New Devblog, nerfs to popular ships, buffs to PA DDs and...

[Yamashiro42]

22 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

 

33 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

so you suggest we should let ships that are (far) over/underperforming stay unnerfed/buffed and just let them run it's course?

 

So do I get a bit of compensation for the Chkalov now not being what I paid for?

Doubt that. You paid for nerfable Chkalov, as explicitly stated in her description.

[Verblonde]

12 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Imagine if car dealerships started doing that on their cars? They decide the car you bought goes too fast so they show up and program the onboard computer to only allow your top speed to be 100 kph.

This whole discussion has been rather done to death previously, but in your analogy it would all depend on whether the car was sold as being liable to subsequent limiting or not.

 

The EULA actually say WG can do whatever they like to anything in the game, but the official policy was not to nerf premiums (they just got removed if OP, hence Enterprise, OG Belfast etc.); since Flandre, all new premiums have something like this on them:

 

 

So, now whenever we buy a premium, we know that it could theoretically get nerfed. A great deal of noise was made about this when it was first introduced, but most people on here are used to the idea by now.

 

For me, all that really changed is that it put a shorter time-line on my mental 'value' calculation when considering whether to buy a premium or not: worst case, for an older premium, I had however long the game lasts to get value from the purchase; with a new premium, I have however long it takes for it to be nerfed.

 

Of course, very few premiums have been nerfed so far (I can think of two off the top of my head*, but I may be being forgetful), so in most cases the distinction is moot.

 

 

*Edit: excluding 'global changes' (<sad Atlanta noises>), of course, and pi$$-poor stuff like the 'no ASW' nerf...

 

 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

1 minute ago, Verblonde said:

This whole discussion has been rather done to death previously, but in your analogy it would all depend on whether the car was sold as being liable to subsequent limiting or not.

 

The EULA actually say WG can do whatever they like to anything in the game, but the official policy was not to nerf premiums (they just got removed if OP, hence Enterprise, OG Belfast etc.); since Flandre, all new premiums have something like this on them:

 

 

So, now whenever we buy a premium, we know that it could theoretically get nerfed. A great deal of noise was made about this when it was first introduced, but most people on here are used to the idea by now.

 

For me, all that really changed is that it put a shorter time-line on my mental 'value' calculation when considering whether to buy a premium or not: worst case, for an older premium, I had however long the game lasts to get value from the purchase; with a new premium, I have however long it takes for it to be nerfed.

 

Of course, very few premiums have been nerfed so far (I can think of two off the top of my head, but I may be being forgetful), so in most cases the distinction is moot.

 

 

Well they better enjoy while they can because the law is changing to where digital goods and physical goods are treated the same so no amount of disclosures will protect them. 

 

Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean it's a great idea. 

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

7 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Well they better enjoy while they can because the law is changing to where digital goods and physical goods are treated the same so no amount of disclosures will protect them. 

 

Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean it's a great idea. 

It is a great idea for WG, alright: they earn a lot of money from people who don't read the fine print every single day. All these F2P models prey on people who have too much money or people who are too gullible.

And I would much rather have nerfable (and by extension buffable) premiums than premiums that can stay broken or bad indefinitely.

[Verblonde]

Just now, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean it's a great idea.

Objectively, on the whole, I tend to think that nerfable premiums are good for the health of the game; subjectively, of course I love my Kamis etc. So long as it is made clear that what you buy can be messed with (which it is).

 

The only potential danger I can see is if WG ever started to get into a cycle of deliberately releasing OP premiums, selling them hard, followed by nerfs, and then repeat. So far, they've resisted the urge; if anything, the bulk of new premiums have tended to be mediocre at best...

 

5 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Well they better enjoy while they can because the law is changing to where digital goods and physical goods are treated the same so no amount of disclosures will protect them.

I'd be surprised if this has much impact: WG will argue that what you're buying (or rather leasing; as I hope we all know, we don't 'own' anything in the game, strictly-speaking) is a ship with malleable characteristics...

[lafeel]

2 hours ago, Jethro_Grey said:

Pan Asian DDs from TVIII to TX get torpedo reload booster as a separate consumeable(!).

 

Given that I already like the Hsiengyang enough for her having earned a permanent port slot, I am  certainly not complaining about this buff, no sirree.

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

1 minute ago, Verblonde said:

Objectively, on the whole, I tend to think that nerfable premiums are good for the health of the game; subjectively, of course I love my Kamis etc. So long as it is made clear that what you buy can be messed with (which it is).

