Jump to content
Ra97oR

0.3.1 HE shell damage and fire

164 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BALAM]
Beta Tester
103 posts
5,008 battles

At this very moment, from games that I played. Even guns from my Minekaze loaded with HE shells deals consistent damage to armoured targets, even battleships.

 

203mm from Myoko, Aoba with HE can hit a battleship with HE and deals up to 3k per shell, at least a few k damage each salvo if you hit. With a silly good chance of starting a fire.

 

The consistency of the HE shell's damage with the extra annoyance of fire doesn't really make sense considering the armour of CA and battleships. I am all for the HE shells really hurting lightly armoured CLs and DDs. But HE, even lower calibre HE shells dealing consistent damage against heavily armoured ships is a bit excessive.

 

The consistent damage from HE, high fire chance and long length of fire is an issue, further compounded by the new zero damage AP bounces.

 

I think the AP is already balanced with the new armour model. I must say, constant HE spam and highly damaging fire is far less fun than even shooting only AP. HE shell's interaction with armour certainly needed to be looked at and deck fire needed to be reworked. Loving the new AP damage model, but the new HE mechanics is a step backwards IMO.

  • Cool 23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
128 posts
7,214 battles

HE Shells and Fire is now a hillarious factor.

I got beaten to death by a CA with He in my BB.

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
34 posts
1,973 battles

Yup seems pretty much overbuffed. Getting hit in a BB by a DD for 1k-2k + fire chance every 5 seconds is just completly hillarous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TNT-]
Beta Tester
476 posts
6,132 battles

WG realy doesnt know how shells work in real life! HE shels cant damage armored ship! Only destroy some equipment. Set ship on to fire isnt depending on type of shells but which place has been hit. You can set in fire ammo or fuel but not plate of armor:-) 

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
202 posts
3,207 battles

Fire damage seems kind of messed up right now. It's way too easy to start fires and cause damage with the HE shell. That said, if you're going to nerf the ability of cruisers to damage battleships with AP, you'd better give something back in return. I think the damage is probably OK, the fire chance isn't. Maybe give battleships a passive resist against fires for a certain time after they trigger their damage control ability as a class bonus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
375 posts
739 battles

Chance to cause fire certainly shouldn't be as high as it is. 12% chance to cause fire, per shell, from a Cleveland? At 90 shells outbound per minute, even if you only hit 1 shot out of every 10, that's still a fire a minute, and a battleship can't counter that.

 

I'm not sure if dropping the chance would make things any better. Maybe have hit location make a useful difference to the chance of fire, or the amount of damage the fire will do. Maybe implement some sort of fire spread, where the fire starts at only doing 10% of its per-tick damage, and increases every few seconds. Maybe have fire not be a fixed duration, so hit location and ship specifics affect how fiercely the fire rages and how hard it is to put out.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
202 posts
3,207 battles

Chance to cause fire certainly shouldn't be as high as it is. 12% chance to cause fire, per shell, from a Cleveland? At 90 shells outbound per minute, even if you only hit 1 shot out of every 10, that's still a fire a minute, and a battleship can't counter that.

 

I'm not sure if dropping the chance would make things any better. Maybe have hit location make a useful difference to the chance of fire, or the amount of damage the fire will do. Maybe implement some sort of fire spread, where the fire starts at only doing 10% of its per-tick damage, and increases every few seconds. Maybe have fire not be a fixed duration, so hit location and ship specifics affect how fiercely the fire rages and how hard it is to put out.

 

If you hit every shell in a salvo from a cleveland you have a 78% chance per salvo to cause a fire. Hitting six shells (eminently doable even for the worst shot) will have a 46% chance of a fire. That seems a tad on the high side. The damage control modifications and the captain skills help, certainly but maybe there should be some slight changes to the fire chance.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
375 posts
739 battles

 

If you hit every shell in a salvo from a cleveland you have a 78% chance per salvo to cause a fire.

 

How do you figure? Cleveland fires 12 shells, at 12% chance of fire each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,151 posts

Yep, HE is a borked. Quite simply the dev team gave AP a nerf by adding armour buffs across the board. But it looks like they forgot to, or chose not to give armour damage reductions on HE shells. Subsequently with the HE damage buff, AP is now pointless. HE will always cause damage far in excess of a standard AP hit. AP "penetrations" are pointless now because in the time it takes you to get a single penetration shot, you could have immolated and nailed the target with HE

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
2,678 posts
5,566 battles

Had time for a couple of games last night, myself and platton mate both took south carolinas (and ended up repeatedly on new dawn domination against tier 4-5 ships which was.....definately bottom of the food chain).

I tried using only HE, he used only AP, regardless of target so we could have a rough comparison. Both of us ended up shooting varied targets (DD and BB).

My HE ended up with an average damage of 1k per shell

His AP ended up with an average damage of 1.6k per shell (and didn't seem to suffer from lack of pens - this might be because of low tier, so lower armour).

 

It wasn't the wreck-fest I was expecting from HE. Obviously this was only a few games at low tier with BB so cant comment on cruisers etc

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BORF]
Beta Tester
581 posts
1,144 battles

thanks to the changes now a cleveland can 1v1 a battleship and win easily thanks wg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
202 posts
3,207 battles

 

How do you figure? Cleveland fires 12 shells, at 12% chance of fire each.

Probability operations like that are not additive. You can't do 12*12 and get your probability of a fire (all 12 shells could roll low and fail to cause a fire). It's easier to calculate the odds of not causing a fire and subtract that from one. So there's an 88% chance that the first shell won't cause a fire, an 88% chance on the second one and so on. If you hit all 12 the chance of not causing a fire is 0.88^12. Therefore the chance of causing a fire is 1-(0.88^12).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BALAM]
Beta Tester
103 posts
5,008 battles

fx6pac.jpg

 

Going up against a averagely armoured CA. HE wrecks without needed to care about armour angles. AP need patience for the right time and angle for armour penetration, but even if it does, it does minimal damage.

