Jump to content

Carrier_Lexington

Members
  • Content Сount

    3,928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4227
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

905 Excellent

About Carrier_Lexington

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday 09/27/1998
  • Insignia
    [HINON]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Spying from an air duct in the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Space, Russian Destroyers, American CVs, anime, being a nice person

Recent Profile Visitors

2,813 profile views
  1. Of course, you still have issues with people blocking shots or torps. "Hey, see that guy? I'm gonna go troll him by ramming him while he tries to shoot, making him set me on fire and getting damage." "Hey, I want that BB kill. I'm just going to block these torps from my ally so I can deal the damage that kills him. It's not going to hurt me at all."
  2. Specifically, by blocking people's shots or torps when they want to get the damage or the kill. I've seen it happen in games without Team damage.
  3. The system doesn't forget for a couple months, if I recall correctly. I once got a "pink" of something like 48 battles, not for Team Damage, but because I kept disconnecting in the middle of battle (WoWS Wrapper needs a fix) and the game treated it as "deserting." Essentially, you get out of that 2 games of pink, TK someone again, now you've got 6 games of pink. Get out of that, and it jumps up again, I think to somewhere between 12 and 18, and at that point, you're Co-op only.
  4. Carrier_Lexington

    PSA: Just apologize for friendly fire.

    Being a friendly team-mate in general is almost always worth it. There are a few players who will go out and troll by blocking shots or torps and letting DoT rack up, but they tend to be the minority and not at all interested in friendly play anyways.
  5. I would disagree. I have found that, when playing aggressively, Superintendent is a very useful skill for ships of most classes, but particularly BBs. Of course, this won't apply if you are playing a back-line ship or in a more back-line playstyle, but the extra charge of Damage Repair Party can be incredibly useful on most ships. Of course, for Spotter planes, that works differently, as a Montana can't use all of its spotters in a single battle, even without the premium version. However, it's always good to have an extra charge of Surveillance Radar or Damage Repair Party. And I wouldn't think of taking Nelson out without SI, as you're basically giving up another use of Nelson's ridiculously-strong gimmick. Of course, that is just my own experience. Your mileage may vary.
  6. Carrier_Lexington

    Conqueror Kremlin

    First-off, I'm not the one who's making all the outlandish and completely-unsupported claims that you are, nor am I the one who makes these claims without any supporting research. I am also not the one who denigrates the research of other institutions (such as generations of US Naval ballistic testing). This is exactly why I have, am, and will continue to call your claims out as unscientific and bogus. I do not have to be an engineer to know that, when someone starts spewing words without citing sources, claims that official sources are wrong or propaganda, and attempts to pass their own claims off as scientific evidence supporting those claims (circular reasoning), they aren't arguing in good-faith (or, if they are, it's only because the "truth" they believe in is a delusion of grandeur). All I have to have to know that is the briefest introduction to science and even the baseline level of intelligence and common sense. And despite it all, you never actually demonstrated the mathematics step-by-step for determining that 15" guns are superior to 16" guns. You never cited any sources arguing to that effect. And you haven't cited any sources to the effect of the argument you are making now. Sir Isaac Newton, a revolutionary scientist whose ideas about physics still hold a great deal of sway over how we see the world at the macro- scale almost three hundred years after his death, is known for using a phrase traced to Bernard of Chartres, "If I have seen further it is by standing upon the shoulders of Giants," in a letter to Robert Hooke in 1675 (that is one of myriad methods with which you can cite a source on these forums) describing how Hooke's and Des-Cartes' [sic] contributions built the foundations of one of his discoveries [presumably splitting wavelengths of light with prisms, based on the previous sentence's reference to coloured plates]. You, meanwhile, have done the opposite. So entrenched in anecdote and mired in your own "qualification" are you that you, instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, dig a hole into your own self, expecting to somehow see further. Ethos - Pathos - Logos Credibility - Appeal - Logic All three are needed to convince someone that you know what you are talking about. Sometimes, you manage one.
  7. Carrier_Lexington

    Another Sneak Look AT USS Ohio

    I've heard from sources I cannot reveal that Wargaming is planning to give this ship a few special things to help balance it: first, it's getting the US Improved Autobounce and improved penetration values to help its currently-anemic gun battery. Second, it gets a unique damage reduction mechanic to help it out against big-alpha ships. This is going to reduce damage from overpens and HE, but not Fire or full-pens. Finally, Wargaming has chosen the more simplistic route of treating its sails as propulsion modules, which can be damaged whenever hit, but don't transfer that damage back to the ship.
  8. Carrier_Lexington

