Jump to content


Verified Tanker [EU]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jokobet

  1. Anyone know what this mission for the FV4202 premium is gonna be like?
  2. Also the map lacks some water. How can arty play on a map without something to drown in? These WG map designers have no clue...
  3. Screwed up a 1v6 in my light coz it was encounter. QQ :feelsbad:

  4. Stronk Bear! PS: WG is going out of their way to make gold more useful. It sucks.
  5. AW gun handling sucks, they really need to rework that.

    1. Roku


      I have all the possible aim time improvements I can get and it's still awful. Still have plenty of aimed shots miss or go into spots that cause them to bounce. AW had a chance to remove RNG from the equation and instead they chose to half-ass it.

    2. Trumpetah


      I think I'm finding more trouble with the tank movement. There's no sudden braking even on slow movement, the tanks slide like they're on ice, so it's hard to pull out and take a shot and pull back without overexposing yourself.

    3. Cunicularius


      Fuck non-continuous dispersion reduction.

    4. Show next comments  3 more
  6. My predictions, totally unfounded and out of nowhere: I am with you with the armor thing, HTs will get tougher frontally. However, I think there will be no standard ammo nerf for meds and only a prem shell nerf to 310-ish pen of HEAT and 300ish of APCR. If you play AW, you realize how small maps in WoT are and how often they channel you into head-to-head engagements. Not being able to pen tanks frontally basically kills you whereas with the larger maps in AW, you can sometimes flank at least.I think they will rework arty but not much good will come out of it unless they find a good way to reward buffing allies. You can witness it in AW - if arty wants to screw you, it does and you can't stop it unless you hump rocks like a mofo. Yes, no more oneshots is nice but the major part - indirect fire, can't retaliate, difficult to evade - stays.I am optimistic about crew/equipment reworks - the system is pretty lame atm and improving that is not difficult.WoT will always keep a bunch of vehicles where bad players can be part of the game without realizing how bad they are, this is crucial to their business model. This means that many alpha monsters will stay (KV-2, ISU, 183,...) and this is another reason to be pessimistic about arty reworks. This also means that there can never be a perfect WoT for good players because it would hurt the business model of WG.
  7. So you basically assume that WG has changed their monetization strategy - because in general bundles are more profitable - regardless of the "age" of the game. Yeah, this might be true, we simply don't know. I've tried to find a scientific article or some other info about when bundling is used in the monetization of video games with regard to their lifecycle but the only information I could find is that bundling is in general a very effective way to generate larger sales per paying player and - unrelated - that the major part of monetization (expensive item purchases) happens in the late phases of a player's lifespan. My assumption was that these two observations are related but you're right, I cannot find information about whether it is connected or not. Finally, I did not find info about how long such a "late phase" might last, it could even be indefinitely.
  8. For players who just want a premium ship, the 3rd option works but for those who want exactly this one ship it doesn't. And regarding 4th, some ships don't appear unbundled at all - btw, I rely on Cloaking Donkey here, I haven't checked it for ships but for tanks. I agree on the fire sale, however, so that would be a point against CD's claims. I can't comment on the gameplay stuff because I simply have no grasp of the game myself so I assume you are right with your reply. But regarding monetization, the question arises why WG suddenly seems so eager to cater for whales when in the past they did less so. Maybe it just is their new general strategy because they recently discovered that this way they make more money but maybe player base growth is levelling out. As you said, I don't have numbers.
  9. Ofc these are assumptions. I know that I cannot prove whether WG profit-maximizes, whether customers decide not to buy at all if they have to decide between spending 50€ on a bundle or none at all or whether the WoWs player base has a larger share of players who pay nothing than the share of players who pay something. But I see little reason not to believe that these assumptions are correct. I'd be interested in your 50 sentences and I don't mind being shown why you think these assumptions have no basis, on the contrary. I have put quite some money into WoWs so I would in fact be happy if I was wrong. Finally, my wording with regard to dead or zombie was too harsh, I freely admit that.
  10. This is wrong, the monetization is an issue because it drives people away from the game. The argument for that you can find a few posts above - if you feel something is wrong with my argument, please tell me. But just saying "It's f2p, so you don't have to play it" does not touch the issue at all. I cannot can't comment on skill or his evaluation of ships in the game, it's absolutely possible that he is talking rubbish there. And for his motivation - true, probably not the most noble.
  11. Check this out by Shackram (source: http://gamelabs.io/index.php?/topic/141-garbads-aw-guides-reposted-from-wotlabs-because-he-refuses-to-post-here-for-whatever-reason/&do=findComment&comment=1103) Tested it myself, seems to be the case indeed.
