Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

462 Excellent

About b101uk

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,179 profile views
  1. I haven't, you just epically failed to understand what was said and the simple maths of how you can have torpedo hit rates as an average of all ships >20%, given torpedoes are NOT just the domain of DD, but some CL, CA and BB and most CV too, which all contribute to that average.
  2. my most played tiers are VI to X, and while I do have all the tier V seal clubbing ships favoured by seal clubbers they are seldom taken out of port. as for my win rate it is between 49% and 54% depending on the server region, but I abstain from speculative torping at gaps, I have a penchant for single launch torps, RN CL and other nations with CA with torps and even BB with torps, plus I also play CV's, I also cut my teeth on the old >19km range Cleveland, most of my US DD take commander with AFT and modals when available for accuracy and range, so at between 1/2 and 3/4 range I yield good gun accuracy. having a high win rate can be perturbed by many things, and in and of itself doesn't mean you have the best accuracy per se, just as torp hit rate % can be changed just by the nature of how and when you fire them, you could have a 100% hit rate for torps if you only ever fired them at close range when they are guaranteed to hit, but you are not going to get into that situation very often, just like you could speculatively spam 15km+ range torps at gaps and have a low hit rate % but functionally be more effective just from throwing enough crap that some will stick. e.g. notionally if you have x10 DD with ~6% torp hit rate, x2 BB with ~90% torp hit rate and x4 CL/CA with ~35% torp hit rate and x2 CV with ~30% torp hit rate, then the average hit rate % for torps for all ships will be ~24.444%, thus me saying: is not exactly extraordinary nor dose it warrant utter crap like:
  3. 1: extremely rare things are things like "draws", which do still happen, BB's being sunk by torps are orders of magnitude more common than extremely rare events like draws. 2: there is no need to because what is say is not that unusual, likewise the data sources you quote are incomplete and don't show the data for ALL players, so don't pretend like they do. 3: the primary weapon of most DD by logical extension of reload waiting time is guns, given a significant percentage of DD have guns that outrange their torps, and by your own data most people have lousy torp hit rates caused by their speculative use at gaps etc rather than actual targets. your other problem is, the biggest source of flooding damage and thus kills by flooding damage is torpedoes, thus a ship sunk by flooding from torpedoes have by logical extrapolation been sunk by said torpedoes, but they get lumped in with kills by fire damage too, yet some nations CL/CA have no source of fire damage other than their inaccurate short range secondary's, thus most of the kills listed for them under flooding and fire kills are a direct result of torpedoes, take away 99% of the HP of a BB with torps and the remaining 1% HP ticks away to flooding it gets listed as a kill by flooding even though it in principle sunk as a direct result of torpedoes and their cumulative effects
  4. lol, it is far far more common than your making out. I have ships with >50% hit rates for main battery guns, with the average for all my ships being >45%, my torpedo hit rate as an average of all ships >20%. I have ships (DD) that have sunk more ships by torpedoes than all other methods combined, and have greater than >x2.5 times more torpedo kills than main battery kills. pure head up [edited] logic.
  5. b101uk

    Your best Co-op Game(s) / Stats

    Just had a good game with Thunderer, was down to a couple of hundred HP left at one point with a Montana, Conquer and an Audacious left to go, then finally managed to get the Audacious sunk with ~45sec to go, or it would have been a points loss, its also not often I brake the 1000 BXP mark too.
  6. b101uk

    Erroneous unsporting conduct?

    @turbo07 For reference, I ran into this again, but instead in the killer whale operation, with another instance of an "allied aircraft destroyed", so it appears not to be restricted to just coop, but operations too. (was on the EU server, game starting at 04:39h UTC using my EU alt [same name etc as this NA one]) 20200327_043839_PBSC516-London_s01_NavalBase.wowsreplay
  7. b101uk

    Anyone else getting epicly high pings lately?

    in the UK here and play on the NA servers, normally I would see ~107ms (+-5ms), last night I was seeing ~70ms (+-10ms). So I would guess the various Atlantic submarine cable operators have switched more reserved bandwidth to transient bandwidth use.
  8. b101uk

    Is Micro-Balancing Necessary?

    there is no winning for them, as it will always be wrong according to one group or another whatever they do.
  9. b101uk

    Viking boat in fjords port.

    have you seen the Norwegian Blue parrots nailed to various perches around the fjord? they have Beautiful plumage.
  10. b101uk

    Erroneous unsporting conduct?

