Dear WG: GG No E

[Edgecase]

Since there doesn't seem to be a feedback forum to the WGNA marketing team (and I don't think Pigeon is that kind of Producer), I'm going to just put this here. Obviously they are not obligated to respond, nor am I entitled to any action based on this comment. However, customer feedback can sometimes play a useful role in marketing and development decisions, so I'm putting it out there. While I suspect that these concerns could apply to a many long-term players, I will not pretend to speak for anyone but myself here.

-----

Dear Wargaming NA team,

Despite having over a thousand CV games, cash in hand, and an admiration since childhood for the ship and her crews, I will not be buying the Enterprise at this time for the following reasons:

1. Uncertainty about CV balance. You have chosen to release individual ships before the long-promised CV mechanics rework, as part of a general strategy for doing said rework. I get it. You use one-off premium ships to test new mechanics before rolling them into the tech tree lines, and that's all well and clever. For you. However, the resulting value proposition to me as a player is that I get to drop $60 for early access to a beta mechanic that could end up being dramatically overpowered (Saipan's tiny uptier squadrons) or underpowered (Smith's single-fire torpedoes paved the way for the UK CLs to have them) based not on its own qualities, but how the rest of the game moves around it. Will the tight 6-abreast drop pattern go away for USN carriers in the future? That would make Enterprise less deficient compared to other options; however, if the other ships keep their patterns, then Enterprise's pattern is simply inferior. Without knowing this, you're asking buyers to gamble, and that uncertainty weighs against you in my calculation.
2. Price point too high. Ultimately, this is a personal preference. I know it aligns with your other T8s and CVs, but a $60 price tag means I'm considering its value against brand-new AAA titles or full day at a coaster park instead of Steam sales or a pair of two-hour movie tickets. It's not that I don't have the money, or that I'm not going to spend it on entertainment; it's that you've priced this ship into unfavorable comparison territory.
3. Bundles are not valuable. Normally, the above pricing issues could be offset through the use of bundles. I regularly buy doubloons, as well as other premium ships. However, as of late, you have been massively padding the bundles with the credits and ship modules (which are basically just more credits). BECAUSE I have spent already on premium ships (which earn more credits) and premium time (again, more credits), pack-in credits are nearly worthless to me at this point. It's like getting 2,500,000 packing peanuts in the box with the ship. My port is already overflowing with them. They add no value to me. And once you factor them out, the remaining bundle components are full sticker price, if not worse. Therefore, your bundling choices, which would normally help to sell or upsell me as an efficiency-conscious customer, are having the exact opposite effect -- they're offering me a worse value and driving me away.

I have other little, specific complaints about the ship a well (like its artifically small bomber compliment), but the above three are the big ones. If anyone at WGNA gets around to reading this, thank you for your time, and I hope that this feedback will help you get more of my money in the future.

Edgecase

[thehelmsman]

My thoughts exactly. +1

--Helms

[Nachoo31]

If you are going fork the money out, get the next package up. 

[Lert]

I might not agree with all your points, but it's refreshing to see fair points presented in a polite and well-thought-through mannier, in the see of whines and tantrums that's ruling the forum nowadays. Can't help but +1 you for at least that.

[USSWest_Virginia]

Same for me, and the Enterprise was one of the few ship I would have spent this kind of money on. This whole situation is just a ridicules mess. I haven't spent money on this game since 2016, and it looks like that trend is going to continue. They pretty much just spit in my face while I was waving money at them.

[MnemonScarlet]

Yeah, the credit/module (but especially credit) bundling really puts me off. Doubloons and prem time are nice bundle values, but not so much the other stuff if you already have other premium ships/tend to rake in silver.

[poeticmotion]

7 minutes ago, Lert said:

I might not agree with all your points, but it's refreshing to see fair points presented in a polite and well-thought-through mannier, in the see of whines and tantrums that's ruling the forum nowadays. Can't help but +1 you for at least that.

