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

Possible BB AP shell change against DD

125 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
24 posts
7,107 battles

I see barely any game play impact of this change except highlighting one question: DOES Wargaming play their game? because these changes doesn't show any hint they that play.

DD are passive AF and die early, NOT because BB's ability to wreck DD.  What actually happen is a DD gets spotted/radared, and all ship that can shoot at it shoots at is. Why? Because...

     Most DD can't repair, every small chunk, no matter how small, is lost hp.

     DD are powerful tool in powerful hands, that can cap, spot, torp, smoke teammate, and generally be a pain in the [edited] (if they play it smart)

     They have the lowest hp of all the classes, even the proposed fixed 10%, landing 4k hits is still a good 4k hp off a dd.

     Even at 1hp, as long as its not spotted, it can still fight at maximum effectiveness (minus Khaba and Haru which the Change does not influence), naturally people want it dead.

MOST BB Shoot ap DD NOT because the damage, but because of the bloody 30s reload, you load and shoot w/e type of ammo you usually shoot, case and point, British BB will most likely load he, and DD get deleted, while Yamato most likely load AP and DD get sucker punched.

     MOST DD by WOWS' design is a ship type that is NOT suppose to be spotted, launching torp or spamming shells behind some kind of cover. The low survival rate of current DD is highly attributed to 2 thing:

          Too much ship have radar, and # of radar per team is too high.

          Addition of more stealthy AF CL with radar and DD that hunts other DD (Loyang with radar, wth)

Changing BB's ap against a DD is going to mitigate one thing and one thing only, DD can now rush BB (which they will) thinking they can get away scot free, then get blaped by 9 over pens for 9k and die, then maybe WG will give force generator that respells BB's ap shell away.

 

To actually CHANGE the current meta or increase the lifespan of DD, CHANGE RADAR/HYDRO OR GIVE DD SOME KIND OF COUNTER MEASURE AGAINST IT.

 

TLDR; WG think BB is OP against DD and is responsible for DD dying but refuse to touch how Radar works.

  • Cool 8
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
773 posts
5,867 battles

If DDs are passive, how do they die early? If they are passive, they are not pushing caps, if they are not pushing caps, they are not getting radar'd. I r teh confuse. 

 

The main reason DD survivability is so low is because some people thing they can just hop in a DD and just float around torping everybody with ease (sort of like how some BB players think playing a DD is). They are wrong and also suck at playing DDs. A lot of DD players just don't understand when to attack/defend and/or cap/don't cap.

Have you never been shot by BB AP in a DD? lol

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[DOG]
Members
389 posts
5,606 battles

I believe they are studying a plan to change how radar works, so that only the ship that actually mounts the radar gets the full advantage.  So if a CA lights up a DD, that CA can still fire at it without penalty, just like now.  But any other ships that are piggy-backing on that CA's radar will get some kind of penalty when firing at the DD.  I think a massive dispersion penalty, IIRC.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,373 posts
3,564 battles
17 minutes ago, Miku_Empowered said:

I see barely any game play impact of this change except highlighting one question: DOES Wargaming play their game? because these changes doesn't show any hint they that play.

 

TLDR version

OP does not play any DD's above tier 8, AKA those ships that are most affected by BB AP and therefore doesn't understand why. 


/thread 

image.thumb.png.5246e227a98bcc55d0f35dff77ca7bc3.png

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,374 posts

Personally, even playing DDs more than anything else these days, I don't feel this change is a good one. Getting full pens on DDs is very rare unless they are bow on and hence very difficult to hit at range anyways. And the threat of the rare full pen is what keeps DDs from rushing battleships. BBs rarely have time to switch to HE when a BB is spotted within their concealment range. Very very few BBs equip EL as a captain skill.

Take into consideration that DDs don't have citadels, and taking 4k damage from a shell is the closest they'll ever get to it.

If the devs feel that game balance requires that DDs take fewer full pens, that's fine. Reduce, not remove. There should still be a threat of such. I don't want to play a DD that is at zero risk of taking a big hit when rushing a BB from concealment. I'd feel as dirty as I do when playing ships like Nikolai. I don't like feeling dirty.

Edited by KaptainKaybe
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
773 posts
5,867 battles
3 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

TLDR version

OP does not play any DD's above tier 8, AKA those ships that are most affected by BB AP and therefore doesn't understand why. 


/thread 

image.thumb.png.5246e227a98bcc55d0f35dff77ca7bc3.png

 

*mic drop*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
[SIM]
Members
2,453 posts
4,082 battles

I actually completely agree with the core of your message. The issue isn’t battleships themselves, it’s DDs getting caught out by ships that can stealth radar them, and then getting blown to pieces by the overwhelming fusillades that follow. Even a single penetrating BB hit on a DD can make all of the difference between surviving the run out of radar range, or being sunk. Radar is one of the most broken mechanics in the game and screws balance completely. If the CV rework is priority 1, a radar rework needs to be priority 1a.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,501 posts
7,430 battles
16 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

I actually completely agree with the core of your message. The issue isn’t battleships themselves, it’s DDs getting caught out by ships that can stealth radar them, and then getting blown to pieces by the overwhelming fusillades that follow. Even a single penetrating BB hit on a DD can make all of the difference between surviving the run out of radar range, or being sunk. Radar is one of the most broken mechanics in the game and screws balance completely. If the CV rework is priority 1, a radar rework needs to be priority 1a.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
660
[5D]
Members
2,222 posts
14,024 battles
2 hours ago, Miku_Empowered said:

I see barely any game play impact of this change except highlighting one question: DOES Wargaming play their game? because these changes doesn't show any hint they that play.

DD are passive AF and die early, NOT because BB's ability to wreck DD.  What actually happen is a DD gets spotted/radared, and all ship that can shoot at it shoots at is. Why? Because...

     Most DD can't repair, every small chunk, no matter how small, is lost hp.

     DD are powerful tool in powerful hands, that can cap, spot, torp, smoke teammate, and generally be a pain in the [edited] (if they play it smart)

     They have the lowest hp of all the classes, even the proposed fixed 10%, landing 4k hits is still a good 4k hp off a dd.

     Even at 1hp, as long as its not spotted, it can still fight at maximum effectiveness (minus Khaba and Haru which the Change does not influence), naturally people want it dead.

MOST BB Shoot ap DD NOT because the damage, but because of the bloody 30s reload, you load and shoot w/e type of ammo you usually shoot, case and point, British BB will most likely load he, and DD get deleted, while Yamato most likely load AP and DD get sucker punched.

     MOST DD by WOWS' design is a ship type that is NOT suppose to be spotted, launching torp or spamming shells behind some kind of cover. The low survival rate of current DD is highly attributed to 2 thing:

          Too much ship have radar, and # of radar per team is too high.

          Addition of more stealthy AF CL with radar and DD that hunts other DD (Loyang with radar, wth)

Changing BB's ap against a DD is going to mitigate one thing and one thing only, DD can now rush BB (which they will) thinking they can get away scot free, then get blaped by 9 over pens for 9k and die, then maybe WG will give force generator that respells BB's ap shell away.

 

To actually CHANGE the current meta or increase the lifespan of DD, CHANGE RADAR/HYDRO OR GIVE DD SOME KIND OF COUNTER MEASURE AGAINST IT.

 

TLDR; WG think BB is OP against DD and is responsible for DD dying but refuse to touch how Radar works.

Yeah so when I dev striked that Khaba for 26k in my Yammy it's not because BB AP shells are overpowered....rofl

When my Monty or Yammy regularly take 7-14k off DD health with only a few shells landed, yeah BB AP is not overpowered at all.

The AP mechanic against DDs is broken. Most BB players won't ever change to HE anymore when a DD is spotted because of the oversized damage they are getting from AP shells.

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
383
[WOLFB]
Members
1,670 posts
8,063 battles
1 hour ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

Yeah so when I dev striked that Khaba for 26k in my Yammy it's not because BB AP shells are overpowered....rofl

 

Considering Khaba has 50mm plate armor, this example isn't really good. As long as Khaba keep its Moksva plate armor, I see no reason for this ship to not receive full pen from BB. 

