Jump to content

H_Juergen

Players
  • Content Сount

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11776
  • Clan

    [ROSE-]

About H_Juergen

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

300 profile views
  1. H_Juergen

    Warship Strike Not Working

    @Karasu_Hidesuke I'm glad it works - at least sometimes! Actually, I'm interested in algorithms, and coincidentally, some months ago, I researched approaches for "Battleships" (the classic name for this mini-game). Here: an accessible example. It's definitely a fascinating thing, though off topic in this forum. But, to the point: I believe WG programmed the AI to use some combined methods or search patterns to "find" the players ships. Interestingly enough, the AI treats us differently: In your case, I couldn't help but notice that the AI places it's ship in a more random and unpredictable way. In your place, I would also struggle to win. On the other hand, the hits against you are symmetrical (a thing I observed last Friday, when launched, before the game crashed). But also strange, irregular. Not exactly useful. In my case, the AI is placing it's ships in a more regular way, while it looks for my ships more efficiently, grid-like, diagonally (by the way: if you carefully look at my screenshots you'll see my search looks the same) I just observe... And my interpretation may be flawed. About an apparent "sixth sense" : In theory, one could conceive a "peeking" AI, that will score some guaranteed hits, for instance after a number of misses. It wouldn't be too obvious, unless you analyze a large number of games (at least tens of thousands) in which case probability would prove it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I find it very interesting!
  2. H_Juergen

    Warship Strike Not Working

    @Karasu_Hidesuke I managed to get three "Strike Passes", so I have fresh screenshots of three swift victories. These should complement the text I wrote before. Note that it might help if you place your ships in a way that avoids the diagonals (=the main diagonals of the matrix). The edge is fine, because if hit, they won't reveal large areas of the map. And probably you shouldn't cluster them either. - just my humble opinion. I hope it helps!
  3. H_Juergen

    Warship Strike Not Working

    Yes! Right now I don't have any "Strike Passes" left, so I can make some screenshots (maybe later I will try to upload some) So I will put it in words: First check the corners (just as the AI does) The last [more then ten] games, the 5-squares ship and the 4-squares ship were always at the edge of the "map", on the same row (or column) - lemming style. Just check the corners and you can't miss them. Once I finished them, I found the other three ships always perpendicularly positioned, approximately in the center area. Never at the edge. No exceptions! It takes a while to find them, but there are good chances you get them before turn 35. This is my recent experience. WG may try to change the algorithm, you never know... But I highly doubt it. I wonder if it works for you... If yes, enjoy!
  4. H_Juergen

    Warship Strike Not Working

    Okay, problem solved. The mini-game is working now, the rewards are consistent. I only regret the meager spoils from the first games... But I'm sure I'm not the only one. For now I consider the feeble AI compensation enough!!
  5. H_Juergen

    Warship Strike Not Working

    In my armory, "Warship Strike" loops at the last move of some match. I can play this last move over and over again - win or lose it, as I wish. "Next Battle" doesn't lead to the next battle. "Autobattle" doesn't do anything either. The problem occurred on Friday. The section briefly disappeared, then appeared again but now it is as buggy as it was in the beginning. And I can confirm that the compensation in tokens is much lower as announced! Are these problems fixed?
  6. H_Juergen

    Recent Issues Update

    I must admit it crossed my mind more than once. I guess there is a grain of truth in it. It's one of the reasons why I quit playing it for several times. In the mean time, I guess I've been growing a thicker skin. Though it's increasingly hard to distinguish between toxicity and justified complaints. I guess it's the way one puts his thoughts into words. On the other hand, it's sooo frustrating to talk in vain. And there is a lot of over-sensitivity too. Make an "improper" joke and you're ignorant /racist /toxic etc. Other times, the simple truth is too offensive - even when expressed with consideration. Times have changed... I remember the first 2 years when the game was launched... The game was simple, clear, fair, technically not so shiny but enjoyable. WG was professional, passionate, generous, relaxed, obliging. The community was equally passionate, calm[er], reasonable, even supportive. Now? For the sake of non-toxicity I better don't enumerate :) I think there is a tipping point beyond which a brand (yes, WoWs became a brand!) just consumes everything: the creators, the management, the customers (yes, players are customers now; they were also in the past, but they didn't feel like that) and potentially each and everyone's families. It's a principle I see in a lot of cases /"businesses". Just look around. Cheers! I drink to that!!
  7. H_Juergen

    Recent Issues Update

    @BruceRKF I have "some understanding of programming", but I can't explain how this can happen. Because, as you said, it happened "to something that has worked fine for years". Or has it? I mean, they found the bugs, but who knows when these bugs really came to existence... One possible moment in time could be the rework of the captain skills. Seems a little far fetched to me, but I can't exclude it. Anyway, don't expect any satisfying answer, because it is either too complicated to explain (especially to "complete noobs"), or to sensitive to be disclosed (as it would reveal internal processes /the way WG handles data) It's already nice WG admitted the bugs and offered compensation. Let's take the containers and enjoy the premium time! I sincerely pity the guys who have to make all necessary corrections!! During winter holidays... I only hope they do it right! As a matter of fact, there are quite some tings to "debug" in this game...
  8. H_Juergen

    Captain’s Holiday Tree—Collect All the Gifts!

    Now that's the true Spirit of Christmas!!! You have to earn the gifts. By the way... Tell Santa: Have you been good? ;) Ho - ho - ho!!
  9. H_Juergen

    Developer Bulletin for Update 0.10.11

    @PaP_Mentoles We don't know yet whether phase 18 needs payment of some sort
  10. H_Juergen

    HotFix: Game Balance

    I was thinking of that, and that's why I made my suggestion in brackets. But I'm reluctant, as the law of large numbers (HMS_Kilinowski mentioned it) is bugging me. According to that, the more one plays, the closer one gets to the average. So, an excellent player will have less excellent stats, and approach the 50% win rate (from "above": 56% ->55% ->54% ->...), and a mediocre player will achieve less mediocre stats and also approach the 50% win rate (from "below": 43% ->44% ->...) Even more detailed: I think a mediocre player's win rate will improve very slow. Slower maybe than a good player's win rate will decrease. It also depends on the ability of the mediocre player to improve - though even a dramatic improvement in performance will barely change the numbers already "burdened" with so much mediocrity. And a good player can hardly get better. This effect would also fit the released chart we discussed earlier. Remember my comment: "Must be a ship (or group of ships) with which, the more one plays the less one wins (as a general tendency anyway) - as the lowest section called "Total battles" suggests." That's why (beside the mid-tier or center span) there are more bad players with many games played (to the left) than good players with not so many games played (to the right). The more they play, good players drift into the center span. Only the good players that stopped playing keep their good player stats. And most bad players probably don't improve anyway, and that's why there are so many. Or maybe it's the newcomers? My theory: there may be a poor guy, losing a lot while he isn't as bad as his stats suggest. Your reply: After a certain number of games, that is highly improbable. But the law of large numbers suggests otherwise. Forgive me for insisting on this topic, I simply can't get over some contradictions. I simply see no way one's stats can get better, and better still.
  11. H_Juergen

    HotFix: Game Balance

    It's definitely the second, but probably both. There seems to be a delicate problem of articulation and logic. As a non-native English speaker, I realize now that the term "anecdotal evidence" is a contradictio in terminis. I always thought of an anecdote as a "short story, usually serving to make the listeners laugh or ponder over a topic". Therefore a relevant story. Another way to define an anecdote: "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay" - I consider too dismissive. Hence my reaction to your sentence: So, I tend to take the player's story in good faith as a relevant case (i.e. one of frequent situations) while it may rather stand for an exceptional situation, as you rightly pointed out. I find it quite misleading. Not to mention the word "evidence"!! I wouldn't insist on these linguistic differences, if it wasn't for the implicit psychological differences, as you will see below. So do I. And I agree upon the prerequisites. The mediocre guy is the only ingredient I'm not convinced about. Let me start with yet another general remark, on a very hip term: "fact(s)" Looking at facts alone doesn't help too much. While we can all agree upon facts, our interpretation of them usually differs immensely. And the stats we're looking at, are facts. On the other hand, the situations that lead to such facts can sometimes be beyond the wildest imagination. Ok, you will say, "sometimes" is irregular and therefore irrelevant. True. Still, exceptions exist. So there may be a poor guy, losing a lot while he isn't as bad as his stats suggest. (Or do you think if he were a good player, overall he should win significantly more often then lose?) More to the point: while a valid general reference, I refuse to give stats the ultimate significance. What is your take on this? I regard it more as a personal choice. I decided so, because by definition probability says what's probable [or even highly probable], and not what's definitely the case. Or is there another way to handle this fact? I highly appreciate your patience and I kindly thank you for the worthwhile exchange of opinion.
  12. H_Juergen

    HotFix: Game Balance

    @ColonelPete When people complain saying they have no impact upon the outcome of a game, just accept it. You may find they are right. THEY don't have an impact upon the outcome of a game. Get it? @Blackeon @Catslave Good players can only shine in a less good team. I had several games in which ALL players were equally competent and the result was disappointing - except the victory. We all had about the same number of ships sunk and the same experience on average. It was "true" teamwork with no outstanding performers. Then I had a few games in which (by coincidence, luck or whatever) I barely had a chance to act. While I was shooting at a target, other players (brilliant or lucky, who knows?) destroyed it. And this went on until we achieved victory, and eliminated all enemies, one by one. I made about the least XP, and I had no idea why... Wrong ship? Wrong situation? I wasn't playing bad, I just couldn't score. And then I had my legendary matches, which I must admit, are not that many. Like achieving 200+k damage. How was it possible? Well, I was doing the damage that other players in my team didn't. Actually I was doing their job. But being targets, they also had a job: tanking. If they didn't absorb or take the damage from the enemy, I had to deal with it (which I partly did). So, my chance was the ability to score a lot. And it wasn't my merit entirely, as the enemy team could have eliminated me. And this is what brilliant players do every time. So, brilliant players feast on noobs and suckers (both in their team and in the enemy team) But it doesn't work all the time - otherwise there would be players with 100% win rate. It's a very delicate equilibrium between having a team playing bad enough so you can shine, and playing so bad that your side loses (or loses instantly) By their skill and tactics, brilliant players shift this boundary [quite easily]. ColonelPete cynically proposed you an experiment: be afk, to test your impact on the game. Cynically, because why would you do that, when playing at your best abilities doesn't help in the first place, right?! My proposal: Make a division with other "not bad" players. This way you make sure that the next match your team has at least three "not bad" players. If there are additional two, or three or more "not bad" players, you may have the edge over the enemy. I bet this is what "brilliant" players do. So, brilliant players may not be that much more skilled after all, but careful on every aspect and therefore very selective - especially when it comes to choosing their ships and going to battle with other players. If you had the choice, would you go to war (real war) with idiots? As for the matchmaking... I don't think anything will change, since... good players can only shine in a less good team. The less good players make them appear outstanding. So it's literally a chance. Very hard to bring it to fruition (as a potato like me knows) but it's there! @HMS_Kilinowski Sorry, but anecdotes are supposed to do exactly that: prove a point. And the point is: if a player that sucks, is still getting first in a team, what does it say about that team? Your take is that it's a bad player that was "lucky". Okay. So the other players were unlucky? All eleven? So unlucky, that even "a lucky player who sucks" has better (actually way better) results? What are the odds? (And please, don't start about actually calculating the odds! It's a figure of speech) Therefore, in my opinion that player doesn't [necessarily] suck, but it's more likely (for some it's even obvious) that the team balancing sucks. Please forgive my feisty wording, I sincerely hope I haven't offended you
  13. H_Juergen

    HotFix: Game Balance

    @HMS_Kilinowski By "sample" I meant an example of their graphs, stripped of all meaning, and not a statistically relevant set of data. I wasn't specific about that. My bad! So true! It's kind of what I was trying to point out: the interpretation of this graph is impossible, we should stop wasting our time. And I hardly think WG will ever explain their decisions in detail. For some it's pathetic. For some it's good enough. For most I assume it's boring anyway. So whatever they publish must be (and shall be) accepted. They offered us a glimpse of how they supposedly work, and that's it. Good or bad: homework is done!
  14. H_Juergen

    HotFix: Game Balance

    About the graph... Nice to see that someone else bothers deciphering it. The blocks are not equidistant because the set of data is sorted by the "Ships winrate %" in ascending order, and that's why the sections below (following this sort criteria) seem random. If one sorts by "Total battles" then the last section will look neat, while the upper ones get jumbled up. This is my interpretation. I think this graph is just a sample, and doesn't make much sense in itself. Because the upper section is called "Ship winrate %" but we don't know which ship that is, or class of ships, tier or whatever they mean by it. Must be a ship (or group of ships) with which, the more one plays the less one wins (as a general tendency anyway) - as the lowest section called "Total battles" suggests. It's not even clear what "Relative damage" means. Relative to what? Maybe "Relative damage taken"?? ... would make sense to exceed 1,0 if the ship has a healing option. What I find intolerable is how the Y-axis isn't fully shown /doesn't begin at 0. It completely distorts the ratio between blocks, and defies the purpose of such a presentation - even if it is for managers only. (Especially if it is for managers!!) So it seems to me, this is a generic set of data that [intentionally] doesn't mean anything in particular.
  15. H_Juergen

    HotFix: Game Balance

    This risk is real. We, the community, could define dead-lines for certain topics, so we can decide whether this transparency is genuine. For instance: publishing the chances of container loots is something they could instantly do, because it's already there - since the beginning!! But who cares?!
×