Jump to content


Are overpowered premium tanks p2w?


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

Tempest fox3 #81 Posted 17 July 2017 - 03:50 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 21057 battles
  • 18,465
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostVKSheridan, on 16 July 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

No disrespect OP but which Premium tank can be purchased that "buys wins"?

 

If red has five Premiums and green has five Premiums, the losing Premiums should get a refund by your "logic".

 

A Premium promises a win no more than a skill shell promises a pen.  Sheesh man.

 

Pay to win doesn't necessarily mean you're literally winning every match because of the tank. It's about having an advantage due to the thing you bought. 

View PostTurbo_RB20, on 16 July 2017 - 09:30 AM, said:

It's not OP because it doesn't make a bad player good. I never see 131's do well. I wreck them in my tier 5's.

 

  Bad players will be bad no matter what they're in. But they'll be slightly less bad in something overpowered. And using the "Bad players" argument is not a valid defence.

War is a Democracy and the enemy always gets a vote.

3 MoE's: E-25, M41 Walker Bulldog, E-50, Snakebite, E-75, T32, Tiger 131, Skoda T25 - In order obtained

 

Spoiler

MR WilsonVA #82 Posted 17 July 2017 - 03:52 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 18143 battles
  • 327
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

After reading all this, the one question that comes to mind is, does it really matter?

 

If you have the most skilled player, in the most OP Premium Tank, but you give him the most Potato team, could he still win?  I am sure we have all had the games where we have done really well, but still had a lose due to the Team <Various Other Threads on Subject>.

 

For me, have the ability to spend real money on this game to make some of the "Grind" easier is nice, since like many of you I also have a 40 hour week job and real world obligations.

 

P.S.  OP when are you going to do an evaluation of Garage Space.  I find this an interesting topic because that impacts how people play the game.

 

 


 

 


redshadowrider #83 Posted 17 July 2017 - 03:58 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 37681 battles
  • 8,308
  • Member since:
    03-17-2014

View PostMR WilsonVA, on 17 July 2017 - 09:52 AM, said:

After reading all this, the one question that comes to mind is, does it really matter?

 

If you have the most skilled player, in the most OP Premium Tank, but you give him the most Potato team, could he still win?  I am sure we have all had the games where we have done really well, but still had a lose due to the Team <Various Other Threads on Subject>.

 

For me, have the ability to spend real money on this game to make some of the "Grind" easier is nice, since like many of you I also have a 40 hour week job and real world obligations.

 

P.S.  OP when are you going to do an evaluation of Garage Space.  I find this an interesting topic because that impacts how people play the game.

 

 

If you have some of the older Premium tanks, you can find that most are not P2W tanks.  I have the T14 and even shooting premium ammo doesn't help much.  That said, if I need silver, I go lose in it and still win with the amount of silver I get and the PMM.  However you slice this discussion it always comes down to what you define "winning" as.  


I'm just saying.....

Cobravert #84 Posted 17 July 2017 - 04:01 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 27310 battles
  • 3,791
  • [WPLAC]
  • Member since:
    03-10-2014

P2W? - no

There are no guarantees to garnering a win. You can have the best tanks on the field and get capped on.

 

Pay to be OP and do better? - yep 

Why is it nearly every time you see any known platoon, they're almost all in a gold tanks?

 



butsubutsu #85 Posted 17 July 2017 - 04:45 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21209 battles
  • 3,214
  • Member since:
    02-14-2016
I am sure there are tank that are better than others for their tier in the game. It would be impossible to balance it perfectly. I agree on what many has said about the 131, it is a very good tank and may be op in good players hands. But I also think some/many players overreact and make wrong assumptions about many of the tanks. For instance the Valkyria-tanks is deemed op by many but I find them good but not op. So I do not think WG is doing the power creep by design but more of bad balancing in some circumstances. The evidence for this is that many premium tanks are the opposite of op and downright bad. Look at the Dunkirk tanks and the Frostbite, not very op but actually way worse than many TT-tanks... I guess this is ok because of the bonuses in silver and xp one gets but I would never pay real money to buy the Dunkirk tanks because when I pay that much real money for tanks, I want something with a little bite.

