Giulio Cesare to be changed to T6.

[BuccaneerBill]

17 hours ago, gopher31 said:

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

 

Flint maybe strong, but cant include it, as its historically  only been available to the better players.

[Allied_Winter]

22 minutes ago, TheAlba2014 said:

So your premise is that based on 82 players the ship should be altered for everyone?

 

I'd say it comes down to the basic question: Should there OP ships allowed in the game on principal or not? And if yes: Where to draw the line? At 82 ships? 1000 ships? 5? And why 82 or 1000 or 5?

[invicta2012]

36 minutes ago, TheAlba2014 said:

So your premise is that based on 82 players the ship should be altered for everyone?

I don't think it's fair that 80 odd players have a massive advantage over other players at the same Tier just because they were lucky enough to pick up a WG balancing error.

 

The proposed solution to the GC issue is fair, although I'd like them to offer me an "original" T5 dreadnought build, too, as Creamgravy has proposed. I feel like I have had plenty of value for my money with GC, and I'll still have a playable ship in the future. A worrying precedent? Possibly, but I don't see them doing this to anything but the most egregious over performing ships.

[TheAlba2014]

43 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

I'd say it comes down to the basic question: Should there OP ships allowed in the game on principal or not? And if yes: Where to draw the line? At 82 ships? 1000 ships? 5? And why 82 or 1000 or 5?

Statistical relevance

[Allied_Winter]

27 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

I feel like I have had plenty of value for my money with GC, and I'll still have a playable ship in the future.

Agree. While I haven't bought the GC directly I did so with the Belfast. 35€. Which is about the equivalent of two nights at the cinema. And they last for what ... 3 hours each? Wheras with the Belfast I have had fun for 168 battles and counting. So yeah, money well spent

 

1 minute ago, TheAlba2014 said:

Statistical relevance

Fair enough. Personally I'd say that you'd then have to open up to a certain number of different questions that need to be answered. First and foremost: What is statistical relevance? But that'd lead too far from the core point of nerfing or not nerfing OP premiums methinks.

 

As said above: Buying a premium ship is the equivalent of spending a night at the movies. If the ship proves to be more fun than the movie night, then I don't see a reason not to nerf it, if it turns out to be an OP ship. As long as WG will, to quote Invicta:

32 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

doing this to anything but the most egregious over performing ships.

 

 

Of course: I can see why not everybody trusts WG in doing just that. Their track history isn't the greatest in that regard.

[TheAlba2014]

28 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

I don't think it's fair that 80 odd players have a massive advantage over other players at the same Tier just because they were lucky enough to pick up a WG balancing error.

 

The proposed solution to the GC issue is fair, although I'd like them to offer me an "original" T5 dreadnought build, too, as Creamgravy has proposed. I feel like I have had plenty of value for my money with GC, and I'll still have a playable ship in the future. A worrying precedent? Possibly, but I don't see them doing this to anything but the most egregious over performing ships.

Ok, so you are saying that because 80 odd players have certain stats it should be changed across the board for everyone. Interesting premise as I've said, I don't think it mean's much personally when applied to the game as a whole.

 

The ship has been in game for a long time, for me the question is why now. Because of the ranked sprint where those that had access used T5 premiums like Kami or GC?

 

Because Russian BBs are coming and we could potentially see the Novorossiysk some point?

 

Or did WG finally decided after all this time to fix OP premium ships?

 

Whatever the reason I don't think it's a necessary ship, and those advocating that these types of ships are destroying the game, well I'd like to see evidence that's the case. Personally I think CVs have done more in this regard, and even then you could either live with it and adapt or move on.

 

As I've said throughout I don't dispute GC is a strong ship, one of many in the game. My concern is the change in approach to directly altering premiums and what that means going forward when purchasing premium ships.

[TheAlba2014]

4 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Agree. While I haven't bought the GC directly I did so with the Belfast. 35€. Which is about the equivalent of two nights at the cinema. And they last for what ... 3 hours each? Wheras with the Belfast I have had fun for 168 battles and counting. So yeah, money well spent

 

Fair enough. Personally I'd say that you'd then have to open up to a certain number of different questions that need to be answered. First and foremost: What is statistical relevance? But that'd lead too far from the core point of nerfing or not nerfing OP premiums methinks.

 

As said above: Buying a premium ship is the equivalent of spending a night at the movies. If the ship proves to be more fun than the movie night, then I don't see a reason not to nerf it, if it turns out to be an OP ship. As long as WG will, to quote Invicta:

 

 

Of course: I can see why not everybody trusts WG in doing just that. Their track history isn't the greatest in that regard.

