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
32 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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.

Wrong again, to compare tank to plane situation You have to compare Tanks vs Planes.

This is not anything complex - You should understand it quite readily. Either You really don't understand the basics of the RB GFs or You are intentionally spamming the topic with these confused replies needlessly

33 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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.

"It is because I say so" :crazy:

Incorrect beliefs that I have provided all the info needed for them besides "it is because I say so/it is because some people say so" :lol2:

34 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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).

I haven't said that it is outside the norm.

Everyone can use ULQ and bushes, it is not my false that I have better PC than someone else :dntknw:

35 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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.

By looking at the data (that is no longer there and was old at the time You used it) we can farily say that all ground units lose to planes and this is what statitics show :good:

I'm the one who is using the planes and I have even shown by screanshoots of what can be done by a single plane by a person who is not even good in flying them. I'm not angry about anything, I'm amused how You are defending such a unfair thing :lol2:

37 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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).

People don't want it because they know how the mode is made and why such a difference occurs. You are missing a bigger picture that is a baiscs of the game.

38 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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).

I said what happened after You said that it won't :lol2:

I won't provide anything because all the time that I did in many topics with You, even after providing many evidence Your only reply was "someone said that" :lol2:

And thanks for derialing this topic with talk about other things that no one cares 

40 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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?

I cited a time when Jumbo could be considered a clubber, because You asked for a time when it was. Nothing else.

40 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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).

As I noted the number of battles in swedish stabilized tanks is far less than UK nation.

Saying that it is only made by teams is shallow and I have already told You about it :good:

41 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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.

Do You have any evidence for that?

42 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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.

You are just saying Your interpretations of data and Your opinions, not facts. You are not presenting anything, but just repeating the same mantra for all this pages that was already discussed here.

43 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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.

But You can't say that there is anti-aircraft bias when aircrafts can be used in most of the modes 

46 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

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:

You are the one with logic that if someone is not with You, he must be wrong as it can be seen through the topic

 

If You wanted to talk with me, You could talk to me with PM too and not answear here :good:.

So if You want to talk about something I wrote here, just PM me, instead of answearing here :DD

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have the patience to repeat the entire discussion...

 

IN SHORT, from numbers way up in this discussion and without skew to either side.

MORE TANKS are killed BY GROUND units, BY FAR

PLANES have better KILL RATIOS

 

These are actually simple FACTS, that ANYONE can see for themself on ALMOST EVERY GAME. Just add the kills...

 

AGAIN...the reason for TANKS ONLY cannot be BALANCE...as it changes a lot and depends on lots of stuff. BALANCE at some specific game modes and tiers is broken and NEEDS FIXING...but THAT IS NOT the reason for TO.

TO is a good idea because it provides a DIFFERENT GAME MODE with different gameplay...hence FUN!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

TO is a good idea because it provides a DIFFERENT GAME MODE with different gameplay...hence FUN!

 

Well that is your opinion, and that is my opinion. But this topic is bloating because of those that believe otherwise, that GFRB is broken so badly and there are nefarious reasons relating to "hating tankers, loving pilots".

 

They keep coming back with this derailing, trying to push their anti-air AgEnDa, either for trolling or salty reasons.

 

But yes.... Be nice to see this topic continue on your final sentence :017::good:

 

Edit: and it seems some are a bit too dumb to see it and want to actually keep the topic from being positive

 

 

 

Screenshot_20210217-120141.png

Edited by Deranger79
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
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:

Wrong again, to compare tank to plane situation You have to compare Tanks vs Planes.

 

That is the comparison: the results of tanks versus tanks compared to aircraft versus tanks. :facepalm:
 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

It is because I say so


Facts are facts, that’s all.

 

Reality is something you need to respect, like it or not.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I haven't said that it is outside the norm.

Everyone can use ULQ and bushes, it is not my false that I have better PC than someone else 


Being able to choose to use ULQ is something that excludes many people, preventing them from mimicking your setup. Not everyone can manipulate ULQ, some people have to use it to run WT at all.

 

That distinction sets your situation outside the norm, regardless of whether acknowledge it.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

By looking at the data (that is no longer there and was old at the time You used it) we can farily say that all ground units lose to planes and this is what statitics show

 

As proven by old posts (where the data was laid out and can be found), that’s a lie.


It’s telling that people are lying about airplanes’ results with all the exaggerations they keep making up—just goes to show their claims were (are) fake.

 

Ground units do far better than aircraft in RB GFs, especially as cost effectiveness goes.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I'm the one who is using the planes and I have even shown by screanshoots of what can be done by a single plane by a person who is not even good in flying them. I'm not angry about anything, I'm amused how You are defending such a unfair thing :lol2:

 

lmao, no


You’ve tried to spin games where enemy teams were in soft vehicles and incompetent generally (particularly in countering aircraft) as miraculous triumphs for OP aircraft; the truth was what you showed were just bad teams crumbling.

 

It is interesting to note that earlier you were boasting about your experience and performance...now you say you’re “not even good” in your aircraft. People see your comments are contradictory and let me tell you: they aren’t going to be duped. They know. ;)
 

Lastly: there’s nothing unfair about speaking up in support of balance as I have. I am being fair by doing so.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

People don't want it because they know how the mode is made and why such a difference occurs. You are missing a bigger picture that is a baiscs of the game.


Wrong. My statements have been spot on—TO advocates don’t want the facts to be shown because they discredit their premise, particularly the phony push for urgency.

 
 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I said what happened after You said that it won't :lol2:

I won't provide anything because all the time that I did in many topics with You, even after providing many evidence Your only reply was "someone said that" :lol2:

And thanks for derialing this topic with talk about other things that no one cares 


Eh, obviously you drove past that soda shop on American Desert one time too many.

