Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
arrowPress Releases
October 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


Wargaming kicks 'pay-to-win' monetization to the curb Exclusive
Wargaming kicks 'pay-to-win' monetization to the curb
June 3, 2013 | By Kris Graft




One of the most successful free-to-play online game companies on the planet has announced a sweeping change in the way it monetizes all of its games.

World of Tanks developer Wargaming.net told Gamasutra in an exclusive Q&A that it would be removing all "pay-to-win" purchase options from all of its current and upcoming titles.

The initiative has already begun in the company's flagship online game World of Tanks, and will continue with upcoming titles such as World of Warplanes and World of Warships.

Here's basically how the new strategy boils down:

  • The company is calling the strategy "free-to-win," and first started testing it in 2012.

  • The core basis of "free-to-win" is to remove all payable options that could be viewed as giving a player an advantage in battle.

  • Revenue will come from sales of non-advantageous content, such as premium vehicles, personalization options and the like.

  • Free-to-win will be applied to all current and future Wargaming titles.

  • The move is in part meant to make Wargaming a bigger player in the burgeoning eSports arena.

Andrei Yarantsau, VP of publishing at the rapidly-growing Minsk-based company, took some time to answer a few questions about the move via email:

How long have you been working on this initiative, and what prompted Wargaming to do it?

We've been working on for the idea of "free-to-win" for quite some time now. The conception stage began in 2011, after we took the time to tackle some internal challenges spurred on by the company's rapid growth.

Elements of what would later become free-to-win were first tested in 2012. We made in-game purchases that were previously only available to paying players open to all players. Things like gold rounds, premium consumables, camouflage patterns, emblems, platoon creation and other features were switched over to be purchasable with in-game credits. Our analytics team carefully monitored how players reacted to these changes, whether they were newcomers, veterans or clan members.

The player community is very sensitive to changes, especially when they concern a monetization system. That's why we fully focus test any changes we plan to make and introduce only those new features that receive positive feedback.

Why are you cutting all pay to win options?

Wargaming is a company delivering free-to-play online games, and we strongly believe that you can't provide a truly triple-A free-to-play experience without absolutely making sure all combat options are free of charge to all players. We don't want to nickel and dime our players -- we want to deliver gaming experiences and services that are based on the fair treatment of our players, whether they spend money in-game or not.

The amount of time and effort payers and non-payers spend to succeed in-game may differ, but at the very least the list of accessible options at their disposal remain identical.

Free-to-play games have the challenge of being sometimes viewed as low quality, and we want World of Tanks to serve as proof that a quality and balanced free-to-play game is possible. However, breaking down deeply-rooted stereotypes is no easy task.

This isn't just about the game economics of World of Tanks, either. We aim to completely overhaul the free-to-play concept that exists as a whole in the gaming community by getting rid of the idea of "pay-to-win," ultimately helping lead what we consider the roll-out of "version 2.0" of free-to-play gaming.

How exactly do you define a "pay to win" item or option, and can you give a few examples of items that won't make the cut?

Well, the first example that comes to mind is the legendary "Sword of a Thousand Truths" from the television show South Park. Seriously, though, many online shooter games sell weapons with slightly bigger magazines, a slightly greater chance of critical hits or slightly more damage for real world money. Also, cash shops in fantasy MMO games often offer items that increase item drop rates, scale hit rates or grant extra player protection.

How do you expect this will affect your revenue?

The free-to-win concept is sure to enhance customer loyalty and attract new players to the game. As for the company's economic efficiency, we expect no decline in profits.

If anything, the introduction of our free-to-win features will likely cause a decrease in the purchase of premium ammunition. At the same time, however, players will use gold to buy credits, pay for premium account status, or purchase premium vehicles. In the end we project that it will all balance out.

In Asia, last I heard, they're ok with pay to win items, and like to spend a lot of money on them. Have you considered that you may lose business in that region?

Asia remains an important market for in-game purchases, and the major gaming companies in that region are still trying to fully understand our business model. In World of Tanks, paying is no guarantee of success. And obviously, this is discordant with what that region is used to.

