Jump to content

FlorbFnarb

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

    5,852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Jeeps in After all the bans and ROes and warnings on the official forums to honest players making honest posts...   
    ...let's see if they speak a word of reproach to Kobra2009 about his naked antisemitism and attempt to derail a legitimate thread into a political discussion.
     
    http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/281167-israeli-wot-community/
     
    He's the worst troll I've ever seen.  He only goes to those forums to spread intentional lies about how the game works, stir up discontent, and derail threads in an attempt to get them locked.  I suppose I have a tinfoil hat after all, because I can't quite shake the idea that he really is trying to harm the game's future by screwing with the forums there.  Given the low percentage of players that frequent the official forums, it would be a foolish strategy, but then people sometimes do foolish things.
     
    They seriously need to perma-ban that fuckchuckle.  Permabanning people like Garbad and Kewei but permitting Kobra to post without hindrance is nothing short of offensive.
  2. Downvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Feldia in Second Place Is A Set Of Steak Knives (repost from official forums)   
    The following I already posted on the official forums, but screw it, I'm reposting it here.  I see a lot of middle-range players, the 48%-54% crowd, getting inexplicably frustrated with the game and their ability to win, and this business with getting a winner's rewards for a Top Gun or whatever is something I feel kinda strongly about.  I think there's a certain attitude that is vital to getting better, which is what the post is all about.
     
    ________________________________________________________________________________
     
     
    There's talk about the new change where Top Gun and other medals gets people on the losing team the same reward as winning.  There are people in favor of this; I am not one of them, as I've said for quite a while now.
     
    This isn't meant to be an ad hominem knock on anybody at all, but there seems to be one demographic that is in favor of this change, and this is admittedly a gut feeling on my part, not something I have numbers to back up.
     
    The good players seem to (mostly) consider it pointless, as they believe they are capable of increasing their win rate and they can often platoon and further magnify their frequency of winning; the occasional loss stings but isn't worth changing the game over.  The bad players don't care because they aren't getting the Top Guns and Steel Walls and such in the first place, or at least not often enough for them to care about the change.  It's the middle-skill players, the ones in that large middle cohort, that stretches from the ones around the mean at 48% to around 52%, sometimes up to around 54%.
     
    Or, rather, it's some of them - the ones that have gotten frustrated and lost faith, and aren't playing the long game anymore.  They're getting frustrated by losing streaks, for one thing.  Streaks happen to anybody and can be frustrating, but they're inherent in the fact that we have aspects of the game that are beyond our control; randomly chosen teammates and opponents, random components to penetration, damage, and more, and of course the actions of the other people in the match are beyond our control.  They're also getting frustrated by the worst of the Snowflakes.  This middle cohort of the competent are seeing that they're better than many of their fellow players, and sometimes deal large amounts of damage but still lose.  They kill six enemies and yet their teammates derp themselves into losing the match.
     
    And so they grasp at straws, in my opinion, seeking to salvage something out of the match.  The loss wasn't their fault, right?  And it might not have been.  Yes, they could have done tons of damage at the wrong time and in the wrong place, but to be fair, there simply will be times when they do their best, fight well, perform, and yet the team manages to fail even harder than they can compensate for.  So they look for an "at least".  They want to be rewarded as though they won even though they didn't, simply because they deserved to win in terms of effort and individual performance.  They didn't win, but "at least" they're getting rewarded for that Top Gun.  And now they've got it, at least if they fulfill the requirements for some specific medals: Top Gun, etc.
     
    Don't fall for it.  It's a consolation prize, and like I said above, it will bite you in the rear in the future.  You'll do your bit fighting, perhaps even do more than your share of fighting.  You won't carry the match, but you'll carry your load and a couple other guys' loads.  There will be some other guy on the team that is able to carry the match, and he'll be alive at the end, alone, with half HP remaining, with five kills to his credit, and facing two enemies.  One will be at or near full HP and moving to your cap.  The other will be a slow, mortally wounded enemy 300 meters away.  He can turn right to fight the tank heading for your cap, or left to go after the wounded prey...and he's gonna go after that near-dead tank to get his sixth kill, the other enemy will cap you out, and he's gonna basically intentionally lose the match in order to get that Top Gun and assure his own reward, never mind that he just cost you the win.
     
