Updated 8th Anniversary Rewards

[Frostbow]

After what could only be an excruciating week for them, Wargaming has finally relented to the righteous demand of the World of Warships player base.

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/472

We saw your feedback about the adjusted system and your concerns regarding players who own a very high amount of ships with the limitation of super containers introduced this year in combination with the currency. We heard you and wanted to apologize. We've decided to make the following changes based on your feedback:

• You can now purchase up to 110 Super Containers.
• Both Tier X and Superships will earn 200 Anniversary Tokens per battle performance bonuses.
• Each Super Container will cost 200 Anniversary Tokens, and we've removed the bundles for 400 Anniversary Tokens.

This change enables all players to directly purchase at least 1 Super Container per Tier X and Supership that they own. On top of that you still have the choice of many different bundles, ranging from the guaranteed Tier VIII premium ship Bayard, a new skin for the German BB Zieten, a selection of new Anniversary containers, economic boosters, and signal flag bundles. The more ships you own, the more tokens you can earn, and the more rewards you can redeem.

Other rewards:

• Bayard - 6,250 Festive tokens
• A single 50% discount coupon for Tier VIII ships that can be obtained for doubloons -  3,125 Festive tokens
• Permanent Delorean camouflage for Zieten - 1,250 Festive tokens
• Up to 7 On a Retro Wave containers - 500 Festive tokens for each
• Other rewards that are available for Festive tokens: Common, Special, and Rare economic bonuses and packs of signals.

[Frostbow]

Quote

We want to be transparent about the need to balance a generous anniversary system and the game’s economic health. Over the last 8 years the game's ship selection has expanded to over 600, including both those obtained via the premium shop, as well as via new free unlock paths like coal, free XP, research points. What follows is that along with their growing ship collection, the amount of anniversary rewards players have been able to collect each year has also grown.  Last year, a player with all ships received more than 180,000 doubloons value in rewards. This continuing trend puts a strain on the economic balance of the game and we periodically take action to tweak our systems.

That is a problem (if you choose to see it as such) of your own making. Your disdain and ungrateful attitude rears its ugly head once again, Wargaming. 

Good thing the player base rightfully pushed back at your greed and utter disregard to the devotion of your highly passionate players.

[MBT808]

It’s a step forward, but the thing is:

They still need to honor what they said in the SC nerf. This is about their integrity and holding them accountable for what they promised us.

We have won this battle, but we still haven’t won the war.

[Frostbow]

Just now, MBT808 said:

It’s a step forward, but the thing is:

They still need to honor what they said in the SC nerf. This is about their integrity and holding them accountable for what they promised us.

We have won this battle, but we still haven’t won the war.

Don't wait for it. Wargaming is the last capitalist on Earth that I expect would honor their word. Profits > Integrity.

[Nevermore135]

8 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

That is a problem (if you choose to see it as such) of your own making. Your disdain and ungrateful attitude rears its ugly head once again, Wargaming. 

Good thing the player base rightfully pushed back at your greed and utter disregard to the devotion of your highly passionate players.

Honestly, the dev blog should have ended after the first part you quoted in the OP. Everything afterwards should have been released in a few days either in another dev blog or as a news announcement. Everything after that just shows that WG doesn’t really get just why players were upset and sabotaged the conciliatory tone of the earlier part.

It continues to amaze me how such a large company that has made such a strong commitment to cOmMuNiCaTiOn continues to communicate so poorly. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Nevermore135

[ZeuSueZ1337]

If nothing else I, as the proud owner of Port Queen* Bayard, will get my fat, sticky gamer hands on the Loyang! Yay!

*) As a DD main I really don't sail cruiser albeit I'm aware that Bayard to some extend is considered a giant dakkadak-DD xD

[Frostbow]

1 minute ago, Nevermore135 said:

Everything after that just shows that WG doesn’t really get just why players were upset and sabotaged the conciliatory tone of the earlier part.

I agree.

While credit is to be given because they listened and relented, still if taken in its totality, the whole DevBlog post contains a veiled threat of further alteration of reward systems.

I believe the next target on Wargaming's Nerf Police would be the New Year Certificates.

[Frostbow]

4 minutes ago, ZeuSueZ1337 said:

If nothing else I, as the proud owner of Port Queen* Bayard, will get my fat, sticky gamer hands on the Loyang! Yay!

*) As a DD main I really don't sail cruiser albeit I'm aware that Bayard to some extend is considered a giant dakkadak-DD xD

I had fun games with the Bayard in Random Operations. Also with the Loyang. 

It is a good thing Wargaming decided to improve the system from a Win-Lose to a Win-Win arrangement. Players will now be able to get the Bayard for free if they so desire.

[MBT808]

10 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

Don't wait for it. Wargaming is the last capitalist on Earth that I expect would honor their word. Profits > Integrity.

Of course, if we said nothing they would never have integrity. It falls on the shoulders of the consumers to keep companies like WG(or Microsoft, Sony, Blizzard, etc.) honest. Otherwise, they’ll essentially try to rob you blind.

Many people, especially gamers these days, seem to be unaware of this. They’re essentially unknowing(or sometimes unwilling to take action) victims, which means that it falls to people like you and me to take a stand and say no.

[Utt_Bugglier]

I think the most lowbrow part of their release is claiming their first devblog announcement was an “initial plan.”

 I just went back and looked, there is no usage of the term “initial plan,” or any similar language, or statement requesting player input to facilitate adjustments.

What I do see is a lot of rah-rah, and “let’s make this birthday the most memorable yet!” 

In that, they have succeeded.

And the player base has graciously returned the favor.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Frostbow said:

Don't wait for it. Wargaming is the last capitalist on Earth that I expect would honor their word. Profits > Integrity.

Most capitalists don't honor their word unless forced to do so...

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Frostbow said:

I believe the next target on Wargaming's Nerf Police would be the New Year Certificates.

Reward nerfs ought to be expected at this point. WG isn't making enough money, they believe, to be giving that rich of rewards.

That's one issue, but not the main issue for me.

The main issue is the baffling reliance on PR communications that are easy to demonstrate are bull.

Implying one thing in a devblog and doing the OPPOSITE in just a few weeks is really toxic to playerbase trust...and WG leadership seem blissfully ignorant of how this is perceived by their customers.

Instead, they seem focused on being grumpy that the players want richer rewards...as if the players are the source of the toxicity.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[MBT808]

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Instead, they seem focused on being grumpy that the players want richer rewards...as if the players are the source of the toxicity.

Not so much richer rewards, we just want the regular rewards we’ve always got. Better rewards would be nice and would buy them some good will perhaps. Plus with the nerf to SCs, we’re already getting less than last year with the total SC reward being comparable to half of what the last anniversary would’ve netted.

[Nevermore135]

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Reward nerfs ought to be expected at this point. WG isn't making enough money, they believe, to be giving that rich of rewards.

That's one issue, but not the main issue for me.

The main issue is the baffling reliance on PR communications that are easy to demonstrate are bull.

Implying one thing in a devblog and doing the OPPOSITE in just a few weeks is really toxic to playerbase trust...and WG leadership seem blissfully ignorant of how this is perceived by their customers.

Instead, they seem focused on being grumpy that the players want richer rewards...as if the players are the source of the toxicity.

This is my view as well. I can understand (even if I don’t always agree) with WG’s need to nerf rewards and in the in game economy in general. If the anniversary reward nerf had been announced in a vacuum, I would have grumbled a bit but it wouldn’t be a huge deal.

The fact that the nerfs to the anniversary event followed so soon after WG’s claim that the SC nerfs were made to avoid having to make these kind of changes to the anniversary event is a bigger issue. It’s hard to take any of those types of statements seriously when the devs contradict themselves mere weeks later.

I’m waiting for the official explanation that the changes to the anniversary event were made because WG caved and made the SC nerf less severe, this being their way of making up the difference. That will go over like a lead balloon.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Paradat]

Excellent change. Should have been the way it worked from the beginning. Having said that glad it was settled at the Dev blog level and not at an announcement level. 

[MBT808]

6 minutes ago, Paradat said:

Excellent change. Should have been the way it worked from the beginning. Having said that glad it was settled at the Dev blog level and not at an announcement level. 

I wouldn’t say this settles it. The original problem is still present, this is a half step at best. The rest of the devblog after the changes compounds the original problem as well.

[Paradat]

4 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

I wouldn’t say this settles it. The original problem is still present, this is a half step at best. The rest of the devblog after the changes compounds the original problem as well.

Wait. I thought the original problem was players were getting so many SC containers that WG had to nerf them. So, they nerfed them and so in the future you could still earn the same number of them, but they would be worth less than before. 

Then in the first blog for the next event made it so not only are they worth less but you would also now get less of them. This new update seems to have fixed that and put us back on course with the original intent. Am I missing something?

Edited August 17, 2023 by Paradat

[Paradat]

Also happy to see the 3k steel reward. 

[MBT808]

21 minutes ago, Paradat said:

Wait. I thought the original problem was players were getting so many SC containers that WG had to nerf them. So, they nerfed them and so in the future you could still earn the same number of them, but they would be worth less than before. 

Then in the first blog for the next event made it so not only are they worth less but you would also now get less of them. This new update seems to have fixed that and put us back on course with the original intent. Am I missing something?

No, the issue is that the SC-nerf was done because it was apparently devaluing the in-game economy. Nobody bought that and SC were rather uncommon outside of the anniversary event. In regards to the anniversary event, the SC-nerf was done so that the event itself wouldn’t be changed. They literally said it:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/442

In the old event, you’d get a SC for X and economic reward containers for IX and below. There was also tokens as well. Now you’re just getting the heavily nerfed SCs pretty much or Bayard. The economic containers are still gone as of this change, you can get them for tokens but that means giving up SCs. So the anniversary was still changed and if you read the devblog, WG haven’t addressed that core issue which was that the core of the event wouldn’t be changed. If they added more stuff to do during the event that would be a little different.

Plus with this half step, they took a step back by nerfing super ships from 300 down to just 200. You lose a couple super containers you might otherwise get as a result.

To summarize, the reason everyone got upset about the anniversary is that WG said the anniversary wouldn’t change if they nerfed the SC’s. Then the anniversary devblog rolls around it, the anniversary is changed when they explicitly stated it wouldn’t. They deliberately misled the community and attempted to pull a fast one hoping we wouldn’t notice. But we did and now that’s why the Updated blog post in the OP is here. But as you can see that doesn’t solve the original problem as the anniversary is still changed.

Edited August 17, 2023 by MBT808

[Paradat]

1 minute ago, MBT808 said:

No, the issue is that the SC-nerf was done because it was apparently devaluing the in-game economy. Nobody bought that and SC were rather uncommon outside of the anniversary event. In regards to the anniversary event, the SC-nerf was done so that the event itself wouldn’t be changed. They literally said it:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/442

In the old event, you’d get SC for X and economic reward containers for IX and below. There was also tokens as well. Now you’re just getting the SCs pretty much or Bayard. The economic containers are still gone as of this change. So the anniversary was still changed and if you read the devblog, WG haven’t addressed that core issue which was that the core of the event wouldn’t be changed. If they added more stuff to do during the event that would be a little different.

Plus with this half step, they took a step back by nerfing super ships from 300 down to just 200. You lose a couple super containers you might otherwise get as a result.

Oh I see. I did buy it. I am one of those players that did get a crazy amount of super containers each event. So, I understood the nerf. I also took the original post from WG that we would be able to get the same amount of super containers ie not change it, granted that the new SC are not as good. Did some people take it to mean that we would get double the normal number? I can see that some would look at it that way. 

I will be getting 41,050 tokens for the event. That includes the BP. That will get me pretty much everything I want.

 

 

[MBT808]

1 hour ago, Paradat said:

Did some people take it to mean that we would get double the normal number? I can see that some would look at it that way. 

Not that I'm aware, I don't believe I've seen anywhere that someone suggested double the number of SC's vs Anniversary 2022.

1 hour ago, Paradat said:

Oh I see. I did buy it. I am one of those players that did get a crazy amount of super containers each event. So, I understood the nerf. I also took the original post from WG that we would be able to get the same amount of super containers ie not change it, granted that the new SC are not as good.

Basically, the issue arose as a result of the following events and devblogs:

Devblog 442:

As a result, the number of rewards received during the Anniversary, particularly doubloons, significantly increased. An increase in the amount of this resource in circulation could negatively affect the economy in the long run because of the risk of doubloon inflation. As a result, in order not to change the system of Anniversary rewards, we have changed the composition of the Supercontainer.

So this was the reason behind the nerf of the super containers. This was so they wouldn't have to change how the anniversary event works, they made it sound as though that was the alternative and they'd rather not do that. With this in mind, the event should've been basically a repeat of 2022s anniversary with maybe a side event or a bit more content.

Devblog 469:

From here we fast forward a few months The Super container nerf was implemented into the game by this point, so they couldn't claim to make changes or revoke 442s statement. However, 469 revealed that they had, in fact, changed how the system for anniversary rewards worked. This invalidated the reasoning given in 442, since now they had nerfed both the event and SC. This started an uproar on their discord as they had flat out lied at worst, at best forgotten what they said in 442.

Devblog 472:

Released today, this is a step in the right direction, however with a half step back. Ultimately, this doesn't solve the issue that arose in 442 as the system is still changed. It starts off good but then takes a nose dive with the following:

We want to be transparent about the need to balance a generous anniversary system and the game’s economic health. Over the last 8 years the game's ship selection has expanded to over 600, including both those obtained via the premium shop, as well as via new free unlock paths like coal, free XP, research points. What follows is that along with their growing ship collection, the amount of  anniversary rewards players have been able to collect each year has also grown.  Last year, a player with all ships received more than 180,000 doubloons value in rewards. This continuing trend puts a strain on the economic balance of the game and we periodically take action to tweak our systems. 

Earlier this year we adjusted Super Container contents as well as their distribution and will continue tweaking any other parts of the wider game economy as we believe is needed. In doing so we will keep rewards as generous as we can, continue to take your feedback, while ensuring a sustainable game economy for years to come. We hope this explanation helps to clarify our reasoning and we appreciate your understanding.

With this in mind, they completely side step the original issue. There is no mention of the 442 statement, which is the issue that started this whole thing. WG completely miss the point of why people are upset. Plus, because their so generous. They need to mention it three or four times in 472. To me, it comes across as their suggesting we're being ungrateful with our complaints. Their apology as a result comes off as disingenuous, its not even apologizing for the original issue. In fact, the issue of 442 isn't mentioned anywhere in 472 like you'd expect.

As a side note, they were using some questionable actions on discord according to @Aragathor when discontent about this peaked. Based on the reaction and the non-apology, they knew what they were trying to pull with the anniversary changes. This wasn't an issue of forgetfulness.

Edited August 17, 2023 by MBT808

[Paradat]

44 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

Not that I'm aware, I don't believe I've seen anywhere that someone suggested double the number of SC's vs Anniversary 2022.

Basically, the issue arose as a result of the following events and devblogs:

Devblog 442:

As a result, the number of rewards received during the Anniversary, particularly doubloons, significantly increased. An increase in the amount of this resource in circulation could negatively affect the economy in the long run because of the risk of doubloon inflation. As a result, in order not to change the system of Anniversary rewards, we have changed the composition of the Supercontainer.

So this was the reason behind the nerf of the super containers. This was so they wouldn't have to change how the anniversary event works, they made it sound as though that was the alternative and they'd rather not do that. With this in mind, the event should've been basically a repeat of 2022s anniversary with maybe a side event or a bit more content.

Devblog 469:

From here we fast forward a few months The Super container nerf was implemented into the game by this point, so they couldn't claim to make changes or revoke 442s statement. However, 469 revealed that they had, in fact, changed how the system for anniversary rewards worked. This invalidated the reasoning given in 442, since now they had nerfed both the event and SC. This started an uproar on their discord as they had flat out lied at worst, at best forgotten what they said in 442.

Devblog 472:

Released today, this is a step in the right direction, however with a half step back. Ultimately, this doesn't solve the issue that arose in 442 as the system is still changed. It starts off good but then takes a nose dive with the following:

We want to be transparent about the need to balance a generous anniversary system and the game’s economic health. Over the last 8 years the game's ship selection has expanded to over 600, including both those obtained via the premium shop, as well as via new free unlock paths like coal, free XP, research points. What follows is that along with their growing ship collection, the amount of  anniversary rewards players have been able to collect each year has also grown.  Last year, a player with all ships received more than 180,000 doubloons value in rewards. This continuing trend puts a strain on the economic balance of the game and we periodically take action to tweak our systems. 

Earlier this year we adjusted Super Container contents as well as their distribution and will continue tweaking any other parts of the wider game economy as we believe is needed. In doing so we will keep rewards as generous as we can, continue to take your feedback, while ensuring a sustainable game economy for years to come. We hope this explanation helps to clarify our reasoning and we appreciate your understanding.

With this in mind, they completely side step the original issue. There is no mention of the 442 statement, which is the issue that started this whole thing. WG completely miss the point of why people are upset. Plus, because their so generous. They need to mention it three or four times in 472. To me, it comes across as their suggesting we're being ungrateful with our complaints. Their apology as a result comes off as disingenuous, its not even apologizing for the original issue. In fact, the issue of 442 isn't mentioned anywhere in 472 like you'd expect.

As a side note, they were using some questionable actions on discord according to @Aragathor when discontent about this peaked. Based on the reaction and the non-apology, they knew what they were trying to pull with the anniversary changes. This wasn't an issue of forgetfulness.

OK yeah so that is what I thought. 

So, It seems to me we are right back to what most of us thought would happen after 442. Instead of nerfing the number of SC they nerfed the content. Ignoring all the drama in the middle we are good to go. We are actually a little better since you have a bit more flexibility.

Cheers.

[MBT808]

8 minutes ago, Paradat said:

OK yeah so that is what I thought. 

So, It seems to me we are right back to what most of us thought would happen after 442. Instead of nerfing the number of SC they nerfed the content. Ignoring all the drama in the middle we are good to go. We are actually a little better since you have a bit more flexibility.

Cheers.

we aren't good to go, your not getting it. The current situation shouldn't be happening at all, thats the point. they nerfed the containers AND the anniversary event. its still nerfed even with the changes to 472.

[Paradat]

3 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

we aren't good to go, your not getting it. The current situation shouldn't be happening at all, thats the point. they nerfed the containers AND the anniversary event. its still nerfed even with the changes to 472.

OK help me out. How is the event nerfed beyond the containers? What else are we not getting now?

[Paradat]

7 minutes ago, Paradat said:

OK help me out. How is the event nerfed beyond the containers? What else are we not getting now?

This was last year:

World of Warships Anniversary | World of Warships

Edited August 17, 2023 by Paradat