Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
warheart1992

IFHE changes, a week and something later; yay or nay? (Opinion thread)

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,755
[KWF]
Members
4,370 posts
6,405 battles

With 0.9.2 we had one of the bigger mechanic changes, a rebalance of IFHE, as well as changes on the plating of cruisers to make them more resistant to incoming fire. 

The logic behind this change, and something with which I agree, was for IFHE to not be anymore the "must pick" skill for CLs that gave raw damage without a big tradeoff in fire chance.  So you either have to pick fire starting or capability of raw damage. Or at least that's how it must have sounded like.

This made sense, especially when it comes to ships like Smolensk or Worcester with terrifying HE DPM. In addition, the change of HE rules when it comes to penetration means that some ships like Daring that had to have IFHE to even penetrate with HE now could do so without, further freeing up 4 skill points. 

Yet I think the implementation of the changes was rushed, confusing and in certain cases downright frustrating for a number of reasons. Will get over them shortly and without too much detail. 

1.  Inconcistency and at certain points confusion; 

WG has made many changes under the logic of simplifying mechanics in order for the average player to be able to grasp them without much trouble. Hydro and Radar range changes are such two examples. Yet now we get different penetrations with IFHE for tier V-VII and different ones for VIII-X, for guns of the same caliber. Yes you can make sense of them, but can you say the same for the average player or a newbie?

2. Diminishing returns the higher up you go;

Consider this. Let's pick a Seattle, without DE or flags, but with IFHE. Seattle with IFHE under the new rules gets 12/2=6% fire chance. But then you start pilling up fire resistance coefficient, commander skills to combat fire, even upgrades reducing it. But for this example, let's consider a tier X BB without any special skills or upgrades. Just by itself it gets a fire coefficient of 0.5, meaning that 6% fire chance just became 3%. And when you add RNG into the mix it doesn't look good. In high tiers where HE and fires, broken as they may appear at times, are often the only means to counter bowtanking this is a big impediment.

3. Too little time for respecs;

First of all, I appreciate them even being offered. Yet I believe that one week was too short a time period to make up your mind skills wise, or even have the time to enter the game and respec. I couldn't be on during that time period, so I happened to miss the respec. I have loads of Commander XP so it didn't hurt much, but I am sure it hit others. Keeping in mind the slew of issues arising with the spread of coronavirus I believe two weeks for free respecs would have been better and give the playerbase an easier time adjusting to the changes.

To conclude, please keep in mind this is a personal opinion from playing for a few days after the patch. It's still early to have a  completely concrete opinion and I will continue testing. 

Nevertheless I have to confess that some of these issues could have been handled better, maybe even addressed in the testing phase. In my opinion the 50% reduction is a bit too brutal and somewhat extreme. Not saying we should go back to before the changes, but another look wouldn't hurt. 

Hoping to hear more opinions on the subject in a polite discussion and not have this develop into a dumpster fire thread.

 

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
791 posts

All they needed was to cut the fire chance, the armor changes and everything else was unnessary.  So my vote is Nay.  It unbalanced far more ships than it balanced in my book like Atlanta.  I will say that it wasnt a big mess like the CV change roll out but last thing Atlanta and some others needed was another nerf.  I just about stopped using IFHE all together after the update, only my Cleveland  and my GK *full secondary build* run IFHE now.   

Edited by JToney3449
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,503
[TARK]
Members
6,559 posts
2,514 battles

It was a good START to changes for IFHE. There remain silly things that need to be adjusted. More should come and we should expect it.

The short respec period was just greedy by WG. No effort at all to build goodwill after the Christmas event. Which is tragic.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,953
[TBW]
Members
10,287 posts
17,482 battles

IFHE has always been confusing to me in the first place, so I tended not to use it on many of my captains. HE is for fires and AP is for penetration, then again, KY is for penetration too.

Edited by Sovereigndawg
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
503
[BOTO]
Members
1,262 posts
15,421 battles
7 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

IFHE has always been confusing to me in the first place, so I tended not to use it on many of my captains. HE is for fires and AP is for penetration, then again, KY is for penetration too.