 

Agree for the rest.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
660
[5D]
Members
2,222 posts
14,024 battles
9 minutes ago, AlcatrazNC said:

 

Considering Khaba has 50mm plate armor, this example isn't really good. As long as Khaba keep its Moksva plate armor, I see no reason for this ship to not receive full pen from BB. 

 

Agree for the rest.

You're probably right that it's a bad example and Khaba gets to heal as well if selected. However, when you can take 7-14k off of a Gearing, Shima, etc. with BB AP that's a huge problem.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
832
[SBS]
Members
2,420 posts
2,253 battles

OP, I think you haven't been following the WoWs news closely enough.  WG has already nefed the Wooster's radar range.  Concealment Expert is being tested to be a flat 10% for all ships types, read: a nerf to CV, BB and cruiser concealment.  WG has also mentioned they looking into nerfing radar.  No word yet on what that change might be.  Assuming WG actually goes through with these proposed changes DDs will be getting indirect buffs that should improve survivability.  

Spoiler

Of course all these changes will take place just in time for the CV rework to land, and DDs will have more survivability problems than ever. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
152 posts
4,829 battles

Not a fan of this idea. For all the "baBBies" arguments DDs cry an awful lot too. It's not "fair " a bb can one shot a dd at close range but somehow rushing in with special "protection" to delete a BB with Torps at close range would be working as intended.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,910
[-K-]
Supertester
3,087 posts
6,829 battles

There is nothing wrong with DD's taking full pens from AP shells.  It's a choice.  Sail broadside and take more hits, but risk fewer full pens or go bow in and take less hits, but risk the full pens.  It's a legitimate choice and was always one of my weaknesses when playing a DD.  I never chose correctly. :D

The problem is the buggy behavior when shells double dip on their damage.  If WG fixes that, there will be no need to change penetration mechanics as they apply to DD's.  DD's already had their citadels removed.  

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
832
[SBS]
Members
2,420 posts
2,253 battles
Just now, Pope_Shizzle said:

There is nothing wrong with DD's taking full pens from AP shells.  It's a choice.  Sail broadside and take more hits, but risk fewer full pens or go bow in and take less hits, but risk the full pens.  It's a legitimate choice and was always one of my weaknesses when playing a DD.  I never chose correctly. :D

I'm not sure its a player choice issue.  I'd be willing to bet the bulk of the problem is all of the BB AP coming in on radar'ed DDs that are giving up their stern running away to get out range.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
740
[PNG]
[PNG]
Members
4,477 posts
11,034 battles
7 hours ago, Schindlers_Stink_Fist said:

If DDs are passive, how do they die early? If they are passive, they are not pushing caps, if they are not pushing caps, they are not getting radar'd. I r teh confuse. 

 

The main reason DD survivability is so low is because some people thing they can just hop in a DD and just float around torping everybody with ease (sort of like how some BB players think playing a DD is). They are wrong and also suck at playing DDs. A lot of DD players just don't understand when to attack/defend and/or cap/don't cap.

Have you never been shot by BB AP in a DD? lol

 

 

As it is there are a couple dds that only seem to die if bbs are the ones who knock them off as they are too OP compared to some of the Cruisers that should be able to knock them off. Frankly I play all three types and see nothing wrong with a bb being able to do the kind of damage to dds that they can AP or HE. You get shot at by something that big and you are little its going to leave big holes in you. Case in point Kongo hitting the USS Johnston and all the problems that caused for the Johnston. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[TDRB]
Members
971 posts
3,750 battles
Quote

The main reason DD survivability is so low is because some people thing they can just hop in a DD and just float around torping everybody with ease (sort of like how some BB players think playing a DD is).

There are several valid reasons DD survivability is low. Yes, they are much harder to play than many people think. Low hit point pool, prime target of every cruiser on the opposing team, importance in domination matches are other reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,098 posts
5,624 battles

dds dying early is one of the biggest reasons for games turning into 1 sided rofl stomps. This change will make that happen less often. Therefor I approve.

Also, destroyers are pretty awful to play right now as is. Even for good players you just sit around doing nothing so much of the time. It's very boring.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[ENDVR]
Members
370 posts
5,220 battles

I never understood the problem anyway.  Double-dipping? Sure, eliminate it, no reason for an extra 10% on top of the 33% pen, but a shell going lengthwise into the butt of a lolibote, exploding inside the juicy hitbox and not being considered a pen? Doesn’t jive in my mind.

