Jump to content
Hapa_Fodder

Update 0.9.2 - Feedback

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,909
[WGA]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
2,009 posts
12,846 battles

updateisLive.jpg

Standby for words from the Chief,

With 0.9.2 being released, please leave your feedback and thoughts on the latest patch.

Please leave feedback on:

  • Royal Navy British Heavy Cruisers
  • Ranked Season 15
  • New Map: Northern Waters 
  • Updates to Unique Upgrades
  • Gameplay Balance changes

If you have any bugs to report, you can submit them here!

That is all.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
74 posts
5,340 battles

Why did Atlanta/Flint get so heavily nerfed in this patch. Not only do their guns no longer pen ANY cruiser outside superstructure they didn't get improved armor and what did the Japanese 100mm Guns deserve to get buffed again to have an absurd 30mm pen while 127 USN is stuck with 21mm pen. 

I thought WG didn't go out of their way to nerf doubloon/cash shop only ships.

Another poorly thought out update  with poorly thought out changes which only makes the game even less balanced than it was before.
Also with these changes means my Massachusetts which was sold for POWERFUL SECONDARY ARMAMENTS no longer can hurt cruisers which was part of her selling point, the ability to punish cruisers at the cost of long range accuracy and overall range  for the Main Battery. 

Edited by Zelinko
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
300
[USCGC]
[USCGC]
Members
719 posts
5,797 battles

Certainly is puzzling how a 4” shell magically outperforms a 5”shell. 
 

Nearly all the USN CL’s and DD’s got screwed with this IFHE “adjustment”. BB secondaries as well. 

Edited by Diesel_Thunder
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,915
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,801 posts
11,097 battles
36 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

updateisLive.jpg

Standby for words from the Chief,

With 0.9.2 being released, please leave your feedback and thoughts on the latest patch.

Please leave feedback on:

  • Royal Navy British Heavy Cruisers
  • Ranked Season 15
  • New Map: Northern Waters 
  • Updates to Unique Upgrades
  • Gameplay Balance changes

If you have any bugs to report, you can submit them here!

That is all.

For starters - I think you copy/pasted the wrong thing there Hapa.

And if you've been reading my responses else where you likely already know what I'm about to say here - the IFHE changes are garbage and do more harm than good.

  1. Whoever it is that thinks cruisers, specifically 152-155 mm armed ones, were taking IFHE to pen other cruisers deserves at minimum a reprimand or something similar because they clearly do not understand what is going on and should not be making balance related decisions. Players in these ships were taking it for the ability to autopen 32+ mm of armour that Battleships use. Thus negating BB's ability to angle to avoid damage.
  2. You buffed the worst offenders of the IFHE/fire issue massively by increasing their pen. As an example my Seattle -which can stay behind an island relatively safe from return fire - can lob 108 shells a minute. It now has 37 mm of pen - which punches the entire mid section of NC now. My average accuracy in ships of this type are close to 40% so for simplicity sake lets say I'm now consistently landing 40 shells every 6 seconds. That's 29,040 damage every 60 seconds. NC has only 66,000 HP. Only 50% of that can be repaired, 14,500 but the max HP repair party can heal is 11,088 per use. And by the time it cools down, I'll do another 38,000 damage on top of the 17k that couldn't be repaired - that's 54,000/66,000 gone, it won't survive after that even using repair party. And remember - we haven't even included fires in this yet. Because it still has a 6% fire chance without DE and flags. I could take it up to 9% - which is exactly where it was pre-patch without taking those. And a single fire on what I will call an average BB (not a survivability build, but not without some counters) will take 13%-15.3%. And remember the MAX HP% of repair party with the flag is 16.8% of HP - so if even 1 fire burns through best case is that you repair it's damage - but only a small fraction of the pen damage. A single fire allowed to burn eats enough of the repair party instead of 54,000/66,000 it'd be closer to 60-62,000/66,000 - from a single ship, behind an island possibly. Now imagine if more than one fires, or if 2+ fires burn. THIS  is the issue we wanted you to fix. And all you did is make the worst offenders even worse. It's why I've been saying the last couple years you guys have to lower the fire damage on BB's to a max of 15% at least, and adjust the amount repaired of regular pens and the CD of repair party to even come close to making up the DPS 152 mm cruisers can put out vs a BB. And that's only 1 of a dozen+ ships that cruisers will now pen more areas of
  3. The reverse side any cruiser in tier 6-7 you jut completely screwed against high tier BB's because now - I can just rush them bow on and they can't penetrate anything with more than 31 mm of armour. So while Cleveland and Seattle will still melt by Tirpitz as they have - I can rush Dallas and Helena with almost no consequences. And it was that exact scenario as to why IFHE was added in the first place.
  4. The majority of DD's are screwed - take IFHE have a paltry 2-3% fire chance, be forced to waste 3 points on DE to make it up partially, or have 0 ability to pen cruisers that can otherwise rush you with no consequence save maybe torps that they can even more easily counter now. 
  5. The exception DD's are the top 3 IJN gunboats - who now have 37 mm of pen - so enough to tear through the entirety of the armour that covers NC like Seattle, Cleveland, or Wor when using IFHE. Being reduced to 3% fire chance isn't as bad when you still pen more things than you used to on BB's and cruisers.
  6. That is to say nothing of what you have done to Atlanta. It's bad enough you guys butchered her AA because you overly based around mid-range flak (which was both unrealistic and a bad idea) and when that was finally changed her DPS was not properly adjusted in to the long range band to make up for loss of flak. But now IFHE means just enough to punch CL armour and only a 2.5% fire chance. Otherwise she's a big DD with no pen and a citadel to hit. She can more easily be rushed by just about anything. Same with Flint. And .1 to RoF is absolutely pathetic. It only means something if there is at least 4 minutes of sustained fire, and that's 1 extra salvo, meaning 5 if I just lay on the trigger for a 20 minute match. But under normal circumstances, it means absolutely nothing. Maybe at the 3 seconds or less reload rate that could be achieved that'd mean something with how hard you just nerfed her but she'd slaughter tier 5 and 6 DD's way too much.

