Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Gearhead68

Premium Ship Quality Overall

69 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

23
[MOFOS]
Members
48 posts
4,916 battles

Hello,

Is there a consensus on the quality/combat effectiveness of premium ships? In WOT, originally premiums were supposed to be slightly inferior to their tech tree counterparts, with the idea that you could run a super skilled commander that would kind of offset this. Of course now, there are many premiums that are better than their tech tree counterparts, as the game has matured and they are under increasing pressure to monetize somehow.

What is the thinking on WOWs: Are the premiums generally better, worse, about the same? Does it depend on the specific ship? Are the more recently released premiums superior, or has Wargaming tried to keep the quality consistent?

Thanks!

PS, was thinking of getting Sims or Indianapolis, but realize these are "old" premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[P2W]
[P2W]
Members
1,241 posts

There is no generally it depends entirely on the ship. Some are better Some are worse Some are practically just re-skins. Most of the differences often come down to nerfing X to get Y usually with a stupid gimmick these days.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,555
[WOLF3]
Members
21,713 posts
19,957 battles

Krasny Krym is a TERRIBLE Premium.  Indianapolis is another turd.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, you got Alabama, Missouri, Saipan, Enterprise, Tirpitz...

Then you have stuff in the middle, my "They may be okay ships but..."

Atlanta, Perth come quickly to mind.

 

Premium Ship strength, quality fluctuates considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,286
[PVE]
Members
9,556 posts
17,006 battles

IMO Premium ships should be superior to the standard tech tree ships. Otherwise why would you buy them? Premium should = better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,027 posts
5,679 battles
4 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

IMO Premium ships should be superior to the standard tech tree ships. Otherwise why would you buy them? Premium should = better.

To me that would be pay to win, if every premium is better then what is the incentive to play tech tree ones ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,133
[WOLF7]
Members
12,225 posts
5 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

IMO Premium ships should be superior to the standard tech tree ships. Otherwise why would you buy them? Premium should = better.

 

No, they should not be OP, even though many of them are...

The reason you buy Premiums is to train captains and earn credits, it's stupid to also think they should be PTW.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,699
[RLGN]
Members
11,499 posts
20,433 battles
1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Krasny Krym is a TERRIBLE Premium.  Indianapolis is another turd.

The Donut is a blast; just act like a destroyer with a citadel and it works.

1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Saipan

I'm not going to deny that Saipan is hated as an OP blankity-blank; but as someone who only seemed to ever get uptiered in it; who only ever seemed to go against other CVs and ships who were better than the average spud and certainly knew what the flip they were about; and who only seemed to get AA RNG that slaughtered the supposedly 'fast, so they only have to be in AA for a little bit,' torpedo planes like Swordfish trying to attack an Atlanta; I hate Saipan and rank it up there with Brit cruisers as a ship I can't get to work; and therefore utter garbage...

...once again, 'to me personally...'

On the opposite end of that; my experience with Indianapolis has been generally positive; but then I seem to suck at ships people like, and do well with ones they hate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,555
[WOLF3]
Members
21,713 posts
19,957 battles
12 minutes ago, khorender_1 said:

To me that would be pay to win, if every premium is better then what is the incentive to play tech tree ones ? 

For one, you're not progressing down a Tech Tree Line by Premium Ship play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,027 posts
5,679 battles
6 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

For one, you're not progressing down a Tech Tree Line by Premium Ship play.

Exactly my point, if they are better then there is no point in playing the tech tree one, why I called it pay to win..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,286
[PVE]
Members
9,556 posts
17,006 battles
49 minutes ago, khorender_1 said:

To me that would be pay to win, if every premium is better then what is the incentive to play tech tree ones ? 

But it makes no sense to offer a worse ship that you actually have to buy with real money. The incentive is to play free ships and not spend real money.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,069
[NMKJT]
Members
3,815 posts
59 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Krasny Krym is a TERRIBLE Premium.  Indianapolis is another turd.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, you got Alabama, Missouri, Saipan, Enterprise, Tirpitz...

Then you have stuff in the middle, my "They may be okay ships but..."

Atlanta, Perth come quickly to mind.

 

Premium Ship strength, quality fluctuates considerably.

I think Perth is fantastic. But it has a specific play style. 

I agree that the quality of premiums varies drastically. You get the Duke of Yuck, and you get the Musashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,399
[SALVO]
Members
22,113 posts
22,533 battles
1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

The Donut is a blast; just act like a destroyer with a citadel and it works.

I'm not going to deny that Saipan is hated as an OP blankity-blank; but as someone who only seemed to ever get uptiered in it; who only ever seemed to go against other CVs and ships who were better than the average spud and certainly knew what the flip they were about; and who only seemed to get AA RNG that slaughtered the supposedly 'fast, so they only have to be in AA for a little bit,' torpedo planes like Swordfish trying to attack an Atlanta; I hate Saipan and rank it up there with Brit cruisers as a ship I can't get to work; and therefore utter garbage...

