Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Exocet6951

So about this AP fix...

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,561 posts
9,093 battles

Are you sure you fixed everything properly ?

After a DD binge for the past week, I took about my BBs again, and seriously, what?
There is absolutely nothing consistent for me anymore. 

 

 

Keeping in mind that my Alsace waifu has 11.9k alpha....
I've been doing 7k damage salvoes with 8 overpens on broadside BBs 14km away and 8k damage salvoes in 4 overpens on a Kebab 8km away.
I can do 1.8k damage on one regular pen on an intact ship, and the very next shell will do a regular pen for 3.8k

 

So I've been observing on the receiving end as well. I can go full potato broadside and only take 9k damage from 3 separate BBs. But lo and behold, I angle and suddenly it's -26k from a single one.

Hell, I've seen shells phase through enemies, I've seen shells shot at 350mm belts overpen at point blank range, shells hitting flat turret faces ricochet, and shells hitting bows at blatantly autobounce angles just go through.
 

 

 

Now, had this been any random time, I'd wave it off as a massive fluke spanning over multiple days....
But right after an AP fix to fix a bug that made it in game after patch testing showed no bug, despite the bug being evident to anyone playing the game for more than 5 battles.

Before anyone asks, I'm sitting pretty on a 200mbps direct fiber optic connection, with the router 1m away from my PC connected via ethernet, PC which can run the game smoothly at 60 fps. 

 

 

So I ask again, AP is fixed and back to normal?

 

 

 

As far as thread discussion goes, has anyone else noticed oddities since the hotfix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,556 posts
4,784 battles

I was wondering about posting a thread about Citadelliing french BB's - I took some BB's out for a spin yesterday (Missouri, Alabama and NC) and couldn't get a single citadel against broadside French BB's for love nor money, cruisers remained juicy though. Bounced some Alabama shells off the stern of a Bismarck at a range of circa 3k, he was stationery but very slightly angled, had a WTF moment before getting over it, as you do.

Wonder if that is the same issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,546 posts
6,375 battles
50 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

As far as thread discussion goes, has anyone else noticed oddities since the hotfix?

Pretty much everything you said has been around for way longer than this patch. I've previously pointed out a lot of this stuff, and, just the same as those claims were ignored, going to drop a "in before the BBaby memes" here, because you know they will inevitably come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sailing Hamster
2,336 posts
9,228 battles
12 minutes ago, philjd said:

I was wondering about posting a thread about Citadelliing french BB's - I took some BB's out for a spin yesterday (Missouri, Alabama and NC) and couldn't get a single citadel against broadside French BB's for love nor money, cruisers remained juicy though. Bounced some Alabama shells off the stern of a Bismarck at a range of circa 3k, he was stationery but very slightly angled, had a WTF moment before getting over it, as you do.

Wonder if that is the same issue.

That#s pretty much how it was before wasn't it. BB's have been ridicilously hard to citadel for ages now, at least since the start of 2016.

 

I have to admit, I actually liked the "bug".....finally, you could punish mistakes again...

5 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Pretty much everything you said has been around for way longer than this patch. I've previously pointed out a lot of this stuff, and, just the same as those claims were ignored, going to drop a "in before the BBaby memes" here, because you know they will inevitably come.

This. This was (and now is again) working as intended though, for better or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,561 posts
9,093 battles
22 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Pretty much everything you said has been around for way longer than this patch. I've previously pointed out a lot of this stuff, and, just the same as those claims were ignored, going to drop a "in before the BBaby memes" here, because you know they will inevitably come.

 

Well sure, there are some regulars coming back to show themselves, but I'm talking about some new things that simply don't make any sense.

Such as my very last match today.
I see a rear facing Amagi. Perfectly perpenticular.
A third of what I can see is autobounce, another third is 3 turrets in a row, and the last third is blacked out superstructure, mostly chimney and antennas.
I shoot 12 shells, 9 ricochets, 3 regular pens, 11k damage.
Now how the hell did that happen? Why did I do damage? Even if all the shells magically missed the turrets, it would mean that 3 shells regular penned a damage saturated superstructure for max regualr pen damage.

The very same situation just the previous match against a Richelieu provided me with 0 damage, despite having identical ricochet/regular pen numbers.

 

 

I just want to know why I can have the same situation twice in a row, and have it give two opposite results.
Or one simple situation that should give an expected result, then have a nonsensical thing happen. 

Is this just how the game is supposed to be? 