And why even have the public test if your going to ignore us? We said we don't want this, that it doesn't work. You say you guys will be monitoring things - after the CV rework - that is still largely incomplete and still needs far more work than Wargaming will acknowledge - we are more than tired of 'push it to live than sort it out' because your people claim 'we don't have enough data' and then after it's on live for weeks go 'oh, well this is an issue we need to fix' even though it's things some of us told them would be issues months in advance when it went to ST without even playing it, let alone when testing it on PT. Which speaks volumes to just how out of touch the dev team is if players without even touching it can tell you the problems with a change or what number is needed for something and your dev team in the best case scenario's (like Midway's RTS hanger nerf) don't figure it out till PT or worst case weeks/months/years on live server to finally address the issues we pointed out. And mark my words - 80% of what I said here, if not all of it WILL be an issue - I'd put money on it if I had any. And that is to say nothing of the ones I omitted such as increased use of DE/flags to cause more fires absent IFHE and value of trainers that now require 2 different skill sets because of tier when they shared the same skill sets before that are comparatively minor to the main ones I listed out but still no less an issue.

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[-AHOY]
Members
254 posts
5,364 battles

152mm cruisers get only 25mm pen, while BBs have their deck armour at 26mm... and that's when they are on par with tiers, 7 to 7. When you play against T8 or T9 it gets even worse. Ships are not functional without IFHE and they barely do anything with IFHE now. If you wanted to nerf Smolensk, you should just change its stats, not screw up all cruisers with small caliber guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[USFTW]
Members
2 posts
471 battles

Getting a redsky box after patch with texture not found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,081
[PVE]
Members
4,561 posts
22,432 battles
1 hour ago, Stukov said:

Getting a redsky box after patch with texture not found.

Wrong thread for that...in the OP there is a link (where it says, "here" in blue) for reporting issues...this is for feedback.

BTW...welcome to the forums...& the game :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[USFTW]
Members
2 posts
471 battles

It was an issue with one of the mods from the mod downloader provided on this website.  Removing a bunch of them fixed the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290
[Y0L0]
Members
338 posts
13,399 battles

So I was fortunate enough to get the Visby after completing the first directive. I noticed though that the gun reload speed is different. The gun layout is 2x2 and 1x1. The single gun turret reloads slightly faster than the double turrets. I don't know if it's supposed to be this way or if that's part of the game. Doesn't reflect that way on the stats listed in port though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,644
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
12,629 posts
9 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

For starters - I think you copy/pasted the wrong thing there Hapa.

