DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
wows forum
HTML https://wows.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Debates, Interviews
*****************************************************
#Post#: 704--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg700#msg700
date=1666109065]
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg698#msg698
date=1666108029]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg697#msg697
date=1666107613]
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg694#msg694
date=1666107043]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg684#msg684
date=1666103621]
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
You seem to say that the spotting result in the difficult Cap
area, mainly with spotting the Hindenburg, was somehow useless.
My response for that is:
1. You planned inititally to go yourself to that difficult area
and you would have spotted the Hindenburg yourself the same way.
[/quote]
I would have gone to that area, yes, but not with the goal of
spotting the Hindenburg. My goal would have been to touch the
cap, start capturing it, and thus draw a response from the
enemy. What would that response be?
- Stalingrad radar
- Everyone shooting at me
I would have dealt with that the same way i dealt with it
before: run away behind the island.
What would that have achieved?
- spotting on multiple enemy ships for 20 seconds+ due to them
firing
- stalin using a radar for little effect
- creating a gap after the stalin radar where there is no radar
on the cap
- creating a gap where the enemy DDs turned out due to being
spotted
- creating an OPPORTUNITY for me to try again to capture the cap
after the initial touch
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> So, i did the spotting that you planned to do and if you call
it not a good spotting then this is what you yourself planned to
do. Why you plan to do such bad spotting then?
>
--- End Quote ---
I didn't. I notice a strong pattern where you always assume what
i am thinking or assume what my conclusion is and in general you
seem to be always wrong.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> 2. don't you think that it is not important which ships
exactly i spotted this time in the Difficult Area? It just
happened this time that i spotted Hindenburg, but many times you
spot other ships there. We can call it luck which ships come to
spot and it is not possible to predict how that luck comes out,
and no need to judge if such luck turned out good or bad. It is
irrelevant that Hindenburg became spotted and not others. So, i
don't think it is adequate to mention that Hindenburg argument.
Don't you agree?
>
--- End Quote ---
I have outlined why exactly i think your play was bad in detail
in my initial post. Instead of responding to this again at
length, i would like to point to my initial post and i would
like you to re-read that.
[/quote]
You seem to agree that you would have resulted the same thing
that i did in the difficult area.
[/quote]
No, i do not. You're not just twisting words now, you're
outright ignoring what i say and claim the opposite.
[/quote]
You say yourself that you would have spotted ships by that
phrase:
"- spotting on multiple enemy ships".
[/quote]
I said it would have ACHIEVED spotting on multiple ships, but i
never said i would have spotted them. Because i wouldn't. The
teammates would have spotted them. As a result of the enemy
shooting me. This is important attention to detail you seem to
miss out on entirely.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Also, if you go to the same place like i did then obviously
you have spotted the same enemies like i did, including the
Hindenburg.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would have gone to the same cap, but not to the same place. My
approach to the cap would have been radically different.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> So, why do you deny that you would have spotted ther things?
>
--- End Quote ---
I can't spot through islands.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I spotted there and you would have done the same. Why to deny
such thing?
>
--- End Quote ---
I would not have spotted, there would have been an island in the
way.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I capped there and you clearly said you planned to go into cap
circle as well. This is the same what i did.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would have approached the cap differently, using the island as
an immediate escape path to avoid damage.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> In total you would have resulted generally the same results,
maybe died or spotted something little bit less or more
>
--- End Quote ---
No.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> such details doesn't matter in general.
> So, you seem to agree that you would have resulted the same
thing that i did in the difficult area. And logics proves that
too. No matter if it is me or you or anybody else doing the job
with the difficult cap, the result would have been generally the
same. Why you deny it? And the reason why we have such thread
head is because you seem to mention that i did something badly
in the Hindenburg area. My response is that you was going to do
al lthat yourself, so why you adress such act as bad then,
especially mentioning Hindenburg which is totally inadequate
argument because it is jsut a spotting luck.
>
--- End Quote ---
They matter a lot, and your ignorance of such details is what
makes you a bad player.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I think you just deny here clear facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
Again you accuse me of doing what you are doing.
