Massive double standards?

[Wolfswetpaws]

25 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

31 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Since the re-work, the CV vs. CV equation was drastically altered.
And it was the complaints of various players that were, in my understanding, responsible.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth eventually gained WG/WOWs developer's attention.
And they "did something".

Well, it was a major screwup is how I look at it. CV's should be the prime target, and CV's should seek to target and primarily attack each other because the CV's represent the strongest and most potent strike capability in any fleet.

And among the "complaints" were claims that disparity between CV player's competence was a factor in whether or not a team won or lost a match.
The better CV player gained air-superiority and the "chess match" between the CV's was "over" and the mopping-up of the remaining ships was the anti-climax of the likely victory.
I say "likely" because there were times when teams played well enough to overcome the loss of their CV.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

An actual simulation would have more "fog of war" and require a huge amount of time to play.
Months/weeks/days/hours of boredom punctuated by moments of life-or-death struggle.
Unless one is really an afficionado of logistics, it wouldn't be as "fun" to play.  🙂 

War in the Pacific, Admirals Edition.

Awesome game.

I've just scratched the surface with it.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

War in the Pacific, Admirals Edition.

Awesome game.

I've just scratched the surface with it.

So, when you played a battle, did it last more or less than 20 minutes?  🙂 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, when you played a battle, did it last more or less than 20 minutes?  🙂 

Single turns of the scenarios I've played take about five minutes to resolve...and then about 30 minutes to prep the next turn. (It's WeGo style)

I'm told full game turns take about 15 minutes to run and each turn setup might take an hour or two. If using daily turns.

First turn for the full game might take a couple of hours (6?) to organize (especially Japan since you also control industry).

'Battles' are important, but most of your work is in the preparation for fighting...giving your guys the best chance of success when having to fight.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Admiral_Karasu]

22 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Pretend, for a moment, that you didn't write the words above, and that someone else did.  ^^^^

What notion do you think that the hypothetical other person is hugging so tightly in their mind?
That the game conform to reality enough to qualify as a simulation?

Because, if that is the case, then that is the attachment which the hypothetical person may need to leg go of.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Real war is different.  You're correct about that.
Each warring nation's militaries fought with what they had available at the moment.
Often, with incomplete information regarding their opponent's location and strength.

This game provides a complete roster of each team's players & ships.
The ships can be researched via the wiki-pages and other sources.
And the maps are available to be studied while not in a battle, too.
That's a huge treasure trove of intel data.

An actual simulation would have more "fog of war" and require a huge amount of time to play.
Months/weeks/days/hours of boredom punctuated by moments of life-or-death struggle.
Unless one is really an afficionado of logistics, it wouldn't be as "fun" to play.  🙂 

There are no actual casualties in WOWs.  The game waves a magic wand and our ships are ready for action.
We don't have to write letters to the next-of-kin informing them of a loss.
 

Imagine you didn't write the above text. but someone else did. What is that someone seemingly defending? He is defending WG position to create built-in game mechanics that deviate from real world parallels solely because they are detrimental for gameplay.

If so, you'd have to take the next... sorry, the someone in question would need to take the logical step and demonstrate to us all the logic behind a game developer purposefully assigning resources to wreck their own game.

16 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

And among the "complaints" were claims that disparity between CV player's competence was a factor in whether or not a team won or lost a match.
The better CV player gained air-superiority and the "chess match" between the CV's was "over" and the mopping-up of the remaining ships was the anti-climax of the likely victory.
I say "likely" because there were times when teams played well enough to overcome the loss of their CV.

Yes, this could very well be the case unless the situation discouraged the lesser players from playing CV's... which would not have been an ideal situation, understandably. Not that I see the situations in that regard has much improved. Nor does that make it any more logical for WG to re-create the same imbalance with the implementation of the subs...

[Andrewbassg]

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

Technically, all I was doing was defining why an incorrect application of terms was so.

Yes, but sometimes we do more, even if inadvertently 🙂

But i agree, in order to have a meaningful discussion, the terms used must be well understood or explained.

 

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

In regards to countering a player and countering a player's actions, no one can counter a player. 

Well.... yes and no. Coz a)It depends entirely on the player b)the player is not present in physical form but as a ship( avatar) and countering the ship's (avatar) capabilities is counter. Still needs to be noted that 100% counter is an AUTOWIN, which devs worth their salt tend to avoid.

 Still, this, again, highlights the inadequacies of the terms counter and counterplay as you proposed them and begs for the inclusion of the term  meaningful as a defining criteria. Just because one can turn out of the way of torps only to get blapped by  babbies......it doesn't make it meaningful.

 

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

In your example, Radar ships can make things difficult for the DD, but the DD player can still choose to press the attack.  No one can stop them from choosing to do so, which usually results in yolo outcomes,..

Obviously. But....

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

but I think almost every veteran player can remember times when they have lit off Radar, detected a DD, and no one has fired on it or altered their course and been hit by torpedoes.  No one countered either the player or their actions, and the results were bad.  Had they sunk the DD and/or evaded the torpedoes, they would have countered the player's actions (hense, counterplay), but not countered the player's decisions

...again a) that's why we need to talk about and for an agency of one b) I think you are confusing countering with attacking/sunking. They are not the same. Countering is preventing the enemy to take meaninglul (  :) ) action.

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

In regards to CVs, I agree that counterplays are probably the fewest in the game, both for and against them.

Well.... yes and no. Yes to the former ....

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

and there is very little a CV can do to stop from being sunk when they do get engaged by another target. 

...and no to the latter coz the capabilities for the Cv exists (and I'm not talking about outliers like KM Cv;s). Whether one can utilise them.... that's another matter.

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

Counterplay seems to be something left out of the CV gameplay equation,

Yes it is by design.

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

though I'm not certain players would accept insertion of CVs able to counter direct attack on themselves at the price of being able to counter the CVs attacks (say, have the CV be able to put up a limited-time deflector shield in return for the CV's planes being locked onto an attack course longer than current, allowing evasive action).

 

Except KM Cv;s exist and CV's already have a sort of shield  (fire duration, no detonation( LMAO), Auto DCP, Auto ASW), sooo.....yeah....

Edited October 5, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Except KM Cv;s exist and CV's already have a sort of shield  (fire duration Auto DCP Auto ASW), sooo.....yeah....

CV secondaries and ASW abilities are very much niche study areas that most players don't bother understanding.

For example, KM secondaries are lauded as great...but have TERRIBLE damage output. Their ability is to consistently hit.

IJN secondaries have really good damage but don't hit as often. If these had better range, they would nearly be as useful as KM secondaries.

USN and USSR secondaries are mostly useful as surprises for foolish YOLO DDs and submarines.

British secondaries are terrible...but I've still gotten good work out of them.

[Asym]

25 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Imagine you didn't write the above text. but someone else did. What is that someone seemingly defending? He is defending WG position to create built-in game mechanics that deviate from real world parallels solely because they are detrimental for gameplay.

If so, you'd have to take the next... sorry, the someone in question would need to take the logical step and demonstrate to us all the logic behind a game developer purposefully assigning resources to wreck their own game.

Yes, this could very well be the case unless the situation discouraged the lesser players from playing CV's... which would not have been an ideal situation, understandably. Not that I see the situations in that regard has much improved. Nor does that make it any more logical for WG to re-create the same imbalance with the implementation of the subs...

To change the "revenue flow and revenue densities" .....  IOW's, to change the market niche they want to go to versus, where they are.

This is a Red Ocean business this game lives in.

• We compete in an existing game niche
• They want to surpass similar games in size and market saturation
• They will and are "exploiting existing demands"
• They have and will continue to make value-cost trade-offs - even if they anger existing players
• And, as we have seen,  the game "evolves" their activities that are pushing the older players into making choices; and, are driving and using "costs" to promote where they want to be vis-a'-vis where they are....  (paraphrased from Red Ocean versus Blue Ocean Strategies: Kim and Mauborgne, 2022)

They aren't wrecking the game IMO, they are changing markets to evolve into a young adult, eSales, pay- to enhance- per game, arcade shooter.... 

