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

As a free-to-play player, I am satisfied with Wargaming's effort to nerf premium ships

129 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

149
[STR4T]
Members
134 posts
1,016 battles

Now, I know I'm going to get downvotes for this, but hear me out (TL;DR at bottom):

Wargaming has a responsibility to ensure their MMO's are as balanced as possible.  "Balanced" means no player has a significant advantage over other players due to factors unrelated to game mechanics, game play or skill of players. In the case of premium ships, the money spent in the game is a factor that is unrelated to game mechanics, game play or skill of players.

Take the Giulio Cesare, for example.

This is a ship that is quantitatively better than other ships of the same tier and type. According to WoWS Stats & Numbers , the GC has the highest win rate, the highest average damage, and the highest average XP out of all Tier 5 Battleships by a large margin. Even more worrying is the fact that this trend does not disappear when filtering out player skill. The GC maintains its solid lead over the competitors even when we only look at stats from the top 25% or 10% or 5% of players. The ship does not have exceptional stats because it is noob friendly, or because it has a high skill ceiling. The Giulio Cesare is simply flat out overpowered.

If you have the Giulio Cesare and you disagree with me on that point, you're not being honest with yourself.

I am aware that the vast majority of GC owners are more reasonable than that. I think it would be reasonable to assume most people with the GC bought it specifically because it is an extremely strong ship, and/or because of its history. If you're simply a collector, or an armchair naval historian, you have nothing to worry about, because the ship's unique history will be left intact.

But then we get to the meat of the matter.

"I paid for an overpowered ship, I should receive and keep an overpowered ship. This is what Wargaming has done and plans on doing: Repeatedly emphasizing that statistics of premium ships will not be negatively adjusted, then designing an extremely strong ship, selling it for real life money (and in lootboxes, no less!) , and finally, after the ship is taken off the market, nerfing premium ships. This is extremely unethical, and a very untrustworthy business practice"

As I understand it, that is the argument for why the GC should be kept as-is. But let's look at WG's options right now:

  1. Do not change the Giulio Cesare's statistics, and continue to sell the ship in the future
  2. Do not change the Giulio Cesare's statistics, but stop selling the ship
  3. Balance the GC by nerfing the ship, and offer full refund of real life money
  4. Balance the GC by nerfing the ship, and offer refund of in-game currency

Option 1 would be the least ethical, but will allow WG to make more money in the short- and medium- term. However, in the long term, this will ultimately negatively affect recruitment of new players, as players who have not spent money (yet) will be frustrated and quit early. Option 2 would allow players who bought the GC to continue to enjoy their OP ship, and it will cost WG exactly $0. However, players who currently do not have the GC will be dissatisfied, as they have no way of obtaining the ship, but will have to play against it. Option 3 would be the most ethical, and would satisfy the vast majority of players, but it would cost WG a lot of money. Option 4 would restore balance to Tier 5 and Tier 4, but current owners would be dissatisfied, and all players would be less likely to spend money on premium ships in the future.

Obviously, I think it would be in the best interest of all players for WG to take Option 3. But if they are unwilling, I believe Option 4 is better than Option 1 or 2. Why?

  • If they balance the ship properly, then WG would be justified in selling the ship in the future, resulting in profits in the long term
  • Simply taking the ship off the market won't stop people from playing it. Anyway, restricting the number of ships isn't balance. It doesn't solve the core problem, which is essentially maintaining the status quo.
  • Last but not least, WG has a responsibility to balance their game, regardless of what they have promised. I believe their promise of "never nerfing premiums" is extremely unhealthy for game balance, and am glad to hear they are finally going back on their word.

"But don't you think it's ethically wrong for WG to pull a bait-and-switch?"

Yes. Don't get me wrong, I agree bait-and-switch is a morally wrong business practice. But in this case, I believe it's the lesser of three evils. WG's first mistake was promising to never nerf premium ships, a promise they could not, should not keep. WG's second mistake was releasing overpowered premium ships and making them available only to players who spend money, thus making the game pay-to-win. WG's worst mistake was made before they even started to discuss premium ship balance. So now, any attempt to fix these mistakes would either cost WG money, or make some players unhappy. And it is essential that balance issues are fixed.

This argument specifically targets the Giulio Cesare, but could be applied to any and all Premium ships who have a clear advantage in terms of player statistics.

TL;DR Balance good, OP premium ships bad

Edited by Gnomestroy
edit: blank space at end
  • Cool 20
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,674
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
8,711 posts
22,019 battles
5 minutes ago, Gnomestroy said:

Wargaming has a responsibility to ensure their MMO's are as balanced as possible.  "Balanced" means no player has a significant advantage over other players due to factors unrelated to game mechanics, game play or skill of players. In the case of premium ships, the money spent in the game is a factor that is unrelated to game mechanics, game play or skill of players.

If this were true, we wouldn't have +2/-2 matchmaking..... Ships are balanced by tier, not by what ships they will meet in combat.  Current matchmaking destroys that balance. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[USCC]
Members
2,754 posts
12,006 battles

"As a free-to-play player, I am satisfied with Wargaming's effort to nerf premium ships"

So essentially you have no dog in this fight as you've spent no money.... but you want everyone to know, you're ok with it. gotcha.

 

Take this cuddly kitten as a token of thanks, for your continued support of the game and it's players.

desktop-wallpaper-download-hd-cat-49598-kitty-animal.thumb.jpg.6ab456233249363a1c0c2b0fe931666e.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 21
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,488
[WOLF5]
Members
3,240 posts
3,499 battles

I agree with you. But I should point out that while some people are mad about the nerf (which is dumb), and others want their cash back, not just doubloons (again dumb, they clearly haven't read the EULA), most people are worked up about the loot crate connection.

The conspiracy is that WG baited people into buying the crates with the chance of getting a rare OP ship, but planned the whole time to nerf it shortly afterwards. Now, you can argue about the crate thing (my opinion is that you pays your money, and takes your chances), believing WG purposely nerfed GC after hyping it for loot crates is a bit of a stretch. If anything, the plethora of premiums resulting from the loot crates might have exacerbated the issue and brought it to WG's notice. But people with those kind of theories are beyond reason anyway. But they're the ones raising the biggest fuss about the nerf.

But yeah, OP ships are bad for the game. So either remove them (Nikolai, Belfast) or nerf them. If you read the fine print, it says WG can change the ship at anytime, they don't even have to give you a refund. You might not like the fact that your sealclubber was nerfed, but they warned you it could happen.

One of the reasons I stopped playing WOWS for mobile was because premium consumables were available for doubloons only. Those give you an in game advantage that can't get gotten without real money, that's called PTW. So I don't play it (I'm also not going to grind out thousands of XP on my phone). One of the things that makes WOWS great is that it is not PTW, and nerfing OP premiums is part of what keeps it that way, so I'm all for it. The fact that WG gives doubloon refunds gives me confidence that I'll always get something for my money.

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[STR4T]
Members
134 posts
1,016 battles
24 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

If this were true, we wouldn't have +2/-2 matchmaking..... Ships are balanced by tier, not by what ships they will meet in combat.  Current matchmaking destroys that balance. 

 

As a matter of fact, I also support +1/-1 matchmaking. Just because WG has a responsibility, doesn't mean they'll meet it. What's your point again?

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[STR4T]
Members
134 posts
1,016 battles
13 minutes ago, SpudZero said:

"As a free-to-play player, I am satisfied with Wargaming's effort to nerf premium ships"

So essentially you have no dog in this fight as you've spent no money.... but you want everyone to know, you're ok with it. gotcha.

Everyone who plays WoWs has a dog in this fight. It just so happens my "dog" is a lot smaller than the "dogs" of people who may have bought the GC

Thanks for the kitten tho.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,967
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
3,513 posts
7 hours ago, Gnomestroy said:

As a matter of fact, I also support +1/-1 matchmaking. Just because WG has a responsibility, doesn't mean they'll meet it. What's your point again?


7 hours ago, Gnomestroy said:

Everyone who plays WoWs has a dog in this fight. It just so happens my "dog" is a lot smaller than the "dogs" of people who may have bought the GC

Thanks for the kitten tho.

:Smile_great:Nope:Smile_facepalm:

7 hours ago, SpudZero said:

"As a free-to-play player, I am satisfied with Wargaming's effort to nerf premium ships"

So essentially you have no dog in this fight as you've spent no money.... but you want everyone to know, you're ok with it. gotcha.

Take this cuddly kitten as a token of thanks, for your continued support of the game and it's players.

