Jump to content

Best answer

A general reminder for all thread participants....

Insulting, inflammatory, off-topic and otherwise rule breaking content which does not contribute to the discussion will not be tolerated here.

Such comments can (and likely will) be met with warnings and possible posting time out if it persists. We get it's a hot topic. However, with that comes the responsibility of remaining respectful and constructive, regardless of your view on the matter.

>>> Take personal disputes of any type to private message, the forum is NOT the place for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

:facepalm:

 

There is plenty that both an individual and his team can do.

 

This stubborn, persistent defeatist belief otherwise is saddening because it’s so needless...it kills many unnecessarily. :(

I would like to see what You will do when I just kamikaze into You with 500kg bomb :lol2:

Please show more of Your agenda 

26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Teams in random battles are still teams, for you, everyone on your side and everyone on the other side.

 

You’re not given anything different than anyone else.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that anyone would play as a team 

26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Your tank is 10 times more likely to be killed by another tank than it is by an aircraft.

 

So yes, aircraft are the lesser worry.

Using old stats not from gaijin again? 

26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Yeah..no.
 

Not all people can do that (some use ULQ because they have to, not to use it an advantage) nor is access to bush viable for all. Both of these (especially together) mean the conditions are not standard.

All people can use ULQ or just make some setting lower to have the same wiev advantage and all players can obtain golden eagles to buy bushes without spending money on it :good:

26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Tournaments are of no particular relevance to me or this topic (they’re more like custom battles than random battles) and ~4000 battles’ difference isn’t all that much when you’re talking about ~40,000 battles’ experience.

 

As experience goes, we’re comparable aside from the bit I noted before.

Playing against experienced players gives you experience.

Playing in a 7vs7 game where everyone has to do their job gives you experiece.

Again, we are not comparable :good:

26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Eh...I’m afraid you’re just very confused. It is not a personal belief nor an agenda that I play tanks and German tanks more than other things; those are just facts.

 

You cannot keep twisting things around and writing things at random—reality doesn’t work that way.

Eh.. I'm afraid that You really don't understand what I'm talking about. Your own words such as "german players are bad", and you know it because "i'm a german player" are what I call "belief" and then portraying it as a fact is what people don't want to hear.

I'm not twisting anything :good:

26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Nope, that’s just false. Demises are not so simply explained as that, for the reasons I already explained.
 

Baseless derision with false absolutism like that is just another example of anti-aircraft bias showing itself. I did not say that of SPAAs, yet you say that of aircraft.

 

Reread what I said before and you will hopefully realize your mistake and understand the nuance.

If saying that SPAA player who have been killed by a plane needs to L2P is ok but then saying that Plane player who was killed by spaa needs to l2p is bad, then I call it double standard :good:

Thanks for showing your agenda and bias again.

 

26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Now, third try, let’s steer the topic back to TO. This thread isn’t about me or the biopic so many seem to want.

You are the one who derailed the topic and everyone needs to understand what type of person You are. I'm just pointing out double standards and bias that You have 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no point in talking to You anymore because we already had a talk like that some pages ago, and then again it was the same talk that we had a year ago. You are just repeating the same mantra even when proven false and deryiling topic with stats that are old and not from gaijin 

Edited by ULQ_LOVER
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I would like to see what You will do when I just kamikaze into You with 500kg bomb :lol2:

Please show more of Your agenda 


Anyone who suicide bombs in such a faceoff would just be conceding...throwing away a 500 SP vehicle for a <180 SP vehicle...why would anyone do that?

 

Suicide bombing is the hand the other side the win, as the bomber will have paid more in SP at the very least (some people even end up surviving!) and will have lost his own vehicle in the process. It’s a losing move and only people who don’t understand the game much think it’s something great to do.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:


Yes, but it doesn't mean that anyone would play as a team 


Using old stats not from gaijin again? 

 

All people can use ULQ or just make some setting lower to have the same wiev advantage and all players can obtain golden eagles to buy bushes without spending money on it :good:


-Again, team compositions runs the same for everyone, making the complaint of quality immaterial and meaningless

 

-Statistics in OSS come from Gaijin’s game—they are legitimate testimony to how matches go. The 10-1 tanks-plane kill rate versus tanks has been like that for eons—it’s reliable. Your refusal to acknowledge such things is just unscientific and baseless.

 

-The conditions you play with are quite unique and unrepresentative of the norm; not eveyone can manipulate ULQ as you do nor can they just have thousands of battles’ experience on a whim (bushes are now more limited too as I recall)

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Playing against experienced players gives you experience.

Playing in a 7vs7 game where everyone has to do their job gives you experiece.

Again, we are not comparable :good:


Indeed random battles are different...even so, the way you put it, it sounds like I am the one who has dealt with more given that I have done more random battles work as a share, given all the potatoes I have had to drag across the battlefield for my teams. :lol2:


Overall, still hard to say our general experience levels are much different. The records just don’t bear that out really.


 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Eh.. I'm afraid that You really don't understand what I'm talking about. Your own words such as "german players are bad", and you know it because "i'm a german player" are what I call "belief" and then portraying it as a fact is what people don't want to hear.

I'm not twisting anything :good:


I’m afraid you’re confused about this. 
 

People who say “___ are bad” for a reason is not doing so because they’re a ___, they’re saying it because they’ve seen ___ do something that compels them to say that.

 

As a guy who plays German tanks, I have had to speak up a few times as to what I have seen and what failing my teams have had. To acknowledge and highlight those failings is not a personal beliefs, it’s simply pointing out what happened. (For instance, a team that neglected to cap points would be one that could be fairly said to have not pursued the main avenues to winning.)

 

Speaking up and voicing criticisms like this is not something confined to mere belief, it is based upon the things that led the witness yo say what they have—the facts and bases of things.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

If saying that SPAA player who have been killed by a plane needs to L2P is ok but then saying that Plane player who was killed by spaa needs to l2p is bad, then I call it double standard :good:

Thanks for showing your agenda and bias again.


Incorrect—all you’ve actually shown is that you did not read what I had written and/of do not know what a double standard is. Here’s what I wrote:

 

 

4 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Within a game anywhere resembling balanced, SPAAs can be expected to lose to aircraft some of the time—that’s what would mean they’re near their balanced point. No vehicles are supposed to win 100% of the time in a balanced game; if that was your expectation with SPAAs, it’s no wonder you are so confused by what really happens. (I never suggested anything like a 100% success rate either.)

 

3 hours ago, warrior412 said:

some of SPAAs’ defeats owe to their users’ L2P issues and many others are from natural defeats.


 

 

3 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Demises are not so simply explained as [aircraft dying to SPAAs bring strictly L2P issues], for the reasons I already explained.
 

Baseless derision with false absolutism like that is just another example of anti-aircraft bias showing itself. I did not say that of SPAAs, yet you say that of aircraft.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You are the one who derailed the topic and everyone needs to understand what type of person You are. I'm just pointing out double standards and bias that You have 

False. I have not derailed the topic, I have tried for a very long time to help steer the thread onto topic and toward success but other people refuse to be sensible and follow that to fruition. (Just here I tried three times to get you back on topic but you refused...of course, now your refusal is somehow my fault—nope, it is not, that is on you.)

 

Despite your desire to lead readers’ perceptions, the simple truth is they can see and think for themselves. Readers do not rely on you to tell them how to react.

 

I am perfectly happy when people read through on their own—what readers see enlightens them and totally exonerates me. They know I am just an honest guy telling it like it is when they do the reading. I have only been fair and just while the claims people have made up about me have been invented; readers quickly see this.

 

As I mentioned previously, the time spent on fake claims about me is very misplaced (especially given how unsuccessful it’s been): TO advocates making things up about me could have instead spent their time thinking about ways to get Gaijin’s attention on TO and ironing out TO’s likely kinks (as shown by dress rehearsals like Battle mode or even custom battle demonstrations).

 

As I did years ago, I encourage TO advocates to seek alternate, productive pursuits...it’s better that way. (It’s regrettable that what I said was ignored by them then...they’ve wasted a lot of time and effort.)

 

Hopefully those people will be wiser on how to spend their time going forward. Listening to what I have said is the smart move for them to make—for their sake I hope they take it.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

There is no point in talking to You anymore because we already had a talk like that some pages ago, and then again it was the same talk that we had a year ago. You are just repeating the same mantra even when proven false and deryiling topic with stats that are old and not from gaijin 


You are just confused about the data unfortunately. I can explain it all to you in PMs bit by bit if you’d like...

Edited by warrior412
  • Confused 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2021 at 16:26, croatiankiller said:

Making mod for selected few is not necessary.Pretty simple.

 

 

You ask for what you want and I will ask I want! Are you worried you won't have anyone who wants to play combined battles is that the issue? You seem to be awfully concerned about it.

  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Anyone who suicide bombs in such a faceoff would just be conceding...throwing away a 500 SP vehicle for a <180 SP vehicle...why would anyone do that?

 

Suicide bombing is the hand the other side the win, as the bomber will have paid more in SP at the very least (some people even end up surviving!) and will have lost his own vehicle in the process. It’s a losing move and only people who don’t understand the game much think it’s something great to do.

Thanks for showing that You again don't understand the topic. 