...once again, 'to me personally...'

On the opposite end of that; my experience with Indianapolis has been generally positive; but then I seem to suck at ships people like, and do well with ones they hate.

 

Prophet, I get that you can't make it work.  But IMO you shouldn't say "therefore utter garbage".  Just leave it at you "can't get it to work" and all's golden.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,294
Members
4,139 posts
15,461 battles
20 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

I think Perth is fantastic. But it has a specific play style. 

Agreed! I do pretty good with Perth. And she does have her own unique playstyle and is a pretty fun ship.

21 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

I agree that the quality of premiums varies drastically. You get the Duke of Yuck, and you get the Musashi

As far as I know, Musashi isn't available yet so there's no way of knowing how well she'll do. She might be great, or she might be a tier 9 Duck of Yuk.

My own comparison of how much premiums can vary using 2 tier 7 BBs; Duck of Yuk is suck, and Scharnhorst rocks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,399
[SALVO]
Members
22,113 posts
22,533 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Krasny Krym is a TERRIBLE Premium.  Indianapolis is another turd.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, you got Alabama, Missouri, Saipan, Enterprise, Tirpitz...

Then you have stuff in the middle, my "They may be okay ships but..."

Atlanta, Perth come quickly to mind.

 

Premium Ship strength, quality fluctuates considerably.

I agree with this.  OTOH, I think that it's probably unfair to call the Indianapolis a turd.  It may be what LWM calls it, a "mehbote".  But a turd?  I think that that's a bit extreme.

As for the Krasny Krym, I can't for the life of my understand why this isn't a tier 4 ship.  Yes, it might be a little OP at tier 4, but at tier 5 it sounds grossly under-powered.

As for the Atlanta, I think that that's a ship whose performance varies wildly with the talent of the player and their understanding of the ship's strengths and limitations, and trying to play the ship to those strengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,217
[RKLES]
Members
9,982 posts
11,740 battles
1 hour ago, khorender_1 said:

Exactly my point, if they are better then there is no point in playing the tech tree one, why I called it pay to win..

Here are some examples:

Bismarck and Tirpitz

Gneisenau and Scharnhorst

Mutsu and Nagato

NewYork and Texas

Iowa and Missouri

Each of these are a pair of the same class of ship, but each differs for it's sister ship, but at the same time neither ship becomes obsolete because of the other ship whether it be a regular ship or the premium version since anything the premium version gains it also sacrifices a little for it.

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,555
[WOLF3]
Members
21,713 posts
19,957 battles
1 hour ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

I think Perth is fantastic. But it has a specific play style. 

I agree that the quality of premiums varies drastically. You get the Duke of Yuck, and you get the Musashi

I like Perth also but you know for a fact she's unforgiving.  When she's using her creeping smoke, she's OPAF.  When the creeping smoke is done and on CD, that's where things separate between the good and bad Perth players.  The margin for error, like Atlanta, is zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,555
[WOLF3]
Members
21,713 posts
19,957 battles
1 hour ago, khorender_1 said:

Exactly my point, if they are better then there is no point in playing the tech tree one, why I called it pay to win..

If the ship isn't any decent, then why buy the ship?

 

WoWS is a F2P game.  Premium Ships help pay the bills.  Why fork out money to have an inferior ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,841
[CNO]
Members
5,011 posts
15,805 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

But it makes no sense to offer a worse ship that you actually have to buy with real money. The incentive is to play free ships and not spend real money.

 

Not for everyone.  The incentive for me is to have a good time. Of course, that involves winning.  But it also involves playing with ships with different styles and variety of play.  I purchase a lot of premium ships for their style, not their capabilities.  I am also an arm chair historian of the era...and that is also a factor. 

Also keep in mind that some premiums have to be nerfed because they are introduced at low tiers.  Mikasa is a good example. It has to be inferior because mostly experienced players will run her.  The experience of the players, matched to the inferiority of the ship, make for an engaging T2 experience.

I bought DoY which is demonstrably inferior to the KGV, which I also have.  I play DoY, not just to finish the missions.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
232
[GT99]
Members
634 posts
9,053 battles

I have the Indianapolis, it's not easy for sure, big target, slow rate of fire, but I think I am starting to see a pattern while trying to play it. I feel like it may be teaching me how to better play CA/CL. This may not be true or just in my mind. I started on Baltimore not too long ago and was frustrated, losing matches and not generally doing well, the last couple of games I think I did better, The Balti and I just have not come to terms yet but I think Indi is helping with that albeit slowly, I'm average at best but hoping that will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,286
[PVE]
Members
9,556 posts
17,006 battles
16 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

 

Not for everyone.  The incentive for me is to have a good time. Of course, that involves winning.  But it also involves playing with ships with different styles and variety of play.  I purchase a lot of premium ships for their style, not their capabilities.  I am also an arm chair historian of the era...and that is also a factor. 

Also keep in mind that some premiums have to be nerfed because they are introduced at low tiers.  Mikasa is a good example. It has to be inferior because mostly experienced players will run her.  The experience of the players, matched to the inferiority of the ship, make for an engaging T2 experience.

I bought DoY which is demonstrably inferior to the KGV, which I also have.  I play DoY, not just to finish the missions.

But Mikasa isn't worse or inferior than the T2 standard ship because there isn't one. I am not suggesting Premiums be OP or anything but I think making them literally worse (different doesn't mean worse) than the standard tree ship that is free makes little sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,135
[FML]
Members
2,985 posts
12,981 battles
3 hours ago, Gearhead68 said:

Hello,

Is there a consensus on the quality/combat effectiveness of premium ships? In WOT, originally premiums were supposed to be slightly inferior to their tech tree counterparts, with the idea that you could run a super skilled commander that would kind of offset this. Of course now, there are many premiums that are better than their tech tree counterparts, as the game has matured and they are under increasing pressure to monetize somehow.

What is the thinking on WOWs: Are the premiums generally better, worse, about the same? Does it depend on the specific ship? Are the more recently released premiums superior, or has Wargaming tried to keep the quality consistent?

Thanks!

PS, was thinking of getting Sims or Indianapolis, but realize these are "old" premiums.

WoWS doesn't share that same initial philosophy. It's premium ships can be better or worse than tech tree counterparts.

However, they do tend to be an opportunity to be different (such as a different sub-class) to the tech tree equivalent. 

For instance, the tech tree Gneisenau has 6 x 15 inch guns, and the premium Scharnhorst has 9 x 11 inch guns (plus minor differences to secondaries and AA that are better on upgraded Gniesenau hull, and Gneisenau is a rich faster), but otherwise are the same ship. However, because of the gun layout change, the two ships play very differently. 

Finally, always always always Google for LittleWhiteMouse premium ship review on the vessel before buying it. You would then know to steer clear of the Indianapolis.

Good premium ships are the Guilo Cesare, Scharnhorst, Tirpitz, Harekaze, De Grasse, Texas, Anshan, and there are many, many "decent" premium ships. 

Mid you are new, the first couple probably most new player friendly. 

Good luck!

Edited by UltimateNewbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
669
[PVE]
Members
1,702 posts
7,515 battles

OP, I realize that you are talking about Sims and Indy, but there are a couple of premium ships that do stand out in my opinion.  While it may have a tech tree counterpart, the premium version...Warspite...is a beast!  Always gets left out of these conversations...sigh...while it may have slow turret turn rate, not the fastest ship on the seas, I would pit my tier 6 Warspite against any tier 8 ship without fear, be within gun range and you are going to get hurt if not deleted.  Then there is also Nickolai at tier 4, it too is a beast and highly sought after. So yes, there are some premiums that are good quality and combat effective, its just a matter of obtaining them and having them in your port, if possible.  It also depends on your play style and at what tier you are going to be comfortable at.  Just take your time, do your research, ask questions and enjoy!  Good luck out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[EGO]
Members
3,688 posts
3 hours ago, Gearhead68 said:

Hello,

Is there a consensus on the quality/combat effectiveness of premium ships? In WOT, originally premiums were supposed to be slightly inferior to their tech tree counterparts, with the idea that you could run a super skilled commander that would kind of offset this. Of course now, there are many premiums that are better than their tech tree counterparts, as the game has matured and they are under increasing pressure to monetize somehow.

What is the thinking on WOWs: Are the premiums generally better, worse, about the same? Does it depend on the specific ship? Are the more recently released premiums superior, or has Wargaming tried to keep the quality consistent?

Thanks!

PS, was thinking of getting Sims or Indianapolis, but realize these are "old" premiums.

 

Flamu did a review of best Premiums on Youtube recently, LittleWhiteMouse and Lert did a review in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[MOFOS]
Members
48 posts
4,916 battles

Thanks all for your input. I realize that all ships, not just premiums have some people that like them, and some that don't. The game wouldn't be fun if they were all "average". But on the whole with tech tree ships, there is at least an attempt to make them all comparable (even if they vary in style). I just wanted to know if the same extended to premiums. Playing premiums is a great way to boost/or retrain commanders, but its not worth it if doing so is no longer "fun". That's why I play after all. And part of having fun, is having a good chance to win, assuming you play a ship according to its strengths.

PS: I have the Kamikaze, and thinks its better than its tech tree equivalent; the Minekaze (of course you can get that matchup with 5 gunboat dds and 2 cvs, and then its not quite so much fun). Just not sure what the general consensus was on premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×