Giulio Cesare Bow armor Ninja Nerf

[Chaos_Umbra]

Just noticed something odd while I was doing a comparison in port of T5 BBs as I wanted to get a comparison to the new RU BB at tier 5, when I noticed there was a change in the armor scheme in the Giulio Cesare.

 

I noticed that the internal 85mm old bow plate had disappeared from the armor viewer, which would explain the increase in damage taken when bow in.

 

Here is a screen shot of the section from November 2017

 

 

Here is a screen shot of the current displayed armor

 

 

The entire 85mm internal bow has been removed thus it is now possible to citadel the ship through the nose.

 

Note: this isn't a topic about the current balance of the ship, just that we had the whole Pitchforks incident when they were testing the ship at tier 6 with a lot very vocal about not nerfing premium ships and thus just pointing out this change which is a nerf to the ship.

[ColonelPete]

A little bit of searching would have helped.

The "missing" armor section was noted months ago. WG explained that they removed the visual because it "messed up" the view, but the plating is still there (as many other hidden platings that are not shown in the viewer).

[Chaos_Umbra]

37 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

A little bit of searching would have helped.

The "missing" armor section was noted months ago. WG explained that they removed the visual because it "messed up" the view, but the plating is still there (as many other hidden platings that are not shown in the viewer).

Ok must have missed that one... they must have put it in small print at the bottom...

 

But why remove the visuals as it is rather important to know that it is there when tying to get the best out of the ship or counter it, it doesn't make sense for it to be on a need to know basis that it is actually there but not shown?

[thiextar]

48 minutes ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

Ok must have missed that one... they must have put it in small print at the bottom...

Well considering they managed to put a change to the spotting system as a "Minor fix", im not suprised any more lol

[GulvkluderGuld]

5 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Well considering they managed to put a change to the spotting system as a "Minor fix", im not suprised any more lol

Was a bug fix...of a bug that had been around forever 

[Chaos_Umbra]

16 minutes ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

Was a bug fix...of a bug that had been around forever 

And it was a bug that players thought was the best game-play change in the past year... 

[GulvkluderGuld]

10 minutes ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

And it was a bug that players thought was the best game-play change in the past year... 

WG pulling off the best gameplay change in years? Too good to be true! 

[Aragathor]

Already discussed on reddit:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/axnx6j/unannounced_nerf_to_the_armor_of_the_giulio/

 

 

[invicta2012]

A nerf to the GC wouldn't be a bad move, though. All the naysayers to that have tied WGs hands with regards to nerfing premiums, which means we are now stuck with the blasted Enterprise and it's rather OP rocket planes.

[ZWC]

But does the GC get citadel hits nowadays?
Do the players notice the GC plays different? 
Only players that got a GC can actually notice the differ if they use it on a daily base.

Okay, after every update the handling of a ship feels different , this is because of the changed game-play and mostly just in our minds.
If the handling of a vessel suddenly feels very different and remains to feel so. even after the "get used"time.
Well than one of the possibilities is,.. it did get nerfed... although ninja nerfs are denied ,... so.

Basically developers having problems with their creations and rules ... even for balancing better game-play , will get stuck sometimes.
They cannot alter too much openly. in some cases (premium items) , so they will find ways around it.
The best thing about deliberately changing , not allowed changes, is .... they are deniable. 

So does the GC perform worse as before?  
Yes or no? (Idon't have it in port)
incase; yes...
No matter the official explanation, it probably got ninja nerfed.



 

[ColonelPete]

39 minutes ago, ZWC said:

But does the GC get citadel hits nowadays?
Do the players notice the GC plays different?

• From the side
• there are always players that "feel" something different (daily Tirpitz "ninja changes", Missouri dispersion/credit "change")

41 minutes ago, ZWC said:

Okay, after every update the handling of a ship feels different , this is because of the changed game-play and mostly just in our minds.
If the handling of a vessel suddenly feels very different and remains to feel so. even after the "get used"time.
Well than one of the possibilities is,.. it did get nerfed... although ninja nerfs are denied ,... so.

As I said, some people "feel" something different every day and as you noted that happens usually in their minds.

