Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Aragathor

[NA] LittleWhiteMouse - testing the penetration changes to torpedo bulges

66 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BYOB]
Players
3,305 posts
11,625 battles

@LittleWhiteMousehas tested the new torpedo bulge penetration changes which will in the future deal damage to ships, instead of being no damage pens. Link below:

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/173813-mouses-morning-of-testing/

 

The meat of the change is that hits that penetrate torpedo bulges will in the future deal 10% damage instead of 0 damage. This means that torpedo bulges will guarantee damage even to properly angled ships.

This is a massive nerf to ships that have torpedo bulges, as it guarantees damage to parts of the ship that should mitigate damage taken. According to her not only BBs are going to taste the nerf hammer but also the following cruisers:

 

Spoiler

Not including ships in testing:

  • Japan - The impact here is minor with most belts being at or just slightly above the waterline.
    Aoba, Myoko (and ARP clones), Mogami, Atago, Ibuki, Zao
     
  • Soviet Union - Just one ship affected here and it's borrowed.
    Makarov
     
  • Germany - The minibattleships of the Germans are susceptible.
    Nurnberg, Roon, Hindenburg
     
  • France - France is probably the nation most affected. Not only does she have ships with anti-torpedo bulges, she has a lot of citadel "void" spaces internally.
    Emile Bertin, La Galissonniere, De Grasse, Algerie, Charles Martle, Saint Louis, Henri IV

 

That's right, the French cruisers from T5 up will get nerfed, just after being buffed with the MRB because few people played them. :Smile_facepalm:

Also nerfed are IJN cruisers, because it's easy to kick someone who is already on the ground.:Smile_sceptic:

 

The following premiums will have to be evaluated anew when the changes hit:

 

Spoiler

If this anti-torpedo bulge goes through, I have a LOT of reviews to amend.

  • Texas - I'm so sorry.
  • Warspite - vulnerable while brawling.
  • Arizona - nowhere near as well protected against AP as she was.
  • Dunkerque - angling won't save you.
  • Alabama - Stay at range.
  • Massachusetts - getting into secondary range is hella dangerous.
  • Gascogne - I'm sorry.
  • Jean Bart - play her as a sniper only
  • Nelson - I am so sorry.  At least you've got that portable drydock.  Too bad you'll need it for everything now.
  • Missouri - your payday might be compromised if you get too close.
  • Mutsu - tougher than Nagato... and most of the other tier VI BBs.
  • Ashitaka - tougher than Amagi, ironically.
  • Kii - Also tougher than Amagi.
  • Roma - Does this count as a buff?  Finally?
  • Tirpitz - CONGRATULATIONS, you just got buffed by proxy!
  • Scharnhorst - CONGRATULATIONS, you just got buffed by proxy!
  • Musashi - Laughing in overmatch.

 

If this change goes through, together with the DD AP pen changes and the Concealment Expert nerf, it will make BBs only playable as spawn point snipers.

@MrConwaywhy has WG decided to nerf the IJN and MN cruisers? And why are ships possesing torpedo bulges going to receive a nerf, since no one has asked for it?

 

 

PS: All spoiler text comes from @LittleWhiteMouse posts which clarified the changes on the NA forum.

  • Cool 10
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,893 posts
6,228 battles

Two of my fave ships Nagato and Amagi get hit, up untill now if you knew how to work angles they were pillboxes, if the change gose through, not so mutch anymore. :Smile_sceptic:

Lets see how this develops along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
795 posts
4,327 battles
7 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

 

why has WG decided to nerf the IJN and MN cruisers? And why are ships possesing torpedo bulges going to receive a nerf, since no one has asked for it?

 

Problem is, they thought we asked for it.

And I quote:

Capture.thumb.PNG.c96d825720a2536f3717ced5461e887a.PNG

"In closing, we would like to note, that we’ve seen many positive comments about the effects of this error"

"we’ve seen many positive comments about the effects of this error"

"positive comments about the effects of this error"

"positive comments"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
893 posts
3,164 battles
3 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Problem is, they thought we asked for it.

 

How the hell do you manage to come to that conclusion? You do know that the error in question was pretty much exactly the opposite of the change they're testing now?

