Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
KSN

WGing Please Keep Your Promises - Graf Zeppelin

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
17 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Your beef is with Wargaming, not with the Community Contributors.  The Community Contributors  wanted to make sure you had all of the information you needed to make the right buying decision for yourself, even when Wargaming made delivering said information in a timely manner impossible.  Wargaming wanted to sell you your dream ship in a half-finished state, obfuscate the poor quality of said product and charge you a premium for the privilege.  And you're cross with us?  You need to re-assess your priorities.

I agree. With all of it.

Just one more thing @LittleWhiteMouse before you tap out from this thread.

My apologies to you directly. Trying to communicate sentiment though writing can sometimes be a challenge; heck just writing can be a challenge for me. That what I think I'm writing and what everyone else has read here is askew. It's hard to express in writing that its not a 'beef', but ... I guess I'll just say it: A cry for help from those that have a much larger voice than little ol' me. That we are a community, and while CC's are under no obligation in particular, their assistance only makes everything better - their reviews are invaluable, their insight is invaluable, their more direct receipt of information from WGing is invaluable. In whatever way I've come across it's not to take it out on CC's. I do wish CC's that did PSA's about not buying Graf Zeppelin, would see this subject through as community members and leveraging their voices for the good of everyone, but it's not a demand.

And if in my crippled writing I came off as being unfair, I apologize again. Your post, like your reviews, are razor sharp and caused me to realize I can take greater care how I word things despite not being as adept at writing my thoughts and feelings as others.

I hope there's no hard feelings.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
257 posts
4,750 battles

There was a recent developer Q&A that was published Flamu & Flambass's channel's.  IEarlGrey was moderator.  I think there were even a few questions from Little White Mouse.  The dang thing is 2 hours long. 

To get to the point:  No premium CV's will be released before the CV rework.   The CV rework will be massive, which means captain skills will likely be changed. 

 

Has this Q&A hit the forum yet?  It's pretty incredible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
866
[-K-]
-Members-, WoWS Community Contributors
2,380 posts
10,374 battles
1 hour ago, KSN said:

I guess I grew up differently @SeaRaptor00... that "if you break it you fix it".

The CC's that told player's not to buy something to protect both the community and their reputations is advocacy. I just happen to think that those particular CC's should also finish that advocacy, and not just wash their hands of those that followed their public advocacy.

And with CC's being players, its not expected, but would be nice if they were to also support worthy causes; but that's just my opinion.

I grew up with the same values; but  - as Mouse has already pointed out - the CCs didn't break Zeppelin, WG did.  The onus is on WG to fix it (which they have, according to them), not the CCs.  

The CCs advised you not to purchase something because - at the time - it was busted.  The AP bombs on Zeppelin when she was released were essentially unusable, so long was the delay from setting the targeting reticle to the bombs dropping.  Even battleships could dodge them.  Compounding this error was the fact that this change was made only a handful (2-3) of days before the ship was released, so no one - not STs, not CCs, not anyone - got to spend any time testing it.  The change was so late that her wiki page was already done in anticipation of her release when WG changed her AP bomb mechanics; we had to go add wording that said "her AP bombs are basically garbage, so good luck with that".  I wasn't a full-on CC at the time, but as lead wiki editor, I do make the final pass on premium ship pages and I remember making sure we pointed out that while Zeppelin's AP bombs were borked, her HE ones were quite serviceable (and hit like trucks).  

Getting back on track, now that WG has declared Zeppelin "final", it's on them to decide if/when they want to sell her again.  The CCs are far, far removed from the business side of the house (as they should be).  I mean, I guess one of us could say something, but it would likely be ignored and meaningless, because we aren't privy to WG's business goals, data, or long-term plans.   If you want WG to sell her again, asking the CCs for help is not going to produce the results you're looking for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
3 minutes ago, SeaRaptor00 said:

I grew up with the same values; but  - as Mouse has already pointed out - the CCs didn't break Zeppelin, WG did.  The onus is on WG to fix it (which they have, according to them), not the CCs.  

The CCs advised you not to purchase something because - at the time - it was busted.  The AP bombs on Zeppelin when she was released were essentially unusable, so long was the delay from setting the targeting reticle to the bombs dropping.  Even battleships could dodge them.  Compounding this error was the fact that this change was made only a handful (2-3) of days before the ship was released, so no one - not STs, not CCs, not anyone - got to spend any time testing it.  The change was so late that her wiki page was already done in anticipation of her release when WG changed her AP bomb mechanics; we had to go add wording that said "her AP bombs are basically garbage, so good luck with that".  I wasn't a full-on CC at the time, but as lead wiki editor, I do make the final pass on premium ship pages and I remember making sure we pointed out that while Zeppelin's AP bombs were borked, her HE ones were quite serviceable (and hit like trucks).  

Getting back on track, now that WG has declared Zeppelin "final", it's on them to decide if/when they want to sell her again.  The CCs are far, far removed from the business side of the house (as they should be).  I mean, I guess one of us could say something, but it would likely be ignored and meaningless, because we aren't privy to WG's business goals, data, or long-term plans.   If you want WG to sell her again, asking the CCs for help is not going to produce the results you're looking for.  

