Jump to content
Mesrith

AP damage mass hysteria

Recommended Posts

Others at the forum are saying that's an erroneous translation.

 

I think a more accurate one would be:

We have considered rolling back, but the issues needed to be fixed anyway, and we think such a move would just hurt reputation even more.

Instead, we are investigating other issues that may be preventing citadels, and will update you on our solution asap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not doing a rollback.  The first sentence seems poorly translated and is missing a "not", while the rest of it explains why they've considered a rollback but don't think it's the best choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well an accurate translation by IceSerpen7:

1. Roll back to the model of damages 0.5.0 is not planned. Today, we have considered this option, however, as I have already explained, the internal ricochet error needed to be corrected anyway. So roll back to the old model, and then re-implementing changes in the new model doesn't seem to be the best solution. We believe that this kind of back-and-forth will bring even more negativity.

 

2. On the other hand, today's studio tests and checks showed that internal bounce may not be the only reason for the fall of the number of penetrations of the citadel. We already have several hypotheses about what other scenario could change after the upgrade. Unfortunately, we hardly have time to finally deal with it today, but will make every effort to solve the problem for the next few days. This is the priority issue 0.5.1 update.

 

3. The idea of collecting statistical data for the whole month is not even on the table. We will get the necessary data ourselves, when we finish our checks. At the moment, it is not a question of fine-balancing of some individual ships (these things really require us to gather statistics for a long time), but the likelihood of possible errors in mechanics, which cause damage to the citadel to occur less often than intended.

 

To summarize, we will check things, prepare an adequate solution and will share the details with you. And we'll be able to play normally at last.

 

On behalf of the entire team, allow us to sincerely thank you for quickly letting us know about this problem and its extent 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, OnboardG1 said:

Erm, no, at the moment it doesn't. At the moment you only inflict serious damage outside of 10km, so the shitters now have an excuse not to close the distance. 

If you think you farm mad damages at the back you've not been paying attention to every post Ted, Mesrith or I have ever made about battleship play.

oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was a well-established and known fact that battleships far outranged every other ship on the battlefield right now and all statistical evidence points towards them being the biggest damage farmers and having higher survival rates than other ships, thanks to a combination of high hitpoints, regenerating HP pool, long range, high damage guns, and high repair costs. Statistical evidence aside, all anecdotical evidence will surely point towards one inevitable fact: that battleship players are huge carebears who can't be arsed to push into the enemy and take any damage for anyone at all. Imagine tank destroyers that go over water, except worse. That and carriers are the two current meta flaws of the game, effectively making all other classes (except for fast CL at mid tier ranges and some cherrypicked destroyers) completely useless.

The fact that battleships were one-shotting other ships with every salvo without taking any return damage at all is both pointless, ahistorical, game-breaking and really tame. And if you're seriously telling me battleship players get their damages at short to medium distances, you're outright being dishonest.

So yes, I'm really glad that closing in at least will give a cruiser some chance to live, but the problem that long range sniping is still paramount king makes high tier gameplay super boring. You know, as if draw-campfests weren't a thing already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SeaAdmiral said:

On behalf of the entire team, allow us to sincerely thank you for quickly letting us know about this problem and its extent 

More like:  Allow us to thank you all for quickly beta testing on live servers yet again.

Edit: antonio... I would not say that BBs have significant range advantage until later tiers.

Edit2:  I thought carriers were the well documented damage farmers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FrodoTSolo said:

More like:  Allow us to thank you all for quickly beta testing on live servers yet again.

We are playing a beta, after all.

Edit: If by late tier you mean the Kongo already outclasses every tier 5 and the Fuso shits on the New Mexico for days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AntonioHandsome said:

And if you're seriously telling me battleship players get their damages at short to medium distances, you're outright being dishonest.

I'm apparently being outright dishonest then, since I'd rather fight another ship at 10-15km, which I'd call medium distances.  Most of the better players did also, as it lessens the impact of dispersion on your aim and gives you more control over your damage.  Only pubbies sat at 20km+ trying to snipe all match, and this change just makes being past 15km the best choice.  Cruisers need some survival buffs, but the current "fix" was both unintentional and absurd.

Aside from the penetration change, the map changes to Islands of Ice and Hot Spot have opened up the maps even more, making it more difficult to isolate yourself from part of the enemy team and close the distance with who you want to engage.  Now instead of being able to use a large island to get myself within 15km of someone without taking a beating from 8 ships, I'm encouraged to spin circles at 20km with the rest of my terrible team.  Great patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so tl,dr battleship gameplay is stale. Glad we could agree on this crucial issue.

Also 10-15km is not what I'd call medium distance, but I guess given the fact that battleships also get ridiculously high muzzle velocity, anything under two galactic radii is medium engagement distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that BB's needed a nerf overall, but making CA's almost invulnerable to them at medium range was not a good way to do it.

I'd rather see them reverse the close range accuracy buff introduced by an earlier patch, to make BB's more vulnerable to DD's again. That would again mean that CA's would be needed to hunt DD's.

I don't mind getting sunk by DD torps if I'm an idiot and sail my BB in a straight line at a constant speed, and I don't mind getting swarmed by torp bombers if I isolate myself from the rest of the team and get the undivided attention of an enemy carrier.
I do mind being HE spammed and burnt to death by a CA sailing pretty much paralell to me. If he does that, he should be eating citadel hits the same way I would be eating torps if I was sailing paralell to a DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AntonioHandsome said:

On that note, lower the chances for fire please. There are a few ships which are really close contestants for "dumbest decision 2015" in the "HE Spamming Department".

