Allied_Winter

With regards to optimizing the testing process? Heck why not. That should also be a short enough time period, that refunding for cash would work. True. Hence why I limited my OP to the GC only. On the other hand, if that's a way to mitigate the problems AND at the same time works as a stern deterrent to WG to EVER again release premium ships that are hillariously OP, I'd say it's a viable route. What harm can 5 more ships do? But yes, I see this only as a viable step IF retiering for a ship works. That however ... not really. At least not on my end. To me that'd be just some goodies on top. But not an acceptable item if the GC comes as uptiered and the mentioned camo would be the ONLY additional goody. Which leaves us with the only option of accepting that unobtainable (if we exclude those ships from Satan crates) OP Premium ships. And given the current information we have WG is not really keen on keeping OP Premium ships in the game and tries to rebalance them. What then? What if OP Premium ships - despite the fact that people payed money for it (and of which I assume the majority didn't buy it solely because it's OP) - are about to go extingt. You (and others) deem that unacceptable. I can understand and respect that. I'm still pished that some ships that I like are deemed OP and thus about to be rebalanced. But I also understand that they can't remain in the game in their current state. Not only due to them being OP, but also because it leaves out a big (and growing) portion of the playerbase that has NO chance whatsoever to get either a GC, a Belfast or a Kamikaze. Sure, maybe the test with GC at T6 doesn't go through. And maybe there are forces inside WG that are stronger than S_O which allow for OP ships to remain in the game. At least on the condition that no more OP ships are introduced. But my daily job is to analyze 'What if' scenarios. What if this fails? What if that works out differntely than thought? My post is just that. A what if analysis. So, what if, we as player accept that premium ships CAN get nerfed. In case of an OP Premiumships the ramifications on WGs side would need to be harsh, so that it deterrs them to ever do it again. But at the same time open up a rout on balancing premium ships easier in the long run (which I assume is healthier for a game like Warships than churning out and keeping OP premium ships, while UP premium ships are not being buffed out of WGs fear they might turn out OP). See my proposal like this: The community is screaming for months now for a Blyska buff. Or the just recently announced Dunkek buff. Part of me believes that these buffs don't come (or in case of the Dunkek come very very slowly), because WG fears just another OP ship. 'Hey let's buff Blyskas reload by 0.5s' - 'Are you nuts, if it turns out OP, then we're stuck with another ship that needs to be either taken from the shop (=bad for WGs finances) or power crept (=bad for the game)'. Maybe you're right. It was past midnight as I wrote OP. On the other hand it's far more reasonable than my request for Colombian blow... Especially the "nerfed Mortadella" part on a nerfed T5 GC was written under the hope/dream, that patches from now, when all this hassle is over, devs and designers still get flashbacks over the double/triple shifts they had to do. And that works hopefully as a deterrent to ever release a ship again in a state the forces WG to hand out this much compensation. That's why we're having this discussion. To maybe probably find some better options than I proposed.

How are you giving them more money if you're using a voucher for a GT2? Maybe I should've clarified: The voucher would entitle you to choose ANY Porsche FOR FREE after THEY Botched up your existing Porsche. Sure would be A$$ if you own a 918 Spyder that they wrecked, but in that case a double voucher would be more appropriate.

But what if, this voucher is valid for ANY new Porsche? Heck you could even upgrade from a 'crappy' 911 to a GT2 ...

Sounds like another - expected - week of live testing to balance out CVs? Might give my AA cruisers a try tonight...