 

This. Kudos for the most fair and thoughtful criticism thread I've seen on forums in a while (as opposed to "OMG WG Y U HATE ME RAGE CAPSLOCK MOAR RAGE" like most threads similar to this)

[Carrier_Lexington]

On 30/06/2017 at 5:36 PM, Lert said:

I might not agree with all your points, but it's refreshing to see fair points presented in a polite and well-thought-through mannier, in the see of whines and tantrums that's ruling the forum nowadays. Can't help but +1 you for at least that.

Hmm... On the one hand, I understand where you're coming from, but, on the other...

The reason so many of us are hot-footed about Enterprise is that WarGaming is basically making the statement, "Here you go, cash cows. New Premium! Enterprise! We know we can make her the [edited] premium CV and give it all of these terrible and poorly-planned gimmicks, but we know you'll buy it anyway, because you Americans are all [insert garden tool here] for anything named Enterprise."

 

And that's incredibly maddening. It's a blatant middle finger to anyone who thought that customer service, ethics, and consumer power were still important things in business policy. It's like Gaijin's release of premium bi-planes: "Oh, let's just slap a famous name on it! It will sell like hotcakes!" And so you got things like "Thatch's Buffalo," and "Marconi's Cr 42." For a while, Wargaming's premiums were either unique, like Graf Spee, Dunkerque, and Kaga, early-access versions of vessels to be released in the far future, like Warspite, or premium versions of their tech-tree counterparts, like Emden.

 

But this? As I've said, they're charging $60 base for a Pay to Lose ship. Sure, as Mouse said, in the hands of an experienced player, you might put-out as much damage as someone in Shokaku or Lexington can, but.... for the skill-level required to do that, you should be able to put out a lot more damage or team-support than the regular version. It's not really "fun," it's just "stressful." And the torpedo drop pattern? A slap in the face.

 

And then you go in and say that everyone who's criticising Enterprise is a "whiner" or throwing a tantrum, when, in reality, we're just through with this utter and complete disgrace of a marketing strategy.

 

I had better customer service when I missed my flight on Southwest Airlines two days ago. And that lady poked my eye with the replacement tickets when she thrust them in my face.

[Iron_Patriot3]

41 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Since there doesn't seem to be a feedback forum to the WGNA marketing team (and I don't think Pigeon is that kind of Producer), I'm going to just put this here. Obviously they are not obligated to respond, nor am I entitled to any action based on this comment. However, customer feedback can sometimes play a useful role in marketing and development decisions, so I'm putting it out there. While I suspect that these concerns could apply to a many long-term players, I will not pretend to speak for anyone but myself here.

-----

Dear Wargaming NA team,

Despite having over a thousand CV games, cash in hand, and an admiration since childhood for the ship and her crews, I will not be buying the Enterprise at this time for the following reasons:

1. Uncertainty about CV balance. You have chosen to release individual ships before the long-promised CV mechanics rework, as part of a general strategy for doing said rework. I get it. You use one-off premium ships to test new mechanics before rolling them into the tech tree lines, and that's all well and clever. For you. However, the resulting value proposition to me as a player is that I get to drop $60 for early access to a beta mechanic that could end up being dramatically overpowered (Saipan's tiny uptier squadrons) or underpowered (Smith's single-fire torpedoes paved the way for the UK CLs to have them) based not on its own qualities, but how the rest of the game moves around it. Will the tight 6-abreast drop pattern go away for USN carriers in the future? That would make Enterprise less deficient compared to other options; however, if the other ships keep their patterns, then Enterprise's pattern is simply inferior. Without knowing this, you're asking buyers to gamble, and that uncertainty weighs against you in my calculation.
2. Price point too high. Ultimately, this is a personal preference. I know it aligns with your other T8s and CVs, but a $60 price tag means I'm considering its value against brand-new AAA titles or full day at a coaster park instead of Steam sales or a pair of two-hour movie tickets. It's not that I don't have the money, or that I'm not going to spend it on entertainment; it's that you've priced this ship into unfavorable comparison territory.
3. Bundles are not valuable. Normally, the above pricing issues could be offset through the use of bundles. I regularly buy doubloons, as well as other premium ships. However, as of late, you have been massively padding the bundles with the credits and ship modules (which are basically just more credits). BECAUSE I have spent already on premium ships (which earn more credits) and premium time (again, more credits), pack-in credits are nearly worthless to me at this point. It's like getting 2,500,000 packing peanuts in the box with the ship. My port is already overflowing with them. They add no value to me. And once you factor them out, the remaining bundle components are full sticker price, if not worse. Therefore, your bundling choices, which would normally help to sell or upsell me as an efficiency-conscious customer, are having the exact opposite effect -- they're offering me a worse value and driving me away.