#Post#: 705--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: wows
Date: October 18, 2022, 12:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jayceedee link ---
>
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg702#msg702
date=1666110043]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg700#msg700
date=1666109065]
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg698#msg698
date=1666108029]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg697#msg697
date=1666107613]
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg694#msg694
date=1666107043]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg684#msg684
date=1666103621]
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
You seem to say that the spotting result in the difficult Cap
area, mainly with spotting the Hindenburg, was somehow useless.
My response for that is:
1. You planned inititally to go yourself to that difficult area
and you would have spotted the Hindenburg yourself the same way.
[/quote]
I would have gone to that area, yes, but not with the goal of
spotting the Hindenburg. My goal would have been to touch the
cap, start capturing it, and thus draw a response from the
enemy. What would that response be?
- Stalingrad radar
- Everyone shooting at me
I would have dealt with that the same way i dealt with it
before: run away behind the island.
What would that have achieved?
- spotting on multiple enemy ships for 20 seconds+ due to them
firing
- stalin using a radar for little effect
- creating a gap after the stalin radar where there is no radar
on the cap
- creating a gap where the enemy DDs turned out due to being
spotted
- creating an OPPORTUNITY for me to try again to capture the cap
after the initial touch
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> So, i did the spotting that you planned to do and if you call
it not a good spotting then this is what you yourself planned to
do. Why you plan to do such bad spotting then?
>
--- End Quote ---
I didn't. I notice a strong pattern where you always assume what
i am thinking or assume what my conclusion is and in general you
seem to be always wrong.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> 2. don't you think that it is not important which ships
exactly i spotted this time in the Difficult Area? It just
happened this time that i spotted Hindenburg, but many times you
spot other ships there. We can call it luck which ships come to
spot and it is not possible to predict how that luck comes out,
and no need to judge if such luck turned out good or bad. It is
irrelevant that Hindenburg became spotted and not others. So, i
don't think it is adequate to mention that Hindenburg argument.
Don't you agree?
>
--- End Quote ---
I have outlined why exactly i think your play was bad in detail
in my initial post. Instead of responding to this again at
length, i would like to point to my initial post and i would
like you to re-read that.
[/quote]
You seem to agree that you would have resulted the same thing
that i did in the difficult area.
[/quote]
No, i do not. You're not just twisting words now, you're
outright ignoring what i say and claim the opposite.
[/quote]
You say yourself that you would have spotted ships by that
phrase:
"- spotting on multiple enemy ships".
[/quote]
I said it would have ACHIEVED spotting on multiple ships, but i
never said i would have spotted them. Because i wouldn't. The
teammates would have spotted them. As a result of the enemy
shooting me. This is important attention to detail you seem to
miss out on entirely.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Also, if you go to the same place like i did then obviously
you have spotted the same enemies like i did, including the
Hindenburg.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would have gone to the same cap, but not to the same place. My
approach to the cap would have been radically different.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> So, why do you deny that you would have spotted ther things?
>
--- End Quote ---
I can't spot through islands.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I spotted there and you would have done the same. Why to deny
such thing?
>
--- End Quote ---
I would not have spotted, there would have been an island in the
way.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I capped there and you clearly said you planned to go into cap
circle as well. This is the same what i did.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would have approached the cap differently, using the island as
an immediate escape path to avoid damage.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> In total you would have resulted generally the same results,
maybe died or spotted something little bit less or more
>
--- End Quote ---
No.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> such details doesn't matter in general.
> So, you seem to agree that you would have resulted the same
thing that i did in the difficult area. And logics proves that
too. No matter if it is me or you or anybody else doing the job
with the difficult cap, the result would have been generally the
same. Why you deny it? And the reason why we have such thread
head is because you seem to mention that i did something badly
in the Hindenburg area. My response is that you was going to do
al lthat yourself, so why you adress such act as bad then,
especially mentioning Hindenburg which is totally inadequate
argument because it is jsut a spotting luck.
