Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

All important updates and information about The Wolf.
Quarantine
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:47 am

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by Quarantine »

The game is faced with a real dilemma, if you pay money to get stronger to win. You get put against others who pay to win. So, either you pay more or get crushed often. Or, simply have no reason to purchase things anymore.
With the CP now, being placed in rooms that are "balanced" makes no sense but makes the game better in the long run.
Why upgrade anything if you're just going to be balanced anyways?
Unless you're in the top 10, it doesn't matter anymore to p2p.

- The Devs are greedy (yet if you're willing to pay that price, have at it)
- the game needs fairness and balance with a challenge
- the game needs more variety for game modes, character customization, skills that require skill to use (adding risk)
- chat needs an overview and overhaul
- some free roaming animals would make a nice change
- portal timeline should be shown for all teammates. Portal should heal/damage/curse other team in PvP, something (add risk, placed strategy could be more important)

Whatever, theres improvements needed.
Words words words

manofknowledge
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:21 am

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by manofknowledge »

I'm assuming this, but i know that The Tiger has venom skin too. My question is; does anyone know if it was nerfed there too?

The Original Razor
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:42 pm

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by The Original Razor »

Swift
All this is a JOKE!!!!!!! We dont need new skills we dont need the prices increased on skills we have. Just shows you are money hungry to be honest. I've played this game since it came out in 2017. I dont mind the increase to level 70 and the attack to 750. What I'm disgusted in is you all refuse to listen to anyone's feedback on anything. I believe nothing more should have been added including the combat powers "which is kind of ridiculous ". The increased prices of skills is beyond stupid and a joke for those who work hard to try and level those skills just to have them more pricey. As for messing with the power of the skills is also ridiculous you nerfed alot of them and said you wouldn't. As someone that's been in the wolf community a long time I'm disgusted with these decisions you have made. As developers you should focus on fixing the problems that actually need to be fixed as in glitches that let people cheat, hackers, and modders "which who harrasse the whole wolf community". As developers you should listen to the people if the wolf community on all these matters before adding all this nonsense junk. We are the ones who play this game day to day and use this game to relax, but kind hard to when u have hackers/modders that can even kill you in co op or kill both sides of team members in pvp. YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO THE WOLF COMMUNITY AND FIX THESE ISSUES BEFORE DOING OR ADDING ANYTHING ELSE. Thank you for your time

Sincerely, The Original Razor

User avatar
Unrealisation
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:49 am
Location: la la land

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by Unrealisation »

At the end of the day, Swift has control and can do whatever they want, yes. But as a SERVICE GAME, sold based on certain appealing aspects, they should really be careful not to misinform us on what the product is or is trying to be, and what it actually is. This is called false advertising. Developers and Rogue, I want to acknowledge that VS is indeed too powerful and needs to be balanced somehow, but I don't agree with the approach you've taken. Let's revisit what Rogue said:
Rogue wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:23 pm
We will not nerf Venomous Skin but we'll still increase its price. If you've purchased it for the cheaper price you'll be able to keep it on the levels you’ve paid for. Upgrading it will be more expensive once the update goes live.
To nerf means to make something weak or ineffective. Despite saying you will not nerf VS, you did exactly that by weakening VS's ability to stack. Yes, that's one way to balance VS, but you went against your words.

People were glad to hear that you will not be nerfing VS, and they believed you. They believed you and trusted you so much that they were willing to grind hard in coop or buy gems to max VS before the update comes. I, myself, have almost, ALMOST fallen in the same sneaky trap (my VS is level 10, so you'd see why I wanted to max it before it becomes 75% more expensive). Luckily, I've decided for the sake of my health, I won't torture myself like that. I won't stay up late to grind for a game that won't matter in 5 or 10 years, although I do want to try to improve the game despite the fact that I don't play it much.

What you said and what you did have established a false trust between the company and the players. Fewer people will want to buy your products in the future, and that will be a problem for you. Rogue and developers, if you're reading this, please kindly point out the exact location in the terms and service document that allow you to revise the functions of a good (I know you can revise the price), particularly after a customer has purchased said good WITH REAL MONEY. Maybe I missed out on that statement somewhere, and if so, please do inform me. I also think you need to update the terms and services to be more specific and thorough. For example, say something like "Users should be aware that we may change the functions of our product even after you have purchased if we deem fit." Please also have a fee and purchase terms pop up before the user buys your products so that they know what they're getting into.

I also want to add that spending is not a fault; people who pay to win are no less of a player than people who don't pay--they're the ones that help continue the game even tho the devs might seem greedy. Instead of being mad at the spenders, we should question why the devs are decreasing the number of coins and gems reward for animals. Because there are 20 additional levels that give some gems when you level up? Because the attributes are much easier to upgrade now? As if there weren't enough gems and coins before to reduce. Not to mention that group sharing is absolutely terrible in gem distribution.
тнε ωσℓғ sιηcε ησv 2017

manofknowledge
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:21 am

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by manofknowledge »

Unrealisation wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 6:38 am
At the end of the day, Swift has control and can do whatever they want, yes. But as a SERVICE GAME, sold based on certain appealing aspects, they should really be careful not to misinform us on what the product is or is trying to be, and what it actually is. This is called false advertising. Developers and Rogue, I want to acknowledge that VS is indeed too powerful and needs to be balanced somehow, but I don't agree with the approach you've taken. Let's revisit what Rogue said:
Rogue wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:23 pm
We will not nerf Venomous Skin but we'll still increase its price. If you've purchased it for the cheaper price you'll be able to keep it on the levels you’ve paid for. Upgrading it will be more expensive once the update goes live.
To nerf means to make something weak or ineffective. Despite saying you will not nerf VS, you did exactly that by weakening VS's ability to stack. Yes, that's one way to balance VS, but you went against your words.