Our players in China, for example, are very rational when it comes to in-game choices. Instead of sticking to the Chinese tech tree, they choose machines that offer the most amount of fun and profit. The Chinese government is focused on the prosperity and comfort of its people, which resonates well with what the free-to-win model offers. This idea and the fact that World of Tanks clones have already appeared in the Chinese gaming market assure us that our project will continue to be a success there.

What opportunities do you see in eSports, as a business? Why focus on this now?

Wargaming's support of eSports is an integral part of our overall market strategy. Most importantly it involves building a global network of games and services. The launch of the Wargaming.net League has given players great tools to step up and go pro, while those who wish to remain spectators can stay up to date with all of our tournaments through online streams.

Our new World of Tanks features, including recent changes in our business model, are aimed at further growing our games in this direction. Professional sport -- and gaming is no exception -- is about fair competition. The introduction of our new free-to-win system will really help facilitate the development of World of Tanks as a true eSports discipline.

The Wargaming game design team has been focusing heavily on competitive elements for our games, so we're eager to see this all catches on with our players.

What's wrong with pay to win, or for that matter, what's wrong with a lot of the F2P monetization schemes you see today?

The classic free-to-play model, particularly in regards to pay-to-win elements, follows one simple tenet -- the more you pay, the greater your advantage over other players. It results in huge payments from a small number of users (the so-called "whales") and increases a game's average ARPU [average revenue per user] and ARPPU [average revenue per paying user] numbers. Top-payers end up never losing, while those who pay less or don't pay grow dissatisfied with the game. Eventually, many leave entirely and the overall player base shrinks.

The World of Tanks monetization system is built the other way round. Deep gameplay and great replay value provide comfortable and fair conditions for everyone. The game has no overpowered weaponry and microtransactions don't give users any sort of advantage in combat. Premium items are priced so that players rarely end up having to spend a lot. We don't want World of Tanks players to feel like it's an experience that only a select few can afford. Quite contrary, we want the game to embody accessibility and fairness to all players, paying or not.


Related Jobs

Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand
[10.30.14]

Level Designer
Amazon
Amazon — Seattle, Washington, United States
[10.30.14]

Sr. Software Development Engineer - Game Publishing
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand
[10.30.14]

Lead Game Designer
Sega Networks Inc.
Sega Networks Inc. — San Francisco, California, United States
[10.30.14]

Mobile Game Engineer










Comments


Aaron San Filippo
profile image
+1

Kyle Phillips
profile image
This is such a respectable move. Honestly, its a bit depressing that pay-2-win even exists. I can't imagine being offered to play a game of chess where my opponent could pay a third party to replace lost pieces- yet digital games have been trending closer and closer to making this the norm. It really gives me hope to see a successful company turn their back on that business model. Life may not be fair, but games should be. I hope their new direction is an incredible success for Wargaming.

Eric Finlay
profile image
This is really good news. There's always been nothing quite as demoralizing as knowing that skill is trumped by money, especially in a computer game. If I recall, when WoW had trading cards, the potential in-game benefits paled in comparison to actual high-quality gear.

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
In September of 2012 I published here my "Supremacy Goods" microeconomic model showing how games like World of Tanks and League of Legends were out performing the competition (http://gamasutra.com/view/news/177237/The_new_rules_of_monetizati
on.php#.UEs0NY1lThM)

I attributed this to their low use of "Supremacy Goods" which are content items sold to players to give play advantage. As a courtesy I offered to show the paper six months in advance to RIOT Games and Wargaming.net. RIOT declined to meet with me, but Andrei Yarantsau (interviewed here) from Wargaming.net did.

Whether this announcement is coincidental or not, I applaud Wargaming.net for having the courage to take the vanguard in changing how we bring games to market, and how we treat our customers.

Christian Schmidt
profile image
Being as their transition was conceptualized in 2011, followed by initial testing in 2012, it would be difficult to draw a line to your paper's inspiration which is not there. However I do applaud their experimentation in the marketplace and allowing data to guide their decisions as opposed to making their decisions.

