Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Allied_Winter

On how to balance and refund OP premium ships - an inquiry

119 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Moderator
4,670 posts
9,162 battles

Well hello there fellow forumites.

 

Another CV GC thread. To be more precise though an inquiry on what could be a reasonable way to a) rebalance premiumships while b) making sure that at the same time the player base doesn't get alienated. Primarily this thread was inspired by @Verblonde and @Tyrendian89. Also tagging @MrConway in the hope he find something that will help his colleagues resolve the upcoming issues at hand. And while this thread revolves primarily about the Giulio Cesare, it's aimed at being repeatable with other OP premiums. 

 

 

So. Where to start?

 

With a few assumptions! 

 

  1. Assuming that the mentioned TESTING (!) of putting a premium back into the game one tier higher ends with a balanced premium. Basically finding a version of the GC at T6 that is... 
    7 hours ago, MrConway said:

    balanced and fun to play.

    Keep in mind though: This is all still in discussion and - according to Mr Conway, testing GC at T6 won't start before 0.8.1
     

  2. Assuming that AFTER GC at T6 is balanced and fun WG wants to actually pull through with bringing a premium ships from one tier to a tier higher. Becaus remember:

    8 hours ago, MrConway said:

    Those that got GC could (if it happens) be getting an upgrade to a tier VI

    For those that missed it: The "if it happens" part is the relevant one!

 

Further assumptions might follow down the post.

 

Ok, the dreaded idea takes place somewhere down the road! What now?

 

Talking about the two options that are available: Accepting the 'new' GC (then at T6) OR Getting a refund for her T5 dubloon value. And I see (in dozen posts) that - even acknowledging that OP ships must be rebalanced nerfed - neither of these options looks appealing to players. A lot of forumites, redditors or discord discussions revolved around: Getting cash as refund, not wanting to lose a T5 ship (rather nerfing at T5 than rebalancing her at T6), enjoying fighting T7 enemies more than T8 enemies, and so on. You know the common problems players uttered with the two mentioned options.

 

Yeah, yeah, it's all a clown fiesta. We're stuck with something we don't want.

 

Well, this post got me thinkging:

7 hours ago, Tyrendian89 said:

out of curiosity, would everyone's reaction to this change significantly if WG were to offer exchanging the ship in question not just for (useless) dubloons, but for a same-tier Premium of the player's choice? iirc Tanks did something relatively similar recently with their Preferential Matchmaking premiums, so on a much much larger scale than just the one ship at a time we're talking here...

 

Now, that selection of ships would have to be good of course - not just the few ships available in the tech tree, but probably every (non-exclusive? Wouldn't want everyone to swap out their GCs for the arguably MUUUUCH MUCH worse Gremlin...) premium WG ever released at that tier...

 

Now, I'm not going to reiterate all that has been said (or thought) following this quite, so let me summarize it:

 

  • It was WGs error that these OP ships found their way into the game in the first place, yet we all want a balanced game (Huh ... maybe that's another assumption I should add).
  • But since it was WG's error it's not the players that should be held responsible for it
  • Most players I've seen so far don't like the dubloon option because dubloons have been devalued rebalanced. WG is aware of that
    8 hours ago, MrConway said:

    This is something we are aware of (lack of things to spend doubloons on) and have started addressing by adding more items to the arsenal that are available for doubloons, like the Lunar bundles. This is something we are planning to expand on in future which should help alleviate your issue

     

  • WG has been generous in the past regarding compensation for silver ships, so I see at least a chance that the same is possible for premium ships

  • This one is specifically geared towards the GC: Nerfing her at T5 would gimp her too much 

    9 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.