@SeaRaptor00 I appreciate the feedback. While it seems like some are about ready to send a letter of demand and then file a report to the FTC (which is understandable from the frustration this debacle caused), I was hoping to generate a discussion and maybe a rallying point for the topic; so WGing would see the responses and perhaps take notice. If I've swerved away from that in seeming to point fingers at those that do not deserve it, I will again apologize.

It is this very type of critical input of exactly what WGing did, and as such why they should rectify it completely, that is helpful in informing late comers and the un/under informed that their being deprived of a wonderful and historic ship (as Germany's only ever attempt at an aircraft carrier), without any time table and without any announcements to the community and waiting customers.

Thank you for the work you do on the wging wiki. Without folks like you, the community would be far worse off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
482
[BS]
Members
1,803 posts
8,935 battles

Federal Trade commission? Does Russia adhere to maritime admiralty law? of course they do, it's the Roman law of the sea. All hail the Pope, king of all commerce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[CLAWS]
Beta Testers
114 posts
8,589 battles

 I'd love to get the GZ for it's history-in-being alone (1 point, not redeemable for cash, for whoever understands the reference), but...frankly I've tried a couple of games in the Saipan, and I've realized that I don't have the skillset to understand high-tier CV gameplay. I can play on an "eh" level, but CV gameplay right now is weird enough and disconnected enough that I literally don't get it on a higher level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
1 hour ago, Aghostinthetank said:

@KSN

Hey, I just saw this thread, and this is totally random (and weird?), but you seem like a pretty good and cool dad. (Also, happy Father's Day!)

@Aghostinthetank Aww thanks man! Not weird at all to be friendly and kind. I much appreciate it - they're all teenagers atm and I got a 36 oz Mango Tango smoothie for Fathers Day LOL. Well that and my son pushed helped get me the DM Donskoy, and we Free XP'd the Hindenburg tonight. Now he wants a Hindenburg too!

AL_roon_azur_lane_and_world_of_warships_drawn_by_terras__34fcc36112165ce67c2e81bd5f0e0840.thumb.png.58ab73009c8b5b94643ec30b13ebba11.png

*(Credit to Fan Artist that made this Azur Lane Roon - Bilan Hangxian )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[HE]
Members
176 posts
2,725 battles

How about this. You want this ship for collection right? 

Sell this ship to you, but you can only use in non PVP games.

It’s just too broken in fandoms 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
4 hours ago, Berlimawurst said:

How about this. You want this ship for collection right? 

Sell this ship to you, but you can only use in non PVP games.

It’s just too broken in fandoms 

@Berlimawurst PM'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,698
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,332 posts
9,171 battles
18 hours ago, SeaRaptor00 said:

I grew up with the same values; but  - as Mouse has already pointed out - the CCs didn't break Zeppelin, WG did.  The onus is on WG to fix it (which they have, according to them), not the CCs.  

I appreciate, and do indeed recall, in unhealthy detail, all that was published, around GZ's initial release. While you are quite correct to remind forumites and GZ enthusiasts, to address WG with their concerns, not blameless CCs, WG blames its playerssuboc.PNG

(sub Octavian says the same thing twice in his latest Q&A, both pretending that the GZ rework was a "joint" affair, and that the "community" (I presume of owners) had any control whatsoever. I recall our input being limited to post test feed back, anon,  multiple choice questions and answers, of which WG has not published any summary data at all (I requested some off Pigeon, but was refused without explanation). 

In this context it is unsurprising that some forumites mistakenly express their ire toward CCs.

q&a inc replies to GZ questions here : https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/8rxcdo/wows_dev_qa_18/

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
1 hour ago, DarthZeppelin said:

I appreciate, and do indeed recall, in unhealthy detail, all that was published, around GZ's initial release. While you are quite correct to remind forumites and GZ enthusiasts, to address WG with their concerns, not blameless CCs, WG blames its playerssuboc.PNG

(sub Octavian says the same thing twice in his latest Q&A, both pretending that the GZ rework was a "joint" affair, and that the "community" (I presume of owners) had any control whatsoever. I recall our input being limited to post test feed back, anon,  multiple choice questions and answers, of which WG has not published any summary data at all (I requested some off Pigeon, but was refused without explanation). 

In this context it is unsurprising that some forumites mistakenly express their ire toward CCs.

q&a inc replies to GZ questions here : https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/8rxcdo/wows_dev_qa_18/

Thank you VERY much for this input and information!!! :cap_win:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
866
[-K-]
-Members-, WoWS Community Contributors
2,380 posts
10,374 battles
1 hour ago, DarthZeppelin said:

In this context it is unsurprising that some forumites mistakenly express their ire toward CCs.

Agreed.  I get that folks are frustrated, I just think that frustration is misplaced.

