Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
legozer

UK BB HE needs a nerf

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

603
[ARGSY]
Members
1,280 posts
8,937 battles

The HE on the UK BBs is ridiculous. It seems nearly every single salvo produces a fire! A third of the time, two fires!

 

I just got burned down in my NC by a King George who set 8 fires on me. EIGHT!!!! How do you fight that?  

 

The UK BBs should have an HE range of 8 Km*, or the fire chance should be nerfed hard. It's not cool.

 

 

 

*Exaggeration. Still, though, c'mon!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,968
[SYN]
Members
14,439 posts
10,418 battles

no no no

It's 3 fires in one salvo, get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,484 battles

Got news for ya, bro.  Your NC can set fires just as easily.  RNBB HE's advantage is mainly that it penetrates more armor plate, so it has a better chance to do direct damage in addition to the fires.


North Carolina chance for fires per shell:  36%

Monarch chance for fires per shell:  35%

 

Oh, lookit that.  Your North Carolina has a BETTER chance of setting fires than the Tier 8 UKBB Monarch.  The difference is that UKBB AP shells are kinda poo, so the meta says, "Shoot HE, guv'na!"  And lo and behold, now all the BBs are flinging HE.

 

I am growing really tired of the "I don't want to ever adjust to anything, nerf all teh things!" mentality.

Edited by kerensky914

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,968
[SYN]
Members
14,439 posts
10,418 battles
1 minute ago, kerensky914 said:

Got news for ya, bro.  Your NC can set fires just as easily.  RNBB HE's advantage is mainly that it penetrates more armor plate, so it has a better chance to do direct damage in addition to the fires.


North Carolina chance for fires per shell:  36%

Monarch chance for fires per shell:  35%

 

Oh, lookit that.  Your North Carolina has a BETTER chance of setting fires than the Tier 8 UKBB Monarch.  The difference is that UKBB AP shells are kinda poo, so the meta says, "Shoot HE, guv'na!"  And lo and behold, now all the BBs are flinging HE.

Yeah, but he was up against a KGV, which has 10 guns and 41% fire chance.

Monarch's HE is balanced, by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,484 battles
5 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

Yeah, but he was up against a KGV, which has 10 guns and 41% fire chance.

Monarch's HE is balanced, by comparison.

Even so, the difference is a whopping 5% per shell.  For 20 hits, you get one more fire.

The point is, every battleship sets a fire on roughly 1/3 of all hits (or even near misses because their splash damage radius is large).  The problem isn't the RNBBs, it's the fire setting mechanic in general.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
373 posts
5,786 battles
4 minutes ago, kerensky914 said:

Even so, the difference is a whopping 5% per shell.  For 20 hits, you get one more fire.

The point is, every battleship sets a fire on roughly 1/3 of all hits (or even near misses because their splash damage radius is large).  The problem isn't the RNBBs, it's the fire setting mechanic in general.

This is [edited] and you know RNG can play into being set on fire more than what should be normal.

 

I had an Iron duke hit me 4 salvos in a row and set 8 fires, there is nothing that you can do at that point, I was in the warspite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[B2P]
[B2P]
Members
281 posts
7,579 battles
13 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

Yeah, but he was up against a KGV, which has 10 guns and 41% fire chance.

Monarch's HE is balanced, by comparison.

And don't forget, 1/4 pen and 25s reload... and even greater HE damage per shell than the 16 inch guns of the NC... yeah, balnced.

Monarch seems to be the way too go to me, but I still think they need to nerf their stupid high alpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[ARGSY]
Members
1,280 posts
8,937 battles
4 minutes ago, kerensky914 said:

Even so, the difference is a whopping 5% per shell.  For 20 hits, you get one more fire.

The point is, every battleship sets a fire on roughly 1/3 of all hits (or even near misses because their splash damage radius is large).  The problem isn't the RNBBs, it's the fire setting mechanic in general.

Waaaaait.......didn't you just act all snotty about my OP? Something to the tune of, aw nevermind, it's literally 3 posts up. So, after that, you come back with, "the fire setting mechanic [is a problem]", which is what I was on about in the first place.

