BB AP on DD's not working as intended

[DFens_666]

53 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Tested in a PvP game, can confirm

 

So what do we learn from that? When you are getting shot at, dont turn

 

Also i think: WG actually knows the problem with that, but dont want to admit it. Thats why MrConway said, its a feature, not a bug. And i also think, that the other AP changes (which they didnt go through with) somehow all connect to this same problem.

These different compartements on the ships must cause some weird problems - atleast thats what i think.

[mariouus]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

So what do we learn from that? When you are getting shot at, dont turn

 

Also i think: WG actually knows the problem with that, but dont want to admit it. Thats why MrConway said, its a feature, not a bug. And i also think, that the other AP changes (which they didnt go through with) somehow all connect to this same problem.

These different compartements on the ships must cause some weird problems - atleast thats what i think.

It is probably not a bug. You can see it happening in any ship class.Cruisers often take overpen damage on top of penetration damage. 

 

Basically shell penetrates the bow, then goes through transvere bulkhead and exit through the side of the midsection. So, two sections got hit and shell ended up out of the ship, so overpen damage on both sections is calculated. If several sections take damage from single Shell, it probably should be represented.

 

At the same time, can't call it a bug at this case. WG promiced to remove penetration damage from DDs and they did. 

[DFens_666]

1 minute ago, mariouus said:

It is probably not a bug. You can see it happening in any ship class.Cruisers often take overpen damage on top of penetration damage. 

 

Basically shell penetrates the bow, then goes through transvere bulkhead and exit through the side of the midsection. So, two sections got hit and shell ended up out of the ship, so overpen damage on both sections is calculated. If several sections take damage from single Shell, it probably should be represented.

 

At the same time, can't call it a bug at this case. WG promiced to remove penetration damage from DDs and they did. This is an stand-alone issue. 

 

Then why cant you reproduce this on a target which isnt moving? If you shoot a bow-on DD, then the BB shell should penetrate the bowsection and continue inside the DD. Even when penetrating, it would still pass more than the bowsection of the DD.

 

I believe, when the target is steering, it somehow screws with the shell movement and the different sections of the ship. Thats why, even when broadside, you get one shell dealing more damage than it should. Is it somehow possible that the shell enters the target, leaves it and enters it again? Thus the game would think, its a different shell?

 

And there are 2 options why it wont happen to BBs (atleast ive never seen it so far): Either the BB is too big (sections) or its too heavily armored.

[ForlornSailor]

23 minutes ago, mariouus said:

WG promiced to remove penetration damage from DDs and they did. 

 

And who asked for that?

 

24 minutes ago, mariouus said:

It is probably not a bug. You can see it happening in any ship class.Cruisers often take overpen damage on top of penetration damage. 

 

Yes, atleast cruisers take it quite often aswell. Now you can argue - is it a bug, is it a feature. I dont care tbh. I will state one questions: Should it work like that? And ill throw a big fat "no" out...

[mariouus]

18 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Then why cant you reproduce this on a target which isnt moving? If you shoot a bow-on DD, then the BB shell should penetrate the bowsection and continue inside the DD. Even when penetrating, it would still pass more than the bowsection of the DD.

 

I believe, when the target is steering, it somehow screws with the shell movement and the different sections of the ship. Thats why, even when broadside, you get one shell dealing more damage than it should. Is it somehow possible that the shell enters the target, leaves it and enters it again? Thus the game would think, its a different shell?

 

And there are 2 options why it wont happen to BBs (atleast ive never seen it so far): Either the BB is too big (sections) or its too heavily armored. 

Hard do say, why DDs are more affected when moving.

 

Cruisers actually can recive that kind of damage while stationary ( I have).

 

And BBs are also reciving that kind of damage. It is rarer, because BB plating is fairly thick and they are wide. Meaning that shell traveling through several sections with-out detonating is rare.

 

1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

And who asked for that?

Considering it met with overwhelming positive feedback.Even though me ( and you aswell) pointed out that it is not really addressing the original complaint.

 

WG offered a solution, DD players overwhelmingly accepted. Can't really see an issue here.

 

6 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Yes, atleast cruisers take it quite often aswell. Now you can argue - is it a bug, is it a feature. I dont care tbh. I will state one questions: Should it work like that? And ill throw a big fat "no" out...

It kind of should. Having a single shell going trought the lenght of the ship, should damage a ship more than a shell that goes from beam to beam.

[DFens_666]

4 minutes ago, mariouus said:

Hard do say, why DDs are more affected when moving.

Cruisers actually can recive that kind of damage while stationary ( I have).

And BBs are also reciving that kind of damage. It is rarer, because BB plating is fairly thick and they are wide. Meaning that shell traveling through several sections with-out detonating is rare.

