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

What would make AP more attractive?

107 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

166
[GOM]
Members
355 posts

1) HE & AP trade places for damage per shell.

2) No penetration changes to zero damage and zero effect unless it hit a module (AA gun etc) first and even then if said module is armored then that armor has to be penetrated.

3) Chance for fire removed from HE, becoming a chance on every hit that does damage or destroys a module with the bigger/ more sever the damage the greater the chance of a fire.

4) Fix the shell arcs, auto-bounce, and over-match idiocy so that a shell at maximum range comes down at its proper angle and with the correct penetration.

Result. No more idiots spamming HE, praying for fires, & saying they're "skilled"; no more stat-padding so-called "elite" players who depend on a "just ignore the whole auto-bounce bit" mechanic in place to actual knowledge, and "bow tanking" becomes an invitation to eat multiple penetrations & citadels from plunging fire. People want to do damage they need to learn where to aim to find the parts of a ship they can penetrate, which incidentally means armor beyond enough to prevent over-match actually becomes useful. Heck maybe removing the bandaid will finally get Wargaming to actually do something about the stupidity that is balancing high-tier BB AP against BB health pools while using said damage to determine how much damage cruisers take.

Of course the HE spamming forum warriors who live on these forums to defend their crutch will surely be around to say "HE IS FINE NOOB!" as they always do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,119
[WOLF9]
Members
9,689 posts
4,290 battles
3 hours ago, DemonicTreerat said:

so that a shell at maximum range comes down at its proper angle and with the correct penetration.

This is supposedly already the case.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[GOM]
Members
355 posts
On 6/13/2018 at 11:11 PM, iDuckman said:

This is supposedly already the case.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

 

Sure. Log in and start a training room, park a USN BB T8 or later at in-game 13km from a target then aim for the deck and start shelling. Now record how many citadels you hit. It will be zero. Even though publicly available records show that at 11 degrees from horizontal a USN 16" SHS shell would consistently penetrate 3 inches of armor-grade plate. Not bounce off - penetrate clean through with enough energy left to keep on going and smash deep into the unprotected sections of  a ship. And that penetration only got bigger the closer the angle was to vertical which at maximum range was over 45 degrees.

There is absolutely nothing realistic about the in-game arcs. Wargaming took the laziest route available by arbitrarily chopping them off at maximum range instead of having the angle of impact depend solely on range. Something that just happens to only really hurt USN ships who relied on heavy shells moving at slower velocity that would plunge through the thinner decks of other warships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[KWRCN]
Beta Testers
121 posts
6,106 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 5:06 AM, DynDueMuffin said:

Educating the playerbase.

AP is already very attractive.

Agreed, this would see the biggest gain in AP usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,821 posts
4,578 battles
31 minutes ago, DemonicTreerat said:

Sure. Log in and start a training room, park a USN BB T8 or later at in-game 13km from a target then aim for the deck and start shelling. Now record how many citadels you hit. It will be zero. Even though publicly available records show that at 11 degrees from horizontal a USN 16" SHS shell would consistently penetrate 3 inches of armor-grade plate. Not bounce off - penetrate clean through with enough energy left to keep on going and smash deep into the unprotected sections of  a ship. And that penetration only got bigger the closer the angle was to vertical which at maximum range was over 45 degrees.

There is absolutely nothing realistic about the in-game arcs. Wargaming took the laziest route available by arbitrarily chopping them off at maximum range instead of having the angle of impact depend solely on range. Something that just happens to only really hurt USN ships who relied on heavy shells moving at slower velocity that would plunge through the thinner decks of other warships.

This is a result of the game's extremely generous automatic ricochet angles, not any incorrectness in angle of fall. The game actually overestimates penetration at high obliquities, which is why the automatic ricochet system seems to have been implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,596
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,402 posts
11,023 battles

Easy solution: Stop penalizing players for switching ammo types. 

If I have 3 turrets at different states of reload, currently, if I fire the first turret to finish loading, all 3 turrets immediately begin reloading the new ammunition. Even if the other 2 were half a second from finishing their reload.

Stop doing that. 

Instead, have the turrets finish loading what was selected when they started. Only force a reload when the 1 or 2 key is pressed twice. 

Yes this will mean that sometimes a player has HE in one turret and AP in another. Color the turret indicators to show what ammo is loaded and let players manage their ammunition selection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×