Actually it was much simpler before the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,755
[KWF]
Members
4,370 posts
6,405 battles
1 hour ago, JToney3449 said:

All they needed was to cut the fire chance, the armor changes and everything else was unnessary.  So my vote is Nay.  It unbalanced far more ships than it balanced in my book like Atlanta.  I will say that it wasnt a big mess like the CV change roll out but last thing Atlanta and some others needed was another nerf.  I just about stopped using IFHE all together after the update, only my Cleveland  and my GK *full secondary build* run IFHE now.   

There's also that issue. Many premiums were hit by these blanket changes. Some, like Smolensk deservedly so, others like Atlanta or Flint didn't need this, especially in the light of the AA changes that gutted their role.

In general, CAs look quite a bit stronger nowadays; I just hope if the situation is truly bad WG acts up on the info to rectify any ossues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,426 posts
14,165 battles

Personally I think they should have gone to the original 1/3 fire chance loss and made DE incompatible with IFHE.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

I fully back WG on these changes. Having CLs with both high HE pen AND high fire chance was incredibly cancerous. Seeing Belfasts damage farm tier 9 BBs with impunity was broken. On top of that, they buffed the base HE pen on tier 8+ CLs making IFHE a choice rather than an absolute requirement. Plus they buffed the armor on heavy cruisers so that they are properly competitive again.

Don't get me wrong. I'm having to deal with nerfs to both my Belfast and Haida because of the change, too. But I still 100% support these changes.

  • Confused 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
330
[GOBI]
Members
1,083 posts
4,215 battles

Nay, can no longer use same Captain on Massachusetts and Georgia to best effect. IfHE is still best on Mass with full secondary build, not so much on Georgia. Killed my Boise, huge nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,088
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,026 posts
11,588 battles
3 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

2. Diminishing returns the higher up you go;

Consider this. Let's pick a Seattle, without DE or flags, but with IFHE. Seattle with IFHE under the new rules gets 12/2=6% fire chance. But then you start pilling up fire resistance coefficient, commander skills to combat fire, even upgrades reducing it. But for this example, let's consider a tier X BB without any special skills or upgrades. Just by itself it gets a fire coefficient of 0.5, meaning that 6% fire chance just became 3%. And when you add RNG into the mix it doesn't look good. In high tiers where HE and fires, broken as they may appear at times, are often the only means to counter bowtanking this is a big impediment.

Your forgetting for starters the fact that unlike back in the day pre IFHE - that Seattle auto pens the bow of any battleship no questions asked. In fact - it now penetrates the entirety of North Carolina's armour with the pen changes. 

Seattle can pump out almost 120 rpm, let assume it's not hiding behind a rock and in open water so dodging has reduced it to 100 rpm. Each hit is 726 damage, and lets go with a 30% hit rate which is low and achievable. That's 21,780 damage. That total is 1/3 the HP of a NC, just over 1/4 of Iowa's, and 22% of Montana's, and in the case of NC why aren't you aiming amid ships now for more. Only 50% of that damage can be repaired, and repair party with flag is only 16.8% of HP, without it's 14% - Meaning that with a flag NC can just barely recover that 50% of what was dealt, Iowa and Monty can take a bit more or burn it, and only Monty can make it up without a flag. It actually has a slightly higher than 3% chance but lets just call it 3% - RNG is a 2 way street. And ONE fire let to burn on your average BB (some survivability but not full survival build) eats up 1 charge of repair party - same as what can be repaired from the direct damage dealt. So even if you only get 1 to stick, that's 2 out of a maximum of 5 charges a BB can carry if it takes SI and uses the premium consumable - lets assume they do. They have 28/80 up/down times - that means the damage dealt by a Seattle, in 60 seconds, with a single fire, takes 216 seconds to repair assuming the BB disengages and is untouched during repairs - for 3 1/2 minutes. In that time frame, Seattle in this scenario can fire 350 more rounds and land hits with more than 100 more hits and however many more fires. Lets even take Montana which is the best case scenario for the BB here - 100 more hits is another 72000 damage. Of that 50% can be repaired so 36000, so assuming you have the flag to increase repairs, 2 more of the 4-5 repair parties are gone with 4000 left - meaning either your out and 40k sticks on top of the 10 and change from the first minute leaving you at 50% HP. But 100 more rounds have landed, lets say it only stays at the average so 3 more fires over that time. Well, assuming an average BB with just some fire mitigation not full, lets call it 14% per fire - well, if you have a repair party left because you took SI your only taking another 28% damage and have 22% HP left, if not you have 8% HP left. Now remember - this is a tier 10 BB against tier 9 cruiser, not even Wor that has an even hire RoF, it firing less rounds because dodging, really average accuracy and also not taking in that Seattle can still see ships like Colorado. Let alone tier 6 ships dealing with Cleveland and Mogami. Oh, right - and immediately disengaging to use the other 2 or 3 repair party's.

