Jump to content


New Armor Mechanics


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

DangerousBagel #1 Posted Yesterday, 01:31 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21378 battles
  • 152
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

I think it is safe to say the gold spamming in higher tiers is due to the inability to penetrate armor. After playing more than 1.7k battles in the Type 2605 with my 14cm cannon, I realized the others' frustrations. Ideally, map redesigning is warranted since current conditions are not conducive to flanking. However, redesigning/enlarging would require time and resources. What I propose is something more reasonable: armor cracking.

 

In other words, non-penetrating hits to the same armor region have a chance of cracking the armor. Once cracked, the thickness reduces by a set percentage based on its nominal thickness. Here are my guidelines:

 

0 - 50mm = 5% reduction

51 - 100mm = 10% reduction

101 - 150mm = 15% reduction

151 - 200mm = 20% reduction

201 - 300mm = 25% reduction

>300 = 30% reduction

 

Additionally, there should be a positive relationship between caliber size and crack chances.

 

0 - 50mm = 3% chance

51 - 100mm = 7% chance

101 - 120mm = 15% chance

121 -  150mm = 20% chance

>150mm = 24% chance

 

Finally, cracks can only be repaired with the Armor Plates consumable. This can be consumed only twice per battle, and thrice for the premium variant.

 

Questions, comments, concerns, or complaints?

 

EDIT 1 (02:13 EST): Caliber size and crack chances changes from 7% to 3% (for 0 - 50mm) and 11% to 7% (for 51 - 100mm)


Edited by DangerousBagel, Yesterday, 08:16 AM.


dominator_98 #2 Posted Yesterday, 01:39 AM

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20477 battles
  • 3,652
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

An interesting concept . . . makes sense that shooting the same spot would weaken the armor, I'd also say to add that the holes created by other shells can be more easily penned. This could give tier 8's a chance to actually deal a little bit of damage to tier 10 super armor, by either repetitive pounding or hitting points weakened by tier 9-10 guns.

 

Probably won't ever happen because that would reduce goldspam and WG would lose money in the short term.



Lesser_Spotted_Panzer #3 Posted Yesterday, 02:07 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 77719 battles
  • 3,257
  • Member since:
    02-11-2012
Good idea.

ArmorStorm #4 Posted Yesterday, 02:07 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 35622 battles
  • 7,847
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

So, my option would be to keep shooting the same spot (if I can) until I finally break through the armor (probably long after I'm dead) OR just use premium ammo, which is in the process of a rebalance anyway?

 

I'll take option #2 please.



Omega_Weapon #5 Posted Yesterday, 04:11 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 48900 battles
  • 2,080
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostDangerousBagel, on Dec 08 2018 - 19:31, said:

I think it is safe to say the gold spamming in higher tiers is due to the inability to penetrate armor. After playing more than 1.7k battles in the Type 2605 with my 14cm cannon, I realized the others' frustrations. Ideally, map redesigning is warranted since current conditions are not conducive to flanking. However, redesigning/enlarging would require time and resources. What I propose is something more reasonable: armor cracking.

 

In other words, non-penetrating hits to the same armor region have a chance of cracking the armor. Once cracked, the thickness reduces by a set percentage based on its nominal thickness. Here are my guidelines:

 

0 - 50mm = 5% reduction

51 - 100mm = 10% reduction

101 - 150mm = 15% reduction

151 - 200mm = 20% reduction

201 - 300mm = 25% reduction

>300 = 30% reduction

 

Additionally, there should be a positive relationship between caliber size and crack chances.

 

0 - 50mm = 7% chance

51 - 100mm = 11% chance

101 - 120mm = 15% chance

121 -  150mm = 20% chance

>150mm = 24% chance

 

Finally, cracks can only be repaired with the Armor Plates consumable. This can be consumed only twice per battle, and thrice for the premium variant.

 

Questions, comments, concerns, or complaints?

 

Only defective armour should crack (as late war German armour sometimes did due to poor quality hardening). Multiple hits to the same spot would be more likely to cause some fragmentation and spalling on the inside of the tank (like HESH). It would take multiple hits in the exact same spot to weaken the integrity of the armour in a serious way. With modification though, some form of your idea might be workable.

leeuniverse #6 Posted Yesterday, 04:20 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 35497 battles
  • 7,359
  • [LAMP] LAMP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

I think Heavy's should be just given good armor, and have designated weakspots.

As well, heavy's (and other tanks) be properly fast so you can use "wiggle" techniques to try and cause a bounce, as well do side scraping (this means the Heavy Derp guns should be removed also).

 

Heavy's are so slow now you can't do that anymore.



KatzeWolf #7 Posted Yesterday, 05:31 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 30 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    09-10-2012
WG have said they plan to remove/rework premium rounds so they have drawbacks, like less damage for example.

RickEdwards #8 Posted Yesterday, 04:21 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25980 battles
  • 225
  • [NISHI] NISHI
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013
Armor effectiveness is already bad with prem and massive HE shells; we do not need it becoming weaker. There are a couple tanks that do have too strong of armor and this may balance those, but all other tanks that have to rely on armor would become even worse. A simpler solution would be to simply balance those few OP armor tanks (Maus, Type 5, Obj. 268 4, 430U).

dunniteowl #9 Posted Yesterday, 05:56 PM

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23481 battles
  • 5,261
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

Interesting.  Shouldn't there be a mathematical scaling of Armor Thickness to Caliber and Penetration of the Round, though?  I don't expect you to come up with said formula, however that should be the primary factoring variable in this consideration.  Also, there would have to be a 'reduction' variable based on angling of the armor, such that the higher the angle of incidence, the lower the 'cracking factor' should be, overall.

 

I like this idea in that it would reward players who can consistently hit the same part of a tank's armor.  Even hitting something from a low tier unit that cannot penetrate should 'wear down' the armor of another unit over time.  Twenty rounds of something right at the front plate of a monster should still do something after that many direct hits and this Armor Cracking concept could neatly fit into that niche.

 

Again, interesting idea and something that deserves greater thought and consideration.

 

+1 OP!

 

 

OvO



pepe_trueno #10 Posted Yesterday, 08:25 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 41221 battles
  • 6,351
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

the ideal would be to go back to the original concept of strong armor but with real weakspots not those BS 240mm "weakspots"

 

upper plate, turret face and  mantelet should be a no go zone but at the same time add small weakspots all over the front accesible to all the guns, Type 5 for instance could be close to inmune all over the front but get 100mm on the left hatch and the cupula, This way the game will be more about knowing the enemy and shooting the right spot.

 

amunitions as a whole need a rebalance too:

Non arty HE needs its splash halfed if not removed and the damage reduction formula on a non pen changed to something along this lines: DMG*0.8 - armor*5*spall coeficient to make HE an efective tool vs thin but heavy sloped armor 

 

HESH needs it penetration halfed but have increaced chance to damage/destroy modules 

 

HEAT should be inacurate as it can get

 

APCR should be doing less damage and have some sort of overpenetration mechanic.

 

 

 

  






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users