Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'performance'.
Found 4 results
Ok so the new ranked sprint system has some good and bad things about it that ppl have expressed. Some ppl are unhappy with the rewards and others are unhappy about the quality of play in gold league. this idea i think helps with the quality of play. Right now if your team wins, you earn a star, If your team losses, no matter how well you play, you can only save a star if you are top otherwise you lose a star. The problem with this system, bad games by players on the winning team earn a star while the good games by players can get punished and at best save star just because they lost. I think this is the reason why the quality of play in gold was what it was. compared to the previous system it is much easier to reach gold than rank 5 due to all the stopping points from bronze and silver. This is why there were alot of red players in gold league and such a big skill gap which is frustrating for competitive play for everyone. Solution A subtle performance based approach - "why not change the the top 7 base xp earners to gain a star regardless if their team wins or losses" this way teams are still incentivised to win because you get more base xp for winning but it also address the problem of 1-2 players on the losing team who have over 1500 base xp and played very well while the bottom 1-2 on the winning team could have less than 600 xp yet they earned a star even though they basically did nothing that match. Bonkers.... With this all 7 players on the winning team could still earn star especially since the base xp boost for winning, this just addresses the games of extreme cases which is quite frequent. "Finally the player with the 8th highest base xp saves star and bottom 6 xp earners lose star regardless of team" Hypothetical result - 1. the quality of play in gold will be improved (not perfect, but improved) 2. toxicity and player frustration could be lowered due to smaller player skill gap 3. the grind to rank out in a sprint will be less daunting and the rewards will be more worthwhile time wise 4. really good games on losing teams have greater value over really bad games on winning teams What do yall think? im sure there could be bigger changes to the star saving system but i think this is one of the roots of the problem with ranked. I personally really like the idea of the sprints and it seems more relaxing to play it. but i think this would make it a lot better. -(added 2/7/21) As an example or a reference point, here is the system for WoT. some ppl complain about his method too, but i like how the system is more dynamic by distinguishing the level of play on winning and losing teams. Pika
I was wondering if i should upgrade to windows 10, and i do think it would be nice, but i was thinking that it would slow down my computer which is already super slow. According to the Microsoft website, the required specs for windows 10 are higher than the required specs for window 7. Doesn't that mean windows 10 is going to be using more resources than windows 7, therefore slowing down my computer? I would appreciate some answers, thanks.
Hello, I was wondering if anyone else is experiencing a large drop in FPS in the last few days. I don't have a great system, but with low settings, I've always gotten around 45-55 FPS which is doable. Now all of the sudden I'm getting 20, sometimes lower. If no one else is experiencing this, then I'll have to figure out what is causing it. Any suggestions are appreciated. The only thing I've changed recently is I installed the Nanogram crosshair from the modstation. I don't imagine that would affect it. FPS is low all of the time, not just in zoom. It's a Del laptop i7 500 gig with the crappy intel integrated graphics. Plenty of memory available, 250 gigs. Windows 10. Just did a big update, but it was happening before update and continued after the update. Thanks.
I won't write all of pros and cons of Montana and Grober Kurfurst. Montana, despite of her lack of caliber, has very weird citadel protection. She has 260mm citadel belt located right under her 400mm(main upper belt) part. Iowa has thicker armor (270mm+38mm AT bulge) This thin part makes her very unreliable of protecting her citadels. Even moskva in 10km can penetrate her citadel in impact angle of 40' and Jean Bart's 15inch in 20km 20~30' (my experience when shooting montana) Every other T10 battleship(except yamasashi's cheek) can easily stop heavy AP shells when angled slightly(15~20' in long range, 30~40'in medium to close range) Does this unreliability work as concept of USN battleship line, or Montana? If not, I can strongly advise this part of armor is fixed in order to balance T10s. So how much? I hope 400mm(same as upper main belt) especially her armor is not inclined to 15'(like Iowa) GK is meant to take role of close range fighter. However,German battleship get their very bad gun arc in T9, T10. You can see turret stop rotating without any obstacles. This factor greatly limits performance of GK (which is meant to be charging.) The range and accuracy, are limiting factor due to her concept.(frankly, she needs least 21.6km range, same as Bismarck) But gun arc is different story. It is just irritating feature that does not accord to German Battleship concept. Thus, I greatly suggest her gun arc to be buffed to level of Bismarck.