Lesta is goin' PaytoWin

[AdmiralThunder]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Pay2Advance is commonly lumped under pay2win mechanics in this genre.

After all, having a ship or item definitely beats not having it...so having a ship or item sooner is a gameplay advantage... especially when you consider the game to be more than just the battles, which is clearly the case.

It shouldn't be because advancing has nothing to do with winning. People who try and group P2A with actual P2W are wrong. They are the folks who have issues with spending on stuff so it is all bad and evil. Economic boosters in WOWS are the furthest thing possible from P2W. You win nothing because of them.

Edited June 19 by AdmiralThunder

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, AdmiralThunder said:

It shouldn't be because advancing has nothing to do with winning. People who try and group P2A with actual P2W are wrong.

Access to ships and items aids in winning.

People who try to deny that P2A aids in winning are in denial.

[torino2dc]

The signal flag system is one of the oldest designs in the game, so it makes sense that Lesta would look to overhaul it. 

The problem with the current system in WoWS is that they operate purely as a credit-sink (mostly for performance-conscious end-game players who already have all the tech-tree ships). That's a functional, if highly unimaginative, way of doing it. 

The proposed Mir Korabley re-design would add a grinding obligation for said performance-conscious players -- if they want to have every edge in e.g. Clan Battles or Ranked Gold, they will have to jump through the hoops that Lesta wants them to in order to get their blue and red signals. Time will tell if that increases their player numbers or just burns people out.

Whether it makes MK more Pay-2-win will depend on how the supply of blue and red signals is managed. If the supply is kept tight and tied to in-game events/achievements, then it will likely only affect higher end competitive. If the devs fall victim to temptation and sell them for money, all bets are off. 

A nicer side of the Lesta re-design is rewarding achievements with signals again. That was sadly removed from WoWS because it was too easy to grind them in low-tier randoms (Mikasa in particular was an absurd flag factory). It would be nice if WG figured out a way to re-introduce these rewards without having them be farm-able. 

----

TLDR interesting re-design. WG should look at some of the wider objectives (increasing incentive for participating in events, making achievements/super-containers feel special again), even if the exact implementation might not be worth copying.

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, torino2dc said:

A nicer side of the Lesta re-design is rewarding achievements with signals again. That was sadly removed from WoWS because it was too easy to grind them in low-tier randoms (Mikasa in particular was an absurd flag factory). It would be nice if WG figured out a way to re-introduce these rewards without having them be farm-able. 

I seem to recall from a previous MK dev blog post that Lesta was planning on introducing high-tier bots into Randoms, in addition to disguising them as normal players.

[Volron]

Well, greed and stupidity all in one neat little package.....  Wait, this ain't news, this is ancient history that was long painted on rocks!  Get with the time guys!

Edited June 19 by Volron

[Ensign Cthulhu]

10 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Access to ships and items aids in winning.

The best ship is nothing in the hands of a garbage player, and getting the next ship up won't make you better. If you think it will, you're on a fool's errand.

Everyone who comes here giving example after example of high-tier players who suck is proof of that. 

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

The proposed Mir Korabley re-design would add a grinding obligation for said performance-conscious players -- if they want to have every edge in e.g. Clan Battles or Ranked Gold, they will have to jump through the hoops that Lesta wants them to in order to get their blue and red signals. Time will tell if that increases their player numbers or just burns people out.

I suspect all it will do is see to it that mistakes are punished just a fraction more harshly than they already are. You might potentially see a slight statistical rise in Devastating Strikes across the playerbase, as wannabe one-shots that just fail to kill a target (and leave it open for finishing by colleagues a few seconds later) get converted to outright full kills, and likewise focus-fires under radar or hydro. There will be a somewhat higher percentage of DD players who just fail to get away from things they managed to survive before. 

 

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

A nicer side of the Lesta re-design is rewarding achievements with signals again. That was sadly removed from WoWS because it was too easy to grind them in low-tier randoms (Mikasa in particular was an absurd flag factory). It would be nice if WG figured out a way to re-introduce these rewards without having them be farm-able. 

