Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Hanger_18

PSA for penetration changes on PTS

256 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles

no one seems to have posted this, so in order to keep more threads about it from popping up, heres this.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
747
[NG-NL]
Members
4,973 posts
8,124 battles

I hope their PTS testing includes how the affected ships can or cannot bounce AP.

Last thing we need is "ok, we'll add more armor to ships!" on top of what LWM's testing revealed would basically make too many ships vulnerable to just about any incoming fire.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles

Either route WG takes, everything leading into this whole thing gives ample material for future forum comedic use.  It's even funnier than the "WG Nerfed Missouri accuracy!" debacle a while back :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
12 minutes ago, Reymu said:

I hope their PTS testing includes how the affected ships can or cannot bounce AP.

Last thing we need is "ok, we'll add more armor to ships!" on top of what LWM's testing revealed would basically make too many ships vulnerable to just about any incoming fire.

i think hes talking more like its going back to the drawing board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,312
[HINON]
Members
8,874 posts
3 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Either route WG takes, everything leading into this whole thing gives ample material for future forum comedic use.  It's even funnier than the "WG Nerfed Missouri accuracy!" debacle a while back :Smile_trollface:

 

I always found the post patch day threads about "WG stealth nerfed my ability to get citadels" rather amusing. Though to be fair there have been some patches that had unintended side effects for shell interactions like the easier to get submerged citadels bug or way back in the day when you got citadel hits even when the shell only bounced off the top of the citadel deck armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
2 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

 

I always found the post patch day threads about "WG stealth nerfed my ability to get citadels" rather amusing. Though to be fair there have been some patches that had unintended side effects for shell interactions like the easier to get submerged citadels bug or way back in the day when you got citadel hits even when the shell only bounced off the top of the citadel deck armor.

i miss that bug, that was the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[LHG]
Members
1,190 posts
4,924 battles
13 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Either route WG takes, everything leading into this whole thing gives ample material for future forum comedic use.  It's even funnier than the "WG Nerfed Missouri accuracy!" debacle a while back :Smile_trollface:

The moment they pull the change, the forums will explode with even more anti-BB and anti-DD vitriol. Prepare your favorite camping chair and some popcorn or s'mores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
2 minutes ago, Flashtirade said:

The moment they pull the change, the forums will explode with even more anti-BB and anti-DD vitriol. Prepare your favorite camping chair and some popcorn or s'mores.

how could you possibly have any idea how the game works and plays when you only play 1 type of ship? blows my mind

  • Cool 3

Share this post


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

I hope WG sticks to their guns on this one.  Backing down to the BB mobs is what got us to this change in the first place.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
7 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I hope WG sticks to their guns on this one.  Backing down to the BB mobs is what got us to this change in the first place.

dont get me wrong id like to see the issue fixed, and the 10% damage on guns is probably a good change, the changes on the torp belt are probably not a good idea.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
587
[KWA]
Beta Testers
1,774 posts
3,763 battles
7 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I hope WG sticks to their guns on this one.  Backing down to the BB mobs is what got us to this change in the first place.

The problem is that we sometimes get zero damage penetration ribbons. The way they are fixing this is to make it so those shots do 10% damage instead of fixing the ribbons themselves. Also, there is a long list of cruisers affected by this change as well, not just BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[S-N-D]
Members
1,609 posts
5,545 battles
18 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I hope WG sticks to their guns on this one.  Backing down to the BB mobs is what got us to this change in the first place.

I want them to do what is in the best interest of the game. Wherever that goes. If it's broken then do not implement it. If its catering to the whinge then ignore the whinge and implement it. There isn't a single change to BBs that has ever nor will ever come without a long list of convenient excuses as to why it just can't be implemented but that isn't to say every change is workable and should be implemented.  

Taking damage is not a reason to not make the change. Taking obscene levels of damage would be. If pens elsewhere have to be scrapped because of the torp bulge, get bent, you take damage to the torp bulge. You can also increase health by 10% for the affected ships and be done with it.

Edited by _Caliph_
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
360
[ARP2]
Members
1,224 posts
3,569 battles

So, did i buy pitchfork and torches for nothing?

I wait with baited breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,864 posts
36 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I hope WG sticks to their guns on this one.  Backing down to the BB mobs is what got us to this change in the first place.

This has nothing to do with "BB mobs".  Stop falling for that blithering tribalist stupidity, you're better than that.

There are cruisers that are going to get hammered by the change, and all ships are going to suffer for it to some degree.

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,540 posts
697 battles
4 minutes ago, Hatework said:

So, did i buy pitchfork and torches for nothing?

I wait with baited breath.

Man, now I have a sack of "borrowed" doorknobs and nothing to do with them.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,365 posts
30 minutes ago, OseanTanker said:

The problem is that we sometimes get zero damage penetration ribbons. The way they are fixing this is to make it so those shots do 10% damage instead of fixing the ribbons themselves. Also, there is a long list of cruisers affected by this change as well, not just BBs.

The problem is twofold and no ship illustrates this better than Yamato.

Yamato shoots a flat broadside BB just 10km, at the waterline, and you get multiple penetration hits.. but zero damage.

Now, in this situation it is impossible for the Yamato shells to have hit anything like secondaries or AA guns. It is hitting the hull directly.

... so no, fixing the ribbons isn't the solution because it's not the problem. There's something causing shells to just vanish upon impact and cause zero damage.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
2 minutes ago, Skyfaller said:

The problem is twofold and no ship illustrates this better than Yamato.

Yamato shoots a flat broadside BB just 10km, at the waterline, and you get multiple penetration hits.. but zero damage.

Now, in this situation it is impossible for the Yamato shells to have hit anything like secondaries or AA guns. It is hitting the hull directly.

... so no, fixing the ribbons isn't the solution because it's not the problem. There's something causing shells to just vanish upon impact and cause zero damage.

in this case my bet would be the shells hitting the water, arming and then detonating in the buldge. though this is certainly not my experience with the yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,116
[WOLF3]
Members
6,050 posts
2,213 battles
1 hour ago, Hanger_18 said:

i think hes talking more like its going back to the drawing board.

That's the way I heard it, too.  Even if it does go on, at least they'll feel the call for some actually compelling rationale for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,181 posts
501 battles
1 hour ago, Hanger_18 said:

how could you possibly have any idea how the game works and plays when you only play 1 type of ship? blows my mind

this is the most confusing reply to someone... I have no idea what it means...the person you quoted playing One type of ship???
WE the playerbase???
I dont get it

Edited by neptunes_wrath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
7 minutes ago, neptunes_wrath said:

this is the most confusing reply to someone... I have no idea what it means...the person you quoted playing One type of ship???
WE the playerbase???
I dont get it

referring to the people who play one class of ship, and complain about other classes being OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
879
[WOLF9]
Members
1,048 posts
2 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

no one seems to have posted this, so in order to keep more threads about it from popping up, heres this.

Well, naturally, if she has big enough bulges, you will only get minor penetration...

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,864 posts
7 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

referring to the people who play one class of ship, and complain about other classes being OP

I don't know what's crazier... the people who never play a type of ship and insist it's OP... or the people who do play it, insist it's OP, but do worse in that type than in the type they say is on the wrong end of the stick. 

Keep thinking, if that type of ship is so horrible imbalanced, why don't they do any better in it than the other types of ship?

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
7 minutes ago, Doombeagle said:

Well, naturally, if she has big enough bulges, you will only get minor penetration...

only 10%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×