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

Is this a new thing? "Balance changes" to premium ships

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

251
[VOP]
Members
595 posts
10,229 battles

Captain Skill rework= nerf for all ,  ergo "Balance Changes"  :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,837
[ARGSY]
Members
22,898 posts
16,963 battles
8 minutes ago, contag10n said:

Because it's based on a Tech Tree boat

Yep. Same as for ARP Yamato - and the same warning was given.

Although, interestingly, I don't ever recall it being said about the Bajie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[RBMK2]
[RBMK2]
Members
609 posts
12,455 battles
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Yep. Same as for ARP Yamato - and the same warning was given.

Although, interestingly, I don't ever recall it being said about the Bajie.

I seem to remember this same conversation last year. But, I'm old and create memories sometimes :)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
472 posts
2,840 battles
14 minutes ago, contag10n said:

Because it's based on a Tech Tree boat

So? Lots of premium ships are. You're still paying cash for it.

13 minutes ago, USMCGal said:

Captain Skill rework= nerf for all ,  ergo "Balance Changes"  :Smile-_tongue:

The re-work affects all premium ships, but I've never heard a serious argument that this is a balance change to the ships themselves. If you mean that the re-work may mean that they have to adjust Wujing directly, then it's not ready for sale.  Is the game really so cash-strapped that the whole enterprise goes belly up without new ship revenue every week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[RBMK2]
[RBMK2]
Members
609 posts
12,455 battles
10 minutes ago, Whiskey_Rebel said:

So? Lots of premium ships are. You're still paying cash for it.

 

This one was literally a copy of Amagi (I think) with a different skin. If they "rebalance" the Amagi, then this premium gets the rebalance too.

It was presented this way last year as well, so it's not new. ARP Yamato had the same deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,524
[NONE]
Members
3,758 posts
2 minutes ago, Whiskey_Rebel said:

The re-work affects all premium ships, but I've never heard a serious argument that this is a balance change to the ships themselves.

That's the wily corporate crapweasel in it's native element: "Global changes to game mechanics are not really changes to premium ships."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,837
[ARGSY]
Members
22,898 posts
16,963 battles
10 minutes ago, Whiskey_Rebel said:

If you mean that the re-work may mean that they have to adjust Wujing directly, then it's not ready for sale.

No, that's not what he means. He means that if Alsace is deemed worthy of buffs or nerfs FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, so is Wujing. Like ARP Yamato, she's a direct copy. Most premium ships have something different about them (e.g. Anshan is a Gnevny-class DD, but she has a long-range torpedo option and that makes her a different ship, plus she never got Gnevny's turret rotation buffs. Lo Yang is literally Benson, but she has hydro. Mysore is a Fiji-class, but she's lost a turret and her torps, and has crawling smoke. Perth is modified Leander, with the funny crawling smoke thing and HE ammo, but no heal. And so on.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
397 posts
26 battles
23 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Yep. Same as for ARP Yamato - and the same warning was given.

Although, interestingly, I don't ever recall it being said about the Bajie.

Bajie isn't *quite* identical to Izumo, same with both 40K Amagi's. Extremely similar but both have more sigma for slower reload vs their tech-tree originator IIRC.

Although I don't think they ever added a disclaimer for the ARP/Dragon Kongo and Myoko clones, but pretty sure they've only ever got buffed.

Edited by SoothingWhaleSongEU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,837
[ARGSY]
Members
22,898 posts
16,963 battles
1 minute ago, contag10n said:

This one was literally a copy of Amagi (I think) with a different skin. If they "rebalance" the Amagi, then this premium gets the rebalance too.

It was presented this way last year as well, so it's not new. ARP Yamato had the same deal.

Ignis/Ragnarok had a very slight sigma buff and a lengthened reload. They are no longer exact carbon copies of the base ship.

1 minute ago, SoothingWhaleSongEU said:

Although I don't think they ever did it for the ARP Kongo and Myoko clones, but pretty sure they've only ever got buffed.

