Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Wasaboi

Good Job WG

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles

I certainly will give credit where credit is due.
Good Work on the upcoming armory changes WG.
Obviously, it would be better for the game without ships for a competitive currency but the trickle-down/rotation method is certainly a good compromise.
 

It is a very low probability I was the first to suggest such a change but here it was:
 

Spoiler

First, I think we need to start off here by making it clear that gating unique ships behind a competitive currency is a very big “no-no”, especially for a F2P game, and even more especially for a F2P game in a niche market. The majority of your revenue for WoWs is going to be from the Whales. Following the standard principle that holds true for the entire market, disposable time vs disposable income, it is found that those who spend the most have the least time to play. Less time to play can even correlate to performance, as on average those with less time to play will have less time to learn all mechanics and interactions, as well as all of the intricacies. Those who spend the most, especially in a game like this with multiple archetypes which have lots of subclasses and even tiers, are going to be those most interested in collecting ships. Gating unique ships behind steel is a BIG slap in the face to what amounts to your primary investment core. The best possible solution would involve getting rid of the system entirely, as it is like a malignant tumor, constantly reducing the life-expectancy of this game… and instead simply reward completely unique camouflages and nameplates for the competitive modes, or even mirror ships like special competitive versions of the “Black” ships (e.g. Asashio B) with the same exact attributes as the original. With that said, I think the below is a compromise, one that will still heal some wounds caused by the Steel for ships system.

1.) Rotate/Trickle-down ships that are offered for Steel.
2.) Every 3 months, a single ship that is currently offered for Steel will be then offered for Coal and Doubloons.
3.) 3 months after a Steel ship is offered for Coal, it will then be offered for Free-XP
4.) 3 months after a Steel ship is offered for Free-XP, it will be returned to being Steel ONLY.
5.) This means that 6-months after the start of this system, there will always be a ship that is offered for Steel only at any given time. There will always be a ship that was originally offered for Steel that would now be for Coal and doubloons, at any given time. There will always be a ship that was originally offered for Steel that would now be for Free-XP, at any given time. It would be a constant rotation.
6.) This also means that the competitive players will still get a 3-month “first dibs” on any ship that is released originally for Steel. This system does NOT mean a higher influx of Tier X premiums should be originally offered for Steel. The rate of Steel Ship release should continue as it is now.



Taken from here:


 


Now hopefully the changes being made to the armory, and some Steel ships becoming available for Coal, will be something that is repeated in rotation.

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,684
[O7]
Members
5,361 posts
11,868 battles

No, it's actually very bad that they removed certain ships, because now I will never hear the end of "we need smolensk to be competitive". It should have never existed in the first place, but since it does it's even more stupid to remove an OP ship that exists within competitive tiers without banning it from competitive modes. Can't wait to hear the crying in t10 ranked/cbs in half a year.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
460
[KMS]
[KMS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,553 posts
11,708 battles
15 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

Sure beats having to buy someone else's account to get steel ships, doesn't it? 

Cough.. I heard the Dolphin in that stab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
217 posts
9,709 battles

I like the idea of steel ships becoming coal a year or two later that seems like a good compromise. Some of us who play a lot don't do clan battles we just solo queue randoms. Its a real shame though that Jean Bart is being vaulted though its a VERY fun ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
12 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

No, it's actually very bad that they removed certain ships, because now I will never hear the end of "we need smolensk to be competitive". It should have never existed in the first place, but since it does it's even more stupid to remove an OP ship that exists within competitive tiers without banning it from competitive modes. Can't wait to hear the crying in t10 ranked/cbs in half a year.

I meant specifically that they are rotating/trickling down steel ships for other currency.

I don't agree with ANY ship being removed, at least not permanently. 

"It should have never existed in the first place...". Sure it should have. There is absolutely NO data to support it was ever/is OP. Most high tier BBs and CVs on the other hand...

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,316
[WOOK3]
Members
4,213 posts
3,235 battles

What I really appreciate is knowing in advance what currency new ships will be available by. That's a welcome change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
25 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

Sure beats having to buy someone else's account to get steel ships, doesn't it? 

does buying an account with Stalingrad, give Stalingrad premium ship perks.? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
9 minutes ago, PowerSurged said:

I like the idea of steel ships becoming coal a year or two later that seems like a good compromise. Some of us who play a lot don't do clan battles we just solo queue randoms. Its a real shame though that Jean Bart is being vaulted though its a VERY fun ship. 

