Remove Submarines

[Karasu_Browarszky]

3 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I remember i replied adequately to the 1-person argument. so i won't go to read it over.

 

 

I don't see posting any reply or other reaction to his posts. If you did reply adequately, then your reply came come to Nothing.

 

What he said is directly relevant to any discussions about the subs in the game.

[NewHorizons_1]

1 hour ago, JeanLouisII said:

Sry @Fastmotion but what math knowledge is that?????

"Alternative Maths" no doubt.

[Fastmotion]

1 minute ago, Cammo1962 said:

There you are wrong i am a military man and have served for almost 43 years and everybody have the right to free speech but there is also some rules that have to be followed in a civilized society

Yoiu are right only when you speak about your experiences in your institution and not for other country's institutions.

Even in the news during the recent 2 months people have shared the opinion that one reason of the failure is that generals are afraid to report the truth and the whole communication is like i described ranked-minded while opponents are more effective because there can smaller units decide and propose more themselves and no fear and is more democratical in other words. So, what i described is in some countries but if you say that not in yours then that does not mean that i was wrong.

 

And that military talk was an example which is an irrelevant detail. We can make another examples easily and ignore the deatils at all and look the main ideas only.

[Tanaka_15]

37 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Why do you have so big urge to win? I am for example fine with the amount i win.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

2 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Yoiu are right only when you speak about your experiences in your institution and not for other country's institutions.

Even in the news during the recent 2 months people have shared the opinion that one reason of the failure is that generals are afraid to report the truth and the whole communication is like i described ranked-minded while opponents are more effective because there can smaller units decide and propose more themselves and no fear and is more democratical in other words. So, what i described is in some countries but if you say that not in yours then that does not mean that i was wrong.

 

And that military talk was an example which is an irrelevant detail. We can make another examples easily and ignore the deatils at all and look the main ideas only.

 

For this discussion, the relevant details involve WoWS gameplay and the implementation of the subs as part of it in terms of the game mechanics and the playerbase reaction to it.

[Fastmotion]

13 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

I repeat thet it does not matter how many pixels and accounts my forum has right now.

The 1 moderator that you mention can handle perfectly all tasks i believe.

 

In my forum i set rules that are close to the court rules and we go through 20 subs arguments that i won here.

 

I founmd the post where i explained why it does not matter how many people arein forums.

Also i remember i explained somewhere that it is fine if people answer to themselves and talk to themselves.

Can we agree that we don't have to search anymore the repeated truths out here?

 

[KurtVonSteiger]

Are we on the US Forum then??    seems like a paid up member of QAnon   LOL!

[Fastmotion]

7 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

For this discussion, the relevant details involve WoWS gameplay and the implementation of the subs as part of it in terms of the game mechanics and the playerbase reaction to it.

I am not sure what is the goal of your opinion. But you mention the values that are not defined by you but the WG. The values might be that income must be relatively big but not extremely big and so on. Those all fundamental goals or vlaues or how you call them are not defined by you or me and are not changed by us either. Very rarely in the history have companies changed something significant that customers asked. But i am not sure what exactly are you saying related to those goals.

 

Looks like you say that you want to take ower the WG and make new goals for the company. Or what is your point?

 

Do you want to say that playerbase has ever made any adequate arguments? I have never seen any valid arguments, WG and Sub players haven't seen either.

[Nibenay78]

3 minutes ago, KurtVonSteiger said:

Are we on the US Forum then??    seems like a paid up member of QAnon   LOL!

 

It's a fair point...

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, Fastmotion said:

maybe yes. i don't know which word to use but if people do argumentations then the rules must be close to the court rules.

Nobody is on your forum but you. This makes your forum unqualified to have argumentations on, since argumentations are done by a minimum of 2 people, wouldn't you agree? It shows you are unqualified to run a forum, since nobody joined your forum so far, and WG is qualified to make a forum since there are many people on this forum. You are here, posting over 100 messages in 24 hours on a forum you keep saying is unqualified, talking to people you keep denouncing as unqualified. We can agree you are posting more on an this forum then on your own forum yes? That means you actually think this forum is more qualified then your own forum. And that means you think most people on this forum are qualified.

[Cammo1962]

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

Yoiu are right only when you speak about your experiences in your institution and not for other country's institutions.

Even in the news during the recent 2 months people have shared the opinion that one reason of the failure is that generals are afraid to report the truth and the whole communication is like i described ranked-minded while opponents are more effective because there can smaller units decide and propose more themselves and no fear and is more democratical in other words. So, what i described is in some countries but if you say that not in yours then that does not mean that i was wrong.

 

1: And that military talk was an example which is an irrelevant detail. We can make another examples easily and ignore the deatils at all and look the main ideas only.