People were glad to hear that you will not be nerfing VS, and they believed you. They believed you and trusted you so much that they were willing to grind hard in coop or buy gems to max VS before the update comes. I, myself, have almost, ALMOST fallen in the same sneaky trap (my VS is level 10, so you'd see why I wanted to max it before it becomes 75% more expensive). Luckily, I've decided for the sake of my health, I won't torture myself like that. I won't stay up late to grind for a game that won't matter in 5 or 10 years, although I do want to try to improve the game despite the fact that I don't play it much.

What you said and what you did have established a false trust between the company and the players. Fewer people will want to buy your products in the future, and that will be a problem for you. Rogue and developers, if you're reading this, please kindly point out the exact location in the terms and service document that allow you to revise the functions of a good (I know you can revise the price), particularly after a customer has purchased said good WITH REAL MONEY. Maybe I missed out on that statement somewhere, and if so, please do inform me. I also think you need to update the terms and services to be more specific and thorough. For example, say something like "Users should be aware that we may change the functions of our product even after you have purchased if we deem fit." Please also have a fee and purchase terms pop up before the user buys your products so that they know what they're getting into.

I also want to add that spending is not a fault; people who pay to win are no less of a player than people who don't pay--they're the ones that help continue the game even tho the devs might seem greedy. Instead of being mad at the spenders, we should question why the devs are decreasing the number of coins and gems reward for animals. Because there are 20 additional levels that give some gems when you level up? Because the attributes are much easier to upgrade now? As if there weren't enough gems and coins before to reduce. Not to mention that group sharing is absolutely terrible in gem distribution.

Hello. I have read the Terms and Conditions for myself, and nowhere did it say that they have the right to revise the function of the skill. So care to show me where it says that if you're going to state that they do have the right to do so.

manofknowledge
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:21 am

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by manofknowledge »

manofknowledge wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:50 pm
Unrealisation wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 6:38 am
At the end of the day, Swift has control and can do whatever they want, yes. But as a SERVICE GAME, sold based on certain appealing aspects, they should really be careful not to misinform us on what the product is or is trying to be, and what it actually is. This is called false advertising. Developers and Rogue, I want to acknowledge that VS is indeed too powerful and needs to be balanced somehow, but I don't agree with the approach you've taken. Let's revisit what Rogue said:
Rogue wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:23 pm
We will not nerf Venomous Skin but we'll still increase its price. If you've purchased it for the cheaper price you'll be able to keep it on the levels you’ve paid for. Upgrading it will be more expensive once the update goes live.
To nerf means to make something weak or ineffective. Despite saying you will not nerf VS, you did exactly that by weakening VS's ability to stack. Yes, that's one way to balance VS, but you went against your words.

People were glad to hear that you will not be nerfing VS, and they believed you. They believed you and trusted you so much that they were willing to grind hard in coop or buy gems to max VS before the update comes. I, myself, have almost, ALMOST fallen in the same sneaky trap (my VS is level 10, so you'd see why I wanted to max it before it becomes 75% more expensive). Luckily, I've decided for the sake of my health, I won't torture myself like that. I won't stay up late to grind for a game that won't matter in 5 or 10 years, although I do want to try to improve the game despite the fact that I don't play it much.

What you said and what you did have established a false trust between the company and the players. Fewer people will want to buy your products in the future, and that will be a problem for you. Rogue and developers, if you're reading this, please kindly point out the exact location in the terms and service document that allow you to revise the functions of a good (I know you can revise the price), particularly after a customer has purchased said good WITH REAL MONEY. Maybe I missed out on that statement somewhere, and if so, please do inform me. I also think you need to update the terms and services to be more specific and thorough. For example, say something like "Users should be aware that we may change the functions of our product even after you have purchased if we deem fit." Please also have a fee and purchase terms pop up before the user buys your products so that they know what they're getting into.

I also want to add that spending is not a fault; people who pay to win are no less of a player than people who don't pay--they're the ones that help continue the game even tho the devs might seem greedy. Instead of being mad at the spenders, we should question why the devs are decreasing the number of coins and gems reward for animals. Because there are 20 additional levels that give some gems when you level up? Because the attributes are much easier to upgrade now? As if there weren't enough gems and coins before to reduce. Not to mention that group sharing is absolutely terrible in gem distribution.

Hello. I agree I have read the Terms and conditions from forward to back, and nowhere did it say they had the right to revise function of the goods.

