Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Uglesett

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    More like "Snoreway"
  1. WG Please stop torpedo missions.

    I don't think the problem is with any one weapon type. "Get x torpedo hits over any number of games" or "Score x citadel hits in any number of games" are perfectly fine objectives that don't require you to do more than play the game normally, but maybe change up your playstyle a bit. It's the "in one game" objectives that are problematic, because suddenly there's a certain amount of pressure involved. Suddenly you end up doing things that you normally wouldn't choose to do in order to chase those objectives, going for torpedo hits when capping would be more beneficial, or shooting at cruisers when there's a more valuable or dangerous (not necessarily to you, but to your team) target in range.
  2. Not very low. She comes with a camo that brings it down to 7.5 km, and the only other tool you have is Concealment Expert on your commander, which brings it down to 6.76 km.
  3. The tasks aren't for base xp. It specifically states "after modifiers are applied".
  4. Well, I got the Aigle yesteday, and now I need 898 ribbons in it (which will also take care of the "1500 ribbons in french ships" task), and then I can get started on the xp grind. I got two weeks of premium time in a supercontainer last week, though, so the xp quests should be pretty quick. And I actually like the Aigle, so it shouldn't be too bad.
  5. I got it yesterday, and had enough time to take it out for a couple of games. And so far, I kind of like it. It definitely is going to take a bit of getting used to, but I did reasonably well with it in those first couple of games. I think the trick is to think of it more as a very light, very fast cruiser and less like a conventional destroyer. I notice that a lot of the skills that are applicable to the British cruiser line (which is one of my favourite tech tree lines so far) also work well with the Aigle.
  6. Can you start a fire with a shatter/bounce?

    Well, I've certainly had hits with only shatters that also started fires. So either the answer is yes, or the hit ribbons are b0rked.
  7. Give all cruisers heal?

    The thing about cruisers, though... Most of them are fairly well balanced against each other, and I think the matchup of cruisers vs. DDs is pretty well balanced as well. The main problem facing cruisers is that they are bigger and less maneuverable than destroyers, while having citadels. Giving them healing isn't really going to do anything with the cruiser-vs-battleship balance (because you can't really heal much of AP citadel damage anyway). I think the big issue driving down the number of people playing cruisers is their fragility vs. battleships, and I'm not sure how you can buff them against BBs without at the same time making them ludicrously powerful vs. DDs.
  8. Flamu's Discussion - WoWS: The Focus On Damage

    I saw the video, and I agree with his main point. But I do think some of his suggestions are unnecessarily complicated. Some kind of achievement for tanking potential damage: Yes please. It rewards good use of your armour in a BB (and skilled WASD usage in a cruiser or DD), and shows the rest of your team that you're being useful (by taking fire that could have killed teammates and surviving it) unlike the guys camping in the back. Spotting damage... I think the current rewards for it are a bit on the lowish side. I don't actually play WoT, but from watching game play videos it seems like it rewards spotting more than WoWS. It doesn't need to be hugely increased, but enough to be noticeable compared to doing damage on your own. Furthermore, WoT actually tells the player in game when someone else is doing damage based on their spotting. So I think there's a potential here for making spotting a lot more satisfying without making any large, game-altering balance changes. Just a bit more exp for spotting, and more importantly just some feedback for when someone else makes use of your spotting. Radar... eh. Just give the same spotting damage bonus for radar and sonar spotting as for other spotting. I don't see the point of an achievement or something specifically for radar spotting.
  9. 17/26 so far. There was one task I didn't have time to do (I think it was the "win and finish top three" one). I don't know if I'll bother to try for the 1750 xp, though. I could possibly manage it with a fair bit of luck. I've been above 2k a few times. But I don't know if it's worth the hassle. The 150 main battery hits I did in the Fiji. When it comes to farming main battery hits and/or ribbons, few things can beat Royal Navy cruisers. Maybe some of the US ships with the 5" guns, if you can manage the shell arcs of those.
  10. Someone please explain

