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

The right way to fix OP ships

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,853 posts
11,874 battles

First stop putting them in loot crates. This is the most important part. If the company can go one Christmas without using them as a lure for loot crates then they will have put their money where their mouth is to borrow a saying.

Update the Arsenal with the 50 ships that are coming so there is a good use for doubloons. Why would people want doubloons for a ship they paid cash for if there are no good uses for them.

Buff the underpowered Premiums. That will create desire to buy them plus a need for doubloons, and generate good will with the people that already own them.

Offer double the doubloon equivalent to people that will to sell their Giulio Cesare or other OP Premium back. Everybody realizes doubloons are virtual currency, give them a motive to want to sell it.

After Christmas, assuming the Santa crate issue was resolved, announce you will be toning down OP ships. Toning down!, not beating to death with the nerf bat. Do not change tiers for any Premium ship ever. It should still be the best ship at it's tier after the nerf, just not by a large margin.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[D12]
Members
1,150 posts
9,064 battles

doesn't matter how much they nerf premiums - small or big, the buyers will be unhappy because MM will screw them over anyway. Say GC is OP in t5 battle but then it sucks in t7 so players will still whine it's not all that OP. +-2 and 2CV MM and is cancer

 

Edited by Citrusss
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[CHBK]
Members
398 posts
2,311 battles
35 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Why would people want doubloons for a ship they paid cash for if there are no good uses for them.

They wouldn't...but a company shouldn't give out full refunds for something the customer used for however long.  Even under the system you propose, I don't think someone should get full dubloon value of a ship if they decide they dont want it anymore.  We play the game for the experience of playing the game.  Ships you buy for the experience of playing them.  Buying a premium ship, using it for a bunch of matches then returning it for full value would be like buying blu rays taking them home and watching them, then returning it to the store.  Yeah you are surrendering your ability to keep using the ship, but if you want to sell it/return it, there should be a penalty after use.

It's like in other games I see people have like 1000 hours of play time, then want a refund if a patch comes out they dont like.  It's like, you got 1000 hours of entertainment out of the product, why on earth do they owe you a full refund?  Theres almost no products, digital or otherwise, you can buy, use for a while then return it for a full refund.

Edited by Taco_De_Moist
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,853 posts
11,874 battles
2 minutes ago, Taco_De_Moist said:

They wouldn't...but a company shouldn't give out full refunds for something the customer used for however long.  Even under the system you propose, I don't think someone should get full dubloon value of a ship if they decide they dont want it anymore.  We play the game for the experience of playing the game.  Ships you buy for the experience of playing them.  Buying a premium ship, using it for a bunch of matches then returning it for full value would be like buying blu rays taking them home and watching them, then returning it to the store.  Yeah you are surrendering your ability to keep using the ship, but if you want to sell it/return it, there should be a penalty after use.

Your analogy is faulty. Most people watch a movie once, maybe 1% of the movies I have seen I've watched multiple times. People will play certain ships hundreds or even thousands of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[CHBK]
Members
398 posts
2,311 battles
14 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Your analogy is faulty. Most people watch a movie once, maybe 1% of the movies I have seen I've watched multiple times. People will play certain ships hundreds or even thousands of times.

Ok so if a person plays 1000 battles in a ship, should that 1000 battles not cost them anything if they dont want it anymore? I mean WG charges money for ship rentals for 7 days.  Why should someone be able to own a ship for a year play 1000 battles in it and then get a full refund when people pay money they cant get back to use a ship for 7 days?

Video games are entertainment, if you bought a ship played it for 1000 battles you got a lot of bang for your buck there.  You guys are making video game ships out to be some unicorn product that should be able to be bought used and refunded in full whenever you like for whatever reason.  I mean at that point WG may as well just charge a flat $100 dollars to unlock all premium ships, because selling them for dubloons in the arsenal and letting you sell them whenever you want for a full refund is basically what would happen.   Why would I buy a bunch of ships when I can just buy the most expensive one, use it till im bored then just sell it and buy another one at no additional cost to me...rinse and repeat.

