What should happen to the Giulio Cesare? - The Complete Poll

[Procrastes]

Before you say it: Yes, I know there's at least one other poll on this subject up on the forum. I would have happily voted on that one, if my preferred choice - to keep the Giulio Cesare at tier V without any changes - had been among the possible answers. It is not, for the very good reason that said poll starts with the assumption that the ship will be changed in one way or another. In order to get to vote for no change, I've decided to open my own poll. I hope that you who have voted on the other poll will vote on this as well. You are of course also free to make any further arguments for your case, although I wish to stress that a lot of good and well delivered thoughts on the subject have already been expressed in the other poll thread. To Captain @elblancogringo especially, the author of the other poll, I would like to express my hope that you will not take my initiative as anything other than a compliment to your laudable efforts in putting the matter on the table to begin with!

 

With that out of the way, on to the subject at hand. Why do I feel that the Giulio Cesare should remain, unchanged, at tier V?

 

Let me begin by saying that I do not question Wargaming's evaluation that the Giulio Cesare is a very strong ship for her tier. Even I, who am at best barely competent as a battleship captain, rarely have bad games in her.

 

This leads to the following questions:

1. Would the game balance at the relevant tiers (IV-VII) be improved with some tweaking of her in-game ship characteristics?

- The answer to that is, yes, it probably would.

2. Can such changes also be said to be necessary, in order to address balance issues that are hurtful to the game experience at those tiers?

- For my part, I really don't feel that this is the case. But I grant that that's a much more difficult question to answer.

 

But, you may ask, if we can say that some kind of change would be likely to improve game balance, shouldn't that be enough reason to make the change already?

 

This brings us on to the special status (I'm using the term in a deliberately lighthearted way, here) of the premium ships. As far as I have gathered, Wargaming has historically exercised a certain amount of restraint when it came to tampering with premium vehicles of any kind. Aside from such cases where a change was deemed necessary to avoid clear and present danger to the game balance, premium vehicles have largely only been affected (in the negative, at least) by such overall changes to the game mechanics that more or less affected everything else in the game as well. Negative changes - i.e., nerfs - have only rarely been applied directly to premium vehicles. The specific reasons for this are not known to me, but I believe it to be a sound business strategy. When you purchase something as a customer, you have a reasonable expectation to receive - and retain - what you get. If you buy a new ship on Monday, and you find it nerfed to the ocean bed (or maybe just moved to another tier) on Tuesday, you are unlikely to go shopping for the next one on Wednesday. And while it might be argued that a ship isn't nerfed per se if it is moved to a higher tier with some requisite balancing efforts, I would say that such a move will nevertheless change the gameplay in a fundamental way for the ship in question. It will basically be a different ship.

 

In conclusion: My main reason for objecting to the proposed change to the Giulio Cesare - that is, moving her to tier VI - has less to do with the specific ship, than with what it may herald for the future of the game. If this change goes through, it might well be paving the way for future 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 with this. We all know that silver line ships may be changed 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. I think this is how it should be.

[BanzaiPiluso]

They should stop selling it and leave it as it is. I am not sure it is used that much and when it is then it becomes a challenge to players to overcome.  And with the new patch is not that OP.

Natural decrease in GC population is possible. Better than opening a can of worms like changing premiums after release.

 

 

[wilkatis_LV]

Yes, we need 10th iteration of the same poll, obviously

 

And "I don't care" is not a sufficient answer. I care that it gets balanced. I don't care if it's by moving it to t6 or nerfing it at t5. Both are good as long as the result is positive

[Juanx]

Erm, where is the option: WG is not listtening anyways...

[Procrastes]

8 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

And "I don't care" is not a sufficient answer. I care that it gets balanced. I don't care if it's by moving it to t6 or nerfing it at t5. Both are good as long as the result is positive

Good point. I have added a fifth possible answer to the poll, that will hopefully account sufficiently for this opinion.

[Allied_Winter]

Just by giving it a quick thought a complete poll should contain more or less all possible answers. So:

 

• I don't want the GC to be altered in any possible way.
• I don't want the GC to be altered in any possible way. But IF WG does that, I don't care how balanced she ends up, I'll give her back and I want my money back on principle
• I don't want the GC to be altered in any possible way. But IF WG does that, I don't care how balanced she ends up, I'll give her back and accept store credit (coupon, dubloons)
• I think GC should be balanced, but should stay on T5. Even if that means nerfing her heavily. No further compensation needed
• I think GC should be balanced, but should stay on T5. Even if that means nerfing her heavily. Further compensation needed even if a player accepts the new ship as a sale has been altered onesided
• I think GC should be balanced, but should be moved to T6. Even if that means having no more T5 ship I initially purchased. No further compensation needed.

