Jump to content
YabbaCoe

BB AP changes on DD

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG-EU]
[WG-EU]
WG Staff
1,533 posts
3,130 battles

Captains! 

 

Please leave your feedback about changes in BB APs on DDs in this thread. More information about those changes can be found in our portal article

ad181eb8-dcf6-11e8-b82e-ac162d8bc1e4.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
92 posts
6,007 battles

Is this thread also for the new 10% rule and Bulges count as extremity armor/we removed spaced armor from the game feedback or does that need to posted in another already existing thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PGTIP]
Beta Tester
7 posts
4,361 battles
5 hours ago, snakecake said:

Is this thread also for the new 10% rule and Bulges count as extremity armor/we removed spaced armor from the game feedback or does that need to posted in another already existing thread?

Yeah, by hiding this under the BB AP vs DD change, it's easy to avoid discussion about it altogether! Clever!

 

I oppose both changes. The BB AP vs DD issue is the more minor one, and since the current DDs are far from unplayable after certain radar nerfs, I simply don't see the problem in the current damage mechanics. However, I especially hate the exclusion of two ships from this mechanic. This is plain stupid, and would be the first time a specific ship is excluded from a universal damage mechanic. This only confuses people, and is in no way needed to nerf these two ships. It also creates a predecent to single out ships and make them fundamentally work differently. The current varying HE penetration formulas, spotting & radar ranges, and hidden (still) sigma & krupp values are an issue themselves. There is already a lot for the average player to memorize and learn, introducing separate damage formulas for different ships is not the way to go.

 

If you consider Harugumo and Khabarovsk overpowered, why did you introduce 1/4 HE pen for the whole Akizuki line? Why did Khabarovsk already get nerfed in range and rudder shift, while the easiest solution would have simple been to nerf its ludicrous speed. The ship, with the belt armor and 4 turrets was never intended even in "sekrit dokuments" to go that fast.

 

It sometimes seems to me that when nerfing / buffing ships, the developers rarely go for the obvious choice. Hood suffers from slow turrets and inaccurate guns? Lets make the turrets heckin' (unrealistaclly) fast, and leave the guns as is. USS West Virginia is a famously rebuilt thicc American BB? Lets make it a pre-Pearl nerfed tier 6 version instead! etc. etc.

 

The 10% damage vs bulges issue, however... I don't even know where to start.

 

If there was an issue with the no-damage penetrations, why not simply call them such? Make a new ribbon, called "module hit" or "bulge hit". The fact that you simply change the damage mechanics instead of fixing the UI, is mindboggling. Now every signle small pew pew gun could damage a fully armored battleship, shooting its thickest armor, is laughable. 200 damage per AP hit, that x 5 or 6 on high tiers, that is 1500 damage every 4-5 seconds. With literally no skill involved by aiming at the parts of the ship that you actually should be able to damage. Just aim at center of mass.

 

Another can of worms you are opening are the numerous premium ships suffering from this. While you have excluded ships from purely blanket nerfs before (Gremy & Kamikaze gun damage, Kutuzov range with AFT nerf etc.), this change is NOT even a blanket nerf. The stealth firing nerf was a blanket nerf, it simply meant that no matter the class, or range, or gun caliber, stealth firing simply was not a thing anymore. It applied to premium ships too, ofc. But now you are introducing a mechanic that BUFFS ships with no bulges (looking at you Mutsu, Ashitaka, Kii) and makes their armor BETTER than the ships... bear with me... that had *gasp* an EXTRA layer of armor, in front of their main belt. In many cases (tier 8+) the bulges in the middle are thinner than the extremities of the ship, and sometimes cover the whole side of the ship (RIP Amagi). Now it suddenly becomes easier to deal damage against the previously thickes part of the ship, because now it is suddenly the weakest part of the ship.

 

Lets take an example, a Panzer IV tank. Later models had these large sideskits covering the tracks and also extra plates surrounding the turret. Meant to deflect AT rifle rounds and to detonate HEAT rounds before they reach the main armor plate. Now, with your current mechanic, the tank would take damage from everything that goes through the plates, even if literally nothing of importance (in this case, just air) is between them and the main armor.

