[2021] Superships are harmful to the game

So, I'd like to ask some questions to you two (and the rest of the players out there)

If SuperShips are treated as "Tier 11" and get matchmade with Tier 9 through 11:

a) Does that change T1 - T8? Aren't all of those tiers still untouched and playable? Isn't this section of the game the same?

b) Why does it devalue Tier 10? People play and enjoy Tier 9 everyday, even though it is "devalued" by Tier 10's existence. What is it that makes this case different?

c) Are there Superships in the game now that you feel are too powerful? If so, why?

-----------

This is more of a general feedback/topic inquiry sort of thing. Please, keep it classy as I'm looking to get some concentrated feedback since this is the third or fourth time I've read these thoughts in the past week or so.

How are you getting a Pay-to-Win angle?

Is this the experience of a Tier 9 ship? Is a Tier 9 ship always cannon-fodder for those who: Spend credits to play Tier 10 Tech Tree ships, play Tier 10 Special Ships, or Tier 10 Tech Tree Ships with Permacamos?

To answer any of these questions directly would come off like an announcement, which is not what this post is doing.

Superships are present on live server in testing, so if you evaluate them to be Tier 11...

... then this should be something you've already made your mind up on.

------

If discussion of Superships involve a higher then Tier 10 level of "Service Cost", then that would simply be extending the current practice of: Tier 8 Service Cost < Tier 9 Service Cost < Tier 10 Service Cost.

---

Also, as this is important as an industry concept/term.

"Paywall" often means: A transaction requiring actual hard currency such as Dollars, Euros, etc...

"Service Cost" is an in-game cost with an in-game currency that can be earned through play.

There is a very hard difference between the two terms, so that's going to be helpful in this discussion.

Matchmaker doesn't have selection sets like that based on tier. The "bottom tier/top tier" selection criteria are noted in

Direct Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7PmOMVLgsE

Please do me a favor. Allow me to be able to talk with the community here so I can hear what they think/feel.

Trying to hand-tie me to a conversation I can't have just means you have a Community Manager that would rather NOT talk to the Community as a way to avoid potential problems. Part of my personal goal in this role is to foster conversation, instead of being a "Post twice a week" face that's not very present in the conversation.

In short, it's my job to represent my Community/Playerbase. To do that, I need to be able to talk with them.

I need to clarify this because the "Pay-to-Win" thing completely destroys the conversation.

"Pay-to-Win" is literally that. You pay money and you win because of it. Pay-to-Win kills games dead.

Premiums in our game aren't Pay-to-Win. Why? Because you can still lose in a premium just as easily as in anything else. They're all balanced to the same place, although some premiums have weird kits (consumables/characteristics) that work really well and stand out. Even then, it's not Star War Battlefront where some dude dropping a thousand dollars suddenly has 10 times the health/armor of a non-payer and runs around winning everything because they paid to win.

If your definition is that Tier 10s are "Pay to Win" because they are the highest Tier in the game right now, then you need to adjust your definition. When there's a 500,000 HP Des Moines that's only unlocked with Dollars, then you have "Pay-to-Win"

---

If something is balanced by Service Cost like Tier 10 CVs were 2.5 years ago... (They had either 480,000 or 360,000 Credits/Match as their Service Cost.) ...then that's not sustainable outside of Permacamos and Premium Time. Sure. But there's no requirement on the game stating "Thou shalt only play Tier 10". Which is exactly what you see now... Folks play other Tiers routinely.

Saying that made Tier 10s with higher Service Costs into Pay-to-Win is wrong. It's not correct. And extrapolating it to a theoretical "Tier 11" is also not correct.

What is it about her that allows you to Wreck on the PTS? The guns? Firing method? Armor?

More details please <3

"Gold Ammo" is an easier terminology to work with.

So, I'll ask again. Can you consider Tier 10 to be "Gold Ammo" in respect to Tier 9s? 8s? What if you load into an all Tier 10 match?

So if Tier 11 Service Costs were the same or similar to Tier 10, then you'd have no issues?

Then please describe your issue with those.

So your investment in any and all Tier 8 and below ships is separate, because they are all capable of being up-tiered by more than one tier.

However, Tier 9 and 10 are special because they are different in that respect, and you feel that to change that is to go against your understanding at the time of purchase?

This is the sole issue?

Just a point to consinder.

When 20 people say, "I don't like this". An outsider listens to that and thinks, "I guess they don't like something"

That outsider doesn't know the context, or even if they're all talking about the same thing.

While I've played this game for years, there's a massive difference between me reading someone saying, "I don't like this" and interpreting what that means for them based on my own experiences... and simply asking them to type a longer response that actually SAYS their issue.

---

You may read other posts and thinks, "Yeah man, this guy gets it! This is what I wanted to say!"... then reply to that post and say that you have the exact same thoughts.

You may read other posts and think someone's on the right track, but they aren't explaining why YOU do/don't like something. In which case, please speak up.

---

There's a big difference between me interpreting what you say for you, and you saying what you mean.

My way is going to be a generalist understanding. Your way is going to represent you better than anything else can.

TLDR: If you want me to represent your thoughts on the matter, I need to hear those thoughts.

I understand the connection people are making to possible high Service Costs, but why the extension that this is about rebalancing the overall economy of the game? What's wrong with players having too much credits?

All the middle tiers are extremely forgiving/credit independent in their play. Why does a high Service Cost of a high-tier ship indicate that the entire economy is an issue?

