Before getting on with it, an admission: Regardless of what we say or express on the forums, in the grand scheme of things reddit and forums across all servers account for a small percentage of the whole playerbase. That said, and in light of recent events I think many, myself included, have drawn their line in the sand so to speak.
But why really? Are we just crybabies that can't admit the game is changing while we remain the same? The game was always changing, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. Most adapted, some left, others came. Even during the CV Rework player numbers have remained relatively stable, albeit statistics can never paint the whole picture. So what is the real problem behind all this outrage, especially after the unveiling of NTC?
GREED
That's the real issue in my opinion, and this time it has gone too far. Before I continue, let me say that a free to play game of course has to aim for monetization of certain elements, that's obvious. Similarly, companies aren't non profit, so having a steady flow of income is always important. You can play the game for free, yet "premium" content may help with your experience. In a free to play game a loyal and stable nucleus of the playerbase is paramount for the health of the game. Often these players tend to spend a bit more, and also participate in the community. This is what is endangered now.
WG in the past couple of years has gone down a spiral of tactics and practices that were not only unsavoury, but also (in my opinion) paved the way for the NTC becoming the straw that broke the camel's back. But let's take a quick look first at the line of symptoms:
Inflation of economy: Free XP has become unbelievably easy to farm the past years. WG has provided us with so many Free XP signals/camos that are stackable; you can farm disgusting amounts of Free XP. This in turn had a real world impact on WG. Doubloons lost to some extent the value they had as the means to convert Free XP. Why spend IRL money when you can farm provided you got a bit of time?
Lootboxes: I can understand the reasoning behind it; lots of gaming giants engage in lootbox practices in their flagship titles and in addition promote an addictive behavior that can spiral out of control. To a certain extent and in a free to play game, you could cut some slack on such practices. But in recent years Premium container prices have skyrocketed. I can't comment on dropchances of ships since these aren't included, though at least based on Christmas Container Spreadsheets the chances seem to have decreased.
Early Unlocks of Tech Tree Ships (via lootboxes): This practice in combination with lootboxes simply makes the grinding process irrelevant. People wonder why low tiers are in a weird state. When you can get your early Tier V+ unlock a whole month before a line hits it's no real wonder. Moreover it fuels a thirst for spending even more on lootboxes, without realizing that you could possibly unlock whichever ship you wanted on launch with Free XP that costs far less or could be even free.
Tier IX+ Premium Ships: I would be willing to let that go if Tier IX Premium Ships weren't offered for cash or didn't have earning economic bonuses, yet they do. If Tier IX+ Premiums were similar to a Tier IX+ ship with a permanent camouflage in terms of earnings and repairs that would be some extent ok. Yet nowadays there are packages on the Premium Shop of over 100$.
Selling Premium CVs without truly finalizing them: This is our own fault as well, since there was quite a bit of outcry in getting access again to the previously unavailable Premium CVs.
New Flavor; Tech Tree Boosters: This is a new one; It started with Yamato a few months back, and not much fuss was made. But today we had this to welcome us:
1279166242_Screenshot_2019-07-04WargamingnetPremiumShop.png.e9e37c7227f66efe25db1f2052b4d841.png
Grinding is further diminished, and not only that, but there is even bigger ease in reaching Tier X, what was once considered a high skill environment. Will have to wait some more for this to see how it turns out, definitely not a good step.
7.NTC: Now this is quite recent, not even 24 hours since we found out. Since it is WiP there is still time to see how this will turn out, though it looks unbelievably bad, grindy, giving pretty unfair advantages and making it a must have for anything competitive. There are already numerous threads on the specific subject, though the purpose of this post is more to highlight the process of arriving here and how greed has led to this.
To draw a parallel, WoW's direct competitor, Conflict Lightning: Maritime Forces (used similar words since for some reason it's a banned title on forums), has become so overly grindy and p2w that matchmaker takes quite a long time to join a battle; teams are filled with bots because of this and there are quite a few ships that are so broken (look up PG02) that make it a title to avoid for now.
Paying players and especially whales can spend quite a bit of money in a game that offers them fun and can function as a nice hobby after a long workday. Yes, WoWs always had its flaws and issues, but they weren't based that much on greed.
