Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
_Storm

AP/HE changes (suggestion)

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

Right now, nobody likes the fire mechanics, and nobody likes being useless, the rock-paper-scissors method of balance doesn't work and WG is about to release a game with a bunch of serious issues and only seem to have a desire to milk more money through premium boats, so to alleviate the constant barrage of Tirpitz threads (the trolling of which is apparently less constructive than repeatedly spamming "soon" and other meaningless comments/topics?), so here is a thread with suggestions which I feel would bring balance to a better state, for the more conventional ship classes and the usage of primary guns.

 

Battleships

AP - Right now, battleship AP is incredibly effective in almost all situations, my suggestion is to increase the number of over-penetrations against non-citadel hits, which means that if you don't have a good aim you'll be doing less damage per salvo. Right now the average battleship damage per game far exceeds that of cruisers and destroyers, which I feel is a result of their survivability and their very powerful main guns, increasing the number of over-pens is both reasonably logical owing to their calibre, and as it does not reduce the effectiveness of citadel hits, skilled players who can aim well are not seriously effected, meaning that battleships retain their position as a high skill ceiling class, while bad players will do worse (sniping at max range where citadel hits are very rare will be much less effective than as it is now. 

 

HE - Leave it as it, but drop the chance of fire right down, people who have no clue how to play getting rewarded for their ignorance is bad game design for a competitive, PvP game, to put it bluntly they don't deserve the extra damage that RNG-generated fires cause, if they are playing a skill-sensitive class without an understanding of how to play they shouldn't get free damage for their mistakes. Also drop the damage for non-pens, which means that HE will only be truly effective against destroyers in emergency "I'm about to get torp'd rip rip rip" situations.

 

Summary - Overall a nerf, however they are very powerful right now, and these changes would only affect bad players, so overall the difference is not huge.

 

Cruisers

AP - Big buffs, cruiser AP has not been very effective since the 3.0 (or was it 3.1 changes?), which brought in the fire spam, a mechanic which has been pretty much universally reviled since, to balance this out I recommend buffing Cruiser AP so that it is always a better option against other, same-tier or lower cruisers (higher tier cruiser should have more armour, and hence less vulnerable to AP) than HE, right now cruiser AP is only effective when you are facing a cruiser who is broadside to you, allowing easy citadel shots, and HE will otherwise out-DPM a cruiser using AP, in contrast to battleships where AP is almost always the best option for dealing with other battleships. These AP buffs will also make cruiser AP more effective against battleship armour, yet without allowing the option to cause citadel hits. What this could mean is that a cruiser aiming well at a battleship can potentially cause more damage per salvo against a battleship who is aiming poorly, which given the highly important nature of aiming in this game, is an effective way to reward skill without upsetting balance, or allowing cruisers to truly wreck battleships (they will ideally still be unable to cause citadel hits barring extreme circumstances).

 

HE - Slightly lower the damage of non-penetrating rounds, do the opposite for penetrating rounds, lower fire chance, this is for the most part a destroyer survivability buff (most HE rounds don't pen), and makes HE more situational, so less desire to spam it against everything like it is at the moment, while also give destroyers a slight buff without reducing the cruiser's role in destroyer hunting, reduce fire chance because again, fire spam is stupid and nobody enjoys it.

 

Summary - AP buffed to reward skill more properly, HE nerfed to make spam less appealing, cruisers retain current role as jack-of-all-trades, but overall more effective.

 

Destroyers

AP - AP for larger calibre guns buffed (ie Gremyashchy, presumably other Soviet destroyers too), this is to keep them close to the cruiser changes, without changing drastically how they perform.

 

HE - Damage buffed across the board, destroyers are right now in a really bad spot balance-wise, making their primary guns more useful would at least help in that regard and make them less reliant on torpedoes which only work when their target isn't paying attention, though fires are, like everything else, nerfed in terms of how often they are caused.

 

Summary - The changes here aren't huge, but should help make them less situational, which is a good thing when you're talking about the class that is overall doing the worst, and by quite a big margin too.

 

Some of these paragraphs are a bit of a wall of text, but it's something I've felt like writing about for a while now, plus my understanding of how good battleships are, and how badly cruisers and destroyers is now backed up by stats, and also since I'm not really playing anymore now is probably the best chance to have a good ol' ramble about balance and stuff before everything is changed and I become that crazy old guy spamming out "back in my day...." posts in the newcomers forum.

