Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Ado1fCarsar

why limit new if he pen bonus of 1/5 to 152/155mm?

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

349
[-KIA-]
Members
562 posts
6,276 battles

why can't 203 and above cruisers get 1/5 pen as well, especially for T10? with fire chance being nerfed so heavily we might as well have the option of being able to pen 50mm BB decks with 203s in exchange for being able to light fires. hell for a Zao that means being able to pen 50mm decks but only start~2.5 fires/minutes assuming 50% ifhe fire chance reduction and 50% fire chance reduction at T10 IF every round hits. Goliath and Henri will be able to pen Yamato and Hindy alone be able to pen Kremlin so they still have their special roles. 

Edit: Moskva will pen Yamato, Goliath/henri/hindy will all pen Kremlin.

Edited by Ado1fCarsar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,568
[PVE]
Members
19,848 posts
12,024 battles
1 minute ago, Ado1fCarsar said:

why can't 203 and above cruisers get 1/5 pen as well, especially for T10? with fire chance being nerfed so heavily we might as well have the option of being able to pen 50mm BB decks with 203s in exchange for being able to light fires. hell for a Zao that means being able to pen 50mm decks but only start~2.5 fires/minutes assuming 50% ifhe fire chance reduction and 50% fire chance reduction at T10 IF every round hits. Goliath and Henri will be able to pen Yamato and Hindy alone be able to pen Kremlin so they still have their special roles. 

Then the shells pen more than WG wants.

 

Under the new rules

203mm / 6 = 33.8333 rounded to 34mm and pens 34mm of armor. IFHE is 34mm * 1.3 = 44.2mm which means it will pen 44mm or 45mm of armor depending on how IFHE is rounded under the new rules.

 

Under your plan

203mm / 5 = 40.6 rounded to 41mm and pens 41mm of armor. IFHE would be 41mm * 1.3 = 53.3mm which would pen 53mm or 54mm of armor depending on how IFHE is rounded under the new rules.

 

I think WG wants to keep the 50mm barrier, so they didn't change the pen coefficient for 203mm guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
349
[-KIA-]
Members
562 posts
6,276 battles
4 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Then the shells pen more than WG wants.

 

Under the new rules

203mm / 6 = 33.8333 rounded to 34mm and pens 34mm of armor. IFHE is 34mm * 1.3 = 44.2mm which means it will pen 44mm or 45mm of armor depending on how IFHE is rounded under the new rules.

 

Under your plan

203mm / 5 = 40.6 rounded to 41mm and pens 41mm of armor. IFHE would be 41mm * 1.3 = 53.3mm which would pen 53mm or 54mm of armor depending on how IFHE is rounded under the new rules.

 

I think WG wants to keep the 50mm barrier, so they didn't change the pen coefficient for 203mm guns.

the barrier doesn't really matter, there are no armor decks between 50mm and yamatos 57mm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,568
[PVE]
Members
19,848 posts
12,024 battles
7 minutes ago, Ado1fCarsar said:

the barrier doesn't really matter, there are no armor decks between 50mm and yamatos 57mm. 

But if 203mm keeps the 1/6 HE coefficient, then they can not pen 50mm decks with IFHE. With your 1/5 HE coefficient, then they could. Evidently, WG doesn't want 203mm IFHE penning 50mm decks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,792
[WORX]
Members
10,629 posts
18,519 battles
2 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

But if 203mm keeps the 1/6 HE coefficient, then they can not pen 50mm decks with IFHE. With your 1/5 HE coefficient, then they could. Evidently, WG doesn't want 203mm IFHE penning 50mm decks.

Was the IFHE changes on this update or was this update just a hot fix ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
349
[-KIA-]
Members
562 posts
6,276 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

But if 203mm keeps the 1/6 HE coefficient, then they can not pen 50mm decks with IFHE. With your 1/5 HE coefficient, then they could. Evidently, WG doesn't want 203mm IFHE penning 50mm decks.