 

In warships, the torpedo bulge acts the same way. It is meant to detonate the torpedo warhead, and while filled with both air and water, protect the main belt from damage by providing a buffer zone. Now you introduce a change where simply by shooting a part that has nothing in it, causes damage.:Smile_facepalm:

 

I really hope that you think this change through, and at the very least separate the external bulges from it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_GG_]
Weekend Tester
261 posts
2,375 battles
9 hours ago, koivis said:

Yeah, by hiding this under the BB AP vs DD change, it's easy to avoid discussion about it altogether! Clever!

 

I oppose both changes. The BB AP vs DD issue is the more minor one, and since the current DDs are far from unplayable after certain radar nerfs, I simply don't see the problem in the current damage mechanics. However, I especially hate the exclusion of two ships from this mechanic. This is plain stupid, and would be the first time a specific ship is excluded from a universal damage mechanic. This only confuses people, and is in no way needed to nerf these two ships. It also creates a predecent to single out ships and make them fundamentally work differently. The current varying HE penetration formulas, spotting & radar ranges, and hidden (still) sigma & krupp values are an issue themselves. There is already a lot for the average player to memorize and learn, introducing separate damage formulas for different ships is not the way to go.

 

If you consider Harugumo and Khabarovsk overpowered, why did you introduce 1/4 HE pen for the whole Akizuki line? Why did Khabarovsk already get nerfed in range and rudder shift, while the easiest solution would have simple been to nerf its ludicrous speed. The ship, with the belt armor and 4 turrets was never intended even in "sekrit dokuments" to go that fast.

 

It sometimes seems to me that when nerfing / buffing ships, the developers rarely go for the obvious choice. Hood suffers from slow turrets and inaccurate guns? Lets make the turrets heckin' (unrealistaclly) fast, and leave the guns as is. USS West Virginia is a famously rebuilt thicc American BB? Lets make it a pre-Pearl nerfed tier 6 version instead! etc. etc.

 

The 10% damage vs bulges issue, however... I don't even know where to start.

 

If there was an issue with the no-damage penetrations, why not simply call them such? Make a new ribbon, called "module hit" or "bulge hit". The fact that you simply change the damage mechanics instead of fixing the UI, is mindboggling. Now every signle small pew pew gun could damage a fully armored battleship, shooting its thickest armor, is laughable. 200 damage per AP hit, that x 5 or 6 on high tiers, that is 1500 damage every 4-5 seconds. With literally no skill involved by aiming at the parts of the ship that you actually should be able to damage. Just aim at center of mass.

 

Another can of worms you are opening are the numerous premium ships suffering from this. While you have excluded ships from purely blanket nerfs before (Gremy & Kamikaze gun damage, Kutuzov range with AFT nerf etc.), this change is NOT even a blanket nerf. The stealth firing nerf was a blanket nerf, it simply meant that no matter the class, or range, or gun caliber, stealth firing simply was not a thing anymore. It applied to premium ships too, ofc. But now you are introducing a mechanic that BUFFS ships with no bulges (looking at you Mutsu, Ashitaka, Kii) and makes their armor BETTER than the ships... bear with me... that had *gasp* an EXTRA layer of armor, in front of their main belt. In many cases (tier 8+) the bulges in the middle are thinner than the extremities of the ship, and sometimes cover the whole side of the ship (RIP Amagi). Now it suddenly becomes easier to deal damage against the previously thickes part of the ship, because now it is suddenly the weakest part of the ship.

 

Lets take an example, a Panzer IV tank. Later models had these large sideskits covering the tracks and also extra plates surrounding the turret. Meant to deflect AT rifle rounds and to detonate HEAT rounds before they reach the main armor plate. Now, with your current mechanic, the tank would take damage from everything that goes through the plates, even if literally nothing of importance (in this case, just air) is between them and the main armor.

 

In warships, the torpedo bulge acts the same way. It is meant to detonate the torpedo warhead, and while filled with both air and water, protect the main belt from damage by providing a buffer zone. Now you introduce a change where simply by shooting a part that has nothing in it, causes damage.:Smile_facepalm:

 

I really hope that you think this change through, and at the very least separate the external bulges from it.