To change markets, they have to change customer expectations that: eliminate the pre-change expectations and enhance the simpler, faster and less involved Pre-ESRB-T future audiences.

Can they straddle the fence, so to speak:  IMO - No and they are failing.  History and Lincoln's thoughts will rule the day:  "A house divided against itself, cannot stand..."  and so, many veteran players have taken the hint and have retired (and, did not uninstall) or they, left the game.....  We've lost a lot of players !

Edited October 5, 2023 by Asym

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

My intention was to use an example to describe a class's capabilities and my options for meaningfully affecting the outcome of a given match. I'm sure you too have referenced individual performances at times.

Absolutely. But having very few (if any) counters is a capability, an asset and is playstyle defining.

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

The agency in my example is me just running up to the CV and kill him.

The CV's agency is force me to perform evasion/mitigation to delay my approach, and hopefully outlast me while doing so.

 

 Yes. But that's not counter. That's a tactic, the result of a  personal decision. 

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

Simply having the means to negate or mitigate an opponent's actions, can allow the necessary time for your teammates to perform actions elsewhere. You mitigate their attack, while your teammate makes a play elsewhere. This is what I meant by teamplay.

Yes, but, again that's not counter, not at least because requires the active participation of the CV. Moreso one cannot ask somebody to do that and "be happy 'bout it", coz this game's principal metric is dmg and that, most likely, will severely curtail his personal earnings, not to mention not having much... fun.

Btw  that tactic is called 'keep'em busy" and one can absolutely decide to pursue such an action  (I did it many times in no CV ranked in Neptune ) but again, cannot be asked for,  must be a personal decision.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

38 minutes ago, Asym said:

They aren't wrecking the game IMO, they are changing markets to evolve into a young adult, eSales, pay- to enhance- per game, arcade shooter.... 

Yuro was very much right when he claimed the CV rework wasn't to rework the game...it was to rework the playerbase.

The sad reality though is that, at least on NA server...the influx of new players has been less than the loss of old players.

I.e., the strategy is failing...but WG has refused to acknowledge that reality.

[That WoT Player]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Pretend, for a moment, that you didn't write the words above, and that someone else did.  ^^^^

What notion do you think that the hypothetical other person is hugging so tightly in their mind?
That the game conform to reality enough to qualify as a simulation?

Because, if that is the case, then that is the attachment which the hypothetical person may need to leg go of.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Real war is different.  You're correct about that.
Each warring nation's militaries fought with what they had available at the moment.
Often, with incomplete information regarding their opponent's location and strength.

This game provides a complete roster of each team's players & ships.
The ships can be researched via the wiki-pages and other sources.
And the maps are available to be studied while not in a battle, too.
That's a huge treasure trove of intel data.

An actual simulation would have more "fog of war" and require a huge amount of time to play.
Months/weeks/days/hours of boredom punctuated by moments of life-or-death struggle.
Unless one is really an afficionado of logistics, it wouldn't be as "fun" to play.  🙂 

There are no actual casualties in WOWs.  The game waves a magic wand and our ships are ready for action.
We don't have to write letters to the next-of-kin informing them of a loss.
 

What the hell kind of straw man argument is that? No one arguing has referenced or even implied they wanted WoWs to be a simulator. They might not have been explicit in their desires, or what they wanted the game to be, but this is straight up jumping to conclusions. Instead, you could have asked them to elaborate and watched them fumble or dance around the point. 

[Andrewbassg]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I play all ship types.
The first "counter play" that every ship can perform versus ad CV is called "maneuver".
Wiggle dat aft, yo!
Make an appropriate turn and/or increase or decrease speed to avoid being hit or at least minimize the number of hits taken from a rocket/bomb/torpedo attack.

