65 replies to this topic

[Dirizon]

So l have to put in my time for resources. Whatever. l did everything in my power to put my foot through the door and place, l have, and now l got to pay. So l got to work for 4K bonds. Fine.

 

 

lf this is WG decision fine. l'm no stranger to work. But to be fair for everyone, one and all, EVERY SlNGLE F0RMER CAMPAlGN REWARD TANK,  should be locked. Until the user can forfeit an appropriate 4K bonds, to unlock it. They get the benefit of the doubt, no time constraints, they can use it as garage space - but like everyone else doing campaign now, they too have to retro actively unlock their reward tanks. As everyone else has to.

 

 

 

 

 

[Brother_Noodle_PizzaTime]

Hell no, what are you smoking? The bonds thing shouldn't happen in the first place, don't punish people for playing past campaigns?

[JakeTheMystic]

Or... They could just remove the 4k bond requirement.

Its not fair to those who went and spent 5k for equipment, and out of nowhere they are told they need another 4k to get a reward tank with no way to earn bonds other than grinding grand battles.

[Dirizon]

_DangerNoodle, on Dec 20 2017 - 01:01, said:

Hell no, what are you smoking? The bonds thing shouldn't happen in the first place, don't punish people for playing past campaigns?

 

Why are they punishing people this campaign?

 

[_JayC_]

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no.

[__simple__]

Hey look those kids in africa are dying of starvation. Should we try and get them some food/clean water? Heck no let's make sure the kids in first world countries also starve to make it fair. 

[Dirizon]

lf l have to pay 4K, that is fine and dandy.

But l am getting the same reward, that others got simply for placing top whatever, at the finish of their campaigns.

So, they have to tally up and pay, retro actively, for these same rewards their appropriate costs.

 

I don't care on what WG decides as to charge for the reward. lf they make it 1 bond, or 5K bonds. What l do care, is that everyone is treated fairly in acquiring them. lf 4K is their so called deemed cost, everyone else past and present has to pay it.

 

[__simple__]

Dirizon, on Dec 19 2017 - 21:40, said:

lf l have to pay 4K, that is fine and dandy.

But l am getting the same reward, that others got simply for placing top whatever, at the finish of their campaigns.

So, they have to tally up and pay, retro actively, for these same rewards their appropriate costs.

 

I don't care on what WG decides as to charge for the reward. lf they make it 1 bond, or 5K bonds. What l do care, is that everyone is treated fairly in acquiring them. lf 4K is their so called deemed cost, everyone else past and present has to pay it.

 

 

That's just the thing, everyone IS being treated fairly. 

 

They were promised a tank for fulfilling certain requirements. 

 

Now we're promised a tank for fulfilling other certain requirements. You were told what it was gonna take before the campaign even started. How is that unfair? 

[TOMAS_legend_Xeraux]

If you had participated in the other campaigns, you wouldn't have this opinion.

Stop being salty about what other people have and grind those bonds.

[__simple__]

The admins have already said they're looking into some way which we can grind bonds faster and easier. 

[Arty_Did_Nothing_Wrong]

ClydeCooper421, on Dec 20 2017 - 00:45, said:

The admins have already said they're looking into some way which we can grind bonds faster and easier. 

 

They want faster and easier? Remove the requirement... Done, enjoy this as the last "Bond Free Campaign" and put out 2-3 more seasons of ranked before the next campaign to give people time to grind bonds for those rewards...

 

It's not that hard WG, and it's christmas... call it goodwill if you want...

[BookHorse]

Just get some bonds loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool 4Head

[__simple__]

Arty_Did_Nothing_Wrong, on Dec 19 2017 - 21:48, said:

 

They want faster and easier? Remove the requirement... Done, enjoy this as the last "Bond Free Campaign" and put out 2-3 more seasons of ranked before the next campaign to give people time to grind bonds for those rewards...

 

It's not that hard WG, and it's christmas... call it goodwill if you want...

 

I 100% agree with you here. I think bonds entirely is complete bs. 

 

However, I don't think Wargaming is ripping me off, nor do I feel that they owe me the tank or some sort of act of goodwill. Before the campaign they stated what was going to be required, yet we went for it anyway. 

 

I have 500 bonds atm and if my clan stays in its position i'll get 2K bonds from the campaign, that means i have to grind 1.5K bonds with only one tier 10 tank...that's basically impossible without some sort of quick and easy way. So of course i want the bond requirement to be done away with. 

