ForlornSailor

@eliastion you are waisting your time. Now he will tell you, that u effed-yourself and proved him right. This is already an oxymoron - like pretty much everything that guy wrotes. It baffles me how one can not understand the word "average". It can not be discussed. But the logic he displayed through all those pages is so wrong, it really was shocking. He doesnt understand percentage, he has a fundametal problem understanding numbers, not even speaking about the fact, the he obvious cant gasp, what Winrate stands for and how it is composed.

No, if it really gets out of hand, and you feel like it, you can always go to the police. There is no difference, if you face abuse face-to-face or over the internet. People tend to think, they are anonymous when online. They are not. The abilities of tracking cyber-crime has been growing in the recent past - its still not there, where it needs to be. But its very easy to track. You report this stuff to the police, pressing legal charges. You tell them, where this happens - in this case, the server of Wargaming. Police will contact WG, ask for the IP of that account. With that IP, police can track the ISP of that person. Police can contact the ISP and get the owner of that connection. He is fucked now. There have been laws in place in europe making this kind of investigations and tracking possible and easy. Just make sure, that if you push this way, it will stand before a court and that you are ready to go all the way. In this case, I suspect the person on the screen to be german. Saying things like this in public WILL get you in deep deep trouble in Germany.

Ive had disagreements with many people in this forum. Some just had a different opinion, which I can respect. Some drew different conclusions, but had facts to make their position clear, which I can respect. You, however, have made such an ... out of yourself, that you lost all credibility. You have shown, that you dont understand so many basic things of logic and mathematics, that Ill never again take anything, you write here, serious anymore. Not even close. And cuz of this, reading your stuff is a waste of my time, ill block you from now on. Spare your own time quoting me, I wont read it (why do I know, you will fail on this one aswell...)

He literally thinks, that 48 is bigger then 52 & claims, a group of players that is literally classified as avarage by WG and 2 statsides are infact bad (and the list with logical things, that he doesnt understand, goes on) - and you wonder that he is convinced, someone that is better then 56% of the players in that ship is below avarage?

Why are you under the impression, the color-scale is linear? It is not. Do you see, that "Super Unicum" has a rangefrom 2450 - 9999? What if there are from 2450 to 4000 Uber-Unicum, from 4000 to 6500 Mega-Unicum and from 6500 to 8000 Extra-Vergine-Unicum and w/e to differentiate more in that range? Then we´d have like 15 colors. And all of a sudden, Unicum would ne number 7. Thus Bad. Right. *sigh* I will just be so bold and quote Commander Cornflakes, as I couldnt make it more obvious then he did:

Especially, since he used the WR / damage / PR from the entire account to make a point. The expected values differ between each ship - naturally. If 10% of players sink 1,0 ships while playing ship X, and the rest of the playerbase sinks 0,0 ships, then the expected avarage for ship X would be 0,1 per battle. So if you´d hit that 0,1 ship kills per battle, you´d have this ~1150 PR. And thus be the image of an avarge player. You wouldnt need to sink 0,5 ships, cuz then you would be already way above avarage. Ill just jump on the waggon and ask @veslingr aswell: why do you claim to know better what is average than the people who actually devised the formula, including any arbitrary elements it might contain?

You can see the server-avarage and compare it directly to somebodys individual performance. I took your Akizuki as an example ;) It also shows you, how far away you are from the avarage performance of that ship on the server. Seems you are doing pretty good.

It has been mentioned before, when I showed another way, that stealthfire exists after the change. This video was literally made the day the change went live: A König stealth-fireing a Texas (even when seeing the video evidence, ppl said, it wasnt possible). This is another mechanic at work here, ofc. Oh, when talking about "new" you gotta define what is "new". The change, when WG made spotting-range equals shooting-range made this way more likely to happen. Take the Video from @wilkatis_LV as an example. Most likely. there is a cruiser headding towards A. With old gunbloom - which extended on BB way beyond the shooting-range - this ship would have had the possibility to spot him.

I dont want to take any sides here and get caught in the middle, but please concider this also for yourself. Its easy to say, others are arrogant, when you provoke them yourself by starting a post with calling his post "pathetic". Yes yes I know, he wrote things like that also. But isnt it easier to start changing yourself and then demand others to behave more mature, if they still resort to name-calling or so? Just my five cents, really trying to be neutral on this one and get the discussion on a serious, constructive level. Thats some good points. Im sure there could is a sweetspot, raising the damagepontential of Cruisers, while still having BBs overpen the superstructure. The 21mm sounds good f.e. From my experiance in fighting Conq with Cruiser AP, this would sure help. The damage-saturation of the superstructure in general can be annoying. I remember fighting a Warpsite (not a perfect example, as it doesnt have the characteristics of the silver RN BBs) and he was stuck at something like 1800 Health. I hammered him for minutes with my Leander, first from smoke, then over Island, with no result. He pulled Heal in between, with the only effect, that I got him back down to pretty much the same Health within 30 sec.

I think we are done here.

