Then why am I level 85 and have more zeta than omega?
Answer: a lot more omegas are used by toons.
To be fair, I'm not exactly sure how relevant to the OP your position in the game is.
I gather that you are considerably more advanced than they are, so your usage and requirements are presumably different now than what they were when you were at the OP's point of progress?
Let's also be clear: One zeta requires 10-13 Omega & 20 Zeta. Even with Ship purchases, the OP will not reach 20 Zeta before they reach 10-13 Omega.
They will reach 14 Omega in 14 days.
If they are earning 1250 Ship tokens per day it will take 32 days to purchase 20 Zeta, without Ability Mat drops & TW extras. That's 32 Omega in the same time period.
The fact of what I stated remains: You get 7 Omega guaranteed per week. You do not get any guaranteed Zeta per week, unless you're spending your Ship PvP income on them.
Omega income will not be as much of an issue at the point of the game they will soon reach.
It will expectedly become an issue again when they reach the point of the game which you are at.
I mean. You get that languages have figurative meanings in addition to just their literal meanings, right? Repeating plural looks nicer.
Apologies, wasn't my intention to be dismissive or confrontational, was just pointing it out as the usage of the word was incorrect.
When people add the word "plural" subsequent to the usage of a plural, e.g. "Battles, plural", it is usually to emphasise the point that the they initially used the plural, if that was not picked up on.
Your usage of plural seemed to be in place of the word multiple, yet it is not a valid replacement?
As such, "plural battles" does not actually make any sense as a statement.
I guessed that English may not be your first language, so offered the FYI as advice, apologies if it came across as criticism.
That's all fair, and also has all been discussed in the preceding eight pages.
EDIT: I also missed that you addressed the OP directly.
Ah, sorry, I read your initial response as something of a counter to what I wrote, as it seemed to be asking a question based on a situation which was contrary to what I suggested.
Didn't recognise it for a "No need, this has already been discussed."
I mean. You get that languages have figurative meanings in addition to just their literal meanings, right? Repeating plural looks nicer.
Apologies, wasn't my intention to be dismissive or confrontational, was just pointing it out as the usage of the word was incorrect.
When people add the word "plural" subsequent to the usage of a plural, e.g. "Battles, plural", it is usually to emphasise the point that the they initially used the plural, if that was not picked up on.
Your usage of plural seemed to be in place of the word multiple, yet it is not a valid replacement?
As such, "plural battles" does not actually make any sense as a statement.
I guessed that English may not be your first language, so offered the FYI as advice, apologies if it came across as criticism.
Just to throw my thoughts in on this. Battles can also be used in a singular form. E.g. luke battles on... So to use plural isnt necessarily inccorect as it can clarify context. On the other hand I do see where you are coming from. I hate literally being used in the wrong context.
Just to throw my thoughts in on this. Battles can also be used in a singular form. E.g. luke battles on... So to use plural isnt necessarily inccorect as it can clarify context. On the other hand I do see where you are coming from. I hate literally being used in the wrong context.
:-)
I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn, to be honest. It's funny when you think how common vernacular can be born from an original misuse.
The "battles" in "He battles on" still seems plural to me, as I sort of hear it referring to him being able to continue facing the current & future difficulties, so he will be continuing to face more battles, plural, going forward.
"He is able to battle on" seems more the singular? As in, he will be able to continue this particular battle to it's/his end.
I guess they can actually both be transposed for either use I've provided. Depends on context.
I also have the same grrr for literally using "literally" everywhere, despite it not being literal in the slightest. Also "like". ;-)
Just to throw my thoughts in on this. Battles can also be used in a singular form. E.g. luke battles on... So to use plural isnt necessarily inccorect as it can clarify context. On the other hand I do see where you are coming from. I hate literally being used in the wrong context.
:-)
I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn, to be honest. It's funny when you think how common vernacular can be born from an original misuse.
The "battles" in "He battles on" still seems plural to me, as I sort of hear it referring to him being able to continue facing the current & future difficulties, so he will be continuing to face more battles, plural, going forward.
"He is able to battle on" seems more the singular? As in, he will be able to continue this particular battle to it's/his end.
I guess they can actually both be transposed for either use I've provided. Depends on context.
I also have the same grrr for literally using "literally" everywhere, despite it not being literal in the slightest. Also "like". ;-)
Except, “he battle on” sounds and is improper. He struggle with a single issue. He struggles with a single issue. Struggles is not plural in the context presented.
Battles in your case means, he is continuing his battle with whom ever or what ever his battle is with. It is a singular battle similar to He battles with cancer. He fought in numerous battles during the campaign would be the plural use.