The detail is in the text of the article I posted:

Quote

Along with the rework of the signal system, we will return the ability to receive  signals for achievements . The game will have access to constantly updated weekly chains of combat missions. There will be two chains in total. To complete the first one, you will need to receive any achievements based on the results of the battle, and its complete completion will bring 4 rare signals of each type. The second chain will require obtaining heroic achievements and, if fully completed, will bring 2 elite signals of each type.

So the awarding of signals for achievements won't be a direct one-for-one; it will depend on how many achievements of each type you get, and it will give a predictable set of rewards. The devil lies in the detail of "constantly updated weekly chains" - one cycle per week? More? Open-ended? That last one seems unlikely if WG's aim is to keep the rare bonuses rare - or at least, difficult to earn.

Edited June 19 by Ensign Cthulhu

[Andrewbassg]

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

The signal flag system is one of the oldest designs in the game, so it makes sense that Lesta would look to overhaul it. 

 

If works......

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

The problem with the current system in WoWS is that they operate purely as a credit-sink (mostly for performance-conscious end-game players who already have all the tech-tree ships). That's a functional, if highly unimaginative, way of doing it.

I use RBP.

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

The proposed Mir Korabley re-design would add a grinding obligation for said performance-conscious players -- if they want to have every edge in e.g. Clan Battles or Ranked Gold, they will have to jump through the hoops that Lesta wants them to in order to get their blue and red signals. Time will tell if that increases their player numbers or just burns people out.

Whether it makes MK more Pay-2-win will depend on how the supply of blue and red signals is managed. If the supply is kept tight and tied to in-game events/achievements, then it will likely only affect higher end competitive. If the devs fall victim to temptation and sell them for money, all bets are off. 

Not necessarily. While I laud the return of rewards for achievements, they could, quite predictably, accrued by means of crates.

4 hours ago, torino2dc said:

TLDR interesting re-design. WG should look at some of the wider objectives (increasing incentive for participating in events, making achievements/super-containers feel special again), even if the exact implementation might not be worth copying.

No, they better not. Like I already said, the biggest problem in terms of outcome is the widening of the already huge skill gap and by nerfing their bonuses, the increase of lethality of matches leading to even more blowouts . Which in turn, will cause even more frustration among the better players and opening up the possibility of them leaving in even greater numbers and which in turn will cause even more frustration.

Predicted a similar outcome with the eco/camo rework and the operations rework , which all proved to be correct.The operation rework was particularly egregious, because affected player "education". Ops acted (coz it was designed to) as an invaluable practice/training  ground fro players.

Coop - kindergarden

Low tier randoms (up to T5)- general/ elementary school 

Ops - Lyceum/Highschool

Mid tier randoms (T6-8) - Jr College

So yeah, the current situation is entirely Wedgie's making and they are responsible for it.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

I am particularly amused that those peddling the 'pay2advance is not pay2win' position are the same people who advise having a broad set of ships to use when attempting to complete Dockyards and Missions.

How do people obtain that broad set of ships?

Oh yeah, it's easier if they pay for it.

It's the same inane argument as claiming that putting items into loot crates isn't 'direct sales.'

[HogHammer]

2 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

I seem to recall from a previous MK dev blog post that Lesta was planning on introducing high-tier bots into Randoms, in addition to disguising them as normal players.

As to how this would relate to WG on its NA, EU, and Asia servers, adding bots at high tiers would not fix any issues within the game. Several years ago, WG, on the old NA forum, stated that Tier 10 was by far the most popular tiered played. I doubt this has changed much, and I will add that the overall number of players playing T10 is probably currently higher.

If there are not enough players at T10, T9 and T8 get pulled into the matchmaking.  Hence, there is no need for bots.

Several years ago, getting pulled into a T10 match if you were in T9 and, to a lesser degree, T8 was not as big a deal.  However, today, if one is in a T9 or T8 (in the majority of ships), one's heart can drop into the pit of one's stomach when one sees the team lineups.  The addition of new ships, funny buttons, and the number and caliber of guns has really changed the game meta.

