LittleWhiteMouse

WoWS Community Contributors
  • Content count

    6,012
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5377

Community Reputation

13,090 Superb

About LittleWhiteMouse

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.shipcomrade.com
  • Skype
    APaintedOwl
  • Portal profile LittleWhiteMouse

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    The Realm of Chaos
  • Interests
    Hobbies: Reading, Writing (duh), Roleplay, Photography, Drawing, Painting, Sculpting, Animating
    Favourite Game IPs: Warcraft, Wildstar, Warhammer
  • Portal profile LittleWhiteMouse

Recent Profile Visitors

28,840 profile views
  1. Kutuzov will be fine. Chapayev and Shchors survive without smoke and do reasonable levels of damage. Kutuzov will play similar to these ships. What she won't be doing is playing as aggressively as she did before -- not without greater risk.
  2. That premium time all came from the Santa-boxes (and one modest sum from a very good friend). I am so very grateful for all of the kind gifts I got over New Year's.
  3. Wow, the hyperbole and chicken-little antics have been pretty reprehensible in this thread, guys, never mind the name calling. Let's be clear on some points: The current smoke meta is a steaming pile. High end competitive play, be it Ranked Battles or Team Tournaments, is just painful to participate in, frustrating and awful to play and spectate. Yes, it rewards skill. Yes, it punishes mistakes. No, it's not entertaining. Players complain about any major changes. Players [edited] about these changes does not mean anything. Players hate change as a rule and will always rally against it, vocally and with blind enthusiasm. I couldn't give a rat's patootie about how many people are complaining. I only care about their arguments and I'm not seeing a whole lot of good arguments being made. Just a bunch of doomsaying which is silly, because... The Meta is Dead. Long Live the New Meta. People predicting the game or a given class will die because of this change are being melodramatic and short sighted. Look, games can die because of short sighted developer decisions (*cough* AW *cough*). This isn't one of them. And before you argue: No, it really isn't. You may not like it, but it does not mean the end of the world. It will take no time at all before a new meta springs up around whatever changes occur. Besides, this isn't that bad for destroyers, because... This isn't a Destroyer Nerf. It's a cruiser nerf. In order of ships most affected, it's cruisers (especially select cruisers) that stand to lose the most, then battleships, then destroyers. Not all DD players are the problem here, but those of you who love to play martyr, get over yourselves. Unfortunately, this change... Goes too far in some cases and not enough in others. I keep hoping to see key nerfs affecting problem ships. However, I don't think this should be seen as the sweeping nerf to fix select overpowered ships (Belfast, Khabarovsk, etc). I worry about the British Cruiser line with these changes. I still remember cringe at the long review I wrote about Edinburgh only to see it become worthless junk because of how extensively the British cruisers kept changing during play testing. It was a very delicate balance they achieved there. We saw HE go missing. We saw their smoke generators drop from full sized versions to their current iteration, all in the name of balance. I don't doubt some ships will be hurting more than others. I don't think this will "fix" Belfast, though. All I think this will really do is shake things up somewhat, because... This isn't a simple change. Hoo-boy, I am not looking forward to trying to explain this system to new players. This isn't hella complicated, but it's not a gentle, elegant fix. It's quite specifically aimed, though I do think Wargaming is being about as subtle as a sledgehammer with its application. I can't say if it's going to be a good fix or not. It is addressing a bad problem, but medicine can be poison in the wrong dosage.
  4. 9.) Battleship HE. No one expects you to throw it. Everyone thinks you're a n00b for doing it. No one is prepared for the hilarity it causes. Hey, Mahan. My Colorado is going to detonate your forward and rear magazines with the same shell.
  5. Were the targets you were shooting at already on fire? Nothing hurts your fire chance more than shooting a ship already ablaze.
  6. World of Warplanes was a disaster and it's coming up on its 4 year anniversary. That means if everything went belly up on the next patch, World of Warships has at least another four years to go, giving her a total life span of at least a six year run. I think she'll manage ten years easy.
  7. That's not a bad summation. Her guns are definitely no better than a tier V armament. Her hit point total is on the low side for VI but high for V. Inversely, her surface detection range is good for tier VI but terrible poor for tier V (thank you Mutsuki, Kamikaze and Minekaze for driving that average down). It's silly to say that a ship doesn't do well when bottom tier, but Gallant really doesn't uptier well.
  8. These questions are always fun because you can't make too many changes before you tip the balance into OP territory. What's more, there are some things that cannot be changed. You can't arbitrarily glue on an extra gun mount onto a G-class, for example. But here are my thoughts on where she could be buffed. Reduce her torpedo reload timer. Improve the range of her torpedoes. Reduce the detection range of her torpedoes. Those three things, done in the gentlest moderation would be enough to elevate her for me. Not all of them neesd be done. For example, a 10km range on her fish would get my nod. Dropping her reload down to 80s would do it too. Getting her torpedo detection down beneath 7.0 seconds would also do it by itself.
  9. Anthony is the best boat to use in the scenario. You need that AA power for five stars. You can get away without having smoke.
  10. It is pretty bad. Here's the raw numbers for you: Farragut Fubuki Shinonome Gnevny Anshan Gaede Gallant Maximum Forward Angle 45º 54º 54º 45º 45º 45º 68º Maximum Reward Angle 134º 104º 104º 134º 134º 127º 123º TOTAL 89º 50º 50º 89º 89º 82º 55º So Gallant doesn't have the smallest fire angles (the Fubuki-sisters can make that boast), but her rearward facing mounts greatly limit her ability to fire forwards. You have to run near-to parallel to your target in order to launch which causes all sorts of problems.
  11. Will you make a review bout the Graf Zeppelin?

    1. LittleWhiteMouse

      LittleWhiteMouse

      So long as it gets released, yes.

  12. Citation needed. What's your justification for this claim?
  13. With patch 0.6.8, the following change happened to her historical (green) camouflage. It went from this: Type 10 standard, 3% concealment bonus, 4% disruption bonus, 50% bonus experience gains. To this: 3% concealment bonus, 4% disruption bonus, 50% bonus experience gains, 5% repair cost reduction, 100% bonus experience gains. So both camouflage patterns for Harekaze now mirror one another. There's no difference between the two of them.
  14. I wasn't holding my breath. The Royal Navy, like the United States, prioritized endurance and maintenance on their vessels over performance. Lower muzzle velocity means less barrel wear. I didn't predict they'd be as floaty as they are -- I even naively hoped to see something akin to Blyskawica's 120mm/50 Bofors. However, that 8% fire chance is a soothing balm over any upset the ballistic arcs may cause. I wonder how long it will remain intact...