It is good consumer-oriented practice.

John Paduch
profile image
So is self-promotion all you come here for these days? Enough already...

James Casale
profile image
Games like World of Tanks and League of Legends are out performing the competition in terms of acquisition, player populations, and in some cases engagement, but definitely not monetization. They only monetize a few areas of the game, and in most cases it is very optional.

Riot actually makes most of its money from internet cafe revenue share.

Lou Hayt
profile image
good idea

E McNeill
profile image
As someone who hasn't played World of Tanks: could someone explain what they're changing from and to? Like, what are "premium vehicles" if not something that provides an advantage (just cosmetic?). And does this mean that nonpaying players can hypothetically access the same advantages as paying players if they grind sufficiently, or is there no time->advantage game-of-labor element to it?

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
I'm happy to take this one. I do explain their model in depth in my Supremacy Goods paper, but let me see if I can make it brief. WoT uses a hybridized subscription and microtransaction monetization model that makes you earn xp to rise in their vehicular tech tree. This goes from Tier 1 to Tier 10 (correct me if they have 11s now). The game has a sophisticated matching system that balances both teams of 15 in a match so that tiers are balanced. You might still be lower tier than an opponent in a match, but someone else on your team will be their tier level.

Completing a match gives you common currency and xp. Winning, surviving, and getting a lot of kills give you more of both. Paying for a subscription gives you a 50% bonus to both. I consider this "fair" and not pay to win because everyone on the subscription is on even footing, and it does not affect your performance in a match, just how fast you rise in the tiers.

You used to be able to buy mods for your tank that cost real money. They are getting rid of those so that now you can buy them with common currency. Of course they still let you buy common currency with real money, so it can still be just a bit pay to win, but non payers can theoretically get the same items eventually.

The economy is designed so that you have to pay to fix and reload your tank every battle (the "sink" in the economy). You run a surplus at lower levels and break even around Tier 5 or 6 depending on your skill level. After that you tend to run at a bit of a loss every battle unless you subscribe or buy coin. Again this is fair because it does not give advantage in a battle per se, but it does allow you to run higher tier tanks. Having a tier 10 tank guarantees that no one can out rank you in a battle.

Still it is "fair enough" which is good in my book.

Thomas Spackman
profile image
"Premium" tanks are tanks that cannot be accessed through their normal technology trees. Premium tanks, unlike regular tanks, cannot be upgraded through the tech tree.

They can be used for training crews to high skill levels quickly - or in lieu of grinding their skills back up in a new, un-upgraded, tank. They don't require that a crew be trained specifically for the premium tank - a crewmember only has to be trained to a tank of the same class (Light, Medium, Heavy, TD, or SPG), and be of the same nationality as the tank.

Premium tanks also give a slight boost to credit (aka "silver") earnings, because they have reduced repair and ammunition costs.

Thirdly, they have no available upgrades in the research trees, which means you never have to spend credits on improving the vehicle.

Peter Kamenkovich
profile image
Ramin pretty much explained the jist of the economic model of WoT, me, being an avid player, I can tell you that Premium Tanks are tanks that you can buy with the buyable currency 'gold'. The tank itself is not over powered, nor does it suck, it is just gets a lot large payout in the end in terms of 'silver', which is the currency that the game will eventually run on if Wargaming continues this tread of free-to-win. Your last question I can answer with is a yes, but free to play players would just have to spend more time playing to reach the same amount. Hopefully this helped alittle.

Jean-Philippe Leighton
profile image
To expand on Ramin's reply. The mods aren't really mods. They are consumables. Repair Kits, Med-Kits and Fire extinguishers. Both the premium and regular versions function almost exactly alike, except the premium version gives a passive bonus to the vehicle (10% repair speed and the like). Once consumed, they cannot be used again in the match, and must be re-purchased for your next game.

