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

Why offen nerve coals ships WoW?

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
111 posts
14,062 battles

Afther much months collecting coal to buy good ships offen you see WoW nerve those ships when a lot of players have buy them.

Is this a trick from them to let players first invest a lot of time to the game so they collect coal and try to have a good ship that afther months WoW gets nerve it?

 

Afther daily play the game for so much months a long time ago i have buy the Smolensk and now those days the ship is wurse and now those days they begin to nerve the Thunderer also is this a marketing trick from WoW to let players play the game as long as possible and fool them at the end?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
3,109 posts
10,725 battles

The ships are still good. Don't you think they should be nerfed if they are overperforming? The thunderer meta is so utter c*ncer that I hope they nerf it into the ground. 

  • Cool 15
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,653 posts
18,027 battles

WG does not nerf them "often", SG and Thunderer are the first to get direct nerfs. And they both deserve it.

Smolensk was a global change, one in which other cruisers were hit way harder than Smolensk. 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,726 posts
15,245 battles

It's deserved nerf to Thunderer even if not the best one. HE or fire chances should be looked at instead. Why cruisers have to choose between fires and pen when that BB has both and in absurd quantity? On the top of the range, concealment, hp pool, devastating overmatching AP, Def AA, fire fighting skills etc. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
27 posts
2,701 battles
1 ora fa, DariusJacek ha scritto:

. Why cruisers have to choose between fires and pen when that BB has both and in absurd quantity?

Well, probably because they are cruisers, and can't use the same guns... otherwise nobody would build Yamatos or Yowas.

 

As most people here, knows better than me, BB are also ridiculosly slow and have uncooperative rudders, slow brakes, and  can be spotted from the Orbit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,083 posts
10,289 battles

Once isn't often. And is also well deserved in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,972 posts
7,154 battles

These specific nerfs aren't bad, but I am against it as a policy. It opens the door to wargaming abusing the system to release op ships and then nerfing them, and I don't trust wargaming to not abuse that.

 

The way it should be done is that nerfs to these ships always need to be accompanied with refund offers. 

 

There should be community outrage about this sudden policy 180,as we KNOW that wargaming can't be trusted not to abuse this crap for profit

 

We can't judge this being good or bad based on the specific values of this batch of nerfs, but based on the doors that it opens up for wargaming abuse

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
3,109 posts
10,725 battles
3 minutes ago, thiextar said:

These specific nerfs aren't bad, but I am against it as a policy. It opens the door to wargaming abusing the system to release op ships and then nerfing them, and I don't trust wargaming to not abuse that.

 

The way it should be done is that nerfs to these ships always need to be accompanied with refund offers. 

 

There should be community outrage about this sudden policy 180,as we KNOW that wargaming can't be trusted not to abuse this crap for profit

 

We can't judge this being good or bad based on the specific values of this batch of nerfs, but based on the doors that it opens up for wargaming abuse

Again, dont you want overperforming ships to be toned down? Even if you paid ingame currency for it? I paid steel and coal for stalin, thunderer and smolensk, but i am happy that they are being toned down. (Even if it is almost neglectible)

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,198 posts
25,190 battles

I have no issue with ship balance changes as long as they are across the board, none of this "premium immunity" pansy talk.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,972 posts
7,154 battles
17 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Again, dont you want overperforming ships to be toned down? Even if you paid ingame currency for it? I paid steel and coal for stalin, thunderer and smolensk, but i am happy that they are being toned down. (Even if it is almost neglectible)

I'm more worried about future resource ships getting increasingly OP on release, and then getting nerfed once enough plays have bought them. This is what will happen, consciously or not, because wargaming gains on it. 

 

Again, I'm more than happy for OP ships to be nerfed, but it has to be accompanies by a refund, because that would make wargaming lose on releasing OP ships and then nerfing them, instead of this system where they will make money by releasing OP ships and then scamming the buyers

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,204 posts
22 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Again, dont you want overperforming ships to be toned down? Even if you paid ingame currency for it? I paid steel and coal for stalin, thunderer and smolensk, but i am happy that they are being toned down. (Even if it is almost neglectible)

but what about it if you paid real-life currency for it, like massa, georgia, and supercruisers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,972 posts
7,154 battles
32 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Again, dont you want overperforming ships to be toned down? Even if you paid ingame currency for it? I paid steel and coal for stalin, thunderer and smolensk, but i am happy that they are being toned down. (Even if it is almost neglectible)

No. Not if implemented in a way where wargaming directly profits from releasing poorly balanced ships to trick people into buying them

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,083 posts
10,289 battles
7 minutes ago, hellhound666 said:

but what about it if you paid real-life currency for it, like massa, georgia, and supercruisers?

Then people should either stop buying overpowered ships or know that they will most likely get nerfed in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
3,109 posts
10,725 battles
3 minutes ago, thiextar said:

I'm more worried about future resource ships getting increasingly OP on release, and then getting nerfed once enough plays have bought them. This is what will happen, consciously or not, because wargaming gains on it. 

