Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
NeoRussia

How Wargaming Handles Premiums - Wargaming's Biggest Mistake

How should Wargaming handle premium ships?  

88 members have voted

  1. 1. How should Wargaming handle premium ships?

    • As right now, removing the OP ones from the premium shop, never nerfing bought ships no matter how pay to win they are
      36
    • Balancing them and leaving them in the shop
      14
    • Only buffing them, and never removing them from the shop no matter how overpowered they are
      6
    • Balancing them and leaving them in the shop, with optional refunds for any direct or indirect nerfs.
      32

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

440
[MIA-A]
[MIA-A]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,057 posts
7,794 battles

This is about the removal of certain premium ships for being "excessively efficient". Wargaming has finally come out and said that Belfast and Mikhail Kutuzov are overpowered, but instead of balancing them they simply removed them from the shop and started pretending that they don't exist. They should not be able to get away with this. I have spent a lot of money on this game and for Wargaming to create such a large mess by leaving overpowered ships intact and in fact making them more problematic by leaving them to be exclusive to only part of the playerbase. As an owner of many premium ships I am fine with them being nerfed for the sake of game balance, please leave a comment if you feel the same.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,421
[HINON]
Supertester
7,525 posts
7,588 battles

They can’t direcrly nerf them without issuing full refunds because of the way the laws are setup up in a lot of the European countries. Online goods are heavily protected over there. Which is why the most common way they nerf them is with blanket nerfs and mechics nerfs, since those aren’t directly nerfing.

Edited by renegadestatuz
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,270
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts

I haven't ever heard any big complaint about either of these ships being OP before today. My first thought when I read the news was "They are?" and now we have lots of posts where people talk about how OP they are. 

Was this really something people were vocal about before now? Did I just manage to miss all the posts about it before today? 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
897
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,254 posts
8,651 battles

I like 4, but that would make too much game sense and not enough business sense huh?

Edited by pikohan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
787
[MIA-I]
Supertester
2,731 posts
4,763 battles
4 minutes ago, TTK_Aegis said:

I haven't ever heard any big complaint about either of these ships being OP before today. My first thought when I read the news was "They are?" and now we have lots of posts where people talk about how OP they are. 

Was this really something people were vocal about before now? Did I just manage to miss all the posts about it before today? 

Most Belfast threads:

FflohQi.gif

as far as the Kutuzov, I mean I knew it had a general dislike and most people thought it annoying to face, but overpowered I didn't think.

Edited by vonKaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
1,338 battles
14 minutes ago, NeoRussia said:

This is about the removal of certain premium ships for being "excessively efficient". Wargaming has finally come out and said that Belfast and Mikhail Kutuzov are overpowered, but instead of balancing them they simply removed them from the shop and started pretending that they don't exist. They should not be able to get away with this. I have spent a lot of money on this game and for Wargaming to create such a large mess by leaving overpowered ships intact and in fact making them more problematic by leaving them to be exclusive to only part of the playerbase. As an owner of many premium ships I am fine with them being nerfed for the sake of game balance, please leave a comment if you feel the same.

They're allowing refunds on Kutuzov and Belfast if you want them, because of the smoke-firing changes.  So, yes, they are doing something about it.  May not be what you want, but I bet they've checked, and the doubloon refund will be sufficient to the law(s).

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,714
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,887 posts
11,607 battles
1 minute ago, TTK_Aegis said:

I haven't ever heard any big complaint about either of these ships being OP before today. My first thought when I read the news was "They are?" and now we have lots of posts where people talk about how OP they are. 

Was this really something people were vocal about before now? Did I just manage to miss all the posts about it before today? 

You missed it. Kutz is a very strong boat but it's the Belfast (Payfast as I often hear it called) that I see accused of OP'ness the most.

