1. Coding Bull Junky Page 3 Automation And Personal Productivity Services
2. Coding Bull Junky Page 3 Automation And Personal Productivity Management
3. Coding Bull Junky Page 3 Automation And Personal Productivity Software

With all due respect buddy do you really need a guide to something that is already broken? I mean honestly I'd prefer CA to admit it and move on rather than writing some explanations which wont help at all I'll quote myself here, 'but my point was never an attempt to get a guide simply in and of itself, it was always an attempt to get CA to take formal recognition of the poor state of their political system and either put out a guide that explains that it doesn't work, or else overhaul it.

My whole objective was never really just to get a guide. It was to get CA to admit that politics is trash, or else fix it.'

So yes, I don't really want a guide. I want an overhaul.

I'll settle for a guide and some admission of failure. I would be satisfied if CA just explained their Politics system, they made, to the point where it made sense - as they promised they would late january. No need to re-work it if you understand it. You don't - or it don't make sense. Let's be honest, it doesn't make any sense hence no explanation.

Havenly is seeking a QA Automation Engineer to add to our Technology & Product team. Reporting to the CTO, you will work closely with the stakeholders both on the Engineering and Product teams to help set the plan and strategy for testing new features, prioritizing automation tasks and develop the automation for it. Livestock Library – Australia’s online agricultural knowledge library of all things related to livestock enterprises. Beef Cattle; Sheep & Wool; Dairy; Goats; Chicken Meat & Eggs (Coming soon) Fisheries/Aquaculture (Coming soon) Other Livestock (Coming soon). Higher productivity decreased outpatient coding accuracy by -20.3 percent; Audit Focus Shifts to Quality and Integrity. Recent conversations with health information management (HIM) professionals have revealed insights on ICD-10 coding accuracy, productivity, and the focus of their coding audits (reimbursement vs.

It's not finished. It would take three lines to explain the political system in its current form because it's so basic (with very few options), and then of course we could work it out ourselves. So my guess is it doesn't work.

Anyway nice to finally hear good responses to patch 9. Have they, dare I say it, cracked it??! At least as far as the general scope of the game. I really suggest people start settling down a bit. As Trish is quoted as saying, the guide should be out late January, 'should' being conditional that things progress according to estimations.Joey then clearly stated on this thread that with patching and such that definitive dates for the guide release couldn't and wouldn't be given, which is reasonable. The guide will be out when it is out.we know it is in the pipeline, and we can reasonably assume that certain things are being worked on that impact on it, hence the delays.

Whether that makes us sad, mad or glad is immaterial to the actual release of the guide, we will get it when it is ready. Getting wound out on the forums only does two things, first, you are less likely to get a specific response to your grievance from staffers, and you are potentially likely to get specific attention from the mods, it you go too far.and it is easy to go to far when there is a head of steam up, so please think twice about what you are saying. I really suggest people start settling down a bit.

As Trish is quoted as saying, the guide should be out late January, 'should' being conditional that things progress according to estimations.Joey then clearly stated on this thread that with patching and such that definitive dates for the guide release couldn't and wouldn't be given, which is reasonable. It is absolutely not reasonable to suggest that patching conflicts with this. Patching is new work. Patching is done by programmers.

Patching requires coding to be done, and decisions to be made about what to code and how. The politics system is old work. It is finished and, presumably, understood. A guide requires someone to use design documents that should already be on the office computers, put the information on those documents into a more user friendly format, take some screenshots, and put the whole thing up on the wiki.

That's no more than a few pages worth of work, and can be done by an intern who doesn't have to bother any of the programmers beyond asking 'do I have this right?' Before posting the information. This does not take three months + in an office that maintains basic efficiency. The continued suggestion that working on patches conflicts in any way with putting out this guide is extremely disingenuous. It does not hold up to any close scrutiny. What we are being told is tantamount to 'a dog ate my homework'.

Before releasing a guide it'd be better thing to review whole 'politics' mechanics and do some alterations?. Such as endless stock of family genetics,. A proper dynasty management by introducing us a family tree perhaps or something similar where we need to real take care of our bloodline,.