Ammunition was one of the main complaints players had with World of Tanks. Premium rounds were flat out better than their standard counterparts. They offered more penetration, and in some rare cases more damage. (It is worth noting that those that do provide more damage never get any penetration bonuses over the standard rounds. Typically, tankers will choose to carry a handful of premium rounds to get them out of tight spots. It is expensive to purchase premium rounds with silver.

Camo patterns provide a passive bonus to your tank's comouflage. This makes you 5% harder to detect. This can be applied permanently to your tank with a 200 premium coins (somewhere around there), or you can "rent" a camo pattern with regular currency.

The only thing that cannot be purchased with regular currency are premium tanks and premium subscription. These premium tanks are cheaper to run and are generally considered good money makers. These tanks are decent tanks, but overall they tend to perform a bit less successfully than regular tanks. Let's compare the Tiger II (A regular tank) to the Lowe (A premium tank). The Lowe is much slower, and much larger. Its armour is also very weak. The only benefit the Lowe has over the Tiger II is its gun, which is almost comparable to the Tiger IIs however it is slightly more accurate. These are the types of tradeoffs you make when purchasing a premium tank.

Though I feel that it is very easy to make money in Tier 8 tanks of any type. Naturally, as you progress into the higher tiers, it does become more difficult. My personal falloff point is Tier 8. I do make money on some of my Tier 9 tanks, but not always. Anyways, I'm rambling. If you're interested in the game I do recommend it. It can be good fun. If you keep a good head on those shoulders of yours, you will do well.

Frank Gyori
profile image
What is still there for gold

Premium account: +50% xp and credit
Premium vehicles: gets more credit in battle (and requires less to repair), but usually not better, or sometimes even worse than other vehicles in the same tier.
Premium xp: after a tank, and its successor(s) is fully researched, you can redirect xp to train crew faster, or get the xp as usual and change the surplus to "free" xp, usable on every tank
Premium credit: exchange gold to credit.
Premium training: with gold, you can train (and retrain for new tanks) your crew to 100%. Without it its just 80-90%. After 100% you can develop perks and skills, changing them without loosing xp also gold dependent.
So far these are elements that only makes the grind faster. Nice, but not neccessary features.

Plus hangar and barracks: You going to be able to use more tanks, and switch between crews if needed. This makes logistics easier, so most people have to spend a little gold on this sooner or later.

What changed
Premium ammo: the real advantage in battle. It got higher penetration (to hit a tank you have to have higher pen. than its armor), or bigger splash radius for artillery shells. That was a real p2w feature, but for some time these shells available for normal credit too – although they cost a lot. (And some players hate WG for this change since more ppl uses them against heavy armor)
Premium platoon: since 8.5 non-premium users can start a 3 player platoon too (I think. Never tried)
Premium consumables: better than the regular :), or automatic (like fire extinguisher)
Emblems and insciptions: purely cosmetic. Can be purchased for limited time with credit or permanent ones for gold.
Camouflage: Almost same as emblems, but they might improve "stealth" in the future

In a nutshell :)

So the premium only battle advantages in fact were removed. But their higher credit price means you have to grind more, or buy premium account/vehicle. So WG not likely to loose money on being Good Guy WG.

E McNeill
profile image
Thanks!

Shaun Fletcher
profile image
Additionally, the 'premium' tanks that are available serve three purposes:
To allow people to take part in higher tiers without grinding for long periods.
To earn more credits than normal tanks, allowing you to purchase normal tanks faster.
To introduce slightly oddball or interesting vehicles that don't really fit in a development chain.

So basically they shortcut the level grind but are not at all better than researched tanks (in fact they are usually rather mediocre, being aimed at survivability rather than big damage)

Stewart Spilkin
profile image
And even if you buy your way into a higher tier tank, each match is still set up to be relatively even per side. In fact, you could make a good argument that buying your way up the tiers, or buying higher tier premium tanks puts you at a competitive disadvantage against those that have "grinded up" and have lots of combat experience. They really have done a great job, even before this initiative I've always felt like I could compete without paying.

Bill P
profile image
FYI Camouflage patterns give 5% extra camouflage bonus. Like emblems and inscriptions, they can be permanent.

