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

They've added "Ships stats are subject to change" to a premium in shop

73 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,478
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
9,539 battles

 

Don't know if anyone noticed this morning, but for everyone that was wanting WG to add an exclaimer to their premium ships in the shop, well you got it.

They've added "Ship stats are to subject to change" to the bottom of the d'Aosta in the premium shop announcement. Guess they listened when people were wanting them to add this after 0.6.3.

6BfAiiM.png?1

 

Edited by renegadestatuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
[CHEEZ]
Members
2,614 posts
4,925 battles

This disclaimer is to cover our asses in consumer courtTM.

 

As we know what kind of shite storm we will create if we directly nerf a premium....

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

Don't know if anyone noticed this morning, but for everyone that was wanting WG to add an exclaimer to their premium ships in the shop, well you got it.
They've added "Ship stats are to subject to change" to the bottom of the d'Aosta in the premium shop announcement. Guess they listened when people were wanting them to add this after 0.6.3.
6BfAiiM.png?1

 

this is wise on their part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,019 posts
8,525 battles

It is something inevitable, game evolves and changes bit by bit, having something "broken" would really suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,478
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
9,539 battles

This disclaimer is to cover our asses in consumer courtTM.

 

As we know what kind of shite storm we will create if we directly nerf a premium....

Pretty much.

Up or down though? They don't say which. 

Don't really need to. Both would technically be covered by them saying that. Up to the person buying to gamble on which one it could be if they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[-FBS-]
Members
2,646 posts
4,290 battles

And what about previously sold ships? Will they "change their stats" (down) if they are overperforming? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,838 posts
6,088 battles

Up or down though? They don't say which. 

 

Both.

 

Though the team handling WoWs would rather avoid nerfing Premiums directly, and instead do so indirectly via meta shifts/universal changes (either making a former advantage standard (Repair Party on Atago, when she performed as well as T10 cruisers w/o Repair Party), or removing of a former unique capability (OWSF), or Captain Skill changes, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,608 posts

Bit sad they had to add that in.  But considering the whiny snowflakes they had to and they will still complain about any perceived nerfs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,478
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
9,539 battles

And what about previously sold ships? Will they "change their stats" (down) if they are overperforming? 

 No way to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,999
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,205 posts

Wise? No. Their long-established precedent is to not alter these ships. This is likely to start the chit storm they wanted to avoid.

 

Think about this whole subject from a maintenance point of view. They are constantly muffing around with the ships. Constantly. I mean every patch they're buffing this, nerfing that... all because they want to maintain this mythical game balance. The time they spend doing all this could be put elsewhere.

 

Add into the mix the foreign concept of Systemantics... this game IS a system... and code-wise it's gonna get so big, so ugly that soon enough they won't know why this does that or that does this...  hence they put the stick in, poke the bear then wonder why the player's go ape-chit over it. 

 

Someone. Somewhere in WoWS/WG had a plan. Said plan was tossed aside sometime in the last year it seems... and now what? More buff this, nerf that, all towards the goal of making sure no one ship or nation is better than another? Premiums people purchased because of said characteristics will no longer be safe from the same actions being taken on tech tree ships?

 

You think people want to toss money at digital ships which can be neutered tomorrow, into the dirt if the company so desires? Do ya?

 

I would say it is acceptable to BUFF premium ships to balance things, but in no way would it be appropriate to NERF them. You make those calls up front when you put the ship up for sale. Buffs yes. Nerfs no. 

 

The only exception being - ahem - a complete system-wide nerf on every ship. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,478
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
9,539 battles

 

FTFY

 

Well, moving forward, no one can plead ignorance at least. Think of it like a pre-ban Rifle...

This.

Though it makes me wonder if it was either due to them paying attention to the forums, or if someone actually tried to sue them because their ship got changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,085
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,720 posts

Wise? No. Their long-established precedent is to not alter these ships. This is likely to start the chit storm they wanted to avoid.

 

Think about this whole subject from a maintenance point of view. They are constantly muffing around with the ships. Constantly. I mean every patch they're buffing this, nerfing that... all because they want to maintain this mythical game balance. The time they spend doing all this could be put elsewhere.

 

Add into the mix the foreign concept of Systemantics... this game IS a system... and code-wise it's gonna get so big, so ugly that soon enough they won't know why this does that or that does this...  hence they put the stick in, poke the bear then wonder why the player's go ape-chit over it.

 

Someone. Somewhere in WoWS/WG had a plan. Said plan was tossed aside sometime in the last year it seems... and now what? More buff this, nerf that, all towards the goal of making sure no one ship or nation is better than another? Premiums people purchased because of said characteristics will no longer be safe from the same actions being taken on tech tree ships?

