Remove Submarines

[Fastmotion]

33 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

It is theoretically possible to do indeed, but neither you nor me can make a good estimate how many battles are required to participate in by an AFK player. It might indeed be not realistically possible simply by the time of ranked being too short to realistically play the expected number of battles. Of course if we "upgrade" a player from AFK to "really bad player", they might occationally/rarely get a #1 placement and thus save a star and improve on the expected number of battles.

 

I see that you agree with me that only rarely someone could get rank 1 by doing yolo/afk style. So, you agreed with me that it is nearly impossible or in other words jsut impossible.

You are wrong if you say that it is difficult to estimate how many battles one needs to rank up. The proof is that people play plenty of battles in Ranked and they never get to the golden league. That you can look from Random battle results and find such examples from stats database. I have even proof from my own experience that i had very bad internet for weeks and couldn't complete bronze league. Also i suggested an experiemnt. Go and do that experiment that make 10 battles in Ranked and yolo and see how you progress. As i explained the golden league's MM with 5 ships makes it ca 80% times a loss if 1 ship yolos because other 4 cannot win against 5.

I suggest to do such offtopical experiment. we can do it in my forum if you want. Also i suggest to copy paste here 10 Random battle results to prove my arguments visually.

 

You say something that many people don't prefer to play Ranked. Well if Ranked golden league gives you 800 gold and some other benefits and most would agree that has more skillful team then there is no honest reason why people don't play Ranked. If they don't play then most of the time the honest reason is that it is more difficult than Random battles. They just don't admit it. Anyway many play but have Bronze rank if you look Random battle results. Just do 5 games in a rown and watch with your eyes to get the proof.

 

Also seems you agree with me in another arguments. Also seems you use many times the word believe and finally admit that you shouldn't use it so often. I disagree with you again and i believe that the verb Believe is totally fine and has nothing to do with religion.

 

I repeat that canwe all agree that we end argumentation session and close it? We proved all my arguments and many agreed with me. That is a fact and it should not hurt you that someone has different opinions than you. Why not to do al ltogether the challenges i suggest. Post 10 pictures from battle results int oa new topic and let's look al lwith our eyes what we see. We can do that also in the Ranked battles to prove the ranked battle belief.

 

 

[The_Angry_Admiral]

1 hour ago, Fastmotion said:

 

I understood you want to suggest to not represent opinions as facts? Your suggestion is for those people in this topic who say "everyone hates subs" because that sounds like a fact and they don't add any clause there like "this is my opinion". And they really seemed to be like brainwashed or how to say that sincerely believe that everyone hates. If you want to suggest them to not do hate speach or not to represent opinions as facts then tell them that. You don't have to tel lthat to me because i haven't phrased myself such way.

 

You like many others agreed clearly that the reality is that subs are harmless. Why do you feel then need to remove a harmless thing? Provide a proof how some harmless things can be bad. I think i already mentioned some good sides of subs. They make the game more interesting, more realistic. But i don't have to provide the whole listing of good sides. I firstly achieved that i proved that there are no bad sides in those harmless things.

 

I don't understand your opinion about subs sniping Cvs. The subs don't have enough air most of the battles and die because of that very often either in front of the CV or elsewhere. That is a fact and has nothing to do what you think about anyones knowledge. There is no knowledge in the subs and air topic. And if there even is a minor detail then it doesn't prove that someone has totally wrong knowledge about something. As i gave previously an example that if you find a grammar detail in someones argumentation then that doesn't make you a winner in the whole argumentation. I didn't understood your CV example but also some people didn't understood earlier some of my examples. I commented and comment to such cases again: it does not matter if one don't understand some detail in the big picture.

 

You say that i don't understand issues what peopel are pointing out. I reply to that i am aware of all arguments in that topic and i think you are wrong again by assuming that i don't understand something. I suggest that don't assume.

 

You say an offtopical belief that stats are good after i have proved that stats are useless and you can't deny any of the arguments that i gave there. I suggest again that find a forum where you can talk about such topic. There is no point to tweet somewhere without any proof and any dialogue that "stats are good and subs and pork bad" and believe that.

 

Finally you say that it is fine that thousands of people like Subs and play them. Well, many people in this topic disagree with you and would say that everyone hates subs and it is not fine to like subs. I have for example got chat banned when i said that i like subs. So, go and argue with other people why they have different opinion than you and me. And good to see that we have the same opinion i none thing.

