Jump to content


Required nerf to all 105mm top tier gun's Alpha Damage


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

Zinomov #1 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:26 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 18672 battles
  • 120
  • [DIGIN] DIGIN
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

Good day everyone

 we all know that the 105 mm guns that are found at tier 9 and 10 deals on average a damage of 390 however if you take a closer look it is simply unbalanced and is one of the factors and reasons why the game is loosing it's charm throughout the years

 

100 mm guns at high tier deals 320, while a gun that is only 5 mm wider than it i.e the 105mm canons deals 70 extra damage ? come on !

more over, 120 mm guns deals 400 damage, and their caliber is 15 mm greater than the 105 yet the gap between the two is only 10 alpha damage ? this is insane

 

increasing the damage of the 120 mm guns from 400 to 440 as the other 122 mm soviet and chinese guns won't solve anything

the damage of the 105mm guns needs to be nerfed to atleast 360 to be on par with the 100 mm guns

and conpensate the vehicles with those guns with a small tweak to their relaod time

let us also keep in mind that the tier 8 USES-03 caries a 105 mm gun with 390 damage, thus that tank also require its damage per shot to be reduced to 360

 

 



MickShagger #2 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:27 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15602 battles
  • 256
  • [R3BLS] R3BLS
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
Don't even dare to touch my E50(M) guns!!!

Toni112007 #3 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9732 battles
  • 417
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013
Why does Tiger II 105mm deal 320 tho?

SuedKAT #4 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:28 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,152
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014
You do realize that guns and alpha ain't balanced by the caliber but rather the tank it self right?

FluffyRedFox #5 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:29 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21564 battles
  • 7,691
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012

View PostZinomov, on 02 February 2018 - 08:26 PM, said:

the damage of the 105mm guns needs to be nerfed

 

It really doesn't.



AliceUnchained #6 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:35 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,520
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

And 122 mm guns get 440 damage whereas 120 mm gets 400. Nerf them 122 mm as well I say... And if the Tier VIII UDES gets 360 average, so should the Tiger II. And what about the T32?

 

But even though the angle OP is taking is somewhat off, there's a valid point in there somewhere; the damage values are inconsistent. A mere 10 damage difference between a typical 120 mm Heavy tank gun and a 105 mm medium tank gun at Tier IX/X does make little sense.

 

View PostSuedKAT, on 02 February 2018 - 08:28 PM, said:

You do realize that guns and alpha ain't balanced by the caliber but rather the tank it self right?

 

It's a mix between gun caliber and vehicle Tier more or less. Up until recently the cutoff was past Tier VIII, but then Wargaming in their infinite wisdom decided to give an already broken Tier VIII the higher Tier damage for its 122 mm gun...

 


Edited by AliceUnchained, 02 February 2018 - 08:37 PM.


brumbarr #7 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:36 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,284
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012
One question: why?

logaritmusnaturalis #8 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:36 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1703 battles
  • 273
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

Aye, their what makes most high tier medium playable, back of. 

 

Ain't gonna be nobody touching my E50, i'll tell you that boy. 


Edited by logaritmusnaturalis, 02 February 2018 - 08:37 PM.


TheWarrener #9 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2034 battles
  • 331
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017
I'm so glad Wargaming doesn't care what this community "suggests"

hedi2222 #10 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:46 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 28156 battles
  • 7,819
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013
I'm sure for "historical accuracy" WG would do this since you know guns did damage in WW2 and tanks had HP bars

Bordhaw #11 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9549 battles
  • 1,194
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017


SuedKAT #12 Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:55 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,152
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View PostAliceUnchained, on 02 February 2018 - 08:35 PM, said:

It's a mix between gun caliber and vehicle Tier more or less. Up until recently the cutoff was past Tier VIII, but then Wargaming in their infinite wisdom decided to give an already broken Tier VIII the higher Tier damage for its 122 mm gun...

Yes, but it makes little sense to buff or nerf a gun caliber over the entire board as OP suggested, especially when there are lot of other factors that play such an important role in balance. I mean sure a 100mm gun might only do do 320 damage, but when one tank with a 100mm gun have above 3000 DPM and another have just 2000 DPM it already a huge difference between the two. Take the Centurion 7/1 with it's 105mm gun and 390 alpha and compare that to the AMX 30 Prot with it's 600 higher DPM 105mm gun or the SU-122-54 with it's 800 higher DPM 100mm gun. You don't exactly achieve balance by nerfing the alpha of the 105mm guns, you balance all the other factors that a tank have.