>
--- End Quote ---
They matter a lot, and your ignorance of such details is what
makes you a bad player.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I think you just deny here clear facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
Again you accuse me of doing what you are doing.
[/quote]
You believe that you would have achieved this and that but msot
people would probably say that you would have suicided if all
the enemies would have fired you. Such prediction from others
and you are equal and we don't know which way it would have
gone. I don't predict much but use logics: you would have
swimmed to the same location and that woould have resulted
generally the same result. Such logics is more believable than
your predictions. My result was spotting ships and capping the
Difficult Cap and that result is not an easy task and not a
useless task, also it is not as risky as yours. But in general
you would have done the same, so i don't understand why you call
such act as bad.
You explain that a detai lthat you would have forced others to
shoot you. Well, in my opinion i was spotted to in that area so
if enemies wanted then they had all a chance to shoot me and
become spotted. I don't rememebrif i was spotted but probably i
was and if i wasn't then that doesn't matter because getting the
thing capped is a good enough result for the team anyway.
We can do Yes-no questions here perhaps. Like this:
1. do you agree that msot people would vote your plan as very
risky and wouldn't suggest it? Yes or no.
2. do you agree that you can't predict very well how things
could have gone? Yes or no? (For example, maybe you would have
detonated if you get al lenemies shooting at you.)
3. do you agree that your Hindenburg-argument is irrelevant
because it is a spotting luck? Yes or no.
4. do you agree that you wasted time by changinf your route from
C to the easy area? Yes or no?
5. do you agree that team benefits if one caps the difficult cap
area? Yes or no?
6. do you agree that your single picture with Random Battles
Stats that we talked about was a mistake? Yes or no? If No,
then the debate is over with your denying clear facts.
#Post#: 708--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: Anonymous Unicum
Date: October 18, 2022, 3:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone,
after reading the stuff discussed here there seem to be a couple
of issues not being seen.
1st.: The spotting of the Hindenburg is meaningless. Therefore
it is neither negative nor positive. The problem here seems to
be the awareness of the temporal factor and the issues arising
from the ships which are NOT spotted. The spotting of the ships
from the C cap can be done by Gearing or Kleber as radar support
was available for incoming DDs. The spotting on the B cap can be
conducted by the Gearing, but not by the Kleber. Therefore it
seems to be the smartest idea to change Gearing and Kleber after
achieving the fast cap of B with Kleber. This decision needs a
certain amount of experiance and situation awareness.
2nd.: It was expressed that the job inside the C cap could be
done by both ships in a similar way: Kleber in this regard has a
superior survivability when being spotted by enemy radar and
shot at. Additional HP and fast acceleration + speed allow it to
disengage without losing a lot of HP. In addition it can provide
fire support and, in case of enemy DDs geting spotted, deal a
lot of damage to enemy DDs in a short amount of time. This makes
that ship more useful in an environment like this. On the other
hand the advantages of Gearing are the low concealment and
ability to cover its allies with smoke. Smoke thereby is most
useless in open water as islands already provide a very decent
cover when used properly.
So as a conclusion I'd say that the gameplay of fastmotion
wouldn't be a problem and could be seen as fine in case of the
team having 2 Gearing type like ships. But the otherwise "fine"
play, seen under the aspect of teamplay, then doesn't look too
fine anymore and might a lack in situation awareness or
knowledge about the pros and cons of ships.
3rd.: Brick argument: In my opinion fastmotion is right about
that. You maybe could have written something like: "I'm aware of
his mentality, but calling it a brick is a little bit rude in
context of a "constructive discussion".