And proper and distinctive roles for agents, they all operate way so similar. Former games have a clear understanding of agent purposes and ofc informative / proper progression charts as we progress. Old good Shogun II UI for example, You're doing real good with fixing the game and improving performance as a whole CA, now may be you need to review some core game mechanics and keep improving the game, Hope you do that. Before releasing a guide it'd be better thing to review whole 'politics' mechanics and do some alterations?. Such as endless stock of family genetics,. A proper dynasty management by introducing us a family tree perhaps or something similar where we need to real take care of our bloodline,. And proper and distinctive roles for agents, they all operate way so similar.

Former games have a clear understanding of agent purposes and ofc informative / proper progression charts as we progress. Old good Shogun II UI for example, You're doing real good with fixing the game and improving performance as a whole CA, now may be you need to review some core game mechanics and keep improving the game, Hope you do that, Politics, UI and diplomacy are my top priorities as well. However before that happens I would love to see the battleline fixed as blobbing is not only a problem of unit collision, but AI decisions to 'castle' their units instead of engaging head to head 1 unit vs another and units routing into all directions rather focus on routing from where they came from.

May be the sole reason for that delay is there's no worthy in depht politics system to write a guide on it? Just sayin, This would make things even more easier as they would just have to re-write the description in the encyclopaedia. You don't believe they would fear to release a nonsensical guide when half of the game features are bugged. At release the encyclopaedia even included description of features cut out of the game. For example it had an entry about the guard mode when the latter was not available to any unit. This would make things even more easier as they would just have to re-write the description in the encyclopaedia.

You don't believe they would fear to release a nonsensical guide when half of the game features are bugged. At release the encyclopaedia even included description of features cut out of the game. For example it had an entry about the guard mode when the latter was not available to any unit.

Apart from the buggy state of game as once was imo complexity of current features such as politics as a whole offers us a limited space to improvise. I mean something about the politics strictly related to complexity/simplification issues. I'd be happy to see guide even if the politics been in a 'simple' state but me and many TW players asking something different even altered/improved form of current mechanics.

And imo politics part is the heart and soul of 'turn based' part of any TW game. Units, battles, fancy stuff theyre all fine and good. But theres more and we ask for what is ignored may be the most. For any TW game feeling of attachment to your forged state, skilled generals and wise dignitaries and lethal agents play an important part.

And that part is correct me if i'm wrong but RPG part of the game where we develop unique characters and via their successes and achievements we enjoy even more from gaming. A good agent incites a revolt and halts the rival factions efforts, a badass general crushes a huge army led by an inexperienced general.

We find similarities within the history like Hannibal for example. You name it Thats why i care a lot on that matter Anna, After 9 patches RTS part of the game shaped quite well and made many TW players happy but now and i hope CA review some RPG/Turn based aspects of the game and politics is the station the heart of all efforts. Fools hope perhaps but i'm still positive about it.

Don't get me wrong. I would love a deeper experience in internal political. In fact I see it as the solution to the mid-game/end-game routine and the means to turn each TW campaigns as a nearly indefinitely self-sustaining challenge. When CA announced internal politic in R2 I was extremely happy. That was the part of the game I was the most excited about.

I was already imaging something where you would be part of the senate and have to debate with others senators to direct the politic of the faction. Establish links with a multitude of families and obtain a vast array of offices including governorship of provinces. Governors may attempt to secede or usurp your throne.

Cabal may be formed by rich land owner to reduced slaves rights in order to amass even more wealth. At the risk to create slave unrest. So many possibilities. So pardon me if I sounded a bit frugal. I have been a huge fan of TW, It was my favourite franchise for half of my gaming life and probably represent a third of my gaming life, all plate-forms and genre included but I am not anymore positive about the franchise.

Since ETW, the franchise as taken a questionable road. Not that every change since M2TW have been bad. NTW, S2 and FotS were even honourable titles but R2 is such a mess.

