Saltface

how come no one mentioned the Isokaze or the Phra?

@quickr @_Teob_ Case1: No Content (because most of the player base is unwilling to learn) - Result - No One learns not even those that want to learn. Case2: Content (because some might want to learn) - Result - Some Learn Case Comparison: Case 2 has a net benefit Case Closed

an up-vote from me! I ll propose a few "small" steps and say what I think about the issue, brain droppings as the great late George Carlin would say. 1. Buddy System : Nope for tons of reasons. However we have an alternative which is the moderated forum. It could work as a buddy system. You have many "buddies" here. Oh Lord what am I saying? Anyway, a first point of reference for questions should be in place. Lets say a hot line for players to ask and get serious answers not speculations and "RNG is rigged and what have you" 2. Content: If only the Wiki could be up to date and maintained and expanded we have a good "big book" source as a starting point 3. Battle Review: One of the best tools to learn is to have feedback on your performance 4. Content by players (not CC) - with commentary of why you did what you did. Good and bad. Give us some highlights of your games with your commentary. On small little things. Like "this is how I used RPF and Hydro to hunt an enemy DD and look how it worked" - or "speed dodging with smalland" or how to torp with short ranged torpedoes or how to kill a Kamikaze etc - even an honest discussion on the review could be healthy but I doubt it will happen. 5. Wishful thinking : All Forum lines magically transform to nice informative text 6. Intro Videos on HOW to think to solve WoWs problems. Dont get me crazy here. I am not talking "right think" I am talking "strategy" and "tactics" - on the how to think issue. Most novice players dont know how to think in the game. Like...a DD in a heavy Radar Game, how do you go about it? or what is the thought process when you see the team lineups....I guess it might be too much to ask people to learn the IFHE mechanic and damage mechanics so they can figure out if IFHE is a good skill for them. I am being a bit sarcastic. But it would be a good think to create a player base that can be critical of the content the CCs develop. And not just gulp all nonsense because so and so said so. Some or even most of the above are in place. What is missing is an organized way of accessing it. And someone to do it.

I think our conversation stops here. I said what I have to say, you said your thing. Have a nice day

What you are claiming has no merit because there is no way to disprove it. So, I just reject it. Onus of proof is yours. I simply say "I don't believe ya mate! You did not convince me"

Is there now? Let us entertain the idea that there is a Middle Ground. A Rational and Sane Middle Ground. For purposes of levity I shall tag @Sunleader because (R). Its a joke damit. Lets see now. We shall need a definition. Here you go: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved." Good. Now we need an absurd claim. I shall be happy to provide one: "RNGesus is real. He is the Divine Spirit of the game dimension. He, may his pixels never blimp, guides your shells depending on how good RNGesuite you are" Prove me wrong. You can't. So you try to entertain the middle ground. But there is no middle ground here. You call bull and you leave. Because there is no way to be rational around people that subscribe to conspiracy theories.

OK, here we go. What if I take up one of your assertions and provide you with a perfectly fitting technical answer? A down to earth, technical, straight forward reason for why something you describe happens, but not involving any manipulation by the evil corporate powers of weegee. Would you accept that what you are saying is not correct? Its a simple question. Are you willing to accept that you are wrong? I don't know. We shall see how you react in front of logic. You said: Claiming that because some ships can sail for a while (and if they go dark for a long period) with only 1 to 100 HP left is RNG manipulation. You claim that the SYSTEM makes your shells not score hits. On purpose. For you not to score ribbons. The answer is found in the mechanic of Damage Saturation. Read it. https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Damage_Saturation Tips & Recommendations It is recommended that players be mindful of damage saturation when attacking an enemy ship. When firing at a ship's superstructure, watch for visual blackening, as shell penetrations will no longer be inflicting maximum potential damage. If shells stop inflicting damage completely, alter aim to focus on a different compartment. The above comes from the Wiki page. As you can see there is a built in mechanic by which you might completely stop inflicting damage to your target. When said target has received a lot of damage. Exactly what you described above. But for a different reason not an imagined reason as you assert. As you see there is a perfect logical connect between the game mechanics and what you observe. Are you still willing to subscribe to conspiracy theories or you want to enjoy the game and learn about the mechanics of the game?

you do make sense. As in "I understand what you want to say" I don't totally agree but I understand.