Also fair points, from that perspective the majority will have had their monies worth by that measure. But I note you also perhaps have some reservations on how WG manages this and future changes, that's also my main concern.

[Allied_Winter]

22 minutes ago, TheAlba2014 said:

But I note you also perhaps have some reservations on how WG manages this and future changes

Cut the perhaps. I do have these reservations. However I do think that this is a risk worth trying if we get more balanced premiums in the process.

 

I'll hold WG to their actions following the nerf of OP premiums (if it goes through at all): Do they behave (and nerf only the tough nuts) or not (and start bringing out OP premiums on purpose only to nerf them 3 patches later when sales are dropping)

[cienfuegos7777]

Vor 16 Stunden, Allied_Winter sagte:

Cut the perhaps. I do have these reservations. However I do think that this is a risk worth trying if we get more balanced premiums in the process.

 

I'll hold WG to their actions following the nerf of OP premiums (if it goes through at all): Do they behave (and nerf only the tough nuts) or not (and start bringing out OP premiums on purpose only to nerf them 3 patches later when sales are dropping)

i disagree not worth the risk ...since they always knew about GC overperforming from the beginning still sold it .. removed it from sale ... sold it over santa crates .. then they decide now to change her for more balance right after a nerf hit 1 of her main strenghts (concealment) atm new CVs are still about to be integrated... so id say why now dont u need to wait for new Data ?

 

looks more like their Data is based on money ... santa crate sale over ... lets balance her... find no other conclusion why they do it now

 

if they would offer real cash refund id have more trust in them that it is realy about balancing

[TheAlba2014]

 iChase take on GC first half of video, CV rework so far second half FYI

[HaachamaShipping]

21 hours ago, Procrastes said:

This is how I see it as well, I'm afraid. Given that the Belfast and the Kamikaze ships are arguably stronger on their respective tiers than the Giulio Cesare is on hers, I can't help but to feel that the plans for pushing the Giulio Cesare up to tier VI is some kind of test run, to see how the player base will react. If nothing else, it would set a regrettable precedent. Although it should be stated that Wargaming is of course free to do this - they are in no way bound to what was at the most an informal policy to begin with - I hope they won't go through with it.

Frankly, I consider GC at its tier more OP than Belfast at T7. Belfast is powerful with its good concealment, radar, smoke and good firepower, but at the end it's a very squishy cruiser still and people got better at counterplaying it over the years. Giulio Cesare is basically having no weaknesses except slightly below average hp and a garbage AA, but the rework actually empowered that AA rather than nerf it (as happened to most ships with bad AA). And while cruisers in T7 are finally becoming rather influential, BBs at T5 are incredibly powerful (and only rivalled by good DDs).

[Episparh]

Well, not if our opinion matters... At least there is some kind of refund offered... Which I will certainly use as I have plenty of t6 ships.

[Aragathor]

iChase pointed out that WG might bring out another T5 beast to replace the GC. Guess what cruiser currently in testing will soon come to the shop? And is OP as Hell? That's right, Exeter, a ship that should be at T6.

And after WG has sold enough of them, Sub_Octavian will try to sell you a bill of goods, by claiming they never meant the ship to be so OP and are going to nerf it to the ground. You can have some doubloons if you don't like it.

[Randschwimmer]

So I better buy Yahagi instead of Exeter.

Yahagi's stats look like this ship will never need nerfs.

[Eexhaton]

31 minutes ago, Episparh said:

Well, not if our opinion matters... At least there is some kind of refund offered... Which I will certainly use as I have plenty of t6 ships.

"Some kind of refund" - And that,  is exactly where another big part of the problem lies.

What if you don't want that dubloon refund because it is worthless?
Yes, I said it.
Dubloons are, like all other virtual currencies completely worthless since they can be set by WG to whatever "value" they want, and can in turn be generated by WG in any amount they want.

I do not see how a refund in Dubloons would be worth it in any possible way.
They change at will for some (possibly shady?) reason the product you buy and then don't offer anything worth of value for it in return.

Just as a slight sidenote: And if you believe that Dubloons are actually worth anything, then you are sadly a quite deluded individual, so to say.


Hence I say; Nerf the Giulio so it fits to the T5 roster and keep it there. Beceause there is no guarantee that the next OP ship for money will make it's appearance very soon.. Yes Russian Battleships, i'm looking at you..
Otherwise, offer a full refund of money for those who don't want it to either be uptiered or refunded in silly Dubloons.

[HaachamaShipping]

12 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

iChase pointed out that WG might bring out another T5 beast to replace the GC. Guess what cruiser currently in testing will soon come to the shop? And is OP as Hell? That's right, Exeter, a ship that should be at T6.

