World of Warships – Giulio Cesare Retier and 0.8.0.1 Hotfix!

20,357 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1,052 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...

*watches the fires in of Warships*

72 Comments:

  1. For a second i thought the title was “retired” lol

  2. I bought it when it went on sale cause it looked sweet.

    Edit: Removing the odd tiered CVs has exacerbated the situation, as the tier 4 CVs are trash at higher tiers and due to the missing tier 5s see that situation more often than they should…we need those odd tier CVs to fill the queues and take some pressure off the bottom tier CVs in matches especially the T6-T8 CV matches.

  3. They removed this ship (Cesare) and created a false sense of it being never sold again, then put it back in the shop to increase sales. They also put it on the Santa crates. Wargaming take responsibility for YOUR mistake, and offer cash refunds. Otherwise you will be punishing the customer for merely buying your product. This way it doesn’t look highly unethical like it looks now.

    • And they also specifically sold it as the battleship in the t5 ranked sprint bundle because it was so powerful. Not the Texas, not the Okt. Rev. The Cesare. And it was even marketed as being a strong bordering on OP ship.
      Yes, I’m all for making sure ships are balanced and premium ships don’t outright outperform their tech tree contemporaries, but WG needs to do that balancing before taking money and then a year or so later deciding they want to change it. If they do end up making this change, I have a feeling there will be a severe reduction in the numbers of premium ship sales, because there won’t be anything preventing WG from significantly changing any other premium whenever they feel like it. Even if you have premium ship owners who prefer premiums to be balanced, they may be less inclined to buy ships just because of the uncertainty that they will stay in anything resembling the form that initially made them attractive.
      If a ship seems fine in testing and overperforms on release, that could be a case of fixing something unexpected, but the Cesare OP situation is entirely on WG, since they knew from the beginning how powerful it would be and took advantage of that fact multiple times to sell bundles and crates.

    • A Russian co.LOL

    • They fucking gave it away to players who had been out of the game for several months to entice them back as well.

    • I believe it was the idea that ‘OP and broken ships’ like Nikolai (to name to most famous elephant in that room) could still be received (but incredibly rarely so) from things like containers, and therefore are not entirely removed from the game, but were kept from the premium store to prevent the game from feeling P2W…

    • +Tim me too

  4. Bingo! Well done as always iChase. Making changes based on statistics of the ship from before when the ship had a completely different environment to deal with absolutely makes no sense. In the post 0.8.0.1 world, the ship may perform completely different at a higher tier than it did before. Basically, a ship that players paid money for is getting nerfed in a sense by being moved up a tier. Shouldn’t there be some sort of reimbursement to players for the difference if this happens?

    • +Christopher Jonasson Even with slightly better armor she never will bow tank a T8 BB. She really struggles already against T7, because when the angle properly you don’t do anything to them unless you switch to HE and pray for that low chance of fire the enemy deletes instantly and you don’t relight it, until R is ready to go again.

    • Christopher Jonasson

      +Andreas Loefke Yeah earlier today I was rushed by a Gneis and a GC, right flank on neibours they came from behind the group of small islands, I kited in my fuso taking a lot of damage, I sunk the gneis with HE, the GC at first tried to tank / finish me but he took so much HE damage that he had to abort in flames to behind an island, few mins later I had healed up a bit and was back at sniping him with him fleeing burning into the distance. GC is good at its Tier and good at killing tier 4 noobs but it cant even take on a half hp Fuso that knows how to Fuso. So what the hell are they thinking with tier 8

    • +Andreas Loefke fucking Russian bias

    • collector2252 think the point has been missed that all other ship are also suffering exactly the same issues a New York still has worse guns ,worse concealment it’s slower and comparable AA but still moves like a slug … just because the bar has been moved , it was moved for everyone so the playing field stays lvl … cvs will calm down before long and GC will still over perform in T5 the only ones moaning are the ones who have been happily seal clubbing away in them for months …it will be fine at t6 but you will need to work abit harder

    • Christopher Jonasson lol facing a potato and winning is hardly proof of anything

  5. Exactly Chase, the GC rework only makes sense if you accept WGs interest is not in rebalancing but actually is in selling more ships. It seems very odd to me that WG chose to ‘rebalance’ this ship given all the other historical and 8.0 issues in this game. Thin edge of a very nasty wedge I reckon.