I fear the dark days are here to remain a long time for us TW players. This is why we don't give definitive dates as these things are subject to change due patching being a priority at present. Perhaps I am overreacting, but this strikes me as rather unprofessional, disrespectful and, dare I say, childish. From 2nd graders doing their homework to multinational corporations launching new products globally, setting, and keeping, deadlines for established goals and objectives is fundamental to maintaining productivity and coordinating one’s activities, both internally and externally. I understand that things can, and do, go wrong.

After all, who hasn’t failed to meet a deadline at some point? The best laid schemes of mice and men. Still, this should be the exception rather than the rule. A competent and responsible company should be capable of setting realistic deadlines for firmly established goals and be held accountable to them. This is the only way to build and maintain trust.

Easy there theory crafter. It's not as simple as that. There is still work going into it but I can't give you anymore information at this time. What are we supposed to do in the absence of information except speculate and craft theories? Now, I am not advocating that CA share their internal business plans and development strategy with us in its entirety.

But as a customer and fan of the TW series I do expect a reasonable level of communication concerning current and future plans. To simply refuse to provide information or give definite dates inspires little confidence. This appears to becoming a recurring, and ominous, trend for CA. Instead of avoiding disappointing customers by failing to meet expectations, it seems to assume failure as a foregone conclusion and results in a poor reputation, mistrust and resentment. This is only exacerbated by the apparent lack of reticence in releasing information and due dates for dlc’s and new products. So pardon me if I sounded a bit frugal. No no not at all, in fact i was being in overreacted mood while typing my stuff and they were all aimed to CA' design decisions/approach.

Coding Bull Junky Page 3 Automation And Personal Productivity Services

I need to apologize if i'm sounded like overly attached TW fan, IMO and i need to say it again it's the time of revamping the whole political structure with Patch 10 (if it's gonna be ever released ofc) politics and for the love of god that awful UI of character development. I mean charts. The informative ones like Shogun II. This would be huge and even dramatic improvement over the current state of game.

Just like gunpowder in military history, such an update would be a game changer for all. Now, that's what the game needs most! RTW2 has now a able body to run and solid performance to operate. Fixed and improved. But we need clear and satisfactory purposes to enjoy the game even more.

And to do that we need a good politics system. And i believe such a decision is the Rubicon of CA. If they say 'Alea Iacta Est' then we'll have a great game at last but if they say 'Vae Victis' then. It'd a be an unfortunate thing for this potentially one of the best TW game ever made. This is the crossroads where we all came after three months of dramatic patching process. CA, did imo great job and they need the deliver a final blow to all handicaps of game.

The politics. I hope and even pray they do that because i love the whole TW franchise a lot as a gamer and history freak. What was the reasoning behind cutting the family tree system? It’s important to note that because a feature was in a previous TW doesn’t mean it’s automatically included in the next; some naturally make way for other features, others don’t fit the design or the period.

In ROME II, the design intention was to make more of the politics system which would better suit the large variety of ruling systems e.g. Party affiliations in the senate, rather than focus on strict nuclear family heredity.

This would help create the legacy overview and sense of personal character that the family tree may have supplied in previous games. It is certainly fair to say this feature didn’t turn out 100% as we would have wanted it and as part of the on-going game balancing and tweaking we are looking into this. It is interesting to see how passionate people were about family trees though and that’s certainly something we will consider for future titles. Ok, so to me this looks like an admission that the Politics system isn't working as intended.

If I'm not wrong, then how can CA possibly NOT make changes to it? You can't just leave a game feature as it is when it you've said yourselves that it isn't functioning the way you designed it. This would be pretty shamefur, no? This is why people are 'speculating' over a politics overhaul: it has to be changed, or CA will leave themselves open to a charge of willfully leaving broken features in the game. EDIT: I wouldn't necessarily expect changes to politics in patch 10, but I definitely do expect them somewhere down the line. And I don't see the point in putting out a guide to a system that is not working as intended and is subject to change. Guide + tweaks released at the same time would be the best solution, and personally I'm more than willing to wait beyond the end of January if it means the changes can be more comprehensive.