Is the damage as it is currently pretty harsh? Sure is, but always seemed like a weighted risk to me; play a light ship and give shells a better opportunity to do the most damage? Then expect the damage. Or, set it up so they can only overpen.

I understand why people want it removed, I just don’t agree with it even as I have been playing DDs more and more.  Of course I’ve eaten pens, but everytime I do, right before they hit, I know i messed up and could have simply not turned to give a lengthwise hit.

Change happens, will I start barking? Nope I’ll just close/escape faster while rubber chickens are thrown my way until I go dark while laughing.  I won’t rail against somethig that flattens the learning curve, but I’d been silent on the issue and felt like making voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,650 posts
13,511 battles
5 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

The problem is the buggy behavior when shells double dip on their damage.  If WG fixes that, there will be no need to change penetration mechanics as they apply to DD's.  DD's already had their citadels removed.  

Yeah, I wish WG would do something similar for Cruisers. If DD mains think that they get badly wrecked by BB AP they should try driving Cruisers with their huge citadels for a while.

BTW, I drive DDs too and I don't think that this change to BB AP damage on DDs is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[CUTE]
Members
155 posts
12,402 battles
9 hours ago, Cirdane said:

Not a fan of this idea. For all the "baBBies" arguments DDs cry an awful lot too. It's not "fair " a bb can one shot a dd at close range but somehow rushing in with special "protection" to delete a BB with Torps at close range would be working as intended.

In my opinion, If a BB is in a position to be rushed by a DD(such as around the corner of an island) The BB has misplayed and deserves the punishment of being deleted.  On the other side of that coin, if a DD is rushing the BB in open water, the DD has misplayed and deserves to get punished by focus fire from the enemy team until it dies.  Maybe it gets torps off, maybe not. In this instance the BB player should be expecting torps and start evasive maneuvers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[ICOP]
Members
813 posts
3,164 battles

Do you not find it odd, If the double dip damage (overpen + normal pen) happened to non DD's the forum would be filled with threads screaming for a fix.  However DD's area currently enduring this, on occasion, it is perfectly acceptable and being defended as situation normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[KRAK]
Members
950 posts
13,115 battles
15 hours ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Personally, even playing DDs more than anything else these days, I don't feel this change is a good one. Getting full pens on DDs is very rare unless they are bow on and hence very difficult to hit at range anyways. And the threat of the rare full pen is what keeps DDs from rushing battleships. BBs rarely have time to switch to HE when a BB is spotted within their concealment range. Very very few BBs equip EL as a captain skill.

Take into consideration that DDs don't have citadels, and taking 4k damage from a shell is the closest they'll ever get to it.

If the devs feel that game balance requires that DDs take fewer full pens, that's fine. Reduce, not remove. There should still be a threat of such. I don't want to play a DD that is at zero risk of taking a big hit when rushing a BB from concealment. I'd feel as dirty as I do when playing ships like Nikolai. I don't like feeling dirty.

Full pens are not rare I do it every match to every  DD I fire at.  BBs that want to do big damage on a DD should have to load HE not get imaginary benefits from AP that magically arms and full pens minimal armor. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[KRAK]
Members
950 posts
13,115 battles
10 hours ago, Cirdane said:

Not a fan of this idea. For all the "baBBies" arguments DDs cry an awful lot too. It's not "fair " a bb can one shot a dd at close range but somehow rushing in with special "protection" to delete a BB with Torps at close range would be working as intended.

Considering they nerfed DDs into oblivion to stop the whining by BB players I really do not think you should be calling DD whiners. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,910
[-K-]
Supertester
3,087 posts
6,829 battles
11 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

I'm not sure its a player choice issue.  I'd be willing to bet the bulk of the problem is all of the BB AP coming in on radar'ed DDs that are giving up their stern running away to get out range.  

 

Even running away, you ought to be taking evasive action.  When I'm running, I'm constantly scanning seeing who is shooting at me trying to turn appropriately.  It's not easy, but DD's are easily the most impactful class in the game.  They should be harder to play well.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×