They should allow it, isn’t that the whole point of ifhe changes? Right now ifhe is completely worthless on 203mm and 220mm guns. 1/5 pen would let the player choose between being able to pen most bbs in exchange for being mostly unable to light fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,568
[PVE]
Members
19,848 posts
12,024 battles
4 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Was the IFHE changes on this update or was this update just a hot fix ?

9.1.1 was a hotfix.

IFHE is scheduled for 9.2 on Wed, Mar 11th, if WG doesn't see something in the PTS.

 

3 minutes ago, Ado1fCarsar said:

They should allow it, isn’t that the whole point of ifhe changes? Right now ifhe is completely worthless on 203mm and 220mm guns. 1/5 pen would let the player choose between being able to pen most bbs in exchange for being mostly unable to light fires.

Evidently, they don't want to have that for 203mm guns. That is why IFHE is not recommended on 203mm to 229mm guns. Those larger than that can get past the 50mm barrier with IFHE. Question then becomes, do you want to spend 4 pts for only a handful of ships with 50mm armor to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[ALWC]
Members
1,180 posts
14,022 battles
17 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

 

IFHE is scheduled for 9.2 on Wed, Mar 11th, if WG doesn't see something in the PTS.

Sorry but I missed WG was going live with an IHFE change. I knew there were working on a fix. Can you link me the changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,568
[PVE]
Members
19,848 posts
12,024 battles
3 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

Sorry but I missed WG was going live with an IHFE change. I knew there were working on a fix. Can you link me the changes?

Came out today in the Dev Bulletin in the news section.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/public-test/bulletin-092/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[ALWC]
Members
1,180 posts
14,022 battles
2 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Came out today in the Dev Bulletin in the news section.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/public-test/bulletin-092/

Thank you just read.

Interesting that all guns from 190 mm down to the IJN 100 were shown on the graph including the KM 128s but no mention of the USN 127 or IJN 127

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,568
[PVE]
Members
19,848 posts
12,024 battles
1 minute ago, wstugamd said:

Thank you just read.

Interesting that all guns from 190 mm down to the IJN 100 were shown on the graph including the KM 128s but no mention of the USN 127 or IJN 127

Yeah, and it is the German guns with 1/4 pen, which does not include the German DDs with 128mm and 150mm guns. I will be playing with the numbers in the PTS tomorrow to see how the rounding will work in the new system. It appears that the HE value is rounded to the nearest mm, but there is nothing to show how IFHE is rounded. Hopefully, it is always rounded up like it is now, so that will lessen to negate the new IFHE rules impact on less than T8 ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,640
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,724 posts

Because a bunch of devs who are grossly out of touch with the game, are trying to apply a giant fix to a tiny niche problem, and making a giant mess of everything in the process.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,118
Members
6,858 posts
15,330 battles

I'm confused how OP thinks that 1/5 pen will allow 203mm to pen 50mm....

oh, with IFHE.... you might want to mention that...

Edited by Ducky_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[ALWC]
Members
1,180 posts
14,022 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

Yeah, and it is the German guns with 1/4 pen, which does not include the German DDs with 128mm and 150mm guns. I will be playing with the numbers in the PTS tomorrow to see how the rounding will work in the new system. It appears that the HE value is rounded to the nearest mm, but there is nothing to show how IFHE is rounded. Hopefully, it is always rounded up like it is now, so that will lessen to negate the new IFHE rules impact on less than T8 ships.

I’m not sure this is a good idea. BB will be immune from lower tier cls and same tier have to choose pen or fire. While cls with ihfe can be a pain with the pens and fire, only smoli was a real game breaker. Why would anyone want to play a cl that isn’t a real threat to a bb. Long live the bb I guess 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,568
[PVE]
Members
19,848 posts
12,024 battles
1 minute ago, wstugamd said:

I’m not sure this is a good idea. BB will be immune from lower tier cls and same tier have to choose pen or fire. While cls with ihfe can be a pain with the pens and fire, only smoli was a real game breaker. Why would anyone want to play a cl that isn’t a real threat to a bb. Long live the bb I guess 

If IFHE always rounds up, it looks like most to all of the CLs will keep roughly the same IFHE pen.

