Jump to content


Retroactive return of old T30 HT and FV4202 (105)?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Link_to_Insanity #1 Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:25 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26870 battles
  • 443
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

I know what the answer is to this, but wouldn't it be nice Wargaming, now that you have (rightfully) decided to allow old tank owners to keep their tanks with the Foch 155 for the Foch B, the upcoming FV215b for Super Conqueror and the FV215b 183  for the "Super Tortoise <insert proper name here>" could you not retroactively give us old owners our FV4202 and old T30 HT back? Not bothered about the T34 at tier 9, though that would be a nice bonus.

 

It won't happen, but I can dream. I am interested though in how many others of you (if you even played with the old T30) would be happy with this?



IncandescentGerbil #2 Posted 19 September 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35597 battles
  • 1,443
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015
Free tanks for everyone! But I think you are right to suppose it won't happen.

Spurtung #3 Posted 19 September 2017 - 03:48 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61050 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostLink_to_Insanity, on 19 September 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

I know what the answer is to this, but wouldn't it be nice Wargaming, now that you have (rightfully) decided to allow old tank owners to keep their tanks with the Foch 155 for the Foch B, the upcoming FV215b for Super Conqueror and the FV215b 183  for the "Super Tortoise <insert proper name here>" could you not retroactively give us old owners our FV4202 and old T30 HT back? Not bothered about the T34 at tier 9, though that would be a nice bonus.

 

It won't happen, but I can dream. I am interested though in how many others of you (if you even played with the old T30) would be happy with this?

 

You already have the FV4202 btw.

 

If they ever created the precedent you're asking for, people wouldn't be fast grinding the tanks about to be replaced anymore, as they would get the free one along with the new regular tank.



Aikl #4 Posted 19 September 2017 - 03:52 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25163 battles
  • 4,238
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

More likely to end up as rewards for e.g. personal missions than being retroactively given out - that might also make it more of a rule that all replacement tanks will trigger a reward tank for current owners. I'm not opposed to it, I'd love to get my Aufklärungspanzer back.

 

(As we've seen over six years, WG's "compensations" for line reworks are mostly inconsistent. KV and KV-3 changes gave owners both the current and new tank with 100% crew - quite a big deal as it predated sixth sense.)



Balc0ra #5 Posted 19 September 2017 - 03:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 63714 battles
  • 14,974
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Not really comparable. As those were only changed in tiers or roles. FV was given for free via a mission to anyone that owned it when it was removed from tier X, and added as a tier 8 prem. The Foch 155 was completely removed from the tech tree and the game in terms of availability, not tiered down and moved to a different role, or reduced to a tier 8 premium for normal sale.

Edited by Balc0ra, 19 September 2017 - 03:53 PM.


AliceUnchained #6 Posted 19 September 2017 - 06:01 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37953 battles
  • 8,690
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 19 September 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Not really comparable. As those were only changed in tiers or roles. FV was given for free via a mission to anyone that owned it when it was removed from tier X, and added as a tier 8 prem. The Foch 155 was completely removed from the tech tree and the game in terms of availability, not tiered down and moved to a different role, or reduced to a tier 8 premium for normal sale.

 

Small correction: everyone could get it for free through missions. I never owned it before the change to Tier VIII. nor did I spend anything on acquiring it. I believe having it researched was sufficient to be eligible for the missions.

FatigueGalaxy #7 Posted 19 September 2017 - 07:02 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 18879 battles
  • 2,078
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostLink_to_Insanity, on 19 September 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

 "Super Tortoise <insert proper name here>"

 

FV205.

Link_to_Insanity #8 Posted 19 September 2017 - 07:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26870 battles
  • 443
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 19 September 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

 

You already have the FV4202 btw.

No I don't, I have the FV4202(P). The 105 version still exists in the game files and the two tanks play very differently, although they look the same.

 

View PostFatigueGalaxy, on 19 September 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

 

FV205.

 

Thanks!

 

View PostSpurtung, on 19 September 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

If they ever created the precedent you're asking for, people wouldn't be fast grinding the tanks about to be replaced anymore, as they would get the free one along with the new regular tank.

 

That makes no sense. I am not asking to give all you newbies the T30 if you own a T110E5 or a FV4202 if you currently have a Cent AX, I am asking for those of us who had the old tanks to get them.


Edited by Link_to_Insanity, 19 September 2017 - 07:31 PM.


Spurtung #9 Posted 19 September 2017 - 08:15 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61050 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostLink_to_Insanity, on 19 September 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

That makes no sense. I am not asking to give all you newbies the T30 if you own a T110E5 or a FV4202 if you currently have a Cent AX, I am asking for those of us who had the old tanks to get them.

It makes as much sense as them issuing them years later.

I used that example to show how ridiculous that would be, you seem to agree with it, and yet this thread came to exist.



