Santa containers "rigged": WG Chooses Your Santa Gift Ship

[Carandraug]

2 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

 

Refund and "sorry we disappointed some of you"" is the best they can do without legally admitting wrongdoing, which will open them up to lawsuits. I am happy with a refund option myself. Offering a refund in itself is the real "oops we fucked up".

 

It is up to us to keep WG honest each time such a poopfest occurs.

Not really, because they didn't change the fraudulent description of the event on the website. So yeah "sorry not sorry". That's not really an apology and fix is it ?

[Kazomir]

1 minute ago, Mimos_A said:

Meanwhile, the description of the crates on the website is unchanged. Okidoki...

Yea that's still scummy af. 

[Formul]

RIP WG credibility

[Kazomir]

Just now, Formul said:

RIP WG credibility

 

What is dead may never die. 

[Kosmonopo]

Does rollback affect everything on your account if you used even one single signal flag or camo from your scamboxes?

[Mimos_A]

8 minutes ago, Carandraug said:

Not really, because they didn't change the fraudulent description of the event on the website. So yeah "sorry not sorry". That's not really an apology and fix is it ? 

 

"We're sorry you feel scammed (which btw is your own fault for not remembering a description we used in 2018), in order to make you shut up, you can have your money back while we continue scamming clueless bobs".

[Spruss]

Still they did not provide an answer to the short list issue

 

  44 minutes ago, MajorRenegade said:

I bet people are gonna to abuse this only just to rebuy them again for a other chance.

.... and get another Makarov .

 

  56 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

As some of you noticed, certain ships in the containers have much higher drop rates than others. Santa Containers have worked like this since the very beginning, and until 2018 we even mentioned that peculiarity in the items description. After 2018 it was not present in the description anymore, as it was deemed excessive to the already detailed description. 

Hapa, what players report is that unless they get a shortlist ship, they don't get ship drops from the "normal" ship list. This is completely different from ships having much higher drop chances, which considering the value of some of the ships is to be expected.

Bottom line, the big question is this:

Does not having a ship from the shortlisted drops bar you from any drops from the "normal drop" ship list until you first get a shortlist drop?

People are reporting a 0% chance for such an occurence and I feel this part wasn't addressed in your response.

Won't even comment on the

  Quote

After 2018 it was not present in the description anymore, as it was deemed excessive to the already detailed description. 

part, for a consumer system that heavily relies on access to detailed information before a purchase, leaving out important facts that can be misunderstood is pretty anti-consumer.

Edited 13 minutes ago by warheart1992

[Carandraug]

5 minutes ago, Spruss said:

Still they did not provide an answer to the short list issue

 

 

 

And they won't. It's exactly as we expected - "working as intended" and "we are sorry YOU are disappointed". While still selling the same rigged containers to unsuspecting majority.

[AndyHill]

48 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

As this is the biggest thread about Santa Containers by far, I would like to point you towards this PSA:

Two specific questions:

1) After the community's reaction, do you still feel that the information about shortlists was "excessive"

2) Do you really think that adding a few lines of text to this year's event articles is too much and we need to wait one year to be informed (IF?) of the shortlist next year.

[Bellegar]

42 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

As this is the biggest thread about Santa Containers by far, I would like to point you towards this PSA:

 

And yet you are still lying! 

 

"certain ships in the containers have much higher drop rates than others". That is a blatant lie. No they don't. Certain ships have (combined) a drop chance of 100%, while all other 104 (big gift) or 103 (mega gift) have a 0% drop chance. 

 

Second, why aren't you fixing your article on the Santa Crates? You are still scamming people with your false advertisement. 

 

Third, why is this offer for a refund not posted on the WOWS portal and in the Game Center? Not every player visits the forums you know....

[Asta__Roth]

YabbaCoe řekl/a:

Santa Containers have worked like this since the very beginning, and until 2018 we even mentioned that peculiarity in the items description. After 2018 it was not present in the description anymore, as it was deemed excessive to the already detailed description.

This is very important part that shouldn't be overlooked by the playerbase!

 

What this basically says is that they will not provide accurate information about the goods they are offering, because they already told us so 3 years ago! Meaning the current situation will happen over and over again!

 

What kind of argument is this? How can you defend yourselfs like this?

"We told you 3 years ago in other sale so that's it."

Are you telling us, that you will not put a clear description anymore in your bundles, because you've already done so 3 years ago at different sale?

 

How could you even think about such argument? This is outraging!

 

Imagine going to grocery store, buying some kind of milk chocolate without ingredients stated on the packaging "because we've told you 3 years ago and current recipe is similar".

"We are sorry that you had allergic reaction to the nuts in our chocolate. We said our product may include them 3 years ago, so we don't think it is needed to repeat it at every pack. Our future recipes may also include nuts, but we are not going to warn you on the packaging anyway. If you aren't happy with your chocolate, you may ask for refund. Sorry for confusion and we hope you will buy our chocolate again!"

 

Are you really gonna go with "Check at least 3 years old sales for information if you wanna know more about the current one." argument?

[Kazomir]

3 minutes ago, Asta__Roth said:

This is very important part that shouldn't be overlooked by the playerbase!

 

What this basically says is that they will not provide accurate information about the goods they are offering, because they already told us so 3 years ago! Meaning the current situation will happen over and over again!

 

What kind of argument is this? How can you defend yourselfs like this?

"We told you 3 years ago in other sale so that's it."

Are you telling us, that you will not put a clear description anymore in your bundles, because you've already done so 3 years ago at different sale?