Real changes are noted AND documented within days of a patch. We have enough poeple going over the data of the game after each patch. That is why data is so important and not "feelings".

These are usually bugs that get fixed soon or were bugfixes to a problem most people considered normal play (latter are usually documented).

51 minutes ago, ZWC said:

They cannot alter too much openly. in some cases (premium items) , so they will find ways around it.

Not in this game.

 

[NothingButTheRain]

10 hours ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

But why remove the visuals as it is rather important to know that it is there when tying to get the best out of the ship or counter it, it doesn't make sense for it to be on a need to know basis that it is actually there but not shown?

I think this is actually a good question. What's the point of the armor viewer if it doesn't even work like it should, to display all armor plating on every ship.

And why was this changed in the first place?

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, NothingButTheRain said:

...

And why was this changed in the first place?

Quote

Sub_Octavian:

 

...it was a really complicated scheme: you had to turn the mid section off and look inside the bow from the aft. This piece caused a few visual glitches, and, because we do not usually show internal parts armor in Port, and because it was so difficult to see it, its' display was turned off. But the piece is in place, and everything works just as it used to work before the change.

6 hours ago, Aragathor said:

Already discussed on reddit:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/axnx6j/unannounced_nerf_to_the_armor_of_the_giulio/

 

 

[NothingButTheRain]

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

 

Yes, I reddit after I had posted my initial question. Heh, I had even reddit when it was first posted and had forgotten about it lol.

I still don't understand why it was supposedly so difficult to see this internal bow armor? I never even tried to look from inside the ship?

It was kinda working, they could just have left it in as this at least showed it half correctly instead of the now 100% incorrect way.

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, NothingButTheRain said:

I still don't understand why it was supposedly so difficult to see this internal bow armor? I never even tried to look from inside the ship?

It was kinda working, they could just have left it in as this at least showed it half correctly instead of the now 100% incorrect way.

I agree with that. Had no problem looking at the armor scheme and WG was told that it was no problem.

What is more interesting that we have LOADS of ships in the game with hidden armor layouts.

 

The daily bounce has a series about that:

https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/the-hidden-armor-plates-of-world-of-warships-american-warships/

 

But they did not make it clear how they got the information.

 

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

The problem I have with that allegedly OP 'rare' premium is the completely crappy dispersion.

It rivals my König Albert for wide scattering of shells.

Editr: I'm dead cereal. Used to have AA guns mod 1on this ship. The main guns were still plenty accurate and destructive. Now - even with aiming systems mod 1, they mostly don't hit squat, and what's worse, fitting the module didn't seem to change anything at all, same as with Missouri.

[IanH755]

4 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

  Quote

Sub_Octavian:

 

...it was a really complicated scheme: you had to turn the mid section off and look inside the bow from the aft. This piece caused a few visual glitches, and, because we do not usually show internal parts armor in Port, and because it was so difficult to see it, its' display was turned off. But the piece is in place, and everything works just as it used to work before the change. 

 

Not to cast aspersions, but do we know if this "it's still there but not shown" info has been actually confirmed with an external 3D model viewer, because I just don't trust WG enough to take what they say as "truth" without some verification anymore?

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, IanH755 said:

 

Not to cast aspersions, but do we know if this "it's still there but not shown" info has been actually confirmed with an external 3D model viewer, because I just don't trust WG enough to take what they say as "truth" without some verification anymore?

WG was told that too.

 

At least my GC does not get frontal citadels from close range.

[IanH755]

Got a PM from wilkatis_LV,

 

This is the work he carried out within the Training Room to prove that the GC bow 85mm plating IS still there -

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

"I did a TR test, the 85mm is still there.

 

 

Shot an overmatching (in this case - Yamatos) shell at the lower (waterline-ish) bow, got overpens exactly like I should with it in place.

 

So it's simply not displayed there anymore, which I still find to be a very stupid thing to do. More info is better, we don't need hidden armour zones. If it's in a place where there's no way you could see it (like inside a closed box of other armour) - fine, but not armour plate that's visible like this one is / was.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[ZWC]

Well in EVERY game developers have to deal with both sides of the game...
At one side the players, ..
At the other side the business plan.
Balancing items ain't an easy job. !
The business plan will ask for a good cash-flow, the players want their purchases to stay valuable. (not changed for the worse)
So there are updates filled with info about all changes... bug fixes etc.    that are good for players.
And there are ninja nerfs for keeping the business plan healthy.

