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

Made a Strawpoll, looking to get players to vote on this.

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

Strawpoll here.

 

I'm interested in seeing the community's overall approach towards this issue. Let me be clear - when I say overperforming, I don't mean based on individual qualitative feedback. I mean based on direct server statistics indicating that a premium vessel has a distinctly and significantly higher win rate or raw experience generated compared to regular tech tree vessels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

 

 

I think nerfing premium ships would be just fine.

However the exact reason for doing way better than a regular vessel should be investigated thoroughly.


 

Take the Type 59 in WoT for example, it did well since it's release and has continued doing so after the rebalance,

which put it more in line with the rest of the chinese tech tree.

However when you actually play it you quickly realise why it has done so well despite it's rather mediocre maneuverability and frontal weakspots.


 

Hence why nerfs (or buffs) to premium vessels should be investigated for a longer duration of time especially due to the nature of paid content

in a f2p game.


 

Lastly, I've never understood the hostility in f2p videogames towards nerfing "premium" content.

The main argument of "I paid for the content as it was initially advertised" never stuck well with me since

overall game balance is more important to me than having something that makes it easier for me to perform well.

Especially when the reverse would also be true and WG could just shrug it off when a premium vehicle gets the power creep treatment

instead of buffing it to keep it viable.


 

Or maybe I'm just an insane person which buys premium content in videogames without expecting a permanent I.W.I.N. button.


 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,196 posts
2,883 battles

Strawpoll here.

 

I'm interested in seeing the community's overall approach towards this issue. Let me be clear - when I say overperforming, I don't mean based on individual qualitative feedback. I mean based on direct server statistics indicating that a premium vessel has a distinctly and significantly higher win rate or raw experience generated compared to regular tech tree vessels.

 

One question, will the devs even look at the result, War Gaming Asia doesn't really care about their players suggestions and opinions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video Contributor
860 posts
10,965 battles

Flint owners beware, you're right in the path of the nerf bat. Better start playing like a potato to lower its statistics :trollface:

 

On the other hand, Atlanta desperately needs more buffs, it currently sits at ~48% winrate & ~20k damage across all server which is pathetically low for a premium ship. 

I suggests giving it more armor (19mm bow so it can bounce 203's), historical RoF of 15rpm and better concealment to improve its survivability and making it more competitive against equal tier cruiser.

 

Its based on server statistics right? Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

I'm fine with nerfing premium vehicles as long as WG don't use that as an excuse for certain dubious marketing strategy that some other companies has used. 

Like (intentionally) releasing an OP premium only to nerf it few patches later, using statistics as reasoning.

 

Though, I'm equally worried when they say something needs buffs/nerfs. Apparently they think USN CV are fine, so...:bajan: And RU Cruisers are still among top of the board for quite a while now yet nothing changes.

Edited by Gezeiten_Heimatwelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,068 posts
3,846 battles

 

 

I think nerfing premium ships would be just fine.

However the exact reason for doing way better than a regular vessel should be investigated thoroughly.

 

 

Take the Type 59 in WoT for example, it did well since it's release and has continued doing so after the rebalance,

which put it more in line with the rest of the chinese tech tree.

However when you actually play it you quickly realise why it has done so well despite it's rather mediocre maneuverability and frontal weakspots.

 

 

Hence why nerfs (or buffs) to premium vessels should be investigated for a longer duration of time especially due to the nature of paid content

in a f2p game.

 

 

Lastly, I've never understood the hostility in f2p videogames towards nerfing "premium" content.

The main argument of "I paid for the content as it was initially advertised" never stuck well with me since

overall game balance is more important to me than having something that makes it easier for me to perform well.

Especially when the reverse would also be true and WG could just shrug it off when a premium vehicle gets the power creep treatment

instead of buffing it to keep it viable.

 

 

Or maybe I'm just an insane person which buys premium content in videogames without expecting a permanent I.W.I.N. button.

 

 

 

Don't know if its correct or not,but on the NA forum I have seen it mentioned that due to being a bought product that WG couldn't touch directly nerf premiums for legal reasons.At least in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
695 posts
2,153 battles

Just nerf the soft stats like the Type 59 in WoT.  Or implement bracket creep for new ships and they become UP over time.  :hiding:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
403 posts
8,172 battles

Honestly I believe that prems should never be nerfed, because it is WG's job to ensure that a ship is properly balanced before first release, and if game meta changes in a way that makes a ship OP over time, it is natural evolution of the game, and that ship could just be removed from the shop until the meta changes again.

 

Alternatively more non-prems could be added that are better than the prems in the meta, but that causes power creep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
106 posts
2,843 battles

Yes, of course. The idea that premium ships should be immune to nerfs is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. Game balance should take the highest priority over everything else.

I have many premium ships and I won't mind at all if they're getting justifiably nerfed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[1NATN]
Member
286 posts
5,228 battles

Will just repeat what I said on reddit:

 

I can see why for publicity reasons they would be wary of decreasing premium ship stats, and I think it's wise to leave it as a last resort (as well as being careful with balancing and testing before releasing premiums in the first place) but it would also be worth considering that there is seriously bad PR associated with PTW accusations as well.

 

And I really think WG does themselves no favours by not reminding people that they can balance premiums if they feel it is necessary for the good of the game. Letting people believe that premiums are somehow legally protected because they were paid for (they really aren't) is only going to make the backlash worse if they do end up with no other option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
359 posts
2,819 battles

I vote no

I would vote yes if it include refund if nerf.

 

For the record. I do not own a premium ship.

And solution is balance it as much as possible before release.

Like Saipan which lose 3rd TP before release

Edited by Hero_of_Zero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

Don't know if its correct or not,but on the NA forum I have seen it mentioned that due to being a bought product that WG couldn't touch directly nerf premiums for legal reasons.At least in the USA.     

 

   

US law is pretty antique when it comes to digital goods.

Proving possession and ownership of premium content is pretty much impossible for videogames.

Which is the main reason a lot of countries either already have or are in the process of creating more directly applying laws.

Last time I read up on it the US was in the later list of countries.

 

 

Add to this the randomness of US law and you'll quickly understand why WG (or any other company) would rather go the easy way than take the risk

of having to fend off a fraud accusation.

Also consider that the US is probably the country with more loopholes than corruption in it's law system... whether that's good or bad is questionable.

(Oh man, imagine that, being convicted of fraud because of a nerf to an overpowered pixel ship... the idea alone would make any german court facepalm...)

 

 

Mind you, even with a system like the US' law system it's still highly unlikely that a company would ever be convicted over something as trivial as this.

Even if you'd find a judge that would let this go through the appeal would follow up immediately and either end up pro company or continue until the other

party runs out of money.

 

 

And yes, I left out a lot of other issues that a potential complainant would have to clear up, like how they would have to confirm ownership of a digital product on a server belonging

to a different party.

 

 

Long story short, legally you'd have no chance of ever getting through with it even in a law system filled with loopholes.

However there's a minor chance to cause some bad PR, because whenever a company wins a legal fight it's EVIL MEGA CORP. VS. The Small Innocent Man.

 

 

Disclaimer: I haven't really read up on current US laws in regard to digital sales/products in the past year and a half, hence there might have been changes.

However considering that this is the US I'm writing about... yeah no, there were no changes... maybe when Trump takes over he'll build a firewall around the US.

Making videogaming great again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

 

 

However considering that this is the US I'm writing about... yeah no, there were no changes... maybe when Trump takes over he'll build a firewall around the US.

Making videogaming great again.

+1 for the humour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

However considering that this is the US I'm writing about... yeah no, there were no changes... maybe when Trump takes over he'll build a firewall around the US.

Making videogaming great again.

 

Isn't that what China is doing right now? oh wait...:hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

 

Selling power does not work. Not in the long-term. There is something wrong when you get into ranked ladder matches and most of the ships at the top are premium.

Runescape works because paying unlocks the entire game (free players only get 1/5th of the game). That makes sense because you are paying for the whole game. And the game is so big that people can get a reasonable experience out of that 20%.

 

It does not work in world of warships because the entire game is accessible to  all players. You can get to the top, free or not; it merely depends on how much time you are willing to put in. The most dominant players in F2P games are...normally F2P players. However, what i like about the game is that you can put in some money to make your life easier. Not more powerful. Just easier.

 

If you have to have the most powerful arsenal in the game, something that developers cannot do anything to rebalance it without getting into trouble, what is the point? We nerf the ships, and it is a legal and PR catastrophe. We buff everything else, we get power creep. Either way, the non-paying playerbase gets screwed over. They get angry and they leave. They leave, and the premium players do not have any playerbase to play with.

 

if you want an example, look at Ghost Recon: Phantoms. They kept releasing more and more powerful bundles of weapons with increasingly better gun qualities to the point that it was broken and where the free content simply could not compete. New players kept using these new bundles, and while it translated to money, they announced that they are shutting down the server this year having never left the beta phase.

 

World of Warships is going down this route. If we do go down this way, World of Warships might as well be a full retail game like Battlefield 1. Or a subscription-based one like World of Warcraft.

 

Edited by Haku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,106 posts
7,834 battles

Since we are in Asia

 

South Korea : "There is no Fundamental diffrenc betwen betwen virtual property and money stored in bank" - Online virtual property hold value independent of the game Developer. the law have been in effect since 2010

One of the case where During Diablo 3, awfull launch. Since there is Law protected that, many Korean that cant play mass complaint make South Korea's Fair Trade Commission do Investigation into Blizard, as a response Blizzard offer Refund - AFAIK only in South Korea, Blizzard offer Full refund for Diablo 3

 

Hong Kong : Interference of Virtual Property, considered Criminal act under Burgalry and Theiftry

 

Taiwan : Virtual property treated as real property, Criminal act punnisable under case of Theft, Froud and Robery

 

China : There is no, law protecting virtual item - However there is few case of willingnes from court into protecting virtual property : such as Li Hongchen vs Beijing artic ice technology CO (2004). where the Mr Li succesfully sued the said game publisher over the lost of Item

 

out of Asia :

United States : There not many cases, and all of them setteled outside of court. Online games Second life apparantly sued 2 times over confisating virtual property and locking account and settled outside court.

United Kingdom : It fall under Consumer Law, not criminal Law (no mans sky were under investigation for aledged misslead advertising)

Canada : There is a law, where destroy, modifiying, alter, interupt, deny acces of virtual goods is subject for improsenment, There is no legal case yet - maybe because all canadian are so nice

 

 

============================

Member of country mentioned above, can demand refund or sued game publisher for digital goods

so should they ? facing potential legal problems might problematic.

all it need were 1 disgrunted player, and face it - gamers is not so nice people in general :D

 

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,527 posts
7,978 battles

Flint owners beware, you're right in the path of the nerf bat. Better start playing like a potato to lower its statistics :trollface:

 

On the other hand, Atlanta desperately needs more buffs, it currently sits at ~48% winrate & ~20k damage across all server which is pathetically low for a premium ship. 

I suggests giving it more armor (19mm bow so it can bounce 203's), historical RoF of 15rpm and better concealment to improve its survivability and making it more competitive against equal tier cruiser.

 

Its based on server statistics right? Right?

 

Flint can be nerfed, people do not buy it with $.

 

On topic, I voted NO, because I am yet to find out an over performing premium that I own. :quickly_hides: :hiding:

 

(might have something to do with the fact that I am a scrub, but still NO as long as one of them does not become p2w)

Edited by icy_phoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,888 posts
9,936 battles

Flint owners beware, you're right in the path of the nerf bat. Better start playing like a potato to lower its statistics :trollface:

 

 

On the other hand, Atlanta desperately needs more buffs, it currently sits at ~48% winrate & ~20k damage across all server which is pathetically low for a premium ship. 

 

Other than Smoke and better Torpedoes Flint is almost copy paste of Atlanta wonder how WG gonna nerf it maybe longer smoke cool down ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
38 posts
5,201 battles

I paid cold hard CASH for my ships,  what your all saying is if you bought a Porsche because of its performance  and then they decided to drop the horsepower on you  and make it handle worse you would be OK with that .

 

I paid for it, it stay the same or gets better . money changed hands based on my information of what was being sold . If that becomes less after sale then in  Australia that is called FRAUD

If on the other hand Porsche said they had an upgrade because other cars are getting faster and would you like to buy the upgrade or accept a free upgrade to keep your customers happy then that would be acceptable

 

Red text. Post edited. User warned.

~dead_man_walking

Edited by dead_man_walking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×