• I think GC should be balanced, but should be moved to T6. Even if that means having no more T5 ship I initially purchased but in that case players should get a compensation of at least a T5 ship. Even if they decide to keep the uptiered GC.

• I think GC should be balanced, but I don't mind which way. No further compensation needed

• I think GC should be balanced, but I don't mind which way. Either way, players who keep her should recieve a genereous compensation

• I don't care

• Other

 

Compensation in this regards means, that e.g. for accepting to keep the new GC players that keep her get something additional on top whereas players refunding her should get an even larger compensation as a sign of good will from WG (e.g. in the form of a store credit for a premium ship UP TO T8)

 

It'd be easier for such polls if we could make answerdependent questions....

[Procrastes]

Just now, Juanx said:

Erm, where is the option: WG is not listtening anyways...

I suppose that might be thought of as a possible motivation to vote for alternative no. 4, "I don't care"...?

[iJoby]

Personally, I would have every professional Developer put any other balance project on hold and fix the CV nightmare, It is mind boggling that a developer has time to care about a Tier V ship, that could easily be worked on at a future date.

But then, like in politics, if you want people to stop demonstrating about a major controversial problem (CV Rework) you must create a separate minor controversy (Giulio Cesare) and it seems to be working.

[Procrastes]

11 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Just by giving it a quick thought a complete poll should contain more or less all possible answers.

...

 

It'd be easier for such polls if we could make answerdependent questions....

All your alternatives are certainly worthy of debate!  But I feel that adding all those "if so, what then" alternatives to the list might confuse rather than enthuse, on a wider basis. And I am more inclined to let the poll revolve around the principal question of whether to accept this kind of change or not, than to dwell - at this stage, anyway - on what would be proper compensation.

[Procrastes]

4 minutes ago, iJoby said:

Personally, I would have every professional Developer put any other balance project on hold and fix the CV nightmare, It is mind boggling that they have time to care about a Tier V ship that could be worked on at a future date.

I believe we can rest assured that the WG staff are working like wabid wombats on the carrier rework, even as we speak.

And I would also guess that thoughts of effecting a change to the Giulio Cesare - and very possibly other premiums as well - have been long brewing. Let's not forget that a number of premium carriers have been promoted to tier VIII as part of the rework....?

[Mr_Snoww]

39 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Just by giving it a quick thought a complete poll should contain more or less all possible answers. So:

 

• I don't want the GC to be altered in any possible way.
• I don't want the GC to be altered in any possible way. But IF WG does that, I don't care how balanced she ends up, I'll give her back and I want my money back on principle
• I don't want the GC to be altered in any possible way. But IF WG does that, I don't care how balanced she ends up, I'll give her back and accept store credit (coupon, dubloons)
• I think GC should be balanced, but should stay on T5. Even if that means nerfing her heavily. No further compensation needed
• I think GC should be balanced, but should stay on T5. Even if that means nerfing her heavily. Further compensation needed even if a player accepts the new ship as a sale has been altered onesided
• I think GC should be balanced, but should be moved to T6. Even if that means having no more T5 ship I initially purchased. No further compensation needed.

• I think GC should be balanced, but should be moved to T6. Even if that means having no more T5 ship I initially purchased but in that case players should get a compensation of at least a T5 ship. Even if they decide to keep the uptiered GC.

• I think GC should be balanced, but I don't mind which way. No further compensation needed

• I think GC should be balanced, but I don't mind which way. Either way, players who keep her should recieve a genereous compensation

• I don't care

• Other

 

Compensation in this regards means, that e.g. for accepting to keep the new GC players that keep her get something additional on top whereas players refunding her should get an even larger compensation as a sign of good will from WG (e.g. in the form of a store credit for a premium ship UP TO T8)

 

It'd be easier for such polls if we could make answerdependent questions....

Compensation in this case should mean a full cash refund. Nothing else is acceptable. Same as they should have done for the premium CVs. Completely changing a product that you have purchased with real money it being virtual or not makes no difference. 

