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

Missouri mess...

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

487
[NAVAL]
[NAVAL]
Members
283 posts
15,689 battles

I got one when they were first released.. but with all the issues of getting the new one.. the credit issue between new/old owners.. why didn't they just fix the credit part of it, change the name to wisconsin or new jersey, and just put it up for sale? seems like it would have been a hell of a lot simplier. 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[SVEN]
Beta Testers
408 posts
10,440 battles
6 minutes ago, syp_twiz said:

I got one when they were first released.. but with all the issues of getting the new one.. the credit issue between new/old owners.. why didn't they just fix the credit part of it, change the name to wisconsin or new jersey, and just put it up for sale? seems like it would have been a hell of a lot simplier. 

Artificial scarcity and FOMO.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[-UCS-]
Members
206 posts
13,165 battles

Because WG had to find a fig leaf to cover the credit earning problems with current Missouri. WG figured they could put enough chaff out and the OG owners would settle for some level of nerfed earnings. “Studying data” is a stall tactic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,264
[CCPLZ]
Senior Volunteer Moderator, Supertester, Privateers
1,815 posts
17,741 battles
33 minutes ago, syp_twiz said:

I got one when they were first released.. but with all the issues of getting the new one.. the credit issue between new/old owners.. why didn't they just fix the credit part of it, change the name to wisconsin or new jersey, and just put it up for sale? seems like it would have been a hell of a lot simplier. 

They admitted this on stream, saying it would probably have worked better in retrospective. 

Wanting to put Missouri in name at least back up for VJ day was something they wanted to do since they took her off the market, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,821
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
5,341 posts
8,669 battles
1 hour ago, LancerUlysses said:

They admitted this on stream, saying it would probably have worked better in retrospective. 

Wanting to put Missouri in name at least back up for VJ day was something they wanted to do since they took her off the market, though. 

Seemed like it would have been interesting enough to give it the special camo and call it Missouri V (Victory) or something like that..  Might have even enticed some current Mo owners to buy it?    They really waded themselves into a mess with it.   Not the 1st one caused by their commitment to not nerf premium ships.. Which I always thought was a mistake.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,456
[SIMP]
Members
1,710 posts

Because logic and simplicity are NOT WeeGee's strengths.

NO SPREDSHEET DATA AVAILABLE FOR WISCONSIN CLONE  - MAKE CONVOLUTED EVENT FOR MISSOURI!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,008
[WOLFC]
Members
3,659 posts
12,487 battles
1 hour ago, iRA6E said:

Not the 1st one caused by their commitment to not nerf premium ships.. Which I always thought was a mistake. 

Not really. WG recently directly nerfed Flint’s ROF, indicating their commitment to the letter of their formal position on nerfing premium ships after the GC rebalance attempt was abandoned. Their specific wording meant it only applied to ships available directly for doubloons or sold in the premium shop. MO (as well as certain other tier IX ships like Musashi, Kronsdaht, Benham, and Black) don’t fit this criteria.

WG wanted to release MO with a fixed economy, and they could have just nerfed her credit earning outright. The combat mission solution was a needlessly complicated attempt to placate the current owners of MO and avoid the “controversy” of nerfing her income. Ironically, their bungling of this method of avoiding controversy just created more controversy. :Smile_veryhappy:

And yes, IMO WG’s decision to back down in regards to the GC rebalance attempt is the single biggest mistake they have made in regards to the overall health of the game.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,821
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
5,341 posts
8,669 battles
2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Not really. WG recently directly nerfed Flint’s ROF, indicating their commitment to the letter of their formal position on needing premium ships after the GC rebalance attempt was abandoned. Their specific wording meant it only applied to ships available directly for doubloons or sold in the premium shop. MO (as well as certain other tier IX ships like Musashi, Kronsdaht, Benham and Black) don’t fit this criteria.

WG wanted to release MO with a fixed economy, and they could have just nerfed her credit earning outright. The combat mission solution was a needlessly complicated attempt to placate the current owners of MO and avoid the “controversy” of nerfing her income. Ironically, their bungling of this method of avoiding controversy just created more controversy. :Smile_veryhappy:

And yes, IMO WG’s decision to back down during in regards to the GC rebalance attempt is the single biggest mistake they have made in regards to the overall health of the game.

You're right.. I had forgotten that Mo. was a FXP ship and not sold for dubloons.. though i'm sure many spent cash converting.    I agree with you on the premium stance completely.  

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.

×