     

Ok, with this in mind, let's think about two possible actions a player has on day X:

 

1. Accpeting the rebalanced GC at T6: Since most players complained about not having a T5 when they accept the T6 GC, my proposal on this one is rather simple. Give the player TWO ships. The rebalanced GC at T6 (with all the balance and fun WG deems acceptable) AND a (heavily) nerfed GC remaining at T5, that still fulfills her role as a roamer that rewards angling. My take on a nerfed T5 GC would be a +2km concealment nerf, a fire chance nerf from 35% (iirc) to 27%, an AP DMG nerf by 15%, a 3s reload nerf, a turret traverse nerf. Slap a special camo on - to immediately identify her as the T5 version - and rename her to "nerfed Mortadella" (or something more ... fitting like ... I don't know ... Giulio Cesare pre-WWII). Slap some goodies on top and I don't see an issue with that. 

 

2. Declining the rebalanced GC at T6: This one is a bit more tricky since a pure dubloon refund will not cut the crepes. The very least I'd offer would be the nerfed T5 GC + her dubloon value as refund + some goodies on top. Or one of the options given here:

3 hours ago, Verblonde said:
  • Accept nerfed GC + choice of xK doubloons, xK steel, or xxK coal + 10 point captain.
  • Accept nerfed GC + free premium ship of choice (no matter the tier) + 10 point captain for both.
  • Reject conversion, and get doubloons (new version of the ship price) refund + one of the 'plus' options from both of the above.
  • Reject conversion and get one of xK steel, or xxK coal + one of the 'plus' options.

Apologies verblonde for altering your quote a bit to match my option 2 (italic font).

 

NOTE: While afterwards the 'new' T6 GC would be available in the shop, the 'old' T5 GC would ONLY be available for those that had her prior to her rebalancing. Creating - yet another - oportunity for ship collectors to distinguish themselves from the masses. As mentioned here: 

8 hours ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

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. 

 

 

Conclusion: Does this look 'greedy'. I don't know? I tried to be somewhat reasonable, based on what I read from other forumites. I didn't ask for a night with Alena and Dasha coupled with a metric ton of finest Colombian blow, 20kg's of Vodka and Caviar (each) and a chance to whip Putin. For every GC owner. So, you tell me! Tell me what you think? What would you see fit. Especially given the fact that - no matter if a GC at T6 might or might not become reality - WG/Lesta is pushing towards rebalancing OP premiums. Which ... as much as it annoys me to see some favourite ships go, IS BETTER for the long term health of the game. So there might be a few more ships (My guess would be: Belfast, Gremy, Kamikaze sisters, Imperator) that will be rebalanced one way or another. And since cold hard cash is OUT as a possible refund option:

8 hours ago, MrConway said:

Yes, even if we decided to go down that route it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to pull off logistically.

We might as well aim for a more achievable solution.

 

To bring a bit of reason in: WG gave away dozens of GCs as a welcome back gift. Sure this in and of itself was botched till kingdom come, but do you really think WG will send players money that never bought this ship in the first place? I highly, highly doubt that.

 

 

Why should WG do this?

 

Pretty simple. As said above. They botched up. If they manage however to keep players at bay and even bring players to accept to nerf OP ships with a reasonable token of appreciation, then I can see players living with the nerf of a few selected ships and the outlook of having a future where premium ships are frequently nerfed and buffed. Maybe on a more sensilbe basis than silver ships. But overall closer to a balanced approach than the heavy handed OP's we have now.

 

Bascially adhering to a system outlined here:

5 hours ago, jss78 said:
  • Terms of sale clearly state all content is subject to balancing
  • You'd explore other avenues for balancing first, before touching premiums
  • You'd try to preserve the core gameplay identity of the premium vehicle, i.e. what makes it distinct.

 

 

Also a route like the above mentioned is the only that I see fit to avoid setting nasty precedents.

7 hours ago, Verblonde said:

The reason this GC thing concerns me is not that it sets a precedent (quite a sensible precedent, it could be argued), but rather that it risks indirectly harming the game, unless it is handled properly: as people have highlighted, nerfing (or otherwise changing GC for the worse) means that potential purchasers cannot guarantee that what they are buying will remain as is for the foreseeable future. For the game itself, this isn't directly a bad thing, but for the game's finances it is - it will likely reduce people's enthusiasm for spending money on the game.

 

 

 

Anyways. I've talked ofr long enough, and it's getting late. Let me know what you think. And try to keep it civil!

