Fastmotion

We already went though many ways with that Average term. You provided sufficent examples like 0-300 and i provided others. I proved that his statement is still wrong no matter how you interpret his term.

If you use in his sentence the range 0-300 then his sentence becomes totally invalid because he states then that all ships who make damage between 0-300 are evil and breaks the game design. So, if you decide to choose the range of 0-300 then it is obvious that you and him are wrong and have lost the argumentation. Secondly you mention that pure numbers may not explain something. That statement proves that stats are irrelevant and also proves that his statements with number 150 is invalid. I repeat: can you provide any adequate proof to his statement or debunk mine that proved that he and you are wrong?

True that there is the CV propaganda but not only. Also Subs hatred and other shared attitudes. True that CV and Sub players enjoy the game but it is not true that they beleive that something is broken or bad. There is just a propaganda that tries to put such idea into peoples mind that something is broken. WG, me, and many CV/sub players surely don't have blind believes. True that most people complain and talk what the propaganda machine dictates but they don't have usually any proof. They are like peopel who just believe that using pork and Subs and the word War is bad because all others say so. If you asked them to provide any arguments then they usually end of with "you should believe his words because he has good stats". Then you go ask that Him with good stats for any arguments and you don't get anything else than a spam picture of a dog or similar. Looks like you tried to make 4 classes by spreading the amount of propaganda/brainwash levels there. I would make things more clear: there is a majority who totally believes what propaganda dictates and there is a minority who are open minded people and don't believe any propaganda. It is not healthy usually to see all that hatred and destructive methods from the haters league but it is not a catastrophe either. Because it is what it is. It is just how life actually is in many areas. And if some entertainment sociums have such hate and sufferings then it doesn't impact the real life and is irrelevant at the end of the day. Some may believe that spreading hatred and sufferings are the mother of terrorism i nthe planet. Little bit yes for sure it is. But not enough. It is an irrelevant hatred.

Thanks for you opinions i believe your opinions come from your hive and all of you believe same things and they all repeat that Wows is Arcade, but me, WG, and some other more open-minded people don't agree with you and you can't provide proof to your hive's believes. Well, i don't see anything unreal in this game. I don't believe that Soviet ships are somehow unreal. Wows is unreal when they have special game modes like ships that make a wave circle around them or vampire ships that take health from other ships or heal the whole team. But Randoms and Golden are totally liek the real naval world.

There is no good way to proove that dogs have thinking like humans because it is not possible to go inside their mind and monitor there. On the higher levels it is said that there are no thinker and no individual. From that level it is clear that assumtion about dogs to think is false. But you go even futher and seems to know what dogs think in your spam images. Surely you assume that other world thinks like you and interprets dogs' body language as you. But how can you take such person and his hive seriously?

He said: Can you now use as you wish your word Average in his statement? And then provide the proof to his statement or debunk my statements about the 150k topic. So, with your understanding of his word Average his statement would say that: Sub players can easily make average 150k damage and acerage means arounds 150 +- 50, so they make most games arounds 150 but little bit less battles 200 dmg and some 100dmg. Do you agree that his word Average means the range 100-200 and the statement means thatit is easy to get that range of damage? If yes, then i provided counter arguments to that idea. Can you debunk those arguments there? If you can't/won't debunk then my arguments are correct and his statement is wrong. It is not right that people make easily 100-200 damage in the game with Subs because you don't see that subs are in TOP 3 so often and other ships make similar amount of damage and in my opinion even more often. Should we then conclude that all ships who make such damage prove that the game has some kind of mistakes, as he calls those design mistakes? I provided 2-example counter arguments for you above. Go and use them or add yours.