    Conqueror Kremlin

    So wait, let's stop here and hold it a minute. You're a chemical engineer. Not a mechanical engineer. You are qualified to judge propellants, but not the actual mechanical physics of shell barrel length, penetration, and post-penetration. I would say that you are about as qualified to speak about the subject as a software engineer in Cybersecurity is qualified to talk about designing CWIS systems to defeat hypersonic anti-ship missiles. It's sort-of the same ballpark, but completely different training. Because as much as one can readily reapply the concepts of physics, neither I nor the Navy would consider a trained Chemical Engineer as qualified for a Nuclear Engineering position until they had gone through the proper re-education and training. Nor would the Navy have you design and build ship hulls. Maybe entirely new forms of Radar-absorbent material to go on the superstructure, but not the hull itself. Why is that? Is it maybe because the "basics of hydrodynamics and ballistics" just don't cut it for that kind of work? Being an engineer is not the same as having an infallible knowledge of physics, and certainly doesn't make you qualified to say that a 50mm belt would have torn a ship in half, or that 16 inch guns are universally worse than 15 inch guns. You say that physics doesn't change with context, but the manner in which it is applied and even its basic tenets do change on context. At the macro scale, we humans don't really have to worry about the Potential Energy from ionic charges randomly dragging us across the room compared to that of, say, Gravity, while on the molecular and atomic level the opposite is true. And then at the Quantum level, a lot of what is applicable at any of the two previous levels goes out the window. Oh, and on the subject of qualification: a 31A is not a Forensic Psychologist, which doesn't give you the qualifications to receive the expert-witness treatment you seem to think you deserve for your statements about Wargaming's CCs. https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/legal-and-law-enforcement/military-police-officer.html
  9. Carrier_Lexington

    Conqueror Kremlin

    Wait, first you were a gunnery engineer [15" guns], then you were a cop [Mouse is abusing people], and now you're a shipwright? And you went to Westpoint, but they don't offer Naval Engineering courses?? Geez, Larry, I'm starting to think that maybe this guy's making things up as he goes along....
  10. Carrier_Lexington

    USN Battleship Alternate Tech Tree Branch?

    Most of them, however, had significant.... faults, to say the least, caused by the lack of funding and experience going towards the Soviet Navy at the time. A lot of the flaws had to do with engines and, many also had to do with the fact that, at their displacement, many of the designs were off-balance or overweight, and armor joints had load-bearing problems causing leaks
  11. Carrier_Lexington

    A Detailed Look At: Naval Training Center

    She's a very good cruiser in a very good MM spot. It's exactly the ship I'd put them on first.
  12. Carrier_Lexington

    A Detailed Look At: Naval Training Center

    I found that a little shocking myself. I think, though, that the "tentative" part of Radar_X's quote is really going to be the operating phrase.
  13. Carrier_Lexington

    A Detailed Look At: Naval Training Center

    I'm not so sure I agree. I think it's a proposed solution to an actual problem (lack of endgame content) that just hasn't been given the proper amount of consideration. I think it's a rushed concept and they didn't realize just how badly the planned changes were going to break the game. And then, to make it worse, they decided they were going to do an immediate Twitch Q&A stream the following day, forgetting that the following-day-in-question was July the 4th. I wasn't present at the CC Summit, but I'm not yet willing to make the assertion that Wargaming intentionally engineered this to force players to immediately speed-grind their trees again for competitive. If evidence to that fact comes out (in the form of interviews and actual quotes to that intent), I will be... very disappointed in a lot of the staff.
  14. Carrier_Lexington

    PSA: Naval Training Center

    I hate to break it to you, but it's been a lot longer than that.
  15. Carrier_Lexington

    A Detailed Look At: Naval Training Center

    I honestly think that this concept hasn't even been developed well-enough to be adequately discussed yet, let alone implemented in the next patch. What is clear is that the NTC needs to be completely redrawn. I don't know if they intend to award these buffs, whether they be "package" buffs, "stacking" buffs, or like Stellaris Ascension Perks where you choose one from the list and some have prerequisites, but the concept for the NTC has changed so much over the past 24 hours that it needs to be run through again. And, most likely later, again and again. This is why I think it's a 0.9.0 or 1.0.0 feature and not a 0.8.X feature. It's just such a big scale. Something that I thought about was Tier "Sidegrades", grinding other, improved/variant versions of tech tree ships for increased RP and credits cost, which only become available after Tier X. This would open-up a lot of historical, variant ships to the game without the requirement of selling them all as Premium ships. Think having Fiji --> Newfoundland (a Crown-Colony Cruiser of the Ceylon Group rather than the Fiji Group. While the same Class of cruiser, the Ceylon group removed a turret for improved FCS and AA capabilities. HMS Newfoundland was one of the few Royal Navy ships present at the Japanese surrender.) The conditions would be that you would have to play the existing ship(s) of the same tier to grind them, and the reward would be unique ships that wouldn't fit into a standard tech tree.
×