0.6.3 Balance changes

[Lord_Holland_of_Wessex]

 

Spare me the technical lecture and B.S, FACT: Spamming my Cruiser with HE, setting me on fire repeatedly happens to me at every single game, so all this savant fou stuff doesn't add up in real life from my PoV.

 

 

So every game you get spammed with HE and set on fire? - sounds like LTP issue.

[_ramrus_]

:balance intensifies:

 

[quote name=

 To make sure our players feel comfortable about the new concealment mechanics, with the release of Update 0.6.3 we'll offer a 95% discount for resetting Commander skills for Elite Commander XP as well as Combat Missions to earn Elite XP for resetting Commander skills. One victorious battle with a Tier X ship will bring 90,000 Elite Commander XP points. By completing this mission, players will be able to retrain eight Commanders with 19 skill points.

 

 

[300ConfirmedKills]

I'm really disappointed by the changes to the stealth mechanics. Describing it simply as 'removal of stealth fire' is dishonest, as these changes have a much bigger impact than that. DD gunplay revolves around carefully managing distances and LOS from the enemy in order to open fire at an advantage. With this change, those opportunities are hugely reduced. Contesting caps has been degraded to simply spotting for your allies behind you as forcing the enemy DD to smoke up rarely results in becoming unspotted.

 

Degrading DD play this way might have been acceptable if stealth firing was an all-powerful, universal tool which was dominating the meta, but it is not. Stealth fire is almost completely ineffective against any target other than BBs. DDs are supposedly the counters to BBs, so why shouldn't DD guns be capable of posing a threat to BBs? Counter-play to stealth firing does exist: it is to reposition. Sure, it is hard for a BB to do this against a DD, but it should be hard to play against your counter! WG have said before that they consider the BB population to be too high. If they are sincere about addressing this problem, there should be no question of a heavy-handed nerf which against one of the key anti-BB tools in the game without appropriate compensation for those ships which rely on it.

 

The compensation which has been given to those ships which rely on stealth are paltry and run contrary to the supposed intention of discouraging second-line DD play. Currently on the live server, Akizuki is most effective about 9.5 km away from her target. She is encouraged to move this close by her shells' ballistic properties and her good concealment. She is still at risk of being spotted by an enemy DD or radar, but it's worth running the risk for increased damage. On PT however, the risks of moving in that close are simply too great. Without the benefit of smoke (and spotting allies) or a convenient island, her only option for dealing damage will be firing from almost max range - increased to 15 km! At that point she's just a VMF DD without the good shell ballistics and extreme speed. For the more conventional IJN DDs where the guns are only used opportunistically at short range, these compensatory range 'buffs' hurt as much as they help with their associated concealment penalty, which will further limit opportunities when it makes sense to shoot. It's not as though players were flocking to this line due to their proficiency at stealth fire - they don't need this hurt.

 

On the bright side, those range increases for low-tier ships which push max range beyond base concealment are quite welcome.

When it comes to the changes to CVs, they are a mixed bag. The removal of ALT-attacks from T4 and T5 CVs is a terrible decision. There is so little player input required when only the auto attacks are available that these CVs are incredibly boring to play. This change will not attract anyone to playing these ships. I understand that fighter strafes can be very punishing to inexperienced players, but I don't understand why these could not simply be reduced in power at low tiers, rather than being removed completely. If your aim is to make CVs more comfortable to play for beginners, you need to do a better job explaining how CV mechanics work. Start with an in-game tutorial and better real-time information about what is firing upon squadrons. Gutting the class of anything which allows players to demonstrate their skill will not attract anyone.

 

The introduction of the ability to disengage from dogfights is very welcome. That is a good addition which adds to the tactics of the CV meta. I don't see why Saipan should be exempt from losing a plane upon disengaging though. Her planes are faster than those of the other CVs at her tier, so they should always be in a position to dictate how a fighter engagement takes place, if at all. If the enemy can lock a Saipan fighter squadron in an unfavourable dogfight, that represents a failing of the Saipan player, who should suffer accordingly.

[Spellfire40]

What I ask for: Give non  RU T10 DD an base firecontroll module. I don't want to get spoted from another cap after wining/forcing the conter DD to smoke up after winning a local engagement. Thats the reason nobody plays german DD. 

 

add plus 5 kn and 2 km to all non RU Torps.

 

Remove Aki and replace her with the faster concept super Aki.  In the same idia give Shima her real speed.