53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

-Again, team compositions runs the same for everyone, making the complaint of quality immaterial and meaningless

And using an argument that Your team can do something is meaningless

53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

-Statistics in OSS come from Gaijin’s game—they are legitimate testimony to how matches go. The 10-1 tanks-plane kill rate versus tanks has been like that for eons—it’s reliable. Your refusal to acknowledge such things is just unscientific and baseless.

Were they updated already? Or how many players are using them? Less than 25%? Or even less than that? Not from Gaijin = not relevant.

53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

-The conditions you play with are quite unique and unrepresentative of the norm; not eveyone can manipulate ULQ as you do nor can they just have thousands of battles’ experience on a whim (bushes are now more limited too as I recall)

They are not unique. Everyone can use it, stop making it look like I'm using some kind of mods or cheats ;)

53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Indeed random battles are different...even so, the way you put it, it sounds like I am the one who has dealt with more given that I have done more random battles work as a share, given all the potatoes I have had to drag across the battlefield for my teams. :lol2:


Overall, still hard to say our general experience levels are much different. The records just don’t bear that out really.

You know that tournaments don't count into number of battles played? 

4K games is a lot.

53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I’m afraid you’re confused about this. 
 

People who say “___ are bad” for a reason is not doing so because they’re a ___, they’re saying it because they’ve seen ___ do something that compels them to say that.

 

As a guy who plays German tanks, I have had to speak up a few times as to what I have seen and what failing my teams have had. To acknowledge and highlight those failings is not a personal beliefs, it’s simply pointing out what happened. (For instance, a team that neglected to cap points would be one that could be fairly said to have not pursued the main avenues to winning.)

 

Speaking up and voicing criticisms like this is not something confined to mere belief, it is based upon the things that led the witness yo say what they have—the facts and bases of things.

And you are confusing personal belief and facts. 

53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

False. I have not derailed the topic, I have tried for a very long time to help steer the thread onto topic and toward success but other people refuse to be sensible and follow that to fruition. (Just here I tried three times to get you back on topic but you refused...of course, now your refusal is somehow my fault—nope, it is not, that is on you.)

 

Despite your desire to lead readers’ perceptions, the simple truth is they can see and think for themselves. Readers do not rely on you to tell them how to react.

 

I am perfectly happy when people read through on their own—what readers see enlightens them and totally exonerates me. They know I am just an honest guy telling it like it is when they do the reading. I have only been fair and just while the claims people have made up about me have been invented; readers quickly see this.

 

As I mentioned previously, the time spent on fake claims about me is very misplaced (especially given how unsuccessful it’s been): TO advocates making things up about me could have instead spent their time thinking about ways to get Gaijin’s attention on TO and ironing out TO’s likely kinks (as shown by dress rehearsals like Battle mode or even custom battle demonstrations).

 

As I did years ago, I encourage TO advocates to seek alternate, productive pursuits...it’s better that way. (It’s regrettable that what I said was ignored by them then...they’ve wasted a lot of time and effort.)

 

Hopefully those people will be wiser on how to spend their time going forward. Listening to what I have said is the smart move for them to make—for their sake I hope they take it.

False, You are derailing topic by talking about same thing over and over again that was explained and talked about here over and over again where You were already proven wrong.

The simple truth is that we already had a talk like this before and You are doing it again 

Fake claims... bla bla bla.. are you done? Because I don't want to have this topic spammed again about how wonderful You are for fighting with this whole biased forum :lol2:

53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

You are just confused about the data unfortunately. I can explain it all to you in PMs bit by bit if you’d like...

Using old data, misinterpreting them and calling them facts :crazy:, we already showed You that You don't know what You are using :lol2:

 

WOW, You are using data that doesn't exist now 

"wwiilogs.com
has expired and is parked free, courtesy of GoDaddy.com."
Edited by ULQ_LOVER
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for info OSS & WWIIlogs.com are not active any more since 2 patches ago.

Edited by KH_Alan
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, RCAF_Canuck said:

 

 

You ask for what you want and I will ask I want! Are you worried you won't have anyone who wants to play combined battles is that the issue? You seem to be awfully concerned about it.

Everyone can ask but if you want something you need to back it up.Simply saying I am or not for TO mode has no sense and gaijin do not listen to someone subjective opinion.If that's a case TO would already be in the game.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Oh look, I was defeated fair and square by a person who I killed in normal encounter a minute ago:

70618047_shot2021_02_1100_19_12.thumb.jp

Like the point of defeating a person is not to give them something You can't even counter in Your tank.

But yes, You sure know the game very well and understand the topic like You like to say :crazy:

 

 

 

This is the xxxx worst... Happened to me just now. 

There was two tigers at a distance and i played with sherman M4A3 and was playing B.R. 5.7. At 1.2km i had no chance against the two tigers and i died.

Came back in my M36 and crippled both tigers with two shoots. I killed the first one of the two tigers and struggled with the other tiger. Just when i was about to kill the last tiger i got killed by the other player, he came back in a plane and straffed/bomb me... -__- 

 

C'mon, this is not any fun. I really  want to play tank vs. tank and i dont give a **** about ppl wanting planes in ground forces. This is like me stomping on smal ants, they cant do **** to stop me from doing it. 

But i know things are never gonna change in this game. So whatever. Gaijin burn in hell:bomber:

Edited by PatteDangerSwe
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, PatteDangerSwe said:

This is the xxxx worst... Happened to me just now. 

There was two tigers at a distance and i played with sherman M4A3 and was playing B.R. 5.7. At 1.2km i had no chance against the two tigers and i died.

Came back in my M36 and crippled both tigers with two shoots. I killed the first one of the two tigers and struggled with the other tiger. Just when i was about to kill the last tiger i got killed by the other player, he came back in a plane and straffed/bomb me... -__- 

 

C'mon, this is not any fun. I really  want to play tank vs. tank and i dont give a **** about ppl wanting planes in ground forces. This is like me stomping on smal ants, they cant do **** to stop me from doing it. 

But i know things are never gonna change in this game. So whatever. Gaijin burn in hell:bomber:

Congrats you started well and you ended like a rant thread.And people wonder why there is no TO mode.:facepalm:

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Not from Gaijin = not relevant.


Cited WT games are not from WT? :016:

 

4 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

They are not unique. Everyone can use it, stop making it look like I'm using some kind of mods or cheats ;)


I have not said anything to that effect—but it is interesting that you are so defensive and touchy about it... ;)

 

4 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You know that tournaments don't count into number of battles played? 

4K games is a lot.


It’s not a meaningful difference when 37,000+ battles are the comparison.

 

4 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And you are confusing personal belief and facts. 

 

You just don’t understand what is being talked about and are confusing things. For everyone’s sake, it’s best to not continue with that.

 

4 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

False, You are derailing topic by talking about same thing over and over again that was explained and talked about here over and over again where You were already proven wrong

 

 

lmao, wrong

 

People tried to dismiss legitimate things many times over but citations confirmed my comments to be correct each time.

 

That I was correct and had to point that out is not derailing, it was simply me laying out the truth.

 

4 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

The simple truth is that we already had a talk like this before and You are doing it again 

Fake claims... bla bla bla.. are you done? Because I don't want to have this topic spammed again about how wonderful You are for fighting with this whole biased forum :lol2:


I’m just speaking up on behalf of the facts—if people didn’t spread false claims, I wouldn’t have to point out the actualities of these things.

 

The people to blame for this thread’s bloat are those pushing those lies, not innocent, informed people like myself.

 

4 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Using old data, misinterpreting them and calling them facts 


Statistical data is a legitimate, objective citation. The data I have cited was not old when it was cited (and given its consistency, it’s basically a WT constant. That you of all people complain about data age after choosing to use 2017 data in 2019 rather than 2019 data is simply laughable—total fake, hypocritical complaint).

 

As for reading them...I read them plainly and correctly. Unfortunately, you were not able to do the same and declined help to fix that—thus you have some very mistaken beliefs about those things.

 

If you understood the data as well as I do and were willing to fess up to having been mistaken, you’d quickly agree with what I said.

  • Confused 6
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Cited WT games are not from WT? :016:

As many as there were, I could post 5 and tell You that it is representative... besides the site doesn't exist anymore and stats You had are like from how many patches before?

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

I have not said anything to that effect—but it is interesting that you are so defensive and touchy about it... ;)

You are portraying them as it and making it look like it is the only thing that makes my point of wiev. It's childish but I don't expect anything else coming from You.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

It’s not a meaningful difference when 37,000+ battles are the comparison.

4k battles is meaningful and always will be.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

You just don’t understand what is being talked about and are confusing things. For everyone’s sake, it’s best to not continue with that.

You just don't understand what is being talked about and You are confusing things. For everyone's sake, it is best not to countinue with that.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

lmao, wrong

 

People tried to dismiss legitimate things many times over but citations confirmed my comments to be correct each time.

 

That I was correct and had to point that out is not derailing, it was simply me laying out the truth.

lmao, wrong

 

Your legitimate things are only your opinions and interpretations that You are trying to force as "facts"

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

I’m just speaking up on behalf of the facts—if people didn’t spread false claims, I wouldn’t have to point out the actualities of these things.

 

The people to blame for this thread’s bloat are those pushing those lies, not innocent, informed people like myself.

"Facts" that are your interpretations and opinions based mostly on not whole data but a margin of it that You can't even properly understand as proven many pages before.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Statistical data is a legitimate, objective citation. The data I have cited was not old when it was cited (and given its consistency, it’s basically a WT constant. That you of all people complain about data age after choosing to use 2017 data in 2019 rather than 2019 data is simply laughable—total fake, hypocritical complaint).

It was old by WarThunder standards. It wasn't updated since how many patches and You didin't even bring that up trying to force Your agenda with it.

Again with "I used old data" when I have already explained that I only pointed out stats from time when Jumbo was clubbing because there was no period of time that was being talked about? Really You are confusing things again? 

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

As for reading them...I read them plainly and correctly. Unfortunately, you were not able to do the same and declined help to fix that—thus you have some very mistaken beliefs about those things.

As for reading them, people already explained to You how you were adding things that shouldn't be add and them made double standards for other things, while interpreting them wrong by not understanding the basics of the game. 

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

If you understood the data as well as I do and were willing to fess up to having been mistaken, you’d quickly agree with what I said.

As again You are portraying yourself as some kind of being that understands everything and fail to understand when You are wrong.

There is no point in further disscusion with You because even when Gaijin says something (like it did in a topic about why it wanted to move certain things down), You still failed to understand that. I'm happy that more people are starting to see your bias and agenda that You are trying to push by simply repeating all over this topic the same things even when they were proven wrong.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PatteDangerSwe said:

This is the xxxx worst... Happened to me just now. 

There was two tigers at a distance and i played with sherman M4A3 and was playing B.R. 5.7. At 1.2km i had no chance against the two tigers and i died.

Came back in my M36 and crippled both tigers with two shoots. I killed the first one of the two tigers and struggled with the other tiger. Just when i was about to kill the last tiger i got killed by the other player, he came back in a plane and straffed/bomb me... -__- 

 

C'mon, this is not any fun. I really  want to play tank vs. tank and i dont give a **** about ppl wanting planes in ground forces. This is like me stomping on smal ants, they cant do **** to stop me from doing it. 

But i know things are never gonna change in this game. So whatever. Gaijin burn in hell:bomber:

Open top tanks are literal hell on Earth. 


Anyone with a small brain can just shoot you through roof with 7.7mg and revenge you, don't even need bomb or rocket.

 

I remember playing g55s and being able to detonate hellcat ammo from above in 1 pass. lulz gameplay

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daffan said:

 

Anyone with a small brain can just shoot you through roof with 7.7mg and revenge you, don't even need bomb or rocket.

 

 

 

 

No s.h.i.t. sherlock? Thanks for the info. This is really good to know:good: 

Edited by PatteDangerSwe
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As many as there were, I could post 5 and tell You that it is representative... besides the site doesn't exist anymore and stats You had are like from how many patches before?


The exchange rate difference between tanks and aircraft versus tanks was about ~8-10:1 for years—it was a constant over thousands of matches over years of time.
 

That figure is something that can be seen as a constant in WT. You either don’t get that or are refusing to acknowledge it.

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You are portraying them as it and making it look like it is the only thing that makes my point of wiev. It's childish but I don't expect anything else coming from You.


Nope—numerous people have pointed that out skews because conditions like that matter.


There’s nothing childish about the it, you just don’t want people calling attention to the ULQ/bush use with 100+ FPS...which pretty much explains it. ;)

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

4k battles is meaningful and always will be.


Nope, not relatively here.

 

Considering how incorrect and mistaken a great many of your views are, my grasp of game matters has already exceeded your own—but I would be happy to help you if you’d like, just send a PM. While you may be a bit sore at me, I am still willing to help you with the information here.

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You just don't understand what is being talked about and You are confusing things. For everyone's sake, it is best not to countinue with that.

 

 

You’re just spamming with these nonsensical copied comments.


My understanding isn’t something you need to worry about—I do fine. My understanding of things is sufficient such that I have correctly predicted the future of things like TO, so you needn’t worry about me, I’m doing excellent. :good:

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Your legitimate things are only your opinions and interpretations that You are trying to force as "facts"


Statistical results are not mine nor are they opinions and listing their plain results is not interpretative, it’s just cataloguing.

 

I only spoke the truth when I laid out the facts there—I’m sorry if it didn’t mesh with your hopes, but that’s how it was.

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Facts" that are your interpretations and opinions based mostly on not whole data but a margin of it that You can't even properly understand as proven many pages before.


Data plainly laid out is just scientific. I laid it all out and posted it publicly; my comments were confirmed by the data.

 

There isn’t really a lot more I can say than I was right and data proved it—it’s not my fault that I was correct and I’m sorry that upsets a few, I just base my stances on what’s real. :DD
 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

It was old by WarThunder standards. It wasn't updated since how many patches and You didin't even bring that up trying to force Your agenda with it.

Again with "I used old data" when I have already explained that I only pointed out stats from time when Jumbo was clubbing because there was no period of time that was being talked about? Really You are confusing things again? 


I have not confused anything, I saw through your attempts to deliberately mislead people on that.

 

You cited old data from 2017 (outside of the relevant range being discussed then) to mislead people while trying to portray the Jumbo in 2019 as a clubber when it had a meager 52% WR and an unremarkable 1.5:1 exchange rate, ignoring relevant and (then) current 2019 data in the process.


You either did not understand the basic irrelevance of your citation or were intentionally trying to be deceptive. Neither is a good look.

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As for reading them, people already explained to You how you were adding things that shouldn't be add and them made double standards for other things, while interpreting them wrong by not understanding the basics of the game. 


Incorrect. All of the work I did was publicly visible and explained.

 

People who thought there was anything wrong with that data, plainly read and publicly calculated, is simply confused and mistaken. (The fact that they do so poorly with such simple data says further that they ought to just sit that sort of thing out and let the guys who can handle it continue unabated—I have no trouble continuing to inform them.)

 

As I pointed out before, you don’t even know what a double standard is (you comically professed one), which says more than I need to about that. No double standards here, I just play it straight and tell it like it is. :)

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As again You are portraying yourself as some kind of being that understands everything and fail to understand when You are wrong.


My understanding of the game is excellent fine, but I have never claimed to be an expert on absolutely everything in the world (NASA hasn’t called me up to do any consulting for them...well, not yet anyway ;):p:).

 

I prefer to just apply my knowledge and help others as I have here, rather just than boasting as some others do...I’m above all that.

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

There is no point in further disscusion with You because even when Gaijin says something (like it did in a topic about why it wanted to move certain things down), You still failed to understand that.


...actually Gaijin’s comments pretty much just confirmed what I’d said in the matter of the German M48. I had correctly anticipated the backstory to that bit as well, just as I had with TO years ago.

 

8 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I'm happy that more people are starting to see your bias and agenda that You are trying to push by simply repeating all over this topic the same things even when they were proven wrong.


lmao, no

 

It’s actually the opposite. Readers look through the topic, see what I have actually said and realize that all the fake outrage and phony claims about me are lies. Then they see that what I have said  makes sense (such as logistical considerations) and they tend to agree with me, as I have just been sensible and reasonable in saying what I have. I suppose you haven’t noticed...but more and more people have become skeptical of TO like myself (which is neither pro-TO nor anti-TO), which helps to explain why Gaijin declined the idea as a mode.

 

As before, all I can say is that I’m sorry that I was right but I was and I did try to explain what that meant for TO early on...it’s not my fault that people didn’t listen.
 

If people had sought an alternative idea to TO in 2018 as I suggested, it’d probably be here by now. With luck, those people will choose their actions more wisely now than then.

 

3 hours ago, Daffan said:

Open top tanks are literal hell on Earth. 


Anyone with a small brain can just shoot you through roof with 7.7mg and revenge you, don't even need bomb or rocket.

 

I remember playing g55s and being able to detonate hellcat ammo from above in 1 pass. lulz gameplay


So vehicle features have pros and cons, eh?

Edited by warrior412
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

The exchange rate difference between tanks and aircraft versus tanks was about ~8-10:1 for years—it was a constant over thousands of matches over years of time.
 

That figure is something that can be seen as a constant in WT. You either don’t get that or are refusing to acknowledge it.

Yes and no one was saying otherwise.

But again as many people told You, You should compare tank vs planes to planes vs tanks stats if You want to have a proper wiev. 

It is normal that tanks will have more tanks killed because, in order to get into plane You have to die in a tank.

I know that understanding basics of the game is hard, but after 38k battles You should know better :good:

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Nope—numerous people have pointed that out skews because conditions like that matter.


There’s nothing childish about the it, you just don’t want people calling attention to the ULQ/bush use with 100+ FPS...which pretty much explains it. ;)

Everyone can use the same things as I do. Get over it :good:

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Nope, not relatively here.

 

Considering how incorrect and mistaken a great many of your views are, my grasp of game matters has already exceeded your own—but I would be happy to help you if you’d like, just send a PM. While you may be a bit sore at me, I am still willing to help you with the information here.

Funny thing that I'm mistaken when last time Gaijin said exactly what I said to You :lol2:

Considering how You don't understand the basics of the game, You can PM me and I will try to explain it to You :good:

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

You’re just spamming with these nonsensical copied comments.


My understanding isn’t something you need to worry about—I do fine. My understanding of things is sufficient such that I have correctly predicted the future of things like TO, so you needn’t worry about me, I’m doing excellent. :good:

I'm just pointing out how Your point can be twisted and it will matter the same :good:

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Statistical results are not mine nor are they opinions and listing their plain results is not interpretative, it’s just cataloguing.

 

I only spoke the truth when I laid out the facts there—I’m sorry if it didn’t mesh with your hopes, but that’s how it was.

Statistical results are facts, but Your interpretations are Yours only. You are just trying to push Your agenda ignoring basics of the game 

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Data plainly laid out is just scientific. I laid it all out and posted it publicly; my comments were confirmed by the data.

 

There isn’t really a lot more I can say than I was right and data proved it—it’s not my fault that I was correct and I’m sorry that upsets a few, I just base my stances on what’s real. :DD

Data are not wrong, but Your use of it is. As many people have told You, You are just comparing two different things, proving to us again, that You can't understand the basics of the game :DD

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

I have not confused anything, I saw through your attempts to deliberately mislead people on that.

 

You cited old data from 2017 (outside of the relevant range being discussed then) to mislead people while trying to portray the Jumbo in 2019 as a clubber when it had a meager 52% WR and an unremarkable 1.5:1 exchange rate, ignoring relevant and (then) current 2019 data in the process.


You either did not understand the basic irrelevance of your citation or were intentionally trying to be deceptive. Neither is a good look.

You have confused many things already.

You asked when Jumbo was a clubber and I have showed You when it could be considered a clubber. But you prefered to show 2 months of stat when it wasn't and called it 6. Do we really need to go back to that thing again in this topic, because You can't again provide anything useful and try to lie to people?

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Incorrect. All of the work I did was publicly visible and explained.

 

People who thought there was anything wrong with that data, plainly read and publicly calculated, is simply confused and mistaken. (The fact that they do so poorly with such simple data says further that they ought to just sit that sort of thing out and let the guys who can handle it continue unabated—I have no trouble continuing to inform them.)

 

As I pointed out before, you don’t even know what a double standard is (you comically professed one), which says more than I need to about that. No double standards here, I just play it straight and tell it like it is. :)

Yes, it was explained to You how badly you were reading the statistics that You were showing. 

"People who say I'm wrong are wrong" ~ this is Your type of logic (not citing any of your words, just summing them up). Really You should just admit being wrong this time (like You couldn't last time). It won't hurt :good:.

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

My understanding of the game is excellent fine, but I have never claimed to be an expert on absolutely everything in the world (NASA hasn’t called me up to do any consulting for them...well, not yet anyway ;):p:).

 

I prefer to just apply my knowledge and help others as I have here, rather just than boasting as some others do...I’m above all that.

As You have shown above, you can't be not biased :lol2:

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

...actually Gaijin’s comments pretty much just confirmed what I’d said in the matter of the German M48. I had correctly anticipated the backstory to that bit as well, just as I had with TO years ago.

 

Actually no.

Please top lying. I was the one who told You why gaijin was trying to give M48 lower B.R. (the enemies that it faced) and You were the one to tell that this is not significant :lol2:.

With TO years ago? Same thing about rocket nerf how You said that it won't happen :lol2:?

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

lmao, no

 

It’s actually the opposite. Readers look through the topic, see what I have actually said and realize that all the fake outrage and phony claims about me are lies. Then they see that what I have said  makes sense (such as logistical considerations) and they tend to agree with me, as I have just been sensible and reasonable in saying what I have. I suppose you haven’t noticed...but more and more people have become skeptical of TO like myself (which is neither pro-TO nor anti-TO), which helps to explain why Gaijin declined the idea as a mode.

 

As before, all I can say is that I’m sorry that I was right but I was and I did try to explain what that meant for TO early on...it’s not my fault that people didn’t listen.
 

If people had sought an alternative idea to TO in 2018 as I suggested, it’d probably be here by now. With luck, those people will choose their actions more wisely now than then.

lmao, yes

As we can see from reactions people are not seeing You as someone who is reliable :good:. You don't know what readers think, You are again assuming things and calling them facts :lol2:. More and more people are seeing through Your agenda. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You should compare tank vs planes to planes vs tanks stats if You want to have a proper wiev. 


Incorrect. GFs versus AFs is irrelevant, as all that matters in an air/ground versus ground deadliness comparison is how air/ground units do versus ground units. That’s it.

 

You are just mixing in an irrelevant comparison if you include how ground units fare against aircraft. The bit you mentioned was meaningless to what was being talked about.
 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I know that understanding basics of the game is hard, but after 38k battles You should know better :good:


Lmao, thanks for the laugh, but your concern is wholly misplaced.

 

My understanding the game is very advanced (beyond the grasp of some even), but I cannot say it was too hard to accomplish it. The game is rather simple to understand for an intuitive, observant guy like myself, though I understand it may not be so easy for other people.

 

As before, I can help you improve your own understanding—you just have to PM me and allow me to educate you on what has been troubling. Once you do that you’ll be all the wiser for it and will have had those mistaken ideas corrected.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Everyone can use the same things as I do. Get over it :good:


False.

 

Some people use ULQ because they must—not because they want to. On the other hand, some people use ULQ because they want to—not because they must. The latter do this to take advantage of ULQ’s peculiarities as a manipulation of mechanics for their benefit. It can be described as “cheesy.”

 

I’m not certain why you’d be so defensive in talking about this...but I can say that many forumers do have some suspicions (for instance, I remember @NotTheWave pointed his out to you).


 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Funny thing that I'm mistaken when last time Gaijin said exactly what I said to You :lol2:


Not really. What they said and did with the M48’s BR issue actually confirmed what I had said (the basic problem was with the teams).

 

They didn’t fix the issue (they probably worsened it honestly), but what they did do tacitly acknowledged my point.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Statistical results are facts, but Your interpretations are Yours only. You are just trying to push Your agenda ignoring basics of the game 

 

I rarely interpreted anything honestly—most of what I said was literally just listing the numbers given by the statistics.
 

As I have already pointed out, my only agenda is speaking the truth. That’s all I have done and keeping it honest like that is all I care to do.
 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Data are not wrong, but Your use of it is. As many people have told You, You are just comparing two different things, proving to us again, that You can't understand the basics of the game :DD

Yes, it was explained to You how badly you were reading the statistics that You were showing. 

"People who say I'm wrong are wrong" ~ this is Your type of logic (not citing any of your words, just summing them up). Really You should just admit being wrong this time (like You couldn't last time). It won't hurt :good:.


Incorrect. While it is true that some uninformed people claimed that there had been a mistake, the truth was they just didn’t understand what was talking about (confusing things like the nature of that comparison I explained to you above).
 

Those critics were proven wrong, as myself and other knowledgable people showed the statements were correct—I suppose the doubts only remain now because of denialism and a legitimate lack of understanding.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You have confused many things already.

You asked when Jumbo was a clubber and I have showed You when it could be considered a clubber. But you prefered to show 2 months of stat when it wasn't and called it 6. Do we really need to go back to that thing again in this topic, because You can't again provide anything useful and try to lie to people?


Incorrect. 
 

What had actually happened was that I had pointed out the Jumbo was balanced at the time of and before its unprovoked uptier. You reached back two years to 2017 data to rationalize a 2019 uptier when 2019 data said it was unnecessary and then you misrepresented the 2017 as somehow having meaning when it was stale and irrelevant (either you didn’t understand how data’s relevance has limits based on timing or you were being deliberately deceptive with it).

 

Also, spare everyone these fake claims about “two months” and lying. That is not what happened and you know it: I showed a range of data from October 2018 to April 2019. That was a data from 6 months’ time—no lying there.

 

It’s tiresome that you keep harping on that and dragging this topic (and others) off topic just because I was right and proved your comments were wrong—I’m sorry that the correction upset you but I had to set the record straight. All of that could have been avoided if you had just researched the issue better and spoken correctly to begin with.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Actually no.

Please top lying. I was the one who told You why gaijin was trying to give M48 lower B.R. (the enemies that it faced) and You were the one to tell that this is not significant :lol2:.

With TO years ago? Same thing about rocket nerf how You said that it won't happen :lol2:?


I’m just being honest—that is how it was:

 

-The M48 was being considered for a downtier (despite already sitting lower than its US/CH peers) because of its users’ performance; later on, Gaijin decided to adjust the Leopard instead but for the same reason

 

-I did correctly forecast TO would not turn up—and there’s no TO mode right now is there?

 

-The fumbling of the HVARs was an unintentional but harmful bungle on Gaijin’s part when they tried to remodel them, but do not confuse that as an intentional nerf. Gaijin just messed up and has since neglected to fix the mistake, as with many others.
 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As we can see from reactions people are not seeing You as someone who is reliable :good:


Lmao, untrue but entertaining nonetheless. If you mean the “confused” ratings, those come in for two reasons really:

-those who are legitimately confused by my comments’ advanced nature and do not understand them (yet)

-those who are trolling or trying to lash out, on the belief that I care about reactions


————

 

As a note on this thread which TO advocates may not realize: many forumers view this thread but actively avoid posting because they know how toxic it is, especially so if you dare say anything critical of TO. (A thread on reddit and comments therein demonstrated that—including a commending comment for myself for having spoken about the probable realities of TO too.)

 

When I post critiques and point out concerns about TO, I am speaking up for the many others who are also seeing these things but remain silent over. I am simply lending my voice to be theirs and that’s just fine. It’s important to talk about the unpopular but crucial issues of TO—the ones TO advocates do not like raised.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

More and more people are seeing through Your agenda. 


More and more people are concurring with my stance of skepticism regarding TO. Like myself, they’re just reacting to the idea with realism. :good:

 

If you haven’t noticed, interest in TO has collapsed. The reality you may not like to face—like my correct forecasting comment—is that hardly anyone cares about TO nowadays. Even avowed TO advocates themselves don’t care about progress on TO (as an event.l). :facepalm:
 

TO is dead as a mode idea and not doing well as an idea in general.

 

———

 

I still encourage a new, neutral discussion of TO. Anti-aircraft bias has derailed things for long enough here, we need progress elsewhere.

Edited by warrior412
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Incorrect. GFs versus AFs is irrelevant, as all that matters in an air/ground versus ground deadliness comparison is how air/ground units do versus ground units. That’s it.

 

You are just mixing in an irrelevant comparison if you include how ground units fare against aircraft. The bit you mentioned was meaningless to what was being talked about.

Incorrect. When You are comparing tanks to planes like many in this topic are, You are comparing tank vs plane to plane vs tank stats. 

It is normal and can't be otherwise that tanks have more tanks kills because this  is how topic was made.

People have pointed that to You.

47 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

snip

Spoiler

cover1.jpg.78b1b74e96876005ada8f0f37adb4

 

And what the concition of other people of using ULQ has to do that everyone can use it?

48 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Not really. What they said and did with the M48’s BR issue actually confirmed what I had said (the basic problem was with the teams).

 

They didn’t fix the issue (they probably worsened it honestly), but what they did do tacitly acknowledged my point.

Not really, I was the one to bring up the enemy that it faced while You were one that said that it didn't matter :crazy:

51 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I rarely interpreted anything honestly—most of what I said was literally just listing the numbers given by the statistics.
 

As I have already pointed out, my only agenda is speaking the truth. That’s all I have done and keeping it honest like that is all I care to do.

"I rarely interpreted anything honestly" Some truth coming from You.

By pointing out wrong statistics and calling them what You want you are intepreting them wrong :lol2:

53 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Incorrect. While it is true that some uninformed people claimed that there had been a mistake, the truth was they just didn’t understand what was talking about (confusing things like the nature of that comparison I explained to you above).
 

Those critics were proven wrong, as myself and other knowledgable people showed the statements were correct—I suppose the doubts only remain now because of denialism and a legitimate lack of understanding.

Oh yes, everyone who is not agreeing with You must be wrong :crazy:

I can't find a single person who have been "converted" to Your "truth" :lol2:

54 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Incorrect. 
 

What had actually happened was that I had pointed out the Jumbo was balanced at the time of and before its unprovoked uptier. You reached back two years to 2017 data to rationalize a 2019 uptier when 2019 data said it was unnecessary and then you misrepresented the 2017 as somehow having meaning when it was stale and irrelevant (either you didn’t understand how data’s relevance has limits based on timing or you were being deliberately deceptive with it).

 

Also, spare everyone these fake claims about “two months” and lying. That is not what happened and you know it: I showed a range of data from October 2018 to April 2019. That was a data from 6 months’ time—no lying there.

 

It’s tiresome that you keep harping on that and dragging this topic (and others) off topic just because I was right and proved your comments were wrong—I’m sorry that the correction upset you but I had to set the record straight. All of that could have been avoided if you had just researched the issue better and spoken correctly to begin with.

Incorrect

What had actually happened was that what I have said and my intention was what I have said. 

I just pointed out the time when Jumbo was a clubber and this is all I did. I only used data that was available.

You have never showed screanshoots of 6 months, only 2 and told that in a period between them it was the same, where You have no proof for that

55 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I’m just being honest—that is how it was:

 

-The M48 was being considered for a downtier (despite already sitting lower than its US/CH peers) because of its users’ performance; later on, Gaijin decided to adjust the Leopard instead but for the same reason

 

-I did correctly forecast TO would not turn up—and there’s no TO mode right now is there?

 

-The fumbling of the HVARs was an unintentional but harmful bungle on Gaijin’s part when they tried to remodel them, but do not confuse that as an intentional nerf. Gaijin just messed up and has since neglected to fix the mistake, as with many others.

You are not being honest 

- M48 was considered the downtier because of enemies it faced and failed do to good against them. (As gaijin has said)

- Gaijin nerfed the rockets only after many people have pointed out about them being OP.

56 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Lmao, untrue but entertaining nonetheless. If you mean the “confused” ratings, those come in for two reasons really:

-those who are legitimately confused by my comments’ advanced nature and do not understand them (yet)

-those who are trolling or trying to lash out, on the belief that I care about reactions

:lol2:

57 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

As a note on this thread which TO advocates may not realize: many forumers view this thread but actively avoid posting because they know how toxic it is, especially so if you dare say anything critical of TO. (A thread on reddit and comments therein demonstrated that—including a commending comment for myself for having spoken about the probable realities of TO too.)

Oh yes, You are so poor after calling everyone "crying babies" (not citing anything, just summing up Your logic), and trying to derail the topic all the time. And reddit, really?

58 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

When I post critiques and point out concerns about TO, I am speaking up for the many others who are also seeing these things but remain silent over. I am simply lending my voice to be theirs and that’s just fine. It’s important to talk about the unpopular but crucial issues of TO—the ones TO advocates do not like raised.

You have never posted anything related to what people were saying or provided any evidence of how badly TO would influance the game besides que times.

58 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

More and more people are concurring with my stance of skepticism regarding TO. Like myself, they’re just reacting to the idea with realism. :good:

 

If you haven’t noticed, interest in TO has collapsed. The reality you may not like to face—like my correct forecasting comment—is that hardly anyone cares about TO nowadays. Even avowed TO advocates themselves don’t care about progress on TO (as an event.l). :facepalm:
 

TO is dead as a mode idea and not doing well as an idea in general.

I can't find anyone new agreeing with You :lol2:, just seeing new people comming to this topic and agreeing with the idea of TO being a good mode :good:

59 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I still encourage a new, neutral discussion of TO. Anti-aircraft bias has derailed things for long enough here, we need progress elsewhere.

There is no anti-aircraft bias in WT, aircrafts are the only unit that are in all modes in the game

 

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PatteDangerSwe said:

No s.h.i.t. sherlock? Thanks for the info. This is really good to know:good: 

what's wrong with you

 

  

6 hours ago, warrior412 said:

So vehicle features have pros and cons, eh?

 

What's the pro?

 

Light tanks are already worst tank category in game objectively, open top is the worst sub category of them :)

 

 

Edited by Daffan
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Incorrect. When You are comparing tanks to planes like many in this topic are, You are comparing tank vs plane to plane vs tank stats. 


When you are comparing the deadliness of aircraft and tanks versus tanks, you look at AF vs GF and GF vs GF. GF vs AF has no relevance.

 

It’s tiresome that I have to explain this to you so much and bloats the thread—PM if you still don’t get it.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And what the concition of other people of using ULQ has to do that everyone can use it?


You don’t get it, do you? Not everyone who runs ULQ does so willingly—many set ULQ because they cannot play at higher settings:facepalm:

 

You may choose to run ULQ for its 100 FPS and the peculiarities it has when used on higher power units, but not everyone shares in that.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Not really, I was the one to bring up the enemy that it faced while You were one that said that it didn't matter 


Team quality was what provoked that issue, not enemy team composition.
 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"I rarely interpreted anything honestly" Some truth coming from You.

By pointing out wrong statistics and calling them what You want you are intepreting them wrong :lol2:


There you go again...twisting words and misrepresenting them. You ought to be ashamed at such dishonesty. :facepalm:

 

I showed statistics didn’t support your claims—just accept that and move on.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Oh yes, everyone who is not agreeing with You must be wrong 


They are proven wrong because the facts show them to be—they disagree with me as a result of them not respecting the facts as I do.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I can't find a single person who have been "converted" to Your "truth" :lol2:


“Conversion” is rare because most of the TO advocates who deny the facts I have chosen to deny reality rather than accept it—in public anyway.

 

Most people are moderates already on the same page as me, so they don’t have to say anything. They’re just more of the silent majority.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Incorrect

What had actually happened was that what I have said and my intention was what I have said. 

I just pointed out the time when Jumbo was a clubber and this is all I did. I only used data that was available.

You have never showed screanshoots of 6 months, only 2 and told that in a period between them it was the same, where You have no proof for that


Yeah, yeah...2017 data in 2019 is better than 2019 data in 2019. Surrre:016:

 

As for the six month range, the proof was already provided and cited numerous times, I don’t need to post them again because you didn’t read.

 

Stop dragging the thread off-topic already—for a guy that said he wanted that to stop, you keep doing it.


 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You are not being honest 

- M48 was considered the downtier because of enemies it faced and failed do to good against them. (As gaijin has said)

- Gaijin nerfed the rockets only after many people have pointed out about them being OP.


I was entirely honest and correct too:

 

-The German M48 was being considered for a downtier to 6.7, despite already being lower at 7.0 than other M48s which sat at 7.3, because the German teams failed so badly. The crux of the issue was poor team quality, not the enemies faced.

 

-Gaijin botched HVARs remodeling and changed SP costs to the disadvantage of aircraft, but they never actively nerfed rockets explicitly in response to whining

 

Having played German 4.X almost exclusively during 1.67/1.69 (ground zero for the claimed “Allied CAS rocket spam”), I can testify that all the whinnying about that was nonsense. SPAAs and defending fighters used competently handled Allied CAS just fine—the “issue” there was a hoax.

 

People who complained about Allied CAS because it was competitive should have just had a little sportsmanship and accepted their being outplayed and defeated when that happened and L2P’d to prevent a repeat, that’s all. They’d have been better players for it...

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Oh yes, You are so poor after calling everyone "crying babies" (not citing anything, just summing up Your logic), and trying to derail the topic all the time. And reddit, really?


I have just told it like it and been duly respectful—nothing wrong with that. I have not derailed the thread, just the opposite (I’m asking you to stop that now).

 

Reddit is another gathering point for the community—there’s probably many other places with similar expressions too.
 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You have never posted anything related to what people were saying or provided any evidence of how badly TO would influance the game besides que times.


Obviously you haven’t read as much as you need to—you’ll need to reread to get up to speed. Come on back after you’ve done that.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I can't find anyone new agreeing with You :lol2:


Again:

 

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

many forumers view this thread but actively avoid posting because they know how toxic it is, especially so if you dare say anything critical of TO


Quite a large number of people agree with what I’ve said—they just don’t bother coming here to talk about it because they don’t want to get badgered by TO advocates.

 

Support for what I have said is vastly greater than my detractors think, despite all their talk. Considering how things have gone, it’s fair to even say my stance is on the side of the majority. ;)

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

just seeing new people comming to this topic and agreeing with the idea of TO being a good mode :good:


Yeah...that’s motivation and negativity bias for you. People who want something are more likely to pursue that something than people who don’t care.

 

That so few people have turned out for TO pretty well confirms the idea is doomed as a mode logistically.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

There is no anti-aircraft bias in WT, aircrafts are the only unit that are in all modes in the game


Anti-aircraft bias does exist, is pervasive and is one of the biggest problems in game.

 

Denial of anti-aircraft bias is an example of what propagates the issue—that needs to stop.

 

30 minutes ago, Daffan said:

What's the pro?

 

Light tanks are already worst tank category in game objectively, open top is the worst sub category of them :)


Vehicles in WT deal with the realistic parameters and limitations the vehicles were made with for reality, even if those things are not relevant in WT (POV for instance).

 

Open tops offered greater visibility and flexibility for such as well as less weight and other related qualities.

 

If you think this about open tops as a whole, you probably just need to reevaluate your own usage and ask someone who’s fared better with them to assist you. (You can PM me for more detailed advice for vehicles if you’d like.)

Edited by warrior412
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

When you are comparing the deadliness of aircraft and tanks versus tanks, you look at AF vs GF and GF vs GF. GF vs AF has no relevance.

 

It’s tiresome that I have to explain this to you so much and bloats the thread—PM if you still don’t get it.

It is tiresome that You fail to understand that when You talk about aircraft and tanks situation you talk about AF vs GF only. There is no point in discussing GF vs GF because the mode is made that way that in order to spawn into a plane You have to die in a tank and not all people do that 

22 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

You don’t get it, do you? Not everyone who runs ULQ does so willingly—many set ULQ because they cannot play at higher settings:facepalm:

 

You may choose to run ULQ for its 100 FPS and the peculiarities it has when used on higher power units, but not everyone shares in that.

And You don't get what I said earlier. Everyone can play like I do:

a) Everyone can use ULQ

b) Everyone can use Bushes

23 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Team quality was what provoked that issue, not enemy team composition.

And where gaijin agreed with that? Because I can only remember words about tanks it faced (that was what I was talking about all the time).

24 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

There you go again...twisting words and misrepresenting them. You ought to be ashamed at such dishonesty. :facepalm:

 

I showed statistics didn’t support your claims—just accept that and move on.

How I twisted Your words :lol2:, I just cited what You have said :good:

What statistics didn't support what I have said? For all what I have said I have provided data that showed, when comparing GF vs AF, Air units had upper hand

25 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

They are proven wrong because the facts show them to be—they disagree with me as a result of them not respecting the facts as I do.

Again, your interpretations are not facts.

25 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

“Conversion” is rare because most of the TO advocates who deny the facts I have chosen to deny reality rather than accept it—in public anyway.

 

Most people are moderates already on the same page as me, so they don’t have to say anything. They’re just more of the silent majority.

I used that word because how You portray Yourself ;).

Tell me a single fact that I have denied and not brought up something to support it.

26 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Yeah, yeah...2017 data in 2019 is better than 2019 data in 2019. Surrre:016:

 

As for the six month range, the proof was already provided and cited numerous times, I don’t need to post them again because you didn’t read.

 

Stop dragging the thread off-topic already—for a guy that said he wanted that to stop, you keep doing it.

 

"What time was jumbo a clubber"

"In this time" 

Is this so hard to understand that I have provided a data where it could be considered a clubber?

There was no proof provided, You can check even in this topic :lol2:

27 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I was entirely honest and correct too:

 

-The German M48 was being considered for a downtier to 6.7, despite already being lower at 7.0 than other M48s which sat at 7.3, because the German teams failed so badly. The crux of the issue was poor team quality, not the enemies faced.

 

-Gaijin botched HVARs remodeling and changed SP costs to the disadvantage of aircraft, but they never actively nerfed rockets explicitly in response to whining

 

Having played German 4.X almost exclusively during 1.67/1.69 (ground zero for the claimed “Allied CAS rocket spam”), I can testify that all the whinnying about that was nonsense. SPAAs and defending fighters used competently handled Allied CAS just fine—the “issue” there was a hoax.

 

People who complained about Allied CAS because it was competitive should have just had a little sportsmanship and accepted their being outplayed and defeated when that happened and L2P’d to prevent a repeat, that’s all. They’d have been better players for it...

- German M48 was considered a downtier because of the enemies that it faced (again this is what gaijin said)

- Gaijin remodeled all rockets after numerous films and topics about it

Having played all nations and being a person that used rockets when they were OP I can fairly say that they were OP :good:.

People who disagree with that should really reconsider what fair gameplay is. 

29 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I have just told it like it and been duly respectful—nothing wrong with that. I have not derailed the thread, just the opposite (I’m asking you to stop that now).

 

Reddit is another gathering point for the community—there’s probably many other places with similar expressions too.

"Stop now after I have answered" :crazy:.

30 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Obviously you haven’t read as much as you need to—you’ll need to reread to get up to speed. Come on back after you’ve done that.

I have read all Your claims and have provided proof that they have nothing to do with TO but GF itself. 

30 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Quite a large number of people agree with what I’ve said—they just don’t bother coming here to talk about it because they don’t want to get badgered by TO advocates.

 

Support for what I have said is vastly greater than my detractors think, despite all their talk. Considering how things have gone, it’s fair to even say my stance is on the side of the majority. ;)

Anyone can say that a large group agrees with him but they don't want to come here :crazy:

31 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Anti-aircraft bias does exist, is pervasive and is one of the biggest problems in game.

 

Denial of anti-aircraft bias is an example of what propagates the issue—that needs to stop.

Ok, compare the number of gamemodes that aircrafts can play in and gamemodes that tanks can. I'm waiting to see the numbers ;) 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

It is tiresome that You fail to understand that when You talk about aircraft and tanks situation you talk about AF vs GF only. There is no point in discussing GF vs GF because the mode is made that way that in order to spawn into a plane You have to die in a tank and not all people do that 


In a deadliness comparison against tanks, you consider both killers: air and ground.

 

This should not be a hard thing to understand—PM me if you still don’t get it, the thread needn’t be clogged more.

 

4 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And You don't get what I said earlier. Everyone can play like I do:

a) Everyone can use ULQ

b) Everyone can use Bushes


Not everyone can get ULQ with 100 FPS and the other associated perks that come with choosing ULQ. Bushes are not free and have had limitations on their quantity too.

 

Not everyone can do as you do.

 

5 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

How I twisted Your words :lol2:, I just cited what You have said :good:


You twisted what was said, intentionally as a matter of dishonesty.

 

6 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

What statistics didn't support what I have said? For all what I have said I have provided data that showed, when comparing GF vs AF, Air units had upper hand


Incorrect, as was explained at the time. More aircraft died to all causes than were GFs killed by aircraft, meaning aircraft netted a negative exchange rate for their efforts.

 

The only reason aircraft appeared to have the advantage was (is) because of the poor and insufficient usage of SPAAs, thanks to propaganda like the “SPAAs are useless” and all. Your reading of that data failed to understand its background.

 

10 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Again, your interpretations are not facts.


Facts are facts—my interpretation of things is rarely even mentioned, as I usually just put the plain numbers out and let them do the talking. ;)

 

11 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Tell me a single fact that I have denied and not brought up something to support it.


A large portion of your claims, including this idea that Gaijin’s botched rocket rework was intentional.

 

13 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"What time was jumbo a clubber"

"In this time" 

Is this so hard to understand that I have provided a data where it could be considered a clubber?