Geno1isme #10 Posted 20 September 2017 - 11:22 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 41108 battles
  • 6,950
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

Ehm, you got the E5 and the new T30 back then, only the T30 didn't become a special vehicle. And for the FV, you got a regular tier 8 premium as compensation. Feeling a little entitled here, aren't we? I'd have more sympathies if you argument would be for the WTE even though I'm happy that tank was removed completely (lets just ignore China).

 

Not to mention that it's a pretty big assumption to make that WG still has logs about who had which tanks five years ago.



DaSmith #11 Posted 20 September 2017 - 03:05 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 45997 battles
  • 189
  • Member since:
    01-21-2012

The reason they keep those 2 as specials is that many players will pour lots of gold into grinding those lines before the changes arrive, so they would get a t10 for free. So it is for profit. 
They have no profit if they just give you a T30HT or FV4202 for free.

 



Homer_J #12 Posted 20 September 2017 - 03:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27475 battles
  • 28,518
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostGeno1isme, on 20 September 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

 And for the FV, you got a regular tier 8 premium as compensation. 

 

Ermmm... no, I had to pay for it.

 

T30 I agree, it was moved to another tree, not made into a special tank.  FV should have been treat the same as the T34 was but it wasn't and it's all in the past now.  It would be nice in future if WG didn't keep changing their mind about how things were going to be done though.



MrEdweird #13 Posted 20 September 2017 - 04:02 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19348 battles
  • 269
  • [CIRC2] CIRC2
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011
I'm still upset that NA got the FV4202 for free and EU had to do a marathon for it, which I had no time for.

commer #14 Posted 20 September 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38080 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Old T30 was so broken good it would be stupid to give it back. 

Link_to_Insanity #15 Posted 21 September 2017 - 01:51 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26870 battles
  • 443
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 19 September 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

It makes as much sense as them issuing them years later.

I used that example to show how ridiculous that would be, you seem to agree with it, and yet this thread came to exist.

 

Well, then you fail to grasp simple English. Your sentence made no sense as that was not what I said and no I don't agree with you, hence the reason this thread came to exist.

 

View PostGeno1isme, on 20 September 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:

Ehm, you got the E5 and the new T30 back then, only the T30 didn't become a special vehicle. And for the FV, you got a regular tier 8 premium as compensation. Feeling a little entitled here, aren't we? I'd have more sympathies if you argument would be for the WTE even though I'm happy that tank was removed completely (lets just ignore China).

 

Not to mention that it's a pretty big assumption to make that WG still has logs about who had which tanks five years ago.

 

I don't think I am being entitled, I am not throwing my toys out the pram, I was just interested in what other people's opinions were, that's all. And no, we didn't get the FV4202 for free, we had to do missions, the T34 we got for free way back when. And of course WG have logs attached to your account, how do you think they collect statistics and bring it up in a web page for all to see? It is not unreasonable to think they record all the tanks you buy and sell for their own statistics.

 

My logic is that the FV4202(105) still exists in the game files, so it could always return in some form. The T30 is far less likely as it's old self, but that doesn't stop me from hoping. The WTF-E100 can rot for all I care.



Spurtung #16 Posted 21 September 2017 - 02:02 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61050 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostLink_to_Insanity, on 21 September 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

View PostSpurtung, on 19 September 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

It makes as much sense as them issuing them years later.

I used that example to show how ridiculous that would be, you seem to agree with it, and yet this thread came to exist.

 

Well, then you fail to grasp simple English. Your sentence made no sense as that was not what I said and no I don't agree with you, hence the reason this thread came to exist.

The "it" I was referring to at that point, and that you seem to agree with, is that my example is ridiculous. Which you do. Nothing to do with good or bad grasping of English, just me not being precise enough using a somewhat simplistic language that needs everything to be very detailed to avoid confusion.

 

It just served to say I find it equally ridiculous for you to ask for something retroactively, when it was only recently that they changed the policy for changing tanks.

 

 



Geno1isme #17 Posted 21 September 2017 - 03:13 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 41108 battles
  • 6,950
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostLink_to_Insanity, on 21 September 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

And of course WG have logs attached to your account, how do you think they collect statistics and bring it up in a web page for all to see? It is not unreasonable to think they record all the tanks you buy and sell for their own statistics.

 

Certainly WG has some logs regarding account transactions. I just highly doubt they track all transactions indefinitely.

 

And statistics are a completely different story that has little to do with logs, actually they're probably the reason why the removed tanks are still in the gamefiles.



Link_to_Insanity #18 Posted 21 September 2017 - 10:46 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26870 battles
  • 443
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 21 September 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

The "it" I was referring to at that point, and that you seem to agree with, is that my example is ridiculous. Which you do. Nothing to do with good or bad grasping of English, just me not being precise enough using a somewhat simplistic language that needs everything to be very detailed to avoid confusion.

 

It just served to say I find it equally ridiculous for you to ask for something retroactively, when it was only recently that they changed the policy for changing tanks.

 

 

You raise a point which was not what I was asking., therefore it was irrelevant, making your posts in this thread the same.


Edited by Link_to_Insanity, 21 September 2017 - 10:47 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users