  6. Chase multiple people have brought up this point and you haven’t addressed it at all, maneuvering is a skill and effects the amount of damage that a carrier can do to a ship. I can kite away and force aircraft to trail me for a few extra seconds or I can turn in to reduce the chances of a hit. Also, i have to choose whether or not to turn based on the other threats around me while, conversely, a carrier can drop on me such that it forces me to turn broadside to a surface threat. A carrier can keep a DD lit up, but, at the expense of not pursuing other targets. This system is plenty deep, I can’t help but feel that carrier players who are complaining just want to overwhelm the surface ship player and are, essentially asking for an unfair advantage.

    • Ok, but that isn’t really about CV/surface ship interactions though. Maneuvering is a skill that will decrease the amount of damage that you take from any ship in the game.
      So, yes, this does give some more depth to the interaction, but it doesn’t define it in the same way that the implementation of continuous and flak AA does.

      At the end of the day, the most important question is: Is this adding fun to the game for both players? The CV is almost completely fighting against RNG or what is effectively a countdown timer. Timers can sometimes be fun in the way that they cause an adrenaline rush, but this mostly seems frustrating – especially in up-tiers. And RNG? It can be funny, but it’s not a good idea to stake the fun of an engagement on RNG, as they are mostly frustrating if they don’t go your way (See detonations). The surface ship has very little that it can do if it has bad AA. If you have bad armor, you can play differently depending on what you are fighting to tip the odds in your favor. The same is true of most every metric in the game – low caliber guns, bad concealment, poor maneuverability, etc. But if you have bad AA? Sucks. Find someone who has good AA and stay right by them. That is the only solution. Which is what makes this a shallow system. Players cannot make up for the weakness of a ship with skill if that weakness is AA because of the way that this system is implemented.

    • +RAF Hawk I laid out an entire list of the interplay between the CV and surface ship that effects the engagement between the two. Everything you do in this game is a choice wherein you try to pick the lesser of two evils. Do I want to eat the torps? or do I want turn broadside to a surface ship? which way do I point my guns? Do I fire AP or HE?
      Even with your example, if you have a ship which has poor AA then sticking close to a ship with good AA is EXACTLY what you should do. But doing that makes your team crowded and attractive to long range torpedoes. Are those on the map? Is there a Shima but no Carrier? Vise Versa? I’m Sorry if you think this is shallow, I do not.

  7. I hear what you’re saying about being at the mercy of AA, but it’s really not that different than the RTS system we left behind. Being at the mercy of several DFAA cruisers and a CV player who sneezes your planes away leaving you out of the match completely. What I find is this system doesn’t do that as often. I’ve gotten some very nice damage numbers in my CV play.

    No matter what Wargaming does someone is going to be upset. It’s kind of hard to listen to issues when you don’t know which side of the argument you should be on. People hated RTS carrier play and people hate the new system. People hate how “overpowered” CVS were so they buffed AA a bit and it tipped the scales against the CV players so now they hate that too.

    No one will win.

  8. As a business model, introducing something new, shiny and O.P., then nerfing it into the ground, whilst introducing something new, shiny and OP, is a practice conducted by PGI and Clan Mechs in Mechwarrior online. This over-time creates disenfranchisement by the people who are buying the “new and shiny” and part of the player-base is lost, (most never to return). This isn’t so much a comment about the state of affairs with the Julio Cesare as it is a cautionary tale about engaging in a business model that is proven to have diminishing returns.

  9. A good way to end up with a possible class action suit! The good old bait and switch!!!

    • Read the EULA. Im not saying what wargaming is doing is cool at all, but there is utterly no basis for a legal suit based on the terms of service you agreed to. Go to a lawyer and say “they changed muh premium ship!” after the lawyer gives the EULA a once over he would point out, it is not “your” ship. You paid for a license to use a ship with that name and general appearance while the game exists, its stats are completely subject to change at WG’s discretion. Again, not supporting what WG is doing…but jesus people, stop just hitting “accept” on EULA’s without reading them. Then screaming that you are getting a lawyer once they do something that is completely acceptable under the terms you agreed to.

    • +Tim Yeah, no. They tried something similar but not as drastic in World of Tanks with the Super Pershing. They introduced the tank, it was too strong, they nerfed it, people got pissed and asked for refunds, WarFailing said no, courts said yes and they had to issue refunds. They learned their lesson in WoT about fucking with sold premium tanks, looks like it’s time for WoWs devs to learn the same fucking lesson.

    • +Tim EULA doesn’t really stand in court.

    • +Tim Anyone can make a EULA say whatever they want. Sure it’ll trump a lot of of rights and privileges for individuals because you as a consumer agree to it, but that EULA doesn’t give carte blanche for the companies to start going against on the books laws and protections. I’m not a lawyer but just the amount of notice they’ve given the GC as a Tier 5, right there it could be considered advertising. Change that without the option of real financial recompense and it could possibly run afoul of False Advertising laws. Or not. would need to be interpreted by a court, but as a layman? Looks like enough doubt in there to be costly.

