The return and economic nerf of Missouri.

[koliber_1984]

14 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

USS New Jersey

 

Sold

[Miscommunication]

Am happy with this, have wanted Missouri for years. Thanks WG.

[K82J]

 

 

So, she gonna be available only for a limited time ? Like, for the duration of one patch ?

 

@YabbaCoe

[Ubertron_X]

12 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

...

On a not entirely unrelated side note let me shortly express my admiration @YabbaCoe for continuing to try to provide neutral answers despite all the outrage and negativity caused by decisions that you have had exactly no saying in.

[Lootboxer]

@YabbaCoe you know that should be very big number to make her still earn as much as now, with all bonuses from signals and camo every 100k base less is 295k extra less in fact. Just adding even 100% bonus will not do for us, at the same time use of signals will be pointless.

And what a coincidence with cash for signals with removal of signals from achievements and auctions. Economical nerf to an old premium covered by this: Players want Mo back, look how good are we.

[Pandafaust]

24 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Place your bets, gentlemen.

 

On average, after the changes and with the mission income applied, Missouri will make...

1) less credits than before.

2) much less credits than before.

3) a loss.

Naturally it'll be (1), there's no other reason for WG to change it otherwise.

 

To keep the Missouri able to earn the same credits as before when fully signalled and cammo'd, the bonus mission would have to be 2.95 times the size of the current bonus being applied to the base earnings (so if that base bonus currently is e.g 10%, then the perma mission would need to be 29.5%). This is based on the total 1.45 credit multiplication factor of signals plus the 0.5 multiplication factor of credit camo (gamescom or meritorious service) plus the base increase (1.0).

 

However, doing this would buff the credit earnings significantly for Missouri owners who didn't run those signal flags or camos. Given the whole reason of withdrawal from sale of Missouri is that it earns too much, I don't see them wanting to buff it for this group.

 

Similarly, giving a mission bonus that adds the same percentage as the current base bonus means that the "naked" Missouri earns the same, but the fully signalled and cammo'd version earns significantly less.

[CptBarney]

2 minutes ago, Pandafaust said:

Naturally it'll be (1), there's no other reason for WG to change it otherwise.

 

To keep the Missouri able to earn the same credits as before when fully signalled and cammo'd, the bonus mission would have to be 2.95 times the size of the current bonus being applied to the base earnings (so if that base bonus currently is e.g 10%, then the perma mission would need to be 29.5%). This is based on the total 1.45 credit multiplication factor of signals plus the 0.5 multiplication factor of credit camo (gamescom or meritorious service) plus the base increase (1.0).

 

However, doing this would buff the credit earnings significantly for Missouri owners who didn't run those signal flags or camos. Given the whole reason of withdrawal from sale of Missouri is that it earns too much, I don't see them wanting to buff it for this group.

 

Similarly, giving a mission bonus that adds the same percentage as the current base bonus means that the "naked" Missouri earns the same, but the fully signalled and cammo'd version earns significantly less.

They might as well just leave it as is or just outright remove the bonus and bring it down to other tier 9 ships.

Pretty much a situation where theres no good way out.

[Misschieter]

13 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

1) As the economics of Missouri as the first tier IX ship was simply set wrong, so after this change, she will be in line with other tier IX premium BBs

2) Probably yes, but so far there is still no published information about for how long this ship will be available for purchase. In those boxes, there will be simply Missouri, but without the special mission.

3) Maybe in future. The reason of Smolensk of JB removal were because of their overpopulation in battles. Simply due to their battle performance there were plenty battles with more of those ships per team, all the time. And we would like to have variety of ships in the battles, not 5 Smolensks per team etc. 

i agree with 2 and 3 coud you enlighten 1 a bit more 
i now they where set wrong but why dont you just change it for the whole ship so for the ppl who have it now already yes u get complaints . or just leave it as the piggy bank so you people only get good feed back 

now people who does not read news nor the forums will see the shop and go like yay wow the missouri came back? buy it and then see it does nothing special and they will say godamn i got scammed . 

i am realy not shure if i will buy the ship i want it for my collection but i wanted it even more for the moneymaking .

on a sidenote and this is not against the community people like you @YabbaCoe

but when is WG going to reorganise and just fire some ppl that does not invest in the community or not care about it ? so much bad news is comming out about you ppl last few weeks and u keep raising the anger levels of everybody WG is driving itself in the ground bby the hardcore WoWS players (and thats not good) nozoupforyou says it perfectly in his videos everythime somthing happens again  "oh well here we go again"

hire some ppl instead that give care about the player base WG is starting to look like a nigerian scammer business 

and yea i get frustrated reading the news but it doesent like realy make me mad  well exept what WG did with the yukon that realy made me mad how coud they do it to 2 ppl who worked theyr butt off for WG 

[__Helmut_Kohl__]

17 minutes ago, Ubertron_X said:

On a not entirely unrelated side note let me shortly express my admiration @YabbaCoe for continuing to try to provide neutral answers despite all the outrage and negativity caused by decisions that you have had exactly no saying in.

 

The community managers here on EU are certainly good guys doing a good job. Thanks @YabbaCoe. 

 

But the decision makers at WG paint a completely different picture. 

[Ocsimano18]

Guys at WG are bent on making money on credits. First they introduce the auction to drain credit stockpiles, now they nerf the Missouri. Otherwise, WG would simply introduce Missouri special edition, and keep the original one intact.

[Panocek]

39 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

Haia gents, here is my 2c on this missy thing, as others stated make a copy paste of the ship, name it A'la Virginia, Missoury 1945 and done, or you know, add New Jersey. Wg made so many copy pastas i dont see why not for this. 

