DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
wows forum
HTML https://wows.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Debates, Interviews
*****************************************************
#Post#: 684--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 9:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg676#msg676
date=1666081129]
> Title: My opinion about a battle
> 1. Fastmotion performed badly in battle in your opinion.
> ..
> We can make points 8-18 even shorter: Your description of a
battle.
>
--- End Quote ---
I understand that your overall goal is to analize a
battle.[/quote]
Yes.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I think it is not a personal attack but quite personal if one
cares how someone performed in a battle.
>
--- End Quote ---
I learned that for competitive play, it is essential to be able
to discuss what went wrong, otherwise you can never fix it. The
attitude of players is very important. If people see discussion
of mistakes as personal attacks, you cannot achieve much.
Mistakes happen in every game, and everyone makes multiple
mistakes in every game. The question is just: How big are these
mistakes, and how often do they happen.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> And the battle wasn't anything special
>
--- End Quote ---
No, it was average for ranked: Most people missplaying badly.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> i just did some difficult tasks well
>
--- End Quote ---
What exactly where these tasks? I broke down my thinking, my
evaluation of the situation, and my decisionmaking. You haven't.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> and the team won i guess. So, i wasn't useless and not the
best
>
--- End Quote ---
If you had not been there, if you had been AFK, we would still
have won. I think your battle impact was very close to zero.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> i am amazed that someone feels a need to analize such average
battle. But, why not to analize, i personally don't do it but i
agree that even such battle analizing can be be useful.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have analysed thousands of battles to improve clan battle and
tournament strategies and to provide guidance to newer players
to improve their play. For me it is nothing unusual or special.
I think you never think about the battle in a way where you
could actually analyse it.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> You say in point 1 that i performed badly. But i completed the
most riskiest tast by capping the so called Difficult cap area.
--- End Quote ---
Let's pretend for a second that what you say is true and that i
agree with it. You taking that risk was unnecessary and it was
too risky. You didn't get punished for it, but the enemy could
have punished you for it. So you made a mistake by giving the
enemy an opportunity to punish you.
You got lucky. Being lucky is nothing to be proud of.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Also i spotted enemies and probably i made some damage too.
>
--- End Quote ---
You spotted people for such short times and in such advantageous
positions that for them, your spotting was all but a minor
nuisance. The Hindenburg for example got spotted 16km+ from the
Stalingrad, all he had to do to avoid damage was to increase his
angle and change his speed, and i didn't see him taking any
damage whatsoever. Your spotting would have been desperately
needed elsewhere, on the DDs which pushed up all the way to the
B cap and threatened to torpedo basically our entire team
(Conde, Stalin, Battleship ...) and took our cap.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Why do you think that such accomplishments are Bad?
>
--- End Quote ---
I think they're bad because you could have been doing something
way more valuable for the team.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Your easy capping
>
--- End Quote ---
I immediately got spotted by 2 DDs and had to fight a 2vs1 fight
after the cap. Is that easy to you? Both DDs outspot me, so they
can also dictate the engagement.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> i understand that you changed your mind and direction in the
beginning of the battle which i call as time wasting.
>
--- End Quote ---
Ok, let's consider what would have happened if i didn't change
my mind "wasting time" as you said. We would not have gotten the
B cap from me, so the Conde would have had to capture it. The
Conde has concealment of 13km+, so he would have been spotted by
the DDs. The Halland would most likely have started torpedoing
the Conde with 90knots fast torpedos which are hard to dodge,
and the marceau could have reset him from range with
intermittent gunfire from maximum range, at which the marceau is
hard to hit. We would have never gotten the cap, and the Halland
would have been able to play much closer to our BBs, allowing
him to torpedo those as well. We would also have lost the cap
quicker to the enemy.
That's why i "waste time" and go fix the issues my teammates
create by their choices.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Which TOP-positions we got in that battle? I beleive middle
positions. So, what is so bad in such results?
>
--- End Quote ---
Winning or loosing a single battle is meaningless. The XP gained
is meaningless. The damage is meaningless. If you look at 1
single battle, only the actions and evaluations a player did
matter, and you have to analyse the battle in detail. If you
want to discuss stat numbers, you need multiple battles, above
30 it becomes easy, below that only works for extremely
consistent players.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Somewhere you mention that you act by stats but this time you
just changed your mind in the battle and went to the easy area
no matter which Data you have. That proves that you don't act by
your Data so simply. Don't you agree?
