Jump to content


Thanks For Not Listening


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

MarBearCat #21 Posted 14 July 2018 - 03:01 AM

    Pennsylvania's Favorite Cat!

  • Players
  • 21924 battles
  • 10,511
  • [SDWA]
  • Member since:
    11-13-2015

View Post4sfield, on 12 July 2018 - 02:55 PM, said:

Here it is..

 

 

You should have double-tapped to remove the line.

Absolute_Sniper #22 Posted 14 July 2018 - 03:09 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 27403 battles
  • 1,582
  • [CRU2L]
  • Member since:
    11-05-2015

View Post4sfield, on 12 July 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

 

  Video is grainy, I could use some help with that if anyone has any input.

Save it as a 1080 file. It’s a larger file but so worth it 



4sfield #23 Posted 14 July 2018 - 03:36 AM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 28765 battles
  • 3,877
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostMarBearCat, on 13 July 2018 - 10:01 PM, said:

 

You should have double-tapped to remove the line.

 

View PostAbsolute_Sniper, on 13 July 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

Save it as a 1080 file. It’s a larger file but so worth it 

 

  Thanks guys, I’ll remember these. I was in a rush and just forgot to do the double tap thing and thought maybe 1080 was the way to go. I’ll know what to do for the 2nd one.

 

 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


GentleNova #24 Posted 14 July 2018 - 05:13 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22663 battles
  • 712
  • [FABLE]
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View Post4sfield, on 12 July 2018 - 02:36 PM, said:

I get it, I just don’t understand why they don’t think we don’t. The guy also had no reservations about pinning the loss that didn’t happen on me, he started after it went 2 on 2. I don’t get that either.

 

I used to wonder what was wrong with these people as well. Then while doing some research on personal and organizational development, I stumbled across an article that talked about three types of learning: Single-loop, Double-loop, and Triple-loop learning. What leaped out at me in the description was an alternative way of describing each that mirrored remarkably close to how a Blitz player "should" evolve and master the game but often doesn’t. The alternative wording for these three types of learning were tactical, strategic, and adaptive.

 

The key thing to realize here is that what separates these three types of learning is not intelligence but perce​ption. So as the person goes through a sort of paradigm shift in the way they see the game as they shift between each way of learning, their awareness broadens becoming more encompassing. Again the similarities to the game here are remarkable. What do you say to a noob when he or she is so focused on the enemy that they aren’t aware of what is happening around them or even right next to them? You say they’re "tunnelling". In comparison, think of a person who is an amazing shot caller, who has so much awareness of what is going on (ie they see the "big picture" ), they can actually predict the ebb and flow of the battle before it even happens.

 

So when a person is learning the game, they are focused on tactical learning which is how to be a great tank driver (i.e. angling, targeting, spotting). As the person evolves and hopefully masters this, they should make a leap to strategic learning which is how to be a great team player (i.e. map awareness, team composition). And if the person masters this, they evolve to adaptive thinking which is how to be a great independent player (i.e. knowing when to push & when to bail). Of course, the reality, as we all know, is that this never happens for everyone. Instead, most players plateau at being a tactical player, a smaller group plateau at being a strategic player, and an even smaller few actually evolve and master becoming an adaptive player.

 

Now when you start looking at how people interact within the game this way, by perception rather than intelligence, things before that seemed illogically now suddenly make sense. Again people at these lower levels of learning aren't lacking intelligence but rather are lacking perception (i.e. awareness). Put another way, they are effectively blind to what is right next to them, kind of like when an inexperienced player "tunnels". So when they look at the game, they are seeing a very limited perspective of it. And more importantly, anything outside of their limited perspective doesn't make sense to them because of the way they are looking at things.

 

Here's an example. My platoon mate and I were on Castilla in a Tier V game. I went mill with most of the team and he went church to spot for meds there and provide crossfire fire to mill. Right away we were pushed at mill with the enemy cresting the hill and pushing hard. I tried the best I could but they pushed from the top and bottom side, so I basically did as much damage as I could before I died. Suddenly we were all dead except for my platoon mate at church who was the last alive. He tried valiantly, pumping out more damage, but eventually died as well. While this was happening, other people on our team called him out as an idiot for not helping us. When the results showed though, he had over 2000 damage, I had over 1000 damage, and the rest of the team were way below 500 damage.

