Loading...Wargaming is testing a 10% rule for damage against gun mounts, bulges, etc. in order to prevent zero damage shells/torpedoes. I discuss some concerning test results and ask for comments. Hope you have a wonderful day and I’ll catch you next time!
Tier IV Soviet Battleship Nikolai Replay
https://playtogether.worldofwarships.com/invite/OwzqAkj – Warships Friend Invite
https://discord.gg/33xzEjR – Discord Server
My Yamato averages about 15% of it’s full pens doing 0 damage, with the worst case being a 6 0 damage fullpen salvo on a full HP minotaur… i rage quit warships for a week after that match
My Yamato feels your pain…
Happened to me last night.
I’d say reduce the guaranteed damage value from 10% to somewhere between 3% to 5%
TBH I don’t have a problem with shells doing no damage, either due to shattering, module damage or damage saturation.
I just want to see that communicated clearly. Getting the “penetration” ribbon and doing no damage is very, very confusing. Especially when a full salvo is absorbed (which typically happens when you “penetrate” the torpedo bulge but shatter on the armor underneath). Just give me a “shattered” ribbon or a “shell penetrated but not a part that you can damage” ribbon.
Yes, exactly this. Honestly, I think this is what most players wanted in the first place. It’s just WG went the other way, and decided to overhaul penetration mechanics, instead of fixing a few ribbons. They really went overboard with this one.
I wish world of tanks devs listened to their player base as well as WoWS. Whats left of it.
I do not know, if AP shell hits external weapon mount and detonates outside of the ship hull, should not it work like regular HE shell while computing damage to the ship ?
No. AP rounds have much less HE filler than a HE round. Also the round would probably semi-penetrate the armour before exploding, effectively negating any sort of shrapnel damage
No…Ap shells have small explosive charges compared to HE. An external detonation would send chunks of steel everywhere causing damage to thin superstructure. Then again AP shells have caused fires…ala hms hood.
+LEX Maximaguy87 hood had a fire because a shell hit a 102mm AA ammo locker and the locker went up (flak shells caused the fire)
+Fernando Marques yes i know it was the 4in aa ammo rack.
Uh yeah torpedo bulge dmg would cripple the Republique
Man, wouldn’t it be awesome if French ships’ spaced armor worked like it’s supposed to in real life? So instead of eating HE like it’s going out of style, it would penetrate the first layer and then shatter on the belt armor.
And many other ships…
Isaiah Sherrill HE resistance was much better with spaced armor
I miss arms race, it was fun and it balanced the matchmaking for t8 for a bit. If they allowed campaigns and missions to be completed in this game mode I feel that it would have gotten far better reviews.
I fully agree!
Never underestimate the potensial for stupidity. If someone kan do something stupid, sooner or later they will. The comunity often cries over OP Battleships and wargaming listens. This is both good and bad, They often listen to much, hense the repeated hammering on the Battleships. So all there nerfs might wery well happen.
+Jerry Glaze Tell that to the large slow destroyers that rely on smoke.
+Katya Hodgson tell the crusier player that lost half health to one torp. Otlr a cit from a bb at 20k.
+Katya Hodgson tell that to dds Who benefit firing to a enemy dd from smoke when a friendly CA radar.
+android kiquepa Yeah because that happens REALLY often.
+Katya Hodgson it does. So you Always Cap in friendly CA company.
One of the problem is when people complain about something (yea 0 damage hit are a pain in the butt) they forget that they also get the benefit of these problems as well. So yea 0 damage is a pain but (maybe because we do not realise when it happens) we also get the benefit of that 🙂
+android kiquepa No but you also benefit from the zero damage when people hit you as often as you suffer it.
+Robert Pettigrew dont want unreal benefit. But o
just dont show 0 dmg hits atall and nobody would care about it anymore
+Alrion1704 Yea this would be perfect or have a underpen ribbon if they can not do that that for some reason, anything that side of the mechanic would be better than trying to change core mechanics for a reporting issue.
Aside from strange situations where AP rounds vanish into the space armor of a French cruiser the survivability level of ships in the game is generally where both the community and the developers want it. If the devs are going to push this to live then they will have to adjust the HP pools of virtually every ship to account for the fact that more of the ship can now take damage, torpedo bulge needs to be an HP zone, gun mounts need to be an HP zone: that’s just nuts, its way too much adjusting.
I think everyone is fine with the idea of a gun turret or space armor absorbing a hit and not dropping a ship’s HP because those components are outside of the ship’s “buoyancy zone”, hits to those will not cause a ship to sink. What players have a problem with is hits to those components giving a penetration ribbon and not a shatter ribbon or a hypothetical “non-critical pen” ribbon.
WG looked at players saying ‘I don’t understand why I got this ribbon but no damage’ and replied ‘we’ll make all shots cause damage’ rather than fixing the systems that gives ribbons for hits that didn’t cause damage to HP. That’s like rebuilding the car because the factory put the mirror on backward.
As for BB AP on Destroyers, simply give shots against DDs at long range extra dispersion so if they do take a penetrating hit its a lucky fluke, don’t change the way AP works. A DD closing to point-blank range against a BB shouldn’t be a survivable experience for the DD, that is why the DDs have stand-off weapons (torpedoes).
