• Content count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1390

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bakgoi

  • Rank
    Seaman Recruit
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile bakgoi

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Portal profile bakgoi
  1. ​lmbo. evidently. curious what would happen if I tried to cause a loss... not sinking a friendly, but a really stupid plan. would it effect the outcome? how could I tell? with so many losses piling up, another one would mean what? I will research this in game!! brb
  2. hi. you guys seem to be functioning at a much higher level than me, what with tenths of a point differences significant?? win rate in random currently 43% with 344 battles. primary use minekaze, cleveland, new York, earned the kirishima and haruna, in which I have horrid win rates (seriously low, in the haruna. most times I can't take advantage of the 50-100% bonus victory thing. lol). with the minekaze my kill rate stays above 1/battle, but that's only because I set out on solo hunt/sink missions if I see the team is a donut. like, more than one AFK and the rest heading for different corners. the rest it's down to .4/battle... been in up to 8 losses in a row. after 3 losses I typically switch to another ship. the worst string was 18/20 losses, with 15 blowout losses (and I mean 84-1000, 121-798 type blowouts). I sent in a ticket with lots of replays, asking for advice and maybe a bit of info as to why this might be happening. I was told to keep pointing at the enemy (which has limits, eventually you will be within secondary range, and simply have to turn around, present a broadside and be sunk, and/or it's simply not possible with 3 or more enemy ships), "don't go in a straight line" (rarely do, unless nobody has been detected or i'm running with smoke up directly away from a solo BB with my rudder shot off again. yes, I have the captains skill for that), "you should focus fire." from the corner where 5 of us are ramming each other, and out of range of everything but the DDs and planes torping us, that's an awesome idea. "stick together as a team" previous sentence covers that, I can't bring myself to follow stupid to defeat all the time. and my own personal favorite: "it's not a systematic issue..." whatever the hell that means. it's not MM!! MM has been wonderfully consistent! if I play the cleve, there will be no CVs, no planes to shoot down. if I play the new York, there will be scads of DDs (up to seven on the enemy side) and a CV with a player that knows how to do 'X' pattern manual drops. if I play the minikaze, there will be at least 5 CAs and a CV. this is not sometimes, this is 93%. I will be among the lowest tier, or the lowest tier boat. 94%. the battle will be 1.57 tiers above my level (that's the average in the last 50 games). they fixed MM, for sure... I know exactly what to expect! ranked battles went great for a while! 53% win (yay!), up to rank 15, kaboom, then the longest winning streak dropped down to 1. it's hard to move up to the next irrevocable level with a long winning streak of 1 (one). never made it past rank 14. lmbo. at the end, 45% win. I suppose I should be delighted, as that's 2 whole % points over my random %!! woo hoo!! my favorite loss was a battle in which they were very communicative in a language I have never seen before. we actually sank one boat, against all odds, so it was gloriously fun!! fortunately, I am not statistics driven (math and psychology major, got it out of my system), and still manage to have some fun in the game. while it's possible it's systematic (I think they may have meant 'systemic', but who cares, they obviously don't), I still learn something most every loss, and know I need to learn a LOT more to be good at this game. am open to suggestions, trolls need not respond. in the famous words of my father: if all else fails, and it will with your genetic background, simply lower your standards again. :o)
  3. brudnick: I share your frustration. after playing World of Warcraft, excelling, individually, in raids with my group(s), and arena, and doing well at some 1st person shooters, both in teams and individually, I assumed: 1) that the better you play, the more it effects the result of the battle. not true. individual efforts WILL NOT effect battle outcome. how many battles have you been in with one or more AFK, and won? (lots of AFKs, very few wins). how many times have you seen AFKs on the enemy's team? (one time) when you got your Cleveland, did you see CVs at the same rate as before? (no, hardly ever, it's a standing joke in battle chat) when you enter a battle in your minekaze, are there CVs? (of course)... I could go on, hey, I will... if you enter a battle in your BB, will the enemy team have more DDs? (yes, 73% of the time). when you reached level 12, did it get harder? (oh, HELL YES!) 2) the game is set up to have a fair, level playing field. (oh, HELL NO!! if this were the case, most if not all players would have a W/L record near 50%. (fantasy assumption. in random battles, my Win record since reaching level 12 has dropped from 52% down to 42%, and in the last 18 battles, have won 2. 3) sinking ships is dependent on how well you play. (not even close. my kills/battle in random battles have dropped from well over 2 to .4. the vast majority of the time, I am the lowest, or tied with the lowest Tier in the battle. in one of 7 battles I will not be tied. in one of 18 I will be among the highest. in combination with the boat type skews, this is flat out rigged. it is NOT coincidental.) 