Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Asym said: OK, answer one question then: does it pay the bills? No one remotely enjoys "PR dockyard-esk" events. No one. And, no revenue = no game. So, In a world that is demasculizing social propriety; a world intent on eliminating the meritocratic society; a world where competition is being eliminated in all forms; and, we are worried about a "game" making money by making it easier to compete without risk ??? [face slap emoji] lol I think you are attacking a strawman. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I believe pay2win concepts are evil. I do not. I am merely pointing out the reality of the business model. Heck, I even posted in this thread that I thought the changes MK were making were probably not a big deal. I'm just tired of folks blatantly lying to people about the monetization strategy, over something that doesn't need to be lied about. For example, I'm sure folks are preparing the argument that getting something sooner vs later is somehow not the same as having vs not having the thing. Facepalm. If I can get something sooner by paying, but have not done so...than I DO NOT HAVE THE THING. It is inevitably a have vs not have condition for some time. But they will argue this somehow 'matters' when it actually doesn't. All so that WG staff can keep lying about how the game's business model runs...when it LITERALLY DOES NOT HURT THE GAME if people understand if the game is in the free2play / pay2win genre. People will still keep playing, and they will still keep spending. But oh no, we have to drag out the same, silly, already disproven arguments again and again and again just to defend something no one actually cares about in terms of deciding if they want to play / spend on this game. It's so boringly predictable. It's almost like playing bots in Asymmetric. Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: I think you are attacking a strawman. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I believe pay2win concepts are evil. I do not. I am merely pointing out the reality of the business model. Heck, I even posted in this thread that I thought the changes MK were making were probably not a big deal. I'm just tired of folks blatantly lying to people about the monetization strategy, over something that doesn't need to be lied about. For example, I'm sure folks are preparing the argument that getting something sooner vs later is somehow not the same as having vs not having the thing. Facepalm. If I can get something sooner by paying, but have not done so...than I DO NOT HAVE THE THING. It is inevitably a have vs not have condition for some time. But they will argue this somehow 'matters' when it actually doesn't. All so that WG staff can keep lying about how the game's business model runs...when it LITERALLY DOES NOT HURT THE GAME if people understand if the game is in the free2play / pay2win genre. People will still keep playing, and they will still keep spending. But oh no, we have to drag out the same, silly, already disproven arguments again and again and again just to defend something no one actually cares about in terms of deciding if they want to play / spend on this game. It's so boringly predictable. It's almost like playing bots in Asymmetric. And my game name is: asym because, I tend to approach life a might obtusely..... I wasn't throwing a rock at you mate.... P2W or P2P are simply economic models to keep some game alive. And, if that is what it takes to keep the lights on, I get it.... Not good nor bad simply what it is ! BTW, almost all of us participate in games - even when there's a foul stench out there - cause we love the game.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kynami Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said: It depends on what the ships are. A reasonable blend of BB, Cruiser and DD is basically just a ranked battle. If it's a queue dump with a couple of carriers on each side, something I've actually been in once, life can get very... ah, interesting, especially for DD drivers. Yup, stuff like this just has people pretty much roll their eyes. If I went looking I could find another one where I was in a cruiser and it was a 2v2 carrier queue dump. In this match however the other carrier player was running interceptors and generally running face first into me having considerably better fighter placement and effectively shadowing my BB to grant additional AA coverage. Since I did the far riskier slide into the backside of a cap while they stayed far back and only contributed via planes as their two allied ships went forwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 31 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: If I can get something sooner by paying, but have not done so...than I DO NOT HAVE THE THING. It is inevitably a have vs not have condition for some time. The problem with this line of thinking is you are not placing any value on the incremental progression improvements, just on the 'end form' of the product, which btw is playing 'into their hands'. If you think this way, I guess nothing would satisfy you outside a Supership with 21pt Captain... which I know it isn't the case. There's value on the different 'progression states' you go through your grind, how fast or slow you go through the process is not relevant to the intrinsic value of the 'thing'. Your premise is false, it isn't a have-not have dichotomy. You do have things of successive incremental value at every point of the way, and you are guaranteed to have the 'end of the line thing' at some point, accordingly to your investment of time/resources. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 12 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: The problem with this line of thinking is you are not placing any value on the incremental progression improvements, just on the 'end form' of the product, which btw is playing 'into their hands'. If you think this way, I guess nothing would satisfy you outside a Supership with 21pt Captain... which I know it isn't the case. There's value on the different 'progression states' you go through your grind, how fast or slow you go through the process is not relevant to the intrinsic value of the 'thing'. Your premise is false, it isn't a have-not have dichotomy. You do have things of successive incremental value at every point of the way, and you are guaranteed to have the 'end of the line thing' at some point, accordingly to your investment of time/resources. You admit that its a value progression state...which admits then that the end value (the have) is more valuable than the current state (the have less). Which supports my premise. Pay2Advance functionally IS pay2win...since having more value faster IS valuable, and valuable for winning. (This is essentially why pay2advance is commonly acknowledged outside of the WG bubble as pay2win.) Just think about premium time... Why does it have value for people to pay for it? Because it delivers items and combat advantages faster. This is why it is commonly recognized as the best value for money in the game. And no, you are NOT guaranteed to have the 'end of the line thing' at some point...since the cost for items inevitably inflates as part of the business model. For example, we do not have 19 point captains as the end goal now...we have 21 point captains, whose value in terms of combat capability is actually LESS than it was before. Had I paid money some years back, I would have had multiple 19 point captains. Instead, I only have one...which I then bumped up to 21 points and I am still currently working on a 20 point and 18 point captain grinds now. I could have had the capability to be earning all that captain experience as overflow...which I could then apply to my other grind captains and exploit for DIRECT COMBAT ADVANTAGES...but I don't have that capability because I didn't spend money. I 'don't have' direct combat buffs right now that I could have had right now if I spent money. The end goal target is MOVING, which makes the whole 'you will eventually have the thing' argument completely impractical. Yet more obfuscation. Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore135 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 hours ago, HogHammer said: As to how this would relate to WG on its NA, EU, and Asia servers, adding bots at high tiers would not fix any issues within the game. Several years ago, WG, on the old NA forum, stated that Tier 10 was by far the most popular tiered played. I doubt this has changed much, and I will add that the overall number of players playing T10 is probably currently higher. WG doesn’t seem to have the same server population issues as Lesta, which is likely one of the main reasons behind so many of the radical changes that have been implemented since the split. I just find it amusing that Lesta is adding back rewards for achievements at the same they are populating high tier Randoms with stealth bots (one has to open the team view screen and click on the name to tell its a bot, IIRC). The supposed reason given for removing them from the pre-split game (it was too easy to farm them in low-tier Randoms full of bots) just seems even more silly now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 20 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I believe pay2win concepts are evil. I do not. Is this the point where I power up my PA system and scream HEY EVERYONE, DANIEL ALLAN CLARK SUPPORTS PAY-TO-WIN!!!, then sit back with popcorn and watch the crowds come for you with torches and pitchforks? 😈 Pay to advance is only pay to win if it's impossible to win without whatever thing is at the top of the grind tree. And that's patently not true. I've seen people in bottom-tier ships top the winning team, or finish high, enough times to know this. The dogmatic offspring of this is "Oh no! I am bottom tier, therefore I am a doomed meatsack before the game even starts and there is nothing I can possibly contribute". And that might be a stereotypic exaggeration to some, but the way I've heard some people talk about being bottom-tier (especially with regard to T9 vs superships) makes me think there's a fairly large grain of truth in it. I keep having this image in my head of the ghost of Capt. Ernest E. Evans standing at the shoulder of a WOWS-playing distant relative today and thinking "Send my replay to Jingles." (It got sent to James Hornfischer.) Yes, you may be a doomed meatsack, but sometimes that's your lot, and sometimes you go down swinging and changing the game as you go - and unlike Evans, we get to walk away from it and try again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 8 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: I could have had the capability to be earning all that captain experience as overflow...which I could then apply to my other grind captains and exploit for DIRECT COMBAT ADVANTAGES...but I don't have that capability because I didn't spend money. The only true direct combat advantage is your skill as a player. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: You admit that its a value progression state...which admits then that the end value (the have) is more valuable than the current state (the have less). Which supports my premise. Pay2Advance functionally IS pay2win...since having more value faster IS valuable, and valuable for winning. (This is essentially why pay2advance is commonly acknowledged outside of the WG bubble as pay2win.) Just think about premium time... Why does it have value for people to pay for it? Because it delivers items and combat advantages faster. This is why it is commonly recognized as the best value for money in the game. And no, you are NOT guaranteed to have the 'end of the line thing' at some point...since the cost for items inevitably inflates as part of the business model. For example, we do not have 19 point captains as the end goal now...we have 21 point captains, whose value in terms of combat capability is actually LESS than it was before. Had I paid money some years back, I would have had multiple 19 point captains. Instead, I only have one...which I then bumped up to 21 points and I am still currently working on a 20 point and 18 point captain grinds now. I could have had the capability to be earning all that captain experience as overflow...which I could then apply to my other grind captains and exploit for DIRECT COMBAT ADVANTAGES...but I don't have that capability because I didn't spend money. I 'don't have' direct combat buffs right now that I could have had right now if I spent money. The end goal target is MOVING, which makes the whole 'you will eventually have the thing' argument completely impractical. Yet more obfuscation. I can see the cause and effect of "investing" to better the rewards... I was F2P for many years till I realized I "wanted" more capabilities and, more importantly, more choices..... Isn't that life? Isn't that what we all do every day? Yes, if an investment betters the outcomes, that is pay to live better. A goal seems to be always to "invest in that which rewards" what you want to do, be or have.... Oh-kay: provide a simple "picture" of where we are.... A simple, clear and obvious example please.... I really can't "grok" where I spent "A" to get "A+++". Maybe, for us simple people that would help. The only thing for me starting when I started this game is PT.... Yes, that is point-blank "pay to get more..." What else am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Right now I'm imagining EC is posting a whole detailed reply about how I'm wrong (Despite the fact that I have him blocked for trolling me in the past, and that he knows I have him blocked.)...with some kind of inane argument like 'only in game wins' count for the pay2win definition...which completely ignores the combat advantages conferred by things like Concealment Expert...which I don't have on a lot of my tier 6 DDs yet, because I haven't got the free captain XP to bump up the captains without grinding them. I COULD have had this captain XP, had I paid for it. That extra concealment definitely makes it easier to win in game, with my current skill. But no, that doesn't support his need to defend a silly WG advertising position...so he can't accept reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 minutes ago, Asym said: I can see the cause and effect of "investing" to better the rewards... I was F2P for many years till I realized I "wanted" more capabilities and, more importantly, more choices..... Isn't that life? Isn't that what we all do every day? Yes, if an investment betters the outcomes, that is pay to live better. A goal seems to be always to "invest in that which rewards" what you want to do, be or have.... Oh-kay: provide a simple "picture" of where we are.... A simple, clear and obvious example please.... I really can't "grok" where I spent "A" to get "A+++". Maybe, for us simple people that would help. The only thing for me starting when I started this game is PT.... Yes, that is point-blank "pay to get more..." What else am I missing? See? You get it. I'm not against folks paying money for the combat advantages, or the better experiences in the game. That's the GAME. That's how WG makes money. That is fine. I'm against deliberately lying about it and trying to pretend that is not the business model when it clearly is the business model. I am also against stupidly choosing this silly definition as a marketing position when most people playing the game are excited about the possibility of buying combat advantages. Very few people in this game are annoyed at the fact that WG sells stuff that helps you perform better. It is absurd and silly spending all this effort trying to pretend that paying doesn't offer advantages. It clearly does and WG needs to advertise that fact so more people will pay money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Right now I'm imagining EC is posting a whole detailed reply about how I'm wrong (Despite the fact that I have him blocked for trolling me in the past, and that he knows I have him blocked.)...with some kind of inane argument like 'only in game wins' count for the pay2win definition...which completely ignores the combat advantages conferred by things like Concealment Expert...which I don't have on a lot of my tier 6 DDs yet, because I haven't got the free captain XP to bump up the captains without grinding them. I COULD have had this captain XP, had I paid for it. That extra concealment definitely makes it easier to win in game, with my current skill. But no, that doesn't support his need to defend a silly WG advertising position...so he can't accept reality. @Ensign Cthulhu seems to be living in your head "rent free". If you're going to ignore someone, then do so. Or is your definition of "ignore" similarly as flexible as your standards for pay to win and pay to progress? 