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

AP shell needs changes..

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

254
[CAPGO]
Members
743 posts
7,327 battles

Patch after patch, AP shell performance is degrading, and it's very frustrating for some old time battleships in this game. 

Mechanic changes to cap AP shell damage on DDs, Changes in how armors react to AP shells, and even the CV changes will make HE a better choice for most of situations nows and AP is losing its place.

When the CV rework drops, CVs will lose alpha strike but will have stronger dot damages and guess what? HE meta will be even more popular.

A lot of new battleships comes out with either absurdly strong HE performance or absurdly bad AP performance forcing players to stick with HE.

Why is Stalingrad OP? because it is one of the few new ships released recently that has remotely good AP performance and people are so used to giving broadside to enemies now because the meta is HE feast and people are not punished for bad plays now. 

Game is becoming dull and dumb after every patch. It might be easier on new players and it might be appealing for more broad range of player-base but the game itself is losing its taste.

I see 16 inch AP shells from NC,Iowa,Montana, fails to do damage because of stupid changes in how AP shells work. It's a 16 INCH AP shell, do you even realize how massive that thing is? when it hits an enemy ship and detonate inside or on the ship, the result should be catastrophic for the enemy, but now, in the game, it hits the module or torpedo bulge and does 0 damage. same for the PEF, same for the Roma, French battleships, and a lot of the newer battleships. I mean even when RN bbs came out people were worried that HE spam meta would be bad for this game and now.. it's worse than that.

Bad plays are encouraged and rewarded. I see DDs charging a battleship and come out alive, I see battleships firing HE with broadside open come out winning against enemy battleship who actually know how to angle. 

You might think I am just one of the BBaby who cries for every single nerfs on BBs, but let me tell you it's not about that. Nerf BBs if it needs, but stop dumbing down the game.

Bad plays need to be punished and the game should stay challenging for potatoes.

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,554
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,989 posts
4,484 battles

You say bad plays need to be punished. 

And then go on to state - 

10 minutes ago, VVoony said:

I see DDs charging a battleship and come out alive

Battleship out of position (bad play) DD charging battle ship (punishing bad play) 

Last I checked a well placed BB Volley can still knock off half a DD HP. Using your logic on large shells, a torpedo strike to a BB should be catastrophic, but in reality a torpedo hit to the TDS  of a tier X BB does about the same damage as a couple of HE volleys from a heavy cruiser. 

The moment you get into the "Muh shells are so big they should be the counter to all ships" is the moment your thread losses any validity.. This isnt a simulator, or else you would spend all match shooting at targets and rarely if ever hitting them in a BB. 

Oh and just because I like to derail topics... Stalingrad is not OP. 

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,127 posts
9,478 battles

I still find AP does far more damage on the BBs I play bar none.  Changing to HE is not worth it vast majority of the time unless it is as a cruiser.  I really can't remember the last time I switched to HE on any of my BBs - even when other BBs are angled.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,446
[KWF]
Members
4,044 posts
6,192 battles

Any factual evidence as regarding the total failure of AP?  Here is a small graph of damage type to ship class from Sep 2017. Pale red is AP, Orange is HE.  As you can see AP simply dominates, especially at higher tiers.

VEtcISM.png&key=b63ec2762343b976e4d552a5

There hasn't been one out yet to my knowledge for 2018 and this one should be a bit outdated, but I find myself difficult to be convinced that the situation has changed drastically.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,770
[SALVO]
Members
24,198 posts
24,546 battles
12 minutes ago, VVoony said:

Patch after patch, AP shell performance is degrading, and it's very frustrating for some old time battleships in this game. 

Mechanic changes to cap AP shell damage on DDs, Changes in how armors react to AP shells, and even the CV changes will make HE a better choice for most of situations nows and AP is losing its place.

When the CV rework drops, CVs will lose alpha strike but will have stronger dot damages and guess what? HE meta will be even more popular.

A lot of new battleships comes out with either absurdly strong HE performance or absurdly bad AP performance forcing players to stick with HE.

Why is Stalingrad OP? because it is one of the few new ships released recently that has remotely good AP performance and people are so used to giving broadside to enemies now because the meta is HE feast and people are not punished for bad plays now. 

Game is becoming dull and dumb after every patch. It might be easier on new players and it might be appealing for more broad range of player-base but the game itself is losing its taste.

