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

The Tier 9 and 10 Premium Ship Balance Issue

94 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,347
[BRZKR]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,493 posts
4,931 battles

Stalingrad, Kronstadt, a nerfed Alsace to make way for a (potentially) strong Jean Bart and a host of other Tier 9 and 10 premiums are hurting the meta in Tier 10 as well as the tech tree ships while diminishing the necessity and need to grind up to tier 10.  I don't think the situation is critical yet, but with more on the way, are in at the point of no return?

 

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
237
[SVF]
Members
989 posts
1,362 battles

WRT Jean Bart something that might be done to reign her in some is to buff the main battery reload from 26s to 25s, but remove the main battery reload booster completely (perhaps replacing it with an x1 multiplier version of DFAA to complement its very strong AA without further increasing the overall DPS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,435
[ARGSY]
Members
7,185 posts
4,874 battles
6 minutes ago, landcollector said:

remove the main battery reload booster completely

But MBRB is why the Jean Bart exists, basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
320 posts

disagree that you're a capitalist.  sounds like you're a socialist.  capitalists know that there are benefits to hard work.  you make more money and you can get better toys.  spending money on worse toys sounds straight up socialist.  

 

Edited by Sensai_Lawrence
  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 13
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,435
[ARGSY]
Members
7,185 posts
4,874 battles
2 minutes ago, Sensai_Lawrence said:

spending money on worse toys sounds straight up out of Bernie's playbook.  

Depends on your own opinion of the value of the toys.

Also... bringing politics into this is a great way to get an otherwise potentially productive thread shut down unnecessarily quickly.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
320 posts
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Depends on your own opinion of the value of the toys.

Also... bringing politics into this is a great way to get an otherwise potentially productive thread shut down unnecessarily quickly.

dude mentioned being a capitalist in his video.  that's pretty much political.  

  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
620
[WOLF6]
Members
1,995 posts
5,013 battles
Just now, Sensai_Lawrence said:

dude mentioned being a capitalist in his video.  that's pretty much political.  

Capitalism is an economic principle, not a political one.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
405 posts
3,817 battles

There has to be some enticement to spend your money on a ship, or else sink the time to get it.

I don't think the Missouri would be as sought after if it wasn't better (thought admittedly just a tad) than Iowa. And I'm fine with it being a bit better to be honest, makes the fact that I did spend money for the gold to convert the free XP worth it.

Just like a car company has to entice you to spend the extra $5,000 on the upgraded package for your car or SUV by showing you that it's better because of it, so do game companies that let you play for free and pay only if you want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,435
[ARGSY]
Members
7,185 posts
4,874 battles
1 minute ago, Sensai_Lawrence said:

dude mentioned being a capitalist in his video.  that's pretty much political.  

Yeah, but the video is on YouTube and he's just linking here. Getting as specific as you are, in print on this forum, with reference to particular politicians? That's what gets things shut down.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
320 posts

socialism is an economic principle too.  that said, dude could have just said he's anti "pay to win" and that would have been sufficient to get his message across.  I'd still disagree with him though because life is pay to win.  

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
572 posts
1,195 battles

They should tighten up the tier spread anyway, with T1 having it s own queue, T10 having its own queue, then the other queues being T2-3, T4-5, T6-7 and T8-9.

  • Cool 8
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[-K-]
Members
1,107 posts
7,614 battles
7 minutes ago, SirMuttonChops said:

There has to be some enticement to spend your money on a ship, or else sink the time to get it.

I don't think the Missouri would be as sought after if it wasn't better (thought admittedly just a tad) than Iowa. And I'm fine with it being a bit better to be honest, makes the fact that I did spend money for the gold to convert the free XP worth it.

Just like a car company has to entice you to spend the extra $5,000 on the upgraded package for your car or SUV by showing you that it's better because of it, so do game companies that let you play for free and pay only if you want to.

Exactly right.  WG has to juggle balance with desirability.  No point making a bunch of "balanced" ships that nobody wants.  Ships like Stalingrad really need to stand apart if they are being held up as a reward for nearly a year of Clan Battles or Ranked grinding.  Same thing with FreeXP ships like Missouri, Musashi, Nelson, etc.  

Besides, WG appears to be trying to rebalance SOME of the tech tree ships, such as Izumo, to compensate for some of the power creep.  Granted I don't think that justifies what they did to Alsace, but she was borderline OP in her original form.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,811
[TBW]
Members
6,607 posts
12,463 battles
18 minutes ago, Sensai_Lawrence said:

I'd still disagree with him though because life is pay to win.

That depends on how you define winning. If being happy is how you determine winning, I think there are more happy people that don't have a lot of money, than happy people with money.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
194
[SIDE]
Members
753 posts
3,480 battles

The reason why t8-10 so one sided half of the time is because it actually has an extreme number of potatoes. Some one did an earlier study and found out that over 60plus percent of the players were either bad or below average. 30% were just average. And the 10% of the rest were good,great, or unicum. (Source 

)

I personally never have trouble fighting against the tier 9 premiums and it's sad to think we are blaming ships over the average skill of the captains piloting them.

The Kron isn't OP at all. it has an extremely exposed citadel. It just offers a different play style.

Edited by Merlox
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,370
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,529 posts
3,819 battles

I just wanted a tier 9 / 10 Free XP DD or CW DD rewards please

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
175 posts
202 battles
46 minutes ago, NoZoupForYou said:

Stalingrad, Kronstadt, a nerfed Alsace to make way for a (potentially) strong Jean Bart and a host of other Tier 9 and 10 premiums are hurting the meta in Tier 10 as well as the tech tree ships while diminishing the necessity and need to grind up to tier 10.  I don't think the situation is critical yet, but with more on the way, are in at the point of no return?

 

Thanks for calling them out publicly and leaving it on YouTube. I received a month long forum ban for calling them out on this.

I have zero faith in this company as soon as some of the other companies work out there bugs on there ships I'm out.

After 17K battles they will have run me off I'm  tired of their crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
320 posts

pay to win is one thing wargaming gets mostly right.  pleasing my customers is important.  selling a product that customers deem worth money keeps the doors open.  I'm more concerned with these customers than those who show up every day and ask for a free glass of water.  the better the boats they sell with cash money the more they will sell and the more money they will make which allows them to keep the doors open and handing out those free glasses of water to everyone else.  in closing, keep the better pay to win ships coming and we'll keep buying them!

 

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,426
[PNG]
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,706 posts
6,629 battles
1 minute ago, Sensai_Lawrence said:

pay to win is one thing wargaming gets mostly right.  pleasing my customers is important.  selling a product that customers deem worth money keeps the doors open.  I'm more concerned with these customers than those who show up every day and ask for a free glass of water.  the better the boats they sell with cash money the more they will sell and the more money they will make which allows them to keep the doors open and handing out those free glasses of water to everyone else.  in closing, keep the better pay to win ships coming and we'll keep buying them!

 

??? All the T9 and T10 ships currently available in the game are only available with free XP or coal and steel, none of which is money restricted. In addition, steel is performance-driven, so you literally can’t throw money to buy the Black. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
517
[LUCK]
Members
1,381 posts
20,682 battles
25 minutes ago, Bonfor said:

They should tighten up the tier spread anyway, with T1 having it s own queue, T10 having its own queue, then the other queues being T2-3, T4-5, T6-7 and T8-9.

The problem with this is it is entirely too logical. Can't have any of that happening.

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
443
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,360 posts
3,983 battles
Just now, Sensai_Lawrence said:

disagree that you're a capitalist.  sounds like you're a socialist.  capitalists know that there are benefits to hard work.  you make more money and you can get better toys.  spending money on worse toys sounds straight up out of Bernie's playbook.  

 

Which matters naught in a video game, where balance is key to a thriving environment. Premium ships are supposed to give you a fresh, kind of side-grade to the tech tree experience. Missouri was the right idea, Nelson is a perfect candidate to what a FXP Premium should be. Kronshtadt is far different than the Dmitri Donskoi, but shes different and fun. I have all of them but Musashi and all of them have earned my money spent back in spades. 