 

And seems you suggest to go read something, some forums. Well, this sounds like the earlier suggestion to watch live videos. I explained why i deny your such suggestions. I explained my every point well in this argumentation so i suggest people to go read earlier explanations above.

I want them removed from the game or put in their own game mode because Wargaming has been shown once again they do not posses the ability to implement them properly because the overall concept is flawed. 

[Nibenay78]

14 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I see that you agree with me that only rarely someone could get rank 1 by doing yolo/afk style. So, you agreed with me that it is nearly impossible or in other words jsut impossible.

Possibly, it doesn't mean it's impossible nor that some can get quite a bit up by luck, with abysmal performance.

 

Quote

You are wrong if you say that it is difficult to estimate how many battles one needs to rank up. The proof is that people play plenty of battles in Ranked and they never get to the golden league.

Good, show us the numbers

 

Quote

That you can look from Random battle results and find such examples from stats database.

Good, how us the numbers

 

Quote

I have even proof from my own experience that i had very bad internet for weeks and couldn't complete bronze league.

Everyone else may also have issues. I've been KO from covid for 2 weeks and probably didn't play "optimally". Again you do a sample of one - 1 - and make a claim. It's like flipping a coin once and go "see I got tails!" Yes it proves it's possible to get tails. Toss it a million times and we can discuss if the coin is unbalanced.

 

Quote

Also i suggested an experiemnt. Go and do that experiment that make 10 battles in Ranked and yolo and see how you progress. As i explained the golden league's MM with 5 ships makes it ca 80% times a loss if 1 ship yolos because other 4 cannot win against 5.

I suggest to do such offtopical experiment. we can do it in my forum if you want. Also i suggest to copy paste here 10 Random battle results to prove my arguments visually.

Do you understand that small sample sizes are almost irrelevant to show any confidence out any outcome? 

 

Quote

You say something that many people don't prefer to play Ranked. Well if Ranked golden league gives you 800 gold and some other benefits and most would agree that has more skillful team then there is no honest reason why people don't play Ranked. If they don't play then most of the time the honest reason is that it is more difficult than Random battles. They just don't admit it. Anyway many play but have Bronze rank if you look Random battle results. Just do 5 games in a rown and watch with your eyes to get the proof.

Yes, show me the numbers how many play ranked. Until then either of our statements are just our guesses. You made a "proof" just up that you had bad internet, thus performed badly. I can make a proof now that I have reached gold several times, but I've been enjoying killing newbies in Annapolis in random and only played some ranked. 

 

No gold for me despite being capable to do it. As you would no doubt say: I have PROOF!

 

[Fastmotion]

Just now, The_Angry_Admiral said:

I want them removed from the game or put in their own game mode because Wargaming has been shown once again they do not posses the ability to implement them properly because the overall concept is flawed. 

What do you sugges to do if people want opposite things? WG, me and thousands of subs players want subs to be in the Random and Ranked battles. Majority want Subs to be removed and you want them to stay in a special game mode. So, there are 3 different wishes and why should the world do your way?

I don't see anything wrong in Subs and everything that the reality has. I would be glad to have helicopter carriers and cannons on the rocks like missions have and so on. I like al lthose things and i doupt that they should be in a separate battle mode. But i wouldn't mind if they create a separate Wild mode with helicopters and static cannons. I am sure those thousands subs players today would join such Wild mode.

 

[Nibenay78]

2 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I would be glad to have helicopter carriers and cannons on the rocks like missions have and so on. I like al lthose things and i doupt that they should be in a separate battle mode. But i wouldn't mind if they create a separate Wild mode with helicopters and static cannons. I am sure those thousands subs players today would join such Wild mode.

 

I would love to have ballistic nuke armed ship that kills the entire enemy team by the click of a button and make me win. Every time! Nothing the enemy can do about it!

 

I really think it would be fantastically fun and noone can take that opinion away from me! 

I'm not entirely sure many would agree with me that it would be an amazing game...

[Shirakami_Kon]

1 minute ago, Nibenay78 said:

I'm not entirely sure many would agree with me that it would be an amazing game...

The way things are heading, total support mate, we can share the supply of those and agree a gaming schedule so we don't come across each other or we division together at the very least. 

[Fastmotion]

1 minute ago, Nibenay78 said:

I would love to have ballistic nuke armed ship that kills the entire enemy team by the click of a button and make me win. Every time! Nothing the enemy can do about it!

 

I really think it would be fantastically fun and noone can take that opinion away from me! 

I'm not entirely sure many would agree with me that it would be an amazing game...

