Figment

The ratings systems are subjective and do not consider the playstyle of a player, so yes. They're off. You can only check between two tanks and overall. Regarding the Chester. By many nautical miles. ;) Oh wait, you only look at "RELEVANT" stats! I guess it's nice that you get to decide which are relevant. Oh wait! Wasn't that your argument against me regarding scouting, accuracy, etc? xD And oh dear, while ignoring I could make the same argument for half the tanks if not more in your garage that we BOTH played, you picked one DIFFERENT tank, which used to be a regular tank at tier 9 with 30mm to compare to a Lowe, just to prove you've got a higher accuracy and that a tier 9 IS-4 that's bugged is harder to penetrate? Oh dear, shame the T34 wasn't always a premium, not? But you knew that. Right? Because... I actually wrote the T34's situation before... Which I guess, YOU IGNORED. Quelle surprise! Meh, I couldn't care less which one is 'bigger', I'm actually pointing out he's got no understanding of statistics, that we're pretty much equals when it comes to heavy tanks (he's got this weird idea he's from another planet), that he's being very selective with his stats without accounting for different playstyles influencing statistics.

But it's so cute when trolls do nothing but ruin their reputation.

I see one thing: they mentioned average tiering (mine is 0.2 lower, which means my stats should be lower in terms of average damage), they said to look at winrate, mine's higher and when we're looking at battle count it is clear you're stat padding with a tier 8 lowe. ;) The whole reason people added wn7, wn8 etc, is because Wargaming's rating was off. And people (including the stat makers) still think wn8 is off and ONLY an indicator. ;) KDR is irrelevant in a team game where everyone can get the final kill. Especially on a low number of maches. But interestingly, you ignore the stat where I have a higher amount of kills per match... Also, have you checked the difference between our Chesters? So who's being selective with stats? Me thinks you're butt-hurt over not being seen as the god of war.

No, I have been ovebr it, you ignored it. ;) Stay awake now. Why I omitted that? Maybe because accuracy is not listed in the table of wotstats.org (maybe they don't find it that interesting...) OH NOES THE CONSPIRACY. Well couldn't find the screeny of the 9kill T29 match or the 9 kill PZIII match. But hey. Oh btw, speaking of wn8. From the wiki from the wn8 stat makers: Also, don't see what the date has to do with it, considering you claimed I'd "NEVER" get to see something like that. I was getting those while you were still in your diapers lad. Haven't played nor been interested in screenies that much since. It's normal to get good matches for me. :/

Alright. Name: Figment Naskoni Performance Rating: 1,431 1,536 Efficiency Rating: 1,208 1,220 WN7 Rating: 1,332 1,268 WN8 Rating : 1,493 1,594 Battles: 23,195 10,453 Win Rate: 53.4% 52.5% Average damage: 970 1,084 Average experience: 527 509 Maximum experience: 2,352 2,368 Avg. base capture: 1.08 1.79 Avg. base defense: 0.78 0.58 Avg. tanks spotted: 1.57 1.05 Average kills: 0.99 0.98 Battles survived: 24.1% 35.0% Kills to deaths: 1.3 1.5 Average tier: 6.6 6.8 Clan: None T-FTX Figment: LIGHT WN8 1171.44 Battles 2.971 Victories 1.664 Defeats* 1.307 WR 56,01% ▼ AT-SPG WN8 1470.20 Battles 5.882 Victories 3.201 Defeats* 2.681 WR 54,42% ▼ HEAVY WN8 1722.01 Battles 7.942 Victories 4.215 Defeats* 3.727 WR 53,07% ▼ MEDIUM WN8 1218.19 Battles 1.383 Victories 714 Defeats* 669 WR 51,63% ▼ AT-SPG WN8 1112.42 Battles 613 Victories 285 Defeats* 328 WR 46,49% ▼ 3K exp (with premium) in a KV-3? Naskoni, on 13 July 2015 - 04:51 PM, said: EDIT: Talking of WoT, here's something you will probably never see yourself: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jxgbesmp7oqssk7/shot_024.jpg?dl=0 12000 wn8 battle Oh I have my moments... Don't know what the wn8 is for these matches, but I'm guessing this wasn't all that bad. Well, would probably have been even better IF wn8 would have taken into account spotting damage, that is. I wonder if my average damage per match was higher while not grinding up to tier 6 on 6 new lines of vehicles while I played my Object 704... Naaaaaaah... Without premium, of course. Poor Figgy. But yes. I completely suck at everything WoT.

Sorry. But uhm... BBs are NOT "kittens". Do consider your perception bias though: You have an average of around 22K damage per match in your South Carolina. My average with the South Carolina is 41K. Maybe it's not the game.

Actually you get lots of shots on target even if the DD is closer. I'm sorry Tinbawx, but that's simply not true. You can get as many salvos on target as you wish. Just be sure to start turning immediately after your target and don't forget to rotate your hull appropriately to dodge torps. Hull turn rate + turret turn rate is more than enough to both dodge torpedoes and keep your turrets (most of them anyway) on target. Does help having the captain skill, of course. The only units that CANNOT do this easily are IJN destroyers. Everyone else is able to track them.

I did indeed offer a polite stack of informative threads on how wn8 is actually calculated with respect to scouts (it doesn't take into account spotting damage even if it's over 9K worth of spotting damage resulting in less than 300 wn8) and indeed got a very amused off-topic troll post returned, resulting in the conversation being over (apparently, PMs are deleted from both ends if you delete on your end - apparently he thinks this is somehow an indication of something other than him not being worth discussing things with). I'm not sure what amuses me more, him thinking he's trolling me, or him thinking he's made a point, or him thinking anyone in this thread agrees with him.

Tried once, he just laughed about supposed butt hurt and insulted some more, so rather just have the mods see his insults.