😉 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 18 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: I 'don't have' direct combat buffs right now that I could have had right now if I spent money. The end goal target is MOVING, which makes the whole 'you will eventually have the thing' argument completely impractical. Look, notice how I haven't said "spending money won't grant you an advantage", of course it does... but does it really qualify as P2W? ... it's shades of gray, it isn't as black and white as you paint it. If you are competitive, the end goal is WINNING, which you'll be doing min-maxing the resources you have at hand on any successive stage of your grind IF you are inclined to grind, you may very well inhabit a particular 'tier' if that's your end goal. The progression part is only as important as you want it to be, in terms of being competitive there's no strict requirement to progress beyond the goals you arbitrarily set for yourself, which can be quite low. You are perfectly able to design a competitive progression scheme based on a F2P status which won't set you at a disadvantaged status against other players... the thing is it will require a quite substantial 'prep time' compared to investing some money. Once we establish you can progress as F2P without being at any competitive disadvantage, the speed at which you progress bear no relevance to P2W mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralThunder Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 14 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Access to ships and items aids in winning. People who try to deny that P2A aids in winning are in denial. P2A merely lets you progress faster. It does NOT aid you in winning. Not in WOWS anyway. If anything P2A decreases winning in WOWS because it allows people to progress through the tiers too fast and they don’t acquire the skill set needed to play higher up in the game. Paying for these flags Lesta is adding would fall under P2W. You buy something that gives you a combat advantage in games over other players that helps you win more. THAT is P2W. Buying economic boosts gives a player no advantages over another player in games (battles). It in no way lets you win more. It just lets you increase the speed of your personal progression in game which impacts no other player directly ( if anything the only impact would be hurting your team playing high tiers because you bought your way there as a newb for example). That is a double edged sword as already stated as well because you can go too high too fast and winning can suffer for said player as a result. I am in denial about nothing. The ones in denial are those who think economic boosts, in THIS game, are somehow P2W. That couldn’t be any further from the truth. Saying progressing faster is the same as winning is stretching what P2W means to absurd levels. The W means WIN. Economic boosts have nothing to do with winning. Edited June 19 by AdmiralThunder 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: See? You get it. I'm not against folks paying money for the combat advantages, or the better experiences in the game. That's the GAME. That's how WG makes money. That is fine. I'm against deliberately lying about it and trying to pretend that is not the business model when it clearly is the business model. I am also against stupidly choosing this silly definition as a marketing position when most people playing the game are excited about the possibility of buying combat advantages. Very few people in this game are annoyed at the fact that WG sells stuff that helps you perform better. It is absurd and silly spending all this effort trying to pretend that paying doesn't offer advantages. It clearly does and WG needs to advertise that fact so more people will pay money. I don't know any of the crew I hang with that object to investing in any or all things that produce a better game experience.... And yes, Marketing and real life seldom meet in the middle.... Can't sell games if the message is "you have to invest real money" to "just break even..." I get an earful every time I talk to parents about "recommended games" for Home Schooled children. Especially, their sons whom get all sorts of ideas from their non-home-schooled friends... They can't mate.... They can't advertise that "you have to spend real money" because, that isn't what many parents want to hear.... They spend enough on entertaining their children as it is.... Dance, Ice Hockey or Gymnastics are "enormous expenditures" and have been so, for decades.... Videogames? Holy crap, the parents I interact with are mostly against any game that requires "spending even more real money" beyond the Ice Hockey or Gymnastics costs !!! So, games lie or slightly misrepresent their actual costs.... This is the way. I know, because it's one of the first questions I get with home schooling parents ask about.... Cost, gambling, violence and toxicity.... This game is not on the list of games I recommend. Now, if a parent could "hard lock" their children out of anything PVP and gambling-esque........... I would. We should have "pre-adult parental control" IMO. We'd have a lot more players for sure !!! Think: a game that is based on historical models (check !); a game with out graphic violence (check!); a game of quests and adventures that involve situational awareness and team work (check!); and, the ability to communicate with relatives and distant friends (Discord (check!)).... Alas, we aren't there yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 7 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said: P2A merely lets you progress faster. It does NOT aid you in winning. Not in WOWS anyway. Having concealment expert on a DD vs not having concealment expert on a DD definitely DOES aid you in winning. Getting concealment expert is possible faster by purchasing boosters. Think about why the boosters exist...they exist to allow people to buy better performing gear in game. Just because WG put a meaningless currency between the initial 'purchase' and the buff does not magically change the reality of p2win status. Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Look, notice how I haven't said "spending money won't grant you an advantage", of course it does... but does it really qualify as P2W? ... it's shades of gray, it isn't as black and white as you paint it. If you are competitive, the end goal is WINNING, which you'll be doing min-maxing the resources you have at hand on any successive stage of your grind IF you are inclined to grind, you may very well inhabit a particular 'tier' if that's your end goal. The progression part is only as important as you want it to be, in terms of being competitive there's no strict requirement to progress beyond the goals you arbitrarily set for yourself, which can be quite low. You are perfectly able to design a competitive progression scheme based on a F2P status which won't set you at a disadvantaged status against other players... the thing is it will require a quite substantial 'prep time' compared to investing some money. Once we establish you can progress as F2P without being at any competitive disadvantage, the speed at which you progress bear no relevance to P2W mechanics. This is true. The reality is though that I could have a higher ceiling of performance if I was paying money. It is, as you say, a spectrum of value selling. WGs methods of p2win are in a decent spot. They allow free2play players a good chance at having fun. All I'm saying is that this business model IS p2win...and generally speaking, one of the better p2win models out there. There is a reason the game has lasted so long and been so profitable. My issue is, 'why do we have to lie about it?' Asymm has some good points about why potentially WG marketing fears it... But if their goal is to go after children with a gambling based monetization strategy...I'm not happy to support that kind of sleaze. Far better to go after adults...but that's what I want, and not what Viktor Kisyli wants. Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) @Daniel_Allan_Clark lets cut to the chase... Is it possible to play WoWS as F2P without being at a competitive PvP disadvantage against players investing money? If the answer is yes, your point is invalidated (meaning p2A=P2W). The answer is yes. Edited June 19 by ArIskandir 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: All I'm saying is that this business model IS p2win... It is definitively a very manipulative behaviorist model... is it P2W? ... imo dpends on the eye of the beholder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: @Daniel_Allan_Clark lets cut to the chase... Is it possible to play WoWS as F2P without being at a competitive PvP disadvantage against players investing money? If the answer is yes, your point is invalidated (meaning p2A=P2W). The answer is yes. The answer is clearly no. My tier 6 DDs who don't have 10 point captains yet are clearly at a competitive disadvantage (for example in ranked) against guys with 21 point captains. I can use greater skill to mitigate this disparity...but I could carry more with my skill if I also had a 21 point captain...even more if that captain were Yamamoto. Those extra captain points can make a difference and sometimes are the difference between winning and losing. Edited June 19 by Daniel_Allan_Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: The answer is clearly no. My tier 6 DDs who don't have 10 point captains yet are clearly at a competitive disadvantage (for example in ranked) against guys with 21 point captains. I can use greater skill to mitigate this disparity...but I could carry more with my skill if I also had a 21 point captain...even more if that captain were Yamamoto. Those extra captain points can make a difference and sometimes are the difference between winning and losing. You can grind your resources to whatever competitive Standard You set using any of the PvE modes of the Game. If You aim to be competitive and are willing to make the required time investment, paying will only shorten the time requirement. It is You who decide to jump into Ranked (per example) in a disadvantaged status, there's a free work around at your disposal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel_Allan_Clark Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: You can grind your resources to whatever competitive Standard You set using any of the PvE modes of the Game. If You aim to be competitive and are willing to make the required time investment, paying will only shorten the time requirement. It is You who decide to jump into Ranked (per example) in a disadvantaged status, there's a free work around at your disposal. You asked if I was disadvantaged...I pointed it out, then you move the goalpost. Your position might make sense if the captain skill top was constant...but it hasn't been. FASTER skill gain is a big advantage when the captain skill system changes or requires more captain points. The workaround for skill changes also benefits from faster skill gain, since you have free captain points to spend to have flexible builds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign Cthulhu Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 18 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Is