The entire CA/BB interaction is kind of messed up honestly.  Without fire, CAs aren't a serious threat to BBs.  

My issue with fire is that it's completely RNG based, and it goes both ways because depending on fire sequencing, someone can get really screwed.  Sometimes you set the guy on fire immediately twice, he puts it out, then right after it's expired you immediately put him on fire three times.   Other times you shoot like 200 shells and you get like 5 fires, all in the span of 10 seconds so it's worthless.

I guess more importantly burning ships to death shouldn't be what boats be about, but they're going to have to have some other way of having cruisers do respectable damage to BBs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets hope they address this quickly. They seem to not know how their equations are working, which is kind of scary. They need to run lots of tests before they finalize what they need to do. I never liked the old system 1250 damage, 1250 damage, no damage 20k damage. That's why baseline camping working. You get 1 hit every 16 shots or so, and over the 10-15 minutes of the battle 2 or 3 of them citadel giving you 45k damage, plus all the little damage hits and you have 60k-70k damage. You get 1400 base xp give or take, depending how many of the 2-4 Citadels killed the ship you fired on.

The exp change now will take the 1400 xp you used to get and it becomes 650-1000 depending on the kill number. Of course if you are aggressive, and get a cap or 2, you get 1300 to 1600 xp. The new cash and exp formula will reward the non campers a lot. So over a few weeks, the baseline guys will adjust, or run and play legacy of the void until their complaining on the forums bears fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically when I hit that Cleveland last night with 6 16" shells and caused 6k+ damage (basically over matched) even though I know at least 2 hit the citadel boiler area, I got no 33% alpha strike because they bounced off the citadel armor or something and out the side of the ship? Thats BS, in RL (yes I understand this is a game) if I put 16" shells through the boiler area that should at least wreck their engines. At least give us the flooding mechanic back from the early Alpha tests, give us some balance.

I agree one shotting cruisers was getting stupid easy which made them non-important in high tier play but now the pendulum has swung the other way because unless the cruiser is angled pretty hard my AP will pass right through so I'm forced to use HE which is not very effective either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm reading the latest posts correctly, before 5.1 it was routine to get citadels by hitting cruisers above the armour belt and deflecting through the armoured deck. If this was the only change, then it's likely that citadel overpens (as in the Myoko video) were possible in the previous versions, and so in close range broadside cases you were more likely to get citadels by aiming above the belt than into it.

Better to keep the deflection fix and then fix the citadel overpens. Belt hits should give citadels, missing the belt shouldn't. Intuitive, roughly realistic and should help out high tier cruisers. If it helps them too much, nerf fires. As they nerfed carrier torps in the last patch, high tiers might even work afterwards.

 

2 hours ago, flamingpanda said:

The entire CA/BB interaction is kind of messed up honestly.  Without fire, CAs aren't a serious threat to BBs.  

My issue with fire is that it's completely RNG based, and it goes both ways because depending on fire sequencing, someone can get really screwed.

This is easily fixed with a method similar to dota2's critical hit mechanic. In this case the chance of a fire on each hit would be dependent on how many HE shells had hit the ship previously without causing a fire, and so fires would be spaced out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jarkorsis said:

Lets hope they address this quickly. They seem to not know how their equations are working, which is kind of scary. 

Unforeseen interactions between complicated systems designed by multiple individuals is a huge chunk of all engineering problems.

I'm willing to give them a break on this one because a) this is not a deep flaw I n design, it's a technical fault that was masked by something else and b) because their steps to remedy it are totally reasonable and they've been surprisingly open about it.

In "ameteur bug hunting pool: WoWS edition" I'm inclined to agree with Richard's assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, OnboardG1 said:

 because their steps to remedy it are totally reasonable and they've been surprisingly open about it.

 

Well, not really to be honest.

What I do (and every software company I ever worked for) is indeed a rollback in such situations.

The software for the release is in a different branch anway. Rolling back the code on the life system does not mean that they have to undo their changes and start from scratch again.

They still keep the current (flawed) software in their working branch. So the reasonable solution would be: roll back the productive system and take your time in the work branch. Find the flaws and correct them or rebalance.

If finished release again. Nothing would be lost and no one would have to live with the bug until a solution is found.

So I would say they were neither honest nor open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this sequence of events has proven to me is that they do not have anyone meticulously observing actual shell behavior, or the tools to do it.  With multiple layers of armor components like they have to deal with, you have to have a simulation that can provides "step-through" function to analyse behavior each step of the way.

 

Full damage from every shell that skimmed the engine compartments should have been mighty clear if anyone was observing individual shells in the dev environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PrivateBert said:

 

So I would say they were neither honest nor open.

This assumes they work like other mature software companies.  Others keep a production version and a perpetual beta version.  This does not appear the case, their beta version is more like a preview version.  Come Hell or high water, Wargaming is going to release that preview version to production.

It is obvious that they lack trusted dedicated testers in their games.  Otherwise this would have been reported very quickly by (supposed) trusted players.  The only other possible explanation is that they blatantly ignore their own chosen testers to push crap out the door for the masses to swallow.  To believe that is sheer lunacy, no company would ignore their trusted testers... well Morton Thiokol might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...