Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
general_D_H_Chun

Giulio Cesare 2: Electric Boogaloo (Response to SubOctavian)

365 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,118 posts
11,298 battles

Way too convoluted. You also are shooting yourself in the foot by using the lockbox argument. Should of went with the, "I bought this directly with cash".

Following purchase, I open the can to discover it is, in fact, filled with peas. Angrily, I ask the cashier why I wasn't provided with the caviar. He assures me, that the peas are extremely top grade. I demand a refund for my falsely advertised purchase, and he instead offers me the price of the peas. 

See the problem? The people being actively lured into purchasing these crates, by advertisements such as the one above, have agreed to pay a certain price for a certain good

Like that whole part, isnt even true at all with lockboxes. You didnt pay a certain price for any certain good with those boxes. You paid for a chance to play a ship that isnt owned by you on WG's servers.

Edited by Octavian_of_Roma
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,509
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Supertester
2,227 posts
21,382 battles

The only value assigned to the ship is what its listed as in the shop. A tier 6 battleship lists for a higher value than a tier 5. Thus, you've made a profit! 

However, that value isnt real as pixels are not a tangable product. At least the peas fill your stomach regardless if you like the taste of fish eggs or not.

You've been had if you spent money on boxes to get it. They gave it away for free to players just to come back or sold it's at the 25USD price range which will now be close to 33USD. I guess the real lesson is not to think you should buy something to get a leg up on the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,190
[TBW]
Members
9,299 posts
16,150 battles

I think that the up-tier just goes to show that WG doesn't want the game to be Pay to Win. You bought a Ship expecting it to be better than the other ships and never stopped to think that it might get nerfed? The ship will be more balanced and WG just increased the value of the ship. It's more like you bought the high quality Peas and got the more expensive caviar for the price of the Peas. I don't like it that this could make it easier for WG to nerf premiums (if it is a nerf). I do however think it's great that WG isn't making PTW Premium Ships.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,600
[SALVO]
Members
23,947 posts
24,450 battles

@general_D_H_Chun I think that saying that WG "coerces" players to buy lootboxes because OP premiums may be in them is wrong.  They're not "coercing" you.  Coercion requires an element of "do this or else".  No, what they're doing is more along the lines of "tempting" players rather "coercing" them.

 

As for the rest of your original post, it's nothing but crap.  Yes, loot boxes are arguably a form of gambling.  And if legislatures want to ban the practice, I don't mind.  OTOH, it is NOT bait and switch.  You know DAMNED WELL that there's no guarantee that you'll ever get one of the rare premiums when you plunk down your money to buy these loot boxes.  And to claim that you should get what you paid for is nonsense, since what you paid for is a CHANCE to get a premium ship, NOT a guarantee.  And if you're not willing to accept that there's a risk associated with loot boxes, then you shouldn't buy them in the first place.  Period.  End of discussion.  

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
501
[PT]
Members
687 posts
2,446 battles

GC is not OP, I have NFI why people think it is. It has god awful dispersion, my last game firing at a completely stationary New York at 8k, it had a 10% hit rate and half those hits were the [edited] zero pens. Almost rage quit out in pure frustration at the lottery of its guns. hitting for 900 everytime, its AP is next to useless 90% of the time.

It has butter for side armour, sub par AA and no aircraft or torps.

/end rant (yeah I just had a shitt game with it, %#%$#)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,086
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles

Here's the thing: before Wargaming made this Giulio thing a "thing?" It wasn't. Aside from the occasional chirp by someone who got rolled over, it was no more a hot topic than, say, people complaining that the game's engine needs updating. It was a total non-issue.

And now, here we are, and it's been a dominating point of contention for the better part of a month.

Do you think that's sound business sense on Wargaming's part? Does it instill a lot of faith in you that they won't pull the collesium levers and open MORE tiger cages moving forward? I doubt it.

