Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
Ця тема закрита 
Модератор форуму позначив цей допис як відповідь на тему цього обговорення.
Правила і настанови обговорень
1 
Поскаржитися на цей допис
That is probably true. But we seldom posit a fully formed idea. Rather we tend to put forth a thought and then have it challenged only to redefine that thought more clearly.
Threads such as this can act as a crucible in which we can burn away the extraneous elements and reveal the undeniable truth.
So, while the OP might be deserving of some of the criticism he has received, I'm not so keen to condemn him. As you have readily admitted but for a single detail there would "probably been no disagreement" at all.
That is because the actual calculation is incredible complicated/complex. E.g. each ship has its own credits multiplier, that multiplier might be small (2-5%) or big (the Missouri was known for its incredible high credits multiplier, but afaik that was nerfed quite a while back). And the credits you earn also depend on how much damage you deal to what ship, specifically what tiers they have (that was noted in the video).
It's basically impossible to reverse engineer the numbers because there are so many unknown variables involved and we only know about that ship credit multiplier because it was mentioned in some patch notes (when it was nerfed or buffed for certain ships) and forum posts.
Yes, that is true. The winning team usually has more opportunities to earn credits, but if you just look at your own performance (especially if you are someone like me who records the results of all his matches as screenshots) it's quite obvious that winning doesn't matter. Similar results will produce similar rewards even if one result is a loss and one result is a win.
E.g. the game where i got 600k credits without premium was a loss:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cnemuunnk71rh32/shot-19.11.11_19.22.35-0084.jpg?dl=0&raw=1
I did extremly well in that game, and that's the reason why i got so much credits. And because it was PvP, of course.
Coop has not only the issue that the rewards are lower in general, but also the issue that the games are over quickly and ships are sunk very fast, so there is not much to do for rewards.
I believe the same. If you look at my "analysis" of Jack's screenshot, he would have lost credits without the premium camo and without the premium account, and afaik Jack is a good player and that was one of his average games.
And a few years ago, i also complained about that, because i don't like farming for the sake of farming. But that changed when i found a few low and mid tier ships that i really enjoyed playing (some of which premium, others tech tree ships) and just played to have fun, and when they added the perma premium camo for t10 ships i was happy to buy those for my favorite t10 ships and now i can play them without paying for a premium account and still make credits most of the time.
This is WoWs business model: Either spend money or spend time. You can do everything and get everything with enough time invested (well, some commanders and ships excluded since they are not available to anyone anymore). Even premium ships via super containers if you are lucky. And the better you play, the more rewards you get or the less time you need.
I'm fine with that. Many players are.
It's a bid unfortunate that Fomin didn't notice that coop has extremly bad rewards and i think it's a valid criticism that WoWs should communicate that coop has much worse rewards than any other game mode, but the issue with the economy is not the lack of credits, it's the lack of opportunities of spending them, thus leaving a lot of players with hundreds of million credits.
But I don't think it fair to suggest that Formin did not "notice that coop has extremly bad rewards" rather his post is evidence that he not only noticed this fact but found reason to question it.
I'm hoping that we have all helped him to understand the nature and mechanics of the game's economy better. I know that my own understanding has increased.
In addition to buying a number of Tier 2-6 premium ships myself, I bought a Tier 8 Ingnis Pugratio for my brother who is a Warhammer fan. Now I find out that the ship I bought for him is a white elephant since it is on the wrong side of the point (namely Tier 7) at which the devs decided to make the game deliberately unrewarding. It's too late to get a refund now but I hope that I can warn other people NOT to make my mistake and use either time or money to get any ship Tier 7 or higher.
From Tier 7 on up, this game is designed to make most players lose credits for most battles. If you are a Wargaming partner with special bosts to xp credits etc. or if you are literally the top player on your team (something that only one player per match can be) you might earn money but as I have already shown, if you do more than your own ships worth of damage and tank enough to allow your team to win, you will lose money with a normal account and barely break even even with a premium account and economic consumables.
From Tier 7 and up, they think they have got you so they will just try to strongarm you into spending more money to buy boosts and or incredibly overpriced bundles of credits just to keep playing. If like me, you get to Tier 7 AFTER spending money, you will feel stabbed in the back... then again, cosnidering that this is made by the company that literally invented gold shells, I probably should have known better than to think that I could spend time and money in the game and then expect anything more than being stongarmed for more money.