And if you've been reading my responses else where you likely already know what I'm about to say here - the IFHE changes are garbage and do more harm than good.

  1. Whoever it is that thinks cruisers, specifically 152-155 mm armed ones, were taking IFHE to pen other cruisers deserves at minimum a reprimand or something similar because they clearly do not understand what is going on and should not be making balance related decisions. Players in these ships were taking it for the ability to autopen 32+ mm of armour that Battleships use. Thus negating BB's ability to angle to avoid damage.
  2. You buffed the worst offenders of the IFHE/fire issue massively by increasing their pen. As an example my Seattle -which can stay behind an island relatively safe from return fire - can lob 108 shells a minute. It now has 37 mm of pen - which punches the entire mid section of NC now. My average accuracy in ships of this type are close to 40% so for simplicity sake lets say I'm now consistently landing 40 shells every 6 seconds. That's 29,040 damage every 60 seconds. NC has only 66,000 HP. Only 50% of that can be repaired, 14,500 but the max HP repair party can heal is 11,088 per use. And by the time it cools down, I'll do another 38,000 damage on top of the 17k that couldn't be repaired - that's 54,000/66,000 gone, it won't survive after that even using repair party. And remember - we haven't even included fires in this yet. Because it still has a 6% fire chance without DE and flags. I could take it up to 9% - which is exactly where it was pre-patch without taking those. And a single fire on what I will call an average BB (not a survivability build, but not without some counters) will take 13%-15.3%. And remember the MAX HP% of repair party with the flag is 16.8% of HP - so if even 1 fire burns through best case is that you repair it's damage - but only a small fraction of the pen damage. A single fire allowed to burn eats enough of the repair party instead of 54,000/66,000 it'd be closer to 60-62,000/66,000 - from a single ship, behind an island possibly. Now imagine if more than one fires, or if 2+ fires burn. THIS  is the issue we wanted you to fix. And all you did is make the worst offenders even worse. It's why I've been saying the last couple years you guys have to lower the fire damage on BB's to a max of 15% at least, and adjust the amount repaired of regular pens and the CD of repair party to even come close to making up the DPS 152 mm cruisers can put out vs a BB. And that's only 1 of a dozen+ ships that cruisers will now pen more areas of
  3. The reverse side any cruiser in tier 6-7 you jut completely screwed against high tier BB's because now - I can just rush them bow on and they can't penetrate anything with more than 31 mm of armour. So while Cleveland and Seattle will still melt by Tirpitz as they have - I can rush Dallas and Helena with almost no consequences. And it was that exact scenario as to why IFHE was added in the first place.
  4. The majority of DD's are screwed - take IFHE have a paltry 2-3% fire chance, be forced to waste 3 points on DE to make it up partially, or have 0 ability to pen cruisers that can otherwise rush you with no consequence save maybe torps that they can even more easily counter now. 
  5. The exception DD's are the top 3 IJN gunboats - who now have 37 mm of pen - so enough to tear through the entirety of the armour that covers NC like Seattle, Cleveland, or Wor when using IFHE. Being reduced to 3% fire chance isn't as bad when you still pen more things than you used to on BB's and cruisers.
  6. That is to say nothing of what you have done to Atlanta. It's bad enough you guys butchered her AA because you overly based around mid-range flak (which was both unrealistic and a bad idea) and when that was finally changed her DPS was not properly adjusted in to the long range band to make up for loss of flak. But now IFHE means just enough to punch CL armour and only a 2.5% fire chance. Otherwise she's a big DD with no pen and a citadel to hit. She can more easily be rushed by just about anything. Same with Flint. And .1 to RoF is absolutely pathetic. It only means something if there is at least 4 minutes of sustained fire, and that's 1 extra salvo, meaning 5 if I just lay on the trigger for a 20 minute match. But under normal circumstances, it means absolutely nothing. Maybe at the 3 seconds or less reload rate that could be achieved that'd mean something with how hard you just nerfed her but she'd slaughter tier 5 and 6 DD's way too much.