 

How could you even think about such argument? This is outraging!

 

Imagine going to grocery store, buying some kind of milk chocolate without ingredients stated on the packaging "because we've told you 3 years ago and current recipe is similar".

"We are sorry that you had allergic reaction to the nuts in our chocolate. We said our product may include them 3 years ago, so we don't think it is needed to repeat it at every pack. Our future recipes may also include nuts, but we are not going to warn you on the packaging anyway. If you aren't happy with your chocolate, you may ask for refund. Sorry for confusion and we hope you will buy our chocolate again!"

 

Are you really gonna go with "Check at least 3 years old sales for information if you wanna know more about the current one." argument?

I think your analogy is wrong. 

 

Its more like you going to the grocery store to buy chocolate milk, but it does not contain chocolate. When you inquire why, you get told that this product's packaging 3 years ago contained a note in the ingredients that the chocolate milk actually does not contain chocolate. This note is missing now. 

[Carandraug]

1 minute ago, Kazomir said:

I think your analogy is wrong. 

 

Its more like you going to the grocery store to buy chocolate milk, but it does not contain chocolate. When you inquire why, you get told that this product's packaging 3 years ago contained a note in the ingredients that the chocolate milk actually does not contain chocolate. This not is missing now. 

The current milk carton still has the "Chocolate inside" on it. That's the problem.

[Kazomir]

Just now, Carandraug said:

The current milk carton still has the "Chocolate inside" on it. That's the problem.

Yeah the chocolate milk says chocolate milk on the carton. Inside the carton - milk. 

[Asta__Roth]

Před 5 minutami Kazomir řekl/a:

I think your analogy is wrong. 

 

Its more like you going to the grocery store to buy chocolate milk, but it does not contain chocolate. When you inquire why, you get told that this product's packaging 3 years ago contained a note in the ingredients that the chocolate milk actually does not contain chocolate. This not is missing now. 

Depends.

 

My point wasn't that some ingredients are missing, my point was that we are not told what the ingredients are because they said it years ago are repeating would be ??? waste of ??? I can't imagine of what actually.

 

Your analogy works fine tho!

[nambr9]

41 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

 

What is dead may never die. 

Suitabe GoT  reference :)

[Exocet6951]

"We're sorry we got caught. We understand that you're disappointed that your miserable odds of getting anything useful from our overpriced lootboxes are even lower that what you thought, due to our trickery. In our defense we've been scamming you for 3 years now."


WHAT.
There's not even an admission of guilt.
The only "Sorry" is the acknowledgement of our disappointment, not of the ****ing scam itself.

 

Great you're offering the bare minimum refund, but what about ALL the other rigged lootboxes then?
False marketing for 3 years, but we're supposed to be happy and grateful because you're offering a refund on a week's worth of scam?


I was holding out on it, but **** it, I'm reporting this as a breach of EU laws. 

[Bellegar]

19 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

I was holding out on it, but **** it, I'm reporting this as a breach of EU laws. 
https://ec.europa.eu/assets/sg/report-a-breach/complaints_en/

Thank you! I had not yet found this form. 

I 'only' reported them/this to the Advertisement Commission and Gamble Association here in The Netherlands, but I wasn't aware the EU has a form as well. Will do so now too 

 

 

As an aside: be sure to mention the game is PEGI 7... I think the EU will really like that 7 year old children can fall victim to this scam!

[bl66]

I have been suspecting for a long time that Wee Greedy was totally rigging this game. RNG, fires, dispersion, spawn points, etc.. The short list is the way they probably do it. I can easily imagine a short list for fires. Which would explain the way too common "one shot one fire", whatever the fire chance of the shell.  Same thing for dispersion....

 

Wee Greedy is revealing their real customer policy here. No respect for customers, no respect for laws, it is pretty disgusting, isn't it?

[Exocet6951]

1 minute ago, Bellegar said:

Thank you! I had not yet found this form. 

I 'only' reported them/this to the Advertisement Commission and Gamble Association here in The Netherlands, but I wasn't aware the EU has a form as well. Will do so now too 

 

 

As an aside: be sure to mention the game is PEGI 7... I think the EU will really like that 7 year old children can fall victim to this scam!

It's the wrong link, sorry.

That's for national law infringing on EU law

[Asta__Roth]

[MrSpaniard]

6 hours ago, FlameForTomatoes said:

Exactly. Crates wouldve been removed instantly if the damage would be greater than the cash which has already been realised and that they are still realising. We will get some kind of compensation, but do you really expect a re-roll for all the ships you got from the shortlist in the first place? It is just another kick in the teeth for all players. And WG will keep this going unless more players (like Flambass) turn away from this apparent fraud and scam.

Flambass announced after this mess that he had a few videos in the backlog but will step away from Ships for a while. (unknown how long exactly).

[The_Chiv]

15 minutes ago, MrSpaniard said:

Flambass announced after this mess that he had a few videos in the backlog but will step away from Ships for a while. (unknown how long exactly).

don't blame him. 

[POIfection]

12 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

But I did not.

And that is the problem with some people. They see and read stuff that is not there.

 

You are are excusing the action by saying "People spent fortunes on the crates anyway".

 

Please be upfront about your bias.

 

 

 

 

 

[Shaka_D]

So I guess the next Twitch stream will reiterate WG's position on the santa boxes (with us being wrong) and with them being able to talk at us with us not being able to say anything back in return, and typing it in twitch chat will simply be ignored. Lol, it's a great forum to push your view of events without anyone being able to adequately challenge you.