Don't get me wrong. I would love a deeper experience in internal political. In fact I see it as the solution to the mid-game/end-game routine and the means to turn each TW campaigns as a nearly indefinitely self-sustaining challenge. When CA announced internal politic in R2 I was extremely happy. That was the part of the game I was the most excited about. I was already imaging something where you would be part of the senate and have to debate with others senators to direct the politic of the faction.

Coding Bull Junky Page 3 Automation And Personal Productivity Management

Establish links with a multitude of families and obtain a vast array of offices including governorship of provinces. Governors may attempt to secede or usurp your throne. Cabal may be formed by rich land owner to reduced slaves rights in order to amass even more wealth.

At the risk to create slave unrest. So many possibilities. So pardon me if I sounded a bit frugal.

I have been a huge fan of TW, It was my favourite franchise for half of my gaming life and probably represent a third of my gaming life, all plate-forms and genre included but I am not anymore positive about the franchise. Since ETW, the franchise as taken a questionable road. Not that every change since M2TW have been bad. NTW, S2 and FotS were even honourable titles but R2 is such a mess.

I fear the dark days are here to remain a long time for us TW players. Really, the basics of a workable political system shouldn't be that hard. Just re-use the diplomacy system, but make it internal families rather than campaign-map factions, and add in giving army appointments, governor appointments for every full province owned except your home/capital province, etc.

As power elements instead of territories owned, with political actions instead of e.g. Waging war (but you could still form alliances, give money, etc.) The only major difference would be to introduce a rivalry system between parties - and really, the main game diplomacy could stand to have this as well (it always annoys me when neighbouring big empires that historically would have been competing for territory end up as unbreakable allies - plenty of times in history when a couple factions start out friends, end up competing - most notably in this period among the successor states, or basically anybody in their relationship with Rome). Really, the basics of a workable political system shouldn't be that hard. Just re-use the diplomacy, but make it internal families rather than campaign-map families, and add in giving army appointments, governor appointments for every full province owned except your home/capital province, etc. The only major difference would be to introduce a rivalry system between parties - and really, the main game diplomacy could stand to have this as well (it always annoys me when neighbouring big empires that historically would have been competing for territory end up as unbreakable allies - plenty of times in history when a couple factions start out friends, end up competing - most notably in this period among the successor states, or basically anybody in their relationship with Rome). Excellent suggestions! EDIT: I wouldn't necessarily expect changes to politics in patch 10, but I definitely do expect them somewhere down the line.

And I don't see the point in putting out a guide to a system that is not working as intended and is subject to change. Guide + tweaks released at the same time would be the best solution, and personally I'm more than willing to wait beyond the end of January if it means the changes can be more comprehensive. Totally agree here. Please make at least some small improvements to politics and than release a guide at the same time. I'm willing to wait sometime as long as we will get BOTH. A guide and tweaks to the system.

© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2015. Warhammer, the Warhammer logo, GW, Games Workshop, The Game of Fantasy Battles, the twin-tailed comet logo, and all associated logos, illustrations, images, names, creatures, races, vehicles, locations, weapons, characters, and the distinctive likeness thereof, are either ® or ™, and/or © Games Workshop Limited, variably registered around the world, and used under licence. Developed by Creative Assembly and published by SEGA. Creative Assembly, the Creative Assembly logo, Total War and the Total War logo are either registered trade marks or trade marks of The Creative Assembly Limited. SEGA and the SEGA logo are either registered trade marks or trade marks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. Or its affiliates.

All rights reserved.

AirforceMook: I'd love to help develop a successful system. I've been messing around with these for some time and never quite mastered it. I still think the concept is absolutely phenomenal, albeit with one major hurdle to overcome before profitability will be hit. Every martingale system (that I've made, at least) is wildly successful right up until the price begins whipsawing back n' forth and the EA bets far too much, blowing the account. I've tried eliminating all trades at a set loss, etc, but they occur far too often to end up profitable in the end.

