Why did HE and HEAT got nerfed after 1.33?

[murhis]

After the new patch it felt like you weren't able to kill ETs like you were used to. So I wanted to figure out if there's really something changed after the patch.

After multiple shots on the training server I really figured out that there's infact a lot changed after the patch.

Which first caught my attention ingame was Tiger's 88mm HEs and yeah they hardly even kill the Stuart now. Whereas it used to be sure kill before the patch even against heavier tanks.

Another thing which I tested was 75mm HE / HEAT. Both efficiency have decreased a lot, especially HE. I tested every UK/FR tanks throughout and I do know how they used to get killed. Also HEAT ability is much worse now. As example Matilda used to have 2 small spots to kill gunner frontally, 1 tiny spot to degun(if gun pointing at you almost impossible) and 1 really tiny spot for ammo and 1 for driver. Now there seems to be just option to degun or kill the driver(a lot smaller spot). Whereas taking down Stug seems to be same as before.

What makes this change especially questionable is our T0-1 when our tanks anti-tank killing potentential got halved after HE got useless as APs. Not to mention we already had much less ammo to use or our best tank killer is basically defenceless against infantry. And Flak36 isn't justifying this. TBH I'd rather tweak number of 88s than getting our tanks nerfed like this.

I really hope Rats would tell about these changes on changelogs. Since there's absolutely no mention about this.

Also I wonder this approach for "balancing" or whatsoever is the purpose. Why not just adjusting pool numbers rather than tweaking units left and right? It should be also less work consuming.

I wish to hear some confirmation from Rats behalf.

[Kilemall]

My guess is that they monkeyed with HE effects in general, I'm finding bombs and grenades are more lethal, but HE bursts from tanks and guns less so.

[dertod]

They reduced 75mm+ HE shells effectivnes killing tank in 1.32.

[DOC]

None of these things were changed, nor intended to be, for v1.33

None of that data has changed.

Some time ago we toned down the over penetration of large calibre (75mm and 88mm) HE rounds, but that was the only change associated with anything in this topic.

Sometimes if you believe strongly enough in something, it is true for you even if others point out why it isn't true really, and your perceptions tend to construct your reality for you.

It's not unique to this game, happens all the time in all walks of life. Human nature.

[murhis]

They reduced 75mm+ HE shells effectivnes killing tank in 1.32.

This is about difference between 1.32 and 1.33. Not before 1.32.

[murhis]

None of these things were changed, nor intended to be, for v1.33

None of that data has changed.

Some time ago we toned down the over penetration of large calibre (75mm and 88mm) HE rounds, but that was the only change associated with anything in this topic.

Sometimes if you believe strongly enough in something, it is true for you even if others point out why it isn't true really, and your perceptions tend to construct your reality for you.

It's not unique to this game, happens all the time in all walks of life. Human nature.

How is it possible then when you do a clinical tests with static targets from different ranges and to different angles with hundreds of shots and the outcome clearly differs from earlier version? It's really not about "believing" then.

If you look at the recent tanker stats I dont really like guessing how to kill a ET. I want to be sure how to take down them and it pays off.

I really wonder what it could be then if "nothing have changed" and you do exactly same tests as in 1.32 and the outcome is different? Like putting tank to 500 m range on flat surface directly facing at you. There's no room for guessing if you shoot hundreds of shells on it.

Edited March 25, 2011 by murhis

[speed68]

How is it possible then when you do a clinical tests with static targets from different ranges and to different angles with hundreds of shots and the outcome clearly differs from earlier version? It's really not about "believing" then.

If you look at the recent tanker stats I dont really like guessing how to kill a ET. I want to be sure how to take down them and it pays off.

I really wonder what it could be then if "nothing have changed" and you do exactly same tests as in 1.32 and the outcome is different? Like putting tank to 500 m range on flat surface directly facing at you. There's no room for guessing if you shoot hundreds of shells on it.

If you're gonna "TRY" to argue with DOC, you better come up with a better arguement than that!

[DOC]

The general process here when creating ballistics data is to live fire in game 100 rounds of the type under construction or review, at 30 degrees and 0 degrees (so that's 200 rounds) at ranges of:

100m

250m

500m

750m

1000m

1500m

2000m

2500m

This is undertaken for every round in the game. Naturally we will accept claims we "got it wrong" on the basis that it is possible, but that such claims rarely will be based on an analysis anything like as detailed as our ballistics testing is.

So thats 1600 rounds fired under controlled conditions where the angle is perfectly replicated for each round, and the penetration logged in a data logging client accurate to 5 decimal places. That's when we have the round finished ... in getting to that point we test many times more than this.

Results are averaged within a range of + or - 5% which is the general rule of variation in real life.

That's what is behind any response we make with regard to the accuracy of what we tell you, and what goes into making sure that things we say things do is what we intended they do.

We feel we are thorough enough in this sense (testing and configuration) to withstand most arguments to the contrary, barring bugs which in a million lines of code are bound to occur from time to time, even in shops with 10 or 20 times the coders that we have.

This is also why we are not keen to change anything unless it is proven beyond all doubt to be very very critically nessesary.

