Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
LowSpeed_US

Nerf to Sims? why?

87 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

44
[NSEW]
Members
413 posts
7,896 battles
Quote

 

Miscellaneous

  • Rearranged and re-config.ed the AA guns on Duke of York.
  • The thorough deck armor (from bow to stern) on Sims reduced from 16mm to 13mm.
  • The thorough deck armor on Mahan reduced from 16mm to 15mm.
  • The thorough deck armor on Shimakaze reduced from 19mm to 18mm.

 

 

What is the reason for reduction of deck armour of SIMS? 

I don't mind the other two destroyers, since they are within the tech tree of their nation. But, SIMS? it being a Premium ship, I think this is rather distasteful. 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,374
[-K-]
Members
5,084 posts
8,967 battles

Because Sims was clearly OP compared to all the other T7 DD's.... :Smile_sceptic:

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[NSEW]
Members
413 posts
7,896 battles

I  think justifying the change for SIMS. Due to her performance in the past (via various changes, including its main tool gimmick or smoke firing), then to change armour to below Mahans is a bad choice. If anything it should match Mahans deck armour. Being in the same Tier. 

 

That just doesn't make sense, to change a product that was sold with certain specifications. After the fact.

That's like your car manufacturer taking away your key less entry system, because it was too "OP".

 

Sorry, but this leaves a sour taste. As well as how things will come in the future...

Edited by LowSpeed_US
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,430 battles

Doesn't make a difference. At 16mm most guns she faced could already overmatch. Now you've got even more chances for overpen instead instead of 30% pens.

 

Not everytime they lower a number it's a nerf. Armor on something that low can be a double edged sword.

 

I look at it as a buff.

  • Cool 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9,434 posts
11,601 battles

Even at 16mm,  anything over 96mm gun already penn'd it anyway with HE.     no citadel to worry about, so it is much about nothing.   may actually give more chance for overpen.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[WOLF5]
Members
1,140 posts
8,303 battles

It does bring that particular piece of armor within the overmatch range of 203mm AP.  But Wolf's point, I think, is that it may just overmatch right out the other end as well - i.e. be less likely to catch AP shells.  I'll have to go see what we're looking at in the armor viewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
426
[-BRS-]
Members
1,608 posts
13,239 battles

It would be nice if they explain why they do things instead of saying that they're doing it with no explanation

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[5IN]
Members
1,786 posts
8,109 battles
14 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

It would be nice if they explain why they do things instead of saying that they're doing it with no explanation

I would agree with this.  Many people in the community understand how armor penetration works, but I think the average (majority perhaps) player has no idea (nor probably cares) about those details.  

 

b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,534
[HINON]
Supertester
18,961 posts
12,479 battles
47 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

@IronWolfV I'd like to take in what you said, but man still...

But still ... you're too caught up in your instinctive belief that "A number went down so it must be a nerf" without thinking about the things it actually affects?

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,534
[HINON]
Supertester
18,961 posts
12,479 battles
18 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

It would be nice if they explain why they do things instead of saying that they're doing it with no explanation

Agreed.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,430 battles
27 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

It would be nice if they explain why they do things instead of saying that they're doing it with no explanation

Yeah we all would. My hypothesis is just an educated guess backed up with observations and a few facts. But not everyone can leap to a possible conclusion like I did if emotions become engaged. Not a dig at anyone, just a statement of fact.

 

Why I consider Khab's 50mm armor belt a double edged sword. Sure turns away a lot of HE, but gives AP a better chance to arm and explode.

Edited by IronWolfV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[WOLF5]
Members
1,140 posts
8,303 battles

This looks like an tiptoe experiment in reducing AP pen damage on destroyers.  Why those particular destroyers, why those numbers, I can't say.

 

I'm not going to do it, but if anyone wants to experiment, you could take a Sims into the training room and shoot it in the face (er, bow) at some fixed distance with 203mm, 14", and 16" AP now and compare the results (pen/overpen ratio, maybe, unless you want to use slow motion to rule out any shells that disperse into the superstructure) to post-patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,088
[SIM]
Members
2,443 posts
4,080 battles

Does this change make her more vulnerable to penetrating hits from HE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,357 posts

This change makes it easier for BB shells to overpen, but it does mean that heavy cruisers can now pen it through the nose with AP. Thankfully, it's still enough armor to be able to bounce RN CL shells bow on.

 

Not sure why this is being changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,718
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,060 posts
7,611 battles

The change to Sims' deck armour does very little.

  • She can now take HE damage from the 88mm secondaries off German Cruisers and the stock hulls for König and Bayern.  Big whoop here.  The secondaries have a lot of arc to their shots, but even at the maximum range of 7.56km for a fully specialized secondary armament, they are not going to hit the Sims (never mind the deck of Sims) very often at all.
  • Her deck can now be overmatched by the 203mm to 210mm AP shells off of heavy cruisers.  This is more telling.  This will result in less ricochets and more damaging hits from cruisers that are firing AP shells (for some reason) at destroyers.  I can see it being nice for German cruisers that keep AP loaded more often than other heavy cruisers.  By and large, it's almost a non-issue, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[GREPT]
[GREPT]
Beta Testers
6,739 posts
7,090 battles
31 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Does this change make her more vulnerable to penetrating hits from HE?

There isn't an HE shell in the game that can't pen the sims bow within her combat range, this doesn't change this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[5BS]
Members
4,518 posts
2 hours ago, LowSpeed_US said:

That's like your car manufacturer taking away your key less entry system, because it was too "OP".

1) It's a digital Good, not a physical good. WGing owns it, you are just renting a licenses to see it from time to time.

2) It's not a nerf anyway, it's a buff, it makes it harder to get a full pen on it and instead an overpen is far more likely

3) I own and love the Sims and don't give to errant craps about them nerfing the *armor.* Now if they nerfed the ballistics further, or the torps, or speed or maneuverability, sure, but armor? Not so much. Especially the deck armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[WOLF5]
Members
1,140 posts
8,303 battles

Ah, so it's deck armor we're talking about, "thorough deck armor" being Russlish perhaps for "entire deck armor."  I was imagining "through deck armor," and trying to figure out what that may mean in terms of some transverse piece.  Never mind.

 

Still, though battleship AP will penetrate both 13 and 16mm, is fusing affected at all?  Is there some minimum thickness of armor that has to be penetrated for fusing to occur (i.e., at which point the fusing timer starts), and is that number >0 in a way that might make a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,718
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,060 posts
7,611 battles
Just now, Lillehuntrix said:

Still, though battleship AP will penetrate both 13 and 16mm, is fusing affected at all?  Is there some minimum thickness of armor that has to be penetrated for fusing to occur (i.e., at which point the fusing timer starts), and is that number >0 in a way that might make a difference?

It won't affect battleship fusing at all -- not in the current design.  A 283mm shell will happily overmatch 13mm or 16mm of deck armour like it wasn't there.   The only way the fuse will arm (as I understand it) is if the shell passes down the long axis of the destroyer and crosses the divide between one compartment to another (bow to hull, hull to stern, etc).  That happens regardless of armour thickness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,700 posts
3,468 battles

It makes them more vulnerable to 203mm AP shells.

 

Refund my money or revert the change.

 

So disgusted with the USN contradictions right now. Use some other nation to be the test [edited] after all these years.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
601
[BWC]
Beta Testers
1,311 posts
5,573 battles
1 hour ago, Lillehuntrix said:

This looks like an tiptoe experiment in reducing AP pen damage on destroyers.  Why those particular destroyers, why those numbers, I can't say.

 

 

This was my first thought as well, since it seems to be aimed at reducing the resistance to AP shells. I can't see the this change having any other cause...were these particular DDs somehow immune to some guns the devs want to kill them with? I don't see that anywhere as a noted problem that has been brought up.

 

The issue with the Sims, however, is a breach of precedent as it does seem to be a nerf directed at a specific Premium ship alone (mind you, this is a preliminary test note, and explanations could be forthcoming when it actually hits full test that may prove it as an attempt at a buff). The idea that a Premium is immune from reduced capabilities is, after all, the basis for why certain Premium ships were made unsalable rather than subjected to downwards adjustment. However, as WG has hinted at changes to the Saipan to nerf that CV, they may simply have gone to a selective application of that principle based on their own decisions as to which ships will be protected and which will be fair game for removal of value. At this point, I wouldn't assume any Premium able to be sold is going to be what you purchased a year from now. Enjoy it while it lasts and accept they will start removing viability from old Premiums to promote sales of new ships.

 

Regardless, it's their game, and we all know their track record for listening to players' opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[-K-]
Beta Testers
149 posts
3,806 battles

Yes, lack of context is.... leaving something to be desired. Please don't touch my CBT baby without good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×