It’s only a problem if you can’t afford it

I find the discussion around gold ammo/tanks/accounts in WoT fascinating for a number of reasons, and the subject reveals a lot about gamers and their tolerance for different things, especially in a PvP game.

First let’s start with some facts.

It’s a fact that you can buy power in WoT. Shooting with gold ammo is better than shooting without it. It’s also a fact that you can buy accelerated progression in WoT in the form of gold tanks or account services. Finally, it’s a fact that the higher up in tiers you go, the higher the ‘recommendation’ that you spend money to continue playing gets due to how the repair cost system is set up.

I’ve seen fans of WoT argue against the buying-power aspect by suggesting gold ammo is rare, ineffective, or does not influence the outcome of a battle. All of this is interesting.

Rarity: So because, for example, only one in ten battles involves gold ammo, gold ammo is not really a problem? To me this suggests a few things. First, the care-factor for any one battle is very limited. Winning or losing a single battle is marginally important, to the extent that using gold ammo is ‘silly’ because why pay extra for something so trivial (winning)? This is further reinforced by the fact that gold ammo is most often seen in clan matches, which ‘matter’ more. The flip side of this is, of course, non-clan matches don’t ‘matter’ as much.

This then brings up the question: how rare is ‘rare enough’? If gold ammo prices were slashed, and gold ammo was used in 50% of battles, is it now a “buying power” problem? If the price is increased, and it’s used in 1/1000th of battles, is the problem ‘solved’?

Ineffective: If gold ammo is so similar to regular ammo, who buys it? Why do they buy it? Just for the lulz? And if gold ammo is as underpowered as some claim, why do clan’s use it? Furthermore, if level-of-effect is the issue, when does gold ammo really become a problem? There is a lot of space between “no effect” and “one-shotting tanks”, so where do you fall on the scale? 5% power increase is too much? 50% power? Anything above 1%?

No influence on the outcome: This is somewhat similar to the above, but not quite. If player skill, pure luck, pre-game random tank matching, the map, or anything BUT who has gold ammo is the factor in determining the winner, why again do clan’s spend money on gold ammo? Why is it even noticeable? If gold ammo has “never effected the outcome of a battle”, are all those gold ammo purchasers just idiots throwing money down a hole? And if they are, why are the ‘smart’ people who are not buying gold ammo talking about it beyond thanking them for the charitable donation? Plus if gold ammo has truly never influenced the outcome of a battle, shouldn’t gold ammo be buffed? Its crazy underpowered!

Would CoD or Battlefield players also consider gold ammo a non-issue in their games? If Riot allowed you to buy a few extra mastery points in League of Legends, would anyone even notice? I mean hell I’ve won LoL games with the completely WRONG masteries set, that’s how “worthless” they are! Surely, given how much of a non-factor such a minor purchase of power would be, we would see most tourney players in LoL not spend the cash for those extra mastery points, right? After all, LoL is more of a skill-based (twitch) game than WoT, so if anything the effect would be even LESS noticeable, right? Hello…?

As for gold tanks/accounts and their impact on repair costs, this is NOT an issue of buying power, but buying a way out of ‘bad’ game design. Repair costs that ‘force’ you to play lesser-tiered tanks to grind up cash unless you pay for a gold tank/account is, IMO, bad design (not letting you play how you want to play) driven by the payment model. I highly doubt Wargaming.net is not smart enough to ‘fix’ this ‘problem’, after all.

This part I have less of an issue with since in-battle it has no impact (gold tank power aside), and at the end of the day it’s just the cost of your “free to play” game. Some titles state up front they cost $15 a month, others don’t. Gamers should be smart enough at this point to not be fooled into believe the whole ‘free’ scam from 99% of what’s out there.

That said, LoL is a hell of a lot more ‘free’ than WoT in this regard. LoL does not have weak/bad design like repair costs, because of the fact that they don’t sell “stop walking over glass” stuff like premium accounts or gold tanks. Riot is able to collect enough money off reskinned sparkle ponies to not have to ‘force’ their players to pay up or suffer. Good deal if you can get it, sucks when you can’t. Most can’t, but then again most F2P titles are garbage.

The biggest gray area, and the least interesting part of all of this IMO, is the power level of gold tanks. It’s a fact they are stronger than similar base tanks, and it’s also a fact they are not as strong as a fully kitted tank. They lay somewhere in the middle (although closer to the top end than the bottom). They are far more noticeable than gold ammo because, well, GOLD TANK IN YOUR FACE. Hard to miss them, especially compared to how hidden gold ammo is.