[murhis]

Because I'm not able to do comparative tests with 1.32 and 1.33. I must compare results which I'm aware from 1.32.

The most clearest example is Matilda. You are not anymore able to kill the gunner or explode the ammo frontally.

Test was exactly similar as I've made on 1.32. Range: 500m. Flat surface. Target directly heading at the shooter. Tested gun: 75 mm Stuk37 L/24. Target: Matilda.

I couldn't recreate same results as on 1.32 tests.

Picture is just demonstrative

Other quite clear examples are:

S35: Suddenly came almost completely HE proof frontally. Right side of the turret used to be sure kill. Also HEAT shells doesn't affect nearly as good as before.

A15 mk2 and mk3: Their turrets used to be vulnerable for HEs.

Call me delusional or whatever, but I'm certain something is changed. It's a pretty hard to me proof it better when I'm not anymore able to test 1.32.

Just as example on this campaign I've killed 18 Matildas to 2 Stugs and I can tell I'm not that confident about it at next campaign.

All I'm asking is some _real_ explanation for this phenomenon.

Edited March 26, 2011 by murhis

[romzburg]

None of these things were changed, nor intended to be, for v1.33

None of that data has changed.

Some time ago we toned down the over penetration of large calibre (75mm and 88mm) HE rounds, but that was the only change associated with anything in this topic.

Sometimes if you believe strongly enough in something, it is true for you even if others point out why it isn't true really, and your perceptions tend to construct your reality for you.

It's not unique to this game, happens all the time in all walks of life. Human nature.

Sometimes when you change one thing, it ends up changing something no one would ever think was related.

You've had this happen before more than once, and you came on the forums and explained the weirdness.

We've heard the "no files related to unit 'X' were changed, therefore you are imagining it" dismissal before.

But we all know if you change the color of the infantry boots, it might now be possible to kill a Mathilda with an Opel.

There's weird things in the code, you know it, and we know it, and we know you know we know it.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

jw:

If you're going to argue with Romz, do your homework before you post. He gets it, and you can't teach common sense, you have to be born with it.

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[romzburg]

Sometimes when you change one thing, it ends up changing something no one would ever think was related.

You've had this happen before more than once, and you came on the forums and explained the weirdness.

We've heard the "no files related to unit 'X' were changed, therefore you are imagining it" dismissal before.

But we all know if you change the color of the infantry boots, it might now be possible to kill a Mathilda with an Opel.

There's weird things in the code, you know it, and we know it, and we know you know we know it.

____________________

A fine example of this currently could be the CTD problems localized in Essen.

You probably didn't change some game code that has to do with Essen, only Essen, and no other place on the map.

But you changed something in the game code somewhere, and now in Essen CTD, CTD, CTD.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

jw:

If you're going to argue with Romz, do your homework before you post. He gets it, and you can't teach common sense, you have to be born with it.

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[drkaarme]

Sometimes if you believe strongly enough in something, it is true for you even if others point out why it isn't true really, and your perceptions tend to construct your reality for you.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

- Philip K. ****

[riccardo]

Quote @ romzburg

Anyway, a pair of weeks ago i've hit 4 times a Crusader Mk II with 75mm HEAT in the front and in the turret but without causing any damage and without getting any kill-point.

I don't know if this is related with the thread's argument or if it's dictated by the case, but I thought I'd to write it anyway.

In 1.30 i perfectly remember that i've killed a Crusader with 75mm HE

Edited March 29, 2011 by riccardo

[romzburg]

Quote @ romzburg

Anyway, a pair of weeks ago i've hit 4 times a Crusader Mk II with 75mm HEAT in the front and in the turret but without causing any damage and without getting any kill-point.

I don't know if this is related with the thread's argument or if it's dictated by the case, but I thought I'd to write it anyway.

In 1.30 i perfectly remember that i've killed a Crusader with 75mm HE

Axis tunics are now more green than gray, and the boots aren't as shiny.

Post hoc, QED, ipso fatso

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

jw:

If you're going to argue with Romz, do your homework before you post. He gets it, and you can't teach common sense, you have to be born with it.

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[DOC]

We changed the over penetration of large caliber HE rounds (75mm and 88mm) some time back and we told you when we did it, so that isn't a mystery. We didn't change HE or HEAT rounds since then (v1.33) which is what I believe was being claimed. Look at the thread title.

Gonna need some evidence from controlled testing that it's in need of audit before we put that in the list of other work we are doing guys, we aren't just sitting around waiting for something to do you know. You absolutely don't want us to waste time chasing ghosts and we get several of those daily here. All you do is get less development that way.

If something is broken we will fix it but we have no evidence that this is broken. This is always the best way and it's how we do things to ensure the best allocation of development resources.

The CTD related to the sound bug is because we just dropped in an entriely new way to model sounds, so while unintended it's not mysterious or anything.

[MOTORMOUTH]

A fine example of this currently could be the CTD problems localized in Essen.

You probably didn't change some game code that has to do with Essen, only Essen, and no other place on the map.

But you changed something in the game code somewhere, and now in Essen CTD, CTD, CTD.

____________________

That CTD, we believe, is sound related, so it will travel. It's looking like a combination of sounds and a high population is triggering that.