This is how the world turns. 
IN THIS GAME as in other games.

Business plans are seldom in the open and mostly on a "ready to denial" base.
You don't need rocket science to understand that fact.
That isn't a bad thing... it's just how it is.
Developers are a bit stuck in between in game land.... 
As gamers they would like to keep it open and fair... but as employees they have to obey the needs of income.

even if somebody has more forum posts as games played.... ninja nerfs are here as well.
You have facts and feelings,... both are to be valued, 
 

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, ZWC said:

...
This is how the world turns. 
IN THIS GAME as in other games.
...

You can claim anything without proof. That does not make it right.

[ZWC]

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

You can claim anything without proof. That does not make it right.

They surly find you behind a tree.
Common sense, does this mean anything to you... does it ring a bell?
You cannot find proof for most important issues in the world.... that's the whole point in secrets.... 
Well build plots are plots because you can't proof them.

Proof is really only good for people that don't dare think of their own. if it's based on out of the box.
Proof sometimes is a pitfall. 
Knowledge and situational awareness will safe you more in life than "proof" will ,  (guess you are left clueless here....)
We need proof if it is adding something real important .
as in medicine.
if it works and does not have too many side effects.

But wanting proof in case of some blurry scam... hahaha ! keep on dreaming.

So you are a "lets proof it" guy.
So I tell you; "if you jump off that cliff, you'll die!".
You don't believe me on my impression on the matter..... no , you want proof!
So you jump off of that cliff.............
There you have your proof.
Sadly, you are death at that time.

This is all I'm going to write to you, for it seems to me, you'll not getting the point anyway. 
And seen you counter of posts,...... you love to reply constantly... and endless .

ZWC

[ColonelPete]

7 hours ago, ZWC said:

So I tell you; "if you jump off that cliff, you'll die!".
You don't believe me on my impression on the matter..... no , you want proof!
 

You can read up on the matter, since other people already did that.

There is even photo and video documentation of the aftermath.

Basic understanding of physics also helps...

 

It is ok to play make-belief, but one should know the difference to reality. Most people learn that at a young age.

If you are the one who believes in every facebook story, that is your problem. But do not complain about the consequences ("looks at modern politics").

[rnat]

13 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

You can claim anything without evidence. That does not make it right. 

FIFY

 

12 hours ago, ZWC said:

But wanting proof in case of some blurry scam... hahaha ! keep on dreaming.

Note how you're switching the burden of proof here. You call it a scam (without evidence) and demand for him to prove you wrong.

That is not how logic works.

[ZWC]

6 hours ago, rnat said:

You call it a scam (without evidence)

Yep, my bad.
I meant something totally different.
As I was just writing it in the mindset (flow) of the rest of my comment. 

That was about how evidence and proof, are always nicely d-toured in case there is something meant to be, not for the open.
So no scam or fishy thing. ...My wrong choice of word here.

As , just in case there are ninja nerfs,...
These ninja nerfs are meant to stay secret upfront.... (follow me?).
Therefor are very hard to proof,... getting evidence of, if something is deliberately kept out of the news.

So instead of turning all of my comment around one mistakenly picked word. (I'm not English)
Why not understand the bigger point of view and recognize that just that one word must have been misplaced somehow. 

It is not that hard to see what my point was.

Thanks for pointing out my bad choice of word in this line, "scam" was implying something I was not pointing at.
Although , if you re-read my other comments... I'm sure you'll get why evidence and proof will be denied in case of ninja nerfs.

BTW. I was not the one demanding PROOF...
And I was not the one stating in this game they never find a way around "doubtful" issues.... 

So FIFY
"But wanting proof in case of some issue meant to stay hidden... hahaha ! keep on dreaming."
 

PS. just for the record,.
I didn't call it a scam.... ,
I wrote; wanting proof in case of some blurry scam..
sorry you couldn't read it the right way.
logic after all.