Well, considering you’re openly, and rightfully, ridiculed for your BS seemingly on a daily basis, I think others have already made their judgement.
It’s not about whether you agree or not, or even whether the claim is correct. It’s about claims backed with legitimate arguments being discounted simply cause the person making the claim has worse (not bad) stats.
Person 1: “Guys vehicle A is sooo brokenly OP, trust me.”
Person 1’s stats with vehicle A: 0.4 K/D
Global stats with vehicle A: 0.6 K/D
You bet people will call out Person 1 for his baseless claims simply by checking few things in about a minute. Prolonged discussion about that was quickly avoided.
Making all stats private would just open up the flood gates for low IQ posts, rage baits and whatnot.
Look guys, I think T58 is utter crap and it should go to 6.0 right this second. Good thing there’re no public stats you can check and disprove my ridiculous claim with it.
Pretty much all decently popular competitive games have public stats, stop being a snowflake.
You yourself are also awfully quick to pull the skill issue card, you just don’t like it when people pull it on you (and have proof that they are right).
But you are conveniently leaving that part out.
Feel free to mention me next time that happens ;)
XD you might be reading your own posts and thinking they’re mine.
That would lead to the implementation of SBMM that is supposedly not a thing in this game where supposedly every match is a random combination of nations and BRs in a set BR bracket.
Not really. All your posts/replies about “spaa players having skill issue” or “this AA should be X BR, but the players are bad so it won’t move up”.
Look I respect confidence and I can even respect a cocky attitude, as long you can back those up with skill or performance.
Yours is more like overconfidence.
Um, I’d look again. There’s a space for public comments on all our Statshark profiles. You should see what I just added to yours :)
One of the interesting things about this new app, is where the previous free web version that they withdrew came with a promise from Statshark that if anyone was proven to be using it for griefing or ODLing, they would be permabanned from using Statshark at all. It could be seen as a little concerning that we see no such promise this time on the paid version.
Worth remembering that they had better winrate stats until a couple months ago, the actual winrates by match BR. Now it’s just the aggregate of vehicle winrates from service records, which is a little misleading.
The reason they had to remove that better data, we will all no doubt recall, is because their live app developer Pluspy was caught out harassing a trans person and in-game DOSsing a content creator, among other things, and he was the only one who knew how to get it off Gaijin’s servers.
Whether Pluspy has had any involvement with the new in-game viewer this time is an open question, given it’s so similar to what he made before he publicly quit the Statshark Discord. I have no idea. Certainly anyone downloading this app is taking on a degree of risk there if they don’t know more about what else this code might also be able to do to your computer and your game, but we’re all grownups here, right? (Oh. Wait…) More to my point, should this blow up again, those other cool things about Statshark we all appreciate (like global vehicle stats and performance curves) could again be put at risk. Which would be a shame. Again, I’d just like to see a little more communication and a few more reassurances (a more prominent “use at your own risk of Gaijin banning you” statement would be nice, too).
That’s fine, and an example of stats being used in an alright way. The issue, however, comes in examples like:
Person 1: This vehicle is bad.
Person 2: That vehicle isn’t bad. You have average stats and I have good stats so I everything I say is correct and everything you say is wrong.
Is it overconfidence when I see players complaining that stingers are bad and need buffs, when I literally have a 10.0 K/D v.s air in my LAV-AD?
I honestly don’t think so.
lol.
While I get your point, I wouldnt call user generated comments “critical information”.
Isnt it possible you need to agree to some sort of ToS before using it, which might cover this issue?
As much as I might agree thats sadly not for users to solve.
I don’t know, I don’t care if people see how bad I am.
Global stats on said vehicle: 1.1 K/S, 1.35 K/D
Vehicle is far from bad.
Another good usage of stats.
Yes.
No.
It is important because it will prevent you to getting shotted with bullet named ‘counterclaim’
If someone thinks it wasn’t a legitimate argument, others can counterclaim you.
Seems your Training Plate named ‘Bad Stats’ failed to stop 5.56mm JHP, and you just got sent back to the lobby because of Thorax damage. :P
For the second time, that’s not what I’m talking about.
Again, not what I’m talking about. Stats are rarely used to counter arguments, they’re primarily used to say you’re a slightly worse player than me hence you’re wrong. In other words attacking players instead of attacking what they say.
It absolutely is, though? Don’t give them your $78 a year until you get some more answers to legitimate concerns you might have about the impact to the game, your own privacy, etc. Encourage others to do likewise, if you like. It’s just basic consumer awareness: no one’s asking for magically better hair growth tonic, we’re just asking to read the bottle before we pour it on our head.
As to whether the users had to click on a “I will not abuse this” checkmark to install it… if it had any value they would still need to repeat the words (like, on how to complain) on their Discord, which they have not this time to my knowledge.
In this case? No, I’ll give you that one.
But thinking the T58 is balanced and telling someone else they have a skill issue in the same thread, while you yourself are at best mid at ground?
Yeah that is overconfidence.
That I absolutely agree with, I feel there was just slight misunderstanding caused by me.
The users certainly can vote with their wallets and demand communication from the statshark team; but its entirely up to statshark team to communicate and provide the reassurances.
Its fine print. It has value, trust me.By doing something as simple as having to check the “ive read the ToS and I agree with them”, it allows statshark team to act while the user being acted against cant claim that he didnt know he cant grief with the live viewer.
“Nuh uh, you told us youve read the ToS”.
Now, whenever will statshark act against paying customer on grounds of griefing its another matter entirely; one that wouldnt change much even if they did proclaim on their discord that griefing with use of live viewer is “bannable offense”, as we would have no clue whenever they did actually ban live viewer user or not.
To that end, how we could even know someone was griefing with the help of live game viewer when we cant possibly know who uses it and who does not?
That’s pretty wrong.
He doesn’t have that stats.
So, the first time, when it was a free web app, Hadi, head of Statshark, said that if anyone brought any proof to him that someone had used the live viewer, even just to ODL (presumably by bragging about it after) he would permaban that person from the Statshark site. It was one of the reasons I had hope this could have had less of an impact than XVM.
He could say the same thing again this time. Same standard of evidence… I just think it’s significant that now that money’s involved, we haven’t seen the same statement. Yet.