In the gaming market 1-2 years is far too long for some sort of turn around like that. You won't find many people that are willing to invest in a game in hopes of potentially unlocking something available now, but in a year or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,857 posts
15,308 battles
2 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

does buying an account with Stalingrad, give Stalingrad premium ship perks.? 

The question becomes whether or not someone arguing that their wallet is closed is relevant once they have gone this far to obtain steel ships. 

Edited by Ducky_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,424
[MERCB]
[MERCB]
Members
4,337 posts
20,013 battles
6 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

The question becomes whether or not someone arguing that their wallet is closed is relevant once they have gone this far to obtain steel ships. 

 who said Steel is not for sale?

Looks for the right price it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,684
[O7]
Members
5,361 posts
11,868 battles
19 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

I meant specifically that they are rotating/trickling down steel ships for other currency.

I don't agree with ANY ship being removed, at least not permanently. 

"It should have never existed in the first place...". Sure it should have. There is absolutely NO data to support it was ever/is OP. Most high tier BBs and CVs on the other hand...

It was bloody removed from the armoury because it was OP. You don't see stalin or bourgogne kicked out of it despite being in there since steels inception. Smol has TRIPLED stalingrads battles played in randoms. Not only did smol come out a year and a half after stalin did, it's only been ~3 months for smol.

It's basically a tier 10 kutuzov. It's clear they learned none of the lessons they should have from that mistake either, and so smolensk has gone to the same place kutuzov has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,682
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,485 posts
1 hour ago, Varknyn12 said:


Obviously, it would be better for the game without ships for a competitive currency

I don't have any steel ships but I disagree.  I don't see anything wrong with some ships that are earned by playing competitive modes only.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
8 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

It was bloody removed from the armoury because it was OP. You don't see stalin or bourgogne kicked out of it despite being in there since steels inception. Smol has TRIPLED stalingrads battles played in randoms. Not only did smol come out a year and a half after stalin did, it's only been ~3 months for smol.

It's basically a tier 10 kutuzov. It's clear they learned none of the lessons they should have from that mistake either, and so smolensk has gone to the same place kutuzov has.

Its removal is not evidence of its place in balance.

The performance data completely refutes any claim it was overpowered.

What WG choses to do =/= valid justification for doing such.

2 Month sample: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200201/na_2month/average_ship.html
 

 

Additionally, there has never been any evidence to support Stalingrad being overpowered. Despite this, it was nerfed any way. The Bourgogne on the other hand, even after removing the bias from the samples, is tied with kremlin as the strongest performing ships in the game.. and (the Bourgogne) has yet to be nerfed.

Claiming just because WG did or didn't do something is evidence for justification is like claiming because Ford made the Pinto, the Pinto must be a good and reliable car.

Edited by Varknyn12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,857 posts
15,308 battles
1 hour ago, Varknyn12 said:

Obviously, it would be better for the game without ships for a competitive currency


 


 

Obviously, It would be better if it was being argued by a player with no steel ships on their account, it would look a lost less hypocritical, you know. I mean, we all know you didn't earn them, but still... 

Edited by Ducky_shot
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,941
[TBW]
Members
10,278 posts
17,459 battles

Smolensk was too popular of a girl, her Daddy pulled her from public and put her into an exclusive private school.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
31 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

 

 

Additionally, there has never been any evidence to support Stalingrad being overpowered. Despite this, it was nerfed any way. The Bourgogne on the other hand, even after removing the bias from the samples, is tied with kremlin as the strongest performing ships in the game.. and (the Bourgogne) has yet to be nerfed.

Claiming just because WG did or didn't do something is evidence for justification is like claiming because Ford made the Pinto, the Pinto must be a good and reliable car.

Do you own a Stalingrad?

If the answer is yes, how much did it cost you? I understand a major investment like that would be worth defending, hell it would be horrible for you (if you bought Stalingrad for money), if this ship were nerfed some more. The idea that it is OP, (which some trolls argue:Smile_Default:), would of course be quite objectionable. I guess, all the other warships that came bundled with your Stalingrad purchase, would provide some compensation, at least.

2 month Ship/players/totalbattles/WR (average dmg is in the final column)

Smolensk 2970 192594 64.85 49.42 0.02 50.56 1810 79360
Stalingrad 468 31319 66.92 57.07 0.02 42.91 2075 91181

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,684
[O7]
Members
5,361 posts
11,868 battles
37 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

Its removal is not evidence of its place in balance.

The performance data completely refutes any claim it was overpowered.

What WG choses to do =/= valid justification for doing such.