The ARP Kongo and Myoko clones are the tech tree ships with all their B hull/GFCS/engine bells and whistles. AFAIK none of the parent ships have received any seriously significant buffs or nerfs since the ARP ships were released (contrast with the Kamikazes, which became the desirable God-tier clubbers they are because the ship on which they were based got the mega nerf hammer shoved up its aft while the premiums had to be left alone.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
472 posts
2,840 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

No, that's not what he means. He means that if Alsace is deemed worthy of buffs or nerfs FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, so is Wujing.

Why is a "direct copy" an exception to the rule that premium ships can be pulled but not nerfed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
90
[BE-ER]
Beta Testers
123 posts
15,868 battles

Bajie has more range, but longer reload than Izumo, IIRC. The 40k botes have better sigma, but longer reload than Amagi. Wujing and ARP Yamato are exact copy-pastes with the exception of the skin to their tech tree counterparts, as has already been said. I think the dragon Myoko clones are just old enough that those disclaimers were not given at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[GLF]
Members
50 posts
25,420 battles

WG have had issues in the past with changes to premium ships.  So now to cover themselves they provide a warning upfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,837
[ARGSY]
Members
22,898 posts
16,963 battles
3 minutes ago, Whiskey_Rebel said:

Why is a "direct copy" an exception to the rule that premium ships can be pulled but not nerfed?

IDK, ask them. But the warning has been given up front, and the difference it makes to anyone's decision to buy is no issue of mine. Right now, I know that if I want the playstyle Wujing offers, I just have to grind to Alsace.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,245
[WOLFG]
Members
31,841 posts
9,872 battles
24 minutes ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

That's the wily corporate crapweasel in it's native element: "Global changes to game mechanics are not really changes to premium ships."

Agreed. They should have been the corporate honey badger, 'cause honey badger don't care if people that have premiums don't want their ships balanced if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
472 posts
2,840 battles
6 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

IDK, ask them. But the warning has been given up front, and the difference it makes to anyone's decision to buy is no issue of mine. Right now, I know that if I want the playstyle Wujing offers, I just have to grind to Alsace.

Yeah it's just weird. If they add 1 hp or 50 meters range, the ship is untouchable. But if they make a complete development cop-out and just clone a tech tree ship, then caveat emptor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,245
[WOLFG]
Members
31,841 posts
9,872 battles
20 minutes ago, Whiskey_Rebel said:

Why is a "direct copy" an exception to the rule that premium ships can be pulled but not nerfed?

Because there's no "rule" in the first place.

They can nerf premium ships anytime they want, but don't want to deal with the backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,837
[ARGSY]
Members
22,898 posts
16,963 battles
Just now, Skpstr said:

They can nerf premium ships anytime they want, but don't want to deal with the backlash.

Yeah, this enables them to say "We told you up front she was liable to changes", something they can't do with the legacy premiums already in the game.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
472 posts
2,840 battles
4 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Yeah, this enables them to say "We told you up front she was liable to changes", something they can't do with the legacy premiums already in the game.

 

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,245
[WOLFG]
Members
31,841 posts
9,872 battles
7 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Yeah, this enables them to say "We told you up front she was liable to changes", something they can't do with the legacy premiums already in the game.

If they do nerf one, that won't matter lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,837
[ARGSY]
Members
22,898 posts
16,963 battles
9 minutes ago, Whiskey_Rebel said:

 

tenor.gif

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Nobody's forcing you.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
472 posts
2,840 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Nobody's forcing you.

Your attitude towards straightforward questions is awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
235 posts

From what I'm reading this ship is exactly the same as the Alsace other than the forking fugly camo.

Is this correct? Is there any other notable difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[RBMK2]
[RBMK2]
Members
609 posts
12,455 battles
1 minute ago, Whiskey_Rebel said:

Your attitude towards straightforward questions is awesome.

I see it as you asked a question. People answered and now your trying to argue with them.

No one is defending WG about this, but yeah, if you don't like the rule don't buy.

Quit whining at people who just try to explain the situation to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×