Jump to content

'If necessary, balance changes may be applied...' gone - Information now on WoWS site


Recommended Posts

I don't know if this is news or old news, but I never noticed this until someone brought it up. Premium ships that are available in the premium shop no longer seem to have the 'If necessary, balance changes may be applied...' disclaimer prior to purchase as used to be the case for the new premium ships, the 'nerfiums' as I like to call them.

Apparently, there is now a list of ships that can be nerfed:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/content/ships-to-which-balance-changes-may-be-applied/

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I don't know if this is news or old news, but I never noticed this until someone brought it up. Premium ships that are available in the premium shop no longer seem to have the 'If necessary, balance changes may be applied...' disclaimer prior to purchase as used to be the case for the new premium ships, the 'nerfiums' as I like to call them.

Apparently, there is now a list of ships that can be nerfed:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/content/ships-to-which-balance-changes-may-be-applied/

 

The list can be expanded and updated with the release of new game updates.

 

Which means it's completely useless.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The list can be expanded and updated with the release of new game updates.

Yes.

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Which means it's completely useless.

Personally, I feel it is useful for reference.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Personally, I feel it is useful for reference.

If you remember to search for the list in your excitement or in your disappointment when looking for that instant gratification that only one of the more expensive premium ships can bring you.

Hmm.. maybe I should have been working for WG....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

If you remember to search for the list in your excitement or in your disappointment when looking for that instant gratification that only one of the more expensive premium ships can bring you.

Hmm.. maybe I should have been working for WG....

For example, I noticed the Enterprise is not on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

None of the older premiums should be on the list. I just don't remember when and where the transition occurred.

Should be around 2-3 years ago. I 100% sure everything pre-Puerto Rico can't be touched (so Dec 2019).

But can't check when it really happened, as the change logs for patches are not working on the wiki (like most stuff there).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

None of the older premiums should be on the list. I just don't remember when and where the transition occurred.

I think the Flandre was the first premium that had this " If necessary, balance changes may be applied " line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

None of the older premiums should be on the list. I just don't remember when and where the transition occurred.

 

6 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Should be around 2-3 years ago. I 100% sure everything pre-Puerto Rico can't be touched (so Dec 2019).

But can't check when it really happened, as the change logs for patches are not working on the wiki (like most stuff there).

As Aragathor mentioned, there is a point in time when WG/WOWs announced that new premium ships would be subject to change.

Older ships may be affected by "global changes", such as the CV Armor Piercing bomb nerf that was applied "globally" and included the Enterprise (which was otherwise prevented by WG/WOWs policy and customer expectations from being altered).  The "global change" was the loophole used to nerf the Enterprise's AP bombs (and several other CV's in the process).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Yes.

Personally, I feel it is useful for reference.

How?

Next patch cycle the list can and will be different.

There is absolutely no protection that a ship you bought today won't be on the list tomorrow.

30 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

For example, I noticed the Enterprise is not on the list.

For now...

15 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

None of the older premiums should be on the list. I just don't remember when and where the transition occurred.

It never did. WG has always reserved the right to make changes to any ship at any time for any reason.

Heck, they've even changed Graf Zeppelin, which isn't on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 

As Aragathor mentioned, there is a point in time when WG/WOWs announced that new premium ships would be subject to change.

Older ships may be affected by "global changes", such as the CV Armor Piercing bomb nerf that was applied "globally" and included the Enterprise (which was otherwise prevented by WG/WOWs policy and customer expectations from being altered).  The "global change" was the loophole used to nerf the Enterprise's AP bombs (and several other CV's in the process).

That same 'global change' nonsense was used to nerf Graf Zeppelin's dive bombers...and ONLY Graf Zeppelin's dive bombers with specific changes related to glide bombing...

...a feature that ONLY Graf Zeppelin had.

WG is full of shit on this.

There is NO PROTECTION against changes. Never has been. Never will be.

Look in the fine print...WG reserves the right to make changes to any ship at any time for any reason.

  • Like 2
  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 

As Aragathor mentioned, there is a point in time when WG/WOWs announced that new premium ships would be subject to change.

Older ships may be affected by "global changes", such as the CV Armor Piercing bomb nerf that was applied "globally" and included the Enterprise (which was otherwise prevented by WG/WOWs policy and customer expectations from being altered).  The "global change" was the loophole used to nerf the Enterprise's AP bombs (and several other CV's in the process).