Lets also this is what ONE ship is doing in less than 5 minutes against the class THAT'S SUPPOSED TO COUNTER IT. People are happy to bring up RPS balancing when they talk about CV's not fitting, and while I personally believe it is nonsense as lines are designed to better perform vs a type with a very loose RPS between classes that's BB>CA/L>DD>BB. If the BB can land a citadel hit, sure, it could nuke the cruiser. But any worthwhile cruiser player should be timing shots between BB salvo's to be broadside when it's reloading and angled/moving out of shell path when it's about to fire. And that assumes that the USN CL in particular aren't hiding behind rocks immune to return fire. One decently played CL can eat a BB up in under 5 minutes, less if RNG trolls the BB with fires. Now given how big and easily spotted they are, guess what happens when you have that lone cruiser and a BB. Or 2 cruisers. Or 5 other ships.

 

And I'm not one biased by BB play - I own Seattle, I own Cleveland, Mogami, the 3 IJN DD's that might as well be CL. 

 

The change is garbage, I said it in the PTS feedback, I said it in July last year when they proposed it, and I said it a year+ before that when they proposed a similar change.

Either IFHE needs a counter such as some ability to bounce like SAP (and SAP should have a fire chance albeit a low one), or we need to revert to the pre-9.2 IFHE, and then reduce max damage from fires on BB's to 15% (allows them to survive exactly 1 more fire) and globally increase the amount of regular pen damage fixed by repair party, lower it's cooldown and lower the DCP cooldown as well. And when I say globally I mean every ship of every type other than maybe the weirdness with CV's (it's own separate issue). That means BB's getting back some of their ability to tank damage - which is the entire issue of the IFHE/fire combo, cruisers that aren't eating citadels from BB's can survive slightly better against them if they have repair party, and DD's can get un-disabled faster when hit, especially from CV's with the lower DCP cooldown.

But 8+ IFHE ships being arguably more lethal in 9.2 while tier 7 and lower is screwed more seeing tier 8+ ships is  sheer lunacy that should have never made it to the live server.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,623
[WOLF3]
Members
27,053 posts
23,842 battles

The changes were overall convoluted, excessive, and mostly pointless.  It also needlessly punished certain ships below a certain tier, which is stupid considering tiers overlap in Matchmaker.

 

The only thing that needed to happen was the IFHE Fire Chance penalty increase.  The rest didn't need to take place.

 

@WanderingGhost It's funny because they reduced the IFHE Penetration values for Tier VIII+ CL guns from 30% to 25% which protects Premium Alabama and Massachusetts who have 38mm decks, while the North Carolina is peculiarly left with 37mm deck and allowed to be HE Penned all over the place by CLs.

Another set of reasons why this whole thing was bad.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[PHU]
Members
46 posts
7,965 battles
4 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

IFHE has always been confusing to me in the first place, so I tended not to use it on many of my captains. HE is for fires and AP is for penetration, then again, KY is for penetration too.

 Wat? If youve been using HE just to start fires you're doing it wrong. HE spam is the reason this game became dumber, consistent damage without worrying about pen angles. 