 

You still have no proof for what you claim and you’re blaming me for the derailing you began and I asked you to stop...what a joke.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I cited a time when Jumbo could be considered a clubber, because You asked for a time when it was. Nothing else.


There you go again...the relevant range was (late) 2018-(early) 2019.
 

2017 was irrelevant and you’re just trying to move the goalposts by citing it. 

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As I noted the number of battles in swedish stabilized tanks is far less than UK nation.

Saying that it is only made by teams is shallow and I have already told You about it :good:


Yeah...the Swedes were (are) still around providing the capability and that excuse has fully fallen apart with the MM lock gone.

 

The problem has been proven to be the teams, just as I said. ;)

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Do You have any evidence for that?


I played German tanks and had many HVARs fired at me at the time—misses did nothing.

I used HVARs at the time—ditto.

Videos from the time showed the same lack of reaction.

 

You saw a client/server difference—not unprecedented nor anything major.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

But You can't say that there is anti-aircraft bias when aircrafts can be used in most of the modes 


You just don’t understand what anti-aircraft bias is, that’s all.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You are the one with logic that if someone is not with You, he must be wrong as it can be seen through the topic


Incorrect. If that’s your perception, you really don’t understand anything at all of what’s been said.


This is why you need to get into contact with me in the PMs so that I can clear up these mistaken ideas you have and educate you on what’s actually going on.

 

———

 

Do not be afraid to come to me for help—I will only help you. :good:

 

49 minutes ago, Deranger79 said:

They keep coming back with this derailing, trying to push their anti-air AgEnDa, either for trolling or salty reasons.


Anti-aircraft bias (which is ultimately an anti-WT) has indeed ruined this thread.

 

You can’t have a discussion here about TO without having people biased against aircraft hijacking the thread to howl about the 1 death in 10 they suffered to aircraft...it’s ridiculous.

 

People like myself, yourself, @Arium, @PointyPuffin and many, many others have tried to advance the discussion here with intellectual thoughts and considerations but those people just will not allow it. It’s shameful what they do.

 

For people who complain about suicide bombers, aircraft haters are keen to be the forum equivalents—plowing in to destroy everything.:facepalm:

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

Share this post


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

That is the comparison: the results of tanks versus tanks compared to aircraft versus tanks. :facepalm:

The comparison is tank vs planes, nothing else

8 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Facts are facts, that’s all.

 

Reality is something you need to respect, like it or not.

Reality is that You can't distinguish between facts and Your personal opinions ;) 

9 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

As proven by old posts (where the data was laid out and can be found), that’s a lie.

Ok, let's talk about it because I am amused how You are simply saying that Your own stats are lie :lol2:

Let's use Your post

EeQUpMB.thumb.png.ed50ae1111c13b976a22fb

When it comes to coming victory, planes have 1.6 more chance of winning :DD, so how did I lie?

And again, stop saying "tanks kill more tanks" because everyone knows that and it is because gamemode is made how it is :lol2:

19 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Eh, obviously you drove past that soda shop on American Desert one time too many.

 

You still have no proof for what you claim and you’re blaming me for the derailing you began and I asked you to stop...what a joke.

Bring me a proof showing that what I said is not true and we can talk :lol2:. Do I need to bring up 2 topics where I have shown You what You wanted and You simply denied it by "Someone said something" :crazy:?

 

20 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

There you go again...the relevant range was (late) 2018-(early) 2019.
 

2017 was irrelevant and you’re just trying to move the goalposts by citing it. 

"Show me stats when jumbo was clubbing" not "Show me a period of time between 2018 and 2019 where jumbo was clubbing" 

20 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Yeah...the Swedes were (are) still around providing the capability and that excuse has fully fallen apart with the MM lock gone.

 

The problem has been proven to be the teams, just as I said. ;)

We don't really know because time that has passed is too small

21 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I played German tanks and had many HVARs fired at me at the time—misses did nothing.

I used HVARs at the time—ditto.

Videos from the time showed the same lack of reaction.

 

You saw a client/server difference—not unprecedented nor anything major.

Oh come on, You won't provide any proof besides Your own words?

24 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

You just don’t understand what anti-aircraft bias is, that’s all.

Having their own mode and being able to destroy a tank from any angles while the tanker can't do anything, such an anti-airfract bias :crazy:

24 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

This is why you need to get into contact with me in the PMs so that I can clear up these mistaken ideas you have and educate you on what’s actually going on.

As I said before, if You want to learn about the game basics feel free to write on PMs, then if You don't want to derail the topic futher, please write on PM the response instead of writing here :DD

 

  • Like 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, [email protected] said:

I dont have the patience to repeat the entire discussion...

 

IN SHORT, from numbers way up in this discussion and without skew to either side.

MORE TANKS are killed BY GROUND units, BY FAR

PLANES have better KILL RATIOS

 

These are actually simple FACTS, that ANYONE can see for themself on ALMOST EVERY GAME. Just add the kills...

 

AGAIN...the reason for TANKS ONLY cannot be BALANCE...as it changes a lot and depends on lots of stuff. BALANCE at some specific game modes and tiers is broken and NEEDS FIXING...but THAT IS NOT the reason for TO.

TO is a good idea because it provides a DIFFERENT GAME MODE with different gameplay...hence FUN!

 

TO would also mean going froma highly asymetric balancing situation to a much more symetrical one, which makes it a lot easier to approach a state of reasonable balance. Hell, my entire reasoning for not liking RBGF and wanting a TO is my disdain for asymetrically balanced situations. I value player skill/control much more highly than vehicle RNG. Bombing out a tank, while often the easier and therefore meta thing to do, just doesn't give me the same amount of pleasure as getting into a scrappy tank on tank engagement.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

The comparison is tank vs planes, nothing else


Nope—you just don’t understand how such analysis is done.