  • Cool 23
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,734 posts
4,195 battles

Great post! I definitely agree that there needs to be a way better refund than simply some doubloons, and more than that, i feel like it has to be something that atleast symbolically hurts wargaming aswell, because if they could get away with just giving out the doubloon value, we would see so much abuse of this system(release op ship, Nerf after a few months, offer some useless doubloons.)

 

I like the idea of simply offering any ship from the premium shop for those who wants to refund. When they bought the gc, it is because they wanted to play THAT ship, so when refunding them, it seems sensible to let them pick from a large collection of ships as that has the highest chance of offering them something that they want to play. It would also kinda dissuade wargaming from abusing the system by essentially forcing people to buy doubloons.

 

Remember folks: This is a big decision and must have been in the making for some months, which means that wargaming knew full well that these ships might get nerfed when they put them as bait in the christmas containers. All those people who gambled hundreds or even thousands of pounds to get... the doubloon value of an op ship, and wargaming must have known....

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BUSHI]
Players
3,627 posts
18,614 battles

State of many users is simple. Nerf any of premium ship, so advertised and released to premium shop, while exactly knowing they are overperforming to milk as many cash as You can (ex. Belfast, Fujin, Kami etc.). Then saying officially so they are OP and must be removed form sales (advertising such last sales: buy now, becouse they will be unavaiable soon !), but still moving them to Devil Crates to farm even more money ... that was a cash grab scheme. So without real money compensation, we will not spent any broken ruble any more !

 

This is simple. Broken promises = no more money. Steel for another ships which can be nerfed at any time ? Nope. Useless doublons ? Nope. You wanted cash, so we want it back.

 

Statement like that... (one of many posted). You can break them, but many customers will not. They just close their wallets forever.

 

https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-sub_octavian-qa-asia-forum/World of Warships

Sub_Octavian Q&A Asia Forum

 

Q: What do you think about the ridiculously high performing Kutuzov?

A: It’s one of the strongest ships. There are super strong researchable ships, too. As you probably know, we support the concept of not nerfing premium ships unless absolutely needed, so Kutuzov remains as it is.

  • Cool 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,455 posts
5,638 battles

For me, the biggest problem is that, despite being told that GC was OP by testers, CC's & WG employees - WG STILL released it as it was.

 

Once a Premium ship is bought and paid for it should be immune to specific buffs/nerfs as it is WG's task to ensure that the item sold is fit for purpose at the point of sale.

 

Changing something months later because WG made a mistake is NOT the players fault and the players who paid money should NOT be "punished" for WG's mistake!

 

Personally, after being a massive whale I've decided WG will get no more money from me. I just don't trust them anymore when they are deciding to change an item I bought in a specific state just because they realised they made a mistake many months later.

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
643 posts

I agree with the OP and with Verblonde.

 

If Wargaming want to do this but maintain consumer confidence the compensation needs to be a little more than the doubloon value of the ship.

 

Looking at the stats yesterday it seems GC is overperforming by a much larger degree than the Missouri, Belfast and Kutuzov which seem on the strong side of balanced. So I am hoping they will not receive the same treatment.

 

What ever Wargaming does they should be generous to ensure their customers are confident to spend their money in the future. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
403 posts
9,654 battles

I am so glad I do not have GC so I can just :Smile_popcorn:

Issue at hand is you cannot satisfy everyone. Maybe they should ask each GC ovner what they would like and then build up on that?

 

What surprises me more is that every time they do something disputable people are saying they lost faith in the company. Yet they are doing well.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PC]
Players
273 posts

Can  I just have the doubloons please and I can then buy premium time for Tanks. Thanks.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,844 posts
14,993 battles

This is where WG needs to take responsibility by taking the financial hit in regards to refunding cash to those who want it.  This should get someones attention higher up in that WG management chain with regards to what individuals or groups made these decision to release very strong premiums.  That should end that practice of selling 'Pay to Win Ships'.

 

Man up WG it would be the healthiest thing for you to do.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
670 posts
13,441 battles

I can see only two ways out of this.... even tho, however this turns out, all trust is already lost..

