Jump to content

40902nd

Members
  • Content Сount

    327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5648
  • Clan

    [CYN1C]

Community Reputation

146 Valued poster

1 Follower

About 40902nd

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia
    [CYN1C]

Recent Profile Visitors

653 profile views
  1. 40902nd

    My suggestions

    Shop: As Prothall said, it's artificial scarcity. Event: I do not disagree. Karma: It's just a number. There is no need to concern yourself with it. I do not believe there are any incentives/repercussions involved with them.
  2. 40902nd

    Tabulator

    You mean something like this?
  3. 40902nd

    filter logic

    @iamSamoth Within each Section, the search Criteria is OR'd together, while each Section is AND'd with each other. So the Logic of your search is: (IV or VII or VIII or IX)and(CARRIER)and(NON-ELITE or HAS_COMMANDER) Based off what I see on your profile, possible matches appear to be Hosho, Hermes, Rhein, Langley, and Saipan. These ships CAN meet the second special commander, by having a commander aboard. As no tier 4 ship has any upgrades other than the hull, Langley and Hermes are excluded from the first special search condition. LONG STORY SHORT What does this all mean? Based off of the First Special Search Criteria, Hosho and Rhein are the expected outputs. Any other of the aforementioned carriers would need to have a Captain onboard the ship to be picked up by the second Criteria. Since it is impossible to check the position of your Captains, at the moment, it is impossible if something is missing. If you could provide more information, (like which of the above ships have Commanders aboard), I could help you see where the problem lies.
  4. 40902nd

    Tier 6 Premium German Battleship

    @skytank_invader According to "German Warships 1815-1945 Volume One: Major Surface Vessels" by Erich Gröner, the D-Class was planned with the same turrets as the Deutschlands, though there was some consideration to mounting quad-turrets if they could be made available. As for the L/54.5 guns, that was just me confusing the P-Class with the D-Class. The first 3 P-Class were supposed to get the turrets from the Scharnhorst-Class when they were switched over the 15" guns.
  5. 40902nd

    Tier 6 Premium German Battleship

    Iirc, there were ideas to either mount the Scharnhorst's guns (after all, the D-Class grew into the Scharnhorst) or mount quad turrets. I've made a German Panzerschiffe line here, and I intend to take another pass at it in the near future, since I found likely candidates for the tier 10 positions.
  6. It's not about 'naval' MMORPGs, but RPGs in general. You can try to operate outside of the 'role' that any class is designed to do. That is your choice. However, don't complain when it doesn't work as you want it to. No. Wrong. Unbelievably wrong, in fact. What I was trying to do was to see things from your perspective, to see where you are coming from. Educational background has absolutely no bearing on skills within the game. At this moment, I can only think you are being deliberately dense. You are also using Appeal to Authority wrong. It's like you google logical fallacies, found the first one that might vaguely be applied to this circumstance, and now cling to it like it is a piece of drift wood in the Atlantic. You obviously do not know of what you speak in any topic that we have touched on and I am an idiot for wasting as much time on you as I have already. I sincerely hope you are never on my team. Good day.
  7. 40902nd

    Tier 6 Premium German Battleship

    I would argue that with the diameter and amount of guns, it would be better as a supercruiser. Just my 2-cents.
  8. Are you familiar with the details of compositions in MMORPGs? Or RPGs in general? I ask because I believe there is a a parallel than can be drawn, even if the current meta has moved a bit away from it. DPS: Cruisers Tank: Battleships Rogue/Assassin/Burst DPS: Destroyers Support: Carriers Healer: Not Applicable Feel free to disagree with my assessment, but this is based off of experience, and this has stood me in good stead. My view of the argument is similar to some sort of clothy class raging that they can't solo a dungeon. It's just not what they were intended to do. This example highlights the issue I am having here: You seem intent on attacking the argument itself, and not points it makes. I will not ascribe motive at this time, but as we go on, I think I am starting to learn more about your personality. I think part of our miscommunication may be a language barrier and a difference in background. I am a computer scientist, though I have a fairly heavy physics background, as I had attempted at one time to Major in Physics (E&M convinced me otherwise). Then again, this is the internet, so do feel free to not believe me. Based off of what I have read, your background seems closer to that of a mathematician. Do feel free to correct me if you desire. ----- Anyway, we have veered WAY off topic. This is a topic about the CV changes making rocket planes unusable for defense. I've played several games in the Ranger and only once have I been sunk by a destroyer. A number of factors had to go into that attack, too, including me misreading the situation on the map and the destroyer player sacrificing his own participation in the game in order to specifically go for the carrier assassination. Other than that instance, I have been able to keep my carrier out of harms way until the end of a match through repositioning and by keeping spotted any threats I couldn't deal with my self. It is difficult, but not impossible, to land rockets on destroyers, but I have found success in torpedo drops and dive bombing. That is, of course, on the rate occasion that I find a destroyer moving off on it's own, something that can't be guaranteed, since I have noticed that there just haven't been a whole lot of destroyers running about, and where there are, they are usually in the mutual defense zone of other ships.
  9. The key to getting WG interested in Scenarios again would be to somehow show that it could help with the monetization of the game. I think someone said something about ship rentals, which I think would be a good start. I, for one, tend to snap up any tier 6 or 7 premiums they put out because it helps spice up scenarios.
  10. Teams don't work because of people like you behave selfishly, acting only in their own self interests, instead of that of the team, going for personal score and not for the win. You had to deal with an idiot online? Welcome to the Internet. It has been said that the worst thing about multiplayer games are the other players. The solution isn't becoming the problem. You... you do know that you can have multiple nations on a single account, right? In point of fact, I have over 300 ships in my port, with representatives from every 'nation' in the game. You can even sale the ships you don't use and it leaves the port slot, so you can accumulate free experience to help with other lines. They even have a method where you can spend money to get a premium currency called 'Doubloons' which can used to unlock more port slots, or even convert xp on fully researched ships into free xp. If you don't want to spend money, there are always was to get free doubloons, though in limited quantities. I see no practical benefit to making and managing multiple accounts. Also, making multiple accounts in-and-of itself is not smurfing. Smurfing is making a new account to reset your stats, as it doesn't reflect your learning period. Ok, so I had to go to an check, and you are correct that "Appeal to Authority" is always a logical fallacy. However, my initial argument is not "Appeal to Authority", anyway. It seems that we were both using it wrong. It can be inferred from your statement that you were smurfing. But now you are just being evasive for the sake of being annoying. This was never in contention. Ever. I have, in fact, not seen a single person make the argument that it wasn't a nerf. Even if someone did say it wasn't a nerf, it is demonstrably is one. The contention is whether is was needed. Appeal to False Authority. I would, in fact, not. I come from a fairly math heavy background and I have yet to find a proof for 2+2=5 in a base 10 number system that I've found convincing. But hey, this is the internet and I could be lying about my background. Let me put it another way. You go up to a professional baseball player and say "A 98mph fast ball can't be hit. I've tried and it is impossible." The baseball player says "It can be done. I've done it." You reply "You have made an Appeal to Authority fallacy".
  11. There seems to be certain things bots look out for. They love targeting destroyers or wounded ships, and they love charging smoke screens. Look for patterns. Once you see them, reading bots becomes easier. These bots aren't particularly complex and they don't have any all-seeing eye. They do have inhuman reflexes, though.
  12. Take a Sharnhorst and match it down the center, with the team following. Done. 80% of the time, it works 100%of the time.
  13. Oh, sorry, I guess I was mistaken. I thought this was a team game. Silly me. And I guess I should remember that all should yield to the majesty of the almighty carrier. Good heavens, what was I thinking? Carriers should have something they are not good at? Ha. You outstanding rhetoric has convinced me if the error of my ways! Am I saying there is a problem with "smurf" accounts? No. I just think it's vain, that's all. In terms of the discussion at hand, it does make it difficult to gauge your experience with other classes, though. False. "Appeal to Authority" is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. "Appeal to False Authority" is. I feel "Appeal to Authority" to be appropriate here as I have 22 times the number of battles as you have on your current account and it is impossible for me to track down any account you might have made previously. Are you honestly trying to point to a Tier IV carrier and say that any nerf is unjustified? A tier, I need not remind you has a number of ships that literally, not figuratively, but literally have no recourse against aircraft. I had left open the option that you had more experience than you were showing. I can only go of what I see, and what I see so far, with the data set hand, is someone who has very little experience in the game complaining because things aren't going their way. If I am wrong, prove it. False. You do not get to dictate how I frame my rebuttal to your arguement. I am not trying to prove that the change was a nerf. It most certainly was. There is no way imposing a firing delay on the rockets can be anything but a nerf. Where, anywhere, did I say, or so much as hint otherwise? I do believe I've said the exact opposite when I said that Ryujo's rockets were pretty much unusable now. If you are saying that you aren't smurfing, then I feel confident in my claim that you don't know enough to make a truly informed decision. You can have an opinion, but you lack context on how different ships balance against each other. I have played tiers 1-10, as and against carriers (only up to tier 8 as carriers, and only in premiums, at that), in casual, competitive, and co-op settings. I feel like I can make an informed opinion on this. Also, you are using the logical fallacy of "strawmanning". Since you have failed to engage with my actual arguement, and instead constructed one of your own and preceded ro not only try to counter that one, but also tried to dictate the way I was to respond.
  14. 40902nd

    Future Ship lines thread

    Georgia. Just using the gun stats off of Thunder (RoF, Dmg), H3b and H3c beat Georgia's HE DPM ijn both the forward and broadside arcs, while falling behind in AP DPM.
  15. I think part of the reason they won't is for security. A lot of stuff is handled server-side, which makes the game very difficult to hack. Most 'hacks' are actually scripts like aim bots, which takes care of client-side stuff like aiming. Actual hacks would allow for stuff like homing shells and insta-kill (depending on how their code is structured and what-not). It would, however, help demystify how various mechanics work. I, too, would be interested to be able to work on scenarios, with the ability to submit them to WoWs for play, if for no other reason than to get more scenarios in-game. But I doubt WG would do it. -Good luck.
×