Jump to content


An idea about armour...

penetration damage gold ammo final solution rambling

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

CircleOfSorrow #1 Posted 03 December 2017 - 01:26 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29016 battles
  • 2,106
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

If the HE model of damage dealing was applied to all other ammo types, with penetrator rounds requiring a penetration roll higher than the value of the armour struck to do any damage at all, and the difference in penetration and armour values being used to scale the amount of resulting damage dealt.  APCR and HEAT rounds would have a reduced coefficient.

 

I believe this would result in;

 

- Heavy tanks armour would have real value, as it not only gives a chance for a non-penetration, but also reduces the damage taken upon being penetrated.

- Mobile tanks will be rewarded directly with increased damage, and indirectly through potential ammo cost saving, by being skillful and outflanking enemies.

- TD's become more than rear-line bush bandits, since the value added to their damage output potential because of superior relative penetration values will strike fear in the enemy.

- Brawling becomes more enjoyable for all classes, as being able to utilize your armour effectively (ie keeping your best armour pointing toward the enemy) and preventing your opponent from using their armour effectively (ie tracking and outmaneuvering) become more important aspects of play.

 

Any thoughts? 



TheWarrener #2 Posted 03 December 2017 - 01:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2697 battles
  • 338
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017
Do you realize we got a HT meta going on right now? 

CircleOfSorrow #3 Posted 03 December 2017 - 01:32 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29016 battles
  • 2,106
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostTheWarrener, on 03 December 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

Do you realize we got a HT meta going on right now? 

 

It wouldn't change the fact that brawling with a heavy in any other class and trading shots around hard cover would be a bad idea.  What it would allow for is heavies to bash their heads together for long enough for more mobile classes to have effect.

Dava_117 #4 Posted 03 December 2017 - 01:44 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18997 battles
  • 3,097
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
Don't like the idea. If I angle well, I should be able to block all damage. That's the basis of HTs (at least the balanced one), to use your skill to keep armour inclined in the right way.

CircleOfSorrow #5 Posted 03 December 2017 - 02:00 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29016 battles
  • 2,106
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostDava_117, on 03 December 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

Don't like the idea. If I angle well, I should be able to block all damage. That's the basis of HTs (at least the balanced one), to use your skill to keep armour inclined in the right way.

 

I don't see how my idea would prevent you from continuing to do this.

Dava_117 #6 Posted 03 December 2017 - 02:04 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18997 battles
  • 3,097
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 03 December 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

I don't see how my idea would prevent you from continuing to do this.

 

That even if I angle, AP(CR) and HEAT will still do some damage. The problem is not armour by itself but it's the growing ammount of monkey proof OP tanks.

Derethim #7 Posted 03 December 2017 - 02:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17275 battles
  • 1,876
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostDava_117, on 03 December 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

 

That even if I angle, AP(CR) and HEAT will still do some damage. The problem is not armour by itself but it's the growing ammount of monkey proof OP tanks.

 

Agreed, there's no "heavies are OP" or "TDs are OP". There's just a bunch of tanks, that are stupidly overpowered and since sheeple get herded into playing the most powerful tank, people mark the whole line as overpowered, without noticing other non-op tanks of the same class.

A good example of this is people screaming that heavies are OP because Maus and Type 5 and I can't hear them over the loud noise of getting penned frontally in the turret of my FV215b.

 


Edited by Derethim, 03 December 2017 - 02:16 PM.


vasilinhorulezz #8 Posted 03 December 2017 - 02:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22794 battles
  • 1,097
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
No.

PoIestar #9 Posted 03 December 2017 - 02:22 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31687 battles
  • 4,078
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013
Dear God, armor is all over the place these days. The only reasons other classes than HT's can cope is because they can use premium ammo. We shouldn't do ANYTHING to make armor "more effective". We need more tanks with weakspots so that WG's 'non-obvious' moneygrab becomes less apparent, or rather completely neglected. 

Gkirmathal #10 Posted 03 December 2017 - 02:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 1,506
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

Or implement one thing AW did well: high pen rounds cut through low armored target dealing less damage, or no damage at all.

 

Then one needs to think about what ammo type to use on what armor profile.


Edited by Gkirmathal, 03 December 2017 - 02:28 PM.


CircleOfSorrow #11 Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:01 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29016 battles
  • 2,106
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostDava_117, on 03 December 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

 

That even if I angle, AP(CR) and HEAT will still do some damage. The problem is not armour by itself but it's the growing ammount of monkey proof OP tanks.