 

Give all DDs the RN ability to not bleed so much speed while turning.

 

Add: "for non RU DDs/BBs" to the description for the new stealth module for the dispersion part of the mod. For God's sake don't buff ships that dont need it.

[MorgothBauglyr]

 

General Impression

I can see the reasoning behind the removal of stealth fire, but ripping it out of the game without replacing it with something else is not the right decision in my opinion. 

 

In situations where smoke was not needed before, players must now expend smoke just to save themselves. Example: Two opposing destroyers enter a cap and detect each other. Both start shooting and one of then decides to smoke. Before, this situation would have been an advantage to the player who did not smoke first as they would usually be undetected from enemies even in the open. They can continue to spot for their team and have smoke advantage over the enemy destroyer. Now because of the large detection penalty applied, the player who smoked first has the advantage as their team can still spot the other player with ships further behind the cap. The player in the smoke can keep shooting unopposed which forces the other dd to smoke up as well. This leads to a completely smoked up cap, noone can get near it and the game stalls until the smoke clears again. rinse and repeat. 

 

The stealth fire mechanic is/was not an offensive technique. In order to pursue a defensive player stealth fire corridors are usually not sufficient due to projectile drag. It is rather a defensive one, enabling a lone destroyer to hold a cap or base, resetting the capture progress until reinforcements arrive. Stealthfire is on it's own is generally not poverful enough to destroy enemies, it is rather a defensive aid for the ship who performs it. The biggest advantage is not even the fact that the ship stays hidden while constantly shooting, the main advantage is that the detection radius immediately shrinks back to the default value.
Removal of stealth fire without compensation robs those ships of a main survival tool. IJN dds in particular are usually the prime target for the entire enemy team once they are detected. Now they are the punching bag for all enemies in range for a full 20s when they dare to shoot. 
The change to the concealment upgrage (+5% dispersion) is a useless bandaid that adds even more randomness to an already very random game.

 

Individual Ship Testing

On the pts i played mainly T8-10 japanese destroyers to see what the changes will be like. I played very aggressive with extensive gun use as if stealth fire were still existant:
T8, Kagerou: small ship, but slow. Short gun range means high risk when shooting. Range is barely enough to stay out of german bb secondary range. Even when ceasing fire, high tier radar will still catch this ship. Very fragile and risky to use guns.
T9, Yuugumo: good gun range and rate of fire, this ship can succsessfully use guns against occupied targets or lone battleships and stay relatively safe.
T10, Shimakaze: decent gun range and rate of fire, ship is larger than T9 but slightly faster. Bonus for 12km Torpedoes that can be used in conjunction with guns. But prime target for all enemies once detected. I expect even more players to opt for the dumb 20km torpedoes and staying as far back as they can.
T8, Akizuki: slow, sluggish, huge and horrible shell drag beyond 13km. This ship wants to be shooting constantly to get any decent damage done, but has to stay at 14km+ to avoid getting obliterated by battleships and cruisers alike. Problem is that at extended range beyond 13km the shell drag is so bad, even battleships can dodge them. Difficulty increases when not using IFHE which makes it nessecary to hit the superstructure with HE to do any damage at all. Suffers much from the stealth penalty when fighting enemy destroyers in a cap (see example above). Smoke is basically required to do anything. This ship is already fairly diffcult to play and will have an even harder time.

 

Proposal for replacement mechanics:
The main problem is that staying visible for 20s is an eternity for a destroyer. Enemy cruisers can fire up to 4 salvos in that time completely ruining a destroyer's game.
Shorter duration detection increase for ships with smaller caliber guns, This has probably been brought up a couple of times already, but here a my basic idea based on gun caliber:
<= 100mm: visible for 6s
127mm: visible for 8s
130mm: visible for 10s
~150mm: visible for 15s
~200mm: visible for 20s
>250mm: visible for 30s
With these values, a ship that constantly shoots is always visible. A ship that shoots intermittedly can still be caught by an aware player that pre-aims and waits for the opportunity to fire. A ship that wants to vanish because it gets a lot of heat can do so or continue to play with fire. This rewards patience and clever play on both ends while keeping survivability through stealth.