 

The only potential danger I can see is if WG ever started to get into a cycle of deliberately releasing OP premiums, selling them hard, followed by nerfs, and then repeat. So far, they've resisted the urge; if anything, the bulk of new premiums have tended to be mediocre at best...

 

I'd be surprised if this has much impact: WG will argue that what you're buying (or rather leasing; as I hope we all know, we don't 'own' anything in the game, strictly-speaking) is a ship with malleable characteristics...

You are absolutely right. Companies will always find ways to circumvent laws in order to earn more money. Until 1999, internet fraud was not a criminal offense in the United States: but the internet didn't magically begin there, so plenty of damage was already done...

[The_Angry_Admiral]

2 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

Objectively, on the whole, I tend to think that nerfable premiums are good for the health of the game; subjectively, of course I love my Kamis etc. So long as it is made clear that what you buy can be messed with (which it is).

 

The only potential danger I can see is if WG ever started to get into a cycle of deliberately releasing OP premiums, selling them hard, followed by nerfs, and then repeat. So far, they've resisted the urge; if anything, the bulk of new premiums have tended to be mediocre at best...

 

I'd be surprised if this has much impact: WG will argue that what you're buying (or rather leasing; as I hope we all know, we don't 'own' anything in the game, strictly-speaking) is a ship with malleable characteristics...

Well Australia is already in the process of putting an end to these types of things which is good. At the end of the day consumers have laws that protect them but right now they haven't caught up to the digital age. 

 

It's the same with modern day gaming where it's sell something that is broken but we will fix it later instead of like the good old days where they essentially got it right the first time and if anything needed to be fixed (as in errors) they would allow you to get a fix via a disk you ordered or got out of a magazine. 

 

These ships go through testing so if they have flaws that aren't getting picked up then test longer or find new testers. 

[Chaoskraehe]

Vor 43 Minuten, The_Angry_Admiral sagte:

So do I get a bit of compensation for the Chkalov now not being what I paid for?

No, there was a reminder in the shop that the ship can be changed for balancing reasons. 

 

 

 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

1 minute ago, Chaoskraehe said:

No, there was a reminder in the shop that the ship can be changed for balancing reasons. 

Then they need to post the exact details of what this change is supposed to fix. 

[hellhound666]

2 minutes ago, Chaoskraehe said:

No, there was a reminder in the shop that the ship can be changed for balancing reasons. 

and there is not enough honour in lesta to honour the signed deal ...

where else we just recently have seen same?

[Verblonde]

3 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

These ships go through testing so if they have flaws that aren't getting picked up then test longer or find new testers.

I would have thought we were all abundantly aware of the limitations of testing. For example, I'm a fairly typical player (my overall WR is a resounding 'Average' - behold my works ye mighty and despair...etc.); if I'd been given Chkalov to test, the conclusion would have been reached that it was UP if anything - not because it is (I have one), but because I'm rubbish in CVs.

 

If we want a regular supply of shiny new premiums (which is moot, but let's assume we do), it is inevitable that the odd one will slip through which is a bit over-tuned. Sometimes, it may not be because of the limitations of testing, but rather because the meta shifts, or even because some players work out tactics that never occurred to the original testers. Whatever the root cause, I would rather such outliers could be nerfed and left in the game, than have an OG Belfast pulled on them...

[lafeel]

11 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

I would have thought we were all abundantly aware of the limitations of testing. For example, I'm a fairly typical player (my overall WR is a resounding 'Average' - behold my works ye mighty and despair...etc.); if I'd been given Chkalov to test, the conclusion would have been reached that it was UP if anything - not because it is (I have one), but because I'm rubbish in CVs.

 

If we want a regular supply of shiny new premiums (which is moot, but let's assume we do), it is inevitable that the odd one will slip through which is a bit over-tuned. Sometimes, it may not be because of the limitations of testing, but rather because the meta shifts, or even because some players work out tactics that never occurred to the original testers. Whatever the root cause, I would rather such outliers could be nerfed and left in the game, than have an OG Belfast pulled on them...

Also lets not forget that most players (more like all of them, including myself) just don't play a ship the same way when the stats aren't counted as they would when they are.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

18 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

 

If we want a regular supply of shiny new premiums (which is moot, but let's assume we do), it is inevitable that the odd one will slip through which is a bit over-tuned. 

Oh come now. Was the Chkalov really that broken compared to all the other OP ships that still sail those seas untouched? 

