if you can't fix it

[viceadmiral123]

Taken from Update 0.6.12 notes:

Quote

 

Apart from that, with the release of Update 0.6.12 the cruisers Mikhail Kutuzov, Belfast, and Perth will be unavailable for purchase in the game client and will subsequently be removed from sale in all Premium Shops (Perth will be unavailable until Update 0.6.14, though may be available after that point). This is because those ships turned out to be excessively efficient in certain battle situations.

 

 

[puxflacet]

i wish belfast was removed long ago

[Skyllon]

4 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

i wish belfast was removed long ago

 

Either removed or fixed. I'd rather see latter, though.

 

On the side note, seems to me, no matter what steps WG takes to fix some things, people are still going to complain...

[BrusilovX]

But removing these three ships from the shop isn't fixing the problem.

[Verblonde]

Presumably, one or more of the removed ships will become WOWS' Type 59 and/or E25...?

[RamirezKurita]

Not can't fix, the real issue is won't fix.

[krzysiek_1990]

and give back my money. I don't need your useless doublons !!!!!

[Shaka_D]

Quick, everyone go buy them....oh wait, I have them already. Oh well! Sorry WG, I tried to help you here.

[Jethro_Grey]

14 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

Quick, everyone go buy them....oh wait, I have them already. Oh well! Sorry WG, I tried to help you here.

 

Yep.

 

I wonder how long it'll take till someone asks to get a Doubloon refund for the Prinz Eugen...

[Penguin_Sentinel]

Bought it a while back, rarely use it, keeping it.

[viceadmiral123]

15 hours ago, BrusilovX said:

But removing these three ships from the shop isn't fixing the problem.

 

This.

 

WG logic:

Problem: "those ships turned out to be excessively efficient in certain battle situations. "

Solution: we will keep them as they are, but we shall stop selling them after everyone has bought them.

[Tubit101]

These tendencies are almost everywhere where microtransactions are involved. That means that where there are microtransactions that are able to influence the game, you will most likely experience that game companies do not have the interest of giving you the best time possible. Instead they are speculating in frustrating you into paying. Here is a recent example (from yesterday):

 

 

As you can see. Activision has patented a type of matchmaking that is purely designed to matching weaker players up against people with "premium" equipment, so that the weaker player will be frustrated enough to start buying "premium" game items. This is unfortunately the typical way of thinking among those game companies who offer microtransactions that alter gameplay - like World of Warships does.

 

What caveats can we gather from this? Expect to be lied to. Expect "RNG" to be manipulated. Expect to be manipulated. Expect powercreep and a poorly balanced game. Expect bad game design.

 

The patent in question, for those interested: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9789406.PN.&OS=PN/9789406&RS=PN/9789406

[Skyllon]

16 hours ago, BrusilovX said:

But removing these three ships from the shop isn't fixing the problem.

 

Again - thus my comment. But it is a step in right direction, although one that should've been made looong time ago.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Tubit101 said:

These tendencies are almost everywhere where microtransactions are involved. That means that where there are microtransactions that are able to influence the game, you will most likely experience that game companies do not have the interest of giving you the best time possible. Instead they are speculating in frustrating you into paying. Here is a recent example (from yesterday):

 

As you can see. Activision has patented a type of matchmaking that is purely designed to matching weaker players up against people with "premium" equipment, so that the weaker player will be frustrated enough to start buying "premium" game items. This is unfortunately the typical way of thinking among those game companies who offer microtransactions that alter gameplay - like World of Warships does.

 

What caveats can we gather from this? Expect to be lied to. Expect "RNG" to be manipulated. Expect to be manipulated. Expect powercreep and a poorly balanced game. Expect bad game design.

 

The patent in question, for those interested: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9789406.PN.&OS=PN/9789406&RS=PN/9789406

 

It is all true, but not sure if there is a point in the search for conspiracy. Not all companies do the same.

[Major_Damage225]

I'm still taking this with allot of salt, the same thing was said about Fat Albert, to be removed because in certain situations shes too OP... yet... 

(pic taken one min ago) 

[kartassio]

give back my money. I don't need your useless doublons WG.

[Tubit101]

1 hour ago, Skyllon said:

 

Again - thus my comment. But it is a step in right direction, although one that should've been made looong time ago.

 

 

 

It is all true, but not sure if there is a point in the search for conspiracy. Not all companies do the same.