Either, go with the change but offer full reimbursement, in cash, not useless bag of potat....doubloons

Or leave things as it is and work on your testing/balancing program.

 

OP/broken stuff shouldn't leave the WiP phase as it is. There are people called super testers for a reason. If they fail to recognize OP ships, hire more or change existing ones. There are test servers. If those fail to point out flaws make testing phase longer. And don't start with "but you can't find how ships actually perform unless you implement it live or give it to wider audience". Yes you can, but it takes time and effort, something WG rarely invests. Lately everything feels rushed and halfar*ed when it comes to balancing.

 

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,670 posts
9,162 battles
6 hours ago, thiextar said:

i feel like it has to be something that atleast symbolically hurts wargaming aswell

To a certain degree, yes. It was WGs mistake. They should be the one paying for it. 

 

6 hours ago, thiextar said:

It would also kinda dissuade wargaming from abusing the system by essentially forcing people to buy doubloons.

That's one of the notions I try to bring forward.

 

6 hours ago, thiextar said:

these ships might get nerfed when they put them as bait in the christmas containers.

 

6 hours ago, Odo_Toothless said:

but still moving them to Devil Crates to farm even more money ... that was a cash grab scheme

 

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.

 

6 hours ago, Odo_Toothless said:

we will not spent any broken ruble any more !

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.

7 hours ago, Odo_Toothless said:

As you probably know, we support the concept of not nerfing premium ships unless absolutely needed, so Kutuzov remains as it is.

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.

19 minutes ago, quickr said:

Or leave things as it is and work on your testing/balancing program.

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).

46 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

taking the financial hit in regards to refunding cash to those who want it.  This should get someones attention higher up in that WG management chain with regards to what individuals or groups made these decision to release very strong premiums.  That should end that practice of selling 'Pay to Win Ships'.

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.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,838 posts
16,870 battles

Hay all not read all the thread yet. But one thing they maybe could do for ALL the community and not just the people they refund the  doubloons..

@MrConway how about as a good will gesture unify gold/doubloons across all WG titles that have them... after all 1 doubloon costs the same as 1 gold  so there is no reason not to... As many of the community play two or even all three titles. it would alleviates the so many doubloons and nothing to spend it on complaints we have seen in many threads

 

 

Wargaming need to come up with a batter way to release prem ships.. Super testers can test a ship over 20+ games and get an idea but we are still playing a small number of games so we can be proved wrong on release on how good a ship is.

Im not sure what wargaming can do about this but maybe some sort of benefit if you buy the ship in the first 2months of release. if the ship is changed in any way in the first half year.. What do i mean..

 

Well lets say the Exeter gets released in 1st April:Smile_hiding:  in the morning.. if you buy her between 1 April and 1 Jun  and she is buffed or nerfed  in September players automatically get the option of a refund.. players on the other hand that buy a ship in the first 2 months have to accept that they risk the ship being changed..  Maybe as an incentive People get the some sort of unique camo/flag or some other  benefit for buying in that first 2 months  

 

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,767 posts
20,186 battles
9 hours ago, Allied_Winter said:

1. Accpeting the rebalanced GC at T6: Since most players complained about not having a T5 when they accept the T6 GC, my proposal on this one is rather simple. Give the player TWO ships. The rebalanced GC at T6 (with all the balance and fun WG deems acceptable) AND a (heavily) nerfed GC remaining at T5, that still fulfills her role as a roamer that rewards angling. My take on a nerfed T5 GC would be a +2km concealment nerf, a fire chance nerf from 35% (iirc) to 27%, an AP DMG nerf by 15%, a 3s reload nerf, a turret traverse nerf. Slap a special camo on - to immediately identify her as the T5 version - and rename her to "nerfed Mortadella" (or something more ... fitting like ... I don't know ... Giulio Cesare pre-WWII). Slap some goodies on top and I don't see an issue with that. 

 

 

 

NOTE: While afterwards the 'new' T6 GC would be available in the shop, the 'old' T5 GC would ONLY be available for those that had her prior to her rebalancing. Creating - yet another - oportunity for ship collectors to distinguish themselves from the masses.