Seems like you don't agree with my response but you didn't provide any proof and anything. So, you are expressing you opinion without any proof. That doesn't count. Can you add some additional proofs to the 150 dmg opinion. Or, can you show which my explanations where wrong about the 150. For example tell following: 1) say that most players do 150 dmg with subs. and provide some evidence. If you manage to do that then you supported his statements and i have lost my opposing statement. 2) say that i am wrong if i said that other ships can do 150 dmg as well. Prove that other ships cannot do 150 dmg and you proved that he was right and i was wrong. 3) prove that it is wise to remove ships that make sometimes 150 dmg. For example give evidence that game would become better if we remove BBs and DDs that do such damage and you won the argumentation. So, can you provide any support to his 150 dmg opinion or can you show that my response about that matter was wrong? If you can't do that then in adequate world it means that i won the debate. In adequate situations if one says that "2+2 is 5" and then one responds and shows that "2+2 is 4" and not 5, and then you come and don't prove anything but just say that the person who showed that 2+2 is 4 is wrong- then your such opinion is worthless. You must somehow show that 2+2 is not 4 or give additional evidence that 2+2 is 5. Otherwise you wrong and lost. Nobody in the adequate world would join your opinion. Do you agree? Secondly your opinion is that i express doupts. Well if you like that term more then fine. Can you respond to the doupts? If you can't then those "doupts" are considered as truth. You can show that they are not true by doing exmples 1 and 2 that i gave. Go and try those points and i respond again. After you do that i comment your other opinions. If you fail to give an adequate response then in an adequate world it means that you lost in your opinion. But in some illusionary world you can still declare yourself winner of cause.

Guns in general are in real life. So, guns are totally a real life element. Even if those guns shoot little bit faster than the real life does then it is still normal and i wouldn't use any Arcade term or Non-Real term. If the guns would shoot out something that doesn't exist in the real life then that would be unreal game. I don't see anything unreal in guns. I don't see any thing such at the moment. Maybe later i can find 1 rare element/example.

I mostly agree with your opinions. In my opinion the haters league hates both CVs and Subs and not only CVs. It isn ot allowed among them to feel sufferings only because of CVs. I think it is partially true that Cvs help to reduce passive boring game style but it is only a smaller partial help on that matter. I agree with your idea that it is not worth to listen to the haters hive. But not entirely. You can still listen but don't get upset and don't fall to their level. Keep your ruleset but listen which faulty opinions they have today. I see subs and CVs in most battles and i am sure al lthose players love those ships. So, yes, you can all ignore haters club, but you can also try to explain soemtimes to them things. And also understand that they suffer a lot and are in pain. So, be supportive and friendly.

It has many real life characteristics. For example it has Subs, CVs and other ship types which look quite similar to the real life and move and shoot like in the real life. The speed of subs is lower than the speed of airplanes which is again like in the real life. That makes it obvious that planes fly faster than ships and not slower. It is so in the real life and is in the game. Of cause it differs little bit from real life but everything in computer is little bit different than in the real life. I see that it tries to copy real life quite a lot. For example adding Subs is an act that brings the game nicely closer to the reality. In real life ships have health just like i nthe game. It is obvious that in computers you represent that real life idea with heath bars and so on. That detail doesn't make the game far from the real life. The game would become little bit far from reality if you add such weapon that you don't have in real life. Can you show where WG has said that they ignore real life and are so called arcade game? and also, can you show the defintion of the term Arcade?

You can remove that term or replace with some other term- the results doesnt change. It was his term by the way. But i don't still see any value in that term. You can erase it or replace- the result is still that his statement is invalid. The same is with his other opinions. But i repeat that i don't think there is any point to debunk those. Let him have the opinions that his hive allows and i have my opinions.

Thanks. At first glance that folder is even more full of spam. Is there any folder which doesn't contain spam?

I can prove by an example in this post that i can explain. And your assumption that i can't becomes invalid. You say about someone. Do you mean someone rare? Someone who is less than 1% from the population? In that case you should ignore such rare case and not conclude anything. If you think by someone like everyone then you are wrong because most people don't do 150k dmg. How can you prove anything with a rare example? Also, there are many ships where someones can do 150k damage. Many BBs for example. Do you think that if someone rarely makes 150 dmg with BBs then something is wrong with the universe and the game? I don't see any problems with the universe and the game. You mention game design. What do you mean by that? Do you mean by that term the satisfactory feeling that you and your hive gets every day? Or what do you mean by design? Software modelling or what? I believe you misused that term. You couldn't convince with the rare 150k damage anything. We all have made such amount with different ships both easily and not easily. Does it prove that something is wrong with the game? No.

i didn't find a folder with such title. If i make the topics under the General folder then probably it is a wrong place and will be maybe deleted?

Can you say where can i see that WG's poll? I could look and comment it. But my first feeling is that it probably is professional and adequate. This poll here is defenitely totally faulty but i am not sure if your hive benefits if i go futher and show all the mistakes in it. Maybe better to avoid to do it because it just makes your sufferings even bigger. Your other opinions were something i don't agree either. But i think it is pointless to explain. Let's just respect that people have different opinions.

I have seen here and there that peopel suggest to make planes slower than 200 km/h. But in real life airplanes are faster than ships. Don't you think that the current speed 200 is totally fine and similar to the reality? Some think that CVs should get some tools against Subs. But again, in the real life you don't have such things, right? The other ship types should handle hostile Subs near CV. The CVs are fine in my opinion and no need to add anything and no need to nerf. If one day every second battle wil lshow that subs and CVs are in TOP3 al lthe time with 3+ kills made then that will be the first moment to consider if they are to overpowered. But today you don't see such picture. And therefore no need to change anything with them.

Why so? I like CVs but subs i love. I have never heard any adequate arguments against those ship types and that doesn't sound reasonable to say that some ship types and some apple types are not welcomed or smth. Those ship players are in almost every battle and do you think that they have any hatred inside? No, they enjoy and love those ships. Do you think that it is polite to say your hatred to them? No, would you like if people would say that your favourite ships is not welcomed and so on? WG, sub/CV players, me, we don't have any problems with those ships. Do you think that it is constructive andethical to say that cruisers and pork are not welcomed? As i understood the original post then the question was about Coop battles. My answer is that i drive immediately towards enemies with all ship types when i play Coop. You get additional experience points if your CV makes damage with secondary guns. And the battle ends when youarrive to the middle. In the Coop you can't learn much. There are special occasions when people play it but for learning you should use Randoms. First try more safe positioning and later try more riskier ways. If the MM and Map looks risky then i press the key S immediately and start to swim backwards. You can also stay in your place for 1 minute and then decide if you wan to risk and go closer to the middle behind a rock. At the end minutes of the battle decide if you want to go Cap with your CV. Shortly that's it.

which folder in this forum is suitable where i could make such threads: 1. argumentation techniques. There i educate how to behave in debates. For example i explain that it is a nonsense to tell like "believe his words because he has lot of experience" etc. The goal is to enlighten people so that they can get a more stable belief system and can do a decent debate. I haven't seen any adequate topic in this forum yet. All contain spam, poor argumentation methods, lot of hatred against animals, races, pork, Subs and so on. 2. and the second topic is Anger Management. There we share how to stabilize your mental system. So that Subs, pork, the word War, CVs, animals, people with different skin color, and other things wouldn't make you angry and suffer. I provide explanations and give exercises to lower the sufferings.

The AA removes planes slowly and at the end of battles CVs are empty of planes. Some ships like Halland for example have so strong AA that the CV don't make much damage and they can swim fastly close to cruisers.

As i said in my opinion 40% feels like 60% during 20 battles. Secondly, there are many factors why people don't perform well. Distractions, account shared by brothers, internet instability, so called "trolling", etc. I always suggest people to make a test/exam when they hire an employee and ignore the diplomas/stats. Who makes the exam better should be hired. In the Wows in my opinion the best thing is to see how person performs among gold members. If he performs fine then he has good skills. I can always note mistakes from everyone during such "exams". Very often gold members with high stats performs worse than me. They come to cry to me and can't explain why their high stats didn't make them perform better than me. I tel lto them that stop suffering and crying and just understand that your diplomas and stats are irrelevant.