There was no proof provided, You can check even in this topic :lol2:


You went outside the relevant range to 2017 rather than acknowledging the subject matter was 2018/2019.

 

Proof was provided but, alas, once again you let us down and did not complete the reading assignment.
 

15 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

German M48 was considered a downtier because of the enemies that it faced (again this is what gaijin said)

 

The German M48 has better MM and faces easier opposition than the US/CH M48s but was still doing worse.

 

That means the problem was a player/team issue. :facepalm:

 

17 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Gaijin remodeled all rockets after numerous films and topics about it


Yeah...that’s not compelling evidence, especially considering it was botched. Come back with the receipts (if you have them), then we can talk.

 

18 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Having played all nations and being a person that used rockets when they were OP I can fairly say that they were OP :good:.

People who disagree with that should really reconsider what fair gameplay is. 


Rockets having teeth =/= OP rockets

 

To suggest rockets were OP just because they were competitive weapons is just wrong and an example of anti-aircraft bias.
 

It’s pretty sick that some people can’t handle aircraft being given their rightful weaponry...aircraft have to face decades newer opposition and still people want to rig the game against them even more—it’s awful and as a balance advocate I condemn it.

 

24 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Stop now after I have answered" :crazy:


It would be nice for you to stop with these tangents...I doubt that will happen though.

 

Unfortunately TO advocates seem determined to drive this thread off the rails—if only to blame innocent people like myself for the chaos.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I have read all Your claims and have provided proof that they have nothing to do with TO but GF itself.


You have not done the necessary reading—you’re lucky I’m contemplating a biopic and not a biographical book. :lol2:

30 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Anyone can say that a large group agrees with him but they don't want to come here :crazy:


The proof is all around you, but deny it if you’d like—denial doesn’t matter. :good:

 

31 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Ok, compare the number of gamemodes that aircrafts can play in and gamemodes that tanks can. I'm waiting to see the numbers ;) 


Obviously you don’t understand the issue or are feigning as such. :facepalm:

 

————

 

Hopefully one day a new, neutral discussion of TO can be had. I’d much rather try at that...it’d be nice to push past all the failure this thread has come to represent.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see we still have tier 3 players going on about all levels of game play. My observations with AIR in RBGF is after many hundreds of battles above Tier 3 and how air power interacts with ground force. After many hundreds of battles, my opinion of air in GF is this. Most are not pilots, they just grind manned missiles for revenge killing. The other half couldn't give a rat's butt about air defense, they are just flying to kill ground targets. If anyone is honest, they have seen time and time again enemy and team air flying right by each other as they hammer ground targets. No thought to ground defense, it's all about killing tanks. Air combat must be more difficult so ignored. Helis have just upped the anti and are a pay to win unit (Ka-50). Even the damage models for aircraft are different. Kill a plane/heli and they still go on fighting and killing ground targets. Why does a tank have "hull break" yet the crew can't keep firing their guns/missiles? Damn tank is more resilient then an aircraft. 

No, there is just no way to balance air/ground given the mental state of the player. There is "NO TEAM" in RBGF. Individuals all playing to their own end and using whatever suits them to do this, which is fine but does play to an unbalance of air/ground in the game. To believe that TEAM exists, well there are doctors that can fix that.

Gajin may not support a TO game, but that is a financial decision not a balance game decision. People will pay to kill ground targets but not pay to fight each others air, the reason RBAF is a failing mode. This is all about player base, those who pay to kill easy targets. I see more tanks killed by single use revenge pilot diving into a tank that killed him then other fixed wing/heli. Check your stats and most air have more ground kills then air kills? Most SPAA have more air kills then ground kills? Seems the only non kamikaze air is heli, too slow hahahaha.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barial said:

I see we still have tier 3 players going on about all levels of game play

 

If you meant me you've missed the mark pretty badly--7.X stuff is not Tier III stuff. :016:Maybe you and I can discuss it in a cruise of M46s, eh?

 

1 hour ago, barial said:

After many hundreds of battles, my opinion of air in GF is this. Most are not pilots, they just grind manned missiles for revenge killing. The other half couldn't give a rat's butt about air defense, they are just flying to kill ground targets.

 

Alright...but with such a black and white view of things could you at least tell us where you would fit into that as a clarifying example? Your own showings don't really indicate you'd be with either group, it seems like you donate your aircraft to the enemy team or something and that doesn't really fit either group description. :dntknw:

 

1 hour ago, barial said:

No, there is just no way to balance air/ground given the mental state of the player. There is "NO TEAM" in RBGF. Individuals all playing to their own end and using whatever suits them to do this, which is fine but does play to an unbalance of air/ground in the game. To believe that TEAM exists, well there are doctors that can fix that.

 

This sort of divisiveness and denigration of teamwork would explain why you've had difficulties facing enemy teams that handle teamwork better. Your presumption that your teams are bad and will not work together is divisive and discouraging, making defeat more likely. Rather than attacking your team, you ought to try helping them.

 

You need to rethink this matter by aiming for success. This "quitter" mentality and dismissiveness that fixates on despair...it's bad, hurts your performance and it appears to be an unfortunately common quality of those who think TO is a panacea. Rather than feeling blue and complaining, why just try doing better? :dntknw:

 

1 hour ago, barial said:

Gajin may not support a TO game, but that is a financial decision not a balance game decision. People will pay to kill ground targets but not pay to fight each others air, the reason RBAF is a failing mode.

 

 I guess you haven't heard about what the Harriers have done in RB AFs, lmao. :lol2:

 

As someone far more familiar with RB AFs, allow me to enlighten you on that in a tangent I will make brief: RB AFs is not a failing mode, it's a neglected mode. RB AFs has been neglected for years because aircraft do not get nearly as much developmental attention as tanks do. Gaijin is stuck in a conundrum with that poor: RB AFs needs a lot of work...but if Gaijin turns their attention away from tankers for a moment, they howl endlessly. In light of that, I don't really blame Gaijin. The problem is that, by contrast, pilots as a rule are so accommodating and patient...they are tolerant to a fault despite how badly they are neglected. That is how this problem has festered: pilots have just been too nice and accepting.

 

I play RB GFs pretty much exclusively these days but I do encourage Gaijin to work on RB GFs for a while instead. RB GF can wait a while, it'll give RB GF players time to grind. :good:

 

Edited by warrior412
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

In a deadliness comparison against tanks, you consider both killers: air and ground.

 

This should not be a hard thing to understand—PM me if you still don’t get it, the thread needn’t be clogged more.

You compare Planes vs Tanks only. 

Comparing tanks vs tanks to planes vs tanks is pointless because of how mode is made.

If You still fail to understand the basics of the game and how RB GFs mode is made, please PM me and I will provide any additional info for You.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Not everyone can get ULQ with 100 FPS and the other associated perks that come with choosing ULQ. Bushes are not free and have had limitations on their quantity too.

 

Not everyone can do as you do.

And others can get more than 300 FPS on ULQ :dntknw:.

I can't do as others can when it comes to FPS. Bushes can be bought without spending a single coin on the game :good:

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

You twisted what was said, intentionally as a matter of dishonesty.

:crazy:

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Incorrect, as was explained at the time. More aircraft died to all causes than were GFs killed by aircraft, meaning aircraft netted a negative exchange rate for their efforts.

 

The only reason aircraft appeared to have the advantage was (is) because of the poor and insufficient usage of SPAAs, thanks to propaganda like the “SPAAs are useless” and all. Your reading of that data failed to understand its background.

Incorrect and many people explained and pointed to You that at the time.

 

More ground targets were destroyed by planes than other way around. If You say that because of SPAA usage, aircrafts had better exchange rate then I can say that because of poor plane usage (25% of deaths were because of crashing into the ground) they haven't got such a big kill ratio as they should :good:. Don't make double standards and apply them to both sides :DD

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Facts are facts—my interpretation of things is rarely even mentioned, as I usually just put the plain numbers out and let them do the talking. ;)

Really not as You push something that isn't talked about into something that is being talked about. No one really cares about the comparison of how many tanks is being destroyed by other tanks here, because of how mode is made.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

A large portion of your claims, including this idea that Gaijin’s botched rocket rework was intentional.

And how do You know that it wasn't a part of the issue? Like such a coincidence that many people were making videos about it, made posts on forum and at the same time gaijin does something :crazy:. Like You really don't know if it wasn't a part of the reason why they reworked them :good:.

Please stay more "claims" that I have made and that I haven't supported with annything, can't wait to explain to You everything here if You don't want to talk on PM

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

You went outside the relevant range to 2017 rather than acknowledging the subject matter was 2018/2019.

 

Proof was provided but, alas, once again you let us down and did not complete the reading assignment.

"When was jumbo a clubber".... "This time it could be considered a clubber" 

I just used what I could, not my false I don't have all data gathered about jumbo :dntknw:. I just used the site that You were using :good:.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

The German M48 has better MM and faces easier opposition than the US/CH M48s but was still doing worse.

 

That means the problem was a player/team issue. :facepalm:

And what gaijin have said? 

"The efficiency of a vehicle in game modes with multiple respawns may depend not only on its combat characteristics, but also on the surrounding conditions - other vehicles from the player’s setup at the given BR, the opposing nations most often met  (true for joint RB) and some other factors.

