General Submarines related discussions

[Tanaka_15]

3 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

what do you mean by simple?

If i respond to you so:

Would you consider such reply as simple? Or even adequate? If No ,then why do you yourself use inadequate methods and why don't you behave the way you want to be treated yourself? If you like my answer which is in your style then it defines the argumentation over with you being wrong and loosing the debate. Simple as that, isn't it?

Entifre forum proved you wrong showed and point by point explained you you why you are wrong. your inablity to comprehand answers you get prove anny attempt to posint arguments, knowagle and so one just usless. Again and agian you proved you can listen only to your own voic so why sould i try to expalin you antyhing? 

[Fastmotion]

4 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Entifre forum proved you wrong showed and point by point explained you you why you are wrong. your inablity to comprehand answers you get prove anny attempt to posint arguments, knowagle and so one just usless. Again and agian you proved you can listen only to your own voic so why sould i try to expalin you antyhing? 

If you say that somebody did something then can you show where they did?

You can probably show any posts from my posting history and replies there but those are not a proof there those are just responses and opinions.

You say that i don't comprehend answers or something- can you show and prove that opinion and other opinions?

We can do it in a separate topic if you want. Go and create one.

At the end you say that it is pointless to explain anything. But why should the world believe your opinions if you don't provide any explanations or proofs and there are counter-demonstrations and other adequate examples that prove you are wrong? I for example try to explain everything and don't say any opinions without any proofs. Can you show where i ignored any argument or something and i will reply. But i am sure that from my posting history there are ready made answers already.

[Tanaka_15]

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

If you say that somebody did something then can you show where they did?

You can probably show any posts from my posting history and replies there but those are not a proof there those are just responses and opinions.

You say that i don't comprehend answers or something- can you show and prove that opinion and other opinions?

We can do it in a separate topic if you want. Go and create one.

At the end you say that it is pointless to explain anything. But why should the world believe your opinions if you don't provide any explanations or proofs and there are counter-demonstrations and other adequate examples that prove you are wrong?

MATE:

This are your ranked stats:

 

Look at them you kill less than 0,2 ship per game. you win less than 5 games in 10. Your afv dmg is at level  of 30k (one good salvo from bb or one good torp run).

Why sould i care about antyhing you say if you cleary do not posses any skill in this game? 

[Fastmotion]

21 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

MATE:

This are your ranked stats:

 

 

Look at them you kill less than 0,2 ship per game. you win less than 5 games in 10. Your afv dmg is at level  of 30k (one good salvo from bb or one good torp run).

Why sould i care about antyhing you say if you cleary do not posses any skill in this game? 

In my posting history you see plenty of adequate responses to your stats picture. do you want me to repeat the defeated argument process here again?

Let's do it again then.

1. Question number 1 is a yes-no question. Do you agree that you were asked such question:

Quote

... can you show where they did?

Yes or no? If you agree that you were asked such question then do you agree that it asks you to show some historic posts/debates? Yes or no?

If you agree that you were asked to show posts then did you show such posts? Yes or no?

If you showed such posts/evidence then can you give a link where you gave such posts? Do you agree that you failed to give such posts here? Yes or no?

If you ended the point 1 with Yes then it means you failed and my earlier arguments won. Does it sound understandable and logical?

 

2. The second question is actually described in my clan's forum. It asks that do you agree that there is no difference between average highschool grades, wows stats, and other historical matemathical averages? Because all take into account many numbers over a longer period and calculate a mathematical average number. Do you agree that in a simplified way we can agree that all such stats are the same things, for our example? So, let's replace the Wows stats now with any other such stats and see if the opinions stays the same. Let's take the highschool average grade number, let's say it is 3.3 in the 1-5 scale compared to the Wows WR number 42% over 2 years and differnt vehicles. So, the numbers 3.2 and 42% are calculated very similarly and we use any of them both to make opinions and see if those opinions are true. Do you believe that peopel who have stats like 3.2 and 42% have more or less knowledge, success, etc today than people who had wrose numbers? For example, do you believe that a person with the stats 3.2 earnes less income and have worse opinion about climate and covid politics than those who have stats 3.2+ like 4.5? I don't think that those who had 4.5 are somehow more advanced in anything today. Even university professors fail in the climate opinions and covid opinions no matter which grades they had i nthe school. And people with 3.2 and 1.3 and 4.8 have all very different life that has no correlation to their highschool stats. Some had good highschool stats but ended up as addicts or simple bus drivers, some who had low stats become millionaires and scientists ,etc. Do you agree that the 3.2 doesn't matter in that case? Yes or no? Do you agree that with the Wows 42% is the same thing? For example, those who have 42% may define terms like Arcade much smoother than those who have stats like 75%. Don't you believe so? I can provide demo data for that and other opinions. So, why do you think that 42% and 3.2 somehow matters then and means anything?