The real reason, IMO, that gold tanks are brought up so often is because not only are they fairly powerful, they give you a huge advantage in terms of earning cash. The straw man is the power, the cash earning/savings is the real issue, because those without gold tanks are ‘forced’ to farm more cash to play at the higher tiers. This, I believe, is what breeds the contempt for them. It’s somewhat valid, if you ignore the whole “you knew what you were getting yourself into from day one” aspect. It’s not like gold tanks, repair costs, or gold ammo were patched in later, once everyone was hooked on a version of WoT where the wallet was not a weapon.

At the end of the day, what all of this reveals to me is that plenty of people are willing to pay for power, but only at a cost they are personally comfortable with, and buying power is only a problem when the cost gets too high for them. $7000 gem set in Allods = bad. $1 gold ammo in WoT = good. Unless that gold ammo is used against you in a noticeable manner and the results matter to you, at which point gold ammo = bad even if it’s just one penny above a cost you are okay with.

Furthermore, and far more disturbing, is that people are quick to ignore bad game design (repair costs) driven by the payment model if again the cost is ‘reasonable’ (reasonable of course being different for everyone). One-time gold tank for $35 = good. Per-month $20 character slots = bad. Unless of course the character slot is not that important, or you can get it on sale for $5. Oh and the gold tank IS a problem if its power level is too high. Too high of course being a personal opinion. Unless it’s the most powerful tank, then it’s just pure buying power, but again that only becomes an issue if you think $35 is too high a cost to buy wins.

Personally, I’ll just stick to games limited to selling pony skins, or charging everyone $15 a month and favoring those with more time. Way more ‘fair’. :)

 

25 Responses to It’s only a problem if you can’t afford it

  1. noz says:

    nice one

  2. Gank says:

    I think I’ve criticized you in the past for your take on WoT and the gold tank/ammo/buying power issue, but this is right on, especially this point:

    “Repair costs that ‘force’ you to play lesser-tiered tanks to grind up cash unless you pay for a gold tank/account is, IMO, bad design (not letting you play how you want to play) driven by the payment model. I highly doubt Wargaming.net is not smart enough to ‘fix’ this ‘problem’, after ala”

    I loathe the fact I can’t play my favorite tank and make money, especially when I win and pay for a premium (12 per month) account. It’s just bad business. A recently announced credit-nerf to artillery today, instead of balancing their matches properly, is not going over well (coupled with increasing the cost of shells for higher tier tanks).

    • SynCaine says:

      That’s another lovely aspect of the pay-to-win model: patches are often driven by what will milk the most money out of people rather than what will actually make the game better. Pretty sure I have a post about that in the archive, but as always I’m too lazy to find it.

  3. So, people should choose games solely based on business model? Is that the message?

    Your point seems to be that as far as business model goes, LoL trumps WoT. But I would bet you also think as far as fun goes, the same the same relationship would be true.

    As you would say, interesting.

    What should somebody do if they find WoT a lot of fun? What if LoL isn’t fun to them? What should somebody do with their limited free time?

    And, finally, is it really true that ALL you can buy with Riot Points is sparkly pony skins? I mean, you keep saying that, so it must be true, right?

    • SynCaine says:

      You read the post and got that I’m telling people to play a game based SOLELY on the business model? Really?

      Do I think LoL has a better version of F2P than WoT? Yes, 100%.

      Does that help make LoL a better game than WoT? Yup, unless you can convince me that repair costs and gold tanks are really awesome for the game and that WoT would be far worse if they removed them, along with premium accounts. I’d gladly read that post.

      • Kobeathris says:

        The funny thing about World of Tanks is that the repair costs of high tier tanks work at cross purposes with having gold tanks. In a WoT without gold tanks, a player with a Tier 10 would play 1 game with that, then 1 or 2 with a tier 5 or 6 tank. Now, that sounds annoying for them, but unless they are really good (pro tip, most people aren’t really good), his tier 10 tank is probably spending some time dead and locked out anyway, so unless he wanted to go do something else, he has to play a different tank anyway or wait. This means that there are more lower tier tanks in rotation for newer players to play against, rather then them being consistently matched against higher tier tanks.

        Now, the way it is with gold tanks, is the Tier 10 player does 1 game with a tier 10, and 1 game with a tier 8, which skews the average tier higher, and makes tier 4-6 more painful than it needs to be.