Edited by Taco_De_Moist
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,853 posts
11,874 battles
21 minutes ago, Taco_De_Moist said:

Ok so if a person plays 1000 battles in a ship, should that 1000 battles not cost them anything if they dont want it anymore? I mean WG charges money for ship rentals for 7 days.  Why should someone be able to own a ship for a year play 1000 battles in it and then get a full refund when people pay money they cant get back to use a ship for 7 days?

Video games are entertainment, if you bought a ship played it for 1000 battles you got a lot of bang for your buck there.  You guys are making video game ships out to be some unicorn product that should be able to be bought used and refunded in full whenever you like for whatever reason.  I mean at that point WG may as well just charge a flat $100 dollars to unlock all premium ships, because selling them for dubloons in the arsenal and letting you sell them whenever you want for a full refund is basically what would happen.   Why would I buy a bunch of ships when I can just buy the most expensive one, use it till im bored then just sell it and buy another one at no additional cost to me...rinse and repeat.

Because the ship has not deteriorated or depreciated. Just the opposite in fact, if it is a ship they play a lot the value has gone up for them because it is one of their favorites and they have probably gotten better at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,374
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,857 posts
6,889 battles
1 hour ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

After Christmas, assuming the Santa crate issue was resolved, announce you will be toning down OP ships. Toning down!, not beating to death with the nerf bat. Do not change tiers for any Premium ship ever. It should still be the best ship at it's tier after the nerf, just not by a large margin.

WG tried to do just that. GC was not ruined at T6, most people who actually played her and did not jump onto the GC-will-be-trash-train realized this, and so did WG.

What the retier did was vastly improving T4 and T5 lifes, while letting GC remain as strong as she was. Even against T8.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,397 posts
47 battles
40 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

WG tried to do just that. GC was not ruined at T6, most people who actually played her and did not jump onto the GC-will-be-trash-train realized this, and so did WG.

What the retier did was vastly improving T4 and T5 lifes, while letting GC remain as strong as she was. Even against T8.

Too bad the whiny playerbase drowned any reasonable opinions that didn't match their echo chamber.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,001
[USCC2]
Members
4,429 posts

Bottom line if something is OP it should be balanced. To entertain the ability to balance, opens the ability to make smaller tweaks, rather than the sledgehammer global changes we've seen in the past.

As much as it is distasteful to hear, those that did not want balance used the fact they paid cash for something to make a claim for it not to change. You are either for balance, or you want to keep your advantage. Of course buffs to Premiums were never argued because 'hey balancing your premium 'up'', is fine lol.

Personally as 'some' of the customer base has shown they will not accept a reduction in their advantage, I think WG should sell all those ships again. Simple - according to some they aren't OP anyway, so there should be no objection.

If I were WG I would even make them less money to buy; but of course that would probably instigate another round of 'this is a travesty - a slight against the community' etc:Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,397 posts
47 battles
3 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Personally as 'some' of the customer base has shown they will not accept a reduction in their advantage, I think WG should sell all those ships again. Simple - according to some they aren't OP anyway, so there should be no objection.

If I were WG I would even make them less money to buy; but of course that would probably instigate another round of 'this is a travesty - a slight against the community' etc:Smile_Default:

Next thing you know owners of these OP ships will go torches and pitchforks when WG sells those OP ships again,since they will lose their "exclusive rights" to own OP premiums.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,997
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,710 posts

You do know that right now is not a good time to discuss this topic any further, right? Wounds are wide open, no chance yet for them to heal. Some won. Some lost. But - the battle for now is over. 

 

May we all move forward to more enjoyable subjects like, oh, I dunno, further CV tweaking, submarines or the upcoming, redesigned UI nobody asked for anytime soon? 

