Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Cpt_Roberto_jr

  1. Cpt_Roberto_jr

    An aiming problem is an inevitable issue ?

    The problem consist in the fact that torpedo tubes are linked to the line of sight (as guns are ). It occurs while alternate firing guns with torpedo tubes . While for the guns this means generally in the enemy's direction, it is not the same with the torpedoes. Their lead is huge compared to guns. This becomes an issue at mid range and a disaster at short range and tight turning, for DD especially but also for cruisers at some extent. ( DD has set torpedoes ? Wait ! I have those too !! ) It develops like this :I launch torpedoes. While torpedoes are reloading gun him down, avoid his fire turning ...Then torpedoes are reloaded, but when switching to, the tubes are looking to Tikitoumba. It takes a lot till they come around to the lead calculator..... you die while they still have a couple of degrees to make, or even as they line and your finger is pressing the mouse button. At best you get a "flesh wound" It seems to me that the tubes reply to "in march" position as we switch to guns. This is unreal. My question is; cannot tubes be unlinked from the guns But but kept looking to the last bearing while in gun fire mode? Ideally they should follow the course calculator lead as in real life ( I am not a marine but I hardly believe the torpedo crew put the tubes in "off duty" mode while a gun fires then re-aim them every time they are ordered to fire.) Maybe something like SHIFT +X or Ctrl + X do for the main guns could help, but not linked to them and auto enabled /disabled as switch occurs.
  2. Cpt_Roberto_jr

    [REQ] Matchmaker working as intended

    it simply do not show correctly. To answer to all above. First,people do not reach for their wallet because their team won ( or lost ) So the income will not change if there will be less unhappy people online. on the contrary I think. I am old ( jr is the joke part of my nick) and I have learned programming (!) not only programming language, as many today who pose as programmers. So I do not agree that reading data in a table is resource consuming - after all, MM has to read the tier isn't so ? reading from another address is processor-side exactly the same. The data has not to be minute to date accurate, warshipstats.com is automatically updated every day. After several days the rank of a player will not change much with a couple of new battles to really count, so all it is needed is to ponder( mediate) the average experience ( or damage or both) in that table with the average tier of a player and assign it for 24H. No resources wasted here. I do not look for any change in the tier format or range ! Just AFTER the selection of players for the battle is made, they to be split in two equally good teams according to their personal rank (calculated as above or in any way that is transparent, so nobody will feel persecuted by the MM). As for the way the players chosen from the queue are split, that make take 10 minutes to consider and 3-4 lines to write for a programmer. Then the God of War will arrange the team face to face as it does now, resulting randomly in (for the good player) or the opposite ... and also "flesh wounds" when the same rank meet. The only notable difference will be that there will be a balanced win / lose streak for all. As I started this topic after having watched my friend going berserk as he registered 14 CONSECUTIVE lost battles, himself being in the first 3-4 in his team, in many of them even the first in his team. (my personal worst is a bit lower : 13) but I am a "good looser" myself. I really hope I managed to make myself understood s English is not my native language and has a bloody difficult topic.
  3. Cpt_Roberto_jr

    [REQ] Matchmaker working as intended

    Let me reiterate for those who can't read small size fonts: The only people who are against a ladder-board are the vain posters of +60% WR , wins that are won for them by their team (maybe their average score being 10 ). A personal result based ladder-board will not only be useful in making teams with equal chance to win the battle, will be also an instrument in comparing skills of players distanced by more than 2 tiers. A high ranked player (on that ladder ) will be a good player weather at the wheel of humble Kawachi or proud Montana. The WR will show if he is a good TEAM player too. As for the battles themselves, there will always be players of different skill IN BOTH teams opposite to the actual system that trends to put all good in a team and all bad in another. A correct team making system will never allow a player ranked in the first half to register 15 CONSECUTIVE defeats as now often happens. It will indeed tend to equalize the WR towards 50% - BUT NOT EXACTLY 50 ! And it WILL HAVE A REAL MEANING . One's WR= 50.12% will really show a better team player than a 49.88% one ! Unlike now when 60% WR means ONLY that some unknown players have aided one in more cases than not.
  4. Cpt_Roberto_jr

