Giulio Cesare to be changed to T6.

[Verblonde]

37 minutes ago, MrConway said:

l think that adding premium camos to the very low-tier ships would make them too profitable for veteran players, which could result in unfortunate seal-clubbing incidents.

Doubtful. I don't know how typical I am, but I have several low tier keepers (not to mention premiums) - I tend to take out the ones that are fun, rather than pick things on the basis of cammo (mid-higher tiers make a lot more silver anyway).

 

A permacammo (apart from perhaps T10) doesn't usually turn T6+ into silver grinding colossi - why should lower tiers be any different?

[Pte_Maylam]

I shouldn't think so, I'm such a moron I bought the pef with the steel monsters campaign. The PEF I deeply regret. But when Exeter comes out i'll probably end up with an exciting flag to fly on my new boat. 

 

Leastways that was the plan till they ballsed up cv's and began looking to completely change gc.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

This was back when these four sisters were very close in ship stats, but performance stat were far different..  Kamikaze was not vastly superior to the Minekaze (9% better win rate), but the players were.  These ships are not OP, they just allow better players to excel than the masses. (A different issue).

 

2016/06/11 (Two months ending)

Ship                      Players         Games                Win Rate         Damage             Kills
Minekaze             4809            351283                   50.74             25029               0.84    
Fujin                        157              12937                   58.97             37778               1.28
Kamikaze                   1                  144                    59.72             38006               1.21
Kamikaze R          2679           224839                   56.32             34688                1.20

[Aragathor]

26 minutes ago, olmedreca said:

I wonder what caused this sudden change in direction, WGs P2W business model seemed to be working fairly well. Did money from whales really dry up? Or maybe some company higher up playing his Wyoming ended up in receiving end of GC? Or did guys at legal have epiphany that if they can fundamentally alter gameplay of CVs, including premium ones, then they surely can also rebalance other premiums? Or did Balancing faction inside company use confusion about CV rework to stage a takeover? Were P2W-business faction members condemned at company congress and purged? So many possibilities ...

Lootboxes, in one word. WG last year has doubled down on lewdboxes, but I don't think they made as much profit as they expected. The drop rate of the good stuff also went down making people think twice before buying.

Lewdboxes are on the way out, Belgium has already banned them, more EU countries will follow. WG needs a working financing concept now, and a way to do this is to rebalance premiums that were removed.

 

Talking about low tier "benefits", here are two games, one in a T2 ship and one in a T8:

Spoiler

As you can see my to date best game in the Mikasa, a T2 premium, has brought me nothing compared to an average game in the Alabama, a T8 premium. If I wanted to cheese it, I would have had even better returns in the Alabama game.

Even T10 coop with perma camos is more profitable, and much easier.

 

PS: If I really wanted to club seals and rake in dough, I would use one of the several hundred better consumable camos that I have in my account, compared to a +50% xp perma camo.

[Ronchabale]

Just played it in a tier 5-6 game against a ranger and ryujo,  16.4 km main gun range,  (lol no spotter or fighter) well as soon as I got close enough to fire they were on me, torps, fires,  long range he spam, lack of sufficient AA and focus by carriers was just a matter of time before sinking.  Yeah I took 9 torps and 3 fires before i went down and I did manage to blapp a budyonny that was in my face.

GC never been any good at dealing with carriers.

Great fun, gonna be a blast when it has to deal with tier 8 carriers and BB:s , can really see it doing well against Masschusettes, Tirpitz, NC, Amagi, Kii, Kutuzov (lol) Lexington and Shokaku.

WG feels more and more like a big scam.. will not be opening my wallet again.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

If WG really wants to find out where GC sits, then release it to the masses for two month and then look at the data. If it is still sitting at a 59% win rate, then it is the ship; but if that win rate falls significantly -54%... the major part of its performance is the skilled player using this ship.

 

Nerf the overall performance of the GC, and that skilled player group will find a better ships and still humiliate the less skilled.

[NothingButTheRain]

1 hour ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

 

As someone who has pretty much all of the premium ships, let me give you an honest feedback though:

 

The thought that a premium ship could be removed from sale, but will stay as it was for you to keep, is an important factor for "collectors"/"whales", that should not be underestimated. 

I think the vast majority of premium ships will be exempt from any rebalance. So the whales/collectors needn't worry about their collection being drastically changed that way.

