Jump to content
Armory Maintenance - 30.11.2021 04:00 UTC Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
thiextar

Wargaming is doing bullshittery again

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-AP-]
Players
3,155 posts
8,074 battles

sooo.... wargaming just posted this on their development blog 

"

[PSA] Giulio Cesare testing and premium ships status

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!

"

 

So to summarize:

1. they wont stop selling op ships in loot crates, as im pretty sure thats what they mean by "special occasion". Didnt sub_Octavian or someone say that selling them in loot crates was a massive mistake a while ago? Well, there we see how much those words were worth.

 

2. They lied about why the community didnt like the balancing. From what i saw, people were most likely happy with rebalancing if there was a proper refund, wargaming didnt even mention that here.

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 6
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
920 posts
11,130 battles

Purely personal, but apart from the exact ways of refunding I had zero problem with the notion of "after-balancing" or simply, re-balancing premiums.

I had a massive issue with re-tiering premiums.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,857 posts
12,512 battles
9 minutes ago, thiextar said:

So to summarize:

1. they wont stop selling op ships in loot crates, as im pretty sure thats what they mean by "special occasion". Didnt sub_Octavian or someone say that selling them in loot crates was a massive mistake a while ago? Well, there we see how much those words were worth.

 

2. They lied about why the community didnt like the balancing. From what i saw, people were most likely happy with rebalancing if there was a proper refund, wargaming didnt even mention that here.

 

 

S_O as developer might disagree with "OP" ships in loot crates, but marketing and financial team says otherwise:Smile_popcorn:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ROUGH]
Players
4,714 posts
13,654 battles

No matter what WG does it's always bs to some of you huh? I remember topics threatening to do class action lawsuits and now that WG listened to you whiners it's still bs? Of course,it will never be enough for you

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
3,155 posts
8,074 battles
Just now, Zuihou25 said:

No matter what WG does it's always bs to some of you huh? I remember topics threatening to do class action lawsuits and now that WG listened to you whiners it's still bs? Of course,it will never be enough for you

They havent listened at all tho. If they had, they wouldnt have put "Special occasions" in there.

 

Also they lied about why the community didnt want the rebalance, because they didnt want to face questions about refunding.

 

How is any of this listening? This is nothing more than corporate gibberish.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,923 posts
42 minutes ago, thiextar said:

They havent listened at all tho. If they had, they wouldnt have put "Special occasions" in there.

 

Also they lied about why the community didnt want the rebalance, because they didnt want to face questions about refunding.

 

How is any of this listening? This is nothing more than corporate gibberish.

Im all for balancing all those ships. Belfast, Gulio, Kamikaze R and so on. I just want a fair refund. Not some doubloons. 

 

But meanwhile at WG

200.gif.25593a867cb3a80bbcdb4be9ad7638b5.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
33,090 posts
16,604 battles
20 minutes ago, thiextar said:

So to summarize:

1. they wont stop selling op ships in loot crates, as im pretty sure thats what they mean by "special occasion". Didnt sub_Octavian or someone say that selling them in loot crates was a massive mistake a while ago? Well, there we see how much those words were worth.

 

2. They lied about why the community didnt like the balancing. From what i saw, people were most likely happy with rebalancing if there was a proper refund, wargaming didnt even mention that here.

  1. Community does not seem to mind.
  2. Community was not happy at all.
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
10,330 battles
33 minutes ago, MortenTardo said:

Im all for balancing all those ships. Belfast, Gilio, Kamikaze R and so on. I just want a fair refund. Not some doubloons. 

 

But meanwhile at WG

200.gif.25593a867cb3a80bbcdb4be9ad7638b5.gif

This.

 

 

Bonus points for managing to shift the blame onto the community who is now tearing each other up.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,201 posts
7,237 battles
1 hour ago, thiextar said:

2. They lied about why the community didnt like the balancing. From what i saw, people were most likely happy with rebalancing if there was a proper refund, wargaming didnt even mention that here.

Not at all. People massively wanted to keep GC as it was:

image.thumb.png.1c9f0db311c39f08accab0cdc37077cf.png

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
3,155 posts
8,074 battles
23 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

Not at all. People massively wanted to keep GC as it was:

image.thumb.png.1c9f0db311c39f08accab0cdc37077cf.png

That poll didn't even have an option of "balance with proper refunds" so those results don't apply here. 

 

If I have an op ship, I wouldnt want to have to swap it in for some useless dubloons for the sake of balance. 

 

If I however could get a full monetary refund, I would be fine with balancing of premiums. 

 

Of course wargaming doesn't want to refund in real money, but atleast they could state that as the real reason rather than "the community doesn't want balance" 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
33,090 posts
16,604 battles
Just now, thiextar said:

Of course wargaming doesn't want to refund in real money, but atleast they could state that as the real reason rather than "the community doesn't want balance" 

Feel free to read dozens of pages of discussion again.

Maybe even include NA and the english speaking part of Asia.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
5,760 posts
14,887 battles
2 hours ago, thiextar said:

Didnt sub_Octavian or someone say that selling them in loot crates was a massive mistake a while ago? Well, there we see how much those words were worth.

The words you don't know if they were actually spoken and by whom? Idk if he said that but if he did, it's probably his own opinion and it's not like he was in full control of the direction of WoWS. Also, opinions can change.

 

Quote

From what i saw, people were most likely happy with rebalancing if there was a proper refund, wargaming didnt even mention that here.

Yeh, from what you saw. Often times we see what we want to see. It's a complicated matter and many perspectives have to be taken into account. I thought that WG's statement seemed very honest and transparent. Compare that to other companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,474 posts
9,441 battles
1 hour ago, elblancogringo said:

Not at all. People massively wanted to keep GC as it was:

image.thumb.png.1c9f0db311c39f08accab0cdc37077cf.png

153. If you log on at 3 am, there'll still be way more people than that playing the game. assuming a forum poll is representative, especially with incomplete options and when it is like the nth poll on the topic...

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
5,288 posts
22,860 battles
2 hours ago, elblancogringo said:

Not at all. People massively wanted to keep GC as it was:

image.thumb.png.1c9f0db311c39f08accab0cdc37077cf.png

Because people love an  OP ship. IF IT IS  IN THERE PORT.  and no people did NOT massively want  her to stay as she was  98 people wanted her to change

For the record I voted for rebalance.. I own her at tier V and i played her as a tier VI ship. she was still very strong..

Personally I think this is a mistake.

Many of use bought her knowing she was OP so we should have expected a Nerf at some time.

 

I own and play Belfast/GC and kamikaze R and i truly believe its better for the game that they are rebalanced

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
3,590 posts
28,459 battles

imo it's the most fairest approach, if not in any other way 4 sure in terms of customer trust. they do not change prems, they leave a window for players who don't own em to have a chance on em though and they keep a window for good money open (remember, somones gotta bring up money. as long money comes in without thrashing any balance, moneyinput is a good thing!.

 

imho everyone wins....yet.

 

the most important thing in that regard to me is simply that they change the pattern of release.....

so, to not release ships which are clearly not ready for liveserver (in any direction... no one needs utter sheet prems as well!).

 

2 cts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,567 posts
10,294 battles

Hello guys. I don't mind expressing opinions but still: similar topic already exist and it could be done in far more polite way (topic name).

 

 

 

Locking.

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×