Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
El2aZeR

Attack wing damage reduction

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,898 posts
19,720 battles

If you don't know what this is about, watch this:

Spoiler

 

 

Now to my actual issue at hand. In the video it is explained and proven that the reduction is in fact 50%. This applies only to the attacking wing. I get that, but the 50% number felt a bit off to me.

So I did some digging through the patchnotes. All I could find was this:

bozknXr.png

 

Source:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/0801-hot-fix/

 

It says 30% and that it applies to all bombers. In no subsequent patchnotes could I find anything about a change in this mechanic.

Thus one of the following is true:

- this is an unnoticed bug

- WG stealth changed this mechanic

- WG lied to us the entire time

- The patchnote collection on the wiki is incomplete and I therefore missed a patch where this mechanic was changed

- I'm blind or can't read

 

Personally I can't remember ever reading about any change about AA damage reduction when attacking either. If anyone does, please forward me the version number of that patch.

 

Note to mods: This is not about the CV rework in particular. This is about WG potentially lying or doing undocumented changes to a mechanic.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Beta Tester
1,591 posts

There is an adage that goes "never ascribe to malice that which may be better explained by incompetence".

 

However in WG's case I'm inclined to believe they are both malicious and incompetent.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,027 posts
11,823 battles
3 minutes ago, StringWitch said:

There is an adage that goes "never ascribe to malice that which may be better explained by incompetence".

 

However in WG's case I'm inclined to believe they are both malicious and incompetent.

MVP question is, WG is incompetently malicious or maliciously incompetent.

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Players
641 posts
9,070 battles
16 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

What are the odds that they will stealth improve the UI?

Have you seen what happens when WG improve things?  The port was (allegedly) improved - result, in port performance degraded.  UI improved, now takes longer to exit a game and the results screen generation at the end of the game is glacial.

 

The game has been "improved" so much that I had to replace my laptop which was quite happy running the game with a new one...

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,027 posts
11,823 battles
55 minutes ago, MyopicHedgehog said:

Have you seen what happens when WG improve things?  The port was (allegedly) improved - result, in port performance degraded.  UI improved, now takes longer to exit a game and the results screen generation at the end of the game is glacial.

 

The game has been "improved" so much that I had to replace my laptop which was quite happy running the game with a new one...

So, if we ask WG to break carriers, it will actually fix them?

 

sounds like a plan:cap_hmm:

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,133 posts
7,085 battles
2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

It says 30% and that it applies to all bombers. In no subsequent patchnotes could I find anything about a change in this mechanic.

Thus one of the following is true:

- WG stealth changed this mechanic

- WG lied to us the entire time

- The patchnote collection on the wiki is incomplete and I therefore missed a patch where this mechanic was changed

- I'm blind or can't read

well, it might be just a bug not noticed yet by WG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
392 posts
8,133 battles
8 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

well, it might be just a bug not noticed yet by WG

You are joking I hope?

 

This subject have been if not the major aspect they would be keeping their eyes on their precious "data".  That is the whole point of Public Testing, and since 0.8.0.

If this was indeed a "bug not noticed yet by WG".  Someone is slacking at their job.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOBS2]
[BOBS2]
Players
529 posts
18,424 battles

Stuntman did mention both 50% and 30% so I just did a quick training room test.

 

With torpedo bombers and "dive" bombers (as Implacable) both were taking 130 damage a pop from the test Kagero. Trimming them down to just the single attack wing and making the runs this went down to 65 for torpedo bombers and 91 for the "dive" bombers, so it looks like the former get 50% reduction (as shown in Stuntman's video) and the latter 30%.

 

But I don't remember any patchnotes about them making torpedo-bombers and bomb-bombers different.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,898 posts
19,720 battles
35 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

well, it might be just a bug not noticed yet by WG

 

Meh, at this point I'll believe anything. I'll add it to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,075 posts
11,104 battles
8 hours ago, Panocek said:

MVP question is, WG is incompetently malicious or maliciously incompetent.

 

Yes. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,038 posts
245 battles

So basically attacking aircraft get the 50% damage reduction but non attacking planes take 100% damage, which explains why i would take quite a bit of damage with my planes even when going to strike a ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,027 posts
11,823 battles
2 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

So basically attacking aircraft get the 50% damage reduction but non attacking planes take 100% damage, which explains why i would take quite a bit of damage with my planes even when going to strike a ship.

Pre 0.8.5 1/3 or 1/4 of the squadron enjoyed dmg reduction, so you could say 12-16% damage reduction on average is gone. Because why not:Smile_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,682 posts
8,733 battles
10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

If you don't know what this is about, watch this:

  Hide contents

 

 

Now to my actual issue at hand. In the video it is explained and proven that the reduction is in fact 50%. This applies only to the attacking wing. I get that, but the 50% number felt a bit off to me.

So I did some digging through the patchnotes. All I could find was this:

bozknXr.png

 

Source:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/0801-hot-fix/

 

It says 30% and that it applies to all bombers. In no subsequent patchnotes could I find anything about a change in this mechanic.

Thus one of the following is true:

- this is an unnoticed bug

- WG stealth changed this mechanic

- WG lied to us the entire time

- The patchnote collection on the wiki is incomplete and I therefore missed a patch where this mechanic was changed

- I'm blind or can't read

 

Personally I can't remember ever reading about any change about AA damage reduction when attacking either. If anyone does, please forward me the version number of that patch.

 

Note to mods: This is not about the CV rework in particular. This is about WG potentially lying or doing undocumented changes to a mechanic.

I care because....

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,695 posts
6,862 battles
10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

If you don't know what this is about, watch this:

  Hide contents

 

 

Now to my actual issue at hand. In the video it is explained and proven that the reduction is in fact 50%. This applies only to the attacking wing. I get that, but the 50% number felt a bit off to me.

So I did some digging through the patchnotes. All I could find was this:

bozknXr.png

 

Source:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/0801-hot-fix/

 

It says 30% and that it applies to all bombers. In no subsequent patchnotes could I find anything about a change in this mechanic.

Thus one of the following is true:

- this is an unnoticed bug

- WG stealth changed this mechanic

- WG lied to us the entire time

- The patchnote collection on the wiki is incomplete and I therefore missed a patch where this mechanic was changed

- I'm blind or can't read

 

Personally I can't remember ever reading about any change about AA damage reduction when attacking either. If anyone does, please forward me the version number of that patch.

 

Note to mods: This is not about the CV rework in particular. This is about WG potentially lying or doing undocumented changes to a mechanic.

 

The 50% are correct but I would need to find out where they are documented. 

 

The real problem is that the reduction is irrelevant most of the times. One of the biggest issues of the current rework is, that your AI squadrons get slaughtered and there is little you can do.

 

This reduction HAS to be applied to the full squadron 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Weekend Tester
142 posts
5,524 battles
49 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

The 50% are correct but I would need to find out where they are documented. 

 

The real problem is that the reduction is irrelevant most of the times. One of the biggest issues of the current rework is, that your AI squadrons get slaughtered and there is little you can do.

 

This reduction HAS to be applied to the full squadron 

I'm fairly certain that it was communicated that the "reserve squadron" of an attack flight is not supposed to be under attack at all in the first place.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALONE]
Modder
2,173 posts
13,717 battles

I guess all is working "as intended" - it was just lost in translation in 0.8.0 :fish_nerv:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
559 posts
21,355 battles

This damage reduction is stupidly backwards anyway. They should remove it completely and start balancing the game without all these gimmicks.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BBMM]
Players
5,983 posts
7,607 battles
1 hour ago, MadnerKami said:

I'm fairly certain that it was communicated that the "reserve squadron" of an attack flight is not supposed to be under attack at all in the first place.

Well, maybe BEFORE they boosted the DPS bubble, and most was done by FLAK.

But now, they are in the same DPS bubble - BTW they also get attacked by the fighters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,321 posts
10,110 battles
12 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

WG lied to us the entire time

*ding ding ding*

Where can I pick up my prize? :fish_cute_2:

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,695 posts
6,862 battles
54 minutes ago, MadnerKami said:

I'm fairly certain that it was communicated that the "reserve squadron" of an attack flight is not supposed to be under attack at all in the first place.

 

Which is the only reasonable way to do it. The current model is stupid.

 

They could test to leave the remaining squadron where the attack wing splits off and give the attack wing a more significant DPS reduction like 75%

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,677 posts
13,793 battles

All joking and sensationalism aside, meh. I don't think they'd go and flat-out lie over this. Why would you even do it? Seems stupid. 

A mistake was likely made somewhere in the patch notes(Wouldn't be a first) or it's unintentional. 

 

Didn't know 50% as opposed to 30 for torps was a thing though. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×