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..