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

Missouri Ship peculiarities change...is WG removing it entirely?

93 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,522
[SYN]
Members
4,921 posts
11,844 battles
4 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

You can stop acting like I'm too stupid to notice your teenage edgelord sarcasm.

If you felt the need to point out that I was being sarcastic, well...  :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,953
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,367 posts
3,895 battles
2 minutes ago, Kuckoo said:

If you felt the need to point out that I was being sarcastic, well...  :Smile_teethhappy:

It's called "calling you out on your bullcrap".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,522
[SYN]
Members
4,921 posts
11,844 battles
4 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

It's called "calling you out on your bullcrap".

Um, no.  That's not how sarcasm works.

:cap_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[FTWRK]
Banned
560 posts
3,727 battles
On 3/4/2018 at 7:28 AM, Lert said:

Don't know. They're not going to remove it from the game. I don't know if they're planning to ever sell it again. Two completely different things.

My gut feeling? It's not gonna get sold again. The credit income is 'problematic'. How do I know that? Well, if they were happy with the credit income, they'd have given Musashi the same multiplier.

Yea well they won't get a penny from me for anything ever again until they bring it back. I'm not paying more than someone because WG screwed up.

Terrible company. As if they don't make plenty of money on crap other than silver anyway.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
Members
309 posts
4 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

It does.  You (the player) trade time (games played) for currency (credits, commander XP, ship XP, free XP, mission unlocks, etc) which you then spend on access to ship and ship abilities you didn't have access to before.

Trading time for EXP, credits, etc, isn't an economy, it's a progression system. It is, in practice, no different than, say, me earning money in a single player offline game like SimCity. Would you call THAT an economy?

Some of those currencies, in particular, FXP, credits, commander XP, and doubloons, serve double duty as not only progression limiters, but also as an abstraction of real cash, in order to make it's separation from your wallet less painful and/or noticeable.

Of course, you COULD interpret "economy" with the "management of resources" definition..... except that that's hugely misleading in a gaming context, given the number of games that have actual production/trade/consumption based economies that are described as.... economies.

 

Worse, though, there isn't any substantial way in which giving people more money would harm the "resource management" of the game.

The way you frame the discussion: "You have to limit Missouri's availability because it damages the game's economy" makes it sound like it's something that just has to be done to preserve the gameplay. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

You could raise every resource for every player to maximum tomorrow, and it would only affect gameplay positively. People would be able to respec their builds whenever for more interesting builds, as well as just being able to find a build they like. People could more easily try out new ships and lines. People would be able to go into every match with full premium consumables. People would be free to pursue less profitable, but equally important gameplay tactics like focusing on supporting teammates.

I challenge you to give me a single negative gameplay effect of giving everyone easy cash. Even if you did come up with one, I very much doubt that it would come close to outweighing the benefit of putting all players on a more even playing field.

There's no way that giving everyone unlimited resources would harm the game, because this game is not a resource management game. This is a blowing up pixel ships game. The whole "resource management" aspect of the game only exists as a way for WG to make money off the game.

 

No, the only thing Missouri would have damaged is Wargaming's revenue.

If that's the point you're making, cool. I'd still obviously disagree with their decision, if for no other reason than that they assured us that Missouri would be here permanently - no, sorry "she'd be here to stay", but at least that would be honest.

But the way you phrased that, pretending that WG is doing it for the sake of the game? That's just dishonest [edited].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[LEGIO]
Members
3,243 posts
5,999 battles
23 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Since it drop kicked the high tier economy, stepped on its neck and then peed on the corpse.  Missouri absolutely trivialized credit earning which was always the designed bottleneck in World of Warship's economy.   Credits are scarce unless you fork over money.  That's by design.  Missouri went contrary to this design and proved far too popular as a result.

I don't don't see how the ability to make good credits in a T9 ship has broken or threatens to break the game economy. The real bottleneck to progression is and has always been XP. Credits are just a way for WG to skim in some money on the side. How many people spent money converting XP to get a Missouri I wonder? Removing her without her returning at some later date would simply be unabashed greed on WG's part.

Players can earn good money in a T8 premium too. Where is this line where the economy is supposedly broken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
15 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

I don't don't see how the ability to make good credits in a T9 ship has broken or threatens to break the game economy. The real bottleneck to progression is and has always been XP. Credits are just a way for WG to skim in some money on the side. How many people spent money converting XP to get a Missouri I wonder? Removing her without her returning at some later date would simply be unabashed greed on WG's part.

Players can earn good money in a T8 premium too. Where is this line where the economy is supposedly broken?

However, it's much better from WG's perspective to replace Missouri, the credit printer, with Musashi, the XP printer.  What does ship XP require that credits don't?  Therein lies the answer to the question.  It's even been admitted to by WG, if not as baldly as that. 

Also, using Missouri, people w/o premium time could break even on credits.  Without it, they needed premium time, or had to go back to earlier tiers to get the credit stockpile rebuilt.  That's what 'broke' the economy from WG's perspective with Missouri.  Tier 9 and 10 aren't really supposed to be 'free'. (To WG)

 

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[VVV]
Members
714 posts
11,271 battles
19 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

I don't don't see how the ability to make good credits in a T9 ship has broken or threatens to break the game economy. The real bottleneck to progression is and has always been XP. Credits are just a way for WG to skim in some money on the side. How many people spent money converting XP to get a Missouri I wonder? Removing her without her returning at some later date would simply be unabashed greed on WG's part.

Players can earn good money in a T8 premium too. Where is this line where the economy is supposedly broken?

Missouri earns FAR more then any tier 8 premium ever will it is literally impossible NOT to turn a profit in the ship Hell I've put her through testing In Co-OP and with just flags she gets to half a million in CO-OP now imagine flags and clan bonuses in Random where credit earnings are substantially higher. MO literally renders Premium Time unneeded. How many people spend money on Premium Time to grind through bad ships faster since premium ups credit earning by 50%.And lets not forget that being a premium MO earns more XP then a non Premium tier IX ever will add to that Musashi is a XP printer along with ships like HSF Harekaze HSF Graf Spee and Anshan all of whom have a 100% Free Exp bonus.

Edited by yamato6945

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[LEGIO]
Members
3,243 posts
5,999 battles
5 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

However, it's much better from WG's perspective to replace Missouri, the credit printer, with Musashi, the XP printer.  What does ship XP require that credits don't?  Therein lies the answer to the question.  It's even been admitted to by WG, if not as baldly as that. 

Also, using Missouri, people w/o premium time could break even on credits.  Without it, they needed premium time, or had to go back to earlier tiers to get the credit stockpile rebuilt.  That's what 'broke' the economy from WG's perspective with Missouri.  Tier 9 and 10 aren't really supposed to be 'free'. (To WG)

 

You should be able to break even on credits in high tiers even without premium. Ship price tags are supposed to be the show-stopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
4 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

You should be able to break even on credits in high tiers even without premium. Ship price tags are supposed to be the show-stopper.

WG disagrees with that. They own the game, and they make the rules.   So, they are removing Missouri from sale before any more are sold.  XP printing ships require doubloons to convert the XP, so they can monetize that.  A ship that prints a ton of credits lets people put their credit cards away, which is not what WG wants.  

To look at it another way: If you get all the way to T9/T10 w/o giving WG any money, they're not going to bend over backwards to make it easy for you to keep that state of affairs.  Missouri made it so you could do exactly that.  So, in WG's eyes, it had to go before any more were sold, but they let people get them for three more months.

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[LEGIO]
Members
3,243 posts
5,999 battles
Just now, mavfin87 said:

WG disagrees with that. They own the game, and they make the rules.   So, they are removing Missouri from sale before any more are sold.  XP printing ships require doubloons to convert the XP, so they can monetize that.  A ship that prints a ton of credits lets people put their credit cards away, which is not what WG wants.  

To look at it another way: If you get all the way to T9/T10 w/o giving WG any money, they're not going to bend over backwards to make it easy for you to keep that state of affairs.  Missouri made it so you could do exactly that.

Yet a lot of people took out their credit cards to buy Missouri in the first place or wasted a lot of their hard-earned FXP which could instead progress them faster through the trees.

Quite frankly WG doesn't deserve all of the excuses you guys are giving them here. It's greed that really isn't justified on their part with the sort of money they rake in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
Just now, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Quite frankly WG doesn't deserve all of the excuses you guys are giving them here. It's greed that really isn't justified on their part with the sort of money they rake in.

You're confusing with us giving you facts with defending WG.  I'm not defending them.  Just giving you the facts, as WG sees it, in the matter of removing Missouri from sale.

At no point did I personally defend or attack WG at all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
339 posts
5,488 battles

They removed Missouri because they miscalculated how much people would grind with it and how that would affect the rest of the economy. So, rather than sit around and watch more accounts accumulate such a 'negative' ship, they cashed our by warning it was going to be removed. Cue everyone buying flags and grinding hard to get it before it disappears. They introduce Musashi with less gain to replace it. 

The idea that they removed Missouri for the good of the game or whatever is beyond laughable. They removed it because it was compromising their ability to monetize players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[LEGIO]
Members
3,243 posts
5,999 battles
2 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

You're confusing with us giving you facts with defending WG.  I'm not defending them.  Just giving you the facts, as WG sees it, in the matter of removing Missouri from sale.

At no point did I personally defend or attack WG at all.

Well I understand their viewpoint, but it's a pretty bad one that does them no credit.

I don't mind removing Missouri for a year or so to increase the rarity of such a ship but never putting her out for sale again plain stinks.

Edited by Lampshade_M1A2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
3 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Well I understand their viewpoint, but it's a pretty bad one that does them no credit.

Again, not defending them, but you're naive to think that other companies would have and/or have already done the same things in similar cases.  F2P games are all about monetizing it somehow w/o making it P2W.   Pay to speed up is a very common tactic in video games of all kinds.  Besides, you're talking about corporate ethics for a Russian company.  Don't act so surprised.  If you think it's an evil horrible thing, don't give them money.  Your call.

I guess if you think i'm defending them when I say they're no worse than other companies, then so be it.  They're not EA, at least.  

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
4 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Well I understand their viewpoint, but it's a pretty bad one that does them no credit.

I don't mind removing Missouri for a year or so to increase the rarity of such a ship but never putting her out for sale again plain stinks.

As mentioned in another thread, I wouldn't be surprised to see her in Santa boxes next Christmas.  On the other hand, it might be a different version w/o the silver-making numbers changed.  Who knows?  Only WG knows, and they probably haven't decided yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
376 posts
5 battles
11 hours ago, KiyoSenkan said:

And that's what makes your world a fantasy world.

 

Significance to the playerbase transforms into sales.

 

Missouri damages the economy? Switch the credit bonus to the premium camo and re-sell it with a different premium camo.

 

Lots of people didn't pay $110 for it? When you re-sell it, don't give it a free XP purchasing option. Only sell it to players with a tier 10 battleship (any nation) researched.

Option B: When you re-sell it, make the window so narrow that nobody could farm up the FXP in time to get it without spending money. Obviously option A is preferred.

 

The fantasy you live in is a fantasy where WG hates money, doesn't recognize that famous ships translate into sales, and is unwilling to make any changes to the ship that would A: Not change how it functions for current players and B: Not give new customers the same thing they're claiming is bad (Credit earnings).

All I'm seeing from you is a whole bunch of stupid from someone who wants a ship to stay because it's the mo. No, you don't matter, shut up already. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,953
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,367 posts
3,895 battles
1 hour ago, TheNargacuga said:

All I'm seeing from you is a whole bunch of stupid from someone who wants a ship to stay because it's the mo. No, you don't matter, shut up already. 

I already have it and frankly don't care if it's removed from sale. Ball's in your court. Try to do something constructive with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×