Issues I encountered in "Sky Guardian" update

[LeeZhang 42]

Hi guys seems I get few issues as new update roll out.

 

1. Trail-less torpedo

With this update I can't see torpedo at all. They no longer have a white trail behind them. Does anyone else have this issue? I've been killed by sneaky torps for many times already.

Spoiler

2.Fake hull thickness of MPK Pr.204

Wiki and in-game info board claims this vessel have 16mm steel hull. However it offers barely any protection against shells. (But all other 16mm hull do!) I wonder if it was supposed to be 16mm and didn't really get it, or it supposed to be not 16mm but someone made a mistake in texting.

Spoiler

 

[BLUE_EYES 33]

14 hours ago, LeeZhang said:

1. Trail-less torpedo

With this update I can't see torpedo at all. They no longer have a white trail behind them. Does anyone else have this issue? I've been killed by sneaky torps for many times already.

I think that is a visual change and not a bug, just as the smoke in the chimneys has changed with this update. Also, from a balancing perspective, it is more natural to adjust torpedoes to be easier to HIT, just as it is easier to HIT main guns than in reality. By making torpedoes easier to HIT, it can make a difference between ships and boats with strong main guns and those with strong torpedoes.
To begin with, the old torpedo bubble wake were too visible, so if the torpedo bubble wake are to be changed to be visible, the visibility of the bubble wake should be changed between oxygen torpedoes (Long Lance) and those using nitrogen.

Edited March 12 by BLUE_EYES

[Bombe18 279]

That really boring to do not see torpedo trail

[Magiaconatus 1,670]

2 hours ago, Bombe18 said:

That really boring to do not see torpedo trail

The developers are working on a fix for the moment.

[BLUE_EYES 33]

38 minutes ago, Magiaconatus said:

The developers are working on a fix for the moment.

Thanks for the info. Considering the balance between main guns and torpedoes, isn't this a needless fix? In the first place, the wake of oxygen torpedoes should be more difficult to see.

Edited March 16 by BLUE_EYES

[굴러온 306]

I think the biggest issue for this update is 'Now Guns cannot load when ammo elevator is destroyed'. War Thunder ammo elevator is usually bigger than what real 'ammo elevator' is, especially for bigger ship(I think Hood is only exception), and losing firepower due to ammo elevator loss is huge problem as it is the last component that is repaired, meaning you have to lose tremendous crews cause auxiliary and AA weapons repaired first, and broken during the time you waiting for ammo elevator. This makes just gives fast loading ships(like Scharnhorst) too much benefit.

[Magiaconatus 1,670]

4 minutes ago, glown2307 said:

I think the biggest issue for this update is 'Now Guns cannot load when ammo elevator is destroyed'. War Thunder ammo elevator is usually bigger than what real 'ammo elevator' is, especially for bigger ship(I think Hood is only exception), and losing firepower due to ammo elevator loss is huge problem as it is the last component that is repaired, meaning you have to lose tremendous crews cause auxiliary and AA weapons repaired first, and broken during the time you waiting for ammo elevator. This makes just gives fast loading ships(like Scharnhorst) too much benefit.

It is currently under investigation.

[굴러온 306]

14 minutes ago, Magiaconatus said:

It is currently under investigation.

 

Means it is unintended by Gaijin and bug? Quite a serious problem now so wish fixed soon.

[LeeZhang 42]

14 hours ago, Magiaconatus said:

The developers are working on a fix for the moment.

Do you know if MPK Pr.204 was supposed to get a 16mm hull but didn't, or it shouldn't get 16mm hull and we  just have a texting issue? It is as fragile as wood hull vessels right now and get very high chance of hull break if get shot by DD or something like that.

 

Also seems we can't use FR navy vessels to do the battle pass challenge which asking you to play 8 nations, as naval AB/RB was not listed. Was that a bug too? Or FR navy is just not a thing right now? Just asking.

[LeeZhang 42]

Also I think MPK Pr.204 should have 2 sets of jet turbines at stern, similar to Pr.35 I assume. For now gaijin just didn't modeled these turbines, and have the exhaust port closed. I think they can add that jst engine and give the boat a higher speed.

