Jump to content

jemster

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2286

About jemster

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Bc people tend to be a lot more forgiving of there own mistakes then those of others. What this means for ranked is that those "clueless" are generally not clueless, just made some minor mistake/got unlucky, paid for it hard and his team-mates cant comprehend that they did not do enough and lash out. Same with people that go afk. You only see that one battle, you do not know if they always go afk. And if you have a below 50% winratio you will not advance (more then, say, one rank that you will quickly lose again) , simple as that. Do the math if you don't believe me. As for the feature itself, on a pure theory basis I dislike it since it does rewards plays that grant exp instead of winning and I think there is something wrong with a ranked system that allows you to advance with a 50% winrate. In practice I have only seen anyone farming once (out of something like 30 battles) and I have liked when I got the bonus. I am only on rank 12 so far so maybe things will change. Sidenote, it is absolutely hilarious to read all the players that dont understand that if you win 50% of the time you are at the correct rank for your skill.
  2. jemster

    Ranked Battles and the Team Parasites

    Lose 500 battles at rank 10 (or 20 for all that it matters), suddenly get gud and then win all battles in a row will give you horrible winrate despite being at rank one. For more, see gr0pah's post for a good rl example. Gj gr0pah btw. And the probability of that is: 0.5^50 = 8.8 * 10^-16. So colour me sceptical that this is going to happen any-time soon..... I have not bought any flagpacks and I have over 200 increased income flags. How? Well ranked gives them out hand over fist and you can "farm" them on low-tier dd's quite easily. So you are at your skill cap. That is what you are saying. And you can carry a team just fine in a team-based game, you just need to do more then the average player for that tier. If this were not the case, how come people have win-ratios that are significantly higher then 50%? Your suggestion just means that people will be playing for experience instead of winning. Especially if things start to go bad.
  3. jemster

    Ranked Battles and the Team Parasites

    Apart from the quote above, I am getting sick and tired of all those freebooters that dont have the skill to carry, dont know how to play as a team, thinks "teamwork" is equal to "Do what I say" and expects the mm to somehow treat them differently and then goes and rages on some forum somewhere. People like OP. Srsly guys, if you are winning 50% of you battles that means you are at the correct rank for your skill. There is no such thing as a "ranked-hell". If you are not able to carry your team of bloody idiots you dont deserve higher rank. Those of us that have rank one have not been "lucky" and only gotten good teams. We have had the exact same teams as you have. Only difference is that we have carried. Honestly, saying we where lucky is kinda offensive. Ranked right now is behaving exactly as expected of a ranked system.
  4. Honestly, irrevocable ranks does not really matter, you are going to have them somewhere (at the last rank if nothing else). I understand why they placed one at the tier-change though. The worse the average skill-level of the general ranked pubbie, the easier it will be for the good player to climb. For the reasons stated by Kami above. Sounds to me like you hit your skill-level.
  5. Srsly guys, if you are winning 50% of you battles that means you are at the correct rank for your skill. There is no such thing as a "ranked-hell". If you are not able to carry your team of bloody idiots you dont deserve higher rank. Those of us that have rank one have not been "lucky" and only gotten good teams. We have had the exact same teams as you have. Only difference is that we have carried. Honestly, saying we where lucky is kinda offensive. Ranked right now is behaving exactly as expected of a ranked system.
  6. jemster

    Detonation and other insta-kill mechanics

    Very true. And to add to the realism it should also happen when a shell penetrates your turret or magazine or boiler room or as soon as someone looks at the torpedoes...... /s
  7. jemster

    Rank 1 - missing ranked games

    Not yet, though I have been playing almost exclusive ranked since it started, so I might be burnt out. Edit: @rafparis: I took rank 1 yesterday and I had no problem getting games, and with completely normal mm.
  8. jemster

    Stuck at Rank 10

    What I find breathtaking is how many players think that you can somehow get carried to high tiers. And that ranked mm should favour them.
  9. jemster

    IChase's talk about state of the game

    They are, it is just that the mikasa accuracy is that bad in general. And if you go broadside to broadside you know that you leave it up to rng, so you only do it if you think you have an edge for some reason. Bomblobbers and there ilk. Summoning 10 cost creatures on turn three. Should I go on. Now you can say that theses cards are too unreliable to be used competitively, but so is going red-line snipe with a bb, it might give you great success but most of the time it is going to do the opposite. As for the rest of it: I really dont agree with what he said. I especially disagree with the parts about lacking depth and simplicity. This is a game about positioning yourself in a way that is as advantageous to you and your team as possible. This, at least from what I have seen in randoms and in ranked, is not easy. This game is built upon and supported by extremely simple mechanics. But simple does not equal bad.
  10. We are not saying that no changes are allowed, we are saying that your wishes above will not happen since this is not a simulator. And even if you only want 50% (slightly random number but I hope you get my point) realism, the devs are aiming at something like 10% realism.
  11. jemster

    Domination get to stay and game issues that I have

    Been trying to think of a good number (or other metric that is easy for us to check) and I am mostly coming up empty. Some (very rough and mostly old) numbers: WoT EU has 1 100 000 weekly active and 200 000+ online each night and earns 4$ per active player and month (for those of you wondering, this is insanely high, for comparison LoL has less then 0.5$). Problem quickly becomes how to measure success? Keep the servers running and feed the developer? WoWP income of 40k/month (using WoT 4/user, probably unfair but I dont have anything better numbers-wise) is probably enough to keep the servers running but not for feeding the devs (and it probably does not get any better if we add NA and RU servers but I do not have any info about them) but what number is? Edit: I just realised that this is horribly off-topic. On topic I really like the changes that have been made to domination.
  12. jemster

    Domination get to stay and game issues that I have

    Same could be said (heck, it was said back then) about WoT. What is niche or not tends to change. As for a minimum amount of realism, you do know that WoWP is MORE realistic then WT arcade with regards to flight model and control (at least according to the propeller-heads I know) and yet WT is the better game. As for your bet, add 12v12 and at primetime on the European server for a value of 2500 gold, with the time of one year after release and with the option of voiding everything until one week after release (Yes, there are some rather large issues that needs to be worked out right now, and if they dont then, well....) Edit: Just spent an hour in WoWp to see the numbers. 2300-2400 online gives a rough active playerbase of 10k. at tiers 6 and below I never spent more then one minute in the queue and most teams had 13+ planes per side. WoWp would fail your terms, but only barely.
  13. jemster

    Domination get to stay and game issues that I have

    @atomskytten: Once upon a time platform was the norm and fps was a small niche. That changed. Once upon a time any game involving operating tanks had to have a minimum amount of realism. That changed. WoT is not targeted at the 15 yo demographic, it is targeted at the 35 yo "dad" demographic, something that was rather unheard of before, especially in the ftp space. If WoT could expand as insanely as it has by not following the general consensus about how to make tanks, maybe WoWS can do the same thing. By targeting people that dont have a lot of interest or knowledge in the subject matter but like shooting a lot of guns at ships while dodging the return fire. Same as it is in WoT. And you can complain however much you want about the "avarage WoT tomato" but really, if it is fun, who cares. I think this is a case of "You want realism? Join the navy."
×