  10. Wargaming is systematically destroying this game!

  11. Wallet shut. People can have tantrums all they want, WARGAMING is full of crap, talk with your wallets people.

  12. WarGaming has gotten a considerable amount of my money. The precedent they are setting with this is me never buying another premium ship and not spending anymore money on this game period. I honestly have less of an issue with a nerf to GC from the standpoint of a ship i have, and enjoy, being relegated to port queen, but my issue is more the shady nature of the whole thing. This is scumy on an EA level. They release premium ships that they know are strong to milk as much money as possible, then they are going to nerf them after the sales are done in the name of “Balance”. I suspect they chose the GC to test the waters. As far as OP premiums go, the GC is pretty low on my list and at Tier 5 it likely played a lot less than some of the other higher tier OP premiums. I feel like they chose it to see how people react and if the backlash is not too bad, it opens the door for them to just pump out OP premium after premium to get big sales then nerf them after they have gotten their payday. Just dirty if you ask me so I will speak with my wallet.

    To your point though, I completely agree. The meta of the game has taken a serious shift in this last patch. Between CVs and the concealment nerf the GC lost a big chunk of it’s power with it’s short range compared to other ships of the tier. It’s mediocre AA really hurts it now too. “Balancing it” at this point is a bit premature to say the least. I also wonder what exact stats they use to determine the power of a ship as the GC hasn’t been on sale in a while past random crates. At this point I feel like a lot of the people that have it, and play it, have been around long enough to have a better grasp on the game. A T5 ship run by a majority of people that are at least decent at the game will skew the numbers a bit i feel. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good ship for the tier but it has a lot more weaknesses after the recent patch.

  13. Hands off my Giullio Cesare, otherwise ill loose trust as a customer to buy any more ships.

  14. This is just wrong. The Guilio is only powerful in it`s own tier, it gets chunked by tier 6 BB`s and wrecked by tier 7 BB`s. This ship in a tier 8 match will be ridiculously week. Not to mention I bought it as a tier 5 BB, and my opinion is, if you buy a premium ship, it should not be tampered with, leave it alone WG, and leave it at tier 5, or offer full refunds.

    • Fabiano Schwegmanius

      tbh, playing that ship in a t7 battle doesnt scare me as much as it should, it can stand its ground a little bit too good against higher tier bbs with its armour, manouverability and armament. I have a 75% wr in this ship, no matter the tier of mm, being uptiered usually means bigger damage potential. However, the one weakness has always been cvs, and seeing there is a more consistent amount of games with double cv these days, combining the fact that it faces more t6 cvs than before because of the new system with only even tier cvs being available, I think it could be balanced in its own tier by the cv rework itself. Like iChase says, wait two months and adjust it after that if necessary, but leave it for now till the dust clears.

    • Sorry but this is wrong.. Just look at the stats she has a 10% extra winrate than other tier 5 BB and approx 20% extra average damage she is as OP as hell. and also this is just a test to look at the idea of uptiering OP prems instead of removing them. Lets see how she performs in the supertesters hands at tier 6

    • +Fabiano Schwegmanius Funny thing is if to all those complaining about the upteiering.. The fact that the weakens is AA testing know is more likely to negatively effect the idea of uptiering. so keeping the ship where she is

    • +alexander11456 , I know how to play the ship, but when you’re ducking torpedoes and bombers you sometimes get chunked by someone who is waiting for you to turn. I’m not afraid of tier 7 ships too much, except when I’m dealing with the above mentioned scenario. This ship will be cannon fodder in a t-8 match, no matter how good you are.

    • +alexander11456 I own GC and I have right now (I took a break after some games in 0.8 and will be back later) it have 110 games in it.

      She wreaks everything but coming from a 4400 games 58% random player

      1. No she’s not my highest damage T7 BB. That would be the KGV and it’s firestarting 14″ shells from hell
      2. My Konig (when she has 2.0 sigma) is actually very close in damage and has similar ships sunk and she has way better AA & secondaries both

      Most of my damage come from cruisers (which at T7 you overmatch but at T8 you will bounce all T8s except RN CLs) , most of my XP came (before the nerf to AP) from DDs would would underestimate her accuracy.
      I play her close and agressive to the enemy and AP was my only friend except rare cases. And even then my best WR is my Fuso sitting at 73% with 34 games. Even now she struggles with properly played T7s BBs, the german twins in particular as they can run her down at 32kts, get very high damage and have torps. Also KGV and the HE is a nightmare to deal with.