🙂   I usually play with double rudder shift sooo....I know.  🙂 Still that holds true only for the first pass, at the second we are at the mercy of the Cv player...

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As Mister Miyagi say, "Best block, no be there."

 U mean as.... "not press battle" or "be not there, Cv"?  

 

Just kidding/messing with U a bit 🙂 

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

And we can maneuver to minimize the threat of aerial ordnance.

Yeah, but the problem is that] s ( almost) all we can do and sometimes not even that  . And that's dented.

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

But, all too often, some players expect that AA will swat entire squadrons from the sky before they can perform an attack.
Sometimes that actually happens, too.
But, more to the point, why is AA expected to be a magic shield when it cannot do the same for projectiles?
Why do some players accept that maneuver is expected to avoid main-gun projectiles yet not accept that aerial attacks require some effort as well?

Because planes are NOT projectiles. Planes are guns and  torpedo tubes, means of delivery,  delivering ordnance.

And because we cant shoot back aka "we can do jack". And that's NOT fun.

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Why do some players accept that some gun hits may happen but not accept that aerial hits may happen?
Gee, talk about a "double standard", eh?

Why Cv's can't detonate, have very short fire duration and their plane production is not affected by external factors, like fire, flooding and dmg taken?

Yeeaah indeed... 

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

If I'm in my HSF Harekaze and daring a CV's planes to focus on me in 'all-chat', I'm hoping to shoot down some planes and (more importantly) distract the CV from focusing on my team-mates.
I don't do it all the time, and I may get sunk from all the red-team's attentions, but that's an example of play/counter-play.

No it isn't  🙂 Unless Halland (and even so) a dd's role is NOT to engage planes, but to avoid them and to fulfil MUCH more important objectives.

 

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Positioning, maneuver and situational awareness are essential.

Absolutely.

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Based upon my research, AA within World of Warships is more effective than AA in the Pacific during WW-II.
But, some player's expectations haven't caught-up with that.

That's.... debatable, quite a bit. 🙂

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

All that being said, WOWs is more of an arcade game than a simulation.
Time compression, distance and other phenomena have been studied by others in the past.
This game literally distorts reality in order to make it easier for a player to "pew pew pew" and have fun.
I hope people can learn to accept that.

That's correct, but the problem is : the distortion is quite one sided. And that detracts from the fun.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[WES_HoundDog]

On 10/4/2023 at 9:20 AM, Admiral_Karasu said:

I always say 'effective counterplay' myself which is what we mostly seem to be lacking in WoWS when it comes to attacks launched by a couple of specific vessel classes in World of Warships which I refrain from pointing out specifically.

I'm in a minotour and i get dropped on by a nakimov over and over, minimum 4 or 5 drops.    By the end of the match i've shot down 7 planes...   With supercarriers,  they come at you with 3 planes.  You know why? Because your not supposed to shoot down planes anymore. Your just supposed to be farmed by a ship your never supposed to see.   Sound familiar?

 

counterplay works, but i go with competitive.  But It's not competitive. WeGe might give you the illusion of competition, their not designed to compete, their designed to prey on the player base. Their predatory. They prey on the player base and that is disgusting for a game maker to put in their game.  And when the only logical explanation is money it's doubly so.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Imagine you didn't write the above text. but someone else did. What is that someone seemingly defending? He is defending WG position to create built-in game mechanics that deviate from real world parallels solely because they are detrimental for gameplay.

If so, you'd have to take the next... sorry, the someone in question would need to take the logical step and demonstrate to us all the logic behind a game developer purposefully assigning resources to wreck their own game.

Yes, this could very well be the case unless the situation discouraged the lesser players from playing CV's... which would not have been an ideal situation, understandably. Not that I see the situations in that regard has much improved. Nor does that make it any more logical for WG to re-create the same imbalance with the implementation of the subs...

