Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
WoWsNewsBot

Auction: U.S. Independence Day

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1 post
2,377 battles

Another auction I'm going to lose to OG players that have stacks of coins saved up. Fantastic!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
441 posts
5,152 battles

Well looks like it's time to sell some stacks of Camos that I never plan to use and place a reasonable bid at the auction. I think it will be 75m for coal, 25m for the commander and 20m for the flag 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[F4E]
[F4E]
Members
857 posts
14,524 battles

Maybe it's that the holiday weekend is still young but am I guessing correctly to say WeeGee has gone from having sales, events, and special deals during Holidays to "let's see what we can drain from you" auctions. But hey, at least it's not riddled with RNG loot crates right. Right? 

And why does the voice in my head keep repeating the WeeGee spokesperson's phrase "We hear our players and have learned from our mistakes. We promise to deceive you do better."  

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
936
[MR-1]
Members
2,073 posts
23,940 battles
2 hours ago, WoWsNewsBot said:

There are no losers! We're here to tell you about the rules and lots of our new auction in the Armory.


Read it on the portal

well first of all the auction is a joke  and a rip off  only those who have been playing  for many years can afford it . especially for it being an american independence day one . 

as for the consellation  its self . i watched many streamers trying it out and majority didnt like it at all  and were talking about big name streamers . 

infact one big streamer  hated it  completely 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
936
[MR-1]
Members
2,073 posts
23,940 battles
51 minutes ago, bigfat2016 said:

is the commander in the Auction has any specialized skills?

it doesnt say  so probbly not 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
936
[MR-1]
Members
2,073 posts
23,940 battles

lets continue to treat our player base the same way we treat our NA contributors  ............with disrespect  

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[CHIL]
Members
134 posts
1,159 battles

WOWS feels more and more like a 4D chess casino than a game you are supposed to have fun in ...

Edited by Zamolxet
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,095
[ARGSY]
Members
25,148 posts
19,146 battles

Interesting - the Commander is for credits rather than doubloons this time.

3 hours ago, Gosre said:

Another auction I'm going to lose to OG players that have stacks of coins saved up. Fantastic!

There's nothing that stops you from declaring a ship-acquisition freeze and going on a credit farming spree of your own. 

For the record, I've been playing WOWS for nearly four years, and I'm always short of credits because I'm always expanding my tech-tree fleet. Whose problem is that? Certainly not Wargaming's! It's mine, for getting every damn ship in my port ASAP and not selling any of the damn things any more. The difference between us is that I can accept that my credit situation is a necessary consequence of my fleet expansion and live with the knowledge that I probably won't be taking home any of these auction prizes in a great hurry. 

That being said, I do actually have credits above the minimum to bid for the commander, so I'm going to chuck my hat in that ring and see what falls out. If I don't win, so what? I'm right back where I was before I started, with nothing lost. If I do win, it's because I decided a 14 point captain was actually worth that much and I won't complain about the price.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,287 posts
13,784 battles

Ahh yes, the we must all be able to win everything all the time. If you have the means to participate in the auction, go for it and I hope you win. If you don’t it’s no harm no foul. WG has said there are economy issues and at the end of the day this is a good way for people to get free stuff while dumping excess resources. 
 

On a separate note, it seems the reduction in ship costs doesn’t stack with the clan base bonuses. Feels sad man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,664
[USRUS]
[USRUS]
Members
1,778 posts
22,334 battles

A camo from a hard battle between sharks and eagles.

Now to be had for just doubloons.

 

Another slap in the face, no skill required, just cash. 

 

Well done wargaming, undermining anything unique older players won in competitions. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[-ZE-]
Beta Testers
15 posts
1,756 battles

To call this an "auction" is a joke. 
This is NOTHING like how an auction works, it's  literally just a gambling scam where you throw money into a black hole and hope you wasted the most money.
The "minimum" bid itself is is only 5 mil short of the $30mil value many have already estimated. Which means this "auction" is just a farce to trick people (especially ftp ones) to empty out the money they have been scrimping and saving.
Yet again WG could have done something interesting and instead they just choose the "how can we screw our players over" method.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
Members
654 posts
8,643 battles

Just going to save my money. Nothing here I'd want to waste my resources on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
199
[NINE]
Members
156 posts
10,522 battles
12 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

For the record, I've been playing WOWS for nearly four years, and I'm always short of credits because I'm always expanding my tech-tree fleet. Whose problem is that? Certainly not Wargaming's! It's mine, for getting every damn ship in my port ASAP and not selling any of the damn things any more. The difference between us is that I can accept that my credit situation is a necessary consequence of my fleet expansion and live with the knowledge that I probably won't be taking home any of these auction prizes in a great hurry. 