 

The error people reacted positively to was something that made it easier for large calibers to score citadel hits on broadside targets. This is going to make death by a thousand paper cuts easier, but isn't going to make any significant difference when shooting broadside targets with large calibers.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,017 posts
6,041 battles

Typical WG sledgehammer fix.

Ofc many times ppl said that, modules eating damage is questionable.

Torpedo bulge = module in WGs book?

 

Im fine with modules/saturated areas receiving some damage, but noone really ever asked for torpedo bulges to take damage :cap_book:

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWTP]
Players
450 posts
6,751 battles
4 minuty temu, KarmaQU_EU napisał:

Problem is, they thought we asked for it.

And I quote:

Capture.thumb.PNG.c96d825720a2536f3717ced5461e887a.PNG

"In closing, we would like to note, that we’ve seen many positive comments about the effects of this error"

"we’ve seen many positive comments about the effects of this error"

"positive comments about the effects of this error"

"positive comments"

It was about citadels, not about 10% on torpedo bulges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
795 posts
4,327 battles
9 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

How the hell do you manage to come to that conclusion? You do know that the error in question was pretty much exactly the opposite of the change they're testing now? 

6 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

It was about citadels, not about 10% on torpedo bulges.

 

They just want to do away with "hit something but do no damage" cases. Such as hitting external modules for 0 damage.

 

The "hit bulges for small damage" is just another way of saying "make shells hitting below the waterline count more often". Doesn't matter if they hit bulges or citadels. It's overall design direction.

 

Personally I can sympathize with their logic, imagine this scenario: trying to aim for citadels like a good player should, then seeing 2/3 of your shells do absolutely nothing because they hit the water, and the remaining 2 overpen because sigma. Ironically you would have done more damage if you aimed your shells solely at their superstructure (like a noob) for guaranteed overpens but still better than 0 damage water hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,940 posts
7,767 battles
Just now, DFens_666 said:

Typical WG sledgehammer fix.

Ofc many times ppl said that, modules eating damage is questionable.

Torpedo bulge = module in WGs book?

 

Im fine with modules/saturated areas receiving some damage, but noone really ever asked for torpedo bulges to take damage :cap_book:

honestly... for me, it was always the Detailed Ribbons that were the problem, because they quite often showed something completely disconnected from what was happening on the rest of the screen. Whether it's "zero damage pens", or the infamous "single overpen does 10k damage" idiocy, the problem was with the Ribbons (well, except BBs getting excessive AP damage against DDs - that really was a big balancing issue). So, why didnt WG just fix the damn Ribbons to reflect what was actually happening damage wise? That would have eliminated (most of) the complaints without the need to screw over lots and lots of ships...

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
893 posts
3,164 battles

Regarding the change itself, this is a bit like fixing a squeaky AC fan in your car by removing the AC unit. Sure, it technically solves the problem you were complaining about, but there are better solutions...

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,017 posts
6,041 battles
Just now, KarmaQU_EU said:

They just want to do away with "hit something but do no damage" cases. Such as hitting external modules for 0 damage.

 

But there is a difference when you hit a module or the torpedo bulge.

If you hit a Module, you will get a penetration/overpen ribbon (afaik) but in the first case you dont deal damage and the 2nd you deal overpen damage (this was indeed not correct).

If you hit the torpedobulge, you wont get a penetration unless you penetrate the armor belt aswell! Otherwise you are presented with a shatter or ricochet ribbon. So there is no logic in torpedo bulges receicing damage. Other example is shooting HE at the main belt of a BB, where you will ALWAYS shatter because there is no space between Bulge and Belt armor.

 

Basicly this is an INSANE HE Cruiser buff - and as a Cruiser main i hate that, i dont want it. I want reasonable changes for Cruisers, not retarded shoot where you want and get damage crap.

 

3 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

honestly... for me, it was always the Detailed Ribbons that were the problem, because they quite often showed something completely disconnected from what was happening on the rest of the screen. Whether it's "zero damage pens", or the infamous "single overpen does 10k damage" idiocy, the problem was with the Ribbons (well, except BBs getting excessive AP damage against DDs - that really was a big balancing issue). So, why didnt WG just fix the damn Ribbons to reflect what was actually happening damage wise? That would have eliminated (most of) the complaints without the need to screw over lots and lots of ships...