[Allied_Winter]

36 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

All your alternatives are certainly worthy of debate!  But I feel that adding all those "if so, what then" alternatives to the list might confuse rather than enthuse, on a wider basis. And I am more inclined to let the poll revolve around the principal question of whether to accept this kind of change or not, than to dwell - at this stage, anyway - on what would be proper compensation.

Of course ... there'd be also a lot more stuff to discuss about: 

 

- I don't want a nerf!

- I don't want a nerf, but see that it's somewhat necessary!

 

And so on and so forth.

 

7 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

Compensation in this case should mean a full cash refund. Nothing else is acceptable. Same as they should have done for the premium CVs. Completely changing a product that you have purchased with real money it being virtual or not makes no difference. 

Compensation should be what is best suited for every player that has her. So for you that's cash, for someone else that might be just keeping a fast T5 BB while again someone else is happy with any dubloons, and yet another someone is only happy if the dubloon amount is larger than X.

[MrWastee]

4 the record:

i want it to stay as it is simply coz of the precedence. they bl***y are supposed to release their premiums in a proper state balance-wise! once started it gonna get repeated. and repeated. and at some point will become common.... in the long run the danger to run into the "release op, sell tons, nerf, rinse/repeat" pattern seems not too unlikely to come if one does the 1st step.

[Juanx]

56 minutes ago, iJoby said:

But then, like in politics, if you want people to stop demonstrating about a major controversial problem (CV Rework) you must create a separate minor controversy (Giulio Cesare) and it seems to be working.

 

Sadly for RG, and that was completely expected, what they got now is 2 sectors of the playerbase on edge, instead of that "diversion" you speak about. You say it seems to be working? In what range? People is still arguing carriers, but its now compounded by "not going to give those scammers a single dime anymore" that they created with this GC stunt.

 

Poll still flawed BTW...

[B051LjKo]

I think this deserves a compromise. GC should be uptiered to tier 6, and WG should present a GC - B hull, with identical stats as they are now, and offer it to players for 50 Euros. For those who like it, so they can continue enjoying it. 

[Allied_Winter]

2 minutes ago, B051LjKo said:

I think this deserves a compromise. GC should be uptiered to tier 6, and WG should present a GC - B hull, with identical stats as they are now, and offer it to players for 50 Euros. For those who like it, so they can continue enjoying it. 

What kind of use is that?

 

Bringing an OP ship from T5 to T6 to make it more balanced. Introduce the same OP for a hefty price tag at T5 .... ???? Result: OP ship still in game, but money has been made...

[B051LjKo]

45 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

What kind of use is that?

 

Bringing an OP ship from T5 to T6 to make it more balanced. Introduce the same OP for a hefty price tag at T5 .... ???? Result: OP ship still in game, but money has been made...

Well that is the point really? Why do you thing WG makes this game, for your own amusement or to make money? By allowing the players to re-buy the ship they already have would show their generosity. Balancing could be done through price adjustment. it is very good, it deserves a higher price tag. 

[Allied_Winter]

4 minutes ago, B051LjKo said:

By allowing the players to re-buy the ship they already have would show their generosity.

I don't think so, but why not bring it back immediately? Why hassle and generate a T6 ship first?

 

I mean, if you want to keep an OP ship in the game, you can - theoretically - go all out like world of tanks and give everybody a chance to skew the balance more towards pay2win.

 

5 minutes ago, B051LjKo said:

it is very good, it deserves a higher price tag. 

Example:

 

- You have a silver ship that is very good. Who can get this silver ship? Everybody that plays the game.

 

- You have a premium ship that is very good. Who can get this premium ship? Only those that have the high price tag you're calling for.

 

 

Sure WG needs to make money. They are not making this game for my own amusement, I know that. But making money has to be balanced with the free to play players. If the free to play players leave because of the blatant pay to win aspect ... who do think will be left for the paying players that fork over that amount of money to play with? Bots? Or are we then left with a 4vs4?

[iJoby]

1 hour ago, Juanx said:

 

Sadly for RG, and that was completely expected, what they got now is 2 sectors of the playerbase on edge, instead of that "diversion" you speak about. You say it seems to be working? In what range? People is still arguing carriers, but its now compounded by "not going to give those scammers a single dime anymore" that they created with this GC stunt.

 

Poll still flawed BTW...

