Andrewbassg Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 (edited) 8 hours ago, thornzero said: You actually need less captains and cover more ground with 21 pointers. A 7 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: 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. Nope. Actually I need less capt , coz I play less ships. And insofar as skills go i "must" have 2-3 caps on the ships I play, coz PVE builds are fundamentally different from PvP ones, ofc talking about cruisers and to a lesser extent dd's. One of reasons I play less ships is the ops rework. Rendered ALL my T6-7's irrelevant and also the need to have capt on them. The other being Wedgie's distaste for cruisers, by favouring bbabbies, so I play a select few cruisers. Yeah Wedgie has no clue how to manage its game... Edited June 20 by Andrewbassg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said: Yeah Wedgie has no clue how to manage its game... I suppose your ideas and solutions could start another topic? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said: You're asserting that those in ranked*** with 21 point commanders paid for them? No. I'm asserting that those who did pay for them had a competitive advantage over those who did not during the time those who did not were grinding them out. 1 hour 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. With the way prices in this game inflate, and the way 'competitive state' is a moving target requiring constant investment...as we've established already...there is a good argument to be made that World of Warships meets your P2W definition in this post. 1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said: 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 $$$, so you win more easily and/or often. It is a very simple concept. Captain experience can be bought with real money (by buying boosters or containers). This captain experience is used to get higher skill captains (or the ability to freely respecc captains) who gives competitive advantages in games. The ability to get these things without paying for it on another path is irrelevant to the definition. 1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said: No "thing" you can buy in WOWS, at this time, allows you to win more often and/or more easily. Thus, there is no P2W in this game. People are stretching the term big time into the realm of absurdity trying to equate WINNING and faster game progression (ADVANCEMENT). For darn sure Economic Boosts in this game have zero ties to P2W. LOL Plenty of things you can buy will give you competitive advantages. More captain experience, as I've pointed out before. Signal flags give direct combat advantages. Certain premium ships are known to be OP. Special captains that give special buffs are another direct combat advantage that can be purchased with real money. Early access events allow people to exploit poor balancing decisions by WG if the tier 10 ship is released OP. Pretty much EVERY CV line since the rework has had it's tier 10 nerfed within a year after release. Some significantly. Those who paid to buy those ships got better versions with better performance than those who ground it out later. All of those translates into more wins. In WoWs, P2A is P2W. There is no practical difference. 1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said: What Lesta is proposing with the combat signal flag changes comes close to or even falls under P2W as it is buying an actual in battle advantage if they get sold for real $$$ 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. MK is proposing just a shift in the value of the P2W offering. The game is already P2W, this just makes it more painful for those who choose not to spend. There is no fundamental difference, as far as I can see. Just a shift on the slider of P2W value as ArIskandir said earlier. Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolitudeFreak Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: It's so boringly predictable. It's almost like playing bots in Asymmetric. Or watching the same argument about p2w happen again. It's like poetry, they rhyme. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said: 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. Irrelevant. The same player will perform better in a Giulio Cesare than he will in a Bretagne. That Giulio Cesare bought with money is a combat advantage bought with money. Making the argument to be about different players and different skill levels is a favorite WG staff tactic to confuse the issue with irrelevant things, so that they can continue to manipulate and deceive their customers about the business strategy. Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: No. I'm asserting that those who did pay for them had a competitive advantage over those who did not during the time those who did not were grinding them out. Yes. And in that sense you have made good points. For example people tend to forget what impact Weimar had on ops, specifically Narai. Was she P2W? No, coz in ops there is no win (against players), there is only better/more rewards. Which is P2A. Or.... is it? Wows is a (highly) situational game. Some ships could become insanely OP under the right circumstances. Like 3v3 T7 brawls and in it Weimar, Gorizia or Scharn'43. So yeah, it isn't as clear cut as it seems at first glance Edited June 19 by Andrewbassg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 25 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: I suppose your ideas and solutions could start another topic? Well.... in order to offer solutions, we need first to asses the problems. And we need to talk about systemic issues and their root causes. For example, the "Battle On" button wrecked and brought havoc on the game's quality, no matter how much you or I like it. So how we solve it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said: Well.... in order to offer solutions, we need first to asses the problems. And we need to talk about systemic issues and their root causes. For example, the "Battle On" button wrecked and brought havoc on the game's quality, no matter how much you or I like it. So how we solve it? Some have considered it to be a "quality of life" improvement. Get more progress in the same amount of time spent playing, for those who advocate for the button. 