KillDozer33 #86 Posted 17 July 2017 - 06:35 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5581 battles
  • 766
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015

View Postbutsubutsu, on 17 July 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

I am sure there are tank that are better than others for their tier in the game. It would be impossible to balance it perfectly. I agree on what many has said about the 131, it is a very good tank and may be op in good players hands. But I also think some/many players overreact and make wrong assumptions about many of the tanks. For instance the Valkyria-tanks is deemed op by many but I find them good but not op. So I do not think WG is doing the power creep by design but more of bad balancing in some circumstances. The evidence for this is that many premium tanks are the opposite of op and downright bad. Look at the Dunkirk tanks and the Frostbite, not very op but actually way worse than many TT-tanks... I guess this is ok because of the bonuses in silver and xp one gets but I would never pay real money to buy the Dunkirk tanks because when I pay that much real money for tanks, I want something with a little bite.

 

The reskins you mention are just cash grab tanks.

TocFanKe4 #87 Posted 17 July 2017 - 07:08 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21093 battles
  • 24,511
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014
It's all a continuum. Some games are blatantly p2w. Some have a little pay to win component, but overall aren't that bad. We're more towards the second one.

 

My dislike of +/- 1 pales in comparison to my hatred of Loaded Dice.


MR WilsonVA #88 Posted 17 July 2017 - 07:36 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 18143 battles
  • 327
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

I think we need to come up with a new category other then "Pay to Win".

 

I think "Pay to make my life easier in this game" is a bit of a mouthful.  So it might be hard to come up with something as catchy as PtW.


 

 


rick007cmx1 #89 Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:00 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 58344 battles
  • 2,559
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostUSSWISCONSIN94, on 16 July 2017 - 03:17 AM, said:

So are yours then.

Just show us evidence of "pay 2 win."   Crickets chirping...



USSWISCONSIN94 #90 Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:15 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 12185 battles
  • 27,951
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View Postrick007cmx1, on 17 July 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

Just show us evidence of "pay 2 win."   Crickets chirping...

Seems reading is too hard for you as i and others have shown you what is P2W. Your own fault for being blind. ;)


http://www.wotinfo.n...N94&server=xbox

youtube.com/channel/UCkXtmp3Ikozzl-K73GuxxNQ

 

Will WG ever have WoT offline like they promised?


Black RL #91 Posted 18 July 2017 - 09:18 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 55834 battles
  • 1,768
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013

View PostTempest fox3, on 17 July 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

 

Pay to win doesn't necessarily mean you're literally winning every match because of the tank. It's about having an advantage due to the thing you bought. 

 

  Bad players will be bad no matter what they're in. But they'll be slightly less bad in something overpowered. And using the "Bad players" argument is not a valid defence.

 

This.

 

View PostMR WilsonVA, on 17 July 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

After reading all this, the one question that comes to mind is, does it really matter?

 

If you have the most skilled player, in the most OP Premium Tank, but you give him the most Potato team, could he still win?  I am sure we have all had the games where we have done really well, but still had a lose due to the Team <Various Other Threads on Subject>.

 

For me, have the ability to spend real money on this game to make some of the "Grind" easier is nice, since like many of you I also have a 40 hour week job and real world obligations.

 

P.S.  OP when are you going to do an evaluation of Garage Space.  I find this an interesting topic because that impacts how people play the game.

 

 

 

Think about this:

 

Two brother potatoes separated at birth grew apart (this is a sad story), so they don't know much about each other, they share the same interests, goals and skills, but they kinda feel lonely and want to reunite with their brother. Being potatoes from the military kitchen, they love tanks, one day they come across a game, it's called World of Tanks! So amazing!

 

And suddenly they meet again, but they are in different fields, one is green the other is red, in the end, not by much, the red team wins (this should be obvious). The green team potato is both glad, for reuniting again with their brother, and sad because he lost, so after a familiar reunion he asks his brother, how?

 

Premium rounds son, that's how.

 

PS: interesting topic, care to share your example so I think about it? I've started to buy garages very soon, so it didn't impact me that much, but I think I know what you are talking about.

 

View PostTocFanKe4, on 17 July 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

It's all a continuum. Some games are blatantly p2w. Some have a little pay to win component, but overall aren't that bad. We're more towards the second one.

 

I think that's it.

 

View PostMR WilsonVA, on 17 July 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

I think we need to come up with a new category other then "Pay to Win".

 

I think "Pay to make my life easier in this game" is a bit of a mouthful.  So it might be hard to come up with something as catchy as PtW.

 

Why?

 

"Games where someone who pays with real money has such a huge advantage, that its literally impossible for a free2player to keep up."

 

By the Urban Dictionary


Gotta catch them all! ^^

 

My hateful 4: Food a p2w mechanism, New player experience vs veteran player, Are overpowered premium tanks p2w? and Why World of Tanks can't shake off being perceived as a p2w game. About RNG: RNG affects the outcome of games, here's why. About broken tanks.

 

See what happens to your tank in real time when you use equipment, supplies or crew skills in tanks.gg


izgoy99 #92 Posted 18 July 2017 - 09:44 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 2521 battles
  • 3,815
  • Member since:
    09-02-2015

View PostMR WilsonVA, on 17 July 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

After reading all this, the one question that comes to mind is, does it really matter?

 

If you have the most skilled player, in the most OP Premium Tank, but you give him the most Potato team, could he still win?  I am sure we have all had the games where we have done really well, but still had a lose due to the Team <Various Other Threads on Subject>.

 

For me, have the ability to spend real money on this game to make some of the "Grind" easier is nice, since like many of you I also have a 40 hour week job and real world obligations.

 

P.S.  OP when are you going to do an evaluation of Garage Space.  I find this an interesting topic because that impacts how people play the game.

 

 

 

I give you exhibit A:  As well playing on PC from experience it is not much fun going up against a platoon of Obj 252u/Defenders, or the VK 100.01.   The super OP tanks on PC have gotten ridiculous.  I have got to the point now if I play tier 8 it's in my T-54 mod 1 that has the armor to at least attempt to do something and Stalin, or the T26E5 that at least has the pen for standard ammo.  

 


Garage Tanks

 


Destinations #93 Posted 18 July 2017 - 11:56 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 21474 battles
  • 652
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostBlack RL, on 15 July 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Hi commanders! o7

 

I recently created two threads that sparked interesting debate, Food a p2w mechanism and New player experience vs veteran player, I had the opportunity to read ideas similar to mine and different ones, I also was presented with some great arguments, at least they made me think, and that's a good thing. Obviously, some of you also create great threads with great content, that leads me to this new one, so let's start with the disclaimer!

 

Disclaimer: I have the Tiger 131 (is there a better start for this disclaimer?), yes it [edited]in melts tanks, yes I don't mind it to be nerfed as long as I get a full refund.

 

And..... let's end this, this guy is dumb duh! If you have to pay for it then it's p2w, case closed, that simple.

 

But is it?

 

While discussing the food problem, many have said that no tomato turns into a carrot by using food, many extended this reasoning towards other equipments and supplies, same group finalized by saying that skilled players don't need the boosts to do good. In the end, what they were saying is that a better tool doesn't influence the winning if it's used by a tomato, only skilled players know how to take advantage of better tools. Some of this enthusiastic people go the extra mile and say that the best players don't even need premium ammo to do good, they solely rely on their skill, knowing weak spots etc.

 

So, and I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just adding food for tough, can we apply the same logic to op premium tanks? Only the skilled players can take advantage of this better tools? because in the end that's what they are, better tools to do the job, the winning.

 

No? We can't? I'M DUMB? I'M A BADDY? I'M A LOOSER? I HAVE TO GIT GUD? Wait, wait.... I get it, I get it, no need to be harsh!

 

So, if we can't use the same logic, are we saying that better tools, as in a better tank, an op premium tank (or other for that matter), helps winning? Because, you know, we can't have both logic running at the same time, it's either:

 

RED PILL - better tools help everybody win

BLUE PILL - better tools only help very skilled players win

 

Choose carefully Neo.....

 

 

If we choose RED, then op premium tanks are a p2w problem, specially because they need to be paid with real money (no [edited]Sherlock!), at least some of them (they give tanks from time to time, might happen to be an op one - yeah, you're really clever! Damn!). But choosing RED also proves that better tools help people win, not just skill, but skill + better tools (maybe also platoons, etc, but this is not the point), and if better tools help winning, things very expensive, hardly obtained by f2p accounts such as premium rounds and food also help to win.