[kkang2828 1,435]

18 hours ago, Magiaconatus said:

It is currently under investigation.

 

Hey Mag sorry to bother you, but could you perhaps take a look at this? It's an annoying bug that's been around ever since they reworked the T-51b. Many have reported it but it's been all but ignored so far. 

[[email protected] 102]

10 hours ago, LeeZhang said:

Do you know if MPK Pr.204 was supposed to get a 16mm hull but didn't, or it shouldn't get 16mm hull and we  just have a texting issue? It is as fragile as wood hull vessels right now and get very high chance of hull break if get shot by DD or something like that.

 

 

It seems that it came with the ability to be hullbroken in the update as iirc I saw in the datamines it had such, Still it baffles me how a 555 tons ASW Corvette gets it yet even smaller vessels don't have hullbreak meanwhile vessels just 50 tons heavier don't get hullbreak either as such imo it shouldn't have hullbreak. 

 

Still you're definitely right the thing is fragile nearly non soviet frigate fragile for it doesn't take long to be sunk in battle if you get set apon by even deadlier foes (might also be just down to the low crew of 56 servicemen).

 

(Sidenote absolutely loving the soviet ASW Corvettes even if all three types are classified as Subchaser, Motor Torpedo Gun Boat & Frigate in game), And this thing is mean against eariler vessels or unaware foes. 

[LeeZhang 42]

On 3/18/2023 at 4:11 AM, [email protected] said:

It seems that it came with the ability to be hullbroken in the update as iirc I saw in the datamines it had such, Still it baffles me how a 555 tons ASW Corvette gets it yet even smaller vessels don't have hullbreak meanwhile vessels just 50 tons heavier don't get hullbreak either as such imo it shouldn't have hullbreak. 

 

Still you're definitely right the thing is fragile nearly non soviet frigate fragile for it doesn't take long to be sunk in battle if you get set apon by even deadlier foes (might also be just down to the low crew of 56 servicemen).

 

(Sidenote absolutely loving the soviet ASW Corvettes even if all three types are classified as Subchaser, Motor Torpedo Gun Boat & Frigate in game), And this thing is mean against eariler vessels or unaware foes. 

Pr.204 is a ship I was long awaiting for and I was expecting it would be the new bully of coastal spawn as soon as it appeared in pre-update live, as every coastal sensitive person would do.

For now it surely is a vampire which can't live under daylight, but even so I have better stats with it than MPK Pr.201. Higher K/D ratio and higher win rate. I'm pretty sure gaijin shall move her to 4.0 or above if the 16mm hull come true.

 

Talking about crew, Cyclone(PC-1) has only 28 men onboard. So I don't think that is the problem. We can surely see in protection analyze that normal 16mm hulls will survive destroyer rounds, but for 204 it would be severely damaged or destroyed. So...... I don't really know how they did it, but gaijin have somehow messed this up.

[LeeZhang 42]

Also guys, I think we have a bit too buffed locking ability in naval realistic right now. I believe we sometimes can lock on a ship/boat even if it is entirely behind cover like trees, islands, etc. On the other hand, sometimes vessels just appear nowhere from sea. I play with a potato laptop and it hardly run the game already so I have no image/video evidence, just want to know if others find this problem or it was just me.

[[email protected] 102]

7 minutes ago, LeeZhang said:

Pr.204 is a ship I was long awaiting for and I was expecting it would be the new bully of coastal spawn as soon as it appeared in pre-update live, as every coastal sensitive person would do.

For now it surely is a vampire which can't live under daylight, but even so I have better stats with it than MPK Pr.201. Higher K/D ratio and higher win rate. I'm pretty sure gaijin shall move her to 4.0 or above if the 16mm hull come true.

 

Talking about crew, Cyclone(PC-1) has only 28 men onboard. So I don't think that is the problem. We can surely see in protection analyze that normal 16mm hulls will survive destroyer rounds, but for 204 it would be severely damaged or destroyed. So...... I don't really know how they did it, but gaijin have somehow messed this up.

TBH I've been running the Pr.204 alongside the larger Pr.1331M ASW Corvette and it worked Admirably at 4.0 so if it went up and got a proper hull I'd be over the moon.