Bonus points for New Jersey making ripples in Azur Lane recently, so she can be monetized once more with weeb flavor

[Lootboxer]

Now I fell really, really sorry for those that whaled hard to get her from lootboxes.

No. I don't. Maybe they will learn finally.

 

[Yedwy]

22 minutes ago, K82J said:

 

 

So, she gonna be available only for a limited time ? Like, for the duration of one patch ?

 

@YabbaCoe

OFC a T9 RAnked and CB season should be right around the corner to celebrate it... 

[Panocek]

Just now, Yedwy said:

OFC a T9 RAnked and CB season should be right around the corner to celebrate it... 

And next T9 CB/Rankeds will be celebrated by return of a Musashi 

[FlamingHooligan]

1 minute ago, DariusJacek said:

Now I fell really. really sorry for those that whaled hard to get her from lootboxes.

No. I don't. Maybe they will learn finally.

 

I certainly whaled a lot in this game but not on Missouri, I got her for the free XP cost when she was available. You are right on one count though, this might be the nail in the coffin that cured me of whaling for good!

[BNS_Victory]

26 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

1) As the economics of Missouri as the first tier IX ship was simply set wrong, so after this change, she will be in line with other tier IX premium BBs

2) Probably yes, but so far there is still no published information about for how long this ship will be available for purchase. In those boxes, there will be simply Missouri, but without the special mission.

3) Maybe in future. The reason of Smolensk of JB removal were because of their overpopulation in battles. Simply due to their battle performance there were plenty battles with more of those ships per team, all the time. And we would like to have variety of ships in the battles, not 5 Smolensks per team etc. 

So what you're saying here is, that it took wg almost 5 years to fix a mistake??? Is this how long we will have to wait for the torp fix, hidden islands, shiki gunsound bug...? This is the most lame excuse in, I would say months but let's keep it at weeks in wg's case. This game I loved is going downhill faster than lightspeed.

I wonder what is next, an auction for Musashi where you have to spend €1000+ to get it when it will be available in a couple of months? Where have I seen this before hmmm 

[Yedwy]

11 minutes ago, Panocek said:

And next T9 CB/Rankeds will be celebrated by return of a Musashi 

Ditto

[Lootboxer]

Ok, I've just had a go, average game, full set of flags and gamescom camo.

Now if I made 150k base less - 350k (I wonder how different she is to other T9s so I am guessing) it would be 442.5k less total, so to make it up bonus should be around 125%.

With better game even much more.

I doubt it will be half of that because it would make naked ship earn too much.

Whole idea should be scrapped and new Missouri B or Lima with a different economy be created instead.

[_HomTanks_]

Nice. So, WG hits two birds with one stone

 

 

They will sell lots of Missouris to those who have always wanted the Missouri for gold so WG will make lots of money (bird one) but the buyers won't get the same old Missouri with the OP economics.

Plus, the Missouri days are gone long ago. It was a good BB when this many radars and many ship lines didn't exist.

 

On the other hand, adding that X-bonus (say 25%)  will be just like adding another credit flag before the game. So, this perma bonus thing most likely won't cover the bonus before and hence, getting rid of the broken Missouri economic will be the second bird for WG.

 

Guys, my advice would be not to spend money on this ship. It is an Iowa with 9.5km radar which is extremely situational in today's game and there are many ships with better radar for free.

For me the whole point to play this ship was its economy and apparently it is brought down to a regular premium Tier 9 ship economy (for the new buyers) which means any other premium Tier 9 ship can give you the same amount of credits after a good game.

[Lootboxer]

1 minute ago, WgPlsNerfColorado said:

It is an Iowa with 9.5km radar which is extremely situational in today's game and there are many ships with better radar for free.

It's even worse Iowa, with a worse repair plus situational radar that just gets me into troubles all the time

 

[_HomTanks_]

15 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

It's even worse Iowa, with a worse repair plus situational radar that just gets me into troubles all the time

 

Yes, i forgot about that.  Iowa also gets 2.3 secs better base rudder shift, spotter/fighter plane option and better base HP.

[Misschieter]

1 minute ago, WgPlsNerfColorado said:

Yes, i forgot about that.  Iowa also gets 2.3 secs better base rudder shift, spotter/fighter plane option and better base HP.

is it even worse then the colorado? 

[Lootboxer]

5 minutes ago, CrazyGuyB27 said:

is it even worse then the colorado? 

No, it's faster at least.

[KratosTheUnforgiving]

1 hour ago, YabbaCoe said:

1) As the economics of Missouri as the first tier IX ship was simply set wrong, so after this change, she will be in line with other tier IX premium BBs

2) Probably yes, but so far there is still no published information about for how long this ship will be available for purchase. In those boxes, there will be simply Missouri, but without the special mission.

3) Maybe in future. The reason of Smolensk of JB removal were because of their overpopulation in battles. Simply due to their battle performance there were plenty battles with more of those ships per team, all the time. And we would like to have variety of ships in the battles, not 5 Smolensks per team etc. 

let me correct 3

 

3) Never in future. The reason of Stalingrad was not removed were because of their overpopulation in ranked/clan battles. Simply due to their battle performance there were plenty ranked/clan battles with more of those ships per team, all the time and we like to have a majority of glorious superior Russian Navy bias per team etc. 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

11 minutes ago, Paranoid_Potato said:

let me correct 3

 

3) Never in future. The reason of Stalingrad was not removed were because of their overpopulation in ranked/clan battles. Simply due to their battle performance there were plenty ranked/clan battles with more of those ships per team, all the time and we like to have a majority of glorious superior Russian Navy bias per team etc. 

 

But... but... how can this be? I thought WG has repeatedly pulled a ship because it was 'too popular'...