>
--- End Quote ---
I disagree. I act based on the stats i see in matchmaking
monitor BEFORE the game starts, because that's all the data i
have to go by. And that data told me: Our Gearing will likely be
a problem. Then the game starts, and i get additional
information: Our Gearing is abandoning it's cap on the side it
spawned at, which is also the logical cap for the Gearing to
play since the other DD (Kleber) is ill-suited, and since the
Gearing usually can't do much on C cap due to the radar cruisers
the enemy has, while the Kleber can abuse the speed advantage it
has for an early cap attempt.
So i act on that newly aquired information immediately, and i
pick up the slack that the Gearing created.
#Post#: 685--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: wows
Date: October 18, 2022, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jayceedee link ---
>
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg676#msg676
date=1666081129]
> 10. You spawned close to the easy cap C but still went to the
difficult cap B like Fastmotion.
>
--- End Quote ---
The "difficulty" of the cap also depends on the ship you are in.
For me, in the Kleber, C is easy at the start, because i can
exploit my speed. Mid-Late game it is hard to impossible,
because i rely on enemy mistakes i can exploit and on my team
spotting to get anything done against DDs which outspot me +
radar.
B is clearly easy for the Gearing, since Gearing can outspot and
easily effectively torp due to open water in 1-2-3 line and lack
of island.
[/quote]
I agree that difficulty of something is composed from several
variables but the Difficult cap is almost always more riskier
and difficult no matter which DD you use. So, your example of
Kleber is not adequate because even for a fast ship like Kleber
there are the same way a more difficult cap and an easy one. No
matter which DD you use. And the other aspects like radars etc
jsut makes the term difficult Cap even more accurate. So, i
don't understand why you don't like those terms. I completed a
Difficult cap task and you the Easy cap, right? No matter which
ships DDs we used. Do you agree?
#Post#: 686--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg676#msg676
date=1666081129]
> 9. Fastmotion's Karma nad Stats are Bad.
>
--- End Quote ---
Can you describe how Karma Soup is relevant and how it helped
your decicions in the battle?
[/quote]
Most certainly. I would like to preface that i changed the
settings in my matchmaking monitor to color players with the
color assigned to the PR of the current ship they're playing in.
Why? I think PR is a good "allround" stat to show how much
people get out of a ship. Some ships are very good at farming
damage, but bad at influencing games, for example all the
squishy HE spamming cruisers, so winrate alone on a ship like
that doesn't tell me much. But a high PR means the player
targets DDs and gets high dmg numbers, so he knows how to play
the ship fundamentally. That means i can RELY on the player.
Also the entire player field in the matchmaking monitor being
colored by PR means i don't have to look at the "soup" numbers
of everyone, i just look at the people who's color sticks out:
RED for bad, or PURPLE for good. And then i might look at these
people in detail.
I ignore people who's stats are somewhere in the middle. Green,
yellow, blue, i don't care. I treat them the same.
I watch out for enemy players who are purple, and if i don't see
them on the minimap, i imagine the worst possible place where
they could be for me, and just pretend that they are there.
I usually trust good players in games more, and if i have a
purple DD infront of me, i rely on him doing the right thing,
his spotting, and i support him as much as possible. If he
issues a request to me thru the chat or the ingame command
system, i pay more attention to them than requests from other
players.
If i see red people on my team, i expect them to be useless by
either dying quickly or running to the map border, and i do not
rely on them at all. I play like they're already dead, i play
careful and i am always ready to run away and kite to stay
alive.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I use the term Soup because it contains so many contradictive
things, like if someone likes your sense of humor then your get
a positive Karma and if you play Subs then you get negative- al
lthat together makes an inadequate number.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't consider karma to be very useful. It took me a while to
"read" the "soup" properly, but nowadays i get valuable
information from it.
#Post#: 687--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg671#msg671
date=1666022759]
> At the start of the game, the stats of Fastmotion caught my
eye, since they're quite obviously bad:
>
> [IMG]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/sy2Fxb2.png[/img]
>
--- End Quote ---
I understand that your software shows Random Battles Data in
Rankeds game mode.
