Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: I'm not moving the goalpoast, you were voluntarily accepting a disadvantageous situation out of your own will given there's alternatives to achieving a competitive standard using free in-game tools. This is irrelevant. Whether skill caps are increased is inconsequential as you can grind the necessary XP without being at a competitive disadvantage for free. I am accepting the fact that not paying leaves me at a competitive disadvantage compared to paying...yes. Thats exactly what I'm saying. I am also free to take that loss of capability, but that is irrelevant to my point. The other idea, that skill cap increases are inconsequential is just laughably absurd. That grind to reach the new top is NOT free. It is time, and means that while I am doing the grind I am at competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, let's point out that ranked and competitive modes change ships allowed, which changes meta...and ship balancing and rework efforts also affect meta. This means that the cost to maintain competitive builds is not a one time investment...but a continuous investment. Having slower progress on investment means I will spend much more time in a disadvantageous position. Which is my point. Being free2play means that the account WILL be at competitive disadvantage for getting WINS... But oh no, that means the game is p2win and I can't admit that so Im going to dredge up a whole bunch of already debunked reasons why the game isn't p2win. Sigh. Why? Just stop. Admit reality. No one is going to take away your toys if you actually talk about how the business model actually works. Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 minutes ago, thornzero said: CEXP boosters must be a pay to win feature. Advanced commanders have advantages and these boosters can be purchased. Since I am free to play, I have played enough to have two, 21 point commanders which I use on a variety of premium ships to generate unlimited CEXP. With two more at 2o and 19 points respectively. These 21 pointers have generated a healthy supply of CEXP for advancing or retraining. Further, I have redistributed skills a few times on some captains. There is around 4 TT ships I am using high commanders that serve about 9 premium ships. I have the skills set up in a manner consistent with the ships strengths. For instance Fletcher commander [21] is also used on Black, Kidd, and Hill. It is set up with the skills that balance all of these ships in one commander. The other American 2o pointer will soon give me a second optional configuration for these DDs but this 21 pointer is also used on other classes. It is my understanding that the commander refit from 19 to 21 points added the opportunity to use 21 pointers on more ships, an opportunity unavailable when they were 19 points. You actually need less captains and cover more ground with 21 pointers. At least that is what I read somewhere. I have seen in the forum people being frustrated with a 21 pointer on a Tier 1o that they don't play much but the versatility of the captain is not restricted to only that ship. So say for instance you decide to maximise your CEXP; all you have to do is play brawls with a 21 pointer on the right ship and you should be able to bank [with the 8ok from the mission] around 4ook CEXP in a couple days with even using up low boosters. And this is working for a newer player. Veteran players that top the leader board and damage counts will probably make more CEXP in other ways that I cannot. But I am happy with my process and my progress. P2W always has a grind to win opportunity. Yes, I am well aware of how the system works. I setup my 21 pointer so he was on my most favorite USN ship, and that it is able to also play on all of my USN premium class ships...so he can also be used on at least six other ships. I use the income from that to bump my tech tree grinding line captains up when I need to to not be horrifically out skilled in randoms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 19 minutes ago, thornzero said: It is my understanding that the commander refit from 19 to 21 points added the opportunity to use 21 pointers on more ships, an opportunity unavailable when they were 19 points. You actually need less captains and cover more ground with 21 pointers. At least that is what I read somewhere. This is correct, and it's why I was all over the commander skills rework with great enthusiasm when everyone else was complaining. In the old system, my first 19 point captain in every nation had to be a generalist, with a compromise build to cover DD, cruiser and BB, but which could never cover CV because the skills were so different - and if I wanted specialists, they had to be ground up separately for each type! Now I can have an optimal build for each ship type; and especially with the change that allows you to go back into battle immediately after being sunk, I can now get by with only one 21 pointer for each nation and all its premiums (plus whatever tech-tree ship he or she is on), which greatly lessens the training burden. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: I am accepting the fact that not paying leaves me at a competitive disadvantage compared to paying...yes. Thats exactly what I'm saying. I am also free to take that loss of capability, but that is irrelevant to my point. It is you who accepts to be in a disadvantaged situation (granted the game presents it in a silver plate) but you have the option not to. It isn't forced on you, it is accepted by you... you can't claim P2A=P2W onlyjust because you are not willing to thread the F2P path and what it implies. 