Why do you say that the enemy team can't do anything against you if the MM gives the enemy team the same tools?

If you are not trying to do irony then i think such Wild game mode would be popular and thousands would play liek they play subs every day now.

Here opinion is all you can have because you can't prove what happens in the future. I think you have a good opinion and at the first glance i agree with you like many has agreed with me in this topic.

 

But why don't we come back to the Subs topic? Let's make a listing of plusses and minuses and make experiments. For example it is not difficult if you all do 5 Random battles in a rown and post here 5 screenshots of the results. And then we all move our own eyes over them and answer:

 

1. do our all eyes see the same way that subs are harmless or not?

2. Do we see that most don't have golden rank and who has?

3. let's pick up some Silver members and see their stats how many battles they play and we hopefully find some who play a lot and wont progress.

[Nibenay78]

3 minutes ago, Shirakami_Kon said:

The way things are heading, total support mate, we can share the supply of those and agree a gaming schedule so we don't come across each other or we division together at the very least. 

Not REALLY sure that the division part will be extremely useful in this case   

But I am also 100% sure that at minimum 1 player (probably of the younger variant) would absolutely love to mass annihilate others by the click of a button. Thus we can be certain that nuke-mode will have an interested audience.

[Fastmotion]

2 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

Not REALLY sure that the division part will be extremely useful in this case   

But I am also 100% sure that at minimum 1 player (probably of the younger variant) would absolutely love to mass annihilate others by the click of a button. Thus we can be certain that nuke-mode will have an interested audience.

We have the same opinion that many people would like nuke game mode. But we all agree also that the nuke example is too extreme and out of reality. Helicopters and subs on the other hand are totally in reality and fine.

 

As you all see so many people agreed with me and many just lost in argumentation to me be ignoring my counter questions and arguments. If you have some misunderstandings in something then come to my clan's forum and i explain there.

[Nibenay78]

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

Why do you say that the enemy team can't do anything against you if the MM gives the enemy team the same tools?

Because this would be a ship reserved only for me. It will be fun. No same tools for the enemy!

 

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

If you are not trying to do irony then i think such Wild game mode would be popular and thousands would play liek they play subs every day now.

Here opinion is all you can have because you can't prove what happens in the future. I think you have a good opinion and at the first glance i agree with you like many has agreed with me in this topic.

I was ironic, but it's perfectly possible that a crazy mode would draw an audience. I'm all for it, so that we can have a more "realistic" mode for those that likes this.

 

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

 

But why don't we come back to the Subs topic? Let's make a listing of plusses and minuses and make experiments. For example it is not difficult if you all do 5 Random battles in a rown and post here 5 screenshots of the results. And then we all move our own eyes over them and answer:

5 random battles is not a relevant sample number

 

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

1. do our all eyes see the same way that subs are harmless or not?

I have seen subs get #1 and kill mercilessly before them. What does this prove?

 

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

2. Do we see that most don't have golden rank and who has?

which is also irreelvant as we don't know how many play rank OR of they even try to reach golden

 

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

3. let's pick up some Silver members and see their stats how many battles they play and we hopefully find some who play a lot and wont progress.

Again see my large text above. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

46 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I think you agreed with most of my arguments because you didn't provide any reasonable arguments against mine and you even agreed with some of my arguments. For example, we both agree that subs should not be removed fro mthe game, should not.

I don't comment your other part of the text but just recommend you to assume less and provide a proof to your opinions.

Can we agree that this is fine that we both suggest to each other something and stay on the same main opinion about subs that they should stay and have different other opinions? Let others hate subs and want to remove them but many people here including you are in the opposite position.

Just because I don't refute your fallacies because doesn't mean I agree with them. Nobody automatically does, no matter how hard you seek conformation of what seems to be a bias. It simply doesn't work that way. In fact, as far as I've had the stomague to read through your massive walls of text, of which the size and fierceness in itself are already a bad sign, I tend to disagree what you think is proof, or even what needs proof. In short, I think subs in itself are cool but they have massive gameplay issues. I think you are under qualified to adress those issues in a meaningful way and are too dismissive and argumentative for me to want to start an in depth conversation. My opinion is plastered all over these forums already.

 

I think people liking subs is fine. I also think people who want subs from the game removed have merit to that opinion as well. So I really do not see any point in your little crusade here. Most of your argumentation and discourse is weak and also for the most part based on wishful thinking and light on what you think are facts or proof. It's pretty pointless, really.

[Nibenay78]

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

We have the same opinion that many people would like nuke game mode. But we all agree also that the nuke example is too extreme and out of reality. Helicopters and subs on the other hand are totally in reality and fine.

I was ironic - I don't think many wants to play Nibenay-nukes-everyone-mode (in fact not even I would enjoy it)

 

It's not relevant how extreme it is or how realistic it is. Wows base game is inherently unrealistic. 

My point was that not every addition is a positive one for the majority of the players.

[Fastmotion]

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

Just because I don't rebute your fallacies because doesn't mean I agree with them. Nobody automatically does, no matter how hard you seek conformation of what seems to be a bias. It simply doesn't work that way. In fact, as far as I've had the stomague to read through your massive walls of text, of which the size and fierceness in itself are already a bad sign, I tend to disagree what you think is proof, or even what needs proof. In short, I think subs in itself are cool but they have massive gameplay issues. I think you are under qualified to adress those issues in a meaningful way and are too dismissive and argumentative for me to want to start an in depth conversation. My opinion is plastered all over these forums already.

 

I think people liking subs is fine. I also think people who want subs from the game removed have merit to that opinion as well. So I really do not see any point in your little crusade here. Most of your argumentation and discourse is weak and also for the most part based on wishful thinking and light on what you think are facts or proof. It's pretty pointless, really.

Seems that you don't want to admit that you agreed with my arguments. You seem to repeat your previous opinions which i already answered so we have nothing to argument here and the argumentation round is closed. It is popular to say that the opponent arguments were too long and wide and one didn't have time to answer them and the stomach made problems too and it was a rainy day.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

15 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Seems that you don't want to admit that you agreed with my arguments. You seem to repeat your previous opinions which i already answered so we have nothing to argument here and the argumentation round is closed. It is popular to say that the opponent arguments were too long and wide and one didn't have time to answer them and the stomach made problems too and it was a rainy day.

Your arguments aren't too long, they are poor and too uninteresting for me to agree with even spend too much time with.

[Fastmotion]

10 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

I was ironic - I don't think many wants to play Nibenay-nukes-everyone-mode (in fact not even I would enjoy it)

 

It's not relevant how extreme it is or how realistic it is. Wows base game is inherently unrealistic. 

My point was that not every addition is a positive one for the majority of the players.

Seems that you see that wows in not realistic. My eyes see opposite way. They see that it has ships like the reality has so it is realistic. In real life you have helicopters over the see, cannons, subs, and so on, this is the reality.

You also say that many don't like Subs but that is not the truth because thousands of battles are played with subs in the MM every day. So, people play no matter what they talk. They talk popular hate speach but in reality they don't mind harmless subs and wouldn't mind helicopters either.

 

Also, you say that it is possible to ruin a game by adding something bad in. Can you give from the gaming history such example? I don't believe that majority would stop playing because of Subs, they continue to play and choose soon another new topic for the hate speach. Do you really believe thata profitable software company would make such a mistake that makes all customers run away? I dont think that WG, me and thousands of subs players are so silly or something. Every day people play happily with subs as i see.

 

Just now, Europizza said:

Your arguments aren't too long, they are poor and uninteresting.

You mentioned something about my long text and now you give an opinion that my arguments are boring. Well, we have the main arguments the same so in that case we are both boring.

Can we agree that you don't adress me in this forum if you find that my arguments are boring?

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

3 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Can we agree that you don't adress me in this forum if you find that my arguments are boring?

No we can't. You can block me though.

[The_Angry_Admiral]

34 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

What do you sugges to do if people want opposite things? WG, me and thousands of subs players

Sorry but your thousands of sub players don't exist. 

[Nibenay78]

Just now, Fastmotion said:

Seems that you see that wows in not realistic. My eyes see opposite way. They see that it has ships like the reality has so it is realistic. In real life you have helicopters over the see, cannons, subs, and so on, this is the reality.

You also say that many don't like Subs but that is not the truth because thousands of battles are played with subs in the MM every day. So, people play no matter what they talk. They talk popular hate speach but in reality they don't mind harmless subs and wouldn't mind helicopters either.

So just because something exists it's realistic? Nukes are realistic. They have been used on ships too, although not in wartime.

All the paperships should be removed, they are unrealistic.

 

 

Just now, Fastmotion said:

Also, you say that it is possible to ruin a game by adding something bad in. Can you give from the gaming history such example?

I will give it a go if you provide me of all the numbers I asked for earlier.

 

Just now, Fastmotion said:

I don't believe that majority would stop playing because of Subs, they continue to play and choose soon another new topic for the hate speach.

I don't think so either, but that doesn't mean the subs make it MORE fun and enjoyable for me.

 

Just now, Fastmotion said:

Do you really believe thata profitable software company would make such a mistake that makes all customers run away? I dont think that WG, me and thousands of subs players are so silly or something.

Yes they might do that, but I'm more inclined to believe they will earn more from new players to compensate for the old players that leave. Probably they have already sucked all the money they will get, from an older player.

 

Just now, Fastmotion said:

Every day people play happily with subs as i see.

I have played subs, I didn't like it - PROOOOOOOF THAT AT LEAST ONE SUB PLAYER DONT LIKE SUB!

 

[Fastmotion]

7 minutes ago, Europizza said:

No we can't. You can block me though.

Blocking is not allowed in my rules as i mentioned before.

I believe i achieved a nice result that thanks to me you came and posted to everyone here that Subs should not be removed. I remember it was you or somebody else. That is a healthy sign in such hate topic. Many agreed with me and that enlightened people. Now people became more mature and that lowers the terrorism levels in the world. Less hate less terrorism.

 

Let's come bacj to the main topic: Should subs be removed?

My answer is:  defenitely no!

But also many others shared with me that opinion which is nice and a good fertilizer for the real discussion.

[Nibenay78]

2 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Blocking is not allowed in my rules as i mentioned before.

You are not allowed in my rules. 

 

Quote

I believe i achieved a nice result that thanks to me you came and posted to everyone here that Subs should not be removed. I remember it was you or somebody else. That is a healthy sign in such hate topic. Many agreed with me and that enlightened people. Now people became more mature and that lowers the terroris levels in the world.

More agreed with me, I am more enlightened, like the new WoWs Buddah..

 

Quote

Let's come bacj to the main topic: Should subs be removed?

My answer is:  defenitely no!

But also many others shared with me that opinion which is nice and a good fertilizer for the real discussion.

Removed asap, unfortunately we are probably stuck with the griefers. 

But at least WG gave us more reports now so we can report sub players more!

[Cammo1962]

2 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

3 hours ago, Shirakami_Kon said:

This is peak comedy. 

Better than the actual game by now.

So, you seem to start understanding what i explain.

No he thinks that you are a laughingstock and so do I.

[Nibenay78]

1 minute ago, Cammo1962 said:

No he thinks that you are a laughingstock and so do I.

It is quite funny, beats discussing crap at work...

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

16 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

You agreed that Subs are harmless

No I didn't. I said they are 'harmless.' The scare quotes indicate I do NOT think they are harmless. They are 'harmless' in the sense that Smolensk or Nakhimov are harmles, namely when they have an absolute potato for a driver.

16 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

Secondly you seem to say that a good Sub player which is a minority can sometimes cause harm. Well, if it is a minority and a rare case then that argument is useless. 

Subs are still relatively new. Players are getting better and better at playing subs. So they won't stay a minority for long. I think that should be obvious.

16 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

So, i suggest let's keep different opinions because i don't see any valid argument from your side. Hundreds of peopel have come after battles to cry to me and prove their popular opinion but they all lost the argumentation to me. I doupt that you now are somehow different with your popular view and could win any argumentation against me. Let's just keep different opinion and not violate Human Rights about water and thinking rights? Drink you water and have a different opinion just like me? Why to ban your right to drink water and have a different opinion?

Or you could try and actually understand the arguments put before you. Before you declare yourself the undisputed world champion master debater, try and actually read for comprehension.

I gather English is not your first language, so I'll just close by noting that I have no idea what you're on about with the water and the human rights.

[Cammo1962]

2 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

Finally you say that it is fine that thousands of people like Subs and play them. Well, many people in this topic disagree with you and would say that everyone hates subs and it is not fine to like subs. I have for example got chat banned when i said that i like subs. So, go and argue with other people why they have different opinion than you and me. And good to see that we have the same opinion i none thing.

That statememnt is totally wrong it has been said that many hate subs so where you have that thought from must be inside your little fluffy cloud somewhere.

[Cammo1962]

2 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

Finally you say that it is fine that thousands of people like Subs and play them. Well, many people in this topic disagree with you and would say that everyone hates subs and it is not fine to like subs. I have for example got chat banned when i said that i like subs. So, go and argue with other people why they have different opinion than you and me. And good to see that we have the same opinion i none thing.

Double post