 

There’s no point trying to explain it to you, it appears you simply don’t understand how it works.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Reality is that You can't distinguish between facts and Your personal opinions ;) 


Untrue—that’s just a lie you’ve made up because I won’t buy into your agenda.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Ok, let's talk about it because I am amused how You are simply saying that Your own stats are lie :lol2:

Let's use Your post

EeQUpMB.thumb.png.ed50ae1111c13b976a22fb

When it comes to coming victory, planes have 1.6 more chance of winning :DD, so how did I lie?


You’re being deceptive by not considering the background and not acknowledging the full data.

 

As I already explained to you, the GFs versus AFs reading would primarily be SPAAs versus aircraft since SPAAs are the dedicated type to engage aircraft with and thus would be expected to be the class taking on the single largest burden. As few people use SPAAs as SPAAs, GFs’ effectiveness versus aircraft will naturally be reduced. (You have undoubtedly forgotten about wannabe TDs in SPAAs).

 

When you consider all causes there, aircraft are more than GFs are—meaning aircraft usage became a net loss in terms of vehicle exchange. Aircraft just weren’t deadly enough.

 

The data confirms my comments have been correct. :good:

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Show me stats when jumbo was clubbing" not "Show me a period of time between 2018 and 2019 where jumbo was clubbing"


You read the timeframe on that wrong (or perhaps just didn’t read the context at all) or were being misleading and got caught and corrected—just take the L and move on already.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

We don't really know because time that has passed is too small


Actually as @PointyPuffin said, the excuses are running thinner than ever now that the nation lock was abolished.

 

German teams got a helping hand...basically a buff and still they’ve continued to do terribly. The longer that goes on, the stronger what I said looks to be true. ;)

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Oh come on, You won't provide any proof besides Your own words

 

 

Evidence like posts from the time has addressed such things before. It’s needless to divert things for more of your tangents.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Having their own mode and being able to destroy a tank from any angles while the tanker can't do anything, such an anti-airfract bias :crazy:


There are many options for tankers and their teams to respond to aircraft with...we can talk more about that in the PM when you come to me for assistance.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As I said before, if You want to learn about the game basics feel free to write on PMs


If I want to learn how to get ULQ on and set to cheesy, manipulative levels I’ll let you know. :lol2:

 

You have nothing else to offer me.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

You can’t have a discussion here about TO without having people biased against aircraft hijacking the thread to howl about the 1 death in 10 they suffered to aircraft...it’s ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as people suggesting "Fighters First" as a good solution on a Tanks Only thread... :lol2:

Go figure...

 

Anyhow...SHORT VERSION:

Gaijin WILL NOT implement TANKS ONLY as a mode anytime soon. The reason given is more philosophical...basically, it is NOT the game concept as designed. This was said by devs on a recent blog (i am paraphrasing).

 

IMHO (and this is my opinion ONLY):

- Balance of planes and tank is a separate issue that SHOULD BE FIXED separately (and only applies to specific modes/BRs, not all the game)

- TO will only appear anytime soon as AN EVENT, if at all

- Discussing PLANE/TANKS balance in this topic is useless...there is no need for such balance if there are no planes. And if there are planes it is NOT tanks only (by definition), then there are topics for THAT DISCUSSION.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Almost as ridiculous as people suggesting "Fighters First" as a good solution on a Tanks Only thread... :lol2:

Go figure...

 

Anyhow...SHORT VERSION:

Gaijin WILL NOT implement TANKS ONLY as a mode anytime soon. The reason given is more philosophical...basically, it is NOT the game concept as designed. This was said by devs on a recent blog (i am paraphrasing).

 

IMHO (and this is my opinion ONLY):

- Balance of planes and tank is a separate issue that SHOULD BE FIXED separately (and only applies to specific modes/BRs, not all the game)

- TO will only appear anytime soon as AN EVENT, if at all

- Discussing PLANE/TANKS balance in this topic is useless...there is no need for such balance if there are no planes. And if there are planes it is NOT tanks only (by definition), then there are topics for THAT DISCUSSION.

Yes sir. I totally agree.

:)

Share this post


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

Nope—you just don’t understand how such analysis is done.

 

There’s no point trying to explain it to you, it appears you simply don’t understand how it works.

You are the one not taking into consideration that the mode is made that way that tanks HAVE TO have more kills than planes :lol2:

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Untrue—that’s just a lie you’ve made up because I won’t buy into your agenda.

It is as true as You saying it is a lie ;)

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

You’re being deceptive by not considering the background and not acknowledging the full data.

 

As I already explained to you, the GFs versus AFs reading would primarily be SPAAs versus aircraft since SPAAs are the dedicated type to engage aircraft with and thus would be expected to be the class taking on the single largest burden. As few people use SPAAs as SPAAs, GFs’ effectiveness versus aircraft will naturally be reduced. (You have undoubtedly forgotten about wannabe TDs in SPAAs).

 

When you consider all causes there, aircraft are more than GFs are—meaning aircraft usage became a net loss in terms of vehicle exchange. Aircraft just weren’t deadly enough.

 

The data confirms my comments have been correct. :good:

And You are the one not taking into considerations things like:

a) In order to spawn into a plane You have to kill a tank/cap a point and then die in a tank

b) Few people use aircrafts as only against ground units 

If You consider all this things You would see how aircrafts are doing much better at killing ground units than other way around. And really I would not use stats from people who die 25% time in aircraft by crashing into the ground 

Stats confirm what I have said from the beggining: Aircrafts are better at killing ground units that other way around by 1.6.

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

You read the timeframe on that wrong (or perhaps just didn’t read the context at all) or were being misleading and got caught and corrected—just take the L and move on already.

You have never said that we need to look at certain period. Again I just used data that I was allowed to, I have never intended to mislead anyone like someone who is saying that anything that isn't supporting his agenda is a lie or should not be taken into consideration :crazy:

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Actually as @PointyPuffin said, the excuses are running thinner than ever now that the nation lock was abolished.

 

German teams got a helping hand...basically a buff and still they’ve continued to do terribly. The longer that goes on, the stronger what I said looks to be true. ;)

We will see after a few months like we saw with Panther D You were crying about in other topics that now it stats are not so great (Like 40% W.R and less than 2 K/D and K/B)

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Evidence like posts from the time has addressed such things before. It’s needless to divert things for more of your tangents.

 

So no evidence? How sad

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

There are many options for tankers and their teams to respond to aircraft with...we can talk more about that in the PM when you come to me for assistance.

That is a complete lie. A person who is in a tank can't do anything against the pilot who wants to kill him. 

Aircraft can attack from any direction and bomb can get anywhere he wants, while tanker can only try to avoid it and then get himself killed by enemy tank :good:

2 hours ago, warrior412 said:

If I want to learn how to get ULQ on and set to cheesy, manipulative levels I’ll let you know. :lol2:

 

You have nothing else to offer me.

If You want to learn how certain graphic settings allow You to see things like on ULQ then write to me :good:, but I see that You don't even know such basic things.

And You didn't want to derial things but You still write here "I can, but You can't!" :crazy:

  • 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 are the one not taking into consideration that the mode is made that way that tanks HAVE TO have more kills than planes :lol2:


As a given, it doesn’t vary to change kill shares. It’s just a constant so it doesn’t work any different for anyone.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

It is as true as You saying it is a lie ;)


Nope, no lies here—I do not lie but you are lying in saying that I do. You should apologize and recant your fake claim.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And You are the one not taking into considerations things like:

a) In order to spawn into a plane You have to kill a tank/cap a point and then die in a tank

b) Few people use aircrafts as only against ground units 


lmao

 

According to other TO advocates like @barial, he says (admittedly with no evidence) that that’s what happens. So which one of your guys’ stories is true? so much inconsistency... :lol2:

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

If You consider all this things You would see how aircrafts are doing much better at killing ground units than other way around. And really I would not use stats from people who die 25% time in aircraft by crashing into the ground 

Stats confirm what I have said from the beggining: Aircrafts are better at killing ground units that other way around by 1.6.

 

Incorrect; your mistaken reading of things has never stopped being mistaken. You stubbornly refuse to look at the facts, preferring to see what you want to see out of anti-aircraft bias.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You have never said that we need to look at certain period. Again I just used data that I was allowed to, I have never intended to mislead anyone like someone who is saying that anything that isn't supporting his agenda is a lie or should not be taken into consideration :crazy:


My only agenda is speaking the truth. You know and I both know that.

 

You were caught try to use stale, faulty data into a comparison and got called out for it—just take the L and move on.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

We will see after a few months like we saw with Panther D You were crying about in other topics that now it stats are not so great (Like 40% W.R and less than 2 K/D and K/B)


I haven’t cried about anything like that, though I have been disgusted by how terrible German teams have ruined their vehicles. Teams have always been Germany’s #1 problem.

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

So no evidence? How sad


The evidence is around—you just have to read it. Unfortunately, it seems that you will not do reading (especially when it doesn’t help your agenda).

 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

That is a complete lie. A person who is in a tank can't do anything against the pilot who wants to kill him. 

Aircraft can attack from any direction and bomb can get anywhere he wants, while tanker can only try to avoid it and then get himself killed by enemy tank :good:


Untrue—you’re just pushing the defeatist, fake tank victimhood myth and encouraging tankers to believe themselves to be facing an inevitable death and thus assuring their demise.
 

Your defeatist sort of thinking kills tankers and you should be ashamed of that.


 

2 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

If You want to learn how certain graphic settings allow You to see things like on ULQ then write to me :good:, but I see that You don't even know such basic things.

And You didn't want to derial things but You still write here "I can, but You can't!" :crazy:


No derailing by me—I’ve just been setting the record straight. (You’re the guy who’s defied my calls to stay on topic.)

 

As for ULQ, I don’t actually want it but you’re the expert on manipulating it and so if I wanted to set that I’d ask you. ;)

 

4 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Almost as ridiculous as people suggesting "Fighters First" as a good solution on a Tanks Only thread...


Fighters first is actually just an alternate idea to TO with comparable results (lessened threat posed to GFs by AFs).

 

Considering TO has failed, you should push FF forward as the next best thing. 

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Considering TO has failed, you should push FF forward as the next best thing. 

 

When it has failed from the get go by having to tag along an, according to you, even more dead thread to even have someone give a xxxx? Doesn't sound very toppest TO supporter of you.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, milki30 said:

When it has failed from the get go by having to tag along an, according to you, even more dead thread to even have someone give a xxxx? Doesn't sound very toppest TO supporter of you.

 

It’s true that TO does need a new thread for legitimate discussions to take place, but that’s no reason not mention alternatives here.

 

FF is probably the best thing TO advocates can look forward to.

Edited by warrior412
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Nope, no lies here—I do not lie but you are lying in saying that I do. You should apologize and recant your fake claim.

I'm not lying, You are. It is words against words that You can't say which is true :p:

43 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

lmao

 

According to other TO advocates like @barial, he says (admittedly with no evidence) that that’s what happens. So which one of your guys’ stories is true? so much inconsistency... :lol2:

Are we talking about what other pople said or about what I'm saying?

43 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Incorrect; your mistaken reading of things has never stopped being mistaken. You stubbornly refuse to look at the facts, preferring to see what you want to see out of anti-aircraft bias.

One thing

When comparing aircrafts vs tanks to tanks vs aircrafts, does aircraft have better K/D?

43 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

My only agenda is speaking the truth. You know and I both know that.

 

You were caught try to use stale, faulty data into a comparison and got called out for it—just take the L and move on.

I don't know what is in Your head, please stop assuming things ;) 

I haven't used old and stale data, but I have used what I could to something that I could use. You have never pointed out a specific timeline :p:

43 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I haven’t cried about anything like that, though I have been disgusted by how terrible German teams have ruined their vehicles. Teams have always been Germany’s #1 problem.

You cried a lot about Panther D being moved to 5.3 like it was some kind of warcrime while as I said it stats got normal after some time :lol2:

43 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

The evidence is around—you just have to read it. Unfortunately, it seems that you will not do reading (especially when it doesn’t help your agenda).

"Evidence is around" wow, I didn't know that You can just say that without providing anything :016:

To support my claims I will just say that all the time now :lol2:

43 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Untrue—you’re just pushing the defeatist, fake tank victimhood myth and encouraging tankers to believe themselves to be facing an inevitable death and thus assuring their demise.
 

Your defeatist sort of thinking kills tankers and you should be ashamed of that.

Tell me how I could defend myself against kamikaze bombing?

43 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

No derailing by me—I’ve just been setting the record straight. (You’re the guy who’s defied my calls to stay on topic.)

 

As for ULQ, I don’t actually want it but you’re the expert on manipulating it and so if I wanted to set that I’d ask you. ;)

And I'm setting the record straight too :good:, You are the one who don't want to talk on PMs :DD

Please stop lying about me "manipulating" things :lol2:

You are the one using wrong data all the time without realistation of how the game is made :016:

8 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

FF is probably the best thing TO advocates can look forward to.

Oh yes, we need more aircraft modes :016:

Edited by ULQ_LOVER
  • 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
28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I'm not lying, You are. It is words against words that You can't say which is true :p:

 

Lmao, yeah: "the sky is blue" and "dogs are cats" are both equally true statements. Surrrrrrre. :016: C'mon, be serious.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Are we talking about what other pople said or about what I'm saying?

 

I'm pointing out what the TO advocates have said--it's very inconsistent, which makes it hard to believe.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

When comparing aircrafts vs tanks to tanks vs aircrafts, does aircraft have better K/D?

 

No--more aircraft are lost in RB GFs than tanks killed by aircraft (despite subpar SPAA dedication). For their costs, aircraft are far less effective than tanks.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I don't know what is in Your head, please stop assuming things ;) 

I haven't used old and stale data, but I have used what I could to something that I could use. You have never pointed out a specific timeline 

 

A specific timeline was laid out...you just didn't read it I guess. You have to read the context of things before you post to avoid mistakes like that.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You cried a lot about Panther D being moved to 5.3 like it was some kind of warcrime while as I said it stats got normal after some time :lol2:

 

Oh, that's what you meant--haha. (I was wondering how you could say I complained about the Panther D when I've always liked it--it's a fine tank.)

 

I had not been saying the Panther D was a bad tank, I had been saying it was undertiered at 5.3 (which it still is). The fact that bad German teams have managed to do poorly with it despite the BR handout it got is no bad reflection on the Panther nor an indication that the tank is balanced: it is just being used by players who really fumble the ball with it.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Evidence is around" wow, I didn't know that You can just say that without providing anything

To support my claims I will just say that all the time now 

 

All you have to do to see the evidence is to actually read it--it's been posted. If you try to say the same when you haven't posted anything...well, that'd just be lying so I don't recommend that.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Please stop lying about me "manipulating" things

You are the one using wrong data all the time without realistation of how the game is made

 

Using ULQ when you don't have to is to do so to take advantage of ULQ's peculiarities, such as rendering differences. That can be fairly described as manipulation, it's not lying.

 

Also, wrong--the data I've used is fine and so is my understanding (as I've shown)--perhaps you're envious! :lol2:

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Oh yes, we need more aircraft modes :016:

 

Yeah...more freedom for players to choose vehicles doesn't mean anything would be more "aircraft modes." RB GFs would still be RB GFs, people would just have more freedom to choose.

 

Why the opposition to players' freedom of choice?

 

 

For the sake of the thread, go ahead and respond to only the TO bits here; you can include the other things in your PM.

 

The tangents have gone on long enough, it's time they stopped.

Edited by warrior412
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warrior412 said:

Lmao, yeah: "the sky is blue" and "dogs are cats" are both equally true statements. Surrrrrrre. :016: C'mon, be serious.

Lmao, "What I say is true, but what You say is not true, because I say so" is what You are just doing right here :lol2:

2 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I'm pointing out what the TO advocates have said--it's very inconsistent, which makes it hard to believe.

And I'm talking about what I'm talking about, not about what others do.

2 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

No--more aircraft are lost in RB GFs than tanks killed by aircraft (despite subpar SPAA dedication). For their costs, aircraft are far less effective than tanks.

Again my question, I can fairly say that You can read it, so please answear it.

When comparing tanks vs aircrafts to aircrafts vs tanks stats, doesn aircrafts have upper hand?

3 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

A specific timeline was laid out...you just didn't read it I guess. You have to read the context of things before you post to avoid mistakes like that.

So give me a quote that gave a specific timeline :good:

4 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Oh, that's what you meant--haha. (I was wondering how you could say I complained about the Panther D when I've always liked it--it's a fine tank.)