10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: The other idea, that skill cap increases are inconsequential is just laughably absurd. That grind to reach the new top is NOT free. It is time, and means that while I am doing the grind I am at competitive disadvantage. While not inconsequential in general, it is inconsequential to the topic discussed. You can earn the XP differential required without being at competitive disadvantage (by using non competitive free PvE game modes). 13 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Furthermore, let's point out that ranked and competitive modes change ships allowed, which changes meta...and ship balancing and rework efforts also affect meta. This means that the cost to maintain competitive builds is not a one time investment...but a continuous investment. Indeed, FOMO is a design consideration, and requires significant time investments to keep yourself on the cutting edge if you are doing it as F2P (I've done it, it is possible), but the end choice is yours: to participate at a disadvantaged state or not... manipulative? yes, enforced? no. You have the choice. 18 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Which is my point. Being free2play means that the account WILL be at competitive disadvantage for getting WINS... No, it just means it will take more time to achieve a competitive state. 19 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: But oh no, that means the game is p2win and I can't admit that so Im going to dredge up a whole bunch of already debunked reasons why the game isn't p2win. Sign. Why? Just stop. Admit reality. No one is going to take away your toys if you actually talk about how the business model actually works. Mate, let me spell it piece by piece: 1. Grind on PvE the resources required to be competitive (Captain XP, Modules/Upgrades). Since these are not competitive environments you'll never be at a competitive disadvantage. 2. Apply such resources to the ship you'll take to the competitive PvP environment, you are on equal standing to paying players. You are not at a competitive disadvantage even being F2P, you are on equal standing it just took longer. Being F2P does not force you to being at a competitive disadvantage, but it will take you longer to achieve a competitive state. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 15 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: 1. Grind on PvE the resources required to be competitive (Captain XP, Modules/Upgrades). Since these are not competitive environments you'll never be at a competitive disadvantage. 2. Apply such resources to the ship you'll take to the competitive PvP environment, you are on equal standing to paying players. You are not at a competitive disadvantage even being F2P, you are on equal standing it just took longer. Being F2P does not force you to being at a competitive disadvantage, but it will take you longer to achieve a competitive state. "Bingo." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 7 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: It is you who accepts to be in a disadvantaged situation (granted the game presents it in a silver plate) but you have the option not to. It isn't forced on you, it is accepted by you... you can't claim P2A=P2W onlyjust because you are not willing to thread the F2P path and what it implies. ? You and I are agreeing that the system gives competitive advantages to players who pay money... ...and this is somehow proof the game isn't pay2win? 8 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: While not inconsequential in general, it is inconsequential to the topic discussed. You can earn the XP differential required without being at competitive disadvantage (by using non competitive free PvE game modes). Moving the goalposts. The whole point is that not paying puts a player at a COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. Yes, I can still have fun. Having fun changes nothing about whether the business model is pay2win. 9 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Indeed, FOMO is a design consideration, and requires significant time investments to keep yourself on the cutting edge if you are doing it as F2P (I've done it, it is possible), but the end choice is yours: to participate at a disadvantaged state or not... manipulative? yes, enforced? no. You have the choice. You agree then, pay2win. The fact that someone could, if they ground nonstop, also achieve the same benefits is irrelevant. In fact, that is a FEATURE of the pay2win business model. 11 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: No, it just means it will take more time to achieve a competitive state. Which means paying gives competitive advantage...because that time to 'reach competitive state' is what I am talking about...i.e., the actual reality of being disadvantaged. 12 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Mate, let me spell it piece by piece: 1. Grind on PvE the resources required to be competitive (Captain XP, Modules/Upgrades). Since these are not competitive environments you'll never be at a competitive disadvantage. 