Bonus Opinions
Since SubOctavian has mentioned the team would like to encourage japanese dds to use their guns more here a couple suggestions that would achive this. The general range increase is one step, but not quite enough. All suggestions are aimed at special type destroyers with 127mm 3rd Year Type guns (Fubuki/Hatsuharu and up)
These ships are best at fighting targets ~9km to ~12km away.
- Improve base turret traverse to at least 180° in 20s. This would eliminate the absolute nessecity of Expert Markman to keep turrets on target when turning the ship.
- Moderatle increase rate of fire for T8 and below.
- Reinstate the HE shell damage values from before version 0.5.15
- Reinstate the HE shell fire chance values from before version 0.5.15
- Moderatle improve Kagerou's gun range to around 11.5 km so she is between Akatsuki and Yuugumo.

 

 

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

 

 

 

 

Very interesting post with suggestions that are worth discussing and developing with Wargaming.

You are wasted on this game. Why don't you go and find a game that deserves you?

[ThinderChief]

 

So every game you get spammed with HE and set on fire? - sounds like LTP issue.

 

No, it sounds and is like an HE spamming issue.

 

Why is it so hard to figure out that you do not need a high level of skills to set fires even at max distance? I played a few games with my Konigsberg today with a fair amount of success i must say, scored a few kills, numerous citadels but havent been citadeled half the number of times i have been set in fire, and as everyone knows, the Kon is built of citadel and glass armour, i wouldn't play her if it wasn't for her excellent guns.

 

So just like in WoT, players doesn't know their ships, angling and the capabilities of their guns, or as some of the "elite" chosed to do, decided that in order to farm XP, it was far more rewarding to send the maximum of shells in the air and that anyway one lucky shot on a Cruiser deck will set a fire and cause a lot more damage than they camping style would allow them to. 

 

Now that W.G have decided to put a clamp on invisifiring, and their endless up and down jumping on related updates topics had no effect, you can be sure that the butter bit of their B&B way to farm XP is going to see the same reality denial and propaganda than the rest of the changes introduced recently. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tend to agree and isagree when it comes to DDs, of course 20 sec is a long time but if players didn't waste their smoke for invisifiring, they would have it ready to trail-hide their escape route, my priorities for smoke are first my team mates, my escape then cocoon when really needeed, not the opposite or reverse.

 

I often try to set a fire on a target i didn't kill with my torp strike while turning away, looking at the XP counter to figure if he have repaired, or support my team mates with fire when i think it is needed, escaping by zig-zaging and when i got one fire on, i quit firing and pop the smoke, true i often get fragged but i think it is a fair risk, not due to the fact that Cruisers fire rates are too high.

 

As a DD player I have more of a problem with the way players uses their ships, like guys specialising in deleting DDs while playing other DDs or Battleships such as the Bismark, but not really willing to do much more else as if there weren't any other targets in the game or they had nothing else to do.

 

Then your Proposal for replacement mechanics looks very interesting but it will not deter the DD farming XP on other DD and limit themself to this role or campers to favour invisifiring, even more so with the discrepency in rate of fire, when dio you spot for the team from a smoke bubble? I regard systenatically going for the most vulnerable when there are BBs and Cruisers firing at you as a cowardly behaviour, i do the opposite, i go for the largest, strongest target i can find in range, i only deal with DDs when necessary, they are not my priority target when i play DDs.

 

To me the real issue comes from the difference between gunnery capabilities and its lack of compensation by better torps, in short, give higher rate of fire to IJN DD and better torps to the DDs which havent got them, this will encourage them to do something else than hunting other DDs or fire from camping positions.

 

Question. What were HE shell fire chance values from before version 0.5.15?

[eliastion]

 

No, it sounds and is like an HE spamming issue.

(...)

 

 I regard systenatically going for the most vulnerable when there are BBs and Cruisers firing at you as a cowardly behaviour, i do the opposite, i go for the largest, strongest target i can find in range, i only deal with DDs when necessary, they are not my priority target when i play DDs.

(...)

 

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.imgbox.de/users/MudMonkey/Statistik_AP_HE.jpg

The last tier at which HE spam+fires actually deal more damage to cruisers than AP is t4. at high tiers (7+) actually AP deals more damage to them than all other kinds of damage combined. So no, it's not cruisers that suffer from HE. It's you.

 

As for the second part I quote. Lol. I mean, I get it, you play a torpboat and avoid knife fights with other DDs, that sounds like a solid strategy since that's what torpboats are for and what they're weak at, respectively. But making a virtue out of it, seriously?