 

Problem with this is that with more "rebalanced" premiums number of same ship will increase significantly. Imagine two Belfasts, two Kamikazes, two Kutuzovs, two ... This is just a mess. Also retiering maybe won't work for every ship.

 

What WG could do is to pair rebalance of some particular ship with release of some similar ship. For example pair rebalance of GC with VU so that people who don't want uptiered CG could get VU instead. With maybe special camo for them. Or create special premium ship for this occasion like GC sister ship Leonardo da Vinci in her original configuration balanced for T5.

 

Another more simple option would be when uptiered those who want to keep GC could get special camo that gives better bonuses then regular one, like +50% XP and +100% FXP, something like that.

 

18 minutes ago, T0byJug said:

Well lets say the Exeter gets released in 1st April:Smile_hiding:  in the morning..

 

Exeter release on 1st April confirmed :Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
670 posts
13,441 battles
1 hour ago, Allied_Winter said:

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).

Same argument could be made, why should a GC owner pay for WG mistakes? Players payed real money for a ship in it's current state, most don't want some other ship at some other tier or doubloons as compensation.

 

I for one am entirely for tech tree competitive game, level the playing field. Only ships that everyone can obtain tru grinding is allowed in ranked/clan battles/kots/whatever.

That's a true balance right there. But still i read on forums and reddit, people don't want that. Hmmm.. interesting... So it's ok to "balance" a single ship, it's ok to stick it up to GC owners but oh hell no, don't touch other ships that I can use in competitive that are deemed strong. How do you pronounce "double standards"?

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
521 posts
6,826 battles

leave it as it is and remove any ability to purchase it, if it is so OP! 

BUT CHANGING IT? NERFING IT? nerfing premiums? lest see who will buy premiums now if you nerf them and lest see from where you will get enough money to live and keep this game alive because the customer wont give you anymore money! so have fun with your free to play players keeping you alive tomorrow!

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
4,453 posts
7,958 battles
10 hours ago, Allied_Winter said:

<lots of text>

very good writeup there! :Smile_honoring:

Quite honestly, the compensation options you outline there seem like a bit too much to me. Three things in particular:

  • producing both a heavily nerfed T5 version and an updated T6 version of the GC (as well as any other Premium that might be affected by this later) is not only double the workload for more than one WG department (balancing as well as Art if you want to make them look distinct), it's also double the opportunity for further balance screwups, and double the opportunity for people to complain about.
  • Any Tier premium as compensation? That's... quite the can of worms, and hilariously unfair to people that have not (had the chance to) purchase one of these now-deemed-OP ships and thus dont get a free 45€ worth of T8 premium... At the very least this'd need some sort of tier restriction...
  • Giving Steel for this? I don't see that as reasonable at all - Steel's already been devalued a LOT over the holidays, and these premiums dont have anything to do with the currency anyway. Coal, yeah maybe, as an alternative or on top of dubloons, but not Steel.

Just my $0,02 :Smile_Default:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, T0byJug said:

how about as a good will gesture unify gold/doubloons across all WG titles that have them... after all 1 doubloon costs the same as 1 gold  so there is no reason not to... As many of the community play two or even all three titles. it would alleviates the so many doubloons and nothing to spend it on complaints we have seen in many threads

there are plenty of reasons not to do that. For one, that'd devalue dubloons/gold even more when veterans have access to not only their stash from one game but from all of them. For two, it'd require insane amounts of coordination between all of the game teams to not screw over each other's economy epically.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,838 posts
16,870 battles
1 minute ago, Tyrendian89 said:

 

 

 

 

there are plenty of reasons not to do that. For one, that'd devalue dubloons/gold even more when veterans have access to not only their stash from one game but from all of them. For two, it'd require insane amounts of coordination between all of the game teams to not screw over each other's economy epically.

Not sure i agree.. after all the real money value of doubloons/gold has been the same since launch..

