Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

42 Neutral

About unseaworthy

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Birthday 04/15/1970
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Eastern US
  • Interests
    computer gaming, database development and administration, game development, AI, mapmaking, game mods, military history, forum moderatoration

Recent Profile Visitors

291 profile views
  1. I personally think the guy has a point. His son is a member of my clan and he's good for 11. Prior to my taking over as XO, the guy writing the post was helping our clan and his son learn to play WoW. He discontinued his clan relationship about 3 months ago but did leave behind a large document laying out in detail what he believes is happening with WG and matchmaking. He didn't blame WG for it (business is business, basically) but said it's important for players to know that as a rule they are not being treated equally for a variety of business reasons. Since reading his document I've been monitoring my own games and some of the members of my clan (I'm current XO) are doing the same. The results look very much like what he's been saying, so far. I suggest it would be worthwhile to do some record-keeping of your own and we can test the theory. What could it hurt? Anyway, I think it would be interesting is if some of us find that we're getting dramatically more sealclubbing games than uptiers - which would add credibility to the claim that some players are benefitting while others are paying the price. The thing about probability is, given enough coin flips, we all know heads and tails will come up about equally unless there's something wrong with the coin. (The "magic number" for coin flipping is 1000 but is certainly higher for matchmaking in this game). When I say equally, I mean it would reflect what WG says will happen in their own matchmaking specifications. Would any of you even admit it if you were getting preferential mm???? So, what's your actual game experience with tiers like? All you have to do is jot it down on a piece of paper every time you play a game. Isn't our actual experience what counts? Seems to me it is, and namecalling, databases, and theories are pretty much of no relevance. My 2 cents.
  2. I've actually been charting my game tiers since I first read this post - just to see what I'm getting. Although I'm currently a middle tier player so your mileage may vary. I actually am getting virtually no "same tier" games (tiers 5 & 6) while getting a disproportionate number of games with tier 7 & 8 matchmaking (two full tiers above). Also, my tier 5 games now have tier 4 players that are almost always bots? wth is that? I'm sure everyone is seeing this but that's a huge change...
  3. unseaworthy

    Bots now have the Martyrdom skill

    In the end, the reality is whatever WG says is real and just happened is how it's supposed to be - unless you're in testing. If it's the production game, it's intended to be that way or you're just making it up.
  4. unseaworthy

    Kamikaze / Fujin - any way to get one?

    It's stunning to see how often some players play Kamikaze R - 400+ games are not uncommon and there a plenty of players with thousands of games in them. You can say the same about Clemson. They are very OP in the hands of a capable captain, especially with massive amounts of game experience. Great for sealclubbers and I dare say, other emotionally challenged players.
  5. unseaworthy

    Public Test - 0.9.6 - German Carriers

    Positive feedback: The Modules interface are now streamlined and this improves the overall clarity and efficiency of the GUI German carriers are no worse than their counterparts, so balance is adequate given the current already imbalanced CV meta in the game Neutral feedback: Audio changes made no impression whatsoever Negative feedback: Playtesting is a grind made even less enjoyable by unbalanced matchmaking throughout the process. Pretty much the same as with typical random battles on the live servers, which has drastically reduced my play in WoWs generally. I keep hoping this will change so I can enjoy the game at some point - but I'm not holding my breath.
  6. I guess my point is, all changes should ideally be documented and easy to find for users of the game. "nuff said.
  7. Really? I ran a global search for "ctrl-j" and found nothing. I question why there is no comprehensive "Release Notes" documentation posted on these forums under Announcements and or Developer Logs?
  8. I haven't seen anything released "officially" about this change, so I put in a ticket and they confirmed that Ctrl-J is the new hotkey combo to hide the UI. Gee, wouldn't it have been a much more professional change management process if they actually told the userbase about this? Maybe somewhere like: maybe these forums? Guess this slipped through due to being so unimportant.
  9. unseaworthy

    Cvs should not be in tier 4 matches

    IMO, CVs are great in the game as a challenge. But 3 CVs are totally over the top and everyone (including WG) knows. It's supposed to be changed soon (the sooner the better) within the matchmaking system. This is especially true with mixed T3/4 games where many ships have no AA at all. I understand that T4 is the first tier where CV players can "try out their wings" and WG wants carriers to be a success, etc. I also suspect that WG would like to make T4 unbearable to play so players will level up and ultimately have to spend some actual cash to play the game since higher tiers are much harder to play without premium time, premium ships, etc. So, for a lot of explainable reasons T3/T4 have had to suffer because they bear the brunt of these business priorities. Ideally, from the players' perspective, it wouldn't work this way. But there is always some price to everything in life, even with a free game. That's the real world.
  10. unseaworthy

    bars in Naval battles

    Every end of battle report has a 'Victory' or 'Defeat' screen. On that screen you will see a count of all the ribbons earned. All of the notable things you do during the game count as "1 ribbon". Add them all together and you have your ribbon count. As you might expect, this is covered in detail in the WoWs Wiki page about ribbons.
  11. Although I haven't been penalized because I re-logged in during the middle of the battles and finished the games, this happened intermittently for about 2 weeks. Also, some nasty lag that made a few games unplayable. This has almost never happened before I'm happy to say. After Feb. 25th seems to have been corrected. I submitted a ticket and got the usual "make sure your video driver and other system drivers are up-to-date" advice and submitted a system report to WG Support. My system was fully updated as it always is so that wasn't the problem, and the network diagnostics showed no problems at the time I ran them (not during any games). It could have been caused by a local network issue, specific to the time of the games, of course.
  12. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    The short answer is yes. This site directly accesses the WG server databases: https://na.wows-numbers.com/ Every player stat, every ship stat.
  13. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    Yes, and to be clear, I'm commenting about PR, which is not a WG product. However, people do refer to it, and with good reason, with caveats to be sure.
  14. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    This specific site is run by Wiochi who is a WOT clan commander with 30,000 battles under his belt and a 56%+ win/loss ratio. I have no idea if he's a scientist, but my guess is he cares about the validity of the numbers on his site. They come from WG after all. The rating system is a metric and he's made the formula public for all to see as I referenced. This is an important point that I mostly agree with. It's one of the main arguments against WR as a significant measure of skill (certainly in Random games) as you've noted above in your next paragraph. However, WR is not heavily weighted in the overall PR rating. It's a minor factor (as it should be, IMHO). Your next point about player's luck and being "carried" is a factor in WR and overall stats for some players. But it isn't a factor (if we are to believe the MM Gods) in truly Random games given enough gameplay attempts to be statistically valid. Truly "Random" matchmaking, given enough games played would tend to even out for all but the worst and the very best players - at around 50%, like flipping a coin. Yet, that doesn't seem to be happening. I'm not the best player in T3, but I'm very, very far from the worst and I'm still rated just plain old BAD. Hmm. Food for thought. 100% correct! But maybe not entirely for the reasons you were thinking. As players progress up through the tiers, their XP earned p/g increases significantly. Players with 100s or 1000s of games in higher tiers tend to be significantly better than those who mill around in T3 and T4, I'm willing to bet, and a "tell" is that their XP rating is considerably higher. As for individual progress in the game, this is likely to be the one thing that can be relied upon as a comparator. If you're doing better over time in most statistical areas, it indicates that you are getting better vis a vis the player base you face. It doesn't mean you're actually getting better - it means you are more competitive in the existing environment. It may be the environment itself that has changed.
  15. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    The underlying numbers come from wargamming.net . The "rating system" is a 3rd party system shown here. https://na.wows-numbers.com/personal/rating I've heard players argue that "stats don't exist" or "stats don't matter" but I think they have real value.