I see 16 inch AP shells from NC,Iowa,Montana, fails to do damage because of stupid changes in how AP shells work. It's a 16 INCH AP shell, do you even realize how massive that thing is? when it hits an enemy ship and detonate inside or on the ship, the result should be catastrophic for the enemy, but now, in the game, it hits the module or torpedo bulge and does 0 damage. same for the PEF, same for the Roma, French battleships, and a lot of the newer battleships. I mean even when RN bbs came out people were worried that HE spam meta would be bad for this game and now.. it's worse than that.

Bad plays are encouraged and rewarded. I see DDs charging a battleship and come out alive, I see battleships firing HE with broadside open come out winning against enemy battleship who actually know how to angle. 

You might think I am just one of the BBaby who cries for every single nerfs on BBs, but let me tell you it's not about that. Nerf BBs if it needs, but stop dumbing down the game.

Bad plays need to be punished and the game should stay challenging for potatoes.

Dude, if an AP shell hits the torp bulge but fails to penetrate the real armor of the ship, an AP shell SHOULD do no damage!!!

As for 0 damage hits on modules, that may be a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[ALOFT]
Members
1,651 posts
19,215 battles

Save some steel get the Bourgogne.... it laughs at DDs with its AP especially Khabs and Gumos.

There is no cruiser that is safe not even a Wooster trying to Kite away.

Its fast and has good concealment and you can work around to the side of just about anything.

Even smaller DDs will see half their HP evaporate if you catch them in a well timed turn.

When im playing this ship and see a DD in the open or rushing me.... Im like yes MR DD please oh please turn to drop torps lol.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
594
[NGA-A]
Members
1,276 posts
7,336 battles
6 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

You say bad plays need to be punished. 

And then go on to state - 

Battleship out of position (bad play) DD charging battle ship (punishing bad play) 

Oh and just because I like to derail topics... Stalingrad is not OP. 

Just because a DD is charging a BB doesn't mean the BB is in out of position.  I've seen DDs flank around a whole team and easily take out BBs, You have no idea if the BB was out of position resulting in the charge so your statement really doesn't make sense and is only said to be confrontational.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,554
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,989 posts
4,484 battles
6 minutes ago, Ghost_Raven75 said:

Just because a DD is charging a BB doesn't mean the BB is in out of position.  I've seen DDs flank around a whole team and easily take out BBs, You have no idea if the BB was out of position resulting in the charge so your statement really doesn't make sense and is only said to be confrontational.

No.. 

 

If a DD has the luxury of charging a BB from the point he is revealed to point blank ranges of a torpedo strike , without having to worry about any other ship but the BB (aka no allies to put him down)  then yes the BB is out of position. 

My statement doesn't make sense if you cant think tactically. 

In your situation, if a DD flanks a BB around the enemy team and then rushes him and sinks him , thats the BB misplaying.. No one else... If he was in proper position his team would put the rushing DD down, or he would be able to kite said rushing DD and minimize the effects of the rush rather easily. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
594
[NGA-A]
Members
1,276 posts
7,336 battles
1 minute ago, Cobraclutch said:

No.. 

 

If a DD has the luxury of charging a BB from the point he is revealed to point blank ranges of a torpedo strike , without having to worry about any other ship but the BB (aka no allies to put him down)  then yes the BB is out of position. 

My statement doesn't make sense if you cant think tactically. 

In your situation, if a DD flanks a BB and then rushes him and kills him , thats the BB misplaying.. No one else... If he was in proper position his team would put the rushing DD down, or he would be able to kite said rushing DD and minimize the effects of the rush rather easily. 

Still makes no sense, it mean the BBs team left it hanging and is not the BB fault necessarily.  They are slow and can easily be left behind.  I play both DD and BB and see it happen all the time when I'm in a slow BB, You can on'y move and turn so fast and if your getting no support from Cruisers or the rest of your team is spread out or dead then guess what, you're easy prey fro a DD.  Stop acting all high an mighty as a DD player, you're really not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
254
[CAPGO]
Members
743 posts
7,327 battles
16 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Any factual evidence as regarding the total failure of AP?  Here is a small graph of damage type to ship class from Sep 2017. Pale red is AP, Orange is HE.  As you can see AP simply dominates, especially at higher tiers.

VEtcISM.png&key=b63ec2762343b976e4d552a5

There hasn't been one out yet to my knowledge for 2018 and this one should be a bit outdated, but I find myself difficult to be convinced that the situation has changed drastically.