4th.: regarding the the image showing random stats instead of
ranked. A player will probably show same patterns in ranked as
in randoms, so judging from random stats on performance in
ranked is not arbitrary. Coming down to the mathematics the
choosen approach additionally increases his ability to predict
the players performance due to the higher sample size (here
number of games) played in randoms compared to ranked. This can
be justified by the way how the standard error is calculated
which is the "standard deviation" divided by the squareroot of
the sample size. By increasing the sample size you can therefore
easily decrease the standard error. As we can expect normally
distributed data around the real mean (e.g. PR) we can then
easily calculate the confidence interval by multiplying the
standard error with 1.94 (alpha=5%) and adding this to the
observed mean. The real mean then lies somewhere inside that
interval. Again: the smaller the intervall, the easier it is to
predict the real average performance which (to usually 95%) lies
inside this intervall or: the performance in the next
game/session will (in 95% of the cases) will be distributed in
that range.
Therefore it was, in terms of statistics, a logical choice to
use a dataset with a higher sample size.
Regarding the comparism of ranked and random stats: please
provide any evidence that the trends observed in e.g. random
stats can't be seen in the ranked stats of the same player.
5th.: stats matter. Whenever you go in any field of science, you
have to deal with data and statistics. All scientific work these
days has to be based on it, even in "social sciences".
#Post#: 709--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg704#msg704
date=1666111732]
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg702#msg702
date=1666110043]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg700#msg700
date=1666109065]
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg698#msg698
date=1666108029]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg697#msg697
date=1666107613]
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg694#msg694
date=1666107043]
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg684#msg684
date=1666103621]
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
You seem to say that the spotting result in the difficult Cap
area, mainly with spotting the Hindenburg, was somehow useless.
My response for that is:
1. You planned inititally to go yourself to that difficult area
and you would have spotted the Hindenburg yourself the same way.
[/quote]
I would have gone to that area, yes, but not with the goal of
spotting the Hindenburg. My goal would have been to touch the
cap, start capturing it, and thus draw a response from the
enemy. What would that response be?
- Stalingrad radar
- Everyone shooting at me
I would have dealt with that the same way i dealt with it
before: run away behind the island.
What would that have achieved?
- spotting on multiple enemy ships for 20 seconds+ due to them
firing
- stalin using a radar for little effect
- creating a gap after the stalin radar where there is no radar
on the cap
- creating a gap where the enemy DDs turned out due to being
spotted
- creating an OPPORTUNITY for me to try again to capture the cap
after the initial touch
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> So, i did the spotting that you planned to do and if you call
it not a good spotting then this is what you yourself planned to
do. Why you plan to do such bad spotting then?
>
--- End Quote ---
I didn't. I notice a strong pattern where you always assume what
i am thinking or assume what my conclusion is and in general you
seem to be always wrong.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> 2. don't you think that it is not important which ships
exactly i spotted this time in the Difficult Area? It just
happened this time that i spotted Hindenburg, but many times you
spot other ships there. We can call it luck which ships come to
spot and it is not possible to predict how that luck comes out,
and no need to judge if such luck turned out good or bad. It is
irrelevant that Hindenburg became spotted and not others. So, i
don't think it is adequate to mention that Hindenburg argument.
Don't you agree?
>
--- End Quote ---
I have outlined why exactly i think your play was bad in detail
in my initial post. Instead of responding to this again at
length, i would like to point to my initial post and i would
like you to re-read that.
[/quote]
You seem to agree that you would have resulted the same thing
that i did in the difficult area.
[/quote]
No, i do not. You're not just twisting words now, you're
outright ignoring what i say and claim the opposite.
[/quote]
You say yourself that you would have spotted ships by that
phrase:
"- spotting on multiple enemy ships".
[/quote]
I said it would have ACHIEVED spotting on multiple ships, but i
never said i would have spotted them. Because i wouldn't. The
teammates would have spotted them. As a result of the enemy
shooting me. This is important attention to detail you seem to
miss out on entirely.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Also, if you go to the same place like i did then obviously
you have spotted the same enemies like i did, including the
Hindenburg.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would have gone to the same cap, but not to the same place. My
approach to the cap would have been radically different.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> So, why do you deny that you would have spotted ther things?
>
--- End Quote ---
I can't spot through islands.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I spotted there and you would have done the same. Why to deny
such thing?