  12. Actually there are 2 seperate issues here. First, the issue is not WG making money but rather that they don't live up to their promises. They said they would fully sync accounts but they didn't and most likely won't. Moreover, bundling limits the freedom of customers into a narrow spread of choices, i.e. pricing some customers out of the market. Take two goods, bundle them, group customers in 2 categories (A = wants both products, B = wants only one of the two, be it gold or a ship/tank). Group A is well catered for and potentially better off due to bundling discounts but group B is forced to either buy the bundle and pay more than they wanted to (unnecessary dubloons) or not buy at all, i.e. some are effectively priced out of the market. In effect, WG themselves price some of their own customers out of their own game. From a global point of view, you can argue this is fair but it sucks from the pov of these customers and this is what the Cloaking Donkey complains about. When creating a F2P game, the company itself invites everyone to play and players cross-fund each other. This is partially prevented by excessive use of bundling as described above, limits the choice of potential customers and arguably increases a company's welfare at the expense of social welfare and is therefore inefficient (check economic theory on bundling and price discrimination). This is a very capitalist argument, btw, not a "feel-good-about-society" one. Whatever the stance on the monetization, however, this leads to a 2nd conclusion: 2. WoWs is not growing anymore and maybe already dying. The playerbase of a F2P game can be divided into a large part that does play for free and a small part that pays for the game. This part can itself be divided into groups of players, notably a majority that pays a little every now and then a minority (whales) who pays a lot. The whales are more likely to stick to the game due to their sunk costs and the majority group is more mobile (more newcomers but also more likely to leave when they dislike the game as they have smaller sunk costs). The thing is that the above-described group B (see 1.) is most likely to overlap with the flexible majority while group A overlaps with the whales. WG caters more and more for those inflexible whales and (relatively!) less and less for newcomers and flexible spend-a-little-sometimes-users, this indicates that whales get relatively more important and newcomers etc. less so. (Note: Edited from now on) This is something that may happen when a game is past its peak in its life-cycle, alternatively, WG simply changed their monetization strategy for some reason. If the first explanation is true, WoT is likely past its peak (no surprise but doesn't matter too much due to the sheer size as World of Warcraft shows) but so is World of Warships, ironically at the time of its release. As it appears, it is either a zombie (small but stable playerbase, mainly whales) or dying (playerbase declining). That being said, it means that investing time and/or money into the game is pointless for players who care about competitive aspects unless you simply like the history part or are a ship nut.
  13. That fact that lengthy work could be summarized "in 3 sentences" has little to do with the modern world, just think of the relation between plot/core information and additional chitchat in classic novels by Fontane, classic operas by Händel or Verdi or even in religious texts like the Bible. If you think about architecture, it took a long time to develop Bauhaus and if you think about literature, Kafka was also a rather modern author. In fact, isn't the term "modern" itself often used for abstract or very reduced ways ("Scandinavian Design") to couple form and function. It is, however, our modern world in which everbody can make a video. But then, it is on you to decide whether you want to watch it or not.
  14. These are two videos by the Cloaking Donkey, a semi-known youtuber who makes an argument for why World of Warships and the way Wargaming tries to monetize it (and WoT) is pretty broken: 1. Argument why WoWs should not have gone into open beta (from a players point of view) 2. Argument why World of Warships is monetized in a questionable way: His conclusion is to quit on making content in the youtube channel for the game. A short list of main arguments for the lazy people around here: Gameplay: WoWs features imbalances between ship classes (Destroyers too strong at lower tiers, too weak at high tiers; the opposite for battle ships etc.)Wargaming rather introduces new ships (German Cruisers, Russian Destroyers) than fix the old ones, the result being that those new ships are mostly underpoweredVery slow reaction times with regard to the needs of their customers (think arty, KV-1 and KV-1S, now battleships/destroyers, the role of RNG)Monetization: Both in WoWs and WoT, Wargaming focuses on milking whales, i.e. making super expensive bundles while making many tanks unnaturally scarce (think KV-5, Type 62, E25) and packaging them in overly expensive bundlesNo shared gold/dubloons between WG ships and tanks, i.e. forcing people to pay more (otherwise especially CW veterans could easily play premiums in WoWs from their incomes in WoT CW).To my own sadness, I mostly agree with him, especially the issue with milking whales is pretty annoying and I can understand that he leaves WoWs. In addition, I find the gameplay to be pretty repetitive because unlike with tanks where you will have a different outcome depending on lots of varieties and micromanaging terrain/weakspots etc., the variation in ships is very small - it really doesnt matter whether you are 1km further away from the enemy and driving around in circles shooting at each other gets old. As such, I believe that WoWs as it is now will have a very short growth period (which could already be over) and will be an additional failed project by Wargaming who will get ever more desperate to milk their customers in WoT. Please convince me that this is not true. It's sad to see a newly released game be nothing more than a cash-grabbing zombie.
  15. jokobet