To a certain degree, yes. It was WGs mistake. They should be the one paying for it. That's one of the notions I try to bring forward. Absolutely. And I hope I didn't give anyone the impression that I'd be 'OK' with that. For the sake of clarification: I'm not. A few nasty grabby schemes that happened and WG has to own up on them. Period. There are a lot of questions WG has to answer (Why now? Why the GC and not enteranotherOPPremium? Why putting her up for Satan crates?), but it was not my intention to use this thread as ... yet another ... discussion thread about how WG should've done better and how the shouldn't have cocked up. This thread was made purely on the assumption that there are players out there that, given the facts (no cash refund, rebalance in testing), are willing to discuss a reasonable way of compensation, refunding and what not out of this trickle. Which is absolutely fair. And I respect that. I get from that, that no matter what WG will offer (since ... already mentioned, cash is apparently no refund option), you or others in this thread here or elsewhere, will stop spending money, maybe even uninstall the game. You have every right to do so. Who am I to blame you for it or judge. Keep in mind, I'm not happy with the turn of events either, and if WG continues to botch things up further with a refund/compensation offer that leaves most p(l)ayers in the dust, good luck seeing anymore of my money. However: I don't want that. I do like the game. I enjoy the community that I've grown into and it's sad to see players leave over this. So I'd say, it's in WG's own interest to not continue botching up. Unless they determined that they expect more money to come from new players than from old veterans. In that case, each is on their own regarding how to continue. If at all. Keep in mind though, that even in this 'promise' you can clearly read:[...]unless absolutely needed[...] Sure, you can call it a loophole or what not, but WG - at least to my knowledge - never made such a promise without a technicality like this in place. May I ask you this: If WG would come forward now and clear up the questions ... e.g saying that the reason GC will NOW rebalanced is because her data from Ranked Sprint was just off the charts. What good is it for us to know that? I don't know how that would help solve the situation. Mostly because, if you think that WG has lost all your trust and you act upon it, then do so. I doubt that suddenly knowing the truth would make you change your mind, wouldn't it? Same for my situation: The damage is done, so knowing how it exactly happened, won't remedy the situation. But how WG will act in the upcoming months can help. Hence why I proposed the ideas in my OP. Working on the testing/balancing program for WIP ships is definitely an issue that needs to be tweaked. However I don't see how OP ships can be left in the game when they create more and more problems. I mean .... any Ranked at T7 format is basically out of the picture right now. Belfasts (and probably now even more Flints) all around. Sure you could say: Ban Belfast/Premiums from Ranked! But again my point regarding who's at fault: Why should the Belfast player be held responsible for a mistake made by WG? Also I'm quite sure that WG wants the ships they themselve bring into the game be available in every game mode (and that bloody heck includes CVs ... but that's a different topic for another day). While I doubt that we ever see a cash refund, I strongly agree that WG needs to take a financial hit on this one. Period. For every premium ship they rebalance the should make a chart on what it did cost them to make sure that the community is satisfied and accepts a rebalance. Print out that chart, hang it in every office for every WG employee to see and remember: Ahhh this ... this event that cost me a christmas bonus and forced our CEO to sell one of his Ferraris. Even without refunding cash that's possible. I'm being exceptionally unrealisitc and unreasonable here: But if WG gives EVERY premium ship owner (no matter if that's a ship to be rebalanced or not) a year of premium time, 100k dubloons, 50k steel, 5 premium ships of choice. The whales might not really need that, but the majority of the casual playerbase will be quite happy about it. AND since they got so much, not much point in spending money at least for a year. Giving out ingame goodies might not reduce WGs money stack immediately. But it surely hampers the upcoming cash flow. Which imho is more of a hit to take. A final thought: How about, if WG wants to nerf a premium ship, let them! Now before you throw stones (He said Jehova!!!), hear me out: Right now WG - and thus to a certain degree we - is in a tight spot: If they overdo a new premium ship, they're screwed. And let's face it, balancing outright can not be reliably done everytime. If you think it can, may I suggest reading this post for some perspective. (That's also a frigging reasnoable mindset by this poster) Ok, so WG doesn't release strong premium ships but weak ones, or quirky ships which in most cases turn out to be on the weak side as well. Now the community is screaming for buffs (Blyska anyone?), but, if WG overdos this ship, they're stuck, yet again with a ship that is too strong. So, hence my suggestion of letting WG nerf a premium ship if it deserves a nerf. And thus enabling WG to easier BUFF premiumships if necessary. Because if they overdo it, not that much of a problem, they can fine tune it. Basically as @jss78 outlined. This way also enables Warships to NOT follow down the route of Tanks and release one OP after another because you can't nerf premiums. Will it suck that I get my enteranyOPPremium removed/rebalanced? Sure! But maybe another port queen of mine gets buffed due to WG having it a TAD easier to finetune stuff and not fearing that they move themselves in a corner.