Fist of all you brought it up so it is not a an example or an irrelevant detail and I do know other countries work with democracy so dont try to dodge it. Second of all russian generals are afraid of reporting their mistakes because they know what will happen to them and with units being able to make their own assessment makes them more effective and that is how it works in all western countries so please dont try to lecture me.

[Fastmotion]

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

Nobody is on your forum but you. This makes your forum unqualified to have argumentations on, since argumentations are done by a minimum of 2 people, wouldn't you agree? It shows you are unqualified to run a forum, since nobody joined your forum so far, and WG is qualified to make a forum since there are many people on this forum. You are here, posting over 100 messages in 24 hours on a forum you keep saying is unqualified, talking to people you keep denouncing as unqualified. We can agree you are posting more on an this forum then on your own forum yes? That means you actually think this forum is more qualified then your own forum.

I have already earlier answered adequately to all forums-related offtopical aspects.

I remember i explained that there is no matter how many pixels and users my forum has right now and it is enough if 1 adequate representative from here enter there and goes through the argumentation battle. Of cause more can go there but 2 in total are enough. I believe on the next page people repeat again and again the same answered/defeated questions. Can we agree somewhow that i don't have to repeat so many times myself. Go and read the earlier posts yourself, why i have to do it? Because this forum site is inadequate then it is full of spam and it is difficult to search where i gave the explanations and things.

So, i am qualified and my forum is as well but this forum is not. Can't we just all accept it and leave it and won't bring the forum topic in again?

The forum is still open if qualified people want to repeat the argumentation round.

[Fastmotion]

5 minutes ago, Cammo1962 said:

Fist of all you brought it up so it is not a an example or an irrelevant detail and I do know other countries work with democracy so dont try to dodge it. Second of all russian generals are afraid of reporting their mistakes because they know what will happen to them and with units being able to make their own assessment makes them more effective and that is how it works in all western countries so please dont try to lecture me.

So you seem to agree that i was not wrong. In different armies the democracy levels are different and other things. I mentioned that in some armies there is more right of speach than in others and it appears that those with more rights to speak have more success anddevelope better. The main point was to explain that there is no need to silence in the entertainment games players. And no need to decide by stats/ranks who has more right to speak.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

24 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

For this discussion, the relevant details involve WoWS gameplay and the implementation of the subs as part of it in terms of the game mechanics and the playerbase reaction to it.

 

^^ What I posted there is not so much an opinion as it is a fact. What I stated above determines the outcomes we see daily in the battles (and the fallout here on the forum).

 

17 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I am not sure what is the goal of your opinion. But you mention the values that are not defined by you but the WG. The values might be that income must be relatively big but not extremely big and so on. Those all fundamental goals or vlaues or how you call them are not defined by you or me and are not changed by us either. Very rarely in the history have companies changed something significant that customers asked. But i am not sure what exactly are you saying related to those goals.

 

I'm quite sure the economic side of things is what's behind the decisions WG makes when it comes not just to game marketing but also on game development. That's what is somewhat puzzling, it's like a large chunk of the playerbase is responding favorably to the changes they make and seem content with the game going down the crapper. If that really is the case, our 'investment' of real money, time and effort will be safe for many years to come because that's the current direction that shows up on the 'roadmap'.

 

Correct, we cannot directly influence their decision, especially if they choose to ignore the feedback. We do, however, have the option of reacting to them, both in terms of gameplay, spending, and overall, if we choose to play this game at all.

 

But the above is not really what I was saying. I was talking more in terms of gameplay only.

 

Quote

 

Looks like you say that you want to take ower the WG and make new goals for the company. Or what is your point?

 

Eh... no. I'm fresh out of petty cash, sorry.

 

Quote

 

Do you want to say that playerbase has ever made any adequate arguments? I have never seen any valid arguments, WG and Sub players haven't seen either.

 

All arguments are valid to whoever is making them. Whether they are valid in terms of the issues themselves, is another matter. Only the arguments that take us in the direction of finding the solutions are inherently valid.

[Cammo1962]

2 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

So you seem to agree that i was not wrong. In different armies the democracy levels are different and other things. I mentioned that in some armies there is more right of speach than in others and it appears that those with more rights to speak have more success anddevelope better. The main point was to explain that there is no need to silence in the entertainment games players. And no need to decide by stats/ranks who has more right to speak.

No i agreed to that you are wrong. And all in here have the right to their own opinion and speak freely, but when you refuses to listen to any valid point and facts any discussion with you is futile because you only accept your own story so i am done with you because you are lost to the real world.

[Fastmotion]

Just now, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Quote

For this discussion, the relevant details involve WoWS gameplay and the implementation of the subs as part of it in terms of the game mechanics and the playerbase reaction to it.

^^ What I posted there is not so much an opinion as it is a fact. What I stated above determines the outcomes we see daily in the battles (and the fallout here on the forum).

