re: new changes to APB & ARMAS

[gordIsMyName 104]

i'm confident that APB's code base and operational practices over a 9 year period have become quite the mess. and who knows what other unique challenges LO faces in trying to iron all this out while supporting deployment on 3 platforms. not to mention, forking the code to a new release while supporting the old code base.

 

whatever needs to change to shift things back into a manageable and predictable order has to be done. and you can't really do that without accidentally "breaking" some things along the way.

 

however, i do take issue in altering guns that are purchased from ARMAS. when you buy something you purchased it for some reason. altering weapons in ARMAS is not the same as altering F2P weapons that are in the game. even if the change was only based on looks and the appearance suddenly changed, you'd not be happy. change the way to gun performs and that's really starting to feel shady. it's no longer the item you entered into the purchase agreement to own.

 

if, as a company you decide/conclude that a change really is needed, to be "fair" to those who are investing in the game, providing some in-game compensation seems very reasonable... as what you purchased is no longer what you purchased. place yourself in the buyers position and explain how that could possibly be a reasonable thing to do.

 

you could calling it a "recall" program. that "san paro safety services" has deemed the item faulty for some reason and that the own will be "upgraded" to the new version of the item at no expense. and, for the trouble and being a valued customer... they are going to receive a credit to use towards their next purchase.,

 

or, you would grandfather the existing weapons to retain their stats and only new versions on the item would inherit the alterations. which is riddled with issues and likely not a change that would provide the immediate and sweeping effect you are seeking.

 

@MattScott, i totally understand the need to adjust things. especially as the title progresses through this evolution process. however, i would suggest doing so in a manor that brings your paying players along gracefully. show them purchasing and investing is always a safe and respected process and encourage them to continue to do so.

 

 

[vsb 6171]

no

[KnifuWaifu 499]

Found the RFP user.

[Defibrillator 132]

LO can change/alter any content in the game according to their will and the account which we're using too belongs to em and they can ban us without giving any reason. 

43 minutes ago, gordIsMyName said:

 

however, i do take issue in altering guns that are purchased from ARMAS. when you buy something you purchased it for some reason. altering weapons in ARMAS is not the same as altering F2P weapons that are in the game. even if the change was only based on looks and the appearance suddenly changed, you'd not be happy. change the way to gun performs and that's really starting to feel shady. it's no longer the item you entered into the purchase agreement to own.

Ntec,hvr and oca are the most used guns in the game and i dont see much of atac, frenzy,issr guns even tho many ppl own one of em. Even if atac gets a slight buff that wont stop everyone using a  ntec to move to atac. Also hey...if we're talking about compesnations...you oughta pay them for the engine upgrade, cuz only paid the money for the weapon , now ure getting an engine upgrade. So pay them a fair compensation.

43 minutes ago, gordIsMyName said:

that a change really is needed, to be "fair" to those who are investing in the game, providing some in-game compensation seems very reasonable... as what you purchased is no longer what you purchased. place yourself in the buyers position and explain how that could possibly be a reasonable thing to do.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Defibrillator
Cant quote wtf.

[TheJellyGoo 343]

You need to stop creating threads!

Edited July 24, 2019 by TheJellyGoo

[Keshi 436]

ok dude

[Mitne 724]

1 hour ago, KnifuWaifu said:

Found the RFP user.

Nothing make me cringe harder than guy pulling out RFP.

[gogeo 38]

Kinda agree on this one. World of Tanks (I know, bad example..)  has a policy to never nerf any premium vehicles after getting a lot of backlash. They buff the premium vehicle and/or buff the free2play vehicles to match the premium vehicles. If you're gonna nerf every weapon you sell as a business, the customers are going to be hesitant buying anything ever again when they know the weapon they purchased is going to get nerfed later.

[Acornie 490]

Isn't there some sort of fine print about this somewhere, basically saying you're buying this at your own risk and all items are subject balance/change/nerfing or is that another f2p game?

[vsb 6171]

32 minutes ago, Acornie said:

Isn't there some sort of fine print about this somewhere, basically saying you're buying this at your own risk and all items are subject balance/change/nerfing or is that another f2p game?

yeah it’s the part where they own the game, your account, and everything on it 

[Guest]

.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Guest

[MattScott 15242]

9 hours ago, gordIsMyName said:

 

@MattScott, i totally understand the need to adjust things. especially as the title progresses through this evolution process. however, i would suggest doing so in a manor that brings your paying players along gracefully. show them purchasing and investing is always a safe and respected process and encourage them to continue to do so.