In fact, you're going after big, slow targets that can't avoid your torps easily - isn't it cowardly compared to a glorious (even if stupidly suicidal) face-off with an enemy that CAN both dodge your torps AND outgun you? Now wouldn't that be the true samurai spirit, instead of running form enemy DDs like a coward you are? 

[eliastion]

To me the real issue comes from the difference between gunnery capabilities and its lack of compensation by better torps, in short, give higher rate of fire to IJN DD and better torps to the DDs which havent got them, this will encourage them to do something else than hunting other DDs or fire from camping positions.

 

Oh, yes, make all DDs play completely the same, great idea.

(that was sarcasm if you haven't noticed)

[ThinderChief]

 

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.imgbox.de/users/MudMonkey/Statistik_AP_HE.jpg

The last tier at which HE spam+fires actually deal more damage to cruisers than AP is t4. at high tiers (7+) actually AP deals more damage to them than all other kinds of damage combined. So no, it's not cruisers that suffer from HE. It's you.

 

As for the second part I quote. Lol. I mean, I get it, you play a torpboat and avoid knife fights with other DDs, that sounds like a solid strategy since that's what torpboats are for and what they're weak at, respectively. But making a virtue out of it, seriously?

In fact, you're going after big, slow targets that can't avoid your torps easily - isn't it cowardly compared to a glorious (even if stupidly suicidal) face-off with an enemy that CAN both dodge your torps AND outgun you? Now wouldn't that be the true samurai spirit, instead of running form enemy DDs like a coward you are? 

 

1) Good excuse for HE, spammers i don't think W.G will take this as a fact tough.

 

2) Avoiding is not the word at all, do you have a problem with MY English or interpretation of what is written in general? I do not make of other DDs MY priority, therefore i do not chose a gunboat with superior gunnery to other of her tiers, limiting myself in the process with torps that doesn't let me kill anything else bar in a very situational maneer.

 

So those geezer i keep deleting in gunfights with their German/Russian DDs might well want to get a piece of ThunderChief for personal reasons, it doesn't make them win more often, only die more often than me in the process, for your info i have a 41% hit ratio vs mainly moving targets without using any fancy mods to compensate for angles too many players can't grab, and with the Akatsuki, i win most of my 1vs1 engagements against DDs with her, your arguments fells flat.

 

FACTS: People chose their ship, Upgrades, Commanders skills and even consumable for one purpose, if some prefer to play gunnies and limit themselves to small targets duals, though, myself i prefer the full blown-scale role of DDs including spotting, torpedo strikes, area denial, artillery support, while some other goes systematically after other DDs or CV but are totally unable to carry a proper torp strike for reason of chosing the wrong ship and the rest of it.

 

Going after another DD with one that outguns nearly anything else of the type is cowardise and greed to me, farming XP this way is a little YERK, same goes for those playing German BBs and doing the same thing, excuse ME but when i play a BB i am in the best position to fight other BBs so i do my job, hunting DDs is best done by Cruisers which is what they always have been designed to do, shield the rest of the fleet...

 

 "escort and protect merchant shipping or larger vessels like attleships" style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%;" title="Shipattleships">battleships and aircraft carriers from various threats"

 

So you guys can come up with all the excuses you want, playing a ship in a limited role most of the time out of its intended one for the sole purpose of farming XP this way and coming to tell the rest of us it's perfectly proper is a little pulled by the hair to say the least.

 

I take on EVERYTHING without blinking when necessary when i play DDs but: 1) Other DDs are NOT my priority and NOT my primary role either. 2) If i get into a gunfight i'm certainly not the type of guy to shys away from it even when i'm out-gunned which with the latest adition of Russian DDs happens more often than not. 3) I certainly do not as some [edited] i saw lately, chase one DD across half the map to get a kill (was ME and HE lost), a BB yes, even knowing it can delete me with one salvo, but this way i'll keep him spotted for my team, keep him out of the game for a good part because i will be a constant threat for him, not a gunboat who will not be able to torp my BBs. 

 

If you have any issue comprehending those points then you've been plating the camper's game for too long.

[mtm78]

1) Good excuse for HE, spammers i don't think W.G will take this as a fact tough.

 

....

 

That chart if from WG you...... 

 

[ThinderChief]

 

....

 

That chart if from WG you...... 

 

 

So what?

 

Who do you think is causing the pen damage? Do you have the chart for that? NO.