Anyway, thanks for the advice. No more AP for this NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
439
[MIA-A]
[MIA-A]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,052 posts
7,776 battles
9 minutes ago, kerensky914 said:

Got news for ya, bro.  Your NC can set fires just as easily.  RNBB HE's advantage is mainly that it penetrates more armor plate, so it has a better chance to do direct damage in addition to the fires.


North Carolina chance for fires per shell:  36%

Monarch chance for fires per shell:  35%

 

Oh, lookit that.  Your North Carolina has a BETTER chance of setting fires than the Tier 8 UKBB Monarch.  The difference is that UKBB AP shells are kinda poo, so the meta says, "Shoot HE, guv'na!"  And lo and behold, now all the BBs are flinging HE.

 

I am growing really tired of the "I don't want to ever adjust to anything, nerf all teh things!" mentality.

 

Congrats you pointed out the only somewhat balanced ship in the line and it lacks the incredible fire chance of the rest of the overpowered line. Good to see our STs really showing what type of mindset let WG release RN BBs as obviously broken as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,720
[TBW]
Members
6,395 posts
12,011 battles

Mine barely sets any fires but then I never had luck at games of chance. Like Coin Flipping, 10 number Football Pools, Pick a Card, The Lottery and the One Armed RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
729
[-K-]
[-K-]
Supertester
1,847 posts
6,875 battles

Look on the bright side, at least it wasn't a Nelson with 9 guns forward with 46% fire chance & the alpha strike of a stock Lion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[ARGSY]
Members
1,280 posts
8,937 battles

There are nothing but bright sides when the world around you is an unending inferno.

Edited by legozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,484 battles
14 minutes ago, SmokinCAT said:

This is [edited] and you know RNG can play into being set on fire more than what should be normal.

RNG is the same for everyone, though.  That's rather the point. 

 

14 minutes ago, legozer said:

Waaaaait.......didn't you just act all snotty about my OP? Something to the tune of, aw nevermind, it's literally 3 posts up. So, after that, you come back with, "the fire setting mechanic [is a problem]", which is what I was on about in the first place.

Anyway, thanks for the advice. No more AP for this NC.

Well, people have been complaining about HE fires since long before the UKBBs came along.  The difference its that until now, the meta said "All BBs shoot AP all the time".  Now a line comes that encourages HE use and suddenly there's double the fire spam.

As for not shooting AP, there's still plenty of times where AP is more appropriate.  Especially since yours won't shatter on same-tier BB belts on broadside at 12km...

20 minutes ago, NeoRussia said:

Congrats you pointed out the only somewhat balanced ship in the line and it lacks the incredible fire chance of the rest of the overpowered line. Good to see our STs really showing what type of mindset let WG release RN BBs as obviously broken as they are.

The OP was talking about North Carolina, so I compared it to the Tier 8 UKBB.  As for anything I might've said in testing, I literally can't discuss it at all, so I can neither confirm nor deny your comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[VVV]
Beta Testers
799 posts
5,156 battles

I've been playing the Conk almost all day, and it seem to be worse then when I have been playing prior to the nerf today. I tend to do a ton less damage in the ship, Set about 8 to 10 less fires a game now, and of course I notice the biggest hit with the added cool down of my repair. Honestly I'd rather the ship just have a normal repair with a better cool down cause unless you use it just at the right time you'll be out of luck to even stay alive. But yea seems like fire damage or something has changed. Most games I did nothing and I'd get 160k - 180k damage easy. Now I'm working hard to break 100K. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining my ship isn't OP or whatever, I'm just saying in my opinion it feels as if there was more of a nerf or something then just cool downs and concealment. BUT I also think it could be due to the free respecs and maybe people are specing for fire chance. Anyone else notice the conk playing a lot differently damage wise?

P.S. I think the Conk is in line with my other T10 bb's now, which is 90 - 110k damage avg. But when you think about that fire damage being repaired, I'd assume I'm only doing about 70k or less damage overall. And unless I hide at all times in the conk I die instantly unlike my other bb's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,731
[INTEL]
Members
8,567 posts
25,652 battles

UK BBs firing HE at you? Good news. The AP is more useful in getting meaningful damage. So celebrate. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[ARGSY]
Members
1,280 posts
8,937 battles

Yeah, I'm sure it beats the hell outta setting 8 consecutive fires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[ARGSY]
Members
1,280 posts
8,937 battles
24 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

UK BBs firing HE at you? Good news. The AP is more useful in getting meaningful damage. So celebrate. 

