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

Premium Ship Balance [Poll]

Identifying the Issue With Premium Ship Balancing(Poll)  

196 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is your primary issue?

    • WG Shouldn't nerf any premium ever.
      85
    • WG Should only tweak stats, not tiers.
      30
    • WG Should only tweak tiers, not stats.
      3
    • WG Should balance the game at all costs.
      57
    • Bacon
      21

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FBXGC]
Members
317 posts
2,111 battles

Just trying to get a handle on what exactly about premium nerfing is causing the most consternation. If you also wanna add which premium is the most OP in your eyes, that would be cool.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[SPTR]
Members
2,245 posts
2,294 battles

I've seen the rage and salt from people complaining about GC being the first on the list of OP premiums getting re-balanced

and i've said this on one of those topics: more expensive for WG to shelve a ship and remove it from sale than to rebalance it and re-release it for sale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
540
[MIA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,292 posts
7,994 battles

WG Should balance the game at all costs but if they change tiers it would keep the ship the same with maybe some minor buffs. The ship being up a tier and being worth more is pretty good compensation by itself I'd say. Some premium ships should have went up a tier to begin with, like Belfast, Kutuzov, and Atago.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FBXGC]
Members
317 posts
2,111 battles
1 minute ago, Ace6steel said:

I've seen the rage and salt from people complaining about GC being the first on the list of OP premiums getting re-balanced

and i've said this on one of those topics: more expensive for WG to shelve a ship and remove it from sale than to rebalance it and re-release it for sale

Yeah I agree. I am curious to see what motivates the dissenters though. from the responses it seems like they all come from different core reasons and I am hoping this poll with make where the majority are coming from clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[SPTR]
Members
2,245 posts
2,294 battles
1 minute ago, HashtagYoloSwagChamp said:

Yeah I agree. I am curious to see what motivates the dissenters though. from the responses it seems like they all come from different core reasons and I am hoping this poll with make where the majority are coming from clearer.

yeah i mean i can understand because they are losing an OP ship but it needed to be rebalanced for the good of the game i've seen options like offering ships in their original and rebalanced configurations but i doubt that would work well

Share this post


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

My answer isn’t on your list. Wargaming should only ever nerf a premium ship if they have demonstrable proof that it’s negatively and significantly impacting the competitive value of the game. Even if they have that evidence, they need to be exceptionally generous in offering compensation to those customers who they failed with their bad game development and poor testing.

If in Tier V ranked, battles were coming down to victory going to whichever side had more GCs, then I could understand the sense that the ship was bad for the game. In that situation I expect WG to do nothing less than give people the doubloon value of the tier V GC AND give them the replacement tier VI ship. Doing only one or the other is just Wargaming taking their own incompetence out on their customers, and that’s the sort of thing that will never be acceptable.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[STAR]
Members
2,954 posts
8,064 battles

Well, if WG is nerfing premium ships im not going to buy them. 

 

If a premium ship is OP, stop selling that ship. Remove that ship from store and crates. If they want they could add a sister ship with some changes or make it a 2.0 version of that ship with changes. Also, listen more to the feed back of some STs and CCs, many of the OP ships were pointed to be OP from the start and WG ignored their feedback. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
106 posts
7,337 battles

WGing should not nerf premiums, they should do a better job of balancing before they release them. The GC can hold its own against T7 but cant survive T8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,362
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,830 posts
6,887 battles

Owning a large number of ships which are considered overpowered, I am open to WG balancing them if it serves the purpose of getting the game towards balance.

Obviously if this would set the trend of bait and switch, then that is an entirely new matter which should cause the uproar it deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,161 posts
Quote

WG Shouldn't nerf any premium ever.

giphy.gif

Quote

WG Should balance the game at all costs.

Save the seals!

143182a0b04ae995389bdc3d65273370.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
631 posts
11 battles

Wargaming should nerf 07, ZR, No CV, K  and OPG, unless I get in one of those clans, then they should be buffed. 

If I struggle, I need a buff, If you struggle, I need a buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
394 posts
4,159 battles

I had to go with bacon, as the option I'd go with isn't an option. In my opinion it depends on the ship, the tier, how well it's doing, and how many are in circulation. GC makes sense to me at tier 6, as it is very comparable to Kongo and I have always done well in Kongo, even back when she could see tier 8 ships. Granted, GC will struggle as a BB vs tier 8s, but it is small enough, maneuverable enough, and fast enough to be able to switch to a "super heavy cruiser" role when uptiered. In this regard, it is a bit like Scharnhorst, she gives no darns what tier she's fighting at, she just changes up how she fights a little bit and does fine. Also, I'd love to be able to take GC into operations, she's a great fit for many of them in my opinion, just like Kongo was back when we could bring tier 5s into operations. There are many of the 'OP' premiums I absolutely would not touch, the Kamikaze variants for example. They are the last fragment of how IJN DDs used to be and offer a unique a differing playstyle compared to the radical alterations the rest of the line went through. I don't think that they are any more OP than any other DD when a good captain is at the helm, I can make pretty much any DD into what some would consider an OP monster with skill. As a matter of fact, there are only a small handful of the 'OP' premiums that I would change at all. The ones I'm thinking of are Imperator Nikolai (although honestly I never saw what was so OP about it, I don't have one, but I never had any problems fighting them, Rasputin notwithstanding), Belfast (because she apparently broke some of the competitive modes and she does have an awful lot of toys to play with), and Gremyashchy (because Gnevnys pretty clearly belong at tier 6 not 5, based on my experience with the other ones). Other than those 3 (and GC) I'd leave the rest alone, and the ones that would be changes would only get the most non-invasive changes possible to avoid destroying what makes them the ship they are as much as possible.