    STB-1 Thread

    More important than the distance is whether you have a ridge/ledge/some obstacle that gives you hull down cover for all but your turret. Don't get too close so that they don't aim anymore and never negate your turret slopes by being below enemies because then they just pen your turret. Overall, the STB-1 when maxed with food/vents/bia/smooth/snapshot spits out shells so quickly that it doesn't matter that much whether you miss a few shots.
  16. No fall damage yet is pretty hilarious. I stand corrected, there is falling damage but from stupid highs only, I jumped some 5 meters down into a river bed and took no damage but a 20m cliff took about 300 hp of my Zhalo.
  17. I enjoy the ET, feels similar to stuff like the STA-1 or CDC and I cannot make rockets work for some reason but I have seen hamu play the Terminator and he wrecks face. Depends on your cash level tho, they are nice tanks but you don't "need" them.
  18. Btw, I find that Philipp Holzknecht (or so) commander somewhat bearable, his conditional crap relies on you being in a brawl which is what I do in the MBT-70 most of the time anyway, so the reload buff doesn't get wasted. But maybe it would be more worth it levelling the pre-order commander so that incoming terribad grinds get shorter, so it's a toss. In any case, it bugs me greatly that you have to play arty in order to unlock good MBT commanders.
  19. I enjoy driving the Leopard despite the fact that in the current meta it suffers. I think you can safely predict whether you will enjoy either tank depending on how you fare with somewhat similar tanks, e.g. - STA-1, CDC, Type 61 -> Leo is your friend - can you make uncomfortable but arguably powerful stuff work, like 416, WZ-111 etc.? --> 121 could be your thing I personally found to be much more successful in the Leo than in the Chinese meds (tho I haven't bought the 121 yet) but the fact that you cannot really push anything without losing a crap ton of hp can get annoying, in which case I switch to the T-62A or E50M. Still, the Leo1 provides a flavour I haven't found anywhere else and I enjoy it a lot.
  20. It's a real shame, this whole drama was not necessary. I agree that this guide should be posted in the AW subforum because it has nothing to do in the WoT section but it is good content.
  21. Ah, i forgot about the t10/4k battles stuff. Rip me.
  22. He tried some time ago one SH session, maybe that's why he is asking around?
  23. Get 113 or buy back WZ-111-1-4?

    1. Epic


      just sold my 113, I wouldnt recommend it at all.

    2. TheMarine0341


      111-4. Heavium that at least hits like a heavy, unlike the 113 which uses a tier 9 medium gun...

    3. Driftin


      My only experience with those tank was test server and I'd have to agree that the 111 is the best of the line.

      @TheMarine0341  It may be a tier 9 medium gun, but it is 440 alpha like the IS4 with a faster reload, so don't really think the gun is it's biggest issue. I agree it doesn't make sense to lose alpha when going up a tier, but I don't really think the gun is the problem with the 113. It is a shame they didn't leave the big gun as an option like the original test had, but WG.....

    4. Show next comments  3 more
  • Create New...