 

 

 

Meaningful? Celebrate?? Haha...ok pal.

 

So, explain the dff between excessive (8 consecutive fires) and meaningful? Is meaningful damage less, but somehow better? Does UK AP only strike at the EXACT moment, in the perfect location, to cause a ship to sink? 

 

Honestly, gotta love the forum guys. "I read the first sentence of the OP and nothing more, so time to throw my learned opinion around regardless of the context!! TO THE KEYBOARD, THERE'S POSTING TO DO!!!" More meaningful damage. Celebrate. Thanks for not reading at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[ARGSY]
Members
1,280 posts
8,937 battles

Can we all put the posting machine away for a minute, and agree that several of the UK BBs set fires at a ridiculous rate and that they should be at least considered for change? 

 

"NO WAY! THE GOOD NEW IS THEY WERENT FIRING MEANINGFUL AP!!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,731
[INTEL]
Members
8,567 posts
25,652 battles
34 minutes ago, legozer said:

Can we all put the posting machine away for a minute, and agree that several of the UK BBs set fires at a ridiculous rate and that they should be at least considered for change? 

 

"NO WAY! THE GOOD NEW IS THEY WERENT FIRING MEANINGFUL AP!!!!"

 

37 minutes ago, legozer said:

 

Meaningful? Celebrate?? Haha...ok pal.

 

So, explain the dff between excessive (8 consecutive fires) and meaningful? Is meaningful damage less, but somehow better? Does UK AP only strike at the EXACT moment, in the perfect location, to cause a ship to sink? 

 

Honestly, gotta love the forum guys. "I read the first sentence of the OP and nothing more, so time to throw my learned opinion around regardless of the context!! TO THE KEYBOARD, THERE'S POSTING TO DO!!!" More meaningful damage. Celebrate. Thanks for not reading at all.

 

Kid, this has been beaten to death on the forums. Perhaps next time you post you should first search. It's not me who is clueless, but you.

If you are in a UK BB T7-10 and firing mostly HE, you are doing it wrong. AP wins games, HE only does damage. 

Go to Warships today. Check out BBs for overall Solo battles on the NA servers. Solo win rates tell you how a ship carries, free of the influence of div mates. Of the higher tier UK BBs, KGV is higher than its tech tree counterparts in Solo battles and is improving. At T8 Monarch (50.80%) has a lower win rate than Bismarck (50.93%) in all Solo battles, and its 2 week number is even lower, meaning that its performance is falling over time.  

 

At T9 Lion is significantly better, not because it is particularly good, but because it is being played by experienced players and because its counterparts, FDG, Iowa, and Izumo, are not particularly good (T9 sucks for BBs). Missouri, also played by experienced players, is much better. Lion's two week numbers show that its win rate is stagnant, which means that as less experienced players reach it, those win rates will likely fall.

At T10 Conk is third in Solo overall win rates behind GK and Yammy. 

Clearly -- at least based on numbers -- perhaps KGV needs a slight downward tweak. The others I do not believe need nerfs, and Monarch maybe needs a small buff (that thing is awful, especially in stock). 

Next time you want to jump in the forums, it might be a good idea to (a) know what you are talking about (b) bring numbers (c) maybe think about what someone with three times your battle experience is saying. 

As I have said on several threads, and as the numbers WG has released show (there was a thread on that, did you bother looking it up?), UK BBs pile up gaudy damage numbers, but they don't win. Good examples are the Queen Elizabeth and Conk, both of which lead tech tree BBs in their tiers in damage, but do not lead them in Solo win rates. 

The HE flinging strategy is annoying and piles up big damage, but doesn't win. HE doesn't kill ships, it just erodes them. AP kills ships, and killing ships is how you win. 

That is why I said, if the UK BB is flinging HE, it has chosen a bad strategy that will likely not result in wins. As for me, I like seeing UK BBs on the red team for the most part, their drivers have generally not yet grasped that they should be shooting AP, not HE, and so my team has a better chance to win. 