I'm personally not in favor of adding bots to PvP gameplay; however, if needed, at tiers 6, 7, and even 8, they could be added due to the overall server populations at given times of the day and the overall distribution of ship tiers.

I would also like to see players only tiered one level up, but again, with the server populations in general and ship distribution, I cannot see this happening.  The only fix, if that were implemented, would be the addition of bots.  

[Ensign Cthulhu]

27 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

How do people obtain that broad set of ships?

You GRIND it. You PUT IN THE HARD WORK and you GRIND IT, like I did. 

The fact that you jump to "easier if they pay for it" tells me a lot about the way you view the world. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, HogHammer said:

As to how this would relate to WG on its NA, EU, and Asia servers, adding bots at high tiers would not fix any issues within the game. Several years ago, WG, on the old NA forum, stated that Tier 10 was by far the most popular tiered played. I doubt this has changed much, and I will add that the overall number of players playing T10 is probably currently higher.

If there are not enough players at T10, T9 and T8 get pulled into the matchmaking.  Hence, there is no need for bots.

Several years ago, getting pulled into a T10 match if you were in T9 and, to a lesser degree, T8 was not as big a deal.  However, today, if one is in a T9 or T8 (in the majority of ships), one's heart can drop into the pit of one's stomach when one sees the team lineups.  The addition of new ships, funny buttons, and the number and caliber of guns has really changed the game meta.

I'm personally not in favor of adding bots to PvP gameplay; however, if needed, at tiers 6, 7, and even 8, they could be added due to the overall server populations at given times of the day and the overall distribution of ship tiers.

I would also like to see players only tiered one level up, but again, with the server populations in general and ship distribution, I cannot see this happening.  The only fix, if that were implemented, would be the addition of bots.  

Occasionally the matchmaker will have teams that are less than 12 players in random battles.
9 versus 9, in a random battle.
Or, sometimes, even fewer players per team.
I've had games of 1 versus 1.  They're rare, but have happened in the past.

[Asym]

52 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I am particularly amused that those peddling the 'pay2advance is not pay2win' position are the same people who advise having a broad set of ships to use when attempting to complete Dockyards and Missions.

How do people obtain that broad set of ships?

Oh yeah, it's easier if they pay for it.

It's the same inane argument as claiming that putting items into loot crates isn't 'direct sales.'

Hold on please.....  Time and effort are how most of us obtained a "broad set of ships..."  Yes, let's be honest:  xmas crates really added to what we "earned" and purchases with Coal, Steel, re-setting lines added ships.  Not all of us used a credit card to get over 400 ships.  In my case, I selected a Nation to grind: the IJN....  Not Nations - a Nation.

Now, we all know whales.  And yes, the have over 500 ships because they simply buy "everything"........and, that keeps the game solvent.

19 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Occasionally the matchmaker will have teams that are less than 12 players in random battles.
9 versus 9, in a random battle.
Or, sometimes, even fewer players per team.
I've had games of 1 versus 1.  They're rare, but have happened in the past.

PVP is really hard to sustain in a Mature game....  Why?  It seems PVP "wears people out emotionally"........ The PVP side simply becomes almost a business with all of the associated stress that entails.

Now, that is just an observation from me and what I experienced over the past 40 some years playing videogame or SIMs....  SIMs, that are "required" in some professions (Aviation, R&D and the Military) simply "eat people's lives" because of the mostly 1:1 physics and the responsibility "real life" requires ........  So, in researching games:  the greater the "intensity" (which isn't a simple definition we use) in PVP, the faster the exodus thresholds are obtained....  PVP burns people out is what it actually does....  Think of it in terms of "stress thresholds".......  Which, is really oxymoronic if your think about what is causing that stress...........a game....    see where that <<< goes.   

Edited June 19 by Asym

[GandalfTehGray]

46 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

How do people obtain that broad set of ships?

Oh yeah, it's easier if they pay for it.

 

I don't know if that thread on the old forums was archived but any new player on the old forums I would recommend they grind as many ship lines as possible while in below 200 match protection. Grind them to the point you unlock a T5 then swap to a new line.

