• Content count

    1,541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8014

Community Reputation

992 Excellent

6 Followers

About VGLance

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile VGLance

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.byawi.com
  • Portal profile VGLance

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Las Vegas
  • Interests
    Traveling and outdoor adventures with my better half. DIY projects. Growing my two companies MDT and Byawi. History, politics, anthropology, emotional intelligence.
  • Portal profile VGLance

Recent Profile Visitors

1,344 profile views
  1. What I mean is that unless we can know for sure if they are botting or not, there's really no point in fussing about it, especially when you have players playing worse than bots. I care more about results. I'll take a bot over someone playing worse than a bot any day. The greater the results, the greater the fun. It's just that simple. It's no different than outside the game. Take your two examples. The guy might be doing tedious manual labor but he's being productive, he's producing results. He's contributing to the welfare of society ("team"—after all, we're all in this society of man together) while the other one is leeching from it. At the surface, a lesser mind would think that I'm supporting your analogy, but in reality, it shows your analogy is not connected to my point, and therefore is not valid to refute my point. There are two issues on the table: Bots vs. live players and how they contribute to fun for players that are results-oriented Presence of botters and the moral implications I'm focusing on 1 and 2 with the majority emphasis on 1 simply because WG will never implement what I've suggested which is setting a performance requirement (extremely low standard that only toxic trolls would argue is unjustified) just above bot productivity that would disable random battles (they can still play co-op) until they maintained above that standard in co-op for a period of x number of games. That suggestion shows my interest in addressing 2. You're just arguing 2.
  2. I run a program that shows me everyone's stats in amazing detail. Any time I suspect someone of botting I look at the number of games played and 9/10 times the number is very low. Too low to properly conclude they are botting, at least consistently. Granted they could have just started using the bot program but that isn't enough to accuse someone. Does it really matter though? We have a massive population of players who are actively playing and are actually worse than bots. The only solution available is to be unicum and div with two other unicums to make up for those on your team with the intelligence of a speed bump.
  3. There are mods and third party programs, heck you could write your own if you're a programmer and know a little about API's. Any military leader will tell you information is power. The leaders that take the necessary steps to acquire that information (it's public domain so there are no rules being broken), have a massive edge over those that don't. You just have to see enough value in it as a means to make better decisions and forecasts that result in more wins. And more wins = more rewards (not just faster xp progression but mission completion, more containers and all the goodies that come from them). If you're too casual to care, just stick with the main force. Strength in numbers. Guys running off solo are either going to die early no matter what they do or if they are above average players, they'll be smart enough to recognize they are short numbers and turn around and kite the enemy before they get out of position. There are a ton of below average players who think that you're supposed to split evenly to opposite sides of the map and they look at going the minority way in order to restore balance as some form of bullsh*t honorary duty. And that's why they remain below average players. They allow their tunnel vision and horrible strategies they think are sound to rule them.
  4. You respond to: "Read his posts including on the second page. He's claiming it's extremely OP with no weaknesses and cannot be countered. I am simply outlining why his argument is invalid. " with your words above and nothing at all registers with you that you are deflecting away from the issue? That means you are agreeing with him that the CQ has NO weaknesses and cannot be countered in any way. And if something was EXTREMELY OP, it would have to have a wildly disproportionate win rate. Or do you need to look up the word extreme? Stick to the issue and stop playing your juvenile, passive-aggressive Saul Alinsky games of misdirection.
  5. Depends on the terrain and what and where and when of enemy ships vs team mates that might be nearby to take the heat off. That's a judgement call you have to make. The path to unicum is through keeping one eyeball on the minimap the entire match so you never get overextended to begin with. The biggest fix for a bad situation is to stop yourself from putting yourself in bad situations. Players get better when they make it their personal responsibility. Tomatoes remain tomatoes when they blame their situation on others, so always take accountability because no one but yourself is responsible for the health of your ship. The more a person takes ownership of their outcomes, the easier it will be to forecast potential potholes in map positioning before they stumble into them.
  6. Depends on the team. If there are a lot of potatoes, I stick with the main fleet. If I see a bunch of unicums on my team, I tend to go away from them knowing they will handle the side they're on and I can get a good game in dealing with the other side (but you have to know how to kite and use terrain if outnumbered). If you aren't running anything that can give you the critical information about the skill level of the players on both teams, always go with the main fleet. This game is all about focus fire and force count. The sooner you can get up by 1-2 ships, the sooner and more profound the snowball effect will kick in which is nearly impossible to stop. That's why kills are far more critical to focus on in the first 5-6 min of the match, not caps. Those that focus on caps and suicide themselves make it easier for the enemy team to take the cap back and hold it.
