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

WG seem to have made a clear shift in premium and special ship balance policy

50 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,160
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,483 posts
11,710 battles

Recently there has been some interesting moves from WG with regards to premium and special ships:

  • They have actively made balance changes to special ships for the first time (special ships are like premiums but have never been released for money - generally they are the ships available for coal, steel, research points, and in the dockyard, and they are identifiable with a silver ship inside a gold wreath as their symbol).
  • They have put an interesting line on the release page of the latest premium, Flandre: "If deemed necessary, balance changes may be applied to Flandre."  This is a first for a premium ship in this game.  
  • They have listed the following ships to be removed in 0.10.5: Erich Loewenhardt, Nelson, T-61, Haida, Z-39, Asashio, and Graf Spee.  These ships are interesting choices as they are very strong, but statistically not as strong as would previously have been required to have a premium ship removed.

Looking at all this taken together, I think it clearly shows a shift in policy from WG.

Remember WG mainly balance on the notorious "spreadsheet".  What this means is that they maintain thorough combat data on every ship, and have set limits for what they consider balanced.  They likely have an acceptable band of balance for the numbers in this data, outside which they will apply a rebalance if it is a tech tree ship (once they have sufficient time to get enough data for them to be sure of the balance issue).  They also likely have an acceptable balance band for premiums outside which they will either buff or remove the ship.  It seems that they have tightened up this band a touch as part of the clear shift in policy that they have recently decided upon, hence the removal of the ships listed in the OP.

Overall, I think they have changed the following parts of their policy:

  • They will actively balance special ships when outside acceptable balance limits, perhaps to the same limits as tech tree ships (previously they said these ships were able to be balanced, but the balance bands were likely very broad).
  • They will actively balance premium ships released from this point on instead of removing them, balance limits unknown but almost certainly not as tight as tech tree ships.
  • Further to the previous point, the premium acceptable balance limits have been tightened, hence the removal of the ships in the OP.

These are big changes indeed.  I personally think this is an improvement to their policy though, which will lead to a better balanced game.


  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[LBAS]
Member
2,043 posts
3,735 battles

okay.... since WG could balance premium ship after release like never before....

 

WHERE IS ISE?

WHERE IS TONE?

WHERE IS YAMASHIRO?

 

if balance is the concern they can nerf it after release right?

i am not playing this game anymore except for cool laset Big Hunt Mode!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[NZAUS]
Beta Tester
363 posts
8,571 battles
28 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

They have put an interesting line on the release page of the latest premium, Flandre: "If deemed necessary, balance changes may be applied to Flandre."  This is a first for a premium ship in this game.

well who will buy a ship that may get screwed since we all know how terribad the balancing can be?

Could it be they just got too lazy to balance even a bit so covering their ass? Could it be the ships are now more dependent on the captain skills which will be changed? 

It wouldn't be such a worry if we trusted WG balance dept not to absolutely kill a ship, but that ship sailed long ago.

WeeGeeListen.png

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,160
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,483 posts
11,710 battles
23 minutes ago, Skarhabek said:

WHERE IS TONE?

I played against a Tone 2 yesterday, and they announced some balance changes in the last balance dev blog.  They are likely fairly close.  The enemy Tone carried the battle for their team as well.

 

25 minutes ago, Tagnbag said:

well who will buy a ship that may get screwed since we all know how terribad the balancing can be?

Could it be they just got too lazy to balance even a bit so covering their ass? Could it be the ships are now more dependent on the captain skills which will be changed? 

It wouldn't be such a worry if we trusted WG balance dept not to absolutely kill a ship, but that ship sailed long ago.

This seems a bit over the top.  The balance in this game isn't that bad considering all the moving parts, and spreadsheet balancing is the best way to get the most balanced game possible.  It could be a LOT worse (and was for the first couple of years of the game, until they changed their balance process).

I think overall you have a very poor analysis of how WG operates.  Calling them lazy is absurd, and you're being extremely hyperbolic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[TLS]
Member
4,772 posts
21,124 battles
31 minutes ago, Tagnbag said:

WeeGeeListen.png

Putin needs to lay the smackdown on wg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[151ST]
Member
171 posts
3,960 battles

If WG are going to "balance" ships after I pay cash for them I'll be purchasing this many ships in the future -----> 0

 

It's like buying a V8 HSV only to have Holden change the motor to a V6 in the first service.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
821
[LBAS]
Member
5,270 posts
11,805 battles

BUT......

When you going first time playing after you got new boat 

SHELLING TOO SUCKS THAN IMAGINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,314
[151ST]
Member
3,466 posts
11,700 battles
2 hours ago, Davey77 said:

If WG are going to "balance" ships after I pay cash for them I'll be purchasing this many ships in the future -----> 0

 

It's like buying a V8 HSV only to have Holden change the motor to a V6 in the first service.

Yeah I'm of three minds about the whole thing...

1. Balance is good

2. People paid money

3. If WG could be trusted to keep the ships strong but not OP, then everything would be fine.

Honestly, WG should have done changes to some of these ships a long time ago.

