KiyoSenkan

Why should I bother wasting my time when you've already decided to throw it out under some excuse or another like you did last time I provided the proof you demanded? You switch so often between white knighting for WG and criticizing them that you can probably speedrun Mirror's Edge at this point. EDIT: Also why did you make this demand from me instead of the first person to mention this?

Hilarious.

I now have 2 different posters stalking my posts and trying to gaslight me when I point out the unacceptable and unethical (by corporate standards, not mine) behavior, lies, and insults this company has resorted to in the name of greed. How brainwashed can you get?

If they stopped being incompetent, maybe people would stop calling them incompetent. A novel concept, I know.

Except they absolutely did try to shift the blame onto the testers. WG loves to shift blame, they try it every chance they get. The company in general does not like taking responsibility for its own mistakes and is constantly on the lookout for a scapegoat. Don't defend this behavior.

You're right. We should be reporting WG.

The dumb thing is the people who did test the CV rework told WG about the problems they saw with it, then WG released it to live with those same problems still in place, then blamed the testers for not mentioning those problems...that they mentioned, during testing.

That's not what I said, but it's a nice strawman. The attitude demonstrated in this quote also demonstrates exactly why I don't want to ignite this discussion.

Oh no, attempts to answer that question turned into a 5 page argument wherein one side posted actual sites showing the definition and the other side kept insisting that every possible information outlet was wrong and their personal opinion was the only factual take which just so happened to exclude WG's model. I'm not starting that mess again.

I see where you're coming from here, but the actual legal definition of "pay to win" as a term treats both of these as examples of the same thing. So you're not wrong, but should probably consider being a bit more open-minded. People who try to narrow it down to very specific situations that just so happen to exclude a form of monetization are typically white-knighting in defense of the company using that monetization model. The actual definition, however, does not exclude WG's "pay to advance" from being included as a form of "pay to win".

You first.

You're a great one to accuse people of giving "non-answers", considering you just refuse to address anything that would force you to admit something inconvenient to your position.

Yeah, gotta wait for the correct release date so you can post the information, then change it a day later and shift the blame onto the people who call you on it.

Most of the times that CCs have been incorrect are because WG changed something right after they made the video (Like the German destroyers, remember that?) And the few times they make a legit mistake it's either become a running gag (Jingles' misidentification of ships) or they correct themselves later. Making the claim that all/most CCs are ignorant is just mindless self-aggrandizing and the same kind of abusive, elitist behavior I've come to expect from the OP.

That's what I meant by "Ahistorical upgrades that nobody who wants this ship would actually want to see". But WG will probably make it a tier 10 supercruiser and charge $260 for it. Plenty of ships in this game aren't in that one. And vice-versa.