Slargmann

If you have a WR that beats the server average with a specific ship, you are a good player with that specific ship. Odds are if you manage to beat the server average to a significant degree, you're probably better than average with that ship class, and quite possibly in general. If your WR up to a certain tier beats the server average, you're a good player up to that specific tier. It's not an absolute truth that a player with 60% WR is a great player across all tiers and across all ship classes, but it is completely indisputable that when a player with 60% plays his preferred ship or class or tier he will typically have a great impact on the game. No one has argued that he will always have a great impact in that game in particular, and no one has argued that he will always have a great impact in general regardless of the context, so you're possibly unwittingly building a straw man here. What is being argued and what is completely indisputable is that consistent WR over time is unrelated to "luck of the MM" given enough games. If you need evidence of the same, you need go no further than your own stats. If you're not a complete tool, you'll usually find they tend towards an upward creep whether big or small because everyone gets better as they practice. If the MM was more important than your own skill, you'd see huge fluctuations over time [and please note the "over time" and "typically" here because even a super-unicum can have a terrible day and lose 10 games in a row]. These facts are only disputable insofar as you are unlucky in the way you think, which I will admit can and will happen quite often. WR in life is far less tangible, but nevertheless a thing.

It's a mathematical truth that they are statistical likelihoods. Still not up for debate.

I don't think it's necessary to be "diplomatic" when it comes to factual statements. Speculation should be presented with at least some pretense of humility for the sake of decorum, but when discussing say the "Flat Earth" theory, it's really not necessary to sugar coat anything.

What you'd call it is completely irrelevant. The two systems are not analogous. In fact, one might go so far as to call them polar opposites. In the one case, there are no fixed teams and participation is completely randomized save for the option to form divisions. In the other case, there are fixed teams with very little variation. We don't have to continue this argument. There's right, and then there's wrong, and then there's your analogy which is flat-wrong. The difference between 45/55 is not as clear on an individual level as between 70/30. You are more likely to see truly inspired and truly moronic play in the latter scenario where in the former the same can happen but less frequently. However, the difference is still clear: The WR45 guy will in any given battle on average act as a drogue for his team while the guy with WR55 will on average carry. There simply is no argument to be had here. I'm right and you're wrong.

And if you were consistently placed with the exact same team every time, your stats would reflect the aggregate skill set of the team more than your individual skill set. However, this is not the case so your analogy falls rather flat. If individual skill didn't figure into it, your WR wouldn't rise over time but would rather be all over the place. Take a look at your own stats to see the trend. http://warships.today/player/530908166/eu/Kenjiro_

It's always raining. I don't ever see the sun. Why, in fact, it's been raining for two days now which only goes to prove my point: It's always raining.

In any given battle, that's true. However, across hundreds or thousands of battles, you'd have to be extremely unlucky in order to consistently be teamed with tomatos. If you're consistently being teamed with tomatos, you may have to start considering the alternative explanation that it's not your team that's the problem but rather you. People with higher winrates are better players. Better players win more battles and gain higher winrates. It's nearly tautological. Averages across damage, kills per death or experience accrued are all good and well, but in the end there's only one goal [discounting the aberration of missions] of every match, and that's winning it. If you never score a single hit but still manage to win more often than you lose, you're either ridiculously lucky or you're doing something for your team that increases its chance of winning.

I think the culprit is collision avoidance system working against key input. I suspect if you turn it completely off the problem will disappear.

Irony being you're trying to troll me by calling it trolling, [edited]

Look. I'm happy for all of you. I'm getting a free premium ship. Awesome. I still think it's a terrible decision to change because a handful of people [edited]incessantly. Who knows how many of you are even paying customers? I also still think it's a valid business decision to implement the contest in its original form. That you are unable to separate from your fragile and child-like egos long enough to see it is frankly just disturbing.

Why can't you be both, you ignoramus?

Caving to you nerds is a huge mistake. You're never happy. You just find something else to gripe about immediately, as displayed right here a day after the reveal. There's what... 20 of you? And how many players on the server? The squeaky wheel should get the kick, not the grease.

I shoot back whenever people hit me with torpedos in situations where it's completely clear that there was no room for error. Sometimes I shoot back even if I manage to dodge them. I know I shouldn't, but I do. I've never been TKd while pink, in the few occasions when it's happened. On the whole, TK doesn't seem like a huge problem with maybe one situation in every couple of hundred matches so while it's very irritating when it happens especially if in Ranked, I'm not overly bothered.

*cough* http://lmgtfy.com/?q=varnish

I'm not exactly on the inside when it comes to webpage mechanics but I think it's possible to infer, nonetheless.

It would prevent an incoming squadron from entering the barrage zone after it's been commenced. Additionally, if a barrage has been called from far away, you have time to move your aircraft out of the way.

I noticed the effect yesterday aswell, but you'll find that the "lost" pearls are regained far more quickly than the organic growth. It's in all likelihood just a display error.

How? Every time my fighters run out of ammo it's like an immediate death sentence. They just sit there and refuse to disengage. Is there a trick to it?

Exactly. In fact, if an IJN CV is clever, he'll use is one squadron to tie down two or more enemy squadrons in order for the USN CV to be able to score a sweet barrage. Not every opinion is equal. If you have an opinion (or in reality a theory) that is clearly and demonstrably inefficient it behooves you to listen to your betters. It might be my opinion that border hugging wins games, but I don't think it should be respected much even if it's "just my opinion maaan".

Great. I thought it was just me. I'm also in Sweden. On a perhaps related note I'm also seeing connection difficulties to sites like Facebook. Might be some bigger issue at play.

If you're asserting that someone is a poor CV player and their stats are in the high 30% better than yours, I think it's absolutely relevant. Results speak volumes. "Never strafe if your allies risk damage, period." = 40s "Strafe if the cost/benefit ratio favours allies." = 60s

The point of having an indicator is that you can avoid entering an area under a strafing run. I agree that it should cause collateral damage, and I've never hinted anything else.

Sure but currently there's no indication to your ally that a strafing run is taking place. You'd think that would be relevant to inform.

Would be nice if there was an indicator visible to your allies, yes.