 

Your point on the Cyclone class PG is essentially what I mean by smaller vessels being tougher as I've spoken with another contact that has it and they say that it's as you said ntm it doesn't have hullbreak as my contact said as well which makes it equally daft that the Pr.204 does have hullbreak. 

 

And heh yeah when I was watching TEC's streaming of the russian stream me and two others just knew that this corvette would be a ball of fun.

[굴러온 306]

@Magiaconatus Is current change of USS Alaska's filling of shell room intentional? Before the Sky Guardians Update we could empty shell room above the waterline with discarding half of round but now shell rooms down the waterline is being emptied first.

[Alpine_Lynx 781]

The MPK Pr. 204 is a very chipper ship and has a strange specification that prevents repairs from being made when less than 10% of the crew is on board, even though the hull is currently not 16mm. This is probably not intended as the Pr.201, which is the same ship type and has no 16mm armor, can be repaired until it reaches 0%.
This spec makes me wonder if Pr.204 originally had a 16mm Armor like Orla or Cyclone, but it is not functioning due to some bug or was dropped for balance?

Spoiler

MPK Pr.204:"minCrewMemberRepairCount": 19,
MPK Pr.201M:"minCrewMemberRepairCount": 0,
USS Cyclone:"minCrewMemberRepairCount": 9,

 

[LeeZhang 42]

1 hour ago, Alpine_Lynx said:

The MPK Pr. 204 is a very chipper ship and has a strange specification that prevents repairs from being made when less than 10% of the crew is on board, even though the hull is currently not 16mm. This is probably not intended as the Pr.201, which is the same ship type and has no 16mm armor, can be repaired until it reaches 0%.
This spec makes me wonder if Pr.204 originally had a 16mm Armor like Orla or Cyclone, but it is not functioning due to some bug or was dropped for balance?

Hide contents

MPK Pr.204:"minCrewMemberRepairCount": 19,
MPK Pr.201M:"minCrewMemberRepairCount": 0,
USS Cyclone:"minCrewMemberRepairCount": 9,

 

On 3/18/2023 at 4:11 AM, [email protected] said:

It seems that it came with the ability to be hullbroken in the update as iirc I saw in the datamines it had such, Still it baffles me how a 555 tons ASW Corvette gets it yet even smaller vessels don't have hullbreak meanwhile vessels just 50 tons heavier don't get hullbreak either as such imo it shouldn't have hullbreak. 

I submitted in bug tracker and have been told:

"Pr.204 has 'PT boat' damage model, while all other 16mm hull vessels  Pr.1331M has 'blue water' ship damage model with crew compartment boxes.

This is intentional.

 

Not a bug."

 

So I guess hull breaking and fragile are the result of this intended damage model selection. It is just we all confused by that 16mm steel hull. But 204 can still take damage from HE shells which does not have enough penetration, idk the conversion factor between structure steel and armor steel but that's a thing for sure.

Anyway, first 16mm steel hull vessel with PT-boat damage model. Congratulations. That's one small step for game, one giant leap for gamer.

[LeeZhang 42]

It's surely a bit difficult to play Hide and Seek  with a vessel of this size.

[[email protected] 102]

3 hours ago, LeeZhang said:

So I guess hull breaking and fragile are the result of this intended damage model selection. It is just we all confused by that 16mm steel hull. But 204 can still take damage from HE shells which does not have enough penetration, idk the conversion factor between structure steel and armor steel but that's a thing for sure.

Anyway, first 16mm steel hull vessel with PT-boat damage model. Congratulations. That's one small step for game, one giant leap for gamer.

So essentially the Pr.204 ASW Corvette has gotten the old River class Frigate DM heh which had a 16 mm hull yet 4× 5" shells or 10 seconds of 20 mm fire could sink it.

 

I say old as in 2.17 it somehow was the only Frigate that got a DM buff while the majority were run into the ground stares frustratingly at the Type 41 AA Frigate..

 

Still it's annoying to now know a good ship borked by intention and that hullbreak even for a ship of that size is a thing.

[Jareel_Skaj 298]

On 19/03/2023 at 23:56, LeeZhang said:

I submitted in bug tracker and have been told:

"Pr.204 has 'PT boat' damage model, while all other 16mm hull vessels  Pr.1331M has 'blue water' ship damage model with crew compartment boxes.

