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

[PSA] Giulio Cesare Testing and Premium Ships Status

123 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[TTT]
Players
4,468 posts
7,981 battles

I'm sure some of the usual suspects will be able to spin even this into "WG is out of touch, doesnt listen to the playerbase, is just trying to scam us, doesn't deserve even the slightest bit of trust" and all that drivel...

 

Can't say I'm terribly happy about this outcome myself, I would have preferred a healthier game overall even if it leads to a few individual meltdowns, but fair enough.

  • Cool 7
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,225 battles
17 minutes ago, MrConway said:

Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning:

Yes, give up before even really starting because OP s:etc_swear:t breaking the game by being amongs the best performing BBs when compared to ships 2 TIERS ABOVE IT is perfectly fine :fish_palm:

 

This was one good decision in a long line of s:etc_swear:t, and ofc you immedeately abandon it

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
[TTT]
Sailing Hamster, Players, Privateer
3,776 posts
15,495 battles
Quote

For example, as we do now, stop direct sales and limit their distribution to very special occasions, so that their presence in battles is minimal.


WG early December: "Buy our lootboxes and have a chance to get those arguably overperforming ships"
WG two months later: "We really need to nerf those overperforming ships we used a few weeks ago to incentivise lootbox sales."
 


Has it occured to you that if you hadn't used these ships, which have a reputation of being too strong, for "special occasions", that you would've had much less of an issue changing them?

  • Cool 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAILS]
Players
216 posts
15,233 battles

I guess this solution is (slightly) better than retiering ships, but I can't say I'm happy with the decision. Imbalances are a given with the amount of ships in the game.

However, I think WG should grant themselves the freedom to adjust significantly overperforming ships for better game balance.

Also, just removing such ships from sale to keep their population low is not the way to go, either. What about people who decide they would at some point like a captain trainer, don't have the money at a certain point or collectors? They don't have a chance to get a ship they want.

I believe it would be worth the outcry from current owners of a ship to make it balanced, as long as the ship's overall gameplay is not affected.

Btw, no one ever complains about buffs to premiums and those shouldn't happen either under the "don't touch premiums after release"-rule.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Privateer
7,959 posts

imho a very bad decision. If a ship is op, than it has to be adjusted (in any way), no matter if premium or not. Only stop selling them is by far not enough...

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VMES]
Players
156 posts
11,321 battles

Ah, good, so i get the chance to make the OP-GC work for me - 'cause i regularly suck with GC - and even if i don't, i lose the matches.
Or i can be useful to prevent the Cesare-stats go even more through the ceiling. LOL

Anyway, it feels good to have something special.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TROLL]
Beta Tester
113 posts
4,796 battles

And now everyone complains about just leaving it as it was.... hopeless...

abondoning the test was the right move.

  • Cool 9
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITA_5]
Players
292 posts
7,333 battles
44 minuti fa, Sub_Octavian ha scritto:

Captains,

 

Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning:

(...)

 For example, a change to the Radar mechanics affects all ships equipped with Radar, a Smoke mechanics change affects all ships with smoke, etc. 

 

We sincerely thank you for your opinions and feedback.

 

Good luck and fair seas! :Smile_honoring:

Excellent decision! Wise decision. Well done.

The example: thi is normal because it regarding all ships premium and not. It regarding the whole mechanics, nobody will complain for it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG Staff
153 posts
2 minutes ago, Atorpad said:

@Sub_OctavianWhy did you release such op ships in the first place ??!!!! 

We've released literally hundreds of ships since release and dozens of Premiums. Only 5-6 of them over 3+ years are really that over performing. Why do you think they are? Because of balancing mistakes. Because it's not possible to release every ship perfectly balanced. We try hard, though, and have improved our workflow since then. Most of these ships are rather old.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
2,257 posts
10,999 battles
1 hour ago, Takru said:


WG early December: "Buy our lootboxes and have a chance to get those arguably overperforming ships"
WG two months later: "We really need to nerf those overperforming ships we used a few weeks ago to incentivise lootbox sales."
 


