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

Still nothing make up for moskva's permacamo?

80 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
6 posts
4,274 battles

The original intention of most people to buy this premacamo, is to have a 50% discount on the maintenance cost of a tech tree tier X ship, so that they will not lose credits in battle.

But now that Mosckva has become a coal ship, even if it doesn’t have any camo, it has already reduced the maintenance fee by half. In other words, the value of this premacamo is halved directly.

While I purchased this premacamo, it halved the matainance cost, which means -50%. Now the Moskva becomes a coal ship, it already halved the matainance cost, so my premacamo equals to -25% matainance cost.

 

More importantly, my original purpose was "to halve the maintenance cost of a tech tree tier X ship ship", has been completely distorted. I'm buying a premacamo for my tech tree ship, not a coal ship.

 

In other hand, I spend 5k dubloons to "buy a pernament camo", but now it changed to "rent a pernament camo until version 9.5"

 

I complete understand that refunds are not a reasonable solution, all purchased players have already received the benefits that it brings. The make up can be give a AL Nevsky with a permacamo, or you can give a special memorial camo for moskva,

that's another kind of "equal". But you cannot take my premacamo away without any make up.

 

I think I should have the right to refuse this "forced replacement".

I guess WG is trying to teach a lesson – never buy a permacamo.

  • Cool 14
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,919 posts
12,613 battles
2 minutes ago, SlayBelle_Katarina said:

but now it changed to "rent a pernament camo until version 9.5"

or you can give a special memorial camo for moskva,

 

That’s about right. Unfortunately it looks like Wargaming have made their decision.

 

Like you I see giving a perma camo for the Nevsky as in keeping with Wargaming previous policies regarding line splits.

 

I too, would accept a nice perma camo for the Moskva, something  to the recognise the initial 5,000 doubloon purchase.

 

I strongly recommend you do not buy another perma camo but of course that doesn’t help here!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HANDS]
Players
269 posts
22,788 battles

By making the premium consumables free, getting credits on tier X was never so easy, so u don't really need ANY perma camo anymore from credits point of view. Hope this move by WG to not be followed by something worse..

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BODEM]
Players
801 posts
7,026 battles
1 hour ago, SlayBelle_Katarina said:

The original intention of most people to buy this premacamo, is to have a 50% discount on the maintenance cost of a tech tree tier X ship, so that they will not lose credits in battle.

But now that Mosckva has become a coal ship, even if it doesn’t have any camo, it has already reduced the maintenance fee by half. In other words, the value of this premacamo is halved directly.

While I purchased this premacamo, it halved the matainance cost, which means -50%. Now the Moskva becomes a coal ship, it already halved the matainance cost, so my premacamo equals to -25% matainance cost.

 

More importantly, my original purpose was "to halve the maintenance cost of a tech tree tier X ship ship", has been completely distorted. I'm buying a premacamo for my tech tree ship, not a coal ship.

 

In other hand, I spend 5k dubloons to "buy a pernament camo", but now it changed to "rent a pernament camo until version 9.5"

 

I complete understand that refunds are not a reasonable solution, all purchased players have already received the benefits that it brings. The make up can be give a AL Nevsky with a permacamo, or you can give a special memorial camo for moskva,

that's another kind of "equal". But you cannot take my premacamo away without any make up.

 

I think I should have the right to refuse this "forced replacement".

I guess WG is trying to teach a lesson – never buy a permacamo.

You really answer your own topic. People that have bought the camo reaped the rewards already. So they don't need to "take way" your perma camo with any make up. 

 

That said, I am an advocate of the idea of giving everyone that bought the Moskva camo the Alexander Nevsky camo in return. That would be the most logical anr fair step to take. I also don't see why WG hadn't pitched that idea already, when I think about what would be WG's most respectful and honest choices. 