 

 And here's an unrelated cat, because it's the internet:

6kt3HIQ.jpg

(If this picture is really big, don't blame me, I just found it on imgur's front page)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

This is just a trivial correction: Non-penetrating HE shells do not do any damage. Ships have various components with varied armor thickness, even the heavies BB have thinly-armored section (such as the mast/superstructure, bow, etc) that HE shells can penetrate). 

 

Overall, I do agree with your view (to a certain extend) that we should promote more skill-based ammo selection with regards to BB and CA, although I'm not sure what to think about DD guns.

 

BB: I don't know how to you make a pen into over-pen, it seems a bit off to me. If we are going to nerf BB AP effectiveness, I'd say we reduce chance of citadel penetration, especially higher tiers.

 

CA: Personally, I feel that using HE in a Cruiser against BB is still the way to go. However, the HE damage should be lessen and the CA captain should try to win enemy BB by setting fire to multiple sections (which requires aiming, this is possible because of CA's better accuracy than BB). To compensate, CA citadel size should be reduced, thus the CA captain can stay in the battle longer against BB to actually set those needed fires. I agree that CA AP shells effectiveness against other CA should also be buffed too, especially if the reduced citadel size change above is taken.

 

DD: I don't know about this though, buffing their guns seem not right because those 100-127mm guns weren't meant to engage any target larger than their size. I know that DD (especially tier6-9) desperately need buffs, but I don't think it's the gun. Many people would disagree with me on this, but I think DD need more smoke and torpedo buffs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

This is just a trivial correction: Non-penetrating HE shells do not do any damage. Ships have various components with varied armor thickness, even the heavies BB have thinly-armored section (such as the mast/superstructure, bow, etc) that HE shells can penetrate). 

 

Not quite, HE only does full damage when it pens, while damage is reduced based on how thick the armour is (I'm not sure on the formula though), so when shooting at destroyers you will notice you you do quite a lot of damage with HE, but the individual shells aren't rolling for max damage every shot, which is because most of the time they aren't penetrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
[BLUMR]
Member
1,134 posts
1,377 battles

Overall I like the idea with these few execptions.

 

BBs: I don't think the non-citadel pen nerf should affect BB vs BB engagements as I believe the damage seems kinda right atm. I agree on AP vs CAs and DDs.

 

CAs: You be surprised how many players still show their broadsides in CA vs CA engagements, I don't know about buffing AP too hard, it could turn out to be similar to the pre-armour patch where everyone except DDs were using AP.

Do agree on the nerfing of HE be it via direct nerfs to the shell/start chance or buffs in fire prevention e.g DCP grace period. +1 to Gezeiten's idea of reducing CA citadel sizes espeically IJN's.

    

my tier 8 $60 Atago's Ap is useless, when you get tier 8-10 battles. Can only use HE.

 

If my Myouko's AP rounds can citadel Tier 8 cruisers, I don't see how your Atago can't. We get it, you don't like what you bought but theres no need to bring it up almost every time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
420 posts
20 battles

Myouko AP rounds can citadel New Mexico, i've experienced it at very close engagement. RIP 40k HP.

Put aside FIre from HE, cruiser citadel hit on BB is the most ridiculous thing at this game. Since they have better dispersion and damage per second. High tier Japanese cruiser has 5k AP power, it is half of New Mexico's 14 inch gun.

 

Try to aim at the both end side of BB while using Atago, no citadel, but penetration, still has larger damage than ordinary HE. Try this to aim ship deck when you have distance too.

Edited by Zwelivelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already in Alpha Testers
300 posts
938 battles

Some very good suggestions by the OP. I certainly hope that WG is on the same page as far as balancing the various classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
4,335 battles

Hmmm... I am of the opinion that AP is underpowered VS. HE.  I've had 4~5 hit 14" salvos bounce of ships without causing any damage (yes, I know, bad angle). Being hit by a non penetrating 8" shell or larger is going to cause some serious concussion, upsetting of machinery and even flooding in even the largest BB's. I think 500~1000 dmg should be appropriate. Overpens also should do more dmg.  I understand the concept but no destroyer survives being penetrated by multiple 14" AP shells overpen or not.  I feel that HE for 6" or over should be a secondary weapon for causing crit damage (could do more crit damage) and fires (fires need some attention but that is a seperate issues).

