In this way, you can leave GC alone, avoid alienating your customers, demonstrate diplomacy, while creating a new product with minimal modelling expense (using GC assets to assist). If you mess around with the latter, you remove an important motivation for clients to purchase your virtual goods and services.Ĭan I suggest an alternative approach? Rather than modifying existing virtual goods to the detriment of existing owners, stop selling them, stop putting them in Christmas crates, stop baiting your customers with the idea " these ships are rare because OP, why don't you buy them?" and instead, create a 2nd Guilio Cesare, for future buyers, call it Leanardo da Vinci, with a hypothetical 1930s refit. Why? Potential buyers of WG products do not just buy a model, or a skin, or a passive " looks pretty" port Queen, they buy all those things, but they also buy a service with a set of abilities. While I can personally accept these precedents, I believe, that you are making a mistake in undermining client confidence in your products. It is just nobody cares, because CVs, and so affecting a limited player population, and complaints drowned in the confusion of the CV rework. Uptiered, totally revised, arguably nerfed (relative to their peers at t8). This information should be pinned, emailed and more.īut if we are honest, Sub, GC is not a precedent, Kaga and Saipan are. It won't be fair to touch GC, and not touch the ships you listed.
Most likely the approach that will emerge from GC testing will be universal and will set a precedent for foreseeable future.
0 kommentar(er)
