IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 On 5/31/2024 at 9:28 AM, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Oh look, more premiums. Oh look, even more premiums. It's a pay2win event. On 5/31/2024 at 8:10 PM, meatgrindr said: Regrinding the Brit Cl line, I'm finding Leander works ok. Even has a heal. Oh... haven't you heard: On 5/31/2024 at 10:12 AM, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Coal ships are not free. They are rewards for time in game. Community tokens are not free. They are compensation for game activities. The goal post has been moved again... If it requires spending "time in game" or spending time on "game activities" it is not free anymore... So your Leander does not cancel out the "pay2win" claim he made after all as apparently you had to spend "time in game" to get it. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 55 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: If it requires spending "time in game" or spending time on "game activities" it is not free anymore... Finally starting to see reality, are we? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcus_Aesopi Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 hour ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: Reward stars are based on how many of the extra tasks you get done (other than the main task...like other Ops there's 5 extras you can get)... You can have a totally insanely good match & not get any stars if none of the extra tasks get complete or die in the first attack & get all 5 if the team cleans them up. Yup, WG's reward structure is a problem as it doesn't match up with the operation objectives. My "best" game was a zero star "victory" where I killed 11 boats and over 80 planes in my Atlanta... while I did clear some minefields, I couldn't approach the shore batteries due to damage already taken. It kinda' sucks that the best result "for me" was a crappy overall operation... the very weak "team" left more for me. Since that was over a 2K bxp run with 1.2M-ish coin, it is hard to complain. It points out the pointlessness from a rewards perspective of taking, for example, a BB into the scenario to work the shore batteries. None of the BBs I tried were particularly enjoyable to play in the scenario. While I like solid secondary BBs... you don't really play them... kinda like "good" AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcus_Aesopi Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 32 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Finally starting to see reality, are we? While it's true that game activities are how one advances, that's the same mechanism in EVERY online game. The games that aren't as cut-throat as WG's cash grabbing work that same way, just less dishonestly (or for those who insist on defending the indefensible: with less "miscommunication"). I recognize the very large faults from an American "fairness" perspective, but also enjoy the game for the most part.. so I'll play until I don't enjoy it. It is unfortunate that a lot of other online games are following the WG way... and it'll get worse as the big players continue to buy up successful games... Bye bye Blizzard et al... Most of us, as far as I can tell, understand the WG "reality". Try Helldivers 2... looks like an interesting company reminiscent of the "good ole days". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 22 minutes ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: While it's true that game activities are how one advances, that's the same mechanism in EVERY online game. Nope. 22 minutes ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: I recognize the very large faults from an American "fairness" perspective, but also enjoy the game for the most part.. so I'll play until I don't enjoy it. It is unfortunate that a lot of other online games are following the WG way... and it'll get worse as the big players continue to buy up successful games... Bye bye Blizzard et al... I enjoy it too. Just doing my best to help others reconcile expectations with reality so they too can enjoy it without feeling ripped off. I wouldn't keep playing if the game wasn't enjoyable. Though I do play other games too, which helps keep everything in perspective. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 5 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: Ship based is much more powerful & effective (way more damage & area of effect) than airstrikes in any mode.. I prefer to define effectiveness as the ability of the armament to meaningfully perform its intended function in a practical manner. In that criteria, ASW airstrikes are far more generally useful and effective on cruisers than DCs at combatting enemy submarines. Hence my earlier comment. I can see WG implementing mines the way they have as a way to give ship-dropped depth charges a niche on cruisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said: In that criteria, ASW airstrikes are far more generally useful and effective on cruisers than DCs at combatting enemy submarines. Hence my earlier comment. I can see WG implementing mines the way they have as a way to give ship-dropped depth charges a niche on cruisers. I feel the practical limit impossed on Submarine shotgun attacks opened a window for CLs with DCs being much more effective now on their intended role. The Airstrike remains easier to apply, but the DCs can be definitively deadier on the right circumstances, particularly at mid-tiers. Edited June 3 by ArIskandir 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Took Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 6 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: Oh... haven't you heard: The goal post has been moved again... If it requires spending "time in game" or spending time on "game activities" it is not free anymore... So your Leander does not cancel out the "pay2win" claim he made after all as apparently you had to spend "time in game" to get it. just curious... win what?? i dont see any rewards worth even clicking play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, ArIskandir said: I feel the practical limit impossed on Submarine shotgun attacks opened a window for CLs with DCs being much more effective now on their intended role. The biggest obstacles to cruisers sinking submarines with depth charges was never the sub themselves, but rather the sub’s teammates. DDs have several tools that make that type of sub-hunting much more effective, in particular the lack of a citadel, shorter detection ranges, more maneuverability, and more common access to smoke to disengage if needed. Cruisers depth charge attacks require significantly greater risk outside of situations where submarines are extremely isolated (which typically indicates a very late game situation or a submarine that has mis-played). Edited June 3 by Nevermore135 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 16 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said: Cruisers depth charge attacks require significantly greater risk outside of situations where submarines are extremely isolated (which typically indicates a very late game situation or a submarine that has mis-played). Indeed, but what previously was suicidal now became possible. In that way, dealing with a Sub became more similar to dealing with a sneaky DD, you first dispose of it's support then isolate and kill it with relative safety. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 11 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Finally starting to see reality, are we? Misusing known translations of words is not "reality"...in fact it is exactly 180° off reality as reality (as opposed to truth...which is what something actually is) is just what is agreed upon. The agreed upon definition (in any on line gaming forum) of "pay2win" is the necessity to spend real world money to advance...period... You used it in proper context when people were giving examples of premium ships they said we're good for the D-Day Op but when somebody mentioned ships that could be obtained from grinding (whether tech tree or any of the in game grindable resources) you misused pay2win by claiming it isn't free if you have to grind for it... & Yeah yeah...we all understand the analogy that "time is money"...but that is not part of the definition of "pay2win" in video game forums (...&...you know that)... You can have that opinion...everybody is entitled to their opinion...but don't try to define it as "reality"...because the agreed upon definition for pay2win hasn't changed just because you have started misusing it. Edited June 4 by IfYouSeeKhaos 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 6 hours ago, Took said: just curious... win what?? i dont see any rewards worth even clicking play I'm free2play so I won't turn down 2 days premium that's that easy to farm... No interest beyond that & wouldn't have even done that had I not been 800 XP short on my 3rd crate last night after ranked ended as I had already finished grinding brawls & figured it would be a quick alternative to jumping into random for just 800 XP. Got 4 of the 5 stars the 1st attempt which left me needing only 1 more for the 2 days premium so figured might as well go once more... Not seeing anything else worth the effort beyond that most certainly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 hour ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: Misusing known translations of words is not "reality"...in fact it is exactly 180° off reality as reality (as opposed to truth...which is what something actually is) is just what is agreed upon. The agreed upon definition (in any on line gaming forum) of "pay2win" is the necessity to spend real world money to advance...period... No, it's too spend real world money to advance FASTER or get an ADVANTAGE... ...which premium ships and time allow you to do. I'm entirely within the definition. 1 hour ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: You used it in proper context when people were giving examples of premium ships they said we're good for the D-Day Op but when somebody mentioned ships that could be obtained from grinding (whether tech tree or any of the in game grindable resources) you misused pay2win by claiming it isn't free if you have to grind for it... When discussing tech tree ships, they still aren't free. They take time and effort in game to obtain, and purchasing them requires resources that are more easily obtained by the pay2win mechanics. You are the one getting confused by the deliberate choice of multiple currencies to obfuscate the reality of just how pervasive pay2win is for WGs business model. If I buy premium time, I can more easily obtain tech tree ships. If I buy other in game resources, I can afford to fully equip and maintain more tech tree ships than I could otherwise. I.e., I gain an advantage over other players just by spending money. Pay2win is ubiquitous here. 1 hour ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: Yeah yeah...we all understand the analogy that "time is money"...but that is not part of the definition of "pay2win" in video game forums (...