Edit- I thought of one more premium ship I'd change, though it's a very minor change. I'd give Asashio an optional set of torps that are equivalent to normal Kagero torps or possibly Type F3s to allow for an alternate playstyle or if MM doesn't have many BBs in the pool. Granted, this would remove what is 'special' about Asashio if you chose that particular option, but it's still the player's choice, because I wouldn't remove her DW torps, even as funky and ridiculous as they can be at times.

Edited by CaptHarlock_222
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FBXGC]
Members
317 posts
2,111 battles
2 hours ago, bohica_2017 said:

WGing should not nerf premiums, they should do a better job of balancing before they release them. The GC can hold its own against T7 but cant survive T8.

 

I think everyone, WG included, want all new premiums to be balanced when released. The issue is that we have premiums that already exist in an OP state. I am fine with WG nerfing/buffing any premium as long, and this is the important part, as long as they make a concerted effort to not release anymore premiums in an OP state. If they start releasing new premiums OP and then wait 3 months for sales to die down before nerfing them, that is an issue.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[SALTY]
Members
339 posts
5,476 battles

It's all or nothing. Either balance the game as best you can with no mercy or leave everything alone. This picking and choosing of what to balance is the worst possible middle ground. It accomplishes nothing.

It would be very possible to update and rename every 'broken' premium and then sell them again as a different ship of the same class while keeping the OGs the way they are as collector items. This would seemingly double the number of ships available to sell (in the store and in crates) so I'm not sure why WG doesn't just do that. People get to keep their stuff, WG gets to dust off ships they invested in producing and sell them again without [edited]up the game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
105 posts
5,270 battles

The GC wouldn't be such and issue if the seal clubbing weren't so damn bad.  There are groups of 3 in a division that will simply ROLFSTOMP tier 5 play.  IMHO they brought it on themselves.  It will do just fine in tier 6.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,896
[KNMSU]
Members
4,676 posts
5,097 battles

No changes ever. People who support to the contrary want the game to die. That's all.

This GC fiasco wasn't a thing until Wargaming made it into one. Self-inflicted wounds don't garner any sympathy from my corner.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[-BBL-]
Members
36 posts

I posted in more detail my opinion in another thread.

I think the horse has bolted nerfing past premium ships.

I'm fine with future ships going forward provided there is a set period of time where players know there could be balance changes.  3 months should suffice to gather enough data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,414
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
3,739 posts
10,278 battles

I would like the OP ships to see a new lease on life and be balanced. However I want them to exercise a customer retention strategy that involves cash refunds for those that no longer want the ship. 

This would mean that there is a bit of a hook for WG to continue to ensure that they do their utmost to balance a ship pre release. They wouldn't just fall back by default to saying, oh well, we can nerf it next month. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
536
[WOLFB]
Members
2,061 posts
9,488 battles

If it's broken it needs to be fixed. Because it's a premium ship doesn't mean it should remains broken. There plenty of game developper nerfing / buffing premium depending on their performance ingame. 

 

The reason why we have so many complain about balancing premium now is because it is something that should have been done since the introduction of the very first premium ship. But WG decided not to apply any nerf on premium ship and now they're paying the price for this policy.

 

With that said, why are they balancing premium ship now instead of being entirely focused on fixing the CV mess. They could have announced that after the CV mess or later when they'll release Azuma and Alaska. It would have reduced the amount of salt generated by owner of these OP ship.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FBXGC]
Members
317 posts
2,111 battles
5 minutes ago, harikari25 said:

It's all or nothing. Either balance the game as best you can with no mercy or leave everything alone. This picking and choosing of what to balance is the worst possible middle ground. It accomplishes nothing.

It would be very possible to update and rename every 'broken' premium and then sell them again as a different ship of the same class while keeping the OGs the way they are as collector items. This would seemingly double the number of ships available to sell (in the store and in crates) so I'm not sure why WG doesn't just do that. People get to keep their stuff, WG gets to dust off ships they invested in producing and sell them again without [edited]up the game.

 

 

 

 

I assume they are going one at a time to try an minimize the hysteria that would come with every OP premium owner losing their minds at once. Some people might be holding out hope that their specific OP boat of choice might avoid the hammer and so they don't rage about the GC nerf. 