I agree, that as a minor skillful CV player you can make an average player's 1 battle difficult. First, this thing doesn't happen often and in case the DD makes fine tactics then he survives and wins the battle. You say that there is no counterplay for such skillful annoying CVs. I disagree. First, one can position so that he gets supportive AA fro mthe team. That is a clear example of a counterplay. If one takes risks and goes far away fro mthe team then this is a natural result of risk taking. Most CV players can't annoy 1 player too much because aiming is difficult and so on. And if the enemy CV does similar thing then there is nothing unfair. I have tried such tactics and other tactics and i don't see anything special in that one. It is a fair war where rarely but sometimes some ship gets extra attention. It is an irrelevant rare case that doesn't prove anything. I feel that your example is a fine fair play. Do you think that entertainment games should all be always for everyone soft and nice? No. So, let it be sometimes so that CV decides to annoy little bit. But msot CVs are not successful in aiming and most who dies later took risks and went too far from supportive AA.

i suggest that let's have a different opinion about: believing in authorities and grades/stats. A person earlier didn't agree to believe in those things as i remember. I also don't believe in those things. Let's agree that we believe in arguments. So, don't provide sucharguments that "pork and subs are bad because authorities said so and people with high grades/stats think so". Better provide explanations that show how many toxins are inside pork and subs. Is it acceptable? Secondly, can you try to stay i nthe topic and ignore details? Gramamr and numbers are examples of irrelevant details. Also try to use more professional methods. For example don't post mystical pictures. Try to be clear and not mystical. Don't repeat defeated/answered arguments. Try to visualize that all questions/arguments have an order number. Answer first those questions that appeared first. Don't add new questions if you yourself have ignored some questions. It is a well known method to declare question-ignorers as losoers of debate. It is obvious and i explained earlier why. I have answered for exampel everything but now lately i skip some parts because people need me too often everywhere and i can't physically. Have you all answered the 5 questions i nthe OriginalP? No? Have you answered to my yesterdays questions? No. So, it is obvious who is the winenr here. Try to answer everything. Be in the topic.

It is a science not hallucinogens. The other person explained number systems earlier or something. Go argue with him to decide who is wrong. You don't go? Well, if you ignore arguments, questions then you have lost argumentations. This is how it is. You say that the second player was historically bad. But this doesn't prove that he is bad today. Other people gave examples earlier where they explained that stats don't include all things. Go argue with them to decide who is wrong: you or them. I don't understand the other part of your message. But feels like you believe in authorities and grades/stats. I have given enough counter-arguments to those believes. Answer those arguments/questions first. if you ignore arguments, questions then you have lost argumentations. This is how it is. I repeat that if you win 9 or 13 battles from 20 then it feels the same and the it feels the same like you win 10 battles. Secondly, most of the winrates are around 50 like 49.7 or 52.3. Those are mathematically rounded to 50 and in reality make 10 victories and of cause feel like 10 victories. Also the other minor win rates feel 50.

If you want to look at very high lelvel then numbers don't exist. There is only beer and no bottles or glasses. Only 1 beer substance. Secondly there is actually no real person and no real reality but just a dream or story where are some performers and numbers and other objects. Beyond such illusional dream there is actually nothing, no thing. Empty, spaceless, timeless energy. No numbers in there, no objects. This is my offtopical answer to your offtopical question. We agreed earlier that math and grammar are irrelevant details. We agreed that it is fine to say that all CVs have a speed of 200 and other ships have 30. We understoon that it does not make any difference if we use other numbers like 40 or 190. Winning occurs 50% of times to everyone. The person whose stats show 75% WR feels after 20 battles anger and his feeling is that he lost all battles. The person who has 60% of WR feels that he won half battles. He can't feel that he won more than half because human senses and memory cannot sense it. Some people whose WR is 40 feel that they won 75% of battles, but most feel still that exactly half battles.

Well i don't agree with you but i also don't read you post this time. First, provide a proof, then listen opposing arguments, and then it is clear who was wrong.