AgarwaenME
-
Content Сount
4,811 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Battles
13808 -
Clan
[SCRUB]
Everything posted by AgarwaenME
-
Battleships are reduced to targets
AgarwaenME replied to Jack_the_Stripper's topic in General Discussion
While I wouldn't be surprised that you personally can't carry as well in BBs, this isn't at more than your personal opinion on the subject. You twist peoples words to try to get away from people using your actual words. Your hypocrisy and dishonesty is indeed very sad. -
Battleships are reduced to targets
AgarwaenME replied to Jack_the_Stripper's topic in General Discussion
It's said in the same place where they say that you can't carry in BBs.. oh wait they didn't but merely said they carry as well, ie they have at least as much influence on battles, in BBs as other ship classes. Trying to use a strawman to twist their point into a strawman? +1 for effort, -10 for dishonesty. -
Battleships are reduced to targets
AgarwaenME replied to Jack_the_Stripper's topic in General Discussion
"battleships are worst and least influential ships in game as we speak" -
Yes, proving actually means something, and just saying (like you do) means nothing.
-
Ye right.. you're just saying there's cheaters but you're not actually saying you've faced cheaters because every game has cheaters so that's evidence for there being cheaters all around you.. wow ".I know with experience it way easier to hit citadels and so on" The only way you could have "experience" with this is if #1 You've faced people you think/know are cheaters or #2 YOU are using such cheats. In either case your claim is that you've seen them in use. Maybe read your own damn words?
-
If you "check youtube" you will find people saying the earth is flat, that evolution is false, that Elvis still lives, that the Apollo program was a hoax and even stupider things, all with what they think is evidence, or with what they've doctored to look real. And when you say that the game works in a different way to what the devs of this very game says it does, then the one who clearly shouldn't talk about game mechanics is you.
-
The one living in a dream world is you. A dream world where you're super unicum and it's only every other better player cheating that stops you. You're claiming that people are hacking the servers, live as games are going on. That's living in a dream world where you think what you see in movies are realistic.
-
Can you try to keep on a single topic instead of trying to shift your argument to something entirely different even once? I said nothing about illegal mods not being cheats, so that post was completely out of the blue.
-
No, but it's at best irrelevant. Ie, you attempt to use opinion and "observation" that cheats exist, and we just point out that you wouldn't know.
-
To add to this, a small story from CBT I keep repeating to people. For a while during CBT there was a "legal", or rather, not judged to be illegal, aim mod (one that used unprotected code in the client itself). WG allowed this for a while to see how it impacted the game, before announcing that it would be disabled. In the same week that the patch to disable it was supposed to get published, there was a small patch a couple days before. For the next day or two, chats were filled with "OMG It's so easy to see the aim mod is gone." "Suddenly people aren't just instakilling me, omg all those cheaters" etc etc etc, being blindly unaware that the mod still worked as well as it ever did. Just like the OP here, mere wishful thinking to make himself believe he's better than he is.
-
"Some other game works like I need to believe this game works so thus that's evidence for this game working as I need it to work for my claims to be true". Ye.. no. /and a newbie would have no way to know that it was a cheat, luck or simply a better player. Claiming that it's "believable" that someone will quit the game over getting hammered is fairly meaningless as such.
-
Game complexity grows, game quality degrades?
AgarwaenME replied to loppantorkel's topic in General Discussion
You off all people are in no position to complain about other players in this game. -
You just happen to only play DDs which 90% rely on torps while playing BBs far more...
-
My inner.. what?
-
BBabies are so cute when they try to pretend most whining isn't about how everything is beating up on those poor BBs.
-
Except the people defining them as "extreme" are still the people who wants to see such differences... And while you might not always need a large sample, you do need a one of a relevant size and without too much bias. One players games isn't this in any sort of way. And if the sample is from the person the very same person doing the "analysis" then that should be a huge red flag. I mean, I'm not asking for double blind here tests here, but this is ridiculous. I'd say I'd be surprised at seeing someone using "something happened that is bad, so some change I didn't like is why this changed so that's an argument for what I dislike being bad even if I can prove no correlation whatsoever"... but then you see this in every "omg so many have left the game" thread so well..
-
Then please say "with" not "in" when refering to ranks. Still it does show that chinese whispers is a really bad way to convey facts.
-
That "document" says nothing like what you claim. And he's claiming that having more players with high ranks from ranked will decide outcomes in random battles. Saying you see a "similar pattern" in ranked, where ALL players will be of somewhat similar rank, is just.. absurd. Also saying that it's "broken right now" in response to a 8 month old thread claiming it's broken back then just shows that the sky is always falling.
-
-
I love the total insanity in saying that the MM spends no effort to balance battles, but also somehow at the same time spends a lot of time to decide who will win.
-
[Theory] Why the Problem with CV's is Damage Control Party
AgarwaenME replied to WarshipsPodcastEU's topic in General Discussion
BBs will frequently fire on and damage ships with either no chance to get fired back at (either due to cover, or range), or at very little risk of taking damage (due to armour) or for a very low cost in damage taken (due to repair party and amount of total hp). And "Only" risking permanently losing your weapons isn't something you refer to as "only". -
Sorry, but no matter how amazingly clever he, or you, are at statistical analysis, changes nothing if his actual data is bad (and it being a SINGLE PLAYERS data, it certainly can't be expected to be very much relevant to the entire players bases data), and even worse if it's been.. let's say "edited" to further enhance his need to get it to fit the result he wanted to get. And again, as you can define "one sided win/defeat" any way you like after seeing what result you get, it's even less useful. Next time, do try to understand what a poor fallacy an argument from authority is.
-
Again. Checking whatever data he got for himself, one single player (lets just assume he's not outright lying) that is after a conclusion where he can just define "one sided" to be whatever he got, is no way to get actual honest results.
-
You mean, one players own supposed data based on his own definition of what's one sided? Ye.. no.
-
Just because people can't actually remember how things actually were and keep looking for excuses to invent changes, doesn't make this actually a reality. If what people "noticed" were the truth, then a lot of entirely contradicting things would be true, which is why such "evidence" is bollocks.