2. Apply such resources to the ship you'll take to the competitive PvP environment, you are on equal standing to paying players. You are not at a competitive disadvantage even being F2P, you are on equal standing it just took longer. Being F2P does not force you to being at a competitive disadvantage, but it will take you longer to achieve a competitive state. 1. Irrelevant. Lack of access is the ultimate competitive disadvantage. If we take this line of argument to it's logical conclusion...no one should play ranked or clan battles without paying...which makes a joke of those modes. 2. Conveniently ignoring the reality of the moving target nature of competitive meta and the requirement for continual investment. Let me spell it out for you. If it 'takes longer' to achieve competitive state by not paying. Then paying gives competitive advantage. Full stop, period. Ergo, the game is pay2win. Now, the deep question... Why are you against the idea of labeling the game monetization strategy correctly? The game is clearly pay2win, as even your examples demonstrate. It's not onerously pay2win, but is in a good state. So what's the big reason to try to bend over backwards not to align definitions with reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaelic_knight Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 5 hours 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.' grind all the techtree lines or get free ships knockof snowflakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Sigh. If each of us had a headstone for the end of our time in this game, I suspect yours would read "Life would be better if only..." But let's keep things on the level of players who are running premium time, just to make the comparison fairer. Take a look at @Lord_Zath - he's been in the game just two years longer than me - Alpha in 2015 as opposed to mid 2017 - but he has disproportionately more resources. He's spent just $20 US on the game, and has leveraged his skill to gain important positions (supertest, CC) and in-game success that gave him even more gains. Might he have been where he is now if he'd stayed free-to-play? Don't know. If I were less charitable, I would be pointing to him and trying to name ways in which it was so unfair that he had so much more than I do: more premium ships, more 21 pointers, more boosters, so much ECXP and FXP and doubloons and premium time that it causes Wargaming staff's eyes to bleed just looking at it. But that would be stupid. HE leveraged HIS skills and the opportunity the game afforded HIM (the same opportunity I had when I started), in order to be where he is now. He's earned his "disproportionate gains", and there is no sane way on God's earth that I could ever be jealous of him. I know exactly what I would need to do in order to have what he has, but that's not the way I choose to play the game. So no, some of my ships don't have 21 pointers and probably never will, and that's fine. On the occasions when I choose to compete in Randoms or Ranked with tech-tree ships in order to grind them, I'll take what I've got and take my chances. I made my choices as to where my ECXP was going to go, and I'm prepared to live with them. Edited June 19 by Ensign Cthulhu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kynami Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 The only thing that WeeGee does that is particularly egregious is the gacha and FOMO mechanics for getting new shiny toys. Sure I could pick up the Whisky for a mere two purchased dockyard segments, but it isn't the new hot thing competitively. Yes the fastest way to having all these "competitive aid" signals is the credit card and paying up. But that is not the only way. And quite frankly there are plenty of times I'll go into even ranked with a captain that isn't even level 10 yet and wipe the floor with the average player. Detonations? Okay I'll run the flag for CBs, and maybe for a DD in ranked. But 99% of the time I don't care in the least. It happens less than once every 100 games. And while indeed burning for less duration can be useful, better positioning usually means the only time its a serious issue my team is getting gapped in a big way regardless. Most of these things may slightly tilt the balance but experience the vast majority of the time trumps all of it. And unfortunately for the wallet warriors you can't straight purchase that. I could point you over to EVE Online and the even bigger pandering of skill injectors letting players fly things they have zero business being in... and which they tend to promptly lose because they quite simply did not put in the time to acquire actual skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 16 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Why are you against the idea of labeling the game monetization strategy correctly? Because it isn't accurate to say P2A equals P2W, not as long as there's a way for F2P to achieve the same end result at no competitive disadvantage. You can achieve the same, you can do it in a way that does not imply being disadvantaged against paying players, the way just takes longer; hence P2A but not P2W. It is manipulative in the worst way but it is not P2W... call it a technicality of language. There are many aspects of the game that flirt really close to P2W mechanics, but the argument you are making about progression is not one of them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torino2dc Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: 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. In random battles you would probably not see much of an effect. In clan battles (or even a Gold ranked game with decent players), the effect of an extra knot of speed on a DD or an extra few hundred hitpoints can make the difference between winning and losing. Being first to a strategically important position can mean that you get 100% of the reward for taking it. Keeping your team's DD on the board while the enemy's perishes can mean that the endgame is a cakewalk. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 25 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: If each of us had a headstone for the end of our time in this game, I suspect yours would read "Life would be better if only..." But let's keep things on the level of players who are running premium time, just to make the comparison fairer. Take a look at @Lord_Zath - he's been in the game just two years longer than me - Alpha in 2015 as opposed to mid 2017 - but he has disproportionately more resources. He's spent just $20 US on the game, and has leveraged his skill to gain important positions (supertest, CC) and in-game success that gave him even more gains. Might he have been where he is now if he'd stayed free-to-play? Don't know. If I were less charitable, I would be pointing to him and trying to name ways in which it was so unfair that he had so much more than I do: more premium ships, more 21 pointers, more boosters, so much ECXP and FXP and doubloons and premium time that it causes Wargaming staff's eyes to bleed just looking at it. But that would be stupid. HE leveraged HIS skills and the opportunity the game afforded HIM (the same opportunity I had when I started), in order to be where he is now. He's earned his "disproportionate gains", and there is no sane way on God's earth that I could ever be jealous of him. I know exactly what I would need to do in order to have what he has, but that's not the way I choose to play the game. So no, some of my ships don't have 21 pointers and probably never will, and that's fine. On the occasions when I choose to compete in Randoms or Ranked with tech-tree ships in order to grind them, I'll take what I've got and take my chances. I made my choices as to where my ECXP was going to go, and I'm prepared to live with them. Yep. "Don't be jealous. Go get yer own." 🙂 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 17 minutes ago, Kynami said: The only thing that WeeGee does that is particularly egregious is the gacha and FOMO mechanics for getting new shiny toys. Sure I could pick up the Whisky for a mere two purchased dockyard segments, but it isn't the new hot thing competitively. Yes the fastest way to having all these "competitive aid" signals is the credit card and paying up. But that is not the only way. And quite frankly there are plenty of times I'll go into even ranked with a captain that isn't even level 10 yet and wipe the floor with the average player. Detonations? Okay I'll run the flag for CBs, and maybe for a DD in ranked. But 99% of the time I don't care in the least. It happens less than once every 100 games. And while indeed burning for less duration can be useful, better positioning usually means the only time its a serious issue my team is getting gapped in a big way regardless. Most of these things may slightly tilt the balance but experience the vast majority of the time trumps all of it. And unfortunately for the wallet warriors you can't straight purchase that. I could point you over to EVE Online and the even bigger pandering of skill injectors letting players fly things they have zero business being in... and which they tend to promptly lose because they quite simply did not put in the time to acquire actual skill. I'm agreeing that WG does p2win in a pretty good way. Obviously I'm still here playing it, as are many others. The game is not horrible for those who don't pay. It's why I am ok with the game being p2win. 15 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Because it isn't accurate to say P2A equals P2W, not as long as there's a way for F2P to achieve the same end result at no competitive disadvantage. You can achieve the same, you can do it in a way that does not imply being disadvantaged against paying players, the way just takes longer; hence P2A but not P2W. It is manipulative in the worst way but it is not P2W... call it a technicality of language. There are many aspects of the game that flirt really close to P2W mechanics, but the argument you are making about progression is not one of them. Except you and I have very clearly documented where P2A is functionally the same as P2W. Look at our examples of captain skill progression. Advancing is basically unlocking direct combat buffs for your ship. P2A as implemented in World of Warships IS P2W. Futhermore, you seem to be under the delusion that having a free path to the same end negates P2W. It does not. P2W business strategies ALWAYS have a free path to the same end. That is LITERALLY THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS MODEL (free2play - pay2win). The fact is that the delay in time required to execute the free path creates the P2Win opportunity for those who pay. 11 minutes ago, torino2dc said: In random battles you would probably not see much of an effect. In clan battles (or even a Gold ranked game with decent players), the effect of an extra knot of speed on a DD or an extra few hundred hitpoints can make the difference between winning and losing. Being first to a strategically important position can mean that you get 100% of the