Right now for 8" cruiser HE is the primary weapon with AP only useful when you get a flat broadside to shoot at.

 

Balance wise I think CAs and DDs will be fixed just fine when something is done with aircraft vision mechanics so that their stealth advantage comes into play. 

 

As for AP in DDs.... why do DDs have AP???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1 post
1,764 battles

There's more to shells than AP/HE. Why not suggest addition of shells such as San Shiki to add variety to the game?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)

And probably for balance's sake, decrease ship's auto AA dps for a few seconds in said AOE after firing this shell.

And friendly firing of allied planes possible of course

 

I think it'll be better if we add things like conning tower hits also. Increase all ship's current hp by a certain %. Then the new highest damage per shell hit will be conning tower hits instead of citadel hits.

 

I agree with decreasing the chances of fire. But decrease citadel size??? SERIOUSLY? That'll just make it historically inaccurate. 

Changing damage factors to AP shells on non-citadel hits will have to depend on ship design. As not all ships are all-or-none american style.

 

In my opinion:

IJN BB - AA rebalance using manual main battery AA-shells

USN BB - Keep it as it is

 

IJN CA - Keep it as it is(thanks to recent turret transverse speed buff)

USN CA - Indirect nerf(Chance of fire decrease)

 

IJN DD - Keep it as it is

USN DD - Keep it as it is

 

IJN/USN CV - Heavy nerf needed(increase plane service time + introduce maximum flight duration before eventually stalling and crashing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

I agree with decreasing the chances of fire. But decrease citadel size??? SERIOUSLY? That'll just make it historically inaccurate. 

Changing damage factors to AP shells on non-citadel hits will have to depend on ship design. As not all ships are all-or-none american style.

Not sure where I wrote about decreasing citadel size, and this is an arcade game by WG, historical acuracy is, and always has been optional, so I don't think it matters much whether everything uses all-or-nothing armour layouts when balance is involved.

 

Hmmm... I am of the opinion that AP is underpowered VS. HE.  I've had 4~5 hit 14" salvos bounce of ships without causing any damage (yes, I know, bad angle). Being hit by a non penetrating 8" shell or larger is going to cause some serious concussion, upsetting of machinery and even flooding in even the largest BB's. I think 500~1000 dmg should be appropriate. Overpens also should do more dmg.  I understand the concept but no destroyer survives being penetrated by multiple 14" AP shells overpen or not.  I feel that HE for 6" or over should be a secondary weapon for causing crit damage (could do more crit damage) and fires (fires need some attention but that is a seperate issues).

Right now for 8" cruiser HE is the primary weapon with AP only useful when you get a flat broadside to shoot at.

Exactly, AP for cruisers is really poor, which is compounded by the awful rock-paper-scissors attempt to balance the game (now that I think about it I might write another ramble on this later), which means that you really have no option but to shoot nearly full HE unless you're against a complete potato who likes to show his broadside (in which case ammo use doesn't matter much, they would be so bad you'd win regardless of what ammo you use, but I digress), I just really think AP should be buffed back to what it used to be like, so that it becomes a viable option again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
58 posts
2,867 battles

AP vs HE varies significantly from ship to ship.

 

If you have a look at the base damage, for DDs and most CAs, there is little (20% or so) difference between the max damage.  As HE regularly to 50% damage, while AP tends to be "all or nothing" (10% or citadel for 100%), HE is far more damaging before fires are factored in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
49 posts

 

In my opinion:

IJN BB - AA rebalance using manual main battery AA-shells

USN BB - Keep it as it is

 

IJN CA - Keep it as it is(thanks to recent turret transverse speed buff)

USN CA - Indirect nerf(Chance of fire decrease)

 

IJN DD - Keep it as it is

USN DD - Keep it as it is

 

IJN/USN CV - Heavy nerf needed(increase plane service time + introduce maximum flight duration before eventually stalling and crashing)

Indeed USN CA fire chance need to be nerfed (cleveland~) 

 

When i use Atago sometimes i dont know which shell type i use for BB, the reload is half of BB's reload and her fire chance is small... 

I dont know if it same for all IJN 20,3cm 

And yes, they nerf Mogami's 155mm turrets when im so close to her

 

I dont see any different about IJN CA and CL.. I can easily citadel them with fast 155mm turrets

Share this post


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

×