I think this is a change log reference that is useful for illustration of the Global AP bomb nerf.
 

Quote
  • Update 0.9.6:
    • The damage dealt by armor-piercing bombs was decreased from 5,900 to 4,900.
       

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Enterprise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That same 'global change' nonsense was used to nerf Graf Zeppelin's dive bombers...and ONLY Graf Zeppelin's dive bombers with specific changes related to glide bombing...

...a feature that ONLY Graf Zeppelin had.

WG is full of shit on this.

There is NO PROTECTION against changes. Never has been. Never will be.

Look in the fine print...WG reserves the right to make changes to any ship at any time for any reason.

I understand what you're saying.

Quote:

Quote
  • Update 0.9.6:
    • The Dive Bombers were changed:
      • Bomb damage was reduced from 7,000 to 5,800.
      • Bomb spread was increased by 15%.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Graf_Zeppelin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It never did. WG has always reserved the right to make changes to any ship at any time for any reason.

Heck, they've even changed Graf Zeppelin, which isn't on the list.

I think Graf Zeppelin is a sort of special case all in all.

Technically, WG can change anything they want, but since the older premiums were sold as 'non-nerfables' (except where they've been nerfed through global changes, sometimes significantly even) they'd be upsetting a little too many customers maybe to make it worth the effort. It's much easier for them to just let older premiums suffer through power creep and introduce shiny new ones to attract both old and new buyers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I understand what you're saying.

Quote:

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Graf_Zeppelin

In 0.9.9 WG changed how the reticles behaved (this is not in the patch notes as the specific details of reticles are not always quantified). It was part of the global graphical changes that were claimed not to impact performance but, SURPRISE, actually also impacted the RNG of drops.

At the time, Graf Zeppelin had the unique glide bomb reticle and attack profile. WG nerfed this claiming it was part of a global change...which is really stretching the definition because Graf Zeppelin's attack profile was unique.

2 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I think Graf Zeppelin is a sort of special case all in all.

Technically, WG can change anything they want, but since the older premiums were sold as 'non-nerfables' (except where they've been nerfed through global changes, sometimes significantly even) they'd be upsetting a little too many customers maybe to make it worth the effort. It's much easier for them to just let older premiums suffer through power creep and introduce shiny new ones to attract both old and new buyers.

This is my point...if WG is allowed to break their own statements for 'special cases'...then really all the discussion around 'non-nerfables' is just a statement of broad intent...and offers no ACTUAL PROTECTION.

We MUST take these kinds of statements and interpret them correctly. WG does not WANT to just change old premiums often or easily...

However they WILL change them if they decide to do so.

Caveat Emptor, everyone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

In 0.9.9 WG changed how the reticles behaved (this is not in the patch notes as the specific details of reticles are not always quantified). It was part of the global graphical changes that were claimed not to impact performance but, SURPRISE, actually also impacted the RNG of drops.

At the time, Graf Zeppelin had the unique glide bomb reticle and attack profile. WG nerfed this claiming it was part of a global change...which is really stretching the definition because Graf Zeppelin's attack profile was unique.

This is my point...if WG is allowed to break their own statements for 'special cases'...then really all the discussion around 'non-nerfables' is just a statement of broad intent...and offers no ACTUAL PROTECTION.

We MUST take these kinds of statements and interpret them correctly. WG does not WANT to just change old premiums often or easily...

However they WILL change them if they decide to do so.

Caveat Emptor, everyone.

Yeah, I grok that.

Some of the changes to ships have been more controversial than others, from my perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I don't know if this is news or old news,

This change is quite old, as I remember commenting on it at the time on the old forums. 

I don’t recall what, if anything, WG’s mouthpieces claimed were the reasons behind the change (consistency of presentation in the premium shop, perhaps?), but obfuscating the silly situation that WG has created two “soft” classes of premium ships was definitely part of the reasoning.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

This change is quite old, as I remember commenting on it at the time on the old forums. 

I don’t recall what, if anything, WG’s mouthpieces claimed were the reasons behind the change (consistency of presentation in the premium shop, perhaps?), but obfuscating the silly fact that WG has created two “soft” classes of premium ships was definitely part of the reasoning.

But they haven't created two soft classes...that's the obfuscation.

WG knows the playerbase believes that there are ships which can't be nerfed...which isn't true.

However, WG wants that wrong belief to continue...so they pretend there are two classes in advertising blurbs (which have less legal requirements to be true) while still adhering to their fine print first intent...which is anything can change at any time for any reason.

The obfuscation is that there are protections against nerfs.

  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Yes.

Personally, I feel it is useful for reference.

Gosh, that reply ^^^^  really struck me as hilarious....  In another game, Mechwarrior Online, a long time ago, their forum and this forum had an almost exact conversation.  All of the new "premium mechs" lost the disclaimer.   And, low and behold, right after that, we had their version of the skill tree change...  Where we lost about 30% of their capabilities under the guise of "now you have improved choices that....." - stole real value and started the exodus period of that game......  We all left within that year.....

Several of my brand new, hard worked worked for Premium mechs simply were relegated to the "junk pile" of in-use (since they lost about 30% of their capabilities...)

Thanks again for a "deja vu" moment...   And yes, our actual hunting camp as a kid was where Jubal came from in that great book....  Funny how that works sometimes.

And, Grok has made a come back it seems in Program Management, for sale, tecki-babble....  And, it is hilarious when they use the words; cause,  90% of them have no idea it comes from a Science Fiction book from the 1960's...

"Personally, I feel it is useful for predicting the end....."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

But they haven't created two soft classes...that's the obfuscation.

WG knows the playerbase believes that there are ships which can't be nerfed...which isn't true.

However, WG wants that wrong belief to continue...so they pretend there are two classes in advertising blurbs (which have less legal requirements to be true) while still adhering to their fine print first intent...which is anything can change at any time for any reason.

The obfuscation is that there are protections against nerfs.

Yes, but if the fine print is gone....

Supposedly, there is a link somewhere in the Premium Shop directing you to what probably is the link in my OP here, but I never caught any sight of it. Regardless, even the legal fiction of the disclaimer cause seems to have vanished. In other words, the line between the old and new premiums is now vapor thin.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Yes, but if the fine print is gone....

Supposedly, there is a link somewhere in the Premium Shop directing you to what probably is the link in my OP here, but I never caught any sight of it. Regardless, even the legal fiction of the disclaimer cause seems to have vanished. In other words, the line between the old and new premiums is now vapor thin.

 

No, the fine print is in the EULA and the agreements you make to download and play the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmao...Salem, Siegfried Smolensk are all on the list, lolz.....

Waay to tell that Wargambling is full of it and just doesn't care anymore.... except dollar, ofc lolz....

Meanwhile I get garbage like this in ranked....

AFK-nazi.png

...on my team who is AFK AND already pink,  while people who actually play get penalized.

 

These people are just a buch of no good, lazy,  shameless dudes, completely clueless about how ro run or maintain a game...

 

Note: all identifiable traces have been removed and da name is incomplete, so no "naming and shaming" excuses.

Edited by Andrewbassg
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That same 'global change' nonsense was used to nerf Graf Zeppelin's dive bombers...and ONLY Graf Zeppelin's dive bombers with specific changes related to glide bombing...

...a feature that ONLY Graf Zeppelin had.

WG is full of shit on this.

There is NO PROTECTION against changes. Never has been. Never will be.

Look in the fine print...WG reserves the right to make changes to any ship at any time for any reason.

Just because you have no customer protection in the USA, does not mean the rest of the world is so uncivilized.

In the EU a sales contract cannot be changed to the detriment of the buyer, after it has concluded. The buyer can just inform the customer protection agency, and they will brutalize the seller. I know, I saw it happen from both sides.

That's why WG used the whole spiel about "global changes", because they cannot say nerf Cesare's sigma, as the sale was for the ship as is.

And EULAs have deemed unenforceable in the EU anyway if they are detrimental to the buyer, so WG can say they rule the world in there.

Edited by Aragathor
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Asym said:
1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Yes.

Personally, I feel it is useful for reference.

Gosh, that reply ^^^^  really struck me as hilarious.... 

Look.  We have the list as of "today".
We can take a screenshot of it and save it (if we desire).  And compare the list with new versions of it, over the course of time, as necessary.
Thus, "reference" is the word I chose.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Asym said:

And, Grok has made a come back it seems in Program Management, for sale, tecki-babble....  And, it is hilarious when they use the words; cause,  90% of them have no idea it comes from a Science Fiction book from the 1960's...

The term grok is one that I am familiar with.  I'm aware of its origin, and I know it never entirely disappeared from being used by well informed people.

https://granitegrok.com/
https://granitegrok.com/about
Merely one example ^^^^

Edited by Wolfswetpaws
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.