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
1 hour ago, Sweetsie said:

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.

I'm not saying don't put ships in the Santa Crates. Don't put discontinued ships in the Santa Crates.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[A_51]
Members
678 posts

The right way to "fix" overpowered ships:

1.  Don't release OP ships

2. If testing goes awry and WG accidentally releases an OP ship, stop selling it immediately AND DON'T USE IT AS A WAY TO SELL CRATES.  Then either

              a. live with the fact that a few players will be playing with an OP ship, or

              b. make the necessary changes and give the players who bought the ship the option of keeping the new iteration or receiving a full cash refund

 

Nothing could be simpler, right?  Oh yeah, WG doesn't ever want to give cash refunds, even for their own screwups.  If WG had planned to give cash refunds to those who wanted one, none of this shite storm would have happened

Edited by Seaneroo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

I'm not saying don't put ships in the Santa Crates. Don't put discontinued ships in the Santa Crates.

 

Ya, but ask anyone that didn't have them how much they spent..... they probably got almost every other premium until they got the ones that they really wanted. It's a huge revenue generator for WG. In my case before I got all of them, the last ship I got was the Kamikaze, I already had the Kamikaze R. It's not like the juicy ones drop on the first $20 spent. It is carefully calculated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,299
Members
20,838 posts
5,614 battles
13 hours ago, Taco_De_Moist said:

Theres almost no products, digital or otherwise, you can buy, use for a while then return it for a full refund.

Yeah, it's funny, for all the stuff that gets thrown around about how proper businesses, nobody ever mentions depreciation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,299
Members
20,838 posts
5,614 battles
7 hours ago, Seaneroo said:

Oh yeah, WG doesn't ever want to give cash refunds, even for their own screwups.  If WG had planned to give cash refunds to those who wanted one, none of this shite storm would have happened

You know what would help with that?

Sell absolutely nothing for real money except doubloons. Put all the premiums in the arsenal, including "packages", for coal, steel, or doubloons as appropriate.

Presto! Need for cash refunds totally eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[A_51]
Members
678 posts
20 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

You know what would help with that?

Sell absolutely nothing for real money except doubloons. Put all the premiums in the arsenal, including "packages", for coal, steel, or doubloons as appropriate.

Presto! Need for cash refunds totally eliminated.

Yeah, that would fix everything.

Share this post


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

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

What on earth are you on about? I "rented" the ship for the life of the game, so my rental is in fact not up.  My primary argument is on people wanting full refunds for ships they have played.

Share this post


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

Yeah, it's funny, for all the stuff that gets thrown around about how proper businesses, nobody ever mentions depreciation....

OP mentioned that ships dont depreciate....sure, they dont because they are digital, but if WG full refunds ships people don't want they aren't getting anything of value back.  If there was a magic car that remained like new forever If I sold it back to the dealer for full price, they could at least turn around and sell it to someone else.  WG isn't getting anything out of letting people sell ships back for full refunds as they essentially have limitless stock.

Edited by Taco_De_Moist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
936 posts
2,399 battles
12 hours ago, 0NutsNBolts0 said:

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. 

 

If WG really wanted balance they would go through the tech tree and buff those so that prems didn't outshine them. They could buff stinkers like the KK so they don't fall even more behind. That would satisfy most prem owners, the balance crowd, and ftp players.  But that would be too much effort on their behalf and let's be honest they try to skate as close to the ptw line as possible so to make more profit.

Edited by Krupp_Sabot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,282
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,887 posts
12,189 battles

Maybe they'd have gotten more support had they not tried to re-tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
936 posts
2,399 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

Maybe they'd have gotten more support had they not tried to re-tier.

That is for sure. T6 is just not a fun tier. The power difference between 6s and 8s and the maps you see drastically change how she would have performed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,282
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,887 posts
12,189 battles
1 minute ago, Krupp_Sabot said:

That is for sure. T6 is just not a fun tier. The power difference between 6s and 8s and the maps you see drastically change how she would have performed.

I know that I would have supported nerfs and stay in T5.  I was vocal about not feeling a T6 bump was acceptable.  That doesn't mean I don't care about balance, it means I disagree with how they tried to do it.  If they're going to do it, they need to do it right and a retier is not right imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
936 posts
2,399 battles
Just now, crzyhawk said:

I know that I would have supported nerfs and stay in T5.  I was vocal about not feeling a T6 bump was acceptable.  That doesn't mean I don't care about balance, it means I disagree with how they tried to do it.  If they're going to do it, they need to do it right and a retier is not right imo.

I was fine with the same. Although i'm not sure what you would nerf really? The speed? the stealth? The alpha strike of the he? Her armor was already crap so that wasn't the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,282
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,887 posts
12,189 battles
Just now, Krupp_Sabot said:

I was fine with the same. Although i'm not sure what you would nerf really? The speed? the stealth? The alpha strike of the he? Her armor was already crap so that wasn't the issue.

The firepower is what makes it OP imo.  I think you'd have to nerf the reload a bit, nerf the sigma and perhaps increase dispersion.  Low tier BBs are inaccurate by design.  making GC an accurate battleship at low tiers pretty much breaks the basic balance concept that they have used at low tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,853 posts
11,874 battles
7 hours ago, Skpstr said:

Yeah, it's funny, for all the stuff that gets thrown around about how proper businesses, nobody ever mentions depreciation....

I doubt virtual goods depreciate but check with the IRS to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,853 posts
11,874 battles
1 hour ago, Krupp_Sabot said:

I was fine with the same. Although i'm not sure what you would nerf really? The speed? the stealth? The alpha strike of the he? Her armor was already crap so that wasn't the issue.

The HE is ridiculous. Compare it to the HE of the Roma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
39 posts
1,452 battles

There was a saying in the Army, mid 90s, that if you think something is unbreakable give it to a bunch of Pvts.  After all when we were told that the ASAS was uncrashable first thing we tried to do was crash the government super computer. 

 

The point is current issue premiums need to stop being sold, both direct and loot box lottery, as it is hard to make an argument that they are OP when they are still being sold or used as bait to sell loot boxes.  In time player attrition should thin the numbers.  Any new premiums need to be balanced before release, if need be put a rental period on them, which would also work as advertising.  Say a week or 2 weeks for the general player base to 'abuse' them to see where adjustments need to be made. 

Edited by Izgoy0899

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,299
Members
20,838 posts
5,614 battles
6 hours ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

I doubt virtual goods depreciate but check with the IRS to be sure.

I was more commenting on how people love to use flawed analogies to compare WoWS transactions to for example, buying a car.

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.

×