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,598
[TASH]
Members
5,013 posts
8,076 battles
6 hours ago, Taichunger said:

UK BBs firing HE at you? Good news. The AP is more useful in getting meaningful damage. So celebrate. 

Yeah, because UK BBs can totally pen the extremity armor of heavily-angled/bow-on a T8+ battleship with AP.

 

I will agree with you that UK BBs at basically all tiers are no different from other battleships in terms of when each ammo type should be used, at least against other capital ships.  Against CAs of T8 or above, they need to use a little more HE than most lines, KGV especially.  Against DDs, you might as well just fire whatever the hell you want because short-fuze AP causes massive normal-pen damage while the HE just trashes the entirety of the ship's modules in exchange for actually being affected by saturation.  However, that doesn't mean their HE is okay as it is, especially when their AP damage output isn't really much worse.  What do you give up for having 30% or more of the HE alpha strike of other same-tier BBs, and the extra fire that results from the stupid fire chances on RN 16"+ HE?  UK BB AA is pretty good - not USN levels of survivable, but it's just as potent if you're not shot at a lot - their survivability is more than balanced since they got the super-heal at most tiers where their HP isn't on-par (Monarch being the exception), and whatever other flaws they have are common to all battleships.

 

So, in essence, you have ships with top-notch HE DPM and firestarting ability by a runaway margin that give up nothing in return.  That's not balanced, even if it has little de facto effect - you, as someone who uses the "has no weakness now" argument for raising the Iowa/Missouri/Alabama/Montana citadels, should understand that approach to balancing.  As I stated in this thread, even toning down UK BB HE to standard damage formulae would not affect their position relative to same-tier battleship HE, just lessen the margin.  If the ships have meh win rate and stupidly-high damage numbers, then figure out how to balance them so they trade damage for WR.

Edited by ValkyrWarframe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
729
[-K-]
[-K-]
Supertester
1,847 posts
6,875 battles
6 hours ago, Naviss said:

I've been playing the Conk almost all day, and it seem to be worse then when I have been playing prior to the nerf today. I tend to do a ton less damage in the ship, Set about 8 to 10 less fires a game now, and of course I notice the biggest hit with the added cool down of my repair. Honestly I'd rather the ship just have a normal repair with a better cool down cause unless you use it just at the right time you'll be out of luck to even stay alive. But yea seems like fire damage or something has changed. Most games I did nothing and I'd get 160k - 180k damage easy. Now I'm working hard to break 100K. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining my ship isn't OP or whatever, I'm just saying in my opinion it feels as if there was more of a nerf or something then just cool downs and concealment. BUT I also think it could be due to the free respecs and maybe people are specing for fire chance. Anyone else notice the conk playing a lot differently damage wise?

P.S. I think the Conk is in line with my other T10 bb's now, which is 90 - 110k damage avg. But when you think about that fire damage being repaired, I'd assume I'm only doing about 70k or less damage overall. And unless I hide at all times in the conk I die instantly unlike my other bb's.

 

With the free respec going on, you'll be seeing a lot more Fire Prevention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[ARGSY]
Members
1,280 posts
8,937 battles

Next time you want to jump in the forums, it might be a good idea to (a) know what you are talking about (b) bring numbers (c) maybe think about what someone with three times your battle experience is saying. 
 

 

Yeah, you the man! Sorry I sooooo dumb!

 

Seriously, though, you missed the entire point: it's insane that any ship can set 8 consecutive fires. It's even more insane that "someone who knows what he's talking about" can say, "hey, be thankful it wasn't AP!". Honestly. You think I should be "grateful" that he set 8 fires (IN A ROW) instead of bouncing AP shells off my bow? Throw every number you want at your untenable argument, and you know what? It's still untenable.

The fact is that it's a flaw. No ships should be able to set fire, after fire, after fire, after, fire, after fire, after fire, after fire, after, fire on any other combatant. It makes no sense. But, sure, I guess I'm grateful. You make a powerful point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[ARGSY]
Members
1,280 posts
8,937 battles

ALSO!

 

You know what? I don't care one butterfly fart if the HE topic has been discussed before. This is a thread about a SPECIFIC flaw in the game that I want to discuss, after a SPECIFIC incident that highlighted that flaw. If you don't want to weigh in on it again, then, honestly, that's great. Please don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×