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
542 posts
1,929 battles

I agree with these sentiments, and have to say I found @Verblonde's points from last night compelling. To me, the most worrying thing about the GC situation is not it being uptiered (I suspect it will still be fun). Nor is it the possibility of similar treatment to other broken/OP premiums in the future (although please don't make my T-61 fight T9s...). It's that it sets a precedent that could result in shady behaviour in the future along the lines of:

– Release OP premium

– Profit

– Oh we didn't realise this premium was OP ;-) ;-) ;-) Now we need to rebalance it

– Don't worry though we'll refund you in doubloons

– No dent made in profit

– Repeat

– Even more profit

And let's face it, the inclusion of 'rare' premiums in the Christmas casino means one doesn't need a particularly fertile imagination to be worried about that.

 

I don't mean to suggest that the community team or the dev team would like to see the game go in this direction – they seem like a good bunch, so far as one can judge that online. But they operate within a multinational company and have to answer to corporate overlords, and corporate overlords everywhere do like their short-term profits, and will often tune out long-term considerations – especially if these relate to intangible things like morality and decency – which counsel against their schemes for making a fast buck. (Their principal legal obligation is to make a profit for their share-holders by lawful means, so in many ways you can't blame them – if you want to blame anyone, you should blame the people who passed the legislation that made that their principal legal obligation :cap_tea:)

 

The beauty of the ideas presented here is that they act as an incentive against adopting this pattern of behaviour in the future, and carry a fairly clear message of 'we done goof, sorry.' It shows goodwill and rebuilds trust as much as possible. Speaking for myself, I would feel reluctant to spend money on a premium if I knew changes were more likely than in the past, and I would only get the ship's doubloon value back – even though I appreciate that rebalancing OP premiums is probably an overall benefit to the game. However, if I knew that a 'rebalanced' premium would give me more than what I paid for, that additional reluctance would likely go away or at least be reduced – this is what I mean about rebuilding trust and confidence.

 

For me, the following would work. In many ways it repeats what Verblonde said, but adds protection for people who don't want the new GC and therefore may no longer need an Italian commander. Every GC owner gets to choose one option from each of the following two lists as compensation:

List 1:

– The new T6 GC

– Doubloon refund of the value of the new GC + option to convert up to two Italian commanders into equally-trained commanders of the nation of the player's choice, trained for the ship of their choice and with all skills reset.

List 2:

– Lots of FXP

– Lots of coal

– Lots of doubloons

– Any premium ship in the online store (maybe restrict up to T6, maybe T7?)

– At least one (possibly more?) 10-point captain(s) of the nation(s) of the player's choice, trained for a ship of the players choice (not a T1 by default)

– For the gamblers out there, I suppose an option for 5-10 supercontainers wouldn't go amiss, as long as the 'guaranteed' options were high enough to be attractive in their own right.

 

If this became the standard template for refunds if premiums need rebalancing, with specific values being tweaked to suit individual cases, I wouldn't be any more reluctant than in the past to purchase premiums, and I think it would provide a strong enough incentive to get the balance right that the number of OP premiums released should drop. (And I think it's worth taking a moment to remember that the well-balanced ships, both premium and tech-tree, still far outnumber the OP/broken/horribly underpowered ones. At least, that's my pov.).

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
4,453 posts
7,958 battles
3 minutes ago, T0byJug said:

Not sure i agree.. after all the real money value of doubloons/gold has been the same since launch..

the purchase price straight from the store, sure... but that's hardly the only source of Gold/dubloons is it? Last time I've bought any directly must be two and a half years ago now, and I'm still sitting on a bit of a mountain from various sources... and those are the issue I see here, those would have to be coordinated really really well between the games...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,670 posts
9,162 battles

 

2 hours ago, T0byJug said:

1 April and 1 Jun  and she is buffed or nerfed  in September players automatically get the option of a refund.. players on the other hand that buy a ship in the first 2 months have to accept that they risk the ship being changed..  Maybe as an incentive People get the some sort of unique camo/flag or some other  benefit for buying in that first 2 months  

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

Problem with this is that with more "rebalanced" premiums number of same ship will increase significantly. Imagine two Belfasts, two Kamikazes, two Kutuzovs, two ... This is just a mess. Also retiering maybe won't work for every ship.