Spoiler

desktop-wallpaper-download-hd-cat-49598-kitty-animal.thumb.jpg.6ab456233249363a1c0c2b0fe931666e.jpg

 

 

:Smile_great:Yup:Smile_trollface:

Spoiler

Salute_Emoji.png

 

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
110 posts
7 minutes ago, Gnomestroy said:

Everyone who plays WoWs has a dog in this fight. It just so happens my "dog" is a lot smaller than the "dogs" of people who may have bought the GC

Thanks for the kitten tho.

Related image

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
954
[YETI]
Beta Testers
2,918 posts
23,983 battles

If you folks are not pleased with WG balancing act just don't spend anymore money on their up and coming products that will gain their attention where it hurts ,  In the good old pocket-book.....

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,650
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,818 posts
4,361 battles

As one of those who does pay to keep the game Free because I can afford to do so and want to keep spending reasonably on the game, I respectfully and vehemently disagree with your opinion, but nevertheless, still respect it. :cap_like:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
110 posts
3 minutes ago, KURT_WOLFF said:

If you folks are not pleased with WG balancing act just don't spend anymore money on their up and coming products that will gain their attention where it hurts ,  In the good old pocket-book.....

HAHAHAHAHA, someone doesn't know how basic economics works.  It would literally have to be at least 65% of the customer base that would have to do that, not to mention they receive revenues from other sources as well.  Are you truly that daft to think that "Closing the wallet" is going to make a dent?  Wow.

Edited by Raven_Floki
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,814
[POP]
Members
2,400 posts
20,231 battles
56 minutes ago, Gnomestroy said:

Now, I know I'm going to get downvotes for this, but hear me out (TL;DR at bottom):

Wargaming has a responsibility to ensure their MMO's are as balanced as possible.  "Balanced" means no player has a significant advantage over other players due to factors unrelated to game mechanics, game play or skill of players. In the case of premium ships, the money spent in the game is a factor that is unrelated to game mechanics, game play or skill of players.

Take the Giulio Cesare, for example.

This is a ship that is quantitatively better than other ships of the same tier and type. According to WoWS Stats & Numbers , the GC has the highest win rate, the highest average damage, and the highest average XP out of all Tier 5 Battleships by a large margin. Even more worrying is the fact that this trend does not disappear when filtering out player skill. The GC maintains its solid lead over the competitors even when we only look at stats from the top 25% or 10% or 5% of players. The ship does not have exceptional stats because it is noob friendly, or because it has a high skill ceiling. The Giulio Cesare is simply flat out overpowered.

If you have the Giulio Cesare and you disagree with me on that point, you're not being honest with yourself.

I am aware that the vast majority of GC owners are more reasonable than that. I think it would be reasonable to assume most people with the GC bought it specifically because it is an extremely strong ship, and/or because of its history. If you're simply a collector, or an armchair naval historian, you have nothing to worry about, because the ship's unique history will be left intact.

But then we get to the meat of the matter.

"I paid for an overpowered ship, I should receive and keep an overpowered ship. This is what Wargaming has done and plans on doing: Repeatedly emphasizing that statistics of premium ships will not be negatively adjusted, then designing an extremely strong ship, selling it for real life money (and in lootboxes, no less!) , and finally, after the ship is taken off the marker, nerfing premium ships. This is extremely unethical, and a very untrustworthy business practice"

As I understand it, that is the argument for why the GC should be kept as-is. But let's look at WG's options right now:

  1. Do not change the Giulio Cesare's statistics, and continue to sell the ship in the future
  2. Do not change the Giulio Cesare's statistics, but stop selling the ship
  3. Balance the GC by nerfing the ship, and offer full refund of real life money
  4. Balance the GC by nerfing the ship, and offer refund of in-game currency

Option 1 would be the least ethical, but will allow WG to make more money in the short- and medium- term. However, in the long term, this will ultimately negatively affect recruitment of new players, as players who have not spent money (yet) will be frustrated and quit early. Option 2 would allow players who bought the GC to continue to enjoy their OP ship, and it will cost WG exactly $0. However, players who currently do not have the GC will be dissatisfied, as they have no way of obtaining the ship, but will have to play against it. Option 3 would be the most ethical, and would satisfy the vast majority of players, but it would cost WG a lot of money. Option 4 would restore balance to Tier 5 and Tier 4, but current owners would be dissatisfied, and all players would be less likely to spend money on premium ships in the future.

