I suspect you could send him every source on the old forums and the response would be the same.
‘It PROOOOVES NOTHING’
-or the slightly more erudite-
‘SO WHAT’.
I’ll stop prodding him. He’s already been false-flagging my posts as spam anyhow - including the posts expressly providing references…
Remember fm su27sm guys
I shot a turm 3 12 times with a badger not long ago. Thats RNG AKA chance.
Not specific to russian tanks.
So HESH is bad and it’s Russia tech tree fault ? You know this sounds ridiculous ? Like there are other tanks with Cromwell br. like Germany or USA or Italy but some how this is Russia fault, this has no counter because it’s a complete bullshit it doesn’t need one.
at least he has a source how about you?
You have no idea what you are saying now friend.
If I make a claim that Russian bias exists within a game.
Then provide a source (or multiple showing it) That then proves it exists within the game.
Using the word literally makes no difference, I am an English teacher sir, your sentence argues against the point you are trying to make.
If he provides a source , to reinforce / back up his claim that thus proves it is real. EDIT, wether the claim is Russian bias, or how many pieces of bread he can hold in one hand. It is irrelevant, if he cites sources that are credible as proof then that is proof.
Hence how proof and sources function.
I don’t believe Russian bias. It leans more to premium bias and big 3 bias. Especially now.
They suck ass.
I hate russian tanks TBH bar specific BR brackets.
10.7 I quite like.
9.7 (love the T64 B/V)
8.3, 8.7 and 9.0
Hm
HESH nerfed
M830A1 nerfed
TES side armor nerfed
Starstreak nerfed
everything i said above are very effective against Russia vehicles before nerfed (yep, every)
it works very good for some time before it got nerf
it rise question why such things got nerf for no reason I even ask staff none of them have a guts to give honest answer
coincidence? I think not
All you did was show 10-10 cherrypicked example.
How many such cases did happen over the years? 1000s. Let’s say there were a total of 1000 (very likely a huge underestimate, but for sake of easiness assume 1000).
You provided a total of 10+10=20 examples. That is literally 2% of all the cases. It is nothing more than a combination of cherrypicking and confirmation bias.
Your case would stand on a stronger leg (or rather, it would stand at all because at the moment it does not) if you would compile a list like that for every single bug, bug report and whatnot, and the results would show something favouring russia.
At that case you still have to provide a logical argument that rules out every other explanations to prove that there is russian bias.
Old forum still exist.
The report was accepted. It is having the correct explosive mass in game now.
It does not. Currently it pens 152mm at all angles.
Since they pen exact values of integer numbers in inches, i suspect that they just tested them for various inches and the 105mm couls spall the 5 inch plate but not the 6, while 106 and 120mm could.
Yeah totally not listed at all:
Okay, seems to be incorrect pen values in game. How does it exactly prove bias?
The M61 and M72 have also wrong values compared to irl, sooooo i guess USA bias proven, right?
And it is fixed.
Like?
This might be shocking to you, so please get ready:
It is possible to talk about an other mode in it’s context while you play a different mode.
Shocking, right?
You aim at the exact same spots in both modes.
Projection.
They appear to be as much AI writeen as your claims to appear to support the existance of russian bias: not at all.
I dont. None of my comments look like they were made by it, and exactly 0% of my comments were written or influenced by it.
Cant wait for:
You play the game in russian so your opinion is invalid!4!4!4!4!4
Wow, how dare he respond with “it does not prove anything” what my comment… does not prove anything???
What is your proof of that?
I literally havent flagged any of your posts as spam. Maybe instead of baselessly accusing others, provide evidence that they did.
Of course it is russia’s fault. When he wakes up in the morning and hits his toe in the leg of a chair - you guessed it, russia’s fault!
Where did i not provide sources?
Projection.
The difference is that he did not provide source for bias. He provided 20 cherrypicked examples from 1000s of other cases. That proves nothing!
Then you are bad at your job.
The claim is real. he provided evidence that shows that his claim is true.
But that does not mean that the conclusion is true.
Hey let’s do this: Jet fuel can’t melt steel.
Therefore 911 was an inside job.
Do you see how stupid this conclusion is? I provided sources that jet fuel cant melt steel, but that does not mean that my conclusion is correct.
What about another one:
UFOs are real thing.
Therefore aliens exist.
Again, a stupid conclusion. UFOs do exist, but they do not mean that they are objects made by aliens, nor that they even exist.
If i make some weird shape and shoot it into the air or make it self propel itself, then it is a UFO.
There was basically 2 claims: 1 is that there is russia bias, and 2 is that what he listed prove it.
The things he listed are true, and he proved that they are. The conclusion however is NOT proven by those.
It got nerfed because it has incorrect amount of filler inside?!
