Saltface

The Rule of Mediocracy, Equality of Outcome and how to regress downwards.......... -repeat after me- Only the Mediocre have a saying; All should have the same results; Equalize everything towards the lowest point. This is what some of our fellow forumites propose. According to their point of view, anyone that is better than average is an elitistic cheater. Playing better is a sin and the knowledge of the game mechanics is a sickness, wining is discriminatory and trying to win is active bigotry. BAN the good players. BAN from the game anyone that can play well. And for the best performing players their score must be reduced. These are the proposals put forward in writing by the observers of the religion of mediocracy. According to my observations our fellow forumites that subscribe to this way of thinking have sub standard game performance, display inability to understand what they are told in order to better their game and pretend to hide their stats so the community will not berate them for sub standard performance. In reality they know they are bad and just want to hide it. One of the most important mantras is not to look in the mirror. So here we have two ideas, two mentalities in contrast to each other. One group wants participation awards and a pat on the back for playing badly so their fiefies are not hurt by the bad stat padding divisioning exploitative cheaters. Oops I forgot elitistic. That one. We are all equal mediocre players. The mediocratic chorus is chanting. Lets join hands and celebrate our mediocratic equality. Its a free game and we all can play and damned be he who seeks to be good. The other group wants a nice, fun, balanced and competitive game where, if you play well you get rewarded more. If you try to learn you will. In my humble opinion the first group are underachievers that just wish to ruin other peoples game because they cant stand the reality. So, without calling out names I m straight forward calling you out Messrs. Scrubs. (not the clan, read some books) Don't wave your finger to the other players. Stop calling names anyone that is better than you. Stop finding excuses for your self. Enjoy the game as you can and stop promoting your destructive thinking because you are bad for the game. Try to learn the game and get better at it and stop wanting to make it worse for everybody else in order to suit your low game standards. And as I am Greek here is an Aesop's Fable that fits the situation.

Lets start with lots of Data. Collect your games, keep records, ask friends to do the same. Tabulate. Run some correlation tests. (Warning: Correlation does not signify causation) And depending on your findings you can put forward a hypothesis to be tested. Like ...guys here is the data,....I did the numbers and it could be that there is a relation....between such and such.... This is OK. It is clear thinking. I check the data I do my math and it looks like something could be there....lets test it. (btw, some friends have done so and they found no relation between MM and other things) On the other hand to pop up out of the Joker Box and state that the ubiquitous truth is that "MM is rigged" - "Players that pay to buy prems are helped by MM" - "If you wear a Tshirt with WoWs logo on you win".... Come on now ....

I suggested absolutely nothing. I just observed whats happening and showed it in a graph. The observation is that people have progressed up the game progress ladder (that is playing tier) a lot faster than what their playing ability is. DW DD launching salvos at other DDs, an Assashio that drops torps on Cruisers CVs that are FlackCollectors and BBs that shoot HE while sailing broadside to their target are rather telling signs of the low knowledge our player base has. There are so many things we see everyday that are bad signs about the game level. If you want to examine why this is happening be my guest, I ll read your post. But I am not going to debate you because I never said why this is happening. If you want to examine probable solutions, be my guest again. I did not propose a solution but I really want to hear what you have to say. Just to clear up something as there might be a misunderstanding here. WR is NOT part of the graph. Progress in game is not how good you are it is what Tier you have reached. In this respect don't confuse player quality with player level. If you want to plop quality in the graph you could say it is reflected by the tangent of the curves at the slope section of the curves. (mathematically speaking the tangent represents the rate of change - rate of learning in our case. So I will quote myself - and this is all I have to say on the matter

No Actually I think that people that subscribe to theories/ideas without evidence (and on the contrary with loads of evidence against the idea) to be of limited intellectual capacity. Its a free world and they are free to think and say what they want. I am a fervent free speech proponent. And I am free to think and express my opinion that they are dumb.

I had an epiphany. I think this is a break through idea. It breaks the glass ceiling. Revolutionary. What if we examine the possibility that if a player learns how to play the game well and plays good games his WR will increase? I understand that this is not intuitive but....worth the consideration.

yes mate I agree, the earth is flat.

