Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About DovaSaltyPhD

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

143 profile views
  1. 0w0 a Salty Dova *headpats and flees*

  2. If you ask the BB captains complaining in this thread, one could easily get the idea that they think that they should be able to delete any ship at any distance at any time. You can stop crying, what the AP change takes away is the ability to lolslamdunk a DD from long distance when only one or maybe two shells actually hit. This was due to a bug that caused "double dipping" as it is known in the community. This could result in shells doing double damage, so a single montana shell from across the map could do 6-7k damage to a DD. This of course, is not reasonable. You will still be able to do massive damage to DDs at closer ranges. This change impacts the long range stray shells dunking DDs for 1/4 or 1/3 of their health. And if you think it is reasonable from a game balance point of view that BBs are able to do this, then I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror and ask your self what you are really after? Is it balance, or do you just want to be able to slam dunk on DDs from across the map
  3. Yes, I understood what you meant. But my inner internet smartass/reddit tough guy could not let this go unmentioned.
  4. For realsies though, If WG implemented what OP is suggesting, that would bring Daring HE pen up to 28mm, w/o IFHE. I think these numbers speak loud enough. I don't want to be that guy, but Pandora was never inside the box. Pandora was the one who possessed the box and opened it.
  5. @SireneRacker is many things, but a liar he is not. You should stop, you look rather silly.
  6. DovaSaltyPhD

    Supertest: Damage Limit DD vs BB

    That is what this change does though. It allows BBs to severely damage DDs at closer ranges while limiting their ability to do so at longer ranges. One of the reasons this has been a problem is because of "Double dipping", an unintended consequence of the way penetration works in this game. This would cause one hit to sometimes count as both a full pen (33% of listed damage) and an overpen (10%) damage. In the case of a montana shooting a gearing, one stray AP shell could cause almost 6000 damage, more than 25% of the gearings total health. And as I have previously mentioned, most DDs do not have any way of recovering HP, so getting smacked for 6000 damage by a montana 20km away is a huge deal. Yolo rushing is still going to be very very dangerous for a DD, as it should be.
  7. DovaSaltyPhD

    Supertest: Damage Limit DD vs BB

    It does not. At ranges like that a T10 BB will be able to do well over 10k damage to a destroyer. Rushing a BB is and will remain something only attempted by the most suicidal DD captains. What WG are trying to get rid of with this change is that massive damage that DDs can take from long range, from stray shells. A gearing cannot heal back lost HP, thus a stray Yamato shell from 15km away that does 5k damage is a huge deal. And taking massive damage from BB AP at long range happens a lot. With this change, your best option if you want to take a huge chunk out of a DDs HP is to fire HE. If you are being rushed you can still fire AP and do damage that exceeds half the health pool of a T10 DD. Add secondaries and your team mates damage to this and you will find that it is just as lethal to rush a BB even after this change.
  8. DovaSaltyPhD

    Supertest: Damage Limit DD vs BB

    Oh no, BBs won't be able to take 10k hp off a destroyer at 15km range. WG takes away their ability to dev strike every class of ship from across the map and they start crying. smh Adapt and overcome.
  9. DovaSaltyPhD

    Battleship players: Interested in winning?

    The only reason I looked up your WR was because you started your post like this: It was evident that you could talk the talk, but I became curious if you could walk the walk, as it were.
  10. DovaSaltyPhD

    Battleship players: Interested in winning?

