You’re ignoring the point because you know I’m right…
Not once have you admitted that you have a bad match, and every time people glaze you in here you play this game to avoid acknowledging it, same as Bees… It’s a tactic that you all use to avoid the discussion going any way you can’t handle it going.
I will repet myself:
and:
And I’ll post this…
It’s always a mistake on your part, not an acknowledgement that someone could be skilled to get you, AS PER THE THREADS TOPIC…
Again:
If there was a case where I couldn’t do anything to SPAA and it was because it had equal chances against me, I would talk about it and tell everyone to use it.
Not to mention using it myself.
The topic talks about player skill with SPAA, it can be talked about but the problem is that SPAA don’t have equal chances and have to rely on air user doing badly, that is the issue.
No…
You’re just deflecting now…
No, you have to make a mistake because no-one can possibly get you… Absolutely hilarious.
There is no deflection on my part.
If You rely on Your enemy making a mistake and not You doing well (if You are able to do anything in first place) it tells a lot about You.
Sadly SPAA players in most cases can’t rely on their vehicle being able to do much to the air unit without air unit doing poorly in the game and not knowing what his vehicle is capable of.
What I am saying is despite the large sample size, he is only one person.
Low winrate isn’t reflective of an individual’s skills since that’s more of a team metric.
If the average kill to death ratio is 7 kills 1 death, wouldn’t that mean that death is the misplay or mistake?
The skills of SPAA players depend on several factors in battle having players bringing SPAA from different nation you need to rely on for protection against CAS.
it is sufficient data set to support his claims that CAS is more powerfull than SPAA.
No one claims it does, but the data it does track tend to give a sufficiently good picture about how player performs.
Im trying to be amicable with you since thats how you entered our convo. If it stays that way, I have no reason to be rude.
There is a point in every convo where it is clear the other person is not here to discuss, hes here to state his version of truth and wont budge in lieu of presented evidence while not providing any of his own. At that point it is perfectly fine to dismiss whatever he is saying.
well yes, theres more to stats than just K/D but chances are, if your stats are high across the board, youre good player, and if one metric is lagging behind, it can be explained.
As БЕИ said:
If flyingdoctor is such insane support player whose supportive indirect actions are always beneficial to the team more than directly taking out enemies, you would think he would have some insane winrate without neccesarily having high KD per game - that however is not the truth.
His all time winrate is 51.08%, 3% above all time median global winrate of 48%.
Hell, I would consider myself support player since i have no issue guarding a part of map when there is no fighting to secure a cap, and my all time winrate is sitting at 58.72%.
And how does FlyingDoctor refutes this?
Winrate is mostly team dependent.
Which is a nonsensical claim, because it implies that if someone has high winrate, its mostly due to mostly being in “winning” teams, excluding his influence. In other words, its mostly luck according to him.
Sure, over the sample size of 20 battles or so, I could see that, you can get lucky.
But FlyingDoctor has played 15k games since he started with WT. Over such large dataset, the only constant in sea of variables is him.
You can win one or ten poker games and those all can be luck, but if you win 10 000 poker games, luck cannot be the main influencing variable.
Similiarly, you can lose one game, thats bad luck, but if you lose 10 000 poker games, are you unlucky or are you just bad at poker?
I’d argue luck has a decent role to play in winning a match and there’s times where you yourself do everything you possibly can to win but it just isn’t enough.
The luck part is mainly who and what you’re matched up against and who you’re matched with. I personally wouldn’t say it’s mostly luck though. Even though luck plays some factor into it.
Fair enough.
I’d argue 50/50; luck of the draw is only part of the winning formula. The rest is lying your arse off and knowing the game.
There is a way to win most if not all of the games:
If one is not able to kill an enemy and relies on teammates to do the job, he is the burden for the team.
Again; luck plays a part but isn’t the major - or deciding - factor.
The major factor - at least in ground - is positioning, enemy weakpoint and map knowledge.
I am in agreement that relying solely on luck doesn’t and generally cannot equate to a win.
Everyone has games where they play exceptionally well and still lose, or poorly and still win.
My point is however about large number of battles, not single battles.
Over thousands of matches, matchmaking, teammate quality and map rotation are effectively random variables that average out.
Luck does not favor one player over another consistently.
Only single constant over large number of battles is the player.
If luck was the dominant factor determining lifetime winrate, then even exceptional players would tend to converge toward the population average over thousands of matches, because everyone experiences both good and bad teams over time.
That however is not the case. For example, as I stated previously, Im sitting at 58% winrate, 10% points above the median. What would be the reason for this deviation if luck was the main determining factor?
Im not saying luck doesnt have any influence - a lucky bounce can turn a botched flank into game winning move - but over large enough data set, it averages out since youre not constantly getting lucky bounces.
Correct. Which is why I agree it isn’t a singular deciding factor.
There’s a variety (factors) in play every single match.
Glad we agree. This is exactly the issue I have with FlyingDoctor arguments as a whole: he repeatedly makes some borderline insane statements that are not supported by the available data.
Earlier, for example (paraphrasing, as I can’t be arsed to dig up the exact quote), he argued something along the lines of “ULQ only ever ran into bad SPAA players, which is why he thinks CAS is overpowered” or something like that.
Looking at ULQs sessions since April 30 this year, he played circa 200 matches in the listed CAS aircrafts, with 670 ground kills and 140 deaths between them.
Since the number of matches in the japanese M41 not only matches but exceeds those in the thai L-39, and ULQs SR1 for ARB remains unchanged for the most part (which highly indicates he havent played any ARB games in that period), and that his KD and KpS for air battles is sub-1, it is reasonable to say that most of its matches were played in ground battles. same can probably be said about other listed aircraft.
With 670 ground kills, how likely it is he only ever ran into bad SPAA players? Probably not much, doesnt stop Flying from treating his argument as a fact.
If this is how Flying wants to continue approaching this topic, he is free to do so. However, he cannot expect his arguments to be taken seriously, nor can you expect us to treat them as serious arguments either.
75k games and all bad players? The statistical probability of that being the case is borderline impossible.
Like some percentage chance so astronomically low that I’d have an infinitely higher chance of winning the lottery low.
Have You ever played in a squad of 4?
Because if 4 good people play together they can win any match no matter the nation or B.R.
He’s always like this, he can’t have a civil conversation… especially about CAS as he knows it’s way to strong and doesn’t want to admit it… or he’s very bad at it
Hes is doing it on purpose. Notice how he does not explain why is any statement false, he just proclaims it to be.