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
547 posts
362 battles

Its not bait and switch, why is this so hard to understand? You also don't own anything you pay for in this game and many others with this type of set up. You simply pay for the priveledge of using this portion of the content.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,967
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
3,513 posts
6 hours ago, general_D_H_Chun said:

 

I see a lot of people complaining that Cesare at tier six is underperforming. I want to make a few things clear. First, the ship at tier six is just fine. I'm going to call its pathetic belt armor and citadel a needed liability to balance it and to force people to angle.  Secondly, I don't give a hot craphow good the new Cesare is. I didn't PAY for the new Cesare. The issue isn't here. It's in the decision.

Wargaming's decision is to move this ship one tier higher for the sake of "balance," as they claim. The ship is overperforming, and they want to move it. There are a few things that don't make sense to this, however, which I will illustrate.

First, and most glaringly, they make this questionable decision to start rebalancing (and we KNOW it's a start, if this takes off then they're not going to limit it to a single ship) mere months following the overhyped annual christmas lootbox festival

They coerce players into these lootbox purchases using overpowered premiums. Below is the promo on forums during the event: 

531b45db6d11a10fc469482fc9d8d56c21e5f619.thumb.jpg.79b230573ff93eb8fffbeff46e93afc3.jpg

They ADVERTISED their crates using this image. See the fourth ship down? Yep. That's the Giulio.

So, suppose I purchase 40 large loot crates, for a total of 148 dollars USD. I'm an italian BB enthusiast, and more than anything, I just want the Giulio. I want it because it's ridiculously overpowered. But even if I didn't know that, I'd know SOMETHING were good about it, since it's being [edited] ADVERTISED ON THE FRONT PAGES LIKE THIS.

So, the intention of the above ad is to attract people into engaging in lootcrates, a practice labelled as gambling and banned in Belgium, in order to acquire these ships, whose notoriety for ruining games is being wielded as a marketing tool. Feel sick yet? We're just getting to the great part.

Now they come out and announce their plans to rebalance the Cesare, to make it fair. This means, they'll make it worse. That's inevitable in order to balance it. Sounds great right? Anyone we're forgetting?

Oh wait, I think to myself. I look at the 148 dollar USD shaped hole in my wallet. I look at my Cesare. I look back at my wallet. 

Let's put this in a more understandable analogy. I enter a supermarket, and I want caviar. The cashier gestures towards a can. "It's here," he says. "the finest caviar you could ask for."

Following purchase, I open the can to discover it is, in fact, filled with peas. Angrily, I ask the cashier why I wasn't provided with the caviar. He assures me, that the peas are extremely top grade. I demand a refund for my falsely advertised purchase, and he instead offers me the price of the peas. 

See the problem? The people being actively lured into purchasing these crates, by advertisements such as the one above, have agreed to pay a certain price for a certain good. They have provided the money, yet Wargaming is rescinding the good. The effective price of the Cesare during the holiday season is actually more akin to the average amount of money spent on lootcrates for these ships. And it's fairly high. The drop rates for the good ships are extremely low, and even a Sims would be considered "lucky." By effectively paying 148 dollars in this hypothetical scenario and recieving the Cesare in return, and having my overpowered Cesare which I WANTED because it was overpowered taken away, is extremely poor business practice. I was lured into spending an absurd quantity of money for a certain ship, and now that ship effectively no longer exists. The tier five broken Cesare has been removed from the game. Period. And even beyond the debate of how good tier six Cesare is, there's a precedent to be seen here. What's saying they won't "rebalance" any OTHER of the ships here. Nikolai? Kutuzov? Missouri? They'll just say, "oh, but you can have this amount of in-game currency back," completely disregarding the amount spent in lootcrates, or even discounting the possibility that when I spend the price of a CONSOLE GAME, for a single ship, I might in fact, want my ACTUAL FINANCIAL INVESTMENT back.

 To quote a rather intelligent comment on Youtube, 

"We'd call this a "bait and switch" in the contract industry. A "bait and switch" is where a vendor/seller promises one thing, then after the consumer purchases it, the vendor/seller changes the product or gives the buyer something different, usually of less value. That's a real shady way of conducting business. I'm cool with the doing things like "limited purchase windows" (aka, once its out of the store its gone) or having a ship clearly made to be a brute for its tier and stick a high dollar price tag on it (WG is a company after all, and its expected they want to make money off their product. And if someone wants to pay $60-100 of real money on a ship, so be it.) but changing a ship after people have bought it, with the expectations it wouldn't change...then proceeding to change it. That's a foul! I wouldn't demand they refund you your money and take the ship away. I would demand they give you a refund of real money and you can still keep the ship in its changed condition if you want it still. I wouldn't even accept "in-game refunds" as this just allows them to keep your money and offer you something you don't want/need.* *This "in-store refund tactic" also goes in hand with "bait and switch. "Sorry you hate the product, we'll keep your money and give you store credit to something else we might change though!'"