I have other little, specific complaints about the ship a well (like its artifically small bomber compliment), but the above three are the big ones. If anyone at WGNA gets around to reading this, thank you for your time, and I hope that this feedback will help you get more of my money in the future.

Edgecase

Well put and without the rage nicely done 

[Komrade_Rylo]

The best part is though, these op dB's can't be nerfed bc it's a premium.

[Mesrith]

43 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

1. Uncertainty about CV balance. You have chosen to release individual ships before the long-promised CV mechanics rework, as part of a general strategy for doing said rework. I get it. You use one-off premium ships to test new mechanics before rolling them into the tech tree lines, and that's all well and clever. For you. However, the resulting value proposition to me as a player is that I get to drop $60 for early access to a beta mechanic that could end up being dramatically overpowered (Saipan's tiny uptier squadrons) or underpowered (Smith's single-fire torpedoes paved the way for the UK CLs to have them) based not on its own qualities, but how the rest of the game moves around it. Will the tight 6-abreast drop pattern go away for USN carriers in the future? That would make Enterprise less deficient compared to other options; however, if the other ships keep their patterns, then Enterprise's pattern is simply inferior. Without knowing this, you're asking buyers to gamble, and that uncertainty weighs against you in my calculation.

 

This is my primary reason for not purchasing any more premium carriers.  I gambled on the Saipan last year before I'd even played a carrier game.  It's obviously a strong ship and I've had a good time in it, but after grinding all the way to Hakuryu and Essex, I've determined that carriers just aren't for me in their current state.  I have no idea if Wargaming will ever rework carriers in a way that makes them more enjoyable and accessible to the general population, but I think it would have been better to reconfigure carriers in general before selling 2-3 more premium carriers.

 

Very well-stated thread.

[vak_]

57 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Since there doesn't seem to be a feedback forum to the WGNA marketing team (and I don't think Pigeon is that kind of Producer), I'm going to just put this here. Obviously they are not obligated to respond, nor am I entitled to any action based on this comment. However, customer feedback can sometimes play a useful role in marketing and development decisions, so I'm putting it out there. While I suspect that these concerns could apply to a many long-term players, I will not pretend to speak for anyone but myself here.

-----

Dear Wargaming NA team,

Despite having over a thousand CV games, cash in hand, and an admiration since childhood for the ship and her crews, I will not be buying the Enterprise at this time for the following reasons:

1. Uncertainty about CV balance. You have chosen to release individual ships before the long-promised CV mechanics rework, as part of a general strategy for doing said rework. I get it. You use one-off premium ships to test new mechanics before rolling them into the tech tree lines, and that's all well and clever. For you. However, the resulting value proposition to me as a player is that I get to drop $60 for early access to a beta mechanic that could end up being dramatically overpowered (Saipan's tiny uptier squadrons) or underpowered (Smith's single-fire torpedoes paved the way for the UK CLs to have them) based not on its own qualities, but how the rest of the game moves around it. Will the tight 6-abreast drop pattern go away for USN carriers in the future? That would make Enterprise less deficient compared to other options; however, if the other ships keep their patterns, then Enterprise's pattern is simply inferior. Without knowing this, you're asking buyers to gamble, and that uncertainty weighs against you in my calculation.
2. Price point too high. Ultimately, this is a personal preference. I know it aligns with your other T8s and CVs, but a $60 price tag means I'm considering its value against brand-new AAA titles or full day at a coaster park instead of Steam sales or a pair of two-hour movie tickets. It's not that I don't have the money, or that I'm not going to spend it on entertainment; it's that you've priced this ship into unfavorable comparison territory.
3. Bundles are not valuable. Normally, the above pricing issues could be offset through the use of bundles. I regularly buy doubloons, as well as other premium ships. However, as of late, you have been massively padding the bundles with the credits and ship modules (which are basically just more credits). BECAUSE I have spent already on premium ships (which earn more credits) and premium time (again, more credits), pack-in credits are nearly worthless to me at this point. It's like getting 2,500,000 packing peanuts in the box with the ship. My port is already overflowing with them. They add no value to me. And once you factor them out, the remaining bundle components are full sticker price, if not worse. Therefore, your bundling choices, which would normally help to sell or upsell me as an efficiency-conscious customer, are having the exact opposite effect -- they're offering me a worse value and driving me away.

I have other little, specific complaints about the ship a well (like its artifically small bomber compliment), but the above three are the big ones. If anyone at WGNA gets around to reading this, thank you for your time, and I hope that this feedback will help you get more of my money in the future.

Edgecase

 

A well-written post that I agree with completely.

 

And yes, I will also probably not buy Big E, at least at this point. Let's see what the carrier re-work will look like, I'm sure the Enterprise will be on sale again in the future. 

[Terrible_Turtle]

10 minutes ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

The best part is though, these op dB's can't be nerfed bc it's a premium.

 

Premiums are not immune to global mechanics changes. Think open water stealth-firing. Gremyashchy and Blyskawica were directly impacted by that change.

 

One more reason I'm less likely to buy a premium ship these days. 

 

Good points OP. +1

[IronWolfV]

While I agree with the points, I want the Big E. Worth it.

[WolfmanJack99]

All good points. As of this post I have only played 1 game against an Enterprise and it was laughable. I was in a BB and could easily dodge the horrible torp spread from the TB and I'm pretty sure I wasn't near any CAs with DF going either. I'd hate to see what a spread would look like with DFAA. I like playing as a carrier and I have thought about getting a premium and if I do it will most likely be the Saipan... or the Graff Zeppelin.

[Komrade_Rylo]

13 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

 

Premiums are not immune to global mechanics changes. Think open water stealth-firing. Gremyashchy and Blyskawica were directly impacted by that change.

 

One more reason I'm less likely to buy a premium ship these days. 

 

Good points OP. +1

 

Yes, but WG has never nerfed the performance of the weapon itself.

[Terrible_Turtle]

7 minutes ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

 

Yes, but WG has never nerfed the performance of the weapon itself.

 

You don't have to nerf a weapon to nerf its effectiveness.

 

And they can easily nerf Enterprise AP bombs if they introduce them on a wider scale then subsequently change penetration mechanics for ALL AP bombs. Nothing is outside of their control. 

[LoneStormchaser]

Just now, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

 

You don't have to nerf a weapon to nerf its effectiveness.

 

And they can easily nerf Enterprise AP bombs if they introduce them on a wider scale then subsequently change penetration mechanics for ALL AP bombs. Nothing is outside of their control. 

I've only been playing for about a year now and it didn't take long to see what was happening. The designer's were constantly making changes to what was currently in the game and not really "updating" what they had. Even their so called game updating isn't an update but it's like the program always has to have a complete make-over.

Instead of making content to fit within the current content, apparently WG feels there is the need to change what already exists which is where the concerns and the frustration of the community comes from.

[TTK_Aegis]

To each their own. Not really worried about mechanics changes personally, and I've come to accept this is what you pay for a tier 8 ship (or there abouts). I certainly understand your points, but they don't apply to me personally. 

 

I'm only hesitant because I don't know when the HSF ships are coming or how much they'll cost. If they weren't till late July, I'd buy Big E right now. 