        So, I don’t see the repair costs as a problem, I actually think it is a pretty good idea as a way to mix players through the tiers, and it works well if you want to play for free. Gold tanks unfortunately work against this idea, but limit “grinding” for those who want them.

        Another thing, I think the idea of “grinding” in WoT is kind of silly anyway. The game is fun at low tiers and it is fun at high tiers. If you think you need to grind up a higher tier tank to have fun in the game, bad news, you won’t, its the same game, just with a longer engagement range.

        • Gank says:

          I agree that mixing the tiers is good, and I do have a lot of fun in lower-tier tanks that ‘make money’. I start each gaming day with my favorite lower-tier tank because I like it, not because it ‘makes money’. What I resent is ‘losing money’ as a premium player when I win.

          If I play a crap game and get killed early and my repair cost is more than my winning, fair enough. Teaches me to play better. I don’t think, however, that a player paying for a premium account should ever lose money on a win- which is what happens. It just isn’t right. Penalize me for losing, by all means, but penalize me for winning in a tank that happens to be a higher tier….. doesn’t seem right.

          If you were paying a sub in another game and you, say, successfully killed the requisite 10 rats, and when you returned to the quest giver he said:

          “Ya, that was okay, but I wanted you to do it just a bit better, and so I’m taking some gold from you… thanks though…”

          Doubt that would be popular ;)

    • Anonymous says:

      Didn’t you know? Everything he writes on this blog is 100% universal, entirely objective TRUTH!! The fact that he loves sandboxes and more or less detests themeparks has nothing whatsoever to do with opinion. Every troll-ish post he’s ever written has everything to do with “fact, not opinion,” to quote the man himself.

      • SynCaine says:

        If you are going to keep commenting on this blog (and please do), can’t you pick a name? Always posting as Anon is going to get you confused with the one-comment randoms that swing by, while I can see from the IP it’s the same person.

  4. Carson says:

    There’s something I’ve always wondered about LoL – and it’s something we’ll never know the answer to, but I’d welcome speculation.

    What ARE people spending money on?

    I’d love to know the breakdown between buying champions, skins, boosts, what have you.

    When I first looked at LoL, I assumed that the big sellers would be champions. It seemed such an elegant model: let people play a subset of the (very large number of!) champions, with enough choice to keep them entertained. Then, change the free set every week, encouraging people to buy a champion if they had really enjoyed playing it, and it was now out of the rotation.

    But it seems that buying champions with influence points earned in game is cheap enough that if you bought one, by the time you’d played a few games and decided you wanted a different one, you’d have earned more than enough IP to do so?

    So I’m not sure how big a seller champions would be.

    Then there the skins.. which you have always suggested were the biggest sellers. That just seems.. odd. I have always thought that cosmetic sales appeal only to a particular demographic of gamer, and frankly, I wouldn’t have thought there’d be a huge overlap between that demographic and the PvP arena demographic. And on top of that, buying a new skin seems less appealing in a game where your character is a little sprite than one where it’s a 3D avatar large and front and center on the screen.

    So where is the money coming from?? Obviously it’s pouring in given Riot’s success, the lucrative tournament prizes, etc. I just can’t get my head around how they are monetizing LoL, a good game though it may be.

    • SynCaine says:

      Skins are a huge source. It’s easy to see as well, just play a bunch of games and see how many champs are using a skin. It’s VERY rare to play a game without someone in a skin, while an ‘all skins’ team is pretty common. Then factor in the price of skins, especially legendary skins, and it adds up. Toss in the people who buy a TON of skins (the 2% or whatever that spend silly amount of money in RMT games, literally thousands a year), multiply it by 15m or whatever LoL has, and, yea, gold mine.

      I also think people using RP to pick up a champ because “ZOMG WANT IT NOW” is not insignificant. Picking up a lot of 6300 IP champs takes a LOT of games played, and people who just love to play all the champs are going to spend RP.

      Boosts I would imagine are very minor. Getting to 30 is cake, and buying IP boosts is just another form of using RP for champs. Runes are dirt cheap, even for multiple sets, and by the time you are 30 you have at least one full page, if not multiples assuming some overlap.

    • Dril says:

      I’ll be honest: I get bored of one champion very quickly. I’ve spent all of my money on either skins for the two champions I play the most (Yi and Wukong) or new champions (half of which are a massive waste of RP, but, hey.)

      I never really see many skins, but that could be because I play on EUW.

