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

Balance Turret HP

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles

So I was bored and decided to look at how many HP various turrets have in WoWS in response to a question. You've probably once or twice lost a turret, either getting an incap or a complete destruction. After only a little bit of looking, I came to a pretty surprising conclusion: In WoWS, main battery turret HP(with a very few exceptions) only depends on the caliber of guns- no other factor is included!

HP for all turrets is as follows

76-130mm: 4000

138-155mm: 7500

180-210mm: 10000

220mm-356mm: 15000

380mm-460mm: 20000

This has, to me, a couple of kind of questionable balance implications. It means that in general, as many smaller turrets as possible are better than a few big turrets. I.e. Fletcher has 5 turrets with 4000 HP each, while Gearing has 3 turrets with 4000 HP each, meaning that similar amounts of HE will disable more of Gearing's firepower(yes, splash, but Fletcher's turrets being spread out means she won't usually take quite as much damage). There's still some impetus to have enclosed multiple turrets on destroyers, as they usually have better armor coefficients/protection, which reduce the damage they take from HE, but in general it makes destroyer twins vulnerable to getting shot up(Ognevoi players may provide their input here). The other big impact of this is on battleships, especially French ones with their quads, but to a degree ships with triples instead of twins. These ships suffer from significantly more vulnerability to firepower kills, especially as battleship turrets can reliably take BB AP hits that knock out even their high HP quickly(2 14"+ shells kill any BB turret, with one exception).

You also have the situation where crossing an invisible line in the sand suddenly results in much better turret health. The large gun cruisers, for instance, have 50% more turret HP because... reasons, I guess. Oh and French destroyers have 7500 HP turrets, too. This isn't to say that bigger turrets and guns shouldn't be more durable- obviously they should, but that the current dividing lines are too sudden and prone to arbitrarily rewarding certain ships over others. Like the 4x2 15" gun battleships having much more HP than 14" triples, even though the turrets were of fairly equivalent sizes.

This isn't overall a huge balancing concern, but it's probably something that has enough of an impact that it should be addressed. Turret incapacitation at a bad time can swing a match, and it's not a very transparent mechanic so the drive should be for it to be as "obvious" in its implementation as possible. Things like GK having double-HP turrets are especially egregious, because unless you read old patch notes or dive data files, the ship's armor scheme would lead you to believe that GK is vulnerable to turret kills.

In general:

Turret HP should smoothly increase across calibers(with the same number of guns), rather than in a relatively small number of steps.

Turrets with more guns should have more HP- perhaps not proportionally, but it shouldn't be the case that having few larger turrets is a clear, no questions asked bad thing.

There should be no special exceptions. Turret HP is a completely opaque mechanic, there is no way to find out about it from within the client. Certain ships having special balancing magic on invisible numbers is a Bad Thing. 

I'd propose something like this as a baseline, using twin turrets to start:

Spoiler

76-88mm: 3000 HP

100-105mm: 3500 HP

114-130mm: 4000 HP

135-140mm: 5400 HP

150-155mm: 6500 HP

180mm:         8000 HP

203-210mm: 10000 HP

220-240mm: 12000 HP

250-260mm: 14000 HP

305mm          16000 HP

340-356mm: 20000 HP

380-381mm: 22500 HP

400-410mm: 25000 HP

431mm          28000 HP

457-460mm: 31000 HP

The intent is that 2 hits from a fairly powerful gun of the same caliber will destroy the turret. Note that in the case of certain calibers, no existing gun is quite powerful enough- i.e. there is no "high power" 457 or 460mm gun, though we can estimate this gun would deal somewhere upwards of 15 or 16k damage(the USN 18"/47 or IJN 46cm/50 designs are about this powerful).

Relative to this, a quad turret should have about 50% more HP, buying it an extra hit from a powerful gun and a higher chance of still taking a third hit when faced with a gun of larger caliber or avoiding being incapacitated. Singles should have about 75% to 60%, meaning that they have a much higher chance of being incapacitated in a single hit and will usually only take two at max. Triples would obviously fall somewhere in-between doubles and quads(30%?).

Obviously if WG wanted, they could do some formula based off of internal turret volume or suchlike, this is mostly a quick and dirty solution to try and make things generally sensible with a bit of math.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,302
[MUDDX]
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
21,869 battles

Turret HP is based on Turret Armor not number of barrels nor caliber. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
8 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

Turret HP is based on Turret Armor not number of barrels nor caliber. 