I think Wargaming picked up on the fact that very few people used the Gold shell/consumable Pay to win options anyway, not enough to make any noticeable money. Wargaming make the bulk of their cash in the conversion of XP to Free XP.

The Pay to Win element is still there though, if you bother to look at the economics of the game and its online store content. Its just highly obfuscated now.

Matt Shaw
profile image
I've been playing WOT for nearly 2 years now and this free to play idea is already in operation and has been for a number of months for consumables, camo, gold rounds etc... Unfortunately this makes it much much harder to grind through the tiers if you're spending your hard earned silver to compete (instead of gold as before). Very clever (or not) from WG making out it's an advantage when really what it's doing is forcing you further down the route of having to upgrade to the premium account and/or the purchasing of premium tanks.

For those that don't understand the system, basically each battle earns silver and experience points. You need silver to buy tank upgrades (which make you more powerful) and higher tier tanks. If you're spending that silver to buy consumables such as better ammo, food for your crew (which makes them better crew members), this has a massive impact on your ability to produce enough silver to climb through the modules and progress through the tiers effectively. Therefore, you really need a premium account which produces 50% more silver and experience than a standard account. And/or a premium tank which produces even more silver and experience and 9/10 gives you more competitive battles (puts you at the top against lower tier tanks and therefore more likely to perform well).

Arguably, you could say "don't spend silver on upgrades then" which is fair enough. But the point is, to climb tiers quickly and effectively, you need to win and to win against other tanks using upgrades you need to do the same.

Furthermore, the mechanics are such that once you get to tier 6 or more, it becomes very expensive (relative to what you earn in the game) to run your tank i.e. a loss will cost you more in repairs and ammo than a battle will give you. When you're at tier10, this is exaggerated to a point where, without the premium account or a premium tank, or a lot of wins or low tier battles to recoup your silver, it's nearly impossible (on average) to make silver. When you have several tier10s then it just becomes pointless trying to run them and enjoy them on a regular basis. It's a little annoying spending a number of months getting to tier 10 only not being able to afford to run them at the end.

I have a premium tank but refuse to buy premium again (which i've paid for in the past - circa 12months worth). I find this quite insulting to paint this as a positive! You cannot effectively play World of Tanks without a premium account and a premium tank if you want to progress beyond tier 5. Take it from me.

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
To be successful, a company has to charge for its services. If they can create a system that is "fair enough" and still monetizes high, that is the best way to go. The point of my Supremacy Goods paper was not to suggest that dev teams should be "nice" to their customers. My point was that it is actually more profitable to restore fairness to competitive games.

Many in the business of games have gotten the false perception that the more cruel you are to your players, the more money you make. This has all sorts of consequences that are causing our industry to contract, or at least suppress growth. I personally think that if a company puts out a really good game, and can maintain the fairness, they should charge A LOT, because then here they are providing what the consumer demands. This can be done inside the F2P paradigm. It is not unreasonable for a company with a product better than WoT to be charging 3 or 4 times as much as WG does and still have very high conversion rates, while maintaining fairness.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
Joshua, I agree it is not fair. I'm okay with this. I'm totally okay with this. I think paying should confer some advantage, otherwise people won't pay. That said, I seek a "fair enough" environment. If the common user (not an expert like you) can't tell that the game is unfair, from a monetization standpoint that's a really good design.

My rules here look like this:

1. Sell no advantage that would make skill/experience a non-factor in challenge outcome. All players, even free players, should have some reasonable chance of success against players at all times.

2. The cost of parity should be reasonable. Thus a cap on spending is necessary.

Thus expert spenders should beat expert non-spenders *most* but not all of the time, and expert non-spenders should beat casual spenders most or all of the time.

If you want a truly fair game (which I think is even better) then the design gets more complex. F2P starts to break down here and you get left with essentially content purchases (LoL) or time gates. Both of these paths can be done well, but not a lot of effort has been put in this direction so far.

