AgarwaenME

And I'm not in any way immune from being part of what can make it bad either, just like how I'll derp in plenty battles, without this making me consider myself "toxic". Much like anyone I have things I ignore and things that gets me going. The issue you so often get in threads (and chats) is that everyone can agree that "most" people are this or that (both in behaviour outside battles, and in what "they" do in battles), failing to notice that they're part of it too. And tbh, comparing this game to what I've experienced in other games, it's fairly decent. There's the few real trolls that spew whatever racist/homophobic or whatnot manure just to get a rise out of people, and there's the odd actual racist/sexist/homophobe/conspiracy nutcase etc, but compared to the cesspit that WoT is, it's not in the same ballpark. It would be easy to blame that on a different age bracket for the average player, but then I see plenty supposed adult behave like spoiled kindergardeners so I'd rather not use that generalization.

Besides generalizing the entire community and insulting it?

And your post right here is a case of being toxic.

So if you understand me perfectly, then you intentionally lie and pretend I say something I didn't. Not sure how you think that makes you look better...

But you're not.

Sorry, but this is a case of a no true scotsman fallacy.

I realise that english seems to be beyond your grasp but I'll again try to make the point clear: People who ONLY fire AP is no better than those who ONLY fire HE. Got it? /you might want to consider that if someone gets a certain level of results, that when they then tell you what's a better way to play that you disagree with, that maybe, just maybe, you're just wrong. // and the point about WR was to point out that thinking simplisticly, refusing to use all available options, is why you're failing to improve ///and no, over thousands of battles it's not "bad luck".

So you simply proved my point, again. You simplisticly only spam one type of ammo, making you NO better than someone who only fires HE. /Also, very typically, the 44% in t10 player thinks other players there lack brains. I mean, it couldn't be that your performance drops like a rock as you get into higher tiers because you refuse to consider the possibility that, yes there are times where it's smarter to not try to fish citadels on full hp ships half the map away, and instead switch ammo to be able to help finish of a far more pressing target could it? Take this literal scenario I had facing me earlier this week: Montana sitting in a cap, able to fire on both my tirpitz at ~9-10km range, and a couple of my teams CAs (who's also firing at him). He's at 90% hp, I'm at about 65%. He's also pretty perfectly angled against me, and islands makes it entirely impossible for me to both easily disengage (which in any case would leave my teams CAs as his only targets, not a good way to actually win battles) or to have any shot at getting close enough to torp or flank him. First I fire my loaded AP, doing 2-3k damage worth of overpens on his superstructure, while my secondaries light him on fire, which he promptly instantly repairs. He, having far better guns, promptly pens my (also fully angled) Tirp for 15k. You would have chosen to either entirely ineffectually fire AP, maybe scoring the odd lucky pen and some overpens, or picked one of the other enemy ships, all at 15km+ range. I went, "well, I'd rather win" and switched to HE, netting 2 fires with another from my secondaries, and he sinks under our fire in about 1.5-2mins (while he nearly also sinks me). Did my HE shells do a ton of damage? Beyond the fires, not really, but it was in that case reliable damage that with the aid of the rest (including a CA that had a position where he could fire reliably AP salvoes, another case of not stupidly only using one ammo type, particularly as there were no more slots for that Montana to burn in anyways), ensuring we kept that flank and cap safe. And that's the point, the Montana was right in NOT firing HE, as he could easily do more damage to me with AP, but it would be just as stupid and simplistic of me to either try to run from that fight, or to try to score AP damage. This is called "thinking", and "adapting to situations". You should try that.

While literally saying you'll never switch from AP... Just as simplistic.

DDs does the least amount of damage on average in high tiers compared to every other class of ship. Torps have low dpm and even lower actual hit rates. So no, they're not "too effective".

I merely said the words you used on others applied to you. So if refering to you in the same manner that you describe others is "unconstructive, then your original words were also, QED. I figured I'd have to explain this to you very s l o w l y.

So you think the words you yourself used are non constructive. I'd say "lol" but then such hypocrisy isn't really surprising.

Not sure how many have joined, but we can start the count at you.

Why is it that when we get threads like these, with the OP being full of complete nonsense and insanity... we always get a one, or a couple, who spews almost as nonsensical things (the typical where they adjust 5.9km to be 5 instead of 6 as it should, or exaggerate DDs torp damage by 50% etc, and pretend the only stealthy BB is the conqueror and that *gasps from laughter* every other BB is spotted always) as if those points even were part of the thread starter?

You mean, like people who suicide in battles to spite their team?

You're already getting farmed at t10, this will change nothing even if it was true, and there's no reason to take your opinion seriously anyways.

well duh it's "op" because it's a ship he'll never have

I'm still wonder if you're trolling, or if you're really so blind to your own efforts that you do believe you're mostly top 3 or better. Sometimes it really is hard to differentiate simple trolling from pure ego/bias.

Good. That would improve the game.

Nothing is more childish than someone who sees things he find reason to call "childish" all over the place.

60 battles in missouri 42 in iowa at such low amount of battles, each battles in the iowa is worth more than a 2% swing. You could literally have a nice run with 4-5 wins in the iowa and a similar loss streak in the missy and they'd even out.

Except it did not start with an insult.

Maybe if you stopped taking your ship and suiciding it on purpose to spite your team (after stating in chat that you intend to do so), you might have better luck, ever considered trying that?

Sure you would. If you want "productive discussion" you would be arguing against people who just throw out blanket claims against a class of ship in a thread that's actually about people trying to fix matches and would do so just as easily if MM allowed them to easily match up BBs, DDs or CAs. "productive discussion" isn't to threadjack a thread about this to be about "omg CVs are so op in randoms".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof "I'm just as right about whatever I claim until someone proves me wrong".