Jump to content

Caughtintherain

Players
  • Content Сount

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3993

About Caughtintherain

Recent Profile Visitors

481 profile views
  1. Caughtintherain

    Defensive AA.. Does it even do anything now?

    11.1km main battery range without it.
  2. Caughtintherain

    Yubari, the plane swatter is nerfed again?

    I haven't played the Yubari this patch but I did go up against one with a T4 CV. It seemed to put out a lot of AA fire including flak and did a decent amount of damage to my squadron before I promptly buggered off and picked on something else. I didn't try dropping on it so I can't say anything about the short range AA but the long range can do some damage. With the rework shooting down planes is very much about CV player error, there isn't a solid mechanical basis to give an average plane kill expectancy. If a player flies in to flak he will lose a boatload of planes, if he dodges flak he will not lose many planes. You can't base it on a single game anymore. Give it a few more goes before you decide the Yubari is dead. I agree with the general principle of buffing the Yubari though. 1.9s rudder shift or bust!
  3. Caughtintherain

    Missions fulfillment always T>=5 why?

    I made it slightly more transparent for you. On topic +1 to using premiums for missions. I don't have many low tier premiums but I understand why people are frustrated by it, the idea of buying low tier premiums is that they're fun to play, if you're constantly grinding missions you don't get to play them.
  4. Caughtintherain

    Detectability Penalty Change in 0.8.0

    I share the opinion you quoted.
  5. Caughtintherain

    namecalling

    That's about the only thing you have understood so far.
  6. Caughtintherain

    namecalling

    Of the 3 definitive statements you just made you were incorrect on all 3 of them.
  7. Caughtintherain

    namecalling

    I'm literally laughing so hard IRL that tears are coming out of my eyes. Mate, just calm down. If this matters so much to you and you're actually the kind of person that would argue about his "internet rep" with a conversation from 2 months ago which you mysteriously saved then go ahead and post it, I will argue it point by point, line by line because I have absolutely nothing better to do right now. Be aware there will be a sum total of 3 people who care and both of us will be torn to shreds for being "that way." It will be funny as funk though.
  8. Caughtintherain

    namecalling

    I don't usually talk about people to other people but since you guys seem to know each other and since you asked there doesn't seem to be any harm in it. I have nothing against the guy, I just happen to have played with him and have seen him attempting to wind people up, completely unintentionally of course, in an operation no less. If he acts like that in randoms then I can understand why some people would be frustrated with what I would call his passive aggressive blame-anyone-else-without-making-it-look-like-your-fault behaviour and give him abuse after the match. Really though this is getting ridiculous, perhaps we should stop airing our dirty laundry in public and call each other mean names by PM like normal people. Nobody actually cares about this except us 3, or maybe a few other people who will chime in to tell me how charming their mate is and how I have the wrong end of the stick.
  9. Caughtintherain

    namecalling

  10. Caughtintherain

    namecalling

    Having played with you in operations and having witnessed your out of the blue passive aggressive problem causing I find it hard to believe that the player in question was entirely unprovoked. As for your comment about muting players with 60% WRs for giving advice to 40% WR players in case they're simply protecting their egos and are in fact being toxic behind a layer of pretend sincerity and fake politeness, all I can say is lol.
  11. Caughtintherain

    Accuracy and Precision

    Hey don't let me shut you down if you feel you have a point to argue, I'm just sticking my oar in. I'll gladly explain it in more detail though it might be difficult to get across as I will be using the same examples and images you used but with a different interpretation. So the image you posted earlier is best for this. If we consider the black bullseye in those images as the ship we're shooting at, the blue ellipse as the maximum dispersion of the ship you're shooting from and the red dots as the points the shells land due to their sigma we can say the following; the person doing the shooting in each of those 4 images was extremely accurate as he managed to get the enemy ship (the black dot) in the centre of the blue ellipse every single time. He was an accurate shooter as his shells on average would hit the dead centre of the ship every single time if he had perfect dispersion. To get a hands on example of what I mean and since I assume you're good with visual editing since you added those blue ellipses, simply take the blue ellipses and the red dots and move them while leaving the black rings untouched. This is the effect of accuracy which is solely a player variable. Accuracy refers to getting the blue ellipse, the max dispersion over the centre of the ship with every shot. Actually hitting the centre of the blue ellipse is down to precision. The player has control over the accuracy, the precision is entirely RNG based. To square this with my answers above you asked what do you call a gun that lands its shells close to where you aim, I did something naughty there and interpreted "where you aim" to mean "the ship you're aiming at." I was wrong to do so. The correct answer was a. precise and b. precise. Shells landing close to where you aim is down to precision, but there are 2 types of precision in game, the maximum precision boundaries which is the blue ellipse and the observed precision which are the red dots. After all this I think you have a point... We do need a name for accuracy within the boundaries of maximum precision... So player aim decides if your blue ellipse is accurate, whether your ellipse is centred on the ship you're shooting at, but what name shall we give to the accuracy of the shells within the blue ellipse? From a linguistic perspective it would have to be a 3rd type of precision as accuracy is controlled by the independent variable, i.e. player aim. So we have: 1. Player aim, ability to get blue ellipse on target. - Accuracy 2. Area of blue ellipse. - Precision boundaries. 3. Tightness of shell grouping within blue ellipse. - Precision. 4. Distance from centre of blue ellipse to shell grouping. - Precision accuracy? Accuracy-in-precision? Second tier accuracy? Essentially we're trying to classify 2 overlapping cases which should share names, it's difficult but doable. What about this: 1. Player aim, ability to get blue ellipse on target. - Player Accuracy 2. Area of blue ellipse. - Ship Precision. 3. Tightness of shell grouping within blue ellipse. - RNG Precision. 4. Distance from centre of blue ellipse to shell grouping. - RNG Accuracy.
  12. Caughtintherain

    Accuracy and Precision

    a. accurate b. accurate From a semantic standpoint @ColonelPete is correct, accuracy in all literature (i.e. the sources you yourself are providing) refers to the observed value tallying with the expected value, i.e. what you would refer to as player aim. Precision would indeed refer to the groupings of the shells as you have stated. The problem here is that from a linguistic standpoint accuracy can only refer to what you describe as player aim. This leaves a gap in classifications for the 2 types of precision ships exhibit, 2 types of precision which you have attempted to group inaccurately as accuracy and precision. For clarity, to bring your definitions in line with currently existing definitions and to avoid another 2 pages of semantic arguments you should reclassify your previous classes of accuracy and precision to precision type 1 and precision type 2. I'll try to suggest some names for your categories here. If we take the first type of precision, the ellipse in which shells can land we can call that the possible precision, it's the total of all the areas in which shells can land. For the second type of precision, we can call that the technical precision, the tightness of the shells within the ellipse. I would like to point out however that this argument is silly, it's entirely semantic and we already have perfectly good words to describe all of these things, namely player aim, max dispersion and sigma. I'm all for standardisation of language though, it's doubleplus good fun.
  13. Caughtintherain

    BAD-Armada BAD-A Recruiting Now !

    The BAD clans are still recruiting. https://discord.gg/Ja94MTP
  14. Caughtintherain

    BAD-Armada BAD-A Recruiting Now !

    BAD-B is recruiting new and inexperienced players. We offer advice, training, progression to our sister clans and an active community of almost 100 members. Message me in game for more information or hop in to our discord to have a look around. https://discord.gg/TYV225W
  15. Caughtintherain

    BB tutorial

    While this is true maybe we should leave the advanced strats for after they have learned to use W. We don't want to confuse them or scare them off using W.
×