TW-2017
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:32 pm

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by TW-2017 »

manofknowledge wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:53 pm
manofknowledge wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:50 pm
Unrealisation wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 6:38 am
At the end of the day, Swift has control and can do whatever they want, yes. But as a SERVICE GAME, sold based on certain appealing aspects, they should really be careful not to misinform us on what the product is or is trying to be, and what it actually is. This is called false advertising. Developers and Rogue, I want to acknowledge that VS is indeed too powerful and needs to be balanced somehow, but I don't agree with the approach you've taken. Let's revisit what Rogue said:



To nerf means to make something weak or ineffective. Despite saying you will not nerf VS, you did exactly that by weakening VS's ability to stack. Yes, that's one way to balance VS, but you went against your words.

People were glad to hear that you will not be nerfing VS, and they believed you. They believed you and trusted you so much that they were willing to grind hard in coop or buy gems to max VS before the update comes. I, myself, have almost, ALMOST fallen in the same sneaky trap (my VS is level 10, so you'd see why I wanted to max it before it becomes 75% more expensive). Luckily, I've decided for the sake of my health, I won't torture myself like that. I won't stay up late to grind for a game that won't matter in 5 or 10 years, although I do want to try to improve the game despite the fact that I don't play it much.

What you said and what you did have established a false trust between the company and the players. Fewer people will want to buy your products in the future, and that will be a problem for you. Rogue and developers, if you're reading this, please kindly point out the exact location in the terms and service document that allow you to revise the functions of a good (I know you can revise the price), particularly after a customer has purchased said good WITH REAL MONEY. Maybe I missed out on that statement somewhere, and if so, please do inform me. I also think you need to update the terms and services to be more specific and thorough. For example, say something like "Users should be aware that we may change the functions of our product even after you have purchased if we deem fit." Please also have a fee and purchase terms pop up before the user buys your products so that they know what they're getting into.

I also want to add that spending is not a fault; people who pay to win are no less of a player than people who don't pay--they're the ones that help continue the game even tho the devs might seem greedy. Instead of being mad at the spenders, we should question why the devs are decreasing the number of coins and gems reward for animals. Because there are 20 additional levels that give some gems when you level up? Because the attributes are much easier to upgrade now? As if there weren't enough gems and coins before to reduce. Not to mention that group sharing is absolutely terrible in gem distribution.

Hello. I agree I have read the Terms and conditions from forward to back, and nowhere did it say they had the right to revise function of the goods.

Well that's quite odd?? I don't know much about Terms and Conditions, but if that is not written on there, does that mean they're not allowed to revise them?

manofknowledge
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:21 am

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by manofknowledge »

TW-2017 wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:55 pm
manofknowledge wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:53 pm
manofknowledge wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:50 pm



Hello. I agree I have read the Terms and conditions from forward to back, and nowhere did it say they had the right to revise function of the goods.

Well that's quite odd?? I don't know much about Terms and Conditions, but if that is not written on there, does that mean they're not allowed to revise them?

Terms and Conditions usually work this way: a service provider makes the offer of a service contingent on your agreement to follow certain terms. When you agree to the offer, you also agree to the terms. You and the company have to follow those terms. Let me define what the term "Terms and Conditions" mean; Terms and Conditions acts as a legally binding contract between you and your users. This is the agreement that sets the rules and guidelines that users must agree to and follow in order to use and access your website or mobile app. But what happens when the COMPANY violates their own contract?
Last edited by manofknowledge on Sun Jun 21, 2020 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Unrealisation
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:49 am
Location: la la land

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by Unrealisation »

§ 3 Service, Number 3:
User understands that the Service is an evolving one. Service Provider may require that User accepts updates to the Service and to Service Provider’s games that User has installed on its device. User acknowledges and agrees that the Service Provider may update the Service. User will be notified about any change of the Service.
Does this statement imply that they can make changes to the service--the game, including the functions of a good even after the players has spent money on it?
тнε ωσℓғ sιηcε ησv 2017

Accalia.Akki
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:15 am

Re: Upcoming Balance Changes - The Wolf 1.10

Post by Accalia.Akki »

Unrealisation wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 8:39 pm
§ 3 Service, Number 3:
User understands that the Service is an evolving one. Service Provider may require that User accepts updates to the Service and to Service Provider’s games that User has installed on its device. User acknowledges and agrees that the Service Provider may update the Service. User will be notified about any change of the Service.
Does this statement imply that they can make changes to the service--the game, including the functions of a good even after the players has spent money on it?

If you go back to page one of this thread where we were notified that they were in fact going to leave the VS as it was and only increase its price by 75% then technically yes, they have broken their own t&c. They have not since notified or explained anywhere that they were going to nerf that skill. You buy something and you receive a different product, would you let it slide? I’m sure you wouldn’t. Doesn’t matter if it was bought with money or grinding in coop for gems. It’s still something we bought with the gems collected and still fraud in some way to nerf it with no notification. What they did say was, we will leave it and increase its price, driving a lot of players to max it before the update. They mislead a lot of players INTENTIONALLY.

People rattling of the whole “don’t buy, it’s your own fault if you do” doesn’t even count as a valid argument either. Without paying users how would the company pays its overheads? Do you think TW would still be here if no one paid?

Post Reply