Have I just been spoiled by a bug that actually made the game fun and balanced for 2 weeks to the point of not remembering how it was before?

Or is it just some random bug again?
 

 

I'd like to assume that my memory isn't that bad yet, and that the developers don't want a game where game mechanic rules just don't matter for one second and lean towards the notion that maybe there's a sneaky little bug that made it's way into the hotfix.
If a major change to AP led to an obvious bug that somehow (lel) made it past WG testing (lel again), maybe there's another smaller bug in the hastily made WG hotfix.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
752 posts

Empathic *YES*. It is bugged. Only way to normalize it is to play a ship with quick reload.

 

I especially recognize the 'overpens and bounces on broadsides'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
6,914 posts
9,129 battles

It's back to normal yes.

 

Sadly the normal state as it has been so far is still in very much dire need of fixing.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
603 posts
7,285 battles
8 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

As far as thread discussion goes, has anyone else noticed oddities since the hotfix?

Yes I have. Using Lyon and Normandie as benchmark, because they were released in 7.1. They definitely did not roll back to 7.1 ballistics. Both Lyon and Normandie, when showing broadside, where easily citadelable in 7.1 and even if they were not citadeld, they took heavy penetration damage, because of the thick casemate armor. After hotfix, I have not citadeld Lyon and Normandie not even once, while I have had plenty of opportunity. Also they get a lot less penetrations and much more over-penetrations.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,159 posts
9,946 battles

Wonky mechanics everywhere .. last night I did 11k damage with 2 (460mm) overpens on a North Carolina ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
603 posts
7,285 battles

So, @MrConway what did WG actually do with the ballistic in 0.7.2 and how did they "fixed" it (it does look like they did not fix it, but rather made a fast and untested workaround)

On 26.3.2018 at 5:08 PM, Exocet6951 said:

Keeping in mind that my Alsace waifu has 11.9k alpha....
I've been doing 7k damage salvoes with 8 overpens on broadside BBs 14km away and 8k damage salvoes in 4 overpens on a Kebab 8km away.
I can do 1.8k damage on one regular pen on an intact ship, and the very next shell will do a regular pen for 3.8k

 

So I've been observing on the receiving end as well. I can go full potato broadside and only take 9k damage from 3 separate BBs. But lo and behold, I angle and suddenly it's -26k from a single one.

Hell, I've seen shells phase through enemies, I've seen shells shot at 350mm belts overpen at point blank range, shells hitting flat turret faces ricochet, and shells hitting bows at blatantly autobounce angles just go through.
 

.Well, what I think about it. What would explane this

 

1. In 7.2, "corrected" shell ballistic consisted in more steepened shell drop angles. This is what caused the "issue", shells had steeper terminal ballistic (they were plunging more), there for, when they hit the water, they dived deeper in the same space of time and managed to go underneath the turtleback. And we know, Wows had compressed ranges (gun range on the ships were shorter than in reality), but un-compressed shell ballistic  (so shell drop angle matched reality in that range). So, if you are going do "correct" ballistics, this is what makes sense.

 

2. Like I said in other topic, that "issue" what got fixed by hot-fix, was actually not an issue. It was a feature. If you compress ballistic do match ranges, this is what actually happens. Thicker the turtleback, shorter it has do be (you can not slap massive amounts of extra armor on the ship, it will sink, every extra mm of armor you but on the turtleback, comes from somewhere else and because of this it can not work at all ranges) This is why most of the ships affected where "fantasy" ships built by WG, rather than real ones with existing armor layout. Why Conqurer got more citadels, was that shell had more plunge in them and penetrated 32mm of side armor, just above the mainbelt and plunged into citadel trough 19.mm roof.

 

3. Considering how different shell performance is, when compared to 7.1. It is rather certain WG did not roll-back the ballistic chance. They rather fixed it by other means. I kind of suspect, that this work-around was universal lowering of the ships, do match the new ballistics (so shells could not pass below the belt anymore.)

 

So why you (and me aswell) are seeing chances. Is that at 14.km now roughly matches to about 20.km in reality. This is the range, where due to shell drop angle, it gets hard do penetrate the main belt. But it is the range where shell drop angle is still not steep enough to penetrate deck armor. So what happens, is that shells that hit the belt bounce ( because of the steeper angle of attack, and lowered ships), shells that hit above the belt, penetrate into the ship, but bounce from the armored deck and because steeper the angle of impact, angle of bounce is also steeper, that means, that shell that bounces from the armored deck, bounces out of the ship, before fuze runs out. Bouncing from belt is further increased by lowered ships, because big part of the citadel and belt armor has increased protection from water. Meaning that chance is most apparent on the ships with high penetration (mid-tier 16.inch guns, high pen French and US high tier guns).