Stewart Spilkin
profile image
I hear what you are saying Joshua, but it comes down to why you play the game. If, as Ramin suggests in the Zynga layoffs thread, many players played Zynga games because they were caught in some sort of addiction loop and not really enjoying themselves, then that is indeed morally questionable. If you are playing WOT just to "get the next food pellet" maybe you should stop. I have played for several years and I have only bought gold rounds for one tank, never bought premium consumables, and still have ace mastery on about 4 active tanks, and 1st on others. I don't consider myself a great player, but I'm good enough to do better than average, and I really enjoy the game itself.

I have as much fun in a tier 3 tank as a tier 8 tank (often more.) I have spent some money on WOT, mostly for crew retraining, some camo, and xp conversion, but my decision was based mostly on feeling that I owed them some money for providing me with so much entertainment. They are a business, not a non-profit, and I'm sure they do "thumb the scales" but not so much that it takes my enjoyment away from the actual game itself. If it ever did, I would find something else to play.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
Joshua, I am a strong advocate against coercive business models, you know this. So far the only thing I've really read you state as being coercive is the possibility that they are messing with the matchmaking to favor spenders. You have not proved this yet, but let's just say it is true. It would seem to me that this would make sense if the consumer knew they were getting favored by spending, as it would give incentive to spend. In the absence of that information, I don't see how messing with the numbers would motivate players one way or another.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
Joshua, I would like to debate the issues you have, but you are flooding me :) Slow down and make a specific point and be rigorous about it. If you think that the system is reacting to good players by disadvantaging them (putting them "Tier down") in matches, I guess you could argue that this is overt if they don't say they are doing it. But overt and coercive are not the same thing. You think that if I am a better than average gamer and that the difficulty of the game scales up to react to that, this is going to make me spend more?

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Frank Gyori
profile image
@Joshua
The winrate equalizing matchmaker conspiracy is a popular theory, but no evidence supports that it is more than simple luck and some RNG goes wild from time to time (15:0 battles or the opposite). Especially unique players disagree with it, with 60%+ WR without platoons. That's why it's polite to back up this kind of claims with WN6 :) – mine is http://www.noobmeter.com/player/eu/hunbullseye, so i'm definately not an expert.

An XVM (or similar) based MM could cure this, but would cause longer waiting times. Until that its the good old trick: restart game after 3-4 really bad loss.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Rob Graeber
profile image
World of Tanks does seem balanced on a team-level because of the matchmaking system. But when does grinding become too excessive and it's effectively pay-to-win? It does just seem like semantics if items take hundreds of hours to grind vs spending some money.

Stewart Spilkin
profile image
but it's not grinding in the negative sense of repetitive, non-interactive activities to gain xp, it's really just playing the game. If you like the game, you'll like the grind, and when you finally get that new tier 7 heavy tank, it's so much more fun because you have been anticipating it. Sometimes you do get a tank that does not suit you, but you can always sell it and you always have several in your garage.

James Yee
profile image
Hmm... I wonder if this means I'll stop hearing "nice gold round newb" being yelled about? :)


Oooh... gold rounds no longer being for money I might get better rounds for my Tiger II.... :)

Nooh Ha
profile image
It will be fascinating to see how this impacts their business. As i understand it most of their rev comes from subscriptions so my guess will be a minimal negative impact on ARPU (some of the pay to win killer whales will leave) but the PR may result in some increase in player numbers.

It may be "free to win" now but the model will now be very dependent on "pay to accelerate your progress".

Matt Shaw
profile image
Hi Nooh. See my post above. WG are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. What they're doing is very clever. Like you say, it's pay to accelerate your progress. To hinder it, forcing you down the premium route, I'm surprised more people haven't thought about it like this.

I doubt very much that many people spent gold rounds ($$$) on battles in the past (other than in clan wars battles perhaps). Revenue, in the main, would have been from premium accounts and tanks. Without repeating what I said above (although I will ;-) ), you cant play top tier 10 games efficiently and effectively without the benefit of a decent money maker i.e. a bunch of lower tier tanks which you'd have to jump into 2-3 times to pay for your tier10 ammo and repairs OR buy a premium tank or upgrade to the premium account.