    Never settle for anything but winning.  Stop looking for a consolation prize, and that's exactly what this change is: get a Top Gun on the losing team and you're an "e-honoUrary winner".  Yippee. Do I keep a replay of a match where I performed very, very well, but lost?  Sure.  Do I think there should be consolation prizes and awards for being an e-honoUrary winner and Best Effort and all that jazz?  Hell no.  Screw that.  I want to win.  Compared to winning, I don't care about  better DPG, K:D ratio, or any of that.  I want to win.  Improving those stats is fine if it improves my ability to win.  Finding better ways to farm damage, though...well, if it doesn't result in more wins, then I suppose it's nice enough even still, since it represents more XP and credits for me, but it's hardly why I enter a match.  I make enough XP and credits to do what I want as it is; getting more is convenient, but not truly necessary.
     
    Winning requires a mentality.  There are likely players that are as good or at least potentially as good as me - hell, some of them are probably better than me - and yet they're letting themselves get diverted into other goals.  They're losing faith in their ability to win more, and even though they usually disagree with the Snowflakes who want to argue "the game is rigged" or "being good is luck" or "being good really means you just pay to win", they still allow their attitude to be infected with this form of defeatism.  They inexplicably start believing that 52% is as good a winrate as they're gonna get, but they believe that they can and will continue to improve their DPG, K:D ratio, and so forth.  Their unspoken and usually unacknowledged belief pretty much amounts to "I will continue to perform well and probably even better in the future, but actually winning more is beyond my grasp; I am currently winning as much as I ever will, for some reason."  They don't explicitly believe it and would likely reject such an idea if explicitly stated, but still, people who will quickly reject explicitly stated fatalism can still be unconsciously infected with the underlying attitude.  That mentality will kill their ability to genuinely improve, and probably eventually their ability to enjoy the game.
     
    So stop accepting less.  Stop looking for an At Least.  Stop saying that you deserve to be considered an e-honoUrary Winner.  Stop asking for a mechanic that gives people the economic rewards of winning when they haven't won.  It is a perverse incentive that absolutely will result in people chasing medals even when they decrease the chance to win.  Imagine a T1 HT driver that ignores the important flank to go chase after Tier 3 tanks and swat six of them down like flies - does he deserve to get the rewards of a winner when he took his top tier heavy tank out of the critical part of the fight just to chase his Top Gun medal?  Hell no.
     
    Win or go home.  No consolation prizes; no e-honoUrary Winners.  Start chasing after victory and you'll get there eventually.  Stop straying off course in a vain effort to grasp the title "e-honoUrary Winner".  It's not something you really want.
     
    After all, and with all due credit to Deusmortis:
     
    Second place is a set of steak knives.
     
     
    http://youtu.be/8kZg_ALxEz0
  3. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from SoliDeoGloria in Second Place Is A Set Of Steak Knives (repost from official forums)   
    The following I already posted on the official forums, but screw it, I'm reposting it here.  I see a lot of middle-range players, the 48%-54% crowd, getting inexplicably frustrated with the game and their ability to win, and this business with getting a winner's rewards for a Top Gun or whatever is something I feel kinda strongly about.  I think there's a certain attitude that is vital to getting better, which is what the post is all about.
     
    ________________________________________________________________________________
     
     
    There's talk about the new change where Top Gun and other medals gets people on the losing team the same reward as winning.  There are people in favor of this; I am not one of them, as I've said for quite a while now.
     
    This isn't meant to be an ad hominem knock on anybody at all, but there seems to be one demographic that is in favor of this change, and this is admittedly a gut feeling on my part, not something I have numbers to back up.
     
    The good players seem to (mostly) consider it pointless, as they believe they are capable of increasing their win rate and they can often platoon and further magnify their frequency of winning; the occasional loss stings but isn't worth changing the game over.  The bad players don't care because they aren't getting the Top Guns and Steel Walls and such in the first place, or at least not often enough for them to care about the change.  It's the middle-skill players, the ones in that large middle cohort, that stretches from the ones around the mean at 48% to around 52%, sometimes up to around 54%.
     