 

If we choose BLUE, well [edited]..... then op premium tanks aren't helping skilled players win, because if "BLUE - better tools only help very skilled players win" (damn I'm smart, did you see this copy/paste????), then only the skilled players are winning with them, and in accordance with the logic that skilled players don't need better tools to win, they would be winning anyways, effectively resulting in op premium tanks not being a problem.

 

So Neo, what pill do you choose?

DAMN RIGHT if tiger 131 gets any nerfs i want 12000 gold or £35 back i paid a massive sum of cash for my SCRUB bashing tiger DEAL WITH IT YOU SALTY CRY BABY NOOBS ON THE FORUM :) :arta:

 



Raekju #94 Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:01 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25004 battles
  • 3,369
  • Member since:
    02-18-2017

View PostDestinations, on 18 July 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

DAMN RIGHT if tiger 131 gets any nerfs i want 12000 gold or £35 back i paid a massive sum of cash for my SCRUB bashing tiger DEAL WITH IT YOU SALTY CRY BABY NOOBS ON THE FORUM :) :arta:

 

 

It sure hasn't helped you much. 

Former Account: HappeningShrimp

58 Tanks with 3 MoE (100% MoE have **)

 Spoiler


KillDozer33 #95 Posted 19 July 2017 - 04:32 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5581 battles
  • 766
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015

View PostDestinations, on 18 July 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

DAMN RIGHT if tiger 131 gets any nerfs i want 12000 gold or £35 back i paid a massive sum of cash for my SCRUB bashing tiger DEAL WITH IT YOU SALTY CRY BABY NOOBS ON THE FORUM :) :arta:

 

^:facepalm::amazed::sceptic:

View PostShrimptation, on 18 July 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

 

It sure hasn't helped you much. 

:D:D:D:D

Gotta love it when someone tries to swing his big dong around and it turns out to be a strap on.

Raekju #96 Posted 19 July 2017 - 07:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25004 battles
  • 3,369
  • Member since:
    02-18-2017

View PostKillDozer33, on 19 July 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

:D:D:D:D

Gotta love it when someone tries to swing his big dong around and it turns out to be a strap on.

 

Kind of like this one?


Former Account: HappeningShrimp

58 Tanks with 3 MoE (100% MoE have **)

 Spoiler


KillDozer33 #97 Posted 19 July 2017 - 08:35 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5581 battles
  • 766
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015
:D:D:DCreativity never sleeps...never meant or saw one like that but who knows?

butsubutsu #98 Posted 19 July 2017 - 08:48 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21209 battles
  • 3,214
  • Member since:
    02-14-2016

View PostKillDozer33, on 17 July 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

 

The reskins you mention are just cash grab tanks.

 

​I agree on that, but recently WG seems to focus more on cash grabs and less on the game itself. 

Raekju #99 Posted 19 July 2017 - 08:59 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25004 battles
  • 3,369
  • Member since:
    02-18-2017

View Postbutsubutsu, on 19 July 2017 - 08:48 PM, said:

 

​I agree on that, but recently WG seems to focus more on cash grabs and less on the game itself. 

 

Probably because the number of average players per day and overall players peaked over a year and a half ago and has declined significantly since. Not to mention it seems to have completely stagnated at 100,000 people per day on both PS4 and Xbox combined. They might just be making final cash grabs before the player base disappears. No point in fixing a game that won't last. 

Former Account: HappeningShrimp

58 Tanks with 3 MoE (100% MoE have **)

 Spoiler


butsubutsu #100 Posted 19 July 2017 - 09:09 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 21209 battles
  • 3,214
  • Member since:
    02-14-2016

View PostShrimptation, on 19 July 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

 

Probably because the number of average players per day and overall players peaked over a year and a half ago and has declined significantly since. Not to mention it seems to have completely stagnated at 100,000 people per day on both PS4 and Xbox combined. They might just be making final cash grabs before the player base disappears. No point in fixing a game that won't last. 

 

Hope you are wrong but I have to admit that the evidence point in the direction you just described. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users