Obviously, I think it would be in the best interest of all players for WG to take Option 3. But if they are unwilling, I believe Option 4 is better than Option 1 or 2. Why?

  • If they balance the ship properly, then WG would be justified in selling the ship in the future, resulting in profits in the long term
  • Simply taking the ship off the market won't stop people from playing it. Anyway, restricting the number of ships isn't balance. It doesn't solve the core problem, which is essentially maintaining the status quo.
  • Last but not least, WG has a responsibility to balance their game, regardless of what they have promised. I believe their promise of "never nerfing premiums" is extremely unhealthy for game balance, and am glad to hear they are finally going back on their word.

"But don't you think it's ethically wrong for WG to pull a bait-and-switch?"

Yes. Don't get me wrong, I agree bait-and-switch is a morally wrong business practice. But in this case, I believe it's the lesser of three evils. WG's first mistake was promising to never nerf premium ships, a promise they could not, should not keep. WG's second mistake was releasing overpowered premium ships and making them available only to players who spend money, thus making the game pay-to-win. WG's worst mistake was made before they even started to discuss premium ship balance. So now, any attempt to fix these mistakes would either cost WG money, or make some players unhappy. And it is essential that balance issues are fixed.

This argument specifically targets the Giulio Cesare, but could be applied to any and all Premium ships who have a clear advantage in terms of player statistics.

TL;DR Balance good, OP premium ships bad

OP has played just under 1000 games unless this a Alt account does not spend a cent on game happy to see paying players get screwed thanks a lot.

Ok for the thousand and one times a buff and or a nerf is a ship being balanced from its current state what WG want to do is UPTIER it that's a BIG difference.

I am quite happy to have the ship Nerfed but remain at tier 5 but no WG does not want that.

Staliniumgrad one the most blatantly OPs ships one among many higher tier ships, a ship that was not going to be nerfed along with its little sister when the fire duration saga came out, had it not been for the community when they found out 2 other ships were going to get hit with this said nerf and not them kicked up a hornets nest and forced WG to relent.

. Double standards are at play here higher tier ships get a blind eye but a tier 5 Italian is looked at for UP tiering though.

The problem is the Tech tree ships if WG are so worried fix the bloody Tech tree lines

Thank you for your FREE TO PLAY THOUGHTS I'm certain WG will be sending you a email with a code to rent the Krispy Kremme  for 7 days for your pro thoughts.   

      

 

  

Edited by tm63au
  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,697 posts
8,636 battles
44 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

I agree with you. But I should point out that while some people are mad about the nerf (which is dumb), and others want their cash back, not just doubloons (again dumb, they clearly haven't read the EULA), most people are worked up about the loot crate connection.

The conspiracy is that WG baited people into buying the crates with the chance of getting a rare OP ship, but planned the whole time to nerf it shortly afterwards. Now, you can argue about the crate thing (my opinion is that you pays your money, and takes your chances), believing WG purposely nerfed GC after hyping it for loot crates is a bit of a stretch. If anything, the plethora of premiums resulting from the loot crates might have exacerbated the issue and brought it to WG's notice. But people with those kind of theories are beyond reason anyway. But they're the ones raising the biggest fuss about the nerf.

 

You forgot to mention people who are worried about an "OP subscription." Basically the idea is that game company releases some obviously overpowered premium content and "realizes they made a mistake" a few months later just another equally if not more overpowered piece of premium content is released. Players catch the tacit implication that they can pay a certain amount of money to be OP for a certain amount of time. A few games company's (which I won't mention here because we don't need to going off topic) have admitted to doing this. Its one of the reason WoT and WoWS have had such a long standing policy about not nerfing premiums.

Do I think that will be the case? No its a lot to extrapolate from one decision but I think its probably the most solid argument about not nerfing the GC.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,509
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Supertester
2,226 posts
21,359 battles
1 hour ago, Taylor3006 said:

If this were true, we wouldn't have +2/-2 matchmaking..... Ships are balanced by tier, not by what ships they will meet in combat.  Current matchmaking destroys that balance. 

 

This is inherently wrong. There isnt a single ship that cannot do damage to a ship two tiers above it. Unlike WoT, you are not required to buy premium rounds just to have a chance.