See the comparison table of the top 5 most frequently encountered opponents for the M48A2 C and M48A1:

 

 

 

Comparative Top 5 Most Frequent Opponents for M48A2 C/M48A1

 

M48A2 C

 

M48A1

 

1

Vickers MBT 

Leopard I

2

FV4202

BMP-1

3

Centurion Mk.3

Tiger II (H)

4

Caernarvon

SPz BMP-1

5

T34

T-44-100

 

As you can see, this difference is significant. So, for example, the presence of a stabilizer on opponents to the M48A2 C affects the final statistical efficiency compared to the M48A1 and its opponents

"

Just read.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Yeah...that’s not compelling evidence, especially considering it was botched. Come back with the receipts (if you have them), then we can talk.

Give me something that says, that it wasn't a part of the reason Gaijin remodeled them, and we can talk :good:

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Rockets having teeth =/= OP rockets

 

To suggest rockets were OP just because they were competitive weapons is just wrong and an example of anti-aircraft bias.
 

It’s pretty sick that some people can’t handle aircraft being given their rightful weaponry...aircraft have to face decades newer opposition and still people want to rig the game against them even more—it’s awful and as a balance advocate I condemn it.

You mean that it wasn't a problem that HVAR rocket could only hit near the target to OHK it :lol2:?

Like I was using them and making films out of it so please stop with this anit-tank bias.

 

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

It would be nice for you to stop with these tangents...I doubt that will happen though.

 

Unfortunately TO advocates seem determined to drive this thread off the rails—if only to blame innocent people like myself for the chaos.

It would be nice for You to stop writing the same arguments after they were repeatedly talked about here and explained to You here.

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Obviously you don’t understand the issue or are feigning as such. :facepalm:

So You won't give as a number because You know that there isn't a thing called "anti-aircraft" bias in WT, You should rather call it "anti-tank" bias ;) 

7 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Hopefully one day a new, neutral discussion of TO can be had. I’d much rather try at that...it’d be nice to push past all the failure this thread has come to represent.

"Neutral discussion" - everyone agrees with what I say because only then, they can be right :crazy:

 

Edited by ULQ_LOVER
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny bit about the example of the M48 used by Gaijin is that while it is true that their performance was different due to stabilized/non stabilized enemies, Gaijin themselves have removed that performance difference, which would justify a BR difference, by removing the nation lock. 

 

The US M48 can face the British with all their stabilizers now, too IIRC. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You compare Planes vs Tanks only. 

Comparing tanks vs tanks to planes vs tanks is pointless because of how mode is made.

 

Wrong...again. :facepalm: Once more: to compare the deadliness of tanks versus tanks and aircraft versus tanks, you must look at both of those parameters and compare them.

 

This is not anything complex--you should understand it quite readily. Either you really do not grasp this simple deadliness comparison or you're intentionally spamming the topic with these confused replies needlessly.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

If You still fail to understand the basics of the game and how RB GFs mode is made, please PM me and I will provide any additional info for You.

 

My understanding of the game is advanced and (not to boast) even exceeds your own.

 

Your offer is amusing  and I find it entertaining...but it's wholly needless. We already know that you have some very incorrect beliefs that are not based in fact and I needn't hear anything more about them.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And others can get more than 300 FPS on ULQ :dntknw:.

I can't do as others can when it comes to FPS. Bushes can be bought without spending a single coin on the game 

 

Eh, well that's progress I suppose--you've conceded that your setup is outside the norm, even if you are trying to say others can do better (which may be true but is also irrelevant).

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Incorrect and many people explained and pointed to You that at the time.

 

More ground targets were destroyed by planes than other way around. If You say that because of SPAA usage, aircrafts had better exchange rate then I can say that because of poor plane usage (25% of deaths were because of crashing into the ground) they haven't got such a big kill ratio as they should :good:. Don't make double standards and apply them to both sides 

 

I have never held any double standards, I simply looked at the data and saw what it said. The facts have shaped my comments and stances, not anything else. As with the other bits, it's apparent that you've simply become very confused as to what the data showed and said (it's archived in previous posts, go reread).

 

Great misunderstanding of the facts seems to be a consistent pattern amongst those who hate planes--they don't really know what the facts and statistics are saying but they do know that they feel like aircraft are meanies and they're angry about it. That's about all that they ever come out with and as evidence goes...it's unimpressive.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Really not as You push something that isn't talked about into something that is being talked about. No one really cares about the comparison of how many tanks is being destroyed by other tanks here, because of how mode is made.

 

People here don't want the difference in deadliness shown because the results make their premise look ridiculous.

 

People harping on about how scary aircraft are don't look very reliable or aware when tanks are 10 times more likely to kill your tank. Those hysterics just reveal that they're missing the bigger picture and worrying about the little things (aircraft haters have probably killed themselves via enemy tanks hundreds of times thanks to distracting themselves with their fear of aircraft).

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And how do You know that it wasn't a part of the issue? Like such a coincidence that many people were making videos about it

...

Give me something that says, that it wasn't a part of the reason Gaijin remodeled them, and we can talk :good:

 

I didn't claim to know exactly why Gaijin did what they did when--you did. I just asked you for your citations...now let's have them. :good:

 

As for this talk of coincidences...oh dear. I suppose next you'll be trying to tell me about all sorts of "coincidences" you see: clocks making noise at the top of the hour, 50% of marriages ending in divorce and other Illuminati tier stuff. Include that in the PM too if you'd like--maybe some winning lottery numbers too if you have them (I'll give you a share).

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"When was jumbo a clubber".... "This time it could be considered a clubber" 

I just used what I could, not my false I don't have all data gathered about jumbo :dntknw:. I just used the site that You were using :good:.

 

Yeah...you cited stale, irrelevant 2017 data in a discussion that was talking about a 2018/2019 timeframe. That's not in question. C'mon...surely you must understand what you did wrong, right?

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:
Spoiler

 

And what gaijin have said? 

"The efficiency of a vehicle in game modes with multiple respawns may depend not only on its combat characteristics, but also on the surrounding conditions - other vehicles from the player’s setup at the given BR, the opposing nations most often met  (true for joint RB) and some other factors.

See the comparison table of the top 5 most frequently encountered opponents for the M48A2 C and M48A1:

 

 

 

Comparative Top 5 Most Frequent Opponents for M48A2 C/M48A1

 

M48A2 C

 

M48A1

 

1

Vickers MBT 

Leopard I

2

FV4202

BMP-1

3

Centurion Mk.3

Tiger II (H)

4

Caernarvon

SPz BMP-1

5

T34

T-44-100

 

As you can see, this difference is significant. So, for example, the presence of a stabilizer on opponents to the M48A2 C affects the final statistical efficiency compared to the M48A1 and its opponents

"

Just read.

 

 

 

As I noted at the time, the German M48s (and German teams generally) have stabilizers by their sides by way of the Swedish. The Allies also face stabilizers (many of the same tanks too). The problem was (is) German teams, although I suppose some people didn't grasp that from what happened.

 

The M48 has continued to wallow despite the recent changes Germany has benefited from, further proving the failures' team based nature (as @PointyPuffin noted).

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You mean that it wasn't a problem that HVAR rocket could only hit near the target to OHK it :lol2:?

Like I was using them and making films out of it so please stop with this anit-tank bias.

 

Visuals on the client side =/= actuality on the server side (which is what matters)

 

You are talking about HVARs which appeared to miss on the client side but had hit on the server side. I'm afraid this is just another matter you're confused and mistaken about.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

It would be nice for You to stop writing the same arguments after they were repeatedly talked about here and explained to You here.

 

I am not going to stop speaking the truth just because some people want to keep the truth concealed--as an honest person who wants people to be informed and knowledgeable, it's my obligation to present the facts to the public. I am not going to stop telling it like it is.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

So You won't give as a number because You know that there isn't a thing called "anti-aircraft" bias in WT, You should rather call it "anti-tank" bias ;) 

 

The number of game modes aircraft are in or not in has no bearing on the issue.

 

I do still find it amusing that tankers still think they want to get tanks in RB AFs...they had best hope Gaijin modeled cup holders if they do.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Neutral discussion" - everyone agrees with what I say because only then, they can be right :crazy:

 

Lmao, yeah, because that's exactly what calling for a neutral discussion means. :016: Alas, you've misunderstood that as well--or maybe it was just contempt for discussion...

 

Either way, would you stop derailing with unrelated matters? You can talk with me by PM about all those non-TO things if you'd like but it's not right for you to keep clogging the thread up with needless off-topic chatter. I've asked you nicely many times but it's becoming tiresome to see you keep doing it.

 

This topic is for TO, not for you to chatter on about memories crossing swords with me. Stay on topic man. :good:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, PointyPuffin said:

The funny bit about the example of the M48 used by Gaijin is that while it is true that their performance was different due to stabilized/non stabilized enemies, Gaijin themselves have removed that performance difference, which would justify a BR difference, by removing the nation lock. 

 

The US M48 can face the British with all their stabilizers now, too IIRC. 

 

Considering the GER M48 still sits lower, that means that the MM lock removal was effectively a buff for it.

 

Their continued miserable performance looks even worse now. :facepalm:

Edited by warrior412
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...