Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

Winners and Losers (e.g Smolensk?), proposed IFHE changes, your thoughts?

72 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4,302 posts

WG_SPB_WoWs_Infographic_table_Supertest_

WG_SPB_WoWs_Infographic_table_Supertest_

What do you think? Which cruisers would benefit from these changes, which would lose out?


I see a potential nerf to Colbert and Smolensk durability

but : 

The "Inertia fuse for HE shells" skill is changed as follows: 

  • HE shell armor penetration boost will depend on the Tier of the ship.
    • Tier I-VII ships: +25% HE shell armor penetration;
    • Tier VIII-X ships: +30% HE shell armor penetration.
  • Now the skill will reduce the chance to cause fire by 50% instead of subtracting 1% or 3% depending on the caliber. The penalty only affects the basic chance to set fire. Other bonuses, like, for example, from the "Victor Lima" signal or the "Demolition Expert" skill, will increase the chance to set fires in the same way as before.

The skill gave a sizable boost without a correspondingly significant penalty, which made it almost mandatory. The new variant will bring the efficiency of the skill back to normal.

Full article on the changes here : 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,772
[KWF]
Members
4,385 posts
6,405 battles

If im reading the table correctly, that's a relatively big buff on high tier RN DDs; IFHE shouldn't be mandatory provided you fire at superstructures.

As a change it's not that bad, though 50% fire reduction is bit too much. 

Adhering instead to the pen rule, a 25% fire reduction for up to tier VII and a 30% to tier VIII upwards would be more reasonable imo.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,481
[MERCB]
[MERCB]
Members
4,380 posts
20,047 battles

Yeah the battleships cries of to many fires have been heard 

 They should just give us an extra amo type 

He 1

Ifhe 2

Ap 3

Edited by NoLoveForPhatShips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,990 posts
5,814 battles

My maths could be wrong. But does this mean 152mm armed cruisers below tier 7 cannot pen 32mm battleship plating with IFHE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,283
[PVE]
Members
4,275 posts
18,670 battles

Thanks for some great data !  Well done and overall, I would agree that there are some nerf's headed in the IFHE direction.... 

Changes are usually designed around sales and sales and marketing potentials....  What keeps "x" (IFHE in this case) just OP enough to prompt sales but not that powerful to drive sales away......   And, in light of where I see this game going, towards a younger demographic action FFA shooter, we've been seeing all sorts of changes that will shorten games to produce higher throughput numbers....   Accuracy first, followed by effect changes and then mobility usually are the sequence of de evolutionary changes to change a MMO from complex cooperative mature content game into a young adult FFA action shooters.   Some games can't make this transition and go back to single player games.  

Mechwarrior Online is a prime example of this theory if you want to see a MMO implode in the sequence I've just related.  History repeats itself and our host is chasing e-Sales cash; and, that money is in the hands of the "Like" generation.......even though, the Boomers have the real money !   The difference is, the Boomers want serious quality first and the "Likers" want constant change......   And that's what is going on.  History is a harsh mistress.....

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,657
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,739 posts

I think the entire project is a mistake, and will only make things worse. 

Messing around with armor on random cruisers to "balance" the ammo of other ships, giving random pen ratios to HE on different ships "for balance", etc, is a horrible idea and will only open a can of worms that can't be closed. 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,209
[PEED2]
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
14,945 battles

For no one surprise its another buff to bbs...

50% fire reduction is ridiculous

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38,075
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,039 posts
10,098 battles

Winner:  Battleships with guns 429mm or greater.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[WOLFX]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,076 posts
3,719 battles

Seems like every time I find a gameplay style that is fun and engaging WG notices and makes it go away, and it seems mostly to favor BB players.

I suppose it doesn't matter that much anymore, as my game time is already way down and I've largely abandoned Randoms anyway.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,016
[RLGN]
Members
14,319 posts
25,257 battles
3 minutes ago, dechion said:

Seems like every time I find a gameplay style that is fun and engaging WG notices and makes it go away, and it seems mostly to favor BB players.

I suppose it doesn't matter that much anymore, as my game time is already way down and I've largely abandoned Randoms anyway.