This isn't even to mention that the changes to Stalin and Thunderer are at best laughably minor

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[151ST]
Member
171 posts
3,960 battles
25 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Yeah I'm of three minds about the whole thing...

1. Balance is good

2. People paid money

3. If WG could be trusted to keep the ships strong but not OP, then everything would be fine.

Honestly, WG should have done changes to some of these ships a long time ago.

This isn't even to mention that the changes to Stalin and Thunderer are at best laughably minor

I'd say more on the subject, but I'll be a realist and remind myself WG doesn't care what I think.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,314
[151ST]
Member
3,466 posts
11,700 battles
4 minutes ago, Davey77 said:

I'd say more on the subject, but I'll be a realist and remind myself WG doesn't care what I think.

You should go nuts (within forum rules) no doubt we've all thought the same thing...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[151ST]
Member
171 posts
3,960 battles

LOL

 

At least you know what you're talking about where as I..... more realism for me ---->  :Smile_child: Ship goes boom boom:Smile_child:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
223 posts
2,520 battles
3 hours ago, Davey77 said:

If WG are going to "balance" ships after I pay cash for them I'll be purchasing this many ships in the future -----> 0

 

It's like buying a V8 HSV only to have Holden change the motor to a V6 in the first service.

 

The analogy with the car is a good one.

But I guess that you own the car once you buy it...In this case, you don't own the ship, WG does.

 

This is from section 9  -Additional Features -  of the WG EULA.

(i) you agree that you do not “own” the Additional Features and that we have the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Additional Features at our sole discretion, in any general or specific case, and that we will have no liability to you based on our exercise of such right;

 

Additional Features refers to prem ships, among other things.

What this means, and the next 2 subsections, is that no-one owns any of their prem ships and WG can do what they want with them. 

Click here to see EULA

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,314
[151ST]
Member
3,466 posts
11,700 battles
1 hour ago, Davey77 said:

LOL

 

At least you know what you're talking about where as I..... more realism for me ---->  :Smile_child: Ship goes boom boom:Smile_child:

Somewhat... There are always things to learn... Like how to play in a way that makes Marco Polo fun to play... lel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[TLS]
Member
4,772 posts
21,124 battles

EULA is no match for consumer protection commissions.

I challenge wg to nerf ARP Yamato, Jean Bart. 

Edited by dejiko_nyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[LBAS]
Member
2,043 posts
3,735 battles

Lol do people forget that WG nerf Graf and enterprise AP bomb? 

 

WG already screw the rules....

They can nerf and buff ship like they want.... This announcement just WG being diplomatic.... and actually nice warn....

 

The Biggest problem here is ....

How far the nerf will be? Will they create broken OP ship... And nerf it later when they reach certain sales?

Like the pesky Korean MMO?...

 

I am not racist, but company is company... No matter where they come from, company is company...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
223 posts
2,520 battles
21 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

EULA is no match for consumer protection commissions.

 

Yes it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,314
[151ST]
Member
3,466 posts
11,700 battles
57 minutes ago, Mr_Good_Citizen said:

But I guess that you own the car once you buy it...In this case, you don't own the ship, WG does.

I wouldn't get angry at WG for this, games in general are all effectively in that state now.

Basically over 20 years, Publishers wrote unbelievably douchebag stuff into EULAs and the like.

It's not even unique to games but the digital industry in general.

Products as a service is the biggest con in corporate and economic history right after trickle-down economics and tax cuts generate revenue...

Having said that as @dejiko_nyo pointed out, some countries consumer protections can render them non functional, but that would require adequately funded consumer watchdogs, lel.

But to the subject at hand... I think people would be a lot more positive about this if WG had a good reputation for releasing balanced ships, or at the least no ridiculously OP ones.

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
338
[-ISO-]
Member
1,082 posts
6,671 battles
7 hours ago, Skarhabek said:

WHERE IS YAMASHIRO?

Skarhabek: WG, I want YAMASHIRO!

WG: We already have Yamashiro at home.

*Yamashiro at home:

phpLFcDEk

But seriously though. Why do you want WG to add Yamashiro soo bad?

Do you have some sort of blood relation with it?

If WG is going to add Yamashiro to the game, they would end up cloning Fuso and renaming it. Just like how they shamelessly clone Takao and renaming it to Maya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[TLS]
Member
4,772 posts
21,124 battles

Also, to add, this creates a slippery slope where 'steel effort' ships are rendered worthless. So no need to waste time on steel ships. Just spend money selectively on OP premiums. 

Also, /me looks at the PR fiasco refunds. What about last Christmas with the makarov disaster?

Edited by dejiko_nyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,619
[-CAT-]
Member
3,302 posts
13,270 battles
5 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

But to the subject at hand... I think people would be a lot more positive about this if WG had a good repuation for releasing balanced ships, or af the least no ridiculously OP ones.

^ This.

Sadly WG has done a lot of d-bagery and damaged their reputation in the game's 5 years of existence.

Talk about shooting themselves in their own foot and adding lime (kalamansi) in their wound.

2019 and 2020 were the worst.

 

On the other hand, WG maybe re-balancing premium ships, because maybe they will re-release those old pulled out ships in the past. Maybe.

Ships like T7 Belfast, T9 Musashi, T5 Julius Caesar, T5 Kamikaze, and T9 Missouri (It's not her performance. It's her ability to print money credits.)

WG must be really in need of money.

 


Players: We want to buy T7 Belfast. (Insert meme, money waving / slapping in front of WG's face.)

WG: She is too popular, we pulled her out due to her popularity (lel) and combat efficiency.

Players: No! We want T7 Belfast!

WG: Here, a premium ship on the same tier. Please buy her.

Players: No!!! We want T7 Belfast!!!

WG: OK. here, we sell T8 Belfast 43'.

Players who bought T8 Belfast: Yehe... Wait a sec... This is not Belfast! What is this? You make fool of us? I want my money back!!!!

Players who did not bought T8 Belfast: I no fool you fool! :Smile_trollface:

WG: OK. We will re-balance premium ships.

Players who owns premium ships: "Over my cold dead fingers WG!"

Edited by S0und_Theif
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[LBAS]
Member
2,043 posts
3,735 battles
15 minutes ago, mr_glitchy_R said:

Skarhabek: WG, I want YAMASHIRO!

WG: We already have Yamashiro at home.

*Yamashiro at home:

phpLFcDEk

But seriously though. Why do you want WG to add Yamashiro soo bad?

Do you have some sort of blood relation with it?

If WG is going to add Yamashiro to the game, they would end up cloning Fuso and renaming it. Just like how they shamelessly clone Takao and renaming it to Maya.

Ise and Hyuga is considered successor of Fuso and Yamashiro.......

what i want is not a normal Yamashiro, BUT AZUR LANE RETROFIT BBV YAMASHIRO.....

- T8 BBV..... 

- upgraded gun to 4x2 410mm gun

- 4x Torpedo bomber squadron with 120 sec preparation time

- Buffed HP to 64K, 33 knot speed, BASICALLY SAME ARMOR THICCness but have better engine

- added more consummable, Anti air defensive fire

- increased secondary range and accuracy to 7.8km base

ITS RETROFIT FROM basic T6 BB Yamashiro to T8 BBV Yamashiro....

 

but this time, ITS WILL BE SELL AS T8 BBV "AL Yamashiro"

we have HSF Harekaze with unique configuration... imagine the monies from Weeb and Ship collector if we sell AL BBV yamashiro.....

 

3 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

 

WG: OK. here, we sell T8 Belfast.

Players who bought: Yehe... Wait a sec. This is not Belfast! What is this? I want my money back.

Players who did not bought: I no fool you fool. :Smile_trollface:

WG: OK. We will re-balance premium ships.

Players who own premium ships: "Over my cold dead fingers WG."

Skarhabek : WHERE IS MY T8 GADJAH MADA WG? we have T8 Belfast yet... where is my T8 Gadjah Mada?

imagine, we have Orkan + T8 Gadjah Mada with radar/smoke option....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[TLS]
Member
4,772 posts
21,124 battles

Wg cannot nerf a pure money ship because players bought it with real money for a reason. Non-monetary ships are an escape clause because no real money is involved and it will not be considered 'monetary fraud'. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
777
[BLESS]
Member
1,425 posts
12,527 battles
8 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

I personally think this is an improvement to their policy though, which will lead to a better balanced game.


I agree its a policy shift. I would say the aim of that policy shift is to give WG more control, but what WG are going to do with that control is far from clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
777
[BLESS]
Member
1,425 posts
12,527 battles
6 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Wg cannot nerf a pure money ship because players bought it with real money for a reason. Non-monetary ships are an escape clause because no real money is involved and it will not be considered 'monetary fraud'. 

It's not so clear cut though, since Alaska, Friesland, etc. are coal ships that are also available for dubs/cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
223 posts
2,520 battles
56 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

I wouldn't get angry at WG for this, games in general are all effectively in that state now.

Basically over 20 years, Publishers wrote unbelievably douchebag stuff into EULAs and the like.

It's not even unique to games but the digital industry in general.

Products as a service is the biggest con in corporate and economic history right after trickle-down economics and tax cuts generate revenue...

Having said that as @dejiko_nyo pointed out, some countries consumer protections can render them non functional, but that would require adequately funded consumer watchdogs, lel.

But to the subject at hand... I think people would be a lot more positive about this if WG had a good reputation for releasing balanced ships, or at the least no ridiculously OP ones.

Oh, I'm not angry at all.. Did my post come across as angry?  If so, that's not the intention.

On the contrary, I'm slightly bemused by those who think that premium ships are some type of 'untouchable' when it comes to WG changing them. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Wg cannot nerf a pure money ship because players bought it with real money for a reason. Non-monetary ships are an escape clause because no real money is involved and it will not be considered 'monetary fraud'. 

They can nerf a ship...didn't you read my post above?? ..Look at the contract you agreed to, the EULA ....They can do what they want with the ships. Nobody can stop them.

Don't be fooled.

There is no fraud at all.

They can do what they want.

 

Edited by Mr_Good_Citizen
speling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×