It made sense because that's a 10-20  matches to finish a T1-T4 line these days and when you hit 200 matches you now have several t5s that qualify for mission grinding and you should have a diverse fleet to choose from and experience in most of the classes. 

A new account these days starts with at least triple the port slots over when I started and a helpful daily log in bonus even if they dont play a match. 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

4 minutes ago, Asym said:

SIMs, that are "required" in some professions (Aviation, R&D and the Military) simply "eat people's lives" because of the mostly 1:1 physics and the responsibility "real life" requires ........  So, in researching games:  the greater the "intensity" (which isn't a simple definition we use) in PVP, the faster the exodus thresholds are obtained....  PVP burns people out is what it actually does

This is why I prefer WOWS, as a game which takes several steps back from being a full simulation, while at the same time having a vivid enough appearance. I can take the PVP intensity in small doses to get a nearly-complete grind finished, as I did with the Yorktown a couple of weeks ago and as I intend to do with the Brindisi this weekend, while remaining in "chill" mode most of the rest of the time.

1 minute ago, GandalfTehGray said:

A new account these days starts with at least triple the port slots over when I started and a helpful daily log in bonus even if they dont play a match. 

Not to mention that once you get to Tier 5, you can reliably earn new port slots every month, something that definitely didn't happen when I started. Slot drops in crates were almost as valuable as the ships themselves!

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

16 minutes ago, Asym said:

Time and effort are how most of us obtained a "broad set of ships..."  Yes, let's be honest:  xmas crates really added to what we "earned" and purchases with Coal, Steel, re-setting lines added ships.  Not all of us used a credit card to get over 400 ships.  In my case, I selected a Nation to grind: the IJN....  Not Nations - a Nation.

Now, we all know whales.  And yes, the have over 500 ships because they simply buy "everything"........and, that keeps the game solvent.

Yes. But the fact that you can grind it is interesting but not relevant to the point I am making.

Pay2Advance makes it EASIER to have the ships and captains to make getting dockyards and missions complete EASIER.

It makes 'winning' easier.

The fact that there is a no monetary cost track to these rewards (time grinding sink), does not invalidate my point. In fact, it proves it.

Paying for advancing allows players to have access to more powerful in-game gear which allows them to win more often than they would if they had not paid.

Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[HogHammer]

33 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Occasionally the matchmaker will have teams that are less than 12 players in random battles.
9 versus 9, in a random battle.
Or, sometimes, even fewer players per team.
I've had games of 1 versus 1.  They're rare, but have happened in the past.

9v9 is not too bad, but when it drops below that...yikes!

I know much has to do with server populations at any given time of day, but perhaps then I would almost welcome bots into a match to make it interesting.

[ArIskandir]

19 minutes ago, Asym said:

PVP burns people out is what it actually does.

Amen  

 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

5 minutes ago, HogHammer said:

9v9 is not too bad, but when it drops below that...yikes!

It depends on what the ships are. A reasonable blend of BB, Cruiser and DD is basically just a ranked battle. If it's a queue dump with a couple of carriers on each side, something I've actually been in once, life can get very... ah, interesting, especially for DD drivers.

[Wolfswetpaws]

37 minutes ago, Asym said:

55 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Occasionally the matchmaker will have teams that are less than 12 players in random battles.
9 versus 9, in a random battle.
Or, sometimes, even fewer players per team.
I've had games of 1 versus 1.  They're rare, but have happened in the past.

PVP is really hard to sustain in a Mature game....  Why?  It seems PVP "wears people out emotionally"........ The PVP side simply becomes almost a business with all of the associated stress that entails.

Now, that is just an observation from me and what I experienced over the past 40 some years playing videogame or SIMs....  SIMs, that are "required" in some professions (Aviation, R&D and the Military) simply "eat people's lives" because of the mostly 1:1 physics and the responsibility "real life" requires ........  So, in researching games:  the greater the "intensity" (which isn't a simple definition we use) in PVP, the faster the exodus thresholds are obtained....  PVP burns people out is what it actually does....  Think of it in terms of "stress thresholds".......  Which, is really oxymoronic if your think about what is causing that stress...........a game....    see where that <<< goes.   

