Jump to content


Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Enaris

  1. Geez, first time playing in ages... and I did far better than expected.  Lucky, or has the gameplay degraded yet more in pubs?

  2. Oh, it certainly isn't what I look for in leadership, which is why I put him as Yellow. I consider Yellow to be "mixed bag, but competent moments are more than balanced out by mistakes." *shrugs*
  3. There's no doubting Marshall's importance in winning the Second World War, but frankly, as he never actually commanded troops in combat as a general during any war, you can't really rate him against other combat commanders. No implication on my part. A simple statement. Lee was likely the most talented tactician of the war, and one of the better generals of the war on the operational level. On the other hand, his grasp of the larger strategic aspects of the war were rather more limited. No, he wasn't the CSA Commander (that was Davis himself), but the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns both showed that he didn't fully understand Washington's lesson of "An Army in Being", and he was as parochial as any other General in protecting his turf (the ANV as opposed to the rest of the splintering CSA.) He was good to be sure, but I absolutely put Grant better and likely Sherman among ACW generals. He was a better battlefield commander than either (especially Sherman) but the others both had better understandings of the overall realities of the war. McClellan is a very interesting discussion. He had his limits to be sure, but frankly, he wasn't nearly as bad as saying he would be "black". He was beyond cautious to a fault absolutely (he may not have invented camping, but he certainly perfected it.) At the Seven Days he left too much to his subordinates, and you can even make a decent argument for Treason at 2nd Bull Run. Yet, for all that, the plan for the Peninsula was well formed, he moved fairly effectively pinning down Lee at Antietam. Sure, he got the break of the lost orders, but he still made somewhat good use of them. The generals I put below him? They are the very definition of militantly bad to my mind. Actual drags on their armies. Earl Van Dorn. Confederate Commander in Arkansas early in the ACW. Attempted to attack the Union at Pea Ridge, divided his command on two sides of a mountain and tried to attack on both sides. The side he wasn't with had no effective leadership and just sort of meandered. His side pushed but not enough to win the battle. However, to gain even that position, he'd entirely cut himself off from his ammo train (while driving Curtis back onto his own.) When day 2 of the battle began, the Confederates found themselves forced to retreat very quickly from lack of ammo. Then, he abandoned his position in Arkansas, effectively abandoning the entire state to the Union to go fight in Mississippi. Beat his head into the wall against Rosecrans at Corinth. Eventually killed by a jealous husband. (Doesn't directly relate to his generalship, but humorous.) James Wilkinson: Where does one begin? A traitor in the pay of Spain. Then, in the War of 1812, refused to cooperate with another nearby US force because he and the commander had a long standing feud. Spent the entire Chrysler's Farm campaign strung out on opiates, and ended up having to drag back to his base. As red as red can be.
  4. American Generals (heh) Purple: Winfield Scott Blue: Ulysses Grant Green: Douglas MacArthur Yellow: George B McClellan Orange: Earl Van Dorn Red: James Wilkenson
  5. If this is true... the world is about to change again. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

    1. Show previous comments  7 more
    2. UbaldoBastardo


      I feel like this will result in excitingly efficient new ways to kill people!

    3. Deusmortis


      This is Dawn of a New Era level stuff, if it pans out.

    4. Shifty_101st


      If Lockheed is successful.......this will change everything. Unfortunately we're still a VERY long ways away from that