 

Spoiler

"PJSB918_Yamato_1944": {
	"A_Artillery": {
      "HP_JGM_1": {
        "HitLocationArtillery": {
          "armorCoeff": 0.0,
          "autoRepairTime": 30,
          "autoRepairTimeMin": 25,
          "buoyancyShipPercent": 0.0,
          "burnNode": "",
          "canBeDestroyed": true,
          "critProb": [
            0.05,
            0.75
          ],
          "critProbHP": [
            1.0,
            0.02
          ],
          "damageEffects": [],
          "deathEffects": [
            "/",
            "/"
          ],
          "detonateEffect": "sfx/NF_BB_death_explosion_of_art_cellar.xml",
          "detonateOnDead": false,
          "hitDetonationMaxProbAtDamage": [
            0.0,
            0.0
          ],
          "hitDetonationMinProbAtDamage": [
            0.0,
            0.0
          ],
          "hlType": "artillery_hitlocation",
          "maxBuoyancy": 0.0,
          "maxHP": 20000.0,
          "moduleCritCoeffCR": 1.0,
          "moduleCritCoeffXP": 1.0,
          "parentHL": null,
          "regeneratedHPPart": 0.5,
          "rndPartHP": 0.5,
          "splashBoxes": [
            "CM_SB_gk_1_1"
          ],
          "tbSkipProbMax": 0.0,
          "tbSkipProbMin": 0.0,
          "transmitBPDamageToParentFactor": 1.0,
          "transmitHPDamageToParentFactor": 1.0,
          "volume": 0.5,
          "volumeCoeff": 0.33
        },

"PFSB508_Gascogne": {
    "A1_Artillery": {
      "HP_FGM_1": {
        "HitLocationArtillery": {
          "armorCoeff": 0.0,
          "autoRepairTime": 30,
          "autoRepairTimeMin": 25,
          "buoyancyShipPercent": 0.0,
          "burnNode": "",
          "canBeDestroyed": true,
          "critProb": [
            0.05,
            0.75
          ],
          "critProbHP": [
            1.0,
            0.02
          ],
          "damageEffects": [],
          "deathEffects": [
            "/",
            "/"
          ],
          "detonateEffect": "sfx/NF_BB_death_explosion_of_art_cellar.xml",
          "detonateOnDead": false,
          "hitDetonationMaxProbAtDamage": [
            0.0,
            0.0
          ],
          "hitDetonationMinProbAtDamage": [
            0.0,
            0.0
          ],
          "hlType": "artillery_hitlocation",
          "maxBuoyancy": 0.0,
          "maxHP": 20000.0,
          "moduleCritCoeffCR": 1.0,
          "moduleCritCoeffXP": 1.0,
          "parentHL": null,
          "regeneratedHPPart": 0.5,
          "rndPartHP": 0.5,
          "splashBoxes": [
            "CM_SB_gk_1_1"
          ],
          "tbSkipProbMax": 0.0,
          "tbSkipProbMin": 0.0,
          "transmitBPDamageToParentFactor": 1.0,
          "transmitHPDamageToParentFactor": 1.0,
          "volume": 0.5,
          "volumeCoeff": 0.33
        },

 

No, it isn't. It might make sense if that were true... but it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
Just now, CAPTMUDDXX said:

Gibberish!

I gave you the whole spec for the turret hit location... both have 20000 HP, despite the armor differences between Gascone and Yamato. Note the line:

"maxHP": 20000.0,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,923
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,355 posts
4,739 battles

Demonstrate, with performance numbers, that this is an issue that needs adjusting.  Don’t think of it in terms of what seems logical in a thought experiment or what seems fair, demonstrate that it is a actual balance problem in the game.  That Arizona is performing worse than Warspite or Mutsu and needs this buff, for example.

In game balance is what matters, not in mind theoretical balance.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
Just now, Helstrem said:

Demonstrate, with performance numbers, that this is an issue that needs adjusting.  Don’t think of it in terms of what seems logical in a thought experiment or what seems fair, demonstrate that it is a actual balance problem in the game.  That Arizona is performing worse than Warspite or Mutsu and needs this buff, for example.

In game balance is what matters, not in mind theoretical balance.

You know perfectly well that trying to nail a balance factor that pushes a large number of ships very slightly like this to the ground is basically impossible, especially given the low statistical quality of the data that's easily available to us(I would note that Ognevoi, Gearing, and the IJN DD line all suffer from this issue and aren't stellar performers, but I have no real way of attributing their performance to this). So I'm going to turn the problem against you. Demonstrate that this change would cause any balance issues in the game, using hard numbers. Prove that this would cause some problem.

Because ultimately, "it isn't intuitive" is actually a game-design reason to change it. It's not what I- or I suspect you or anyone else, would expect the game to function like. Therefore it should be changed, because having mechanics that betray the player is not good gameplay. If the game does something that doesn't align with the player's expectation it should either tell them straight up, or it should be changed to fit.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,251
[BLKRS]
Alpha Tester
1,044 posts
2,901 battles

I've never seen a problem with turret armor or health. Honestly its one of the only thing properly balanced in this game..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
8 minutes ago, J30_Reinhardt said:

If this would change the penetration for zero damage junk I'd be all for it.

I would like it if that was changed, but it would be seriously dangerous to do so. Even as 33% pens it would make most angled battleships much more vulnerable at close-mid ranges, and would generally increase the damage dealt to cruisers from AP shells. The other half of it is that turrets are vulnerable to splash damage, while HP hull sections are not, so you might see some changes in terms of ship vulnerability to HE(IJN cruisers would be the cause, as they have thin turret armor and can take splash). So changing turret HP would be a fairly safe change to simply put as PTS/ST and then stick in the game, tying turrets to HP would require a fairly lengthy test cycle.

4 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

 

Your point being? You will note that Fuso's battery turret has 15000 HP, exactly what I say it does, and that nowhere do they talk about how much HP main battery turrets have on other ships.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,302
[MUDDX]
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
21,869 battles

There is so Much O C D at work here it is ridiculous! @Sub_Octavian please change turret HP to be based on armor rating and not gun caliber and please made every ships turrets HP value different to placate the OP! As if it makes the least bit of freeking difference to game play!

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,923
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,355 posts
4,739 battles
Just now, Aetreus said:

You know perfectly well that trying to nail a balance factor that pushes a large number of ships very slightly like this to the ground is basically impossible, especially given the low statistical quality of the data that's easily available to us(I would note that Ognevoi, Gearing, and the IJN DD line all suffer from this issue and aren't stellar performers, but I have no real way of attributing their performance to this). So I'm going to turn the problem against you. Demonstrate that this change would cause any balance issues in the game, using hard numbers. Prove that this would cause some problem.

Because ultimately, "it isn't intuitive" is actually a game-design reason to change it. It's not what I- or I suspect you or anyone else, would expect the game to function like. Therefore it should be changed, because having mechanics that betray the player is not good gameplay. If the game does something that doesn't align with the player's expectation it should either tell them straight up, or it should be changed to fit.

You're the one claiming there is a balance issue.  Your OP had a lot of words, but not a single one gave any support to your claim.  You can't just pull a system in isolation and declare it imbalanced based on its raw numbers.  Take that to its logical conclusion and all ships end up being the same because different numbers are "imbalanced".

YOU need to support your claim that there is a problem rather than just declaring that there is a problem and here is the fix for it.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[STA_]
Members
309 posts
2,380 battles

I'm just upset because the secondaries on French BBs get destroyed too easily even with the auxiliary mod. Perhaps CV rework means AA health rework too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
18 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

You're the one claiming there is a balance issue.  Your OP had a lot of words, but not a single one gave any support to your claim.  You can't just pull a system in isolation and declare it imbalanced based on its raw numbers.  Take that to its logical conclusion and all ships end up being the same because different numbers are "imbalanced".

YOU need to support your claim that there is a problem rather than just declaring that there is a problem and here is the fix for it.

You're basically trying to claim that unless we can hard prove there is a balance issue and that X is definitely the problem, nothing should be done, ever. In that case, WG should just close up the forum and stop responding to player feedback, because full stop we don't have the tools to prove anything here, and not really to evidence it either. The numbers available are so low-quality as to be laughable, because we can't pull apart player skill and can barely pull apart recent versus past stats. And even if we could, this is an issue that statistical noise is very likely to overwhelm. The only case I'd say where this produces clearly detrimental outcomes is Ognevoi, which suffers from poor stats despite not being deficient otherwise.

And not all problems are purely balance related anyways. There's a big part to this issue that it simply isn't expected behavior, and this is a big issue in any game. Like full stop- if I had asked you before now what you thought drove turret HP, would you have responded "caliber, and nothing else." I kind of doubt that.

6 minutes ago, admiral_noone said:

I'm just upset because the secondaries on French BBs get destroyed too easily even with the auxiliary mod. Perhaps CV rework means AA health rework too.

Well yes, that would be because heavy/DP secondaries have only 800 HP and in the case of French 152mm, take splash damage despite reasonable armor. AA guns only have 200 HP, which is even more likely to get them shaved off if a HE shell even splashes them a tiny bit.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,923
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,355 posts
4,739 battles
52 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

You're basically trying to claim that unless we can hard prove there is a balance issue and that X is definitely the problem, nothing should be done, ever. In that case, WG should just close up the forum and stop responding to player feedback, because full stop we don't have the tools to prove anything here, and not really to evidence it either. The numbers available are so low-quality as to be laughable, because we can't pull apart player skill and can barely pull apart recent versus past stats. And even if we could, this is an issue that statistical noise is very likely to overwhelm. The only case I'd say where this produces clearly detrimental outcomes is Ognevoi, which suffers from poor stats despite not being deficient otherwise.

And not all problems are purely balance related anyways. There's a big part to this issue that it simply isn't expected behavior, and this is a big issue in any game. Like full stop- if I had asked you before now what you thought drove turret HP, would you have responded "caliber, and nothing else." I kind of doubt that.

False.  I am saying you ought to be able to demonstrate, with numbers, that there at least might be an issue.  In this case you have a huge sample size to work with.  If your claim is true there ought to be a trend, not universal due to other factors, but a trend that shows ships that, per your claim have a disadvantage due to turret health, tend to perform worse than ships with more turret health.

If that is not the case then the turret health "issue" is not actually an issue and is instead part of the balance of each ship that is already factored in.  In other words, if the minor buff you are requesting were to be applied the game might be less balanced than it is now.

I am not asking for hard proof.  Just that you at least provide some evidence to support your claim that this is a balance issue.  You have provided literally no evidence to support your claim.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[--K--]
Beta Testers
994 posts
11,339 battles

I don’t see how this is an issue, I never feel like the frequency of having turrents disabled or destroyed is unusal or excessive regardless of the ship or ship type I have used. In fact I think the turret HP values are where they are now (including size to hp ratio) is precisely because of a balance change they made around the time when RU DD were released. It was very common to have at least one of your turrets KOed in a DD in every game, ognevoi was notorious for losing all of its guns before they rebalanced the turret hp. Disabling and losing turrets use to be much more common before that patch

Also this is a very sensitive mechanic and balance, you’d want to err on the side of having too much turret HP. It’s not fun to sail around in a ship with half or all of your guns permanently out of service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,848
[WOLFG]
Members
27,103 posts
7,217 battles
2 hours ago, Aetreus said:

Demonstrate that this change would cause any balance issues in the game, using hard numbers. Prove that this would cause some problem.

If you assume that different ship characteristics influence the desirability of a particular ship, then buffing HP of turrets with more guns would certainly dilute that "flavour".

And TBH, I don't experience knocked-out turrets enough to have sufficient data to pose an argument for or against it, as far as pure balance goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,160 battles
42 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

False.  I am saying you ought to be able to demonstrate, with numbers, that there at least might be an issue.  In this case you have a huge sample size to work with.  If your claim is true there ought to be a trend, not universal due to other factors, but a trend that shows ships that, per your claim have a disadvantage due to turret health, tend to perform worse than ships with more turret health.

If that is not the case then the turret health "issue" is not actually an issue and is instead part of the balance of each ship that is already factored in.  In other words, if the minor buff you are requesting were to be applied the game might be less balanced than it is now.

I am not asking for hard proof.  Just that you at least provide some evidence to support your claim that this is a balance issue.  You have provided literally no evidence to support your claim.

