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

Different firing ranges for HE and AP shells for T9-T10 ships?

75 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles

Hi all,

 

Are you happy against long range HE spammer/hard hitter ships with good/fast shell velocity at T9-T10 games? I'm feeling like it's really boring while all experienced players at top tier.

May different AP(long)/HE(middle) shell firing ranges for some T9-T10 ships (not for all) could be better to make high tiers more funny and fair against T7-T8 ships?

 

What do you think about this new opinion, let's discuss it on the thread without PERSONAL ATTACKS, please.

 

In these days, too many personal attacker guys in the forum, so I warn to them. :Smile_child:

 

  • Funny 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,328 posts
10,110 battles
8 minutes ago, Gloatover said:

very long range HE spammer fast/agile sniper ships with fast shell velocity at T9-T10

Name one. Because very longe range he spam with fast velocity would be stalingrad. But an he firing stalingrad at long range is about the best thing you can face lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles
17 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Name one. Because very longe range he spam with fast velocity would be stalingrad. But an he firing stalingrad at long range is about the best thing you can face lol.  

I edit them as "HE spammer/hard hitter" and "good/fast shell velocity" yet. :Smile_Default:  I don't want to name one to make a target, may we can discuss as general :cap_like:

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,585 posts
14,676 battles

I am confused.

 

Is the question here whether it would be fun/interesting to have different ranges for different shell types?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
3,794 posts
11,211 battles
Just now, _Teob_ said:

I am confused.

 

Is the question here whether it would be fun/interesting to have different ranges for different shell types?

yes

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,732 posts
14,356 battles

The longer the range, the more useless AP becomes for certain ships. These ships depend on HE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles
1 minute ago, _Teob_ said:

I am confused.

 

Is the question here whether it would be fun/interesting to have different ranges for different shell types? 

 

Yes, because in these days top tier players usually camping and trying to snipe with HE at long ranges.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles
4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

The longer the range, the more useless AP becomes for certain ships. These ships depend on HE. 


It's why I want to discuss it, with this change T9-T10 games could be more funny without long range camping as low tiers and really makes fair against T7-78 :cap_like:

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,831 posts
8,982 battles

Im all in for BBs not spamming HE from >20km :cap_like:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,585 posts
14,676 battles
4 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Im all in for BBs not spamming HE from >20km :cap_like:

 

Absolutely. But I suspect the OP wants cruisers to have a much lower range on their HE. I suspect than this isn't being directed at BBs.

 

At any rate, I think it's a horrible idea that would be counterintuitive and would only benefit BBs. Cruisers need their range to not get blapped. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,732 posts
14,356 battles
9 minutes ago, Gloatover said:


It's why I want to discuss it, with this change T9-T10 games could be more funny without long range camping as low tiers and really makes fair against T7-78 :cap_like:

You could reduce the range for all ships and ammunitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles
3 minutes ago, _Teob_ said:

 

Absolutely. But I suspect the OP wants cruisers to have a much lower range on their HE. I suspect than this isn't being directed at BBs. 

 

At any rate, I think it's a horrible idea that would be counterintuitive and would only benefit BBs. Cruisers need their range to not get blapped.  

 

In this point the important thing is 0.9.2 update; cruisers got better armor now. :cap_like:

 

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Update_0.9.2#Changes_to_cruiser_and_battleship_armor_protection

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,169 posts
9,048 battles
28 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Name one. Because very longe range he spam with fast velocity would be stalingrad. But an he firing stalingrad at long range is about the best thing you can face lol. 

I mean, Moskva isn't that far off, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles
15 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You could reduce the range for all ships and ammunitions.

 

In my opinion T7-T8 ships has enough range but some T9-T10 ships have really too long ranges.

If they just reduce long HE shells for long range T9-T10 ships, still camp lowers could use their AP shells at long ranges with less effectiveness, if they want to hit more then they should come close to the fight. I think it's really fair; hit hard/take hard :cap_haloween:

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,831 posts
8,982 battles
4 minutes ago, Gloatover said:

In this point the important thing is 0.9.2 update; cruisers got better armor now. :cap_like:

 

Mostly irrelevant, as it only changed things for a couple of BBs. Meanwhile, the latest TX BB additions, namely Ohio, Thunderer, Kremlin and soon to come Shikishima, all ignore 30mm armor (hey could even add Georgia to that list).

Instead of nerfing Cruisers, buff the BBs which dont have overmatch capability IF necessary (probably isnt necessary tho). And neither is a blanket Cruiser nerf necessary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,169 posts
9,048 battles
6 minutes ago, Gloatover said:

I think it's really fair; hit hard/take hard :cap_haloween:

Alright, then rebalance the Zao so she can take it hard and not die, ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,732 posts
14,356 battles
10 minutes ago, Gloatover said:

 

In my opinion T7-T8 ships has enough range but some T9-T10 ships have really too long ranges.

If they just reduce long HE shells for long range T9-T10 ships, still camp lowers could use their AP shells at long ranges with less effectiveness, if they want to hit more then they should come close to the fight. I think it's really fair; hit hard/take hard :cap_haloween:

You do not listen.

As explained, many ship´s AP does not work well at long range. When you reduce only their HE range, you basicly reduce their overall range and make them weaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles
3 minutes ago, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

Alright, then rebalance the Zao so she can take it hard and not die, ok?

 

I'm with you man and I told "some T9-T10 ships have really too long ranges.", not for all T9-T10 ships. :Smile_Default:

 

I don't think Zao has long range and it's looking as balanced one. :cap_like:

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Players
695 posts
10,435 battles
30 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You could reduce the range for all ships and ammunitions.

And map size while we're at it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles
4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You do not listen.

As explained, many ship´s AP does not work well at long range. When you reduce only their HE range, you basicly reduce their overall range and make them weaker. 

 

You started personal attacks again and again, please stop it.  :etc_red_button:

 

All we know AP doesn't work well at long range, so they'll stop the snipe camping with this solution but they still can play it with snipe camping with less damage, so it's looking fair.

  • Funny 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,831 posts
8,982 battles
Just now, Gloatover said:

All we know AP doesn't work well at long range, so they'll stop the snipe camping with this solution but they still can play it with snipe camping with less damage, so it's looking fair.

 

Nerf BB dispersion/range/damage so Cruisers dont have to sit back. Why dont we do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
219 posts
6,213 battles
1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Nerf BB dispersion/range/damage so Cruisers dont have to sit back. Why dont we do that?

 

Why not? Sure we can discuss it in different thread, you could open one for it then we can discuss it on there.  :cap_like:

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,732 posts
14,356 battles
9 minutes ago, Gloatover said:

All we know AP doesn't work well at long range, so they'll stop the snipe camping with this solution but they still can play it with snipe camping with less damage, so it's looking fair.

The ships are balanced or even too weak. When you reduce their range, they get even weaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
3,901 posts
10,540 battles
8 minutes ago, Gloatover said:

You started personal attacks again and again, please stop it.

Your definition of personal attack has many flaws in it. 

 

@ColonelPete is right. 

For example, "smolensk AP is almost useless over 10km" 

reducing smolensks HE range will effectively reduce range of the ship. 

Such as all other CLs.. like wooster, donskoi.. or almost all cruisers.. 
they already don't have "amazing" ranges.. 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

×