  • Confused 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,503
[TARK]
Members
6,559 posts
2,514 battles
3 hours ago, KaptainKaybe said:

I fully back WG on these changes. Having CLs with both high HE pen AND high fire chance was incredibly cancerous. Seeing Belfasts damage farm tier 9 BBs with impunity was broken. On top of that, they buffed the base HE pen on tier 8+ CLs making IFHE a choice rather than an absolute requirement. Plus they buffed the armor on heavy cruisers so that they are properly competitive again.

Don't get me wrong. I'm having to deal with nerfs to both my Belfast and Haida because of the change, too. But I still 100% support these changes.

Yes, changes needed to be made...

...the changes made though are incomplete and driven partly by monetization requirements.

Which makes everyone unhappy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles

Poor change.

Simply another pseudo buff to BBs... the already highest performing ship type in the game. Simply status quo for WG.

 

 

Even their reasoning doesn't add up, as usual. They claimed the rework was necessary because IFHE was mandatory for certain ships. 

lol...

CE is mandatory for MORE ships. SE is equally mandatory as IFHE for many DDs. How about Last Stand? Hell there are a multitude of ships where SI is far more valuable than IFHE..
Should we expect a rework on all of those as well?


Even their balancing technique doesn't make sense. Why do 100mm IJN guns have buffed base pen when they already have the natural balancing benefits of having smaller guns? Things like faster reload.. and more of them. Hell, even amazing ballistics. If 100mm IJN guns get buffed base pen, then all DD guns should get the same buffed base pen. A 100mm gun should NOT have more HE pen than a 127... a 128.... a 130...... hell the 100mm IJN guns even have a HIGHER base pen than 139s (seen on the Kleber)... that is a complete joke. Imagine if the Yashima was released with 20mm base HE pen. I bet people would be scratching their heads big time, right?




First flooding was nerfed into the ground, opposite of any logical direction one could derive from the data. Now IFHE.  I am sure fire damage will be next.



What WG **SHOULD** have done?

1.) Made IFHE buff HE pen by 40%, and cut fire chance in half.
2.) Changed DE to nerf HE pen by 20% and increase fire chance by 6%
3.) Remove 1/4 base pen from 100mm IJN DD guns
4.) Add 1/5 base pen to Pan-euro, UK, and German DDs

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,503
[TARK]
Members
6,559 posts
2,514 battles
36 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

What WG **SHOULD** have done?

1.) Made IFHE buff HE pen by 40%, and cut fire chance in half.
2.) Changed DE to nerf HE pen by 20% and increase fire chance by 6%
3.) Remove 1/4 base pen from 100mm IJN DD guns
4.) Add 1/5 base pen to Pan-euro, UK, and German DDs

Then IFHE is still mandatory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
25 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Then IFHE is still mandatory...

No it is not. My change also makes it worthless to take IFHE and DE at the same time. This creates more build options for a lot of ships.

Edited by Varknyn12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,503
[TARK]
Members
6,559 posts
2,514 battles
27 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

No it is not. My change also makes it worthless to take IFHE and DE at the same time. This creates more build options for a lot of ships.

Meh.

I simply wanted the idea of IFHE to go away...but I dont have any power or a strong opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
139 posts
2,600 battles

Honestly captain skills all together need a whole rework. Too many skills are mandatory and there really aren't good build options or choices. The skills themselves are pretty boring.

As mentioned above CE is mandatory on the majority of ships. Why isn't that adressed?

I'd love to see a larger skill tree, more choices, higher level cap (but with faster leveling) and less desirable skills reworked. It would make grinding through tiers a lot more enjoyable and fun.

Hell, I'd love to see each nation have unique skills that they can only get to add to diversity. What if german BB captains had additional secondary skills to increase range, damage and pen? Or if Japanese destoryer could get a unique torpedo faster reload skill? Or maybe British destoryers could opt for flatter arcs? You could do some really neat nation specific skills.

