10% minimum damage to saturated modules/bulges is coming up again?

[wjp120]

So, the recent developer notes mention this change to the damage mechanics. The language looks very similar to the change that didn't go through last fall. The only difference I've noticed so far is that this time it says all of the damage done to a saturated area will be repairable.

 

Still, I thought that the consensus last time was that this change caused some ships to get chewed up ridiculously quickly. For such ships with weak or no repair party, that will still be the case in the same way. Even on ships with strong repair parties, it'll still mean less durability overall.

 

And this wording still has exposed torpedo bulges causing more damage to be taken than if they were below the waterline, in cases where the main armor belt wouldn't be penetrated.

 

So, thoughts?

[Frenotx]

I guess WG got tired of people going on about 0 damage pens.

[Edgecase]

No. Bulges get a new ribbon to show that you hit a bulge and got no damage.

Secondary and AA will pass along 10% damage. Saturated sections will pass along 10% damage.

Main battery pens will still do red ribbons with 0 damage.

[T_O_dubl_D]

I'm good with this.  Instead of a zero damage pen it will be a 10% damage pen.  Every lit bit helps and if you hit and pen a ship you should get something positive for it

[Francois424]

As long as they don't mess ship tanking capabilities.

I know it's not as good as it used to be by a longshot, but it's no reason to sink whatever is left.

[Slimeball91]

15 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

I guess WG got tired of people going on about 0 damage pens.

This isn't about people complaining about zero damage hits, its about reducing time to kill.

 

[wjp120]

29 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

No. Bulges get a new ribbon to show that you hit a bulge and got no damage.

Secondary and AA will pass along 10% damage. Saturated sections will pass along 10% damage.

Main battery pens will still do red ribbons with 0 damage.

Ah. I think you may be right.

 

When I first read the sentence "The Public Test will include the updated mechanics for damage infliction to ships’ anti-torpedo bulges, secondary battery, and torpedo tube modules, as well as to any completely destroyed parts.,"  I assumed that updating the mechanics for "damage infliction to ships' anti-torpedo bulges" would mean changing the way damage is inflicted to anti-torpedo bulges. I guess they only mean the new ribbon in that case, though.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

RIP DDs...

[_RC1138]

2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

This isn't about people complaining about zero damage hits, its about reducing time to kill.

 

Sort of. It has to do with some ships being disproportionately tanky thanks to AA/Secondary layout than their Health and Armour would normally suggest.

[Burnsy]

4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Sort of. It has to do with some ships being disproportionately tanky thanks to AA/Secondary layout than their Health and Armour would normally suggest.

It's going to be a nerf to ships like the Alsace and premiums like the Mass I would think.

[Francois424]

1 minute ago, Burnsy said:

It's going to be a nerf to ships like the Alsace and premiums like the Mass I would think.

Nerf the Mass, and it's no worth playing anymore.  It's a secondary ship.  It needs to tank to get into range and do it's thing.
Nerf it and it becomes a very bad ship.

IMHO.

[_RC1138]

4 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

It's going to be a nerf to ships like the Alsace and premiums like the Mass I would think.

Kinda, those were the ones I had in mind (most USN Fast Battleships have that nice protective layer of Secondaries that makes mowing them down from a Mino a tad annoying). But also a few cruisers, again, USN being most noticeable as they have those big honking 5/38's blocking a portion of their super structure. It's not a HUGE nerf, because most people know that and aim between/above/away from them, it really just means my aim on them can be lazier than it usually is.

[Slimeball91]

Just now, _RC1138 said:

Sort of. It has to do with some ships being disproportionately tanky thanks to AA/Secondary layout than their Health and Armour would normally suggest.

You could just adjust those ships if they are problematic, lower HP or any other means of reducing survivability.  This change reduces all survivability, even on the ships that don't need it.

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

RIP DDs...

DDs will probably be hit pretty hard by this.  There is a lot of "extra" survivability for DDs with damage saturation and modules soaking up HE damage.  A BB needs to take a beating to get its superstructure saturated, where a DD get can have a section saturated from a single salvo.

[_RC1138]

6 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

You could just adjust those ships if they are problematic, lower HP or any other means of reducing survivability. 

That wouldn't work as it would likewise reduce their survivability vs. torps, where such issues of 0 damaging pens do not exist. The only alternative way I could see to do this is to redistribute HP/raise the thresholds for saturation so that those ships take full 33% longer.

6 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

This change reduces all survivability, even on the ships that don't need it.

Not really, because most ships don't have big honking Secondaries all over the place/secondaries with high profiles that WOULD take the hit (also true of AA guns). So most cruisers are unaffected by this, I'd argue KM BB's will be fine as their guns are very low profile and mostly on the weatherdeck. RN BB's will see essentially no change as they have very few Secondaries, all centralized to one spot anyway in most cases.

French and USN will notice the most as both their cruisers and BB's tend to have large amounts of AA/Tall secondaries all over the place.

6 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

DDs will probably be hit pretty hard by this.

Why would DD's be effected at all? Pens to Main battery will still register as a 0 damaging pen (to HP of the ship at least) and they don't have secondaries (baring rare exceptions like Kiev and Haida). Nor do they have Bulges or masses of AA guns. So by my take, this will have little to no effect *on* DD's and will be a net buff *for* them who historically peppered secondary guns on BB's at long range for little to no damage. The overpens doing damage even to a saturated section are a slight negative, but bear in mind that DD's have become OVERLY tanky to BB's thanks to the AP nerf and this is a fair middle point.

[Slimeball91]

4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Why would DD's be effected at all? Pens to Main battery will still register as a 0 damaging pen (to HP of the ship at least) and they don't have secondaries (baring rare exceptions like Kiev and Haida). Nor do they have Bulges or masses of AA guns. So by my take, this will have little to no effect *on* DD's and will be a net buff *for* them who historically peppered secondary guns on BB's at long range for little to no damage.