 

3. Do you agree that i made a demo with 44/55% i nthe previous Ranked topic which has disappeared? Many witnessed it and maybe you remember it too. If you believe in stats like 3.2 and 42% then why my demos show different data than your see i nthe stats? We can repeat such demo soon. Can you imagine we get again 44/55% o nthe very 1st Bronze day. Why is it so that you as a stats believer don't believe in those planned demo numbers like 55% if you own eyes see it?

[Tanaka_15]

25 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Don't you believe so?

I dont belive so.

 

Well your last 7 days are 132 games with 32% of wins 20k dmg and 1 kill for about 3 games.

Do you agree that this means you play very very bad? 

30 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

an you imagine we get again 44/55% o nthe very 1st Bronze day. Why is it so that you as a stats believer don't believe in those planned demo numbers like 55% if you own eyes see it?

I see your stats know. And thery are more like 30% of win. With my own eyes  i can see it. Can you? 

[JohnMac79]

Wouldnt be surprised if this thread got locked seeing how much its been allowed to be derailed.

[Tanaka_15]

Just now, JohnMac79 said:

Wouldnt be surprised if this thread got locked seeing how much its been allowed to be derailed.

more like @fastmotion and my posts will get removed. In a way aruging with him is strangly funny. 

[Figment]

 

Fastmotion, you ignore arguments made, you revisit your old refuted points and generally make sure this conversation is not constructive.

 

 

 

Hence you fit right into these here forums, well done.

[Fastmotion]

1 minute ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Quote

For example, those who have 42% may define terms like Arcade much smoother than those who have stats like 75%. Don't you believe so?

I dont belive so.

 

Well your last 7 days are 132 games with 32% of wins 20k dmg and 1 kill for about 3 games.

Do you agree that this means you play very very bad? 

I see your stats know. And thery are more like 30% of win. With my own eyes  i can see it. Can you? 

You say that you don't believe that people with high stats fail to define terms like Arcade and other things? But can you provide any evidence? For example i can provide links to yesterday's and today's posts where people provided very different definitions for the Arcade term and none of them sounded adequate. And all those people had different stats. Those demo posts demonstrate that stats don't make anyone smarter or better in knowledge, opinions, terms, etc. So, why do you have an opinion No if i can provide a clear demonstration.

 

Also you don't seem to provide anything new than just repeat the previous stats talk and ignore all of my counter-questions. I already replied with 3 points to the typical stats opinion. There are even Yes-no questions for you to answer. If you jsut ignore them and repeat your previous stats picture then it is in adequate and means that the ignored counter-questioons meant that you failed.

 

In the step 3 i mentioned 55% and provided enough evidence that it existed and others saw it. But you seem to deny that it existed and say that you don't believe in it. Well, which kind of proof do you need then? I can maybe find a screenshor for you from my computer but the topic where it was represented has disappeared by now. Why do you doubt in the 55% ?

 

[Tanaka_15]

6 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

You say that you don't believe that people with high stats fail to define terms like Arcade and other things? But can you provide any evidence? For example i can provide links to yesterday's and today's posts where people provided very different definitions for the Arcade term and none of them sounded adequate. And all those people had different stats. Those demo posts demonstrate that stats don't make anyone smarter or better in knowledge, opinions, terms, etc. So, why do you have an opinion No if i can provide a clear demonstration.

 

Also you don't seem to provide anything new than just repeat the previous stats talk and ignore all of my counter-questions. I already replied with 3 points to the typical stats opinion. There are even Yes-no questions for you to answer. If you jsut ignore them and repeat your previous stats picture then it is in adequate and means that the ignored counter-questioons meant that you failed.

 

In the step 3 i mentioned 55% and provided enough evidence that it existed and others saw it. But you seem to deny that it existed and say that you don't believe in it. Well, which kind of proof do you need then? I can maybe find a screenshor for you from my computer but the topic where it was represented has disappeared by now. Why do you doubt in the 55% ?

 

Jeusus. Even in this Arcade discison you were wrong you know?

 

Agani and angain you are doing this thingk You say someting. you are worng,  people tell you that you are wrong you say untrue and ou say i win the dabate. You dint you were wrong you are wrong and you will be wrong. :) 

[Fastmotion]

4 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Jeusus. Even in this Arcade discison you were wrong you know?

No i wasn't and i have many times explained that why should one believe andagree with proofless opinions? I can respond to you the same way and say that youwere wrong i nthe Arcade topic. so, what we do now if both said such opposing proofless opinion? Should both agree with such opinion?

4 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Agani and angain you are doing this thingk You say someting. you are worng,  people tell you that you are wrong you say untrue and ou say i win the dabate. You dint you were wrong you are wrong and you will be wrong. :) 

what do you mean? do you expect that people would act the same way like you and i copy paste you the same sentence in response? In that case we would end our dialogue by your method and say that you were wrong and lost the debate.

