• Content count

    2,408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

417 Excellent

1 Follower

About _WaveRider_

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    UK
  • Portal profile _WaveRider_

Recent Profile Visitors

857 profile views
  1. Although Flamu is one of the many YouTube contributors I follow anyway (Flamu, Notser, iChase, iEarlGrey, Jingles, Whiskey, Aeroon and so on...) I do appreciate the post. Thank you.
  2. Hmmmm, no thank you lol. I'm sure someone will get value from these offers though.
  3. Indeed; a point well made. Ships that complain of taking too much fire damage yet do not spec anti-fire skills/modules - or complain of aircraft and don't run any AA always mystify me; if you choose to take the risk because you want to do more damage then that is the player's choice. Although not perfect, I'm sure in the main, WG try to balance the game/ships so that where one is powerful at causing damage it is susceptible to damage from another vector (say fire or aircraft or torpedoes etc) - therefore you would expect a player to make choices that balance that ship. I tend to Captain DDs and find that trying to stay alive with a lower than most HP has me choosing the Magazine module, Preventative Maintenance, Last Stand, Survival Expert (or SI) and Concealment Expert. All are very much survival choices rather than attacking/damage choices. I am not saying poor DDs - of course the longer I survive should equate to the more damage I do, so that's the choice I make. I will say in general the damage DDs output does seem lower than most ship types at tiers V-X, even when torpedoes do the damage they do; their survival isn't always that great either. However, I can only assume that WG are continually fighting the balance issue (so to change something like the torpedo hit rate by upping the speed of torpedoes and lowering the detection would badly affect the game). A balance does need to be maintained for the game to continue. Apologies, I thought you were indicating there was nothing you could do about torpedoes unless you had telepathy to read the mind of invisible captains - Otherwise 'you ain't gonna be able to respond to what suddenly becomes visible'. The fact is that in many cases torpedoes are already detected by other mechanics long before their detection range comes into play. LWM makes a good point in regards to the Priority Target skill and I can only highlight the game mechanics that in the end make the average torpedo hit rate 6-10% for many DDs.
  4. It actually means altering your course and speed so that any 'invisible captain' with his tubes pointed at you won't be successful at predicting where you will be by just firing along the suggested path (like if you didn't WASD and just sailed straight). Most BB players I've come across use the mini-map, their DD and CA screen, any spotter/fighter/CV aircraft spots, radar or hydro and their experience to limit the damage from DDs - there are some very good BB players out there. I will agree with your second part though, if you haven't taken advantage of all the mechanics above and are responding to these low detection torps at the last moment - you are going to get hit.
  5. I personally don't know anyone who considers being pounded on by a BB/CA who is outside of your gun and torpedo range, to be fun - A DD can be fired upon by multiple ships when spotted by an enemy DD. I am aware that torpedoes are heavy hitting (minus any torpedo armour belt %), but a DD with a lower HP, being fired upon by different ships, at different times, at different angles can end up just as devastated - I'm not saying the DD scenario is unfair, just trying to say the situation seems to be very similar(?) You are right however, it's not fun. As for the smoke issue, the trick will be for friendly DDs or radar ships to get in range and torp/blast them to death. All speculation on my part of course, as I haven't played or faced them yet.
  6. Ok, there was a period where I had 4 dets in a 24hr period! It was just after I bought the Gallant so 3 of those were in her alone. Incredible bad luck lol. I also clocked up around 8 dets covering a 2 week period (inclusive of the above mentioned 24 hrs). It worked out at a 20% det rate lol. However, it soon went back down to something like 1%. Dev Strikes are maybe 5%.
  7. A disagreement showed just how not clever I really am? What does that even mean lol. We disagreed on something and if I remember correctly (and I do), I was quite happy to accept your take on things/difference of opinion - you were just unable to accept that I thought differently. People will have a different point of view, that's life; it just seems that some people can't accept that, if the point of view differs from theirs (like in our case). As for this thread and taking things in context - I quote: What I had to say in this thread wasn't only about the betterment to play this game, it's for the betterment of your life. (post #152). The OP wished to give us steps to better our lives, the first was to 'Accept everything is your fault'. Yet when an individual made a mistake he called him dumb. When I pointed out the hostility and casting blame on the other person didn't hold true to his 'Accept everything is your fault', he later called me dumb. It seems that he was quick to discard his own rules that he was instructing us to follow (READ THIS! title), for the 'betterment of your life'. So what point are you calling me out on? You see, I don't think I'm clever at all. I just quote the individuals own words back to them when they seem to directly contradict themselves - and ask a question directly related to their own post. See, nothing clever (and as I hope you can see with the examples I've given above, nothing to be 'called out' about). I actually found the fact that someone was telling others to do something they were not doing themselves to be quite funny/ironic (I also stated this in one of my follow up posts). Again I believe I stated I could be wrong and the OP has never been negative about another player's efforts in game. He may well have been the forgiving/self blaming individual that he advises others to be? As your posts usually lead to a tit-for-tat 'my dad's bigger than your dad' exchange, I will leave you to have the last word (something I do every time I believe?).
  8. Yet from one disagreement we had on a thread a while back, you seem to have got so frustrated you have commented on many of my posts since - with comments such as the one above. Guess I'm clever enough for you.
  9. Hey, if you misunderstood then others could too! I appreciate you clarifying things - that's what the forums about.
  10. Apologies if I didn't explain it well enough - I was referring to OPs comments regarding the Perth and what a nerf means. In post #22 I quoted Zath's post as he made comment on buffs for premium ships. Thank you for the additional info/correction though.
  11. Policy - a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual. RipNun2 beat me to it. Lord Zath also makes a valid point regarding Buffs. It's all about balance.
  12. In video gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that reduces the power of a weapon or skill in order to maintain game balance. If a premium ship needed a buff I expect it would get it (I assume there would be no complaint there?). Try to remember balance is a difficult thing to maintain with the amount of variety in game.
  13. Yes it was a nerf - you are correct. To Nerf - In video gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that reduces the power of a weapon or skill in order to maintain game balance. Smoke does not maintain the same cover for a ship as it used to. It was a nerf that came about via a game mechanic change where WG adjusted the way detection works in smoke whilst firing. As this was a global change it needed to change for all ships including Premium ships. This is to try and maintain balance in game. It is similar to the global nerf they tried to make regarding a -8% fire chance to cruisers and above using IFHE. I believe they were going to introduce this in order to hit the Kutuzov and Belfast (via a 'global' change), but the change would have had too much of an impact on balance, so left it at -3% fire chance. Balance - not easy when you have so many ships, captain skills, upgrades, consumables, signals, etc. If it is any consolation the Perth survival rate has actually gone up 4% (All time stats compared to the 2 week stats); also it's damage has raised by a couple of thousand too (31,123 to 33,681) - so the stats that possibly reflect the change in smoke best, are actually better.
  14. Oh no, it's a little more than that. You see you talk about the 'frame of mind' in which people approach the game and how it is best to approach things with 3 easy steps. I see now that you don't adopt this frame of mind in general and are quite quick to call people dumb when you feel they make a mistake - only problem is, it makes me think it is highly likely you take the same attitude into your games. Which makes me think you are pulling the 'do as I preach - but not what I do'. Of course, I could be wrong and people reading your reactions on this thread can make their own minds up. (Hey, I REALLY could be wrong lol).
  15. Ahhh, so you are blaming my interpretation? There goes Step 1 again.