Them British Folk
Most British Tanks had a kettle to boil water for Tea. True Story.
194 topics in this forum
-
- 53 replies
- 8,269 views
-
- 27 replies
- 2,498 views
-
- 90 replies
- 14,171 views
-
- 19 replies
- 977 views
-
- 21 replies
- 4,312 views
-
- 56 replies
- 6,412 views
-
- 255 replies
- 24,590 views
-
- 47 replies
- 7,280 views
-
- 22 replies
- 2,800 views
-
- 108 replies
- 10,421 views
-
- 92 replies
- 14,449 views
-
- 84 replies
- 11,921 views
-
- 244 replies
- 33,958 views
-
- 64 replies
- 5,104 views
-
- 188 replies
- 24,528 views
-
- 351 replies
- 35,993 views
-
- 1 reply
- 493 views
-
- 50 replies
- 5,137 views
-
- 95 replies
- 12,468 views
-
- 44 replies
- 5,454 views
-
- 28 replies
- 5,043 views
-
- 82 replies
- 9,622 views
-
- 11 replies
- 4,890 views
-
- 3 replies
- 801 views
-
- 34 replies
- 4,236 views
-
Latest Articles
-
Topics
-
-
Recent Status Updates
-
I have some thoughts about winning/losing. It originates from Chess, been playing a lot lately. A game mostly, about precision than anything else. In Chess, you are neither winning or losing until a mistake is made. The mistakee is the loser, but the opponent doesn't win. He loses, but the opponent doesn't actually win. He just capitalises on a mistake. There is no RNG there, so precision is what matters. Higher precision means playing better.
WoT has RNG, but the same thing applies. You are in limbo until a mistake is made. How quick you are at spotting them is what makes a good player. A good example is the 7v7 Ruinberg defense. This was so hard to win as an attacker as you can hold everything fairly easily. Same as GMs in Chess - everything holds and results in a draw.
What about thinking the other way? That you are always winning until you make a mistake? I think it results in super heavy aggression. These are the types of people that fight their way to the top. And the other side - where I am. Passive approach - always in limbo until something shifts the balance in either favour. That's about precision. The former is about mechanics. Obviously they blend, but I think it's interesting to at least entertain the idea that my way of play is flawed, even if it ranked number one at one point.
I basically never take unnecessary trades in Chess to try and keep the board as complicated for as long as possible, mistakes are easier to make there. In WoT - mistakes happen every second but you physically cannot move to capitalise in time on all of them. I'm just curious if there's a method of being there for more of them. So I'm going to play like an asshat to push that limit and try to improve it (WoT). I want ways to push the limits and this is an idea I want to explore..
No Recent Status Updates
.gif.836e07170550a946ba799a2e7540a9d6.thumb.gif.d9aaff08d3c94f9c63f6f0443bca7976.gif)
