Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Bartleby74

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

538 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. 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...
  10. Bartleby74

    how many € you spent on mega santa gifts?

    Well, guess neither I've asked to be removed nor they've removed me. Actually don't know how things are faring there, there was some burnout with the younger ones facing 10-minute teams so they couldn't neither learn nor practice nor get XP/coins.
  11. Bartleby74

    how many € you spent on mega santa gifts?

    This year? 0 € Last year I spent about 90 € but as 2019 progressed the game became unworthy of playing, with the CV changes and specially the new meta of 10-minute-lose teams, so I just stopped playing. Pity of all my sunken cost in World of Warships, but when the return for your investment is having sh*t gameplay for breakfast lunch and dinner 7 days a week, it's time to cut the losses and say good-bye. It was a good game while it lasted.
  12. Bartleby74

    And I Sigh

    You know what's hilarious? Wargaming has noticed that I've stopped playing World of Warships, and they're sending all sorts of marketing emails in my direction. They're reminding me of the perks i'll get If I come back (like 10 days of Premium), they're reminding me that my ships "are missing me", the girl in the videos wrote a letter saying "she's so busy too and miss sailing her ships", and now the last one is downright hilarious... they provide, free of charge, 5 useful tips to stop losing! Dear Wargaming, thanks for the tips. Empowering my ship and commander, play as a division, minimap minimap and minimap, don't go alone and don't stay in a corner are indeed very useful tips for captains concerned about their performance. Now I only want something for you, Wargaming. Please make sure that whenever I play, each and every player I meet in my team follows those 5 tips like a devote Christian will follow the Ten Commandments. Because the reason why I've stopped playing it's because of bloody terrible teams who don't even TRY to win and lose in 10 minutes no matter how I perform individually. And that, Wargaming, is your effin fault for selling "points farmer" ships instead of rewarding active gameplay in such way that even the dumbest mouthbreather gets the message that unless he caps and stays close and engaging the enemy he won't advance at all. The ball is on your court, Wargaming. Give me active, engaged players to sail with and I will play. Otherwise the roughly 250 euros I gave you over the past 4 years will be all the money you will ever get from me. Do you copy?
  13. Bartleby74

    WG - Something has to give....

    Maybe WG could just trim how XP is earned so causing damage without earning objectives is rendered useless. Sitting at the edge of map "sniping" should not give XP unless there's a good reason for. Somehow, position and movement of the ship should be accounted for when calculating XP. Moved away from enemy without being under fire? XP for damage is halved. Positioned behind an island without a chance of shooting nor line of sight? Zero XP for any damage you manage to inflict. This sort of thing. Rewards should be handed preferently for playing the game right, not for just farming damage and being last to die. 10-minute defeats are not fun for anyone, and they have completely sucked dry my will to play World of Warships.
  14. Bartleby74

    11 campers losing in 10 minutes is the new meta

    I alwas playeD to my best. "Played" in past tense because I eventually uninstalled WoWs in late August and have been playing a solo 4x game since. I've got emails about my 4th ingame birthday gifts and today one about extra perks up to 7 days of Premium. WG marketing noticed I am out and wants me back. It hasn't worked so far. Going to sleep without the bitter taste of having sacrificed my precious leisure time to team after team of mouthbreathing wankers is good for my peace of mind. Maybe I'll be back someday (sunken cost...), but so far I am off the hook and not missing it.
  15. Bartleby74

    Yamato vs Dakadakadaka

    Paper as in "never built" for Montana and "best of Soviet SF" for Kremlin. Yamato is the only real T10 in the battleship class.