Jump to content

DeliciousFart

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    737

Community Reputation

495 Excellent

1 Follower

About DeliciousFart

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,959 profile views
  1. DeliciousFart

    What would constitute as "damage farming"?

    "Fact"? How? Show me the data that demonstrates that Tier 10 battleships have an "unfair advantage" in ranked. In terms of win rate, all of the Tier 10 battleships are decidedly average among Tier 10 ships in ranked. In terms of star-saving ability, based on the sampling of all of one player's ranked matches, none of the Tier 10 battleships except for Yamato showed particularly good statistics in that regard. It is true that the sample size may not be sufficient. However, you've presented no evidence or data to support what you're suggesting. You can check the server averages for ranked win rates. https://na.wows-numbers.com/season/id,10/ https://wows-numbers.com/season/id,10/ https://asia.wows-numbers.com/season/id,10/ https://ru.wows-numbers.com/season/id,10/ What is your evidence? You've presented none. Again, the data sample from one of the players who recorded his ranked matches show that none of the battleships other than Yamato demonstrated any kind of advantage in saving stars. What are you even defining as "workload"? Again, with what evidence?
  2. DeliciousFart

    What would constitute as "damage farming"?

    How so? The only battleship that has clearly demonstrated an advantage in terms of star-saving is the Yamato. The other battleships are unremarkable in this regard.
  3. DeliciousFart

    What would constitute as "damage farming"?

    This statement is frankly wrong on several accounts. Firstly, you're assuming that cruisers and destroyers are supposed to match battleships in terms of average damage, which would be a misinterpretation of their roles. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that simply accruing more damage gives Tier 10 battleships an unfair advantage in ranked. For the ship in question, which is the Montana, that is highly unlikely. Currently, sorting Tier 10 ships by XP earned and win rate in random games shows that the Montana is firmly in the middle of the pack. While it's currently not possible to sort ships by XP earned in ranked games, I wouldn't expect that to be very different from randoms in that particular metric. In terms of win rate, the Montana is again firmly in the middle of the pack.
  4. DeliciousFart

    New Midway Movie to Start Filming

    The First Man flag "controversy" is completely ludicrous and needlessly overblown by right-wing media. The American flag is still present in the moon scenes, just the act of planting it was not shown. It wasn't a matter of trying to "avoid insulting anyone", but the director wanting to emphasize something different for narrative purposes.
  5. DeliciousFart

    New Midway Movie to Start Filming

    I don't think it's constructive to portray the US war effort as "clean". Sure, relative to Germany and Japan (and the USSR), our conduct was considerably better, but atrocities and war crimes were committed on our end, and they're somewhat more widespread and systematic than what is commonly believed, and in some cases we really didn't do enough to hold our own perpetrators accountable. No, this does not make us the moral equivalent of Japan or Germany as some here would want to imply, but it's important that we don't whitewash our own war effort as completely clean either.
  6. I think I've given the reasoning in the last paragraph.
  7. Is it that hard to even make graphics that actually resemble the ships? So much for "infographics".
  8. This is a re-post from my topic under General Discussion, but I've been urged to post it under Feedback to hopefully bring it to the attention of WG developers. The possibility that Alaska's citadel roof, which is the ship's 3rd deck, is modeled too low was first raised by Reddit user u/R_radical. I decided to investigate myself, using an amidship cross section that he linked to, and compared it with the in-game model extracted from gamemodels3d. Alaska's 3rd deck in real life sits at 30 ft 7 in (9.3 m) molded height above the keel plating. The ship's draft at full load displacement is 31 ft 9.25 in (9.7 m), which is only about 1 ft 2 in (0.4 m) higher than the 3rd deck. At normal displacement, the draft is 30 ft 9.25 in (9.3 m), only 2 in (~0.05 m) above the 3rd deck. For all intents and purposes, this should be a waterline citadel, similar to the North Carolina's. However, in-game, it's readily apparent from videos of Alaska when viewing the extracted armor model and looking at the modules and plating that the Alaska's citadel current sits considerably lower than that. In fact, when inspecting the armor model, it appears that WG modeled Alaska's 3rd deck at the height of the armor belt knuckle, where the armor starts tapering from 9 in (229 mm) to 5 in (127 mm). This knuckle is 27 ft 11 in (8.5 m) molded height above the keel; in other words, the in-game model's 3rd deck is too low by 2 ft 8 in (0.8 m). Here are the amidship cross sections with the waterline marked in blue, and WG's incorrect 3rd deck marked in red. Currently, Alaska is unduly forgiving when showing broadside due to an incorrectly modeled citadel height that's 2 ft 8 in (0.8 m) lower than it should be. This problem has actually been recognized by WG, and their remedy was to redistribution HP of the ship's sections in order to make the sections more difficult to saturate, thus taking more damage. However, I think the better solution is to actually correctly model Alaska's citadel height by putting the 3rd deck where it actually is. This consequently should dispense the need for the HP redistribution, which should be undone when the citadel is corrected. This would result in a waterline citadel that's much more punishable than it is currently, while the other ship sections will no longer have the penalty of being more difficult to saturate and are thus more resistant to HE damage. Corresponding Reddit post.
  9. DeliciousFart