 

So what happened? Why wasn't my platoon mate an idiot, as some believed he was? Because he had an advantageous strategic position that allowed him to provide crossfire support so effectively that he couldn't fire fast enough. So while my platoon mate and myself were seeing the battle strategically (and even adaptively a bit in his case near the end), the rest of our team were seeing it from a very limited tactical view only, whereby unless you were right next to us, you were an idiot and not "contributing" to the team. So even when the battle results clearly showed my platoon mate was doing something different and "right", from a purely tactical perspective he was "wrong" and an idiot (and is still an idiot in their minds).

 

 


Edited by GentleNova, 14 July 2018 - 05:35 AM.

 

X: Obj 263*, T110E4, T110E3, FV215b 183 / IX: SU-122-54*, T-54*, ST-I, IS-8, Jagdtiger

VIII: Type 59*, IS-6*, Löwe*, T34*, T26E4, Tiger II / VII: SU-122-44*, Comet*, T-34-85 Rudy, Type 62, VK 30.02 D*, E25*


Absolute_Sniper #25 Posted 14 July 2018 - 05:35 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 27403 battles
  • 1,582
  • [CRU2L]
  • Member since:
    11-05-2015

View PostGentleNova, on 14 July 2018 - 05:13 AM, said:

 

I used to wonder what was wrong with these people as well. Then while doing some research on personal and organizational development, I stumbled across an article that talked about three types of learning: Single-loop, Double-loop, and Triple-loop learning. What leaped out at me in the description was an alternative way of describing each that mirrored remarkably close to how a Blitz player "should" evolve and master the game but often doesn’t. The alternative wording for these three types of learning was tactical, strategic, and adaptive.

 

The key thing to realize here is that what separates these three types of learning is not intelligence but perce​ption. So as the person goes through a sort of paradigm shift in the way they see the game as they shift between each way of learning, their awareness broadens becoming more encompassing. Again the similarities to the game here are remarkable. What do you say to a noob when he or she is so focused on the enemy that they aren’t aware of what is happening around them or even right next to them? You say they’re "tunnelling". In comparison, think of a person who is an amazing shot caller, who has so much awareness of what is going on (ie they see the "big picture" ), they can actually predict the ebb and flow of the battle before it even happens.

 

So when a person is learning the game, they are focused on tactical learning which is how to be a great tank driver (i.e. angling, targeting, spotting). As the person evolves and hopefully masters this, they should make a leap to strategic learning which is how to be a great team player (i.e. map awareness, team composition). And if the person masters this, they evolve to adaptive thinking which is how to be a great independent player (i.e. knowing when to push & when to bail). Of course, the reality, as we all know, is that this never happens for everyone. Instead, most players plateau at being a tactical player, a smaller group plateau at being a strategic player, and an even smaller few actually evolve and master becoming an adaptive player.

 

Now when you start looking at how people interact within the game this way, by perception rather than intelligence, things before that seemed illogically now suddenly make sense. Again people at these lower levels of learning aren't lacking intelligence but rather are lacking perception (i.e. awareness). Put another way, they are effectively blind to what is right next to them, kind of like when an inexperienced player "tunnels". So when they look at the game, they are seeing a very limited perspective of it. And more importantly, anything outside of their limited perspective doesn't make sense to them because of the way they are looking at things.

 

Here's an example. My platoon mate and I were on Castilla in a Tier V game. I went mill with most of the team and he went church to spot for meds there and provide crossfire fire to mill. Right away we were pushed at mill with the enemy cresting the hill and pushing hard. I tried the best I could but they pushed from the top and bottom side, so I basically did as much damage as I could before I died. Suddenly we were all dead except for my platoon mate at church who was the last alive. He tried valiantly, pumping out more damage, but eventually died as well. While this was happening, other people on our team called him out as an idiot for not helping us. When the results showed though, he had over 2000 damage, I had over 1000 damage, and the rest of the team were way below 500 damage.

 

So what happened? Why wasn't my platoon mate an idiot? Because he had an advantageous strategic position that allowed him to provide crossfire support so effectively that he couldn't fire fast enough. So while my platoon mate and myself were seeing the battle strategically (and even adaptively a bit in his case near the end), the rest of our team was seeing it from a very limited tactical view only, whereby unless you were right next to us, you were an idiot and not "contributing" to the team. So even when the battle results clearly showed my platoon mate was doing something different and "right", from a purely tactical perspective he was "wrong" and an idiot (and is still an idiot in their minds).