Most of the times dds die by other dds or ca. Overpens, distance, dispertion and load every 30 sec makes bb many times no shoot at dds. And whats the problem if a dd dies in a volley? Bbs die also in a few torps hits
Doing 10% dmg towards what is basically an external module either bulge or any other is not needed, it just need to register correctly so everyone knows whats up. Taking out modules and doing no dmg is fine as you are diminishing the fighting capabilities of the ship. there is no need to reward every hit on a battleship size ship. We still need RNG.
DutchComfort this exactly!!
Bulge thing get it out of here. 10% to saturated? Yea ok
10% external dmg e.g. to torpedo bulges may be too high, 5% is better. BUT probably the biggest reason I like this change is my hope that 10% dmg will apply to Spaced Armour penetrations like what the French Cruisers and Roma have. I understand that spaced armour was designed to absorb HE and AP shells, with the final citadel plating to tank the splinters, but such shockwaves from the explosion would have buckled the ship; perhaps cause flooding and incapacitate machinery. Its simply silly for hits to space armour to cause 0 dmg. 10% pen dmg to space armour is more suitable – ending the stupidity of space armour that has both plagued wot and wows for years.
If the torpedo bulge thing gets removed, the change will be good to go. Otherwise, the DD nerf is bollocks. Instead, make pens do for example 20% damage. You most often do AP pens on YOLOing DDs and yeah-At that point you are doomed in certain BBs if your guns are not pointing the correct way, because your secondaries practically don’t exist. And now even your main battery will be ineffective. As for the concealment expert change? Well, my proposition would be to increase BB, CA/CL and CV concealment by the lost percentages. Would make the game more interesting, since on certain ships concealment wouldn’t be entirely mandatory (still strong, but you would not get spotted from another solar system)
I think a global concealment improvement would help bring the ships in closer and make the games a little more lively.
DD nerf? Every change os DD buff. Concentment bb shells doing no damage to dd dd shells 10 perebct on ever shell no.
DD are going to destroy the game with all the bithing there doing
Radar is short range and duration but that not enough and it will be taken out soon.
DD are nothing but complaning and getting Buffed and everyone else is beong nerfed into the ground
For three years content creators and players have provided feedback that carriers are broken, and for three years to this day they remain broken. The rework does not look to be addressing the core problems of carriers. Why hasn’t Wargaming removed them from ranked? Maybe now you understand how little faith people have. The fact this even made it to test says a lot.
no ones alive who was alive in 1776 american independence day so don’t have a go at national holidays please Notser
always interesting to see how people interpret language, merely stating I have no idea what exactly occurred during Russian Unity over 400 years ago
Notser apologies but I felt it had to be said as some may misinterpret what you said as flippant I meant no offence.
All good, I should be more clear with my comments
Seriously how you can be confident WG will listen to the community if something is popularly crap? Have they listened to radar line of sight suggestion? Have they listened to tier X out of tier VIII MM? Absolutely not. They listen to money eventually, we have seen that on tier selection for ranked battles, and it will go on even more. 🙁
thats just not right, alot of shit they put into pts never came live
My biggest problem with the game in general is 3 tier levels per match. This matchmaking needs to go and changed to only having 2 tiers levels in a matchmaking. It would greatly improve matchmaking and makes the game more fair and fun for everyone.
While I agree that there’s no guarantee that WG will listen to the community, I don’t think the points you raise are entirely fair. There’s actually far more controversy within the community on issues in the game.
Radar, for example, is hell for destroyers but I know a lot of cruiser captains (and players who have Missouri) who enjoy using it as it is. Yes, evil people, I know. Also for matchmaking, I never considered it that bad, even when I’m grinding in tier VIII ships. Maybe I have much lower standards since I’ve played World of Tanks (it’s way worse and the ambiguous distinction between vehicle types makes it insufferable at times).
+Alex Quantum Actually radars were eventually “fine”.. until they doubled the number of US cruisers. Now joining a game with no less than 3 radars is very common and become very frustrating, plus the range is too much if you consider that most of dds can’t reach these cruisers with torpedoes, without being in radar range. And this also discourage unconfident dd players to play actively and contest caps. I think there must be a serious rework on this, for the fun of the game tbh.
Oh yea, nerf CV’s, nerf BB’s, buff DD’s. Can’t wait, thanks WG!
radar meta says hi to dds
+Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer you cant be transparent all time. Radar benefit your team also against enemies dds. Or benefit your dd directly when you Fire from smoke to a enemy dd thanks to friendly radar support
all they have to do is add module damage ribbon
WG be like= ?
Wargaming = ruskie+saturday night vodka
OP Battleships??? It’s a freakin BATTLESHIP! It’s supposed to be OP. Besides just what do you think would happen if a Missouri put a 16″ hole completely through a destroyer? The flooding alone would probably be unmanageable not to mention all the equipment the shell destroys on the way through. It is ridiculous enough a light cruiser can bounce a 2800 lb AP projectile.
gothicalpha WoWS was never realistic in the first place, soo…. yeah 😀