 

What will hurt is the fire chance change to IFHE, but that seems fair. The fire chance formula means that a minus 1-3% fire chance change, doesn't do much. So with the new IFHE halving the fire chance, it will make a choice of fire or IFHE pen.

 

Wiki on fire - https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Fire#Fire_Chance

Under the fire formula, a +3% buff to the fire chance does not mean 3% more fires.

682519690_Fireformula.thumb.JPG.3b76fe8d921f53f3cf780f4b038aadae.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,990 posts
3,513 battles

The 203s already pen 32mm without IFHE. They don't need any pen buff.

The 152/155s currently cannot even pen 27mm without IFHE. The upcoming changes means that high tier HE slinging CLs will be able to pen 30mm without IFHE, allowing them to pen the decks and upper belts of all high tier heavy cruisers, making IFHE less of a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,178
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
2 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

high tier HE slinging CLs will be able to pen 30mm without IFHE, allowing them to pen the decks and upper belts of all high tier heavy cruisers, making IFHE less of a necessity.

I always felt this was a [edited] reason: I didn't take IFHE on Worcester, Belfast, Cleveland, Helena, Budy, Chappy, and others (like a 19pointer currently dedicated to Abruzzi and Duca) to pen other cruisers: it was to pen BB's. And losing that on the T7 and below Captains/Premiums is a bit of a kick in the ol' ball bag for somethibng that I was not aware was a problem: I see plenty of HE Spam complaints, but I never see it referencing the *alpha* damage, but rather the stupid amount of fires. I've always advocated reducing the Fire% on IFHE; didn't object to the first nerf, and wouldn't object to further. Frankly, just shy of making fires impossible on IFHE would still be acceptable to me (say hard capped at 2-3% *per* shell; so slightly lower than USN DD's). But why [edited] with the penetration level? The Alpha damage is what makes these ships feel viable in a push: waiting for RNG to produce a fire just further encourages slow, spammy play.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,640
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,724 posts
18 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

The 203s already pen 32mm without IFHE. They don't need any pen buff.

The 152/155s currently cannot even pen 27mm without IFHE. The upcoming changes means that high tier HE slinging CLs will be able to pen 30mm without IFHE, allowing them to pen the decks and upper belts of all high tier heavy cruisers, making IFHE less of a necessity.

While the armor tweaks will result in IFHE being MORE necessary for tier VI and VII light cruisers, because they also face tier VIII and IX ships. 

Much like WOT, the WOWS devs now appear to not understand or not care that there's a SPAN of enemy tiers that any one ship might face. 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,990 posts
3,513 battles
11 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I always felt this was a [edited] reason: I didn't take IFHE on Worcester, Belfast, Cleveland, Helena, Budy, Chappy, and others (like a 19pointer currently dedicated to Abruzzi and Duca) to pen other cruisers: it was to pen BB's. And losing that on the T7 and below Captains/Premiums is a bit of a kick in the ol' ball bag for somethibng that I was not aware was a problem: I see plenty of HE Spam complaints, but I never see it referencing the *alpha* damage, but rather the stupid amount of fires. I've always advocated reducing the Fire% on IFHE; didn't object to the first nerf, and wouldn't object to further. Frankly, just shy of making fires impossible on IFHE would still be acceptable to me (say hard capped at 2-3% *per* shell; so slightly lower than USN DD's). But why [edited] with the penetration level? The Alpha damage is what makes these ships feel viable in a push: waiting for RNG to produce a fire just further encourages slow, spammy play.

What Wargaming is going for is making sure ships can always HE pen same tier ships one scale higher without IFHE, and two scales higher with IFHE. The big complaint, as you say, is that Tier 7 light cruisers will no longer be able to rip apart Tier 9 battleships using IFHE ... which let's be honest, is blatantly OP. In the change, Tier 6 and 7 CLs will be able to HE pen tier 6 and 7 battleships with IFHE, but not Tiers 8 and 9. Seems perfectly fair to me and should reduce the OPness of Belfast as, let's be honest, that's where most of the complaints are coming from. I own and love Belfast, but even I consider it broken that she can ravage a BB two tiers higher than her with very little counter due to her low concealment and built in smoke generator.