I took part in the post-sale rework of Graf Zeppelin.   The only phase that I didn't provide detailed feedback was probably the last one (due to RL constraints).  In certain match lineups, Zeppelin is probably a bit gross right now, but I say this as someone who doesn't really enjoy CV gameplay: I love the current iteration of Zeppelin.  The reason for that is that she offers an immense amount of variety (plain or deep water torps, HE or AP bombs, plus two solid flight control modules) in one CV.  It's the kind of variety that's been removed from USN CVs and we don't ever expect from IJN CVs (because they're so torpedo focused).  Honestly, if you took the time to tweak Zeppelin's bomb drop reticle, I don't think she would be nearly as ridiculous as she is right now, but that's just one man's opinion.

I'm not surprised to see Sub's comments, and I honestly don't expect them to sell any premium CVs at all before the rework (again, one man's opinion based on nothing but my intuition).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,698
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,332 posts
9,171 battles
3 minutes ago, SeaRaptor00 said:

I love the current iteration of Zeppelin.  The reason for that is that she offers an immense amount of variety (plain or deep water torps, HE or AP bombs, plus two solid flight control modules) in one CV.  It's the kind of variety that's been removed from USN CVs and we don't ever expect from IJN CVs (because they're so torpedo focused). 

absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,026
Members
2,350 posts
4,109 battles

As per the Q&A yesterday,  the Graf Zeppelin will not be sold again until the CV rework goes live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
4 hours ago, Palladia said:

As per the Q&A yesterday,  the Graf Zeppelin will not be sold again until the CV rework goes live.

I hope it's as clear cut as this. But what @Sub_Octavian actually said, and has been illustrated by others in this thread, is that there is no definitive statement that it will be sold again along with the CV rework. Only that it's not authorized for release (to sell).

Instead of implying that it would/could be sold again, I would love a to see a simple definitive statement, by way of furthering that admission of responsibility for the situation, that WGing come forward and say that it will be sold again in concert with the CV rework, and not turn into another Imperator Nikolai. That would really put my mind at ease personally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
8 posts
4,562 battles
On 6/17/2018 at 3:11 PM, KSN said:

@LittleWhiteMouse I do appreciate you bringing the quote, but it is an implied promise. If it would never be sold again, then there would be no reason to announce a 3 month exclusive period for original owners; just simple English grammar which WGing used, thereby leaving customers with the expectation that something they were 'fixing' would be made available after a nod of recognition to the original purchasers, who bought a broken and incomplete product.

Not everything has to be explicit and literal, in order for it to be implied. Otherwise there would be no need for attorney's in the world. And this wasn't an EULA, it was a public notification, meant for a common person to read with common understanding.

As a CC shouldn't you be arguing on behalf of the players, instead of engaging in petty symantics on this issue? I have to say I'm slightly disappointed with the position you are taking on this.

It's not an implied promise to sell anything. And even if it were, it wouldn't be legally actionable. The VW situation is totally irrelevant. You didn't buy a product, and so have no standing to file a suit over false advertising. You can't sue or file a claim based on what a company says they plan on doing if they later change their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,698
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,332 posts
9,171 battles
4 hours ago, BabyHuey206 said:

It's not an implied promise to sell anything. And even if it were, it wouldn't be legally actionable. The VW situation is totally irrelevant. You didn't buy a product, and so have no standing to file a suit over false advertising. You can't sue or file a claim based on what a company says they plan on doing if they later change their minds.

agreed, but we all have the right to feel irritated at the ongoing GZ saga, (both those who did and those who didn't buy GZ on its initial release in 2017), a saga we thought had come to a conclusion, but no, alas. It is rearing its ugly head again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
12 hours ago, BabyHuey206 said:

It's not an implied promise to sell anything. And even if it were, it wouldn't be legally actionable. The VW situation is totally irrelevant. You didn't buy a product, and so have no standing to file a suit over false advertising. You can't sue or file a claim based on what a company says they plan on doing if they later change their minds.

Not to start a fight, but you are not correct. In the United States you can always sue; success however is entirely dependent on the law and whether a court holds that due to the "Terms of Service" and "EULA" you forfeited your right to sue. There are past instances where courts in California were not convinced that those rights were forfeited, then later the Supreme Court weighed in, that arbitration clauses are valid.

So you can always start a suit, but it doesn't mean you'll be successful. And Contract Law, and laws regarding deceptive practices are completely relevant between one legal suit and another - it's called case law (as long as the type of law is the same it can effect any other case).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,760 posts
9,365 battles
7 hours ago, DarthZeppelin said:

agreed, but we all have the right to feel irritated at the ongoing GZ saga, (both those who did and those who didn't buy GZ on its initial release in 2017), a saga we thought had come to a conclusion, but no, alas. It is rearing its ugly head again.

 

Because there is no transparency in what comes next. Why did it take a QA to simply learn "Hey guys, CV needs reworked, we know many of you are looking forward to the reworked Graf Zeppelin, however instead of releasing the ship only to iterate on it again later. We are going to hold off until CV rework is completed and the Graf Zeppelin is integrated into that new CV rework; then it'll be authorized for sale again. And we'll be sure to give you plenty of notice ahead of time for those that want to purchase it."

Why is that so difficult?

By not doing something like this, it makes the frustration boil over and makes players feel disrespected and ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×