Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
BossHogget

Sigma Nerf to Arizona

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
8 posts

Seems to be a bit of talk on the NA forum about a stealth nerf of the Arizona. If this turns out to be correct, it may ruffle a few feathers including mine.

 

original source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/4rlgb2/058_pt_058_live_data_changes/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

*Squints eyes*

 

Chinese... Arp ships?

 

...

 

Why. Why am I not surprised?

 

Chinese server doesn't have permission to use the ARP content, IIRC. So they had to have a workaround.

 

The accuracy is exactly why most ppl bought it.( And historical value to the buffs out there)

How can it be justified selling something one day then nerfing it the next?

 

 

Quite frankly? It was either embargo it like they did to Gremyaschy and Imperator Nikolai, or nerf the insane accuracy because it was definitely overperforming. Given the sheer historical value of the ship, they chose the latter.

Edited by Syanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

As it stands, it's still considerably more accurate than New Mexico and Fusou. Warspite has the 2.0 sigma, but only 8 guns to Arizona's 12. So Arizona still has the accuracy thing going for it.

 

Quite frankly, the community reaction to Arizona getting balanced is probably going to be why Imp Nik and Gremy won't ever be sold again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
266 posts
5,142 battles

 

One of the developers posted in NA forum that there wasn't supposed to be any stealth nerf to Arizona in this patch. Dunno which one is the fact tho...

 

But I do think she needs a bit of a nerf. Arizona is clearly overperforming right now. For me, at the very least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

So by your logic Stein, the Fuso should also be hit with the nerf hammer?

 

Warspite, Fusou and New Mexico are performing generally around the same according to the 1-week or 1-day stats, with a generally similar battle sample size. However, put Arizona in the equation, and it's outperforming the other 3 while being a premium vessel. That's pretty much pay-to-win.

 

Hit up warships.today, check out the ships, sort by 1-day battles.

 

Here's yesterday's stats on NA:

Ship Battles Win rate Damage
Arizona 3372 55.66% 53,014
Warspite 1110 52.52% 48,001
Fusou 2550 51.80% 48,641
New Mexico 4492 51.58% 40,735

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,452 posts
2,950 battles

So by your logic Stein, the Fuso should also be hit with the nerf hammer?

 

Back on topic.

 

Arizona clearly performs significantly-better despite only being recently introduced.

 

Now, it could be chalked up to experienced players being the primary owners of the ship, but 1.4k+ average experience over the course of several thousand battles is alarming. Even if experienced owners are in the majority, potato owners should still drag that exp down to make the difference between NM and Fuso not too sharp.

 

All in all- I believe Arizona still deserves that nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

The bigger issue here is this: 

 

Either we allow WG to establish the precedent of directly nerfing overperforming premiums as they do any other ship, and allow ships like Imperator Nikolai and Gremyaschy to be sold again. Or we protest against any nerfs to premiums, which means we get the Type 59 situation all over again, in which people either buy premiums the moment they are released or risk not being able to get a powerful vehicle, and those who can afford the ships will be happy while those who missed out won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,452 posts
2,950 battles

The bigger issue here is this: 

 

Either we allow WG to establish the precedent of directly nerfing overperforming premiums as they do any other ship, and allow ships like Imperator Nikolai and Gremyaschy to be sold again. Or we protest against any nerfs to premiums, which means we get the Type 59 situation all over again, in which people either buy premiums the moment they are released or risk not being able to get a powerful vehicle, and those who can afford the ships will be happy while those who missed out won't.

 

*Shrugs*

 

Caveat Emptor.

 

It's all up to WG to decide whether or not they wish to prioritize balance to keep the majority of the community happy or profit.

 

Either way, every purchase is a risky investment- Especially true for certain games that have been hyped, to increase pre-order sales, in order to milk the population before they can get a proper opinion. It's better to let newly-released games/releases get a month or two old before getting them- Just so any nerfs/buffs will be known.

 

My motto's "If you can't do anything about it, just nod your head, keep your reactions to yourself and hope the bad things don't come to you"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

 

*Shrugs*

 

Caveat Emptor.

 

It's all up to WG to decide whether or not they wish to prioritize balance to keep the majority of the community happy or profit.

 

Either way, every purchase is a risky investment- Especially true for certain games that have been hyped, to increase pre-order sales, in order to milk the population before they can get a proper opinion. It's better to let newly-released games/releases get a month or two old before getting them- Just so any nerfs/buffs will be known.

 

My motto's "If you can't do anything about it, just nod your head, keep your reactions to yourself and hope the bad things don't come to you"

 

Amen to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
8 posts

So it all boils down to sales at the end of the day. 

I have no problem with a de buff of an obviously OP ship if it is done across the board.

My main gripe with this particular one is that it was done in a bit of an underhanded way I.e selling the ship one day and then nerfing the same ship you just sold the next day.

The decisions to nerf or buff aren't made overnight so fair warning should have been given to potential customers that a change was on its way.

This would have given those players sitting on the fence about this purchase more information to make that decision.

 

all said and done, I still like the thing and don't regret buying it but a bit of straight up honesty goes a long way in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,452 posts
2,950 battles

They could work it up a bit by announcing the nerf publicly.

 

Though I could have sworn Arizona was still being tested...

 

The supposed backlash could have been mitigated with a more thorough testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Senior Moderator
2,563 posts

So what, WG changed the stars before being released onto the live server for everyone. Where is the problem?

 

Stats are not final until the ship is officially released. The link posted is showing a nerd from the PT server to the Live Server.

 

Much ado about nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
575 posts
5,354 battles

Well, according to this: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/86278-arizona-sigma-nerfed-from-20-to-18-post-release/page__st__20__pid__2105006#entry2105006 no change was made or should not have been.

 

Hi folks,

 

Just wanted to step in here and clarify:

There was no stealth nerf to USS Arizona in 0.5.8. We prefer avoid re-balancing premium ships after release at all costs and we will be clear with you if we decide its absolutely necessary to change a premium ship that was already available for sale. In this case there was no change to the sigma values for USS Arizona that we are aware of. In the off chance something like this slipped in accidentally, I will verify with the balance team that this change did not actually occur.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×