What you are talking about, is an interpretation of performance. it does NOT change the fact, that OP wins 52 battles out of 100. Therefor, he loses only 48 battles out of 100. 52 is more then 48. What is there not to understand. And the PR again proves you wrong, cuz it takes the performance of a certain ship into account and OP scored above avarage again. You have no point. Zero. You can twist and turn all you want.

You cant do it, can you?

You are unbelievable. First, 50% isnt the middle. Then, linear calculations are compared to non-liniear school grades and non-linear scales. Now, a formula, which litereally defines an avarage rating - which everyone with really basic mathskills can calculate himself - has another avarage just cuz you say so. Then tell us, what is the avarage number if you go through this formula. show us step by step.

No, you dont get it. There are what - 6 or 7 ppl telling you, you are wrong, and nobody sides with your flawed logic cuz everyone is able to count to 8. But yea, next you gonna tell me, that the majority thinks you are right cuz 8 out of 9 is below avarage. Nice also dodging @Commander_Cornflakes and @eliastion who shredded your own arguments to pieces. Why dont you reply to them - out of ammunition? You still raise flawed questions? You havent answered one single question I asked you, had all your points destroyed by logic & mathematics from several people and then ignored your own argumentations and still think, someone will answer to new stuff you make up? Get a grip.

thx @eliastion I wanted to go through the formula he posted, cuz I was sure, he didnt understood a thing he posted there - he just wanted to look smart. Else he would have noticed, he contradicted himself by that. But I reached the point, where I think, its futile to talk to that guy...

So every player can reach 100% WR and be a Super Unicum if he just playes well enough. Another scapegoat brought up, which has ZERO to do with the PR and WR in the game and on top of that is impossible. Well done, how many times did you now already showed, you dont understand a thing about math? Even when several ppl showed you grafics and explained to you? How long do you wanna go on?

Hint: They guy you described as "below avarage" has 52,31% WR. Place him on my grafic. Or, as I like to call it "veslingrs scale of shame"

Good you again didnt understood what "linear" and "%" means. Hint: They guy you described as "below avarage" has 52,31% WR. Place him on my grafic. Or, as I like to call it "veslingrs scale of shame"

Unlike you, obviously, im way past that age of having & needing a math teacher. And actually, you trying to be smart and distract from your failures, backfired again. But np, ill take you to school, boy. If id make a scale from 1 to 8 with linear progression - as judging WR f.e., the avarage would be the exact point between 4 and 5. Also I wonder, why you picked 4 and not 5 in your flawed logic? Either way, on a scale from 1 to 8 with linear setting, 4 is below avarage, 5 above. Try atleast to make sense when beeing a smartboy next time, k? But just to make sure, ill visually show you the numbers from 1 to 8 (what grade is this? first? kindergarden?) + the "mystical avarage".

That veslinger guy has a problem of understanding, how an avarage is build. He doesnt understand, that there needs to be an equal number of ppl / games (anything, that makes up the base for a scale) on each side of the avarage. Which is exactly the definition of avarage. You cant discuss "what an avarage is". Yet he does.

I think, both sides have some points here and there. There seems, from my view, also a little bit of assuming things, that neither one is really saying. @wilkatis_LV isnt really saying, that AP is some sort of magical weapon against Conq. He says, its useless to spam HE at him, thus AP must be the prefered ammunition. Which is valid imo. And @El2aZeR and the others arent saying, that its not an option to use AP, but that Conq can also handle beeing shot at with AP pretty good. Which is true imo aswell. My view on things is something, that I can read in many posts here, no matter how your position is on the conq: Maybe WG had a BB inmind, that can fight BBs very efficent. It makes sense looking for this point: Giving the BB better concealment to have advantage against BBs. Give him better heal, so he can win a 1vs1 BB encounter easier. Give him strong HE + fire, so can deal with angeling BBs and get constant DoT. The problem is: RN BBs invade the territory of cruisers with this - and they do everything better then them. I really took the time reading and trying to understand both sides of the coin regarding Conq/ RN BB and I came to the conclusion, that its (again) WG not taking everything into concideration. Not that I think, its an easy task, to develope a BB that counters BBs and ONLY BBs without harming cruisers somehow. It might also explain, why Conq / RN BB is performing overall the way it is - cuz they really walk over Cruisers and can handle them even better then BBs. If RN BB had real weaknesses against cruisers, maybe we wouldnt have this discussion here? Then again - how do you design a BB thats vulnerable to Cruisers but strong against BBs?

I knew it. No understanding of logic & mathematics. If someone has 54% WR - how many battles will he win out of 100 games? And how many will he have lost? Answer that.

answer the question. If someone has 54% WR - how many battles will he win out of 100 games? And how many will he have lost? Answer that.

If someone has 54% WR - how many battles will he win out of 100 games? And how many will he have lost? Answer that.

Nothing to see here. He is talking with the guy in the mirror again! Literally says, 54% is the middle of the scale, and tells others, they lack understanding. BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA