem with the premium; it's a problem with the tech tree that was completely forgotten.



Negativvv #18 Posted 02 January 2020 - 05:07 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14822 battles
  • 2,218
  • [KEKE] KEKE
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

Meh the game is healthy enough, easily 120k every night during the festive period and there's never been an issue getting a game at any time of day or night.

 

WoT seems far healthier than WoWS right now with rage over the Purto Rico money grab. Nowhere near the same community storm here.



Cobra6 #19 Posted 02 January 2020 - 06:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16562 battles
  • 17,850
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostBrinklyWollox, on 02 January 2020 - 03:37 PM, said:

Spoiler

 

 

I've looked at the graphs you provided and I'm wondering if you did yourself as I see quite clearly that the moving average of pretty much all of them is a gradual rise and then a gradual reversal followed by a gradual decline whereas the one from WoT is exponential growth, halt, sharp reversal and then a gradual decline. Exception for Fortnight as that graph is heavily compressed into a year compared to the *years* of the other games.

 

Not setting myself up as a Cassandra at all, unless you call logical thinking some higher power now? If you focus on making money rather then actually improving your game, *for the player*, then this will happen eventually. WG just has different priorities it seems, shovelling cash first and then making a good product second.

And before you try, yes companies need to make money but one can not call WoT unprofitable or struggling in the slightest. So making choices that would net them (comparatively) for instance 70% of the money while extending the longevity of the game at the same time (and thus resulting in longer term profits) would have ended the same for Wargaming in terms of financials while at the same time keeping the player base much happier for much longer.

 

If there had been no changes, WoT would have followed a more gradual curve as what they were doing (as is evident by the sharp rise) was liked by the player base.

If there had been less destructive changes, WoT would have followed a more gradual curve.

But there weren't, there we rather radical changes across the board to a product that was liked in a certain state which eventually threw a spanner in the works of the rise and resulted in a halt and reversal.

 

It brings me no joy seeing the numbers of players decline nor being right in my observations, as I don't want WoT to decline. It's managed to grab my attention for 10 years and I still enjoy playing it a lot every time I do.

We have gotten a ton of content over the years which is great but the framework of the game has been expanded but also simplified/damaged over the years.

All the players that I've played with over the years in clans, friends or random strangers ending up on my friends list have basically all left for the same tired old reasons that have been plaguing WoT for years and years which are still not addressed or ignored while more problems are piled on top trying to patch a broken foundation.

 

Whether WG will be in time to turn this around or not we'll see in the coming years, but they'll have to think less about making the maximum amount of profit and focus on improving the player experience for that to happen.... If they don't, they won't turn it around because no amount of content will address fundamental flaws.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 02 January 2020 - 06:31 PM.


BrinklyWollox #20 Posted 02 January 2020 - 06:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28367 battles
  • 11,408
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostCobra6, on 02 January 2020 - 05:27 PM, said:

I've looked at the graphs you provided and I'm wondering if you did yourself as I see quite clearly that the moving average of pretty much all of them is a gradual rise and then a gradual reversal followed by a gradual decline whereas the one from WoT is exponential growth, halt, sharp reversal and then a gradual decline. Exception for Fortnight as that graph is heavily compressed into a year compared to the *years* of the other games.

 

Not setting myself up as a Cassandra at all, unless you call logical thinking some higher power now? If you focus on making money rather then actually improving your game, *for the player*, then this will happen eventually. WG just has different priorities it seems, shovelling cash first and then making a good product second.

And before you try, yes companies need to make money but one can not call WoT unprofitable or struggling in the slightest. So making choices that would net them (comparatively) for instance 70% of the money while extending the longevity of the game at the same time (and thus resulting in longer term profits) would have ended the same for Wargaming in terms of financials while at the same time keeping the player base much happier for much longer.

 

If there had been no changes, WoT would have followed a more gradual curve as what they were doing (as is evident by the sharp rise) was liked by the player base.

If there had been less destructive changes, WoT would have followed a more gradual curve.

But there weren't, there we rather radical changes across the board to a product that was liked in a certain state which eventually threw a spanner in the works of the rise and resulted in a halt and reversal.

 

It brings me no joy seeing the numbers of players decline nor being right in my observations, as I don't want WoT to decline. It's managed to grab my attention for 10 years and I still enjoy playing it a lot every time I do.

We have gotten a ton of content over the years which is great but the framework of the game has been expanded but also simplified/damaged over the years.

All the players that I've played with over the years in clans, friends or random strangers ending up on my friends list have basically all left for the same tired old reasons that have been plaguing WoT for years and years which are still not addressed or ignored while more problems are piled on top trying to patch a broken foundation.

 

Whether WG will be in time to turn this around or not we'll see in the coming years, but they'll have to think less about making the maximum amount of profit and focus on improving the player experience for that to happen.... If they don't, they won't turn it around because no amount of content will address fundamental flaws.

 

Interesting. You've rephrased your argument from one of "WG are deliberately destroying their game" to a more mellow one that closely resembles the points I've been making without conceding that you agree. We're now at a point where we're saying more or less the same thing, except I have a bit more faith in WG having a concrete long term plan.

 

Funny how you're able to support your argument once you abandon the wilder "nobody listens to me!" claims, isn't it.







Also tagged with skoda, announcement, premium shop

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users