4) developers are not aware of this. (among the many tickets I have started, reporting the hellacious level of difficulty in the game recently, I have included replays of 17 blowout losses, up to 7 in a row. the ONLY response that addressed this directly was "this is not a systematic problem. if it was, rest assured that our developers would be working hard to address it" from this response, you can conclude: there are multiple complaints about this issue, it effects more than a couple players, the devs DO KNOW, and they don't care. somebody has to lose. why not you?) to be fair, writing this after a couple hundred battles, and with one character, is not a totally accurate assessment of the game. in order to test it thoroughly, a person would have to start several accounts, and play each thru and well past level 12, and see if there were significant changes in the W/L %, kill rate, etc between the two accounts. if there were no significant differences, if they were totally consistent with each other, and in fact were significantly different than the 'game norm' (whatever that is) or 'average player range' (again, whatever that is), you could conclude that you suck. after taking some time off from the game, I figured if it was a (highly unlikely) random 'losing streak' and I had not given it enuff time to run it's course, then I would come back to a winning streak. NONE OF THIS, and I mean NONE OF IT, is the sort of thing you want to be doing, nor even considering, in a game that might be great if it were not apparently rigged and frustrating beyond belief. but none of the responses have included players talking about similar %s or frustrations with the game, except this. maybe we really do suck at this game. one of the responses when I started one of my tickets on this very issue was along the lines of 'I view victories as a bonus, and am happy when I do more damage than my boat can take.' in other words, you will never be disappointed if you continue to lower your standards. but that begs the question, who the hell is winning all the games?
  4. hi. with majors in math and psychology, I always end up looking for detectable tendencies, common themes, and results beyond statistical norms (or far beyond statistical norms). in the ranked battles, and discussion in both battle chat, off the official site, and this thread, I observe the following: 1) ranked battle is terribly frustrating for many players, me included. 2) the W/L %, and streaks of losses, are staggeringly far from a normal spread. if this was happening in vegas, the site owner would be arrested. 3) the tier point level differences are rarely equal. again, the skew is WAY off what would be a normal spread. 4) there is a growing number of AFK players in ranked battles. the effect on the team is significant, particularly when it is a battleship, and/or more than one player is AFK whether or not you are a good team player would be very easy to determine. your W/L record, taken from your in-game profile/summary, would serve as a start. I am sure the developers could easily extract your W/L record out of the ranked battles only, and balance that out closer than it's not being addressed now (apparently at all) in battle seeding. the most common remark in battle chat is "this team sucks, again." why is this game so frustrating? the last 11 ranked battles, 10 losses, 8 games had one AFK, 5 of those for the entire battle, and in one of those there were 2 AFKs, one for the entire battle. we actually won one of those AFK battles, (a BB) and the AFK player got a star, and a win. if a player AFKs and gets a win every 8 (as in this sample example), that's a better W/L record than I have going now. why is this game so frustrating? one (1) battle in the last 11 has had a balance (zero point difference) in tier level totals between the two teams. it was a mute point (pun intended), that was the game with the two AFKs. in 10 of the 11, the opposing team had a one point tier advantage. pretty close!! except when you are losing a LOT, you get frustrated, and it ends up seeming rigged. maybe it is. why is this game so frustrating? the probability of battling to 8 losses in a row in ranked battle are astronomical, IF the game is set up on a fair, level playing field. in battle chat, apparently big long loss strings happen fairly often. that, combined with the AFK situ which is also getting way past the realm of anything close to normal range of probability, which more than a few people have noted, and being in battle after battle with superbly crappy team players, that are sometimes abusive in chat, would lead to the following conclusion: the randomizers either are not very random, or you need to include another parameter or two to make it less rigged. or at least so it does not appear to be rigged. why is this game so frustrating? it's bad enough looking at the minimap, and seeing 4 green arrows pointing different directions all over the map, and seeing one big cluster of red arrows, and of course a couple invisible DDs still alive somewhere, cause the smoke is WAY OPed (how does smoke effect the vision of spotter aircraft that fly right over them?). then you look at the score, which has been as bad as 23 - 784. or 37 - 998. or 174 - 1000. star vanishes. doesn't matter if you were ranked second with one of the best battles you've fought in a while, sunk a few, last one floating, etc, poof. it's a loss, and I am not alone, I don't like losing cause the system needs some major tweeking. why is this game sooo frustrating? sooo. I got level 16, and 24 hrs of premium, and the losses began. I have written for support on this, and a few other topics, and the response? basically, if you keep your Cleveland pointed at the BBs, and avoid showing them your broadside, you'll do ok. feces. if the opponent 3-5 ships shooting at me are spread out even as little as 2 squares, some of them are not going to be looking at my blade, they will have at least a partial side view. duh. the issues I am bringing up, again, here are code and game function issues, which should be fairly easy to fix, at least in part. and the good news is for you, that would be enough. as it is now, I look at the benefits of premium, and it's not making the slightest difference when you draw uneven battles, crappy teams players, and AFK repeatedly. why would I buy premium when there are parts of the game that appear broken. I hope you fix it. I think it could be one of the truly great games ever! sincerely, me (aka me)
  5. never mind