  6. I've always thought that "Decent" might fit into that spot.
  7. Being part of a Training Clan, I'm well aware of the fact that people outside the 10% are well aware of their numbers, and their place in the "pecking order". Now, you may well argue that M-I-T tends to attract a certain subset of lower end players (the upwardly mobile), but I've seen any number of times the excitement that people get when they manage to pass some number which causes their color to change. It becomes something of a intermediate goal as they go along in the process. I do think that's valuable, and why I think that a system which recognizes differences in the bottom 75% is of overall value to the entire WOT community.
  8. An analogy I've used before in regards to player levels is to parallel it with one's educational level. I think that keeps us from getting the idea that it's "all or nothing" "unicum or red" or the like. Red= Elementary School Orange= Jr High Yellow= High School Diploma Green= College Degree Blue=Masters Purple= PhD Dark Purple=Post Doc Fellowship Now, of course, a major issue is that not everyone wants to go on to college or grad school (heh), and some are happy dropping out after 6th grade. However, while a PhD in any field can look at those below him and say "they don't truly understand the field", that doesn't mean that there isn't real differences between the groups below.
  9. Pork, something to remember is the "Compression of Perspective". A player who is in the top 5% of the server sees little "real" difference between the play of anyone yellow and below. Yet, think about what Max said before. While you may consider a 47% to be a "bad" player, the truth is that he's only slightly negative on your team compared to a 44%. He'll cost his team around 1.5 of 100 games, as opposed to the 4.5 or so (assuming 48.5 average winrate) that the truly bad player costs his team. That's as much as a difference as the one between a 53% and a 56% on the "positive" side. That's a real difference, even if the compression of viewpoint makes them all appear "the same".
  10. The 500 point "noise" that you mention. Is that "across the board" or "in the higher levels"? What I mean is this, does this 500 points of noise only really manifest when you're in the upper extremes of the rating (2200+ or the like), or is that rule of thumb equally true when looking down around the 1000 level also? It strikes me that a rating having 500 points of "noise" when well over 90% of the playerbase has a rating lower than 1500 (thus, "noise x 3") is more than a bit problematic.
  11. I guess the ongoing question that remains in my mind is "Who is the color system intended to give information to?" Is it a system that's really meant to only give relevant information to the 10%? Or is it meant to have information that is useful to everyone? High Blue+ players look at those who are yellow and below and can easily say "I don't really see much difference between them." That becomes a reason not to give any kind of fine gradation to those who are below green. Well, it's certainly true enough that from the perspective of a Blue+ player, there's honestly going to be little discernible difference between a red, orange and even yellow. On the other hand, the exact same effect is true in the other direction. Even a Yellow player who looks at a match and sees a Blue+ player..it really makes little difference if that person is Blue, light purple, dark purple, silver or whatever. The reaction is "omgimgonnadie!", and generally that's going to be accurate. However, from the perspective of that yellow player, the difference between an orange and red may actually be meaningful in how they look at a given game (since their perspective doesn't have the extreme compression that comes from looking at things in the extremes.) Frankly, for myself, I'm a bit undecided on that front. There's something that feels a bit "off" about setting the scale up in a way that it supplies information that is "tuned" to be most meaningful to the top 10%. On the other hand, it's that exact 10% who is most likely to be able to make use of that information and understand that information, so maybe it is best to set the scale up in that way.
  12. All righty, who knew that he was getting enough fame (or something) to get interviewed by an actual print magazine with noticeable circulation. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-mighty-jingles-an-interview.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ArmchairGeneralMagazineMilitaryHistory+%28Armchair+General+Magazine%29
  13. While my play is evidently no better than Stalker's, I dislike the growth of corridor maps, simply because I look at tanks as having something of a triangle of values: Firepower, Protection, Mobility. (Obviously, it's more complex than that, but that's a workable backhand approach.) Corridors reduce the value of mobility, which happens to be the most interesting of the assets to leverage.
  14. Fire for Effect= "Bare minimum to be considered a passable battle."

    1. Zynth


      Battle Buddy = "Intelligent enough to realize that you should not be shooting allies."

    2. onceuponaban



      Battle Buddy = "You're not playing a KV-4, a Maus, an E-100 or a TOG"

      Assuming ramming team damage count as reseting the Battle Buddy medal.

  15. When I'm in WoT, I tend towards Patient to a Fault. In MWO? I'm YOLO to a fault. What is it that makes me a lunatic there... sheesh.

    1. Roku


      It's hard to take that game seriously. I'm the same way.

  16. MWO is having Kill-a-Dev weekend. I guess that's one way to encourage a fanbase to play...

    1. Shade421


      WG should do that. They'd probably make it in game only though.

