Jump to content

FlyingLoafOfToast

Members
  • Content Сount

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5081
  • Clan

    [WURST]

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About FlyingLoafOfToast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Less coal in containers?

    I really don't have time to read the wiki on such things, but I do appreciate you pointing to the source. I'd thought I recalled that factoid from years ago, but wasn't beyond certain. Likewise, real life is too important for me to go through mxstat, although, again, I do really appreciate your digging down to the bare bones of things. I decided then to open the remaining 97 containers, which yielded 51,400 coal for an average of just under 530/container. Of the 614 which were initially opened, then, that included the mixed containers which I'd started the collection with. If 500 of those containers were resource ones, the average coal/crate would have been about 502. So: exact numbers evade us, signs point to an average of somewhere in the neighborhood of 515 coal/crate. On the whole, this data is not enough to prove a drop in coal from the 550/crate benchmark found by the previous experimenters. What I'll do from here on out is continue to stash resource crates and open them, a hundred at a time, and see what happens. Thanks for your help, iDuckman and others! I'll be back. FLOT
  2. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Less coal in containers?

    Agreed - this is exactly what I did. Up till about 80 total containers, I had a mix - not all resource crates, but some of each of the first three types (I didn't take consumable crates when they were available, and I always opened all special container types immediately.) After that point, I embarked on a quest to fill my queue up with resource containers and resource containers only. Anything non-resource got opened up, even in the random missions which would drop multiple containers of a certain type, meaning I would have to dig them out from under two or three of the wanted resource containers. After a certain point, every last one of my containers was absolutely a resource one. I personally think, from my experiment, the true average coal per resource crate is now somewhere around 425-445, and that my own number was slightly on the low side. (An average of 407 means there are essentially no double or triple coal drops any more. Possible, but I don't trust the data enough to say it's *that* bad. I think average coal may well have gone down from 550 to 450 or lower, and this makes sense when one considers how WG has developed their in-game economy and their patterns of enticing players to grind and spend. But at *that*, the idea crosses into the realm of the academic, for we can't get any actual data on such things, at least that I know of.) FLOT
  3. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Less coal in containers?

    Why? Are you saying that the game changed the types of containers I had just because it opened them all automatically with the latest update? This is news to me if so... FLOT
  4. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Less coal in containers?

    No, they were not auto-collected. In fact, over the years, if I ever accidentally took a different type of container, I opened it immediately, to keep the experiment pure. So there were no random supercontainers, events containers, or any other containers in there except resource containers. So I have that number because of all of the following: I know I had 714 containers. When I started collecting, I had a fairly even mix of container types, but did mix a few credit and signal flag containers in with the resources ones (I never took consumables). By the time I had about 80 containers, though, I had decided to collect exclusively resource containers. It's possible that the queue opened from the *oldest* container first, or even in a random order - and out of those first 80 containers, possibly 45-60 were *not* resource containers. The reason I do not think this happened is: I started opening individual containers from my remaining 100, and began finding the other types of containers which I had accrued at the very beginning of this experiment. So, I cannot say with life and death certainty that all 614 containers were resource ones. But I can say there is a very high probability that at nearly every single one was in fact a resource container. There is a low probability that fewer than 600 of them are resource containers. It's extremely unlikely that fewer than 570 of them are resource crates (and even that number would yield an average of under 440 coal/container.) That makes it very unlikely that my average coal per resource container is off by any significant margin. (One thing I *can* do is open my remaining containers and document how many of which types I have, which would take the certainty of my numbers to a quite certain but not perfectly accurate level.) Potato, potato: it is quite clear that my average haul is significantly lower than the previous benchmark average I had been aware of. FLOT
  5. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Less coal in containers?

    I searched through the forums in the last month or two, as I have been stocking up resource containers for years. The conclusions were that, over many hundreds of samples, resource containers gifted about 550 coal on average. With the new update, 614 of my containers (virtually every last one - or indeed every last one - was a resource box) were forced open, unbeknownst to me until I logged in last night. My average coal per container was 407. From 614 crates. That's a good sample size and also represents over two years of effort. I could only see the total haul, so I can't say whether the coal is still given in increments of 400. If it is, though, my experience shows that I basically received only the minimum coal per crate. I received less than 75% of what I had been expecting, which is a very substantial margin. Further annoyances, on a personal note: the change took a forced effect hours before my clan upgraded the coal port to its highest level, which happened before I logged in. So, unfortunately, that's another 7,500 coal I didn't receive for my efforts. I also was unable to micromanage my collections to maximize their potential, instead winding up with 67 duplicates on my Yamamoto collection. Oh well. Wargaming has a right to set their in-game rewards where they want them in their free-to-play game, but that does not change the fact that they have a definite and observable pattern of setting people's expectations at a certain point and then manipulating the most obscure loopholes in the most devious ways, which shows their utter lack of concern for the experience their player base is having. Even when they obey the letter of their own law, they are wont to callously violate the spirit of it. (Example: they may technically not nerf a premium ship, but in shifting the meta, may fundamentally change the product, e.g. Massachusetts in the upcoming new secondary environment, or the Kaga I paid for just before they unveiled the CV rework.) So, while I don't disagree with the concrete truth that Kiwi pointed out about how all of the stuff in crates are technically bonuses, on the other hand, the implications of how they go about tweaking the in-game rewards, apparently to maximize the addiction in their player base, shows the diabolical nature of their business model. Caveat emptor. FLOT
  6. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Clan Qualifications

