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

Dev Blog - ST DD plating changes

102 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,475
[HINON]
Supertester
7,655 posts
8,050 battles

ST. Destroyer plating changes.

We're continuing to work on situations, when battleships cause too much damage with AP shells to destroyers. This happens when destroyers are at an angle and the shells arm inside the hulls.

One of solutions that will be tested in a closed environment is decrease of destroyer plating from 19 to 13 mm. This will only apply to tier X ships on the test, but might later spread to tier VI, VII, VIII and IX ships. Other specific protection traits, like Khabarovsk's increased armor, will remain. The plating change will make it impossible for AP shells of 380 mm and higher caliber to arm above the surface, which will lead to decrease in overall damage from AP shells to destroyers. Possibility of dealing damage with such shells if they arm in the water still remains, but it is pretty low to begin with.

Value of heavy cruisers in battle will increase, since 203 mm AP shells will stop ricocheting off of destroyers' plating. This will also affect Akizuki's 100 mm main batteries and battleship secondaries - their HE shells will start to penetrate the plating and deal damage to destroyers.

This way the amount of damage received by destroyers should remain the same on average, but the bulk of it will come from cruisers and battleships secondaries.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,166 posts
9,164 battles

Would be interesting. Akizuki would no longer require IFHE in order to do damage at least to T10 DDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,746
[PVE]
Members
7,907 posts
13,843 battles
9 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

ST. Destroyer plating changes.

We're continuing to work on situations, when battleships cause too much damage with AP shells to destroyers. This happens when destroyers are at an angle and the shells arm inside the hulls.

One of solutions that will be tested in a closed environment is decrease of destroyer plating from 19 to 13 mm. This will only apply to tier X ships on the test, but might later spread to tier VI, VII, VIII and IX ships. Other specific protection traits, like Khabarovsk's increased armor, will remain. The plating change will make it impossible for AP shells of 380 mm and higher caliber to arm above the surface, which will lead to decrease in overall damage from AP shells to destroyers. Possibility of dealing damage with such shells if they arm in the water still remains, but it is pretty low to begin with.

Value of heavy cruisers in battle will increase, since 203 mm AP shells will stop ricocheting off of destroyers' plating. This will also affect Akizuki's 100 mm main batteries and battleship secondaries - their HE shells will start to penetrate the plating and deal damage to destroyers.

This way the amount of damage received by destroyers should remain the same on average, but the bulk of it will come from cruisers and battleships secondaries.

There is nothing wrong with BB AP going in on an angled/bow on/stern on DD and having time to arm inside the hull for a full pen. That is reasonable, realistic, and fair. Every hit on a DD from BB AP should not be an overpen.  WTH WG'ing. :Smile_sceptic:

The issue that is NOT fair to DD's and that they need to actually fix, is the full pen and over-pen double damage from one shell. That is not right and should have been corrected long ago. But, instead of fixing the actual problem they are going to screw with everything about BB AP vs DD. :Smile_facepalm:

I am sure the DD players will love it and many will call me a BB baby but man why can't they just fix the actual problem and not go for a total rework? BB should be able to defend themselves vs charging DD's without having to swap to HE to do so. Nothing but overpens is a huge nerf to BB/buff to DD that is not needed. 

T-10 until the 1st downvote...:Smile_glasses:

Edited by AdmiralThunder
  • Cool 10
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,868
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,423 posts
5,956 battles

Anything that increases the effectiveness of heavy cruisers and secondaries I’m all for!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,746
[PVE]
Members
7,907 posts
13,843 battles
4 minutes ago, Dont_Lewd_The_Loli said:

This is cool and all, but when are we going to fix the instances where BB shells end up "double dipping". You know, the actual issue here.

EXACTLY!

Edited by AdmiralThunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,978
[WAIFU]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,283 posts
5,258 battles
16 minutes ago, ShimakazeKawaii said:

Would be interesting. Akizuki would no longer require IFHE in order to do damage at least to T10 DDs

IFHE would still be a must pick for Akizuki, Kitakaze, and Harugumo to get past the 19mm of battleship superstructure armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SYN]
Members
780 posts
7,850 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

T-10 until the 1st downvote...:Smile_glasses:

I know, right? It's like saying that a DD can manage to work in a radar-rich environment.

To the point, I am not sure whether I prefer secondary damage to the AP damage. It will free up 4 points on My Harekaze/Yugumo, destined to be a Harekaze/Akizuki, captain since  I usually avoid guns on CA's and BB's.

Edited by Ensign_Pulver_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,020
[NG-NL]
Members
5,652 posts
9,424 battles

Fixing the pen+overpen issue is all WG should be doing. Not reducing  DD armor to reduce AP effectiveness.
However, I suspect they make changes based on their Russian server rather than changes for USA/Oceania/Europe as it'd take far more work and slow their new content.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[AWP]
Members
785 posts
3,318 battles
56 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

There is nothing wrong with BB AP going in on an angled/bow on/stern on DD and having time to arm inside the hull for a full pen. That is reasonable, realistic, and fair. Every hit on a DD from BB AP should not be an overpen.  WTH WG'ing. :Smile_sceptic:

The issue that is NOT fair to DD's and that they need to actually fix, is the full pen and over-pen double damage from one shell. That is not right and should have been corrected long ago. But, instead of fixing the actual problem they are going to screw with everything about BB AP vs DD. :Smile_facepalm:

I am sure the DD players will love it and many will call me a BB baby but man why can't they just fix the actual problem and not go for a total rework? BB should be able to defend themselves vs charging DD's without having to swap to HE to do so. Nothing but overpens is a huge nerf to BB/buff to DD that is not needed. 