 

 

You say that you posted a fact. I replied to your so called fact and didn't see much truth inside it. Can you explain what is the goal of your fact and can you prove that the fact is true? Can you explain in simpler words that fact?

 

Later you say a popular defeated argument that WG is making economically bad decicion by introducing things that inadequate players don't like. I can shortly comment here that players don't qualify to decide about economics and are usually inadequate in their believes/arguments. Therefore the history has never seen that such economics-argument had ever become true.

 

At the last you seem to define the word "valid". I suggest that use whichever words and dialects you likeuntil we understand the main points and the big picture what you draw. Seems like you say that playerbase has made good arguments i nthe history. I don't agree with that. In my opinion playerbase has always been inadequate and with poor arguments and companies have ignored such inadequate arguments obviously. But companies don't have to agree with arguments that are against their secret goals and we don't know those goals and therefore our suggestions are mostly wrong. It is like to suggest someone "go walk to the park or go skiing" while the person cannot go because there is no snow in his country for example and other goals. companies have their own goals which you might now know and there your suggestions to them usually violates the goals.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

25 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I have already earlier answered adequately to all forums-related offtopical aspects.

I remember i explained that there is no matter how many pixels and users my forum has right now and it is enough if 1 adequate representative from here enter there and goes through the argumentation battle. Of cause more can go there but 2 in total are enough. I believe on the next page people repeat again and again the same answered/defeated questions. Can we agree somewhow that i don't have to repeat so many times myself. Go and read the earlier posts yourself, why i have to do it? Because this forum site is inadequate then it is full of spam and it is difficult to search where i gave the explanations and things.

So, i am qualified and my forum is as well but this forum is not. Can't we just all accept it and leave it and won't bring the forum topic in again?

The forum is still open if qualified people want to repeat the argumentation round.

So you agree 2 people are needed to qualify for argumentation. Since there is only 1 person posting on your forum, it is unqualified until another person joins your forum and enters an argumentation. As long as there is no argumentation between 2 people on your forum your forum stays unqualified, and you can be considered unqualified to run a forum until your forum qualified for argumentation.

 

Since this forum has hundreds of thousands of argumentations between many people, this forum has shown it is qualified for argumentation. It is difficult to search here because you spam this forum with long off topic posts. You have posted over 100 to 200 posts on this forum within 24 hours in this one thread. You posted more posts here in this 1 thread then there are posts on your own forum. That already shows you think this forum is more qualified for argumentation battles. You also posted way more posts then people posted pictures on this topic wouldn't you agree? That means you are the reason it is hard to find things, because you spammed way too many posts on this forum, not becasue people spammed pictures. You break your own clan's no spam rule here on this forum. That makes you unqualified.

[Pukovnik7]

Anyway, back on topic, since I hadn't played the game in a while, how relevant this is now?

https://historyandwarfare.wordpress.com/2021/10/24/how-submarines-additionally-ruin-the-world-of-warships/

 

In other words, how much has WeeGee even tried to fix in the last ~half a year? (Full fix would be removing submarines, but yeah, not happening...).

[Fastmotion]

2 minutes ago, Cammo1962 said:

No i agreed to that you are wrong. And all in here have the right to their own opinion and speak freely, but when you refuses to listen to any valid point and facts any discussion with you is futile because you only accept your own story so i am done with you because you are lost to the real world.

I don't see any proof that i was wrong. I explained how situation is in some countries and you came and said that i am wrong because in your country things are different. How does it make me wrong? Different countries have different things, so, nobody is wrong here.

[Tanaka_15]

1 hour ago, Fastmotion said:

number 880 eur is basically 1000 eur. So, in my opinion it is wise to say that 880=1000 and 13:47=14:00.

lol. So if you have to pay 1000 euro for soming and you only have 880 euro you go to shop pay and say camone it is correct?

 

1 hour ago, Fastmotion said:

And therefore all players have equally 50% of win rate i nthis game. Because 40%=60%=52%. All those WR procentages make the same amount of victory feeling in 10 battles and in 40 battles. Everyone feels correspondingly ca 5 victories and 20 vicories. The feeling of 19, 20 and 21 victories feel al lthe same. And shortly you say that everyone has WR of 50%. Because it is not possible to change the 50% then why people talk about stats and loosing? I feel the same amount of victories than everyoneelse, that is 50% of times. This is the reality. The other aspect is how much fun anyone's mind can actually feel. I enjoy even when i loose in billiards and Wows. So, the 50% will become 100%. and the math is: 50%=100%.

:D hahaha 

 

good one. Ok so your 40% is 0? i can work with that why sould i care what a person who never won anygame in wows has to say? :D 

And agian why you suck at this game if you are so great in it? 

 

It is amiazing that this thread works fo so many pages at this point. 