>
--- End Quote ---
I would not have spotted, there would have been an island in the
way.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I capped there and you clearly said you planned to go into cap
circle as well. This is the same what i did.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would have approached the cap differently, using the island as
an immediate escape path to avoid damage.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> In total you would have resulted generally the same results,
maybe died or spotted something little bit less or more
>
--- End Quote ---
No.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> such details doesn't matter in general.
> So, you seem to agree that you would have resulted the same
thing that i did in the difficult area. And logics proves that
too. No matter if it is me or you or anybody else doing the job
with the difficult cap, the result would have been generally the
same. Why you deny it? And the reason why we have such thread
head is because you seem to mention that i did something badly
in the Hindenburg area. My response is that you was going to do
al lthat yourself, so why you adress such act as bad then,
especially mentioning Hindenburg which is totally inadequate
argument because it is jsut a spotting luck.
>
--- End Quote ---
They matter a lot, and your ignorance of such details is what
makes you a bad player.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I think you just deny here clear facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
Again you accuse me of doing what you are doing.
[/quote]
You believe that you would have achieved this and that but msot
people would probably say that you would have suicided if all
the enemies would have fired you.[/quote]
No doubt many people would think that. But you say "most people"
and most people in wows are bad players, so their opinion and
evaluation of the game is always wrong.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Such prediction from others and you are equal
>
--- End Quote ---
They're not. Most people do not evaluate game after game after
game and look for patterns.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> and we don't know which way it would have gone.
>
--- End Quote ---
You don't. I do.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I don't predict much but use logics: you would have swimmed to
the same location and that woould have resulted generally the
same result.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are just completely in denial here, ignoring player
abilities, ship abilities, timing, etc.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Such logics is more believable than your predictions. My
result was spotting ships and capping the Difficult Cap and that
result is not an easy task and not a useless task, also it is
not as risky as yours. But in general you would have done the
same, so i don't understand why you call such act as bad.
>
--- End Quote ---
I explained in detail with images why it i was bad. Do you
struggle to understand? Should i draw arrows into the images to
clarify?
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> You explain that a detai lthat you would have forced others to
shoot you. Well, in my opinion i was spotted to in that area so
if enemies wanted then they had all a chance to shoot me and
become spotted. I don't rememebrif i was spotted but probably i
was and if i wasn't then that doesn't matter because getting the
thing capped is a good enough result for the team anyway.
>
--- End Quote ---
There is a psychology of people shooting people in world of
warships. The average player shoots the first thing he can see,
usually that is the closest target, and he only stops shooting
once he missed a lot and it looks like the enemy is getting
away.
By being the first one spotted, you gurantee that everyone who
is looking to shoot will actually shoot you. You're making
yourself not only the best (closest) but also the first and
often ONLY target people see. That will very reliably lead to
everyone shooting you.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> We can do Yes-no questions here perhaps. Like this:
>
> 1. do you agree that msot people would vote your plan as very
risky and wouldn't suggest it? Yes or no.
> 2. do you agree that you can't predict very well how things
could have gone? Yes or no? (For example, maybe you would have
detonated if you get al lenemies shooting at you.)
> 3. do you agree that your Hindenburg-argument is irrelevant
because it is a spotting luck? Yes or no.
> 4. do you agree that you wasted time by changinf your route
from C to the easy area? Yes or no?
> 5. do you agree that team benefits if one caps the difficult
cap area? Yes or no?
> 6. do you agree that your single picture with Random Battles
Stats that we talked about was a mistake?
>
--- End Quote ---
1. Bad people, yes. Good players, no.
2. no, i have done it often enough to have experience with the
approach, and i run detonation flag.
3. no, spotting the hinden had no value and it was a result of
the approach, i criticise the approach not the result.
4. absolutely not, you created a huge problem for the team which
i had to fix
5. yes, i never questioned that capping a cap is good. I
questioned the timing, the circumstances, and the risks taken.
6. as i said, i checked both random and ranked stats, and there
is no significant difference. both look bad and paint a clear
picture of a bad player. If anything, the random stats look a
bit better on the winrate, so i painted you in a better light
than your even worse ranked stats.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Yes or no? If No, then the debate is over with your denying
clear facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
I never denied any facts. Are you admitting defeat?