reward for taking it. Keeping your team's DD on the board while the enemy's perishes can mean that the endgame is a cakewalk. Even former WG staff here agree...the effect of captain skills is important for winning in clan and Gold ranked. The ability to reach and maintain optimum captain builds is a competitive advantage...and that advantage is easier to maintain and keep by spending money. This game is pay2win. Now remember, I am ok with this. So are most of the people playing the game. There is no shame in admitting that World of Warships is a free2play - pay2win game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torino2dc Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 18 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Even former WG staff here agree...the effect of captain skills is important for winning in clan and Gold ranked. For the record, I was never, nor have I ever claimed to be a staff member of Wargaming. I was a forum/discord moderator, which is a community volunteer position. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 42 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: This game is pay2win. Pay to win means that paying guarantees the victory. Newsflash: it doesn't, or the whales would uniformly be unicum. Now take your L and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: The answer is clearly no. My tier 6 DDs who don't have 10 point captains yet are clearly at a competitive disadvantage (for example in ranked) against guys with 21 point captains. I can use greater skill to mitigate this disparity...but I could carry more with my skill if I also had a 21 point captain...even more if that captain were Yamamoto. Those extra captain points can make a difference and sometimes are the difference between winning and losing. You're asserting that those in ranked*** with 21 point commanders paid for them? (***or any other PvP mode...you will be disadvantaged in random/CBs or any other PvP mode with an under 10 point commander in a 1 vs 1 battle [using 1 vs 1 in reference to being mirrored in queue against each other...despite the battle not actually being a 1 vs 1 battle] against a player with a 21 point commander...nobody is disagreeing with that...not sure why you think injecting ranked into the conversation made some kind of point...all PvP modes are "competitive" because you are "competing" against each other). I use 21 points commander's in ranked...& didn't pay for them... I use Yamamoto in ranked...& as I recall... I got him for free from a campaign... didn't even need to do the CV missions to get him as you could repeat already completed tasks to advance along the progression line & after obtaining him decide for yourself whether you wanted to go back & clean up the unfinished tasks (or not) for the achievement of finishing the campaign with honors. You have the ability (for free) to grind out ships & commanders to their max level (advance) without ever paying a penny...but it takes time & patience to do it (I know...I know... Patience!!! PATIENCE!!! HOW LONG WILL THAT TAKE?!?!?). & where the P2W assumption falls apart is you're disregarding (by never bringing it up as relevant) the "A" in P2A (which stands for "Advance" btw). If 2 players start at the same point evenly the 1 that pays to "Advance" is going to move beyond the other player's tier & not be mirrored against him after a battle or 2...but due to the +2/-2 MM they may still end up in battles against each other...but...they won't be mirrored in queue as the non paying player will be mirrored against another player of his same tier & the "Advanced" player will be mirrored against a player of his "Advanced" tier...so there is no "Advantage" to the paying player as he is not staying at the same level of the non paying player & is being matched to players that either also paid to "Advance"...or...he is being matched against a player that has not paid to advance & actually ground out his ship & actually has the "Advantage" in skill over the "Advanced" player that paid to "Advance" & is actually at a "disAdvantage" due to not having earned the skills to be competitive at that "Advanced" tier. Do you understand the definition of "Advanced" yet & how it is the relative factor you seem to disregard in your P2W analogies? Or do you need me to spell it out any clearer for you? Of course you completely went above & beyond the definition of P2W in another thread by saying that people that ground out their "Advancement" also are P2W as they "Paid" (the "P" in P2W) with their time...because anything to fit the narrative is fair game obviously. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torino2dc Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said: 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. It depends on the supply. If the blue/red bonuses are precious and rare, then few good players will waste them in random battles -- they would need to be saved for competitive modes. If they're freely available, then it obviously opens up the P2W can of worms. But all that is a question of implementation, not whether the idea is fundamentally sound. I stand by my points: - Veteran players have too many resources and too little incentive to play anything other than CBs and three-man random divs. Lesta is right to try to poke them into playing Ranked or other game modes where the new signals can be earned. - Signals today are just a resource sink. That is a pretty unimaginative fate for a game system