 

I had not been saying the Panther D was a bad tank, I had been saying it was undertiered at 5.3 (which it still is). The fact that bad German teams have managed to do poorly with it despite the BR handout it got is no bad reflection on the Panther nor an indication that the tank is balanced: it is just being used by players who really fumble the ball with it.

"German teams are bad" ~ I love that logic and that only argument for everything :lol2:

4 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

All you have to do to see the evidence is to actually read it--it's been posted. If you try to say the same when you haven't posted anything...well, that'd just be lying so I don't recommend that.

Evidence is all around that I'm right and You are not :016:, if You posted the real evidence not only your interpretation please quote it 

5 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Using ULQ when you don't have to is to do so to take advantage of ULQ's peculiarities, such as rendering differences. That can be fairly described as manipulation, it's not lying.

 

Also, wrong--the data I've used is fine and so is my understanding (as I've shown)--perhaps you're envious! :lol2:

Rendering distances is what occurs when You change rendering distances, not use ULQ :good:

Thanks for proving again that You don't know what You are talking about :DD

6 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Yeah...more freedom for players to choose vehicles doesn't mean anything would be more "aircraft modes." RB GFs would still be RB GFs, people would just have more freedom to choose.

 

Why the opposition to players' freedom of choice?

Because they can't play Air RB already :lol2:, like they can't spawn there with plane first :016:?

Freedom for players? So maybe freedom for tankers from planes?

6 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

For the sake of the thread, go ahead and respond to only the TO bits here; you can include the other things in your PM.

 

The tangents have gone on long enough, it's time they stopped.

You can write the response on PM 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

So give me a quote that gave a specific timeline

 

It's there. Go back and reread the posts from the time period--you need to do more reading anyway so searching for that will just give you a motivation.

 

Think of it as being like a book report if you'd like. :good:

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"German teams are bad" ~ I love that logic and that only argument for everything

 

I'm just telling it like it is when I point out how German teams are commonly poor--they are.

 

For instance: I just came out a game on Port Novo where the German aligned team had the bridge/industrial wharf side. At least five of them in immediately started camping the coastline  with no regard for the objectives. Fast forward to the end of the game: the German side has lost and one of the Leopards who'd camped the coastline has complained "kills dont win game caps do" after he was one of the people who was fixated on kills. :lol2: (Even the German team's top player said his team was awful.)

 

Matches like that go to show that the (fictional) mobility gap is not what holds Germany back from the capture points and winning, it's their elective choices.

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Rendering distances is what occurs when You change rendering distances, not use ULQ

 

Wrong again; I said ULQ changes how things render ("differences")--I did not refer to distance specifically.

 

You really need to read what you reply to before you reply...

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Because they can't play Air RB already , like they can't spawn there with plane first ?

Freedom for players? So maybe freedom for tankers from planes?

 

RB AFs is irrelevant to freedom in RB GFs. There's no reason not to give players the freedom to choose (clean fighter) aircraft as first spawns in RB GFs.

 

 

Be sure to do the necessary reading that we talked about, your understanding will be better for it. :good::)

Edited by warrior412
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

It's there. Go back and reread the posts from the time period--you need to do more reading anyway so searching for that will just give you a motivation.

 

Think of it as being like a book report if you'd like. :good:

I did all the reading and couldn't find it. 

If You say that they exist I would like to see them :good:

5 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I'm just telling it like it is when I point out how German teams are commonly poor--they are.

 

For instance: I just came out a game on Port Novo where the German aligned team had the bridge/industrial wharf side. At least five of them in immediately started camping the coastline  with no regard for the objectives. Fast forward to the end of the game: the German side has lost and one of the Leopards who'd camped the coastline complains "kills dont win game caps do" after he was one of the people who was fixated on kills. :lol2:

 

Matches like that go to show that the (fictional) mobility gap is not what holds Germany back from the capture points and winning, it's their elective choices.

"This is how it is because I say it is" :016:

6 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Wrong again; I said ULQ changes how things render ("differences")--I did not refer to distance specifically.

 

You really need to read what you reply to before you reply...

So what are the differences besides distance than only ULQ gives :016:

6 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

RB AFs is irrelevant to freedom in RB GFs. There's no reason not to give players the freedom to choose (clean fighter) aircraft as first spawns in RB GFs.

RB AFs is relevant into the discussion between tanks and planes in the game.

Why not give players freedom to play without air units in the battle?

7 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Be sure to do the necessary reading that we talked about, your understanding will be better for it. :good::)

Be sure to understand game better and read what people are writing here about, and be sure as You said to write a PM to me instead of writing here :good:;)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I did all the reading and couldn't find it. 

If You say that they exist I would like to see them :good:

 

You did "all the reading" in 8 minutes? Take a lunch break off of WT and move onto War and Peace to set a speed reading world record then. :lol2:

 

The posts are visible for you to look at, you just have to go back to see them.

 

10 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"This is how it is because I say it is" :016:

 

It's how the match played out...how is it my fault the enemy German team threw the game? Their side's best player agreed with me. :facepalm:

 

10 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

So what are the differences besides distance than only ULQ gives :016:

 

You'd quickly see them if you ever played with different settings--considering the 100+ FPS, you probably can do that...why not see for yourself? ;)

 

10 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

RB AFs is relevant into the discussion between tanks and planes in the game.

Why not give players freedom to play without air units in the battle?

 

RB AFs is not relevant to RB GFs nor is there anything that restricts people's freedom to play tanks by having aircraft in an RB GFs battle.

 

10 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Be sure to understand game better and read what people are writing here about, and be sure as You said to write a PM to me instead of writing here :good:;)

 

I did not ask for you to start with these tangents. You've driven the thread off topic for long enough and while I'm willing to correct the record I'd rather not have to continually try corralling you back onto the proper path and topic here.

 

Talk about TO here, not other stuff.

Edited by warrior412
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warrior412 said:

You did "all the reading" in 8 minutes? Take a lunch break off of WT and move onto The Art of War to set a speed reading world record then. :lol2:

 

The posts are visible for you to look at, you just have to go back to see them.

Oh shoot, I forgot about this posts were I posted relevant data that backed up my point but as always You didn't want to see it :lol2:

 Wow and even moderator called thunderskill bad 

And I really tried to read it 5 times but the only thing I found was Your words:

"the Jumbo was never a clubber"

 

Were word "never" implicates that there was no time that It was a clubber so my screanshoots that were going back 3 years in past were still relevant :good:

(Sorry everyone but warrior doesn't want to write to me about it in PMs so I need to just explain it here)

21 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

It's how the match played out...how is it my fault the enemy German team threw the game? Their side's best player agreed with me. :facepalm:

Do I need to write about evey match that allied team is doing bad? Or maybe I should write about what someone else said :016:?

22 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

You'd quickly see them if you ever played with different settings--considering the 100+ FPS, you probably can do that...why not see for yourself? ;)

Spoiler

 

And many more... You really don't know what You are talking about do You :lol2:?

24 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

RB AFs is not relevant to RB GFs nor is there anything that restricts people's freedom to play tanks by having aircraft in an RB GFs battle.

The difference is that if soemone wants to play planes first, they can play Air RB while anyone who would only want to play tanks can't :good:

25 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I did not ask for you to start with these tangents. You've driven the thread off topic for long enough and while I'm willing to correct the record I'd rather not have to continually try corralling you back onto the proper path and topic here.

 

Talk about TO here, not other stuff

I'm correcting the record too :dntknw:, please write the response in the PMs again

 

  • 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
1 hour ago, warrior412 said:

 

It’s true that TO does need a new thread for legitimate discussions to take place, but that’s no reason not mention alternatives here.

 

Yes it is, it's off-topic by definition and depending on the way you go about it, poorly in your case, very rude.

 

If you want a FF mode you should use the proper channels you clearly are aware of, seeing as you keep pointing others to do the same dirty work regarding TO, and discuss it there. At best hook into a comment on here to guide people towards it, rather than trying to hijack the topic like some xxxxxxx. It's bad form and isn't a shining example of you being the altarboy of TO. Quite the opposite in fact, it's stupid **** like this that makes people call you out for being disgenuine when you call yourself a TO supporter.

  • Like 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I posted relevant data that backed up my point but as always You didn't want to see it

 

Lmao, no. Your citations were of little meaning in the face of six months of data proving them wrong.

 

I looked at what you posted and then explained it to you--US teams did alright with the Jumbo by playing better than their foes but never meant the Jumbo was a clubber, it just meant the Jumbo's opposition needed to play better (like learning how to counter the Jumbo by aiming at its weakspots and killing it). Beyond that, the only reason the Jumbo had above average win rates when it did was because Allied teams play(ed) the objectives more. That's it. Again, that came down to the poor quality of the enemy teams opposing the Jumbo.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

 Wow and even moderator called thunderskill bad 

 

And...? I mean, you said this about Thunderskill only a few weeks ago:

 

Quote

 

Your own stance on TS seems to vary with how it fits with your agenda, which doesn't inspire trust. It seems like you're just cherrypicking what you want to believe and ignoring what you don't.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Were word "never" implicates that there was no time that It was a clubber so my screanshoots that were going back 3 years in past were still relevant :good:

 

The post right there mentions that what is being talked about is a 2019 era matter. The words are staring you in the face. :facepalm:

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And many more... You really don't know what You are talking about do You :lol2:?

 

When you post screenshots, they're always in ULQ. As there is no way to see what setting a user is working with from another's side, it's entirely reasonable for a person such as myself to believe you only use ULQ. That's all your posts ever seem to show.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

The difference is that if soemone wants to play planes first, they can play Air RB while anyone who would only want to play tanks can't :good:

 

Nothing stops anyone from playing tanks only.

 

28 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I'm correcting the record too :dntknw:, please write the response in the PMs again


You're not correcting the record, you're dragging the thread off topic with unrelated nonsense and mistaken ideas.

 

You need to stop with this derailing or it'll probably become a moderation issue--the bulletin up there talks about that. Again, I call upon you to cease with that.

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, milki30 said:

Yes it is, it's off-topic by definition and depending on the way you go about it, poorly in your case, very rude.

 

If you want a FF mode you should use the proper channels you clearly are aware of, seeing as you keep pointing others to do the same dirty work regarding TO, and discuss it there. At best hook into a comment on here to guide people towards it, rather than trying to hijack the topic like some xxxxxxx. It's bad form and isn't a shining example of you being the altarboy of TO. Quite the opposite in fact, it's stupid **** like this that makes people call you out for being disgenuine when you call yourself a TO supporter.

 

Fighters first is related to TO by way of being an alternate idea with essentially the same goal--a safer place for GFs players. While you have your perception of how I've done that, many other people (levelheaded folk like @Deranger79 and @PointyPuffin) disagree with it and have said that I have been doing a fine job of presenting such things.

 

I present FF here because proceeding forward with it is probably the best avenue forward for the basic ideas TO people are looking toward with TO now dismissed as it has been. By acting to advance the basic hopes of TO advocates like this, I'm showing everyone that I'm willing to entertain the idea and look to advance it to be a matter of discussion. :good:

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

Share this post


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

Lmao, no. Your citations were of little meaning in the face of six months of data proving them wrong.