And why even have the public test if your going to ignore us? We said we don't want this, that it doesn't work. You say you guys will be monitoring things - after the CV rework - that is still largely incomplete and still needs far more work than Wargaming will acknowledge - we are more than tired of 'push it to live than sort it out' because your people claim 'we don't have enough data' and then after it's on live for weeks go 'oh, well this is an issue we need to fix' even though it's things some of us told them would be issues months in advance when it went to ST without even playing it, let alone when testing it on PT. Which speaks volumes to just how out of touch the dev team is if players without even touching it can tell you the problems with a change or what number is needed for something and your dev team in the best case scenario's (like Midway's RTS hanger nerf) don't figure it out till PT or worst case weeks/months/years on live server to finally address the issues we pointed out. And mark my words - 80% of what I said here, if not all of it WILL be an issue - I'd put money on it if I had any. And that is to say nothing of the ones I omitted such as increased use of DE/flags to cause more fires absent IFHE and value of trainers that now require 2 different skill sets because of tier when they shared the same skill sets before that are comparatively minor to the main ones I listed out but still no less an issue.

Precisely this.

The armor and HE changes are a mess, for all the reasons we've been laying out and trying to get WG to at least acknowledge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,644
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
12,629 posts
8 hours ago, Banished_Privateer said:

152mm cruisers get only 25mm pen, while BBs have their deck armour at 26mm... and that's when they are on par with tiers, 7 to 7. When you play against T8 or T9 it gets even worse. Ships are not functional without IFHE and they barely do anything with IFHE now. If you wanted to nerf Smolensk, you should just change its stats, not screw up all cruisers with small caliber guns.

Compare the Helena's guns to the armor of tier IX cruisers, and look at how much Helena can (or really, can't) pen with HE.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,644
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
12,629 posts
11 hours ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

 

  • New Map: Northern Waters 

 

 

First thing to pass along to the devs -- STOP forcing the Port settings to change whenever a new Port is added.  I don't even care what the new Port looks like a this point, I changed it immediately back to Ocean without even looking at it. 

The forced change is just juvenile and obnoxious on their part.

Never mind that the Ports are all harder on our PCs than the actual battles...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[SRPH]
Members
91 posts
1,514 battles

Cruisers are dead as f’in fried chicken. DDs are still fun, though. Glad I have a couple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[SQUAD]
Members
62 posts
11,405 battles

It  is the end of the world as we know it.  It is the end of the world as we know it.  It is the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1 post

I'm confused about the changes to IFHE and cruiser armor since it seems like there are tons of changes thrown together:

- Cruiser armor buff/nerf depends on tier and guns (and even faction?)

- IFHE is better at penning, but cuts down HE chance more aggressively (?)

- Heavier cruisers generally get better armor (?)

- Lighter cruisers get worse armor (?)

- German secondaries got buffed, but other secondary based ships (like the Mass) got nerfed indirectly due to cruiser armor buffs?

- Non IJN high tier DDs got nerfed due to the IFHE change?

 

If you have a better idea then me please reply :D

 

PS. I have 1 post cuse I accidentally logged in using a secondary account I created for development/api purposes. I'm not that newb ;P

Edited by sargentmki_dev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
68
[WOOKY]
Members
214 posts
10,917 battles

Just remember, WoWS doesn't listen to players nor does it give players what they want.  As long as WoWS makes a profit, WG and WoWS as a whole don't care about the player base.  The devs only listen to the Russian server players.  They don't care about the rest.  The server administrators don't care about problems they cause players, they only care about pay checks.  Every decision WoWS has made in the last 2 years is based on profit, not players.  THEY DON'T CARE WHAT THE PLAYERS THINK!!!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,751
[WORX]
Members
8,953 posts
17,091 battles

My feedback is simple,

Way bother with +/-2 MM restriction, if you're arming ships with inadequate guns/armor to properly be productive?

As it stands right now in patch 0.9.2. The 127 caliber guns, cant even tickle a tier 9 BB... Was there a change in policy stating certain classes will have immunity against threats ?


I dont agree with the change. It will make MM the scapegoat to the real problem of the growing disproportional playing field between the classes (in Guns and armor not fitting with the +/-2MM stipulation).