 

Thats a good point:

If you get 2 overpen ribbons and deal 12k damage (i think i have a screenshot from that), then it presents you that something is wrong. If you would see 2 Pen + 2 overpen ribbons, you would think that everything is allright. The problem with this is, you think you hit 4 shells, while in reality you hit only 2.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,875 posts
6,022 battles
1 minute ago, Uglesett said:

Regarding the change itself, this is a bit like fixing a squeaky AC fan in your car by removing the AC unit. Sure, it technically solves the problem you were complaining about, but there are better solutions...

 

More like turning the entire inside of the car into a fridge - which cant be turned off :/

 

4 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

honestly... for me, it was always the Detailed Ribbons that were the problem

 

Yep, same here. Once you start to pay attention to it, you cant get your mind away from it anymore and you see it happen all the time. Annoying.

 

5 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

So, why didnt WG just fix the damn Ribbons to reflect what was actually happening damage wise? That would have eliminated (most of) the complaints without the need to screw over lots and lots of ships...

 

I somehow feel, that the AP on DD change and the penetration of modules/torpedo bulges are related. Maybe the engine it limiting the options for WG, so its both of them or neither. Everything else would need extensive work on the engine. This is however speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
737 posts
245 battles

Well seems like going up the french cruiser line was semi-pointless. oh well might go up the american or uk line at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,940 posts
7,767 battles
4 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Thats a good point:

If you get 2 overpen ribbons and deal 12k damage (i think i have a screenshot from that), then it presents you that something is wrong. If you would see 2 Pen + 2 overpen ribbons, you would think that everything is allright. The problem with this is, you think you hit 4 shells, while in reality you hit only 2.

yup, but in the vast majority of cases, just from looking ingame you can't be sure that you only hit two shells - it it's a mid to long range salvo, and I get 12k damage, the I'll just assume that I hit the right amount of shells to get that damage even if it looked different from my perspective. Much easier to just assume the shells ingame were rendered slightly off (and/or desync came into play on the rendering) and apply some suspension of disbelief to that, than to see the game presenting two or even three completely contradictory sets of information about the same event to you...

 

6 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

I somehow feel, that the AP on DD change and the penetration of modules/torpedo bulges are related. Maybe the engine it limiting the options for WG, so its both of them or neither. Everything else would need extensive work on the engine. This is however speculation.

quite possible - we'll probably never know for sure :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,017 posts
6,041 battles
1 minute ago, Tyrendian89 said:

yup, but in the vast majority of cases, just from looking ingame you can't be sure that you only hit two shells - it it's a mid to long range salvo, and I get 12k damage, the I'll just assume that I hit the right amount of shells to get that damage even if it looked different from my perspective. Much easier to just assume the shells ingame were rendered slightly off (and/or desync came into play on the rendering) and apply some suspension of disbelief to that, than to see the game presenting two or even three completely contradictory sets of information about the same event to you...

 

But the receiving end will still look like this (and ppl would again say that something is wrong)

 

shot-18_11.01_21_26.47-0458.thumb.jpg.49283651e61dd07c2d679b0c287540db.jpg

 

Match from yesterday. And the problem is, that i see this getting fixed for DDs now, but not for Cruisers :Smile_sad:

 

But if we consider what you said in the BB AP thread, we can speculate now whats the problem:

One shell dealing more damage than it should

A shell not registering but still dealing damage (maybe THIS is the actual problem, as you said you never had this bug in the training room, which could mean, that the server has an easier time registering all hits!)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,940 posts
7,767 battles
1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

 

But the receiving end will still look like this (and ppl would again say that something is wrong)

 

shot-18_11.01_21_26.47-0458.thumb.jpg.49283651e61dd07c2d679b0c287540db.jpg

 

Match from yesterday. And the problem is, that i see this getting fixed for DDs now, but not for Cruisers :Smile_sad:

 

But if we consider what you said in the BB AP thread, we can speculate now whats the problem:

One shell dealing more damage than it should

A shell not registering but still dealing damage (maybe THIS is the actual problem, as you said you never had this bug in the training room, which could mean, that the server has an easier time registering all hits!)

true, I sort of hadnt thought about the post-match detailed results...:cap_old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,688 posts
6,977 battles
50 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

@LittleWhiteMousehas tested the new torpedo bulge penetration changes which will in the future deal damage to ships, instead of being no damage pens. Link below:

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/173813-mouses-morning-of-testing/

 

The meat of the change is that hits that penetrate torpedo bulges will in the future deal 10% damage instead of 0 damage. This means that torpedo bulges will guarantee damage even to properly angled ships.