 

:cap_haloween::cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[CHBK]
Members
398 posts
2,311 battles
1 hour ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Because the ship has not deteriorated or depreciated. Just the opposite in fact, if it is a ship they play a lot the value has gone up for them because it is one of their favorites and they have probably gotten better at it.

So you should get a full refund for entertainment because it doesnt degrade in quality? If wg refunded a ship they get nothing of value back and you got free entertainment.  They are selling you and experience not a physical product, yet you are treating it like a physical product that doesnt lose but potentially gains value.  It isnt like there is a limit to premium ships and you selling one back for full price opens a slot up for them to sell another.  It would simply be an utterly self injurious business decision for them to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,397 posts
47 battles
1 hour ago, Taco_De_Moist said:

So you should get a full refund for entertainment because it doesnt degrade in quality? If wg refunded a ship they get nothing of value back and you got free entertainment.  They are selling you and experience not a physical product, yet you are treating it like a physical product that doesnt lose but potentially gains value.  It isnt like there is a limit to premium ships and you selling one back for full price opens a slot up for them to sell another.  It would simply be an utterly self injurious business decision for them to do this.

The way I see it, it's like a guy who likes lions and is a frequent zoo visitor who, after a year of zoo visits,demands the zoo staff to refund all his entrance fees because the zoo management moved the lion display area further away from its usual spot.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[CHBK]
Members
398 posts
2,311 battles
13 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

The way I see it, it's like a guy who likes lions and is a frequent zoo visitor who, after a year of zoo visits,demands the zoo staff to refund all his entrance fees because the zoo management moved the lion display area further away from its usual spot.

People need to accept that they are paying to USE something not paying to own it.  This game WILL die one day and you will have nothing to show for the money you spent other than enjoyment of the experience of playing.  Wg aint gonna refund all the money someone spent when the game shuts down, because they got the entrrtainment they paid for.  Likewise even while the games live you dont deserve a full refund for a ship you bought and played.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,357 posts
1,503 battles
1 minute ago, Taco_De_Moist said:

People need to accept that they are paying to USE something not paying to own it.  This game WILL die one day and you will have nothing to show for the money you spent other than enjoyment of the experience of playing.  Wg aint gonna refund all the money someone spent when the game shuts down, because they got the entrrtainment they paid for.  Likewise even while the games live you dont deserve a full refund for a ship you bought and played.

The fact that "my" stuff in on "their" server is a pretty strong clue.  Plus the fact that the head honcho (whoever he is) could die, his brother could take over, shut it down, and take the ready cash to go live on a yacht like the Etrade guy is always a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,193
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,411 posts
13,962 battles
5 hours ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

First stop putting them in loot crates. This is the most important part. If the company can go one Christmas without using them as a lure for loot crates then they will have put their money where their mouth is to borrow a saying.

 

Sorry, no. There is no way in hades I'm paying $40 for a ship... ever. Now, I will pay well north of that to have shots at ships, premium time, doubloons, great flags and camo. I play a lot and if I'm honest probably dropped about two hundy on crates this xmas. I got about 9 new ships, over a years worth of premium by using the doubloons from the drops, and tons more flags and camos that I am still using. I also use my doubloons to take advantage of sales like the 50% off tier nine perma camo and on and on.

Going straight up with doubloon purchases in the arsenal might have got me 5-6 ships only for the same money. If you take the ship drop chance out of loot crates.. you take the fun out, and the amount people spend on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,432
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
3,763 posts
10,303 battles
4 hours ago, Taco_De_Moist said:

They wouldn't...but a company shouldn't give out full refunds for something the customer used for however long.  Even under the system you propose, I don't think someone should get full dubloon value of a ship if they decide they dont want it anymore.  We play the game for the experience of playing the game.  Ships you buy for the experience of playing them.  Buying a premium ship, using it for a bunch of matches then returning it for full value would be like buying blu rays taking them home and watching them, then returning it to the store.  Yeah you are surrendering your ability to keep using the ship, but if you want to sell it/return it, there should be a penalty after use.