it possible to play WoWS as F2P without being at a competitive PvP disadvantage against players investing money? If the answer is yes, your point is invalidated (meaning p2A=P2W). The answer is yes. Plenty of CCs and CMs have made free to play accounts to demonstrate this. 32 minutes ago, Asym said: I know, because it's one of the first questions I get with home schooling parents That would include me and my wife. My son (almost 15) has an account, but as yet has shown little if any interest in it because far trendier things currently occupy his mind. He can pick it up whenever he chooses. If he wants anything premium he can ask me, and if I consider it appropriate I'll gift it to him from my account. My daughter (13) recently expressed interest in playing the game someday, and the same rules will apply. Eventually they'll have jobs and then their money will be more their own to spend, but both of them have already demonstrated an ability to save part of their allowance strategically for long-term goals (they literally saved up hundreds of dollars over an extended period of time because they wanted pet tortoises) and there are currently so many coal freemiums in the game that they might never need to open the wallet. 2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: It is You who decide to jump into Ranked (per example) in a disadvantaged status Yep, he can either play ranked accepting that he's tied one hand behind his back, or go away and grind the captains to 10 points in co-op or operations before he does. Playing in ranked with a sub-10-point commander knowing he's at a disadvantage and then coming here to cry poor about it doesn't get him much sympathy from me. 1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Had I paid money some years back, I would have had multiple 19 point captains. Instead, I only have one...which I then bumped up to 21 points and I am still currently working on a 20 point and 18 point captain grinds now. I have more 21 point commanders now (19 of them) than I did 19 pointers at the time of the changeover (I had nine). Some of them got promoted from 12 or 13 points, rather than 19, which put somewhat of a handicap on the process but I chose to do it because I wanted to create one in each nation rather than just promote the 19 pointers I already had. Granted, I'm running premium time, but most of my 21 pointers had significantly higher mountains to climb than they might have if I'd taken the easy route and up-promoted my 19s. Premium time offers a 1.65X multiplier. All else being equal, I should have had 1.65 times as many 19 point commanders as you did before the changeover; instead, I had 9 times as many. Likewise, all else being equal, I should only have 1.65 times as many 21 point commanders as you. Instead, I have 19 times as many. Why is this? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArIskandir Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 23 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: You asked if I was disadvantaged...I pointed it out, then you move the goalpost. I'm not moving the goalpoast, you were voluntarily accepting a disadvantageous situation out of your own will given there's alternatives to achieving a competitive standard using free in-game tools. 25 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: Your position might make sense if the captain skill top was constant...but it hasn't been. This is irrelevant. Whether skill caps are increased is inconsequential as you can grind the necessary XP without being at a competitive disadvantage for free. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thornzero Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 CEXP boosters must be a pay to win feature. Advanced commanders have advantages and these boosters can be purchased. Since I am free to play, I have played enough to have two, 21 point commanders which I use on a variety of premium ships to generate unlimited CEXP. With two more at 2o and 19 points respectively. These 21 pointers have generated a healthy supply of CEXP for advancing or retraining. Further, I have redistributed skills a few times on some captains. There is around 4 TT ships I am using high commanders that serve about 9 premium ships. I have the skills set up in a manner consistent with the ships strengths. For instance Fletcher commander [21] is also used on Black, Kidd, and Hill. It is set up with the skills that balance all of these ships in one commander. The other American 2o pointer will soon give me a second optional configuration for these DDs but this 21 pointer is also used on other classes. It is my understanding that the commander refit from 19 to 21 points added the opportunity to use 21 pointers on more ships, an opportunity unavailable when they were 19 points. You actually need less captains and cover more ground with 21 pointers. At least that is what I read somewhere. I have seen in the forum people being frustrated with a 21 pointer on a Tier 1o that they don't play much but the versatility of the captain is not restricted to only that ship. So say for instance you decide to maximise your CEXP; all you have to do is play brawls with a 21 pointer on the right ship and you should be able to bank [with the 8ok from the mission] around 4ook CEXP in a couple days with even using up low boosters. And this is working for a newer player. Veteran players that top the leader board and damage counts will probably make more CEXP in other ways that I cannot. But I am happy with my process and my progress. P2W always has a grind to win opportunity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now