 

11 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

They can’t direcrly nerf them without issuing full refunds because of the way the laws are setup up in a lot of the European countries. Online goods are heavily protected over there. Which is why the most common way they nerf them is with blanket nerfs and mechics nerfs, since those aren’t directly nerfing.

They are being indirectly nerfed and WG is offering full refunds to those that wish.

 

15 minutes ago, NeoRussia said:

This is about the removal of certain premium ships for being "excessively efficient". Wargaming has finally come out and said that Belfast and Mikhail Kutuzov are overpowered, but instead of balancing them they simply removed them from the shop and started pretending that they don't exist. They should not be able to get away with this. I have spent a lot of money on this game and for Wargaming to create such a large mess by leaving overpowered ships intact and in fact making them more problematic by leaving them to be exclusive to only part of the playerbase. As an owner of many premium ships I am fine with them being nerfed for the sake of game balance, please leave a comment if you feel the same.

 

The ships are not that OP and WG is nerfing them to an extent with the concealment/smoke changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
1,338 battles
14 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

They can’t direcrly nerf them without issuing full refunds because of the way the laws are setup up in a lot of the European countries. Online goods are heavily protected over there. Which is why the most common way they nerf them is with blanket nerfs and mechics nerfs, since those aren’t directly nerfing.

They're allowing refunds on both ships.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,338
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,411 posts
3,589 battles
4 minutes ago, TTK_Aegis said:

I haven't ever heard any big complaint about either of these ships being OP before today. My first thought when I read the news was "They are?" and now we have lots of posts where people talk about how OP they are. 

Was this really something people were vocal about before now? Did I just manage to miss all the posts about it before today? 

Really? The Belfast has been labeled payfast for a reason. 

 

I believe you just managed to miss all those posts before today, its been spoken about this way since it was released. 

 

Which is why we get gems like this :) 

 

w25byvvvnuez.png

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[PROJX]
Members
976 posts
15,795 battles

My observation is that WG is learning from its past, sometimes less than well received strategies and in general, how Premium changes are being handled are fairly player friendly now (this comment applies to tech-tree line splits as well).

 

It appears that the policy behind the removal of the Kutuzov, Belfast & Perth from sale is consistent with this in that:

  • If a Premium ship's characteristics are isolated, the player is allowed to keep the OP Premium ship (e.g. Kamikazes, Konig Albert, Imperator) with it's existing parameters w/o a nerf.
  • WG gives a warning to players beforehand if they want to purchase the ship prior to removal from sale for one last chance, regardless of the reason for removal from sale if it's a ship that has constantly been on sale (i.e. not a transient sale ship like the Enterprise, Kii, Mutsu, for example).
  • If a Premium ship's characteristics change due to a more global game mechanic change (e.g. the smoke behavior change in 6.12) that can't help but affect a already purchased ship, the player is being given an option of a monetary refund (in doubloons) as the ship no longer has the characteristics which may have affected the original purchase decision.
  • Also, in a related area, if a tech-tree line is split & you currently own a ship affected by the ship, you will get the equivalent tier ship in the new line as well (as evidenced by what happened w/ the Russian DD and IJN DD line splits).

 

The above set of policies were not always in place.  Tho the 1st 2 have pretty much always been true, the 3rd item was added since the last time a global change of this magnitude to game mechanics affected a Premium ship.  This event was the removal of stealth firing and the implicit effect it had on DDs like the Blyskawica (not sure if the Atago was also affected by this).  During the stealth firing change, refunds were not offered to Blyskawica owners so WG has improved it's policy since then.

 

In general, there are some changes to overall game mechanics that can't help but change the play characteristics of purchased Premium mechanics - as such, WG has, in fairness, done its homework in this case as its attempting to compensate players for this inconvenience.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,069
[NDA]
Supertester
4,850 posts
13,872 battles
15 minutes ago, vonKaiser said:

Most Belfast threads:

FflohQi.gif

as far as the Kutuzov, I mean I knew it had a general dislike and most people thought it annoying to face, but overpowered I didn't think.