And yeah, I know there are unique commanders, but their bonuses are minor and only really adjust current skills for the most part. Also they are a pain to get and easy to miss if you dont do the events.

Edited by Bereavement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,088
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,026 posts
11,588 battles
7 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

It's funny because they reduced the IFHE Penetration values for Tier VIII+ CL guns from 30% to 25% which protects Premium Alabama and Massachusetts who have 38mm decks, while the North Carolina is peculiarly left with 37mm deck and allowed to be HE Penned all over the place by CLs.

Honestly - I don't think that was ever a consideration. I think the 25% change was because Wargaming prefers even numbers, and that it was purely coincidence that the nerf was just enough to make any USN BB's immune to 152 mm guns (they are still able to be penned all over by Mogami) and that more important to them was that the RU BB's regain immunity they would have lost with the change to 1/5 and keeping 30%. Most of us said USN would have issues from the start, no change till me and others pointed out some of the RU BB's would be nerfed the same way and then it gets changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
800
[WOLFC]
Members
1,653 posts
9,465 battles
9 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

The changes were overall convoluted, excessive, and mostly pointless.  It also needlessly punished certain ships below a certain tier, which is stupid considering tiers overlap in Matchmaker.

 

The only thing that needed to happen was the IFHE Fire Chance penalty increase.  The rest didn't need to take place.

Agree 100%.

I'm particularly frustrated with the blanket changes to cruiser plating based on gun caliber. While I think the buff to cruiser survivability in general is a good thing, WG really should have taken the time to adjust individual ships as needed, rather than make sweeping changes based on the size of their guns. This only serves to dumb the game down further and make ships less distinctive, not to mention WG is hamstringing themselves when it comes to balancing new ships because they have given themselves arbitrary rules they have to follow. If MM doesn't differentiate between cruisers based on the size of their guns, what reason is there to standardize their plating according to that metric?

An interesting example of the issues with this approach can be seen in the differences in the armor schemes of Admiral Hipper and the WIP Mainz (1934-36 preliminary design of Seydlitz/Lutzow). Two sister ships with the same hull design, but Mainz has 25mm plating everywhere but the central deck... because she has 150mm guns? I find this a little bit silly, especially because both of these ships (three if you count Prinz Eugen) are/will be the same tier. Mainz is looking to be pretty forgettable, as the only real feature of note compared to other CLs at tier VIII is the enhanced pen of her low-alpha HE (which, granted, should be more valuable post IFHE-change).

shot-20_03.22_01_15.16-0893.thumb.jpg.37f012bc8f26f69ee4e595362fd34f04.jpgshot-20_03.22_01_14.52-0014.thumb.jpg.bcb096c717bfa7f62907fc5b35d9cbf0.jpg

1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

Honestly - I don't think that was ever a consideration. I think the 25% change was because Wargaming prefers even numbers, and that it was purely coincidence that the nerf was just enough to make any USN BB's immune to 152 mm guns (they are still able to be penned all over by Mogami) and that more important to them was that the RU BB's regain immunity they would have lost with the change to 1/5 and keeping 30%. Most of us said USN would have issues from the start, no change till me and others pointed out some of the RU BB's would be nerfed the same way and then it gets changed.

WG could have just as easily increased the base pen on the tier VIII-X ships to 1/5, while making the pen bonus from IFHE tier-dependent like the accuracy bonus from the MFCSA skill. Making the bonus 30% for tiers I-VII and 25% for tiers VIII-X (with the 1/5 change) would have accomplished the same result of making IFHE less mandatory at high tiers without punishing tier VI and VII CLs so harshly, especially Atlanta and Flint. Although, the new issues with Atlanta and Flint could be easily solved by arbitrarily increasing the base penetration of their guns from 21mm to 22mm, as the only meaningful effect this would have is restoring their ability to pen 27mm with IFHE.