#Post#: 710--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 3:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Anonymous Unicum link ---
>
> Hello everyone,
> after reading the stuff discussed here there seem to be a
couple of issues not being seen.
>
> 1st.: The spotting of the Hindenburg is meaningless. Therefore
it is neither negative nor positive. The problem here seems to
be the awareness of the temporal factor and the issues arising
from the ships which are NOT spotted. The spotting of the ships
from the C cap can be done by Gearing or Kleber as radar support
was available for incoming DDs. The spotting on the B cap can be
conducted by the Gearing, but not by the Kleber. Therefore it
seems to be the smartest idea to change Gearing and Kleber after
achieving the fast cap of B with Kleber. This decision needs a
certain amount of experiance and situation awareness.
>
> 2nd.: It was expressed that the job inside the C cap could be
done by both ships in a similar way: Kleber in this regard has a
superior survivability when being spotted by enemy radar and
shot at. Additional HP and fast acceleration + speed allow it to
disengage without losing a lot of HP. In addition it can provide
fire support and, in case of enemy DDs geting spotted, deal a
lot of damage to enemy DDs in a short amount of time. This makes
that ship more useful in an environment like this. On the other
hand the advantages of Gearing are the low concealment and
ability to cover its allies with smoke. Smoke thereby is most
useless in open water as islands already provide a very decent
cover when used properly.
>
> So as a conclusion I'd say that the gameplay of fastmotion
wouldn't be a problem and could be seen as fine in case of the
team having 2 Gearing type like ships. But the otherwise "fine"
play, seen under the aspect of teamplay, then doesn't look too
fine anymore and might a lack in situation awareness or
knowledge about the pros and cons of ships.
--- End Quote ---
Sometimes some things are so clear to me that i just assume
they're equally clear and obvious to others. You explained
details i left out due to that reason. I could not agree more
with you, thank you for your elaborations. Maybe it will help
Fastmotion understand.
--- Quote from: Anonymous Unicum link ---
>
> 3rd.: Brick argument: In my opinion fastmotion is right about
that. You maybe could have written something like: "I'm aware of
his mentality, but calling it a brick is a little bit rude in
context of a "constructive discussion".
>
--- End Quote ---
I do have mediocre social skills, i never thought what i wrote
could be understood as an insult, but in hindsight i see how it
could.
--- Quote from: Anonymous Unicum link ---
>
> 4th.: regarding the the image showing random stats instead of
ranked. A player will probably show same patterns in ranked as
in randoms, so judging from random stats on performance in
ranked is not arbitrary. Coming down to the mathematics the
choosen approach additionally increases his ability to predict
the players performance due to the higher sample size (here
number of games) played in randoms compared to ranked. This can
be justified by the way how the standard error is calculated
which is the "standard deviation" divided by the squareroot of
the sample size. By increasing the sample size you can therefore
easily decrease the standard error. As we can expect normally
distributed data around the real mean (e.g. PR) we can then
easily calculate the confidence interval by multiplying the
standard error with 1.94 (alpha=5%) and adding this to the
observed mean. The real mean then lies somewhere inside that
interval. Again: the smaller the intervall, the easier it is to
predict the real average performance which (to usually 95%) lies
inside this intervall or: the performance in the next
game/session will (in 95% of the cases) will be distributed in
that range.
> Therefore it was, in terms of statistics, a logical choice to
use a dataset with a higher sample size.
> Regarding the comparism of ranked and random stats: please
provide any evidence that the trends observed in e.g. random
stats can't be seen in the ranked stats of the same player.
>
> 5th.: stats matter. Whenever you go in any field of science,
you have to deal with data and statistics. All scientific work
these days has to be based on it, even in "social sciences".
>
--- End Quote ---
Once again i have to absolutely agree.