 

You wrote it down better than I probably could. I'd also like to add that the torpedo bulge changes affect some ships while leaving others completely unchanged, which is just.. Wrong. If a ship is overperforming, nerf the ship. If a mechanic is broken, nerf the mechanic. Torpedo bulges have never been accused of being broken or overpowered, neither has any ship been accused of being overpowered simply because it has a good torpedo protection so these changes are completely unwanted and unnecessary at best. Bulges are supposed to be EXTRA armouring and protection, and after this change they will simply be a hindrance and a clear downside to any ship, and that's just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
748 posts
10,706 battles
On 11/2/2018 at 10:28 PM, koivis said:

I oppose both changes. The BB AP vs DD issue is the more minor one, and since the current DDs are far from unplayable after certain radar nerfs, I simply don't see the problem in the current damage mechanics.

The problem is that AP Shells got a bugged dmg system and especial with high caliber you can use the bug vs very thin armor- it is called the AP-multipen-bug.(one shell does multiple dmg)

 Most guys see this bug at BB shells vs DD- so WG create this change, but it does not solve the problem with AP multi pen to other ships (looks like, bc did not try at testserver)

 

It is a big part at german com that now ask for repair the multi pen bug that is known for  2 years...

 

 but it does not look like WG want to repair the AP system, just put a big patch on it and hope no one will call again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-B]
Players
738 posts
2,427 battles
On 11/2/2018 at 10:28 PM, koivis said:

Yeah, by hiding this under the BB AP vs DD change, it's easy to avoid discussion about it altogether! Clever!

 

I oppose both changes. The BB AP vs DD issue is the more minor one, and since the current DDs are far from unplayable after certain radar nerfs, I simply don't see the problem in the current damage mechanics. However, I especially hate the exclusion of two ships from this mechanic. This is plain stupid, and would be the first time a specific ship is excluded from a universal damage mechanic. This only confuses people, and is in no way needed to nerf these two ships. It also creates a predecent to single out ships and make them fundamentally work differently. The current varying HE penetration formulas, spotting & radar ranges, and hidden (still) sigma & krupp values are an issue themselves. There is already a lot for the average player to memorize and learn, introducing separate damage formulas for different ships is not the way to go.

 

If you consider Harugumo and Khabarovsk overpowered, why did you introduce 1/4 HE pen for the whole Akizuki line? Why did Khabarovsk already get nerfed in range and rudder shift, while the easiest solution would have simple been to nerf its ludicrous speed. The ship, with the belt armor and 4 turrets was never intended even in "sekrit dokuments" to go that fast.

 

It sometimes seems to me that when nerfing / buffing ships, the developers rarely go for the obvious choice. Hood suffers from slow turrets and inaccurate guns? Lets make the turrets heckin' (unrealistaclly) fast, and leave the guns as is. USS West Virginia is a famously rebuilt thicc American BB? Lets make it a pre-Pearl nerfed tier 6 version instead! etc. etc.

 

The 10% damage vs bulges issue, however... I don't even know where to start.

 

If there was an issue with the no-damage penetrations, why not simply call them such? Make a new ribbon, called "module hit" or "bulge hit". The fact that you simply change the damage mechanics instead of fixing the UI, is mindboggling. Now every signle small pew pew gun could damage a fully armored battleship, shooting its thickest armor, is laughable. 200 damage per AP hit, that x 5 or 6 on high tiers, that is 1500 damage every 4-5 seconds. With literally no skill involved by aiming at the parts of the ship that you actually should be able to damage. Just aim at center of mass.

 

Another can of worms you are opening are the numerous premium ships suffering from this. While you have excluded ships from purely blanket nerfs before (Gremy & Kamikaze gun damage, Kutuzov range with AFT nerf etc.), this change is NOT even a blanket nerf. The stealth firing nerf was a blanket nerf, it simply meant that no matter the class, or range, or gun caliber, stealth firing simply was not a thing anymore. It applied to premium ships too, ofc. But now you are introducing a mechanic that BUFFS ships with no bulges (looking at you Mutsu, Ashitaka, Kii) and makes their armor BETTER than the ships... bear with me... that had *gasp* an EXTRA layer of armor, in front of their main belt. In many cases (tier 8+) the bulges in the middle are thinner than the extremities of the ship, and sometimes cover the whole side of the ship (RIP Amagi). Now it suddenly becomes easier to deal damage against the previously thickes part of the ship, because now it is suddenly the weakest part of the ship.