    2. How_Terrible
  17. Enaris


    The short form is 1) They pushed it out too soon 2) Their method of balancing is "make massive changes to break one meta, create new meta, then do it again, and again, and again" 3) Their Community Relations skills are about 1/10 of those of WG, not even counting the Serb comedy scale.
  18. Enaris


    I am a bit boggled today. While I'm not as down on MWO as most are here, I agree that the development has been suboptimal, and frankly, considerably below the standards set by our Minsk Overlords. So, I was already a bit cynical when I heard they were setting up to start a game in a new IP, aside from Battletech. Then, the PR came out. It's a space based Sandbox MMO... while it's not exactly a direct competitor to Star Citizen, it's close enough that the comparisons are inevitable. https://transversegame.com/ I... I just don't see it. I hate to see people fail in their dreams, and I'd love for them to make a great game and be successful, but I just can't see jumping straight into the jaws that is Star Citizen as being a good idea. ETA: Heh, I was boggled enough that my OP was unclear. This game is made by PGI, the same ones who have struggled badly with Mechwarrior Online for the last 3 years.
  19. Wow, Pirhana Games (the MWO guys) just announced a crowdsourced Sandbox competitor to Star Citizen. Is that probably cause to have them thrown into the loony bin?

    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. Kilpanic


      A match made in heaven, as both MWO and the SC scam are terrible.

    3. Aquavolt


      Piranha Games just got back all the publishing rights back from IGP. What's sad is although this allows PGI to focus on MWO, they have a shitty reputation and no credibility to be able to compete with Star Citizen or even EVE/any other space sim that's coming out.

    4. Enaris


      Aqua: From what I've seen, they have been doing a bit better with MWO lately,but not so much so to convince me that they're "cured." I guess they'll blame IGP for the problems and say "well, it's all us now, you'll see, shiny!"

  20. In something of a coincidence (it may be a total coincidence, or both of us may have been influenced by the 100 year anniversary), I just got notice of this in the mail: http://johntillersoftware.com/WWICampaigns/EastPrussia14.html
  21. I rated it as a "mixed"... and I think that's what it is. I'm in the great middling middle, where I very rarely am on the receiving end of being focused. To be honest though, I'm not entirely sure that the stats part of it has a great deal of impact on my play. I'll glance at the teams at the start, but once I'm in the battle, I don't normally put a great deal of focus on the color of people I'm facing. If I do, it's more often noting that they're red than that they're purple. If they are red, I'll sometimes assume that I can get away with crap that I wouldn't otherwise (such as: stand and slug, counting on armor wiggle and my shooting skills to give me the advantage). Conversely, If I see a purple, I'll probably go a lot more cautious than my norm, figuring I've got to be at my best to not get turned into kibble. Still though, on the whole, I think I just play my game, and can probably be accused of tunnel vision.
  22. Yeah. I guess some newspapers at the time took to using it since those two would be a team for the rest of the war. I even read some had a special typesetting setup of the HLsmushed together with no space. I guess that is easier and more space efficient than putting in both names constantly.
  23. If the problem is because I've been pressing, getting impatient and the like... I try to go back to a tank that reinforces better habits. Having been in an absolutely brutal slump of late, I finally took my own advice and switched from my fairly recent attempt to play mediums back to playing the T25/2. I've always thought more highly of that tank than many in the community, and I don't have this urge to play "forward edge of the battle" with it. I've only played a few with it so far, but I've been doing much better in those battles than my horrific attempts to finish out the Pershing. I figure I'll stay on the T25/2 for a bit, and see where I go.
  24. One of the things I really try to focus on (both in M-I-T sessions as well as posts on the M-I-T forum) is thought process. What are you thinking about? What are the advantages of doing this? What are the disadvantages? As a rule, understanding>rote memorization. (i.e.: "Why is this spot good?", instead of "this is a good spot")
  25. It would, but it's hard to see that happening without Plan Michael actually forcing the French to surrender, at which point, you're so deep into alternate history that Harry Turtledove is sniffing around.
  • Create New...