Clam Wars Recruitment
Looking for a clan? Looking for members?
Subforums
-
- 8,079
- posts
-
- 872
- posts
-
- 133
- posts
385 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 170 views
-
- 176 replies
- 18,563 views
-
- 82 replies
- 6,378 views
-
- 5,450 replies
- 295,849 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1,146 views
-
- 0 replies
- 990 views
-
- 597 replies
- 36,668 views
-
- 39 replies
- 2,711 views
-
- 3 replies
- 635 views
-
- 459 replies
- 30,024 views
-
- 4 replies
- 994 views
-
- 50 replies
- 5,943 views
-
- 8 replies
- 1,218 views
-
- 0 replies
- 572 views
-
- 37 replies
- 3,795 views
-
- 22 replies
- 2,304 views
-
- 11 replies
- 2,375 views
-
- 18 replies
- 1,685 views
-
- 3 replies
- 1,056 views
-
- 22 replies
- 2,233 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1,273 views
-
- 47 replies
- 3,831 views
-
- 234 replies
- 19,984 views
-
- 5 replies
- 941 views
-
- 136 replies
- 9,461 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)