This is just so funny. if there is even just a slight inaccuracy in a russian vehicle you guys have a meltdown about it and how it is bias, and demand to make it accurate, but when the same thing is done to your prcious NATO tanks you do a 180 and complain why it was nerfed to be accurate…
Coincidence? i think not! Margarine causes divorces in Maine!!!
literally a nothingburger
mi24a nerfed
su7 nerfed (several times!)
tow getting better controls but not 9m113
yak28b getting slam dunked twice
coincidence? i think not!
this is how you sound, you can go back and forth forever
holy shit ban margarine!
And nothing else ? There absoltley zero chanse that it will meet other tech tree vehicle ?
The “honest” answer sounds like you wanted to confirm your own personal agenda rather clearing things out.
Well good for you there is no chance that any enlightment going trought this dence mental blocking.
Mig 29 nerfed on release.
Su27
Mig23s got nerfed hard
lets not even go there man xD
oh, talking about TOW i almost forget TOW-2B damage nerfed that rekt the sht ton of TURM-T for some time before it got nerf to the ground.
If there were real Russian bias gaijin wouldn’t nerf Russian vehicles and also not buff others
If they really want to keep Russian stuff strong, why did they add more detailed modules for helicopters
Why are they doing the same to the Su25
Why did they nerf the Mig29 fm
So how do those examples line up with the claim of Russian bias and gaijin intentionally trying to keep Russia strong?
Because if that were the case they wouldn’t have made those changes
Shhhhhh you are making too much sense!
already had that lmao, got called a russian, a russian main, a vatnik…
ngl its almost impossible to accurately calculate its penetration capabilities, its pretty much completely classified or simply states “capable of defeating every tank :^)”
Well obviously you are all of those so you should have no poinion and everything you say (evenif valid) should be ignored!
I think you’ll find I’m excellent at my job young man.
That isn’t how the word works, you cannot just state that I am projecting when you feel like it.
What level of English do you have?
20 cherry picked examples are still sources.
The key word I used was credible sources.
reading comprehension is quite easy.
It proves his point from his perspective your job isn’t to just go “nuh uh” it is then to provide a credible counter source. Which do exist you just refuse to get them.
You cannot refute a point with sources without evidence of your own to back it up.
That is irrelevant to how your sentence was structured and my point against it.
The bias in his sources is proven to exist it is your duty to disprove it with yet more sources
Not just refuting it becuase you think the sources are cherry picked.
Shock horror in the real world everyone uses cherry picked sources to reinforce their claims.
You don’t understand this at all:
He claims : Russian bias exists
Cites sources proving his claim from the perspective of russian bias existing.
conclusion - therefor it exists.
you
you confidently state opposition is
1 : claiming russian bias
has provided sources to back up said claim.
however somehow said sources do not back up the claim to reach the conclusion of russian bias
whch is the claim.
That’s not how citing sources works and that is not in fact how English works.
EDIT: What you should of stated is.
X person has no listen a valid, Credible source that can be repeatedly reproduced and thus isn’t reliable.
Or actively provided your own materials to counter argument it.
You rather than do either just said and I quote “So what” or “it proves nothing” when they infact did prove his point specifically.
EDIT, im also not gonna waste more time for this.
If you want to learn English properly , pay me.
You were literally projecting. You said that i am not understanding it while it was literally you.
Literally irrelevant.
Which is way less than 1% of all the things we can put into that category.
It does not matter how creadible they are if they have no logical connection to the conclusion.
Assume for a second that there are 1000 sources in total and al are creadible. He listed 2% of those. For a second also assume that all those 20 examples are actually logically supporting his claims.
now, we have 998 other examples, all of which can go against what those 20 say.
I could most likely list you 20 criminal cases around the world that support that idk having 4 fingers on your left hand makes you more likely to be a burglar. (for the record this is just a complete nonsensical thing i made up to show how silly is using less than 1% of the total cases).
Do you understand finlyy?
You dont understand the burden of proof.
I literally can just sit here and not accept his claims UNLESS HE CAN SHOW THAT THOSE CLAIMS SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSION.
He listed 20 individual points. Assuming that all are true, it does not point towards the conclusion unless he also provides an argument WHY those examples mean his conclusion.
Again, by this i can “prove” that 911 was an inside job. or i think i could also “”“prove”“” with 100% true stetements that the earth is flat.
But was 911 an inside job? Is the earth flat? NO.
Or for an in game example, i could list things just like him and “prove” italy bias.
No. Bias is one of the possible explanations.
here is another explanation: incompetence.
They literally are…
They dont.
Okay, here is this for you:
Because they dont…
This sentence just made 0 sense, nor in grammar nor in content. As an english teacher this must be very bad…
Translation: i know i am wrong but i dont want to quadruple down because it would make me look exceptionally bad so i just cope out with this.
Thanks but no.
Yeah why don’t you try use them both and see if notice something that why 120mm MPAT performing worse than 76MM HE that have less explosive filter (still is)
oh, wait you don’t have them to even try.
oh, don’t get me wrong I support Gaijin making every vehicle in the game perform close to real life capability and realistic much is possible, I wanna see who going to stomp who if that happen.
oh, hi sensei