 

I can understand a ship having way over the top errors that need to be fixed but this tinkering BS that goes on while others are left in their broken state is just senseless. I see waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complaints about other ships than I do the Chkalov. 

[AkerJack]

2 hours ago, Seraphice said:

Des Moines legendary module still makes her extremely unique, and in that way also powerful.

Maybe you are talking about the upgrade to be bought with coal that gives 20% more radar duration...because the UU gives DM improves the maneuverability...just saying....

 

If you had to nerf, by force as there is nothing to nerf in that ship, DM you should have nerfed something else...

[Andrewbassg]

9 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

but this tinkering BS that goes

It is in preparation for the removal of 4% dispersion reduction......yeah.

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

18 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Oh come now. Was the Chkalov really that broken compared to all the other OP ships that still sail those seas untouched? 

 

I can understand a ship having way over the top errors that need to be fixed but this tinkering BS that goes on while others are left in their broken state is just senseless. I see waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complaints about other ships than I do the Chkalov. 

Since it was a CV and basically a Nakhimov (a pretty alright T10 CV) at T8, most seem to think it was warranted. As a complete beginner at CV play, it was not hard for me to dumpster other ships. Then again, it was probably the only good readily available premium CV, bar Enterprise for obvious reasons.

[Verblonde]

28 minutes ago, The_Angry_Admiral said:

Oh come now. Was the Chkalov really that broken compared to all the other OP ships that still sail those seas untouched?

Probably, although I haven't looked closely at the stats; I personally don't worry about Chkalov as much as I do about CVs with more persistent spotting, but that's because I usually play things that Chkalovs usually leave alone (good players excepted) because they're hard to hit. Pretty much all the feedback I've seen expressed by knowledgeable people on here suggests she's a bit of a monster.

 

Most of the OP ships running around in the game are no longer available (Satan box bait excepted), and can't be touched because they didn't get the 'may be nerfed' label. That's kind of the point: under the old system, Chkalov would probably have been removed (bang goes a lot of design time etc.); with the nerfable premiums thing, it can continue in game without buggering things up for everyone.

 

 

[ghostbuster_]

2 hours ago, Seraphice said:

so you suggest we should let ships that are (far) over/underperforming stay unnerfed/buffed and just let them run it's course?

 

How about listening to feedback before releasing them over/underpowered? Lets take petro as an. example. It was so obvious that she was going to be OP. Or stalingrad. Or belfast. Or smolensk. You wouldnt need to nerf them if you listened to feedback and didnt release them horrendously OP. 

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

2 hours ago, Latouche_Treville said:

 

You can reset a line or two, and get enough research points to buy it in the armory :

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Yes, I know. I think it's mostly the people with ZERO lives who have the RB points to spare on unique upgrades. I would never reset a line for an upgrade.

[Humorpalanta]

I don't really understand the complaint of people who purchased anything after the CV Reeeeeework. I mean... You could see what you can expect. Lies, deception...

 

Never trust a russian.

[Ronchabale]

Better nerf to ALL Soviet radar ships would be 10km radar, how can the Soviet radar be 20% better ? Petro is so low in the water (even after nerf) that it should have a 8 km radar

 

[hellhound666]

2 hours ago, Seraphice said:

so you suggest we should let ships that are (far) over/underperforming stay unnerfed/buffed and just let them run it's course?

 

how about offering compensation to those who request it or is it too complex of a concept to comprehend?

like it was done with belfast, kutuzov, etc

why should players pay for lesta's incompetent testing?

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

How about listening to feedback before releasing them over/underpowered? Lets take petro as an. example. It was so obvious that she was going to be OP. Or stalingrad. Or belfast. Or smolensk. You wouldnt need to nerf them if you listened to feedback and didnt release them horrendously OP. 

Money, money, money... They are not ashamed of anything. Using the hype of Missouri, Belfast variants, obviously keeping completely broken ships in the game until newer ones are coming in that need to be even better, so others are tuned down slightly. How obvious it is. Think about how long Petro is in the game already. It is rightout ridiculous how they manipulate the variables to their liking.

[BrusilovX]

5 hours ago, PsychoClownfish said:

For the lucky players who got that mod when it was still realistically obtainable. 🙄

Yes, it does make a big difference - the speed to accelerate and also stop is useful (before I got it there were a number of battles where I could not sotp in time before showing too much of the nose).  I got the LM for CBs.   I think the only other LM I have is for the Shimakaze but that one was never mounted.