Sure, but if Tier 10s cost 180,000 Credits/match to use, having a x2 would indicate 360,000 Credits/match. This disincentives constant play, as the payout post-match would be less. However, it's far from:

a) A way to "save" the economy.

b) "Gold Ammo" which is unusable outside of mailing your wallet to WarGaming.

---

I keep reading that this is an attempt to "rebalance the economy" as though it's altering the entire game, which seems rather drastic and strange.

The Bank of Zath (Lord Zath has huge amounts of stuff) could simply elect to play Tier 6's and 7's. His mountain of credits may never be spent, as there is no NEED to play high-end things and only high-end things.

In this way, the cost of "Tier 11" would have no impact on a player unless they chose to play on a lower-reward tier, which is the same as playing middle-tier which yields lower rewards anyway.

---

I understand the link people are making, but not the extra step that this can "fix" the economy as everything is
a) Opt-In/Opt-Out - You don't have to play them
b) Set low enough to still award credits from playing the game

One other thing to note is that Tier 10 used to have higher Service Costs than they do now.

Aircraft Carriers used to have a 240,000 credit/match Service Cost, and other ships had "Premium Consumables" which could be numerous on ships like the Worchester.

---

These numbers being revised down through Service Cost reduction and Consumable standardization doesn't necessitate the invention of a new Tier to add credit bleed.

This was done in Patch 0.9.4:

Direct Video Link: https://youtu.be/Ekf5Q0xAybM?t=136

In her case, she was out of alignment with other ships. So in order to standardize her with the rest of the ships, a method was created to allow previous owners to retain her higher earning while newer players had the more standard rates.

Worth noting that the Combat Mission she has gives an extra +30% Credits, which is the equivalent of an additional flag. In some ways, that's not small, in other ways it's not large. Still, as an outlier, it was standardized before she was returned and available for purchase.

---

Also worth noting. I wasn't around when she was available originally, but I've been told that she was strong in more areas then just her credit gain back at the time when she was available. The removal wasn't purely about credits back when it happened.

The game changed and those advantages became less pronounced as time wore on, so the concept of returning her had to address the remaining outlier in the room before she would be reintroduced.

Yes, you quoted that Tier 10s are comfortable to play. This isn't in dispute.

Specifically, my ask was:

The way that folks were framing their arguements was the the economy is messed up, and Tier 11 Service Cost is how to fix it. That this is the correction for a mistake.

I called that into doubt because whether you have more Credits than you can spend or not isn't something that a higher Service Cost is going to re-balance or fix. There are other Tiers and experiences that exist which don't care about how many Credits someone has outside of the initial purchase of the ship and getting Upgrades on it.

Part of what you quoted...

... ends with "And this has had a significant effect on their popularity."

As a carryover from a different thread/topic, Random Matchmaker is a way to provide a varied experience, which prolongs the life/interactions within the game. Another thread spoke about ships that were removed because they were "too popular", which leads to match stagnation as the same ships are seen over and over.

If Tier 10 is comfortable to play, and people gravitate to the biggest, bestest thing... then it's reasonable to expect most players to play Tier 10 most of the time.

This is anthetical to a varied experience across many tiers by reducing the actual experience to one tier, or one tier's matchmaking spread.

---

While old Tier 10 had Consumable Costs and other such mitigation factors, those have lessened over time and made Tier 10 something which is comfortable to play without deviation. Bringing a Tier 11 with "uncomfortable" cost association won't be a roadblock as you could simply out-earn the Service Cost during the play of the ship. However, it does inspire dropping to other Tiers if you want to earn credits to purchase new ships or flags or whatever.

In short, having a new Tier which has a less comfortable amount of Service Cost doesn't make ships unplayable except to those with mountains of money or an endless credit card. It incentivizes varied play across more than one tier by introducing a less "comfortable" system to repeat ad nauseum.

Please understand that there are several people that have said many things in this thread. My response was more aimed at the general belief that a higher service cost is something that's believed to be "correcting the excess of credits in the economy".

Ultimately, this is a thread to get feedback and impressions from folks. My engagement is more focused at getting people to talk about stuff so I have more information to better represent folks.

This is a divisive topic, so I expect it to be filled with landmines. Still, I can't represent folks actual thoughts without them actually typing them. Interpretation doesn't help make points when discussing pain points.

The NTC was altered into the Research Bureau. This is an in-game mechanic to earn exclusive rewards (Ships and (much to the discontent of some older players) Unique Upgrades).

The concept is to give an artificial extension to existing game content. Ultimately, players can out-grind any content creation team, so it's a method of reusing in-game content in a further-form of progression.

Some enjoy it, others not. I've redone some CV lines 4+ times.

---

Subs could change things drastically, or they could integrate rapidly. As of now, they're still in testing, so we'll have to see how that turns out.

I will agree that a new class on top of the discussion we're having here about a theoretical Tier 11 is a lot to talk about at one time, but stagnation is death in Free-to-Play industries.

While I played World of Tanks, I'm not very learned on its history. I got to around Tier 6 before stopping.

Fortunately, we're still growing, which is pretty awesome for a seven year old Free-to-Play game. There's not a lot of them that achieve that.

As for having no competition, that's a blessing and a curse. The blessing part is obvious, but the curse is that we're the leader and thus have the target on our backs. To slow down or let up is to allow a competitor to arrive and get a foothold, so ideally staying a clear winner in the field allows a long and successful life.

Where did this suggestion come from? and what is it in reference to?

Why would premium ships need some form of grindable advantage over non-premium ships? Ships are balanced to the Tier they are played in, not whether they are Premium or not.

I don't understand how this suggestion would do anything good for the game or the balance of it?