29 minutes ago, Raven_Floki said:

HAHAHAHAHA, someone doesn't know how basic economics works.  It would literally have to be at least 65% of the customer base that would have to do that, not to mention they receive revenues from other sources as well.  Are you truly that daft to think that "Closing the wallet" is going to make a dent?  Wow.

Right? Wasnt WG's income last year like 600 million? I know in 2015 it was around 550 million. The value of the company is 1.5 billion too. I think they even own at least one bank in Cyprus.

29 minutes ago, tm63au said:

OP has played just under 1000 games unless this a Alt account does not spend a cent on game happy to see paying players get screwed thanks a lot.

Ok for the thousand and one times a buff and or a nerf is a ship being balanced from its current state what WG want to do is UPTIER it that's a BIG difference.

I am quite happy to have the ship Nerfed but remain at tier 5 but no WG does not want that.

Staliniumgrad one the most blatantly OPs ships one among many higher tier ships, a ship that was not going to be nerfed along with its little sister when the fire duration saga came out, had it not been for the community when they found out 2 other ships were going to get hit with this said nerf and not them kicked up a hornets nest and forced WG to relent.

. Double standards are at play here higher tier ships get a blind eye but a tier 5 Italian is looked at for UP tiering though.

The problem is the Tech tree ships if WG are so worried fix the bloody Tech tree lines

Thank you for your FREE TO PLAY THOUGHTS I'm certain WG will be sending you a email with a code to rent the Krispy Kremme  for 7 days for your pro thoughts.   

      

 

  

Comparing Stalingrad to GC is silly. Anyone can earn Stalingrad. In fact the only time you could purchase steel was for an over priced campaign. Aside from that you earn steel through clan battles, ranked, and the snowflake event. Literally anyone that wants it can eventually earn it free of cost.

Edited by Skuggsja
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[STR4T]
Members
134 posts
1,016 battles
1 minute ago, Wows_Nightly_News said:

You forgot to mention people who are worried about an "OP subscription." Basically the idea is that game company releases some obviously overpowered premium content and "realizes they made a mistake" a few months later just another equally if not more overpowered piece of premium content is released. Players catch the tacit implication that they can pay a certain amount of money to be OP for a certain amount of time. A few games company's (which I won't mention here because we don't need to going off topic) have admitted to doing this. Its one of the reason WoT and WoWS have had such a long standing policy about not nerfing premiums. 

Do I think that will be the case? No its a lot to extrapolate from one decision but I think its probably the most solid argument about not nerfing the GC.

I have never heard this argument before, and I'll admit, this argument has given me a partial change of mind. It does seem to rely on the "slippery slope" fallacy - just because WG nerfs one OP premium ship doesn't mean they'll nerf EVERY overpowered premium. However, having set a precedent with the GC, WG has the motive and the means to implement a "subscription model" for OP premium ships. The recent offers of "renting" premiums don't help WG's case either. This is definitely a real, and legitimate concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
358
[Y0L0W]
[Y0L0W]
Members
957 posts
8,837 battles

Then your opinion on the matter is about as useful as a fart in a windstorm. Nothing to see here.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,203
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,350 posts
18,156 battles
50 minutes ago, Gnomestroy said:

Everyone who plays WoWs has a dog in this fight. It just so happens my "dog" is a lot smaller than the "dogs" of people who may have bought the GC

Thanks for the kitten tho.

I have all premiums, reward and arsenal ships except around 10 of them.

I have had a continuous premium account for 8 years.

Let's not talk about my premium tanks and planes.....

How about my voice?

Is several thousand dollars spent supporting the games I enjoy less valuable than a FREE player????

This game is free to play because of players like me....

Now if I could just get the skill to activate that OP button I'm missi g on the GC.

I get focused down so fast because it is an op ship.... you can't angle against 3 sides....

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[STR4T]
Members
134 posts
1,016 battles
36 minutes ago, tm63au said:

OP has played just under 1000 games unless this a Alt account does not spend a cent on game happy to see paying players get screwed thanks a lot.

Ok for the thousand and one times a buff and or a nerf is a ship being balanced from its current state what WG want to do is UPTIER it that's a BIG difference.

I am quite happy to have the ship Nerfed but remain at tier 5 but no WG does not want that.