@Shonkathonk The sentence I was referring to was: "It's omega battles because there are plural battles; not plural omegas."
To me "because there are plural battles, not plural omegas." just doesn't read correctly. "because there are battles, plural, not omegas, plural." does.
Key word there: "can". ;-)
You can get 2 x 6 per week from Ship Ability Mat challenges, you can also get 1 x 9 from toon Ability Mat challenges.
Ability vs. probability.
Key word there: "can". ;-)
You can get 2 x 6 per week from Ship Ability Mat challenges, you can also get 1 x 9 from toon Ability Mat challenges.
Ability vs. probability.
Nope it's 100% guaranteed, it does however cost crystals to refresh, but it is guaranteed.
Except, “he battle on” sounds and is improper. He struggle with a single issue. He struggles with a single issue. Struggles is not plural in the context presented.
Battles in your case means, he is continuing his battle with whom ever or what ever his battle is with. It is a singular battle similar to He battles with cancer. He fought in numerous battles during the campaign would be the plural use.
Don't believe "he battle on" was proposed by anyone, so not quite sure if you're presenting a case against the use of something that no-one suggested?
Even still, in the correct context it is perfectly correct and proper.
"What's he doing now?"
"Not sure, someone suggested that he battle on, so I think he is going to."
As the other post said - all about context.
Anyway, you're correct. "Battles" is a plural noun, when referring to multiple instances of battle.
It is a 3rd person present verb, when referring to someone's struggle against something.
As such, the word "battles" can be both, singular and plural.
Funny, from your cancer example, take "he had many battles with cancer." - now "battles" there is plural, because there has been more than one, even though it is against the same foe & has actually been one long battle.
Despite it, therefore, not being numerous battles, it is still a plural.
Sorry, I find language an extremely interesting subject too.
Key word there: "can". ;-)
You can get 2 x 6 per week from Ship Ability Mat challenges, you can also get 1 x 9 from toon Ability Mat challenges.
Ability vs. probability.
Nope it's 100% guaranteed, it does however cost crystals to refresh, but it is guaranteed.
Looks like they didn't recognise that you were referring to the Omega Battles events that guarantee 1 Omega for the highest Tier.
Perhaps were mistakenly still referring to the Ability Mats challenges, where none are guaranteed.
Lol Omega crunch, no such thing, there is plenty in the game. Not to mention omega battles are dead content.
Personally, I don't experience an issue with Omega income anywhere near as much as Zeta, but it's quite clear from reading through this thread that others, both newer and older players, do experience it.
Dismissing their concern like that, is a little ignorant.
Then why am I level 85 and have more zeta than omega?
Answer: a lot more omegas are used by toons.
I would guess that you might have applied more Omegas to toons who you wouldn't consider applying a Zeta to?
As Omega income is generally enough to do 2 (maybe 3) Attacks/Abilities per week, I would also presume that your care around spending them may not have been particularly high, at some point in time? Not as high as your care of spending a Zeta was, perhaps?
Where you say a lot more Omegas are used by toons, well this is a given as one cannot apply a Zeta without 10-13 Omega, having already spent at least 10-15 Omegas on the other Abilities.
i.e. A character with 4 Abilities, one to Zeta, costs 25-28 Omega, 20 Zeta, total.
A character with 2 Zeta pulls the Zeta/Omega balance for that character a lot closer - highest is 41 Omega, lowest 38, 40 Zeta.
A character with 3 Zeta moves the Zeta count noticeably ahead for them. Taking the previous highest count of 41 O/40 Z + 13 O & 20 Z = 54 Omega, 60 Zeta.
AFAIK all character Abilities require Omegas at their highest level - although not entirely sure of this?
As there are a number of characters who do not have any Zeta Abilities, I would have to guess that the total amount of each required for a full roster would have, as you say, Omega numbers considerably exceeding Zeta numbers.
As WallopTings put forward, the income rate of Omega is much higher than the income rate of Zeta, though.
So why you have ended up with more Zeta than Omega? There are a multitude of reasons as to why you could have ended up in that situation, but only you can answer your question with anything other than speculation.
I'm currently sitting on 19 Omega and 10 Zeta, having just spent 15 Omega on 3 Abilities.
Replies
I gather that you are considerably more advanced than they are, so your usage and requirements are presumably different now than what they were when you were at the OP's point of progress?
Let's also be clear: One zeta requires 10-13 Omega & 20 Zeta. Even with Ship purchases, the OP will not reach 20 Zeta before they reach 10-13 Omega.
They will reach 14 Omega in 14 days.