 

But, and this answers your last sentence, WG isn't respectful nor honest and buying stuff from them will make you 100% regret it, be it now or in the future. No matter the price, no matter the reason, you will regret spending money on this company one way or the other. That is as certain as that everyone will die one day. So yeah, buying something as frivolous as a camo is a perfect setup for disappointment and loss.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,969 posts
28,552 battles
1 hour ago, SlayBelle_Katarina said:

I complete understand that refunds are not a reasonable solution, all purchased players have already received the benefits that it brings. The make up can be give a AL Nevsky with a permacamo, or you can give a special memorial camo for moskva,

 

So you are agree that refunding 5k doubloons is not a reasonable solution as you already benefited from it but still you think that WG should instead give you a 5k doubloons worth camo for AL Nevsky AND AL Nevsky itself while the those who didn't bought Moskva camo would need to grind to Donskoy? And you are thinking that would be reasonable?  

  • Boring 2
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,919 posts
12,613 battles
9 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

So you are agree that refunding 5k doubloons is not a reasonable solution as you already benefited from it but still you think that WG should instead give you a 5k doubloons worth camo for AL Nevsky AND AL Nevsky itself while the those who didn't bought Moskva camo would need to grind to Donskoy? And you are thinking that would be reasonable?  

A perma camo for a perma camo makes sense and is in keeping with previous Wargaming policy.

 

I agree a free Nevsky might be a step too far. However, that again was part of Wargaming previous line splits.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,969 posts
28,552 battles
9 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

A perma camo for a perma camo makes sense and is in keeping with previous Wargaming policy.

 

Policy is that if you buy camo for a ship it stays with ship. Anything else could be changed as WG consider fit.

 

Quote

I agree a free Nevsky might be a step too far. However, that again was part of Wargaming previous line splits.

 

Can you please show me any example of previous splits where T10 tech three ship actually become premium ship and was replaced with other ship? Are you going to loose T10 ship in this move? No, you are not, you will still have T10 Moskva. This time ship will not move to a different branch but in fact change it status. As this is a precedent, WG could use this as a policy for similar cases in future.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,862 posts
9,044 battles
34 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Policy is that if you buy camo for a ship it stays with ship.

Remember the US cruiser split?

 

34 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Can you please show me any example of previous splits where T10 tech three ship actually become premium ship and was replaced with other ship?

I guess he is refering to WoT. As Wargaming did this multiple times there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,969 posts
28,552 battles
1 minute ago, principat121 said:

Remember the US cruiser split?

 

What about it?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,969 posts
28,552 battles
3 minutes ago, principat121 said:

I guess he is refering to WoT. As Wargaming did this multiple times there. 

 

Well this is not a WoT, and although WG owns both it doesn't mean that same rules apply on both games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,862 posts
9,044 battles
4 minutes ago, fumtu said:

What about it?

For example, if you had the tier8 perma camo before and this ships was moved to tier7 with the split, you kept your perma camo on the specific ship that was moved PLUS you kept the perma camo for the tier8 ship (so, the previous tier9 ship got also a perma camo). And if you had already the perma camos you got compensated. 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Well this is not a WoT, and although WG owns both it doesn't mean that same rules apply on both games.

Isn't that a nice and convenient reason to do whatever you want whenever you want? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2L]
Players
174 posts
12,921 battles

I had a perma camo on the T6 Cleveland. When the US cruiser split was done I got the perma camo on both the Cleveland and the Pensacola (And got the Cleveland ship itself at T8). That was a very generous and correct way to handle a change by 2018 Wargaming. 

 

A similar solution would be that the Moskva owners should get the Nevski and a perma camo for Nevski, but the 2020 Wargaming just shows a big middle finger to their users. I have spent my last doubloons on the Moskva months after I stopped paying this wretched company and I did not want to waste my remaining doubloons in dribs and drabs. It was a couple of weeks before the RU cruiser split was announced. Not it is clear I threw my last 5k doubloons out of the window. 

What 2020 Wargaming does not realize is that for screwing me over with 5k doubloons and generally fecking me over and over the whole 2019-2020 there are consequences:

-I very strictly stopped spending on the game 

-I will NEVER consider buying a perma camo again

-I am not recommending WOWS to my friends, as a matter of fact, I do my best to keep them away from every Wargaming product.

-Soon enough I'll be entirely gone thanks to the submarines

 

Dear Wargaming is that short-sighted saving worth it?


 

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,969 posts
28,552 battles
15 minutes ago, principat121 said:

For example, if you had the tier8 perma camo before and this ships was moved to tier7 with the split, you kept your perma camo on the specific ship that was moved PLUS you kept the perma camo for the tier8 ship (so, the previous tier9 ship got also a perma camo). 

 

And did any of those US cruisers become a premium ship? Or they just moved around between tiers and branches? Reason why WG did that is because by moving ship down, its perma camo is also moving down and it actually loosing on value. If you remember the first split ever happened was IJN DD split where all ships were actually downtiered. And if someone for example had all perma camos he would loose 5k doubloons during the process and WG decided to compensate this by giving camos for new ships. And WG continue with practice in subsequent splits. But this time ship is staying at T10, its camo is not loosing value.

 

Thing is, you can try to use that example as it fit what you want to happen. On the other hand, as this is a specific case and also first of its kind, WG could do whatever they think that it is best for them. So as much as WG current approach does seems unfair it doesn't make that your reasoning that this should follow previous splits correct, at least technically or in WG eyes. I am not saying that WG should not compensate you but IMO you are continue to stick with argument that could but also as easily could not be applied in this case. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
2,724 posts
24,981 battles

 

5 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

not even worth a lol, those people think it's 'bout jealousy.... idc the slightest these ones gettin something for free or not! it's, in this case, 'bout what i lose in that regard....

 

b4 split:

1/1 silver t10 ru ca, 1/1 perma camo

 

after split:

0/2 silver t10 ru cc, 0/2 perma camo

 

...to translate, as in weegee language:

1+1=0

 

thx.

what happens with moskva is totally irrelevant in this regard btw, as it won't be a silver anymore....

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R3B3L]
Players
537 posts
12,209 battles
1 hour ago, fumtu said:

 

Policy is that if you buy camo for a ship it stays with ship. Anything else could be changed as WG consider fit.

 

 

Can you please show me any example of previous splits where T10 tech three ship actually become premium ship and was replaced with other ship? Are you going to loose T10 ship in this move? No, you are not, you will still have T10 Moskva. This time ship will not move to a different branch but in fact change it status. As this is a precedent, WG could use this as a policy for similar cases in future.

Well, actually you are losing a ship. Tier X silver no longer exists, and you can not play "no special ship tournaments" any more. You need to regrind the Nevski. If you dont have it, you need to buy the Donkey again in order to regrind it.

You get no compensation for it, unless you sell the Moskva before the patch. Imho preatty dumb. In the good old days, you would keep the premium ship, and recieve a free replacement. No more, now it is regrind, and buy again.

Good thing is 5 tokens are waiting i  95% of the soviet containers to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,196 posts
11,986 battles
30 minutes ago, BlackFish__ said:

I had a perma camo on the T6 Cleveland. When the US cruiser split was done I got the perma camo on both the Cleveland and the Pensacola (And got the Cleveland ship itself at T8). That was a very generous and correct way to handle a change by 2018 Wargaming. 

 

A similar solution would be that the Moskva owners should get the Nevski and a perma camo for Nevski, but the 2020 Wargaming just shows a big middle finger to their users. I have spent my last doubloons on the Moskva months after I stopped paying this wretched company and I did not want to waste my remaining doubloons in dribs and drabs. It was a couple of weeks before the RU cruiser split was announced. Not it is clear I threw my last 5k doubloons out of the window. 

What 2020 Wargaming does not realize is that for screwing me over with 5k doubloons and generally fecking me over and over the whole 2019-2020 there are consequences:

-I very strictly stopped spending on the game 

-I will NEVER consider buying a perma camo again

-I am not recommending WOWS to my friends, as a matter of fact, I do my best to keep them away from every Wargaming product.

-Soon enough I'll be entirely gone thanks to the submarines

 

Dear Wargaming is that short-sighted saving worth it?

Loss of one paying customer is easily coverable by crafting another 100€+ whalepack. So one, ten, hundred small spenders less is irrelevant, when their main customers are whales who casually buy half the store in one go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,919 posts
12,613 battles
1 minute ago, fumtu said:

 

What about it?

