Jump to content
Sub_Octavian

[PSA] Giulio Cesare testing and premium ships status

342 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

18
[B-W-M]
Members
6 posts
1,949 battles

Props to you guys for picking the lesser of two evils. We appreciate that you listen to us.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,943
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
3,481 posts
13 minutes ago, Sub_Octavian said:
Spoiler

 

Dear players,

Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning:

  1. While many of you did support the idea of promoting more balance and fair play, most of you were not willing to support this if it means making changes to purchased premium ships. 
  2. Many of you let us know that the perfect balance in each ship group is not as critical for you as we assumed; however, the confidence that the stats of purchased premium ships are not to be nerfed is much more important. It was not the only opinion voiced, but it was the most frequent in all discussions on all platforms.
  3. According to the majority of your opinions, having several over performing premium ships in the game is not an issue for you, given the fact that they are not sold directly and that they can be countered under the right circumstances; 
  4. Testing Giulio Cesare on tier VI has shown that it can indeed be a balanced tier VI battleship, however, her gameplay experience changed dramatically. The same is true for alternative rebalance options (e.g. nerf on tier V).


As the proposed initiative was based on community feedback, and achieving absolutely perfect balance in each ship group is not a purpose in itself (and it is not really possible anyway, because ships have vastly different play styles, pros and cons, and players have vastly different skill levels), we decided to cancel it. There are not many ships like Giulio Cesare in the game, and most of them are quite old; our balancing process has significantly improved since release, and there is no indication that we will have many such ships in the game. However, if they do appear, we will take appropriate action. For example, as we do now, stop direct sales and limit their distribution to very special occasions, so that their presence in battles is minimal.

Despite the fact that we never had a rule which stated "premium ships are not nerfed individually", we indeed did not do it before and we understand why many of you assumed that there is such a rule.

It should be noted that even the ships purchased in or marketed through Premium store are a part of a big game we all play. That means our decision does not isolate any ship from systematic changes applied to a group of ships on common basis or to the whole game. For example, a change to the Radar mechanics affects all ships equipped with Radar, a Smoke mechanics change affects all ships with smoke, etc. 

We sincerely thank you for your opinions and feedback.

Good luck and fair seas! :Smile_honoring:

 

 


8 minutes ago, SpudZero said:

Thank you!


5 minutes ago, Kaleon said:

Props to you guys for picking the lesser of two evils. We appreciate that you listen to us.

:Smile_great::Smile_medal:Good Decision  In the end:cap_cool:

 

Spoiler

Salute_Emoji.png

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,155 posts
6,031 battles

Thus Cesare-gate ends. I suppose it's fitting that they announce their decision on March 14th.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,610
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,699 posts
16,636 battles

Probably the best decision you could've made.

  • Cool 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[T-SEC]
[T-SEC]
Beta Testers
715 posts

Glad this is all over, now people can stop complaining about "Oh noes they gonna nerf mah premium next!"

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,111
Alpha Tester
2,552 posts

Personally I'm disappointed by this decision as it means that I will never see Imperator Nikolai rebalanced and sold again. As if WW1 ships aren't underrepresented already (not to mention misrepresented with those fake WW2 refits), WG screws up two WW1 BBs to the supercontainer abyss. And no, I will never gamble for one ship. But on the bright side, at least I don't have to spend any money. My wallet has remained closed ever since Nikolai was screwed up and it will stay that way.

Keep up the good work screwing up real historical ships WG. It is very thoughtful of you to help me save money.

giphy.gif

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,158
[KWF]
Members
3,798 posts
5,502 battles

Well that's a closed case now, time will tell how good or bad this decision was.

For the short term some trust was re-established for sure.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,303
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
2,791 posts
10,099 battles

Thanks I think it was a good choice a hard choice but a good one . Not a fan of everything having to be totally balanced I think it would be boring . 

Edited by clammboy
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
93 battles

Rejoice, WoWS playerbase, for you have slain the gods and proved that you can do a better job than them!!!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
523 posts
Just now, RyuuohD_NA said:

Rejoice, WoWS playerbase, for you have slain the gods and proved that you can do a better job than them!!!