 

Q9gwQ76.gif

And here I was thinking the Conqueror had finally dethroned the Belfast as the most hated OP ship. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[WOLF4]
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles
33 minutes ago, joris92 said:

I doubt how effective they are with a with a spotting DD and a battleship that can aim :)

Really?

 

Say, I wonder how OP any ship would be with super effective opponents?

 

C'mon.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[90THD]
Supertester
1,074 posts
6,142 battles
41 minutes ago, NeoRussia said:

This is about the removal of certain premium ships for being "excessively efficient". Wargaming has finally come out and said that Belfast and Mikhail Kutuzov are overpowered, but instead of balancing them they simply removed them from the shop and started pretending that they don't exist. They should not be able to get away with this. I have spent a lot of money on this game and for Wargaming to create such a large mess by leaving overpowered ships intact and in fact making them more problematic by leaving them to be exclusive to only part of the playerbase. As an owner of many premium ships I am fine with them being nerfed for the sake of game balance, please leave a comment if you feel the same.

I don't really see an issue with this.  I have both ships mentioned and well I paid for those ships as they are therefore why should I have them changed?  Its no different then the Nikolai, it's OP as hell and yet it wasn't nerfed but just not sold anymore.  You don't come across them very often and most of the people who do have it got in in a crate.  That's how it should be a lucky win on all ends. 

It would be like when I bought my BMW M3 a few years back, I wouldn't want BMW to come out and say hay its too powerful we are going to take your V8 and turn it into a V6.  I paid for that V8 and have the right to use what I paid for regardless of whether you chose to sell it any more.

Most of these complaints are because now you don't have the opportunity to own it unless you get it in a crate and you may end up coming up against one.  You just have to make do and fight the best you can.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[-AA-]
Members
1,729 posts
6,657 battles
2 minutes ago, DingBat said:

Really?

 

Say, I wonder how OP any ship would be with super effective opponents?

 

C'mon.

Decent players are not that rare... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,606
[PSP]
Members
6,359 posts
8,982 battles

Having once owned a business, I have to say that WG needs to be able to provide enhanced ships and services for sale, otherwise nobody would pay for anything and the game servers would be shutdown due to lack of revenue. Any "OP" ships in a match can be dealt with through teamwork. However, WG does listen and remove extremely OP ones. You might notice too that WG has a tendancy to give away quite a few of its premium ships, either via super-containers or as contest wins. I play for free, yet I still have eleven premium ships in my port.

 

Quote

with the release of Update 0.6.12 the cruisers Mikhail Kutuzov and Belfast will be unavailable for purchase in Premium Shops, whereas Perth will not be available for purchase until further notice. This is because those ships turned out to be excessively efficient in certain battle situations. Be mindful, however, that the ships will continue to be available for receipt in containers.

 

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
440
[MIA-A]
[MIA-A]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,057 posts
7,794 battles
16 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Having once owned a business, I have to say that WG needs to be able to provide enhanced ships and services for sale, otherwise nobody would pay for anything and the game servers would be shutdown due to lack of revenue. 

 

This cannot be any more wrong. Look at the top free to play games and see how much money they make before spouting such nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,606
[PSP]
Members
6,359 posts
8,982 battles
1 minute ago, NeoRussia said:

 

This cannot be any more wrong. Look at the top free to play games and see how much money they make before spouting such nonsense.

 

I owned and directed a telecommunication company for twenty years. Believe me, no customer will purchase anything that they can get you to give them for free. If you want to sell something above the basic service then you must either provide something of enhanced value or at least make the customer think you are. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,493 posts
9,009 battles
1 hour ago, NeoRussia said:

This is about the removal of certain premium ships for being "excessively efficient". Wargaming has finally come out and said that Belfast and Mikhail Kutuzov are overpowered, but instead of balancing them they simply removed them from the shop and started pretending that they don't exist

This statement is in direct contradiction of your premise.  They are removing the Belfast, Kutuzov, and the Perth as well as being "excessively efficient."  However, they are also offering a refund on these three ships.  Why? Because they are being nerfed with the smoke changes.  Therefore, it is patently false to suggest that they are not balancing these ships, just removing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,760
Members
18,363 posts
5,241 battles
1 hour ago, TTK_Aegis said:

 

Was this really something people were vocal about before now? Did I just manage to miss all the posts about it before today? 