It will be interesting in time to see what impact this and the many other mechanical changes will make to their bottom line and membership base. I for one, reluctantly, will not be spending any more money.

David Paris
profile image
Sounds great. I'm way more likely to play WoT with this model than I was before. I'm already a big fan of the LoL approach (and have paid accordingly), and would love to see more games go this path.

Balint Sz
profile image
Good move WG. The current biggest problem, that very different skill levels are matched in battles, so sometimes it is impossible to enjoy the game. For some reason there are long losing strikes, where no matter how well you play you end up losing because your teammates act like (or are) mindless bots and just get themselves killed the most obvious and stupid way. And the fact that there are winning steaks as well does not help at all.

I would love to see some statistics or analysis why these streaks happen, I am sure WG already investigated it.

Christopher Gibbons
profile image
I apologize but I cannot let this slip by.

The Pay to Win is not the biggest issue at all. The issue is the "anything" but "Random Public Matchmaking" that has been fiddled with to make it hard for non-platoon solo Public Matchmaking players to get out of the 48-52% area. This has been discussed at lengths on your own forums. There was a huge thread on it recently on your own forums.

Your public record on how your MM code works (made public for lawsuit vs browser based game) and previous statements from someone on your own development team has shown that you are most likely using the ability of said code to create this artificial 48-52% win rate, so no one is a big loser. It is not even a question of "is it happening" it is more like.... how are you manipulating it?

Here is the happiness on the NA server.

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/227328-wgna-why-wo
nt-the-developers-respond-to-the-na-server/

Large recent Matchmaking thread on Code

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/234260-some-intere
sting-info-on-mm/

Blog on WoT Matchmaking

http://wot-ro.blogspot.de/2013/05/wots-matchmaker-is-rigged-proof
.html

Another detailed look

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/238815-one-of-the-
reasons-the-newest-mm-is-failing/

There are other blogs on the subject.

If you search the WoT forum under only Gameplay Discussion with the word Matchmaking, 6 pages at 25 threads per page come up with this from the last four weeks. None of it is good.

With the kids out of school playing for fun and losing a lot, the MM is pulling down every ones win rate to keep theirs up. Check the pattern in the threads, the worse they do the worse you will do. You can even be top scorer by putting in a great team effort and increase your efficiency but you will still lose.

I have played far too many online games and pvp grind’s (embarrassingly to many.) This is the first one I ever had to write down my wins and losses, the reason for the loss, my standing at loss and screenshot my game start and end to prove to myself I was seeing something strange in the MM. I was going to do a massive thread with screens of the start and end of one hundred games but the players who Tank Company and Platoon often would just shoot it down to justify their own stats.

If there was a real detailed penetration/damage/RNG logger it would prove it irrefutably.
It is too bad really it is a very fun game when played by somewhat even teams. The three Tier difference for Med/Hvy/TD is too much though, this adds to the one sided domino effect you see in MM but it is not the primary reason.

Look at it anyway you want it is no different than when they used tiny weights on the slot machines so they would pay out less.

Never mind the paid for cheat “crosshair foliage remover” has been legal on the NA server but banned on the rest many moons ago, though now it will finally be banned on NA also. We realize RU is the biggest market but treatment of the NA server population has been less than favorable.

If you follow the rabbit hole on this one you will see there is more than reasonable doubt presented.

Peace.

Mike Engle
profile image
Awesome, I instantly monetized based on this move. I've always loved WoT, but never paid because it was clearly pay2win. Now that my only excuse is gone, I can give these devs the money they deserve.

tony oakden
profile image
I find it amusing that Play2Win is seen as somehow conflicting with Esports. Isn't it the athletes who spend the most on equipment, diet, coaching etc who win the most competitions? Or the football clubs who spend the most of players? Why should computer games be any different?

Mike Engle
profile image
Of course it's in conflict. Who wants to waste time watching a competitive match where the winner is largely determined by how much money was spent?

The best competitive games are a pure measure of skill.


none
 
Comment: