Jump to content
Customer Support Maintenance Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
FaceFisted

Forum argument resolved with Trigger_Happy_Dad :)

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
868 posts
5,068 battles

Trigger_happy_dad and me had one argument here on forums in #bringBackAFT topic. (He is pro-AFT, I am against it)

 

Fortunately, we set our differences aside in one random encounter this morning and results were spectacular :) Man, thanks for great game. Scouting was awesome. Other CVs can learn something from you and WG should really give rewards for spotting, just like in WOT.

 

Here is the replay.

 

 

 

IFcy2AN.png

SpgASmX.png

eYMzKej.png

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
6,753 posts
7,907 battles

Aye, that was great Teamwork, thx a lot for an excellent game! 

 

Good to see that even if we don't agree in the forum we can agree on teamwork ingame! ;)  

 

Unfortunately I cannot watch the video from Gerrmany....music isn't allowed here in YT videos because of the music (?)... :/

 

(tried "youtubeunblcoker, didn't work :/ )

 

 

Edited by Trigger_Happy_Dad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SPUDS]
[SPUDS]
Beta Tester
4,566 posts
15,645 battles

Aye, that was great Teamwork, thx a lot for an excellent game! 

 

Good to see that even if we don't agree in the forum we can agree on teamwork ingame! ;)  

 

Unfortunately I cannot watch the video from Gerrmany....music isn't allowed here in YT videos because of the music (?)... :/

 

 

 

[edited]
Edited by RogDodgeUK
This post has been edited by a member of the Moderation Team, due to forum rules violation. RogDodgeUK
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
6,753 posts
7,907 battles

 

Spoiler
[edited]

 

Yea, damn GEMA bandits... :/

Edited by RogDodgeUK
This post has been edited by a member of the Moderation Team, due to forum rules violation. RogDodgeUK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
868 posts
5,068 battles

RNG has it's own way sometimes. In one match I can hit citadel after citadel, in other I can't hit anything. Aim in this game is like throwing a dice. 

 

When it comes to win rate, I tend to play very aggressively and constantly push. Ten percent of my games have "first blood" because of it. You can check out other replays I put on YouTube and you will get the picture on what is important when it comes to high WR.

 

p.s. Our hit % is not that different. You have 3% more than me, but I tend to spam a lot with fast firing DDs (with AFT yes, which is main reason why I miss a lot on extreme ranges), so my hit % is steadily going down. If I played with BBs only, I guess it would be much higher.

http://worldofwarships.eu/en/community/accounts/517282070-Nakitu_Michuchi/G-67ImuS4cqDK2y3cgteYB07vY4/

Edited by Nakitu_Michuchi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
349 posts
2,931 battles

RNG has it's own way sometimes. In one match I can hit citadel after citadel, in other I can't hit anything. Aim in this game is like throwing a dice. 

 

The short lead is not down to RNG. Those are some pretty short range shots. :playing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
349 posts
2,931 battles

Who cares, they are all on the bottom of the ocean now. ;)

 

Can't argue with results.

 

Like I said, I'm just confused. I'm not trying to be provocative. That's just an incidental effect of the line of questioning. :D

 

Your profile is locked so I can't see your general hit rate. Mind sharing it?

Edited by Slargmann
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,168 posts
9,822 battles

When it comes to win rate, I tend to play very aggressively and constantly push. Ten percent of my games have "first blood" because of it.

I must play hyper aggressive then...

 

If we subtract CV-games you have 1902 games and 189 First Blood = 9,9% of every game is FB. Which seems really high.

I have 2042 CV-less games and 286 First Blood = 14% of all games I get the FB. I'm kind of surprised myself. :hmm:

 

(of course a few FB will have been from CV-games, but I guess it won't skew the numbers more than a few 0.1% at the most)

Edited by gr0pah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
868 posts
5,068 battles

I must play hyper aggressive then...

 

If we subtract CV-games you have 1902 games and 189 First Blood = 9,9% of every game is FB. Which seems really high.

I have 2042 CV-less games and 286 First Blood = 14% of all games I get the FB. I'm kind of surprised myself. :hmm:

 

(of course a few FB will have been from CV-games, but I guess it won't skew the numbers more than a few 0.1% at the most)

 

You can calculate all you want, you are still way behind me :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,168 posts
9,822 battles

 

You can calculate all you want, you are still way behind me :P

 

Uh... I'm pretty sure my calculations just showed that I get more FB on average than you do. You DO understand how math works, right? :amazed:

 

EDIT: Just in case it's not math that confuse you, but numbers: 14>10 = f o u r t e e n is higher than n i n e. <--

Edited by gr0pah
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
349 posts
2,931 battles

I think it's pretty conclusive. If the man has first blood 40% more often than you do, he's playing more aggressively.

 

Whether he's playing 40% more aggressively is up for debate, but not that he is quantifiably more aggressive.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,168 posts
9,822 battles

You want to prove on one stat something? How about all other puny stats you have? :D

 

I'm not proving anything at all, except the amount of FB's we receive on average. I'm not implying it's better to get a higher amount of FB, You said you play "very aggressive" and I noticed I get even more FB's than someone who calls himself "very aggresive. So I I'm just reflecting that it seems I play highly aggressive myself. This seems to have offended your ego quite heavily.

 

Now it seems like you are not interested in discussing First Blood anymore, but want to measure e-peen. And I'm sure yours are massive. But please, feel free to degenerate this thread into a "Nakita pwns gr0pah" and explain why your stats are so massively more manly than mine. Oh, and please point out the "puny" part too, when you're at it.

 

EDIT: Did you just change your profile from available by link (which you yourself gave out above) to locked? Wow.

 

You have the link to it above in edited post.

 

Edited by gr0pah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
868 posts
5,068 battles

I think it's pretty conclusive. If the man has first blood 40% more often than you do, he's playing more aggressively.

 

Whether he's playing 40% more aggressively is up for debate, but not that he is quantifiably more aggressive.

 

He came here from another topic to troll. He has some problems in his mind, this has nothing to do with my stats. He is just a troll. Don't feed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
349 posts
2,931 battles

 

He came here from another topic to troll. He has some problems in his mind, this has nothing to do with my stats. He is just a troll. Don't feed him.

 

I disagree.

 

It looks like he was just making small talk.

 

I can't speak for the rest of his posting history, but I haven't seen all of this vaunted trolling [of which you speak].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,168 posts
9,822 battles

My involvement with this thread:

1) Earlier today: I thought it was cute someone was posting their kiss-and-make up on the general forum.

2) Still earlier: I watched the video in OP (well, I browsed it). Saw some nice CV play, a couple of kill steals and a funny detonation.

3) Noticed Slargmann had posted in this thread. I kind of appreciate his posting style, so I went back to the topic.

4) Found discussion about "very aggressive" play style and how it translates into First Blood achievements. Was mildly intrigued. 

5) Looked up my own FB to games played ratio. Found out I had even higher, to my surprise.

6) Posted said data. Did not compare them to "very aggressive" player in a way that could be construed as superior. Or even implied that it meant I was a better player. Even said I was surprised.

7) Had my general stats called "puny" and was referred to as "troll".

8) Realized that OP is a jerk and can't discuss in a civil manner.

 

Yes, I was making small talk. Enjoy your thread.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
868 posts
5,068 battles

He wasn't making small talk, because he just continued his trolling from another topic. He was acting like aggressive stats ****.

 

On the other side, I don't care about turning this discussion in epeen topic. It's about good teamplay, I gave thanks to Trigget Happy Dad and that's it. This is not about bruised egos of players who like to compare themselves to everyone else. This is the reason I keep my stats private because I don't care about how some kid 5000km away from me play ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×