If this is the directions WG wants to go... GL, we'll adapt... But its not going to be a "welcomed" change in policy...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,915
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,801 posts
11,097 battles
23 hours ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

.9.2 being released

Still can't quote the proper parts I'll be referencing  because you still have 9.1's info in the post for the 9.2 patch Hapa, that really should have been fixed yesterday given you posted the full patch notes after.

I think it's overdue I come after Wargaming for this again - the pricing of Free XP ships that at this point that are not Nelson. Tier 9's post-Musashi was already pretty bad, this however is beyond egregious price gouging and the people who decided on it should feel ashamed - however over the past few months with things like Puerto Rico (still not letting that go), let alone year they have shown they are incapable of that as they have none. It's always been malarkey of the highest degree that there was an excess of free xp out there. The number of players sitting on a ton of actual free xp is probably a slightly more inclusive group than those who could earn Puerto Rico for free. Other than points of artificial inflation (dumping a ton of it on us as ships get removed, changed, etc) or people saving up and holding on to it because it takes them forever to grind it and are waiting on a ship type they play to unlock it (as many focus on one type and to that point only BB's had been offered). The only Excess is XP on ships to convert - and your current pricing turns many away from spending to do so and even the sale price has been dubious. And we only have so much excess on ships because this dev team has refused to add an option that both sister games have to accelerate commander training to make it easier to get higher point captains which was fine when the game launched - but now we need to add one so players that DON'T already have a 19 point captain can catch up faster - and keep in mind I've been here since Alpha, I have some 19 pointers though admittedly not as many as some because of my more divided focus. And I know the difference it can make and that many higher tier players drop high point captains in to mid tier premiums making them seem even more powerful than they actually are.

Also it's nowhere NEAR the actual XP requirements at this point to go up a line. I just ran up the numbers to shoot straight up to Yamato and Harugumo - About 900,000 to go from tier 1 to Yamato, 676,120 to get Harugumo. And pretty much every line is in those ranges. So for LESS THAN HALF of the price of the new DD I can get the OG OP battleship that overmatches everything and has a ton of armour except near the front of B turret around the waterline, for nearly ONE THIRD THE PRICE I can get Harugumo, which can still autopen battleships 32 mm plating and was actually buffed to 37 mm of pen with IFHE. Hell I can get BOTH for less than that one ship, with change to get close to a 3rd tier 10. And FXP is earned as a small percentage of normal XP, even with Papa Papa flags (that which players are more likely to have, and thanks to the debacle of Puerto Rico use as players will now horde what few of the super flags they get in case you guys make it unreasonably difficult again which you shouldn't - but the community has a severe lack of faith in your team at this point regarding such things) which just makes this even more insane. Now, I can understand having nice, even, uniform numbers for a tier even if that makes them a bit high - the 750k price tag was high (Izumo would only be 650k-ish) and a bit of work, but still relatively speaking fair. A 1mil price tag on tier 10's, especially BB's - once again, a fair price. And I will even say that as an exception, a 1mil price tag on Musashi would have been fair because let's be real it's a tier 10 ship with tier 9 MM. And I will also point out that these FXP prices you have now put these ships WAY off the store prices. The price of 1mil free xp is 115 dollars basically at the 35-1 exchange rate anyone who converts xp converts at - based off your own pricing in the shops this is around the price a tier 10 BB would cost in the shop which is a fair price for that but lets remember this is XP conversion to get a tier 9. Here's the shop prices of all tier 9's that shouldn't even be in the shop to begin with -

  • JB - 78 dollars
  • Georgia - 77.20
  • Alaska - 77.20
  • Azuma - 77.20
  • Friesland - 77.20

Almost 40 dollars more for them. The 750k price tag is still  bit higher at 85 and change but only by 7-8 dollars which while not great is nowhere near as bad. Your 2mil tag on Smaland is 228 dollars - well beyond reasonable and enough I could basically by any 3 of these tier 9's or 2 reasonably priced tier 10's. This is madness. Look, you guys want a generic price for tier 9 and 10 premiums - fine, go back to 750k for tier 9's and 1mil for tier 10's. You want to keep these nonsensical numbers - you need to drastically improve the exchange rate and/or drastically improve how much free xp we gain.