And I agree, these people are important to consider and I think WG already knows this.

[Atankean]

4 hours ago, MrConway said:

This is an issue we constantly have to deal with, no matter what we do, someone is going to be unhappy with it.

Why was Game of Thrones so successful? They killed off the main lead in the first season and they kept killing off beloved characters one after the other. Every so called "expert" in Hollywood would call you crazy if you presented such a concept. He would tell you that "People dont want that". Yet what happened? the more beloved Characters they killed, the more people watched.

 

Everybody will tell you how to do it right, from the comfort of their "Basement Headquarters". Yet what do they risk if their "right" is wrong? They just move on to another game and thats that. WG has a lot more to lose.

 

Just remember, especially in the Entertainment business, people dont always like to get what they want. Unfortunately they dont know it. So hold on tight and do what you think is right for the game. Brave the occasional Storm and make sacrifices when needed.

 

 

[HaachamaShipping]

4 hours ago, Butterdoll said:

 

GC to be a bully and a brawler like gneise or Scharn needs more than torps, needs a reliable armour/ thick turtleback, needs to be fast.

 

As is, CG has great guns but is as squishy as many cruisers, in a BB vs BB engagement.

Tell me what T6 cruiser would have 25 mm all-round, reinforced deck, repair party, 45k hp, an internal bow that prevents citadels from getting the bow overmatched, BB-grade belt...? Frankly, apart from the hp pool, this ship is tankier than the PEF.

3 hours ago, MrConway said:

 

Given how much she is overperforming we would have to nerf her quite significantly to balance her properly at tier 5, which would probably make her feel quite different.

 

We feel a more elegant and player-friendly approach is to buff/balance her on tier 6 where she will still be just as fun to play.

I know it might be slightly off-topic, but on the matter of retiering strong ships, might I ask what led to the decision to try fit Viribus Unitis into T5 instead of nerfing her at T4? While GC only has a 3k gap in hp to the next lowest, VU ends up with almost double that gap, while also being very slow. As the ship isn't out, it should also be far easier to not distort an established player experience as such does not yet exist. And it seemed clear that what made it so brutal at T4 was the concealment and armour, where it's rather easy to fix one of the two and leave the other to make up for terrible speed and low hp pool.

[Ronchabale]

1 hour ago, Seiranko said:

Tell me what T6 cruiser would have 25 mm all-round, reinforced deck, repair party, 45k hp, an internal bow that prevents citadels from getting the bow overmatched, BB-grade belt...? Frankly, apart from the hp pool, this ship is tankier than the PEF.

I know it might be slightly off-topic, but on the matter of retiering strong ships, might I ask what led to the decision to try fit Viribus Unitis into T5 instead of nerfing her at T4? While GC only has a 3k gap in hp to the next lowest, VU ends up with almost double that gap, while also being very slow. As the ship isn't out, it should also be far easier to not distort an established player experience as such does not yet exist. And it seemed clear that what made it so brutal at T4 was the concealment and armour, where it's rather easy to fix one of the two and leave the other to make up for terrible speed and low hp pool.

GC is gonna need a bit more than 25mm armour and bit better fire prevent to even stay afloat, guns are too small and have no range, AA is rubbish too, GC is just gonna get murdered by tier 8 (pinyata)

BTW Prinz Eithel.. tanky.. ??.. Dunno how many I smacked even with my Fuso 

Thanks WG i Paid money for that ship

[Artech52]

Yeah if this happens I'm gone. I have a lot of premiums and a huge part of the appeal of them is that they stay "as is" with the only exceptions being changes made to the entire game, which have so far been completely fine with me.

 

Can't possibly trust WG again if they start doing this crap and I'll uninstall on the spot if it goes live. Dubloon compensation isn't just inadequate, it's a straight-up insult. What am I gonna do, spend it on other premiums that they'll nerf later too? Ha, no.

 

Don't punish your customers for your own sloppy QA. I'm just glad my premium time runs out in a day or two, so at least they timed this well.

[HaachamaShipping]

16 minutes ago, Ronchabale said:

GC is gonna need a bit more than 25mm armour and bit better fire prevent to even stay afloat, guns are too small and have no range, AA is rubbish too, GC is just gonna get murdered by tier 8 (pinyata)

Thanks WG i Paid money for that ship

Guns have performance that is quite comparable to the 340 mm and 356 mm of others. AA on most T6 BBs is rubbish. I can understand people who think it might be unfair for the customer to get their product retiered, but performance-wise, GC really should not have issues.