Thanks for making my point again. I'll just quote this for the mods. But it's nice you still don't know what happens if you average accuracy of artillery units and heavy tanks in WoT for the player profile.

When you're done talking about yourself in the mirror, will you please leave this thread that's wasting your time?

Ah, so you just quote something you don't read but disproves every point you made (how convenient!), then state you don't read it because "reasons", yet have an opinion anyway that's not even on topic and then call someone else a troll? Yeah, nice try, just makes you look even worse to everyone... <3 Btw, I deleted them to make room for actual PMs that matter. Wasn't aware it deletes the convo on your end as well. See how easy it is to admit you don't know how something works? Maybe you should try it. Learn something new for a change.

Ehrm no. The problem with those BBs is that their player's use the wrong ammo and can't lead well with the slower shell velocity to compensate for the predictable changes in course. I have no problem with them. Check my stats so far with the two BBs I'm playing, two ships which I hear a lot of people complain about, but I have nothing but the term "very decent ships for the tier" for. You can easily carry a match with low tier BBs. Unless people just spam HE at all ranges, don't know how to kite, don't know how to angle and don't know how to not sail into a crossfire.

Feeling entitled much?

Depends on how many of the enemy ships fire at you. You CAN go in and tank damage, BUT only under controlled circumstances. You need sufficient room to maneouvre, need to know there are no torpedo ambushes you can't deal with, shouldn't have to face more than two BBs of the enemy pounding at you and shouldn't face more than one or two cruisers (two ships in total is enough to kill you if you're not aware). Sorry, but I find this bad advice since it isn't provided in context.

Well considering you don't actually ever read a topic and if you do systematically fail to interpret any post right, that's not really surprising, now is it? Your two posts in this topic show once again you completely fail to understand what other people are saying and what the consequences and implications of what they're talking about are all about. The +1 captain skill (meaning you have situational awareness or you don't have it as a DD captain) makes a HUGE difference in terms of whether you can make a move or should be fleeing the scene. Considering you've so far played not even a single battle in Destroyers, means you're completely ignorant of this fact (even if you should have recognised this from the mere fact they rely completely on stealth and ambushes while they have low hp - you know, the type of units you refuse to play in WOT because you're not... "the type of player" for that sort of subtlety), while talking down to people who are ALL beta testers with hundreds in all unit classes. You make the same mistake you did with WoT: you play one or two classes at most, proclaim yourself Omniscient without actually having any clue what you're talking about and continue to talk down to other people, all the while making it very clear you havn't got the foggiest what the complaint is about. The rest of your arguments are also utter tripe: In WoT, your crew goes from 90 to 100% BASIC training, with previously gained perks (including sixth sense) being active throughout the crew retraining (!). That's a huge difference. This topic is about perks being active. Not about retraining basic crew proficiency: this system is not comparable to WoT's as is, so please do not try to excuse it by pointing at how WoT's functions without recognising there are major differences in the design. Furthermore, you flat out lied because you've not bothered to inform yourself. You proclaimed: Oh really? Speed itself is not affected by anything but stock engines (which you arguably grind slower with worse performing units), but the Last Stand skill actually influences if you can move at all: in case you lose an engine, it instead keeps working. I suggest you read about the Concealment Expert skill (tier 5). During beta you also had an acquisition range skill and a viewing range performance boost skill for aircraft. Actually, there's a lot of captain skills that target for instance RELOAD and RESUPPLY speeds. These skills are at various tiers in the captain skill tree. Tier II skill called Aiming Expert that increases your turret travers by 2.5 deg/s, which is imperative to have on IJN cruisers and DDs... Again the last Stand Skill allows your rudder to retain some functionality while it's broken. On top of that, there's the -34% chance of a critical module hit tier 5 skill called preventive maintenance, which can have a huge impact on fragile units especially. And then we haven't even talked about extra consumables (like fog, repairs and AA boost), repair crew readiness, repair speed, actual combat range of your ships main and/or secondary guns (which for some ships bring a dozen or more 127mm and 140mm guns up to 7km range...) and for instance having an extra unit in your squadrons... Since you don't play this long and havn't even played any of the classes outside of cruisers and BBs, you should realise you're very ignorant of most these things.

Probably because the minimum distance for spotting DDs is already the lowest, so 10% of 5.9km for instance already puts you at 5.3km. A 20% reduction would have put a Minekaze's or Nicholas' detection range at 4.62km.

Exactly. A BB gets spotted from 14km most the time, what's the point of being told?

You get direct combat advantages out of having almost all captain skills. It's as impacting as having to use a TD or light tank in WOT without any camo skills throughout most of the grind.

Monetizing a game by making people buy ships or tanks that are each equal to the prize of a new Nintendo game is rather ludicrous but fair enough - until you more or less force people to buy them (which doesn't happen). Microtransactions like purchasing slots is completely acceptable, so is premium. But putting someone down 30+ matches without any upgrades just to get on par is already bad enough with stock units. Doing so without captain skills is even worse. Rigging the game through pay to win elements is something I object against.

Honestly, that's not a really good solution Vrumugun. That's simply suggesting to pay your way out of an unfair situation rather than addressing any of the perceived problems. Another suggestion to fix the actual problems would be to suggest that low tier skills become active at lower levels of retraining. For instance: 20% retraining = captain skill tier 1 active 40% retraining = captain skill tier 2 active 60% retraining = captain skill tier 3 active 80% retraining = captain skill tier 4 active 100% retraining = captain skill tier 5 active

That's correct. You just have the retraining to deal with. It's also advised to do so with care, since not all skills apply to all ships. Having torp related training on US cruiser captains of ships tiered higher than the Omaha is pointless for instance.

I had a +3 cap'n with it.

Someone's been watching Avatar.

Clearly that's not a ship but a killer whale.