Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
maderi

Cv refund please

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[DPRK]
Beta Tester
58 posts

Can we get a refund all of us who participated on this CV open alpha leveled up and wasted our time?

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,506 posts
15,369 battles
1 hour ago, Sargento_YO said:

In euros, not in useless doublons!

2 Prem CV that cost you what 50 or 60 Euro at most..??

300 games in said CV so average 10 mins a game = 3000 mins or 50 hours.. sound like a very used second hand product so not a full refund as the product you have bought is used..

 

Im sorry you have 2 games in the new CV you have not even given them a go.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
154 posts
6,493 battles

i laugh at all these refund requests ... you most certainly put a good amount of hours into any premium you have and then when it changes you expect a refund ? hell no.

 

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
607 posts
7,330 battles
18 hours ago, bloodynicknames said:

i laugh at all these refund requests ... you most certainly put a good amount of hours into any premium you have and then when it changes you expect a refund ? hell no.

 

A second refund after the first one where they got all their XP and credits and doubloons back. 

 

Given their only issue is that the carriers aren't as brokenly OP as they were pre-patch my sympathy is just not there. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DPRK]
Beta Tester
58 posts
11 minutes ago, That_Other_Nid said:

A second refund after the first one where they got all their XP and credits and doubloons back. 

 

Given their only issue is that the carriers aren't as brokenly OP as they were pre-patch my sympathy is just not there. 

some of us leveled after the CV rework and in fact were the guinea pigs aka testers for their lack of internal testing, not everyone had Midway and Haku before patch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
1,288 posts
18,734 battles
1 hour ago, maderi said:

some of us leveled after the CV rework and in fact were the guinea pigs aka testers for their lack of internal testing, not everyone had Midway and Haku before patch

well, then there's no one to blame than urself! anyways, silver line "refund": won't happen!.... and dead sure not in dubs, while evenly dead-resurrected-and-killed-again....-sure not in euros ^^...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Players
577 posts
21,147 battles
2 hours ago, T0byJug said:

2 Prem CV that cost you what 50 or 60 Euro at most..??

300 games in said CV so average 10 mins a game = 3000 mins or 50 hours.. sound like a very used second hand product so not a full refund as the product you have bought is used..

 

Im sorry you have 2 games in the new CV you have not even given them a go.

so if you bought a car then after a few years of you using it the company came and s,ashed the car up to a near un-drivable state would you be fine with that or want your money back. same thing with the CVs... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,251 battles
8 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

so if you bought a car then after a few years of you using it the company came and s,ashed the car up to a near un-drivable state would you be fine with that or want your money back. same thing with the CVs... 

 

The problem with strawman-arguments is, that they are made to fit ones narrative and agenda. Ill change it a bit: If you bought a sack of potatos, went home, ate them, then went to the toilet the next day... do you pick up the "results", put them back in the bag, go to the store, smash it on the counter and say "yo wtf? my potatos turned into s$$$ - gimme my money back!".

 

 

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSPA]
Players
387 posts
2,642 battles
10 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

so if you bought a car then after a few years of you using it the company came and s,ashed the car up to a near un-drivable state would you be fine with that or want your money back. same thing with the CVs... 

You do understand if you're in a car accident that you normally don't get the dealer/new value of your car? But only the used value?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Players
577 posts
21,147 battles

i think you guys are missing the point. they completely changed a product that we purchased im only using an analogy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,251 battles
12 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

i think you guys are missing the point. they completely changed a product that we purchased im only using an analogy.  

 

Not really. The problem with Analogys - some call them strawmens - is, that you are bending the picture to change the narrative, so that it gives more weight to your position. Thats why its not an honest approach in a discussion. We all know what happened with CVs, we dont need anymore "imagine my CV is a car"-analogies.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
1,288 posts
18,734 battles
16 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

i think you guys are missing the point. they completely changed a product that we purchased im only using an analogy.  

it's silver lines, purchases doesnt matter at all. even less if levelled after rework. as changes there are still made. so, same guy may steps up in a few patches to get progess back? ^^....

 

to stay in the image: it's more like asking for refund on a car that u are allowed to use, but did not payed a single dime for. like f.e. a company's car...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,363 posts
6,236 battles
13 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

i think you guys are missing the point. they completely changed a product that we purchased im only using an analogy.  

 

You dont own a premium ship the same way you own a car tho...

IF you buy a car, you are free to sell that car to someone else if you please. While you cant sell a premium ship to anyone, you simply dont own it.

Everything in the game belongs to WG, even the stuff we buy.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
1,288 posts
18,734 battles

... *cough* again: op is asking for refund on silver ships that got levelled after the rework, premiums are totally out of that question anyway, as those not got sold since rework....*burp*....

 

in short:

- rework

- start levelling from t4 on

- reach t10 and discover, by actual patch or boredom, that u want a refund for ur time... like :Smile_veryhappy::Smile_facepalm:.....

