Jump to content

iDuckman

Wiki Lead
  • Content Сount

    18,023
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4935
  • Clan

    [WOLF9]

Community Reputation

6,236 Superb

About iDuckman

  • Rank
    Admiral of the Navy
  • Birthday 09/19/1952
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dallas, Texas
  • Interests
    🦆 🦆 stuff I can't talk about here.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,642 profile views
  1. Yeah, I've heard similar reports. 238 shouldn't be possible, nor 3 in a row. But change or not, I'm going to go with it.
  2. That's the key that turns the lockup in my brain. A very interesting algorithm. Thanks !
  3. iDuckman

    1583 PTS containers opened...

    10,000 containers! Wow! That's a huge difference. Thanks! I hadn't gotten to that DevBlog yet.
  4. iDuckman

    Equipment Modules...Why?

    No, I didn't. Try reading closely. I said people were afraid to try something new because it might affect their WR. I said nothing about whether or not it would. "Back to you, Johnny."
  5. iDuckman

    Equipment Modules...Why?

    Apparently you believe that science is democratic. But enough.
  6. iDuckman

    Equipment Modules...Why?

    No, it's not. You seem to be confused about the nature of contingent statements. Saying "a lot of people don't mount it because they haven't tried it" is anything but absolute.
  7. iDuckman

    Equipment Modules...Why?

    In other words, CSM1 is understood to be valuable. Is TLS valuable too? A useful alternative? Who can know unless they try it. But why take a risk? and worse, spend a few million Cr? IOW, it may not be the module that is bad.
  8. That's an interesting take. It would explain it. So the "distance" to the next SC could be up to 200 units. <hmmm>
  9. iDuckman

    Balancing for Power Creep: The USN 5" gun

    Hear! Hear! I've been lobbying for better 127mm USN secondaries for centuries. Yeah, I understand that there are game reasons to limit them. But the problem is also with 127mm primary armament.
  10. iDuckman

    Equipment Modules...Why?

    I do, on some botes. Notably on high-vis slow turners. Who runs Consumables buff is the better question. IMO, some of the "no one takes" Upgrades are so because no one has taken the time to try them. "Muh WR !!"
  11. iDuckman

    1583 PTS containers opened...

    It wouldn't be the first time something wasn't documented. I wonder if DownriverRick saw something.
  12. For years we've been discussing the drop rate of SuperContainers -- the percent of Standard containers (Signals, Credits, Resources, TYL, and soon Econ Boni, Signals, Camo, Coal, and TYL) that morph into an SC as if it were a straight roll when the container is obtained. Over thousands of Standard crates it has been determined that non-TYL converts at 1.5% and TYL at a little over 3.1%. However, WG has long refused to confirm these numbers. Further, we see anomalies when all-TYL rates are reported, generally higher than 3%, attributed to small samples. So what if the algorithm isn't a random roll at all? From the stealth document Contents and Drop Rates of Containers: The mechanism is more like a guaranteed drop. The wording is a little strange. E.g. all Standards and not just Dailys nudge the bar. From the second two sentences, one does not "fill the bar" up to 100, but only to a randomly generated value. Random numbers generated over the range {0..100} will average 50. Thus on average, ignoring TYL, the SC drop rate will be 3%. Yet we have empirical data over thousands of non-TYL crates that put the drop rate close to 1.5%. While the above mechanism explains some observed anomalies, it seems to contradict strong empirical results. Is it actually a change? @Ahskance Sorry for the ping. Anything to contribute?
  13. iDuckman

    1583 PTS containers opened...

    Citation?
  14. iDuckman

    1583 PTS containers opened...

    T4 bonuses don't drop from Dailys. They don't drop from SuperContainers, either (T3s can).
  15. ^^ This. The Resupply function has long been a bone of contention. We can live without out it.
×