with this much potential. I hate to say this, but WoT's bond directives/alt-loadouts do a much better job of forcing a player into making meaningful choices. - Since signals are a freely purchasable consumable, they have lost all significance as a reward. Achievements and super-containers have lost some of their luster as a result. It used to feel really cool to get these, in great part because the prizes that came with them were rare. 6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said: 11 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...... The current signal flag system works, but it is operating at the barest minimum. It has a lot more potential, and we would be right to demand that WG put some of their bikini-captain energy into upgrading it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Except you and I have very clearly documented where P2A is functionally the same as P2W. I think it is important at this point to establish what P2A and P2W are, at least in my understanding: In a Pay-to-advance scheme, paying will get you to a competitive state in the quickest way possible, but there's always a free path to achieve the same competitive state; this free path can offer a lot of 'resistance' and be quite convoluted in order to provide a good 'motivation' to use pay to advance mechanics, but in the end you'll be able to achieve a similar competitive state as F2P. In a Pay-to-win scheme, in order to achieve the Competitive state you need to go through a 'pay threshold'. The full competitve state will never be within reach of the F2P, it is unattainable and a paid for priviledge. There's no convoluted, alternate way... paying is the only way and it will grant you a competitive advantage you can't get in any other way. A clear example of P2W would be EVE Online, you need PT ('alpha clone' they call it) in order to have access to the most advanced and powerful techs and ships. There's no way for an 'omega clone' (F2P) to reach the higher competitive levels. Otoh, WoWS is an example of P2A. Even the high end competitive levels are accesible to F2P. There's no segment of the game that can't be accessed by F2P players. 4 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IfYouSeeKhaos Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 8 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: ...paying will get you to a competitive state in the quickest way possible This is inherently false... Tirpitz did not get the nickname Dirpitz because the wallet warriors that bought them were in any way "competitive". 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralThunder Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) This debate has become so ridiculous it baffles me honestly. P2W needs a "WIN" component to it. Progressing in the game faster is not winning. It requires buying something with real money that gives you an advantage over opponents, that is not available without spending $$$, so you win more easily and/or often. It is a very simple concept. P2A has nothing to do with winning. It is paying real money to progress (ie; ADVANCE) faster in the game. However, that gets you nothing you can't also get 100% free by playing; it just happens faster. For WOWS specifically that means being able to spend $$$ to move up the tech tree faster than if you did it by just grinding. It has nothing to do with winning and as I said before it can be detrimental to winning as you could easily buy your way up to higher tiers before you have achieved the game skills and experience to play there. It can be counterproductive to getting wins. No "thing" you can buy in WOWS, at this time, allows you to win more often and/or more easily. Thus, there is no P2W in this game. People are stretching the term big time into the realm of absurdity trying to equate WINNING and faster game progression (ADVANCEMENT). For darn sure Economic Boosts in this game have zero ties to P2W. What Lesta is proposing with the combat signal flag changes comes close to or even falls under P2W as it is buying an actual in battle advantage if they get sold for real $$$ and they aren't limited to being available via playing (ie; freely earned in game resources) only. The current system for those flags is not P2W but if they make these changes and add $$$ to the equation it probably will be. I have said my peace and am done with this absurd debate. GL to those who continue to stay in it. Edited June 19 by AdmiralThunder 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 12 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: This is inherently false... Tirpitz did not get the nickname Dirpitz because the wallet warriors that bought them were in any way "competitive". I mean in terms of equipment, the skill to use it is a whole other strory 🙂 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralThunder Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 15 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: This is inherently false... Tirpitz did not get the nickname Dirpitz because the wallet warriors that bought them were in any way "competitive". That is why Premium ships in WOWS are not P2W no matter how good the ship is. You still need to be able to play the ship well and perform to get your wins. If you play like a putz you will get rolled. A bad player who buys a Giulio Cesare for example would get stomped by someone who is even half way competent playing in a turd like Bretagne most times. It comes down to the