Jump to content
cheapbooks

Sniping Positions

Recommended Posts

On 4/16/2019 at 12:23 PM, cheapbooks said:

 

I am a really good player that gives you time and content.

And last of all, I am willing to bet my spotting stats are better than yours for any tank in your account. Keep that in mind. I am a frontline player, most high WN8 players and high winrate plays are campers who let their team take the damage, as is evident by their lack of spotting stats. Low spotting figures are evidence of campiness.

Wrong and wrong.

20 hours ago, cheapbooks said:

 

you said: "You are BARELY above average."

 

I challenge you to find 1 tank in your garage that has better spotting statistics than I do for the same tank

You are barely above average.

Spotting is nice, but it's reliant on your team do make it work.  To wit why you are incorrect:

 

Tsavo's T49: 2,702 battles, 57.74% win rate (3 marks too), 1,492 average damage, 2.46 spots per game, 765 assistance damage.

Cheapie's T49: 264 games, 45.83% win rate (1 mark), 560 damage, 5.78 spots per game, and 1,010 assistance damage.

You know what you're doing?  You're going too deep, too early, and dying too soon.  (your 4% survival rating hints at this) where I survive 24% of my games in it.  

You get spots early, with intent to deny their light tank a position of power or try to delete it outright (Derp or go the fuck home) 

 

You yolo scout.  That's not good for anything and hurts your team, which shows in your paltry win rate.  

Yes, you get more spotting damage, and I almost do your combined damage+assist in damage alone, add my spots and my combined contribution to the team is far more effective at getting wins.

 

Let's take a look at your SuperPershing as well:

Tsavo: 316 games, 60% win rate (3 marks), 1534 damage per game, 565 assist, .98 spots. 36% survived

Cheapie: 451 games, 50% win rate (2 marks), 980 damage per game, 633 assist, 1.97 spots. 25% survived

Which one does more for their team and wins?  (hint, not you)

19 hours ago, cheapbooks said:

you = noob

 

 

Wrong, that's you.

16 hours ago, cheapbooks said:

 

 

anyway, winrate is not player skill because there are multiple independent variables. you are still wrong. you can present any evidence you want and you will always be wrong.

Wrong with senseless drivel.

7 hours ago, cheapbooks said:

 

Wrong.

7 hours ago, cheapbooks said:

 

you = ignorant

Ironic.

 

 

You are an ill-informed player, making statements and claims from a point of ignorance.  That won't go far here.

 

Edited by _Tsavo_
words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

winrate is not player skill because there are multiple independent variables. you are still wrong. you can present any evidence you want and you will always be wrong.

"There are often not more than one or two independent variables tested in anexperiment, otherwise it is difficult to determine the influence of each upon the final results."

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS786US786&ei=yHa3XJyUOtb99QPE1KXABA&q=multiple+independet+varoables&oq=multiple+independet+varoables&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i13l7j0i22i30l3.2547192.2551153..2551253...0.0..1.172.4001.0j28......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0j0i131j0i13i30.QEujXLUQstc

get yourself an education before you question people who are more knowledgable than you.

Super Pershing was my first premium tank, I bought it the 3rd week I played the game and had poor results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cheapbooks said:

winrate is not player skill because there are multiple independent variables. you are still wrong. you can present any evidence you want and you will always be wrong.

"There are often not more than one or two independent variables tested in anexperiment, otherwise it is difficult to determine the influence of each upon the final results."

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS786US786&ei=yHa3XJyUOtb99QPE1KXABA&q=multiple+independet+varoables&oq=multiple+independet+varoables&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i13l7j0i22i30l3.2547192.2551153..2551253...0.0..1.172.4001.0j28......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0j0i131j0i13i30.QEujXLUQstc

get yourself an education before you question people who are more knowledgable than you.

Super Pershing was my first premium tank, I bought it the 3rd week I played the game and had poor results.

Wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cheapbooks Just imagine if you used the mental energy you waste concocting your illusions for good. The world would be a genuinely better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you said: "Just imagine if you used the mental energy you waste concocting your illusions for good. The world would be a genuinely better place."

 

ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to work for you. Everyone here understands that the amount of influence you can have in a random battle is limited. Hence the vast bulk of win rates falling between 38-65%. But the 38% player will do an average of 1 shot of damage per game. While the 65% player will often average double their tank’s HP in damage. Yet you claim win rate is not a measure of skill.....

#winningisluck

Have you knocked down more trees than SirFoch as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

winrate is absolutely positively not a measure of player skill:

 

"Individual performance in team-based online games"

"The longer the users play, the more the performance related to their teams reverts to the mean—which is approximately 0.5"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180329

 

A bunch of nerds did an official study that proves that people playing games with matchmakers like World of Tanks should revert to a 50% winrate. The reason this does not happen in WOT is because some players are stat padding.

If winrate really is player skill, then you could go and join every fantasy sport league, put the best skilled players on your team, and win tons of cash. But that doesn't happen because the other teams are doing the same thing. Which equalizes the advantage of skilled players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try reading articles before posting them as irrefutable proof. If you did, you’d have learnt that LoL has skill based MM. Hence the 50% win rate for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sohojacques said:

Try reading articles before posting them as irrefutable proof. If you did, you’d have learnt that LoL has skill based MM. Hence the 50% win rate for all.