T-10 until the 1st downvote...:Smile_glasses:

Didn’t they fix that a few patches ago? I haven’t noticed it at all in the past few weeks of play (granted I haven’t been able to play much). But hey I’m all for not having to decide head on and risk pens or broadside to get overpens only. I think if this change happens, it makes secondary builds much more viable for all BB’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[ARC]
Members
571 posts
7,915 battles

This is bullcrap. One of the things I used a lot against CA's DPM is go bow-on or stern-on any AP slinging cruiser.

The overpen+pen bug is something that hard to balance that they have to make a general balance to keep it from happening?

The only advantage is that Akizuki and co. will not need IFHE to do direct damage against other DDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,682
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,463 posts
11,457 battles

This in effect buffs certain ships, does Alsace really need help - because she's going to get it. FdG needs a bit of love, but Bismarck doesn't.

Giving the already very solidly performing Akizuki what amounts to another 4 skill points and 1% fire chance is also pretty questionable. I'm not sure if I would take it for battleship superstructures given that's somewhat niche and you have AP.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[GLF]
Members
844 posts
11,151 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

BB should be able to defend themselves vs charging DD's without having to swap to HE to do so.

Oh Boy, we sure wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone to have to switch ammo types to fit the situation now would we.   I know they've made doing so incredibly difficult already, such that a finger needs to be actually lifted.  

 

 

Edited by AnimaL21
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
964
[SPTR]
Members
26,491 posts
12,024 battles

This is gonna be very interesting how other ship types interact with the DD meta if this change rolls onto live, CAs can lolpen them now, secondaries have more of a purpose too.

I wonder whats my normal pen to over pen ratio on a 203mm armed cruiser hitting a DD at a 45 degree angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,067 posts
6,279 battles
24 minutes ago, mofton said:

This in effect buffs certain ships, does Alsace really need help - because she's going to get it. FdG needs a bit of love, but Bismarck doesn't.

Giving the already very solidly performing Akizuki what amounts to another 4 skill points and 1% fire chance is also pretty questionable. I'm not sure if I would take it for battleship superstructures given that's somewhat niche and you have AP.

Akizuki would still need IFHE or it wouldn't pen BB superstructures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,539
Members
21,871 posts
5,725 battles
1 hour ago, Dont_Lewd_The_Loli said:

This is cool and all, but when are we going to fix the instances where BB shells end up "double dipping". You know, the actual issue here.

No need to now apparently!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
527 posts
699 battles
15 minutes ago, AnimaL21 said:

Oh Boy, we sure wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone to have to switch ammo types to fit the situation now would we.   I know they've made doing so incredibly difficult already, such that a finger needs to be actually lifted.  

 

 

BB ammo swap is 15 seconds with a skill. Saying its the method to deal with charging DD's is dishonest at best and flagrant DD-mafia [edited] as a baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,543
[SBS]
Members
3,711 posts
2,408 battles
Just now, Schindlers_Stink_Fist said:

Akizuki would still need IFHE or it wouldn't pen BB superstructures.

It will make Akizuki's grind to get IFHE a lot more bearable.

Overall I don't what to think of this.  Its nice that WG wants to address the issue of DDs getting beat up by AP.  I know it seems silly but I was kinda hoping to get a tiny survival buff out this AP change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,543
[SBS]
Members
3,711 posts
2,408 battles
Just now, Highlord said:

BB ammo swap is 15 seconds with a skill. Saying its the method to deal with charging DD's is dishonest at best and flagrant DD-mafia [edited] as a baseline.

If you were forced to switch ammo then you'd right.  You don't have to switch.  You fire the AP you have loaded with less than optimal results, its called balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,855
[OO7]
Members
4,070 posts
10,738 battles
5 minutes ago, Highlord said:

BB ammo swap is 15 seconds with a skill. Saying its the method to deal with charging DD's is dishonest at best and flagrant DD-mafia [edited] as a baseline.

Wg never meant for ap to be the ammo of choice against dds. They are supposed to have to change ammo or, gasp, stay with ships that can support it in those situations... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,208 posts
5,446 battles

This is going to be a case of being careful what you wish for.  I anticipate a sudden rash of complaints of DM and Hindy AP doing the same thing Battleship AP does, only on a more frequent basis because of the volume of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,746
[PVE]
Members
7,907 posts
13,843 battles
25 minutes ago, AnimaL21 said:

Oh Boy, we sure wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone to have to switch ammo types to fit the situation now would we.   I know they've made doing so incredibly difficult already, such that a finger needs to be actually lifted.  

 

 

The issue is BB's have 30 second +/- reloads. A LOT can happen while a BB waits for the guns to reload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×