That is, after all, the point of the martingale system. You'll have massive drawdown only to recover with even larger profits. Because of this, I'm convinced the only road to a good EA is one that times its reversals well. The fewer reversals needed to recoup the losses, the better. I think there's two ways to do this, but both are simply trying to identify the exact 'tipping point' (peaks and troughs) in the price. This is where you want your reversals to be, otherwise you'll have too many open trades and your free margin will get blown to hell.

Try to directly identify the turns. I tried looking back and detecting a peak that's larger than the past number of bars. The problem is that when you encounter a large uptrend, it will think just about every bar is a new peak. This results in you betting against the trend the whole way up. A slightly better method was to detect bars that were in opposition to the current trend. These usually occur at the end of a large movement and are often peaks. Unfortunately, depending on trend detection & other factors, this can result in a lot of false-positives.

Use a lagging indicator that will only move on large turns MA's are a good example of this. If you watch the slope of the line it will generally stay positive the whole way up until it has reached the top and the trend has turned. The problem is that you reverse far too late to be effective. I've attached an example pic of a lagging indicator I've been using.

It's just a step MA. If the price is currently above both bars, it will stay long. (Reverse for short) You'll notice it still results in a lot of reversals.

(4 times there at the end) I've also noticed that using larger lots with smaller takeprofits tends to work better. My profitability is above 70% on average. This means that the first trade will usually close profitably. If I decrease the lots or increase the TP points this goes down. I'm also considering the idea of having a swarm of these on different currencies working together.

If one currency begins to overwhelm itself, and the rest are able to help (ie they have profit), close ALL trades to minimize the damage. I have yet to code this at all. It unfortunately cannot be backtested, either.

Any thoughts folks? We cannot ignore the impact of TP, SL and Distance parameters in the lags and drawdowns. This EA does use Moving Average to find the direction, but to reduce drawdowns it is important that we use smaller TP values but every setting has its own pros and cons.

I do agree with the issues that you have mentioned but to an extent, with proper money management and good mathematical calculations (as this EA is heavily mathematical) you are on a road to winning. Regards, Riz. FxFux: Great WORK RIZ, now it works perfectly thanks so much. But now I have another problem. I want to change broker. From alpari to nordmarkets.

Because alpari allows only 2 lots maximum with a micro account. And with a classic account minimum lot size is 0.1 to trade. I need 0.01 lots and so nordmarkets is a good choice I think.

Another advantage is they have only 1 pip spread on eur/usd. So I have to open a mini trading account there but now a big problem: on their mini account they trade with mini-lots, so 1 lot on this account is 0.1 (10000) and 0.1 is 0.01 micro lots (1000), the ea gives me error-code: 130 and 131. Can you help please? I hope you understand my problem you know my poor english. Greetz chris hey riz, the mini account is opened on nordmarkets, they are really fast can you help me to get the ea going on this account? I have re-written this EA, was it last night, which means that it is still at my home and I am writing this from my work.

I have fixed a few bugs and re-written it in a manner that it is debugable for me. Looked like the previous EA was written by a person who teaches in Universities (and so did I) this type of coding is good for demonstration but not very maintainable (debugable). I have gotten rid of Moving averages in the EA as well. I will hopefully upload it tonight.

FXFux, What kind of help do you need? Regards, Riz. Mini account hi riz, the ea isn't working on my new mini account. I don't know why. On this account you trade with mini lots. 1 lot there is only 10000 units instead of 100000 in a normal account. Mt4 gives me 130 and 131 in the experts tab.

Coding Bull Junky Page 3 Automation And Personal Productivity Software

So on alpari I trade with micro lots (0.01, 0.03, 0.06 and so on). Now on nordmarkets I have to trade with 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 (but these are micro lots too) because 1 lot thre are mini lots. Oh man I have to book an english course I don't know maybe the ea have to be rewritten a little bit to work on this mini account. Many thanks in advice greetz chris.