I was playing WOWs during the RTS CV era.
I had a Zuiho and a Ryujo.
Sure, I was still sort-of new to the game. 
But, I was there.  Seeing the "salt"  during battle-chat and in forum posts.
I posted on the old forum during the time-period when the RTS was being changed to the re-work.
Essentially, I was saying that the re-worked CV's behaved less like playing a CV and more like playing a Squadron Leader.
Third-person map view compared with WG/WOWs version of a more immersive pilot's first person view.

Hard to believe so many years have gone by.

[Admiral_Karasu]

3 minutes ago, WES_HoundDog said:

I'm in a minotour and i get dropped on by a nakimov over and over, minimum 4 or 5 drops.    By the end of the match i've shot down 7 planes...   With supercarriers,  they come at you with 3 planes.  You know why? Because your not supposed to shoot down planes anymore. Your just supposed to be farmed by a ship your never supposed to see.   Sound familiar?

 

counterplay works, but i go with competitive.  But It's not competitive. WeGe might give you the illusion of competition, their not designed to compete, their designed to prey on the player base. Their predatory. They prey on the player base and that is disgusting for a game maker to put in their game.  And when the only logical explanation is money it's doubly so.

Yes, but really, why bother to pay for this?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

9 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Yes, but really, why bother to pay for this?

IMO, anyone paying money for this game is very rich indeed to be able to afford to receive so little value for their money.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, That WoT Player said:

What the hell kind of straw man argument is that? No one arguing has referenced or even implied they wanted WoWs to be a simulator. They might not have been explicit in their desires, or what they wanted the game to be, but this is straight up jumping to conclusions. Instead, you could have asked them to elaborate and watched them fumble or dance around the point. 

Over the years, many haved asked for "ships to be their historic speeds" or have complained about "AA not effective enough".
Can't have it both ways, though.

Real-life AA *was* less effective than in-game.

Pearl Harbor was a well-planned attack that achieved surprise and sunk ships trapped at-anchor or before they could escape and maneuver.
Non-maneuvering sitting-ducks got sunk.
 

Yet people want their "historic" AA to destroy all planes before an attack can land a punch while not maneuvering their ship.
That is an unrealistic expectation that has been worded many ways but essentially remains the same through many of the topics on the old forum and now this forum.

So, yeah, I don't agree with that expectation.
Instead I suggest people focus their "historic" expectations on the modeling of the ship's hulls and understand that the Art Department continues to out-perform the game's development & mechanics departments.  🙂 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Wolfswetpaws said:

Yet people want their "historic" AA to destroy all planes before an attack can land a punch while not maneuvering their ship.
That is an unrealistic expectation that has been worded many ways but essentially remains the same through many of the topics on the old forum and now this forum.

On the other hand, it is a very realistic expectation that a naval fleet would have the capability to provide actual air defense...

...and we used to have it.

Continually denigrating that desire by this means is really boring and non-constructive, IMO.

[Jakob Knight]

8 minutes ago, WES_HoundDog said:

I'm in a minotour and i get dropped on by a nakimov over and over, minimum 4 or 5 drops.    By the end of the match i've shot down 7 planes...   With supercarriers,  they come at you with 3 planes.  You know why? Because your not supposed to shoot down planes anymore. Your just supposed to be farmed by a ship your never supposed to see.   Sound familiar?

 

counterplay works, but i go with competitive.  But It's not competitive. WeGe might give you the illusion of competition, their not designed to compete, their designed to prey on the player base. Their predatory. They prey on the player base and that is disgusting for a game maker to put in their game.  And when the only logical explanation is money it's doubly so.

 

I think you need to define what you mean by 'predatory' in this context.  We're in a PVP game, so all gameplay is predatory by default.  Your Minotaur would make swift work of a Ragnar, so there are matchups where you have the advantages and others where you don't.  If you meant they seek to make money off players, that's understood by the fact they are a .com entity.  If you mean they are deceiving players, I would ask which current actions you are referring to in particular.

 

Predatory has implications and definitions that I don't see here, and I'd like to understand the reason you do.

[Wolfswetpaws]

52 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Why do some players accept that some gun hits may happen but not accept that aerial hits may happen?
Gee, talk about a "double standard", eh?