 

Lets take an example, a Panzer IV tank. Later models had these large sideskits covering the tracks and also extra plates surrounding the turret. Meant to deflect AT rifle rounds and to detonate HEAT rounds before they reach the main armor plate. Now, with your current mechanic, the tank would take damage from everything that goes through the plates, even if literally nothing of importance (in this case, just air) is between them and the main armor.

 

In warships, the torpedo bulge acts the same way. It is meant to detonate the torpedo warhead, and while filled with both air and water, protect the main belt from damage by providing a buffer zone. Now you introduce a change where simply by shooting a part that has nothing in it, causes damage.:Smile_facepalm:

 

I really hope that you think this change through, and at the very least separate the external bulges from it.

The proper nerf for the Khaba should have been to nerf turret traverse to 18 seconds stock ... that way your speed works against you at some point in time and you cannot turn on a dime to evade while still having guns on target ...

 

WG as always picked the wrong way to do it ....

 

As for the bulges, the proper change would be to reduce the torpedo protection on those ships on penetrations and substitute the ribbon for an incapacitation one .... the flat 10% damage is a bit stupid ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
320 posts
9,061 battles

Problem of large damage to DD's from BBAP is not rare, it happens every game, every 2-3 salvos so any change fixing this issue (even partly) is welcome. For me best change of this year.

 

//edit

While 10% damage to bulges is horribly bad idea.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,241 posts
15,368 battles

As an once dd main , this one is a really bad idea. Why not give dd's a heal from t9-t10 this is where you got super accurate BB's and the bb ap to dd is the biggest issue here 

 

But they need to be punished regardless of ammo , if they make a mistake. It is the life of the dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff
2,424 posts
2,332 battles
On 11/7/2018 at 5:15 PM, Griva said:

Problem of large damage to DD's from BBAP is not rare, it happens every game, every 2-3 salvos so any change fixing this issue (even partly) is welcome. For me best change of this year.

 

//edit

While 10% damage to bulges is horribly bad idea.

 

We scrapped the damage to bulges! :)

 

5 hours ago, Ysterpyp said:

As an once dd main , this one is a really bad idea. Why not give dd's a heal from t9-t10 this is where you got super accurate BB's and the bb ap to dd is the biggest issue here 

 

But they need to be punished regardless of ammo , if they make a mistake. It is the life of the dd

 

That would not solve the issue of RNG just sometimes sending you back to port. BBs will still hurt a DD, but consistently so.

 

It also doesn't hurt BBs to adjust and actually load some HE before blapping the DDs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,241 posts
15,368 battles
On 11/9/2018 at 2:13 PM, MrConway said:

 

That would not solve the issue of RNG just sometimes sending you back to port. BBs will still hurt a DD, but consistently so.

 

It also doesn't hurt BBs to adjust and actually load some HE before blapping the DDs.

That is fine and all , but this is still a nerf to kronshtat , any plans if this goes live to buff the HE then because it virtually useless , and now the ap will only do 900 dmg to dd's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
47 posts
8,439 battles

Hello, on the topic of saturating BB AP damamge on DDs to 10%

 

I am really dissapointed. it is a very bad change because anything which does not follow a general rule is only a potential source of problems, something extra to remember for new players (again, instead of following a general rule) and a patch to hide some other broken mechanic in the backglorund. Moreover, this exception holds exceptions to itself making Khabarovsk (I guess because you did not know how to deal with the 50 mm plate on the exception) and Harugumo (I guess because you do not dare to buff it, relatively to the other DDs. But again, this is an exception as this DD does not have any special armour feature).