 

And this is not directed at you Hapa or generally the NA staff as most of them have been fine and good with interactions, but between things like this and the disaster that was Puerto Rico - it feels like Wargaming thinks that were all a bunch of idiotic kids that can't do math and who's parents have tons of extra cash to just spoil us and that is why we demand things and have all the free time in the world. Most, if any of us, aren't. I don't have a college degree because money and had to drop out to A: work and B: help care for my grandfather when he had cancer but I was in college for game and simulation design and I audited classes at the college my mom worked at for business (to which the teacher of my intro to international business class knew my mom and mistook comments of my 'trouble with school' in middle/high school was that I was dumb said I should be taking it for credit because I was the smartest kid in the class), I have been reading about and researching aircraft of WWII and the Bismarck since I was 3-4 years old to which i'm now going to be 31 near end of the month and while I love my job with the Eagles as gameday event staff - it's a seasonal part time gig that basically pays enough to keep my phone going at this point, and occasionally by something. How many Veterans play this game? Most of the people I know in game or on forums are maybe late 20's at the youngest and I know plenty who work, have kids and all sorts of other stuff that limit both time and money. With PR we were demanding a free ship easy to obtain - we were demanding that it be a FAIR challenge to get it that with work anyone could do, as well as demanding fair pricing. To which the way Wargaming advertised the event they advertised it as it would be a fair challenge in which anyone with work could obtain it or with a booster or two to save time/effort - and pricing should be fair to begin with. While many players have bias's because they only play a certain ship type or refuse to play others - usually CV's - end of the day we all really want the same thing - a fair and balanced game. We WANT to like and enjoy the game, we basically WANT to have reasons to spend money on it to support it. What Wargaming has done the last year and a half - that's not how you accomplish this. Overpricing, ignoring us entirely or at best having selective hearing, and having people in your company put out responses that come across as or are flat out calling us spoiled, dumb, etc - this is how you kill a game or any business.

My Intro to International Business class had a sim in it over the last few weeks (that knowing my things this games the teacher wanted feedback on). I actually managed to break it because within my group of competing class mates - I forced them all to change products because I had a quality product at a lower price they couldn't beat, especially the guy that was way overpricing. When because of the way I broke the sim had to switch to the same product as them - they all lost a ton of business as I took it back with the same thing. Service, Image, and Product - that's why my father has a photo from when he worked at Domino's with his crew (as he was the manager) holding a banner in front of a competing chain store that tried to move in to his area that they closed down in about a year because they couldn't compete. More and more I see things similar to this game or a certain other game expanding. Product is less an issue - you make a premium ship it's made you don't hand make them for each of us and overall game well, needs work but, that is expected. Service/Image right now needs a good amount of work after the PR disaster of PR and all, ignoring what we said about CV's with the rework, the IFHE changes - this does not help. But Wargaming could easily shift because of the fact you make a product and done from trying to get as much per product to instead using volume to make money off sales. Tiers 9's shouldn't be for sale anyway but how many more would you sell of those if they were only 50 dollars? if tier 8 was only around 30? tier 7 20? 5 and 6 between 10-20 dollars and less for the tier 4 and under ships that really don't get bought much anyway as they are usually too inefficient at crew training or credit income. How many more would convert XP if the standard price was 40-1 or higher with a 50-1 or higher sale price? Granted the 40-1 price would only match the old 750k FXP tier 9's at their current pricing, the base conversion for the price range I'm talking about would have to be 55-1 at 750k free xp. Where Free XP beyond it's other uses becomes essentially a discount on those ships if you aren't converting the full 750k. Someone like me who's underemployed or someone with a family to support can likely free up 10-20 dollars more easily and maybe splurge at 30 than what you have now. Hell a kid can likely get 10-20 dollars off their parent's more easily. And especially after what Wargaming did with PR's pricing - could go a long way toward mending things and earn back some trust and support - though Wargaming has many fences to mend right now.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[SHWBT]
Members
7 posts
613 battles

This is unbelievable.... Spent over $700 when I played from beta to 3 years ago. Took a break for 2 years. Come back to find cvs are a disaster and we have basically removed anything resembling an AA build. And now we have an alright balance in the game between ships, making it a fundamental part of this game. Now  we changed it again with these cruiser changes. Which I think will change the meta AGAIN. We will probably start seeing an average damage decrease in battleships. I am having a hard time finding where they fit in if they cannot punish cruisers.... 