    Or, rather, it's some of them - the ones that have gotten frustrated and lost faith, and aren't playing the long game anymore.  They're getting frustrated by losing streaks, for one thing.  Streaks happen to anybody and can be frustrating, but they're inherent in the fact that we have aspects of the game that are beyond our control; randomly chosen teammates and opponents, random components to penetration, damage, and more, and of course the actions of the other people in the match are beyond our control.  They're also getting frustrated by the worst of the Snowflakes.  This middle cohort of the competent are seeing that they're better than many of their fellow players, and sometimes deal large amounts of damage but still lose.  They kill six enemies and yet their teammates derp themselves into losing the match.
     
    And so they grasp at straws, in my opinion, seeking to salvage something out of the match.  The loss wasn't their fault, right?  And it might not have been.  Yes, they could have done tons of damage at the wrong time and in the wrong place, but to be fair, there simply will be times when they do their best, fight well, perform, and yet the team manages to fail even harder than they can compensate for.  So they look for an "at least".  They want to be rewarded as though they won even though they didn't, simply because they deserved to win in terms of effort and individual performance.  They didn't win, but "at least" they're getting rewarded for that Top Gun.  And now they've got it, at least if they fulfill the requirements for some specific medals: Top Gun, etc.
     
    Don't fall for it.  It's a consolation prize, and like I said above, it will bite you in the rear in the future.  You'll do your bit fighting, perhaps even do more than your share of fighting.  You won't carry the match, but you'll carry your load and a couple other guys' loads.  There will be some other guy on the team that is able to carry the match, and he'll be alive at the end, alone, with half HP remaining, with five kills to his credit, and facing two enemies.  One will be at or near full HP and moving to your cap.  The other will be a slow, mortally wounded enemy 300 meters away.  He can turn right to fight the tank heading for your cap, or left to go after the wounded prey...and he's gonna go after that near-dead tank to get his sixth kill, the other enemy will cap you out, and he's gonna basically intentionally lose the match in order to get that Top Gun and assure his own reward, never mind that he just cost you the win.
     
    Never settle for anything but winning.  Stop looking for a consolation prize, and that's exactly what this change is: get a Top Gun on the losing team and you're an "e-honoUrary winner".  Yippee. Do I keep a replay of a match where I performed very, very well, but lost?  Sure.  Do I think there should be consolation prizes and awards for being an e-honoUrary winner and Best Effort and all that jazz?  Hell no.  Screw that.  I want to win.  Compared to winning, I don't care about  better DPG, K:D ratio, or any of that.  I want to win.  Improving those stats is fine if it improves my ability to win.  Finding better ways to farm damage, though...well, if it doesn't result in more wins, then I suppose it's nice enough even still, since it represents more XP and credits for me, but it's hardly why I enter a match.  I make enough XP and credits to do what I want as it is; getting more is convenient, but not truly necessary.
     
    Winning requires a mentality.  There are likely players that are as good or at least potentially as good as me - hell, some of them are probably better than me - and yet they're letting themselves get diverted into other goals.  They're losing faith in their ability to win more, and even though they usually disagree with the Snowflakes who want to argue "the game is rigged" or "being good is luck" or "being good really means you just pay to win", they still allow their attitude to be infected with this form of defeatism.  They inexplicably start believing that 52% is as good a winrate as they're gonna get, but they believe that they can and will continue to improve their DPG, K:D ratio, and so forth.  Their unspoken and usually unacknowledged belief pretty much amounts to "I will continue to perform well and probably even better in the future, but actually winning more is beyond my grasp; I am currently winning as much as I ever will, for some reason."  They don't explicitly believe it and would likely reject such an idea if explicitly stated, but still, people who will quickly reject explicitly stated fatalism can still be unconsciously infected with the underlying attitude.  That mentality will kill their ability to genuinely improve, and probably eventually their ability to enjoy the game.
     
    So stop accepting less.  Stop looking for an At Least.  Stop saying that you deserve to be considered an e-honoUrary Winner.  Stop asking for a mechanic that gives people the economic rewards of winning when they haven't won.  It is a perverse incentive that absolutely will result in people chasing medals even when they decrease the chance to win.  Imagine a T1 HT driver that ignores the important flank to go chase after Tier 3 tanks and swat six of them down like flies - does he deserve to get the rewards of a winner when he took his top tier heavy tank out of the critical part of the fight just to chase his Top Gun medal?  Hell no.
     