  5. Ahtchu says:

    Gains, no matter now minute, are worth pursuing. . To surmise: pennies make dollars.
    To piggyback the LoL analogy: trying jungling with a champion that isn’t listed as a ‘jungler’ (Yi comes to mind). Without masteries, it’s utter, UTTER failure. With, it is viable (FotM dependency- details details). And this is all with masteries that are largely insignficiant. The gains are wholly unsubstantial, but yet with all those ‘unsubstantial’ gains, an entirely new playstyle is made available.

  6. Crito says:

    2 cents-

    People are playing WoT for way different reasons than playing LoL. I mean whats the draw in WoTs? Duh, you get to drive tanks! LoL is firmly in the hardcore strat area although they’ve made it very accessible.

    So, gold ammo, gold tanks…for random players it’s no big deal. Gold tanks are good, but it’s the person inside who really matters in the battle. That’s why it’s so fun to kill em. If they outplayed you, the tank wasn’t the problem. Gold ammo: funny thing is, you don’t know who has it. So, assume no one does and keep playing. Why gripe if someone wants to pay? It’s not ruining the game for me as a random player. If I’m stupid enough to expose myself to direct fire it’s my own fault. And their special ammo doesn’t stop us from taking them out.

    I don’t think the games trying to be what you think it is. It’s no LoL for sure. I think the players don’t mind about a little bit of pay for power because “power” can only get you so far. It’s a lot less about the spreadsheet and a lot more about the actual play (like, you know, knowing how to use cover and leading a tank by hand instead of auto-aims).

    The game has problems, but, Syn, I’ld respect your opinion about the game a lot more if I know you actual played it or expressed that you understand it as you do darkfall or LoL. Getting to tier 6 would help you understand what the game’s trying to do. If you’ve done that, how did gold tanks/ammo effect you?

    • SynCaine says:

      Unfortunately the above is just a personal justification of the problems. You ignore gold ammo, so don’t find it a problem. You deal with gold tanks, so don’t mind them. You accept that you are charged for an account, so the other option (not being charged) is hard to see.

      None of that changes the fact that gold ammo is buying power, that gold tanks exist to milk customers and create envy, and that premium accounts are purchased to overcome bad game design hurdles that exist only for the purpose of getting you to pay.

      If Riot released WoT but under the LoL model, would you still prefer Wargaming.net’s version? Of course not. But you don’t have a choice, so you accept/justify the failings of their F2P. And luckily for Wargaming, Riot is not making a WoT, so they are the only game in town for people who just love driving tanks.

      Still doesn’t change the fact that WoT would be a better game without gold ammo.

      Edit: Oh, and I don’t need to waste my time getting to tier 6 on a product I find inferior to understand any of the above, unless someone can convince me that from a gameplay perspective, gold tanks/ammo/accounts are a huge plus. Still waiting for that post…

      • Kobeathris says:

        I’m curious, what do you think would be a better revenue model for World of Tanks? I don’t play LoL, so I don’t have any experience with their business model other than what you have posted in this thread. I’m not really sure how you would apply something similar to WoT though. You could do skins for sure, but I’m not sure how well those would sell.

        As far as gold ammo, yeah, you are right, there isn’t much defense for it being there at all, I just don’t think it actually has much affect on the game. The gold tanks and premium accounts do make a lot of sense though.

        Assume for the moment that the game was say a 45 dollar box, with no cash shop items at all, but otherwise worked exactly the same way it does now. Now, that game may be perfect for some people, but there are 2 classes who it is not perfect for: Those who want to play for free, and those who don’t want to spend time grinding. For both of those groups WoT as it is now (with the exception of the gold ammo) is a better game. The free to play player can grind out all of the best stuff eventually without spending a dime, and the pay to play gamer can pick and chose what they want to grind and what they want to bypass. If they want to play a Russian Tier 7 heavy for example, but don’t want to deal with any tanks on the way there, they can use a different tank (or a gold tank) and convert xp to level through that line. Even the person who was happy with spending 45 dollars gets a better game. The reason for that is at free to play, more people will play which gives them faster and better match making.

        • SynCaine says:

          Skins, special effects, other fluff. If it’s done well, like LoL does it, people will buy it. Fluff is cash-only.

          Tanks can be released like champs in LoL, a new one every few weeks or so. Give players the option to buy the new tank with money, or with in-game currency. Same deal for maps. Rotate which map(s) are free as you go.