Why Cv's can't detonate, have very short fire duration and their plane production is not affected by external factors, like fire, flooding and dmg taken?

I think you make a legitimate point.
The "special treatment" is seen as unnecessary by many.
1.  Because all ships should be subject to the risks and the incapacitations on their capabilities
2.  Because in RTS we had controls which allowed us to manually use DCP instead of it being automatically used by programming in the re-worked era.

[Admiral_Karasu]

10 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Over the years, many haved asked for "ships to be their historic speeds" or have complained about "AA not effective enough".
Can't have it both ways, though.

Real-life AA *was* less effective than in-game.

Pearl Harbor was a well-planned attack that achieved surprise and sunk ships trapped at-anchor or before they could escape and maneuver.
Non-maneuvering sitting-ducks got sunk.
 

Yet people want their "historic" AA to destroy all planes before an attack can land a punch while not maneuvering their ship.
That is an unrealistic expectation that has been worded many ways but essentially remains the same through many of the topics on the old forum and now this forum.

So, yeah, I don't agree with that expectation.
Instead I suggest people focus their "historic" expectations on the modeling of the ship's hulls and understand that the Art Department continues to out-perform the game's development & mechanics departments.  🙂 

Actually... you should take a closer look at Admiral Kimmel's orders... but that's a separate discussion.

Why can't we have it both ways? If WoWS is an arcade game there's no reason why we can't have it both ways.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Actually... you should take a closer look at Admiral Kimmel's orders... but that's a separate discussion.

Why can't we have it both ways? If WoWS is an arcade game there's no reason why we can't have it both ways.

Why can't we score citadel hits on Destroyers?  🙂 

The answer, essentially, is that the game developers have made decisions that are out of our control.
We may or may not agree with some or all of those decisions.
But the decisions were made by the developers.

Sort of like, "Why did that movie scene seem like totally unbelievable trash that contradicts reality?"
Well, the answer is, "it was in the script".  🙂 

[WES_HoundDog]

20 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Yes, but really, why bother to pay for this?

Why do people rely on CC's review of a ship on if their going to buy them or not?    Why are their superships? It's because lots of people out there will pay for an advantage.  Create a ship with an advantage and peoples wallets open up in droves.  Why should some bad care what it does to the game?  That's the developers problem.    However the developers went with the idea money now trumps money later.  They made these decisions years ago and it's obviously had an impact.  We get a new event every week trying to get people to pay for loot boxes and other wise unavailable ships.   It's because their not making the money they used to because they killed their player base with the predators.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

18 minutes ago, WES_HoundDog said:

Why do people rely on CC's review of a ship on if their going to buy them or not?    Why are their superships? It's because lots of people out there will pay for an advantage.  Create a ship with an advantage and peoples wallets open up in droves.  Why should some bad care what it does to the game?  That's the developers problem.    However the developers went with the idea money now trumps money later.  They made these decisions years ago and it's obviously had an impact.  We get a new event every week trying to get people to pay for loot boxes and other wise unavailable ships.   It's because their not making the money they used to because they killed their player base with the predators.

Mmm...the temptation of money now vs money later.

We could analyze WG actions through this lens forever...and never accomplish anything constructive...since they don't listen to us here.

Let's not get too sidetracked into just a moaning session...even if that moaning is justified. 😄

[Admiral_Karasu]

19 minutes ago, WES_HoundDog said:

Why do people rely on CC's review of a ship on if their going to buy them or not?    Why are their superships? It's because lots of people out there will pay for an advantage.  Create a ship with an advantage and peoples wallets open up in droves.  Why should some bad care what it does to the game?  That's the developers problem.    However the developers went with the idea money now trumps money later.  They made these decisions years ago and it's obviously had an impact.  We get a new event every week trying to get people to pay for loot boxes and other wise unavailable ships.   It's because their not making the money they used to because they killed their player base with the predators.

It's a slippery slope.

It's MachineZone.