    Win or go home.  No consolation prizes; no e-honoUrary Winners.  Start chasing after victory and you'll get there eventually.  Stop straying off course in a vain effort to grasp the title "e-honoUrary Winner".  It's not something you really want.
     
    After all, and with all due credit to Deusmortis:
     
    Second place is a set of steak knives.
     
     
    http://youtu.be/8kZg_ALxEz0
  4. Downvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Peaches in Second Place Is A Set Of Steak Knives (repost from official forums)   
    The following I already posted on the official forums, but screw it, I'm reposting it here.  I see a lot of middle-range players, the 48%-54% crowd, getting inexplicably frustrated with the game and their ability to win, and this business with getting a winner's rewards for a Top Gun or whatever is something I feel kinda strongly about.  I think there's a certain attitude that is vital to getting better, which is what the post is all about.
     
    ________________________________________________________________________________
     
     
    There's talk about the new change where Top Gun and other medals gets people on the losing team the same reward as winning.  There are people in favor of this; I am not one of them, as I've said for quite a while now.
     
    This isn't meant to be an ad hominem knock on anybody at all, but there seems to be one demographic that is in favor of this change, and this is admittedly a gut feeling on my part, not something I have numbers to back up.
     
    The good players seem to (mostly) consider it pointless, as they believe they are capable of increasing their win rate and they can often platoon and further magnify their frequency of winning; the occasional loss stings but isn't worth changing the game over.  The bad players don't care because they aren't getting the Top Guns and Steel Walls and such in the first place, or at least not often enough for them to care about the change.  It's the middle-skill players, the ones in that large middle cohort, that stretches from the ones around the mean at 48% to around 52%, sometimes up to around 54%.
     
    Or, rather, it's some of them - the ones that have gotten frustrated and lost faith, and aren't playing the long game anymore.  They're getting frustrated by losing streaks, for one thing.  Streaks happen to anybody and can be frustrating, but they're inherent in the fact that we have aspects of the game that are beyond our control; randomly chosen teammates and opponents, random components to penetration, damage, and more, and of course the actions of the other people in the match are beyond our control.  They're also getting frustrated by the worst of the Snowflakes.  This middle cohort of the competent are seeing that they're better than many of their fellow players, and sometimes deal large amounts of damage but still lose.  They kill six enemies and yet their teammates derp themselves into losing the match.
     
    And so they grasp at straws, in my opinion, seeking to salvage something out of the match.  The loss wasn't their fault, right?  And it might not have been.  Yes, they could have done tons of damage at the wrong time and in the wrong place, but to be fair, there simply will be times when they do their best, fight well, perform, and yet the team manages to fail even harder than they can compensate for.  So they look for an "at least".  They want to be rewarded as though they won even though they didn't, simply because they deserved to win in terms of effort and individual performance.  They didn't win, but "at least" they're getting rewarded for that Top Gun.  And now they've got it, at least if they fulfill the requirements for some specific medals: Top Gun, etc.
     
    Don't fall for it.  It's a consolation prize, and like I said above, it will bite you in the rear in the future.  You'll do your bit fighting, perhaps even do more than your share of fighting.  You won't carry the match, but you'll carry your load and a couple other guys' loads.  There will be some other guy on the team that is able to carry the match, and he'll be alive at the end, alone, with half HP remaining, with five kills to his credit, and facing two enemies.  One will be at or near full HP and moving to your cap.  The other will be a slow, mortally wounded enemy 300 meters away.  He can turn right to fight the tank heading for your cap, or left to go after the wounded prey...and he's gonna go after that near-dead tank to get his sixth kill, the other enemy will cap you out, and he's gonna basically intentionally lose the match in order to get that Top Gun and assure his own reward, never mind that he just cost you the win.
     
