Triple Triad forum dupes - please ignore

Middle value of votes is not 400k. Want math?
200k + 300k + 500k + 1.000k = 2.000k
2000k / 4 = 500k

but ok, we can do it your way too, weighing the votes
200k * 2 + 300k + 500k + 1000k * 2 = 3.200k
3200k / 6 = 540k.
Better?

 

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you.
If we were to weigh the actual votes, it would end up at 72.5%, which I suppose is a bit better.
If you have a more fair system though, feel free to share it with us

 

Play a match of World of Tanks or World of Warplanes - 10 (Limit 1 per-day)

Win a match of World of Tanks or World of Warplanes - 40 (Limit 1 per-day)

Record 5 or more kills/assists in a match of World of tanks or World of Warplanes - 100 (Limit 1 per-day, 4 per Event)

View attachment 372

 

View attachment 373

 

OK, tell Fox on my way, lol

 

There is no need to rush. XD

 

Oh, I misunderstood you then, I thought you wanted this

But what you actually want is a system that completely disregards 4 out of 6 votes, as 1 person voted for 300k, 1 for 500k, therefore according to you, 3 voted for 300k or less and 3 voted for 500k or more, completely disregarding that 2 people did not vote for 500 or more, but for MORE, nor did 2 other people vote for 300 or less, but for LESS.

Imagine if we had 100 voters. 49 vote for 200k, 49 for 1.000k, 1 for 300k, 1 for 500k. Your system would make only those 2 that voted 300k and 500k relevant, completely disregarding the opinion of 98% of people in the poll. In our case, you completely disregarded opinion of 66% of people.

 

I'm not saying my system was ideal, far from it, however calling it unfair is not correct. With this system, everyone's vote is weighted exactly the same. The idea was to have 75+% and determine mid value of that, but unfortunately it turned out that in order for it to be 75%, you have to pick one of the 3 options that had only 1 vote. So, I can either say that your vote weighs more than mine and ufbre's, that mine weighs more than your and ufbre's, or that his weigh more than both of ours - or I can include all 3 and make it perfectly fair.

Now yeah, what you're saying would be very correct if the poll question was "do you want attack cap to be 75%, more, or less?" in that case, yeah, 3 people say yes, 3 people say more, 2 people say less, clear majority for 75% or more. However, that's just not the case here, here the question was how much you want it to be, and the end result is that it's within 10% of what majority wants, even better 7.5% if we go with the 72.5% version of the math (which I think we should) . It's 12.5% from what you wanted and 27.5% from what ufbre wanted.

As I said, it's not ideal, but the end result is supposed to make the most people as close to satisfied as possible

 

Hello follow me!

 

Perhaps, but irrelevant since we're talking about the best planes, not how they performed against each other (otherwise you'd never be able to compare il2 vs p47, they were on the same side )

P-47 was good at it, Il-2 was absolutely the best at it. There's a very good reason why Il-2 was nicknamed "black death" by the Germans.

La-7, LaGG was a collaboration between 3 developers, Lavochkin and 2 others whose names I forgot but they both start with G, and their creation was the LaGG-3 . Lavochkin continued development on his own, hence the drop of GG from further models.
Also, Yak-1, Yak-9, Yak-3 all were excellent WWII fighters.
Of course there were some fails too, such as MiG-3 (MiGs sucked in the propeller era, they became a force to be reckoned with with the introduction of jet engines)

It was maybe the most fun plane for me, but not anymore, since they introduced 0.5.3 and totally destroyed GAA planes in general . I still play my Il's though, even if they can't hit a plane further than 300m anymore (and that plane has to be going in a straight line to hit it)...