 

You think people want to toss money at digital ships which can be neutered tomorrow, into the dirt if the company so desires? Do ya?

 

I would say it is acceptable to BUFF premium ships to balance things, but in no way would it be appropriate to NERF them. You make those calls up front when you put the ship up for sale. Buffs yes. Nerfs no.

 

The only exception being - ahem - a complete system-wide nerf on every ship.

 

 

What they need to do is a complete, system-wide armor buff.  Stop trying to make WoWS games last the same length of time as WoT games.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,478
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
9,539 battles

 

No one tried to sue they because you can't sue them, no judge would let you sue them. They would throw you out of the court, after heartly laughing at you.

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I meant go the court route about it.

Edited by renegadestatuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
303 posts
1,529 battles

You think people want to toss money at digital ships which can be neutered tomorrow, into the dirt if the company so desires? Do ya?

 

I would say it is acceptable to BUFF premium ships to balance things, but in no way would it be appropriate to NERF them. You make those calls up front when you put the ship up for sale. Buffs yes. Nerfs no. 

 

The only exception being - ahem - a complete system-wide nerf on every ship. 

 

The part I bolded is what concerns me. I can see why WG has added this disclaimer, and I know that stats could be adjusted up or down, or both, over years to come. But now every time I think about buying a premium I'm going to have to wonder what might happen to it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,478
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
9,539 battles

 

I'm still not sure how you meant it. To be clear, you can't sue a company that changes a *digital* product after release. A buff is just as bad as a nerf in that regard (people just *like* a buff but it's just as much as altering a product), and if you could sue a company, or demand a refund, then every game company or software company that ever patched something post release without the user's consent (so, 100% of every game sold on steam) would be in trouble. There are specific sections of law carved out to allow the altering of *digital* products post release for just that reason. Nerfing a premium boat would be covered under this practice.

 

They don't want to be beaten to death in the court of public opinion, but adding a warning on the sale page won't do that. Being more careful about what you release and having testing that is more comprehensive will go in far ways more to avoid that.

I was basically saying it as quoting all the people who said they'd try to "file this" and "file that" if they did so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-OMG-]
Members
288 posts
5,501 battles

Better late than never...

 

:facepalm:

 

Anyone else think it was caused from the shitstorm that was the stealth-nerf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
761 posts
5,299 battles

This disclaimer is to cover our asses in consumer courtTM.

 

As we know what kind of shite storm we will create if we directly nerf a premium....

 

no court need....it is already stated in the EULA/contract you sign every time you log in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[NO2BB]
Members
3,885 posts
24,515 battles

This disclaimer is to cover our asses in consumer courtTM.

 

As we know what kind of shite storm we will create if we directly nerf a premium....

 

First they added the disclaimer, then they nerfed adjusted Dunkerque.

 

 Say goodbye to your concealment module, Belfast :trollface:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,478
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
9,539 battles

 

They wouldn't, it was loud [edited]at best, blatant ignorance of the world at worst. No judge would hear a case, at any level, in any court, about such a thing for many, MANY reasons, the least of which is any judgement rendered would be more or less unenforceable. This is a part of courts not shown on TV, but Judges... hesitate to render judgements (or even allow cases to be heard) if they think a verdict can't be enforced, as it hurts the reputation of a court. It's the same reason why, if you driving on a highway with a divide, and your speeding, and a cop on the other side of the divide sees you, he won't try to chase you. Because if you get away, despite a real attempt made, it hurts the reputation of cops everywhere (they actually teach this in Police School, they did for me at AIT when I was an MP).

Which is why I always post up on the middle of median between the northbound and southbound lanes of the highway. I can easily drive right on to each direction of the highway and can tag cars from both directions. Thankfully about 70% of my stretches of highway is a grass median and "authorized personnel" cut acrosses every few miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

 

First they added the disclaimer, then they nerfed adjusted Dunkerque.

 

 Say goodbye to your concealment module, Belfast :trollface:

 

 

keep dreaming, BB main.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,776
[SIM]
Members
6,307 posts
10,286 battles

This probably needed to happen, so I don't have any complaints about it. However, knowing that WG can turn a premium vehicle upside down now without recourse means that I'm going to start skipping a lot more premiums. It's not that I want OP vehicles (and I really don't), it's that I don't feel like going on any "we'll get the balance right, someday" rides with WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,255 posts

Good thing I don't buy many ships any more... Last time I got a ship was back in December out of a $3 box.

 

I think they put it on there mostly... Because they were wrong about not advertising stealth fire. Secondly the potato's crying about power creep... So they have a tissue to blow their noise with.

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.

×