For one thing, at least the GC moan threads will stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
195
[PVE]
Members
413 posts
16,005 battles

Thank you WG for your decision, I will now go back to throwing money around like a drunkin sailor

 

Edited by commando_brian
  • Cool 6
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,187 posts
21,031 battles

Thank you for honoring the community's viewpoint! It really is an erosion of confidence when a special, purchased item is transformed into something unspecial. As some said, when Cesare shows up in a battle, it will be up to its opponents to point her out and treat her differently.

As for your systemic changes affecting special, purchased ships (as in T5 Texas' greatly reduced effectiveness as an AA monster due to 'unlimited planes' in the current CV debacle rework), this is understandable and thus more tolerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
889 posts
4,556 battles

Honestly I dont mind the prems being tweaked if over performing once introduced to the live server, that includes nerfs or buffs. BUT, that being said, there needs to be a cut off point for such tweaking to avoid bait and switch. If the GC or other ships had been adjusted maybe say up to 6 months after release, I think that the playerbase woulda been alot more okay with the changes. Instead they were allowed to rampage in an OP state for far to long and sometimes even got buffs. Now LONG after their initial sale... WG thought it was okay to just give them the axe... ya... the idea is somewhat sound to balance out the ships, the time for it to have be in-acted though passed a long while ago.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
510
[U571]
Members
2,103 posts
14,101 battles

@Sub_Octavian Thank you for listening to the Community.  I think this is the right decision in this case.

3 minutes ago, theLaalaa said:

Thank you for honoring the community's viewpoint! It really is an erosion of confidence when a special, purchased item is transformed into something unspecial. As some said, when Cesare shows up in a battle, it will be up to its opponents to point her out and treat her differently.

As for your systemic changes affecting special, purchased ships (as in T5 Texas' greatly reduced effectiveness as an AA monster due to 'unlimited planes' in the current CV debacle rework), this is understandable and thus more tolerable.

I think part Texas's problem is the no T5 CV.  It seems just fine against a T4 CV, T6 CVs are better planes so you are getting uptiered.  So it is suffering from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,964
[-K-]
Members
7,618 posts
12,480 battles
50 minutes ago, Wolcott said:

Personally I'm disappointed by this decision as it means that I will never see Imperator Nikolai rebalanced and sold again. 

Coming from the guy with a "No Soviet" logo in his sig.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,673
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
8,710 posts
22,019 battles
57 minutes ago, Wolcott said:

Personally I'm disappointed by this decision as it means that I will never see Imperator Nikolai rebalanced and sold again. As if WW1 ships aren't underrepresented already (not to mention misrepresented with those fake WW2 refits), WG screws up two WW1 BBs to the supercontainer abyss. And no, I will never gamble for one ship. But on the bright side, at least I don't have to spend any money. My wallet has remained closed ever since Nikolai was screwed up and it will stay that way.

I have to agree. Was hopeful that Wargaming would address those ships that are commonly thought of as OP so they could make them available to the entire player base in the shop, and not rely on loot boxes to get one. I was hopeful to dump my GC for doubloons as well as I don't care for it and still not sure how I got it.

What I do want to see is better testing of premium ships before inclusion in the game to ensure that OP boats don't keep popping up. This is a big failure and needs to be addressed.

Edited by Taylor3006
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,868
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,746 posts
11,049 battles

Abandoning the tier 6 change is the right call, completely abandoning any changes to it and other ships as such, maybe not quite as much. While no horse in the race I was against the GC changes because of what else could happen and what some of those changes would mean as ships suddenly go up in tier. That said if I recall correctly GC at one point received changes and buffs post release that helped make her OP - While some obviously would, I think the majority of players could agree that undoing or partially undoing post release changes (and likely post purchase) is a bit more fair game. So if you say  raised the damage per shell 500 points after it had been on sale a few months because it was under-performing, but then it over-performs a bit so you dial it back so it's only 300 overall increase, it's still the ship the majority bought or better. 