 

 

I feel like I am supposed to pay tuition after reading this. Nice comparison. The one things it doesn’t factor is physical skill. Reaction time and hand eye coordination play a huge role in where some of the players plateau. It’s also why occasionally someone who has no real working knowledge of the game can carry a round like a unicum. 

 

 



4sfield #26 Posted 14 July 2018 - 05:38 AM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 28765 battles
  • 3,877
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostGentleNova, on 14 July 2018 - 12:13 AM, said:

 

I used to wonder what was wrong with these people as well. Then while doing some research on personal and organizational development, I stumbled across an article that talked about three types of learning: Single-loop, Double-loop, and Triple-loop learning. What leaped out at me in the description was an alternative way of describing each that mirrored remarkable close to how a Blitz player "should" evolve and master the game but often doesn’t. The alternative wording for these three types of learning was tactical, strategic, and adaptive.

 

The key thing to realize here is that what separates these three types of learning is not intelligence but perce​ption. So as the person goes through a sort of paradigm shift in the way they see the game as they shift between each way of learning, their awareness broadens becoming more encompassing. Again the similarities to the game here are remarkable. What do you say to a noob when he or she is so focused on the enemy that they aren’t aware of what is happening around them or even right next to them? You say they’re "tunnelling". In comparison, think of a person who is an amazing shot caller, who has so much awareness of what is going on (ie they see the "big picture" ), they can actually predict the ebb and flow of the battle before it even happens.

 

So when a person is learning the game, they are focused on tactical learning which is how to be a great tank driver (i.e. angling, targeting, spotting). As the person evolves and hopefully masters this, they should make a leap to strategic learning which is how to be a great team player (i.e. map awareness, team composition). And if the person masters this, they evolve to adaptive thinking which is how to be a great independent player (i.e. knowing when to push & when to bail). Of course, the reality, as we all know, is that this never happens for everyone. Instead, most players plateau at being a tactical player, a smaller group plateau at being a strategic player, and an even smaller few actually evolve and master becoming an adaptive player.

 

Now when you start looking at how people interact within the game this way, by perception rather than intelligence, things before that seemed illogically now suddenly make sense. Again people at these lower levels of learning aren't lacking intelligence but rather are lacking perception (i.e. awareness). Put another way, they are effectively blind to what is right next to them, kind of like when an inexperienced player "tunnels". So when they look at the game, they are seeing a very limited perspective of it. And more importantly, anything outside of their limited perspective doesn't make sense to them because of the way they are looking at things.

 

Here's an example. My platoon mate and I were on Castilla in a Tier V game. I went mill with most of the team and he went church to spot for meds there and provide crossfire fire to mill. Right away we were pushed at mill with the enemy cresting the hill and pushing hard. I tried the best I could but they pushed from the top and bottom side, so I basically did as much damage as I could before I died. Suddenly we were all dead except for my platoon mate at church who was the last alive. He tried valiantly, pumping out more damage, but eventually died as well. While this was happening, other people on our team called him out as an idiot for not helping us. When the results showed though, he had over 2000 damage, I had over 1000 damage, and the rest of the team were way below 500 damage.

 

So what happened? Why wasn't my platoon mate not an idiot? Because he had an advantageous strategic position that allowed him to provide crossfire support so effectively that he couldn't fire fast enough. So while my platoon mate and myself were seeing the battle strategically (and even adaptively a bit in his case near the end), the rest of our team was seeing it from a very limited tactical view only, whereby unless you were right next to us, you were an idiot and not "contributing" to the team. So even when the battle results clearly showed my platoon mate was doing something different and right, from a purely tactical perspective he was an idiot and is still an idiot in their minds.

 

 

 

  You have got to be part Vulcan. 

 

  Seriously though, I understand it. They’re limited as to what they understand until they can get a grasp on the basic things. I see it, they drive around in sniper mode. They probably wonder hth I know they’re driving in sniper mode. 

 

  We take the basics and the simple for granted because we’ve done it for so long. A lot of them play game after game and don’t learn anything becuause the dont think there’s any other way to play. You have to open your mind to free yourself, the number of games doesn’t matter.

 

  I’m not holding onto much hope that they’ll ever improve at the rate they’re progressing. It’s gotten worse in the past 2 years instead of better. I have never been a <50%er overall, even when I started. That’s because I payed attention to what everyone else was doing and learne by watching. Most of the guys now that are bad aren’t doing that. I think they accept the fact that it’s okay to be bad therefore they don’t try to improve. Most of them have been taught that way for the duration of their young lives. There is no killer instinct in most of them, they just want to feel like they’re making a difference. That’s why they get hung up on it when they accidentally do something right. Instead of understanding why they did it, they look at it as a win and self justify that they don’t suck because of it.

 

  They don’t care about the long haul, for that 1 game they were awesome. After that they no longer suck in their minds, they made a difference. 

 

  They don’t see it from our side, we can’t explain it to them and hence they don’t understand us. Guys have always told me that you can listen to advice all you want. It’s not going to make a difference unless you can apply it to your game. I don’t think the nubs are interested in any advice because they’re sold on the fact that we’re all playing the same game. The fact is, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

 

  Great post btw and I read it all.


 

 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


GentleNova #27 Posted 14 July 2018 - 06:15 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22663 battles
  • 712
  • [FABLE]
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View Post4sfield, on 13 July 2018 - 09:38 PM, said:

...they’re sold on the fact that we’re all playing the same game. The fact is, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

 

Wow, amazingly well said and very perceptive on your part. Why? Because when you apply this same approach to life, there is a word to describe this way of seeing the world around you. It's called a worldview. So right now, most people think we're seeing and working within the same "world". But we aren't. We are all seeing the world in different ways, from differently constructed world views. Dave Gray's Liminal Thinking provides a great introduction to this and Frederic Laloux's Reinventing Organizations applies this to the world of work.

 

View PostAbsolute_Sniper, on 13 July 2018 - 09:35 PM, said:

The one things it doesn’t factor is physical skill. Reaction time and hand eye coordination play a huge role in where some of the players plateau. It’s also why occasionally someone who has no real working knowledge of the game can carry a round like a unicum. 

 

A tactical player can compensate their limited perspective with dexterity for sure but it will only carry them so far. I mean if he isolates himself against five enemy who push on him as one, he's dead. He'll definitely dish out more damage before he dies, due to his dexterity, but strategically he's dead.

 

Even an adaptive player can only go so far as well. As Bushka says, "Not enough humans" (aka meat shields) for him to keep the enemy at a distance to do the work he wants to do.

 

Actually I've been having a conversation on our Discord server over the past few weeks with a guy from BWING about all of this stuff, as he's fascinated with it as well. Another interesting thing we noticed is how a person perceives what is "right" from the different perspectives. For example, a tactical player will question "Am I attacking the target in the right way?" In comparison, a strategic player will go beyond this and question "Am I attacking the right target?"


Edited by GentleNova, 14 July 2018 - 06:15 AM.

 

X: Obj 263*, T110E4, T110E3, FV215b 183 / IX: SU-122-54*, T-54*, ST-I, IS-8, Jagdtiger

VIII: Type 59*, IS-6*, Löwe*, T34*, T26E4, Tiger II / VII: SU-122-44*, Comet*, T-34-85 Rudy, Type 62, VK 30.02 D*, E25*


TurretSYNDRM #28 Posted 14 July 2018 - 05:14 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 35956 battles
  • 111
  • [OLD_G]
  • Member since:
    10-24-2015
This brought back memories of my 34-1 ace. On Rockfield, and had a heavy argue call, then proceeded to do 4k and also got 5 kills. Eerily similar circumstances. I should have thanked him. 

Gavidoc01 #29 Posted 16 July 2018 - 02:13 AM

    I Golded Level III

  • Players
  • 34681 battles
  • 2,967
  • [III]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2014

View PostGentleNova, on 14 July 2018 - 12:13 AM, said:

 

I used to wonder what was wrong with these people as well. Then while doing some research on personal and organizational development, I stumbled across an article that talked about three types of learning: Single-loop, Double-loop, and Triple-loop learning. What leaped out at me in the description was an alternative way of describing each that mirrored remarkably close to how a Blitz player "should" evolve and master the game but often doesn’t. The alternative wording for these three types of learning were tactical, strategic, and adaptive.

 

The key thing to realize here is that what separates these three types of learning is not intelligence but perce​ption. So as the person goes through a sort of paradigm shift in the way they see the game as they shift between each way of learning, their awareness broadens becoming more encompassing. Again the similarities to the game here are remarkable. What do you say to a noob when he or she is so focused on the enemy that they aren’t aware of what is happening around them or even right next to them? You say they’re "tunnelling". In comparison, think of a person who is an amazing shot caller, who has so much awareness of what is going on (ie they see the "big picture" ), they can actually predict the ebb and flow of the battle before it even happens.

 

So when a person is learning the game, they are focused on tactical learning which is how to be a great tank driver (i.e. angling, targeting, spotting). As the person evolves and hopefully masters this, they should make a leap to strategic learning which is how to be a great team player (i.e. map awareness, team composition). And if the person masters this, they evolve to adaptive thinking which is how to be a great independent player (i.e. knowing when to push & when to bail). Of course, the reality, as we all know, is that this never happens for everyone. Instead, most players plateau at being a tactical player, a smaller group plateau at being a strategic player, and an even smaller few actually evolve and master becoming an adaptive player.

 

Now when you start looking at how people interact within the game this way, by perception rather than intelligence, things before that seemed illogically now suddenly make sense. Again people at these lower levels of learning aren't lacking intelligence but rather are lacking perception (i.e. awareness). Put another way, they are effectively blind to what is right next to them, kind of like when an inexperienced player "tunnels". So when they look at the game, they are seeing a very limited perspective of it. And more importantly, anything outside of their limited perspective doesn't make sense to them because of the way they are looking at things.

 

Here's an example. My platoon mate and I were on Castilla in a Tier V game. I went mill with most of the team and he went church to spot for meds there and provide crossfire fire to mill. Right away we were pushed at mill with the enemy cresting the hill and pushing hard. I tried the best I could but they pushed from the top and bottom side, so I basically did as much damage as I could before I died. Suddenly we were all dead except for my platoon mate at church who was the last alive. He tried valiantly, pumping out more damage, but eventually died as well. While this was happening, other people on our team called him out as an idiot for not helping us. When the results showed though, he had over 2000 damage, I had over 1000 damage, and the rest of the team were way below 500 damage.

 

So what happened? Why wasn't my platoon mate an idiot, as some believed he was? Because he had an advantageous strategic position that allowed him to provide crossfire support so effectively that he couldn't fire fast enough. So while my platoon mate and myself were seeing the battle strategically (and even adaptively a bit in his case near the end), the rest of our team were seeing it from a very limited tactical view only, whereby unless you were right next to us, you were an idiot and not "contributing" to the team. So even when the battle results clearly showed my platoon mate was doing something different and "right", from a purely tactical perspective he was "wrong" and an idiot (and is still an idiot in their minds).

 

 

 

 


My Blitzstars

My WOTBStars

I'm a Wallet Warrior. Deal with it.


4sfield #30 Posted 16 July 2018 - 03:09 AM

    Space Lord

  • Players
  • 28765 battles
  • 3,877
  • [-1]
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostGavidoc01, on 15 July 2018 - 09:13 PM, said:

 

 

 

  Really? You respond to GN’s phylisophic post but nothing for me? You had plenty to say to SD last week when he posted vids. Where’s my critique? I’ve been waiting for your input and you’ve let me down. I’m not sure how I feel about that.

 

  I’m a nub, a skrub, worthless, give me something, make an effort at least.


 

 

Snowflakes - 1, Good Guys - 0

 

FREE _stealy!!!


Gavidoc01 #31 Posted 16 July 2018 - 10:04 AM

    I Golded Level III

  • Players
  • 34681 battles
  • 2,967
  • [III]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2014

View Post4sfield, on 15 July 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

 

  Really? You respond to GN’s phylisophic post but nothing for me? You had plenty to say to SD last week when he posted vids. Where’s my critique? I’ve been waiting for your input and you’ve let me down. I’m not sure how I feel about that.

 

  I’m a nub, a skrub, worthless, give me something, make an effort at least.

 

Lol. I didn’t really have anything to offer on top of what was already presented. Especially the post I did the Kane slow clap for. That pretty much sums it up. I thought you took a bad situation, did well and threw in some luck as well. Overall solid performance. Even the music. 


Edited by Gavidoc01, 16 July 2018 - 10:09 AM.

My Blitzstars

My WOTBStars

I'm a Wallet Warrior. Deal with it.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users