As I said, it's the "hidden" HP that DDs make good use of with modules, AA guns and damage saturation.  Imagine a DD running from focus fire after being hit with radar.  The first incoming salvo damage saturates the stern and now the DD gets a pass on more hits to the stern.  Same with DD knife fights.  They are already very unforgiving.  After this change every hit will do damage instead of being soaked up by torp tubes, a 20mm AA mount, or damage saturation.  DDs don't have the HP to burn and they (generally) don't have heals.

[_RC1138]

12 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Imagine a DD running from focus fire after being hit with radar.  The first incoming salvo damage saturates the stern and now the DD gets a pass on more hits to the stern. 

I don't have to imagine, I've tested it in game in the training room (and I recommend you do the same as you seem to have some very incorrect assumptions on how damage saturation works). For one, only 2 DD's at T7 and above have sterns that are capable of being saturated to 100% by gunfire (and I am *stressing* the word gunfire): Gearing and YY. Otherwise you can gun down a Shima for example by only shooting it's stern with HE. For two, DD's tend to lack most of the AA that would help mitigate damage that say, Yamato does. And three, as it stands, BB AP although DOING overpen damage, full pens still *count* as full pens, just with a damage cap, and when fired on a damage-saturate part on the beam, it does the pen damage to the central, not the stern, section. Meaning that even BB AP will still damage the 100% saturated stern of a Gearing as the shells will actually be passing through the stern and damaging the central section.

So now, if anything this is a net buff to DD's as now their HE/AP shell peppering long range BB's are far more likely to do damage than they do right now.

[Slimeball91]

17 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I don't have to imagine, I've tested it in game in the training room (and I recommend you do the same as you seem to have some very incorrect assumptions on how damage saturation works). For one, only 2 DD's at T7 and above have sterns that are capable of being saturated to 100% by gunfire (and I am *stressing* the word gunfire): Gearing and YY. Otherwise you can gun down a Shima for example by only shooting it's stern with HE. For two, DD's tend to lack most of the AA that would help mitigate damage that say, Yamato does. And three, as it stands, BB AP although DOING overpen damage, full pens still *count* as full pens, just with a damage cap, and when fired on a damage-saturate part on the beam, it does the pen damage to the central, not the stern, section. Meaning that even BB AP will still damage the 100% saturated stern of a Gearing as the shells will actually be passing through the stern and damaging the central section.

So now, if anything this is a net buff to DD's as now their HE/AP shell peppering long range BB's are far more likely to do damage than they do right now.

I understand how damage saturation works.  Once a section gets drained of it's HP you'll still be reducing the hull's HP until its gone (or the ship sinks).  I have to admit I've never tested each DD to see if you can sink them with only focusing on one section.  I was under the impression that wasn't really possible. 

[Alabamastan]

  I do not have the ability to test this at the moment, If AA is passing along 10% damage … does that mean if I am kiting away from a Yamato in my Shima and an 18.1 inch shell clips one of my 25mm guns on my stern I am getting damage for an overpen?

[Slimeball91]

Just now, Alabamastan said:

  I do not have the ability to test this at the moment, If AA is passing along 10% damage … does that mean if I am kiting away from a Yamato in my Shima and an 18.1 inch shell clips one of my 25mm guns on my stern I am getting damage for an overpen?

I think that is how it will work.

[TheDreadnought]

I don’t understand why destroying an AA mount does damage to this ship itself anyway.

[VeatherVitch]

Just now, TheDreadnought said:

I don’t understand why destroying an AA mount does damage to this ship itself anyway.

Realistically; because explosions on, and around a ship cause damage to it, even if they don't pierce the hull.

Gameplay; because it provides unintended tankiness to ships, and reduces the fun/effictivness of shell fire.

[Slimeball91]

1 minute ago, VeatherVitch said:

Realistically; because explosions on, and around a ship cause damage to it, even if they don't pierce the hull.

Gameplay; because it provides unintended tankiness to ships, and reduces the fun/effictivness of shell fire.

You do know this increased damage works both ways.  This change is all about reduced time to kill, to shorten matches.  I like to play games to play, not to be killed as fast as possible.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

People don't realize how much those Secondary / AA gun mounts save them from damage 

[Alabamastan]

17 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

Realistically; because explosions on, and around a ship cause damage to it, even if they don't pierce the hull.

Gameplay; because it provides unintended tankiness to ships, and reduces the fun/effictivness of shell fire.

   I don't think realistically an 18.1 inch AP shell from Yamato or Musashi clipping a DD in a 20mm or 25mm mount should take away 5-10% of their HP. 

[tfcas119]

I'm pretty sure they tested something very similar to this in PTS 7.10 I think, where hitting a torp bulge does pretty much overpen damage. That wasn't thought out very well seeing that would of affected multiple mid-tier BBs that had external torp belts, which acted as HE deadzones. In 7.10, they cancelled that change because it pretty much killed the tankiness of most of the affected ahips and made it flat out better to not have an external torp belt. Now that change is coming back and the only real difference is now that damage is 100% healable and the same thing can happen hen a shell hits an already knocked out AA or secondary gun as well. Not sure if this change will live past round two either, but this is WG, so who knows.

IMO, all they needed to do was add the "No Damage Pen" ribbons, which they are also adding, that would of helped, as long as they explain how you get a No Damage Pen in an article or for their "How it Works" YouTube series so people who don't know how zero damage pens happen have something to use as a reference.

Now if only they could also explain how 3 overpens can do 6k damage on one target, but I believe that's caused by a "Double Dip" bug if I remember an EU CC saying something about it.