What this graph does not show is Fire damage, and utility aspects of HE shells. HE shells breaks modules AND does damage to the ship when AP shells just simply disappear without doing damage. If you wanna compare HE vs AP you need to take consider all aspects of HE shells including fire damages.

Fires will also burn DC and make the ship vulnerable to CV attacks, DD attacks and so on.

Plus the graph sums up average from Sep 2017 so this graph is not appropriate for comparing

Edited by VVoony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,127 posts
9,478 battles
3 minutes ago, VVoony said:

What this graph does not show is Fire damage, and utility aspects of HE shells. HE shells breaks modules AND does damage to the ship when AP shells just simply disappear without doing damage.

Fires will also burn DC and make the ship vulnerable to CV attacks, DD attacks and so on.

Plus the graph sums up average from Sep 2017 so this graph is not appropriate for comparing

It also does not show that fire damage is 100% repairable and that has to be added in along with the fire mitigation options that are not present for AP.  AP is still far, far, far more viable for BBs - speaking as a BB main.

Edited by CylonRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,554
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,989 posts
4,484 battles
Just now, Ghost_Raven75 said:

Still makes no sense, it mean the BBs team left it hanging and is not the BB fault necessarily.  They are slow and can easily be left behind.  I play both DD and BB and see it happen all the time when I'm in a slow BB, You can on'y move and turn so fast and if your getting no support from Cruisers or the rest of your team is spread out or dead then guess what, you're easy prey fro a DD.  Stop acting all high an mighty as a DD player, you're really not.

I'm not acting high and mighty, I play both BB's and DD's at any tier with pretty damn good stats.  I do see it happen from time to time and it is almost always related to a BB being in a bad position, even then you can mitigate the DD's rush with some proper positioning. 

Stop making excuses for bad plays. There is a reason why players are able to get purple solo stats and that usually a result of taking responsibility for their actions and not making the excuses listed above, I guess every single time I blapped a rushing DD in my Wyoming / New York / Colorado / NC / Iowa I was just lucky right? 

No, I relied on strategy and situational awareness to turn the tables on the hunter and outplay him ( on many occasions I might add)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
254
[CAPGO]
Members
743 posts
7,327 battles
1 minute ago, CylonRed said:

It also does not show that fire damage is 100% repairable and that has to be added in along with the fire mitigation options that are not present for AP.  AP is still far, far, far more viable for BBs - speaking as a BB main.

I don't know if I can trust someone who plays BB as main and never switches to HE shells for once even if enemy is angled. You understand advantages of AP shells but fails to understand its disadvantages. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,554
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,989 posts
4,484 battles
5 minutes ago, VVoony said:

What this graph does not show is Fire damage, and utility aspects of HE shells. HE shells breaks modules AND does damage to the ship when AP shells just simply disappear without doing damage. If you wanna compare HE vs AP you need to take consider all aspects of HE shells including fire damages.

Fires will also burn DC and make the ship vulnerable to CV attacks, DD attacks and so on.

Plus the graph sums up average from Sep 2017 so this graph is not appropriate for comparing

It does show fire damage which is the dark orange 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,303
Members
2,633 posts
4,251 battles
11 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

No.. 

 

If a DD has the luxury of charging a BB from the point he is revealed to point blank ranges of a torpedo strike , without having to worry about any other ship but the BB (aka no allies to put him down)  then yes the BB is out of position. 

My statement doesn't make sense if you cant think tactically. 

In your situation, if a DD flanks a BB around the enemy team and then rushes him and sinks him , thats the BB misplaying.. No one else... If he was in proper position his team would put the rushing DD down, or he would be able to kite said rushing DD and minimize the effects of the rush rather easily. 

You are literally creating imaginary scenarios to support your argument.  Don't put words in other peoples mouths,  dude.  Punishing an out of position BB is one thing,  being able to yolo in under fire and still achieve the same result is another.  Multiple scenarios exist outside of your strawman.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
594
[NGA-A]
Members
1,276 posts
7,336 battles
1 minute ago, Cobraclutch said:

I'm not acting high and mighty, I play both BB's and DD's at any tier with pretty damn good stats.  I do see it happen from time to time and it is almost always related to a BB being in a bad position, even then you can mitigate the DD's rush with some proper positioning. 

Stop making excuses for bad plays. There is a reason why players are able to get purple solo stats and that usually a result of taking responsibility for their actions and not making the excuses listed above, I guess every single time I blapped a rushing DD in my Wyoming / New York / Colorado / NC / Iowa I was just lucky right? 