[Darsh007]

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree.  I just dropped $43 on the Patriot yesterday in Tanks.  I've quite a number of premium ships and tanks, and can't justify the cost for this one.  Maybe if they bundled in a copy of Battle 360 it could be worthwhile at $60, but as-is this is a significant jump from all the equivalencies.  The closest competitor, Tirpitz (already in my port), is $6 less base, and currently on sale for $13 less.  Even the Saipan (also in port) is currently available at $31, nearly half the cost. 

I passed on the Hood due to the price bundles being tiered release with the "buy now for the campaign" pressure.  I'm left marveling with a perception of a sheer money grab aimed at those who desire the Enterprise for her history or even tertiary fictional counterparts, which was the same perception I held when the Hood was unveiled.  Even as the rare bird who enjoys CV play overall, I'm going to have to pass on this one.

[Francois424]

Personally, I am not too keen on T8+.  I enjoy the occasional game, bit I prefer tiers 3 thru 7. (I keep hoping the MM will get fixed, you just never know).
That being said, I do own a few T8s and I did not close my wallet completely.

HOWEVER, CV isn't my preferred class of ships and I am waiting for a T6 premium one (or T3, seaplane tenders we discussed a few months back... for fun more than competition).
Also I already have the Saipan for USN, which does fill the trainer role for my captain and pretty much nails it for me not getting the Enterprise.

I'm keeping my future expensive purchases for ships like an IJN T8 premium DD (with good, long range torps...not necessarily an IJN) or a beefy T6-8 cruiser (Think a CA that can tank, say a T8 Moskva of somekind), or oddball ships like Kitakami.  

I'd really like to see the CV rebalance tho.  Most of the game won't play the same if/when CVs come back in full force, and I don't want to get used to CV play to have it change on me later.
I'm getting sick of gimmicks and giving smoke/radar/superb AA to non-class vessels, it's "Streamlining" all ship types and that makes a "Class-system-game" utterly boring.
WG, if you want a cruiser to survive longer don't give them a repair.  Give them better armor or better concealment... or more HP.  Or change the citadel/dispersion mechanics of BBs for less BOOM-RNG-LOL! and more skill.

I'm not shy with my money, but it's getting harder and harder to get pure-breed ships nowadays and I am buying less and less.

My 2 cents.
 

[K1ra_Yoshikage]

+1

I total agree with the bundle critic. Credits have a zero value for me. I earn more than I can spend even while running premium consumables on bearly all ships. I sit at 310mio so I also don't care about the few millions the modules cost. If they add gold, premium time or consumable flags inly it would rather be a incentive. Or build your own bundle were you get a option to choose what you want to have inside for a certain value. And the flag they add to the biggest bundles is nothing then the I'm rich app that once was in the AppStore.

[Phoenix_jz]

While I'm not nearly familiar enough with CVs to effectively comment on them, I certainly agree with the bundles point. As someone who operates pretty tightly when it comes to spending money on games - if I'm getting a Premium, I'm the kind of person who will go for the lowest price option - the ship itself. I don't want to a whole bunch of other stuff because I don't think I want to pay for it. I just want the ship. If the other stuff bundled with it drives up the price, than that's just making me not spend the money at all. I don't mind if they keep bundles as an option - so long as they always give you that other option to avoid paying for all the extra stuff you weren't looking to get.

 

Also, kudos to you, OP. A calm, rational, well thought-out post.

[Seraphil]

Just want to mention, in-game tier 8 CVs are actually cheaper than the equivalent tier 8 BBs.  Yet, somehow Enterprise is the most expensive premium ship they've sold, more than Tirpitz, where if she followed the trend she should be selling just a bit over $50, not at $60.

[Canadatron]

19 hours ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

The best part is though, these op dB's can't be nerfed bc it's a premium.

Sims/Gremy/Belfast, And so on all disagree. They can, and have nerfed Preemies. They just have to get creative to do it.

This is the reason I've yet to spend money this year on a WG product.

And credits as a bundle item? Gimme a break. I've got 110 million silver and I hardly even play.