    [REQ] Matchmaker working as intended

    @ Sake78 and all the others that say a personal score ranking will make everybody go fifty fifty: It may be so at for the wins percentage but WINNING PERCENTAGE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN THIS GAME ! I did not screenshot such shameful events but all of you, just be honest with yourself, have scored less than 300 exp points on a win - and not just once. that means your part of glory in that battle was ... nil ! (your place in your team was 10 to 12 ). On the other hand every one of you (me surely did more than once) have lead the team score in defeat scoring above 1500 exp points scoring 1 or 2 in the team score sheet. If you score 1-2 and 10-12 alternatively, then you will average 6 and you are a 50% player so what is the fuzz about ? The only people who are against a ladder-board are the vain posters of 60% and + wins, wins that are won for them by their team (maybe their average score being 10 ).
  5. Cpt_Roberto_jr

    [REQ] Matchmaker working as intended

    @cherry2blost I am sorry for you made such a long argumentation beside the point I will restate for short: - A hierarchy based on PERSONAL not team results (simply averaging the position in the team result from 1 to 12 ) - Divide the players in the queue left team and right team Like : select all players in queue that are to be in the battle. Then divide them by their ranking. Ideally it would look like this : Team A TeamB Best Second best 4th 3rd best 5th 6th 8th 7th ........................................................................ Thus a balanced team match will result. Let the better cooperating team win. ...and just an example of good personal score in defeat... ( Why was my team so weak they lost ? Of course bad luck (?)... Isn't it ? ) and why this post did not list correctly at first ?
  6. Cpt_Roberto_jr

    [REQ] Matchmaker working as intended

    I am sorry buy you do not address the real problem in match maker system. As many of the post in the above locked thread, you seem to think that wisely matching tiers is the key. It is not about the tiers, it is about the players and their performance. Each player should have a performance index attached. Not the percentage of wins by the team he was randomly placed which has no significance in a player's rating. Now, the plater's performance rating is a tough thing as shear battle result is pretty much at War God's dice throwing. What I mean is that an average player can have the luck to meet 3 bad players and sink them (regardless of their class) and mark a very good performance whilst the best player of the game can meet 1001th and 1002th* SIMULTANEOUSLY and be defeated marking thus a low performance. Still as the numbers will add, the performance ladder will become more and more accurate. Then all that remains is to ordinate by performance the available players and divide them left-right into the 2 teams, The teams will have - at least theoretically - equal force at the start of the battle. How they manage their resources, will the better players massacre the lesser ones or will latter start to look for alliances ( As I would after being early sunk several times in a row) ? It depends on how much they care, but normally anyone wants to go better. This All will be in the benefit of learning strategy / tactics /aiming skill of each player that is trying to improve. Those who do not care will remain cannon fodder. * Attention 1001 and 1002 in this ranking system will still be at least in the "Very good" if not "Excellent" category.
  7. Cpt_Roberto_jr

    Bottom of sea impassable for wrecks may be nice

    How about this one ( 16-mar-2016) http://workupload.com/file/BVpncCve
  8. Cpt_Roberto_jr

    Bottom of sea impassable for wrecks may be nice

    Well after just a day or so, most oppinions look in favor We shall see 5.4, 5.5....
  9. Well, I think the title says it all. My destroyer was destroyed in shallow water, the sun was up, the water crystal clear, I was a bit puzzled to see it landing on and being engulfed bt some kind of "quick sand"- ish coral We know that when ship is "alive" it can touch the bottom and get nailed on the spot. So why sink if killed ( to where ? Is there a Valhalla for ships ? )
  10. Well, we are insomniacs or, we have boring night "do nothing, just be there" jobs, fact is that some of us play at what one may call "late at night" or "(too) early morning". The issue is that we get (after queuing just 1 minute ): reduced in size to save space, they are still readable, I hope. Although a new kind of problem to tackle, still of no use for the normal team play of 12. What I'd like you Devs to consider, is the possibility than after a certain queue time, if the standard number of players is not available, bots of the highest player's tier are added in completion. What about that Devs and fellow night bird players ?