    New Midway Movie to Start Filming

    So far in this thread, I haven't seen anyone use the Philippines as an exemplar of American moral conduct. Philippines was only mentioned from a strategic perspective regarding the deterrence Japanese expansion into Asia. It was actually goldeagle1123 who first invoked the morality of the American occupation of the Philippines (including the Spanish-American War) in an attempt to establish some kind of moral equivalence between the Japanese and the United States during World War 2. This is not only a blatant display of Whataboutism, it's also immensely hypocritical considering how much more brutal the Japanese were in their invasion and occupation of the Philippines during World War 2. Again, I haven't actually seen anyone defend the moral conduct of the US during its occupation of the Philippines, but in leading up to World War 2, Japan was very clearly the aggressor.
  10. I edited my post as you replied, but to reiterate, for the Montana I can accept a 50 mm weather deck instead of the historical 57 mm as a compromise, as that would really only affect the Henri IV which recently got a substantial buff in the form of reload booster. However, I really wish WG can give the Montana main armor deck its historical design thickness of 179-187 mm, as that can change interactions with AP bombs.
  11. Not quite true, Montana is missing 19 mm of weather deck (should be 57 mm) and 29-37 mm of main armor deck (should be 179-187 mm). For the purposes of balance I can accept the weather deck being just 50 mm, as that would only affect the Henri IV which recently got a pretty big buff. Howecer, I would really like to see the main armor deck be given its correct thickness. The 3rd deck over the magazines should also be 25 mm. The separate Class B lower belt is also greatly simplified without the taper or the thickness distinctions between the magazines and machinery spaces.
  12. Not quite; the devblog states that raising the citadel to the 2nd deck makes the ship too vulnerable. The 2nd deck is 7 ft 9 in (2.4 m) above the correct height of the 3rd deck, which is roughly at waterline. In fact, the entire reason WG did a HP redistribution is that the current Alaska’s citadel at the incorrectly modeled 3rd deck is too difficult to hit, while a citadel at the height of the 2nd deck would be too vulnerable, hence this compromise. This redistribution would make damage saturation more difficult. However, if they modeled the 3rd deck correctly, the citadel would then be at waterline, making the ship easier to citadel without being unduly vulnerable. This correction means we can also do away with the HP redistribution, which can actually help against HE damage due to saturation mechanics.
  13. Grudge against American ships? Then explain to me why I primarily use American ships both on this account and on my alternate, or why I chose to rank out on that account this season with the Montana. For the most part, armor models and the layout of the magazines and machinery spaces is accurate in this game. There are some variances, such as the omission of STS in some areas, but as a whole that's the exception, not the norm. I find it insulting that you managed to interpret my effort in making Alaska's model more accurate as "a grudge against American ships". Furthermore, I've made numerous other topics and posts highlighting inaccuracies that I would like to see fixed, such as correcting the Gearing's excessive beam in-game. Quite a few of these posts and topics would actually be beneficial for American ships. So much for "grudge".
  14. You do realize that if WG corrects the 3rd deck height, it would be at waterline level, which is the same height as high tier American battleship citadels after the change?
  15. Putting Alaska's citadel at the waterline wouldn’t make her extremely susceptible to being outright devastated. I really wish people can stop repeating this hyperbole. Keep in mind that Kronstadt's citadel is also at waterline, and yet still does quite well. Stalingrad's citadel is even larger, though admittedly it has other qualities to compensate for that. Furthermore, I don't understand how you can consider North Carolina's citadel height to be excessively vulnerable.
×