This is a massive nerf to ships that have torpedo bulges, as it guarantees damage to parts of the ship that should mitigate damage taken. According to her not only BBs are going to taste the nerf hammer but also the following cruisers:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Not including ships in testing:

  • Japan - The impact here is minor with most belts being at or just slightly above the waterline.
    Aoba, Myoko (and ARP clones), Mogami, Atago, Ibuki, Zao
     
  • Soviet Union - Just one ship affected here and it's borrowed.
    Makarov
     
  • Germany - The minibattleships of the Germans are susceptible.
    Nurnberg, Roon, Hindenburg
     
  • France - France is probably the nation most affected. Not only does she have ships with anti-torpedo bulges, she has a lot of citadel "void" spaces internally.
    Emile Bertin, La Galissonniere, De Grasse, Algerie, Charles Martle, Saint Louis, Henri IV

 

That's right, the French cruisers from T5 up will get nerfed, just after being buffed with the MRB because few people played them. :Smile_facepalm:

Also nerfed are IJN cruisers, because it's easy to kick someone who is already on the ground.:Smile_sceptic:

 

The following premiums will have to be evaluated anew when the changes hit:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

If this anti-torpedo bulge goes through, I have a LOT of reviews to amend.

  • Texas - I'm so sorry.
  • Warspite - vulnerable while brawling.
  • Arizona - nowhere near as well protected against AP as she was.
  • Dunkerque - angling won't save you.
  • Alabama - Stay at range.
  • Massachusetts - getting into secondary range is hella dangerous.
  • Gascogne - I'm sorry.
  • Jean Bart - play her as a sniper only
  • Nelson - I am so sorry.  At least you've got that portable drydock.  Too bad you'll need it for everything now.
  • Missouri - your payday might be compromised if you get too close.
  • Mutsu - tougher than Nagato... and most of the other tier VI BBs.
  • Ashitaka - tougher than Amagi, ironically.
  • Kii - Also tougher than Amagi.
  • Roma - Does this count as a buff?  Finally?
  • Tirpitz - CONGRATULATIONS, you just got buffed by proxy!
  • Scharnhorst - CONGRATULATIONS, you just got buffed by proxy!
  • Musashi - Laughing in overmatch.

 

If this change goes through, together with the DD AP pen changes and the Concealment Expert nerf, it will make BBs only playable as spawn point snipers.

@MrConwaywhy has WG decided to nerf the IJN and MN cruisers? And why are ships possesing torpedo bulges going to receive a nerf, since no one has asked for it?

 

 

PS: All spoiler text comes from @LittleWhiteMouse posts which clarified the changes on the NA forum.

So basically, this is what's gonna happen?

 

penchanges.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,487 posts
5,898 battles

Still glad there is only a month left of premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,051 posts
7,554 battles
51 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

So basically, this is what's gonna happen?

 

penchanges.jpg

Pretty much. FR cruisers might be more vulnerable to high pen HE hitting armor belt, as situations where shell penetrates 100mm external plating but fails to penetrate inner 40mm citadel plating are rather rare. On other hand, Henri IV with 19mm torp bulge covering outer 140mm plating and then 45mm citadel plating... I wonder if WG can into working as intended here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,762 posts
15,783 battles

The only way WG can fix this mess is if they  asign a really low ammount of HP to the bulges  say 5% per side.

 

else this will be an utter balancing mess....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
893 posts
3,164 battles
9 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

The only way WG can fix this mess is if they  asign a really low ammount of HP to the bulges  say 5% per side.

But that won't matter, because penetrations to saturated areas are going to cause 10% of maximum shell damage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,762 posts
15,783 battles
2 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

But that won't matter, because penetrations to saturated areas are going to cause 10% of maximum shell damage...

 ok then its just stupid

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
893 posts
3,164 battles

Royal Navy CLs are going to be absolutely hilarious if this goes through, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,588 posts
6,372 battles

Edited

Edited by flashmove_iron
This post has been moderated by the moderation team due to sexist remarks
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
893 posts
3,164 battles
20 hours ago, AnEvilJoke said:

Edited

One of the departments at my workplace does network security testing. I've been immunized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×