Refund everyone who bought an AA launcher

Then a single Liberator shows up.

than they are better off by having 1 person use an esf than 4 or 5 people use lock on rockets

The same place basically every MMO company has drawn the line for the last 13 years - when they remove or remake functionality for a given class/ability/item that fundamentally changes how said thing works.

The nature of the refund varies - sometimes it's talent point resets, sometimes it's skill points credited back, sometimes it's virtual currency. It's fairly standard to do it though, and in the cases where the company hasn't there's been pretty huge backlash over it from the playerbase.

Something I think a lot of you are forgetting - forum population is usually a fraction of the playerbase. If you think there's a lot of outrage over the proposed change right now, wait until it hits.

...and has a hard time facing the people who kept the launcher with buffed G2A properties.

actually there is a more detailed description of the gun, it doesnt just say AA LAUNCHER in all cap's

I bought an AA missiloe with SC and i dont want a refund, why? because i understand balance and items change as it goes on and its still gonna do its role which is.... Fire at air craft.

so what reason is there not to give a refund of SC/certs?

By your logic they could nerf aa weapons down to 0.5 damage, and you'd be fine with that, so long as the projectile can hit aircraft, right?

Because people like to be contrary just to be contrary.

Refunding SC/certs has no downside. People that still want to use the launcher will repurchase it and continue playing as happy consumers by being treated respectfully. People that don't will invest it somewhere else and continue playing as happy consumers by being treater respectfully.

Yes, you hit it right on the head, I'm losing an ability that I payed for. 'Balance' isn't the issue. What I payed for is. If they're going to remove the functionality of what I payed for, then it's not going to be what I payed for.

It's not about the game, it's about being a consumer. I payed to use a specific item. They're removing the item. The item they are replacing it with is of lessor use and value.

I'm not arguing whether it should or shouldn't. Frankly, I don't care. It wasn't out of balance until they said it was out of balance. They can take my kickass, OP, ***** slappin weapon out and I'm not even going to complain about it. But don't expect me to accept a limp dick as it's replacement.

Because its still doing its job and role, and its an online game Items and things change its stupid to think that they wont. i bought all my items knowing full well they may change in the future.

so you have disgruntled customers less likely to spend money

What an arbitrary statement.

It's FUNCTION was 3fold - attacking infantry, vehicles and air. It FUNCTIONED that way in beta. It FUNCTIONED that way on release. It FUNCTIONED that way when I bought it. Now they are fundamental changing its FUNCTION. To ONLY be able to attack air. That's not what I, or the majority of other people bought it JUST for.

They had all of beta to completely change how items functions and so in release they could only do tweaks such as damage, range, accuracy etc. If you fundamentally change how a weapons works, the buyer should have the option of a refund.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to politely as SoE for a SC refund on the purchase. Unfortunately, they seem to not be issuing them which, while not the end of the world, is still a little disappointing.

so heavy assault will no longer be the anti-infantry anti-tank anti-air class that can put up virtually invulnerable shields that they currently are and only be an anti-infantry + anti-tank or anti-infantry + anti-air. Oh and they still have the IWIN shield. I'm really really not seeing the problem here.

The core argument is that SOE accepted cash selling 1 product with 2 functions. They then took away 1 function but provided no means to retain the goodwill of the paying customer. The arguments of balance are ultimately irrelevant. Legal standing and rights of all parties are ultimately irrelevant.

A business model predicated on micro transactions where there's a reputation of purchased goods having their perceived value substantially reduced on a whim (even if it's for the betterment of the game) is bad for everybody. It also doesn't help that in the same breathe they put in a new product based on the function that was similar to the one taken away from the product previously purchased.

A button that shows up for 7 days that when clicked removes the gun (and attachments) but refunds either 350 SC or 500 CP depending on funding source would go a very long way and create a precedence for the future. Still, it would be at SOE's discretion and frankly I think it would be rare.

so you are saying heavy assault was OP? bahahahahaha

Just a note fellas, if any of you want to continue the conversation please keep all discussion on legal action out of it. They have been closing threads that bring it up.

Imo, it's more about a sense of morality, decency and of course principe rather than any underlying legal issues anyway.

You were sold a product that has been deemed to be operating outside of it's intended limits. This means that your product is defective, and you are in fact, being given the properly working product.

OR

You were given a Ferrari, but you paid for a Camero. You cannot expect to keep your Ferrari when the dealership realizes that they gave you the wrong car.

actually there is a more detailed description of the gun, it doesnt just say AA LAUNCHER in all cap's
here you go, try reading instead

outside its intended limits? its intended limit included dumb fire, hence its description