  7. I'm not talking about below average players. I'm talking extremely below average players. I'm also talking about people like the game I just got out of. A t9 with two T8s division where all three had win rates of 43% and below. That's griefing. That's sentencing your team to a loss before the match even starts. You are misreading my message. This has nothing to do with how I stack up to other players. I've said this countless times. I have far more respect for the below average player that is improving their game than an above average player who flatlined and has no care to improve. I'm talking about people who put themselves before others at unhealthy, selfish levels. Like the guy that disconnects every other game, or has such a slow computer, he doesn't even get into battle until 5 minutes in and the frame rate is so bad that he's got a 10% hit ratio. He knows he's beyond unreliable but muddles through it putting his fun ahead of everyone else. Or the guy that lets his 3 year old mash the keys while playing a T10 ship. Nothing wrong with having the little urchin play a match for fun, but a decent human being would load up a co-op match for him. A decent human being gets his internet fixed or plays solo games until it's fixed. We do that when we're running into technical issues out of respect of the other players. Yes, even random. Every now and then one of our clan mates on Teamspeak will bow out due to internet or crashing problems and won't come back on until he diagnoses and repairs the issue or until their ISP becomes more stable. We hold ourselves to a basic human decency standard that has nothing to do with arrogance. There is a serious deficiency in values and principles in many of the players in this community and when they set their standards to filthy gutter levels, I consider them to be the most toxic because they enable others to believe it's acceptable behavior. That's how we look around in a restaurant and even on the highway and see everyone with their faces buried in their cell phones. You can't be an arrogant person when you hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold others. I never demand or expect from others what I expect from myself, but I do expect people to maintain at least a basic, REASONABLE set of morals and values as well as self-respect, proactivity and personal accountability. If that to you is an unhealthy attitude, then that's pretty disturbing.
  8. Worst people in the game are those that don't self-regulate. If they cannot for whatever reason (intelligence, physical, technical) cannot consistently fulfill their 1/12 of their responsibility, they should apply the Golden Rule and stick to low tiers or co-op. To consciously know that they are sabotaging their team by increasing their team's chances of losing simply by their mere presence is an act of dishonor. The "it's just a game" excuse is only ever played when trying to justify poor behavior. A ton of players need to raise their standards when it comes to respecting others. A person's focus on their own personal fun should not be at the expense of 11 other peoples' fun. When they do, it's selfish and disrespectful. When seniors can no longer drive the ball 300+ yards from the pro tees, they self-regulate and hit from the amateur tees or even the lady's tees so they don't slow down the groups behind them. Same concept. People think they can ignore the impact their behavior has on others because they are hiding behind the safety blanket of anonymity. "It's the internet so that gives me a right to be an a-hole." Again, a testament to their poor character.
  9. Read his posts including on the second page. He's claiming it's extremely OP with no weaknesses and cannot be countered. I am simply outlining why his argument is invalid.
  10. "Stats don't matter..." thanks for continuing to prove my point. "You like the ship"... really? I have 5 games played in it. How can I even make that determination let alone you? I need at least 50-60 games in a ship to know if I like it, because this pesky thing called logic.
  11. When players whine and say things are broken before making an effort to improve their ability and comprehension of game mechanics, they forfeit their protection from ridicule.
  12. The percentage of increased avg dmg of the CQ compared to the other BBs is NOT resulting in anywhere near the same percentage increase in win rates. Why? Because while the CQ is doing more damage, far more of it is healed back while the AP dmg done by the other BBs are largely not able to be healed back. So it means that most of the added damage done by the CQ is meaningless damage like junk yardage accumulated by a losing football team. Damage output is completely separate from the conversation about the CQ heal which is countered by the squishy armor and horribad dispersion and virtually non-existent AA. Some players understand this concept, others fail to see past the damage numbers and fire visual effects.
  13. Not exactly. By being as brutally honest as I was, it caused him to expose (with his insanity-filled response) just how irrational he is as well as the level to which his unhealthy mindset is affecting his warped perception.
  14. Thanks for showing everyone that you're the classic example of a weak-minded and self-destructive person who is willing to openly lie to yourself and others to deflect away from taking personal accountability. To do this knowing that my stats are public makes you look even more pathetic. You are your own worst enemy to progress. It takes a very basic level of intelligence to be aware of what you're doing and yet it doesn't seem like you can see it.
  15. You need 100-200 battles in a ship for win rate to settle into place.