Note: ALL ships struggle in the Tier 7 to 8 gap. ALL of them. DDs get outspotted by higher tier DDs, Tier 7 heavy cruisers plating get ripped apart by all the Tier 9 supercruisers. Tier 7 BBs get often wrecked by higher tier BBs because they can and will be bow penned. So crying because one of specific ship type at Tier 7 struggles against a ship two scales higher AND two tiers higher ... welcome to the rest of the game.

Edited by KaptainKaybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,640
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,724 posts
1 minute ago, KaptainKaybe said:

What Wargaming is going for is making sure ships can always HE pen same tier ships one scale higher without IFHE, and two scales higher with IFHE. The big complaint, as you say, is that Tier 7 light cruisers will no longer be able to rip apart Tier 9 battleships using IFHE ... which let's be honest, is blatantly OP. In the change, Tier 6 and 7 CLs will be able to HE pen tier 6 and 7 battleships with IFHE, but not Tiers 8 and 9. Seems perfectly fair to me and should reduce the OPness of Belfast as, let's be honest, that's where most of the complaints are coming from. I own and love Belfast, but even I consider it broken that she can ravage a BB two tiers higher than her with very little counter due to her low concealment and built in smoke generator.

I don't use IFHE on any ship (other that Worchester because LOL and nothing else to spend those pts on) -- I'm concerned about the effect this is having on base HE pen when crossing over the tier 7-tier 8 barrier that WG is creating, and on the AP pen of smaller-gunned upper-tier BBs against a variety of targets. 

What's really happening here is that IFHE never made a lot of sense, and instead of getting rid of it, they're breaking the entire game to keep it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,990 posts
3,513 battles
Just now, StoptheViolins said:

No one is upset the 180mm's will pen exactly the same as the 152mm's? 

1573130546_WG_SPB_WoWs_Infographic_table_Supertest_092_Caliber_EN_1920x1080.jpg.96f7a04e3084b0f31f59ef3f297f5b351.thumb.jpg.bbfb80a7e115b11b517008944691d908.jpg

Note that the 180s will be able to pen 30mm even at lower tiers, whereas 152s will only pen 30mm from tier 8+. This includes ships like the Tier V Kirov and Tier VI Molotov. This means they will be able to HE pen Tier VII BBs without needing IFHE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,990 posts
3,513 battles
1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I don't use IFHE on any ship (other that Worchester because LOL and nothing else to spend those pts on) -- I'm concerned about the effect this is having on base HE pen when crossing over the tier 7-tier 8 barrier that WG is creating, and on the AP pen of smaller-gunned upper-tier BBs against a variety of targets. 

What's really happening here is that IFHE never made a lot of sense, and instead of getting rid of it, they're breaking the entire game to keep it.

 

 

Again, every single ship type suffers in the Tier 7 to 8 gap except for CLs ... until now. Basically, it's just balancing the Tier 6 and 7 CLs so they have the same challenging gameplay that every other ship type already has to deal with.

Unless you want to buff every other ship type at Tier 7 to compensate. Which would be a balancing nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,640
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,724 posts
1 minute ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Again, every single ship type suffers in the Tier 7 to 8 gap except for CLs ... until now. Basically, it's just balancing the Tier 6 and 7 CLs so they have the same challenging gameplay that every other ship type already has to deal with.

Unless you want to buff every other ship type at Tier 7 to compensate. Which would be a balancing nightmare.

I've never noticed a gap at tier 7 to 8 in how the ships feel in battle, outside of a handful of crap tier 7s like the Colorado.   Some of my favorite ships are tier 7 -- Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, Yorck, New Orleans, multiple DDs, etc... while the tier 7 CLs are a total mixed bag. 

This is creating a gap, not "equalizing" a gap, by tweaking armor on higher-tier ships. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
Members
263 posts
2,837 battles

I mean, if you want to give Azuma/Yoshino 62 mm pen by default, I'm not going to argue, but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×