Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

167 Valued poster


About Xplato

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,407 profile views
  1. Xplato

    Anyone else disappointed with cv rework so far?

    I don't think he does... This change to CV only hurts DD's more. Now CV have no reason to go for anything that isn't Attack aircraft, and just bombing DD's (who have generally the weakest AA out of all the classes.)
  2. So what your saying is that suddenly right after WG made what tens, hundreds of thousands off of lootboxes that people were encouraged to buy to get the GS that suddenly they decided to do balance changes to it? doesn't the timing seem at all strange to you? If they announced this in say September It would be a different story. In this case WG did bait and switch, and are guilty of it. meaning they have the intention of committing a crime. Take your own medicine it's time to start thinking logically. Or you'r being sarcastic in which case, it's best to add a /s to your post next time.
  3. Is invalid when something illegal occur's, like oh I don't know bait and switch, and False advertising. Also when it conflicts with a current law... ...mic drop.......
  4. EULA's are struck down if they do something that is illegal. Say It said I now own everyone else on this planet is my personal slave, or something. That EULA even if everyone else on the planet agreed to it, would be struck down as non-valid. IF an EULA is legal it is generlly fine. However Bait and Switch is Illegal. same for false advertising. Both of which are in the case of the Santa boxes without a doubt happening. IF WG never had the GS in the event, and just stopped selling it however long ago, then it would be a completely diffrent story. They urged people to essentially Gamble for it(another interesting topic for another day), and after the event suddenly it needs to be nerfed. now let me ask a simple question isn't that odd? motivated by some form of greed? If they announced a nerf to the GS in say September. we wouldn't have this problem. and the idea that they have many more premium nerfs planned, should horrify everyone. because who decides what is OP? Wargamming ultimately decides, what the NA, and mostly the EU market say don't matter to them. They for lack of a better term live in their own little world over in Russia. Whose to say they don't put a premium just as OP as say the Belfast as soon as they nerf it? or nerf the Tirpitz, and release a German BB that is the same, if not better in every way? it's not impossible. Any nerfs to premiums are a slipper slope, and a very dangerous one, that should never be stepped on.
  5. you need to educate yourself on what EULA's can and cannot do. An EULA that violates a law is invalid completely. Clearly you are not that intelligent. neither do you actually understand the laws behind consumer protection. But you clearly don't have the brain-cells required to actually articulate any ideas. The funny thing is I can do a charge back at any time for quality of goods not being up to the advertised value. :P it's really quite easy. I look forward to the extra thousand or so dollor's I'll have after this. Plus this isn't even my main account either. :?
  6. Definition: the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods. It's the textbook case for a bait and switch. really you need to use your brain man. maybe you just love WG, but IT IS A BAIT AND SWITCH.and also false advertising. WG is committing an actual (Albeit financial) crime with this.
  7. Various statements right after the Super Pershing fiasco. They came out and specifically stated they would never nerf premiums in any of their games again, and for the most part has stayed true to it. IT is a bait and switch that's the entire point. Definition: the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods. GS was a tier 5 that was sold in boxes to people because it was OP. Wargamming is now trying to act like they care about balancing after selling them in lootboxes(Gambling), and giving them away to people for returning after 6 months AKA ME. It's both Bait and switch, and false advertising. If they nerfed it and kept it as a tier 5 this wouldn't be the case.
  8. It is illegal. Not in the refund policy, but in being false advertising, and a bait and switch. Both of those things are Illegal. in most countries in the world for that matter. The refund policy itself is dubious, if poeple bought it with real money IE the refund has to be in cash return. not WG currency that is completely worthless.
  9. I'll give you some simple feedback, you Nerf any premium ship? I will do a charge-back of every purchase I every made. not only that but I'm sure your bait and switch, and false advertising activity's will go so well with consumer protection laws. You can this change It's that simple, and isn't up for negotiation. I don't care about the GS it's a low tier premium. meh doesn't matter, but the precedent it sets isn't okay. you promised to never nerf premium's, by going back on that I see no reason to not do a charge-back for false advertising on every purchase in WOWS.
  10. Any nerf to premium ships, tanks ETC is an instant chargeback on all my purchases WG. it's illegal, and not acceptable.
  11. seems to me that WOWS is going to have a Super Pershing like shitstorm at this rate. WOT devs know not to touch premium tanks, they learned that lesson the hard way. WOWS dev's might have to be taught that lesson the hard way. I was given a GC for free, I played 1 or 2 battles in it(less than 20 that much is for sure). I have basically now real opinon, it's a tier 5 BB okay. But Nerfing something that can only be purchased for(or given to), is not okay. it's that simple, and make no mistake a GC seeing bloody alabama's, NC,Bismark, amagi's and anything that has 400+MM rifles is going to get hammered to death. not to mention tier 8 CV's... crapyou put a schaern up against the thing and it's going to explode, and that's a tier 7.
  12. I don't see a problem with CV, but DD's? They have no real place in a game about fleet combat. Cruisers do, Battleships do, CV do. But DD's? good for escort's, but that's about it. actual combat effectiveness were pretty bad. really their only good part was ASW, and as cheaper cruisers. But ingame? DD's are just meh. DD mains are worse than BBaby's. really if we want to be real, we should just have cruisers, and aircraft carriers their every game-play issue is solved. If CV have no place in the game, neither do DD's. it's that simple.
  13. good luck spotting them, since their concealment would most likely be 2.0KM or less submerged, maybe 4-5 surfaced. your also again assuming the CV know they are around. Not to mention thier torpedo spotting distance would be pretty close to point blank without a Cruiser to use it's hydro.
  14. Subs spawn on the enemy side of the map, closer to CV... problem solved, also tier 10 sub will likley go faster underwater than on it, 22-24 knots.
  15. their isn't no counter-play to Haku torp spam. Their flat out isn't a counter to CV in general. Deplaning them? nope CV killing other CV? maybe in a hosho, or langley, but after that? good luck getting thru a midway, or Haku AA+fighter, even then it takes forever. DD? not really still takes forever, and Haku/midway could probably just kill the enemy DD before they kill them. CL/CA/BB: Midway/Haku go just as fast, if not faster than most cruisers, and all Battleships. sure you can catch them at the end eventually, but the longer a game goes on the stronger CV get. unless I'm missing something CV just don't have a counter. sure you can deter them with AA, but eventually your AA screen will get weaker by attrition, either thru the CV effort, or just naturally. CV have infinite planes, Ships don't have regenerating AA mounts.