And you’re more than welcome to add your nuances here anyway (as the point we’re commenting is more than reasonably related), just notice that it’s not the primary goal addressed on this post from my perspective :)
Your solution only lessens an still existing structural unfairness, even applying your methods, it doesn’t remove it. The unfairness only one type of vehicle must go through it in order to get its competitive reload edge.
I'm still waiting the conceptual disadvantages (not gameplay ones, but the ones you have to solve through the hangar) of having an autoloader.
And is because there isn’t, autoloaded vehicles are not even more expensive to repair at all, hence the structural complain I’m doing with this post all along. Removing reload times from expert/aced crew trainings would aliviate manual-loaded vehicles at top tier to such an extent it would be instantly noticeable, considering how the game at top tier is balanced around firerate.
My ‘solution’ has nothing to do with your autoloader problem. It is a basic procedure I use to develop my crew skill, which some people (in this thread too) complain about. And your problem is not unique: Crew vision skill probably does not affect radar or IR either. So some vehicles can see things that others don’t. Gunners much the same: My Israeli crews have no gunners. A bunch of apes is allowed to play with the guns in the B-17, the other planes need no gunners anyway.
To me, your special problem simply isn’t an issue that needs a solution.
Good thing a ±78% of the voters on this thread think otherwise, because if you don’t want to see what’s evident (and argue false equivalencies like the case of ONE Israeli vehicle, the B-17), that no longer goes on us.
Players shouldn’t be forced to spend more resources than the vehicle + basic crew assignment/leveling to get a meta-defining statistic at full value and there’s no justification to validate such practice beyond the veterancy bias in itself.
1 Like
You want to be taken seriously?
The voters on this thread matter? With that “neutral” wording in your poll? My vote isn’t in there, as the wording isn’t even neutral. “Yes” and “No” would have made way more sense.
“You don’t want to see what’s evident”. Great style to argue, in kindergarden. “No you…”
I am not going to argue on with you in this fashion, as I don’t even care much about your issue either way.
There’s no neutrality on the current system either, as it actively punishes manual-loaded vehicles on spending more game resources to eventually get its proper performance. It is only fair to stand and expose such inequity as raw as possible.
It doesn’t help your whole argument ended up in an underwhelming “grind harder”, the core point being openly criticized ICYMI.
Good stuff, as again, you failed to justify why the current system wouldn’t be arbitrary by benefiting autoloader-based tanks on their fire rate to the current extent.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Which one.
Because again, it's not the same amount of resources to buy and ace train a crew on an M5A1 Stewart, Rank II tank
than an M1A1 HC, Rank VII (let alone training costs at RVIII are even higher).
And seriously, if you want to make a point and not just go near griefing this thread, quote actual images on your “progress” whatever may be, unless you don’t care about the post nor the issue (as you said before):
Anyway. Next time you come this vague without proving anything at all, I’ll just flag you for spam/off topic. If you want to try proving something here, do it properly.
One that is obviously able to collect for ace from day one. (180.000 RP)
I picked the SB 2M, once I had reached level 5 and could expert it.
Oh it is you, Cpt Obvious! I am glad you brought this up ;-)
I am merely telling some people in this thread that crews can be grinded much faster than they consider possible. So I report my progress.
You want images of my progress? A picture with a 47 on it, because me writing “level 47” isn’t clear enough?
You want information on what and how I am doing?
What is not clear about that? You buy a crew, you assign the chinese reward plane to the crew you just bought, you spend a whopping 9000 SL for expert and you start taking part in the air event. Once you reach crew level 5, you change vehicles and assign a rank II plane (the SB 2M in my case), then spend another whopping 16.000 SL to expert it too. Use it together with the H75M. Remember to spend your crew points.
You can also assign a chopper to farm xp, if you have one. For a chopper it is expensive to buy expert too. That only makes sense if you plan to use it long term on the crew. (I do plan, so I did). But it works quite well without expert too.
So how could I prove it?
I want to know which vehicle/rank you’re grinding it, and so everyone who wants to know if your stance on this is believeable and not a cherrypick to just stay on your trench of “not an issue” to gatekeep new players from having competitive load times on ground vehicles at:
Top tier (RANK VIII), not Rank II or IV. Once again, that being the main topic of this thread.
I asked about Top tier (RANK VIII) economics, not prop slop. Sorry to burst the argument so bluntly, but props economics couldn’t be more irrelevant, I’m talking of investing ±2000GE + 1M SL to get an ace per top tier vehicle, not 100 GE and 10.000 SL at rank I.
You could’ve posted your progression over time, just like @RunaDacino posted screenshots? Like I posted the economic difference on purchasing a rank II and a rank VII training? You know, actual relatable experience instead of just “Dear diary, I just reached level 47. Its not that hard as the other forum user says.”