Staliniumgrad one the most blatantly OPs ships one among many higher tier ships, a ship that was not going to be nerfed along with its little sister when the fire duration saga came out, had it not been for the community when they found out 2 other ships were going to get hit with this said nerf and not them kicked up a hornets nest and forced WG to relent.

. Double standards are at play here higher tier ships get a blind eye but a tier 5 Italian is looked at for UP tiering though.

The problem is the Tech tree ships if WG are so worried fix the bloody Tech tree lines

Thank you for your FREE TO PLAY THOUGHTS I'm certain WG will be sending you a email with a code to rent the Krispy Kremme  for 7 days for your pro thoughts.  

No this is not an alt account. I do not want to see paying players get screwed by WG either. I've said that the best option would be for WG to offer a full, real-money refund of the GC. But if that's not going to happen, nerfing the GC is preferable over the status quo.

Up-tiering the GC into tier 6 in its current state would be a disaster, and complete overkill, considering how often tier 6 ships have to face tier 8. But I believe that WG has said before that in addition to uptiering, they will also be adjusting the characteristics of the ship. So until WG publishes the final details, there's no telling how badly the Cesare will end up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[STR4T]
Members
134 posts
1,016 battles
2 minutes ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

I have all premiums, reward and arsenal ships except around 10 of them.

I have had a continuous premium account for 8 years.

Let's not talk about my premium tanks and planes.....

How about my voice?

Is several thousand dollars spent supporting the games I enjoy less valuable than a FREE player????

This game is free to play because of players like me....

Now if I could just get the skill to activate that OP button I'm missi g on the GC.

I get focused down so fast because it is an op ship.... you can't angle against 3 sides....

 

I never said your opinion is less valuable than mine. In fact, I basically admitted that the opinions of players who have the GC are more important than mine. But my opinion matters too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,117 posts
11,290 battles
2 minutes ago, Gnomestroy said:

I never said your opinion is less valuable than mine. In fact, I basically admitted that the opinions of players who have the GC are more important than mine. But my opinion matters too.

Your opinion certainly matters. And you presented it in a civil manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
482
[RM-I]
[RM-I]
Members
959 posts
8,437 battles

The issue for me isn’t nerfing the ship if it out performs by a large margin. The issue for me is up tiering it to tier 6 from tier 5. I am also one of those people who bought this ship because it was an Italian tier 5 bb. Regardless of the performance I would have bought it (which I did around the first day it dropped). I’ll even be buying the Leone even though it’s garbage at the moment. 

The one thing I think you fail to think of however, is that people wanted a tier 5 bb, not a tier 6 which would see tier 8’s. That’s why nerfing it’s tier 5 stats would be much more favorable than uptiering, which in turn creates a horrible precedent.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[STR4T]
Members
134 posts
1,016 battles
1 minute ago, pastore123 said:

The issue for me isn’t nerfing the ship if it out performs by a large margin. The issue for me is up tiering it to tier 6 from tier 5. I am also one of those people who bought this ship because it was an Italian tier 5 bb. Regardless of the performance I would have bought it (which I did around the first day it dropped). I’ll even be buying the Leone even though it’s garbage at the moment. 

The one thing I think you fail to think of however, is that people wanted a tier 5 bb, not a tier 6 which would see tier 8’s. That’s why nerfing it’s tier 5 stats would be much more favorable than uptiering, which in turn creates a horrible precedent. 

Yeah WG could have been a bit more even-handed in their balancing approach. But in my experience, Tier 5 gets uptiered just as often as tier 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,402
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,288 posts
6,099 battles

sharpshooter.jpg

Edited by Cruxdei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[GT99]
Members
670 posts
10,709 battles
1 hour ago, Raven_Floki said:

HAHAHAHAHA, someone doesn't know how basic economics works.  It would literally have to be at least 65% of the customer base that would have to do that, not to mention they receive revenues from other sources as well.  Are you truly that daft to think that "Closing the wallet" is going to make a dent?  Wow.

It's not the point to make a dent, it's a point of having a stronger voice than a forum has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,937
[SYN]
Members
5,472 posts
12,704 battles

 

2 hours ago, Gnomestroy said:

Now, I know I'm going to get downvotes for this, but hear me out (TL;DR at bottom):

Wargaming has a responsibility to ensure their MMO's are as balanced as possible.  "Balanced" means no player has a significant advantage over other players due to factors unrelated to game mechanics, game play or skill of players. In the case of premium ships, the money spent in the game is a factor that is unrelated to game mechanics, game play or skill of players.

Take the Giulio Cesare, for example.

This is a ship that is quantitatively better than other ships of the same tier and type. According to WoWS Stats & Numbers , the GC has the highest win rate, the highest average damage, and the highest average XP out of all Tier 5 Battleships by a large margin. Even more worrying is the fact that this trend does not disappear when filtering out player skill. The GC maintains its solid lead over the competitors even when we only look at stats from the top 25% or 10% or 5% of players. The ship does not have exceptional stats because it is noob friendly, or because it has a high skill ceiling. The Giulio Cesare is simply flat out overpowered.

If you have the Giulio Cesare and you disagree with me on that point, you're not being honest with yourself.

I am aware that the vast majority of GC owners are more reasonable than that. I think it would be reasonable to assume most people with the GC bought it specifically because it is an extremely strong ship, and/or because of its history. If you're simply a collector, or an armchair naval historian, you have nothing to worry about, because the ship's unique history will be left intact.

But then we get to the meat of the matter.

"I paid for an overpowered ship, I should receive and keep an overpowered ship. This is what Wargaming has done and plans on doing: Repeatedly emphasizing that statistics of premium ships will not be negatively adjusted, then designing an extremely strong ship, selling it for real life money (and in lootboxes, no less!) , and finally, after the ship is taken off the marker, nerfing premium ships. This is extremely unethical, and a very untrustworthy business practice"

As I understand it, that is the argument for why the GC should be kept as-is. But let's look at WG's options right now:

  1. Do not change the Giulio Cesare's statistics, and continue to sell the ship in the future
  2. Do not change the Giulio Cesare's statistics, but stop selling the ship
  3. Balance the GC by nerfing the ship, and offer full refund of real life money
  4. Balance the GC by nerfing the ship, and offer refund of in-game currency

Option 1 would be the least ethical, but will allow WG to make more money in the short- and medium- term. However, in the long term, this will ultimately negatively affect recruitment of new players, as players who have not spent money (yet) will be frustrated and quit early. Option 2 would allow players who bought the GC to continue to enjoy their OP ship, and it will cost WG exactly $0. However, players who currently do not have the GC will be dissatisfied, as they have no way of obtaining the ship, but will have to play against it. Option 3 would be the most ethical, and would satisfy the vast majority of players, but it would cost WG a lot of money. Option 4 would restore balance to Tier 5 and Tier 4, but current owners would be dissatisfied, and all players would be less likely to spend money on premium ships in the future.

Obviously, I think it would be in the best interest of all players for WG to take Option 3. But if they are unwilling, I believe Option 4 is better than Option 1 or 2. Why?

  • If they balance the ship properly, then WG would be justified in selling the ship in the future, resulting in profits in the long term
  • Simply taking the ship off the market won't stop people from playing it. Anyway, restricting the number of ships isn't balance. It doesn't solve the core problem, which is essentially maintaining the status quo.
  • Last but not least, WG has a responsibility to balance their game, regardless of what they have promised. I believe their promise of "never nerfing premiums" is extremely unhealthy for game balance, and am glad to hear they are finally going back on their word.

"But don't you think it's ethically wrong for WG to pull a bait-and-switch?"

Yes. Don't get me wrong, I agree bait-and-switch is a morally wrong business practice. But in this case, I believe it's the lesser of three evils. WG's first mistake was promising to never nerf premium ships, a promise they could not, should not keep. WG's second mistake was releasing overpowered premium ships and making them available only to players who spend money, thus making the game pay-to-win. WG's worst mistake was made before they even started to discuss premium ship balance. So now, any attempt to fix these mistakes would either cost WG money, or make some players unhappy. And it is essential that balance issues are fixed.

This argument specifically targets the Giulio Cesare, but could be applied to any and all Premium ships who have a clear advantage in terms of player statistics.

TL;DR Balance good, OP premium ships bad

 

This just comes off as inapt.

Regardless of all the garrulous pontification and distractions, all this boils down to is that you're OK with WG nerfing something you never purchased but that others paid for,

The consequences doesn't affect you at all, so why are you expounding about it at such length to others of whom it does?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kuckoo
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×