Has it occured to you that if you hadn't used these ships, which have a reputation of being too strong, for "special occasions", that you would've had much less of an issue changing them?

Well, that's the silver lining for WG in abandoning the idea of nerfing premiums - they can continue their lootbox sales.

 

(As long as us freedomhating belgians don't get too much following too fast of course :Smile-_tongue:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
2,257 posts
10,999 battles
1 hour ago, Sub_Octavian said:

Only 5-6 of them over 3+ years are really that over performing.

Which ones do you include on that list?

And is there a seperate category for overperforming ships less than three years old? If so ,which ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ARYA]
Players
496 posts
11,791 battles
3 minutes ago, Sub_Octavian said:

We've released literally hundreds of ships since release and dozens of Premiums. Only 5-6 of them over 3+ years are really that over performing. Why do you think they are? Because of balancing mistakes. Because it's not possible to release every ship perfectly balanced. We try hard, though, and have improved our workflow since then. Most of these ships are rather old.

Old or new the op ships make other players suffer facing them.while making them unavailable for all doesn't change anything and only gives the owners advantage of ruling others

I know players always want their unique op ships to have fun but what about other 23?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
393 posts

Perfect strategy. So now selling lootboxes will be more easy again since they can contain op ships which stay op. Applause WG, applause!

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
18,975 posts
12,100 battles
1 minute ago, Feldpropst said:

Perfect strategy. So now selling lootboxes will be more easy again since they can contain op ships which stay op. Applause WG, applause!

Community wants it this way...

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
393 posts
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Community wants it this way...

Only people who are really that stupid to buy these containers to get one exact ship want it that way. Summed up it's "the community", yes...

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,631 posts
8,115 battles
1 hour ago, Sub_Octavian said:

Captains,

 

Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning:

 

  1. While many of you did support the idea of promoting more balance and fair play, most of you were not willing to support this if it means making changes to purchased premium ships. 
  2. Many of you let us know that the perfect balance in each ship group is not as critical for you as we assumed; however, the confidence that the stats of purchased premium ships are not to be nerfed is much more important. It was not the only opinion voiced, but it was the most frequent in all discussions on all platforms.
  3. According to the majority of your opinions, having several over performing premium ships in the game is not an issue for you, given the fact that they are not sold directly and that they can be countered under the right circumstances; 
  4. Testing Giulio Cesare on tier VI has shown that it can indeed be a balanced tier VI battleship, however, her gameplay experience changed dramatically. The same is true for alternative rebalance options (e.g. nerf on tier V).


As the proposed initiative was based on community feedback, and achieving absolutely perfect balance in each ship group is not a purpose in itself (and it is not really possible anyway, because ships have vastly different play styles, pros and cons, and players have vastly different skill levels), we decided to cancel it. There are not many ships like Giulio Cesare in the game, and most of them are quite old; our balancing process has significantly improved since release, and there is no indication that we will have many such ships in the game. However, if they do appear, we will take appropriate action. For example, as we do now, stop direct sales and limit their distribution to very special occasions, so that their presence in battles is minimal.

 

Despite the fact that we never had a rule which stated "premium ships are not nerfed individually", we indeed did not do it before and we understand why many of you assumed that there is such a rule.

 

It should be noted that even the ships purchased in or marketed through Premium store are a part of a big game we all play. That means our decision does not isolate any ship from systematic changes applied to a group of ships on common basis or to the whole game. For example, a change to the Radar mechanics affects all ships equipped with Radar, a Smoke mechanics change affects all ships with smoke, etc. 

 

We sincerely thank you for your opinions and feedback.

 

Good luck and fair seas! :Smile_honoring:

Nice! One more sample of the rare "WG actualy listen when the community says DON'T DO IT"

While the problem itself was made by WG themselves at least the community can have a say of how it should stay.