This is intentional.

 

Not a bug."

 

So I guess hull breaking and fragile are the result of this intended damage model selection. It is just we all confused by that 16mm steel hull. But 204 can still take damage from HE shells which does not have enough penetration, idk the conversion factor between structure steel and armor steel but that's a thing for sure.

Anyway, first 16mm steel hull vessel with PT-boat damage model. Congratulations. That's one small step for game, one giant leap for gamer.

Why there even is a separate damage model for coastal?!

And if we have one that doesn't turn frigates into a flippin damage sponges - apply it evenly across all of the frigates, including SKRs.

[BLUE_EYES 33]

@Magiaconatus 

Currently, when a torpedo hits the bulge, it seems to disable everything regardless of the amount of explosive. Also, torpedoes do not destroy the bulge. Is the developer aware of this phenomenon? Sorry if I made a mistake in checking.

Edited March 22 by BLUE_EYES

[The_FlyingDragon 21]

Biggest turn off for me since the update is the dramatic in increase frequency of the one shot ammo explosions on fully spaded Battleships in realistic mode. Who wants to spend 50-60k on a ship repair when it dies in one shot ammo explosions frequently. Before the update loved playing ships and the instant Golden BB kill was more reasonable but right now its ridiculous to the point where we lost interest. Pretty much every game we lose a fully spaded battleship 1-2 times per game from a one shot kill. And not only that but its from ship that has no radar hiding behind 3 layers of islands. I have lots of replays to show it. The accuracy of the spotters is just way to high for ships without radar and the vulnerability of getting ammo racked does not take that into consideration. You spend 5 min taking your slow ship to an area only to get ammo racked. 

 

Yes we all know the Hood got ammo racked in real life but it was by the Bismark. And someone said the Yamoto got ammo racked but its not true it took 12 torprdos and 12 bombs and 2 hours of hundreds of aircraft to get it. The bismark itself literally took 2876 hits to sink it. The PrinzEugen took 2 nuclear tests to sink it. The point is these ships are a lot tougher then there is credit for. Its sadly dissapointing to grind forever to get your battleship and spade it. Only to get one shotted by some ship with no radar with ridiscuously accurate spotters. Its just not fun in its current state. Was more enjoyable before the update.

[kkang2828 1,435]

1 hour ago, The_FlyingDragon said:

Biggest turn off for me since the update is the dramatic in increase frequency of the one shot ammo explosions on fully spaded Battleships in realistic mode. Who wants to spend 50-60k on a ship repair when it dies in one shot ammo explosions frequently. Before the update loved playing ships and the instant Golden BB kill was more reasonable but right now its ridiculous to the point where we lost interest. Pretty much every game we lose a fully spaded battleship 1-2 times per game from a one shot kill. And not only that but its from ship that has no radar hiding behind 3 layers of islands. I have lots of replays to show it. The accuracy of the spotters is just way to high for ships without radar and the vulnerability of getting ammo racked does not take that into consideration. You spend 5 min taking your slow ship to an area only to get ammo racked. 

 

Yes we all know the Hood got ammo racked in real life but it was by the Bismark. And someone said the Yamoto got ammo racked but its not true it took 12 torprdos and 12 bombs and 2 hours of hundreds of aircraft to get it. The bismark itself literally took 2876 hits to sink it. The PrinzEugen took 2 nuclear tests to sink it. The point is these ships are a lot tougher then there is credit for. Its sadly dissapointing to grind forever to get your battleship and spade it. Only to get one shotted by some ship with no radar with ridiscuously accurate spotters. Its just not fun in its current state. Was more enjoyable before the update.

 

But HE bug being mostly fixed means capital ships are a LOT more durable after the patch, and ridiculous ammo detonations are MUCH less frequent.

[The_FlyingDragon 21]

The HE bug is not fixed and my Capital ships are getting one shotted in spawn. In fact its so bad since the Sky Gaurdians update I quit playing. Losing 50k on one shot frequently has rubbed me the wrong way. Just way to much. Ill wait for the next major update and see. And losing the steering all the time when a shot grazes the bridge is also very annoying.