 

I think it would be an act of utmost professionalism on wargaming's part to remove the bond price from the tank or at least lower it significantly. But I don't think they'll do that. 

[Arty_Did_Nothing_Wrong]

ClydeCooper421, on Dec 20 2017 - 00:52, said:

 

I 100% agree with you here. I think bonds entirely is complete bs. 

 

However, I don't think Wargaming is ripping me off, nor do I feel that they owe me the tank or some sort of act of goodwill. Before the campaign they stated what was going to be required, yet we went for it anyway. 

 

I have 500 bonds atm and if my clan stays in its position i'll get 2K bonds from the campaign, that means i have to grind 1.5K bonds with only one tier 10 tank...that's basically impossible without some sort of quick and easy way. So of course i want the bond requirement to be done away with. 

 

I think it would be an act of utmost professionalism on wargaming's part to remove the bond price from the tank or at least lower it significantly. But I don't think they'll do that. 

 

The bonds thing wouldn't be so bad if there were at least 2 more seasons of ranked put out BEFORE they decided to do a campaign like this...

There just hasn't been enough time yet for a 2,000-3,000 level player to amass 4,000 bonds through Ranked Battles, the mode where you earn the most bonds...

[__simple__]

Arty_Did_Nothing_Wrong, on Dec 19 2017 - 21:56, said:

 

The bonds thing wouldn't be so bad if there were at least 2 more seasons of ranked put out BEFORE they decided to do a campaign like this...

There just hasn't been enough time yet for a 2,000-3,000 level player to amass 4,000 bonds through Ranked Battles, the mode where you earn the most bonds...

 

Agreed. 

[Dirizon]

Xeraux, on Dec 20 2017 - 01:13, said:

If you had participated in the other campaigns, you wouldn't have this opinion.

Stop being salty about what other people have and grind those bonds.

 

You are the worst type of people. You wouldn't know fair if it hit you upside the head and cracked your skull.

I technically have done all l was supposed to do, all Y0U DlD F0R Y0UR PRl0R TANKS. Stop being a masochist and grind not only the 4K you need for this campaign, but what you are due now for the other tanks in your garage according to campaign costs. 

 

 

 

[__simple__]

Dirizon, on Dec 19 2017 - 22:00, said:

 

You are the worst type of people. You wouldn't know fair if it hit you upside the head and cracked your skull.

I technically have done all l was supposed to do, all Y0U DlD F0R Y0UR PRl0R TANKS. Stop being a masochist and grind not only the 4K you need for this campaign, but what you are due now for the other tanks in your garage according to campaign costs. 

 

 

 

 

lets say walmart sells a back of sponges for $5 for a year and 50 people buy them. The next year they raise the price to $7 and 25 more people buy them. Should the people who bought them for $5 have to pay $2 more just cause they raised the price AFTER they bought them? 

[Dirizon]

ClydeCooper421, on Dec 20 2017 - 01:32, said:

 

lets say walmart sells a back of sponges for $5 for a year and 50 people buy them. The next year they raise the price to $7 and 25 more people buy them. Should the people who bought them for $5 have to pay $2 more just cause they raised the price AFTER they bought them? 

 

Tell me, do these people that pay for the sponges. They pay now 7$ for the sponges. Fine. But.....

 

Are they told to now spend 7$ for the sponges,  and 1 half ounce minted gold coin? ls that what they sponge now costs?

Paying more isn't the issue. Paying another, precious currency, rather than just fame - is the issue.

 

[Dirizon]

ClydeCooper421, on Dec 20 2017 - 01:32, said:

 

lets say walmart sells a back of sponges for $5 for a year and 50 people buy them. The next year they raise the price to $7 and 25 more people buy them. Should the people who bought them for $5 have to pay $2 more just cause they raised the price AFTER they bought them? 

 

Why didn't they make the T X reward tank Fame, + 4.3mill credits? The cost of a generic discounted T X. Why bonds?

 

[O_P_Hacker]

ClydeCooper421, on Dec 20 2017 - 00:40, said:

Hey look those kids in africa are dying of starvation. Should we try and get them some food/clean water? Heck no let's make sure the kids in first world countries also starve to make it fair. 

 

Nice one ^