 

The elephant in the room is the double AP pen problem (1 Monty AP on Gearing = over 7 k damage, ouch!) and the problem of why DDs remain spotted within killing range of BBs (8-12 km) for long enough for the BB to actually, reload (but not long enough for the BB to swap ammo to HE even if that was the best ammo) and turn the turrets and aim on them: And that is the big meta problem of Radar.

 

You are hiding behind the BB AP pen on DDs rework (using it as a patch) instead of addressing the underlying meta (radar) and internal ricochets (double AP damage) problems. And this is not nice. Rather than commiting to solving the underlying problems you are putting an ugly patch which goes against the general game´s mechanics. Next thing: I will begin crying in order for Roma to have an exception so that it cannot overpen despite its fast shells, because, you know, learning to fire at an slightly angled cruiser instead of perfectly broadside is too difficult... It is the same problem, a general mechanic (very fast sehlls overpening cruisers) leads to some apparently unexpected situation, so yeah, please, hardcode that Roma cannot get overpens, will you?

 

This 10% rule means that a fast DD like, oh I do not know, Grozovi (with a very convenient heal), has no problem whatsoever charging bow on an enemy BB and torping at point blank range. You claim the BB should change to HE, but even if that was the best ammo, there is no time to change ammo if the DD charges straight to the BB (changing ammo can easily be 40 secs without firing)

 

Put effort on correcting the internal ricochets leading to huge AP pens and rework radar. Buff its range making it way longer, range = gun range, but make it be line of sight blocked and way shorter time (not more than 2 Moskva or Buffalo reloads respectively), in order to change it into a fleet info gathering tool rather than a DD killer tool. In this way there is counterplay for the DDs (hide between islands, you know, counterplay, that thing which now the BBs do not have if a DD charges bow on for point blank torping) and cruisers would move from behind islands giving useful information on the enemy fleet´s general position and movement (i.e. late game Moskva searching for the last 2 surviving ships, btw, current radar has absolutely no relation to the expected role of soviet cruisers meant for long range engagements...)

 

Very dissapointed.

 

Edit: Even more, it is disgusting that you violate general mechanics in order to avoid fixing what is broken, and even more, introduce ship-specific mechanics... Seriously, now I want anotehr ship specific implementation, let´s make Roma and French high speed shells never be allowed to over-pen, shall we? redefine overpens to regular pens, because, why not? You now have a ship specific damage implementation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff
2,424 posts
2,332 battles
On 11/12/2018 at 7:13 AM, Ysterpyp said:

That is fine and all , but this is still a nerf to kronshtat , any plans if this goes live to buff the HE then because it virtually useless , and now the ap will only do 900 dmg to dd's?

 

Not immediately, thats for sure. We'll look at how the meta settles after the change and then make changes where appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,241 posts
15,368 battles
39 minutes ago, MrConway said:

 

Not immediately, thats for sure. We'll look at how the meta settles after the change and then make changes where appropriate.

The accuracy is the main problem tho , its those banana guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
18 posts
4,453 battles

Honnestly I didn't notice a huge change in terms of damage done to dd in the public test, heavy cruiser like des moines or zao are still hitting like a truck dd even with the 10% pen damage reduction, BB's can still punish hard DD, especialy with Montana, Yamato and Republique. I found this change quite good and balanced

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,581 posts
6,874 battles
4 hours ago, Grand_Admiral_Thrawn_67 said:

Honnestly I didn't notice a huge change in terms of damage done to dd in the public test

That's bcuz nearly everything that BB gets on a DD when it actually hits a DD instead of just washing it with all the splashes around as the shells miss, is an overpen

 

The biggest change will be if they have actually removed the stupid multi-hits letting singe shell do multiple shells worth of dmg. But sure as hell - if that's the case, it's just an accident while fixing something that didn't need fixing in the 1st place

 

4 hours ago, Grand_Admiral_Thrawn_67 said:

heavy cruiser like des moines or zao

...don't have 281mm or larger guns, so they are 100% unaffected by the change

 

4 hours ago, Grand_Admiral_Thrawn_67 said:

BB's can still punish hard DD

Yeah, no. You can barely hit them due to the massive dispersion area, and when you hit doing like 7% of that DDs hp per hit really isn't much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAGE]
[RAGE]
Players
320 posts
9,061 battles

There is big change, actually very big one.  I tested it how it works with montana what is the most dangerous BB if it comes to AP and result was very balanced.

