Jump to content

EchelonIII

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

    2,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from Dread_Pirate_R0berts in How do you know when its time to leave your clan and look elsewhere?   
    My post will be more towards considering clan health in terms of advancement ability and discussing good ways to consider commanders.
     
    You should always consider try to measure the potential success of your clan if you're above the clan average (clans usually have the top 50% having to support the bottom 50%), as such...
     
    - If you're in the top half of the clan, make sure your greater contribution is recognized accordingly
    - If you're in the bottom half, make sure there are systems to help you improve (e.g. mentoring programmes)
     
    Anyway, on to my main point: The single most important element you should look for in ANY clan is meritocracy. 
     
    On Competence
    I like to measure the competence of field commanders by a simple method: See if the order players are put into teams measures up with their merit.
     
    Say a clan team needs three batchat players, and we have the following bats available, their players have WNs of 2700, 2500, 2400, 2300, 2000, 1600, 1500, 1300, 1100 (let's assume the WN of the player is the WN of the tank).
     
    Let's assume the battle is a fairly important one that needs to be won.
     
    If you see a pick like 2700, 2500, 2400, or 2700, 2400, 2300, or even 2400, 2300, 2000, you can be fairly certain that the pick was made based on who the best players were, we're generally choosing the better players there.
     
    On the other hand, a pick like 2500,1600, 1300, looks completely arbitrary instead of chosen based on player ability, a pick like 1600, 1300, 1100 should make you question whether the commander is trying to win the battle or outright incompetent.
     
    The worst part about poor commanders is that a completely arbitrary pick can be even more damaging to the clan, choosing even two or three less-competent players can cost the game, and more damagingly, get the tanks of GOOD players locked out.
     
    On Advancement
    This is the second part of a system based on merit: Opportunity to advance. Just as good players should be rewarded more than poor ones, poorer players should be given the opportunity to improve rapidly.
     
    This can be fostered by having a good and helpful community, greens and below should feel comfortable approaching a blue/purple for advice.
     
    Likewise, blues and purples should be forthcoming with advice for the newer players to help them in, if not platoons, then even answering basic questions and answers.
     
    This sort of approach both helps foster a stronger espirit de corps and also helps players improve overall, opening up more options for commanders.
     
    Barometers 
    Barometers are the sort of things you should look at to consider your clan's overall health
     
    - Presence of deniers? (Of course, if you see an officer being a denier, then you should REALLY consider your clan)
     
    - Are the officers in the top half? Officers should, in general, be amongst the stronger players in the clan; better players = better calls.
     
    - Tank Companies and Teams - Things like these are great ways to help players improve and work together, even if not in a clan wars setting.
  2. Upvote
    EchelonIII reacted to PlanetaryGenocide in T49 American Tier 8 LT- Discussion   
    yo I heard that this was the place to submit hilarious full pens for this tank. Today, I sacrificed to RNGhuehuehuehuehuehuehuehuehuehuehuehue  
  3. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in How WG should fix Arty, by Garbad   
    None of these suggestions address the central problem: Unilateral interaction. As long as that exists, we have a broken class.
  4. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in Question on tactics used   
    Just look at what you said yourself, and start by considering these questions: In the games you won 15-3 and 15-4, what exactly did you do to contribute to that 15 kills? You already know that everybody else is doing most of the work.
    The moment arty is lit in range of an allied tank, arty is dead. If you are a T10 medium camping next to two arty and I am an AMX 13 90, all I need to do is YOLO in, sacrifice myself for your two arty, and you don't stand a chance of stopping me before I kill them.
    It's the same way as screening for a cap circle, you never defend an ally on the cap circle from the cap circle itself, but from a forward position to intercept enemies.
  5. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in Question on tactics used   
    It's pretty standard policy for me: Say nothing retarded and you shall receive no flaming, ask nicely and ye shall receive nicely, talk shit and you shall be mocked.
  6. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from FreddBoy in Question on tactics used   
    It's pretty standard policy for me: Say nothing retarded and you shall receive no flaming, ask nicely and ye shall receive nicely, talk shit and you shall be mocked.
  7. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from avandelay in What are the best stat padding tanks   
    Light tanks are by far the hardest class to play properly, they deserve the premium on WN8 they get.
  8. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from Cronk in What are the best stat padding tanks   
    Light tanks are by far the hardest class to play properly, they deserve the premium on WN8 they get.
  9. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from Spyshadow01 in Question on tactics used   
    Just look at what you said yourself, and start by considering these questions: In the games you won 15-3 and 15-4, what exactly did you do to contribute to that 15 kills? You already know that everybody else is doing most of the work.
    The moment arty is lit in range of an allied tank, arty is dead. If you are a T10 medium camping next to two arty and I am an AMX 13 90, all I need to do is YOLO in, sacrifice myself for your two arty, and you don't stand a chance of stopping me before I kill them.
    It's the same way as screening for a cap circle, you never defend an ally on the cap circle from the cap circle itself, but from a forward position to intercept enemies.
  10. Upvote
    EchelonIII reacted to CraBeatOff in Question on tactics used   
    Your question was so well stated that Echelon gave a perfectly calm answer. That's a great feat, greater than you might realize.
  11. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from Ruestir in Question on tactics used   
    Just look at what you said yourself, and start by considering these questions: In the games you won 15-3 and 15-4, what exactly did you do to contribute to that 15 kills? You already know that everybody else is doing most of the work.
    The moment arty is lit in range of an allied tank, arty is dead. If you are a T10 medium camping next to two arty and I am an AMX 13 90, all I need to do is YOLO in, sacrifice myself for your two arty, and you don't stand a chance of stopping me before I kill them.
    It's the same way as screening for a cap circle, you never defend an ally on the cap circle from the cap circle itself, but from a forward position to intercept enemies.
  12. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in Still don't believe in baddie favoured RNG?   
    Fact 1: Snapshot hits Chaffee but bounces
    Fact 2: Snapshot hit the Chaffee in the first place.
     