 

It's not BBs who spams HE although some also does fire He at Cruisers, it's other cruisers, looks like every time you read something you loose a third of it in the translation, i always specified that it needs a high rate of fire, now give me an example of a BB with has it please. Alternatively look at the definition of the word spam and you will se that it involes the notion of number, either targets or spammed objects themselves.

 

[Hootsthenoo]

Anybody remember the film............."One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"?

 

[mtm78]

The last tier at which HE spam+fires actually deal more damage to cruisers than AP is t4. at high tiers (7+) actually AP deals more damage to them than all other kinds of damage combined. So no, it's not cruisers that suffer from HE. It's you.

 

1) Good excuse for HE, spammers i don't think W.G will take this as a fact tough.

So what?

 

Who do you think is causing the pen damage? Do you have the chart for that? NO.

 

--------------

 

Anybody remember the film............."One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"?

 

Being reminded of it on a frequent basis in this thread. 

[ShinGetsu]

At this point, I don't think I can talk to this guy anymore without insulting him. I mean, the only word I have to describe him starts by "R" and also means "being late" in French. Excuse my poor vocabulary.

 

I just facepalmed when reading this :

 So just like in WoT, players doesn't know their ships, angling and the capabilities of their guns

 

Hey, it's coming from the guy that recommended putting Survivability Expert on a Dunkerque.

 

It's just amazing how oblivious one can be at their own fault. I don't know, when I screw up in a game, I know it... when I'm a bad player, I strive to improve. I'm not rejecting the fault on everyone and everything else.

 

WG stated multiple times that they see absolutely no problem with HE and fire, since AP and Torpedoes does more damage overall, and that chart proves it.

[krabbenkutter]

Anybody remember the film............."One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"?

 

one of the best ever made

[eliastion]

1) Good excuse for HE, spammers i don't think W.G will take this as a fact tough.

 

That's literally a chart WG used to show players that no, HE spam and fires aren't overpowered and are nowhere near being as powerful as some believed. I'm pretty sure that they consider it both a fact AND a proof that HE spam isn't overpowered.

Oh, and the numbers now are probably slightly more in favor of AP since from then we got a bigger BB population (and few BBs load HE for anything nowadays, really) and a whole line of cruisers that don't have any choice in the matter since they just don't have any HE ammunition.

 

 

Going after another DD with one that outguns nearly anything else of the type is cowardise and greed to me, farming XP this way is a little YERK, same goes for those playing German BBs and doing the same thing, excuse ME but when i play a BB i am in the best position to fight other BBs so i do my job, hunting DDs is best done by Cruisers which is what they always have been designed to do, shield the rest of the fleet...

 

Here, dear sirs, is a player who mains IJN torp boat and believes that picking gunboats is

a) cowardly

b) being a jerk

 

Let me (as someone who plays a lot of DDs) give you some more obvious cowardly and jerk moves:

 - picking any ship equipped with radar

 - picking Hydro over defensive AA

 - cowardly using planes to spot me from above

Of course, there are also some cowardly and jerkish moves I notice when I play a CV:

 - speccing your ship for AA instead of offense

 - picking defensive AA over Hydro

Then there are these cowards (and jerks) I notice while playing my BBs

 - choosing torp boatats instead of proper DDs relying on guns to fight it out amogst ships with small guns designed to fight each other (or, better yet: instead of choosing some REAL ships, like cruisers or BBs)

 - speccing for stealth and torping me without getting spotted

 - picking CVs to torp me from afar, with planes (so cowardly)

 - cruisers setting me on fire from behind islands or from smoke, or from max range instead of coming to fight me like a man should

[procrastinatingStudent]

1) Good excuse for HE, spammers i don't think W.G will take this as a fact tough.

 

The base damage caused by both ap and he is 3 times what fires are and like otheres have said WG posted this to show that fires are not that big ofna problem. Please for love of the topic stay on topic.

[ThinderChief]

eliastion, on 27 March 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:

 

That's literally a chart WG used to show players that no, HE spam and fires aren't overpowered and are nowhere near being as powerful as some believed.

 

No that's NOT what it shows at all and i don't think it was their intention, since a lot of those ships doesn't usually spam HE unless you consider a salvo every 30 sec as spamming and rewrite the word definition, and/or that every BB player in the game is not using AP to pen a glass ship to the rare exception of some newbies who havent got the drift just yet.