In Randoms the Gearing on the picture has 50% WR but in Rankeds
it has around 40%, those numbers are quite different, don't you
agree? First question is, do you consider your software adequate
if it shows data from wrong game mode?[/quote]
It can show both, you can switch between the two. I haven't
really noticed a huge difference in most games. I remember that
in that game, i actually switched it back and forth for a couple
seconds and looked at both random and ranked stats, and the
impression i got from both was absolutely the same.
In fact we can go look at these stats in detail, see attached
picture. What i see is soup, but the soup has one unified color:
red.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/KaCY3oE.png
As you can see the winrate is well below average with 38,93%
over the last 21 days and 637 battles, and the PR is very low
with 346 on average, which shows me in very certain terms that
my analysis of that one single game that i posted above is not
only accurate for that one game, but probably all if not most
games played by you: You simply don't really do much for the
game. The average Gearing player does more damage, captures more
points, spots more targets causing more damage, gets more kills,
and thus wins more games for the team.
#Post#: 688--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg671#msg671
date=1666022759]
> I believe that stats express your ability to deliver game
impact. While i fully agree that a small sample size of games
are pretty meaningless, very good players are able to deliver
consistent performance even across a small sample size, and as
soon as you look at dozens or hundreds of games, stats
accurately display ability if you filter out the obvious caveat
of division play boosting winrate.
>
> Needless to say, i disagree with the "stats don't matter"
slogan you put on this forum. I think this game is a very long,
drawn out intelligence test, not unlike an IQ test. The two
caveats are: Due to it being drawn out, you require a lot of
patience, so intelligent but impatient people will do badly, and
secondly knowledge helps, so if you're lazy about memorizing
stuff, you'll suffer as well. But still, it's an abstract
problem, and that requires abstract problem solving ability,
which is the definition of intelligence. So if you have good
stats, that shows that you're patient, knowledgable, and have
above average intelligence. So to me, stats matter a lot.
>
--- End Quote ---
We can talk longer and separately about the stats topic because
seems liek you made many statements about it.
Let's start fro mthe first statement then.
--- Quote ---
>
> I believe that stats express your ability to deliver game
impact.
>
--- End Quote ---
What do you mean by the word Express? I understand that it is a
weak word and far from the word Proof.
[/quote]
I chose a weak word on purpose. Even the best player will
occasionally deliver a bad game. So good stats increase the
statistical likelihood that someone will deliver better results,
but it is not a gurantee.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Also, i think it is a subjective word because it is just your
subjective opinion that soemthing can be used as Expressing
something in a way.
>
--- End Quote ---
No, it isn't. Positive game impact is quite well defined as
actions which lead to victories. Negative game impact is the
opposite.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Others think that the moon phase express and affects things
>
--- End Quote ---
I do, too. The phase of the moon affects gravity on earth, and
thus makes the oceans move. It's quite easy to observe if you
ever lived on the coast and saw the water and the moon move at
the same time.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> you believe that Stats express in some part sometimes
something. So, i am not sure what exactly you mean that stats
reflect something but if you believe it then go ahead but don't
expect others to have the same faith as you.
>
--- End Quote ---
There is no faith required, just observation.
Good players play good and have good stats.
Bad players play bad and have bad stats.
Water is wet.
Sky is up.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> No matter what you mean by the Expressing term it sounds like
"stats can be used to predict". Do you agree that this is your
actual thought behind the sentence? For example, if my Random
Stats are 40% then you would predict that i don't get into Gold
League and that i would die in next battle without completing
any difficult tasks. Right?
>
--- End Quote ---
No i would predict that if you play 100 games, you would win 40
and loose 60. If you just spam enough games, you'll eventually
end up in gold league, and as we can see from the screenshot
earlier you played 637 games in 21 days.
637 games / 21 days = 30. period 3 games per day
30.333 games per day * 12 min average game length (estimate) =
364 minutes per day
6.0 period 6 hours per day in ranked
That's spamming games alright.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Well, i completed the most difficult tasks i nthe battle
>
--- End Quote ---
Explain those tasks in detail and how you accomplished them.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> , and, i am in the Gold league, so the prediction based on
Randoms Stats were not accurate.
> And such counter-example proves that predictions are gambling,
sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong.