You do realize that it's WG that sets the prices and rewards for everything, right?

You do realize that WG could make it so that no one ever has credit issues again with basically zero effort, right?

Literally the only reason you're short on credits is because WG needs people to pay for premium, so they make the game as miserable as possible for those without.

This is the same braindead argument that always gets whipped out to defend grind boosters in games, as if the developer doesn't have complete control over how much grind players have to go through.

2 hours ago, WillRuggz7 said:

It might be an actual auction type, but that doesn't change the fact that WG's goal is to burn off excess resources players have accumulated.

It's pretty blatantly obvious when they introduce some garbage like research bureau and then list detailed instructions on how to use a ton of FXP to get RB ships quickly. If you aren't burning FXP, you're burning flags and camos. And guess who's selling when you run out? (Oh, and I like how legendary modules were changed from a free reward for completing a mission into a resource sink. Real classy WG. Just the kind of greedy decision I'd expect).

 

11 hours ago, ditka_Fatdog said:

WG has said there are economy issues and at the end of the day this is a good way for people to get free stuff while dumping excess resources

Translation: Players have, against all odds, accumulated enough resources that a significant number of them no longer need to pay WG to skip painful grinds and play the ships they want, so WG needs to eliminate those resources to increase cash flow.

There is no economy in this game. Players have zero economic interaction with each other. You can't trade ships, you can't trade modules, you can't trade resources.

There is only a progression grind designed by WG to bore and frustrate people until they're willing to pay to speed it up or skip it.

 

It's honestly pretty pathetic that to this day, people are still using WG's dishonest corporate doublespeak framing to refer to their progression grindwall - because that's what the "economy" really is.

All WG's framing does is make them seem less obviously greedy whenever they adjust how much the grind is going to suck for players.

"Hey, the economy isn't doing too hot, so we're going to add auctions to remove some credits" sounds perfectly reasonable. I mean, economies need adjusting all the time. Tweaking the economy so that it's healthy is a good thing. It certainly sounds better than the truth: "Hey, players have enough credits to enjoy playing what they want to; they don't need to pay us anymore to get more credits faster, we need to take some away so that players are bored enough grinding credits to pay us to grind faster again".

Edited by isssm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[ODIN]
Members
47 posts
5,146 battles
26 minutes ago, isssm said:

but that doesn't change the fact that WG's goal is to burn off excess resources players have accumulated

Yes, that is indeed the propose of the auction, to burn the mountain of credits and coal that a decent amount of players sit on. WG knows that the economy is WoWs is really screwed up with things like fxp, credits, and coal being extremely easy to farm by even your average dolphin. If you want to see how bloated the WoWs economy has become then just compare the price of fxp ships throughout the years. First, WG made T9 fxp ships like Missouri and Musashi only 750k fxp, then they changed the price to 1mil fxp with ships like Alaska, and then when WG introduced T10 fxp ships whose prices soared to 2mil fxp. Obviously, this is a sign of fxp inflation. The screwed up economy is probably the reason why WG removed flags from achievements; to reduce how well the average player could grind. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,287 posts
13,784 battles
10 hours ago, isssm said:

You do realize that it's WG that sets the prices and rewards for everything, right?

You do realize that WG could make it so that no one ever has credit issues again with basically zero effort, right?

Literally the only reason you're short on credits is because WG needs people to pay for premium, so they make the game as miserable as possible for those without.

This is the same braindead argument that always gets whipped out to defend grind boosters in games, as if the developer doesn't have complete control over how much grind players have to go through.

It might be an actual auction type, but that doesn't change the fact that WG's goal is to burn off excess resources players have accumulated.

It's pretty blatantly obvious when they introduce some garbage like research bureau and then list detailed instructions on how to use a ton of FXP to get RB ships quickly. If you aren't burning FXP, you're burning flags and camos. And guess who's selling when you run out? (Oh, and I like how legendary modules were changed from a free reward for completing a mission into a resource sink. Real classy WG. Just the kind of greedy decision I'd expect).

 

Translation: Players have, against all odds, accumulated enough resources that a significant number of them no longer need to pay WG to skip painful grinds and play the ships they want, so WG needs to eliminate those resources to increase cash flow.

There is no economy in this game. Players have zero economic interaction with each other. You can't trade ships, you can't trade modules, you can't trade resources.

There is only a progression grind designed by WG to bore and frustrate people until they're willing to pay to speed it up or skip it.

 

It's honestly pretty pathetic that to this day, people are still using WG's dishonest corporate doublespeak framing to refer to their progression grindwall - because that's what the "economy" really is.