What nobody seems to be talking about is that Dmitri Donskoi also got nerfed pretty hard by these changes, albeit mostly indirectly. Her 180mm HE now has the same 30mm penetration as her tier VIII-X 152mm-armed peers (and LESS pen than 155mm Mogami) with a significantly longer reload, and she lost her unique advantage of being able to pen 38mm plating with IFHE (IFHE no longer rounds up, so she only pens 37mm). Tallin and Alexander Nevsky will also have the same issue, since they will also mount Soviet 180mm guns at tier VIII+.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORCH]
Members
594 posts
14,833 battles

I'm one who didn't see a problem with the way things were, so I really didn't see a problem in need of solving.  From my perspective, what we have now, compared to what we had a few weeks ago, is...different.  Not better, just different.  Far more complicated, and also far less logical.  We now have ships whose guns penetrate different armor thicknesses, even though they mount exactly the same guns, in exactly the same mounts, with exactly the same fire control systems.  And we also have ships whose armor thickness is based on their gun caliber.  Why on earth would we do that.  The ship's gun caliber is based on the guns they historically mounted (well, for those ships that were, you know, REAL).  Shouldn't their armor also be based on the armor they actually had?S

When the change went live, I spent a huge amount of time reanalyzing every one of my T5+ cruisers, and my conclusion in ALMOST every case was that my captain build should not change.  The ships that I felt needed IFHE before, still need it.  Those that didn't need it before, still don't.  The only possible exception was Smolensk, for which I'm still on the fence.  I think a case can be made either way.

So, for me, this was a change that made game mechanics more complicated and less logical, while not changing any captain build decisions.  All it really accomplished was a blanket nerf to my light cruisers, which will now start fewer fires than they used to.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,088
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,026 posts
11,588 battles
12 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

WG could have just as easily increased the base pen on the tier VIII-X ships to 1/5, while making the pen bonus from IFHE tier-dependent like the accuracy bonus from the MFCSA skill. Making the bonus 30% for tiers I-VII and 25% for tiers VIII-X (with the 1/5 change) would have accomplished the same result of making IFHE less mandatory at high tiers without punishing tier VI and VII CLs so harshly, especially Atlanta and Flint. Although, the new issues with Atlanta and Flint could be easily solved by arbitrarily increasing the base penetration of their guns from 21mm to 22mm, as the only meaningful effect this would have is restoring their ability to pen 27mm with IFHE.

Problem is that still does not fix it by 'making it less mandatory'. 1/5 only allows for 30 mm of pen, 2 mm less than what it takes to punch through BB armour. Whoever at Wargaming thought IFHE was being used on 152 mm CL's to punch through CA plating to put it nicely is deluded. Everyone takes IFHE on those cruisers for a single reason - punch through battleship armour protection. The only way to make it 'not mandatory' is to either A: remove the 1/5 rule on the 152-155 mm armed cruisers and keep the 25% bonus - removing their ability to punch through BB bow armour or B: set pen at a fixed number instead of shell width related. 

A won't happen, other than foolishness at 7 and lower, because part of the entire reason for adding IFHE was because at the time only USN gunboats had really 152 mm guns, especially at high tier, and they had no torps and therefore no defense against a charging angled BB other than pray to start fires. Given how hard they've been nerfing torps, especially the IJN torp line who's one job was basically hunting battleships, you'd see a shift back toward the 'world of battleships' times where it was just short of play BB or gtfo - other than when they had to deal with CV's. B won't happen because then it'll be an issue when these ships get that much but that ship get this much, this one is increased by X not Y, etc. Also likely requires ore coding, which Wargaming seems to not want to do at times.

A maybe C would be to just make it a default skill like the one that tells you your spotted.

Which leaves D - leave it as it was, and address the issue from the other end - increasing survivability by adjustments to burn times and consumables which is likely less than 50 key strokes. Removing 3% from BB burn times isn't much and is inline with what has happened to literally every other ship type since it's inclusion (DD's and Cruisers got it not long after, CV's finally got it with the rework), and changes to DCP and Repair Party being global would aid in some areas with issues cruisers and DD's have, if only a little.

As to Atlanta and Flint - I think it's time for a change.