But that's my opinion - something like that on any of my ships I'm good with, straight up nerf a premium, especially but uptiering, not so much. Unless it is absolute godhax levels of power (I'm talking a literal zombie can get a Kraken, Confederate, High Caliber, and 3 dev strikes, consistently in it). The other exception would be ships like Shinonome, Alaska, Stalingrad, and the other pure reward, free XP, and coal/steel ships that have never been sold in the store (So as an example, Mo and Musashi, fair game, JB - off limits). While there would be some debate over the FXP ships, as people chose to convert XP for them (even I converted a small amount), the others - no one spent money on them, so if my Shinonome were too OP (pretty sure her stats are skewed by the players that have her given some of them missions) that'd be fair game to me, much as it's a premium.

That and I know premium CV's need some work still, like a particular IJN premium that needs to go back to it's proper tier with the proper planes and add back in the other odd tiers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,054
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,803 posts
9,171 battles
1 hour ago, Sub_Octavian said:

abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, w

except premium CVs.

You continue to say one thing, and do the other. Classic communication runaround.

1 hour ago, Sub_Octavian said:

however, the confidence that the stats of purchased premium ships are not to be nerfed is much more important. It was not the only opinion voiced, but it was the most frequent in all discussions on all platforms.

I isn't just confidence that those stats will not be nerfed, when customers buy a ship, they buy

  1. a model
  2. a camouflage
  3. a set of camo bonuses
  4. a set of abilities
  5. a set of stats.

    the problem of how to moderate overperforming ships should not be borne by the custormer, but by vendor. This problem could be largely avoided in the future, by more sensible balancing of premium ships. But I feel pessimistic on this count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,100 posts
11,224 battles

Glad a decision has been made. Never minded the idea of balancing individual premiums, but think it's the right the choice from a consumer perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[MIA-P]
Beta Testers
3,342 posts
5,343 battles
1 hour ago, Sub_Octavian said:

Dear players,

Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning:

  1. While many of you did support the idea of promoting more balance and fair play, most of you were not willing to support this if it means making changes to purchased premium ships. 
  2. Many of you let us know that the perfect balance in each ship group is not as critical for you as we assumed; however, the confidence that the stats of purchased premium ships are not to be nerfed is much more important. It was not the only opinion voiced, but it was the most frequent in all discussions on all platforms.
  3. According to the majority of your opinions, having several over performing premium ships in the game is not an issue for you, given the fact that they are not sold directly and that they can be countered under the right circumstances; 
  4. Testing Giulio Cesare on tier VI has shown that it can indeed be a balanced tier VI battleship, however, her gameplay experience changed dramatically. The same is true for alternative rebalance options (e.g. nerf on tier V).


As the proposed initiative was based on community feedback, and achieving absolutely perfect balance in each ship group is not a purpose in itself (and it is not really possible anyway, because ships have vastly different play styles, pros and cons, and players have vastly different skill levels), we decided to cancel it. There are not many ships like Giulio Cesare in the game, and most of them are quite old; our balancing process has significantly improved since release, and there is no indication that we will have many such ships in the game. However, if they do appear, we will take appropriate action. For example, as we do now, stop direct sales and limit their distribution to very special occasions, so that their presence in battles is minimal.

Despite the fact that we never had a rule which stated "premium ships are not nerfed individually", we indeed did not do it before and we understand why many of you assumed that there is such a rule.

It should be noted that even the ships purchased in or marketed through Premium store are a part of a big game we all play. That means our decision does not isolate any ship from systematic changes applied to a group of ships on common basis or to the whole game. For example, a change to the Radar mechanics affects all ships equipped with Radar, a Smoke mechanics change affects all ships with smoke, etc. 

We sincerely thank you for your opinions and feedback.

Good luck and fair seas! :Smile_honoring:

you chose.....wisely.

However i dont think you need to stop direct sale, may i present an alternative that may be favorable for all involved?

WG can't always make things balanced on release, it happens. You would like to balance them after release.

players want to make sure their investments stay worth it. but also want balance.

why not include a grace period to ships post release? say for X amount of time the ship is still subject to change. After that time has passed, the ship should remain as is, barring global changes.

 

also, i dont think anyone would mind retroactively removing the buffs you gave the ship post release.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,961
[INTEL]
[INTEL]
Members
7,435 posts
33,051 battles

Awesome news Thanks WG.

The best choice by far.

IMO if you made a mistake  on launching, retire it. It was done for Kutuzov and Belfast. I see no problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×