All WG's framing does is make them seem less obviously greedy whenever they adjust how much the grind is going to suck for players.

"Hey, the economy isn't doing too hot, so we're going to add auctions to remove some credits" sounds perfectly reasonable. I mean, economies need adjusting all the time. Tweaking the economy so that it's healthy is a good thing. It certainly sounds better than the truth: "Hey, players have enough credits to enjoy playing what they want to; they don't need to pay us anymore to get more credits faster, we need to take some away so that players are bored enough grinding credits to pay us to grind faster again".

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong you actually are. At the end of the day I had accumulated over 400 million credits just by playing the game. I’m happy to get rid of some of those in exchange for other things because there’s no way I’ll spend 400 million credits. I also have 6 million free xp so I’d love to see more things to spend that on. So yes there’s an economy problem in some instances. I want stuff to spend my resources on. If you don’t want that or don’t have the resources to participate, fine. But some do so I see no issue with an auction process to get rid of unused resources 

Edited by ditka_Fatdog
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
199
[NINE]
Members
156 posts
10,522 battles
1 hour ago, ditka_Fatdog said:

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong you actually are

Funny you say that.

You seem to be forgetting WoWS isn't an economy simulator, it's a 3rd person PvP shooter. The entire grindwall progression system (It's not an economy, you can believe all the wrong things you want to) could be removed tomorrow and there would be no fundamental change to the game.

Only to WG's monetization.

 

I also just love your completely self obsessed "I'm fine with it so there's no problem) attitude. WG's grind gate system harms the actual game.

For example, if one person can spare coal for Kuznetsov, and another can't, that person has an objective, in game advantage. Your whining about not having something to spend resources on is irrelevant next to the fact that the solution you want hurts the core game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
936
[MR-1]
Members
2,073 posts
23,940 battles

sorry but i have to agree with isssm   the actuion is a waste  WG to find anyway way to get you to use all your coal and credits so you have to do all the regrinding again  and possably make you spend money on credits and doubloons 

the continue to do the opposite to what the player base  suggests 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
189 posts
18,590 battles
17 hours ago, Cit_the_bed said:

A camo from a hard battle between sharks and eagles.

Now to be had for just doubloons.

 

Another slap in the face, no skill required, just cash. 

 

Well done wargaming, undermining anything unique older players won in competitions. 

 

I dont feel this is a bad thing, is a way to get the camo that u didnt get last time. of course the only problem is that u can bet more than its actual value in doubloons 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[USCC1]
[USCC1]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
40 posts
9,407 battles

Hey for 4th of July lets gamble!! Thanks WoWsNewsBot but gambling is addictive and I'd rather drink. 

Just a question if we hear "We let you down and yet again betrayed what trust you put in us. I am aware how hard it will be to rebuild and regain that trust , but we will do our best to become the partners we need to be for you." again will news bot be the next to be fired? Asking for a friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,287 posts
13,784 battles
9 hours ago, isssm said:

Funny you say that.

You seem to be forgetting WoWS isn't an economy simulator, it's a 3rd person PvP shooter. The entire grindwall progression system (It's not an economy, you can believe all the wrong things you want to) could be removed tomorrow and there would be no fundamental change to the game.

Only to WG's monetization.

 

I also just love your completely self obsessed "I'm fine with it so there's no problem) attitude. WG's grind gate system harms the actual game.

For example, if one person can spare coal for Kuznetsov, and another can't, that person has an objective, in game advantage. Your whining about not having something to spend resources on is irrelevant next to the fact that the solution you want hurts the core game.

So everyone should have the exact same opportunity to everything in game regardless of how much they play or spend? That makes zero sense and literally no other game I’m aware of does that. I don’t spend a ton of money on wows but I like the game so I spend some. There should be something to be said for those that chose to do so, otherwise no one would spend money and there would be no game.

I find it laughable you think there’s a grind wall. Like someone sits over your shoulder forcing you to get certain goals and objectives and ships and captains.  It’s not much different than almost anything else in life, if you want something then work to get it. Otherwise don’t get it. But don’t whine you can’t have it when you aren’t willing to spend the time or money. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[JEDI-]
Members
24 posts
24,665 battles
On 7/2/2021 at 10:16 AM, Gaelic_knight said:

it doesnt say  so probbly not 

if so, what's the point of getting this command, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,664
[USRUS]
[USRUS]
Members
1,778 posts
22,334 battles
8 hours ago, TheGreatKiller26 said:

I dont feel this is a bad thing, is a way to get the camo that u didnt get last time. of course the only problem is that u can bet more than its actual value in doubloons 

Just make a new camo? It's just recycling old things to cash in before the cash cow dies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×