Why are you so convinced that you are right at all? You failed with simple Yes-no questions, you ignored many arguments, you denied things which i can prove be demos and other ways.

[Tanaka_15]

23 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

You failed with simple Yes-no questions, you ignored many arguments, you denied things which i can prove be demos and other ways.

again you dont have arguments. you have baisless and pointless statments. 

 

1 hour ago, Fastmotion said:

Do you believe that peopel who have stats like 3.2 and 42% have more or less knowledge, success, etc today than people who had wrose numbers?

No. I do belive that pepole with higher number IE 5.0 or 70% have better opionons and knowlagde.

To make it simpler if you have 40% WR in wows it is like 1.0 grades in school you are not smart and you dont know anything cos you lack beeing smart. 

Therefore your opions in matter of this game are worthless cos you cant play it, you dont undrustand it and you cant evem make one single ship work on avg level for like 100 games. 

So again and agian we are geting back to simple thing if you dont undrustand someting your opinions about it are irlerelevant. You are very bad at plaing wows. so your opions about wows have no value. 

[Kysmet]

Unfortunately, this thread is doomed to the same fate as the CV one. It doesn't matter what is posted here, as it just acts as a lightning rod and troll-trap.

 

Don't be locked in here with the likes of them. It's not good for your sanity.

[SnipingCat]

A couple of posts have been removed due to offtopic/derailing. Please keep it to ontopic now.

[flip_66]

So apart from censorship, have we heard anything from WG's side about the community's concerns?

[ghostbuster_]

On 6/24/2022 at 7:32 PM, SnipingCat said:

A couple of posts have been removed due to offtopic/derailing. Please keep it to ontopic now.

Dude you had to remove all posts of that fastmotion guy if we want this topic not to derail...

[RamboCras]

STOP with the F*CK*NG submarines. 

 

The homing in torps are f*cking undefendable if they can ping faster than your repair.

[RamboCras]

17 hours ago, GordonsGekko said:

So apart from censorship, have we heard anything from WG's side about the community's concerns?

HAHAHAHA are you asking seriously??

 

WG is concerned about their wallets, not the player base. 

 

Give me an example when the player base said don't do it WG and they didn't?

CVs? Regrinds? Spamships? Overpowered soviet ships? Subs? The loot boxes?

 

WG works like this, they come with this super OP ship stepping passed all player concerns, so everyone spends money to get it. Then they nerve it because the player base complaints. Then they bring out the next, and so on, and so on.

Actually, the more we complain, the more sure you can bet it will be released.

[Charles__Vane__]

I got more comfortable to sink subs with DDs, with the grenades. Works pretty well, you need to rush straight to the sub.

Much more difficult with cruisers....

 

 I think the biggest problem is for large BBs, it's nearly impossible to dodge the homing torps....so many of them. And subs are really tough, it needs a lot to die.

Subs car one shot you with all their torps, but you cannot one shot them with the airstrike, that's totally unfair.

 

 I would really love to see a type of game without subs,; but we all know the subs are the last darling of WG so it won't happen.

WG, if you read this...clearly the subs are probably fun, for subs players.

But their detectability, their toughness, their homing torps...makes them really annoying for all surface ships.

[Corpsetaker]

Hello,

 

At this stage in the Submarine Saga it's clear Wargaming are just in defiance mode. I think I would actually have a bit more respect for them if they just came forward and said "We don't care about the community feedback, we are going to fully implement them anyway". I just have this thing where I would rather someone be upfront with me about bad news than try and insult my intelligence with BS I know isn't true. 

[Zespetjest]

I am just passing by and want to say subs are stil most broken and stupid thing in WOWS, especially those homing hyper speeding torps. 

Anyway, I know WG doesn't care about their playerbase opinions and won't give up on subs, so I'll escort myself out. 

Cheers

[Ruttoz]

WG should listen to the players. Otherwise it will end badly for the project.

[Maris_Piper]

13 minutes ago, Ruttoz said:

WG should listen to the players. Otherwise it will end badly for the project.

I suppose there's a First Time for Everything  

[MixuS]

49 minutes ago, Ruttoz said:

WG should listen to the players. Otherwise it will end badly for the project.

Like how CVs killed the game?

 

I mean I agree, they should, but they won't, and game will still live on since there are enough clueless whales going for shiny new things ("Oooooh, subs!").

[Corpsetaker]

1 hour ago, Ruttoz said:

WG should listen to the players. Otherwise it will end badly for the project.

Hello,

 

The only time Wargaming seemingly listens to the players is purely coincidence. As long as what the players want is in the direction WG wants to go then they claim to "listen to the community".