No, I relied on strategy and situational awareness to turn the tables on the hunter and outplay him ( on many occasions I might add)  

See there you go with blanket assumptions again.  Did I say EVERY time a BB dies is because of bad play?  No I said you can't assume that's the case every time.  You make it out like every time a BB dies or is rushed from a DD it is a result of bad play when that statement is merely opinionated.  That would be like me saying every time you died in your DD it was due to you being out of position.  It makes you sound arrogant is all I'm saying.  Yes you have fantastic stats in both BBs and DDs and obviously know what you're doing.  However, when you make statements like above then you sound as though you're putting all BB players in the same bunch.  Reading Comprehension is obviously OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
254
[CAPGO]
Members
743 posts
7,327 battles
5 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

It does show fire damage which is the dark orange 

Okay.. so combine that with alpha damage of HE? I know fires are 100% repairable but that only helps when Im not catching fire one salvo after one. Damage is damage and it stacks up. Plus HE shells can hit anywhere(except when you shoot armor that is gonna shatter the shell) any module and do damage to the ship. PLUS HE shells destroy AAs and burn DC which will make the ship vulnerable to CVs which will be heavily dependent to dot damages after the rework. Combine all of that. And there is actually not good reason to stick with AP shell if the enemy is remotely angled.  It shouldn't be like this.

And like I said, the graph does not show change in trend. it just averages up everything since Sep 2017 to today.

Edited by VVoony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,303
[MUDDX]
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
21,869 battles

I see absolutely no degradation in the AP performance in any of my BBs vs any target!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,845
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
17 minutes ago, VVoony said:

What this graph does not show is Fire damage, and utility aspects of HE shells. HE shells breaks modules AND does damage to the ship when AP shells just simply disappear without doing damage. If you wanna compare HE vs AP you need to take consider all aspects of HE shells including fire damages.

Fires will also burn DC and make the ship vulnerable to CV attacks, DD attacks and so on.

Plus the graph sums up average from Sep 2017 so this graph is not appropriate for comparing

It actually does show fire damage. The dark orange near the bottom of each bar is fire damage.

5 minutes ago, VVoony said:

Okay.. so combine that with alpha damage of HE? I know fires are 100% repairable but that only helps when Im not catching fire one salvo after one. Damage is damage and it stacks up. Plus HE shells can hit anywhere(except when you shoot armor that is gonna shatter the shell) any module and do damage to the ship. PLUS HE shells destroy AAs and burn DC which will make the ship vulnerable to CVs which will be heavily dependent to dot damages after the rework. Combine all of that. And there is actually not good reason to stick with AP shell if the enemy is remotely angled.  It shouldn't be like this.

And like I said, the graph does not show change in trend. it just averages up everything since Sep 2017 to today.

Combined with the HE alpha, it's still less than the damage caused by AP. Nice try but no amount of hyperbole and goalpost-moving is going to make hard data reflect what you want. It's only going to reflect the truth. And the truth is that AP is not underperforming, it is the largest damage contributor in the game by a huge margin.

 

It takes Torpedoes, HE, and Fire combined to match AP damage on battleships in tier 10. I'm sorry that you seem to think being equivalent to 3 other weapon types combined is underperforming.

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,758
Members
5,148 posts
35 minutes ago, CylonRed said:

I still find AP does far more damage on the BBs I play bar none.  Changing to HE is not worth it vast majority of the time unless it is as a cruiser.  I really can't remember the last time I switched to HE on any of my BBs - even when other BBs are angled.

I have found that those RN cruisers with no armor, where you're getting nothing but overpens on them with some BBs with higher pen, some BB HE will a lot of the time knock out an engine or rudder with the HE splash.  Interesting way to hurt one, but, having said that, I still use AP most of the time, unless I have a particular reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,554
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,989 posts
4,484 battles
19 minutes ago, Palladia said:

You are literally creating imaginary scenarios to support your argument.  Don't put words in other peoples mouths,  dude.  Punishing an out of position BB is one thing,  being able to yolo in under fire and still achieve the same result is another.  Multiple scenarios exist outside of your strawman.

Generally speaking, rushing a BB under fire yolo and surviving is a rare occurrence. Especially if you are not out of position 10km + away from the nearest allie. 