MickShagger #13 Posted 03 February 2018 - 10:01 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15602 battles
  • 256
  • [R3BLS] R3BLS
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
Someone got hammered by a 105 gun. :trollface:

AliceUnchained #14 Posted 03 February 2018 - 10:19 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,520
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostSuedKAT, on 02 February 2018 - 08:55 PM, said:

Yes, but it makes little sense to buff or nerf a gun caliber over the entire board as OP suggested, especially when there are lot of other factors that play such an important role in balance. I mean sure a 100mm gun might only do do 320 damage, but when one tank with a 100mm gun have above 3000 DPM and another have just 2000 DPM it already a huge difference between the two. Take the Centurion 7/1 with it's 105mm gun and 390 alpha and compare that to the AMX 30 Prot with it's 600 higher DPM 105mm gun or the SU-122-54 with it's 800 higher DPM 100mm gun. You don't exactly achieve balance by nerfing the alpha of the 105mm guns, you balance all the other factors that a tank have.

 

Oh I fully agree. As I said, the angle taken by OP is off but there's a bit of a valid point in there somewhere; the damage settings really don't follow much of a logical pattern. Both in same caliber across different Tiers (I mean look at the KwK L/68 and KwK L/52 Ausf. B for example), and between different calibers (90 mm vs 100 mm, 105 mm vs 100 mm, 105 mm vs 120 mm, 120 mm vs 122 mm). Balance comes first of course, so some difference in damage going up the Tiers can be considered sensible and could be further supported by the higher kinetic energy on same caliber guns at higher Tiers (they punch through more armor due to higher velocity and thus deal more damage after). Any change in damage should be closely monitored and carefully reviewed of course, and accompanied by an increase in rate of fire to maintain the DPM.

ypr765prco #15 Posted 03 February 2018 - 10:58 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40897 battles
  • 1,289
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

@ op



lord_chipmonk #16 Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:09 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32183 battles
  • 10,166
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

Let's take the OP at face value (though all the comments above about the fact that alpha damage is not just balanced around callibre are valid). The thing you have to bear in mind is that for two shells where the only difference is the diameter (callibre) of the shell, the volume and hence mass of the shell increases the radius cubed. So, for a 105mm shell of length L, the mass would be:

 

m_105=pi*(0.105/2)^2*L*density 

 

For a 100mm shell, it would be:

 

m_100=pi*(0.1/2)^2*L*density

 

Find the ratio of these two and you end up with :

 

m_105/m_100=1.1025

 

Kinetic energy will be proportional to mass, so the same ratio for KE.

 

So, for a 100mm shell that does 320 alpha, if we were to follow this logic, a 105 shell should have alpha of 352.8. Perhaps more than some people might think. Now of course factor in that the 105mm shell may be longer as well and 390 doesn't seem too far fetched. 



ZlatanArKung #17 Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:11 AM

    Major General

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

I agree that damage values should correspond somewhat with calibre of the gun.



brumbarr #18 Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:11 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,284
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostZlatanArKung, on 03 February 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

I agree that damage values should correspond somewhat with calibre of the gun.

They do correspond somewhat though



Mimos_A #19 Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:14 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21257 battles
  • 1,766
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostAliceUnchained, on 03 February 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

 

Oh I fully agree. As I said, the angle taken by OP is off but there's a bit of a valid point in there somewhere; the damage settings really don't follow much of a logical pattern. Both in same caliber across different Tiers (I mean look at the KwK L/68 and KwK L/52 Ausf. B for example), and between different calibers (90 mm vs 100 mm, 105 mm vs 100 mm, 105 mm vs 120 mm, 120 mm vs 122 mm). Balance comes first of course, so some difference in damage going up the Tiers can be considered sensible and could be further supported by the higher kinetic energy on same caliber guns at higher Tiers (they punch through more armor due to higher velocity and thus deal more damage after). Any change in damage should be closely monitored and carefully reviewed of course, and accompanied by an increase in rate of fire to maintain the DPM.

 

Because the "real life damage" output if you want to call it that of guns wasn't a linear progression from caliber to caliber either. Improvements in technology meant that you could have a more powerful gun and shell at the same caliber.

Mimos_A #20 Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:17 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21257 battles
  • 1,766
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015
I love how the OP made different topics about exactly the same thing. I guess you just keep spamming your shtick if until you get the response you desire.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users