I think it mostly had to do with server population at those particular moments in time.
Matchmaker does its thing with the available players.
The 1 versus 1 game was late at night.

Some people cry a river when there are 'Bots in random battles.  Others complain about not enough opponents.
Can't please everyone all the time, eh?  🙂 
 

[Asym]

15 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Yes. But the fact that you can grind it is interesting but not relevant to the point I am making.

Pay2Advance makes it EASIER to have the ships and captains to make getting dockyards and missions complete EASIER.

It makes 'winning' easier.

The fact that there is a no monetary cost track to these rewards (time grinding sink), does not invalidate my point. In fact, it proves it.

Paying for advancing allows players to have access to more powerful in-game gear which allows them to win more often than they would if they had not paid.

OK, answer one question then:  does it pay the bills?   No one remotely enjoys "PR dockyard-esk" events.  No one.

And, no revenue = no game.

So, In a world that is demasculizing social propriety;  a world intent on eliminating the meritocratic society;  a world where competition is being eliminated in all forms;  and, we are worried about a "game" making money by making it easier to compete without risk ??? 

[face slap emoji] lol

[Asym]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Can't please everyone all the time, eh?  🙂 

"But it's all right now
I learned my lesson well
You see, you can't please everyone
So you got to please yourself"

Rick Nelson, Garden Party (1972)

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Asym said:

OK, answer one question then:  does it pay the bills?   No one remotely enjoys "PR dockyard-esk" events.  No one.

And, no revenue = no game.

So, In a world that is demasculizing social propriety;  a world intent on eliminating the meritocratic society;  a world where competition is being eliminated in all forms;  and, we are worried about a "game" making money by making it easier to compete without risk ??? 

[face slap emoji] lol

I know you're smart.  So, this is meant as constructive feedback.  😉 
 

Quote

-esque

suffix

1. In the style or manner of; appended to nouns, especially proper nouns, and forming adjectives.
2. Resembling; appended to nouns, especially proper nouns, and forming adjectives.

Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License • More at Wordnik

Did you mean to slap someone else's face in a challenge to a duel, or perform a "facepalm" gesture?  🙂 

 
 

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 minutes ago, Asym said:

"But it's all right now
I learned my lesson well
You see, you can't please everyone
So you got to please yourself"

Rick Nelson, Garden Party (1972)

Well played.  🙂 
 
 

[Wolfswetpaws]

48 minutes ago, GandalfTehGray said:

I don't know if that thread on the old forums was archived but any new player on the old forums I would recommend they grind as many ship lines as possible while in below 200 match protection. Grind them to the point you unlock a T5 then swap to a new line.

It made sense because that's a 10-20  matches to finish a T1-T4 line these days and when you hit 200 matches you now have several t5s that qualify for mission grinding and you should have a diverse fleet to choose from and experience in most of the classes. 

A new account these days starts with at least triple the port slots over when I started and a helpful daily log in bonus even if they dont play a match. 

I like that notion.  ^^^^

[Ensign Cthulhu]

32 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Paying for advancing allows players to have access to more powerful in-game gear which allows them to win more often than they would if they had not paid.

No. It lets you have it sooner, but it does not in fact allow you to have it versus not allowing you to have it.

It also potentially allows you to have it before you're ready for it. 

Having more powerful gear does not intrinsically permit you to win where you would otherwise have lost. 

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Did you mean to slap someone else's face in a challenge to a duel, or perform a "facepalm" gesture? 

I'm pretty sure he meant 'facepalm'. 

11 minutes ago, Asym said:

"But it's all right now
I learned my lesson well
You see, you can't please everyone
So you got to please yourself"

Rick Nelson, Garden Party (1972)

Can't argue with that. 

The game is what it is. I like it too much to leave it, but 24/7 PVP was burning me out. Fortunately, directives and the inclusion of co-op into major ship-winning events came along just as this was happening, and that alone has done more than anything else to keep me in the fight.