As for the 2.0 version of the OP ships, this doesn't fix the issue that GC's, Nikoli's etc  version 1's will be able to roll newer players. Seal clubbing will always exist but WG should try to prevent giving vets OP murder boats to do it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29
[F4E]
[F4E]
Members
173 posts
10,666 battles

I don't want the GC, Gremy nerfed or put into another tier. I don't want Krispy Kream, Italian CAs buffed or but into a different tier. If a premium is sold and WG then later decides that the stats lean to it's over preforming or under preforming then remove it for sale.  That means Remove from sale period! Stop the practice of adding them to loot crates or any other sort of enticements to garner such a ship.  For instance fire and water campaign to get a Kami R. Santa crates to get an otherwise advertised "OP" ship.

If they want to rework it, reskin it, call it by another name then sale it again they most certainly can do that. I'll point to the ARP and B versions of the same ships as well as the Marblehead, Murmansk and the recent Kutuzov, Irian. If it takes longer or different ways of testing for the developing team to ensure the product they're selling me is right pre-release so be it, I'll wait. It's entirely within their control to ensure when and how it is released to the public. It is also IMO thier hook not mine to ensure that it is. However don't sell me with any selling point saying it is one thing then later decide you're going to retract those conditions and change it to something else. Then add if I don't like the changes here's some type of in game currency you can buy something else play it until we decide we dropped the ball on that one as well.  

I've played this game, and only this game, a few hours every night for the past 3 yrs. I own 90+% of all the premiums. Most of which I bought the top tier package. It's probably laughable the hours and money I've spent on this game. I do know I spent 800+ dollars on Santa crates and premium time for myself and others over the holidays alone. It's not past me to gift a friend a weekend pass or something else if they're struggling in the game. Sometimes I'll gift my friends things just because I already have mass amounts of everything and it's kind of worthless me having even more. With just hearing this news about touching any one premium regardless of reasons has given me a great pause. Enough so I've already spent this months allotted money on purchasing other games and talking with my friends about those.  

I've read and watched the comments on social outlets all the pros/cons.

Balance: When read this I envision tier I or we're all using the same triangle shaped ship, same tier, same guns, flags, captains, camo, same everything including PC specs at the same connection speed. True Unicums could really shine.  Balance to a purchased ship does nothing to the fact of most any VI-VII cruiser up-tiered facing all higher tier DDs, and BBs. The only tier VIII in a IX-X match. How about being in a tier IV match and suddenly get RDF spotted.  I'm in any of those more times than I like. so there is your "balance".

OP Divisions: That could be said about just any ships. Not just the premiums ones. A lot more would play into that including individual skill. Have you ever had the pleasure of a division of Lyons all firing at you at the same time. Or maybe a Shima, Gearing, Harugumo divisions.  Below tier V you could say any division tech tree BB, CA of U.K or German ships in the hands of decent players is a formidable opponent. 

Other games do it: Well hockey sticks!! I'm not playing those nor have I played them now am I. (yet)

Changing anything to a purchased or obtained product after it is released to the consumer does nothing but make that consumer take pause in future investment of that seller. It also brings an uproar apparently. It is also dirty tactics when said product holder holds a product out like a carrot on a stick multiple times to inflate those investments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,093
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,662 posts
8,145 battles

Would that it was so simple.

Wargaming should have been balancing premiums along with everything else starting when they first sold Sims, Gremyashchy and Yubari back in March of 2015.  They could have made it a yearly event with a sort of "health check" done with announcements made ahead of time of which ships needed changing and what would be happening to them.  This way expectations could be easily managed.  They could have big ol' splash page talking about the benefits (of which there are many) to keeping premiums in line with the rest of the vessels within the game.

However, that's not the policy we've had for the last three years.

Instead we've had a policy where Wargaming does their utmost not to change premiums if they can at all help it.  When they do make changes, they're much (much!) more likely to buff a given ship than to nerf it.  In either case, adjustments are very uncommon.  The game itself has to significantly change to make premiums change along with it, such as with an overhaul to core mechanics like spotting, smoke or commander skills.  If a premium is underperforming, it's usually left to twist in the wind for quite some time before it gets a little nudge of improvement.  If it's overperforming, it's again left to run amok until it becomes too popular at which time direct sales are restricted (though indirect sales through gambling mechanics are still okay as are loot containers).  This policy has been well communicated and buying decisions have been based on the relative permanence of a given premium's performance.  And herein lies the complication.

How many sales would not have occurred if people knew their premiums could be nerfed?  There are a lot of people right now rethinking their spending habits with Wargaming because of this 180º on premium ships and I can't blame them.

To be clear:  nerfing overperforming premiums is better for the game and their future consumers.  However, based on the spending habits Wargaming's policies have encouraged up to this point, nerfing premiums is hurting some (not all, but some) of their existing customers.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,258
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,775 posts
12,155 battles

Voted tweak stats, not tiers.  I will stand by that even though I believe some of my premium ships would strongly benefit by being moved down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
396
[DDM_]
Members
1,368 posts
4,265 battles

Game should be balanced at all costs, and if in the short term it costs WG some players, more will come along. The game will survive whether people rage quit or not. 

Edited by R_Razor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,258
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,775 posts
12,155 battles
4 minutes ago, R_Razor said:

Game should be balanced at all costs, and if in the short term it costs WG some players, more will come along. The game will survive whether people rage quit or not. 

there's a way to balance and a way to not balance.  WG is choosing the wrong way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×