 

HE average damage per shell: 1093

AP average damage per shell: 573.74

 

*AP average damage per penetration (24): 741

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
477 posts
4,742 battles

I noticed this too. DD and CA can just wreck stuff with their HE. Before patch one DD HE hit in upper structures of BB caused something between 200 and 300 damage. Now it deals consistent 700. :ohmy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
375 posts
739 battles

Probability operations like that are not additive. You can't do 12*12 and get your probability of a fire (all 12 shells could roll low and fail to cause a fire). It's easier to calculate the odds of not causing a fire and subtract that from one. So there's an 88% chance that the first shell won't cause a fire, an 88% chance on the second one and so on. If you hit all 12 the chance of not causing a fire is 0.88^12. Therefore the chance of causing a fire is 1-(0.88^12).

 

They do not teach this crap in school. They should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
48 posts
570 battles

After 15 battles with Cleveland I really dont see why BB players cry so much.

 

-  BB salvo  is unchanged and will still kill any CA  or DD very fast  with decent rng shell trajectory.  What is new is that CA has better chance to do some nice and over time damage to BBs.    Good

-  Fire is anyoing but not super deadly unless stacked up from several sources/salvos with Repair on cooldown.  It force players to actually think when to use Repair skill and when to wait.   Good

-   Its now good idea to invest to anti-fire defences and skills.   Good

-  155 AP shells are sadly good only vs other CAs on T line and with good player that is able to aim and hit citadel.   Bad

-  HE si brainless weapon,  no exactly aim required, just spam it over enemy deck.    Its good in all situations except mentioned  CA on T .   Bad

 

So for me not bad as all see it.  Think its mostly AP nerf (armor buff) that hurts gameplay.  Lots of none dmg hits even on CAs.    So its better to spam HE most of time which is little bit brainless and lacking aim skill bonus.

 

 

Btw my DPB with Fuso is still superior to my DPB with Cleveland.    CAs are very fragile  so some buff to dmg is only welcome.   BBs still rules.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EIRE]
[EIRE]
Beta Tester
326 posts
19,186 battles

Have to agree. I went one on one with a battleship with my Sims today, and I was doing 1K to 2K per shot every 10 seconds, he was having problems hitting me. I think this seems imbalanced. I know DD is a counter to BB but the thing that does the killing should be the torpedo not the puny main gun firing HE.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
202 posts
3,207 battles

After 15 battles with Cleveland I really dont see why BB players cry so much.

 

-  BB salvo  is unchanged and will still kill any CA  or DD very fast  with decent rng shell trajectory.  What is new is that CA has better chance to do some nice and over time damage to BBs.    Good

-  Fire is anyoing but not super deadly unless stacked up from several sources/salvos with Repair on cooldown.  It force players to actually think when to use Repair skill and when to wait.   Good

-   Its now good idea to invest to anti-fire defences and skills.   Good

-  155 AP shells are sadly good only vs other CAs on T line and with good player that is able to aim and hit citadel.   Bad

-  HE si brainless weapon,  no exactly aim required, just spam it over enemy deck.    Its good in all situations except mentioned  CA on T .   Bad

 

So for me not bad as all see it.  Think its mostly AP nerf (armor buff) that hurts gameplay.  Lots of none dmg hits even on CAs.    So its better to spam HE most of time which is little bit brainless and lacking aim skill bonus.

 

 

Btw my DPB with Fuso is still superior to my DPB with Cleveland.    CAs are very fragile  so some buff to dmg is only welcome.   BBs still rules.

I think this sums up my issues with it. CAs are still too fragile and their only method of damaging battleships is brainless and RNG fuelled. This shouldn't be the case and could do with being rethought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EIRE]
[EIRE]
Beta Tester
326 posts
19,186 battles

I see a lot of people complain they can't go toe to toe with a BB in a CA, I think this is as it should be. A CA is a shielding ship, there to protect BB. I guess people just got used to the CA being good at everything.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
375 posts
739 battles

So I jumped into a game in my Wyoming; a Kuma managed to set me on fire 3 times with a continuous stream of HE. I lost 15k health. In under a minute. Yes I volleyed him off the table the moment I got my chance (salvo number 2), but is this how it's supposed to go? Do I have to sit there and burn until I kill him? What if there's more than one ship shooting at me, do I have to burn until I kill them all?

 

No, something is amiss here. I have no problem with a Kuma even killing me, but that ship should not be doing that much damage with mindless HE-spam like that. A good torpedo hit would be fine, good citadel hits would also be nice. Fire-spam? Please.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure what it is, but something just feels wrong. It's rage-inducing.

 

Requiring some sort of skill to rain doom would sure be appreciated. It takes more skill for a battleship to hit a cruiser than it does for a cruiser to hit a battleship, what with the ridiculous fire rate and number of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
202 posts
3,207 battles

I see a lot of people complain they can't go toe to toe with a BB in a CA, I think this is as it should be. A CA is a shielding ship, there to protect BB. I guess people just got used to the CA being good at everything.

This is how you get monoculture games that are dull and uninteresting. All classes should have mechanisms they can apply against other classes of the player is skilled enough. I'm fine with CAs hurting BBs. It's a game and being unable to hurt another class would reduce the skill ceilings. The way HE works right now is not in line with the skill part of that equation. I'm fine with the damage, cruisers wearing down BBs with HE is totally legit, but the fires add a frustration mechanic which is not good gameplay. The 12k BB shell citadel hit CAs have to put up with the whole bloody time is also a bad game design choice, again due to frustration factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×