AgarwaenME

I see people doing things like this getting high xp scores all the time (then bragging about it), especially in higher tiers. And it favours some ship classes far more than others.

Or translated into "BBs sitting back and sniping for as long as possible still gets rewarded as if they won". Sorry, but rewarding people for selfish play rather than playing to win will just be exploited.

Lacking a ship to use from rank 10 I'm stuck there for a while as I grind some credits. But prior to that beside a few 2-3 loss streaks it was fairly straightforwards to get to that rank. How? Play the best BB available, and remove the rng factor of [edited] sitting in the back.

Dragging up an old worthless whine thread to throw out lies and conspiracy nonsense.... It actually requires an amazing amount of mathematical ignorance to even claim there's any way there everyone can be at 50% or lower winrate, you know beside the easily proven fact that there's tons of people above 50%.

Erm, how on earth can you "disagree" with basic facts, which are that there's been actual gameplay nerfs to CVs, from mirrored MM (enforcing a heavy fighter based meta), to torpedo spread nerfs, to torpedo plane attack distance increases, to having fighter planes added to both CAs and BBs, to adding defensive fire to select DDs... etc etc etc. While I either don't mind, or like some of these, that still doesn't make them go away. And that some people (and CVs) can still be effective is entirely beside the point that CVs have taken nerfs in most patches the last 9 months.

Could easily do division based ranked though, 4x2 man divisions, 3x3 man divisions or similar. Would be nice, as that can be done easily with RL friends, which is harder to do with full teams.

Now, you're pretty much repeating my own point to the OP that overall your skill will shine through (and his lack of such). However that does not mean that having a larger random factor won't reduce the amount you could do better if that random factor was less. The point isn't that it's made equal, but that it flattens the bell curve.

Except WG has on several occasions done changes to the random (and less random) natures of the game with the express and stated purpose of reducing how much skill will allow you to perform much better than others.

Play some DDs, then maybe you'd see why this is a silly silly thing to say.

Sorry, your ideas about the purpose is just that, your idea. And sure, aiming is still somewhat skill based, but then positioning and map awareness is just as important or more so to be in position to use your guns as much as possible.

Then you're doubly stupid, as you wasted the free xp which is hard to get, instead of saving it to get the south carolina (or get through that POS to the wyoming quickly). Again, as I doubt anyone really can be this stupid, leave your trolling efforts to the WoT forums or reddit or whatever else

460 average xp Yes, you're bad, but not that bad. Stop trolling, lying or being a total moron, whatever it is.

If you're not trolling then you're incapable of understanding the difference between 20 and 200. So, troll or moron?

How about some facts? You actually have about 200 average xp per coop, and 400 xp per random battle. Which means it takes you 7.5-15 battles (depending on mode) to progress to your next ship (less if you count daily bonus). With the 2x from the weekend used twice, ie a couple battles today and tommorrow, in random battles, we're talking a "huge" amount of.. 5 and 1/2 battles.

Erm. no, that would be balancing the different classes of ships. As in, only BBs poor accuracy makes it even possible to survive longer than a few minutes in a CA. However the same poor accuracy limits how much better someone can aim than someone else. And that RNG is why the skill ceiling of BBs is as low as it is, as you just can aim as perfectly as possible and still do not that much better than someone with worse aim. And sure, it will level some ships more than others, but that doesn't mean it's not leveling the player field, mostly by making it take longer to sink ships. And much of the anti-CV whining is down to how they're far less RNG based, so good players could sink bad players extremely easily, and like the OP these bad players then blames that class of ships or other things instead of critically looking at their own efforts. The point being, that while it does so, that still doesn't mean you can just blame your atrocious performance on it, as randomness works both ways.

What you need to realize, is that RNG is there to level the playing field so the best players can't utterly dominate games. And that you're the sort of player they're leveling it for.

Hilarious. It's not "manipulating" when I use actual meanings of words. Even more so when you're twisting what some silly little patent says into meaning far more. Then the next is what really is personal attacks and nothing more. Talk about hypocrisy. Stop playing the victim. Face the reality that when spouting nonsense you're going to get told why its nonsense.

Yes, and I can tell you how stupid it is to use them as evidence for a claim. As you say, it's free to discuss, so don't make that into "I'm free to say whatever without getting replies I don't like". I'm under no obligation to take crazy ideas seriously.

And I "feel" like I deserve to have Erika Eleniak from the early 1990s being a sexy housemaid for me. You can "feel" whatever you want, but if you pretend feelings are evidence, then prepare to get told how stupid that is.

You really need to brush up on your english reading. What is a patent for? To monetize a developed and unique idea (which might likely mean that this patent would struggle in court). It's NOT to describe what you're doing yourself. What the patent does, is describe possible methods, and only those in the patent. You can imagine any sort of way to "rig" it if you want to, but you can't justify those ideas just because they applied for that patent describing OTHER methods. And your "feelings" are just evidence for your bloated ego, nothing more.

So again, what you're claiming you can see, even you say cannot be distinguised from it just being random.

How would they do that you think? Maybe say.. a patent? Oh darn, they did apply for one didn't they.. and what it describes is not what you're pretending you can "see" with your third eye or reading in tea leaves or whatever it is you're pretending is evidence. As it is, you're not going to take their words for it, nor are you requiring hard evidence to believe what you believe so... might I suggest YOU find some that game instead and stop peddling your conspiracy nonsense here.

So. what you're saying is, what you expect to see from your idea of "rigging" is the exact same thing you'd expect to see if there's NO rigging. When the idea you have cannot be distinguished from random noise, then maybe you should consider if that idea is worth anything at all. Also, you're doing the very common error of thinking "random" is alternating high or low rolls, or favourable and unfavourable matches, when actual randomness does nothing of the sort. Out of the space of possible line of matchups, your idea actually constitutes a very tiny bit.

Then explain why WG would do this. Give one good reason.

[citation needed] In reality, cheating and rigging only works for the individual (or team) and actually ruins games and sport profitability in the long run.