    Was playing a coop game in Ohio, there was no CV's, in the post game detailed report, there was an unsporting conduct listed for apparently shooting down an allied aircraft of all things, the thing is there were no allied aircraft near me, yet alone the ability to shoot one down by some manual means, and there was no other events that could be confused for it. anyone else seen any erroneous unsporting conduct's listed? Added replay file for completeness, as I cannot see anything that would cause it other than a bug. 20200326_030453_PASB510-Ohio_45_Zigzag.wowsreplay
  11. b101uk

    So WG cut half exp from Narai? (PT)?

    I seldom ever go for the transports, and only go for the CV if the primary person fails to do so and I am in an appropriate ship and there are enough people getting into the harbour. as people seam to forget that the harbour area is the loss condition, the transports and CV are just stars.
  12. Let me address your points: 1: In Feb on a PC with windows 7 Pro (64bit) WGC would ONLY install in its default location on the C: drive, and there was NOTHING front and centre within the install process for the user to specify a user specific location for install (single user admin). The above may well differ in windows 8 or windows 10, but I am hardly going to try it on my windows 10 PC after my experience on my windows 7 testing PC of having to fight with WGC to achieve anything when the classic launcher just works faultlessly even if I do have to have one copy for each region. 2: on the above PC you could only have one active WoWs region added at a time in WGC, no amount of adding another region via the Add Account function would permit the second region to function without removing the first account before launching, otherwise it would repeatedly fail at the point of log-on for the second region, as only the first region would get past the log-in stage (NA and EU tested) 3: At ANY time up to now, it was pointless braking the classic launcher function just because someone had linked an already existing install to WGC, as it stopped people reversing the process with ease and because WoWSLauncher.exe files was physically changed it broke its function, and thus to revert required not just the reinstall of the classic launcher but all the game files despite them ALL still being there, because of how the torrent downloading and install works (unless you had the currant torrents to hand). 4: the WoWs news is also shown in the WoWs classic launcher on the left side, which is good enough for me, if I want to see it in the form of a web page I will just go to the appropriate web portal or click on the link for the specific news item within the classic launcher. as far as I am concerned the WoWs classic launcher is a perfectly circular wheel that is efficient and no-nonsense, WGC is just reinventing the wheel as something distinctly triangular and not fit for purpose of being a wheel, and every time I have tried WGC over the past year it has just been a nightmare of battling with utterly feckless design choices or implementations.
  13. b101uk

    WGC: Log in to Experience It All

    It is blotted in comparison to the streamlined WoWs classic launcher, both in drive space and RAM space, and the fact it is forcibly installed on the C: drive with no seaming option to manually force it to install in its entirety on some other drive. The last I tried WGC was in early Feb, it is a steaming pile of crap made worse by the fact I don't need it as I WONT EVER play ANY of their other games.
  14. last I tested it, in early Feb. forcibly installs on the C: drive, with no seeming option to install on other drive in its entirety. incapable of having the NA and EU WoWs clients launchable within a single copy of WGC despite claims it can. brakes the function of the classic launcher if you point WGC to an already installed copy of WoWs - talk about feckless logic and pointless braking of things. doesn't really give any more WoWs specific news than the classic launcher (given I ONLY EVER use a launcher when there is a patch, the rest of the time I directly run the WorldOfWarships64.exe without the need for a launcher)
  15. b101uk

    So WG cut half exp from Narai? (PT)?

    I am just wandering if they have instead just nerfed the XP on the small unarmed boats low skill scrubs go after, which are the main source of padded out XP in Narai, while the XP for larger armed ships remains unchanged.