[Butterdoll]

1 hour ago, Seiranko said:

Tell me what T6 cruiser would have 25 mm all-round, reinforced deck, repair party, 45k hp, an internal bow that prevents citadels from getting the bow overmatched, BB-grade belt...? Frankly, apart from the hp pool, this ship is tankier than the PEF.

I think you miss understood me.

I said in a BB vs BB engagement GC is squishy, is as robust as a cruiser.

But GC it's not the only one.

I always faced GCs with my cruisers, when I first got GC I was expecting some kind of Bayern, after all, GC it's a though cookie to crack as a cruiser.

 

well, let's just say  that lesson didn't take long.

 

[Miscommunication_dept]

Maybe we should be less worried about the Belfast:

Flint U.S.A. 140 971 63.47 % 1.25 58 302 1 792 4.17 2.37

Belfast U.K. 2 065 275 55.37 % 0.91 44 999 1 395 1.39 1.63

Boise U.S.A. 95 727 53.21 % 0.85 44 235 1 409 1.53 1.58

ARP Nachi Japan 52 754 53.07 % 0.76 40 213 1 205 1.16 1.24

 

 

Strong but not OP.

Kutuzov:

 

Irian Pan-Asia 2 557 51.90 % 0.79 52 511 1 672 3.89 1.27

Charles Martel France 1 729 835 51.83 % 0.65 47 441 1 326 0.84 1.12

ARP Takao Japan 1 454 431 51.26 % 0.60 40 209 1 203 0.65 0.97

Mikhail Kutuzov U.S.S.R. 3 256 779 51.20 % 0.66 47 249 1 352 1.85 1.17

 

Missouri:

Missouri U.S.A. 3 388 014 53.50 % 0.80 67 825 1 621 2.42 1.36

Musashi Japan 1 456 926 52.42 % 0.82 82 202 1 574 0.42 1.61

Alsace France 1 320 771 52.17 % 0.82 71 566 1 548 1.44 1.41

Jean Bart France 281 404 52.16 % 0.87 81 233 1 729 2.01 1.48

 

All of these look strong but not OP like the Giulio Cesare with it's 58% win rate:

 

Giulio Cesare Italy 1 076 248 58.04 % 1.22 54 840 1 283 1.52 2.63

Texas U.S.A. 1 155 667 53.59 % 0.82 40 327 1 139 2.92 1.58

Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya U.S.S.R. 1 118 228 53.13 % 0.97 45 874 1 090 1.42 1.97

ARP Kongō Japan 1 525 969 52.86 % 0.81 38 762 947 1.27 1.62

 

Truly amazed to see Texas is second.

 

Food for thought...

[HaachamaShipping]

1 minute ago, Butterdoll said:

I think you miss understood me.

How so?, given your next sentence is...

1 minute ago, Butterdoll said:

I said in a BB vs BB engagement GC is squishy, is as robust as a cruiser.

which implies that it suffers vs BBs the same way a T6 cruiser does. Tell me, which T6 cruiser is anywhere as tanky as GC?

2 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

But GC it's not the only one.

No it isn't, Normandie, West Virginia, Dunkerque all have not much better survivability. Some arguably worse. New Mex and Arizona only don't get mentioned with those three due to more hp, but they have way less HE resistance and no internal bow. PEF is only slightly better. Fuso and Mutsu got way more hp, but that citadel protection... Also Mutsu has way less HE resistance.

6 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

I always faced GCs with my cruisers, when I first got GC I was expecting some kind of Bayern, after all, GC it's a though cookie to crack as a cruiser.

 

well, let's just say  that lesson didn't take long.

Most T6 BBs are less armoured than Bayern. Basically all T6 BBs are less armoured than Bayern. Arguing a ship is a cruiser and not a BB because it eats citadels more than Bayern is like arguing that North Cal is a cruiser cause it eats cits, unlike FdG. Ignore that North Cal bounces BB shells when angled, has way more hp and has a repair party...

[SlingaDing]

This really is unacceptable from WG @MrConway

 You cant advertise something for sale with certain stats, and then some time down the line withdraw it from sale creating a huge desire for it in the user base, then start selling ‘gambling crates’ advertising the chance to win one of these OP ships, only to then 5 weeks later state that the OP ship you gambled a fortune on winning is now being reconfigured!