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 4 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: Some have considered it to be a "quality of life" improvement. Get more progress in the same amount of time spent playing, for those who advocate for the button. 🙂 Yes. But also had the aforementioned effects. So... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said: Yes. But also had the aforementioned effects. So... I am aware. I raised similar concerns when the "Battle on" feature was introduced. But, after having tried it. I've since decided to use it to my advantage and not lose too much sleep over it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: But, after having tried it. I've since decided to use it to my advantage and not lose too much sleep over it. Yes, because as a player it is not your job to asses possible outcomes, what impact a decision can make and if can or not cause systemic issues. Which leave us with only two possible answers: 1.They didn't know 2. They didn't care Which is the..... "better" one? But the problem is and THAT makes it systemic, the issue is compounded by the ops rework and by the selling of high tier ships. Edited June 19 by Andrewbassg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said: Yes, because as a player it is not your job to asses possible outcomes, what impact a decision can make and if can or not cause systemic issues. Which leave us with only two possible answers: 1.They didn't know 2. They didn't care Which is the..... "better" one? I figure "they knew". But, they were responding to those who complained about the lengthy delay while waiting to play their favorite ship after getting it sunk. Thus, they created the "feature". 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said: I figure "they knew". But, they were responding to those who complained about the lengthy delay while waiting to play their favorite ship after getting it sunk. Thus, they created the "feature". 🙂 Ok, but how we solve it? Coz, by now, is a systemic issue. Yeah, that's how Wedgie creates unsolvable problems, like with Cv;s aka shooting himself in da foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBT808 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said: Scharn'43 Scharn'43 doesn't count since she was free which would make her impossible to be p2w. Edited June 19 by MBT808 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 14 minutes ago, MBT808 said: Scharn'43 doesn't count since she was free which would make her impossible to be p2w. Yes indeed. Still, the point was about the situational nature of wows. I would think twice about taking them in randoms. Maybe less Scharn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 43 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said: Ok, but how we solve it? Coz, by now, is a systemic issue. Yeah, that's how Wedgie creates unsolvable problems, like with Cv;s aka shooting himself in da foot. This is *your* opportunity to offer a solution. 🙂 Your solution(s) is what I asked for, earlier. Have you any to share? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewbassg Posted June 20 Author Share Posted June 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said: This is *your* opportunity to offer a solution. 🙂 Your solution(s) is what I asked for, earlier. Have you any to share? What makes you think that they listen? And even if they listen, what makes you think that the very fact that it was presented, won't hinder its implementation? There are all sorts of ramifications and even if I waive any and all "rights", there still could be challenges. This is, for them, a biz, after all.. But..... A three tiered system a la ranked, with some overlap, per mode, with promotions. "Higher" league players can play in any lower league with the condition of playing more same league matches, like six Golden for 4 Bronze and 5 Golden for 5 Silver or somethin' akin, along those lines. Lower league players can't play higher, thus creating incentive, while still allowing mixing. Every 2-3 month the leagues are dissolved. And reninstate ops rotations ( tho not necessarily weekly), also tier separation. But ofc this could be counted as solution, only if the issue is regarded, as an issue Edited June 20 by Andrewbassg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clammboy Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 2 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HogHammer Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 16 minutes ago, clammboy said: Subtle hint, I'm guessing....+1 🤣. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostbow Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 We can split hairs all day about Pay to Advance and Pay to Win, but both of them involve payment to Wargaming. 😄 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zysyss Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 I would not say this is pay-to-win, but they do not make drastic changes like this without it in some way going to make them money. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostbow Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 4 minutes ago, Zysyss said: I would not say this is pay-to-win, but they do not make drastic changes like this without it in some way going to make them money. It is all about revenues and profits. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 10 hours ago, Zysyss said: I would not say this is pay-to-win, but they do not make drastic changes like this without it in some way going to make them money. Well the grey and red econ bonuses we have right now can be had for doubloons, and they never said anything about the bottom two tiers of these bonuses, so yeah... Remember. WG/Lesta (as applicable) is there to make money. Without money, the content gets permanently stale and then the hamsters starve and die. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakob Knight Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said: Favorite delusion of pilots... The pilot matters, but so does the equipment... 😄 Edited June 20 by Daniel_Allan_Clark 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