Jump to content

joel9507

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9390
  • Clan

    [TAC-B]

Community Reputation

32 Neutral

About joel9507

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

479 profile views
  1. joel9507

    Public Test 0.8.0 - Feedback

    1) I see there are no bot-CVs in the co-ops (well, zero out of three battles) to fight against. Is that by design (i.e. no bot CVs in co-op going forward?) or is there something going on with the MM, or is there just more work needed to come up with logic to control CV-bots, and they will be coming in later tests/releases? 2) Not sure if this is a bug or a change, but for some reason the 'Concealment Expert' effects appear to be 10% reduction in detection radius for all classes in the Test Server. That is a fairly strong nerf to the effects on non-DDs, which currently are 12% for cruisers, 14% for BBs and 16% for carriers. Is that an error or planned change? If that's seen as a potential change for 8.0, put me down as being against it.
  2. joel9507

    Update 0.7.12 - Bugs Report

    Bug: Snowflake proceeds not shown in the port's crate You would think it would be easy to tell what you got for a snowflake, but the snowflake earnings don't show up when you click on the crate in the port. So, if you want to see what your snowflake brought, you have to look in 'notifications' and try to figure it out on your own, because, unlike stuff that is displayed when clicking the crate where you can mouse over a particular reward to see why you got it, the notifications list doesn't say why you got stuff, it just says 'addition.' If you are earning things for missions, etc. along with the snowflakes, it can get hard to figure out. I imagine we will start to see complaints about ' not earning anything from the snowflakes' pretty soon, as people expect to see confirmation in the port's crate, like is done for other earned rewards. Anyway, here's a screenshot showing how the snowflake earnings show up, and the lack of detail you get when you do find out which entry was from your snowflake, and click on it. (it's the little box near the lower right corner, that just says 'Addition coal 300')
  3. joel9507

    What ever WG did to the T8 MM it made it worse.

    ^^ WG should be thinking about MM balance, if only for their own bottom line. One would think that T8 premium ship sales would increase if they corrected MM so T8s didn't face T10 battles over 50% of the time.
  4. joel9507

    What ever WG did to the T8 MM it made it worse.

    What they ought to do is probably do what they did in planes and go to +1/-1 MM. There is a lot of angst about that in Wargaming but that is based on dogma vs. data. They could have a one-week patch with only that one change (i.e. +1/-1 MM) and see what happens. There might be a diet of crow for some Wargaming decision-makers after that! ;) Personally, if the choice is crappy MM and quick queues, or fair MM and longer queues, I'd pick the latter hands down. I get zipped into T10 battles all the time in my T8s as soon as I press 'BATTLE' - lucky me. :(
  5. joel9507

    Advice for Uptiered DD players

    Lots of good advice above. I would add the recommendation of over-communicating with your team. "Capping A" at the start (assuming that's what you're doing) lets people know what to expect. Continue communicating your actions - you're the most nimble (usually) and have the most flexibility. It is especially important to communicate if you are thinking of going off on your own - i.e. heading off to snipe carriers or send Asashio-torps at BBs from the back, instead of capping/recon for the team. And listen to what you hear back. If you are the only DD in a domination mode game that's closely contested, going off on your own may doom your team to defeat, no matter what you are able to pull off. The other point I don't see above is to compare the minimap with the roster of living opponents, so you know what you don't know....what you don't know can kill you. Say they have three DDs still in game and the minimap only shows 1.....or say they have 2 radar-equippable ships and you don't know where either is. Better factor those unknowns into your plan. Hopefully you have most-recent-position setting on so you know the unknowns were when last spotted, but that's only a guideline.
  6. joel9507

    What ever WG did to the T8 MM it made it worse.

    The changes have made it worse, not better for T8 play. Existing thread, with some numbers: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/175820-711-mm-improvements-for-t8ssupposedly/?tab=comments#comment-4133715 Not only has the prevalence of T10 games gone up for T8 ships, post 7.11, there seem to be more situations than previously where the T8s in those T10 battles are very few in number, and so the imbalance is doubly worse, now. What WG could/should do is to post numbers for each tier, as to what their goals for MM are, and numbers as to what the servers have delivered, with numbers broken out pre-7.11 and current. In the absence of information, it would seem fair that a ship should expect to see equal distribution of all possible tiering, (in the absence of fail-platooning etc.) That is, a ship that can see three battle-tiers would, over time, expect to see 1/3 of their battles in each battle tier, a ship that only can see two battle-tiers would see a 50/50 mix, etc. RE: MM mix T8/T9/T10 battles, my T8s were seeing 33/12/55 before the 7.11 patch and are seeing something like 20/20/60 since. Neither are good/reasonable, and there is no evidence of improvement.
  7. Update with more 7.11 T8 battles. New 'fixed' MM worse than the old one, for T8s, instead of better, as was claimed. T8 Random Battles: 34 Battle Tier: T8: 7 (20.5%) T9: 7 (20.5%) T10: 20 (59%) Not only is this not an improvement over pre-7.11, it is worse. From my OP, based on Mxstat numbers for 119 battles, before the 'fix,' the T8 MM mix was 33% at tier (vs 20.5% now) and 'only' 55% tier X games. I am thinking some programmer may have read this part 'Tier X battles will have fewer Tier VIII and IX ships ' and just coded that up exactly as stated, and tries to put some minimal number of T8 ships into all the Tier X battles. I am seeing more and more lineups with onesie-twosie T8s (and sometimes no T9s!) in a mostly TX battle. At any event, there remains zero evidence that this patch is delivering the second half of the statement 'these will more often be matched to Tier VIII and IX battles'
  8. Thanks. The video stopped showing what he was doing for a bit, midway, while he was doing the file editing, but I figured it out... 1) find the engine_config.xml file in the game's /res folder, and make a backup copy with a different name (in case you want/need to get back to the original.) 2) open engine_config.xml with your favorite text editor 3) find the line <maxReplaysToSave>30</maxReplaysToSave> and change the '30' to whatever number you want - Mejash, the author of the video, said he thought there was no upper limit - and save it. Then start the game as usual. If your edits caused any problems you can delete your edited copy and rename the backup you made in step 1 to 'engine_config.xml' and that should return you to the default behavior. It will be interesting to see if this hand-edited customized setting persists after updating mods and for new patches. If I was a betting man, I'd bet not. Hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised...but I'll be saving my replays to an archive folder for a while, just in case.
  9. Good to know. Is there a reference somewhere as to what edits to make on which file? Is there a setting to stop the deletions altogether?
  10. Well, I figured out some pieces of the puzzle. 1) are mods involved? No. Ran in 'safe mode' and also with the newest patch before adding mods to it - no change 2) what audio controls in the client affect the volume of the cap alarm? Two. SFX volume and Interface volume. They appear to be 'anded', meaning that if either are off, no cap alarm. If I have both maximized the barely-audible 'meep meep' gets slightly louder. I even found a reference in the 'mod.xml' file in the /res/banks folder that I think applies... But as to where to go from there, no idea. So, tactically what that means is that to make the 'meep-meep' louder, I will run both SFX volume and Interface volume at 100%, and to make the alarm stand out more against the general background, I'll be cutting engine sound and ambient sounds way down. With some luck, that'll be enough.
  11. joel9507

