Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Ski206

OP Premiums being nerfed. Good or bad for the game? Discuss

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

114
[TF-62]
Members
167 posts
6,209 battles

I see two side to this argument. 

First better balance among ships leads to better and fairer play which is clearly good for the game. No argument.

But lets be honest. If there was zero money being spent by the player base then there would be no game. If you sell me a product for hard currency (as opposed to in game resources) regardless off what the EULA says I have an expectation that I'm buying something specific with specific characteristics. I've evaluated that object and decided that yes its worth spending money on so yes I'll buy it. And please lets leave out the whole digital goods etc etc etc from this discussion its a side show. We all know WG had said repeatedly that they would not directly nerf premium ships. So if changes to premium ships are now possible I have to factor that into my purchasing decision. Because I will never know if and or when that ship might be changed in a way that makes it undesirable. So why would I spend money to acquire it? Which means I don't.

So here is the question. What's worse for the game? Having a handful of ships out there who out perform but generally become fewer with time. Or having all ships in perfect balance but no money coming into the for profit company that makes all this work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,037
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,456 posts
9,384 battles

Neither is good.

There's a balance somewhere in the middle, but they'll probably always be moving between one or the other. Up until now they have been leaning toward keeping the OP premiums as is; I am okay with them going in the other direction for a bit.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[-BMV-]
Members
1,225 posts
5,757 battles

Generally I think good. I want people who are new to the game to be able to buy ships like Grem, Nikolai, Belfast and so forth. So if they are balanced then many other people will get to enjoy them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,129
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor
6,259 posts

I would love to see the possibility of nerfing premium ships open up. It would lead to a more dynamic balancing department, and less hesitation to buff ships currently lagging behind. They wouldn't have to worry about overbuffing anything, and changing metas leading to powercreep or creating monsters like Kamikaze or Gremy. And honestly, it would do a lot of good for other Wargaming titles as well. Tanks has a lot of premiums, varying from extremely strong to comically weak. In a few years, Ships could look like that as well, and it'd be nice if they could bite the bullet and fix this stuff before it becomes a bigger problem. 

Not to mention, previously removed from sale premium ships could make a comeback, if WG allowed themselves to bring them more in line with other ships of the same tier. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
848
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
4,473 posts
14,393 battles

The perception that any ship, tech tree or premium is over performing or is over powering is a figment in the minds of those who say so. It is wrong for WG to remove/change any ship from the live server just because their testing was insufficient or a few players whine you sank my battleship. What they should do is quit offering such ships for sale, awards, gifting etc and allow those who have them already the option to keep them unchanged, accept a full value refund to give them up or offer to exchange them for another ship of the same type and tier. They should not be putting any ship or feature on the live server without sufficient testing period. The CV Hak F key 500k damage exploit is a perfect example.

So here we have another so easily bored and unable to handle the truth!

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
789
[WORX]
Members
2,552 posts
13,870 battles

Good for the game- I rather have diverse play styles of ships over OP ships any day... Having a limited number of OP treats compared to having me on edge about which threat to face match after match.

IMO, the game gets stale when you see the some types of treats every match in every tier.

Its a good change

5 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

 The CV Hak F key 500k damage exploit is a perfect example.

The F key, mybe an exploit. The DMG total, that is not an exploit... with 6 BB per side each with 95k to 105k HP +heal.. With a good CV cpt at tier 10 its do-able but not an "exploit"

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
322
[LHG]
Members
1,318 posts
5,458 battles

WT has the other system in place, where OP premiums come out and are bought by a lot of people before getting hit with the nerf bat eventually. It's undeniably grimy, but it's no less grimy than doing pretty much the same thing at release but then keeping the OP premiums unchanged while locking them behind limited lootboxes for people to gamble away hundreds of dollars on.

E: I prefer them rebalancing ships

Edited by Flashtirade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
631
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
1,577 posts
2,611 battles

Look at WoT. Premium after premium is introduced, and because they cant touch existing premiums, the only option is to feed in more premiums and tech trees to power creep them. IS3A, Defender, E25 (at its time), Skorp G, They are all in there to counter another OP tank. Its a good thing. Certain ships cant just be immune to balance

Edited by _1204_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
594
[KAOZ]
Beta Testers
3,504 posts
2,599 battles

On one side, of course it's good for the game to balance them. 
However this will make their sales drop. 

I'm already very picky when I purchase premiums; and the premiums I do want, WarGaming does not want to sell them (Dreadnought, Kitakami, Charleston) or takes years to do so (Mikasa).
If the premium relies on clunky consumables to be viable, it's a pass.  If it's a BB that cannot tank or a DD that cannot stealth torp (and no DW-Torps, I hate those), it's a pass.
If on top of that WG can on a whim nerf premium ships...  Why would I buy them anymore?

IMHO they should remove from shop, from awards, from coal/steel, and from crates... Agree with CAPTMUDDXX on that regard.  THEN, rebalance properly w/e needs to be balanced and put the new version for sale so anyone can purchase it.
So they could sell all of them, except in our port the old version would be called maybe with the (_Beta) tag at the end, or a similar tag if ppl have better ideas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
347 posts
4,266 battles

Sorry, but if they are deemed OP, then they need to be nerfed.

On the same note.... the reverse should be done as well. (PEF,  Indianapolis and maybe the Kronshtadt come to mind).

Edited by Hydra_360ci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
848
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
4,473 posts
14,393 battles

@Navalpride33 that F key thing has already been shown to be an exploit since it allows fast finger players to make repeated thorn prick attacks faster than most players would be able to and lose fewer planes. One rocket, torp or bomb drop F key and immediately launch another squad. That is an exploit of a whacko mechanic that should never have made it to the live server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
[TFLT]
[TFLT]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
685 posts
8,627 battles

Bought a brand new car last year, top of the line and everything.  Dealer came by today and removed some of the goodies from her.  Said other customers were whining about it.  wth?!  Won't be spending anymore cash with that [edited]...

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
350
[WOLF2]
Members
1,160 posts
8,217 battles

There are pros to both sides of the argument.    

From the nerf perspective, we've seen stories and examples of power creep.  Not just in this game, but across the realm of video games.     And power creep is the fault of the developers, not the players.    If they can address that, and work on balance first and foremost, then these types of arguments should be lessened.

Then, there's the consumer perspective.   I'm fully in support of micro-transactions, if a company wants to go that way.   I'm also ok with the purchases providing a bit more value - whether in credit earning, extra XP, or a bit more firepower.    It does borderline on power creep.   However, it could be mitigated if each tier had a baseline of performance, and premiums had to stay within 5% of that baseline.    Unfortunately, it seems the baseline changes with each premium they introduce.  Newer models get stronger, stealthier, or have more gimmicks added.

WG does have their EULA, but also have been pretty straight-forward that they wouldn't nerf premiums - especially if you buy them.    In the past, they've just taken them off the market.

So, the question becomes whether we want WG to start nerfing premiums?   It might start with the GC.   Will it extend further?  Perhaps.   

If it does go through, I'm just waiting for them to nerf the Missouri's credit printing machine.   That'd cause the forums to melt down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,730
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,946 posts
4,845 battles
15 minutes ago, pikohan said:

 

There's a balance somewhere in the middle

There can be no middle ground when it comes to changing the things people paid for. WG either keeps paid premiums largely as they are after testing and customers stay relatively happy, or they start nerfing paid premiums and lose future customer confidence and patronage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
733
[-VT3-]
Members
1,747 posts
3,550 battles

Good for balance, bad for the game.

On one hand, balancing of premiums should happen if necessary.

 

On the other, WG is doubling back on a longstanding policy.  Had they ALWAYS balanced premiums post-launch, nobody would be complaining.  Right now, a number of players likely feel lied to, or that they have at least had their trust in the company violated at some level.

WGs goodwill with the player base is already strained due to the CV rework's hasty and rushed launch, and this is not the time to anger even more players.  Long-term, that good will is going to be far more valuable than these balance tweaks.

Finally, there are ways to address these issues without nerfing the ships in question.  Instead of dragging them down, lift everything else up.  Go through the lineup and buff their contemporaries.  Nobody ever complains about buffs.  Use that as an opportunity to give older, power-creeped ships some TLC while you're at it.

 

 

 

 

Edited by DerKrampus
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[TF-60]
Members
124 posts
8,325 battles

Bad—

 

these ships are desired because they are OP.  Quit selling them, and do a better job balancing the premium ships before sale.  If in doubt, start a little week and buff later.

 

changing tiers altogether is a problem—if you buy a tier 7 ship expecting to be top tier more often and it gets bumped to tier 8, that kinda sucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,159 posts
37 minutes ago, Ski206 said:

So here is the question. What's worse for the game? Having a handful of ships out there who out perform but generally become fewer with time. Or having all ships in perfect balance but no money coming into the for profit company that makes all this work?

Obviously the former is worse. Now if these "handful of ships" were paper/fakes then I couldn't care less if they were OP and never sold again because they have no history whatsoever to intrigue me. Except these are historical ships, three of which are iconic museum ships and making the likes of Belfast and Missouri rare is just unacceptable. I got Belfast by a stroke of sheer dumb luck, but my most coveted ship Nikolai continues to elude me. There's no way in hell am I going to gamble for one ship.

I'm perfectly fine if WG wants rare OP ships to dangle in loot boxes, so long as it's only paper/fake ships that they pull out of their rear ends. Stop screwing up real historical ships and condemning them to that damnation they call supercontainers. By all means screw up paper/fake ships like aSHITaka, but not Missouri or Musashi.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[USCC2]
Members
4,405 posts

Buffing or a badly performing ship or nerfing an OP ship is good.

It doesn't matter what type of ship it is! The game is bigger than a single ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[USCC2]
Members
4,405 posts
33 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

Good for balance, bad for the game.

On one hand, balancing of premiums should happen if necessary.

 

On the other, WG is doubling back on a longstanding policy.  Had they ALWAYS balanced premiums post-launch, nobody would be complaining.  Right now, a number of players likely feel lied to, or that they have at least had their trust in the company violated at some level.

WGs goodwill with the player base is already strained due to the CV rework's hasty and rushed launch, and this is not the time to anger even more players.  Long-term, that good will is going to be far more valuable than these balance tweaks.

Finally, there are ways to address these issues without nerfing the ships in question.  Instead of dragging them down, lift everything else up.  Go through the lineup and buff their contemporaries.  Nobody ever complains about buffs.  Use that as an opportunity to give older, power-creeped ships some TLC while you're at it.

 

 

 

 

Problem is I believe they did improve some premiums, it's just no one said "leave my underperforming premium alone!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[-HIT-]
Members
27 posts
8,741 battles

If you are going to nerf premiums you must refund to the original form of payment. Anything less is unethical and you basically killed off your game.

 

Or make WoWS subscription based

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[FF]
Members
76 posts
2,333 battles

Leave premiums alone.

The change to kronshtadt fire duration was slippery slope enough,. But that was a freemium ship, and supposedly a mechanic change for that "class"...though there isn't a "class" on the tech tree to change...so the argument could be made either way on that one, big thing is it wasnt sold for cash, or cash bought game currency, and the Alsaka isn't for sale yet sooo...still a grey area for me as it opens doors. It could be used as a "Well we nerfed premiums before ..."

Big thing is folks are gonna vote with their wallets one way or the other. Once you loose the confidence of your players...especially if its the ones finding your business the sky wont fall over night but it will happen as more and more get fed up with what the feel is anti-consumer business practices...if this is the route they are gonna take ...Get woke, go broke. Other game developers are starting to feel this *cough EA cough Blizzard cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,345
[CUTER]
Members
3,823 posts
16,834 battles

It's good for the game but bad for some customers who melt at 0 °C.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[CAST]
Members
1,423 posts
7,924 battles

I'm not an avid collector so I wouldn't buy a weaker ship just because of its history.   I have purchased a couple of ships based on them being stronger than other ships.  My cash purchasing is very heavily scrutinized. I don't buy on impulse in this game at all.  Every purchase is looked at for the value.  In the case of some ships, the value is that they are more powerful in some instances.  When you have extra firepower or make a ship tougher and can train captains you make it a nice purchase in my books.  If I had to factor in that they won't remain powerful, then I probably wouldn't purchase them at all and would just stick to tech tree ships.  But I purchase them because I don't want to not have them.  I don't go seal clubbing in them very often, but take them out from time to time if I'm having a bad day.

Often, those powerful ships also have an achilles heal.  Good players, or sometimes the game itself doesn't offer up the type of game situation that would allow the exploit of that flaw.  For example, the Nikolai is a big old floating plane target.  Its AA is useless.  In past games without much CV use, it ran uncontested.  I suspect it isn't the ship that it once was because the meta has changed. However, it might still be the OP ship it was, but only time will tell.  Many other OP ships are in a similar situation.  Some of their OP traits don't exist to the same extent anymore because of game changes.

Nerfing the GC is a bad thing.  It sets a path down a dark road.  If it was truely OP, then they should have taken it off the market.  Yes, a bunch of players would still have it, but its been on the market for quite a while, so even more players have it.  They could have removed it a long time ago, so early ownership numbers would probably have been cut way down by now.  But, they left it too long and now they are in a pickle because they were making a profit on sales based on its OP potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[WDS]
Members
1,032 posts
7,707 battles
56 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

Finally, there are ways to address these issues without nerfing the ships in question.  Instead of dragging them down, lift everything else up.  Go through the lineup and buff their contemporaries.  Nobody ever complains about buffs.  Use that as an opportunity to give older, power-creeped ships some TLC while you're at it.

 

I like this idea but it could be hard to implement . I don't like the Idea of nerfing premiums especially when you bought one thing and ended up with another . Some people don't care and call you a wallet warrior . But lets see what happens when you spend a million free XP on a ship that took months to grind and 2 months later they nerf into a ship you don't want because people said its OP .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[SFOR]
Members
932 posts
6,592 battles

Everything that is OP should be nerf to bring balance and fun to everyone. Or you want wows to became the same s-h-i-t it is wot? I don't see any reason to think in a different manner about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×