Jump to content
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

32 Neutral

About zarth12

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Profile on the website zarth12

Recent Profile Visitors

109 profile views
  1. Salem v. Des Moines Preview

    lol. Thank you for revealing your ignorance to the community, if it wasn't already clear. So I was clearly right. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is <insert ad hominem here>. I did quote the right person. YOU quoted someone who mentioned a wager, I quoted you responding to him. Again, your illiteracy clearly knows no bounds. Still waiting for you to quote exactly where I mentioning anything about wanting to "buy everything" or even the Stalingrad to be "purchasable". I am still waiting. You seem to be the only one in this thread stuck up on needing everything to be purchasable. Perhaps we are now seeing the surfacing of a deep psychological trauma? Obviously this is Wargamings title, they do get the final say. If we as paying customers do not like something, we stop paying for it. It is called voting with our wallets.. Welcome to capitalism, albeit clearly beyond your level of thought.
  2. Salem v. Des Moines Preview

    lol. So anyone that says something you don't agree with is a whiner? I get it. Nice logical fallacy. Insulting your own intelligence does not bode well for your position. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't even read the post you quoted before mine, in which I quoted you. It clearly talks about a wager. Learn to read perhaps? Also feel free to quote exactly, where I mentioned anything about a desire for Stalingrad to be for sale. Flint and Black are what again? They are minor alterations of ships that are available in the tech tree. Just like Salem. This make sense for a Reward. Stalingrad is completely different. It is actually a unique ship that differs greatly from the Moskva. The rest of your post is just a childish rant. The claim I made that was that they would lose the wallets of many large whales because of Stalingrad if they keep it a CB reward only. Me being one of them. Losing our wallet =/= quitting the game.
  3. Salem v. Des Moines Preview

    Nah, Ill take that wager any day of the week. Nothing more moronic for a developer to release a completely unique ship with a gated requirement. Devs have learned this for just about every other game, that is why cosmetics are the standard and have been for awhile now actually. Salem makes sense as a CB reward, not Stalingrad
  4. Salem v. Des Moines Preview

    They better drop those Stalingrad plans or they are going to lose the cash flow of at least one large whale.
  5. I agree. This is why I suggest that BBs get a sigma nerf across the board, and a large one at that. This would greatly reduce their average accuracy at those ranges where no one other than another BB can retaliate. If that nerf is implemented, I see no reason why BBs cant get a DCP action time buff to make fires and flooding a little easier to handle.
  6. Fix BB AP against DD

    Even the reality argument would work poorly for BBs because their accuracy is so bloated in game compared to history.
  7. Only if you don't build for anti-fire. But nice hyperbole.
  8. Yea the hypocrisy is massive from BB players. Want a DD limit per match... well that would only be relevant in a RPS system (Rock paper scissors).... which also means DDs should be getting some pure BB hard counter buffs.... Maybe BB homing Acoustic torpedoes? I mean we have radar in game which is a hard counter so why not. In reality, since BBs are the only ship type atm that seems to break the RPS circle and doesn't really have a counter, it is the only ship that should relevantly have a limit.... 1-2 per side would probably work.
  9. Fire should very much be a major source of damage, especially against Battleships. With that said, I certainly think a buff to BB DCP action time would be in order in combination with a BB sigma nerf across the board. Currently BBs are far too accurate outside the range where anything other than a BB can retaliate. Beyond the obvious imbalance of their accuracy alone, if you take into account the concealment you can reach with a Battleship..... it is completely contradictory (see double standards) to the very reasoning behind the nerfs to invisa firing, and open water stealth firing by Wargaming. To reiterate this, take the difference between the lowest achievable detectability range for a Montana...and the longest achievable main battery range with the Montana....... now compare that same situation with any cruiser..... even any BB vs any Cruiser..... BBs have the largest difference by far, thus actually making BBs have more effective concealment than a lower EHP, lower armor....lower burst damage.... Cruiser.
  10. Fix BB AP against DD

    C: Your words E. Reading comprehension was just fine, I refer to the quote again: All well in good if you don't agree with the BB accuracy suggestion. Have a nice day. .
  11. Fix BB AP against DD

    C. Except I did. There you are, actually putting words in my mouth., words that you claimed yourself. YOU claimed it automatically became overpens, not me. I refuted said claim. D. I did earlier in the thread. Remember? E. Sounds like you are suffering from a lot of cognitive dissonance Your own words:
  12. Fix BB AP against DD

    C. And explained the incorrect assumptions of said calculation. Where did I argue distance traveled is meaningless? Are we going to back to putting words in my mouth again? D. Multiple citadels, or a Citadel and multiple pens when fired at cruisers. They sure are, zero exaggeration. A cruiser can take multiple citadels and not get dev striked. E. No, you were also implying it had some kind of connection between the topic of distinguishing them for overpens. This was shot down. Nothing more to read into it, nor was I.
  13. Fix BB AP against DD

    -C: Why would I go into all the calculations and make changes to show automatic overpens? For what purpose? Are you going to pay me? -D: I agree, there is nothing wrong between the Accuracy of BBs vs the Accuracy of CA/L, nor is there anything wrong between the Accuracy of BBs vs the Accuracy of BBs. As I clearly stated, the problem is the accuracy of BBs outside of the general CA/L range of their relative MM/tier. In more general wording. BBs are averaging multiple Citadels per salvo (/too many dev strikes) far too often on cruiser targets, even those playing intelligently, well outside of a range where said Cruiser can/could have returned fire regardless. Not even counting support on the data side, these occurrences are completely against the very standards being enforced in the nerfs to open-water stealth firing, bloom, and smoke changes. E. Nothing? Again... that is hit detection. Which is on-off. Damage calculation is not on-off, and damage calcs are separate.
  14. Fix BB AP against DD

    A. You contradicted yourself a few times. I bolded. B. Penetration does matter even against a DD. If it didn't matter, DDs would not get full pens nor would they get module damage from AP. Angle is not the only factor, armor is not the only factor. You are flip flopping on your own argument. Fuse time is a part of Penetration. Penetration is not dictated by armor alone. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penetration C. That is not how the calculations work. D. If you actually read the reasoning behind the Battleship accuracy nerf that I posted perhaps over a dozen times in this very thread, it was a solution to the issue of not only BB AP vs DD, but BB AP vs cruiser outside of retaliatory range as well. a DD camo, isn't going to solve this, nor is it anything more than a band aid on a arterial cut. E. They differentiate based on ship type. Certainly a general set in the database that was modified into DWT hit detection values. You seem to under a false assumption that Hit detection calculations and damage calculations are one in the same. WoWs is not a FPS where a simple on-off hit to anywhere except the head produces the same damage amount. Damage calculations in WoWs are far more complex.
  15. Fix BB AP against DD

    There is no "mythical" figure in the AP damage. I am not sure where you are getting that from. Perhaps you are talking about citadels? If you mouse over the guns of your ship under artillery tab in-game, you will see the max damage value of the AP. That is the max damage per shell, ergo a citadel. Working as intended. If you are correlating say AP damage doing crazy high numbers, or dev striking say cruisers, that is typically multiple citadels in a single salvo. This is due to BBs having over-tuned accuracy, something that is also solved by nerfing BB sigma.