    Today's Takeaway: Do not put RNGesus to the test ~ Serb 42:69
  13. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in Still don't believe in baddie favoured RNG?   
    There's no such thing as pubbie favored RNG, it's just simple regression to the mean. ANY RNG will favor less-skilled players by virtue of the simple fact that randomness always favors inferior sides
  14. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in Still don't believe in baddie favoured RNG?   
    Null hypothesis is that they don't, which is supported by mathematical theory (read: regression to the mean).
    Your proposal is that they do, which is backed by a "feeling that it might be".
     
    Your requirement is twofold:
    1. Demonstrate that the damage distribution of a POPULATION of lower stat players is higher than a similar population of higher stat players
    2. Demonstrate that there is a negative correlation between a players stats and his damage distribution.
     
    All while proving statistical significance.
     
    You have done neither, unless "feeling it may be true" counts.
     
    Regression to the mean has explained all phenomena rather elegantly.
     

    The burden of proof lies he who asserts a claim.
     
    You are the one making the claim here, it is YOUR job to prove it is true, not our job to prove it is false.
     
    "I win 40% of my games because MM is rigged against me, you can't say I'm wrong!"
     
    "I'm better than you even though I win less because WG rigs the game in your favor"

    You sound like a fucking denier.

    GTFO denier.
  15. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in Still don't believe in baddie favoured RNG?   
    Just because you are allowed to state your opinion doesn't mean you can't be retardedly wrong at the same time.
     
    As far as this case goes, you lay your assertion, you supply your proof, train of logic, or supporting evidence. In the absence of such, your stand is as good as the "win rate is luck" theory of any random red denier.
     
    Good luck disproving regression to the mean. 
  16. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in Still don't believe in baddie favoured RNG?   
    For the same reason that we have "innocent until proven guilty".
    You cannot prove a negative by inductive reasoning alone.


    You are not playing devils advocate, you are here because you honestly believe it.

    THe burden of proof is on you who asserts that your observations are correct.

    WG has laid it out very simply, my 128mm is stated to do 490 average, a 44%ers 128mm is stated to average at 490, your 128mm is stated to average at 490. That is WG's statement, and it is YOUR responsible to disprove it.

     
    Shit logic makes a denier, not stats.

    P.S. By your logic, I can say that your stats are meaningless.

    GTFO Denier
  17. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from warrends in Still don't believe in baddie favoured RNG?   
    We are the null hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you who trumpets your post.

    This is what WG shows my gun is:


    This is what WG shows your gun is:


    This is what WG shows a 70%er his gun is:


    This is what WG shows a 40%er his gun is:


    That's WG's claim, my gun is equal to your gun is equal to a 70's gun is equal to a 40's gun.

    You are challenging this.

    The burden of proof is on you to show that WG is lying to me when they show "490" average.
     
    As I have said, you are required to
    1. Demonstrate that the damage distribution of a POPULATION of lower stat players is higher than a similar population of higher stat players
    2. Demonstrate that there is a negative correlation between a players stats and his damage distribution.
    All while proving statistical significance.
     
    If you can prove those, then WG is indeed lying that "490" is a correct provided value as they have written.
     
    You wanted WG's statement on the gun, you've been given one.
     
    I stand corrected, I'm now pretty sure that you do not think.
     
    Last I checked, my being a douche doesn't affect my evidence, it also does not change the fact that you are a denier.
     