    Never settle for anything but winning.  Stop looking for a consolation prize, and that's exactly what this change is: get a Top Gun on the losing team and you're an "e-honoUrary winner".  Yippee. Do I keep a replay of a match where I performed very, very well, but lost?  Sure.  Do I think there should be consolation prizes and awards for being an e-honoUrary winner and Best Effort and all that jazz?  Hell no.  Screw that.  I want to win.  Compared to winning, I don't care about  better DPG, K:D ratio, or any of that.  I want to win.  Improving those stats is fine if it improves my ability to win.  Finding better ways to farm damage, though...well, if it doesn't result in more wins, then I suppose it's nice enough even still, since it represents more XP and credits for me, but it's hardly why I enter a match.  I make enough XP and credits to do what I want as it is; getting more is convenient, but not truly necessary.
     
    Winning requires a mentality.  There are likely players that are as good or at least potentially as good as me - hell, some of them are probably better than me - and yet they're letting themselves get diverted into other goals.  They're losing faith in their ability to win more, and even though they usually disagree with the Snowflakes who want to argue "the game is rigged" or "being good is luck" or "being good really means you just pay to win", they still allow their attitude to be infected with this form of defeatism.  They inexplicably start believing that 52% is as good a winrate as they're gonna get, but they believe that they can and will continue to improve their DPG, K:D ratio, and so forth.  Their unspoken and usually unacknowledged belief pretty much amounts to "I will continue to perform well and probably even better in the future, but actually winning more is beyond my grasp; I am currently winning as much as I ever will, for some reason."  They don't explicitly believe it and would likely reject such an idea if explicitly stated, but still, people who will quickly reject explicitly stated fatalism can still be unconsciously infected with the underlying attitude.  That mentality will kill their ability to genuinely improve, and probably eventually their ability to enjoy the game.
     
    So stop accepting less.  Stop looking for an At Least.  Stop saying that you deserve to be considered an e-honoUrary Winner.  Stop asking for a mechanic that gives people the economic rewards of winning when they haven't won.  It is a perverse incentive that absolutely will result in people chasing medals even when they decrease the chance to win.  Imagine a T1 HT driver that ignores the important flank to go chase after Tier 3 tanks and swat six of them down like flies - does he deserve to get the rewards of a winner when he took his top tier heavy tank out of the critical part of the fight just to chase his Top Gun medal?  Hell no.
     
    Win or go home.  No consolation prizes; no e-honoUrary Winners.  Start chasing after victory and you'll get there eventually.  Stop straying off course in a vain effort to grasp the title "e-honoUrary Winner".  It's not something you really want.
     
    After all, and with all due credit to Deusmortis:
     
    Second place is a set of steak knives.
     
     
    http://youtu.be/8kZg_ALxEz0
  5. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Rexxie in Second Place Is A Set Of Steak Knives (repost from official forums)   
    Done.
  6. Downvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from therusty in Garbad perma-banned from WoT Forum? aka Stalin v Hitler debate   
    Perhaps he'll show up here.

    As for the Stalin-apologetics, it has been suggested that perhaps we should mention this to game journalists. My only caveat is that we need to find a game journalist that is actually a journalist and is willing to say things even if they piss off a game publisher.
  7. Downvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from awcmon in According to FTR, KV1-S is loosing the 122mm in 8.9 - What are your opinions on it?   
    It doesn't have trollish armor, it has the weakest armor of any Tier 6 HT.
  8. Downvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Brontoscorpio in According to FTR, KV1-S is loosing the 122mm in 8.9 - What are your opinions on it?   
    It doesn't have trollish armor, it has the weakest armor of any Tier 6 HT.
  9. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Jeeps in As always, glad this place is here.   
    Blasphemy!

     
    BLASPHEMY!!

      
    Yup.

    Also, we need to discuss your unfortunate predilection for furries with boobs...
  10. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Alex5978 in In your opinion what are the most imba tanks in the game?   
    I think Tiers 4-9 are fairly well balanced. I don't think there are any honestly OP tanks in those tiers. There's a couple tanks that need their gold pen looked at, like the IS-2 which has a gold pen nerf coming, but beyond that narrow issue I don't think there are any OP tanks in Tiers 4-9.

    As for UP tanks, there aren't many, but there are a few. The AMX 40 is a little UP but could be set right with relatively minor pen and horsepower buffs.

    As for the lower tiers, Tiers 1-3, I can't say I spend enough time driving thkse tanks to know. I do know that the AMX 38 is an egregiously underpowered piece of shit for sure. The Pz1C some claim is OP due to the very high speed and DPM, but that high maximum DPM turns into an astonishingly low effective DPM because of the miserable penetration on the gun, even with gold rounds. It can bounce an embarrassingly large percentage of shots off a Tier 3 light tank, and shooting at a Tier 4 medium like a Lee can be a bit like shooting at a Maus.

    So overall I think the game is very well balanced at the moment. Arty was all that needed a serious nerf, and it finally got it in 8.6, so all is right in the WoT universe.
  11. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Solinvictus in Garbad perma-banned from WoT Forum? aka Stalin v Hitler debate   
    I don't see much to differentiate them. And I ain'tcho aunt!
  12. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Exiledcrow in Garbad perma-banned from WoT Forum? aka Stalin v Hitler debate   
    I really can't see much difference between Stalin and Hitler, not morally. They had their psychological differences, of course, but morally they're both in the Ridiculously Evil Bastards category with Mao and Pol Pot.

    To hell with all of them. It's more than a little ridiculous that WG is saying "at least he helped defeat Hitler". I expect the Poles might object to any differentiation between the two.
  13. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from GeorgeCP in Garbad perma-banned from WoT Forum? aka Stalin v Hitler debate   
    I really can't see much difference between Stalin and Hitler, not morally. They had their psychological differences, of course, but morally they're both in the Ridiculously Evil Bastards category with Mao and Pol Pot.

    To hell with all of them. It's more than a little ridiculous that WG is saying "at least he helped defeat Hitler". I expect the Poles might object to any differentiation between the two.
  14. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from CoreMaster101 in Garbad perma-banned from WoT Forum? aka Stalin v Hitler debate   
    I don't see much to differentiate them. And I ain'tcho aunt!
  15. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from CoreMaster101 in Garbad perma-banned from WoT Forum? aka Stalin v Hitler debate   
    I really can't see much difference between Stalin and Hitler, not morally. They had their psychological differences, of course, but morally they're both in the Ridiculously Evil Bastards category with Mao and Pol Pot.

    To hell with all of them. It's more than a little ridiculous that WG is saying "at least he helped defeat Hitler". I expect the Poles might object to any differentiation between the two.
  16. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from GoodEyeSniper14 in Garbad perma-banned from WoT Forum? aka Stalin v Hitler debate   
    Perhaps he'll show up here.

    As for the Stalin-apologetics, it has been suggested that perhaps we should mention this to game journalists. My only caveat is that we need to find a game journalist that is actually a journalist and is willing to say things even if they piss off a game publisher.
  17. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Tjerry in Everything you need to know about Arty.   
    Dammit, Echelon, you just cost me ten minutes of my life.
  18. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Lt_Gruber in Given that people play like idiots on Arctic Region, what do you guys do?   
    I mean, I know how the map should be played on the south side:
     



     
    But I also know that isn't actually gonna happen, and that this is gonna happen instead:
     



     
    So given that the south is simply not going to be played like it should, what do you guys do?  Do you all go north?  I won't follow the lemmings and play bumper cars trying to be the next guy to peek around the corner for a shot.
  19. Downvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from dualmaster333 in Everything you need to know about Arty.   
    Dammit, Echelon, you just cost me ten minutes of my life.
  20. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Novacube in Name and Shame Thread, (ArrogantWorms sucks at technical stuffz)   
    Please never do that again. /:|
  21. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from Ruestir in Shameless plug for my videos   
    The editing bug has bitten me again a little lately, so a while back I made a YouTube video of one of my M6 matches that went pretty well.  Added a suitable soundtrack for the climax of the match, plus an end credits sequence, and voila, instant video goodness.
     
    I may in the future make videos that are basically highlight reels of specific tanks set to songs I like, but editing a lot of cuts and doing it in rhythm to music is rather time-consuming in terms of editing, so for now expect to see more matches that simply have a musical background edited in for fun.
     
    Still, shamelessplug for the one video I have so far:
     

  22. Upvote
    FlorbFnarb got a reaction from S204STi in Tanking Aphorisms   
    "If you aren't dealing damage or moving to deal damage, you're doing it wrong."
×
×
  • Create New...