 

Fair point as usual.

[VanilleKeks 737]

10 hours ago, gordIsMyName said:

 

 

@MattScott, i totally understand the need to adjust things. especially as the title progresses through this evolution process. however, i would suggest doing so in a manor that brings your paying players along gracefully. show them purchasing and investing is always a safe and respected process and encourage them to continue to do so.

 

 

Asking for every investment to be "safe" at all times is completely unreasonable. Investment should certainly be respected, but you gotta curb your expectations here.

[strawz 4]

i feel like matt scott doesnt care about nekrova and just leaves us there

[CommandantSteele 52]

Honestly, I get the idea that if something is that OP it needs to be nerfed (Like the old Troublemaker debacle) but at the same time I can agree with the idea of compensation in a full refund of G1C or an exchange for something of equal or lesser value. It's basic courtesy, and would be good PR.

[GreenMercy 0]

I mean... You kind of have a point but this isn't only the only game that does this. 

 

League of Legends is doing this on a bigger scale. In League of Legends you can buy skins for your favorite champion that you like playing. League of Legends also makes huge changes ( compared to apb) every 2 weeks. This could mean that the champion that you enjoyed playing and had bought a skin for is now significantly nerfed or even reworked. This may cause you to no longer like the champion despite the fact that you bought a skin in a period were you liked them.

 

I am not saying if this is correct or wrong because I am not sure myself.

I am just pointing out that this in not uncommon in other games as well.

[Kaori1 3]

As someone who has spent an absurd amount of money on this game I just want to say that I have no problems with LO messing with armas gun balance, so long as it is in the best interest of the game's overall balance and well being. That being said however, our opinions don't really matter. Just because you buy some pixles from an in game store does NOT mean you own those pixles or have any say in what happens to them later down the line. 

[UubeNubeh DaWog 136]

12 hours ago, gordIsMyName said:

however, i do take issue in altering guns that are purchased from ARMAS. when you buy something you purchased it for some reason. altering weapons in ARMAS is not the same as altering F2P weapons that are in the game. even if the change was only based on looks and the appearance suddenly changed, you'd not be happy. change the way to gun performs and that's really starting to feel shady. it's no longer the item you entered into the purchase agreement to own.

 

@MattScott, i totally understand the need to adjust things. especially as the title progresses through this evolution process. however, i would suggest doing so in a manor that brings your paying players along gracefully. show them purchasing and investing is always a safe and respected process and encourage them to continue to do so.

If you want compensation for nerfs, will you compensate LO for buffs?

 

If your item becomes better than what you previously purchased, you should pay more for your item then right? Because you're getting an improved product.

 

A "nerf" is not a fault or a bug. Its more like a version change.

 

Im not sure what world you live in, but not all investments are 100% safe. Investments in real life are never guaranteed to be safe either.

Edited July 25, 2019 by UubeNubeh DaWog

[Talla 84]

The need for fair & balanced gameplay supplants the need to uphold customer expectations.

 

You don't want to disgust potential new players away. Plus, that'd make the game stale quicker ( less loadout diversity, everyone using the same wespons, mods, cars).

[Doom32 23]

Hi, I know I haven't read the TOS.

but..

 

tos

[Zolerox 564]

4 hours ago, Freewind said:

Honestly, I get the idea that if something is that OP it needs to be nerfed (Like the old Troublemaker debacle) but at the same time I can agree with the idea of compensation in a full refund of G1C or an exchange for something of equal or lesser value. It's basic courtesy, and would be good PR.

If only that were true, compensation for my yukon.... "fixed" o it's fixed all right.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxX 280]

3 hours ago, Zolerox said:

If only that were true, compensation for my yukon.... "fixed" o it's fixed all right.

The real issue here is that the Mounties are busted. Fix the mountie, you fix the Yukon too

[PepeHands 50]

Lol Money Trouble Maker

[Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 269]

Can't really blame LO for wanting to balance the shitshow of guns G1 left untouched for a long while

 

It's a lose-lose situation

[illgot 379]

I agree only because it makes buying anything on Armas a gamble (it always has been).

 

Constantly nerfing weapons pay actual money for on Armas doesn't sit well with everyone and may cause a lot of users to stop purchasing.

 

I'm all for a refund program, but not sure how that could be handled fairly.