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.

 

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

Another more simple option would be when uptiered those who want to keep GC could get special camo that gives better bonuses then regular one, like +50% XP and +100% FXP, something like that.

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.

 

1 hour ago, quickr said:

most don't want some other ship at some other tier or doubloons as compensation.

 

56 minutes ago, Animalul2012 said:

leave it as it is and remove any ability to purchase it, if it is so OP!

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)'.

 

34 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

Quite honestly, the compensation options you outline there seem like a bit too much to me. Three things in particular:

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.

 

36 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

Just my $0,02

That's why we're having this discussion. To maybe probably find some better options than I proposed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,670 posts
9,162 battles
10 minutes ago, Toxoplasmosi said:

HEI !!! HANDS OFF from Giulio Cesare!!!

:etc_swear:

Same as in my reply to quickr and AnimaLul: You want your ship to stay as it is. Fair and dandy. 

 

I'm just pointing out, that WG is heavily thinking about actually rebalancing an OP ship (a ship I do have myself and enjoy - the stats prove it). Do I want that ship to remain OP? To a certain degree: Yes! But that is of no good for the overall community.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITA_5]
Players
287 posts
7,290 battles
4 minuti fa, Allied_Winter ha scritto:

Same as in my reply to quickr and AnimaLul: You want your ship to stay as it is. Fair and dandy. 

 

I'm just pointing out, that WG is heavily thinking about actually rebalancing an OP ship (a ship I do have myself and enjoy - the stats prove it). Do I want that ship to remain OP? To a certain degree: Yes! But that is of no good for the overall community. 

 

 

Just do not sale it any more as done with Kutuzov, Belfast... ship I can never have!!! Why change tier to GC??? So do the same with the others "out of sale" ships... no way: HANDS OFF from Giulio Cesare!!! :etc_swear::etc_swear::etc_swear:!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,670 posts
9,162 battles
Just now, Toxoplasmosi said:

Just do not sale it any more as done with Kutuzov, Belfast... ship I can never have!!!

You are aware of the fact, that THESE two ships you mentioned might possibly also be on the list of rebalancing premium ships? And thus be available for you in the long run.

 

The GC is just the poor sod that WG chooses to start with. And IF (BIG BIG BIG IF!!!) the rebalance of the GC goes through, other OP ships will follow swiftly. Kamikaze and Germiashthshashsty have already been mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
[TTT]
Sailing Hamster, Players, Privateer
3,776 posts
15,407 battles

It's WG's game, they can change whatever they want. I'm absolutely not fine with being compensated with Doubloons, neither for GC nor for premium CVs. Point being that I have no use for Doubloons and if I had wanted Doubloons I would have bought them and since I already have loads of premium ships anyway, I'm also not interested in any "conversion into another ship" scheme, since there aren't any that I don't have but would want. I'd prefer my money back for whichever premium ships WG wants to change as an option or failing that, something actually worthwhile like steel in exchange. I'll argue that the people most affected by these compensation schemes are people who have invested a lot of money in this game and as such have no use for even more Doubloons either.

This whole compensation with doubloons thing has really alienated me from even looking at the premium shop and unless there is a more consumer friendly approach by WG, I don't see myself spending anything anymore on this game. It's not what I paid for and it's not what I wanted to get.

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITA_5]
Players
287 posts
7,290 battles
4 minuti fa, Allied_Winter ha scritto:

You are aware of the fact, that THESE two ships you mentioned might possibly also be on the list of rebalancing premium ships? And thus be available for you in the long run.

 

The GC is just the poor sod that WG chooses to start with. And IF (BIG BIG BIG IF!!!) the rebalance of the GC goes through, other OP ships will follow swiftly. Kamikaze and Germiashthshashsty have already been mentioned. 

If so... then start from them!!! Leave GC for now... no way mate, I respect you but... HANDS OFF from Giulio Cesare!!! :etc_swear: !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×