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

Will IFHE be nerfed? What would it mean for light cruisers?

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,201 posts
5,008 battles

I've read a few posts where people have been spreading rumors of a nerf to the IFHE skill. I worry about it because if this skill really gets the nerf bat, I feel it would greatly reduce the effectiveness of light cruisers, some of which are my favorite and best performing ships to date. I wonder what are the chances of this skill seeing a nerf? If it is nerfed, will we likely see some kind of compensation that will allow us to continue the ease of damage output in CLs?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[WMD]
Members
1,160 posts
8,445 battles
4 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Ignore rumours and do not try to start them. Wait for official word.

I'm actually considering whether to report you for clickbait scaremongering.

WG has already stated that IFHE was going to be looked at, calm yourself.

Edited by VeatherVitch
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[WMD]
Members
1,160 posts
8,445 battles
8 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

I've read a few posts where people have been spreading rumors of a nerf to the IFHE skill. I worry about it because if this skill really gets the nerf bat, I feel it would greatly reduce the effectiveness of light cruisers, some of which are my favorite and best performing ships to date. I wonder what are the chances of this skill seeing a nerf? If it is nerfed, will we likely see some kind of compensation that will allow us to continue the ease of damage output in CLs?

If WG decides to make changes to IFHE it will be because CLs are over performing compared to CAs. I believe this is pretty much exactly what they said when they announced that they were going to look into ways to change IFHE.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,054 posts
2,507 battles

Yeah WG basically state they might look at IFHE because of how CLs are outDPSing Heavy Cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,724 posts
10,757 battles
6 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

Yeah WG basically state they might look at IFHE because of how CLs are outDPSing Heavy Cruisers.

link please, thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[FTH]
Members
1,001 posts
15,063 battles

I think it was on the facebook devblog post a few months ago, I remember seeing the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[HSD]
Members
576 posts
11,482 battles

The paragraph discussing IFHE is buried, 5th from the bottom IIRC. They don't say anything specific or conclusive.

Quote

We also plan to bring changes to the infamous Inertia Fuse for HE shells, since light cruisers become notably scarier than their heavy brethren, while only sacrificing 4 commander skill points. We would like to try out a more complex approach that would include systematic changes in plating. That, in turn, would allow the gameplay paradigms of light and heavy cruisers to find themselves further away from each other.

^Quote lifted directly from the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,682
[RKLES]
Members
11,214 posts
12,588 battles
34 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

If WG decides to make changes to IFHE it will be because CLs are over performing compared to CAs. I believe this is pretty much exactly what they said when they announced that they were going to look into ways to change IFHE.

And DDs like Harugamo which are essentially CLs that lack Citadels in the game, and have the size, maneuverability, and Concealment to match. Would hurt some people’s BB secondary builds as well since some like to make their lower caliber secondary guns have more pen. I never have used it for secondary guns since I often enjoy highest fire chances I can get innorder to burn enemy ships down evennif I get sunk I can continue to collect damage points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,381
[USCC2]
Members
5,282 posts
10 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

And DDs like Harugamo which are essentially CLs that lack Citadels in the game, and have the size, maneuverability, and Concealment to match. Would hurt some people’s BB secondary builds as well since some like to make their lower caliber secondary guns have more pen. I never have used it for secondary guns since I often enjoy highest fire chances I can get innorder to burn enemy ships down evennif I get sunk I can continue to collect damage points.

This is why I can't see it happening, WG aren't going to mess with the happiness of BBs.

If CLs are overperforming then they will find some global 'Negan like Lucille Bat' to bludgeon the whole type to death rather than allow the BB to suffer - they did it with both the DD and CV, so why not the CL?

As the CAs are becoming more like BBs anyway I think they may survive lol. I really hope they don't nerf the BBs, I've only just become a BB main and love my position of Godliness! :Smile_Default:

 

 

Edited by _WaveRider_
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,066
[TBW]
Members
9,205 posts
16,109 battles
45 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

Oh I didn't know, I was just thinking out loud about a concern I've been having. I don't have any ill intent. I apologize and I'll be aware not to make such threads in the future.

I do believe Cthulhu was making a joke (I laughed) for the most part. Your post got me to thinking that by changing flooding, that it might actually make HE the potent choice. If the HE stats go wild WG may just have to do something. Every change they make does affect the Meta, the ripple effect is real, although at this time, I think the rumor isn't. Fires were nerfed already, they did just get a tier 9 buff against the Super Cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,303
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
2,791 posts
10,099 battles
1 minute ago, _WaveRider_ said:

This is why I can't see it happening, WG aren't going to mess with the happiness of BBs.

If CLs are overperforming then they will find some global 'Negan like Lucille Bat' to bludgeon the whole type to death rather than allow the BB to suffer - they did it with both the DD and CV, so why not the CL?

As the CAs are becoming more like BBs anyway I think they may survive lol. I really hope they don't nerf the BBs anyway, I've only just become a BB main and love my position of Godliness! :Smile_Default:

 

 

Why does it always turn into BBs causing the problems .

 

12 minutes ago, Meatshield_No13 said:

We also plan to bring changes to the infamous Inertia Fuse for HE shells, since light cruisers become notably scarier than their heavy brethren, while only sacrificing 4 commander skill points. We would like to try out a more complex approach that would include systematic changes in plating. That, in turn, would allow the gameplay paradigms of light and heavy cruisers to find themselves further away from each other.

Doesn't say anything about BBs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,201 posts
5,008 battles
2 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I do believe Cthulhu was making a joke (I laughed) for the most part. Your post got me to thinking that by changing flooding, that it might actually make HE the potent choice. If the HE stats go wild WG may just have to do something. Every change they make does affect the Meta, the ripple effect is real, although at this time, I think the rumor isn't. Fires were nerfed already, they did just get a tier 9 buff against the Super Cruisers.

When did they nerf fires? How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,720
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,525 posts
12,810 battles
1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Ignore rumours and do not try to start them. Wait for official word.

I'm actually considering whether to report you for clickbait scaremongering.

You'd be wrong if you did so, since the information came from WG

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,066
[TBW]
Members
9,205 posts
16,109 battles
2 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

When did they nerf fires? How?

They nerfed the burn time on cruisers or would you consider that as a buff to cruisers? It works either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,381
[USCC2]
Members
5,282 posts
32 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Why does it always turn into BBs causing the problems .

It's not BBs causing problems, it's BBs being the main draw for people playing this game and BBs being the most played ship type.

It comes down to economics and the bottom line. The DD was the counter to the BB, but if you get killed by a DD in a BB now, 80% of the time it will be because you were either outplayed, or your team has lost the game already.

The CV hurt BBs when first released, do they have that ability now? Not without getting a proper whooping.

It isn't a ship type issue - it is a revenue issue; simple. That's why I play my BBs more than ever now - I know that is the type less likely to be messed about. :Smile_honoring:

 

Edit: And as if to prove my point I just finished a 268,673 damage game in the Mass - no way is WG gonna mess with my happiness! :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by _WaveRider_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,201 posts
5,008 battles
Just now, Sovereigndawg said:

They nerfed the burn time on cruisers or would you consider that as a buff to cruisers? It works either way.

Buff to cruisers, IMO. I rarely burn down cruisers using fires, I rely more on alpha damage. For BBs that's when I rely more on fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[HSD]
Members
576 posts
11,482 battles
2 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

When did they nerf fires? How?

I'm guessing the reference is to when Cruisers and Destroyers had their burn time cut to 30 seconds.

There was also the last time skills were reshuffled which added some additional fire mitigation, and over time the number of Battleships utilizing full fire mitigation builds has probably gone up (I have no data to support this last point, just an assumption).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
237
[70]
Members
1,209 posts
6,643 battles

I believe HE should work like this, as lifted from a previous post of mine, edited slightly:

My idea of how IFHE should work is as below:

Increases penetration capacity and damage of actually penetrating HE shells--exploding inside after tearing through thin plating is better, of course, than exploding on the plating.

Decrease surface blast damage--makes sense if the fuse is longer but the shell bounced off that it goes off further from the plate and does less damage.

There's now "HE surface blast armor threshold" and "HE penetration capacity". The former is what we have now. The latter is much lower than the former. HE surface blast normally does 10% max damage (like AP overpen) if it can do anything to the armour and HE pen is 33% like AP. HE-pen requires the same checks as AP, after which if it does not pen the HE blast effect checks are run.

IFHE increases HE penetration capacity and brings the damage from 33% of max to 40% (explodes deeper in the enemy ship). However, blast damage is reduced from 10% to 8%.