I’ll make no secret of this now, I spent over £500 Christmas on these crates, I so badly wanted these rare ships that had been unavailable to buy for so long, and lo and behold I got them all!

So what is this going to do? Set a presedence if we accept the GC being nerfed / reworked? Will my Belfast then follow suit, then my Nikolai? Then my Kutuzov? Then my Missouri? and so on...... you see where I’m going with this???

 

I will NOT accept WG changing the stats of Premium ships that we, THE PAYING CUSTOMER, have spent our hard earned money on! False advertising is the first thing that springs to mind, never mind the deceitful practice of advertising these rare ships only to change them weeks later!

 

@MrConway go bang some heads together, this cannot seriously happen! If the CV rework doesn’t kill this game, then this underhand business practice most certainly will!!

 

 

[Miscommunication_dept]

5 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

How so?, given your next sentence is...

which implies that it suffers vs BBs the same way a T6 cruiser does. Tell me, which T6 cruiser is anywhere as tanky as GC?

No it isn't, Normandie, West Virginia, Dunkerque all have not much better survivability. Some arguably worse. New Mex and Arizona only don't get mentioned with those three due to more hp, but they have way less HE resistance and no internal bow. PEF is only slightly better. Fuso and Mutsu got way more hp, but that citadel protection... Also Mutsu has way less HE resistance.

Most T6 BBs are less armoured than Bayern. Basically all T6 BBs are less armoured than Bayern. Arguing a ship is a cruiser and not a BB because it eats citadels more than Bayern is like arguing that North Cal is a cruiser cause it eats cits, unlike FdG. Ignore that North Cal bounces BB shells when angled, has way more hp and has a repair party...

Giulio Cesare has a 280mm belt with an above water citadel. Mutsu has 330mm even Dunkerque has 340mm.

Giulio would be the T6 Battleship with the worst armour.

Not a bad thing, they can balance it by giving it good gun performance.

 

[HaachamaShipping]

10 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Giulio Cesare has a 280mm belt with an above water citadel. Mutsu has 330mm even Dunkerque has 340mm.

Giulio would be the T6 Battleship with the worst armour.

Not a bad thing, they can balance it by giving it good gun performance.

 

PEF has 270 mm belt (300 mm BELOW the waterline). This much armour is not outstanding, but firmly within BB territory, not CA. Even the best armoured cruisers like Aoba and Graf Spee are around 100 mm only.

 

Also, Giulio Cesare already has decent gun performance, as well as decent speed and outstanding concealment for a BB. There is a reason it has such insane performance parameters.

[ColonelPete]

10 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Giulio Cesare has a 280mm belt with an above water citadel. Mutsu has 330mm even Dunkerque has 340mm.

Giulio would be the T6 Battleship with the worst armour.

Not a bad thing, they can balance it by giving it good gun performance.

 

Dunk has 225mm belt + 25mm outer plating

[Miscommunication_dept]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

Dunk has 225mm belt + 25mm outer plating

mmm wowsft.com has failed me again.

[Miscommunication_dept]

ah, I think I was giving the thickest armour which may well be on the turrets.

anyway.......

[Ronchabale]

28 minutes ago, SlingaDing said:

This really is unacceptable from WG @MrConway

 You cant advertise something for sale with certain stats, and then some time down the line withdraw it from sale creating a huge desire for it in the user base, then start selling ‘gambling crates’ advertising the chance to win one of these OP ships, only to then 5 weeks later state that the OP ship you gambled a fortune on winning is now being reconfigured!

I’ll make no secret of this now, I spent over £500 Christmas on these crates, I so badly wanted these rare ships that had been unavailable to buy for so long, and lo and behold I got them all!

So what is this going to do? Set a presedence if we accept the GC being nerfed / reworked? Will my Belfast then follow suit, then my Nikolai? Then my Kutuzov? Then my Missouri? and so on...... you see where I’m going with this???

 

I will NOT accept WG changing the stats of Premium ships that we, THE PAYING CUSTOMER, have spent our hard earned money on! False advertising is the first thing that springs to mind, never mind the deceitful practice of advertising these rare ships only to change them weeks later!

 

@MrConway go bang some heads together, this cannot seriously happen! If the CV rework doesn’t kill this game, then this underhand business practice most certainly will!!

 

 

I spent a similar amount and am pretty much in the same seat as u. 