Edited by paulckelly
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2 posts
3,722 battles

Why so big ????? 

I don't know about anyone else, but I can only get DSL where I live. These updates are always so HUGE. 2.32 Gig ????? That's an entire game (as well as an OVER NIGHT download for me). How about incremental updates over like 3 days ? That would allow those of us with limited bandwidth to update and PLAY on the same freakin day. C'mon WG, think about the rural players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[WAKE]
Members
44 posts
15,700 battles

Does this make any sense to anyone???  IJN 100mm HE pens 30mm of armor without IFHE but all other non IJN DDs can pen up to 28mm (139's) 27mm (130's) 25mm (127's) or 23mm (113's) with IFHE!!!!!!!! Makes no sense.  Oh wait... WG is getting ready to release the new IJN DD for $1000.  This game is so balanced... Thanks WG!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[AZUR1]
Members
6 posts
6,376 battles

DUE TO THIS UPDATE FRENCH BBS 152MM SECS CAN NO LONGER PEN 32 MM ARMOR AND DAMAGE BBS AND THE 127MM AND 100MM GUNS CANT PEN HEAVY CRUISERS IF YOU REMOVE IFHE ON JEAN BART THE 100MM SECS CAN'T EVEN PEN DDS PLEASE  BUFF FRENCH SECS OR REMOVE THE UPDATE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,644
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
12,629 posts

Evidently they have time to make the combat UI uglier and more cartoonish, make the maps full of useless glare and flare, force-change everyone's port settings to show off their "awesome beautiful" new port every few patches, AND make a total crapfest of HE pen and armor thickness... but they don't have time to fix THIS crap, which is STILL happening.

 

shot-20_03.13_22_33.02-0293.jpg.062becb06652a28eca8f197de403509f.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
249
[BIER]
Members
393 posts
6,043 battles

The fundamental problem here  with HE (and, by extension, the IFHE skill) is the ALL or NOTHING approach to damage.

Basically, HE has two modes:  either it shatters and does no damage, or it pens and does 1/3rd damage.  HE citadels are rare and only occur on a very select number of ships - statistically, the number of HE citadels is so small as to be ignorable. And I can't remember the last time I saw an overpen using HE (well, except for RN BB guns). 

What makes this situation untenable is the "cliff" method of determining HE pen. There's no angling (and thus no skill) involved in HE - you just manage to hit the target, and then, depending on whether your HE meets the cliff of penetration, you do damage or nothing.

The reality is, that HE should be doing damage at a relatively low armor penetration threshold, and should INCREASE the amount of damage done based on how much penetration that shell can do.  That is, HE should do SOME damage at many armors, but only do SIGNIFICANT damage to relatively thin ones.

In game terms, this is what I propose:

  1. Remove all "special" dividers. All ships use the same basic math. No special dividers for RN BBs or KM BBs or CAs, or certain guns on certain ships. ALL ships, and ALL guns firing HE use the following method. Using the special dividers just confuses things, and makes play harder for most people to understand.
  2. The thresholds are the new "must be at least equal to". So, in order to penetrate X mm of armor, you need X amount of penetration.
  3. OVERPEN damage (10%) is caused if the /4 threshold is met.  That is, if (shell diameter/4)  >= (armor).  
  4. PENETRATION damage (33%) is caused at the /6 threshold. So, the math is (shell diameter/6)  >= (armor). 

Now, how to deal with SAP and the IFHE skill. First, let's admit that SAP IS IFHE.  It makes ZERO sense otherwise. The whole concept of SAP is EXACTLY what IFHE is - a slightly hardened HE shell with a longer fuse. Here's how to handle them:

IFHE means you reduce the amount of HE filler in the shell, to compensate for the heavier shell casing.  So, the IFHE skill will do three things:

  1. REDUCE THE BASE DAMAGE DONE BY 15%.  All HE shells fired by a ship with a captain skill of IFHE have their HE alpha reduced by 15%.
  2. INCREASE the base HE penetration level by 25%.  That is, the match is (1.25 * shell diameter/4) >= (armor) for overpen, and (1.25 * shell diameter/6 ) >= (armor) for penetration.
  3. REDUCE the Fire Change by 25%. 