 

For example Colorado feels bad now. And not only feels bad, but also appears weaker statistically. After I re-bought it slightly more than year ago, in 130 (something) battle averaged about 85000 average damage and it felt good and reliable. After the hot-fix I am really struggling and averaging about 72000. 

 

Edited by mariouus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff
1,864 posts
2,152 battles
3 hours ago, mariouus said:

So, @MrConway what did WG actually do with the ballistic in 0.7.2 and how did they "fixed" it (it does look like they did not fix it, but rather made a fast and untested workaround)

 

 

We have not yet implemented the BB AP vs. DD fix, this is still being worked on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
603 posts
7,285 battles
3 minutes ago, MrConway said:

We have not yet implemented the BB AP vs. DD fix, this is still being worked on!

I know. We are talking about the bug that tragically made some BB citadelable and fix for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,561 posts
9,093 battles

After yet another nonsensical match, I decided to whip up a training room.

 

My results?
I wish I could show a pattern, but honestly, I found none.
Sometimes shells below the waterline citpen BBs, sometimes they just disappear.
Sometimes shells right at a waterline citpen cruisers, other times they overpen. Same spot, same angle, two different results.

 

I am getting literally no consistency, especially when it comes to targets with compound armor plates.

A richelieu's belt+turtleback shouldn't be thick enough or angled enough to stop the Alsace's guns. Yet, I fire just above the waterline: only regular pens. I fire below the waterline, and sometimes I get citpens, sometimes I get overpens. Under the waterline.

Yamato under the front turrets? The shells should have vastly enough penetration to go through the bow and citadel, and there's only the citadel to go to behind it. Yet if I fire three salvoes at that very spot from 4km away, I'm able to get regular pens in one, citpens in the other, and back to regular pens on the last. How? I'm hitting the same spot and there's nowhere else for the shells to go. It's either the citadel or Narnia. It's not like 32mm bow plating is thick enough to make some shells lose enough penetration to fail to penetrate the citadel.

 

 

So here's my theory: 

Either there's something screwy going on in the code, or everything is fine, but the client/server desync is just out of control and what I'm seeing is even remotely close to what's actually happening anymore, so I'm firing too high/low/back/forward.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,546 posts
6,375 battles
5 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

So here's my theory: 

Either there's something screwy going on in the code, or everything is fine, but the client/server desync is just out of control and what I'm seeing is even remotely close to what's actually happening anymore, so I'm firing too high/low/back/forward.

So since I'm not the one saying this first (lets face it, would immediately be dismissed by pretty much everyone) - I can finally mentione that desync is what I'm blaming. Too many ghost shells passing through ships that others are hitting at the same time, too many "I barely touched your bow" citadels, too many "2 shells hit in the same spot - one overpen, one shatter".

Just glad I'm not the only one noticing :cap_like:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
2,686 posts
9,840 battles
53 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

So since I'm not the one saying this first (lets face it, would immediately be dismissed by pretty much everyone) - I can finally mentione that desync is what I'm blaming. Too many ghost shells passing through ships that others are hitting at the same time, too many "I barely touched your bow" citadels, too many "2 shells hit in the same spot - one overpen, one shatter".

Just glad I'm not the only one noticing :cap_like:

I'm more and more certain this is the case. I have seen too many hits that made no sense. Too many shells hitting the target and doing nothing but causing a splash.

Many people are probably noticing it but not connecting the dots.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CG]
Players
57 posts
6,594 battles
1 hour ago, wilkatis_LV said:

So since I'm not the one saying this first (lets face it, would immediately be dismissed by pretty much everyone) - I can finally mentione that desync is what I'm blaming. Too many ghost shells passing through ships that others are hitting at the same time, too many "I barely touched your bow" citadels, too many "2 shells hit in the same spot - one overpen, one shatter".

Just glad I'm not the only one noticing :cap_like:

It's a lot more obvious with torps, pretty much every day you can see torps that look like they are going to hit perfect broadside, only for 3 /4 to sail straight through the target.

 

Its most evident when you are observing after sinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,663 posts
12,822 battles
1 hour ago, LiKwId said:

It's a lot more obvious with torps, pretty much every day you can see torps that look like they are going to hit perfect broadside, only for 3 /4 to sail straight through the target.

 

Its most evident when you are observing after sinking.

 

Can't say that I noticed that ever. And I'm dead a lot, so I have lots of opportunities to watch ships getting rekt by opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,561 posts
9,093 battles
17 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

 

Can't say that I noticed that ever. And I'm dead a lot, so I have lots of opportunities to watch ships getting rekt by opponents.

 

Neither have I, but I very, very often fall prey of the terrain indicator.

"Don't worry Exocet, you totally cleared that island, you can fire now!" -terrain indicator
>75% of the shells hit the island

"Don't fire you fool, you'll hit the mountain!"
>fires anyways and all the shells clear over the mountain

 

 

Or my favorite:
Terrain indicator telling you that your shells will hit the terrain, you fire anyways, half of your shells visually clear over the terrain only to not register so much as a damn water splash when they land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,663 posts
12,822 battles
30 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

Or my favorite:
Terrain indicator telling you that your shells will hit the terrain, you fire anyways, half of your shells visually clear over the terrain only to not register so much as a damn water splash when they land.

 

I always thought that the "you will effing hit terrain indicator" only calculates for some turrets, not all of them, if they would hit "terrain". Should be easy to check, by rotating through the different turrets, to see under which conditions it shows.

And of course the same would be true for the other case - the turret that your active view is on has a free field of fire to the target, but the three turrets to the aft are hindered by the terrain. The indicator only shows that the active turret would shoot unhindered.

 

For me it's the "the torpedoes will of course go past that island like the yellow cone shows" - BOOM, island sunk due to shallow water not really being shown as unpassable for torps in that yellow cone - effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
115 posts
5,531 battles
3 hours ago, Aragathor said:

I'm more and more certain this is the case. I have seen too many hits that made no sense. Too many shells hitting the target and doing nothing but causing a splash.

Many people are probably noticing it but not connecting the dots.

Makes a lot of sense.

I feel uneasy with Missouri & Iowa and cannot say why. I have been really paying attention lately and the guns seem as accurate as ever, which the stats confirm (I'm terrible with both ships btw but I'm working on it, I just don't understand high tier BB positionning).

Last game with Iowa I ended up brawling with a uber patato GK, firing only HE which gave me plenty of time to look up what was going on. At 8km, frequently hitting 2 shells out of 9 for bounce and overpen on a broadside target which is totally not the experience in the training room, so I guess desync is the key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,267 posts
6,857 battles
30 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

 

I always thought that the "you will effing hit terrain indicator" only calculates for some turrets, not all of them, if they would hit "terrain". Should be easy to check, by rotating through the different turrets, to see under which conditions it shows.

And of course the same would be true for the other case - the turret that your active view is on has a free field of fire to the target, but the three turrets to the aft are hindered by the terrain. The indicator only shows that the active turret would shoot unhindered.

 

For me it's the "the torpedoes will of course go past that island like the yellow cone shows" - BOOM, island sunk due to shallow water not really being shown as unpassable for torps in that yellow cone - effect.

Terrain indicator takes center of the ship as reference point - easily check with single, narrow island/mountain. Should turrets were mounted centrally, they would hit island. But bow/stern ones clears just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
752 posts

Whatever the reason, it is damn irritating. I have suspected network lag, as I started having some lately, but that really doesn't explain how I can miss even beached, broadside targets from very short range.

 

I recently posted screenshots of me shooting a beached Zao just above the waterline from under 5kms (1 bounce, the rest of the shells disappeared) but that was just the most extreme example. Whatever it is, is happening almost every game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
71 posts

taking some youtubers into account, some ships that were known to be almost citadel proof such as the Conqueror, Hindenburg and other german ones  etc are suddenly floating citadels.
while other ships report no change in dishing out nor receiving.

i too would like to know if this is still the same or if that has been reverted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
1,872 posts

Oh, and me silly thought you are talking about AP pens on DDs - fix WG has been working on for months now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,651 posts
14,504 battles

I for one can't say that I have found a problem with the armour models as long as you shoot the RIGHT part of the RIGHT ship at the RIGHT time... each ship has differing armour characteristics and just 'Shooting above the waterline' does not ALWAYS work on EVERY ship.... 

 

Know your target, know your guns and you will be fine.

 

Example: 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×