Your obsessive need for hard evidence of a statistical issue for any change is understood and ignored. It's simply not possible for something like this that effects many ships but in a small way. Other effects will drown it out. The closest I can get is to point out that Ognevoi performs consistently poorly(sub 49% in quarterly maple stats), and Gearing has and continues to perform worse than Fletcher by 2-3% despite having acquired Fletcher's torpedoes. In both cases though it is difficult to say that turret HP is a "smoking gun."(Minekaze vs Mutsuki is another example, though again complicated by torpedo differences) If we had a ship that only differed in gun arrangement, things would be easy, but AFAIK no such ship exists. I'm not going to bother constructing some generalized average because such a thing would be fundamentally meaningless, I or anyone else could construct it to an arbitrary conclusion by selection of which ships were considered on each side. It would also inevitably vacuum in all sorts of confounding variables which are associated with turret arrangement.

At any rate, as I've been repeatedly harping on and you have been ignoring, this is not just a balance issue. Answer the question: is this what you would have expected? The game shouldn't mislead players with its mechanics, especially when WoWS is so opaque about them.

31 minutes ago, NCC81701 said:

I don’t see how this is an issue, I never feel like the frequency of having turrents disabled or destroyed is unusal or excessive regardless of the ship or ship type I have used. In fact I think the turret HP values are where they are now (including size to hp ratio) is precisely because of a balance change they made around the time when RU DD were released. It was very common to have at least one of your turrets KOed in a DD in every game, ognevoi was notorious for loosing all of its guns before they rebalanced the turret hp

Also this is a very sensitive mechanic and balance, you’d want to err on the side of having too much turret HP. It’s not fun to sail around in a ship with half or all of your guns permanently out of service.

The issue is that it's a band-aid fix, Ognevoi still is more vulnerable than other DD to losing all of her guns, it's simply that DD in general is much less likely to lose gun turrets. The problem is that fixes like this rarely make the problem go away, and can cause knock-on balance issues.

Also, I know that you don't want to make turrets too vulnerable. If you read into things, the only ships that really lose turret HP are destroyers using single gun turrets, who ususally have significant numbers of turrets and therefore firepower reserve, and ships with 135-140mm guns. Most other ships gain turret HP due to typically having triple turrets, even if this doesn't mean in most cases they take additional hits. The biggest buff is to heavy gun battleships, which WG has struggled to balance in the past- Republique needs super fire rate, Yamato overmatch/accuracy, Conq 457mm is just bad. Changing this means that the amount of magic buffs can be reduced, which aside from being overall good makes it easier to add future ships in this category.

To elaborate on that a bit more, one of the purposes of doing a change like this is to try and avoid balancing shifts that might subtly change how a ship performs in a non-obvious way. WoWS is already an extremely complicated game in balance terms with dozens of balancing values on hundreds of ships. The goal is to get it so that a ship's effective main battery HP is mostly the same relative to its overall firepower and size. IOW, a 2000 ton destroyer with a given focus on guns should have roughly the same durability on its main battery as any other 2000 ton destroyer with a similar focus on guns. This is a good thing because it means when WG inserts some other 2000 ton destroyer, that ship too has a "normal" main gun durability, which reduces the likelihood that they're surprised by how it performs in game and need to change it. Sudden inflection points and big swings depending on arbitrary factors create outliers, and outliers create balancing issues that are hard to pin down when the mechanic involved isn't made clear.

Imagine, for instance, a future hypothetical 6x2 16" battleship at tier X(or worse, some 7x2 15" monstrosity). This battleship ATM would have the best main battery durability(presuming similar turret armor) at the tier, which would give it an advantage in a brawl. However, for the most part, I bet that even most ST's don't know how the mechanic operates. The ship would end up in a state where it had an advantage that was very hard to articulate, and that might confuse its balancing enough to get us an unsatisfactory product at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,716
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles
2 hours ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

 

Their videos can say whatever they want.  What their code says is what is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,716
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles
2 hours ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

There is so Much O C D at work here it is ridiculous! @Sub_Octavian please change turret HP to be based on armor rating and not gun caliber and please made every ships turrets HP value different to placate the OP! As if it makes the least bit of freeking difference to game play!