"Seems to be working" is just my opinion based on "CV Rework" topics diminishing or converting to "GC" topics on Reddit and forum posts, your opinion may differ. :) 

[ilhilh]

I love how the most popular opinion is just that people want to keep their club so they can continue to beat the opposition mercilessly.

 

Option 2 is literally to make the ship balanced it for the tier but no, owners of the ship want unbalanced and unfair.  These people should be unable to comment in any future discussions on the subject of MM and balance because they don't give a **** about it - they only care about themselves.

[Procrastes]

44 minutes ago, ilhilh said:

I love how the most popular opinion is just that people want to keep their club so they can continue to beat the opposition mercilessly.

 

Option 2 is literally to make the ship balanced it for the tier but no, owners of the ship want unbalanced and unfair.  These people should be unable to comment in any future discussions on the subject of MM and balance because they don't give a **** about it - they only care about themselves.

In my opening post, I took some care to explain why I didn't vote the way I did simply to keep a single ship in a status quo, but to prevent the reshuffling of premium ships from becoming the norm rather than the exception. I agree that if a ship becomes so unbalanced that it actually hurts the gameplay, then it should certainly be adjusted - I'm just not convinced that this is the case with the Giulio Cesare. I don't believe, however, that members of the community should be banned from future discussions simply due to the fact that their opinions in this one may differ from yours. Opinions should be weighed by the strength of their reasons, not by which ships are in one's port.

[Odo_Toothless]

1 hour ago, Allied_Winter said:

If the free to play players leave because of the blatant pay to win aspect ... who do think will be left for the paying players that fork over that amount of money to play with? Bots? Or are we then left with a 4vs4?

From other point of view: When people who actually spend money will stop paying, after how thier shiny toys was nerfed to oblivion, who will pay for gaming ? Free to play gamers or mayby bots ?

 

WG made this mess and so far P2W model was not a problem for them, as long as money flowed like a river. Ballance OP ships ? Sure, but people who spent cash on such, should have an option to return this cash. If this is not a case, then it's normal that many of us feels scammed, and do not want any "reballancing".

[B051LjKo]

59 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

I don't think so, but why not bring it back immediately? Why hassle and generate a T6 ship first?

 

I mean, if you want to keep an OP ship in the game, you can - theoretically - go all out like world of tanks and give everybody a chance to skew the balance more towards pay2win.

 

So you pay again. No money, no OP ship. Simple.

 

59 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Example:

 

- You have a silver ship that is very good. Who can get this silver ship? Everybody that plays the game.

 

Silver is crap, worthless... doublons are what matters, they need money! more and more money! OP ship is the best way to get it

 

59 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Sure WG needs to make money. They are not making this game for my own amusement, I know that. But making money has to be balanced with the free to play players.

 

 

Ballancing is difficult, and slow... It is faster to have a pay to win game! Quicker results.

 

59 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

. If the free to play players leave because of the blatant pay to win aspect ... 

Who cares about those non paying leaches! Anyone not buying at least 50 Euros of containers per month is rude and does not deserve WG respect.

[VonBroich]

I guess when we buy a premium we don't mind the odd tweak here and there. Be it a buff or a nerf.  But what has been proposed is a fundermental change to one of it's original selling points ie. T5. Which in doing creates a dangerous precedent.

 

Now I appreciate a lot of work goes into developing premium ships and WG needs to make sales to cover the development costs.  So having to pull any ship from sale, due to it being OP, is the last thing they want to do. They are trying to make a profit and I have no problem with that.

 

We've seen WG release the old A hulls of many of the IJN bb's, as lower tier premiums.  Perhaps something simmilar could be done here.  Keep the current GC at T5 as is, for those of us that have it.  They could then create a GC mk 2 at T6. Give it say an armour/AA buff, as part of a mythical refit and call it something like GC 1943.  WG have done this for West Virginia 1941, which leaves the door open to a full refity WV at some point in the future.

[Beastofwar]

I am not an owner of one ( yes ofcourse that matters ) and although i like ships to have special features that make them stand out, or perform better in a certain role. i do not like clearly unfair OP ships.

 

So i voted "balance it, don't care how " Actually i would prefer it to remain where it is, but then WG would have to nerf it. And we have all seen how well nerfs turn out to be. Uptiering may be more friendly afterall.

 

To me in Oktober Revolutya - or something lol - it didnt seem THAT much overpowered though....'Maybe because that one is next ?