    Enemy radar cruisers are almost always a top priority. Targeting them might help you with that WR of yours.
  11. Disclaimer: After writing this I realized that parts of it may sound quite harsh. It is an honest attempt to explain what I perceive to be the best way to win more games and why applying game theory to explain why one loses games isn't as helpful as it may seem. It's interesting, but I'm not sure it applies to WoWs either, for a few reasons. 1) A flawed perception of how games are won and lost. The view held by many that players who "farm damage" (instead of "playing the objective") cause them to lose games neglect entirely that the single greatest contributing factor to winning is eliminating key enemy ships. For example: Cruisers hiding behind islands and shooting from cover aren't "cowards farming damage", they are cruisers staying alive. Granted not all cruiser players are created equal and some lack the map understanding to pick the most optimal island to hide behind. A player far better than my self has gone on at length in this very thread explaining where wins and losses come from. And staying alive while killing the enemy ships is the best way to win. Granted, a battleship that is alone after 15 minutes with full health has definitely overdone the "Staying alive" part of the equation. As with all things, balance is key. In the same way an overzealous DD will "overdo" the capping part of his/her role by rushing in to a cap when there are several enemy radar cruisers unaccounted for. TL;DR: Doing damage and taking out enemy ships, while staying alive, is the biggest contributing factor to win. It's not the opposite of "Playing the objective". 2) Both your game theory model and the prisoner's dilemma assume that for one prisoner (or hunter) to win, the other must lose. This is obviously not the case, even though it can often feel as if one is playing against both ones own team and the enemy team, the big problem with these models is that there is no scenario where everyone wins. There most certainly exists such a scenario in WoWs, namely when your team wins the game. Any game theory model applied to random battles needs to include the option of everyone winning. The idea that there are unselfish team players being mercilessly used by selfish damage farmers is silly. Everyone (with the exception of the occasional tilted salt miner) on your team is playing to win. Though views on how this is best achieved may differ from player to player. Reflecting on ones own performance is critical in all of this, because if you are finding that you are pushing alone and ending up dead a lot, then maybe you should reevaluate your positioning and choices regarding when and where to push. We all want to think we are the altruistic team player, unselfishly spotting and helping our team. But if this means that I'm dead before the half way mark, maybe my actions are detrimental to the success of my team, even though they are unselfish in their intent. In closing: This has been interesting, but I remain convinced that explaining losses through game theory (At least the ones mentioned in this thread) simply does not work. There are people with 10 000 games played and sit at a solo win rate below 50%. And then there are players with 10 000 games played who sit at a solo win rate of over 60%. The people who complain the most about damage farmers and "cowards not pushing" belong to the former category more often than not. "Theres only one thing that all your losses have in common" feels like such a cliche at this point, but it still holds some truth. There are several places where one can go to get constructive feedback and become better at the game. Perhaps one should spend less time applying game theory to explain why its other peoples fault when one loses and spend more time trying to improve the only thing one can control, ones own performance..
  12. DovaSaltyPhD

    Pre-Dread Battleship vs WWII Cruiser

    Though I am inclined to give Schleswig-Holstein the advantage in the above mentioned engagement simply because she would have Exeter outgunned, I also feel the need to mention that Schleswig-Holstein suffers from the same major flaw that plagued a lot (but not all) Pre-Jutland battleship designs, namely that she had abysmal horizontal protection. 40mm of deck armor needless to say does not offer adequate protection against 203mm AP shells. (This isn't a jab at German warship design, given that the major breakthroughs in naval design occurred with HMS Dreadnought and at the battle of Jutland. Schleswig-Holsteins design Predates both.) So: Schleswig-Holstein clearly holds the advantage, but her weak horizontal protection offers Exeter a better fighting chance than one might think at first glance. If only ever so slight.
  13. I get what you are saying, but I don't agree. At least not entirely. Considering that being last on the winning team can net you just as much or more than the top player on the losing team, it should be in everyones interest to always try to win. I would argue that the system put in place by WG very much means that pursuing my self interest (i.e. maximizing my gains) is best achieved by winning the game. This obviously won't be the case every game, but over the course of many games the way to make maximum profit will be for me to win as many games as possible. That is also why I don't believe this dilemma exists in the game, instead it exists only in the minds of the players. As previously stated the system rewards the winning team enough for even the lowest scoring players (Not accounting for the one or two players who died within the first few minutes with no contribution) to make a greater gain than the highest scoring player on the losing team. The problem instead is with the players own perception. Even though winning the game should be the #1 goal even for the most "selfish" player, a lack of understanding of what wins games results in players looking at their team and thinking that player X is just farming damage, player Y is just padding his stats and player Z is just bad. So to summarize: The system rewards winning and gives the players rewards not only damage, but also capping and spotting. In my opinion, the dilemma discussed in this thread is almost entirely created in the minds of the players to have a convenient scapegoat. It can be the DD who rushes in to a cap when there are 3 unspotted radar cruisers on the enemy team OR it can be the H-line Conqueror who's got full health and 125k damage after 15 minutes. But both those players most likely believe (incorrectly) that they are helping the team and both players also (incorrectly, again) believe that the other player is not playing to win, but only to farm damage etc. It might have been a mistake to try to formulate a coherent thought before the first cup of coffee, but I think I got my point across...
  14. I'm not sure this is always the case. Recently I've seen more DDs push into a cap when a quick look at the minimap would have revealed that no other ships were in position to support them. In this case, waiting a little bit would have been the better play. Of course, there is no waiting, there is only push. And angry "OMFG NO SUPPORT" in chat afterwards. As with everything else in life, this goes both ways. It's way more complicated than just "farmers" sitting at the back of the map farming damage, even though I understand that this narrative would help a lot of people explain why they don't win more games.