 

Again, I'm more than happy for OP ships to be nerfed, but it has to be accompanies by a refund, because that would make wargaming lose on releasing OP ships and then nerfing them, instead of this system where they will make money by releasing OP ships and then scamming the buyers

Stalin, Smol and Thun were all available for a whopping 0 euro. So I dont see a problem with them being nerfed or buffed. Players who did spend money on them should ask themselves if they would do it again, knowing their purchased product might change in the future. Wows is always developing, new ships get added, the meta changes, the balance changes.... so at some point more nerfs/buffs will be needed. This is just the nature of the game. 

Or should WG pay back everyone's money who claim their ships arent OP anymore? 

Is kutuzov still as OP? No? gimme ma money WG!

atlanta? Money back!

Scharnhorst? Money back!

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
3,109 posts
10,725 battles
10 minutes ago, hellhound666 said:

but what about it if you paid real-life currency for it, like massa, georgia, and supercruisers?

Then you should ask yourself if you would do it again in the future. Nobody forces you to spend money on this game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,797 posts
33,671 battles
6 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Stalin, Smol and Thun were all available for a whopping 0 euro. So I dont see a problem with them being nerfed or buffed. Players who did spend money on them should ask themselves if they would do it again, knowing their purchased product might change in the future. Wows is always developing, new ships get added, the meta changes, the balance changes.... so at some point more nerfs/buffs will be needed. This is just the nature of the game. 

Or should WG pay back everyone's money who claim their ships arent OP anymore? 

Is kutuzov still as OP? No? gimme ma money WG!

atlanta? Money back!

Scharnhorst? Money back!

 

 

Flint;

 

 

giphy.gif

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,204 posts
16 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Then you should ask yourself if you would do it again in the future. Nobody forces you to spend money on this game.

 

im not asking about future do's and dont's. money is spent and goods are received and then wg/lesta changes environment so that goods become less effective ... like with massa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
557 posts
5,012 battles

Nerfs to thunderer and smolensk, oh the humanity. WG has messed with your God-given right to farm damage in pepega skill floor 0 ships :(. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,204 posts
22 minutes ago, SV_Kompresor said:

Then people should either stop buying overpowered ships or know that they will most likely get nerfed in the future.

so, no responsibility on wg/lesta side ... so fcking clever ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
235 posts
6 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Or should WG pay back everyone's money who claim their ships arent OP anymore? 

Is kutuzov still as OP? No? gimme ma money WG!

atlanta? Money back!

Scharnhorst? Money back!

 

Parameters are still the same so no problem there. Nerf Kutu range and definitely a money back issue. Remove Scharn torps. Same thing. 

If meta changes and some ships become OP (Kami + sisters) that's WG's problem. Not the customer's. I'm not complaining that T4 double CVs made Nikolay less OP. Nor asking for a refund because of that.

Now that new prems and all specials ships may get nerfs, I will not spend a dime on those. Considering WG's approach on fairness and transparency: Release as OP, nerf, release another -cycle is pretty much guaranteed.

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,567 posts
17,923 battles
Vor 27 Minuten, GarrusBrutus sagte:

Is kutuzov still as OP? No? gimme ma money WG!

atlanta? Money back!

Scharnhorst? Money back!

 

Afaik back when smoke firing was changed on a global level WG offered a refund option for Belfast and Kutuzov. 

 

Not saying that people shouldn't think twice before buying a ship thats blatantly too strong and then raising pitchforks later, but doing the same here wouldn't be a bad idea:

 

Even if only 3-5% of the Thunderer owners go for the coal refund for a mere 1.3km range loss (or jumping ship fearing harder cuts) that would be quite a few of that ships gone. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
557 posts
5,012 battles
1 minute ago, Khaba_Gandalf said:

Afaik back when smoke firing was changed on a global level WG offered a refund option for Belfast and Kutuzov. 

 

Not saying that people shouldn't think twice before buying a ship thats blatantly too strong and then raising pitchforks later, but doing the Sam wouldn't be a bad idea. 

 

Even if only 3-5% of the Thunderer owners go for the coal refund for a mere 1.3km range loss (or jumping ship fearing harder cuts) that would be quite a few of that ships gone. 

That would be an “everybody wins” kind of scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
235 posts
Just now, Khaba_Gandalf said:

Even if only 3-5% of the Thunderer owners go for the coal refund for a mere 1.3km range loss (or jumping ship fearing harder cuts) that would be quite a few of that ships gone. 

I'd be claiming a refund. A matter of principle.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,764 posts
27 minutes ago, SV_Kompresor said:

Then people should either stop buying overpowered ships or know that they will most likely get nerfed in the future.

Yea, people will spend few dozen euro for a ship that is weaker then the tech tree one... Sure they will... :Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×