It's like in other games I see people have like 1000 hours of play time, then want a refund if a patch comes out they dont like.  It's like, you got 1000 hours of entertainment out of the product, why on earth do they owe you a full refund?  Theres almost no products, digital or otherwise, you can buy, use for a while then return it for a full refund.

So what is fair use and who decides?? 

Some people put thousands of hours into certain games, some only 10s of hours, despite them both "completing" the game. So now someone who would have put 1000 hours into a ship they only have 100 hours in feels gypped while the person that puts about 10 hours into most ships and has 9 hours in 1 doesn't feel gypped. 

It's all relative. Some people get more use out of things. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,069 posts
13,693 battles
4 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

WG tried to do just that. GC was not ruined at T6, most people who actually played her and did not jump onto the GC-will-be-trash-train realized this, and so did WG.

What the retier did was vastly improving T4 and T5 lifes, while letting GC remain as strong as she was. Even against T8.

Did WG release the early testing numbers they gathered to you because you're a Wiki editor???

Seeing things from the other side I'd be just as inclined to think that they were finding out that what many of the GC owners were saying was true. While she could handle herself with T6s and 7s she was so outclassed against T8s it was like throwing the lions a sacrificial lamb no matter how much they buffed her. As a GC owner I never considered her as OP, either when I was at the helm or opposing her in another ship. A good ship yes but nothing to fear.

Provide the evidence that the GC at T5 was making life at T4 & 5 so miserable that newbie players were leaving the game in droves. Your opinion about it doesn't make it so.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
[PIZZA]
[PIZZA]
Members
467 posts
4,275 battles

For me it comes down to who will foot the bill in order to balance the game?  Take the Cesare.  WG could offer doubloons, another ship, or straight refund (money).  If Wargaming really wants to balance the game they can offer refunds, but don't hold your breath.  I laugh at people that blame the Cesare owners. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60
[BUOY]
Members
264 posts
8,886 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

WG tried to do just that. GC was not ruined at T6, most people who actually played her and did not jump onto the GC-will-be-trash-train realized this, and so did WG.

What the retier did was vastly improving T4 and T5 lifes, while letting GC remain as strong as she was. Even against T8.

The problem was not the retiering per se but rather WG putting the GC on the 'chaser ship' list to sell more Santa Boxes (i.e. so more than a few people had just spent money to acquire the ship) and then announcing the ship was going to be retiered basically as is... and at the same time as the mess of the CV reee-work was just getting started. And no, T6 GC was not nearly as strong against T8's as current GC is against T7's since that was the whole point of the retiering.

The most charitable spin I'll put on this is that their timing was monumentally poor and there were probably more than a few lost emails between the marketing and dev teams on this.

And I agree with you that it is incredibly unfortunate WG screwed the pooch on this since widely distributed brokenly OP ships (premium and otherwise) definitely hurts gameplay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,171 posts
5,386 battles

I wonder how many of you who are discussing this own a large number of premiums and truly care about balance, instead of hating those who have the income to own these ships?  It is easy to say what should happen to something someone else paid for to fund the game you play for free.

It would be interesting to see the statistics.  Not saying everyone is in this boat, but I am curious all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,598
[SIM]
Members
3,043 posts
4,846 battles

Quite simply, the correct response by WG is to leave paid content alone, and to endeavor to avoid releasing such unbalanced items in the future. Targeted nerfs to premium content erode all customer confidence, open the door to potential abuses by the company, and ultimately only serve to hurt the financial health of the game. Wargaming could easily change ranked (or any new game mode) to exclude ships that they have identified as gross over-performers, doing as such maintains the vaunted competitive balance of the game without enabling the company to fish in the pockets of people who have already given them money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[CHBK]
Members
398 posts
2,311 battles
44 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

So what is fair use and who decides?? 