Side salvo from 5-7 km ended with 1k - 6k hp what is totaly fine the same goes for salvo from behind, it took like 4k - 10k where 12k damage was max and it's quite ok.

When i did the same with harugumo he got deleted in 1 salvo.

 

Fun fact - to do 12k damage to normal dd i had to hit 10/12 total shells while harugumo ate like 6 shells in total: 2 overpens and 4 pens for 24~ hp.

 

In general it is good becuase when you hit DD, he still eats damage and now it's not possible to get deleted by random pens.

If someone thing that DD can rush BB easly now then it's not, first of there are many radars, second before he comes he will lose a lot of hp or die and third even if not then you deserve to be killed by this DD becuase you are somewhere alone.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
390 posts

MrConway.

I'm concerned with my Scharnhorst and Graf spee.

Both have inaccurate guns  and anaemic HE for thier caliber.

One advantage they did have was a short fuse timer for their AP making full pens more frequent.

Would an increase in HE alpha or similar be a good idea?

I'd prefer an increase in accuracy for both but that might unbalance things.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
362 posts

So...lets summirise :

DDs spotting is buged because otherwise they wouldn't be totaly invisible in distances under 4kms (1st you spot their torpedos that hit you and suddenly you se a destroyer 2.5 kms away from you without a smoke cloud on the horizon.

Then we have Destroyers that can launch 15 torpedos salvos every 1,5 minutes that means that 4 of them can lauch over 520 torpedos feeling the map with them.

Reflexes and lucky shots were Battleships only defence in that broken thing and now WG removes that too. It continues the myth of over penetration forgeting that the engine (in most destroyers were in the middle) acts like a solid metal barrier! It also forgets that many modern AFVs and Tanks use their engines as another layer of armor...But for WG detrsoyers are totaly empty in them and that is why we have over penetrations...

Then the destroyer crews that were afraid to aproach enemy Battleships were stupid and idiots according to WG's logic.

Question what detectabillity 100 means? I saw that number in a friend's destroyer with the ship's values, captain's skills and cammo. Does this mean we have Klingon technology of Lord of the Rings Elvish cloak of invisibillity in the game?

If WG will insist that with detroyers will lose clients like world of tanks did when they made invisible two store building hight Tank destroyers simply because "tank destroyers must be invisible"!!!

Is this kind of game WG wants? If yes then make secondary weaponry of Cruisers and Battleships 50% more accurate be default ...And for God's sake do not mock us with the video about how ships can be detected because nothing of what you shown in that video exists in game!

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,581 posts
6,874 battles
2 hours ago, Anthoniusii said:

DDs spotting is buged because otherwise they wouldn't be totaly invisible in distances under 4kms (1st you spot their torpedos that hit you and suddenly you se a destroyer 2.5 kms away from you without a smoke cloud on the horizon.

Replay or didn't happen. Bcuz either there was smoke, he came around the island or he was spotted and you were simply oblivious

 

2 hours ago, Anthoniusii said:

Then we have Destroyers that can launch 15 torpedos salvos every 1,5 minutes that means that 4 of them can lauch over 520 torpedos feeling the map with them.

1) Your maths seems quite far off. 4 Shimas - the DD who can manage those 15 torps instead of the typical 10 that most others get at t10 (or even less if we go down lower) - can produce... 60 torps every 2 min. Not 520 every 1.5 min.

 

2) generally by the time you launch a new salvo of torps the 1st one has timed out and no longer exists, so that's 60 new torps not 60+60 torps

 

3) Buy a god damn keyboard, this game is not supposed to be played only with a mouse. Oh, you own a keyboard/ have you ever heard of the WASD keys then?

 

2 hours ago, Anthoniusii said:

Reflexes and lucky shots were Battleships only defence in that broken thing and now WG removes that too. It continues the myth of over penetration forgeting that the engine (in most destroyers were in the middle) acts like a solid metal barrier! It also forgets that many modern AFVs and Tanks use their engines as another layer of armor...But for WG detrsoyers are totaly empty in them and that is why we have over penetrations...

You clearly have no clue how this works, do you?

Also BBs, CVs and cruisers are just as empty as DDs are

 

2 hours ago, Anthoniusii said:

Question what detectabillity 100 means?

Nothing.

All of those stats let you at most to compare 2 identical ships - for example the one you are sailing with the same ship sailed by another player - to see if you are running the same build, and maybe to guestimate what setup is the CV running while loading in the game

 

Funniest thing - one ship with higher detectability score can sometimes still manage to be less stealthy than a different ship with a lower detectability score. Completely useless

 

2 hours ago, Anthoniusii said:

because nothing of what you shown in that video exists in game!

Everything of that works exactly as said there.

 

You being unable to comprehend it is a different story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,710 posts
9,234 battles
On 11/12/2018 at 7:13 AM, Ysterpyp said:

That is fine and all , but this is still a nerf to kronshtat , any plans if this goes live to buff the HE then because it virtually useless , and now the ap will only do 900 dmg to dd's?

 

Scrap a global change that's been direly needed for years because 2-3 cruisers with oversized guns more suited to hunting other cruisers and BBs might deal less damage to DDs?

Seems reasonable.
Especially when you factor in that having larger guns more suited for engaging larger ship should indeed totally have no downsides when engaging smaller targets.
/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,241 posts
15,368 battles
31 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

direly needed 

No its not  tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
272 posts
7,130 battles

For all of you complaining about the multi-pen issue: while i think you're partially right in that its weird to solve it in this way, it should never be scrapped altogether. The multipen "bug" is a beautiful mechanic that allows us to shoot citadels (without it that wouldnt even be possible at all- citadels are a secondary armour layer within the ship), deal citadel damage through bows- which i think is a good thing under the right circumstances, superstructures and so on, but all in limited cases. 

I think through the current change however many BBs will feel very underpowered against DDs, especially since cruisers largely ignore DDs in random battles unless they are at close range. Sure, a New Mex can still oneshot pretty much any tier 6 DD, but at lower ranges.... and they still have to be as stupid as they needed to be before. 

My suggestion: introduce BB vs DD citadel pens, dealing 1/3rd of the nominal citadel damage (previous pen damage). I say this as both a BB and a DD player, because as a DD player i sort of object too- i like how cruisers ignore us, the DD fleet, so much now, simply because they feel BBs should take care of themselves :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,581 posts
6,874 battles
7 hours ago, Isoruku_Yamamoto said:

For all of you complaining about the multi-pen issue: while i think you're partially right in that its weird to solve it in this way, it should never be scrapped altogether. The multipen "bug" is a beautiful mechanic that allows us to shoot citadels (without it that wouldnt even be possible at all- citadels are a secondary armour layer within the ship), deal citadel damage through bows- which i think is a good thing under the right circumstances, superstructures and so on, but all in limited cases. 

Uhhh... no.

Citadel hit is a citadel hit, not a citadel + 1...2 overpens.

Same exact thing should be for everything else. Pen is a pen. Overpen is an overpen. Not "3 of these + 2 of those...." in one shell

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
272 posts
7,130 battles
58 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Uhhh... no.

Citadel hit is a citadel hit, not a citadel + 1...2 overpens.

Same exact thing should be for everything else. Pen is a pen. Overpen is an overpen. Not "3 of these + 2 of those...." in one shell

 

 

 

While thats true, thats not what i'm talking about, neither is it what the multipen issue refers to. Multipens refer to a shell passing through multiple layers of armour, by which it can exceed fusing treshold which it normally wouldnt. This is why the whole AP on DD thing was an issue in the first place; a battleship penetrating a destroyers side would then hit mid-section armour, which caused the shell to fuse inside the ship while it should actually be an overpenetration. 
Bit complicated to explain to someone who doesnt know the entire mechanic, but okay. 
With citadels its the same thing: first the shell goes through regular armour. If it then has sufficient penetration capacity left, it will also pass into the citadel, unless it has already detonated before reaching the citadel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×