I don't like stat shaming. I think I am on record about that. I ll call you cheap if you try to debate like that. Ad hominem is a cheap method to argue. BUT, I also believe that we are full of snowflakes. Bringing up statistics for performance analysis purposes is more than just fine in my book. However, our sweet snowflakes might melt so we need not evaluate their performance and just give them a participation award.

Lets see the following example: Player 1 post "Dudes I speced my Fletcher for secondaries and it plays out miracles. I m doing it for the last 30 40 battles and it works perfect" Player 2 reply "that's why you have 42% you noob potato" Moderator STAT SHAMING ! Player 3 reply "your battle results don't show that effect. You had 42% and still you have 42%. Could it be confirmation bias?" Moderator? I don't know what the Mod will do but I would not call this stat shaming.

@tappo01 @Margarineoffizier Yes mates and the Earth is Flat

This discussion has to STOP. Some people are proponents of Radar and Hydro going through islands and some are against. One Solution to make you both happy. We will not touch the Radar Mechanics. We will not change that. We will remove the mountains. We will play only on Ocean map. No Islands for that pesky radar to go through (and poor cousin Hydro). Radar aint going through islands anymore but hasnt changed. YES all happy.

Couldn't be said better *Tips hat

Same here mate LOL check uhmmm...he is in for a surprise yup but I guess you will lock the thread because most probably anything more of a ridicule would be an overdose. And I am pretty sure OP is ridiculed enough.

Thank you for the hard work you put in to this. At least now we have some data about this issue.

Do you have any paint? The paint job of my Kamikaze needs freshening up

https://j2kun.svbtle.com/how-can-you-tell-whats-random https://www.howtogeek.com/446695/what-is-rng-in-video-games-and-why-do-people-criticize-it/#:~:text=A random number generator (RNG,factor in many modern games.

and all spawn next to one benham LOL

Oh My, all this talk about statistics because someone wants to stat-shame others when they don't subscribe to his conspiracy theories? It is not worth it. Anyone that knows how to read the statistics that are available in the public domain will have a very clear picture of the quality of any player given sufficient battles. And as I also said if we play with you one or two games, we will know how good you are. Anyway, I need to apologize to the forum and the users for the evolution of this thread as it is due to my post in page 5. I made a bad post and I stand corrected. I really should not have answered that way. My bad. Like what did the dude do that was wrong? He just told us that we play a game that is rigged, stupid and a scam (scammy his exact words). My bad. I should not call him out. I should give my usual answer that I give to conspiracy theory subscribers. Yes Mate. The Earth Is Flat. My bad. But, its never too late. I ll do it now. @The_GooD_Old_One BTW thank you mate, the visit count of my profile and stat pages really went up. You made me quasi famous.

My friend, I am categorical. No. Please allow me to elaborate. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russel's TeaPot The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. In the letter, Henderson demanded equal time in science classrooms for "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism", alongside intelligent design and evolution. After Henderson published the letter on his website, the Flying Spaghetti Monster rapidly became an Internet phenomenon and a symbol of opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot—an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them. Other thinkers have posited non-disprovable analogies, such as J. B. Bury in his 1913 book, History of Freedom of Thought: "Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion." This is why all opinions do not have the same value. Does Spaghetti or Teapot have the same value with Cosmology ? We cant disprove the former, but we could try to disprove Cosmology because it is not Unfalsifiable. For the notion of unfalsifiable I ll refer you to Carl Popper. Look it up. For all of the above the source is Wikipedia. Regards Your Friend Saltface

