Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

22 Neutral

About Griphos

Recent Profile Visitors

140 profile views
  1. 33% win rate in 42 games

    I feel your pain, bro.
  2. Email Promo?

    Dude! I'm not just calling you a conspiracy nut. I just wrote a wall of text explaining precisely why what you say is unreasonable. What about anything I've said is "unstable"? I've provided a thorough argument about why what you seem to believe makes no sense. You're the one using ad hominem arguments, not me. As a Doctor of Philosophy, yes, I have some familiarity with fallacies. And the sunk cost fallacy doesn't apply here, which you said yourself (although you may have just been sloppy when you said that "F2P games...don't implement mechanics and business tactics that match how casino's (sp) operate.") There's not a direct correlation between pay in and pay out here. You're not wagering! The sunk cost fallacy is the thought that you've made a large investment already, you should stick with it. NOT that you're losing and so should make a new investment to win. "Sticking with it" requires NO investment of actual money in this game. Like any good conspiracy theorist, you're not going to let facts or counter-arguments impact your belief structure, so we're done. If you are sure WG is being dishonest with you and making you lose, show them you won't be suckered. Quit! Go away. Try again when you get another email. Bye.
  3. Are you that dense!?! I did indeed multiply. I mulitplied x (10) by .5 which = 5, which added to 10 = 15. Sheeesh! This is not hard math! You're pointing out how stupid you are without any help from me.
  4. You need to pay a bit more attention. Both the original formula and my quotation of it have .5x, not 5x. That's because you aren't given multiples of your base XP as FXP. You're given a fraction of it. Now, don't you just feel silly?
  5. Email Promo?

    I've been playing WG games since 2012, so I am fully aware of WG's size and its operations. And, yes, skepticism=/=conspiracy theory. You're not being skeptical. What you're describing is the same conspiracy theory, down to the specific details, that I've heard ad nauseum. I'M being skeptical. There's indeed a difference. Of course WG wants you to play more. Of course they want you to buy premium content. Playing more will incentivize you to spend money. They have LOTS of ways of doing that without resorting to rigging MM. It's built into the grind structure and in no way hidden or secret. The question is why they would try to do so by rigging you to lose?! Losing isn't fun!! Losing doesn't make you want to play more and buy things!! Offering you a reward for playing and winning is one way to do so. Sometimes they offer rewards with very few or no strings attached. Every game like this varies its offers with some that require some work and some that require no work. Where you get conspiratorial, and nonsensical, actually, is the idea that they "pair you up" with poor players as some kind of incentive program to get you to spend money. The only way that would work is if you think that once you spend money, they pair you up with good players to reward your purchase and make you think you have to spend money to win. Trust me, the stats clearly show that LOTS of people spend LOTS of money on this game and WoT and others like it and DON'T WIN very well! I'm not saying WG is not dishonest. I'm just saying they're not dishonest in the stupid way you are suggesting, because it makes no sense for them to be so. And it's not actually as easy for them to do so as you and your fellow conspiracy theorists seem to think it is (if you understand how MM actually works, you'd understand that). And it's very clear, from thousands and thousands of players who pay money for premium content and yet DON'T win more, that they aren't doing so. I'm not saying there are no stats in this game. I'm saying they don't use the kind of stats you imagine (like W/L ratios) as a factor in MM, since doing so would have an adverse affect on wait times, which would piss everyone off, and they have absolutely zero reason to do so. And, yes, as long as there are other players on your team, then singling you out to lose means singling them out to lose. You can't lose alone. That means that they have to pick a bunch of people with poor stats THAT AT THE SAME TIME they want to incentivize in your wacky way because they're not buying enough premium content. That would bring MM to pretty much a grinding halt. Let's see....[MM at work] Check for time since last purchase of premium content...sort into groups slotted for incenitvizing through losing ('cause that's not crazy!)....check stats for average win ratio ('cause that's so determinate of whether a given player will play well enough in a given battle to affect the outcome...wait, NOT!)....sort into tier and class...match against the exact same tier and class out of the queue....then check that those matched have better win ratios (see note above...hoping those better stat players aren't drunk and don't play like donkeys in this particular battle)...reshuffle since those parameters are actually not easy to find out of a given pool....reshuffle again because people have left the pool in frustration...battle. Yeah....right...that's what's happening!
  6. Email Promo?

    I've seen this kind of conspiracy theory over on the WoT forums a lot. First, you don't seem to understand the relation of stats and action. Second, you seem to think WG has a LOT of time on its hands to worry about finding and screwing over particular players. Third, you think they either don't care about making the other players on your team lose as well, just so they can make you lose, or you think they group the players they want to lose together based on stats and secret algorithms. If the former, why would they do that? Why disgruntle a LOT of players to get at one or two. If the latter, you don't seem to understand how trying to create that kind of MM would lead to seriously long queue times while they found and then gathered just the right players together to put on the losing team. And THEN, it's STILL a matter of the fact that each battle is an actual dynamic situation with 16 or more players actually doing their best to win, and doing so in ways that cannot be forecast from some analysis (particularly some crude algorithmic analysis) of their stats, which are simply averages across a range of games, and so cannot predict outcomes. Free is totally free. No one is forcing you to go for the $5m or any other mission. Play the ships you have and you don't have to spend a dime on the game.
  7. Well ain't that..

    Color me unimpressed.
  8. You are right, of course. The incivility doesn't accomplish anything productive, and actually doesn't make me feel any better. I too thought this game was better in that regard than WoT. I must admit that I'm guilty of participating in its decline. I guess team multiplayer games are just no good for me. I struggle to make it just about the fun of the action, and challenging myself to do my very best. I consistently rank in the top 5 on my team, and should be content with that. But I HATE losing. I don't mind losing a hard fought battle where we were simply outplayed at the end (but those are too few and far between). I HATE losing because my team just seems incompetent and doesn't seem to understand the very basics of play, and dies quickly and thoroughly, or refuses to achieve the necessary game winning mechanics, like sitting in a group outside an uncontested cap instead of capping it. I played WoT for years, and finally quit the game because it was not good for my general attitude on life. I started playing WoWS because I thought I could just not care about winning or losing, and could just enjoy sailing the ships around and shooting pixels. I seem to have been wrong. So, I guess I'll either stop playing these games altogether, or enforce some kind of chat discipline where I only use chat to praise or point out tactics or strategies. Yelling at teammates doesn't ever make them any better, in my experience, and doesn't make me feel any better.
  9. Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. You clearly know nothing about social science or natural science research. I never said anyone was “the problem,” and your little pearl of psychological wisdom is laughable, as is your claim about how science and debate work And the burden of proof is most definitely on the one making the claim! Simple logic teaches that the burden of proof is borne by the claim. You have to offer evidence for any claim to compel its acceptance. A claim is an element in an argument, and without evidence that directly supports the claim, it is not an argument, but is just an empty claim, not worth attention. What you want from others is not possible, since neither you nor others can go back and retroactively gather evidence of prior XP payouts. Maybe there has been a change in XP for the operation. Maybe not. Impossible to know without evidence to support the hypothesis. You have no such evidence. You just have your experience from which you are convinced something has changed. You have shared that conviction with us ad nauseum. We get that you are convinced. But you have no evidence with which to convince us. So, there is nothing more to do or say in this thread....still. There really hasn’t been from its start.
  10. Email Promo?

    It is silly to think the game has somehow been rigged to make you lose. You’re not playing by yourself. WG can’t control the actions of all the players on both teams so that you lose.
  11. Well ain't that..

    And the foundation of YOUR expertise on world resources futures is......?
  12. That's no cure for frustration. I lost the first five out of six games this afternoon. Clawed back to 5 wins and 6 losses, was feeling better and feeling like I was contributing well, and thought I'd do an operation to take a break. Worst operation team I've ever played with! More than half the team refused to go into the harbor in Killer Whale. Just hung around outside trying for long range shots and missing until the reinforcement waves spawned among them and killed them all. That did NOT improve my mood or attitude!
  13. The blunt approach never works either. OT: I've found BBs by far the hardest class to learn to play well in. I feel like I'm beginning to learn how to play them, but I'm only at T5 in a couple of lines (not counting a premium or two). I have always done much better in Cruisers and DDs.
  14. I fought the five battles in Randoms, and, of course, was uptiered every time to T7. I have to say I was impressed (not having played it in a while) with how well the Bretagne held up against higher tier ships. Time to finish that grind and move on up the French BB line, I think. (I have ship ADD and am grinding too many lines at the same time).
  15. Again, the issue is psychology. That you, as a group, that talk with each other and convince each other something is going on, see something is going on "plain as day." Asking others if they see the same thing, now that you mention it, is a classic mechanism of what is called "social proof" (look it up). That you guys, as a group that talk with each other, are sure you're seeing something is, again, absolutely no evidence there is, in fact, anything at all to see. Without what you say you don't have (real evidence of prior different payouts given the same modifiers and performance), then all you have is your "gut feeling" that something is going on. You've shared that gut feeling, asked if any others share it (and only one person has said they do...without any evidence to support it), and, without what you say you don't have, there's nothing more to do. In your (bad) analogy, if the scores at a sporting event start not to add up, you can easily check the machines and adjust them. What, exactly, are you proposing happen in this situation? If you want WG to look into what you think is perhaps a "glitch" in their systems, then you need to send in a support ticket. Instead, you're just arguing on the internet with people you don't seem to be able to convince. No matter how "clear" you think you're being (which is, IMO, not at all clear). And your math is very bad. x+.5x=y does not create a y that is "exponentially" larger than x. It's a straight factor. Minute changes in x, as you put it, will lead to smaller changes in y, not larger ones. A 1 integer difference in x will lead to half of an integer difference in y. Think it through. 10+5=15 and 9+4.5=14.5. If this is an example of your reasoning, then it's easier to see how you come to your conclusions.