I am not creating imaginary situations. I have dealt with them (a rushing DD in my BB) and done them (rushing a BB in my DD) 

The former is usually a paddling cause I am not a noob. The later is dependent on the variables during the rush (allies close or far, BB out of position, health , BB type etc etc) 

The only time I would really concede a yolo rush potentially having success in a target rich environment is lower tier like <4-5 , like for example a clemson suicide rush. 

but then you could argue that a DD rushing a BB and suiciding is not a very effective use of his ship.. 

 

17 minutes ago, Ghost_Raven75 said:

See there you go with blanket assumptions again.  Did I say EVERY time a BB dies is because of bad play?  No I said you can't assume that's the case every time.  You make it out like every time a BB dies or is rushed from a DD it is a result of bad play when that statement is merely opinionated.  That would be like me saying every time you died in your DD it was due to you being out of position.  It makes you sound arrogant is all I'm saying.  Yes you have fantastic stats in both BBs and DDs and obviously know what you're doing.  However, when you make statements like above then you sound as though you're putting all BB players in the same bunch.  Reading Comprehension is obviously OP.

 when I die in a DD / BB or CA/CL its due to me being out of position and making the wrong play. Usually when I sink I draw a line back to the exact moment I  made a mistake. There has not been one time were I thought to myself "there is nothing I could of done" 

I had a fletcher game a while back, I did 250k + dmg in a loss and I reviewed it afterwards and realized that there was different avenues of pursuit and engagement that would of resulted in a different outcome. Thats on me for not recognizing that, not on my team or RNG. 

Every time I sink its a result of me making a mistake 30 seconds ago, 3 minutes ago or 10 mins ago . I do not make excuses for myself, when I sink its because I made a tactical error or a player outplayed me (which is in essence making an error) 

I make such blanket statements because I literally do not believe in a no win scenario. I can find myself in one sure, but that is a result of a mistake. Not just the stars aligning and screwing me over. 

You can call it arrogance or wtv you want. Doesn't change the  fact that i approach all situations in WOWS this way and it has rarely resulted in rushing being unsuccessful or being rushed successfully. 

And when a DD does yolo rush me and succeeds, or I rush a BB and get sunk. I give props to the player for making a good play - Review what lead me to that outcome and adapt / adjust  and use it as tools to avoid a similar outcome from occurring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
254
[CAPGO]
Members
743 posts
7,327 battles
12 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

It actually does show fire damage. The dark orange near the bottom of each bar is fire damage.

Combined with the HE alpha, it's still less than the damage caused by AP. Nice try but no amount of hyperbole and goalpost-moving is going to make hard data reflect what you want. It's only going to reflect the truth. And the truth is that AP is not underperforming, it is the largest damage contributor in the game by a huge margin.

LOL.. so where is YOUR data to backup? The graph he posted is outdated and from 2017. Where is yours to show the current statistics? your statement is as much as hyperbole as mine. You are only making personal insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,127 posts
9,478 battles
23 minutes ago, VVoony said:

I don't know if I can trust someone who plays BB as main and never switches to HE shells for once even if enemy is angled. You understand advantages of AP shells but fails to understand its disadvantages. 

And should a person who does not see the damage when aiming for the superstructure on an angled target that does over 5KK damage?  Nope - they are just as blind as others they call out as being blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,845
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
Just now, VVoony said:

LOL.. so where is YOUR data to backup? The graph he posted is outdated and from 2017. Where is yours to show the current statistics? your statement is as much as hyperbole as mine. You are only making personal insults.

Where is yours? You're the one making the claim that AP is underperforming. Data from 2016 and 2017 indicates it was not and a reasonable assumption is that it continues to not be underperforming in 2018.

2016

WD87XRQ.jpg

2017

lM3iQgH.png

 

You're the one making the unreasonable, unsupported claim. The burden of proof is on you.

 

In fact, the trend from 2016 to 2017 is that AP has been getting more effective.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
254
[CAPGO]
Members
743 posts
7,327 battles
4 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Where is yours? You're the one making the claim that AP is underperforming. Data from 2016 and 2017 indicates it was not and a reasonable assumption is that it continues to not be underperforming in 2018.

2016

WD87XRQ.jpg

2017

lM3iQgH.png

 

You're the one making the unreasonable, unsupported claim. The burden of proof is on you.

 

In fact, the trend from 2016 to 2017 is that AP has been getting more effective.

Okay well done keep tracking trend in 2016 to 2017 because im almost ready for 2019. A lot happened this year buddy. Lets move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×