This is a very old story. It has been debunked several times. And as @Ocsimano18 said Strike 1 - Invalid Argument / did not do his homework -------- WG never shuts down posts that attack WG so long there is no profanity. I don't have stakes in WG but if anything is deleted in the Forum it would be me insulting you. Or anyone insulting someone else for that matter. Amazingly, so long you keep to the rules, moderators will not touch your post. MM posts all go to the MM thread. This way ALL posts related to the MM subject have been merged in that thread so that you and I can have access to them. They have been made more visible, All MM rant and whine is there. Go read it. Furthermore, this is an amazingly naive proposal. As if WG controls the Internet. If you don't post it here you will post it someplace else. Like many CCs that have spilled the beans for WG and are accusing them. Well after they had a fight with WG ofcourse and the environment was poisoned (sarcasm) and resources scarce. No one can control the Internet. WG competitors would pay a fortune to a dissatisfied WG employee to snitch and create huge business damage. Strike 2: Logical Fallacy --------------- this is guilt by association and you know very well that is one the cheapest arguments one can bring up in a debate. I find it reprehensible that you resort to it. Not only that. It is a redundant argument. ALL guilty people deny their guilt. According to your distorted logic anyone that claims to be innocent is guilty. Strike 3: Logical Fallacy ------------- It wasn't hard to find my stats. They are open. And I am honored that you gave the time to visit my stat page. Are you trying to stat shame me? It wont work. I am known to all to be a Kamikaze freak. I love that boat. However, I do not understand what my stats have to do with your allegation that the game is rigged. Lets assume that all what you say are correct. What is the relation of my stats to your assertion that the game is rigged? Nothing. How does it reinforce your argument? It doesn't. How does it prove that my statement that you are speculating is untrue? Ii doesn't. I ll tell you what you are trying to do. You are resorting to the cheapest and most erring trick in the book of debating. Argumentum ad hominem. When you cannot attack the argument you attack the person that made the argument. I may be chat banned for what I will say but I will say it here: Strike 4: Your debating is cheap and shameless. On this we will agree but for a different reason. You are not worth debating because we have a different level of self-respect. Kindly abstain from addressing me in the future.

My opinion is that this is pure speculation and in my 8000 battles I don't have this feeling. You along with many people who share your opinion have no evidence whatsoever, yet you proclaim to know the truth. You don't even have indications. As the onus of proof falls on the person that makes the claim....just give us one shred of evidence. Till then what you say is purely a speculative theory. And a very poor one at that. When I play bad I lose (or sometimes I get carried, but I know now when this happens) When I play well I usually win. The rest is normal loss because the team did not perform as expected. The numbers are simple 3 you win no matter what, 3 you lose no matter what, the remaining 4 you can influence. Your performance in those four games make up your WR. Anyway, Enough said about this subject. I hope you get your Stalingrad.

My Friend, your English is bad but....What you say is wise. I wish I knew you mother tongue just to say what I said to you so you don't misunderstand me.

May I ask why you play a stupid and scammy (sic) game? According to this statement, you and I are bad players that WG lifted up a click above 50% (we share similar WR at the low 50s both of us) and took down @ForlornSailor (my clan mate) from his rightfull 70% to 65%. You will excuse me but this is a very distorted way of thinking that I cannot subscribe to. Sounds as if the prefrontal cortex doesn't contribute allowing the limbic system to do whatever it likes. You should also try to do understand that if we two, that are at the low end of the slightly above average players, start calling other players noobs or idiots, not only we are rude and civil discourse might not be our strong point. It also sounds a little bit funny and maybe it indicates some kind of Dunning–Kruger effect*. *In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. Source: Wikipedia Back to topic. @citaDELer WR in conjunction with all the other data the game collects are the best tool we have to evaluate a player's performance. More than that, we all know if you are a good player or not, after a game or two with or against you. WR alone might not say the whole truth about a player. It also requires a large number of data for it to be representative. However, it is very clear about one thing. If you have a low win rate you are statistically a net deficit to your team. This is a rule. As all rules this one as well has exceptions. Outliers, in statistical colloquial. But over a large amount of games these statistical anomalies tend to disappear. I will agree that if you are playing the game for 4 years then the last two might better represent you. The only thing that correctly represents you is your battle. Your teammates and your opponents after the game will know exactly who you are. So, as far as I m concerned WG could have a small text box and each one of us could just plug in what we think our WR should be. And show this one in the screen. Go on, feast on it and type 80%. You think I ll care? If you are good I ll see it in game.

I think, but I might be wrong, that the closer you launch you will penetrate the deck and bounce of the hull and the further out you launch it will be the other way. This is geometry speaking. Not a CV player. I haven't played one game in CV. But I guess geometry is geometry. I am working on a crude design to illustrate what I think. Will post it here as an edit EDIT I was wrong, @__Helmut_Kohl__ said that the vertical angle doesn't change. He is right