If they are earning 1250 Ship tokens per day it will take 32 days to purchase 20 Zeta, without Ability Mat drops & TW extras. That's 32 Omega in the same time period.
The fact of what I stated remains: You get 7 Omega guaranteed per week. You do not get any guaranteed Zeta per week, unless you're spending your Ship PvP income on them.
Omega income will not be as much of an issue at the point of the game they will soon reach.
It will expectedly become an issue again when they reach the point of the game which you are at.
EDIT: I also missed that you addressed the OP directly.
When people add the word "plural" subsequent to the usage of a plural, e.g. "Battles, plural", it is usually to emphasise the point that the they initially used the plural, if that was not picked up on.
Your usage of plural seemed to be in place of the word multiple, yet it is not a valid replacement?
As such, "plural battles" does not actually make any sense as a statement.
I guessed that English may not be your first language, so offered the FYI as advice, apologies if it came across as criticism.
Didn't recognise it for a "No need, this has already been discussed."
Just to throw my thoughts in on this. Battles can also be used in a singular form. E.g. luke battles on... So to use plural isnt necessarily inccorect as it can clarify context. On the other hand I do see where you are coming from. I hate literally being used in the wrong context.
I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn, to be honest. It's funny when you think how common vernacular can be born from an original misuse.
The "battles" in "He battles on" still seems plural to me, as I sort of hear it referring to him being able to continue facing the current & future difficulties, so he will be continuing to face more battles, plural, going forward.
"He is able to battle on" seems more the singular? As in, he will be able to continue this particular battle to it's/his end.
I guess they can actually both be transposed for either use I've provided. Depends on context.
I also have the same grrr for literally using "literally" everywhere, despite it not being literal in the slightest. Also "like". ;-)
Except, “he battle on” sounds and is improper. He struggle with a single issue. He struggles with a single issue. Struggles is not plural in the context presented.
Battles in your case means, he is continuing his battle with whom ever or what ever his battle is with. It is a singular battle similar to He battles with cancer. He fought in numerous battles during the campaign would be the plural use.
To me "because there are plural battles, not plural omegas." just doesn't read correctly. "because there are battles, plural, not omegas, plural." does.
You can get 2 x 6 per week from Ship Ability Mat challenges, you can also get 1 x 9 from toon Ability Mat challenges.
Ability vs. probability.
Nope it's 100% guaranteed, it does however cost crystals to refresh, but it is guaranteed.
Even still, in the correct context it is perfectly correct and proper.
"What's he doing now?"
"Not sure, someone suggested that he battle on, so I think he is going to."
As the other post said - all about context.
Anyway, you're correct. "Battles" is a plural noun, when referring to multiple instances of battle.
It is a 3rd person present verb, when referring to someone's struggle against something.
As such, the word "battles" can be both, singular and plural.
Funny, from your cancer example, take "he had many battles with cancer." - now "battles" there is plural, because there has been more than one, even though it is against the same foe & has actually been one long battle.
Despite it, therefore, not being numerous battles, it is still a plural.
Sorry, I find language an extremely interesting subject too.
Perhaps were mistakenly still referring to the Ability Mats challenges, where none are guaranteed.
Dismissing their concern like that, is a little ignorant.
As Omega income is generally enough to do 2 (maybe 3) Attacks/Abilities per week, I would also presume that your care around spending them may not have been particularly high, at some point in time? Not as high as your care of spending a Zeta was, perhaps?
Where you say a lot more Omegas are used by toons, well this is a given as one cannot apply a Zeta without 10-13 Omega, having already spent at least 10-15 Omegas on the other Abilities.
i.e. A character with 4 Abilities, one to Zeta, costs 25-28 Omega, 20 Zeta, total.
A character with 2 Zeta pulls the Zeta/Omega balance for that character a lot closer - highest is 41 Omega, lowest 38, 40 Zeta.
A character with 3 Zeta moves the Zeta count noticeably ahead for them. Taking the previous highest count of 41 O/40 Z + 13 O & 20 Z = 54 Omega, 60 Zeta.
AFAIK all character Abilities require Omegas at their highest level - although not entirely sure of this?
As there are a number of characters who do not have any Zeta Abilities, I would have to guess that the total amount of each required for a full roster would have, as you say, Omega numbers considerably exceeding Zeta numbers.
As WallopTings put forward, the income rate of Omega is much higher than the income rate of Zeta, though.
So why you have ended up with more Zeta than Omega? There are a multitude of reasons as to why you could have ended up in that situation, but only you can answer your question with anything other than speculation.
I'm currently sitting on 19 Omega and 10 Zeta, having just spent 15 Omega on 3 Abilities.