Short version:
Don't buy a Tier 7 or higher ship unless you want to grind with a Tier 6 ship to support your Tier 7 white elephant.
It doesn't make money even in coop? I'm kinda surprised. T8 premiums have a huge money boost to them as well as a discount on taking them into battle.
My brother liked the game until I bought a Tier 8 ship for him and used my Tier 7 Polish destroyer (bought with coal) to play a match with him. I destroyed three ships and he, though he only got one kill, tanked for the whole match. At the end, his ship was the only one which survived and we won the match.
I thought we did well but then he became completely demotivated and didn't want to play this game anymore. After getting a Tier 7 Nagato myself, I can see why. If you sink three ships with a premium destroyer, you might have a good time but if you get stuck tanking with a dreadnought at Tier 7 or higher, you won't get much of a reward.
The battleship you got your brother is a pretty good one though. It's very similar to Amagi - the tier 8 Japanese battleship in the tech tree. Being premium it makes a lot more credits. It's got very good guns and mediocre armor. Decent speed and decent antiaircraft. It's a middle road ship. Nothing makes it stand out, but nothing particularly bad either.
I still find it rather hard to believe it's unable to turn a profit in coop though... A major point of premium ships is to make credits no matter the mode as far as I know.
Edit: The Polish DD is a very good one. You made a good choice there. Nagato won't be much fun in coop probably. Too slow. Good guns though.
And a last thing. Remember getting the kill shot is only a minor bonus. It's the % of the ship's health you take that gives the most xp and credits. If you get a single kill shot on 5 ships and that's all you do you won't get much of a reward. If you do 90% of the health on 2 ships and don't kill a single one.. you'll be far ahead.
More correctly, it is called "earning a living" You know, so they can pay rent, eat,
buy and drive a car, put there kids through school..
You want an example of greedy, Look at car mechanics, they charge $100+ per
hour just to connect a laptop to your car and change a small sensor or E-prom.
They rarely even get dirty hands anymore.
Just cost me over a grand to change out the radiator in my car recently... AND.
I supplied the parts....
But your points are spot on.
I ALREADY gave them a great deal of money before I made it to tier 7 and realized that the game is designed to get progressively more greedy the longer you play it. The idea that "earning a living" justifies gouging people who have already paid you is flawed... especially when you are using it to defend a company selling absurdly overpriced ships and $200 bundles of anime girls deciding to ALSO strongarm players into buying bundles of credits, premium time, and overpriced camos just to make the game they already invested in playable at high tiers.
Making the game rewarding for those who actually PLAY it is a good business strategy regardless of ethical concerns. Long term, the more they gouge, the more people will quit or play less, the less money they will get.
Seriously the levels of churn in this game are incredible. I only just reached Tier 7 and I am getting awards that only 4% of players have. This tells me that most people quit the game long before they have played as long as I have.
Sooner or later Wargaming is going to run out of interested people who haven't tried this game yet and when that happens, I think they will find themselves wishing that they had used a lighter touch with the late-game monetization.
A whole $1.70 Aud for the discounted starter pack. It's not that i have any problems
with the items you can buy, i just have not felt i needed to. I do, however, play mainly
in a division with my mates. If THAT makes a diff...
I see the anecdotes all the time. I'm not sure what point is being made. Everyone agrees that it is possible to play the game without using any real currency. This is the definition of "Free to Play."
But it is also possible to move a ton of salt using nothing more than a 5lb bucket. That doesn't mean it is efficient, practical or a joy.
Then i respectfully suggest you find a game you like and enjoy.
Then go play that. WoW's is not everyone's cup of tea.
In the spirit of reciprocity let me repay your advice with a bit of my own.
Never offer unsolicited advice to another unless you are prepared to learn that it has no value and makes the one offering it look presumptuous, insolent and contumely.
But I suspect that your objective was less one of prescription than to stifle dissent.
That does appear to be the fashion of the day. Shout down those who present unappetizing truths. Ban those who refuse to be cowed. Cancel those who fail to adhere to the present orthodoxy.
Russia has a long history repressing dissent within its sphere of authority. It is estimated that 60 million died in the gulags. Of course others have estimated that the number is more like 40 million but when one cannot estimate the number of victims to the nearest 10 million does it really matter? Can we not all agree that repression of dissent is an evil?
Who is shouting here and why the political rant?
WTF does communistic politics have to do with this?
I suppose that is what you get for being polite and respectful..Lol.
Should have known better.