AgarwaenME

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    3,438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7299

4 Followers

About AgarwaenME

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile AgarwaenME
  1. Actually it was in CBT. And it didn't get "removed quickly". WG even said publicly that they would allow it for a while while they gathered data (and worked to make the game code that made it possible unavailable to mods).
  2. Except I didn't reply to that post. I replied to the post where you suggested I enjoyed playing with a 7 to 1 advantage, as if I want the game to be like this for my convenience. However I merely enjoy MAKING 7 to 1 advantages (and in some cases, winning in such circumstances). And you sending pictures of some of your battles is meaningless unless you send them of ALL your games. Besides that, again, if everyone who said that XYZ was becoming "more common" were right, we would by now have games with 20 DDs on each side, 15 BBs on each side, all ending with 90% of ships sunk within 2 minutes, but also with 50% of battles ending due to cap points before any ships are sunk and another 50% ending with nearly no ships sunk due to cyclones. Hyperbole just gets you nowhere. As a final note, getting games where at the end of the battle there's a substantial advantage to one side, is EXPECTED given the design of any game where any advantage snowballs into a larger advantage. It's nothing "new and more common" it's how the game has always been.
  3. Your problem is that you think that what you're write is new and unheard off before. It's just not. Also you think you can just throw out "observations" and believe people will just take you on your word. We won't. Also.. no game starts out at 7 to 1 odds, so that's just a silly thing to even mention.
  4. Which is the default answer people who start out with claims like you just did always gives. At the end of the day you're looking for battles that fits this description, call them the norm and ignore the far larger amounts that does not.
  5. "1. enemy team have 7-9-10 ships and you are last ship or there is 1-2 your team ship left with 10% of HP" Were you suggesting that in 4-5 out of 10 battles you turn a 8 to 1 underdog situation into a win? Since that's what your words here would mean.
  6. Again. You're simply wrong. The 10k value you're quoting is pulled out of thin air (it's actually a ratio, not a fixed value), and while it takes a fair amount of hits to turn you pink during a battle, if you do sink anyone, no matter how little damage done, YOU ALWAYS TURN PINK AFTER A BATTLE. I've never turned pink in any battle, however I have had a couple "accidents" (or to be fair, having taken chances needed to win battles that didn't end well, or did end well insofar as winning the battle just with added consequences) and I always had to spend a few battles being careful to get the pink away.
  7. Team setups have different rules. XP and credit rewards have different rules. There are special missions only doable in CW. Ie, you're way too late to complain about CW having a slightly different ruleset. And detonations have far more massive results than in randoms, where at most you just lost a random battle (we've lost a league promotion due to a detonation through even the anti det signal, causing an effective "loss" of at least 6 battles worth of effort, and also had a few enemies detonate, though I cannot say if any of them were using the signal, effectively giving us an advantage too large to give away).
  8. You're quite simply entirely wrong. Any TK, no matter how little damage done, will guarantee you go pink after the battle, end of story. There's just no discussion about this, it's how things work.
  9. He did, but if you don't do consequtive team damage you don't go pink during battles. However a TK will make you pink after a battle, ALWAYS, no matter how little damage it was. Seriously, inform yourself.
  10. Except that people who play CVs tend to ALSO play other classes. Hell, even those people like you classify as "cv players" aren't unlikely at all to have it as their least played class (partly just due to there only being two lines atm).
  11. Is it any more demanding than a CV having to know (or guess) it? You can just ask your team who's set up for AAA, a CV have to make use experience and guesstimates to know how far away he needs to be to not go into multiple AAA bubbles.
  12. Err.. just because it's a fletcher doesn't mean you can just ignore the tier difference in game. Is it a massive issue? Imo not really, but it's still yet another bit of AAA power creep, even if I could be in favour of changes to the game that would make it slightly easier for DDs vs CVs (and harder for others).
  13. Kidd is t8, fletcher is t9. Having the AAA of a tier higher ship is an advantage, end of story.
  14. Indeed, I've never been able to stomach more of it than r5 or so myself. You got there playing well, and your results compare comfortably to your random battle stats, so it mostly just enforces the overall picture. But imagine the perseverance, and desperation for any bragging rights, it would take to play 800+ battles and only getting to r5? (or worse, you can even find rank 1 players with 1k games, playing until they got a long enough lucky streak)
  15. While the higher ranks does increase the odds of a player being good compared to a randomly picked person, it also have to be seen in context of games played to get there. Also players who comfortably easy got to rank 1 don't have to use their rank as "evidence" for their ability, as it would also be evident from their regular stats. I have met a few people who started using their rank as proof, yet they really had no response when I pointed out that "rank 5 after 800 battles spent with 44% WR in ranked, is evidence for being bad with a lot of time". But then statistics is more than just pointing at one number in a mass of them too.