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

Giulio Cesare stays as it is + balance of other premiums

131 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NWP]
Players
1,099 posts
9,906 battles

Well done WG.

 

My faith in your engagement with the playerbase is restored.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
8,223 battles
5 minutes ago, ReapingKnight said:

Surprisingly good communication, more like this please.

 

How is that good comunication? I dont use facebook, how would I know?

 

Good comunication is using as many outlets as possible, and if at all possible dont start on outlets that are completely disconnected from your product...

 

Still, guess they saw the poostorm forming and wisely decided to back off.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1
  • Angry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Players
2,591 posts
12,812 battles

Yes, well done WG,

 

You caved because a lot of noise was made by people don't liking their toys touched. If only you wouldn't have introduced this stupid idea of taking her to tier 6, but just tweaking some stats (concealment, accuracy) at tier 5 you might have avoided a lot of backlash.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
628 posts
2,129 battles

Bravo WG!

 

But the subtext clearly seems to be 'don't expect any more interesting ships'. I was one who said some out of the ordinary ships should be in the game, they are something to hope for if you haven't got them, and it won't hurt WG sales of containers next Christmas either. As for balancing the GC in the game, well I think it's self balancing anyway, it does tend to be the most targeted ship in the battle after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
354 posts
10,786 battles
15 minuti fa, Feldpropst ha scritto:

https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog

"Dear players,

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 initially 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!"

This is great and wise from WG developers. I really appreciate it.

Regarding the example of nerf, if this is done to ALL ships in the same way, as you have already done, it is not a problem for those with premium ships, because it is completely different from the reworking (Tier change) of only ONE premium ship, so nobody will complain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
3,037 posts
31,509 battles

Next step must be to get every premium ship removed from a balancing issue restored in the premium shop so everybody have a chance to buy it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
399 posts
3,834 battles

Good decision WG - though a little sneaky tweak to the Mikasa's main gun dispersion wouldn't go amiss. :Smile_Default:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FIFO]
[FIFO]
Beta Tester
2,451 posts
7,258 battles
14 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

How is that good comunication? I dont use facebook, how would I know?

 

Good comunication is using as many outlets as possible, and if at all possible dont start on outlets that are completely disconnected from your product...

 

Still, guess they saw the poostorm forming and wisely decided to back off.

Use the bloody forum then:

 

You have been around enough to surely know they post dev blog stuff in several places.  Just because the OP posted it on FB doesn't mean that is the only place it exists!

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
8,223 battles
1 minute ago, ilhilh said:

Use the bloody forum then:

 

You have been around enough to surely know they post dev blog stuff in several places.  Just because the OP posted it on FB doesn't mean that is the only place it exists!

 

Ah the defender of the poor multi million company.

 

There is indeed a post on this very forum, wonder why they did not have the wisdom to link it there...

 

Your brownie points keep increasing, dont worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
986 posts
15,726 battles

Strange, making a ship that starts to overpeform just to make some cash, then trying to balance it by nerfing, maybe try buffing the overnerfed researchable ships of the tier?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FIFO]
[FIFO]
Beta Tester
2,451 posts
7,258 battles
2 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

Ah the defender of the poor multi million company.

 

There is indeed a post on this very forum, wonder why they did not have the wisdom to link it there...

 

Your brownie points keep increasing, dont worry.

So your problem is that the OP didn't link to that post?  How is that WG fault?

 

I'm not some WG apologist but some people like yto find something to whinge about in any situation and your complaint was unjustified and simply wrong.  Get a grip.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
8,223 battles
Just now, ilhilh said:

So you problem is that the OP didn't link to that post?  How is that WG fault?

 

I'm not some WG apologist but some people like yto find something to whinge about in any situation and your complaint was unjustified and simply wrong.  Get a grip.

 

WG posted on facebook, right?

There is a post discussing the GC debacle in this very forum, 1st page, wonder why they did not respond there...

 

Your brownie points keep increasing too, shocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NSVE]
[NSVE]
Players
405 posts
12,015 battles

Dear WG,

 

That's a win, may your dice always roll a 6.

Could the Conte di Cavour be added to tier 6 instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
3,242 posts

It could have worked (perfectly?) if there was a proper monetary compensation (complete cashback) for the affected ships, which would have been entirely possible (if one could set away "pride" for a second) if those "problematic ships" weren't used as a carrot in order to get people to buy X-mas crates (because how are you going to compensate RNG-rolls?). And cooperate greed is to blame for that, with the preference of getting a quick buck via a deplorable and exploitative method (because that's what paid lootcrates are, nothing more and nothing less), even if that meant that actions needed in the future for the health of the game would be impossible without huge backlash and legal ramifications.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THIR]
Players
700 posts
3,987 battles
38 minutes ago, Feldpropst said:
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).

No, that's the only thing testing didn't show. WG didn't even try to rebalance GC on tier 5. Of course people have more issues with uptiering their premium ship than rebalancing it.

 

38 minutes ago, Feldpropst said:
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.

Oh, so making statements that imply you won't nerf premium ships is different than outright stating you won't nerf premium ships? Excellent hairsplitting right there.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
321 posts
5,459 battles

How about at least slight nerfs at T5, e.g. alpha damage, fire chance, etc. ?

I don`t think that most people would mind such smaller changes to at least bring it in line a little bit.

I certainly don`t and I have the GC on my other account.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
174 posts
Vor 26 Minuten, 250swb sagte:

But the subtext clearly seems to be 'don't expect any more interesting ships'. I

This is a bad day for game balance.

And no, you're wrong. There will be more OP toys in the future because they sell so well when WG says that they will stop selling them in 4 weeks and will never sell them again because they are OP. And it's money what's it all about.

So powercreep and forced meta changes will  have to go on for making OP prems fitting into the game after years of OPness. While destroying the balance between all other ships too.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,015 posts
7,832 battles
4 minutes ago, MrFingers said:

health of the game

Comrade, what is thiiis? Russian battlesheeep good health!

 

I vote for more powercreep to balance OP Premiums ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,765 posts
245 battles

Lol so its like the super persh nerf, but instead of it occuring they actually went back on it.

 

i still have little faith in this company but whatever at least they did something ok i guess.

 

They should of simply nerfed some stats on it and thats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FIFO]
[FIFO]
Beta Tester
2,451 posts
7,258 battles
7 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

WG posted on facebook, right?

There is a post discussing the GC debacle in this very forum, 1st page, wonder why they did not respond there...

 

Your brownie points keep increasing too, shocker.

What are these brownie points you keep wittering on about?  WG posted on FB AND they posted on this forum.  Sure, they didn't go around every post in gameplay that mentions GC repeating the message but that doesn't make it bad communication.  You are being ridiculous.  If you really can't help but complain then at least find something important to complain about!

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
663 posts
12,465 battles

I've played over 8000 random battles. 100 of those in GC, 50 in Belfast and 5 in KA. If players with these ships just constantly played them and filled the MM with OP ships then it'd be a problem and maybe some nerfs would have been in order, but in my experience they don't. I wanted the Belfast in my port because, well it's Belfast, so I bought her because she was going to be removed from sale, not because she's OP. GC I bought because it's Italian and Italy was virtually ignored in all WG products at that time and I wanted that to change, so I bought it for  that reason, not because she's OP.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×