    Let me clarify: I'm talking about a game mode like CB/CQ, neither one in particular. Just someplace where you can have more than a Division of 3 on a team of 12 random people against the same setup. It's nice to play with friends and also to utilize the game environment more fully than it is possible to do in Random, because Random inherently prevents players from ever spending enough time with each other to actually co-operate, even if they want to. I agree that Merc is a good move. The reason I suggest CQ as something viable is that I am sure WG would *not* like CB rewards to be available full-time. Besides, CB is taxing with its rigid schedule, and it's a relief when it ends, because people have real lives. Something with much larger windows of opportunity would be much better. I'm sorry your CQ experience stank. :/ Ours neither utilized nor were victimized by ambushes in any of our matches, although yes, this game does simulate land warfare played with boats much more than it simulates sea warfare. But that's a different topic. v/r FLOT
  7. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Clan Qualifications

    Wouldn't it be nice if a mode like this was available far more often, even permanently, even without any special CB-style rewards? The chance to play with more than two of your friends and to be more than 1/4 of the team opens up a whole level of tactical control (and effectively introduces strategy) into this game, both of which are highly rewarding and enjoyable, but rarely available. Rotate the tiers and ship compositions, whatever. (Just as long as you keep CVs out of it for as much time as possible, because again, it's a far better game without them.) Yeah, yeah, I know. WG only listens to the player base in order to determine just how far they can push them away from their desires and still get them to cough up money. I know. Still. For one weekend, this was a game which at least my squad was very enthusiastic about playing, enjoyed even when we lost (because nearly every one of our games was a *good* game, win or lose, and which we *could* have won (unlike when it's all about the MvRs/FDRs)), and, I mean... that's good for business, too. Just sayin'. v/r FLOT
  8. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Just a suggestion...

    Hi BrushWolf, Sorry, I meant to reply to this a little more fully. I agree with you. Below periscope depth, subs should definitely have the minimal. After all, with hydrophones, they could actually hear well past the horizon. They should certainly have a representation of the positions of vessels at least in their own vicinity. I still believe that if a sub cannot spot for the team nor be spotted for by the team (but still have the minimap and its own spotting, excused by hydrophone) so long as it is below 6m, this one change would go a huge way towards incorporating subs without throwing the meta into a disjointed mix. Right now, a DD/SS division can basically function as a DD/mobile radar tandem. This is all the more disturbing since it is particularly effective against DDs, which shouldn't be so on the defensive against subs. Best, FLOT
  9. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Just a suggestion...

    I don't believe it is a suggestion that de-emphasizes team play. It is mainly to control the spotting meta, which is integral to the game. At present, a destroyer cannot attack a submarine - even one at max depth - without being perma-spotted by the enemy team. That is a tremendous problem. It's like a little mini radar. As for the team-play point, I must contest immediately the idea that this would harm team play. :) Subs would always have the option to come to periscope depth to send and receive team spotting data. But it would be just like setting a smoke screen and blinding yourself. Setting a smoke screen doesn't de-emphasize team play, it merely trades spotting for stealth. A sub should not be able to have the advantages of deep diving and still retain its spotting value - *especially* its ability to relay that to teammates, or to benefit from their sensory info. It's both ridiculously unrealistic and very imbalanced. I would suggest that a change like this would actually increase team play as well as the importance of decision making: a sub driven down deep could really use some support from surface ships, for example, to disrupt being hunted. A sub which is nearly untouchable but is being a perma-radar for her team against the destroyers which is hunting her is not only ludicrous but degrading to the game. In conjunction therewith, I've thought of another advantage to making torpedoes available only at shallow depth - as they were historically: that it would prevent subs taking the fight down to exclusive ranges where vessels without ASW can't participate. It is a saving grace right now that a sub at periscope depth can be shot at by gunfire; forcing the sub to be that shallow in order to fire would offer some token defense for a lone BB against the sub, which they don't currently have as a sub can torp from the depths with impunity. But it would also prevent a sub vs sub action where it's essentially impossible for anyone else to get involved. I'm fine with a mini map for a sub running deep. Subs could hear very well with hydrophones - let a sub spot accurately for itself at any depth - but let team spotting and providing the team with spotting cut off below periscope depth, and let torpedo depth be restricted to periscope depth or, at worst, immediately below it. I think the balance of the classes and integration of subs would be largely rectified even with just these changes, and also make for a far more interesting game, both at the team and individual levels - and both for the hunters and the hunted (regardless of which is which)! Best, FLOT
  10. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Just a suggestion...

    Submarines should be cut off from team spotting (both ways) below periscope depth. In other words, once they're deeper than that, they should only spot for themselves, not the team. They should also not benefit from the team's eyes down there. I think subs should then be able to go deep at will, although of course, the deeper they go, the worse their own spotting should be, just as their detectability and vulnerability decrease. Just part of my two cents' worth. FLOT
  11. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Exhaust smoke generator - Gorizia and IT cruisers

    Hey Stinkweed, Your detectability after firing in smoke is very high for these ships. Something like 9.7km in Brindisi if I recall. I am not a hundred percent clear on the mechanics, but usually, it seems that if I smoke after I fire, I am still visible until I have been silent for twenty seconds. Best, FLOT
  12. FlyingLoafOfToast

    clan disappeared

    It's back up now, thank you. I / we had logged in several times, and tried logging out of Steam and such, to no avail. For a few hours, that was the situation. If it happens again, I'll definitely make a screenshot. Thanks again for your reply!
  13. FlyingLoafOfToast

    clan disappeared

    Same thing has happened for me. I am the clan commander, and it's gone. One of my clanmates has logged in and confirmed that it is also gone for her. When I look through my contacts list, everyone in the clan still has a clan tag. Also, when I type a message, my clan tag is still ahead of my name in the message bar. Nothing on the ''Clans'' tab works, however, including searching for a few other clans which I know must still be in existence. No idea what on earth is going on. Maybe the sheer glory of the new Soviet BBs knocked the clan service offline.
  14. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Uhmmm... whaaat?

    Welp, Thanks to all who have shed light on this. In the spirit of transparency, I can and will fill in the rest of the story. Wargaming Support in fact replied to my ticket, citing a pair of instances approximately 42 minutes apart yesterday, so, in separate games. TLDR: I wrote two bad words, and one probably looked like a directed attack (it wasn't) to an automatic censor, which is probably why I got my first taste of disciplinary action. Either that or, less likely, a manual report, made its way to a human reviewer, who cited the rules to me and hit me with 72 hours of silence. The full nine yards: I was logged as typing "oh s--t" at one point in the early afternoon. This happened. For context, it was after I dropped torpedoes when my escort was going one way, and then began to go the other way. That's not an excuse, it's a corroboration - yes, I recall this instance. It was my "communicate quickly that something was dreadfully wrong" reaction. My evaluation: at the end of the day, well, it's a profanity, and the rules say "excessive profanity and inappropriate language is not welcome". Malice content, or personal attack content? Zero. Good intent, actually. Bad word. Does WG have a point calling me out on this? Sure. I was also cited, nearly an hour later as pointed out, for an over-enthusiastic greeting of my acquaintance, who, weeks after we last divved up for a few battles, was suddenly my enemy. "[Name withheld!] You perfidious b-----d! :D " say I on open chat. Again, absent any malice, as is hopefully more than evident from the archaic adjective and the emoticon at the end. Again, technically, a profane word, which means if they choose to enforce a ban on me, well, they have a case. When I said there was nothing which wasn't innocuous in my chatting, I didn't think I was being misleading. While, on the one hand, I am not going to deny that I dropped two bad words yesterday, being drawn up for "insults and provocations" utterly confused me. I maintain that I have still never treated anyone on chat with malice, and while I do occasionally drop impure words (most often 'dammit'), well, I think it's fair to say we've all experienced the chat buffer. (Again, this is not a rationalization or an excuse. It's an explanation of why I was so ridiculously surprised by the sudden ban.) I suspect my activity triggered an automatic censor, which was perhaps doubly alerted by my use of "You...". I expect a bot would detect an insult from reading my second transgression, although a human should easily tell I was being chummy. With a bad word, fine, but absent all malice. Funny story: another player's immediate reply to that comment was something to the effect of "watch your language, f-kt--d". I could make a case in my own defense on a couple of premises, but, I won't. My primary concerns were: understanding *why* this happened (I do now, and in principle at least, I can't argue), and being reassured that no other player felt I had treated them with malice or other ill intent (that matters a bit more to me, honestly, than the fact that I had a potty mouth today) - content with the current standing of things, I wait another two and a half days to explain my apparent, sudden anti-social tendencies to the friend or two who have already dropped me messages. Mea maxima culpa. The ban was processed within four hours of the instances occurring. In short, I cannot shake an analogy to the laws surrounding and enforcement of speed limits in the United States of America. Regards, FLOT
  15. FlyingLoafOfToast

    Uhmmm... whaaat?

    That makes a lot of sense, and I'm sure it's the case, based on everything everyone has contributed. I just have no clue what on earth I said to offend someone to the point of submitting a ticket, and to also have a live reviewer agree and slap me with the ban. I'm looking into that now and hoping for an answer. Meanwhile, I guess I've gotten as far as I can here, and I thank everyone for their time and input. It's gone from a completely inexplicable quantity to something less than that, which helps. I shall see what comes of my request for information. Best, FLOT
×