>
--- End Quote ---
No your prediction of what i would predict was inaccurate, and
thus is your conclusion.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
> and provided as a proof a counter example.
--- End Quote ---
So far you have provided nothing but "word soup".
--- Quote from: wows link ---
> racist
>
--- End Quote ---
Can you explain why racism exists?
Can you explain why racism is bad?
#Post#: 689--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: wows
Date: October 18, 2022, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jayceedee link ---
>
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg679#msg679
date=1666092954]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg671#msg671
date=1666022759]
> At the start of the game, the stats of Fastmotion caught my
eye, since they're quite obviously bad:
>
> [IMG]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/sy2Fxb2.png[/img]
>
--- End Quote ---
I understand that your software shows Random Battles Data in
Rankeds game mode.
In Randoms the Gearing on the picture has 50% WR but in Rankeds
it has around 40%, those numbers are quite different, don't you
agree? First question is, do you consider your software adequate
if it shows data from wrong game mode?[/quote]
It can show both, you can switch between the two. I haven't
really noticed a huge difference in most games. I remember that
in that game, i actually switched it back and forth for a couple
seconds and looked at both random and ranked stats, and the
impression i got from both was absolutely the same.
[/quote]
So, you agree that your picture you posted about Randoms Stats
were inadequate for this Rankeds single battle topic? Yes or no?
That image was inappropriate, or chose whichever similar word
you like to that. I repeat: 40 and 50 are different numbers just
like 50 and 60. If you say that they are almost the same numbers
then you can say that everyone has in general the same stats,
and Stats software is useless. I suggest generally people not to
post links and images because most times those become inadequate
just like your that image. Do you agree that your image was
useless? If no, then you probably deny all next obvious facts
and in debates such denying means a loss in the debate.
As i wrote i understood that the goal of your images was to show
your software. But i don't see the point to convince me to
believe that you use it. I believe that you use something and
ten pictures are totally not needed to prove that. thats why i
suggest that we should ignore all your pictures and try to not
post images/links at all.
#Post#: 690--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: DD_al_Dente
Date: October 18, 2022, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are wasting your time. This guy is Fastmotion himself and
you are more likely to educate a brick than this retard.
#Post#: 691--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg671#msg671
date=1666022759]
> Needless to say, i disagree with the "stats don't matter"
slogan you put on this forum. I think this game is a very long,
drawn out intelligence test, not unlike an IQ test. The two
caveats are: Due to it being drawn out, you require a lot of
patience, so intelligent but impatient people will do badly, and
secondly knowledge helps, so if you're lazy about memorizing
stuff, you'll suffer as well. But still, it's an abstract
problem, and that requires abstract problem solving ability,
which is the definition of intelligence. So if you have good
stats, that shows that you're patient, knowledgable, and have
above average intelligence. So to me, stats matter a lot.
>
--- End Quote ---
You disagree that stats don't matter. But go ahead and provide
your proof. Plenty of people have failed to do it.
[/quote]
I think you just don't really understand stats at all. You have
some fundamental blockade in your mind which prohibits you from
doing so. I have a background in engineering, so obviously
looking at numbers is an obvious and strong instinct for me.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I understand that you say that the game lasts long time but IQ
test doesn't. What do you mean? A battle lasts 5 minutes but the
IQ test 1 hour. I don't think that the drawn out idea is
correct. But i think you want to say that it takes patience and
other such mental states to produce high overall Stats over
years. If so, then first IQ test has it's own aspects and is not
easier or worse than keeping overall high stats.
--- End Quote ---
Since a single game has very little statistical significance,
you need to play many games, and that's where the patience part
comes in. A good IQ test can be done in a few minutes, and you
have to consider that the game is an exercise in social skills
as well to some degree, since it requires interaction with many
people. An IQ test depends only on the performance of the person
taking the test, there is no anxiety about the behaviours of
others upon which you rely, reducing stress factors.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Like apples and oranges are different, there is no need to say
that IQ test is worse or anything. Everything requires some so
called abilities, but it is not wise to say which abilities are
more important. I think most people agree that a high IQ
benefits in life a lot more than your mentioned "average
intelligence" and an entertainment game stats. I understand that
you compared IQ test with entertainment game stats just for an
example and to help to define what the game stats require and is
made of. I agree of course that the abilities behind an IQ test
are used in many areas of life, including entertainment games
and elsewhere. But i don't agree that IQ test has somehow less
valueable abilities behind it, or that entertainments stats
require more than IQ test. Obviously an entertainment games
don't make generally people better in IQ tests. But having high
IQ values doesn't have to affect entertainment much because
games doesn't have much intellectual things. For example
football and Wows are very simple games and the main skillset
can be written with few lines. Also, high IQ values doesn't have
to affect entertainment much because people take entertainment
with fun, as it should be, and their emotions and instincts take
over the performance. Just like in combat-sports, like boxing,
there is almost nothing to do with IQ.