 

When i got a deflagration, and pretty much like the Kirov the Kon detonates pretty well, it's not from a Cruiser with high rate of fire, so twisting the subject by showing this chart is not helping you make a false point, what i said and i repeat is that Cruiser players doesn't even bother trying to pen, they spam HE simply because they know they dont have maneuver to try to get a broadside from a camping position when their fire angle from cocealment doesn't allow them to do so on other ships, i also said that in relation to their HP and relair capability the Cruisers were too vulnerable to fire considering this spaming, and i'm not even mentioning my DD, since  there is no way else to avoid overpen but to use HE.

 

Those guys virtually CAN cluster stuff their aiming, one lucky shell guaranties more damage than they worked for, it doesn't mean that i got deleted more often by fire than detonated by BBs who knows what they're doing it means what i have said repeatedly and you try to spin every different way you can find.

 

Now if you're not happy with my remarks about how much guts it takes to play a camping game, why dont you complain to Flamu about he saying (using other wording) "there is too many sissies in this game", i happen to share this opinion 100%, campers and spammer lacks courage, those who specialises on hunting and farming on the most vulnerable lacks courage and i stick to my guns, if you weren't feeling so concerned you wouldn't be spinning things around this way, perhaps you should try a dynamic and agressive play style and come back to us telling us it works in the middle of a camping party spamming HE.

 

In any case you made very little impression on me.

 

ShinGetsu, on 27 March 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

At this point, I don't think I can talk to this guy anymore without insulting him. I mean, the only word I have to describe him starts by "R" and also means "being late" in French. Excuse my poor vocabulary.

 

I just facepalmed when reading this :

 

Hey, it's coming from the guy that recommended putting Survivability Expert on a Dunkerque.

 

It's just amazing how oblivious one can be at their own fault. I don't know, when I screw up in a game, I know it... when I'm a bad player, I strive to improve. I'm not rejecting the fault on everyone and everything else.

 

WG stated multiple times that they see absolutely no problem with HE and fire, since AP and Torpedoes does more damage overall, and that chart proves it.

 

Yeah and so WHAT?

 

Different skills for different playstyle, i made my case and you my dear sir are far from being high enough on the food chain other than that of the invisicamping HE spammers to tell that a skill you haven't tested works or not.

 

And again this chart doesn't prove anything else than more damage is caused to Cruisers by those using AP and it's not from other Cruisers, BBs delets a lot more Cruiser in one salvos than Cruisers themselves, this chart doesn't show who kills who, only who is killed by which amo, then it takes some level of arrogance to pretend to know better than someone else what they go through during a game, and something else, if Cruisers got citadeled and it helps showing AP damage on it it's thanks to geezers like myself, not your bunch.

 

Plus they introduced the very same skill you were jumping up and down on trying to get it off the last update to minimise risks of fire, going as low as to accuse BB and Russian players to lobbie W.G, funny now you have the guts to try to defend it, but considering that you are a great fan your typical invisifiring/HE spaming camping style it's not a surprise to me, you made it clear enough on the topics of the past two updates...

 

[Lord_Holland_of_Wessex]

In any case you made very little impression on me.

 

no one could unless they used a hammer.

[procrastinatingStudent]

 

No that's NOT what it shows at all and i don't think it was their intention, 

 

 

Well here is the the original source 

Taranlated (by Google) paragraph below graph:

 The second bottom is the percentage of combat capability that is "killed" by fires on average. Blocks from left to right: AB, LC, CD, EM (target). Well, the levels are below.

 

So, in AB fires are taken up to 17.4% of fighting capacity. Quite a bit, but they should burn like matches.

 

In LK - up to 17,7% (and this is Mikasa), and so - up to 15,9%. Just do not forget that the damage from the fire is 100% restored by the repair team, and the LC has 4-5.

 

The figures of the Kyrgyz Republic are even more modest - up to 9.4%.

 

It's funny to talk about destroyers.

 

Even the maximum values ​​do not look scary and do not draw on the "World of Fires." And the diagram clearly demonstrates this. The damage structure is logical and at the same time diverse, different means are used to destroy targets. In general, everything is fine, there is no need for global corrections.

"Even the maximum values ​​do not look scary and do not draw on the "World of Fires." And the diagram clearly demonstrates this. The damage structure is logical and at the same time diverse, different means are used to destroy targets. In general, everything is fine, there is no need for global corrections."

 

feel free to interpret however you want.