The face of 2 months of data and 4 months between them that You said were the same but never provided any data for them

14 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I looked at what you posted and then explained it to you--US teams did alright with the Jumbo by playing better than their foes but never meant the Jumbo was a clubber, it just meant the Jumbo's opposition needed to play better (like learning how to counter the Jumbo by aiming at its weakspots and killing it). Beyond that, the only reason the Jumbo had above average win rates when it did was because Allied teams play(ed) the objectives more. That's it. Again, that came down to the poor quality of the enemy teams opposing the Jumbo

"German players are bad" despite most of them play USA too :016:.

So You can just assume that good stats on Jumbo side were only because of good tank use but when talking about bad stats we can't assume that people used Jumbo poorly?

14 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

And...? I mean, you said this about Thunderskill only a few weeks ago:

I just pointed out something :p:

14 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Your own stance on TS seems to vary with how it fits with your agenda, which doesn't inspire trust. It seems like you're just cherrypicking what you want to believe and ignoring what you don't.

I always fit what the person I'm speaking to is using :good:. I met people on forum who said that thunderskill is no good measure so I haven't used it in discussion with them. I'm using thunderskill and sites You are using when discussing with You. And as a person who provides videos and screanshoots of eveyrthing he is saying (despite someone who doesn't want to, after he said that he needs them from me) I think I'm not the one cherrypicking ;).

 

14 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

The post right there mentions that what is being talked about is a 2019 era matter. The words are staring you in the face. :facepalm:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/never

14 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

When you post screenshots, they're always in ULQ. As there is no way to see what setting a user is working with from another's side, it's entirely reasonable for a person such as myself to believe you only use ULQ. That's all your posts ever seem to show

And videos I have posted that recorded the whole battle when it was played is nothing :016:

And really I have posted screanshoots in this topic that showed when I was playing not on ULQ, like ones from the time I was playing Do-335 B-2 

For example

Spoiler

1973906897_shot2020_06_1821_01_43.thumb.

So please, stop with this lies :DD

14 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Nothing stops anyone from playing tanks only.

There is no mode in game where You can play without aircrafts :good:

14 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

You're not correcting the record, you're dragging the thread off topic with unrelated nonsense and mistaken ideas.

 

You need to stop with this derailing or it'll probably become a moderation issue--the bulletin up there talks about that. Again, I call upon you to cease with that.

I'm correcting Your lies like above about my person :good:.

You need to stop using this lies and start with facts and stop derailing this topic and talk to me like an adult on PMs :good:

Edited by ULQ_LOVER
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Fighters first is related to TO by way of being an alternate idea with essentially the same goal--a safer place for GFs players. While you have your perception of how I've done that, many other people (levelheaded folk like @Deranger79 and @PointyPuffin) disagree with it and have said that I have been doing a fine job of presenting such things.

 

I present FF here because proceeding forward with it is probably the best avenue forward for the basic ideas TO people are looking toward with TO now dismissed as it has been. By acting to advance the basic hopes of TO advocates like this, I'm showing everyone that I'm willing to entertain the idea and look to advance it to be a matter of discussion. :good:

 

Hijacking the thread because you think you know better, under the guise of being helpful. Doesn't make it better no matter how you twist the logic or how many cronies you manage to convince you aren't being a richard.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As @ULQ_LOVER has refused to stop with his tangents, I'll just spoiler the responses I lay out to him:

Spoiler
29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

The face of 2 months of data and 4 months between them that You said were the same but never provided any data for them

 

The data was provided and talked about at the time--obviously you didn't read carefully enough to see it. :facepalm:

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"German players are bad" despite most of them play USA too :016:.

So You can just assume that good stats on Jumbo side were only because of good tank use but when talking about bad stats we can't assume that people used Jumbo poorly?

 

Many players only play Germany. Beyond that, there's no assumption in seeing that good use correlated to good results and that there is a variation in player quality between nations:

 

YBdGqco.png

 

The standards of this comparison weren't even set by me, as shown, so don't complain to me about the proof it shows.

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I always fit what the person I'm speaking to is using :good:.

 

Yeah...that's inconsistent standards--cherrypicking. :facepalm:

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And videos I have posted that recorded the whole battle when it was played is nothing :016:

And really I have posted screanshoots in this topic that showed when I was playing not on ULQ, like ones from the time I was playing Do-335 B-2 

So please, stop with this lies :DD

 

I don't want to be mean about this but:

  • You're not a major YouTuber and not a lot of people see your videos, so few know about them
  • You post tons of screenshots depicting ULQ and little else--again making those other things hard to pick out

Again: not trying to mean and there's no lying there...it's just how it is. You've overestimating how much people know about you.

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

There is no mode in game where You can play without aircrafts :good:

 

Actually you can do so with a variety of vehicles in any mode except the air modes.

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I'm correcting Your lies like above about my person :good:.

 

I have not lied about anything.

 

 

29 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You need to stop using this lies and start with facts and stop derailing this topic and talk to me like an adult on PMs :good:

 

I have not lied nor have I derailed the thread--those are just fake claims accusing me of what others are guilty of. I have invited to PM me so that I may help you understand things, but I have no need to talk with you otherwise.

 

This thread is for TO matters--stop with the other stuff already.

 
10 minutes ago, milki30 said:

 

Hijacking the thread because you think you know better, under the guise of being helpful. Doesn't make it better no matter how you twist the logic or how many cronies you manage to convince you aren't being a richard.

 

If you're familiar with him, Richard Bucket is a bit of a relatable character for the role I've played here in this thread. (I realize that's not what you were going for there, but you did remind me of him with your quip.)

Edited by warrior412
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...