#Post#: 711--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: wows
Date: October 18, 2022, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jayceedee link ---
>
> 6. as i said, i checked both random and ranked stats, and
there is no significant difference. both look bad and paint a
clear picture of a bad player. If anything, the random stats
look a bit better on the winrate, so i painted you in a better
light than your even worse ranked stats.
>
> [quote author=wows link=topic=121.msg705#msg705
date=1666112484]
> Yes or no? If No, then the debate is over with your denying
clear facts.
>
--- End Quote ---
I never denied any facts. Are you admitting defeat?
[/quote]
(Looks like the forum has difficulties if there are too many
Quotes inside othe Quotes. The work-around seems to be to
copy-paste some parts)
..
You failed to answer a clear Yes-No question because "i
never"-statement doesn't qualify. The same goes for your other
lsot arguments. And me and the debating sport says clearly here
that the debate is over. we can continue a chit-chat now but the
debate is over with your loss. So, the next is just some
sozialising or how ever you call it.
You knew the rules wel lenough and failed in them. You also know
that i defeated you only in some mistakes but i was ready to
provide many more arguments, more thanb 30. So, it is very
unlikely that you could have won anything here. We can surely
continue here, but the official end is that you lost a
significant argument here. Even not your brick-level community
member didn't save you. that isa true fact, a truth. Yes, you
can wi nnext battles, and yes we can continue, but the first
Sprint is clearly your loss and there is nothing to deny. al
lfacts show thatr you lost and i have provided totally perfect
expalantions and proof to that and if needed i close the Sprint.
You cannot say that you won the debate. No, you lost it. Can we
do the 2nd sprint? Yes. we can.
#Post#: 712--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 4:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever been assessed by a psychiatric professional?
I am certain you suffer from some strong delusions which must
impact your daily life negatively.
What country are you in currently?
It is important for us to know to get you the help you need.
Also, i would like to add that i won the debate. There can not
be any doubt about this.
#Post#: 713--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: wows
Date: October 18, 2022, 4:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jayceedee link ---
>
> Have you ever been assessed by a psychiatric professional?
> I am certain you suffer from some strong delusions which must
impact your daily life negatively.
> What country are you in currently?
> It is important for us to know to get you the help you need.
>
--- End Quote ---
You seem to do again a personal attack kind of statement. Why
you and your wows community uses inadeuate methods, losts all
debates to me, and thinks that they are right? I call it an
illusion, brainwash, i don't use other terms.
You failed very clearly to answer a Yes-no question and did
other mistakes, including ethical, ignored many arguments
especially in "stats don't matter" topics. Obviously losers deny
all that.
I give everyone always the so calld 2nd chance: Pick the
last/2nd debate topic and let's do it to even the score 1:0. If
you refuse like many then we thank you and use your input as an
example for our Wikipedia. I agree to respond to you to 1 more
topic, let's say for a topic "Black skin color means more
skills" etc. After that second topic i ignore you like other
contestants. Because i don't waste my energy too much.
As a feedback i give you fo free my feedvbacl like i do for all
debaters. It is not something useless or so. It is something
beyound science and beyound such things, some call it
Transcendental some just spiritual. It is beyound your senses
and your ego can comprehend and only few ones can give you that.
So ,you won't get something useles but quite uniue that cannot
be bought from a shop. I do such feedback when being out of
Reality.
I agree to continue but don't be naive and deny simple truth.
#Post#: 714--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: jayceedee
Date: October 18, 2022, 6:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> [quote author=jayceedee link=topic=121.msg712#msg712
date=1666129242]
> Have you ever been assessed by a psychiatric professional?
> I am certain you suffer from some strong delusions which must
impact your daily life negatively.
> What country are you in currently?
> It is important for us to know to get you the help you need.
>
--- End Quote ---
You seem to do again a personal attack kind of
statement.[/quote]
I did nothing of the kind. I am trying to help you.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Why you and your wows community uses inadeuate methods, losts
all debates to me
>
--- End Quote ---
I have not seen other debates, but i cannot imagine you winning
any debate. The only debate i saw was the debate i had with you
here, and i clearly won this debate. You came nowhere near of
winning, in fact you keept loosing harder and harder with every
single post.