          Remove gold tanks and ammo,

          Allow players to buy xp boosts to quickly gain access to higher tiers/crew, or allow them to outright buy higher tier tanks (base models).

          If no one is playing lower-tier tanks, fix them to make them fun. Forcing people to play something is not the answer..

      • Crito says:

        Can we distinguish gameplay from the business model? Yes, because the model is founded on pre-existant gameplay features (ie what’s happening on the battlefield, and getting new tanks). So, we should ask if the gameplay aspects are good: how you battle and how you level up. No complaints with that? Ok

        To make a game bad, you have to ruin what made it good, make it unplayable. To make a game better you improve on what’s holding it back. You’re arguing the first one when you should be pushing the second.

        None of the aspects of gameplay that make this a good game are ruined by this stuff. The battlefield fighting is based on different weight tanks with different weight ammo and so each tier is balanced for a range. The money items fit inside that range.

        On the leveling side gold tanks can get more credit, effectively acting as a exp boost which you suggested as a viable option for those with less time. Not to mention, the structure of leveling in WoT is not a grind but an invitation to get better in different styles. The only advantage of higher level tanks is pride, more power, and different types of battles. Each set of tiers acts as it’s own game.

        Now, yes, the game could be better. But you seem to be jumping to the idea that these decisions are “ruining” the game. It’s not clear you have any idea what’s worth saving in the game or why other people enjoy it. It’s not clear that you’ve even played it yourself or are just posting on hearsay. That’s fine, but why not link the articles and admit that you don’t really know much about the game.

        The only place I see for argument is gold ammo. If this was a competition everyone competing should have the same opportunities (but is this only a competition?). Gold ammo should go if they want to make the game more of an e-sport. Gold tanks can stay b/c they fit within the levels. The game could be better, but it would be making a good game better not justifying “just another game”.

        • SynCaine says:

          “Can we distinguish gameplay from the business model?”

          No, you can’t.

          Gold ammo affects gameplay, but is only in the game because of the (poor) business model.

          One example is enough for me, because it shows me what the devs are willing to do to get money, how much faith they have in their product, and how seriously the take balance into consideration. If we are talking a PvE game I could care less, but WoT is a PvP-only title. But we can continue with WoT.

          Gold tanks are NOT unseen XP boosts but in-game power items (not the most powerful, but still some power, visibly to other players) not because that leads to better gameplay, but because of the business model.

          Repair costs, paid xp conversions, these are good gameplay-driven items? Nope, just more gameplay sacrifices at the alter of bad F2P design.

          Am I saying WoT is a horrible game? No. It does what it tries to do well-enough to get a following, especially in the EU. And luckily for Wargaming.net they are the only show in town right now, so if you have to drive a tank in a PvP game, you play WoT.

          Is WoT a worse game because of it’s F2P model? Yes. 100%.

  7. Adam D says:

    I’ve played WoT and LoL both (playing both semi-competitively – in one of the top tier NA CW clans, currently building a Ranked 5′s team in LoL for tourneys), and both have their pro’s and cons.

    World of Tanks has many things that are good about it – Games last a max of 15 mins, it’s very easy to jump in and out of tanks if you get blown up, and for the most part it’s very easy to pick up and learn. the CW matches add a new level of strategy and execution to the game that makes it fun over and above destroying pubbies.

    There are some things that are “bad” about it/could use tweaking – the credit system basically forces you to buy premium if you want to get past a Tier 5 tank in any reasonable timeframe, their MatchMaker does some really funky stuff that often puts you in a pretty crap matchup, and the “pay for power” is definitely there, and will only get worse with the upcoming adaptive camo that’ll be coming in soon. Also, the upcoming tank locking in CW will really encourage players to burn gold to convert xp to get other CW capable tanks in order to keep going in CW if you’re trying to stay on the map.

    Wargaming developed a system of nickle and diming players to do things so they’d have to keep buying gold. I can see that, and I understand it. I made 1-2 good sized purchases early on (KV-5, 25,000 gold)… and for the most part now it’s a small purchase here and there to keep me in gold for gold shells/converting xp. WG’s not getting any more $$ from me… but then again, I have almost all the heavy tanks I want, so really no need to spend more $$ anyways.