This applies to the upper part of the scale. Players that have learnt. You must have knowledge for that knowledge to become obsolete because of game changes. Mustn't you? The new players progress up the scale a lot faster than what they learn. And changes in game mechanics don't really affect so much T5 and down (learning tiers) I just made a graphic of the observed effects. Progress is faster than learning. Why this is happening is another question. @_Teob_could be right. Its a plausible explanation. I wouldn't say however, that this is the only reason. I would also suggest that an amount of P2P (pay to progress) goes on. We observe many players (novice) in high tiers knowing didly about the game The graph depicts what both Teob and I believe to be a representation of the situation. Why is this happening? Well, the floor is yours ...its up for debate

IMHO The progress curve is steeper than the learning curve. Look at the Orange Dot. Its on the learning curve. It represents how much you know and understand about the game. Project downward on the horizontal axis and it shows you time involved by a player and / or battle count. Lets just call it Playing Time Investment. On the vertical axis you have what we will just call Playing Level. Project the orange dot upwards until it meets the solid green line. That difference is what harms the game. You progress in the game a lot faster than you learn the game.

I would find it logical if they wanted to have the same interface across platforms... and all changes look like they are going that direction. This one looks a lot PSlike

Good work mate, thx. It seems you are right with the numbers you report. We had an earlier discussion and the following thread. (in spoiler)

Scroll down (in wows-numbers) you will find this table in every player's profile (except yours that is hidden.....) 12 weeks - Bingo

Thank you both for the reply, However, I am familiar with the mechanics and I had a problem with "According to LWM the AA of DD hits 1/3 harder then that of BB...the numbers in port don't seem to give the right numbers in battle." And I was right. This was taken out of context. Well...in BoWs defense that post was not so well written. Rather ambiguous. Also I find that our friend @Beastofwar is culpable of an appeal to authority fallacy. Anyway, we can all do our own math (arithmetic actually) and see which ship has what. Also we need to put in the calculations the range of each aura and not just add them all up. e.g. from the table that was posted in the thread our friend BoW used as a source (in spoiler): Fubuki vs Hatsuharu Which one has the better AA? Fubuki comes in with 161 DPS vs 141 DPS of the Hatsu. But the Fubuki has all its DPS in the short range bubble while the Hatsu will have a long range bubble (an extra 3 Km). I am sure you will agree that rarely an aircraft will fly in the short range bubble of the Fubuki. Dive Bombers might (rather poor selection to attack a DD) but hey .....rockets wont. Anyway, neither the Fubuki nor the Hatsu are worth mentioning as AA monsters. Next in my critical thinking list is how much HP every aircraft has. So, if you get exposed in my bubble for so much time you will lose so many aircraft. Then the number gets some value. Anyway, imho, AA is not potent and good CV players will dodge flak and minimize time in AA auras so its essentially useless given the amount of aircraft on CVs. Do I like sailing the Halland? yes I do. Just to avoid bad CV players...they avoid Hallands LOL LOL LOL LOL I doubt that @_Warfarin_ would be intimidated LOL

Gentlemen, may I please remind you that Ms. Perova is a real human being, so I think it would be appreciated if your comments were respectful and nothing more than compliments to a fine lady.

I know. And it was nice and detailed. But I made a pic and put down my thoughts along yours so our friend that made the post will have all facts in front of him and make his own call on what happened.

We all know torps dont turn lol lol so I had to check this.... 13 torps are the first indicator that something else is in play... so we have an extra 3 to account for (Jervis has 2 X 5) The Oland launches 3 at a time Red is Jervis, 1 2 and 3 are the launch points of the three first ones....- Green is Oland @Admiral_idonno this is what happened mate. Have a look. @xxNihilanxx explained it very nicely

there are 13 torps in that screenshot the Jarvis can launch 10 So torps are not turning....maybe, just maybe the Oland has something to do with this LOL LOL not to mention the bubble trails LOL they are straight have a look again mate

source?

well I could agree but ... a 9 can look like a 6 if looked at from the other side but...........it is still a 9. So I kinda disagree Facts and numbers are not a point of view.