I see what you are saying. You are saying that the matchmaker determines a player's win rate, and that WOT players with high winrates are seal clubbers. Hey looks like we agree!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cheapbooks said:

I see what you are saying. You are saying that the matchmaker determines a player's win rate, and that WOT players with high winrates are seal clubbers. Hey looks like we agree!

 

Are you comparing WoT's MM to LoL's ladder?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a WN8 600 player beats a WN8 500 player, is that player better than a WN8 3000 player who loses to a WN8 3100 player?

 

by your defintion, the WN8 600 player is better than a WN8 3000 player because he has the higher winrate. you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a higher winrate because you are a better skilled player than the players on the other team.

Therefor, you are getting preferential matchmaking. WOT is only matching you with other players who have less skill than you, and the matchmaking is rigged. That is the only way to explain your higher skill-based win rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cheapbooks said:

winrate is absolutely positively not a measure of player skill:

 

"Individual performance in team-based online games"

"The longer the users play, the more the performance related to their teams reverts to the mean—which is approximately 0.5"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180329

 

A bunch of nerds did an official study that proves that people playing games with matchmakers like World of Tanks should revert to a 50% winrate. The reason this does not happen in WOT is because some players are stat padding.

If winrate really is player skill, then you could go and join every fantasy sport league, put the best skilled players on your team, and win tons of cash. But that doesn't happen because the other teams are doing the same thing. Which equalizes the advantage of skilled players. 

Wrong.

3 hours ago, cheapbooks said:

I see what you are saying. You are saying that the matchmaker determines a player's win rate, and that WOT players with high winrates are seal clubbers. Hey looks like we agree!

 

Wrong.

42 minutes ago, cheapbooks said:

If a WN8 600 player beats a WN8 500 player, is that player better than a WN8 3000 player who loses to a WN8 3100 player?

 

by your defintion, the WN8 600 player is better than a WN8 3000 player because he has the higher winrate. you are wrong.

Wrong.

14 minutes ago, cheapbooks said:

You have a higher winrate because you are a better skilled player than the players on the other team.

Therefor, you are getting preferential matchmaking. WOT is only matching you with other players who have less skill than you, and the matchmaking is rigged. That is the only way to explain your higher skill-based win rate.

Wrong.

 

now get the fuck out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at approximately the top 7 winners of WOT Ranked Battles.

The best WOT players in the world.

Most of them have 52% or 53% winrates for *RANDOM BATTLES*.

So I guess either the 52% random battle players beat all the 65% super unicums, or all the above-53% random battle winrate players just decided not to play.

Why don't you guys send them messages telling them how you are better players than they are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, cheapbooks said:

I just looked at approximately the top 7 winners of WOT Ranked Battles.

The best WOT players in the world.

Most of them have 52% or 53% winrates for *RANDOM BATTLES*.

So I guess either the 52% random battle players beat all the 65% super unicums, or all the above-53% random battle winrate players just decided not to play.

Why don't you guys send them messages telling them how you are better players than they are?

Care to provide this evidence?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go to this page to see the RANKED BATTLES top 10 players:

https://worldoftanks.com/en/ratings/ranked/#wot&w_p=1&w_l=first

 

view their stats pages. switch it to say 'random battles' instead of 'ranked battles'. and you will see their random battle winrates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

you said: "it is so sad to see that some people can be this delusional and still be allowed to take part and influence the world"

choose the red pill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheapo, you must have swallowed a whole bottle of "Blue" Pills

Quote

You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, now I have a clear understanding. thankyou all for the criticism.

what happens is that we all start out as unskilled players, and over time, we improve, and our winrate goes up.

and some of you have very high winrates, much higher than mine, because you are better skilled.

and then after hard work, together, we will become more skilled and we will ALL have 100% winrates.

but that doesn't happen, does it? and the people with the low winrates are the unskilled players with few battles, and the skilled players with the high winrates have many battles. and they are playing each other. hmm... 

wouldn't that mean that players with high winrates are primarily beating novice players with few battles? or am I missing something? 

please explain how can it be that everyone's winrate is always going up. where do we find the losers? are there players who start with 65% winrates and over years of game play they end up on 45% winrate? (no)

high winrate players are seal clubbers.

I have been looking at stats for players with the most battles. players with 200,000 battles.

after 120,000 battles, the winrate starts to level off. 

and then for many of them, it starts to decline.

so I guess after a while, since winrate is player skill and it starts to decline, your skill gets worse after 120,000 battles.

lots of blue pillers here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you read or understand ANYTHING you type? 

people with the low winrates are the unskilled players with few any number of battles

players with high winrates are primarily beating novice players more often

how can it be that everyone's winrate is always going up. where do we find the losers?

 - Everyone's win rate is NOT going up.  There are plenty of sub 50% players that suck enough at the game to allow other players to exceed 50%

high winrate players are seal clubbers.

 - Some high win rate players are seal clubbers, but it is SUPER easy to spot them based on the tanks they play

 - Most high win rate players are just GOOD at the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...