 

 

 

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

This thread is pure comedy gold! 

 

[ThinderChief]

 

 

 

Well here is the the original source 

Taranlated (by Google) paragraph below graph:

 The second bottom is the percentage of combat capability that is "killed" by fires on average. Blocks from left to right: AB, LC, CD, EM (target). Well, the levels are below.

 

So, in AB fires are taken up to 17.4% of fighting capacity. Quite a bit, but they should burn like matches.

 

In LK - up to 17,7% (and this is Mikasa), and so - up to 15,9%. Just do not forget that the damage from the fire is 100% restored by the repair team, and the LC has 4-5.

 

The figures of the Kyrgyz Republic are even more modest - up to 9.4%.

 

It's funny to talk about destroyers.

 

Even the maximum values ​​do not look scary and do not draw on the "World of Fires." And the diagram clearly demonstrates this. The damage structure is logical and at the same time diverse, different means are used to destroy targets. In general, everything is fine, there is no need for global corrections.

"Even the maximum values ​​do not look scary and do not draw on the "World of Fires." And the diagram clearly demonstrates this. The damage structure is logical and at the same time diverse, different means are used to destroy targets. In general, everything is fine, there is no need for global corrections."

 

feel free to interpret however you want.

 

 

 

 

Yeah. SO? Where does it shows that AP damage on Cruisers is caused in majority by other Cruisers?

 

I dont need to interpret anything it's CRYSTAL CLEAR.

 

This data doesn't tell anything about Cruisers spamming HE on other Cruisers or not, plus before you can set another fire you need to put more HE shells on target and since spammers spend their time doing just that, its' quiet normal HE damage shows as being the largest in this data, even getting kills after "melting" a ship can be done this way, i didn't invent the term, some "unicum" did, so it kind of prove my point without any need for interpretation.

 

Spamming HE is meant to set fire, it causes damage especially on DDs but it doesn't change the source or the target or the fact that those ships HP is going at a much higher rate without less efforts thant it should. 

 

In my case it's the opposite, in my last game in the Konigsberg i score one fire a 3 citadels, feel free to interpret however you want.  

 

 

Just do not forget that the damage from the fire is 100% restored by the repair team, and the LC has 4-5.

 

Oh i like this one, especially with low HP Cruisers or DDs, for the DDs i wont complain there is no other way to avoid over-pen but Cruisers? More reality denial using this chart and we're in for more lauch than an overdose of N₂O, and that coming after they introduced the Fire Prevention skill that all camper and invisi-HE-spamers were rejecting so loudly, it takes a lot to dare doing this now, but nothing strange considering you dont want it to change...

 

Here is the list of Cruiser with access to the Repair Party comsumable. I really only play ONE of them in this list.

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables

[mtm78]

I dont need to interpret anything it's CRYSTAL CLEAR.

 

Something here is crystal clear yes.. 

[eliastion]

Yeah. SO? Where does it shows that AP damage on Cruisers is caused in majority by other Cruisers?

 

And that is pertinent to "HE spam" problem... how?

The chart shows that cruisers don't get killed by HE or fire, whatever the source of the two; their true nemesis (just like for BBs) is AP. 

 

Either way, if you want to keep whining about HE and fire damage on your cruisers, please do create a new thread for just that, probably in Gameplay or Ships section. Please don't pollute this thread anymore since it has nothing to do with HE and fires - no changes on PTS are about HE and fires. The discussion here should really be restricted to

 - removal of invisifire, feedback on whether it's a good idea, whether it was handled correctly and/or how it could've been handled better

 - removal of manual drops from low tier CVs, feedback on whether it's a good idea, whether it was handled correctly and/or how it could've been handled better

 - feedback on changes in ship ranges

 - feedback on changes in some US CV planes drop characteristics

 - feedback on other changes on PTS that affect game balance

 

Since I don't seem to recall HE performance to be changed on any ships, the whole discussion about HE balance is a massive offtop here.

Please be so kind and create some dedicated thread for this - this unrelated discussion has already taken far too much space here, drowning actual TS balance feedback.

Also, to everyone else (whether or not ThinderChief decides to stop posting about his massivve problem with enemy HE spam) - please, try to refrain yourself from replying to any further posts about this issue - as well as others similarly unrelated to the intended topic of this thread.

I myself will do that from now on and I hope we'll be able to perhaps get discussion back on track or at least stop the offtop from continuing.