Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

238 Valued poster

About Lillehuntrix

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

862 profile views
  1. Epic level of Stupid...

    The day I put down my Z-23 grind for a little bit was the day in which someone else spotted an incoming torp spread 6 km out, and I had my hydro on, and I still managed to snag a rock when the moment to vacate the area had arrived and ate them as a result.
  2. Thank you - this was very helpful. Based on what others had said, I was expecting a pop-up in port, which didn't happen.
  3. Hmm, am I missing something or is the following the case? (Regular) containers cost 12 sovereigns to purchase via the Arsenal, but regular containers also yield 5 sovereigns - so you can have the other contents for an effective cost of 7 sovereigns?
  4. If you're one collectable short and only have two duplicates, were you converting duplicates as you went along?
  5. Expensive Weekend

    I bought Zao, Yugumo, Seattle, and Helena - I'm down from just over 70 million to around 28. I'll probably tread water for a bit as I pay for upgrades, but there is nothing new I anticipate buying (beyond RN DDs, possibly) for a while.
  6. Anniversary Supercontainers

    Five containers: 15000 coal (x2) 25 Wyvern 50 Halloween camo 14 days premium
  7. Yes. spend them before the next patch (probably Wednesday) or they will be converted.
  8. Anniversary All-Out

    I've been waiting for the tech tree credit sale as well. So: buy Zao, play Zao, profit.
  9. Great post. I remember a tier 9 game with tier 9 CVs while I was playing through Colorado. Our CV announced at the beginning of the match that the enemy CV was pretty good and that staying in packs was strongly recommended. I spent the game pathetically running after our FdG and NC - "hey guys wait for me" - like a fat kid after an ice cream truck. But we won. It is implicit in what you say, and I don't want to assign another burden to CVs, but good CV communication with the rest of the team is really helpful, and probably staves off some (not all, some) of the salt that is often directed at CV players. It is nice as a non-CV to know that the CV has a plan, even if plans don't always work out.
  10. 100 India Delta, i.e. +20% repair flags. Not bad, not great.
  11. 935