Forget about IFHE, Atlanta I know needs heavy adjustments in AA because it was overnerfed, haven't played/attacked enough Flint's lately to make that call there, reduce the reload to at least 4.5 seconds (some real meaning of the .1 they gave it) or maybe even down to 4, anything lower than that it'd have to go up in tier absolutely, and change the AP of them to have better pen angles like the USN CA and maybe a bit more pen in general. Good chance spotting range by ships could and should go down and Atlanta could very much benefit from some tweaks to her torpedoes. In many ways Atlanta has always been 'DD with a citadel' - I think maybe we play in to that more and some of the strengths USN has otherwise in it's lines. 

Makes it and Flint more 'balanced' cruisers - they have reason to switch between HE and AP and have usable torps, excelling at DD hunting but still some bite against other cruisers and BB's. Make it a little more versatile than an over specialized role like Asashio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,795
[WORX]
Members
10,635 posts
18,539 battles

Nay, IFHE changes made 127MM and blow caliber guns useless in +2MM restriction situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
800
[WOLFC]
Members
1,653 posts
9,465 battles
2 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

Problem is that still does not fix it by 'making it less mandatory'. 1/5 only allows for 30 mm of pen, 2 mm less than what it takes to punch through BB armour. Whoever at Wargaming thought IFHE was being used on 152 mm CL's to punch through CA plating to put it nicely is deluded. Everyone takes IFHE on those cruisers for a single reason - punch through battleship armour protection. The only way to make it 'not mandatory' is to either A: remove the 1/5 rule on the 152-155 mm armed cruisers and keep the 25% bonus - removing their ability to punch through BB bow armour or B: set pen at a fixed number instead of shell width related. 

My take away from these HE pen/IFHE changes is that WG’s main goal was to nerf IFHE to a point where it is not an automatic choice. Based on what I’ve been reading on the forums, they’ve at least partially accomplished that with the substantial nerf to fire chance. While I’m not sure that 50% was the right number, this is overall a step in the right direction because IFHE was too strong.

At the same time, WG tried to address something else that they also see as an issue: the devs have stated their belief that cruisers should be able to pen the hulls of their contemporaries without having to take IFHE. Thus, the bump in base pen of 152/155m guns at tier VIII+, where 25mm of bow and stern plating/deck becomes the norm. This is all well and good, but they didn’t want to break the balance of higher tiers (further?) by letting these ships pen 38mm, so they nerfed the pen bonus from IFHE. Thus, outside of Mogami, the interactions between these ships and tier VIII+ BBs were preserved. At this point WG considered their mission accomplished and completely disregarded the way this :etc_swear:ed over tier VI and VI CLs (especially those without torpedoes), who how have seen their ability to counter these BBs severely diminished because they can no longer pen anywhere but the superstructure.

WG seems to have made these balance adjustments with only high tiers in mind. My suggestion would have yielded the same relationship between classes at tier VIII+ that currently exists as of this patch (which is obviously all WG really cared about), while still maintaining the status quo at tiers VI and VII (although not really, because the fire chance change with IFHE would still be in effect, and IMO was all that was needed). It’s not perfect, but it would be better than what currently exists on live. As it currently stands, I have several mid-tier CLs that I don’t even want to play anymore because WG couldn’t be bothered to take a more nuanced approach.

In summary: WG employed their typical “sledgehammer” approach to balance changes and in solving one problem they once again created another, potentially worse one. :Smile_sceptic:

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,488
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,378 posts
9,734 battles

Rolling out armor changes alongside of Pen value changes was a very, very dumb move.  It ruined some ships plus trying to accurately gauge how much something has been buffed or nerfed starts to become more skewed when you change the baseline like this.

I vote Nay, as on the whole I do not notice any level real change in how matches play out, damage output, or whatever else.  The only thing this has done that WG set out to do was their narrow-field vision of staring at IFHE then going "We MUST make it not mandatory for light cruisers!" and that is about all they have accomplished that is 100% positive here.

All the while, completely shafting T7 light cruisers among other things.  Bravo for making T7 even worse to play out when they see T9 alot more with the MM changes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×