I Did already have the Missouri, Musashi, Belfast and GC but managed to get the Kamikaze, Kutusov, Nikolai, Kronstadt and Gremyashi + 12 other premium ships.

Sux so bad that stats on these ships now can be changed also, more than a few of them already are rendered a bit useless in the new op carrier meta. (DD:s)

What about the Ashitaka with its AA rating of 20 at tier 7.. Just a pinyata nowadays

Will for sure be thinking twice before opening my wallet again

[NothingButTheRain]

1 hour ago, Artech52 said:

Yeah if this happens I'm gone. I have a lot of premiums and a huge part of the appeal of them is that they stay "as is" with the only exceptions being changes made to the entire game, which have so far been completely fine with me.

 

Can't possibly trust WG again if they start doing this crap and I'll uninstall on the spot if it goes live. Dubloon compensation isn't just inadequate, it's a straight-up insult. What am I gonna do, spend it on other premiums that they'll nerf later too? Ha, no.

 

Don't punish your customers for your own sloppy QA. I'm just glad my premium time runs out in a day or two, so at least they timed this well.

I can totally see where you're coming from. And if it were me, I'd keep the list of premiums that are to be rebalanced extremely short (say, about max 5 ships or so, even in the long term). Personally I would NOT want wargaming to start rebalancing premium ships like they were tech tree ships. They can rebalance those left and right all they want. provided this is for the greater good of the game, I'm totally fine with it.

But premiums? I'd MUCH prefer these are not negatively rebalanced EVER, unless there were a VERY weightly reason to do so. No mild (negative) tweaks to dispersion, no silent nerfs to credit income or other soft stats (and lets not even start with the hard stats), I think WG should do their utmost to preserve premium ships the way they are, as much as they can geta way with without this being to the overall detriment to the gaming experience.

 

BUT...overpoweredle BROKEN ships WILL damage the game in the long run. They will.

Provided these FEW ships (of which in my opinion the total number of ships should basically not be more then I can count using the fingers of one hand) get rebalanced along with a very proper reimbursement policy (and I really want wargaming to understand that rebalancing PREMIUM ships should remain an extreme exception and not the rule), AND provided that these now no longer OP premium ships DO NOT get replaced by new overpowered premiums in whatever way, I think that it will be fine to rebalance these few broken ships that have been released over the course of multiple years.

 

It's a bit of a pickle and I do admire the audacity of wargaming to even attempt this, I really do. But of course even if they were to get away with this (and frankly I think they should be allowed to make these relatively few tweaks to ONLY the MOST broken ships in the game), in my opinion it should NEVER become an excuse to start nerfing PREMIUM ships ona  regular basis, and releasing new OP premiums in the shop for more money. Because then my trust in the will..go through(!!!) the window and I won't be buying any more excuses. But this last part is just me.

 

The truth is, it's also complicated. There is a sense of accomplishment or something, which is hard to explain for me (non-native English here, mind you) and for me it is kinda 'cool' to have these interesting ships in my port, which I actually paid or worked for ingame to get, and being able to sail with these ships and perhaps knowing someone may be envious about my Mo or Musashi (with the reddish HSF camo), but this doesn't mean that I wouldn't want others to be able to enjoy one of these ships (or ship features).

 

And frankly I think wargaming should at least come forward and acknowledge the people who will actually be playing the most for the servers, but of course without making it pay to win (too much).

 

Like I said, I don't mind premiums being somewhat stronger compared to F2P counterparts, but it shouldn't ruin the game in the end.

[invicta2012]

11 minutes ago, Ronchabale said:

Sux so bad that stats on these ships now can be changed also, more than a few of them already are rendered a bit useless in the new op carrier meta. (DD:s)

The important thing here is that the CV rework has changed the game meta, so what was an OP ship might suddenly take a drop in efficacy. Belfast, for example, might attract some interest from rocket planes, smoke or no smoke. So the question is: is the GC still OP when there are new CVS?

[NothingButTheRain]

1 minute ago, invicta2012 said:

The important thing here is that the CV rework has changed the game meta, so what was an OP ship might suddenly take a drop in efficacy. Belfast, for example, might attract some interest from rocket planes, smoke or no smoke. So the question is: is the GC still OP when there are new CVS?

Good question. I know my Atlanta has been negatively affected, but lets wait and see what the next few rounds of balance changes will bring.