 

1. I think its because DDs are moving faster, and when they are steering, they glide over the map. Cruisers do it too but less, and BBs basicly dont. Maybe thats the reason?

2. Ye, i got that one while moving 1/4 speed but rudder was hard left and 1 Yamato shell hit me for 17250 damage.

3. As i said, ive never seen it before. But its also harder to spot probably, since you will hit many more shells on a BB, and with all the modules i feel BBs also "eat" most of the penetration damage aka shells dealing 0 damage.

 

4 minutes ago, mariouus said:

Considering it met with overwhelming positive feedback.Even though me ( and you aswell) pointed out that it is not really addressing the original complaint.

WG offered a solution, DD players overwhelmingly accepted. Can't really see an issue here.

 

If BBs would be buffed, id say many players would be happy aswell

But i feel that created a whole new different issue - same as stupid BB players. DD rushing mindlessly in to "rush down a BB". While that happened before, i tried to pay attention to it while watching streams. And i feel it happened more often than before

Buff one class = make the playerbase more stupid. i think we need to make the game harder and more punishing to reverse that.

 

4 minutes ago, mariouus said:

It kind of should. Having a single shell going trought the lenght of the ship, should damage a ship more than a shell that goes from beam to beam.

 

I already feel that broadsiding is less punishing than showing your bow - which is imo questionable (atleast for Cruisers). Broadsiding might sometimes only give you overpens, while being bow on you get massive pen damage.

[camouflage_cat]

Vor 9 Stunden, DFens_666 sagte:

I believe, when the target is steering, it somehow screws with the shell movement and the different sections of the ship. Thats why, even when broadside, you get one shell dealing more damage than it should. Is it somehow possible that the shell enters the target, leaves it and enters it again? Thus the game would think, its a different shell?

If this was the case, then it would not occur with ships, which are not moving. When I tried to reproduce the situations where a shell did more damage than it should, I shot inactive bots in the training room and got more damage than it should according to the ribbons I got.

 

Vor 9 Stunden, DFens_666 sagte:

And there are 2 options why it wont happen to BBs (atleast ive never seen it so far): Either the BB is too big (sections) or its too heavily armored.

It happens to all ships, even BB. I had some situations, where I got more damage from one penetration than it should, when I shot BB.

[mcboernester]

Afaik they tried one possible fix on the PTS , also related to the DD pen mechanics, which lead to those hillarious Secondary Videos where a Kurfuerst Secondary just melts Cruisers in Seconds. 

 

Honestly I often have the Feeling that the Guy who created the original Code here isn't available anymore and WG just tries to bypass here 'cause nobody knows how to fix it ( just like the CVs :P). But the Topic's still on the Table. 

[NothingButTheRain]

Iirc the double pens were the original problem to begin with and the (artificial) limiting of normal pen damage was meant as a bypass to reduce the amount of single salvo damage many DD drivers were complaining about.

 

So these damage spikes were fixed by this AP damage change, but obviously the old bug should still be there.

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, camouflage_cat said:

If this was the case, then it would not occur with ships, which are not moving. When I tried to reproduce the situations where a shell did more damage than it should, I shot inactive bots in the training room and got more damage than it should according to the ribbons I got.

 

As i said, i tried it too (several time) and it never happened to me. And i know other ppl who said that they never got the bug in the training room

Do you happen to have screenshots from that?

 

30 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

So these damage spikes were fixed by this AP damage change, but obviously the old bug should still be there.

 

According to MrConway its a feature

[NothingButTheRain]

1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

According to MrConway its a feature

Perhaps, but in the end the nomenclature of this featurebug isn't really relevant anyway 

[Aotearas]

2 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

According to MrConway its a feature

But according to Sub_Octavian it's a bug.

 

So, can we just settle on WG not having a bloody clue as always?

[camouflage_cat]

Vor 1 Minute, DFens_666 sagte:

 

As i said, i tried it too (several time) and it never happened to me. And i know other ppl who said that they never got the bug in the training room

Do you happen to have screenshots from that?

No, unfortuantely I only had a replay but it was from an older version and it got deleted with the new patch, when all replays after a certain number got deleted.

[DFens_666]

Just now, Aotearas said:

But according to Sub_Octavian it's a bug.

 

So, can we just settle on WG not having a bloody clue as always?

 

I think its a bug that they dont know how to fix, so they go with "its a feature".

[Aotearas]

6 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

I think its a bug that they dont know how to fix, so they go with "its a feature".

Same as I'm taking it.

[Ysterpyp]

Same as t61 one then , had fun when playing cb cross server test until i ran into that thing

[ForlornSailor]

1 hour ago, Aotearas said:

So, can we just settle on WG not having a bloody clue as always?