    Can you explain how you derive 935%? I can't see how there would be a single number, since the effect of MFCAA for instance will depend on the proportion of large caliber AA.
  12. Can I hazard the observation that both you and @VGLance seem to wish that Ranked was easier on you, fairer to you, more rewarding to you and how you play, i.e., "will no one rid me of these meddlesome potatoes?" Whereas, if anything, I'm probably calling for Ranked to be harder on myself? I have no illusions that I "deserve" to rank out, or advance very far past Rank 10 (to which one may fail one's way, as already established). I certainly don't believe that I deserve to be protected from bad teams with statistically-appropriate regularity along the way. But I do believe the math, which is to say that while you or I or anyone may see more potatoes than an Idaho farm inspector over a handful of games, over a hundred or two hundred or five hundred my relative contribution would be pretty well reflected in my wins over losses and thus in my advancement, or lack thereof. Do you not have the same confidence? If you do, then it doesn't really matter whether you believe in my mystical "team concept" voodoo or whether you believe that matches are won by having more people who are better at damage trading. Your results, in wins over a sufficient sample, shall be your truth; if they are not, then perhaps you are wrong about your contribution, whatever the XP scale may say. If it is the sheer grind of Ranked that gets you down, the time and number of matches required to achieve the rank that (you believe that) you deserve, and the way it seems to increase exponentially whenever you are gifted with a fail team - well, I do have sympathy for that, it is why my own motivation extends only so far. But there are ways of addressing that, with irrevocable ranks below 10 that would reduce the average number of games necessary, that are not save-a-star. Disagree though we may, and tabling the save-a-star issue for a moment, I wonder if we might agree that more leagues past Rank 10 would be worth trying out? Even with save-a-star, past Rank 10, you need a winning record (or very, very close) to advance, and a random walk with a 50% win rate is unlikely to get many people from 10 to 8 or 7. If we put in a league division around there (so there would be a 10-8 league, and a 7-5 league, and a 4-2 league, for instance), then once you got there yourself you would be protected from all the people who advanced to 10 through the general ease of the system to that point. I do suspect that having a mass of these people on the same teams with people at Rank 6 who are 18 games over .500 since Rank 10 and are trying to get into the Rank 5-2 bracket leads to a lot of frustration on everyone's part. EDIT: Re the last part, of course queue times will be raised as an issue, as they always are whenever any potential matchmaking change is discussed. But leaving that aside, in an ideal world with lots of players, worth trying?
  13. All I'll add - because, lol, we can't go on like this - is that you are imposing a black and white distinction on a gray world. Yes, Clan Wars (and KOTS, and whatever else) is a fully-realized team-based mode. But it does not therefore hold that Ranked and Randoms are solely individual(istic) modes. There is also such a thing as emergent teamwork, which can come to exist in Ranked (to a greater extent, perhaps) and Randoms, and personally I think WOWS is at its best when it does. Moreover, we can incentivize the existence of this teamwork, or not - for instance, by having save a star, or not. As for the frustrated individual players, the Lebron James's of WoWS... Before rank 10, the dynamics in your favor are such that a player with better than a 33% WR (!!!) should be able to get to 10 eventually; an average player should probably arrive in fewer than 100 games, and for many unicums who start at 13 anyway it probably takes less than ten matches. So if a bad distribution of teams causes you to need a whole three or five extra games to make it to rank 10...I mean, cry me a river. I presume that is not what we are talking about. Past 10, stick an irrevocable rank and a league break at someplace like rank 7. The players who are unable to be +12 games at any point over a span - presumably including the "crappers" who are playing "just for fun" and being carried to wins, and overall are losing more than they are winning - will then be out of your hair for the rest of ranked once you yourself reach that point. (Obviously, rank 7 is just an example - you can adjust for whatever balance of achievability and weed-out strength you prefer.) (PS: While Ranked is mostly tier 10 this season, and tier 10 may be free of this problem - we don't really know - recall that base XP is not solely a function of how well you do, it is a function of how well you do multiplied by some hidden ship multiplier set by WG that encompasses expectations about how different ships play. And this becomes more of an issue at other tiers. Remember when Sims was save-a-star king, because the cap and bit of damage that might place another destroyer third or fifth on the team in base XP would place the Sims in first place? Do we want more of this?)
  14. Often, yes. I'll even grant mostly. But not always. The XP system is certainly better than it used to be, but it is not perfectly aligned with helping your team win. Winning, on the other hand, is. You'd be the first to shoot down anyone who claimed that solo WR in randoms (over a sufficient number of games, playing an assortment of ships not wholly OP, at a mix of tiers) is not beyond a player's control. Why would you object to a version of ranked that would award winning and only winning? The good and bad teams average out, your skill at helping the team provides the upward pressure (or not). We insert irrevocable ranks to make it take more or less time for players who aspire to rank 1. Easy, simple, unambiguous. Anecdotes are anecdotes, but this was a game from yesterday. We had triangular maps with the spawns opposite one another near the neutral cap. Our team sent four ships to the neutral cap (A) and three to "our" cap (B) at the base of the triangle. The red team sent everyone to its uncontested cap (C), ignoring A, and then tried to work up through the islands toward B. Once the three of us at B figured this out, we turned and kited and delayed. By the time the red team swung into B, the score was something like 900 to 500 in our favor, and we simply beat them on points. End result: zero ships destroyed on our team, one ship on theirs - a completely strategic victory (or failure on their part). Our top XP earner, with something like 1250 xp in a tier 10 match, was a Montana; as one of the people kiting from B I got to fire my guns and had something like 850 for third place in a Moskva. But do you know what I'm very glad about? I'm very glad that the short range cruisers who had gone to A from our team - a Mino and a DM, if I recall, who barely were able to fire their guns until 2 minutes before the match ended - didn't feel the need to charge out into the middle in order to get some damage to improve their XP standing, as they might have if we had a system that awarded overall XP results from both winning and losing teams. As it was, everyone's XP sucked, the Mino might have been upset that he hadn't gone for coffee instead...but a win is a win is a win. Good match.