Was meinst du mit Elitekapitän? Ein Kapitän mit besonderen Fähigkeiten? Oder ein 19 Punktekapitän?

Maybe? Maybe not. I have no overview what was proposed as playerfeedback (no matter which topic) and what was accepted. And this is where I'm oposing. Having a few players suffer because WG isn't able - in your eyes - to balance a class is a no go imho.

I have to admit, we talked passed each other a tad. But while I get your point regarding "CV's can't be played" like other classes, I don't see that as an issue. At least not in the epic proportions some are painting it on the wall. That is however on the basis that - unlike you and others - I think WG manages to balance it out alright. Let me propose this question to you: Given the CV's can't be played like other classes BUT assume for a moment they were properly balanced: Would you mind them then? No. Just putting your points forward to WG ... you know ... the guys that actually can decide stuff ... not me. Personally I can understand that people don't like CVs, but then argue for removing CVs completely instead of shafting them out of one game mode by a more comlpex MM than we need. Binary choice here. CVs in or out. With all the net positives and drawbacks. At least that's the way I see it.

Similar to what I had in mind. But that'd make for a seperate topic

Don't need an OP Premium ship for that ...

Guilty as charged. While I wasn't around that much on reddit yesterday and certainly bit my tongue quite few times (If you don't have something nice to say...) I may have been a bit salty in a few discussions about the GC rebalance. And yes, the biggest part of that was: MUHHH OP SHIP! I can delve deeper into that if you want, but that'd be too much OT. After thinking about the issue for a bit though (and as others have mentioned in the meantime): The problem is not necessarilly rebalancing OP premiums (though I'm stilly disappointed by it, I do understand that it has to happen), the problem is, that now many players that - unlike you - aren't used to premium vehicle nerfs, do now fear that they buy something today that tomorrow will be nerfed/changed till kingdom come. Given WG's trackrecord on balancing with a hammer, I'd say they're rightfully scared (and as you see by some comment further above mine...). The underlying fear that what I can use (not own) now is worth less. Thus I have been shafted. How to resolve that issue? I'm currently thinking on how that could be done (to give WG some hints), but bottom line: WG screwed up balancing, they admitted it. And while it should not happen, it did. Fair enough everybody makes mistakes, but I've grown up, that he who makes mistakes has to own up to them. Or in other words, why should I be held responsible for WG's mistakes? So unless WG offers the players something of at least equal value (and given the state of T5 GC that'll be not cheap), anything will be seen as either buying their way out or shafting the players that DID pay money on premium ships even more. And that's not what you want to do to your customers.

Yet again: WG wants ALL FOUR CLASSES to be in the same game. This hasn't gone smoothely in the past (looking at CV less CBs and the current T9 ranked), but it doesn't mean that WG wants CVs to go. That is the initial base we all stand upon. Yeah... I noticed. I never denied those. BUT: Just because people throwing stuff around like "CV's are bad for the game!" or "CV's are cancer!" doesn't mean you immediately should act on it. Who knows, maybe that's just somebody that's salty because he got sunk by a CV. And that in and of itself should NEVER be a reason to balance something. Sinking other players is core element of the game. S_O even said (at least I think it was him), that balancing purely according to reddit or the forums would leave out a majority of the player base. Sure. Same could be said about any of the other three remaining classes. Just look at the poll in this thread: Barely half the voters voted AGAINST CVs. A clear majority looks different. Of course, you could now say: Yeah, but not all players disliking CVs have voted yet. True. But then I could reply: Yeah, but not all players liking CVs have voted yet. This get's us (I mean ... the community) nowhere. HOWEVER: What could get us forward would be this: 1. You don't like CVs, I get that. Neither pre nor post 0.8.0. However, since WG is persistent on keeping CVs in the game, so why not help WG achieving that AND at the same time bringing in ideas on how CVs had to change that you'd like them. Because, simply saying "SUUUUUXXXX!" without offering any ideas or ways how it could work better, is just bad play. 2. You don't like CVs, to such a degree that you rather see them removed from the game. Then for the love of RNG make a compelling case on why the game would be better off without them. With the right arguments WG might listen to you. Cute. Didn't know there's a QP race going on. In that case: @T0byJug you win this round!