 

Works for me

 

And I agree with you two: I too think they dont know how to fix it. Somehow I still suspect, the proposed torpedo bulge + module change has something to do with it and would have fixed it but it just would have screwed the entire gamebalance as we all know so they couldnt push through with it...

[ApesTogetherStronK]

I'm moderately amused that there is now a news article stating 'Were the AP changes too complicated?' 

No Wargaming, they clearly were not complicated enough. I think the evidence stacked up here proves that. And again @MrConway @Tuccy etc. can we get some official answers here? We've already established that some staff are saying feature and some saying bug, and even if this is a 'feature'; doesn't that basically defeat the entire point of the AP rework to begin with?

[Aotearas]

2 minutes ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

I'm moderately amused that there is now a news article stating 'Were the AP changes too complicated?' 

Wait what? Let me check real quick ... *le check news page* ... really!?

 

What part about DDs now only get 10% of AP max damage is too complicated?

Do people not understand what maximum damage means and now think their AP overpenetrations only do a bit more 100 damage?

Do people genuinely think that every DD is now just going to yolorush straight to the nearest enemy BB and get away with it because they can't be lolnuked by AP anymore?

Do people even entertain the illusion that a lone BB devoid of cruiser support is even meant to survive a 1vs1 against a DD even if it chose to sacrifice HP in a yolorush rather than just torp from stealth?

 

 

This is just sad. It's like the understanding of gameplay were a forlorn puppy in the rain; except for being picked up, nursed back to health and given a loving home by players it gets picked up by some PETA shmucks and delivered straight to a kill-shelter.

 

I can't even ...

[Kartoffelmos]

So, I went into a training room to test some overpenetration mechanics with my Zao against some low-tier cruisers. What I wanted to find out was whether or not one could overpenetrate parts of the superstructure and then penetrate/citadel/overpenetrate some other section of the ship. I quickly realised that having three guns per turret was not optimal so I tried the same with the Okhotnik instead. Shooting AP at the funnels of a Weymouth only resulted in 1 overpenetration, so there might be a limitation to one ribbon per compartment (Okhotnik's shells should in theory punch through multiple funnels when shooting Weymouth directly from the rear).

 

However, when I tried to citadel the cruiser in order to test if it's better to shoot slightly over the waterline or not, I was surprised by the result:

 

Prior to the shell impact:

 

After the shell impact (you can see the damage near the points display/counter):

 

One overpenetration caused 1075 damage. Considering that Okhotnik's shells deal 2500 damage, this should not be possible.

It is not an UI bug per se since 28263 - 27188 = 1075, nor is it a citadel since Okhotnik's shells are incapable of arming at 10 mm of armour at a flat angle (requires 22 mm). What I think is happening is that the shell enters the hull, bounces on the angled internal 51 mm citadel deck armour (green cross), arms itself when exiting the hull/entering the superstructure and then detonate inside, causing penetrating damage.

 

 

At least, the numbers add up this way: 2500 * 0,1 + 2500 * 0,33 = 1075.

 

EDIT: I also tried to reproduce it with Jurien since she does not have a citadel deck/roof above the waterline (thus no possible reflections) and the result was exclusively overpenetrations.

 

Now, what does this have to do with destroyers? If the superstructure is treated differently from the hull (or if multiple sections are treated as separate damage zones), one may overpenetrate that particular section and then overpenetrate the hull afterwards. If we use the Republique as an example, if she overpenetrate a Z-52's superstructure with two shells (which consequentially also "overpenetrate" the hull) while a third only overpenetrate the hull, we will end up with 14500 * 0,1 * 5 = 7250.

@Reaper_JackGBR

 

As such, the fact that AP can cause damage multiple times is a feature (though, is it a needed feature?) while the fact that a shell detonates twice clearly is a bug. Both MrConway and Sub_Octavian are therefore correct if you look at the context in which their answers were given (well, I assume S_O answered the "double penetration with one shell"-issue).

4 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

According to MrConway its a feature

4 hours ago, Aotearas said:

But according to Sub_Octavian it's a bug.

 

 

[wilkatis_LV]

10 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Spoiler

So, I went into a training room to test some overpenetration mechanics with my Zao against some low-tier cruisers. What I wanted to find out was whether or not one could overpenetrate parts of the superstructure and then penetrate/citadel/overpenetrate some other section of the ship. I quickly realised that having three guns per turret was not optimal so I tried the same with the Okhotnik instead. Shooting AP at the funnels of a Weymouth only resulted in 1 overpenetration, so there might be a limitation to one ribbon per compartment (Okhotnik's shells should in theory punch through multiple funnels when shooting Weymouth directly from the rear).

 

However, when I tried to citadel the cruiser in order to test if it's better to shoot slightly over the waterline or not, I was surprised by the result:

 

Prior to the shell impact:

 

After the shell impact (you can see the damage near the points display/counter):

 

One overpenetration caused 1075 damage. Considering that Okhotnik's shells deal 2500 damage, this should not be possible.