Don't tag devs for sarcastic posts.  There's no need for them to waste their time.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,923
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,355 posts
4,739 battles
50 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Your obsessive need for hard evidence of a statistical issue for any change is understood and ignored. It's simply not possible for something like this that effects many ships but in a small way. Other effects will drown it out. The closest I can get is to point out that Ognevoi performs consistently poorly(sub 49% in quarterly maple stats), and Gearing has and continues to perform worse than Fletcher by 2-3% despite having acquired Fletcher's torpedoes. In both cases though it is difficult to say that turret HP is a "smoking gun."(Minekaze vs Mutsuki is another example, though again complicated by torpedo differences) If we had a ship that only differed in gun arrangement, things would be easy, but AFAIK no such ship exists. I'm not going to bother constructing some generalized average because such a thing would be fundamentally meaningless, I or anyone else could construct it to an arbitrary conclusion by selection of which ships were considered on each side. It would also inevitably vacuum in all sorts of confounding variables which are associated with turret arrangement.

At any rate, as I've been repeatedly harping on and you have been ignoring, this is not just a balance issue. Answer the question: is this what you would have expected? The game shouldn't mislead players with its mechanics, especially when WoWS is so opaque about them.

The issue is that it's a band-aid fix, Ognevoi still is more vulnerable than other DD to losing all of her guns, it's simply that DD in general is much less likely to lose gun turrets. The problem is that fixes like this rarely make the problem go away, and can cause knock-on balance issues.

Also, I know that you don't want to make turrets too vulnerable. If you read into things, the only ships that really lose turret HP are destroyers using single gun turrets, who ususally have significant numbers of turrets and therefore firepower reserve, and ships with 135-140mm guns. Most other ships gain turret HP due to typically having triple turrets, even if this doesn't mean in most cases they take additional hits. The biggest buff is to heavy gun battleships, which WG has struggled to balance in the past- Republique needs super fire rate, Yamato overmatch/accuracy, Conq 457mm is just bad. Changing this means that the amount of magic buffs can be reduced, which aside from being overall good makes it easier to add future ships in this category.

To elaborate on that a bit more, one of the purposes of doing a change like this is to try and avoid balancing shifts that might subtly change how a ship performs in a non-obvious way. WoWS is already an extremely complicated game in balance terms with dozens of balancing values on hundreds of ships. The goal is to get it so that a ship's effective main battery HP is mostly the same relative to its overall firepower and size. IOW, a 2000 ton destroyer with a given focus on guns should have roughly the same durability on its main battery as any other 2000 ton destroyer with a similar focus on guns. This is a good thing because it means when WG inserts some other 2000 ton destroyer, that ship too has a "normal" main gun durability, which reduces the likelihood that they're surprised by how it performs in game and need to change it. Sudden inflection points and big swings depending on arbitrary factors create outliers, and outliers create balancing issues that are hard to pin down when the mechanic involved isn't made clear.

Imagine, for instance, a future hypothetical 6x2 16" battleship at tier X(or worse, some 7x2 15" monstrosity). This battleship ATM would have the best main battery durability(presuming similar turret armor) at the tier, which would give it an advantage in a brawl. However, for the most part, I bet that even most ST's don't know how the mechanic operates. The ship would end up in a state where it had an advantage that was very hard to articulate, and that might confuse its balancing enough to get us an unsatisfactory product at the end.

You are an example of how our schools are failing.  You've been falsely taught that your random thoughts and guesses are as good as data.  They are not.  If you cannot support you claim, consider it rejected.  It is laughable that you think this one thing can be singled out for Ognevoi's performance issues, yet shows up no where else, and at the same time you throw out the bulk performance data, the only thing we players have access to that could be used to support your claim as being too full of noise from other factors.

If the ships that would benefit from your requested change are not underperforming then your buff request is not needed, and in fact could slightly reduce effective balance.

It is for you, the one making the claim that this is an issue, to support your claim.   It is not for us to prove a negative as you idiotically requested.  Offer support for your claim.  I already provided you with the method, all you need to do is compile the data.  There is noise, yes, but if ships with less turret health more often than not underperform at least then you have something to stand on and say "This may be the reason these ships are underperforming."  It isn't proof, but it is a possible indicator.  Your imaginings are not a possible indicator.

Edited by Helstrem
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,923
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,355 posts
4,739 battles
57 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Your obsessive need for hard evidence of a statistical issue for any change is understood and ignored. It's simply not possible for something like this that effects many ships but in a small way.

Or you can be a petulant child who downvotes anybody who doesn't coddle your special self.  Your choice.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×