Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Dee_Greg

Let me buy second ship for CW & allow captain CW alternate skill setup

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6
[SCCC]
Members
22 posts
5,459 battles

Due to the CW restrictions, until the season is over I can’t take my DM, Gearing, Montana and Missouri to randoms.

 

I’d like to buy a second ship of the same kind I already have in port (for 50-75% cost) that can be only used in CW. This will eliminate the need to spend 100 doubloons every time I want to switch between game modes.

 

Further, allow the captain to have an alternate skill distribution for CW (would even pay 500 doubloons to unlock it per captain) and allow the same captain to drive both of the same kind of ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,790
Members
9,978 posts
4 minutes ago, Dee_Greg said:

Due to the CW restrictions, until the season is over I can’t take my DM, Gearing, Montana and Missouri to randoms.

 

I’d like to buy a second ship of the same kind I already have in port (for 50-75% cost) that can be only used in CW. This will eliminate the need to spend 100 doubloons every time I want to switch between game modes.

 

Further, allow the captain to have an alternate skill distribution for CW (would even pay 500 doubloons to unlock it per captain) and allow the same captain to drive both of the same kind of ships.

 

What does this mean?:Smile_amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,806
[SALVO]
Members
17,092 posts
17,754 battles

There's no guarantee that the current setup for clan battles will remain the same.  That is, at some point in the future, they may have CV's as part of CB's, so why should they waste precious time and effort on what you suggest for something that may be a temporary thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,790
Members
9,978 posts
12 minutes ago, Dee_Greg said:

It means that I will not take a non anti air version of that ship to random.

You choice, I'm sure WG will be happy to have people training multiple captains for their Tier 10's.:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,523 posts
7,580 battles
13 minutes ago, Dee_Greg said:

It means that I will not take a non anti air version of that ship to random.

I find this hilarious considering CVs at high tiers are very rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[SCCC]
Members
22 posts
5,459 battles
2 minutes ago, awiggin said:

You choice, I'm sure WG will be happy to have people training multiple captains for their Tier 10's.:Smile_teethhappy:

Did you read the rest of my post and did you understand it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[OO7]
Members
2,092 posts
8,191 battles
6 minutes ago, Dee_Greg said:

Did you read the rest of my post and did you understand it?

Not really tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
396 posts
9,434 battles

Captain respects are free for a few days?

 

This is what WG wants after all, they want you to spend doubloons on little things like this.

 

This still wouldn't stop me from taking a less AA spec'd ships into randoms... especially Gearing 

 

8 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

I find this hilarious considering CVs at high tiers are very rare.

 

Until 90% of my games (tier 9-10) last night had CV's...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[ECOM]
Members
955 posts
11,474 battles

I'm finding the same problem. I don't have 2 19 point captains for every tier 10 ship I own, nor can I afford to continually swap modules.  This is severely limiting my choice of ships to play in cws.guess I just won't be participating that much. Unfortunate. 

 

A ship specced for the meta in cws means that I can't play that ship that I so love in randoms or vice versa. Without a major handicap. Or forced into playing a ship spec that I don't enjoy limiting my options. 

Edited by Megrim3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,790
Members
9,978 posts
35 minutes ago, Dee_Greg said:

Did you read the rest of my post and did you understand it?

 

It appeared to me you wanted to have two completely different ships setups for the same ship, as well as the captain.

While it would be nice if WG did stuff like that, it's not likely to happen. Frankly I'm amazed they gave us 5 days of free rebuild/respec, even though it was the right thing to do.:Smile_teethhappy:

Another thing to consider that as the metas evolve, you're going to be constantly changing setups anyway...

Edited by awiggin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,523 posts
7,580 battles
2 minutes ago, awiggin said:

 

Another thing to consider that as the metas evolve, you're going to be constantly changing setups anyway...

:Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,267
Members
3,725 posts
15,042 battles

 OP has a point, in CW I'm running such a build for Des Moines that is suboptimal for random battles. It's all [edited] and giggles because I can respec my commander for free whenever I'm switching battle modes but this will end very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[ECOM]
Members
955 posts
11,474 battles
16 minutes ago, m373x said:

 OP has a point, in CW I'm running such a build for Des Moines that is suboptimal for random battles. It's all [edited] and giggles because I can respec my commander for free whenever I'm switching battle modes but this will end very soon.

Even if you did have 2 devoted captain's for your ship, swapping out ships modules every battle is a fortune I don't see many being able to afford.  All these decisions they have made almost makes me feel like they are setting up clan wars to fail like team wars. Low participation in their elimination of cv and number of ships making half the other ships unavailable to play in clan wars because they are AA specced, and taking the strengths of the ship out Thus making them obsolete. Creating an entirely narrow meta that will become boring very fast. 

 

If I were you I would keep your ship AA specced and play it in randoms and forget about clan wars with that ship. The ship of clan wars will sink faster than the fun of randoms. 

Edited by Megrim3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[SCCC]
Members
22 posts
5,459 battles
29 minutes ago, awiggin said:

 

It appeared to me you wanted to have two completely different ships setups for the same ship, as well as the captain.

While it would be nice if WG did stuff like that, it's not likely to happen. Frankly I'm amazed they gave us 5 days of free rebuild/respec, even though it was the right thing to do.:Smile_teethhappy:

Another thing to consider that as the metas evolve, you're going to be constantly changing setups anyway...

I want to have 2 separate ship of the same kind (2 DM for example) where I can have a different setup for random and for "competitive" play ... you guys have a point by not limiting it only to CW, but for whatever like ranked (if ever T10), or training rooms. Meta changes all the time, but 2 setup will always be reasonable.

I also want to have 1 captain, who can be assigned to either ships with an alternate skill setup option.

Monetization can be worked out - I have a reasonable example in the OP, but it is unrealistic to spend 50 doubloons (2 module change) per change 2x a day for 4-5 days a week for 8 week times 3 ships (already at 10k doubloons) plus the captain retraining 500 doubloons every time ...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,552
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,874 posts
5,259 battles

AA spec is a bad choice anyway.

 

Just have two captains and deal with the modules staying the same.

 

Or get a different tier 10 for Clan Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[ECOM]
Members
955 posts
11,474 battles
5 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

AA spec is a bad choice anyway.

 

Just have two captains and deal with the modules staying the same.

 

Or get a different tier 10 for Clan Wars.

I'm sorry but AA spec is not a bad spec or a poor choice. It's actually extremely powerful and wins games hands down in battles with cv's. Also, why dumb down the game and limit all ships to be clones of each other? Go play jacuzzi bath tub boats and tell me its the same game we have here. 

Edited by Megrim3
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,310
[CAFE]
Beta Testers
4,374 posts
8,541 battles

There arent enough CV's to really matter if you have AA or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[ECOM]
Members
955 posts
11,474 battles
1 minute ago, Spyde said:

There arent enough CV's to really matter if you have AA or not.

More than half my random games have cv's. Not sure what time of night your playing. 

Edited by Megrim3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,310
[CAFE]
Beta Testers
4,374 posts
8,541 battles
Just now, Megrim3 said:

More than half my random have cv's. 

T7 id guess then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[ECOM]
Members
955 posts
11,474 battles
10 minutes ago, Spyde said:

T7 id guess then ?

Nope. Tier 8+. We also have a few cv mains in our clan. So this is for sure contributing when we division. 

Edited by Megrim3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,552
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,874 posts
5,259 battles
2 hours ago, Megrim3 said:

I'm sorry but AA spec is not a bad spec or a poor choice. It's actually extremely powerful and wins games hands down in battles with cv's. Also, why dumb down the game and limit all ships to be clones of each other? Go play jacuzzi bath tub boats and tell me its the same game we have here. 

Not saying its not useful under the right circumstances.  The problem is, those circumstances occur maybe 25% of the time.  So 75% of the time you have a lot of wasted skills/modules.  But hey, you do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×