It seems like you genuinely don’t understand that this post and the majority’s opinion sets most of the burden of proof on your position.
I already posted more than enough arguments about how unfair it is, and besides your “argument” against it, you still haven’t explain how is it fair in the first place that autoloaded vehicles doesn’t require a resource-based bonus to get its proper reload rate, while manual-loaded vehicles does need such training and its respective investment.
I think you do miss my point completely. I am not talking SL here. Or auto loaders for that matter. I am talking about building up crew level quickly. The thing that people in this thread were lacking.
To do that, all you need is crew XP, right? Every time you manage to spend crew xp, you gain crew level. And it doesn’t matter at all, who earns the crew xp. You can earn them with a chopper and spend them on a tank crew. So in order to gain crew level, you need to earn crew xp (or cheat and buy them).
I am talking about how to conveniently farm crew xp to get something less pathetic than the crews depicted above. And that while you can do something you might like to do anyway, like get lots of GE or GJN or a hangar queen through an event.
I am not telling you how to solve SL poverty or how to get ace on your favorite tank. This is about getting a crew to a level where you can expert you favorite vehicle (SL is your problem). My crew can now expert all ranks. After 7 days or 4 of 10 event rounds.
For crews, the xp are all the same, if top tier or reserves, naval or tank.
But again, if you don’t like the idea of gaining crew level fast, feel free to ignore me. I am going to grind the next chopper now. :-)
First problem and of origin, since this topic addresses the inequity between autoloaded and manual-loaded systems, their peak loading performance and why is it unfair for the latter system to get extra training beyond the 5 lvls to get its best reload time, investing even more game resources to achieve so.
While an autoloader vehicle follows the research → buy → assign → spade and get a valid reference of performance, the manual-loaded vehicle must follow the reseach → buy → assign → spade + buy the ace training along the way to get its proper reload time, the one actually Gaijin uses for balance reference, now you get it?
They not only use a resource-extensive mechanic for manual-loaded vehicles, they also rule out their stock, base performance for balance, they force you to buy something in addition of the already costing hustle of reaching top tier for every manual-loaded top tier vehicle you get, bleeding you up to 8000GE and over 4 Million SL doing the math for four top tier manual loaded tanks.
You realize, for example, that if I wanted to expert/ace my top tier lineups w/four tanks each, it would cost me near twelve million SL? Are you seriously telling me this entire system is fair for a multination player?
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Not everyone has your 30M SL, nor your 58.000 games played, captain veterancy.
It seems clear enough you are either disingenuous (on not wanting to get the statu quo touched, the one which benefits your numbers) or clueless on how priviledged you are compared to not only nation mains, but also multi-nation, experienced players as well with not even half your games.
Add the fact you’re already making fun of me on a valid topic you’re not even rationalizing about, and just bragging about how much SL you have or how fast you’re leveling on props, both points completely out of the topic in discussion.
Under that conclusion, and how you systematically failed to justify the expert/ace system so that it still keeps its loading bonuses, while giving mediocre prop-slop levels of example: How about you save us both the pleasure and just stop replying to my post, as you promised a couple posts above anyway?
2 Likes
That’s why I want things changed. So ± 80% of the current 122 voters.
Your colonel secret recipe is “grind smarter”. Huge gamechanger, as if anyone who have discovered this inequity haven’t thought about it already. /s.
(meanwhile autoloader-based tanks don’t need to do that like at all).
I don’t have to comply to your goalposts if you’re imposing terms under your own biases and experiences. You are commenting someone else’s post, the forum assumes that once you comment you follow the guidelines, complying to the thread’s topic. You started proving that leveling crews was fast enough, while still missing the entire discussion on how the expert/ace system is entirely asymetrical and should have nothing do to with top tier balancing, end of story.
Again, this is my post, and I reply to who I deem appropiate. You don’t find that deal fair? Again, you can go, as you so hardly disagree with the views of the post’s criticism.
So you openly admit you’re derailing my post. Awesome. I don’t know the motivations behind it, nor I even care about them, but get over it, as its clear that I don’t care if your “solution” only resorts to “grind harder/smarter”.
Not on my post, buddy, that’s not how it works. Do your own post and gatekeep me from it, not the other way around.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
No one said it’s my forum, I said it’s my post, and I decided the topic of discussion, therefore people came to interact about such topic. The guidelines explicitly forces you to stick to the topic of discussion of my post (which you’ve clearly missed by rambling over basic crew xp leveling and talking about air or even better, props expert/ace grind).
And don’t get me started on how, for the 96th time, you’ve skipped to elaborate on the fairness of having to hire expert/ace crew trainings to get the best vehicle reload, while autoloaded vehicles don’t require that investment.
Please avoid anymore off-topic.
Thank you.
It’s not. It’s all earnable in game.
6 Likes