>
> --
>
> I udnerstand that you define that Intelligence means some kind
of problem solving ability.
> Well, such definition doesn't tell much. I have 2-3
definitions which differ from you and wiki.
> Highly intelligent means Talented or Very Good, just
Intelligent means good.
>
> One is the overall intelligence and that contains fragments of
some abilities in society. Mainly social skills and basic math
make up an intelligent person, also clothes that it wears for
example.
> A businessman wearing a suit is intelligent person.
>
> IQ test measuers mostly basic math skills, some grammar
skills, and you can call it as IQ-test based intellgience. It
has picked up math, gramamr, and ca 5 more fields and makes an
average on them. Some who are very strong in math and very weak
in grammar gets an average results from IQ test and then the
test is inadequate for them.
>
> And the 3rd one is special domain intelligence which is
specific in every science/domain/field. For example in math
science one is intelligent if he demonstrate well in the math
things, but also in the so called natural sciences one can be
intelligent. In ballrom dancing one in talented if she has a
long neck and demonstrates well.
>
> You seem to be talking about Wows-intelligence and you say
that it requires long term mental abilities liek being patient
etc. Some people can concentrate every evening 1 hour but not at
other times and not longer and that produces the long term high
results, right? Others have al lthe time the needed mental
states. And some can demonstrate those mental abilities only 1
day when the Wows rankeds starts. And some intentionally don't
chose to turn on those mental states, they prefere to have fun
etc, and don't have any Stats goals. There are many other
variables, like internet quality, luck, etc, which also affects.
All those variables and goals don't prove that someone is
mentally somehow more advanced. No, that person maybe suffering
and stressed all the time with his high stats, so as a human he
is not advanced mentally. Also Stats!=Skills, i means stats
don't equal to Skills, because al lthe examples and variables
that i just gave. One can demonstrate and prove knowledge by
doing once a year 1 exam. There doesn't exist some kind of
"persistent knowledge", if one passes wel lin an Exam, or, in a
Gold league, then that proves already that there is all
Knowledge, Skills etc existing, just like if you know that 2+2
is 4 then you know it always, it doesn't fade away.
>
--- End Quote ---
Intelligence is defined as "abstract problem solving ability".
What does that mean? That means if presented with a new, novel
problem, you can abstract it, develop a concept to frame it in
your mind, break it down into smaller sub-problems, and
eventually solve them. The "abstract" and "novel" parts are very
important. The human mind has a concious, self-aware rational
mind, and a subconcious mind. Humans subconciously solve
incredibly complex problems since we evolved purpose-build
clusters of neurons to solve those problems without thinking
about them. An easy example is walking. For a robot, we need
complex software to calculate center of gravity, balance, etc,
we humans can just wake up, be tired, and walk to the bathroom
without thinking about it.
The same goes for other, more specialised problems. Some humans
score low on IQ tests, and their abstract problem solving
ability is very bad, but they can solve some specific problems
extremely well, since they just have a natural talent for it.
The two are often confused, but in the social sciences they have
been seperated for decades already.
IQ tests are the most studied field in social sciences, and we
have a lot of very solid data on them. It is easy to design a
highly reliable IQ test that is free of bias for cultures,
language barriers etc. The reason why geometric or math problems
are often used is that these minimize bias, but lots of research
has shown that even unsophisticated tests, like asking general
knowledge questions like "who is the president" etc. highly
corrolate with IQ tests, since smarter people absorb more
knowledge and more importantly do so quickly, so even IQ tests
that look like they should be highly biased towards a certain
culture in fact are still extremely accurate.