To conclude, Wargaming has intentionally advertised Cesare to fuel the purchase of lootboxes, and immediately following, has effectively mutilated the reason people purchased it, its overpowered status. And you can't blame people for purchasing it for its overpowered status, when Wargaming is ADVERTISING it, to sell lootboxes.

This, beyond a doubt is a cheating of the people who spent money to obtain the ship. It's disgusting, and it's a business practice I'd expect from EA, not Wargaming. 

At the end of the day, the customer HAS TO get the product they PAID for. Period. And if this doesn't stop now, ANY premium ship is effectively fair game for the same nerf-bat.

 


6 hours ago, swifttex1 said:

Where does the tinkering stop..."say it ain't so Joe"..."say it ain't so"...


4 hours ago, LunchCutter said:

GC is not OP, I have NFI why people think it is. It has god awful dispersion, my last game firing at a completely stationary New York at 8k, it had a 10% hit rate and half those hits were the [edited] zero pens. Almost rage quit out in pure frustration at the lottery of its guns. hitting for 900 everytime, its AP is next to useless 90% of the time.

It has butter for side armour, sub par AA and no aircraft or torps.

/end rant (yeah I just had a shitt game with it, %#%$#)


4 hours ago, Battleship_Elisabeth said:

Here's the thing: before Wargaming made this Giulio thing a "thing?" It wasn't. Aside from the occasional chirp by someone who got rolled over, it was no more a hot topic than, say, people complaining that the game's engine needs updating. It was a total non-issue.

And now, here we are, and it's been a dominating point of contention for the better part of a month.

Do you think that's sound business sense on Wargaming's part? Does it instill a lot of faith in you that they won't pull the collesium levers and open MORE tiger cages moving forward? I doubt it.

:Smile_great::Smile_medal:All Of This And More

Edited by shadowsrmine
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,383
[TDRB]
Members
3,944 posts
11,819 battles

I know how to settle this GC "thing". WG leaves the GC at T5, no changes, but queue it as a T6 ship. This way the value of the GC doesn't change.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
890 posts
4,556 battles

IMO, prems shouldn't be released anyways when all your testers and the CCs you let use the ship early are telling you that the ship is OP. But instead WG ignored that, and even buffed the ship after it was released. All they did here was shoot themselves in the foot. 

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,342
[_-_]
Members
2,958 posts
8,108 battles

Over the years I've formed the impression that WG's designs in general are neither good nor evil, smart or dumb, benign nor mailign. They're just...inscrutably, incredibly weird. I started calling all crates Gump Boxes because you never know what you're going to get.

I don't really have a dog in the GC fight because I haven't played it in over a year and can't even remember how I got it.

They do weird stuff. Like when they pulled the Kutuzov and Belfast after the firing from smoke nerf to everybody. They did offer a one-time chance to sell (I forget the terms), but I kept my Kutuzov because even with the smoke mechanic change it's still a fun boat (but by no means OP).

tl;dr God only knows what they're really thinking or what comes next. I just play.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
849
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
1,209 posts
16,540 battles
4 hours ago, LunchCutter said:

GC is not OP, I have NFI why people think it is.

gcbalance.thumb.jpg.93444f61b84e78fa2e4d4bb70e4a7e13.jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,181
[KWF]
Members
3,823 posts
5,581 battles

I want to be positive and say that this change will benefit us as customers more on the long run. Now people should be more than ever skeptical before purchasing any premium.

Besides a bait and switch will only work once, so when and if there is a rebalancing of the OP premiums WG won't be able to do that anymore, successfully at least.