I'm an expert in debating, as you can see.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> and thinks that they are right? I call it an illusion,
brainwash, i don't use other terms.
>
--- End Quote ---
Most certainly, from your perspective it must look like this:
Everyone is wrong, everyone is delusional, everyone is wrong.
But the more likely reality is: Everyone is sort of right, and
you are the deluded person who is wrong. Which is why you need
help.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> You failed very clearly to answer a Yes-no question
>
--- End Quote ---
It is not my failure if you ask missleading, bad questions which
require more differentiated answers. Asking "yes no" questions
is bad debate style and only done by people who are incapable of
more skilled, differentiated debates.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> and did other mistakes, including ethical, ignored many
arguments especially in "stats don't matter" topics.
>
--- End Quote ---
I made no mistakes.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> Obviously losers deny all that.
>
--- End Quote ---
You deny reality itself in its entirety.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I give everyone always the so calld 2nd chance: Pick the
last/2nd debate topic and let's do it to even the score 1:0.
>
--- End Quote ---
I will not give you a 2nd chance before you received
professional help with your mental condition.
You lost, i won fair and square, it is obvious for everyone to
see.
You are entrapped in dilusions, discussing you has no purpose.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> If you refuse like many then we thank you and use your input
as an example for our Wikipedia. I agree to respond to you to 1
more topic, let's say for a topic "Black skin color means more
skills" etc. After that second topic i ignore you like other
contestants. Because i don't waste my energy too much.
>
--- End Quote ---
Of course you have to start ignoring reality as a coping
mechanism. Coping is a valuable survival tool for humans to deal
with their own failures and inadequacies, but it slows down
humanities progress a lot. I wish there was a way of getting rid
of it.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> beyound science
>
--- End Quote ---
Nothing is beyond science. There is only science and bullshit.
Nothing else exists.
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
> I agree to continue but don't be naive and deny simple truth.
>
--- End Quote ---
Same to you.
So what country do you live in?
It is an important first step since i need to research the
possibilities of mental health help in your country for you so
you can get the help you need.
#Post#: 717--------------------------------------------------
Re: My Encounter with Fastmotion
DIR By: Anonymous Unicum
Date: October 19, 2022, 1:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wows link ---
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
You failed to answer a clear Yes-No question because "i
never"-statement doesn't qualify. The same goes for your other
lsot arguments. And me and the debating sport says clearly here
that the debate is over. we can continue a chit-chat now but the
debate is over with your loss.
[/quote]
This might be true in case of all parties following the rules.
Unfortunately it seems like some people prefer not to answer
questions or deny theses without delivering valid proof.
Regarding the claimed "mistake" of showing random instead of
ranked stats I contributed a quite proof reasoning for why it is
an adequate method. There was no further reply on that topic, so
I could say I won the debate. Same goes for the part "stats
matter" as we all claim to work in a scientific context of
debating. But it is not me who can claim myself to have won, nor
can anyone else declare his own victory. In a debate you need to
either convince your opponent (which is almost impossible) or a
bystander. Every self proclaimed victory is invalid in the
context of a debate, although it might seem reasonable. Based on
the discussion to this point I'd consider your opponent as the
victorious as it was not achieved to disprove the fact that
stats matter and did not properly address the game dynamics
reported and analysed by your opponent. You managed to proof
that your actions for yourself were around average gameplay
which nobody should blame, but failed to counter the argument
that from a teamplay perspective this playstyle was wrong
indicating a lack of situation awareness or knowledge about the
ships.
During the discussion questions by jayceedee were often not
properly answered but countered by a lot of questions where many
repeated, contradicted a thesis which was not disproved or
where not related to the topic. In the context of a debate this
is a big problem.
Asking someone for his place of residency claiming it is for the
purpose of getting help for mental issues might seem a little
bit cynical and is also not the best way to address possible
problems in that field. You could have maybe just opened up a
new thread on that topic providing general information of where
you can find help for mental problems.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page