    The gold tanks make that game sooo much easier. so long as you get 1-2 shots off that hit, you’re making $$ for that match. I wouldn’t have all the tanks i have w/o my KV-5 and the 1000+ games played in it. So yes, people can rage, but if I can save myself tens of hours of games played to get the credits I need, I’d call that smart use of my playtime vs wallet warrior. There’s nothing to say that you can’t grind for 500 matches in your KV to afford an IS… I’d prefer to do it in 150-200, and spend more time with the bigger tanks.

    LoL went for the opposite approach – keep prices low, offer lots of shinies and let the ADHD US market do the rest. LoL is more evenly distributed as far as population goes, while the Vast vast majority of WG’s clients live outside the US (EU and RUS server vs US server w/ 200k pop), where paying a monthly sub is not the norm, with a few exceptions (WoW, Rift, SW:TOR when it launches)

    LoL has issues too… the amount of champs they keep releasing is stupid fast, and the balancing of the now 80+ champs in their stable is got to be the job you give a sadomasochist… the qq on the forums (rightly or wrongly) about OP or UP champs is near DarkFall proportions at times. Riot needs to slow down on releasing champs and work on what they have, vs keep throwing sticks of dynamite on the pile and hoping the pile doesn’t explode eventually.

    But what do I know, @ 15 million accounts, a prize pool of $5 mil for Season 2 events, and recently beating DOTA 2 on a neutral survey they sure must be doing SOMETHING right

    • SynCaine says:

      To me honestly it comes down to talent.

      Riot has the talent to make skins that are good enough that people spend cash on them. If you don’t have an art team of that quality, you can’t get away with that.

      Riot has the talent to release a new champ every 2-3 weeks. The champ is (usually) interesting, balanced, and brings something new. If you don’t have the design team to do that, you can’t keep up that pace (revenue stream).

      Riot has the talent to balance 80+ champs. Balance is never perfect of course, but if you look at the amount of champs that are common picks/bans, and the range of builds for those champs, things could be a LOT worse. Forum noise is what it is, regardless of the actual state of balance. If you don’t have a team that can balance like this, you can’t pump out champs or keep people interested/playing.

      Gold ammo and the like is a crutch. You sacrifice game quality for money, because you are unable to generate money through non-sacrificial means. The lower your talent, the more garbage you have to include to make a buck, which again is why 99% of F2P games are total trash.

      • Max says:

        Well I played WoT and LoL as well. And honestly dont find either model bad. Gold ammo is a pay to win indeed , while lol doesnt have this. WoT though is 100% playable without any gold ( I did play for 2 months in beta without using premium or anything gold -got myself tier9 heavy and 2 tier8 mediums)

        While I ‘d like WoT be less pay to win, the model is obviously working for them .LoL is working too so I think there is something to learn for f2p models for both

  8. Solf says:

    Meh, I think you’re going too far here Syncaine.

    LoL and WoT aim at the significantly different market. LoL, for example, is a “follow up” to DoA and it is really a very hardcore game (the whole notion of ‘know what each champion does and how to counter it” — not to mention all the carrys and stuff — it all screams hardcore). WoT is far, FAR, more casual (I’ve played up to and including tier 8). This is sort of what you call “each individual battle doesn’t matter much” — and it is not necessarily a bad thing for the ‘casualness’ of WoT.

    With that important distinction in mind, it must be obvious that monetization scheme that works for LoL must not necessarily work for WoT (and vice versa). So bashing WoT merely because of payment model is rather silly. There’s limited amount of people who’d choose between those two based on payment model :P The majority would choose based on gameplay.

    Now if one accepts that WoT is a subscription game with an “unlimited free trial”, then one can quite a lot of fun in WoT — I know I did :P Without paying money it’s harder to advance, but you can, if you’re willing to exchange enough of your time instead of paying a few bucks per month. Whatever you personally believe, there’s enough evidence from people who actually play(ed) the game, that neither gold tanks nor gold ammo are really a problem. It’s not a LoL after all, it’s not about 3 vs 3 or 5 vs 5 rushes — it’s about shooting someone in the back from the bushes — at which point it matters jack whether they had gold or silver or whatever ammo.

    Yes, technically WoT sells power for money. Yes, maybe in the perfect world it would’ve been better if they didn’t. But let’s not kid ourselves, LoL payment & gameplay model has its own problems — ELO hell anyone? Had LoL had monthly sub model, it is entirely possible ELO hell wouldn’t have been that hellish — after all how many people would be willing to pay monthly for their chance to suck? :P So does it mean now that LoL sucks because it doesn’t use the best possible payment mode?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 181 other followers

%d bloggers like this: