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

Has there been a case of complaints by premium players when such ships were buffed?

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

208
[WOLF6]
Members
636 posts
2,687 battles

Honestly I'm curious about this. I'm sure a number of premium ships have received beneficial stat increases at one point. The only one that comes to mind right now is the Saipan when it was given an exemption to the loss of aircraft when using the 'break' command. This did give the carrier a very large advantage. Did players of the Saipan go beserk in the forums when this occurred? Does anyone else recall another example of a premium ship being buffed which resulted in outcry?

Hopefully you can see my point. Many GC players are crying bloody murder because a premium ship is looking to be directly altered. Now if those alterations would be perceived to be beneficial, would there still be such a fuss about breaches of trust, law blah blah. If these players only want to retain an advantage and aren't really concerned about alteration policy are many of their arguments are nullified?

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[SIDE]
Members
1,764 posts
10 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Honestly I'm curious about this. I'm sure a number of premium ships have received beneficial stat increases at one point. The only one that comes to mind right now is the Saipan when it was given an exemption to the loss of aircraft when using the 'break' command. This did give the carrier a very large advantage. Did players of the Saipan go beserk in the forums when this occurred? Does anyone else recall another example of a premium ship being buffed which resulted in outcry?

Hopefully you can see my point. Many GC players are crying bloody murder because a premium ship is looking to be directly altered. Now if those alterations would be perceived to be beneficial, would there still be such a fuss about breaches of trust, law blah blah. If these players only want to retain an advantage and aren't really concerned about alteration policy are many of their arguments are nullified?

I don’t see your point.  You must not have a dog in this fight.

Edited by thebigblue
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,053 posts
6,278 battles
Just now, Sumseaman said:

Honestly I'm curious about this. I'm sure a number of premium ships have received beneficial stat increases at one point. The only one that comes to mind right now is the Saipan when it was given an exemption to the loss of aircraft when using the 'break' command. This did give the carrier a very large advantage. Did players of the Saipan go beserk in the forums when this occurred? Does anyone else recall another example of a premium ship being buffed which resulted in outcry?

Hopefully you can see my point. Many GC players are crying bloody murder because a premium ship is looking to be directly altered. Now if those alterations would be perceived to be beneficial, would there still be such a fuss about breaches of trust, law blah blah. If these players only want to retain an advantage and aren't really concerned about alteration policy are many of their arguments are nullified?

 

Are you in space?

Many people paid money for premium ships. Nerfing them takes away value. Buffing them is the opposite. Why is that hard to get? 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,307
[INTEL]
Members
9,253 posts
26,921 battles
2 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Honestly I'm curious about this. I'm sure a number of premium ships have received beneficial stat increases at one point. The only one that comes to mind right now is the Saipan when it was given an exemption to the loss of aircraft when using the 'break' command. This did give the carrier a very large advantage. Did players of the Saipan go beserk in the forums when this occurred? Does anyone else recall another example of a premium ship being buffed which resulted in outcry?

Hopefully you can see my point. Many GC players are crying bloody murder because a premium ship is looking to be directly altered. Now if those alterations would be perceived to be beneficial, would there still be such a fuss about breaches of trust, law blah blah. If these players only want to retain an advantage and aren't really concerned about alteration policy are many of their arguments are nullified?

People don't "complain", but there are always posters who recommend that the ship doesn't need a buff. Many players want a balanced playing field...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
635
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
1,598 posts
2,617 battles

I'm pro-nerf, but your point is completley invalid. Buffs and nerfs are LITTERALLY opposites. It's like saying, you mow my yard, and instead of paying you, you pay me!

 

A more apt metaphor would be if I used free xp to get to Alsace, and then they nerf it. I paid money for the ship and they are changing it. But yet there would be no valid excuse to complain about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
208
[WOLF6]
Members
636 posts
2,687 battles
Just now, thebigblue said:

I don’t see your point.  You just not have a dog in this fight.

What does that mean? Sorry I'll try to make it clearer, using the GC as an example. If the GC was being buffed, rather than a nerf, would all these forums arguments about 'never changing premium ships' actually be posted? Many seem to be taking the moral high ground when it comes to changes when it kinda smacks of 'Don't you dare nerf my OP ship'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
208
[WOLF6]
Members
636 posts
2,687 battles
1 minute ago, _1204_ said:

I'm pro-nerf, but your point is completley invalid. Buffs and nerfs are LITTERALLY opposites. It's like saying, you mow my yard, and instead of paying you, you pay me!

 

A more apt metaphor would be if I used free xp to get to Alsace, and then they nerf it. I paid money for the ship and they are changing it. But yet there would be no valid excuse to complain about it

Yes I am aware they are opposites. I agree. My point is that many of the threads/replies about the GC voice the fact that premium ships should not be altered no matter what. If you really want I can sift through them and provide links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[-ARP-]
[-ARP-]
Beta Testers
28 posts
3,299 battles
2 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Yes I am aware they are opposites. I agree. My point is that many of the threads/replies about the GC voice the fact that premium ships should not be altered no matter what. If you really want I can sift through them and provide links.

I imagine they are referring to this statement by WG, where they state that they are ok with buffing premiums that need it, and are absolutely against nerfing them. 

https://forum.worldofwarships.asia/topic/24531-asia-qa-round-1-answers/

"We are very loyal in this aspect - we buff premium ships when they have problems with performance, and avoid nerfing them at all costs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
208
[WOLF6]
Members
636 posts
2,687 battles
3 minutes ago, AoSApocalypse said:

I imagine they are referring to this statement by WG, where they state that they are ok with buffing premiums that need it, and are absolutely against nerfing them. 

https://forum.worldofwarships.asia/topic/24531-asia-qa-round-1-answers/

"We are very loyal in this aspect - we buff premium ships when they have problems with performance, and avoid nerfing them at all costs."

Ah ok. Sorry none of the posts I saw made reference to that and I saw quite a few. I just don't like to see the hypocrisy that some players display. Well it wouldn't be the first time WG had to back-pedal. Ah be careful on what statements you release in that regard. If its in writing people will hold you to it.

Edited by Sumseaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[-ARP-]
[-ARP-]
Beta Testers
28 posts
3,299 battles
Just now, Sumseaman said:

Ah ok. Sorry none of the posts I saw made reference to that and I saw quite a few. I just don't like to see the hypocrisy that some players display. Well it wouldn't be the first time WG had to back-pedal. 

I'm not sure it's hypocrisy so much as bad word choice. WG's promise has never been to preserve premium ships as sold. It was to buff where needed but never nerf. However, that can easily get lost in translation to a dumbed down statement along the lines of "WG said they will not change premium ships." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[GREIF]
Members
77 posts
824 battles
19 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

I'm pro-nerf, but your point is completley invalid. Buffs and nerfs are LITTERALLY opposites. It's like saying, you mow my yard, and instead of paying you, you pay me!

 

A more apt metaphor would be if I used free xp to get to Alsace, and then they nerf it. I paid money for the ship and they are changing it. But yet there would be no valid excuse to complain about it

cool  when can you show up to do my lawn?  Oh -- and can you give me an estimate on how much you'll pay me to trim my hedges?  The wife's been nagging me about um and I might as well get some scratch out of it as well.  

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,589
[SIM]
Members
3,011 posts
4,795 battles

Did people complain when bad ships were made stronger? Seriously, do you have a head injury or something? You can’t see the difference between a purchased product being improved, versus it being categorically reduced in capability? You aren’t making a point, you’re just making yourself look stupid.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
208
[WOLF6]
Members
636 posts
2,687 battles
9 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Did people complain when bad ships were made stronger? Seriously, do you have a head injury or something? You can’t see the difference between a purchased product being improved, versus it being categorically reduced in capability? You aren’t making a point, you’re just making yourself look stupid.

I guess philosophical and ethical arguments go over your head a bit... Though granted, this probably isn't the place for them.

Edited by Sumseaman
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,424 posts
3,718 battles
25 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Honestly I'm curious about this. I'm sure a number of premium ships have received beneficial stat increases at one point. The only one that comes to mind right now is the Saipan when it was given an exemption to the loss of aircraft when using the 'break' command. This did give the carrier a very large advantage. Did players of the Saipan go beserk in the forums when this occurred? Does anyone else recall another example of a premium ship being buffed which resulted in outcry?

Hopefully you can see my point. Many GC players are crying bloody murder because a premium ship is looking to be directly altered. Now if those alterations would be perceived to be beneficial, would there still be such a fuss about breaches of trust, law blah blah. If these players only want to retain an advantage and aren't really concerned about alteration policy are many of their arguments are nullified?

Giulio Cesare

I was so excited then it took a heavy nerf bat.

It was so powerful but never got balanced.

It was released utterly broken and im kinda ashamed they made this bb such a huge mess on release day.

Testing testers what? poor all round, it was balanced by the blind leading the blind.

Graf zeppelin .............zeppelin-gate oh my god :cap_fainting:

mice.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[WOLF7]
Members
213 posts
3,305 battles

This thread gave me cancer

 

Seriously though I wonder if the GC nerf is a test for WG to go after the truly OP ships that have been taken off the market???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,424 posts
3,718 battles
Just now, T_O_dubl_D said:

This thread gave me cancer

 

Seriously though I wonder if the GC nerf is a test for WG to go after the truly OP ships that have been taken off the market???

:cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn:

 

0717NP_026_ingredients.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[WOLF7]
Members
213 posts
3,305 battles
1 minute ago, abyssofthetriffid said:

:cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn:

 

0717NP_026_ingredients.jpg

Let the show begin! Get the torches and pitchforks ready!

*whispers* please don't touch my Belfast*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[GREIF]
Members
77 posts
824 battles
40 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Honestly I'm curious about this. I'm sure a number of premium ships have received beneficial stat increases at one point. The only one that comes to mind right now is the Saipan when it was given an exemption to the loss of aircraft when using the 'break' command. This did give the carrier a very large advantage. Did players of the Saipan go beserk in the forums when this occurred? Does anyone else recall another example of a premium ship being buffed which resulted in outcry?

Hopefully you can see my point. Many GC players are crying bloody murder because a premium ship is looking to be directly altered. Now if those alterations would be perceived to be beneficial, would there still be such a fuss about breaches of trust, law blah blah. If these players only want to retain an advantage and aren't really concerned about alteration policy are many of their arguments are nullified?

I hate that they buffed my Hood.  There.  You happy now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
208
[WOLF6]
Members
636 posts
2,687 battles
4 minutes ago, abyssofthetriffid said:

:cap_popcorn::cap_popcorn:

 

0717NP_026_ingredients.jpg

Could it be that this is what I subconsciously wanted? :Smile_teethhappy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[RE]
[RE]
Members
81 posts
2,710 battles
36 minutes ago, Schindlers_Stink_Fist said:

 

Are you in space?

Many people paid money for premium ships. Nerfing them takes away value. Buffing them is the opposite. Why is that hard to get? 

Have you played the proposed tier 6 GC? Everyone is screaming "nerfs, nerfs, nerfs" but from what I have seen no one has tested it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
208
[WOLF6]
Members
636 posts
2,687 battles
1 minute ago, warlock_xxxx said:

I hate that they buffed my Hood.  There.  You happy now?

Nah. You're supposed to scream for a full cash refund because WG touched a premium ship and it wasn't as it always was!

Edited by Sumseaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[RE]
[RE]
Members
81 posts
2,710 battles
1 minute ago, Sumseaman said:

Nah. You're supposed to scream for a full cash refund because WG touched a premium ship and it wasn't as it always was!

I should have gotten a refund when they buffed my Type 59, Super Persh, WZ-111, and 112!:cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,424 posts
3,718 battles
1 minute ago, oldiowaguy said:

Have you played the proposed tier 6 GC? Everyone is screaming "nerfs, nerfs, nerfs" but from what I have seen no one has tested it yet.

I would love it in tier 6 but i bought it with cash at tier 5 so it cant go to tier 6 obviously.

They didnt balance it and thats not my problem i knew it wasnt balanced before release 4 weeks before.

I mean who tests these premium ships a non gamer? the revolution was spot on so no excuses allowed.

 

:cap_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
161 posts
86 battles

"People don't complain when their car is replaced by a more valuable one, but they do when it's replaced by a push bike! What hypocrites!"

For the record, I don't mind them nerfing the GC (Despite owning one) because it is too strong at the moment. I just doubt it'll be able to handle tier 8 ships without serious changes, and wish they'd either leave it at tier 5 or properly rebalance the thing, rather than just slap it up a tier and call it a day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×