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

Want A Missouri, Belfast, Kutuzov? Please Provide Feedback To Wargaming

76 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

38
[WOLFA]
Members
76 posts
5,879 battles

I want to start off with stating that I am not an employee of Wargaming, and that I am not making any offers on behalf of Wargaming. The goal of this post is to allow you a forum to give feedback to wargaming.

 

There are ships like the Missouri, Belfast, and Kutuzov that have been permanently removed from the game. But there are still large populations of these ships in the game. So if you are a player that has one, or you are a player that wants one, which of the following options would you like to Wargaming to consider developing:

Start by Wargaming creating "WoWs- bay" for players to sell/buy ships no longer available in game and then:

  • Ships can be sold for in game currency (doubloons/gold/coal/etc). The in game currency would be transferred from buyer's account to seller's account
    • Wargaming would charge a fee for the transaction, plus generate revenue from the sales of in game currency
    • Wargaming would transfer ship from Seller's Port to Buyer's Port
  • Ships could be sold for cash
    • This would cause much more obstacles for Wargaming (Currency basis. PayPal and other Payment Services Fees, etc), so expect the fee that Wargaming charges to be substantially higher. 

 

I would also like to see current reward ships such as Flint and Black available for this program, but since they are still available in game, I do not know how receptive Wargaming would be to the idea of these ships being sold in "WoWs-bay".

 

What are your thoughts?

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,271
[PVE]
Members
9,798 posts
7,485 battles
1 minute ago, BlueByYou said:

I want to start off with stating that I am not an employee of Wargaming, and that I am not making any offers on behalf of Wargaming. The goal of this post is to allow you a forum to give feedback to wargaming.

 

There are ships like the Missouri, Belfast, and Kutuzov that have been permanently removed from the game. But there are still large populations of these ships in the game. So if you are a player that has one, or you are a player that wants one, which of the following options would you like to Wargaming to consider developing:

Start by Wargaming creating "WoWs- bay" for players to sell/buy ships no longer available in game and then:

  • Ships can be sold for in game currency (doubloons/gold/coal/etc). The in game currency would be transferred from buyer's account to seller's account
    • Wargaming would charge a fee for the transaction, plus generate revenue from the sales of in game currency
    • Wargaming would transfer ship from Seller's Port to Buyer's Port
  • Ships could be sold for cash
    • This would cause much more obstacles for Wargaming (Currency basis. PayPal and other Payment Services Fees, etc), so expect the fee that Wargaming charges to be substantially higher. 

 

I would also like to see current reward ships such as Flint and Black available for this program, but since they are still available in game, I do not know how receptive Wargaming would be to the idea of these ships being sold in "WoWs-bay".

 

What are your thoughts?

Highly doubt it will happen, but you can ask.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[RTXN]
Beta Testers
624 posts

Go ahead and ask - more power to you!

Just glad I bought all 3 of these ships before they were taken out - Kutuzov less than 4 hours before it was gone.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,129
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,433 posts
9,572 battles

Hmmm interesting Idea. I have no objections. As long as there is a modest Doubloons cost involved I think WG might go for it. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[KRAK]
Members
1,290 posts
13,739 battles
30 minutes ago, BlueByYou said:

I want to start off with stating that I am not an employee of Wargaming, and that I am not making any offers on behalf of Wargaming. The goal of this post is to allow you a forum to give feedback to wargaming.

 

There are ships like the Missouri, Belfast, and Kutuzov that have been permanently removed from the game. But there are still large populations of these ships in the game. So if you are a player that has one, or you are a player that wants one, which of the following options would you like to Wargaming to consider developing:

Start by Wargaming creating "WoWs- bay" for players to sell/buy ships no longer available in game and then:

  • Ships can be sold for in game currency (doubloons/gold/coal/etc). The in game currency would be transferred from buyer's account to seller's account
    • Wargaming would charge a fee for the transaction, plus generate revenue from the sales of in game currency
    • Wargaming would transfer ship from Seller's Port to Buyer's Port
  • Ships could be sold for cash
    • This would cause much more obstacles for Wargaming (Currency basis. PayPal and other Payment Services Fees, etc), so expect the fee that Wargaming charges to be substantially higher. 

 

I would also like to see current reward ships such as Flint and Black available for this program, but since they are still available in game, I do not know how receptive Wargaming would be to the idea of these ships being sold in "WoWs-bay".

 

What are your thoughts?

You are going to have a hard time with the Belfast. The WoWs  player base has an unnatural fear of them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[A_51]
Members
278 posts
13,074 battles
1 minute ago, Vaffu said:

You are going to have a hard time with the Belfast. The WoWs  player base has an unnatural fear of them.

While I would love to have a Belfast, I think it is like the Atlanta; people hate the ship so much you are always the first one targeted.

 

As for this suggestion, I would like to see this happen, but I highly doubt WG will go for it.  It doesn't fit their business mode, as I believe it to be.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
918 posts
2,119 battles

Why not just tweak the ships and bring em back? Missouri for one could have much shorter radar range. Instead of having people always upset at missed opprotunities, wargaming could bite the bullet, piss a few people off by tweaking a premium, and return 'broken' ships to the game

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
9 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

Why not just tweak the ships and bring em back? Missouri for one could have much shorter radar range. Instead of having people always upset at missed opprotunities, wargaming could bite the bullet, piss a few people off by tweaking a premium, and return 'broken' ships to the game

Missouri's problem wasn't the radar, WG removed it because it made too much credits.

 

IMO tie the credit gain to the camo, then re-release it with a different camo that has a different credit bonus. Let people who got it in the first run keep the first camo.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[WOLFA]
Members
76 posts
5,879 battles
3 minutes ago, Vaffu said:

You are going to have a hard time with the Belfast. The WoWs  player base has an unnatural fear of them.

Retail 101 class teaches there will always be willing buyers willing to pay premium pricing for low availability items whether they need them or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,523 posts
7,580 battles
5 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Missouri's problem wasn't the radar, WG removed it because it made too much credits.

 

IMO tie the credit gain to the camo, then re-release it with a different camo that has a different credit bonus. Let people who got it in the first run keep the first camo.

:Smile_great:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[KMK]
Members
70 posts
3,891 battles

I think they must bring them back, they are ships that are played a lot and isnt justice for the other players.

From WoW stats.

Missouri 1826000 battles

Kutuzov 1530000 battles

Belfast near 1000000 battles

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
338
[TOG]
Members
2,484 posts
15,017 battles

I would rather want the currency to be steel if there is going to be an exchange. I have all 3 ships and I don't plan on removing them from the inventory. Make it worth my while to do so and I'll consider it.

27 minutes ago, Vaffu said:

You are going to have a hard time with the Belfast. The WoWs  player base has an unnatural fear of them.

Smoke + Radar+HE+ Hydro. Very nice synergy. Though one can argue the radar spam and  smoke nerf rules made it less effective. It'll rule when it's high tier, but it struggles now when bottom tier.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,098 posts
17,769 battles
10 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

Why not just tweak the ships and bring em back? Missouri for one could have much shorter radar range. Instead of having people always upset at missed opprotunities, wargaming could bite the bullet, piss a few people off by tweaking a premium, and return 'broken' ships to the game

Because they'd be changing premium ships, i.e. ships most people paid real money for.  Mind you, I actually agree with you in theory that WG should be willing to nerf premium ships as needed and be willing to offer up refunds in doubloons for those who don't like how the ship was changed.  At the same time, if they were to adopt this policy, I think that it would behoove them to do a better job balancing their premium ships so that they released fewer OP ones that ended up needing nerfs at all.  Of course, this could lead to them being a little cautious and ending up with premium ships much more often feeling a little underpowered because WG wanted to avoid gold refunds.


Personally, I think that a BIG part of the problem is this silly need that WG has to produce a constant stream of premiums (and less so, regular tech tree ships) that are overly gimmick laden, because sometimes ships end up too full of gimmicks or end up with an overpowered combination of gimmicks (i.e. the Belfast).  IMO, if ships were required to stand on their own and the gimmicks played a FAR lesser role in things, I think that it would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
373 posts
6 battles
3 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

 It'll rule when it's high tier, but it struggles now when bottom tier.

Nah, no it doesn't.  Belfast against T9s is just as viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
666
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,875 posts
1,338 battles
29 minutes ago, Seaneroo said:

While I would love to have a Belfast, I think it is like the Atlanta; people hate the ship so much you are always the first one targeted.

Yeah, Atlanta comes with AoE taunt built in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,981 posts
7,530 battles
9 minutes ago, saintsfan1622000 said:

I would pay a lot for a Gremy or Fujin. 

Gremy isn't the monster she's made out to be.

 

Fujin/Kamikaze, on the other hand is far more of a beast than people actually say. I should know, I have them both, and I have Gremy, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[ENDVR]
Members
424 posts
5,341 battles
4 minutes ago, pinkship9001 said:

Nah, no it doesn't.  Belfast against T9s is just as viable.

Agreed, 11km radar doesnt hurt it that bad.  Mistakes are just punished more severely. Don’t make mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,817 posts
816 battles

I think the ability of players to sell ships for dubloons, with real money under the table, will make this a no go from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[SIDE]
Members
733 posts
3,290 battles
43 minutes ago, Vaffu said:

You are going to have a hard time with the Belfast. The WoWs  player base has an unnatural fear of them.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

In reality, having these ships, (Imp Nik, Fushan, Gremmy, Belfast, Kutazov) will always make them gambling santa crates sell like hot cakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,098 posts
17,769 battles
22 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Missouri's problem wasn't the radar, WG removed it because it made too much credits.

 

IMO tie the credit gain to the camo, then re-release it with a different camo that has a different credit bonus. Let people who got it in the first run keep the first camo.

Kiyo, I agree with you that the Missouri's radar wasn't what got her pulled.  It was definitely her inflated income numbers.  That said, I do think that the radar *IS* a problem.  Radar in and of itself is a problem, and that's not the Missouri's fault.  But allowing any BB to have radar throws the radar/MM issue into a little bit of a tizzy because as a BB, it's outside of the general rule of cruisers having radar.  (Yes, I know that the Yueyang can have radar, but it's so short range and duration that it doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me.)

As a very related aside, if WG wanted to have another tier 9 FXP USN BB, they could consider making another clone based on the Wisconsin or New Jersey.  And with this clone, they could remove the inflated credit income and the radar, and allow it to be a "good" Iowa clone premium.  Note that I don't know how it could differ from the Iowa.  Give it DefAA instead of a spotter plane (as if an Iowa needed to have more dangerous AA)?  Hydro instead of a spotter?  An improved Heal, i.e. better than the standard Iowa's repair party?  Oh, good secondaries?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[WOLFA]
Members
76 posts
5,879 battles
2 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

I think the ability of players to sell ships for dubloons, with real money under the table, will make this a no go from the start.

I find the chance of "money under the table" occurrences to be few. In order for that to occur, personal information would have to be exchanged, and WoWs Captains are much smarter than that :Smile_amazed:

However, when those "under the table transactions occur, there would be outside of the Wargaming system, and thus remove liability to Wargaming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,817 posts
816 battles
Just now, BlueByYou said:

I find the chance of "money under the table" occurrences to be few. In order for that to occur, personal information would have to be exchanged, and WoWs Captains are much smarter than that :Smile_amazed:

However, when those "under the table transactions occur, there would be outside of the Wargaming system, and thus remove liability to Wargaming. 

It was more the removing "a piece of the action" from WG that was my thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,098 posts
17,769 battles
11 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

Gremy isn't the monster she's made out to be.

 

Fujin/Kamikaze, on the other hand is far more of a beast than people actually say. I should know, I have them both, and I have Gremy, as well.

I have both the Gremy and the Kamikaze (as well as the Okhitnik).  A problem that I currently have with the Russian premium DDs is that they have those slow traversing turrets that benefit from a captain with Expert Marksman, which tier 10 Russian captains won't bother taking, since tier 10 Russian DDs have fairly quick turning turrets.  OTOH, a Kamikaze can benefit fully from most Shimmy captain's builds, except one that takes Torp Acceleration, because who really wants to lose 20% of your range off of 7 km torps.    I personally prefer playing the Okhotnik over the Gremy because she has a more unique play style.  The Gremy is kind of boring because she plays pretty much exactly like all other run and gun Russian gunboat DDs.  But the Okhotnik requires a little more subtlety, which, IMO makes her more interesting to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×