Jump to content

Bartleby74

Players
  • Content Сount

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9794
  • Clan

    [2CMF]

About Bartleby74

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

604 profile views
  1. Bartleby74

    Holiday Lottery 2020 - Try your luck !

    I don't use to join lottery, but when I join lottery, I want to join the World of Warships lottery. Thanks to the organizators and contributors, and good luck everyone!
  2. Bartleby74

    Continous chat bans

    Authomated messages aren't chat speaking... that's why they're authomated and bind to Function keys. The lcoalized voice message could be "we're losing radio comms!" and so people would understand why you won't answer. The bad thing with chat bans is that they're bad for the game too. Right in my last battle a silly Shima torped the enemy though my path and hit me with most of two volleys. I would have told him "don't torp when there are friendlies between you and the enemy" but instead he got a penalty and died by inflicting damage on friendly, without anyone explaining him his mistake.
  3. Bartleby74

    Continous chat bans

    After being engaged at chat by someone while I am chat-banned (again), I just tought: wouldn't it be cool to have an authomated F-key message to say "Sorry can't answer, I am chat banned"? This would replace awkward chat silence with something self-explaining! (would be specially useful for ranked battles). Just my 2ç
  4. Bartleby74

    Next WG title

    Played it while it lasted, but PvP whiners ruined it. I knew the game was doomed when PvPrs convinced Flying Lab to nerf the Rouyal Couronne since "Filthy merchant top tier PvE ship can beat my free-from-capture mechanics PvP ship, bwaaaaahhhh!!!". I was in a guild from Sea Dogs (which included modders) but the guild never moved on to POTBS.
  5. Bartleby74

    Good job WG, Smolensk costed you my money

    Well, after a 10 month hiatus and playing back for 2 months, I'm roughly on my exit road for WoWs (again). So I'm likely to no longer have problems with WG's gimmick ships -but as a wise man said, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". There is no point to not complain about somethign that itches you, and WG's policy to add gimmick ships with no feasible counterplay so they become the "OP of the season" is bad game design.
  6. Was thinking of buying some doubloons to get the special camo for Hakuryu, but after losing 4 Kurfurst to 4 Smolensk in 4 battles in a row, I've decided to save my money. Keep the good work, Wargaming, my money is certainly better in my wallet than yours. Edit: edited because we don't need to bring deadly diseases in a discussion about a game
  7. Bartleby74

    WoWS x Warhammer 40,000: Imperium vs Chaos

    Someone (WG) looks desperate for money. Someone (me) won't give them money for the flaming wreck that's become World of Warships. It's a pity as I've got a lot of sunken cost in this game, but from what I read on the forums, the 10 minutes win/defeat meta is here to stay as more and more players give a F*** of winning battles, and this means that this game remains something I no longer want to be involved with. WG gave up quality for quantity and now is losing both.
  8. Bartleby74

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    The problem is that Tier X is the goal and the end of the road. I didn't played to collect Yamato, Montana, Kurfurst, Des Moines, Minotaur, Gearing and Midway so they were unusable because of the abysmal player (lack of) attitude leading to the 10 minute meta. One side refuses to win and that's all, toss a coin, maybe it's your side or the other, but each defeat will sink you closer to the level of those who never try to win as your WR tanks. Tier 10 used to be bad because sh*t players couldn't advance further up the ladder and just filled the ranks of tier X battles... and then the 10 minute meta came as players reached Tier X just by grinding XP in one-trick ships.
  9. Bartleby74

    Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

    Ahhh, this thread. I keep an eye on it each time WG comes with a helluva comeback offer, as those offers keep becoming more and more generous (i.e., WG is growing increasingly desperate) and from reading the last pages of this thread I see that things are the same or worse as they were when I decided to quit, and WG isn't fixing them. So, whatever. Keep sending in comeback offers WG, they're fun to read and tempting, but this thread -ah, this thread!- is the perfect cure for warship nostalgia.
  10. Hmmm... this puts under a new light the latest offer to returning players... log in and get: 1x supercontainer 9x daily containers 15,000 coal 2,000 free XP 4 days Premium account + assorted camos, signals and et cetera Looks cool, but unfortunately I don't see no mention to adressing the 10-minutes-and-U-lost meta, so I guess that I will keep playing that other game of tanks & planes & ships from a company not called Wargaming.
  11. Bartleby74

    What is a "decent" winning %?

    They both could have made it there with sheer luck, that's the point of defining a bracket of what is achievable with randomness alone. To be outliers, they should be outside of that bracket. As for entrepreneuring, it's not about lucking out. It's about having a chance, and how that chance is random. FAI, I know of a succesful bike trader. He started repairing his friend's bicycles, an one day one of his customers turned to be a guy who owned a rental business, and hired his service to entertaining the fleet, with a dela good enough that the mechanic dropped his job for it. Then one of the guys who rented a bike turned to be an importer of a certain renowned brand, and he was looking for a chance to open an office in the same State. So after talking with the rental owner and the mechanic, they rented a store and opened a shop for the imported bikes. Eventually the rental guys moved back to rental as he had a deal with a mountain resort and the guy who started repairing bikes as a hobby bought the associate's share on the shop and last time I learned of him he was selling 6 digits worth a year of import bicycles. Lots of hard work were involved, but also... the rental guy had a breakdown and met the mechanic. Without that random event, he still would be working in his old job and wouldn't have a successful niche business.
  12. Bartleby74

    What is a "decent" winning %?