&...you know that)... You can have that opinion...everybody is entitled to their opinion...but don't try to define it as "reality"...because the agreed upon definition for pay2win hasn't changed just because you have started misusing it. I'm not misusing the definition at all. I suspect you just don't want to acknowledge the reality of what this game actually is. The sad thing is that admitting it's pay2win actually helps people enjoy the game more and helps with player retention. Expectations are properly set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GandalfTehGray Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: No, it's too spend real world money to advance FASTER When discussing tech tree ships, they still aren't free. They take time and effort in game to obtain, and purchasing them requires resources that are more easily obtained by the pay2win mechanics. If I buy premium time, I can more easily obtain tech tree ships. If I buy other in game resources, I can afford to fully equip and maintain more tech tree ships than I could otherwise. I disagree, a non premium time player can get the exact same ships,it will just take longer. As we all know just because you have a higher tier ship doesn't make you better. If we had two entirely new players the non premium time player may actually perform better because they have to spend more time in each boat due to the longer amount of time to grind through each ship. I've played actually pay2win games, an old phone game comes to mind. Kingdoms at War, they had a system that let you fully "refresh" your army from 0. You could use up to 24 per day. At best you'd earn like 1 per week. But you definitely buy them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruzenstern Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 7 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: I'm not misusing the definition at all. I suspect you just don't want to acknowledge the reality of what this game actually is. The sad thing is that admitting it's pay2win actually helps people enjoy the game more and helps with player retention. pay2win is actually just that. And WoWS isn't that. You pay to advance faster, sure (I certainly would never play without premium, seeing how cheap it is). But that doesn't help you win battles. You cannot really increase your win chances with money, barring very few extremely OP premium ships not available anymore (Belfast being the most glaring example). Ok, I guess you can also be wasteful and spend a whole lot of RL money to never drive stock ships and always have 21 pt captains, but that is a very short lasting advantage and would cost so much that I cannot imagine anyone doing it. Then again I cannot imagine anyone spending money on their shitty lotteries full of camo rewards, but people seem to do it anyway... A prime example of real pay2win was gold ammo in the olde days of WoT. THAT was a clear advantage in battle that you could not get without spending RL money (barring gold rewards from events/clan wars). There is nothing even close in WoWS. The game certainly is a shameless money grab these days. But it is not pay2win. Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 4 hours ago, GandalfTehGray said: I disagree, a non premium time player can get the exact same ships,it will just take longer. As we all know just because you have a higher tier ship doesn't make you better. If we had two entirely new players the non premium time player may actually perform better because they have to spend more time in each boat due to the longer amount of time to grind through each ship. I've played actually pay2win games, an old phone game comes to mind. Kingdoms at War, they had a system that let you fully "refresh" your army from 0. You could use up to 24 per day. At best you'd earn like 1 per week. But you definitely buy them. Having access to higher point captains DOES give you better combat advantage. It DOES give you better performance. 1 hour ago, Kruzenstern said: pay2win is actually just that. And WoWS isn't that. You pay to advance faster, sure (I certainly would never play without premium, seeing how cheap it is). But that doesn't help you win battles. You cannot really increase your win chances with money, barring very few extremely OP premium ships not available anymore (Belfast being the most glaring example). Ok, I guess you can also be wasteful and spend a whole lot of RL money to never drive stock ships and always have 21 pt captains, but that is a very short lasting advantage and would cost so much that I cannot imagine anyone doing it. Then again I cannot imagine anyone spending money on their shitty lotteries full of camo rewards, but people seem to do it anyway... A prime example of real pay2win was gold ammo in the olde days of WoT. THAT was a clear advantage in battle that you could not get without spending RL money (barring gold rewards from events/clan wars). There is nothing even close in WoWS. The game certainly is a shameless money grab these days. But it is not pay2win. Yet. Having access to higher point captains DOES give you better combat advantage. It DOES give you better performance. Guys, FASTER PROGRESS is an ADVANTAGE. It always has been. Plus, you can afford flags to keep all of your direct combat buffs available all the time. You can grind OP lines fast enough to enjoy them before the nerfs come. You can literally buy captains who give your ships extra advantages...like Yamamoto. The fact that this is also available for no monetary cost by a painful grind is EXACTLY THE POINT. Free2play games ARE pay2win, because the business model is called 'free2play:pay2win'. They are a package deal and always go together. No one outside of World of Warships Discord defines that this game isn't pay2win. Edited June 4 by Daniel_Allan_Clark 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruzenstern Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Well, my definition of pay2win differs then. And I actually have no objections to your kind of pay2win. What I would have objections to would be a direct combat advantage that I could never reasonably achieve without spending RL money. Something like WoTs old gold ammo. It has been some time, but iirc the T54 was a prime example. If two were dueling, and both had only normal ammo, neither could pen the others frontal armor (disregarding lower plate). But if one had gold ammo, he COULD pen the others front but only by using real money. Whereas, if I start a new grind and have a crappy captain and a stock ship, so be it, kudos to those who have better, I will be there eventually. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Kruzenstern said: pay2win is actually just that. And WoWS isn't that. You pay to advance faster, sure (I certainly would never play without premium, seeing how cheap it is). But that doesn't help you win battles. You cannot really increase your win chances with money, barring very few extremely OP premium ships not available anymore (Belfast being the most glaring example). Ok, I guess you can also be wasteful and spend a whole lot of RL money to never drive stock ships and always have 21 pt captains, but that is a very short lasting advantage and would cost so much that I cannot imagine anyone doing it. Then again I cannot imagine anyone spending money on their shitty lotteries full of camo rewards, but people seem to do it anyway... A prime example of real pay2win was gold ammo in the olde days of WoT. THAT was a clear advantage in battle that you could not get without spending RL money (barring gold rewards from events/clan wars). There is nothing even close in WoWS. The game certainly is a shameless money grab these days. But it is not pay2win. Yet. I agree with the "pay to advance faster" notion. The Captain's Skills affect ship performance by some percentage(s), but a good player with a 3 point Captain has a better chance than a bad player with a 21 point Captain, as I reckon the situation (especially in a 1 versus 1 brawl). "Gold ammo" is an example of "pay to win". Thankfully, we don't have "gold ammo" in WOWs at the moment (and I hope we never do). 47 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Having access to higher point captains DOES give you better combat advantage. It DOES give you better performance. Having access to higher point captains DOES give you better combat advantage. It DOES give you better performance. Guys, FASTER PROGRESS is an ADVANTAGE. It always has been. Plus, you can afford flags to keep all of your direct combat buffs available all the time. You can grind OP lines fast enough to enjoy them before the nerfs come. You can literally buy captains who give your ships extra advantages...like Yamamoto. The fact that this is also available for no monetary cost by a painful grind is EXACTLY THE POINT. Free2play games ARE pay2win, because the business model is called 'free2play:pay2win'. They are a package deal and always go together. No one outside of World of Warships Discord defines that this game isn't pay2win. To borrow a statistical term, your interpretation seems to be an "outlier" on the spectrum of sampled results. I get the impression that it works for you, but not for everyone else. In other news, I observed a rabbit foraging on our lawn, this morning. That was a nice experience for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 11 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: No, it's too spend real world money to advance FASTER or get an ADVANTAGE... 1-...which premium ships and 2-time allow you to do. I'm entirely within the definition. Those are 2 different things... 1- Premium ships: Require real world currency & fall under the category (understood by every member of any on-line gaming forum) of pay2win. 2- Time: Requires zero real world currency & does NOT fall under the category (understood by every member of any on-line gaming forum) of pay2win. The moment you included 2 in your description of pay2win you went entirely OUTSIDE the definition... But... Not only do you presently know that... You knew it before you ever did it... Yet... You still did it anyway... &... Will continue to do it in the future... 23 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Finally starting to see reality, are we? Oh yeah... I think we can all agree on that. Edited June 4 by IfYouSeeKhaos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 48 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: 2- Time: Requires zero real world currency & does NOT fall under the category (understood by every member of any on-line gaming forum) of pay2win. What I wrote was unclear. I meant premium ships and premium time. In English, sometimes the adjective is applied to both nouns... Premium 'ships and time'. I can see how you would read it the other way though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin_Simpleton Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 23 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: I enjoy it too. Just doing my best to help others reconcile expectations with reality so they too can enjoy it without feeling ripped off. I wouldn't keep playing if the game wasn't enjoyable. I think this game is functioning as a real-life simulator as regards to feelings one gets from their decisions and goals. I thought I could get better and advance more quickly if I concentrated my efforts and money on bringing two captains up to 19 pts. Along the way, I missed by days a good FXP exchange and some other significant deal. Then, 2 weeks later, the news comes out about increasing the skills to 21. I got to re-experience the feelings of rage, betrayal, and being stupid. Fortunately, there was no one around to 'talk' with about it. I got over it and what I learned about focusing my expectations has helped in real-life. Those negative emotions don't occur very often anymore. I still feel stupid, though. Those, now 21pt, captains have never generated much ECXP because I put them on high tier ships that I'm lousy at playing. So, I did pay to win and I didn't. I'm free to continue playing this game and I'm winning because of my prior investments of time and money. Nit picking of what the actual definition means doesn't help anyone. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 7 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: What I wrote was unclear. I meant premium ships and premium time. What you wrote here: On 5/31/2024 at 10:12 AM, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Coal ships are not free. They are rewards for time in game. Community tokens are not free. They are compensation for game activities. ["Game activities" also translates to "time in game"]. In neither of those cases were you referring to premium time when you said "time" &... In both of those cases you were referring to ships that require no real-world money needing to be spent to obtain them as "pay2win". Edited June 4 by IfYouSeeKhaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: What you wrote here: In neither of those cases were you referring to premium time when you said "time" &... In both of those cases you were referring to ships that require no real-world money needing to be spent to obtain them as "pay2win". Yes, but time in game can be circumvented by paying real money...which is the essence of pay2win. The existence of a free pathway to the rewards does not negate the reality of pay2win...it is a core aspect of the business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 6 hours ago, Justin_Simpleton said: I think this game is functioning as a real-life simulator as regards to feelings one gets from their decisions and goals. I thought I could get better and advance more quickly if I concentrated my efforts and money on bringing two captains up to 19 pts. Along the way, I missed by days a good FXP exchange and some other significant deal. Then, 2 weeks later, the news comes out about increasing the skills to 21. I got to re-experience the feelings of rage, betrayal, and being stupid. Fortunately, there was no one around to 'talk' with about it. I got over it and what I learned about focusing my expectations has helped in real-life. Those negative emotions don't occur very often anymore. I still feel stupid, though. Those, now 21pt, captains have never generated much ECXP because I put them on high tier ships that I'm lousy at playing. So, I did pay to win and I didn't. I'm free to continue playing this game and I'm winning because of my prior investments of time and money. Nit picking of what the actual definition means doesn't help anyone. So that commander skills change got you...I learned my lesson years prior during the previous commander skills change. Back in the day that 19th point used to cost 10M XP...all ground out on the 1 same commander (I never earned 1 of those...my lesson wasn't from that long ago). All at once they added & removed a bunch of skills/dropped the requirement for the 19th point to 300k XP instead of 10M XP/& added Elite Commander XP. Now I was close to finishing my Fletcher grind at the time & my commander was just coming up on it's 18th point & the Atlanta was in the premium shop for the 1st time ever...so I was thinking US DDs & Atlanta have the same guns so it might be a good idea to get Atlanta & use the US DD commander on it to grind out ECXP. So I bought Atlanta/bought a T10 camo for Gearing/converted 300k FXP to get my 18 point commander up to 19 points so I could start grinding ECXP(& even bought the year of premium at 50% off during Thanxgiving time when it was 1st introduced)...& everything was moving along perfectly... Ground out enough ECXP to get another commander up to 19 points...but before I could actually decide which nations commander on which line I was gonna boost up to that exalted 19 point position...the announcement came... Open Water Stealth Firing was being removed... & All of a sudden a must have skill on the Atlanta (AFT...gun range skill that increased range by 20%) that allowed Atlanta's 11.1 gun range to stretch out to 13.3 became a not so ideal skill to have on the Gearing anymore. So all that ECXP I grounded out now went towards making a dedicated commander for the Atlanta & I was back to the start on grinding out a commander for another line... Not that I didn't get a big jump on grinding out commanders from all of that...just that I learned (quite early on) just how quickly things you pay for can be seemingly eliminated next update. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Yes, but time in game can be circumvented by paying real money...which is the essence of pay2win. The existence of a free pathway to the rewards does not negate the reality of pay2win...it is a core aspect of the business model. But time in game is NOT pay2win just because you can spend real-world money to circumvent it... Yet you defined "time in game" (during an actual conversation specifically about "pay2win") as not free...based solely on the fact you have to spend time to do it...& specifically stating that that made it "not free"...& equivalent to pay2win... &... we're done here. Edited June 4 by IfYouSeeKhaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now