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

182 profile views
  1. I guess my point is, all changes should ideally be documented and easy to find for users of the game. "nuff said.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. unseaworthy

    Lot of WG server disconnects last 3 days

    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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    I see some value in having a player on my team capable of averaging huge amounts of damage and sinking ships. Call me crazy!!! LoL
  12. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    I think PR is actually (when looking at an extensive/long term player history) a pretty accurate metric of player skill. Being a successful player means causing damage to the other team, sinking their ships, and helping your team win. In the same way that hitting winners and aces and winning % effects the ranking of tennis players in a tournament or on a particular circuit.
  13. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    Technically it's described as a blend of: dmg rate frag rate WR from highest importance to lowest - and not in the same proportions...
  14. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    I posted a sanitized version. Thanks for helping to keep this conversation going and not being locked.
  15. unseaworthy

    Personal Ratings (PR)

    I guess you agree with my point. I play dozens of games every week, and the majority of players on both sides aren't even "average" players under the current rating system. That doesn't make any sense at all. If everyone is below average or worse, what does "average" even mean? That a Tier Level 7 player is great playing Tier III? Duh, we all know that's true already! I see you know MM. It doesn't sap the fun out of the game for me. It goes a long way toward explaining why I lose in many cases (including the one in my example).