Jump to content

Carrier_Lexington

Members
  • Content Сount

    3,997
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4484
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

958 Excellent

About Carrier_Lexington

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday 09/27/1998
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Spying from an air duct in the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Space, Russian Destroyers, American CVs, anime, being a nice person

Recent Profile Visitors

3,245 profile views
  1. Carrier_Lexington

    WG has Nerfed my Battles

    I see. Peregrinas returns to the forums once more.
  2. Carrier_Lexington

    Harsh truths

    I do want to point out that if you are only capable of scraping 18k damage in a Tier 8 before getting dev-struck by a well-placed enemy BB, then still end up in the top 2 on your team, it might not be your fault. On the plus side, low-effort Campaign missions.
  3. Carrier_Lexington

    Harsh truths

    I assume you only watch the Hallmark Channel. This sanctimonious, superiority crapis revolting. [Yes, that's directed at you. You come in here, assume that someone is telling you what to do, assume that they're being "Holier than Thou," and then get defensive and act superior about it. Sanctimony is as Sanctimony does, and you, my friend, are sanctimonious]
  4. Carrier_Lexington

    Harsh truths

    Unless you are in Kamikaze. Then, you just do what Kamikaze do all the time.
  5. Carrier_Lexington

    Can We All Calm Down a Second?

    While I understand your position, I don't really trust the word of Sub on the "Wargaming" math; if anything, I am suspicious that the "rounding errors" are either not that much of a factor as Sub wants to downplay them as or are in Sub's math.
  6. Carrier_Lexington

    Can We All Calm Down a Second?

    You are right, however, there is also the caveat that, according to his math, you have to do the directives within 3 days of them being released.
  7. Carrier_Lexington

    Can We All Calm Down a Second?

    No, I read Kizvarexis' thread, which says pretty much the opposite of what you're saying.
  8. Now, just earn 1.4 Million Free XP...
  9. Carrier_Lexington

    Can We All Calm Down a Second?

    I want to point out something here, though: The one way that isn't "crazy town" as you put it, still is the major shaft to people who believed that having all three boosters would make the ship possible. From what math I've seen, even with all three boosters, you're going to still need to complete a lot of the directives. I mean, should those people be expected to buy Gorizia on top of what they've already bought? That seems like a douchey market strategy to me.
  10. Carrier_Lexington

    Can We All Calm Down a Second?

    Surely you understand how a CC like Jingles feels when he portrays content in one way and Wargaming changes things to make you not only look wrong, but like you were lying? This transcends the ship. This is an issue about the deliberate obfuscation and just about everything short of outright lying on the part of Wargaming to mislead players into believing this was possible. It's not just about wanting a ship for free. It's about that desire being directly fed and manipulated to get users to sink costs early. And it's about that manipulation making CCs feel bad about making content because of the way their content, to them, seems like it has been used and twisted outside of its original meaning.
  11. Carrier_Lexington

    This Puerto Rico grind ...

    I, personally, think that big gaming industries are anticipating a crash and trying to milk the system as much as they possibly can before that crash comes so they can avoid the consequences of their own actions later on down the line.
  12. Carrier_Lexington

    This Puerto Rico grind ...

    Alright, I think one of the people who says it best is, of course, Jingles himself. He's fairly respectful. He keeps a pretty even keel. And everything he says is damning, especially when he talks about how Wargaming didn't even bother to correct him or Flambass when they were making videos on the PTS, and how he hates the fact that he put out a video on a subject which Wargaming changed and made him feel like he misled his audience.
  13. Carrier_Lexington

    This Puerto Rico grind ...

    You're off your rocker at this point. Oh, yes, everyone just happens to have the time, mathematical expertise, and datamining skill to somehow establish what it took users with that expertise and time several days to complete. Or maybe, just maybe, there just might be credibility to the whole concept that the advertising for this event was absolutely deceptive and the numerous edits, last-minute changes, and vague verbiage that were made and/or used do strongly support the premise that this event was designed on the principle of keeping players as ignorant as possible of the actual constraints of the event in order to drive early investments and the FOMO + Sunk Costs marketing scheme. Maybe, just maybe, blaming everyone who was deceived is a pretty poor interpersonal strategy. I looked in that "damn shipyard" and I couldn't see the immense grind. I saw an event scheme I'd fallen for twice in a different and much more niche game, which was why I didn't get involved in it. Most people who play this game, in fact, are of working age and won't have one of those three characteristics mentioned in the first sentence. Finally, your whole claim is completely unsubstantiated, it's pure motive attribution without any supporting evidence. I could just as easily say that Wargaming left those seven days so that players could stew in the FOMO anxiety and be pushed to buy boosters before the event began. And yet you sit here swearing at me making the claim that, somehow, the majority of the playerbase should have been able to just automatically know all this information despite the fact that that information was either unavailable or hidden. Do you really want to live in a society where Caveat Emptor is such a perfect defense that we all live in fear of how each other are going to take advantage of any weakness in the other to ruin each other?
×