  • Cool 2
  • Angry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
229 posts
5,880 battles

To reclarify, 

Wargaming

1. Completely ignores warnings of testers about a clearly broken t5 ship

2. Releases said ship in its ridiculous iteration to the playerbase

3. Removes ship from sale, proceeds to OFFER IT AS REWARD FOR CHRISTMAS CRATES, advertising its overpowered status

4. Proceeds to try to remove overpowered status people who obtained it through crates wanted it for

This is a sketchy way of conducting business. If it had been me, I'd have released the Cesare at tier six to begin with if that's what it takes to balance it. Period. You can't just change an already purchased good as that cheats everyone who has already purchased it for actual money, especially those who've obtained the ship through lootcrates.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
702
[WMD]
Members
1,165 posts
8,510 battles
16 minutes ago, general_D_H_Chun said:

To reclarify, 

Wargaming

1. Completely ignores warnings of testers about a clearly broken t5 ship

2. Releases said ship in its ridiculous iteration to the playerbase

3. Removes ship from sale, proceeds to OFFER IT AS REWARD FOR CHRISTMAS CRATES, advertising its overpowered status

4. Proceeds to try to remove overpowered status people who obtained it through crates wanted it for

This is a sketchy way of conducting business. If it had been me, I'd have released the Cesare at tier six to begin with if that's what it takes to balance it. Period. You can't just change an already purchased good as that cheats everyone who has already purchased it for actual money, especially those who've obtained the ship through lootcrates.

So your arguement is the poeple that spent huge sums of money to get an OP boat should be allowed to keep an OP boat?

WG has stated that they don't want the game to be pay to win, so that isn't going to happen. You'll also gain no suppport from most players with an arguement that your OP seal clubber should be left alone.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[ICBM]
Members
661 posts
16,051 battles
2 hours ago, So_lt_Goes said:

Over the years I've formed the impression that WG's designs in general are neither good nor evil, smart or dumb, benign nor mailign. They're just...inscrutably, incredibly weird. I started calling all crates Gump Boxes because you never know what you're going to get.

I don't really have a dog in the GC fight because I haven't played it in over a year and can't even remember how I got it.

They do weird stuff. Like when they pulled the Kutuzov and Belfast after the firing from smoke nerf to everybody. They did offer a one-time chance to sell (I forget the terms), but I kept my Kutuzov because even with the smoke mechanic change it's still a fun boat (but by no means OP).

tl;dr God only knows what they're really thinking or what comes next. I just play.

Agreed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,383
[TDRB]
Members
3,944 posts
11,819 battles
3 hours ago, Angel_With_A_Shotgun said:

IMO, prems shouldn't be released anyways when all your testers and the CCs you let use the ship early are telling you that the ship is OP. But instead WG ignored that, and even buffed the ship after it was released. All they did here was shoot themselves in the foot. 

Testing will never find all the issues with a premiums or a tech tree ship. However I must agree, WG was way off on the GC and it should have never been released & buffed. Yes, the GC is overpowering and yes, it must be nerfed for the betterment of the game. Upping it to T6 is a nerf but it is also increases the value of the ship. I can accept the fact GC drivers do not want the ship to be upped to T6 but again it is best for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
803
[IXM]
Members
881 posts
3,934 battles
1 hour ago, VeatherVitch said:

So your arguement is the poeple that spent huge sums of money to get an OP boat should be allowed to keep an OP boat?

WG has stated that they don't want the game to be pay to win, so that isn't going to happen. You'll also gain no suppport from most players with an arguement that your OP seal clubber should be left alone.

WG also stated subs wouldn't be in the game. You can't actually tell me you believe what WG states anymore.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,770
[HINON]
Members
12,412 posts

I would agree that advertising the GC for Santa Crates while they were considering retiering her was a bad idea and poor business practice. However, you blow up your argument with ridiculous scary language for an emotional appeal rather than sticking to the facts. "Coercion" requires the use of force or threats, so pray tell how did WG force players or threaten players to buy their Santa Crates with a banner ad? Entice would be a more accurate term. Then you delve into the ludicrous "loot box" stuff because Belgium has defined it as gambling so it must be bad. I do not care what Belgium thinks about loot boxes. Belgium is the capital of the Nanny State bringing the residents of the EU such regulatory wonders as "O you used too much cinnamon in your cinnamon rolls so we're going to have to ban it." Avoid throwing in such charged language like wielded as if the ad is some weapon going to chop down players who don't purchase it as well as the silly use of mutilated yadda yadda yadda. Also, your improper use of capitalized words detracts from reading your argument and only serves to distract and annoy.