 

(note the wip statements everywhere on new cv's)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,251 battles
4 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

... *cough* again: op is asking for refund on silver ships that got levelled after the rework

 

Yea I know. That is actually so ridiculous, that I refuse to reply to it :Smile-_tongue:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,039 posts
10,983 battles
4 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Not really. The problem with Analogys - some call them strawmens - is, that you are bending the picture to change the narrative, so that it gives more weight to your position. Thats why its not an honest approach in a discussion. We all know what happened with CVs, we dont need anymore "imagine my CV is a car"-analogies.

 

Sorry mate, I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere. An analogy and a "strawman argument" are two distinctly different things entirely.

 

An analogy is a linguistic device used as an attempt to clarify a particular concept by relating it to known concepts. A strawman arguement is a logical fallacy, an attempt to gain the upper hand in a debate by representing your "opponent's" words in such a way as to artificially "create" a point that your "opponent" is not actually making in order to then defeat this artificial point so as to appear to counter their actual arguement.

 

These are entirely different.

 

In recent years people have heard of these logical fallacies without actually understanding them and have started bandying them around in completely inaccurate ways and this habit has been picked up by many. It is one thing to look up something on wikipedia it is something entirely different to actually undertsand what you are reading. I am not particularly accusing you of this but rather I feel you may have picked up the term contextually from somebody else who has previously used it in a totally incorrect way.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,363 posts
6,236 battles
1 minute ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

Sorry mate, I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere. An analogy and a "strawman argument" are two distinctly different things entirely.

 

An analogy is a linguistic device used as an attempt to clarify a particular concept by relating it to known concepts. A strawman arguement is a logical fallacy, an attempt to gain the upper hand in a debate by representing your "opponent's" words in such a way as to artificially "create" a point that your "opponent" is not actually making in order to then defeat this artificial point so as to appear to counter their actual arguement. 

 

These are entirely different.

 

In recent years people have heard of these logical fallacies without actually understanding them and have started bandying them around in completely inaccurate ways and this habit has been picked up by many. It is one thing to look up something on wikipedia it is something entirely different to actually undertsand what you are reading. I am not particularly accusing you of this but rather I feel you may have picked up the term contextually from somebody else who has previously used it in a totally incorrect way.

 

However in this example, the example given does not relate to the problem at hand

If we buy a car, we own it. We are free to do with it what we want (sell it, give it to a friend, ...)

However, we dont buy premium ships. We do not own anything in the game. WG is just selling us the right to play with them.

 

So basicly the word analogy doesnt even fit here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Players
577 posts
21,147 battles

yes i know all the rules about WG can literally do whatever they want and not have to repay anything to us. they could even shut the entire game down today without notice and we couldnt legally do anything. but im saying we SHOULD be able to get OUR money back not saying we can but morally we should be able to. not that WG has the word "morals" in their vocabulary  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Players
577 posts
21,147 battles
4 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

Sorry mate, I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere. An analogy and a "strawman argument" are two distinctly different things entirely.

 

An analogy is a linguistic device used as an attempt to clarify a particular concept by relating it to known concepts. A strawman arguement is a logical fallacy, an attempt to gain the upper hand in a debate by representing your "opponent's" words in such a way as to artificially "create" a point that your "opponent" is not actually making in order to then defeat this artificial point so as to appear to counter their actual arguement.

 

These are entirely different.

 

In recent years people have heard of these logical fallacies without actually understanding them and have started bandying them around in completely inaccurate ways and this habit has been picked up by many. It is one thing to look up something on wikipedia it is something entirely different to actually undertsand what you are reading. I am not particularly accusing you of this but rather I feel you may have picked up the term contextually from somebody else who has previously used it in a totally incorrect way.

yeh he was wrong there but none native English speakers tend not to understand a lot of devices used in the English language so i just glossed over that bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,251 battles

@xxNihilanxx the thing is: what he wrote, isnt an Analogy. Because an Analogy doesnt change the narrative. An analogy is pointing out undisputable similarities between two things. To bring an easy example "what gills are for fishes are lungs for mammals". So before telling me about semantics rather look at his complete false claims.

 

1 minute ago, Mr_Snoww said:

yeh he was wrong

 

I wasnt wrong and even IF (that an IF!) it wouldnt make your non-sense any more true.

 

7 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

but none native English speakers tend not to understand a lot of devices used in the English language so i just glossed over that bit.

 

Ad hominem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,039 posts
10,983 battles
1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

@xxNihilanxx the thing is: what he wrote, isnt an Analogy. Because an Analogy doesnt change the narrative. An analogy is pointing out undisputable similarities between two things. To bring an easy example "what gills are for fishes are lungs for mammals". So before telling me about semantics rather look at his complete false claims.

 

 

I wasnt wrong and even IF (that an IF!) it wouldnt make your non-sense any more true.

 

 

Ad hominem.*

 

 

 

Not even beginning to weigh in on the debate at hand, just wanted to point out a minor (but in no way semantic) error on your part. No biggie.

 

 

*Now you're just doing it on purpose ;)

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,506 posts
15,369 battles
1 hour ago, Mr_Snoww said:

so if you bought a car then after a few years of you using it the company came and s,ashed the car up to a near un-drivable state would you be fine with that or want your money back. same thing with the CVs... 

Fact you buy a product that stops working after its used you do not get full value back. as its used value back.

  • 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.

×