    Well, a couple of possible explanations: a) your memory is playing tricks on you b) what your client drew on your screen isn't the same as what happened on the server Now, I'm not very familiar with the WoWS game engine in particular. But for multiplayer games in general, the game clients tend to do a fair bit of prediction in order to compensate for the latency between client and server. E.g. the client will make a prediction of where any given object is going to be based on its last reported position and direction of movement from the server, and then draw it where it thinks it is instead of displaying a time-delayed snapshot of the server state. And that's usually fine, but it does some times lead to seemingly wonky results where you get nailed by a headshot when your own screen clearly shows that you had ducked behind cover (because your own client predicted that's what was going to happen before the server state overruled it). That's just the nature of any multiplayer game, and it might be the explanation here as well. I.e. your game client predicted that all five torpedoes would hit different parts of the hull, but the game state on the server had all torps hitting the same saturated section.
  11. Someone please explain

  12. Alsace

    Erm. I just said that you'll never reach 100% probability, no matter how many shots you fire or coins you flip. It's a stochastic event. It's always possible that none of your coin tosses comes up tails, or that none of your HE shells start a fire. It just gets really improbable as the number of experiments goes up.
  13. Alsace

    Too simple math, that isn't correct. If you fire 10 shots with a 22% fire chance, you don't have 220% chance of starting a fire. If I flip ten coins and count the number of tails, the expected value is 10 coin tosses * 0.5 probability of getting tails = 5. And that's what you're calculating. But it's a stochastic event. You're not guaranteed to get the expected value every time you perform the test. Expected value doesn't actually say anything about the probability of getting tails at least one time. That probability is one minus the probability of getting all heads = 1-(0.5^10) = 0.999023 ~= 99.9%. It's never going to reach 100%, because there's always an increasingly tiny probability that none of the coin flips comes up tails no matter how many times you flip that coin. And it's the same thing with fire starting in WoWS. You're never guaranteed to start a fire no matter how many shots you hit with. You can expect to start a certain number of fires with n shots based on the fire chance per shell, but there's always a nonzero probability that you will not start a single fire no matter how many shots you fire.
  14. Alsace

    Erm. I explain exactly what the mathematical formula that you need to use is, and you still insist on doing it wrong? You're not calculating the probability of anything. If you hit with ten shots that have a 30% fire chance, then the expected value is three fires, but you can only start one fire on a given fire zone, so expected value isn't really a very useful statistic to look at in this case. The probability of starting a fire with ten hits with a 30% fire chance per hit is 1 - (0.7^10) = 0.97 = 97%
  15. Alsace

    That's not how probability works. It's kind of hard to calculate any simple probability for fire chance per salvo, because there are so many variables in the calculation. For example, if the entire salvo misses, the fire chance per shell is irrelevant. You can calculate the probability of a fire in a given fire zone based on the number of hits in that fire zone, however. And that's pretty simple. The adjusted probability (I.e. after taking all modifiers like fire resistance into account) of any one shell starting a fire is P (which will be a number between 0 and 1). Then, the probability of getting a fire in n hits is basically one minus the probability of none of the shells starting a fire. The probability of a shell not starting a fire is (1-P). So if the shell has an adjusted fire chance of 0.25 or 25%, the probability of it not starting a fire is 0.75 or 75%. The probability of n shells not starting a fire is (1-P)^n. Which means that the probability of at least one of the shells starting a fire is 1-((1-P)^n) As an example, let's stick to a P of 25% and say n is 5 shells hitting a specific fire zone in a given time. Then the probability of setting a fire is: 1-((1-0.25)^5) = 1 - 0.75^5 = 1 - (0.75*0.75*0.75*0.75*0.75) = 0.763 = 76.3% Which you can see is significant, but quite far from the incorrect 125% chance you'd get if you just multiplied P by n.