Good morning, Like you for example that complains about elitistic statpadding divisionist cheaters? This is me bi___ing on you just to keep the tradition going. btw, just quit this mantra of yours, it really doesn't show you in the best light. End of fun part, lets get back to our debate. This is where is disagree. not with minority or small .... LOL You really disregard the qualitative parameters here. The players that frequent the forums, youtube, reddit or other dedicated web places for WoWs are the ones more involved in the game. These players are the ones that know the details, the ins and outs, the litle thingies that make a click. They know how to play the game better than the developers. We might not know the code but we sure know how the game works and how it is best played because we play it more and in a more organized fashion. Lets take a parallel example. In my country (Greece) sailing and boating is very popular. Well with so much sea LOL one could expect it. Most people have access to a boat. However, there is a small minority of unicum LOL sailors and coxswains. When they speak the others listen at least to what they have to say. Why? Because they are more involved in this activity and they might know better. Top Clans, Top Players, majority of people on Forums, Dedicated Web Sites about WoWs, Youtube, etc ALL voice concern about CVs. Top Clans are still top clans CV or no CV, same for Top Players. They still are Top. They dont have an issue with adapting or changing this or that. so I ll just repeat what my friend DFens said It is not an adaptation problem. The gameplay is becoming bad. And this is a big problem.

@Migantium_Mashum Hey mate, there is an easy way to know if WG took the necessary action. Just look at the battles played per week section of alleged cheater's profile. If WG took action you will see said player NOT play battles for a week or two or even more. We are talking cheating here and the penalties are hefty. So a week or two being banned will show in the profile. see ya

Maybe there is a confusion between Turning Radius and Tactical diametre. Are we sure what the numbers indicate?

Come on, we can disagree on many things...we can argue...but, do you really think that 300 battles are enough to understand the game, DD play, mechanics and go and be productive in T10? Be a sport and give me a straight answer mate.

then you are not carrying enough !! *smiles @ you It is a different way of thinking. Maybe you should try it. It works. On a defeat that you was high in the score board...sit back and be critical of yourself. Could you have done something better? I think this method works. take breaks between battles...don't spam

I did not say that. Actually I had trouble understanding what you wrote. You said it. I will not object if that's how you want to think about yourself. because you don't have the experience to be in T10 maybe? And this way you don't learn and you don't enjoy. yes you play your role. Badly. you will see your performance indicators go up. That's a good indication that you know a bit more than you did. But 2000 games could be a good start. your performance statistics indicate that you are at the lowest end of the player base. And because you have very few battles your WR doesn't matter. It is statistically insignificant. You are also not expected to be a good player now. You are expected to learn. You think you are in the middle. No you are not. You need to learn how to play first. Next step is to become a better player. YES Calling you a bad player is not an insult. Calling you bad names, swearing etc is bad and please make a screenshot and report this if it has happened. You are free to say whatever you like. This is a FREE FORUM. Free means you can say what you want (always obey the rules however). It does not mean that you are right or that we have to like and agree with what you say. You said your opinion, and, my opinion is that you are a player that has no experience in the game and most probably you have not understood the mechanics yet. This results in you being frustrated by the game. And you come here to complain. And once given a bit of good advice like, please stay out of T10 and go back to lower tiers, you try to talk about freedom to post, bullying and a good series of strawmen. I am not saying that with less than 300 battles you cannot speak. But I say you surely don't know or understand the game.

I had a quick look at the last one. I will say a few "bad" things that I noticed. at the 18 minute mark, you let the Emerald go dark. You should keep her spotted for your BBs to finish her up. She was a problem all the game as she helped wax out your side. You then followed the Monte. There was nothing you could do to the Monte and you delayed in attacking the Wyoming.That cost a little more damage on your Orion and your Wyoming. On the 14 minute mark you let your flank go all without vision. You was at such a position that no red ship was visible. I also did not like your second kill coz you misplayed the smoke and that got you killed. But your team had already collapsed so ... Think about these things Hope it helped a bit