It is not an UI bug per se since 28263 - 27188 = 1075, nor is it a citadel since Okhotnik's shells are incapable of arming at 10 mm of armour at a flat angle (requires 22 mm). What I think is happening is that the shell enters the hull, bounces on the angled internal 51 mm citadel deck armour (green cross), arms itself when exiting the hull/entering the superstructure and then detonating inside, causing penetrating damage.

 

 

At least, the numbers add up this way: 2500 * 0,1 + 2500 * 0,33 = 1075.

 

Now, what does this have to do with destroyers? If the superstructure is treated differently from the hull (or if multiple sections are treated as separate damage zones), one may overpenetrate that particular section and then overpenetrate the hull afterwards. If we use the Republique as an example, if she overpenetrate a Z-52's superstructure with two shells (which consequentially also "overpenetrate" the hull) while a third only overpenetrate the hull, we will end up with 14500 * 0,1 * 5 = 7250.

@Reaper_JackGBR

 

As such, the fact that AP can cause damage multiple times is a feature (though, is it a needed feature?) while the fact that a shell detonate twice clearly is a bug. Both MrConway and Sub_Octavian are therefore correct if you look at the context in which their answers were given (well, I assume S_O answered the "double penetration with one shell"-issue).

 

 

Yes, that's pretty much how I know it works. Keep in mind that the hull has at least 4 different sections (bow / stern / and then the citadel area + rest of the midships area) with Superstructure as 5th.

 

More interesting question now is why do DDs get that only at full rudder turns

[Aotearas]

33 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

As such, the fact that AP can cause damage multiple times is a feature (though, is it a needed feature?) while the fact that a shell detonates twice clearly is a bug. Both MrConway and Sub_Octavian are therefore correct if you look at the context in which their answers were given (well, I assume S_O answered the "double penetration with one shell"-issue).

At this point however I would find it highly doubtful the two aren't directly correlated, considering the double damage penetration basically has to be caused by hitbox/compartment shenanigans as the damage calculations are pretty straightforward math and as such largely immune to random damage multiplications.

 

So in summary, a pretty buggy feature they got there.

 

22 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

More interesting question now is why do DDs get that only at full rudder turns

I'd ask if other classes don't seem to catch such odd hits with regularity under the same circumstances. If they prove themselves largely immune to the same issue, I'd supposition it's simple hitbox size: with larger compartments it's less likely a shell would pass through multiple ones rather than just into one compartment and out at the other side of the same.

[Kartoffelmos]

34 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Yes, that's pretty much how I know it works. Keep in mind that the hull has at least 4 different sections (bow / stern / and then the citadel area + rest of the midships area) with Superstructure as 5th.

 

Of course, but it is not that simple or we would see these kinds of results far more often. I did some tests with both Scharnhorst and Missouri against Gearing and Z-52, respectively, and the results were in accordance to the new rules (only 10% damage per shell no matter if it went through multiple compartments/modules). I'm inclined to believe that the deviating behaviour is caused by legacy settings. That is, when the old system would award penetrations, we will now get an extra overpenetration. That would also explain why the target needs to be heavily angled. Either that or there is some desync involved between the shell path and the ship path which means that the server interprets the shell/ship interaction as if it happens twice.

 

13 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

considering the double damage penetration basically has to be caused by hitbox/compartment shenanigans

 

Indeed. It would be rather hilarious if the issue is caused by a shell detonating exactly between two compartments and so the server interprets that as two separate penetrations.

[Animalul2012]

i am pretty sure the new mechanic works. also how about you dd mains can calm  for now? you got what you wanted now it is time to buff some cruisers and battleships. ( gascone. roma, bismarck, tirpitz, kii, monarch, american bbs from t3-to t7, kronstadt, some RN cruisers, huang he and the list can go on) also the only dds that need buffs are the german ones, ognevoi, khabarovsk and well yueyang is screwed now. 

And are you sure this is not from the previous version???

If you are not sure, go to training room and test it for yourself. i did it for myself in the first day and i could only over pen the dds. tried with kronstadt and north carolina and from every angle i was doing only 900 and 1310 damage with an ap shell. 

Otherwise it might be a bug.

[Aotearas]

1 minute ago, Animalul2012 said:

And are you sure this is not from the previous version???

Happened yesterday. Note the game version in the replay summary.

 

https://replayswows.com/replay/35983#stats

 

Also:

2 minutes ago, Animalul2012 said:

also how about you dd mains can calm  for now?

I'd hardly classify Jack as a DD main, nevermind that wonky ballistics is an issue that should theoretically effect every target class and not just DDs, hence why it's in everyone's best interest to get it resolved.