Ricochets and non-penetrations do something like 0.2-0.5% max damage unless armour thickness > gun calibre, so it's mostly possible to chip anything down given enough time.

BEFORE IFHE:

Destroyers can (at tier) HE-penetrate destroyer plating, light cruiser superstructure and do blast damage to light cruiser plating.

Light cruisers can (at tier) HE-penetrate light cruiser plating and heavy cruiser superstructures, while doing blast damage to heavy cruiser plating and battleship superstructures, and autopen DD superstructures with AP.

Heavy cruisers can (at tier) HE-penetrate heavy cruiser plating and battleship superstructures, while doing blast damage to battleship plating. (they can autopen DD plating and CL superstructures with AP)

Battleships can HE-pen everything they see except belts. (autopens CL plating and CA superstructures with AP)

AFTER IFHE: (Blast damage remains the same for everyone, in case of what would otherwise be autobounce)

Destroyers can HE-pen light cruiser plating and heavy cruiser superstructure.

Light cruisers can HE-pen heavy cruiser plating and battleship superstructure.

Heavy cruisers can HE-pen battleship plating

Battleships can HE-pen light cruiser belts to varying degrees of efficiency (depending on the cruiser and the battleship gun in question, it could be "flat on at 6km" or "not so flat on at 10km").

 

This would make light cruisers more fire-dependent in BB control, but then we'd have to introduce a "thermal damage accumulation" stat per ship section (contributed to primarily by HE but also slightly by AP hits and dropping over time--Fire Prevention skill boosts the rate of decrease) to determine when fires break out instead of having it totally be RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9,021 posts
10,166 battles

To me, IFHE itself isn't inherently the issue, it's the RoF of the ships that usually take it. Combine increased penetration with absurd rates of fire and a high main gun barrel count, such as with the Akizuki line or Seattle/Woostah, and then you have a problem. I don't find IFHE to be that major a thing on ships such as Cleveland or Kutozov, or even Belfast, personally, the RoF is just low enough to give you a chance to avoid the incoming fire. When you have the Aki's or the ATL sisters, it's an inescapable flood of HE penning death.

 

I love my ATL, Flint, and Akizuki, but the reality is that those ships, and their in game classes, shouldn't be among the highest DPM ships in the game. Throw in that they all have ways to deal damage without having to take it in return, and it becomes brutally unfair. When you have a situation where everyone loves to play it, and hates to play against it, it's right then you should realize it's over powered.

 

Some ships truly need IFHE, many actually don't, but the game allows us to choose whatever we want for wherever we want it. This leads to Perth being good in most hands, and Akizuki being OP in most hands.

 

The game shouldn't be doing our job for us, as players. I see both sides here, I know I benefit from it, personally. The thing is, how do we get it to where it's an all around "good", instead of what we have? How do we get it to where it's a real choice to make, and not a total iWin button of a no-brainer?

 

I honestly don't have the answer. I wish I did, though I would suggest cutting the pen increase IFHE gives you in half, while leaving the fire starting reduction as it is when taking the skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,720
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,525 posts
12,810 battles

Light cruisers out performed heavy cruisers in real life.  They put a heavier weight of shells down range, per minute, in real life.  They also have to use 4 points of captain skill to be effective in doing it.  Heavy cruisers have more flexibility.  Fiddling with IFHE simply risks turning light cruisers into unplayable ships incapable of hurting things.  There's a reason why people consider IFHE to be mandatory.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
67 posts
2,479 battles
1 hour ago, Hurlbut said:

Yeah WG basically state they might look at IFHE because of how CLs are outDPSing Heavy Cruisers.

They should do it like the old Concealment expert:

X% for destroyers
Y% for cruisers
Z% for battleships
?% for carriers

I believe the fire chance trade-off for better penetration is reasonable as of now, because at 5% (6 with flags), that is more than enough to start at least 2 fires per 50 hits if you use high-DPM destroyers. Bear in mind that they all have 100 mm guns so they can only pen 25 mm of armor (if they did not have the improved penetration, even an Omaha could bow-tank a Harugumo or Kitakaze). If they don't deal you damage this way, it will be through fires. At higher tiers, 25 mm plating begins disappearing altogether so once you saturate the superstructure you have to go for fire chance, which is not hard given the raw DPM of Japanese and high-tier British gunboats. I personally do not expect this to affect destroyers the same way it affects cruisers, because the difference in calibers is just too large. 

Edited by TheYamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×