安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
You mind sharing either one of those?
It does not seem like WG themselves like heavy tanks either. Look at all the streamers, etc they all game this mechanic hard and use it to win. Thats why they wont change it until the big streamers cry like they cried about high explosive shells until they cry about premium ammo i bet it wont change.
You look at WG own forum, And you look on Steam the general opinion of 90% of players is premium ammo should be removed. Its the 10% or more like 1% holding the game back from advancing into mainstream. Its this that really broke the camels back for me not the fact they ruined my KV2 Premium but the fact WG are ignoring what we the customers want on purpose!
IE: I still like Skyrim, and while "winning" is picking a faction and ending war with what becomes the highest level character.... I still play it for the open-world, do my own thing game... (so, yes, I get your arguement), but most would be ticked if they had to keep paying to play a winning endgame. My point is and will remain... premium AMMO, the whole design, the whole reason IS pay-to-win. Are there other games out there with more blatant pay-to-win? YES.
Most people who defend pay-to-win mechanics confuse pay-to-win, with "pay-to-play" - no one (or at least not me) is accusing this as a barrier to play some of the game, but it is most certainly "paying" to increase the odds of winning (making it easier for noobs to spend their way to victory).
I can play a "good" game, but be shot to he*l by someone's wallet who has little need to learn the finer points of the weakest armor spots, and proper aiming... (etc).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n2wqOS41zg&t=252s
Your comparison doesn't work. I have much better one.
In Skyrim, I could gather a ton of crafting materials. Transport them all to the correct "workbench". Then gain levels by combining those into end-products. Which takes hours.
Alternately, I could just take gold to a trainer and then instantly get the same results. Gold, which I can just add to my character with console commands.
It's just like in WoT. I could grind for credits in a mid-tier premium. (Which can easily be acquired for free.) Then spend those credits on premium ammo for a high-tier vehicle. OR I could buy gold and use that, instead.
It's the exact same thing. In either case, no winning has occurred. All you've done is save yourself some time.
You cannot win by spending money. No amount of money will make you good at the game.
No.
He types in the description, "It's not bad players. It's bad RNG." Despite him losing because he very obviously has a bad team. Four of his allies dealt no damage, and one did only 12. That's a bad team.
Then, he descends into mental gymnastics to try to justify his opinion. Which is that they aren't actually bad players. Like describing someone with 600 average damage per game as "average" or "good".
He literally goes through each team. Looks at each of them. And just pretends that what's on the screen isn't what is on the screen. The other team was, on average, a little better. Both in terms of overall stats and performance for the match.
Also, he has all the best "p2w" stuff active. AND HE LOST. His 300k gold didn't magically make him win.
Every interpretation he's made in that video, is wrong.
Why not articulate an argument. With facts and logic? Nah, that would take effort. Just post a link to a youtube video. Which doesn't even address p2w. He blames everything on RNG! Neither you (or Claus) have any idea what you are talking about. Please stop.
Maybe you posted the wrong link.