 

I really don't understand you.  I haven't suggested this.  The aspect of penetration being applied is that of a relationship between armour thickness and round penetration values influencing the final damage value arrived at.  I did not suggest, in any way, that deflection mechanics should be removed.

vasilinhorulezz #12 Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22794 battles
  • 1,097
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 03 December 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

 

I really don't understand you.  I haven't suggested this.  The aspect of penetration being applied is that of a relationship between armour thickness and round penetration values influencing the final damage value arrived at.  I did not suggest, in any way, that deflection mechanics should be removed.

You just want to make armor even stronger, 

NO, we don't need this in the current state of the game,

also if armor is irrelevant, how do you explain the overflow of Heavy tanks and Armored TD's in randoms?

 



CircleOfSorrow #13 Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:15 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29016 battles
  • 2,106
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 03 December 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

You just want to make armor even stronger, 

NO, we don't need this in the current state of the game,

also if armor is irrelevant, how do you explain the overflow of Heavy tanks and Armored TD's in randoms?

 

 

If you really thought about it, Heavies would benefit less than say mediums when it comes to making the armour 'stronger'.  The penetration of some heavy tanks AP rounds is quite lackluster, so those that rely on APCR/HEAT would be at a disadvantage.

 

The amount of stupid in this thread is so great now I'm setting fire to the place and leaving.  People seem really sensitive about monstrous heavies at the moment aye?  It's very sad T_T

vasilinhorulezz #14 Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22794 battles
  • 1,097
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 03 December 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

 

If you really thought about it, Heavies would benefit less than say mediums when it comes to making the armour 'stronger'.  The penetration of some heavy tanks AP rounds is quite lackluster, so those that rely on APCR/HEAT would be at a disadvantage.

 

The amount of stupid in this thread is so great now I'm setting fire to the place and leaving.  People seem really sensitive about monstrous heavies at the moment aye?  It's very sad T_T

 

No, No nononono NOOOO,

this would make everything with armor even stronger, what will Light tanks do with already bad alpha and pen? Now they will have to see their damage reduced even more?

Man, whatever you're smoking I want some, too :great:!



Dava_117 #15 Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:32 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18997 battles
  • 3,097
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 03 December 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

 

I really don't understand you.  I haven't suggested this.  The aspect of penetration being applied is that of a relationship between armour thickness and round penetration values influencing the final damage value arrived at.  I did not suggest, in any way, that deflection mechanics should be removed.

 

I have misinterpreted your post. But my answer doesn't change. This proposal would give advantage to all this OP superheavy. The penetration and damage mechanics are one of the best point of WoT. They don't need any change.

CircleOfSorrow #16 Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:40 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29016 battles
  • 2,106
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 03 December 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

 

No, No nononono NOOOO,

this would make everything with armor even stronger, what will Light tanks do with already bad alpha and pen? Now they will have to see their damage reduced even more?

Man, whatever you're smoking I want some, too :great:!

 

View PostDava_117, on 03 December 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

 

I have misinterpreted your post. But my answer doesn't change. This proposal would give advantage to all this OP superheavy. The penetration and damage mechanics are one of the best point of WoT. They don't need any change.

 

When you shoot a tank with HE, do you not want to shoot at the weakest armour in order to penetrate and maximize damage done?  Does it really not make sense to either of you to do the same for other ammo types?  Does it really make sense to you both that shooting a tank in the front with its heaviest armour, designed to take punishment, yields as much damage done as a shot to the side or rear where the armour is at minimal thickness and providing the least protection?  I haven't even discussed what the equation would be for the resulting damage value, so all you are doing is making stupid assumptions.  If you wanted, penetrations to a heavies front could yield similar damage values as they do now with the majority of guns firing AP, but the point would be to have penetrations to a tanks side or rear yielding relatively higher damage values. 

 

You are both completely misunderstanding what I have proposed, and I can't help you any further.



vasilinhorulezz #17 Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22794 battles
  • 1,097
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
Then, it's just a "I can't speak human" thing, because what you

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 03 December 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

 

 

When you shoot a tank with HE, do you not want to shoot at the weakest armour in order to penetrate and maximize damage done?  Does it really not make sense to either of you to do the same for other ammo types?  Does it really make sense to you both that shooting a tank in the front with its heaviest armour, designed to take punishment, yields as much damage done as a shot to the side or rear where the armour is at minimal thickness and providing the least protection?  I haven't even discussed what the equation would be for the resulting damage value, so all you are doing is making stupid assumptions.  If you wanted, penetrations to a heavies front could yield similar damage values as they do now with the majority of guns firing AP, but the point would be to have penetrations to a tanks side or rear yielding relatively higher damage values. 

 

You are both completely misunderstanding what I have proposed, and I can't help you any further.

 

Then it's just a " I don't know how to speak human" thing, because nothing you stated here, is mentioned in the OP,

Penetrating and non penetrating HE damage are to different things, and they should treated differently.