Now don't mistake me, I will be bummed if they change GC as she is fun and I have enjoyed using her, but she is OP. I would feel better about it if WG had been more consistent with rebalancing premiums when this game was launched so that his was considered standard practice to limit the pay to win cries and promote a healthy game. I will be more careful as I consider purchasing premium ships in the future if this decision goes through. On the flip side though, this will allow WG to resell ships that have been banned and I know many players want even just to add to their collection like Belfast. It will also allow WG to be less afraid of making a ship too strong on release by removing the fear that they could never directly change the ship afterwards and thereby kill their sales and ROI.

Edited by RipNuN2
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
10 hours ago, general_D_H_Chun said:

First, and most glaringly, they make this questionable decision to start rebalancing (and we KNOW it's a start, if this takes off then they're not going to limit it to a single ship) mere months following the overhyped annual christmas lootbox festival

You and others are reading way too much into this.

Speaking as someone who works for a multi-national, major manufacturing and design firm, let me tell you a minor thing about big business: January is a big month. It is the start of a new year, bonus's are handed out, plans for the following year are announced, is the business up/down? Things like that. I strongly suspect that the company leadership looked at the ROI on premium ships and saw a few popular ones that are also 'in the red,' as they spent x dollars coding, developing, mapping, and rigging them, only to pull sale and not get a positive ROI on them. Now that the major CV overhaul is 'over' (only post release tweaking left), the next project, which makes sense in a 4 year old game, is to streamline the existing revenue stream and a quick, easy source is to start rebalancing 'banned' premiums. Last year saw five ships pulled from sale: Belfast, KA, GC, Musashi, and Kron.  That's three sets of major resource spends that now can NEVER earn revenue. No CFO would allow that to stand and I would be shocked that they would allow such a thing to continue. While NOT nerfing premium content is unheard of elsewhere in the game's industry, it is ALSO unheard of to cease sale of content. Ask yourself this question, purely from a BUSINESS standpoint: Would EA or Activsion ever *cease* selling a piece of DLC because it was deemed overpowered? Could you ever see EITHER of those companies saying, "Nope, I guess we don't get to make more money on this product we invested in because we made a mistake and rendered it overpowered." Yeah no, that's not happening and expecting it to happen here is borne *purely* in selfishness. Nothing more.

10 hours ago, general_D_H_Chun said:

"We'd call this a "bait and switch" in the contract industry. A "bait and switch" is where a vendor/seller promises one thing, then after the consumer purchases it, the vendor/seller changes the product or gives the buyer something different, usually of less value

IDK who said that but they do not know what they are talking about. There is no industry where you can change a product after someone purchases it OTHER than software (and we'll come back to that). Bait and switch refers to a specific type of *false* advertising where I advertise a set of conditions, and when you come to my store to purchase it, have SWITCHED it with a less appealing product/price/condition and attempt to capitalize on you having put in effort already and not wanting to waste time. For example, say I ADVERTISED I was selling skinless, boneless, individually shrink wrapped chicken breasts at $0.20 USD/lb, but when you get to my store, you find what I'm actually selling are bone in, skinned, bulk packed frozen chicken breasts at $5.00 USD/lb. *THAT* is a bait and switch because I *baited* you with a deal, and then *switched* it when you arrived in the hopes you'll buy it anyway. There is no industry, other than software where I can *sell* you something, and change it after. I cannot sell you those $0.20 chicken breasts, break into your home, open your cooler, and switch them out with the other kind. Nor could I switch out your car with a different, crappier one. SOFTWARE is the *one* industry where this is possible.

And this is NOT about semantics: words mean things and when you use them wrong 1) you hurt your own argument, and 2) you misrepresent the truth of a matter.

Now about software: what this comes down to is *changing* a product *post* sale. Well here's the problem: WGing already does that. They've buffed their products. You had no complains. No one did. Well that's a big problem and the reason you are wrong: because buffs and nerfs do not matter. If I broke into your house, and changed the $5.00 USD/lb frozen chicken breasts with the $0.20 boneless skinless ones, even though I've *given* you a better product, even if I leave the difference in price behind (compensation), I've STILL committed a crime of breaking and entering. It isn't the *change* that mattered, or the quality of the change, it's THAT a change was made.

So, in regard to this, by ACCEPTING what *you* perceive as POSITIVE changes, you have already given them carte blanche to make ANY change. Moreover, for software to FUNCTION in the modern world, they NEED to make changes after sale. New bugs get found, new bugs get CREATED. New viruses. New programs need compatibility (I am speaking broadly of software, not WoWs specifically). So I NEED to make changes. We have thus thrown out the 'analog' issue of changes. And as the *type* of change doesn't matter, it's that the change was being made, there is no legal leg to stand on in regard to this being a form of fraud, which when you claim this is a Bait and Switch, you very much are, because that's what Bait and Switch is: a crime in the form of a type of fraud.

The simple fact is that software companies NEED the ability to change products after release, and the relative 'buff' 'nerf' is subjective, not objective, changes in quality. *I* think the GC will be *better* at T6 than T5. That means ONE of their customers considers that the change is a pro, not a con. And if you are lending this to the SUBJECTIVE realm, you just lost the whole case.

*AND* this ignore that in a more strict legal interpretation sense, you ARE in fact coming out ahead by having the tier raised. Let me explain. As established, subjective FEELINGS do not mean anything in a crime (and again, that is what you are accusing them off when you claim this is a bait and switch). What matters are facts that can be proven. Well let's look at the Facts: The GC was sold as a T5 ship with a T5 Ship's price. They are now moving it to T6 where (presumably) they will charge a T6's price. Well, unfortunately for you, WGing has *always* charged by Tier, with a T3 costing more than a T2, a T4 more than a T3, and so on. As such, from a monetary standpoint (which, all others being equal, is the ONLY one that matters), you, as in people who own the GC *now* at T5, will be getting their product UPGRADED from a T5 to a T6, which means it is INCREASING in value (not decreasing) WITHOUT charging you the difference in price. Let's say, hypothetically, T5 BB's were sold for $10 and T6 BB's for $12. You are coming out *$2* richer than you were before. So any argument in 'loss of value' is totally blown out of the water. And that is the way an attorney would argue this in court and a Judge, lacking concern or care for the 'nuances' of opinion and subjective analysis, would rule VERY simply along those lines. You do not have a leg to stand on here.

*AND* This all ignores that basically EVERY company that sells DLC in games has both buffed and nerfed that content after sale to little to no fanfair. I have given dozens of examples over the past few weeks but the big standouts are Lion's Gate nerfing Assault Rifle accuracy, including those purchased from DLC packs (my L85 for example) in Payday 2, and DOTA nerfing Champion's abilities of Champions permanently purchased AFTER they went on sale.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,019
[-K-]
Members
7,674 posts
12,620 battles
10 hours ago, general_D_H_Chun said:

"We'd call this a "bait and switch" in the contract industry. A "bait and switch" is where a vendor/seller promises one thing, then after the consumer purchases it, the vendor/seller changes the product or gives the buyer something different, usually of less value. That's a real shady way of conducting business.

This summarizes everything perfectly right here.  I'm a WoWS loyalist, but if these "balancing" changes go through, I'm going to have to seriously look at investing my time and resources elsewhere.

All in all, great write-up @general_D_H_Chun  +1 to you for your rationale and civilized argument.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
3 minutes ago, Ace_04 said:

I'm going to have to seriously look at investing my time and resources elsewhere.

Where? Where is this magical company that does not nerf/alter DLC content after release? Certainty nothing from Gajin, Valve, Activision/Bliz, EA, Ubisoft, Take2, Deepsilver, GamesWorkshop, Gearbox, Riot. Nintendo, maybe, is the one company, and really just due to lack of aftermarket support.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×