Pretty much?

My motivation level tanked last January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
37 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I think the entire project is a mistake, and will only makes things worse. 

Messing around with armor on random cruisers to "balance" the ammo of other ships, giving random pen ratios to HE on different ships "for balance", etc, is a horrible idea and will only open a can of worms that can't be closed. 

 

1*cLSxT5AwMI_-LOGlfEXCFw.jpeg

34 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Winner:  Battleships with guns 429mm or greater.

so : 

  • Yamato
  • Musashi*
  • Ohio*
  • Georgia*
  • Kremlin
  • Thunderer
  • République
  • Montana
  • Slava*
  • Bourgogne*
  • Bajie*
  • Conqueror
  • Grosser Kurfurst

 

Have I missed any?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,657
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,739 posts
26 minutes ago, KHyena said:

For no one surprise its another buff to bbs...

50% fire reduction is ridiculous

 

25 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Winner:  Battleships with guns 429mm or greater.

 

14 minutes ago, dechion said:

Seems like every time I find a gameplay style that is fun and engaging WG notices and makes it go away, and it seems mostly to favor BB players.

I suppose it doesn't matter that much anymore, as my game time is already way down and I've largely abandoned Randoms anyway.

 

8 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Pretty much?

My motivation level tanked last January.

The motivation isn't about BBs or BB players.   It's not about buffing BBs at all, it's literally a misbegotten attempt to "balance" cruisers and IFHE and HE. 

The way that it will benefit some BBs is just a great example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[CS7]
Members
227 posts
3,323 battles
1 hour ago, warheart1992 said:

If im reading the table correctly, that's a relatively big buff on high tier RN DDs; IFHE shouldn't be mandatory provided you fire at superstructures.

As a change it's not that bad, though 50% fire reduction is bit too much. 

Adhering instead to the pen rule, a 25% fire reduction for up to tier VII and a 30% to tier VIII upwards would be more reasonable imo.

They are making you choose: increased penetration or higher chance of fire.  I think this is a healthy dilemma for the game overall given that spamming by fast firing light cruisers has gotten so prevalent.  Also, after these changes, IFHE will not be mandatory to make any ship competitive due to the slight but significant (especially for RN DDs) buff to stock HE penetration, basically 1 mm more across the board. I question IFHE remaining a 4 point skill giving the substantial negative it now brings, but overall a good change.  Once this is implemented the high tier RN DDs become a lot more attractive and customizable.  They were pretty much unplayable without a 14 point commander before now.

Edited by Maddau
Correct typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38,075
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,039 posts
10,098 battles
16 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

Have I missed any?

Republique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 minute ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Republique.

praise the lord, devs are merciful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,927
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,802 posts
4,631 battles
41 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Since everything is WiP, I reserve judgement until the day of reckoning.

I don't see much if any difference from the previous iteration.  I say it's what we're going to get.

25 minutes ago, dechion said:

a gameplay style that is fun and engaging

Translation:  "[edited], pillage, and burn. (Oh my!)"

 

 

Edited by iDuckman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
20 posts
3,060 battles

One loser I see is Montana. Not only will light cruisers with ifhe be able to pen all of it now being able to pen 39mm but Montana won't be as effective against heavy cruisers. Sad day for that particular ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

Wow German DD's just got some serious value added to them. Also American and German cruisers are now not special? Reads to me like their special 27mm plating that let them bounce 15" guns is no longer there's and a special consideration (which IMO is not a good idea; it balance in the case of USN Cruisers, their lack of burst damage in the form of easy-button torps).

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[NFJF]
Beta Testers
210 posts
9,429 battles

All bitched about the CA shooting  from behind islands know they might not have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,151 posts
7,357 battles
30 minutes ago, Maddau said:

 I question IFHE remaining a 4 point skill giving the substantial negative it now brings, but overall a good change.

This it should be reduced to 3 skill points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,657
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,739 posts

This is going to be like the CV rebork... enthusiastically supported by people who are emotionally caught up in the rage about a particular narrow aspect of the game, to the point that they can't see all the trouble it's going to cause. 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×