Sell her at T6 with def. AA

I don't know. On one hand: If that voucher is valid for ... let's say a year. Maybe. But on the other hand: What if the ship I use the voucher for get's 'rebalanced' as well? Do I get another voucher? It just sets of a spiral of events. Basically taking premium A - it gets rebalanced - refunding it for premium B - premium B gets balanced - refunding it for premium C.... The thing is: As soon as you have at least two or three premium ships on every tier, you get picky. At least I do. So either a premium ship offers a very very unique game play (that I'm interested in) OR is simply better than it's same tier, same class counterpart (and even then: Gameplay plays a role - hence why I skipped on Stalinski). But I do realise, that I base my decision for premiums more on: How good is it able to carry a team of players that do their utmost to throw a win? And in that case overpowered ships do simply a better job.

Personally? No, since there's nothing interesting on T5 for me. In fact, there's currently no other premium that is of interest to me. MAYBE the Exeter. BUT: If they bring that thing into the game as OP as she's now, ... well ... talking about fuel to the fire. IF they readjust her pre release to more reasonable T5 levels: No more interest on my end.

You know my stance on the lunar bundles, but I keep my hopes up, that there will be something fun and usefull in the future to spend dubloons on. And since I try to be more reasonable and less emotional on the topic, I'll leave it at that.

WG sold her that way so... if you give me means to do so, why shouldn't I use them. I mean ... who's a fault here? He who sells broken products? Or he who uses broken products. In all fairness, it may be a bit of both. But ok, you (as in WG) want to rectify a mistake. I can understand that ... but neither do I want (yet another) T6 BB NOR do I want/need dubloons as they've become mostly useless by now. Nothing to spend them on. And while I'd love to get a cash refund IF this change goes through, I can see that it'd be very difficult for WG to do that. So ... what to do? I'm still brainstorming on that one.

Exactly. But that includes rectifying the 'mistake' I made by buying one (or more) of the 'mistakes' they offered. However, that is where it get's difficult, because: To some dubloons are ok. Others only want cash. Some would be ok with cash minus a usage fee. Others would be willing to take dubloons (instead of cash) if there'd be a bonus amount to it (as in: Take GC dubloon price +30% instead of GC cash price). Yep. Imho VU was the first step. Let's see how Exeter turns out and from then on I keep counting the next 50 or so premiums (or ... 150 ships overall). By then ... if all goes well ... that should be enough 'credibilty' that WG rebuilt.

While I can see a version of the GC work at T6, it remains to be seen if she's still 'fun to play'. Thank you for answering and let's see how testing goes on.

That is true. However.... and I understand that this is purely a whale problem: I don't need either. Yeah... I get that. Maybe it's time to unpack Stronghold: Crusader once more...

While we're at it, do you know OR can you ask those who do the following: - What was the reason AGAINST nerfing her in her T5 slot? I know that maybe a company intern topic, but we never know until we ask, don't we...

Vermutlich. Ging nur um die Theorie. Ob sie gut performen wird, wird sich zeigen. Das Problem von Walfischen ist: Ich brauche weder ein weiteres - durchschnittliches - T6 Premiumschiff NOCH einen Satz Dublonen. Passende Signatur zur Diskussion

Gab es da nicht eine EU Regelung (?) für Verbraucherschutz die AGB's für nichtig erklärt wenn nachgewiesen wurde, dass diese zum Nachteil für den Verbraucher ausgelegt sind? Natürlich würde das erfordern, dass a) Jemand gegen WG klagt und b) dann auch noch nachweisen kann, dass es einem zum Nachteil gereicht.

Mag sein, nur wenn sich die Mehrheit jetzt FÜR ein Subforum ausspricht, haben die Mods gegen Spammer eine noch leichtere Handhabe.

If that happens, I wouldn't mind if they put her at T8. Or T6 ... just for good measure