To conclude, WoWs is at a crossroads. They can give in to their greed of quick and fat profits now and leave a bleeding playerbase that will slowly stop paying; this is a business decision and I am pretty certain there should be internal reports on similar subjects.
Alternatively, WG can take a step back, evaluate the situation and start fixing things in order to consolidate their playerbase. In 3-4 years, when the game will be inevitably at decline and a new title by WG arrives, they will have people trusting their products, willing to emigrate and spend money on their new games.
Until this is cleared up I am very afraid for a game I truly love and sincerely want to see succeeding :Smile_sad:.
Thanks for reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 44, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... why really? Are we just crybabies that cant admit the game is changing while we rem...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...after the unveiling of NTC? GREED Thats the real issue in my opinion, and this ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 186, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...m for monetization of certain elements, thats obvious. Similarly, companies arent non...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 222, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...ts, thats obvious. Similarly, companies arent non profit, so having a steady flow of ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 210, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...e straw that broke the camels back. But lets take a quick look first at the line of ...
^^^^
Line 12, column 364, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...um container prices have skyrocketed. I cant comment on dropchances of ships since t...
^^^^
Line 12, column 413, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...ent on dropchances of ships since these arent included, though at least based on Chr...
^^^^^
Line 12, column 418, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n dropchances of ships since these arent included, though at least based on Chris...
^^
Line 12, column 499, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...stmas Container Spreadsheets the chances seem to have decreased. Early Unlocks o...
^^
Line 13, column 284, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
... before a line hits its no real wonder. Moreover it fuels a thirst for spending even mor...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 375, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...n lootboxes, without realizing that you could possibly unlock whichever ship you wanted on lau...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 14, column 84, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...to let that go if Tier IX Premium Ships werent offered for cash or didnt have earning ...
^^^^^^
Line 14, column 111, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...remium Ships werent offered for cash or didnt have earning economic bonuses, yet they...
^^^^^
Line 14, column 364, Rule ID: CURRENCY[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually put at the beginning of the number: '$100'.
Suggestion: $100
...re packages on the Premium Shop of over 100$. Selling Premium CVs without truly fin...
^^^^
Line 21, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rns out, definitely not a good step. 7.NTC: Now this is quite recent, not eve...
^^^^^^^
Line 23, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... here and how greed has led to this. To draw a parallel, WoWs direct competit...
^^^^^
Line 25, column 80, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tor, Conflict Lightning: Maritime Forces used similar words since for some reason...
^^
Line 25, column 123, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...sed similar words since for some reason its a banned title on forums, has become so...
^^^
Line 27, column 207, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...ways had its flaws and issues, but they werent based that much on greed. To conclud...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, may, moreover, really, similarly, so, still, well, while, as to, at least, i think, in addition, of course, in my opinion, so to speak
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 13.1623246493 274% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 7.85571142285 306% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 38.0 10.4138276553 365% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 21.0 7.30460921844 287% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 92.0 24.0651302605 382% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 132.0 41.998997996 314% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4927.0 1615.20841683 305% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 1052.0 315.596192385 333% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.68346007605 5.12529762239 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.69513384219 4.20363070211 135% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.73811771965 2.80592935109 133% => OK
Unique words: 512.0 176.041082164 291% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486692015209 0.561755894193 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1458.9 506.74238477 288% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.60771543086 87% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 5.43587174349 221% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 2.10420841683 523% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 15.0 0.809619238477 1853% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.76152304609 252% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 47.0 16.0721442886 292% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.6644609021 49.4020404114 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.829787234 106.682146367 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3829787234 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.44680851064 7.06120827912 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 18.0 4.38176352705 411% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 19.0 5.01903807615 379% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 23.0 8.67935871743 265% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 3.9879759519 301% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 3.4128256513 352% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.149212444051 0.244688304435 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0340170983372 0.084324248473 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0345447984016 0.0667982634062 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0498757486543 0.151304729494 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0309128046468 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.0946893788 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 50.2224549098 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.16 12.4159519038 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.58950901804 91% => OK
difficult_words: 208.0 78.4519038076 265% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.7795591182 74% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.