    Win Rate not only measures skill, but also luck. Take the best commander in the game and pair him with 11 AFKers -he will lose. Take the worst offender AFKer in the game and pair him with the 11 best players in the game- he will win. With constant skill but consistent bad luck, the pro player will reach -8.33% win rate, whereas a bad player will reach +8.33% win rate on the shoulders of his team mates. And here comes the funny part: skill is ALSO random. Of course, a player can improve/worsen his "base" skill, but all in all, some people are naturally gifted and others are naturally impaired. Some will be natural outliers, either for good or bad. But the hard cold fact is that anything between 41.77% and 58.33% is random. (And, on a unrelated note, this is why people who is not 1,000 times more skilled than you, own 1,000 more money than you -reward for effort has little to do with skill and a lot with pure unadulterated luck)
  13. Bartleby74

    What is a "decent" winning %?

    It's pretty simple statistics. A player in a team of 12 has a 1/12 chance of being either the best or the worse, that is, 100/12 = 8.33% chance. So a team completely made out of the worse-player-in-team would reduce their chances of winning by their own poor performance by -8.33% average, that is, would have 41.77% chance of winning (50% being pure randomness). Conversely, a team completely made out of players who always were the-best-player-in-team, would drive up the chances of winning by their own skills by +8.33% of average, or 58.33% chance of winning. That's the spread of chance-based WR as sometimes the regularly best player with +8.33% will meet the regular worse player with -8.33% and they will balance out around 50% chance of winning. Ranking beyond the pure random chance of being either the best or worse requires actual skill differential (for good or bad). I bet that with enough data a serious data-crunching could be performed, but that would be beyond my skills, and anyway there's a lot of complexity since some players have a very low individual chance of winning (FAI, a carrier has very close to 0% chance of winning, since they rarely cap and single-handledly sinking 12 enemy ships in 20 minutes is extremely unlikely). Also playing a lot of Tier X drives WR down as poor players fill the ranks at the top tier (whereas their numbers get spread over the 9 previous ranks), and many other factors come in. But as a rough guideline, random chance of being always the best or always the worse is a good number. (A good data set would be players with 1000+ battles, then draw a gaussian distribution of WR and figure out what are the upper and lower ends of 50% the demographic, that is, the fork of+/- WR where half the population is. Anyone above or below that fork would be worse or better than average, and 1000 battles would be a good number to be a reliable dataset).
  14. Bartleby74

    What is a "decent" winning %?

    In rough terms, the chances of being either the best or the worst in a random team of 12 are 8.33%, so anything between 41.77% and 58.33% can be attributed to being an average winner/loser. A player with consistently lower perfomance than 41.77% win ratio can be framed as an above average loser, whereas any player with above 58.33% win ratio can be pointed as an above average winner.
  15. Bartleby74

    11 campers losing in 10 minutes is the new meta

    Wow, so this thread is still alive. And Wargaming marketing still misses me, today I've received an e-mail promising "20 reasons to play WoWs": I chuckled when it moved from "four premium ships await in your port!" to "6-day rental of premium yadda yadda"... marketing weasels gotta weasel before they're desperate enough to actually hand out Premiums for free, yawn. Anyway, I don't see any mention to the thing I want to read from Wargaming: "Dear Batleby74, We apologyze for the unsporting behavior of the latest batches of players. We feel that we've failed veterans like you who worked hard to hone your skills, by pairing you with people whose only aim is to pay us for faster XP grinding no matter whether they win or lose. So this is why we have developed a new AI system to evaluate the behavior of players, based on whether they push or camp, attack or flee, and other indicator that they're at least trying to win the battle. And with this, we've modified Matchmaker so dedicated players like you only are paired with other dedicated players, and leechers never come across your team unless as a target on your sights (never more than 2 leechers per team and battle). We hope you enjoy this new experience of the game and we swear we will be working towards teaching new recruits that attempting to win is the only way to progress and passive XP farming won't yield them anyting else but buying a lot of stuff from us to compensate for their lack of will to win. Can we ask a second chance, commander? PS: we are also aware that players like you are not happy with the rework of CVs. So we're giving you a one-time ticket to redeem as free XP and credist all your investment in carriers. Also we will give you the chance to trade premium camouflages on a one-per one basis, limited to one trade-off per camouflage." Just dreaming, of course. There's more money in feeding leechers with bonuses and premiums than we 2015-ers could ever deliver by fulfilling our grind goals... Right now I'm playing that other tanks-planes-and-ships game from a competitor to Wargaming, although over there my experience is being so similar to World of Tanks that likely I will just stop bothering myself. One-shot-you-die tanks are a terrible tool to learn survival when your Tier 1 opponents have got 10,000 battles on their bag and can one-shot-you-dead from halfway across the map over and over and over again. Any online FPS without enough true noobs to give true noobs a chance to learn together is as good as dead in the middle term...
×