Elgerino

Pathological need to feel superior whilst also being a dunning kruger, failure must be rationalised in order to protect ego. Not exactly new stuff. I pointed out how insecure you looked pages and pages ago.

Yeah, my anomalies have been decreasing as of late. Where-as yours seem to be increasing, oh dear. Good job you've got this sixteen page rationalisation to distract from the real reason that's happening.

According to who? Genuinely curious. Or is this another one of those things you've ''explained'' before.

Keep lying to yourself. I'd answer the rest of your post, but it was all the usual rationalising bile so I'll leave it there.

The reason they revert to insults rather than rational explanation is because they actually have no rational explanation. Naskoni has let the cat out of the bag before, declaring that I'm the sort of person who doesn't regard personal experience and opinion as evidence so it's a waste of time explaining it. The reason they won't elaborate on it is because if they do, we'll find out they're basing their opinions on nothing but their own prejudices. No matter who asks, no matter how politely and how intelligently, they regard the very idea of evidence based reasoning with contempt and write you off as not worthy of an explanation. From the very first post to this unending ego war on the fifteenth page, the explanation was never once provided. The explanation simply doesn't exist. Outstanding. Talking about the patent again as if you've even read it. Lemme show you a little excerpt from this hallowed script that magically justifies all your [edited]. Holy crap! There's the patent stating that a MM system could be entirely random! Care to explain this? After all, everything the patent says must be true. How ridiculous is this situation? You spend ten pages trying to convince us the patent says something it doesn't, then when it comes right down to it the patent actually says something you deny with all your being, as well as several other totally contradictory MM models, by the way. You two are pathological. Well, based on a recent PM discussion I suppose that's three, not two.

Can we not take this guys thread making privileges away mods? I swear he's half the stupid whine thread economy.

Another misconception, just because a BB hits you doesn't mean it's going to do decent damage. If the hit-rate is thirty percent, a majority fraction of those on target shells will do little to nothing. 3 shells on target very often does bugger all. For a one-shot, citadel penetrations are required and they're not easily gotten, especially at long range.

No you don't understand. BB's aren't firing railguns. Most of them have a fifteen second travel time at least at their max range. They can't just magically hit dodging cruisers.

There's no way they're magically hitting you at max range unless you let them, I'm sorry to say.

Except the GTX 860M is a dedicated graphics card for laptops. Forgive my ignorance if that's not the case, but anything with ''M'' on it tends to be junk. EDIT: Quick google search says it runs Crysis and BF4 at 30+fps so it shouldn't have much trouble with WoWs.

Yeah, except whether it's random or not isn't the issue. What's the issue is that you're taking to task those who think it's random on factual accuracy, then ignoring the same from their side where they do the same thing. You're doing your damndest to avoid disagreeing with their side, even when the patent, which you've cited many times, does not say what they claim it says. But for some reason when someone says it's random (Something the patent actually describes) you're up on the high horse telling them why that's wrong. Not the behaviour of the neutral, it's purposely selective. If all you're saying is that there's evidence against it being random, that's fine. But if you do that and claim not to be taking sides, you oughta point out the fact there's no evidence of a donkey stacking matchmaker also. Being selectively critical is taking sides whichever way you stretch it.

And what is it exactly? Genuinely curious to know what someone who claims not to be taking sides thinks, because it seems like you're very interested in taking one side to task and letting the other talk about the patent as if it says something it doesn't with impunity. This doesn't seem like the behaviour of someone not taking sides.

That's Donald Duck swimming in money levels of rich, especially when you did that very thing in the next sentence. But even the ones who don't do that you won't give a proper response, so you can drop the victim act.

Hold on a second, there are plenty of elements of the patent that are blatantly not in effect. For example, the patent claims ownership of a system that ''unlocks'' higher tier games as the player plays more games and earns better modules for their ship, this system was only briefly used in closed beta on WOT and hasn't been used since. It also claims ownership of a system that gives your ships sequentially different tier games, Say you play Kongo, you would get Tier 5, then Tier 6, then Tier 7 and back to Tier 5 again in a row. That is also blatantly not the case. There is even one section, shock horror, that claims ownership of a completely random MM system, which is completely counter to what you believe is happening. This is NOT what the patent says at any point. The skill of the players is not determined and matched by win-rate, the patent just suggests that whether you're made to be the highest tier in the game or the lowest could in theory be determined that way. The actual players you have on your team according to that section of the patent would be randomly determined, not win rate determined. And jet fuel can't melt steel beams. It's not that I don't believe WG isn't making decisions based on cash money, after all, the fact that they're going to implement Soviet Navy before Royal Navy is a business decision that shits all over naval warfare of the period. That doesn't mean the system is trying to drag you down to give other players an advantage so they'll spend more money, proof of that is required. Especially proof that players who win more spend more cash, what's the basis of this? Why would losing more inspire less money spending? You guys treat the patent like it's a fact but it has several completely different matchmaker concepts within. One of them is completely random, almost all of them are mutually exclusive and none of them match players together based on win-rate. At some point you've got to admit to yourself that the patent does not say what you want it to say, nor does it say one thing. Based on the patent, there's much more evidence the system is random than there is the game matches players based on win-rate. I doubt you guys even read it, that or you just fanatically stretched the meanings beyond breaking to make them fit your opinion.