[Cammo1962]

2 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Anyway, back on topic, since I hadn't played the game in a while, how relevant this is now?

https://historyandwarfare.wordpress.com/2021/10/24/how-submarines-additionally-ruin-the-world-of-warships/

 

In other words, how much has WeeGee even tried to fix in the last ~half a year? (Full fix would be removing submarines, but yeah, not happening...).

WeeGee has put themself into a corner regarding fixing subs and even CVs and they cant balance them out of it Im totally agrre with that.

[Tanaka_15]

6 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I don't see any proof that i was wrong. I explained how situation is in some countries and you came and said that i am wrong because in your country things are different. How does it make me wrong? Different countries have different things, so, nobody is wrong here.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

49 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

For this discussion, the relevant details involve WoWS gameplay and the implementation of the subs as part of it in terms of the game mechanics and the playerbase reaction to it.

 

14 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

You say that you posted a fact. I replied to your so called fact and didn't see much truth inside it. Can you explain what is the goal of your fact and can you prove that the fact is true? Can you explain in simpler words that fact?

 

If you reply in a thread that has to do with the subs (removing them etc.) in WoWS, if you want to stay on topic then what I said constitutes a fact in terms of what is relevant for this discussion. The subs are a playable class in WoWS. They've been implemented in a way that compromises gameplay because the game mechanics that exist do not provide for a meaningful interaction in the game modes we have between the subs and the other classes. The specific issues have to do with the skill floor/ceiling of the subs and the countermeasures available to the players fighting the subs and how they are balanced. The playerbase reaction is divided, but seems to indicate that the balance is currently out of whack. It further suggests that WG is well aware of these issues, but for reasons of their own choose to ignore them and fail to implement the necessary corrections in terms 'sub rework' or something.

 

I can't see myself explaining it in any simpler words. Except by summing it up by using the expression 'subs suck', but that in itself while being factually correct represents an oversimplification of the issue.

 

 

Quote

 

Later you say a popular defeated argument that WG is making economically bad decicion by introducing things that inadequate players don't like. I can shortly comment here that players don't qualify to decide about economics and are usually inadequate in their believes/arguments. Therefore the history has never seen that such economics-argument had ever become true.

 

At the last you seem to define the word "valid". I suggest that use whichever words and dialects you likeuntil we understand the main points and the big picture what you draw. Seems like you say that playerbase has made good arguments i nthe history. I don't agree with that. In my opinion playerbase has always been inadequate and with poor arguments and companies have ignored such inadequate arguments obviously. But companies don't have to agree with arguments that are against their secret goals and we don't know those goals and therefore our suggestions are mostly wrong. It is like to suggest someone "go walk to the park or go skiing" while the person cannot go because there is no snow in his country for example and other goals. companies have their own goals which you might now know and there your suggestions to them usually violates the goals.

 

Your thinking seems unnecessarily convoluted to me, I'm afraid to say. As in what you are saying represents an overcomplication of the issue. Whether WG is making economically bad decisions or not will show up in their revenue reports. Over the long term, that is. The problem here is that by the time the economic data may indicate a marked downward trend the damage is already done and the situation unrecoverable. This is the reason why they should listen to the community feedback, specifically by those players who know the game mechanics and what the gameplay really is like.

[Fastmotion]

1 minute ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Ok so your 40% is 0? i can work with that why sould i care what a person who never won anygame in wows has to say? :D 

And agian why you suck at this game if you are so great in it? 

40 rounds up closer to the 50 and not closer to the 0. If you make 20 battles and your WR is between 40-60 then you ween like you won half battles and no matter if the WR is 61 or 41 or 50. But if you loose all 20 battles in the row (or in other words the WR is 0) then the feeling is like you didn't win any. and if yopu try to imagine now the differences between the 2 examples (40-60% and 0%) then the feleing is totally different right? Therefore your proposed 0% is wrong.

 

I agree with you that it does not matter what people say in entertainment games.

 

At the end you say 2 things:

1) i am great

2) my stats are low

 

By the point 1 you mean that i make arguments and win debates, make exams and give tactical hints and much more. Yes, but you don't have to call such people "great". It is just how everyone should be in entertainment. Entertainment is not a rocket science so everyone can doo all the "great" thinks with an ease and joy like i did. And i mean Everyone, no matter which stats they have in the entertainment.

 

By the 2-nd point you repeat the defeated popular argument about stats. I gave plenty of answers to that argument earlier and i won't go search them because it is difficult in inadequate forums. There are many factors and goals that determine stats but we have proved that stats are irrelevant anyway or like someone said that stats are "food fo sick ego" orhow it was. I remember i always add a counter-question i nresponse and ask: if you believe in stats then why you with your high stats arenot as great as i with my low stats? Doesn't that prove that stats are irrelevant and don't prove anything and don't make anyone better?

Asi said 40%=50%=100%. So, i am totally happy with the 100% fun rate.

 

 

 

[Carnivore81]

Closed. Offtopic and unconstructiv Discussion .