Some people put thousands of hours into certain games, some only 10s of hours, despite them both "completing" the game. So now someone who would have put 1000 hours into a ship they only have 100 hours in feels gypped while the person that puts about 10 hours into most ships and has 9 hours in 1 doesn't feel gypped. 

It's all relative. Some people get more use out of things. 

 

Dont think it matters.  If i rent a movie on amazon the moment the time on the rental is up its up.  I dont get a refund if i didnt finish it.  (You can, however if you dont ever play the movie).  If people bought a ship and never played it, fine refund it.

Edited by Taco_De_Moist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,432
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
3,763 posts
10,303 battles
3 minutes ago, Taco_De_Moist said:

Dont think it matters.  If i rent a movie on amazon the moment the time on the rental is up its up.  I dont get a refund if i didnt finish it.

OK, the rental is up on your Massachusetts B. I expect to see you stop playing the ship asap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,374
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,857 posts
6,889 battles
9 minutes ago, CrazyHorse_Denver said:

Did WG release the early testing numbers they gathered to you because you're a Wiki editor???

Reading their announcement told me, no need for anything behind people‘s backs or locked behind NDAs:

"Testing Giulio Cesare on tier VI has shown that it can indeed be a balanced tier VI battleship"

9 minutes ago, CrazyHorse_Denver said:

Seeing things from the other side I'd be just as inclined to think that they were finding out that what many of the GC owners were saying was true. While she could handle herself with T6s and 7s she was so outclassed against T8s it was like throwing the lions a sacrificial lamb no matter how much they buffed her.

Let‘s think this one through. Cesare can hold herself against T6s and T7s right now perfectly fine. Numbers support this, if you wish I can throw a bunch of them at you but I doubt this will be necessary.

Now we take T5 Cesare, and give her three buffs: hull plating, fire resistance coefficient and the T6 ModSlot. Against T6s and 7s this means an undeniable buff to her performance. Her maneuverability got noticably improved thanks to the slot, and her survivability increased as well due to the plating (going from being overmatched by everyone to being overmatched by ~half your BBs, and increased resistance against small caliber HE).

That leaves her performance against T8, which would be evaluated through testing. I don‘t know how many STs, CCs or other people with access talked with you about her performance, but from my experience and that of the vast majority of STs/CCs I talked with even against T8s, GC was not the sacrificial lamb you are trying to make her out to be.

16 minutes ago, CrazyHorse_Denver said:

As a GC owner I never considered her as OP, either when I was at the helm or opposing her in another ship. A good ship yes but nothing to fear.

As an owner I consider her to be OP to a massive degree, and server numbers back me up here.

17 minutes ago, CrazyHorse_Denver said:

Provide the evidence that the GC at T5 was making life at T4 & 5 so miserable that newbie players were leaving the game in droves. Your opinion about it doesn't make it so.

Provide evidence first that I claimed how newbie players were leaving the game in droves over GC.

What‘s that? I never said that? But that would mean you are trying to make things up. Shame over you!

20 minutes ago, lloyd1701 said:

The problem was not the retiering per se but rather WG putting the GC on the 'chaser ship' list to sell more Santa Boxes (i.e. so more than a few people had just spent money to acquire the ship) and then announcing the ship was going to be retiered basically as is... and at the same time as the mess of the CV reee-work was just getting started.

That I agree with, the timing of this announcement could have hardly been any worse. From what I understand it wasn‘t that S_O walked into the office a month ago and said "We do this now", but rather that he has been working on the matter of rebalancing Premiums in general for a year now, and only recently got the other Devs to accept the need, even if they still would not agree with it.

I considee the timing to be the victim of unfortunate circumstances, though WG should have known it would be problematic in these times.

21 minutes ago, lloyd1701 said:

And no, T6 GC was not nearly as strong against T8's as current GC is against T7's since that was the whole point of the retiering.

What makes you think so? Cesare‘s strengths worked just as well against T8s as they did against T7s, and were in some cases even vastly improved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×