 

As far as the Belfast, I'm going to have to say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,827 posts
10,390 battles

Fundamentally I'd be happier with more robust testing. Certainly the game will change and things may not be quite as we expect, or people may figure things out but there have been errors.

Kutuzov was originally thought to be rather weak, and to be fair was the first decent-tier smoke cruiser I can think of. I believe the IFHE change came later and that that, while a terrible decision can't be blamed on Kutuzov. IFHE needed to be looked at and felt a little rushed, with the original concept being 25% rather than 30% and keeping 152mm <32mm pen for instance, before a relatively last minute reversal.

Belfast had immediate glaring problems which were resoundingly obvious pre-release from the CC video's I've seen (e.g. Flamu review as OP). Once again with Conqueror despite the universal CC response of 'OP AF' just 2 weeks later it gets released as it was and shockingly 4 weeks after that it's nerfed... because it was unsurprisingly OP all along. 

 

If Conq were a premium we'd be stuck with the most OP T10 in the game in a near un-nerfable position. Why haven't WG learned? Where is the disconnect between feedback and pre-release? If Conq and Lion are anything to go on then there's a decent chance of many future premiums ending up in Kutuzov/Belfast land.

With some trees they seem to have taken a start-weak, buff later approach (as with KM DD for instance). Some premiums have come out weaker and been buffed (Krym's torpedoes for instance, not that it helped) and now Huang He looks bad. Kii started test very weak before gaining traverse and ROF. OP premiums are not an inevitability.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,760
Members
18,363 posts
5,241 battles
11 minutes ago, NeoRussia said:

 

This cannot be any more wrong. Look at the top free to play games and see how much money they make before spouting such nonsense.

 

Look at the top f2p games and see how many players they have....

 

WoT players, on average, spend about 3x as much as LoL players. Does LoL only have about 3x as many players? What's the overhead to run LoL for a year compared to WoT?

 

The top F2P games don't need to be aggressive to make money, they have such a large playerbase that they can make money on pennies a player. If you have a less popular game, the only overhead savings is because of lower server pop. (although TF2 and other client-side games avoid that overhead anyway) So you need more money from the players you do have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41
[SYN]
Members
245 posts
9,807 battles
1 hour ago, TTK_Aegis said:

I haven't ever heard any big complaint about either of these ships being OP before today. My first thought when I read the news was "They are?" and now we have lots of posts where people talk about how OP they are. 

Was this really something people were vocal about before now? Did I just manage to miss all the posts about it before today? 

I think Belfast got its payfast/winfast OP reputation in ranked last season (or the previous season i don't remember) Kutuzov she's strong but not OP (maybe in Unicum hands I could see her bordering OP)

1 hour ago, mavfin87 said:

They're allowing refunds on both ships.  

well a refund in gold Is that really a refund ? (not) (a refund back to them)

Edited by chopshop64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,737
[TBW]
Members
6,421 posts
12,071 battles
1 hour ago, joris92 said:

Decent players are not that rare... :)

This is true 49% are better than average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,249 posts
737 battles
2 hours ago, renegadestatuz said:

They can’t direcrly nerf them without issuing full refunds because of the way the laws are setup up in a lot of the European countries. Online goods are heavily protected over there. Which is why the most common way they nerf them is with blanket nerfs and mechics nerfs, since those aren’t directly nerfing.

That is pretty bullsh*t if that's what's preventing WG from balancing premiums.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×