      I mean I get WG logic in theory but 0.8 created a new game, concealment is worse by 4%. They said is for testing only but after the 0.8 debacle I really don’t trust the testing excuse when they say it is for testing only moving her to T6. Worst tier in MM right now.

      On the CVs fully agree. They are boring, I mean there is little in the sense of skill ceiling and is limited by the mechanic itself. Even BBs which are the most “boring” class require much more though process and have a better risk/reward mechanic.

      I am a bit sorry to say this but at this point the RTS CVs, for all their defects, made more sense and when knew how to counter them. These new ones, it’s RNG and stat dependent only. Like having 4AA rating on Colorado way back. Fun times….or Pepsi with 15,7 concelment and 14,3km range with no situational awareness

  15. I will NEVER spend another penny if they change sold premiums. Balance it before you sell it. Don’t sell it if Its too strong. Rework it, give it a different name and sell it again, I don’t care, I’d probably buy the new one. But touch what I paid for and it’s over. And the vast majority of people ive talked too feel the same.

    • Twizted it has nothing to do with buying a ship to be good. It’s about different play styles. I see many players that have over 15k battles and they are absolutely terrible in all their ships.

    • You paid for a T5 ship and get a T6. So you technically paid a T5 price for a T6 ship.
      You whining because you got something cheaper than it’s new price.

    • StArShIpEnTeRpRiSe At tier 6 it will be much weaker, so we paid for a a tier V ship with that now has a tier VI label. She will be worse, because they are changing none of the stats except a slight buff to the armor.

    • +TheFlyingButton
      Nah, there is the Arizona in T6 too and it’s fine there.
      In fact you bought a T6 ship in T5 where it was op so it’ll move to T6.
      But I can understand your problem, no more no skill T4/3 sealclubbing in an op ship. Sad story.

  16. WOT does the premium power creep and scarce OP Premium tank SALES all the time. They have gotten into the habit of releasing a new tier eight premium tank about one a month. It has made the game far more pay to win than when I started playing almost 6 years ago. Since WOT and WOW are part of the same company, I think your on spot with what your saying here.

  17. They have destroyed the game. Haven’t played in weeks.

  18. This happened in the mobile version of WoWS. The devs released some solid ships and after people bought them the devs nerfed them back. Again the cry of balance was used but really they released a strong ship and people such as myself reviewed and recommended them and then they nerf them. Classic bait and switch sales tactics. I stopped reviewing ships for the mobile version largely because I could no longer in good conscience support questionable business practices. Now we see the door to the same disingenuous behaviour open for the PC version. Not cool.

  19. They tried something similar but not as drastic in World of Tanks with the Super Pershing. They introduced the tank, it was too strong, they nerfed it, people got pissed and asked for refunds, WarFailing said no, courts said yes and they had to issue refunds. They learned their lesson in WoT about fucking with sold premium tanks, looks like it’s time for WoWs devs to learn the same fucking lesson.

    • thing is again why are people saying its the Devs, Devs dont handle this they handle the ship balance, based on info provided to them by other things. Its not a case of “Devs dont care” so much as typical WG mismanagement and probably a decision higher up to release/change the ship anyway.

      As for the Refunds part, yeah you can see WG Did learn their lesson on that one, since you notice how nothing can be refunded for the CV rework because the “Return window” has been a thing, atleast in the US, for a while. Only Gold for premium CVs, its cause they havent sold them, they know people cannot ask for refunds on items past a certain point (IE Companies do have a right to limit refund windows, usually 30-90 days). Its a bit scummy, but by that same token i dont see the point in aruging for a refund if you already got what you paid for over the course of 6 months before a major mechanics rework (IE not directly to the ship but to the mechanics around the ship or ship class).

    • +nick garner WoT is over 8 years old. Your premise seems faulty.

    • +Duncecap64 Are you a fucking idiot?

      “thing is again why are people saying its the Devs, Devs dont handle this they handle the ship balance, based on info provided to them by other things. ”

      Dev’s got info from CC AND THEIR FUCKING SUPERTESTERS AND THEY FUCKING CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT ANYWAY YOU UTTER FUCKING MOUTHBREATHING MONGOLOID MONKEY.

      Stop trying to make up excuses if you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    • Just like EA, my wallet will speak. I don’t even have EA games installed anymore.

    • I have that one also! Tech tree stuff is one thing,but when you spend money on these things and then it’s messed with is a horse of a different color!

  20. WG employees need to stop drinking before they go to work -.-

    • Not the drink problem I think..
      They are trutly eager to earn money by any means…..
      Adding new ships will cause minor balance problem in short terms, won’t take long to destroy game balance seriously

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *