mtm78
-
Content Сount
19,378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Battles
6105
Everything posted by mtm78
-
Revised report system suggestion from a programmer
mtm78 replied to FaceFisted's topic in General Discussion
Ships which are loaded in have turrets which moved from starting position. People who crash while loading will keep their turrets in the starting position. Ships which crash in battle will keep their turret orientation. Still I report those people as they MIGHT have crashed but only WG can see their behavior over multiple games so it's up to them to check. Knowing they don't do that unless these people are reported makes in mandatory to actually report those as well. -
So you have timers on the ship icons telling you their radar consumable status? If not, my Akizuki with 34kts and a 730m turning circle can better just be useless all match since it's a sitting duck when visible ( slow and sluggish and no armor... ). And bringing up cruisers surviving on front line, maybe you should ask yourself WHY. Maybe, just maybe, it's because DD's can't counter BBabies as well as they are supposed to
-
Hear hear....
-
Revised report system suggestion from a programmer
mtm78 replied to FaceFisted's topic in General Discussion
Excellent write up, out off likes sadly but I will come back to this thread when I get new one's I also linked to this thread from my own- 47 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- report
- suggestion
- (and 1 more)
-
Taking skill to do it properly, that means it's working as intended imo
-
so WG you dont give a f. about Belfast smoke problem ?
mtm78 replied to Fizzy_Odin's topic in Archive
WG would be 'nice' if they could give us the EXACT formula for when smokes appear, both with 'normal' smoke generators as with RN CL's. But since they don't post on this forum....... -
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
I don't see 'useless' as something report worthy at all, and toxic? Being a blue line sniping German BB ( the only thing he missed was having a spotter plane lmao )... that is toxic. Hiding your BB behind an island ( on 95% hp ) at the end of the game because you don't want to come into the enemies cap to help a DD fight off a RN CL, that's toxic. 'Useless' is a descriptive term which perfectly fits this, without scooping down to the toxicity level of this 'player'. I one would scoop down to that level, terms which would not be allowed on the forums would be used to describe that 'player'. Useless, followed with: come closer so you can help, is imo constructive criticism. Hence me asking to make chat reports something everyone should vote over. That way cry babies can't use their reports on people who don't deserve it, while people who think their being constructive but in the eyes of their team are actually not ( I can imagine those situations as well, let's be fair ) will be punished according to a majority vote. This would still not be perfect, but a lot better then the current method of giving cry babies a tool to punish those who say anything which doesn't coincide with their own self image, while report options like 'plays poorly' has no effect at all ( not even on karma btw ). There is a report threshold but that doesn't carry any weight if any individual report isn't checked on validity. -
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
I am hoping a better method for chat reports will be part of the port UI rework / chat system rework they said to be coming when they introduce the full clan system to the client. Like separating chat restrictions in port / custom channels / general discussion ( and making it possible to actually report people in those channels ), as well as enabling division chat without the need of being able to talk in all / team chat. -
Because they want to farm damage numbers? Heck it looks cool right, doing 40k dmg to a Montana with a couple of fires? Then he pulls back and a couple of minutes later you see him again on almost full hp. The only time were it IS effective is when he is on low enough hp that you can actually kill him before he can heal back up. Hence the chart showing that it isn't effective damage. It might be tactical damage though, as you can stop a BB push if they get to scared their health drops to low to heal back up in time.
-
2 cap maps in 7v7 is already becoming dull for me, 3 cap maps give so much more opportunities for tactics. Which is why I watch the tournaments, tactics. Not brawls, that is boring So a 11 v 11 with ships with even greater ranges on smaller more restricted maps, no thanks I would not like it.
-
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
If you enable the chat filter ( I haven't tried it ) it afaik should already replace those words with *****, unless WG has word lists matching the display language set in the game? Fagots is a tricky one, as it has dual meaning Also, I could tell people to 'please stop breathing' and this wouldn't get picked up while it would be the same as 'please die'. Either way, a check against some kind of list would still be better then nothing. That and having a minimum threshold from where reports are actually counted. Make reports a public vote where everyone in the game should/could vote over. Get more then X 'votes' you get a chat abuse counter increment and if you get X amount of those then you get the day locked out of chat ( though chat in port should still work.... just as division chat..... ). -
so WG you dont give a f. about Belfast smoke problem ?
mtm78 replied to Fizzy_Odin's topic in Archive
Don't forget to enable replays as making a bug report with a replay to show it to the dev's is going to make it a lot easier to convince them it's a bug -
Not to mention that damage chart WG posted showing that HE and fire damage on BB's made up far less then AP damage.
-
IJN? Not much skill, in fact I would say it takes more skill to NOT do it and not alert the BB of where exactly you are so you might be able to launch fishes at a broadside instead of a bow on BB? USN? Quite a bit I guess, with their rainbow arcs. isn't the longer smoke duration a tradeoff for the worse ballistics anyway? VMF? Smoke spam? Meh even with the range nerf I mostly see Khabarovsk going full speed weaving and dodging rather then sitting still in smoke. Especially in games where the BB's are not playing static 'let's go to that island and sidescrape behind it'. This is also the reason why smoke last shorter on them. German? Smoke? What smoke Ok seriously, if you didn't notice it yourself: other then USN, your 'problem' isn't actually a problem I feel edit: with that I mean that WG is already giving shorter and shorter duration smokes.
-
so WG you dont give a f. about Belfast smoke problem ?
mtm78 replied to Fizzy_Odin's topic in Archive
Replay? -
Lmao, it's the BBabies which lack any skill and instead come cry about it on the forums.
-
Lmao, so DD's should be useless, ( avoiding getting radared when radar on VMF has > 11km range and my IJN torps max out at 10 km ). Good argument,,, not
-
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
Yes I would to but as I said I don't think 'useless' would be on that list and other then that descriptive term there was nothing in that game which would possibly be triggered against such a word list, at all. -
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
Bullcrap, there is no word check. 'Useless' is not a 'bad word' 'Die' AND 'fagot' would be on the word list WG should implement for checking against bogus reports. When I meet people I know, I like to talk with them. If I start a game, I like to throw a poi in the chat followed by some nanodesu and pan paka pan when there is poi coming back... And yes, I've gotten reports for that ( well nothing else noteworthy happened so I think it was because of it ). -
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
There are quite a few things they could to against abuse, the checking if reports are made by people who you sank seems a pretty easy one -
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
We have a chat filter right? And afaik if people use manual tickets with support and people are sanctioned through them for circumventing chat filter ( you know, replacing letters with numbers and such shenanigans ) they penalty is far bigger then through the automated system. But yeah, I can't think 'useless' would be on a list of 'bad words' so in my case this system would have been -
Yes, your point. I happen to agree with him, more ships should have it. Not because everyone then suddenly would be invisible when shooting as that is not how it works. But people would realize how the mechanic works and what to do against it.
-
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
Amrael87, on 07 January 2017 - 10:57 PM, said: Thing is, this is the internet. And WG is notorious for not caring about chat issues. Which makes me sad... and frustrated, Especially since they also don't teach people how to play, it's like giving kids a gun and telling them, this is a shooting range go have fun. Not having a proper tutorial system is one of the reasons I think there are so many clueless players. A tier six cruiser should know the range of his darn torpedoes.. what am I saying.. WG gave them a minimap with circles for their weapon ranges... this wasn't WG's fault, it's people being utterly stupid. And these utterly stupid people can ruin the gameplay enjoyment of others to no effect at all, and anyone who upsets these special snowflakes becomes a victim of WG's system of how to handle chat complaints. It's so stupid... But yeah we probably have to live with it -
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
That's exactly the point, I did not freak out in chat. I told the Gneisenau he was useless acting like a sniper. And I told the Nurnberg that his 6km torpedo's launched at enemies 10km away were a> never going to hit the enemy and b> were a danger to me instead. I did not call them idiots, I did not call them noobs even, the only term I used was useless and 'omg those torps Nurnberg you will never hit anything and you almost hit me'. That's it. But since I had accumulated enough reports for the day ( some were no doubt more warranted then these I admit ) -> chat ban. Because two players report me. You also seem to misunderstand. Yes int this case it were to totally clueless players but I did not argue their reports should be dismissed based on their cluelessness. I said -> If two people report me because they don't like what I said about their contribution to the game, their reports should never be enough to get me a chat ban. Now if I 'went ballistic' as you put it, I would surely gotten more reports from different players. But I didn't, because I didn't even insult either of the two. That they feel it was an insult should not be my problem. edit: and 'plays poorly' has NO effect. Not even on Karma. If it had an effect I would use the report option more often instead of trying to get some sensible play out off them through chat. -
WG fix how 'chat reports' are being handled as current system is broken
mtm78 replied to mtm78's topic in General Discussion
Let me quote myself... If someone is reported by some useless player it shouldn't count up towards a chat ban. It's that simple. Useless or clueless or even 'bad' are not insults which should lead to a chat ban. And it's pretty easy to do a check on actually objectionable content, as I gotten two reports that game which obviously were from those two useless ./ bad players. If I had gotten a lot more, I would have obviously said something my team did not agree with/on. Since no one else reported me, it probably was a> not actually insulting b> appropriate. While something like this -> .. would undoubtedly result in multiple reports probably from both teams. I hope you can see the difference, or even care to read and didn't just saw the thread title and decided this was your chance to jump in and act like I'm upset for getting chat bans for actually insulting people....