    It's nice to see you have a consistent stand on your stats too.
  18. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from CraBeatOff in Question on tactics used   
    Just look at what you said yourself, and start by considering these questions: In the games you won 15-3 and 15-4, what exactly did you do to contribute to that 15 kills? You already know that everybody else is doing most of the work.
    The moment arty is lit in range of an allied tank, arty is dead. If you are a T10 medium camping next to two arty and I am an AMX 13 90, all I need to do is YOLO in, sacrifice myself for your two arty, and you don't stand a chance of stopping me before I kill them.
    It's the same way as screening for a cap circle, you never defend an ally on the cap circle from the cap circle itself, but from a forward position to intercept enemies.
  19. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from TheEmptyLord in Question on tactics used   
    Just look at what you said yourself, and start by considering these questions: In the games you won 15-3 and 15-4, what exactly did you do to contribute to that 15 kills? You already know that everybody else is doing most of the work.
    The moment arty is lit in range of an allied tank, arty is dead. If you are a T10 medium camping next to two arty and I am an AMX 13 90, all I need to do is YOLO in, sacrifice myself for your two arty, and you don't stand a chance of stopping me before I kill them.
    It's the same way as screening for a cap circle, you never defend an ally on the cap circle from the cap circle itself, but from a forward position to intercept enemies.
  20. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from bathoz in WG Attempting to Sink Ships?   
    I'm just amazed at how so many dumb twits actually believed WG was to be trusted with an alpha game.
  21. Downvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from FavreFan4ever in Sarl 42 Love Thread   
    This tank exists?
  22. Upvote
    EchelonIII reacted to Cunicularius in Wargaming is fucking cruel   
    out skilled
  23. Upvote
    EchelonIII reacted to Grimoire_of_Alice in Wargaming is fucking cruel   
    Shouldn't have been camping
  24. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from Cronk in Wargaming is fucking cruel   
    We hope you will learn to play dynamically in future.
  25. Upvote
    EchelonIII got a reaction from Spyshadow01 in I installed XVM. Holy Shit.   
    [nope.avi]

    I don't know why nobody's ever written a full thread to debunk all the garbage about playing differently against different opponents before

    In every engagement, there is precisely one method of "best play", a T62-A against an E5 is a T-62A against an E5, the best move thing to do for the 62A is the best thing for the 62A because that move will give it the highest mathematical chance of winning, there is no "but the E5 is a retard", there is no "but the E5 is skilled enough to snipe my cupola with a poke", there is no "but I'm a better player so I will twitchaim faster than him".

    Last I checked, high stats did not increase the RNG on your tank (citation needed)

    For thought experiment purposes, we'll assume the following:

    A good player ALWAYS punishes an errorneous play, and can still win even if we play well
    A bad player only sometimes punishes an bad play
    A good strategy will always beat a bad player

    When you play the same way based on the objective tanks instead of subjective players, you do one of two things:
    1. You play the right way against both good and bad players
    2. You play the wrong way against both good and bad players

    We have four outcomes of this, two outcomes from each
    Strategy 1:
    1A. We beat both good AND bad players because we play well
    1B. We lose to good players and stil beat bad players with correct play

    Strategy 2:
    2A. We lose to goods but beat bad players
    2B. We get rekt by goods as usual, and also die to bad players

    The outcome of this is simple to analyze: The winrate of the various outcomes is always going to be 1A > 2A , 1B > 2B, and 1B > 2A because in strategy 1B we are clearly playing correctly, this means that the outcomes of strategy 1 will ALWAYS win more than the outcomes of strategy 2

    Any move we make towards improving play will always show a positive movement in winrate, it's simple as that, easy for us to follow, easy for us to track, and we have swift, responsive feedback as to whether we're playing the right or wrong way.

    Why playing two different ways against different opponents is retarded:

    When you play two different ways against different groups of players, you get split situations, let's simplify them
    1. You're doing the right thing against good players and the wrong thing against baddies
    2. You're doing the wrong thing against good players and the right thing against baddies.

    Now there are four different outcomes for strategy 1, and only one outcome for strategy 2
    1A. You do beat the good players and yet win most of the time against baddies because baddies are bad.
    1B. You can beat good players but get plastered most of the time by shitters because even they know how to beat your retarded decision.
    1C. You still get fucked by good players because they're better but win against bads because tomatoes.
    1D. You lose to goods anyway, and even the bads wreck you for being a retard

    2A. You get completely fucking wrecked by the good players who tear you up for a mistake, and beat most baddies

    What usable information can we derive from these outputs and feedback we'll get from play? Absolutely nothing

    No playing experience will ever tell us if (1A+1B+1C+1D) is greater than that of 2A, we have no usable information to work on, and the end result is that we're stumped.

    We have NOTHING to tell us what we are doing wrong, and no means to get the feedback needed to succeed.

    TL;DR Learn how to learn or stay plateaued.
×
×
  • Create New...