2 Month sample: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200201/na_2month/average_ship.html
 

 

Additionally, there has never been any evidence to support Stalingrad being overpowered. Despite this, it was nerfed any way. The Bourgogne on the other hand, even after removing the bias from the samples, is tied with kremlin as the strongest performing ships in the game.. and (the Bourgogne) has yet to be nerfed.

Claiming just because WG did or didn't do something is evidence for justification is like claiming because Ford made the Pinto, the Pinto must be a good and reliable car.

My god, get help. You can look at any ship that has been stated as OP and removed from shop and see similar statistics with it's tier. A ship isn't considered OP because it's braindead proof, and isn't going to stand out in averages. The 'data' you want to use doesn't refute anything when people like you can get into these ships and convince anyone they aren't OP simply by playing them. High DPM HE in smoke is, and always will be, OP for cruisers. This is what happened to Belfast and Kutuzov, and now Smolensk. It's what sparked the global smoke nerf, though i bet you have no idea what that is.

When you get a premium that outscores at the top every other tier 10 cruiser, including ol henri which just caught WGs eye, you would have to be insane to say it wasn't singled out and removed because it was OP, and overplayed because of it. Then again, you think BBs are the most OP thing in the game because you can get punched in the head and not die in them immediately. Don't worry, if you ever live up to those stats that the person who you bought the account from earned, maybe you'll get it.

Edited by Pulicat
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,835
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,412 posts
14,163 battles
1 hour ago, Pulicat said:

It was bloody removed from the armoury because it was OP. You don't see stalin or bourgogne kicked out of it despite being in there since steels inception. Smol has TRIPLED stalingrads battles played in randoms. Not only did smol come out a year and a half after stalin did, it's only been ~3 months for smol.

It's basically a tier 10 kutuzov. It's clear they learned none of the lessons they should have from that mistake either, and so smolensk has gone to the same place kutuzov has.

 

1 hour ago, Varknyn12 said:

Its removal is not evidence of its place in balance.

The performance data completely refutes any claim it was overpowered.

What WG choses to do =/= valid justification for doing such.

2 Month sample: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200201/na_2month/average_ship.html
 

 

Additionally, there has never been any evidence to support Stalingrad being overpowered. Despite this, it was nerfed any way. The Bourgogne on the other hand, even after removing the bias from the samples, is tied with kremlin as the strongest performing ships in the game.. and (the Bourgogne) has yet to be nerfed.

Claiming just because WG did or didn't do something is evidence for justification is like claiming because Ford made the Pinto, the Pinto must be a good and reliable car.

It is a high skill floor ship like the RTS CV's were and in the hands of top players it was over powered but those players are rare and its performance fell drastically as you went down in skill level compared to other less demanding ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,569
[WOLF2]
Members
4,985 posts
19,871 battles
4 hours ago, Varknyn12 said:

I certainly will give credit where credit is due.
Good Work on the upcoming armory changes WG.
Obviously, it would be better for the game without ships for a competitive currency but the trickle-down/rotation method is certainly a good compromise.
 

 

This is actually interesting/useful information … 

Can't believe I had to go to second page to find it o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
16 hours ago, LoveBote said:

Do you own a Stalingrad?

If the answer is yes, how much did it cost you? I understand a major investment like that would be worth defending, hell it would be horrible for you (if you bought Stalingrad for money), if this ship were nerfed some more. The idea that it is OP, (which some trolls argue:Smile_Default:), would of course be quite objectionable. I guess, all the other warships that came bundled with your Stalingrad purchase, would provide some compensation, at least.

2 month Ship/players/totalbattles/WR (average dmg is in the final column)

Smolensk 2970 192594 64.85 49.42 0.02 50.56 1810 79360
Stalingrad 468 31319 66.92 57.07 0.02 42.91 2075 91181

Thank You for proving my point.

1.) There is nothing in the displayed metrics that are evidence of an imbalance. You should probably learn what balance is, and how it can be quantified.

2.) When posting statistical metrics, you should also probably learn what statistical bias is so you don't make claims based on face-value data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
4 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

Thank You for proving my point.

1.) There is nothing in the displayed metrics that are evidence of an imbalance. You should probably learn what balance is, and how it can be quantified.

2.) When posting statistical metrics, you should also probably learn what statistical bias is so you don't make claims based on face-value data.

Well each will draw their own conclusions. In future, it would be helpful if you presented a selection of relevant data too, rather than a mass data dump of all ships in WOWS at all tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×