And after WG has sold enough of them, Sub_Octavian will try to sell you a bill of goods, by claiming they never meant the ship to be so OP and are going to nerf it to the ground. You can have some doubloons if you don't like it.

I'd still buy Exeter, because frankly current stats are totally T6 and getting a T6 premium for the price of a T5 is a good deal. Just gotta be aware of what you are actually purchasing long-term if stats stay as is.

[Allied_Winter]

18 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

That's right, Exeter, a ship that should be at T6

Exeter just got hit with a certain hammer: Reload increase from 12 to 15s, smoke generator consumable removed.

 

Source: Dev Blog

[quickr]

16 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

iChase pointed out that WG might bring out another T5 beast to replace the GC. Guess what cruiser currently in testing will soon come to the shop? And is OP as Hell? That's right, Exeter, a ship that should be at T6.

And after WG has sold enough of them, Sub_Octavian will try to sell you a bill of goods, by claiming they never meant the ship to be so OP and are going to nerf it to the ground. You can have some doubloons if you don't like it.

There is not enough people seeing the real motives behind this "simple change". Once they set the precedent, number of OP premiums will increase not decrease.

Remember, in a free to play game they need to make money somehow and best way to do it is to sell you broken OP ships and since they broken the golden rule/promise of never touching the premiums they open doors to all kind of abuse and exploits.

FFS they marketed GC as an OP ship that can only be bought in xmas crates and once the xmas was over they are nerfing the said ship. Is this the company you can trust? Is this the company that has "player interest" and "game balance" in mind?

Snap out of it!

[Asureas]

This is wrong:

 

GC is a premium and shouldn't be nerfed without offering refunds - remove her from sale ala belfast Missouri if necessary.

 

I don't think GC will perform well at VI - she will be facing tier VIIIs and get massacred.

 

She has her weaknesses and her aaa isn't that great, concealment is now less likely to be important so with the increased CVs etc and the new Meta will hurt her already.

 

She shouldn't be nered at this point and doing so breaks significant conventions on the management of premium ships - if wargaming want to do this refunds should be offered.

[Raziel_Walker]

On the NA server I bought a T6 Warspite for ranked. I don't need a second T6 BB.

Received a free Gulio Cesare for logging in after a year of inactivity so I can't really complain about compensation but at T6 it will just take up port space looking good but it won't see any play anymore. But I am left without a single T5 ship and I might need a replacement for that.

[HappyFella]

I’m sure I just got an email notification for an official WG YouTube video regarding the GC being retiered.

 

Did anyone get a chance to watch it before it was removed just now?

[Episparh]

1 hour ago, Eexhaton said:

 What if you don't want that dubloon refund because it is worthless?

I do agree with you - a money value coupon is better... Although I bought it with doubloons, they were from a package premium time + doubloons. 

[Procrastes]

3 hours ago, Seiranko said:

Frankly, I consider GC at its tier more OP than Belfast at T7. Belfast is powerful with its good concealment, radar, smoke and good firepower, but at the end it's a very squishy cruiser still and people got better at counterplaying it over the years. Giulio Cesare is basically having no weaknesses except slightly below average hp and a garbage AA, but the rework actually empowered that AA rather than nerf it (as happened to most ships with bad AA). And while cruisers in T7 are finally becoming rather influential, BBs at T5 are incredibly powerful (and only rivalled by good DDs).

Good points, all. And this is why I feel that this tier-push of the Giulio Cesare, if it goes through, might well herald future tier changes of the same kind. While I wouldn't underwrite some of the more sinister conspiracy theories that are bounced about on the forum, I am really not very comfortable about this. We all know that silver line ships might change at any time, and that's part of the bargain. Premium ships, however, are supposed to be more reliably set in their stats and capabilities - you know what you get, and barring more extreme cases of game breakage, you can count on keeping it. And a change of a ship's tier is typically more far-reaching than a tweak or two to her stats. Gameplay at tier VI is a whole lot different than it is at tier V.

[Juanx]

2 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

Good points, all. And this is why I feel that this tier-push of the Giulio Cesare, if it goes through, might well herald future tier changes of the same kind. While I wouldn't underwrite some of the more sinister conspiracy theories that are bounced about on the forum, I am really not very comfortable about this.

 

S_O already admitted-shared that GC is but the 1st on the list, if there is not a complete dungstorm, we can expect many / all premiums to be fiddled with.

 

My credit card information has already been removed from their shop, and if you look at my profile you might see that its going to be noticed by them, and probably many did just like me.

 

They truly seem hell bent on putting the game down for good, squeezing whatever is left from customer goodwill, before calling it a day and arguing the running costs are too high before shutting shop and changing company name to start fresh with cash.

[PassTheSalt]

you really do talk dung