Whether the system is random, is irrelevant. I could argue you on it, for example state that applying rules to the system doesn't necessarily stop it being randomly decided and there's plenty to say on that, but I'm not engaging you on it even though I could, because it's not what's important. Instead of wasting my time about that, why don't you weigh in on whether anything you've read indicates the system takes the skill of the player into account and forces them to lose consecutively by forcing them to carry teams of donkeys.

Again, the question as to whether it operates randomly is irrelevant. That's not the system OP and Naskoni claims is [edited]them. They claim the system decides their general win chance is too high and conspires to give them donkey teams in order to bring it down. That is NOT what you described. You described a system that doesn't care if you're a good player, it simply rocks between high and low range tiering according to your current short term performance. It isn't forcing loss streaks, as OP and Naskoni claim. So where exactly is your interpretation and theirs overlapping? I don't see it. And that is nearly irrelevant in itself, because in WoWs tier does not expressly = power, in fact very often that's not the case here. You claim not to be taking sides, but it's getting quite clear you're taking theirs even when the evidence you're presenting does not suggest the system they're claiming. I ask again for DAMNED PROOF.

It doesn't matter if it's designed to work randomly or not, whether it's random or not is a tangential issue of this debate, one I can argue all day. The point is something else entirely. Show me proof that the system is singling out good players and forcing loss streaks, that's what this thread is about. SHOW ME THE DAMNED PROOF. Maybe you will, maybe someone will, all I can do is keep demanding it until it's provided. You ever thought personal experience and opinion was useful to us as evidence? As for my having no proof, I'll just leave this here. If any of this was true you'd have stopped posting long ago.

You can't repair your full HP, how much of the damage you've taken that can actually be repaired is dictated by the type of damage you've received. Sometimes you can repair practically none of it, sometimes nearly all of it, but never actually all of it as far as I'm aware.

Oh god, here comes the ''I've been argued into a corner, time to say brainfart six times a sentence.'' stage. Did I say I don't need to read it? Anyway, I read it. Xevious even went as far as quoting back every bit about matchmaking, none of which describes the system you claim. The closest is not a skill matchmaker nor does it stack the sides to artificially create losing situations. It doesn't matter if they've experienced such a system themselves, there's no actual proof you have either. The reason very few people are on your side is because you can't A: Properly describe how this system supposedly works, B: Can't demonstrate that the system even exists and C: Sling insults like they're a replacement for a proper refutation. You come across as someone who can't be trusted as a source of information. You explain jack, demonstrate crap and expect blind acceptance.

Who decides if it's a worse game if not personal preference?

You don't need to be a good player to understand the maths of any of this isn't making much sense and the patent does not allude to it at all.

They're actually very similar games. Forget for a moment about the camera angle and the graphics, put manual aim in WoWs and you'd be hard pressed to find much significant difference between the two, besides some depth here, some pay to win there, very similar. Because of this it's a suitable comparison.

Pretty standard stuff for this guy, I've observed.

Except no-where in the patent is skill based matchmaking described. Only in one section related to matchmaking is win chance considered the fundamental factor and that's by tier and/or vehicle. It describes matching increased win-rates with higher tier games in the allowable range, the allowable range in this case most likely battle tier. It does not describe stacking donkeys or good players in such a way that forces a player to lose consecutively. Xevious goes over it here. There are other explanations for less players with lower win-rates. For example, there are fewer skillful players than there are below average players, so naturally the win %'s balance out for worse players at closer to fifty percent and better players further towards sixty percent and beyond. You say it's difficult for a player even trying to get forty percent, but this is true in a random system as well. If you afk every game you play, you're still only reducing the likelihood your teams lose by about 6% on average. Of course forty percent is hard, you could only really expect 43 - 44% by not trying at all. You need a second person each game who's either useless or afk. You can try to sabotage your teams chances but that's the sort of thing that eventually gets you banned. For skilful players, getting sixty percent is easier because they can punch above their weight and there's no rules against doing so. Punching significantly below zero is greatly harder and doesn't happen naturally.

So your argument is that the pool to draw on is so large and the sample of players who need to be punished (for whatever reason) is so small that it wouldn't have a statistically significant result on the players other than the one targeted to be dragged down. But this is having your cake and eating it. Because you claim the reason this system exists is because it helps ''skilless idiots to win''. But if what you're saying is true, the skilless idiots are cycled in and out so much that it has no significant impact on their ability to win anyway. So which is it? This is making it sound like WarGaming have a hardon for punishing skilful players for nothing but sadistic reasons.