That gives hope that things like the stubborn introduction of RPF (or Radio location whatever one wants to call it) are a thing of the past.

35 minutes ago, Sub_Octavian said:

We've released literally hundreds of ships since release and dozens of Premiums. Only 5-6 of them over 3+ years are really that over performing. Why do you think they are? Because of balancing mistakes. Because it's not possible to release every ship perfectly balanced. We try hard, though, and have improved our workflow since then. Most of these ships are rather old.

Well here I have to give a bit of contra though.

It seems you are only speaking of the old aknowledged Op ships that got pulled from store. Yet things like T-61, Stalingrad König Albert roam freely because they aren't classified OP by WG yet.

Meaning there are more than just 5-6 but if you step in when things get out of control then it's fine i guess.

17 minutes ago, Feldpropst said:

Only people who are really that stupid to buy these containers to get one exact ship want it that way. Summed up it's "the community", yes...

Nope I also supported this outcome. Not because I don't want a balanced game or my OP Premiums nerfed, but because I felt after WG pulling the x-mas crate they blocked themselves out of this move. It would become a classic bait and switch which would be a bad buisness practice. (and no I didn't get any OP Premiums out of Lootboxes and didn't even try. Those that I own I bought or win when they were commonly available.)

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,757 posts
8,832 battles

As an owner of all the ships potentially being changed, I still wanted to be objective in my reasoning why I did or did not support post-release nerfs of them.

Since I bought or otherwise got them a long time ago I got to play them in their original form quite a lot, so I landed on the side of allowing them to be re balanced.

But seeing all the different arguments coming from other people I eventually started moving over to "maybe we should leave them". The most valid argument to me was the fact that most of these ships had officially gotten the status of rare collectible and was still being used to sell containers not too long ago.

While I would never buy ships with the assumption that they would be exempt from rebalancing, I can definitely see how someone could draw that conclusion from the official handling of premium ships up to this point.

 

tl;dr - In theory you should be able to nerf premium ships, but you'd also have to make a good faith effort to communicate this to people before they spend money on them. So in this specific case I don't think it's okay to directly nerf premiums.

So I support the choice WG has made on this issue.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
50 posts
9,775 battles
37 minutes ago, Sub_Octavian said:

We've released literally hundreds of ships since release and dozens of Premiums. Only 5-6 of them over 3+ years are really that over performing. Why do you think they are? Because of balancing mistakes. Because it's not possible to release every ship perfectly balanced. We try hard, though, and have improved our workflow since then. Most of these ships are rather old.

"Cough"Stalingrad

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

I think it's a good move.

 

It will give me greater confidence to spend money on WOWs in future.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
8,482 battles
1 hour ago, Tyrendian89 said:

I'm sure some of the usual suspects will be able to spin even this into "WG is out of touch, doesnt listen to the playerbase, is just trying to scam us, doesn't deserve even the slightest bit of trust" and all that drivel...

 

Funny, everything you have said is true, yet you call it drivel? Are you mad or just a shill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,631 posts
8,115 battles
4 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

 

Funny, everything you have said is true, yet you call it drivel? Are you mad or just a shill?

What do you mean?

In this case they obviously listened to the playerbase. :cap_hmm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,648 posts
14,740 battles

I'm quite ambivalent about all this. On the one hand, it is good to see that ships won't be uptiered even if it means that Exeter will never be T6. I can't imagine how radical the changes would have been to ships like Belfast if they were put at T+1.

However, this decision also closes the door to balancing the ships down. I was for balancing the ships at tier, as it would have been possible to change their characteristics without changing their gameplay too much. This option is off the table now.

 

I think the one thing WG and the devs especially could take from all this, is that they should communicate and talk with the active community before they start testing solutions, so that they can see beforehand what people are willing to accept.

Because all of the bad feelings could have been avoided if WG first asked us to identify overperforming ships and how we would be willing to change them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×