And don't get me started on how annoying it is to watch guys who clearly know nothing about how democratic socialism works try to use it as an insult. 

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
320 posts
10 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

??? All the T9 and T10 ships currently available in the game are only available with free XP or coal and steel, none of which is money restricted. In addition, steel is performance-driven, so you literally can’t throw money to buy the Black. 

all I care about is that ships like Jean Bart and Alaska and future premium ships are more like GUDBOTE or OVERPOWERED and less like MEHBOTE or GARBAGEBOTE.   if so, WG can continue to count on plenty of financial support.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
865
[FOXEH]
Members
3,425 posts
12,837 battles
37 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

That depends on how you define winning. If being happy is how you determine winning, I think there are more happy people that don't have a lot of money, than happy people with money.

I'd like to try that theory out! Gimme money, please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,426
[HINON]
Supertester
7,551 posts
7,713 battles
19 minutes ago, Sensai_Lawrence said:

all I care about is that ships like Jean Bart and Alaska and future premium ships are more like GUDBOTE or OVERPOWERED and less like MEHBOTE or GARBAGEBOTE.   if so, WG can continue to count on plenty of financial support.

That’s extremely short sighted. Yeah it may be good for them financially in the present and near future, but it’s bad for them in the long run. Over populating the game with OP ships and throwing the balance out of whack is bad for the game in the long run. It’ll end up causing more players to leave down the road. What’s the point of keeping the lights on if you have almost no players playing the game? WG already has this issue with WoWP and is pretty much just throwing money into it to keep a dead ship afloat. And wows already has a player retention issue in a niche game that has always had a small(er) population from the get go. The last thing you want to do is drive players away due to throwing balance out in even more directions. The more “gudbotes” and “mehbotes”, that are sidegrades to their tree counterparts, and the less “overpowered” and “garbage botes” that release, the better for the game in the long run. The main people who keep the lights on are whales, and whales will buy everything despite how bad or good they are. That’s why they’re  whales. The people who buy a ship here and there and occasionally purchase premium time/dubs aren’t the ones truly keeping the lights on. It’s the whales who will purchase everything and anything no matter what. So keeping everything in balance is a win for WG in the long run, no matter how you look at it.

Edited by renegadestatuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[LOU1]
Members
3,174 posts
8,432 battles
55 minutes ago, Bonfor said:

They should tighten up the tier spread anyway, with T1 having it s own queue, T10 having its own queue, then the other queues being T2-3, T4-5, T6-7 and T8-9.

T1 is sort of separated by keeping newer players in their own queue.  The bigger issue is the wait times.  Not enough T10s to provide a reasonable wait time.  Same with T1s.  In the wee hours of the morning I have ended up in 5v5 and 3v3 battles at high tier Random.  There was even a 1v1 at T10 once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
320 posts
5 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

That’s extremely short sighted. Yeah it may be good for them financially in the present and near future, but it’s bad for them in the long run. Over populating the game with OP ships and throwing the balance out of whack is bad for the game in the long run. It’ll end up causing more players to leave down the road. What’s the point of keeping the lights on if you have almost no players playing the game? WG already has this issue with WoWP and is pretty much just throwing money into it to keep a dead ship afloat. And wows already has a player retention issue in a niche game that has always had a small(er) population from the get go. The last thing you want to do is drive players away due to throwing balance out in even more directions. The more “gudbotes” and “mehbotes”, that are sidegrades to their tree counterparts, and the less “overpowered” and “garbage botes” that release, the better for the game in the long run. The main people who keep the lights on are whales, and whales will buy everything despite how bad or good they are. That’s why they’re  whales. The people who buy a ship here and there and occasionally purchase premium time/dubs aren’t the ones truly keeping the lights on. It’s thkse whales who will purchase everything and anything no matter what. So keeping everything in balance is a win for WG in the long run, no matter how you look at it.

I'm successful in business because I provide goods and services that my customers want.  the moment I start trying to sell them junk but spin it that it's good for them they cease staying customers. you're looking at it in a very narrow spectrum.  

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×