player's abilities not the ship they bought. A great player can make a great ship perform better than an average player can make a great ship perform but the common denominator there is the player. Edited June 19 by AdmiralThunder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralThunder Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: I mean in terms of equipment, the skill to use it is a whole other strory 🙂 Yup and that is why, at this time, there is no P2W in WOWS. You need skill to win in this game (or luck as the case may be). You can NOT buy wins right now. Edited June 19 by AdmiralThunder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 31 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: I think it is important at this point to establish what P2A and P2W are, at least in my understanding: In a Pay-to-advance scheme, paying will get you to a competitive state in the quickest way possible, but there's always a free path to achieve the same competitive state; this free path can offer a lot of 'resistance' and be quite convoluted in order to provide a good 'motivation' to use pay to advance mechanics, but in the end you'll be able to achieve a similar competitive state as F2P. In a Pay-to-win scheme, in order to achieve the Competitive state you need to go through a 'pay threshold'. The full competitve state will never be within reach of the F2P, it is unattainable and a paid for priviledge. There's no convoluted, alternate way... paying is the only way and it will grant you a competitive advantage you can't get in any other way. A clear example of P2W would be EVE Online, you need PT ('alpha clone' they call it) in order to have access to the most advanced and powerful techs and ships. There's no way for an 'omega clone' (F2P) to reach the higher competitive levels. Otoh, WoWS is an example of P2A. Even the high end competitive levels are accesible to F2P. There's no segment of the game that can't be accessed by F2P players. Well said (and illustrated). 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, torino2dc said: It depends on the supply. If the blue/red bonuses are precious and rare, then few good players will waste them in random battles -- they would need to be saved for competitive modes. If they're freely available, then it obviously opens up the P2W can of worms. Which makes my point about matches becoming deadlier. And they will be coz they are already labelled as such. 1 hour ago, torino2dc said: But all that is a question of implementation, not whether the idea is fundamentally sound Except the above point makes it fundamentally wrong. Unless that is the actual goal. 1 hour ago, torino2dc said: - Veteran players have too many resources and too little incentive to play anything other than CBs and three-man random divs. Lesta is right to try to poke them into playing Ranked or other game modes where the new signals can be earned. I am veteran player and I play all modes. 1 hour ago, torino2dc said: Signals today are just a resource sink. That is a pretty unimaginative fate for a game system with this much potential. I hate to say this, but WoT's bond directives/alt-loadouts do a much better job of forcing a player into making meaningful choices. And freeing up the slots, so players can mount all signals, howz that supports the need for meaningfull choices?? Look, to me, Wows devs are kids who just bumble around and make bad decisions after bad decisions. I'm a (lets say retired) musician/sound engineer/producer/system engineer, so I've been in countless situations and sides. I can see ALL sides of a coin (hint there's a LOT more than two) i understand (and can resonate with) an artist desire to be presented in the best possible light, meanwhile I can understand the impact of technical possibilities and limitations and can design a "system" ( not necessarily a technical one) around those. The most important rule in any and all entertainment biz/endeavour is this. Man, that was a genius. That's the golden rule. Then it comes appeal. Sony execs (and prob not only) had a rule, if a song they listened too didn't presented in the first 30 sec something catchy/noteworthy, they wouldn't listen to it anymore. Anything else is simply irrelevant. Anything and everything must be there to enhance the appeal. Any decision which impaires/impede/interfere with the appeal ( primary secondary or tertiary) is a bad decision. It is appeal that makes or breaks stars, songs, games. That peaks interest and attracts and makes fans/playerbase. The wider the appeal is ( as in terms of numbers and also in terms of points of attraction) the better it is. Killing off appeal(s) is the worst decision that can be possibly made. 1 hour ago, torino2dc said: - Since signals are a freely purchasable consumable, they have lost all significance as a reward. Achievements and super-containers have lost some of their luster as a result. It used to feel really cool to get these, in great part because the prizes that came with them were rare. Yes. Which is exactly what and why I said about appeal being paramount 1 hour ago, torino2dc said: The current signal flag system works, but it is operating at the barest minimum. It has a lot more potential, and we would be right to demand that WG put some of their bikini-captain energy into upgrading it. No. They need to address the fundamental issues with wows, not making them worse. Edited June 19 by Andrewbassg 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