SAP should be a form of IFHE, with emphasis on more pen, and handled as follows:

  1. It should have a 33% penetration bonus. Thus, the ability to overpen is at (4/3 * shell diameter/4) >= (armor), while the ability to pen is at (4/3 * shell diameter/6) >= (armor).
  2. IT WILL CAUSE FIRES, but it should have about 50% of the chance that an equivalent sized shell would normally do.
  3. It should cause LESS ALPHA DAMAGE than any equivalent HE shell (generally 1/3 less).  So get rid of the idiocy that SAP penetrates more AND does more damage. 
  4. SAP will NOT bounce.
  5. SAP is NOT affected by the IFHE captain skill, any more than AP is.

 

------

 

let's look at what this proposal does, using common shell sizes:

  Normal IFHE SAP
Shell Size OverPen Pen OverPen Pen OverPen Pen
100 25 16 31 20 33 22
113 28 18 35 23 37 25
128 32 21 40 26 42 28
130 32 21 40 27 43 28
150 37 25 46 31 50 33
152 38 25 47 31 50 33
155 38 25 48 32 51 34
180 45 30 56 37 60 40
203 50 33 63 42 67 45
240 60 40 75 50 80 53
310 77 51 96 64 103 68

This gives the ability to cause at least scratch damage per shell for most guns


In the above scenario, it works out nicely.

IJN gunboat DDs with the 100mm guns CAN fight same-tier DDs and CLs, they just don't cause a whole lot of direct damage (it's mostly overpens).  They need to learn how to use AP appropriate.  They can also cause damage some parts of CAs, as well as T7 or lower CAs. Conversely, their small guns, even with IFHE, don't shred BBs.  The days of a Haragumo being able to melt a T10 BB in 2 minutes are over.

The T9/10 RN DDs don't need IFHE to be able to fight other DDs, though they're in the same situation as the IJN gunboats: they need to be able to use AP smartly to deal a lot of damage to a DD.  They DO have the ability to hurt CAs and BBs with IFHE, if only somewhat.

Typical DD guns (the 128 and 130) are pretty useful on most ships, with the USSR 130mm+IFHE quite useful against CAs and mid-tier BBs.  

The mid-tier 150mm-ish guns now can at least hurt BB bow/sterns all the time, with IFHE being mainly useful against heavy cruisers (not BBs), though the 155mm on the IJN Mogami being the exception here (it's very useful against BBs). 

At the higher calibers, they come ready to at least pen the Bow/Stern of everything, where IFHE is primarily useful for adding Pens to deck armor.

SAP now generally has the ability to hurt all CAs or less, as well as BB bows or sterns.

 

But the big takeaway here is this:  HE SHOULD CAUSE OVERPEN DAMAGE.  And the thresholds for Overpen damage should be significantly higher than the current Pen damage thresholds, which probably should be lowered a bit.

 

Edited by LAnybody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
249
[BIER]
Members
393 posts
6,043 battles

Regardless of the IFHE changes (and corresponding armor changes for IFHE), there's a GLARING misfeature that continues:

Tier 7 heavy cruisers still get only 16mm of bow/stern plating.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

T7 CAs should be at least as well armored as T8 and T9 CLs.

16mm of plating is overmatched by 229mm guns.  So, you've got a situation where not just every single BB a T7 CA sees, but a number of T9 supercruisers can overmatch it's bow armor. It's also so weak that DDs have no problem penning it at significant range.  T7 CAs should have the ability to bow-tank BBs, or at least those with 14" guns or less. 

The idea that a T5 BB should be able to overmatch a T7 Heavy Cruiser's bow is moronic. Not to mention that a T5 DD can AP pen their bow at 10km.

All T7 heavy cruisers should have their bow and stern armor increased to a MINIMUM of 25mm.  

Note that this would still make them vulnerable to same-tier (i.e. T7) CLs and CAs with 150mm-class guns shooting HE.

 

Myoko (and clones), New Orleans, Yorck,  Algiere, Indianapolis, and Zara are the affected ships.

Edited by LAnybody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×