    0.7.12 Public Test Bug Reports

    Bug: Snowflake earnings don't seem to be shown in the rewards box on the left side of the port. Discussion: I won a co-op game in the New Mexico, the snowflake icon went away, and 200 coal showed up in the Arsenal - so far, so good. However the earnings crate on the left side of the port didn't show any coal having been earned or have any mention of snowflakes. The crate was working, except for not showing anything from the Snowflake having been earned - it showed a lot of other things (i.e. the usual test server startup (the giveaways from 'achieving rank 15') and all the earnings from that game (the Shinonome and captain from having met the "Royal Treasury" mission , etc.) so . Unfortunately the crate went away so I can't attach a screenshot. :(
  12. joel9507

    Feedback: Duplicate Premium Ships

    Seriously, how could anyone propose this as being reasonable: 1) buy 'ship X' which comes with a mission offering 2500 doubloons 2) to unlock said mission, you need to play one battle in 'ship X' 3) but to actually do the unlocked mission and earn the 2500 doubloons, you have to run 'ship Y' To me, the tied mission thing - where the purchase of 'black ship X' unlocks a mission for 'regular ship X'- which requires ownership of both, sounds like a programming mixup that they are just pushing past. Yes, they added a belated note on the premium shop page now saying the mission has to be done on the regular ship....but I don't recall that being on the page, when it first came out. As it turns out, I have all four base models so when/if black versions show up in crates, I'm good to go on the missions. I don't know how many of the B ship purchasers are in the same situation, and it seems unfair to offer a conditional mission requiring ownership of an essentially identical premium ship to get the promised mission. Personally, I'd argue that WG, on request, should either credit 2500 gold to any buyer of a "B" ship that doesn't have the required premium non-B needed to do the offered mission, or offer them a substantial discount on buying the ship required to access the promised mission.
  13. joel9507

    Clan Wars Rental Ships Bug (?)

    Equipment gets removed for free and put in your inventory when the ships go away, so taking spare credits and loading these temp ships up with half-off equipment (and/or 60% off camos and consumables) makes perfect sense. Our clan doesn't have enough active players to do CW, so our only practical usage of the rental ships has been to use them as holding spots for discounted stuff.
  14. So, listening to the Waterline videos, and looking at the patch notes for 7.11, I was expecting a new, sunny day for T8 ships. https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/development/update-0711-rule-britannia/ Supposedly, T8s aren't to be chiefly cannon-fodder for 2-tier-higher ships most of the time. Huzzah! Let the celebrations begin. Except.....maybe not. Absolutely, recognition of this issue was a good first step. Well over half the time, my T8 ships have found themselves battling T10 battles (see details). I understand the problem (per the Waterline video) of having too many T10 ships in the queues. But what's happened is people who understand the MM have been avoiding their T8s, which makes the problem worse (i.e. fewer T8s in the queue, but no impact on the number of T10s in the queue....thus it is even worse for the folks still grinding/playing T8s.) This uptier-matchmaking issue also makes buying T8 premiums less attractive - probably affecting revenues, as well. So, good for them for giving it a shot. How did they do? It is way too early to have statistically significant data on 7.11 but there is no evidence of an improvement so far. The distribution of battle tiers for my T8s has continued to be disproportionately T10 (7/11-64%) but with only 11 Post 7.11 samples that is not dispositive. In addition, anecdotally since 7.11 I have seen a number of T10 battles with only one-two-three T8s and no T9s since the patch and that almost never used to happen. Details: Before 7.11 - MXstat summary (119 random battles, T8 ships) At tier: 39 (33%) T9 battle: 14 (12%) T10 battle: 66 (55%) After 7.11 - MXstat summary (11 random battles, T8 ships) At tier: 2 (18%) T9 battle: 2 (18%) T10 battle: 7 (64%) Discussion This was/is horrendous MM (for the T8s). While the 7.11 numbers are not statistically significant, they do not show any evidence of improvement for T8. Conclusion: It may be the MM code never got included in the patch - not something that an outsider can assess. I can say there is no evidence of improvement. The job may (or may not?) have started, but it is far from finished.
×