 

There is no conspiracy. For a gaming company who profits from microtransactions, this is simply a way of maximizing profit. The question for a gaming company isn't "why would we use underhanded methods" but rather "why would we not use underhanded methods?" - because the latter is obviously more profitable than the former.

[Barkyro]

23 minutes ago, kartassio said:

give back my money. I don't need your useless doublons WG.

Come on man you knew damn well what you were spending money on and what amount. Let's be serious for a moment here the changes will have almost 0 impact on how they play and they will still be OP as hell So please stop asking for Wg to pay you something that you decided to do..

[Miessa3]

2 hours ago, Major_Damage225 said:

I'm still taking this with allot of salt, the same thing was said about Fat Albert, to be removed because in certain situations shes too OP... yet... 

(pic taken one min ago) 

Well in case of König Albert they only stated it (I think it was first "announced" in some stream), this time they already wrote it in the patchnotes. I think if it is written in the patchnotes we can be quiet sure at least Kutusov and Belfast will disappear "forever" (until WG needs money or is in the mood for a cashgrab - see last time they sold E25) from the shop.

 

Damn i guess i have to buy Kutusov this evening if i want to make sure not regreting it that i didn't buy it......

DAMN YOU WG!

[Procrastes]

I am a bit surprised to see the Perth grouped together with the Belfast and the Kutuzov, in this context. She's not usually considered to be even slightly overpowered. She's got a unique playstyle, true, but hardly an overpowered one. I always regarded this as one of the reasons why she is one of the best premium ships in the game.

[ForlornSailor]

12 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

Damn i guess i have to buy Kutusov this evening if i want to make sure not regreting it that i didn't buy it......

DAMN YOU WG!

 

You know, this is part of the selling strategy aswell. They have the numbers, but im taking a guess here: Sales of Belfast and Kutuzuv have gotten slower (its just normal to asume that, cuz at some point, most active ppl that wanted it - bought it already). Only sales coming from new players or someone changes their mind. Now, to squeez the rest out of that premiumship, you annouce "it will be gone forever... soon". So it will aggrivate exactly what you feel now - gotta buy it or I might regret it.

[Miessa3]

34 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

I am a bit surprised to see the Perth grouped together with the Belfast and the Kutuzov, in this context. She's not usually considered to be even slightly overpowered. She's got a unique playstyle, true, but hardly an overpowered one. I always regarded this as one of the reasons why she is one of the best premium ships in the game.

It is only grouped there as this is the other premium cruiser that is balanced around their own smoke. Though Perth scales very good with skill and can become rather strong/gamedesciding in the right hands.

[Procrastes]

18 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

It is only grouped there as this is the other premium cruiser that is balanced around their own smoke. Though Perth scales very good with skill and can become rather strong/gamedesciding in the right hands.

 

You are right about that!

But being a potentially strong, skill-scaling ship is a far cry from being overpowered. There must be room for ships of different flavours in the game. I for one would be sad to see the Perth leave the game; she adds a certain something of her own.

[Verblonde]

6 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

 

There must be room for ships of different flavours in the game. I for one would be sad to see the Perth leave the game; she adds a certain something of her own.

 

This.

Although I tend to trust WG's written word about as far as I could comfortably spit a rat (useful lesson learned from WOT), they have stated that Perth will be brought back in a couple (?) of patches time...?

[Skyllon]

1 hour ago, Tubit101 said:

 

There is no conspiracy. For a gaming company who profits from microtransactions, this is simply a way of maximizing profit. The question for a gaming company isn't "why would we use underhanded methods" but rather "why would we not use underhanded methods?" - because the latter is obviously more profitable than the former.

 

Obvious to greed driven people, yes. Not everybody else. You see, not all companies are the same and some of them are more ethical then others. I do understand your cynicism and relate to it, but my personal experience (from interaction with both small and large companies) is telling me, not to assume anything without a proof.

[Tubit101]

1 hour ago, Skyllon said:

 

Obvious to greed driven people, yes. Not everybody else. You see, not all companies are the same and some of them are more ethical then others. I do understand your cynicism and relate to it, but my personal experience (from interaction with both small and large companies) is telling me, not to assume anything without a proof.

 

Sure. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. For me, it's enough to take one look at the prices in the Store to confirm whether or not WG are greedy. The simple knowledge that a single ship costs twice as much as a normal game and that a lot of people have spent in excess of 1000 €  on WoWs is confirmation enough. I am perfectly understanding that it might take more convincing to certain other individuals, though. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.