Man, Gaijin really has to stop putting german bias in their game! There’s a bunch of videos of the King Tiger not suffering an ammo detonation, so it must be true!
1 Like
you are also told that there is russian bias but you and many others players
again you make me say the same thing …every nation has abnormal incidents never denied that but with russian tanks its much more common , its all about the frequency someone deal with these kind of incidents and that is what i think make players talk about russian bias .
I cant collect data where it is not exists its not my fault
You’re still trying to claim something that you cannot prove, pretty disingenuous.
1 Like
USSR ammo goes black and do nothing - 100% proof of bias
Non-USSR ammo goes black and do nothing - Eh, nothing to see here
3 Likes
Yes, which is why there’s confirmation bias in the first place. If you think russian bias is real, you are automatically skewing the data to support your point.
This leads into the second point. Do you actually keep track of how often these “abnormal incidents” occur for you? Do you treat every single one with the same severity (recording/screenshotting it and posting it online)? Or do you only do it with Russian ones?
Then why are you trying to form an objective opinion if you can’t access the majority of the data? This is basic statistics. If I ask on the russian forums if Russian bias exists, and they say no, is that also valid then? After all, I can’t collect data on what every single player thinks!
You can get around this problem by sampling, but your “sample” (personal anecdotes and various youtube videos) is anything but random. Any data that is not recorded/screenshotted, not uploaded to the internet, and/or not seen by you is excluded. Think about how many “Russian bias” videos you see uploaded per day, compared to how many shots are fired every day in every match played that day.
Also, how will you avoid bias in terms of game mechanics? If I shoot a Jumbo 100 times in the UFP and fail to pen even once, but then shoot a T-34 in the side 100 times and pen 100 times, does that mean the Jumbo has a higher value of this magical survivability chance you claim exists?
1 Like
we had this conversation before on the other topic …its my personal opinion as yours too and we both cant proove anything neither me that nor you , we both need concreate data that we cant provide
Then say In my opinion before you start your sentence, otherwise people might think you’re trying to make objective claims.
Also, personal opinions are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to topic of who gets bugged out more frequently.
1 Like
Then stop trying to pass it off as objective fact. Though you are wrong here, as you have made the claim that Russian tanks have a statistically significant increase in their “survivability” chance. As such, you have to prove that this is true. But if there is a lack of proof, like there is now, then we can assume you are wrong.
in which sentence you refer?
Here.
1 Like
Google bias war thunder and you can see yourself that the vast majority of bias is about russian vehicles then go to this forum search lens and type bias and again you will see that the vast majority concern russian vehicles , i wonder why …??
For hundreds of years, the vast majority of people also thought cutting someone and draining their blood would cure cancer. And surely you agree with them, right? Since everyone believed it?
And I’d like to again, bring this back to my initial question you keep dodging. Do you actually keep track of how many bounces you have, or do you just tally ones against Russian tanks? Do you post all of them online? Do you record every bounce on a German tank and post about German bias?
Simple grammar lesson…
SENTENCE: ‘’ you make me say the same thing’’
SUBJECT : ME!!!
VERB : SAY
OBJECT: THING
I THINK!!!
( PLS YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME…)
But are they actually more frequent, or do people just think they’re more frequent? You still haven’t answered my question about how you treat different bounces.
This is also true if you say a claim and substantiate it with evidence.
It’s still you that said the thing.
This is unrelated to the thing we’re discussing above.
Totaly irrelevant example people used to beleive flat earth on that period too …
This question can work vice versa too …do you keep tracking all these data to be so sure that there isnt russian bias? I think that both we dont, so the only available data that someone can have is the one that it is available on media and forums and his personal experiance of what he has noticed that is abnormal
‘‘its my personal opinion’’
What is so hard t o understand …? ( pls you are waisting my time again…)
Some people still believe flat earth is a thing. WT has their own conspiracy theorists, those who believe in bias lol.
People that claim bias is real should present objective evidence, so far they haven’t done that.
1 Like
Yes that’s literally my point, just because a majority of people talk/believe something does not make it true.
Please answer my question first. But no, I do not either. But that does not matter, because I am not denying the existence of Russian bias as a whole, I am denying that your conclusion that there is some bonus survivability stat that Russian tanks have based off of anecdotes and youtube videos is correct. I am pointing out that your data and analysis are deeply, deeply flawed, and therefore your conclusion cannot be correct. The burden of proof to present data is on you, not me.
To put it into perspective, if I told you right now that I was a millionaire, but didn’t show you any proof, does that mean it’s true? You can’t prove that I am not one, since we’re talking anonymously on an internet forum, so does that mean I must be a millionaire? You don’t have data on my earnings or identity, so clearly I must be one.
Also, I forgot to address this point, but you are correct in saying that most of the time the only available data one can access is limited. But that is why we call those opinions, not facts. You are allowed to have your opinion based on those, but to present it as objective fact with clearly bad data/evidence is wrong. There is a reason things like medical studies aren’t just based on what the doctor thinks, but actual randomized testing.