Penetrating armor means dead crew and destroyed ammo racks or internal fires, blah blah blah... IRL,

so a penetrating hit should do the same ammount of damage either way.

GL HF.

 



UrQuan #18 Posted 03 December 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19411 battles
  • 6,153
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

While I understand where you come from, armor is already quite strong in the game. Yes, your armored T8 in the current MM is terrible, but that's not the tank fault, nor even it's armor, it's the MM. What your proposal would do is making armored HT's a huge damage sponge & while i like that idea, it would tilt the game even more towards armored tanks.

 

Currently it goes like this: you shoot a tank: it either pens or not. No pen, no damage: pen : full damage

But with your idea, it would go:

no pen, no damage (this part remains unchanged from what i catch)

Penned barely: low damage

Penned okay: medium damage

Penned with pen to spare: high to full damage.

For most meds & lights, it wouldn't change much, current system pen : max damage & under your proposal, pretty much same, as meds & lights aren't known for armor (bar a few).

But armored heavies? Oh my. If you think armored tanks are tough now, watch out with this system, because now I have to fear high pen rolls less, because then it would do minimal damage with the system you propose & even bad play would be rewarded, because those penning shots that do full damage now? In this new system, they do far less damage, hence penalize you less for bad play.

 

It would also boost premium ammo usage (do we really need that?) because more penetration: more damage & prem ammo usually offers this. Yes you do speak of a coefficient to APCR & HEAT ammo, but that would really shaft tanks that use this ammo as standard  (quite some tanks at higher tiers got this as standard. 

The TD's that camp now, will still camp in the new system, nothing will change that, bar something that kills off ranged shooting (like huge pen drop-offs & I don't support that, because that would cause too much frustration with people). People that are risk-averse will not go to the frontline, no matter how advantageous it is. TD's tend to be a great safety blanked for risk averse people, because several of them combine high pen with good damage & simple basic gameplay (many TD's offer the option for better & complex gameplay, if you seuize that opportunity, but most people don't)

 

Wouldn't change much to brawling imo, except making it last longer, as tracking & outmaneuvering is already a big part of it. It would even make it harder for low armor mobile tanks, because that heavy you try to outmaneuver can still land shots at near full damage, while you risk landing low to medium damage shots as you circle & track him (some of those new armored tanks got scary high traverse...)

 

It would also make non-armored tanks hell to play, because people will do less damage to armored targets & move their attention to less armored targets to shoot for damage. It's something that you notice with arty since the rework. Armored tanks get shot at less by arty compared to before the rework, simply because hitting that high armored tank does less to even no damage compared to shooting that med, light or bottomtier tank.

Applying this pen system to WoT would lead to a similar shift.

 

Thing is that damage reduction abilities (like armor on WoT) is a very powerful ability to have that is also hard to balance. It's supposed to make you more resilient to damage, not immune or near immune to it. And with the current wot system, a well armored toptier tank is already pretty immune to tanks below it's tier & highly resistant to it's own tier for damage.

 

Should something change? Sure, playing armored tanks that are not T9 or T10 is a chore under this MM, but modifying/changing game mechanisms isn't the way. Changing MM to place tanks roughly equally top / mid / bottom would be a much better solution.



ZlatanArKung #19 Posted 03 December 2017 - 04:24 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostCircleOfSorrow, on 03 December 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

 

 

When you shoot a tank with HE, do you not want to shoot at the weakest armour in order to penetrate and maximize damage done?  Does it really not make sense to either of you to do the same for other ammo types?  Does it really make sense to you both that shooting a tank in the front with its heaviest armour, designed to take punishment, yields as much damage done as a shot to the side or rear where the armour is at minimal thickness and providing the least protection?  I haven't even discussed what the equation would be for the resulting damage value, so all you are doing is making stupid assumptions.  If you wanted, penetrations to a heavies front could yield similar damage values as they do now with the majority of guns firing AP, but the point would be to have penetrations to a tanks side or rear yielding relatively higher damage values. 

 

You are both completely misunderstanding what I have proposed, and I can't help you any further.

 

Yes, it does.

 

If the shell penetrate, it shouldn't matter if it penetrate frontal armour or rear armour. It is same amount shell inside tank with same amount of explosives.



Dava_117 #20 Posted 03 December 2017 - 04:33 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18997 battles
  • 3,097
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostZlatanArKung, on 03 December 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

 

Yes, it does.

 

If the shell penetrate, it shouldn't matter if it penetrate frontal armour or rear armour. It is same amount shell inside tank with same amount of explosives.

 

^^This.

Not necessary explosive, but it still a shell flying inside the tank destroying module and injuring crew. 

IRL thanks don't have HP. It's WG implementation that can be interpreted, IMMO, as the will of the crew to continue to fight. And in this logic every penetration will reduce it the same.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users