The fact that you dilute these terms so much and use them
interchangeably shows me that you are not very familiar with the
topic at all, i would encourage you to do some reading.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I don't think that it is normal to be obsessed in
entertainment stats
--- End Quote ---
For many people, fun in the game is achieved by winning. That
naturally leads to the question "how do you win" and "how do you
loose" which leads to "who wins a lot" and "who looses a lot".
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> and from my experience Wows community has become racist
because of Stats.
>
--- End Quote ---
I will await your response to my questions about racism before i
answer this.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> As i explained, i don't think that Stats makes anyone better
or smarter, and i don't think it reflects any serious abilities.
>
--- End Quote ---
Do you also think the tensile strength number of a material used
to build a bridge is meaningless?
#Post#: 692--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg682#msg682
date=1666102438]
>
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg676#msg676
date=1666081129]
> 6. Stats=patient=knowledgable, IQ, etc. Good PLayer=Good Long
Term Stats.
>
--- End Quote ---
You're being too inaccurate here in your language, but i think
your intention is correct.
[/quote]
Go ahead and provide better equations. I think equations are a
good method. Don't justsay that iam wrong, or bad, or anything,
but try to prove that i am wrong, and show how is right. Provide
better equations, we have done the equation-method i nearlier
debates very well.[/quote]
You inaccurately summarized my post. I don't see any use in
telling you how you're wrong since i would just repeat my
original post in longer form, which you can just re-read by
scrolling up.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Seems like you say that you generally agree. Well, this is
enough, it is fine if some details are little bit inaccurate.
>
--- End Quote ---
Again you are being inaccurate. I agree with some things, but i
also disagreed with others, and i made it very clear which.
You're now again generalising and throwing things together which
do not belong together. I clearly seperated them in my earlier
post.
#Post#: 693--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg682#msg682
date=1666102438]
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg676#msg676
date=1666081129]
> 10. You spawned close to the easy cap C but still went to the
difficult cap B like Fastmotion.
>
--- End Quote ---
The "difficulty" of the cap also depends on the ship you are in.
For me, in the Kleber, C is easy at the start, because i can
exploit my speed. Mid-Late game it is hard to impossible,
because i rely on enemy mistakes i can exploit and on my team
spotting to get anything done against DDs which outspot me +
radar.
B is clearly easy for the Gearing, since Gearing can outspot and
easily effectively torp due to open water in 1-2-3 line and lack
of island.
[/quote]
I agree that difficulty of something is composed from several
variables but the Difficult cap is almost always more riskier
and difficult no matter which DD you use. So, your example of
Kleber is not adequate because even for a fast ship like Kleber
there are the same way a more difficult cap and an easy
one.[/quote]
Why do you remove the factor of time which i included? As i
explained, for the Kleber the C cap in the beginning of the
match, is very easy. Why? The Kleber arrives there before anyone
else can, and there is an island to use for cover immediately.
The enemy heavy cruisers with radar (stalin) can't go open water
and radar + shoot the Kleber, because then they would show
broadside to the enemy battleship. Thusly the stalin will go hug
the big island, and take a path where it avoids being spotted
and deleted early. You can observe that behaviour from BOTH
Stalins in this game, the enemy one and the one on our team.
This behaviour is so common that the Kleber can rely on it, and
use the big island + speed to savely approach the cap. I have
done it hundreds of times on this map, and i have seen countless
other players to the same.
The timing is very critical, and you cannot ignore it when
describing a cap as "easy" or "difficult". Stop being so
inaccurate.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> No matter which DD you use.
--- End Quote ---
The Gearing is so slow that by the time it reaches C cap, the
Stalin will be in position to radar, and both enemy DDs, even
the slow Halland, could be there to shoot the Gearing as well.
So the Gearing has to assume it will be shot at by 3+ people for
a full Stalin radar duration. That's too risky. That's the
difference between Kleber and Gearing: SPEED.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> And the other aspects like radars etc jsut makes the term
difficult Cap even more accurate. So, i don't understand why you
don't like those terms.
--- End Quote ---
They're inaccurate, thus wrong. That's why i don't like them.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I completed a Difficult cap task and you the Easy cap, right?
No matter which ships DDs we used. Do you agree?
>
--- End Quote ---
I did not capture an easy cap, i had no island cover to use and
i got engaged by 2 enemy DDs. For Kleber, this cap was hard. For
Gearing, it would have been easy.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page