If you had a camo on the T6 Cleveland you would receive a perma camo on it’s replacement, the T6 Pensacola and on the T8 Cleveland. You would also receive both ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,969 posts
28,552 battles
Just now, B051LjKo said:

Well, actually you are losing a ship. Tier X silver no longer exists, and you can not play "no special ship tournaments" any more. You need to regrind the Nevski. If you dont have it, you need to buy the Donkey again in order to regrind it.

 

But you are not. You had Moskva before this and you will have it after this. So one T10 before, one T10 after. I personally don't see any issue that we need to regrind Donskoy again. Question of the camo is far more important than this.

 

Just now, B051LjKo said:

You get no compensation for it, unless you sell the Moskva before the patch. Imho preatty dumb.

 

I agree it does sound stupid.

 

Just now, B051LjKo said:

In the good old days, you would keep the premium ship, and recieve a free replacement. No more, now it is regrind, and buy again.

 

Again, specific case. It doesn't mean that WG will not apply same practice we had for US Crusiers, Soviet or IJN DDs on future splits, it is just that they consider this a different case and creating a different rules for it.   

 

2 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

If you had a camo on the T6 Cleveland you would receive a perma camo on it’s replacement, the T6 Pensacola and on the T8 Cleveland. You would also receive both ships.

 

But neither a Cleveland or Pepsi become premium ships, neither of them are T10. Again can you please show me any example of previous splits where T10 tech three ship actually become premium ship?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6 posts
4,274 battles
42 minutes ago, BlackFish__ said:

I had a perma camo on the T6 Cleveland. When the US cruiser split was done I got the perma camo on both the Cleveland and the Pensacola (And got the Cleveland ship itself at T8). That was a very generous and correct way to handle a change by 2018 Wargaming. 

 

A similar solution would be that the Moskva owners should get the Nevski and a perma camo for Nevski, but the 2020 Wargaming just shows a big middle finger to their users. I have spent my last doubloons on the Moskva months after I stopped paying this wretched company and I did not want to waste my remaining doubloons in dribs and drabs. It was a couple of weeks before the RU cruiser split was announced. Not it is clear I threw my last 5k doubloons out of the window. 

What 2020 Wargaming does not realize is that for screwing me over with 5k doubloons and generally fecking me over and over the whole 2019-2020 there are consequences:

-I very strictly stopped spending on the game 

-I will NEVER consider buying a perma camo again

-I am not recommending WOWS to my friends, as a matter of fact, I do my best to keep them away from every Wargaming product.

-Soon enough I'll be entirely gone thanks to the submarines

 

Dear Wargaming is that short-sighted saving worth it?


 

I don't know the america cruiser split's make up, cause I haven't started play wows that time.

But same here, I'm not buying any permacamo anymore, the reason is simple:

How could I know WG won't make another "tech tree split", and make that "forced replacement" again ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,919 posts
12,613 battles
Just now, fumtu said:

But neither a Cleveland or Pepsi become premium ships, neither of them are T10. Again can you please show me any example of previous splits where T10 tech three ship actually become premium ship?

Do you think there needs to be an exact

equivalence for an equivalence case to be made? I don’t.

 

I agree with you that Wargaming can do whatever they want. It is important for future business that they imbue their online goods with some form of permanence.  
 

If they cannot do this, few will buy in future.

 

Thats where the real case is. Wargaming will make a decision here that will effect their customers willingness to spend in future. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6 posts
4,274 battles
1 hour ago, FukushuNL said:

giving everyone that bought the Moskva camo the Alexander Nevsky camo in return

Thas's also my opinion. To give a AL Nevsky's permacamo, or a special memorial permacamo for moskva, that both worked for players.

but unfoturnately, WG not make up anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,969 posts
28,552 battles
Just now, gopher31 said:

Do you think there needs to be an exact

equivalence for an equivalence case to be made? I don’t.

 

So it doesn't matter if case is specific lets just use general because .... it is more convenient? Ok 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,614 posts
10,265 battles

I'm never gonna buy a perma camo again: 

 

Bought khaba perma. Rip khaba. 

Bought YY perma. Rip YY. 

Bought henri perma. Rip henri. 

 

So for the sake of all you guys, I won't buy any more since apparently my perma camo purchases are directly linked to the banhammer. :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,381 posts
16,519 battles

I think the ship has already sailed, so yet another topic won't change anything in regards to the split this time. Discussing it even further may make you (and me) feel better, but it won't change anything.

 

Thing is we can argue as much as we want here, but we wont have the numbers to support our arguments. We only know our own behaviour, maybe those of our fellow clan mates / friends or the numbers from a forum poll. We don't know how many Permaflages WG has sold for the Moskva. We neither know how those moskva sales stack up to the sales numbers of other camos, nor how big the impact of permaflage sales is in regard to overall revenue. We don't know how much revenue is created by whales, how much is generated by people who buy Derpitz and Horst early and then leave the game after half a year because of "reasons". We pretty much know nothing about the "typical" customer behaviour, so we can only make assumptions based on our own behaviour.

 

Personally I think it's the wrong move and too much stinginess will lead to people close their wallet. But that may only be wishful thinking and for every old grumpy player that closes his wallet after loosing his permaflage investment, there are really two idiots will spend dubloones to get Odin early or spend money on anything that caters to german BB Wehraboo, w/o even informing themselves if the ship is actually good. In which case your and my boycott won't make an impact in WG sales numbers.  

 

But let's for arguments sake go through all the different approaches WG could have done...

 

1. Let's start with a thesis why moskva gets turned into a special ship at all: This way her getting "special" treatment generates a new scenario, while a simple move from a CA/CL hybrid tree to a pure CA-split would have a) made more people expect a Cleveland style of treatment and b) would have made the split pointless, because they have no real way to monetarize a early access. So for me its quite understandable why they opted for the special ship approach and beyond the permaflage issue I'm totally fine with that approach. They are a company and not a charity, so they need to create ways for people to spend money on their products. 

 

2. They could have gifted everyone who owns the permaflage on Moskva one for AL. Doesn't mean that some people wouldn't grumble, because they don't care about AL and would have preferred a camo on Petro.  

3. Same as above only for Petro. So same issue, just the other way round

4. Gift camos for both ships. Now if that is a good move or not depends on the question: How many people would then buy a moskva camo to game that compensation mechanic. How many of those wouldn't have done so w/o that generosity compared to how much sale potential you loose from people, who had bought bost camos in the long run.

5. Refund the dubloones or refund them with a camo voucher. Without knowing anything about how the customer base looks like in terms of spending behaviours, it's hard to argue that this approach would have impacted sales at all.

6. Don't do a refund, but create a memorial camo. That may appease some of the collectors or make some people feel special. But again without knowing how much sales they generated from Moskva camos, how much creating a new camos costs and how they expect peoples behaviour to change, we can't say if that approach would have made sense to WG marketing. Also wouldn't do sh*t for the complaints of those people, who think that WG should have refunded them the money or gifted them a AL camo.

 

Pretty much WG banks on the assumption that there are either not enough people that suffer from their decision compared to new revenue from other people, or that a good percentage of those people afflicted either won't generate much revenue in the future anyway or have such a bad memory, that they will come back and spend big bucks after half a year of grumbling when there is the next christmas sale.

 

Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. I can only say that their lack of generosity (I would have been fine with both a refund/voucher or a memorial camo) will mean that they will lose future revenue from me. I own 20 T10 perma camos, after this change they won't see a single dime from me for any additional one. On top of that I will think at least twice if I want to spend money on other products like premium ships, collab stuff or christmas crates. So compared to the past my annual spending will go down. If people in my clan will ask me if it's worth getting a perma camo, I will say "no". 

 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,969 posts
28,552 battles
2 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

So for the sake of all you guys, I won't buy any more since apparently my perma camo purchases are directly linked to the banhammer. :Smile_trollface:

 

Maybe you should buy perma camo for Kremlin 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


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

×