Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
gopher31

Should IFHE have a higher fire chance penalty?

Should IFHE have a higher fire chance penalty?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Should IFHE have a 50% fire chance penalty?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      28

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SHAD]
Players
939 posts

In the proposed IFHE and plating changes Wargaming floated the idea of halving fire chance of ships using IFHE.

I think this would be a positive change.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,732 posts
14,613 battles

Maybe. Not sure if IFHE is that great as a concept. If they only do a minor change to it, maybe they could do a slight graphic change to the IFHE rounds too, just to give notice to the receiving ship it's getting spammed by IFHE and not regular HE.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,870 posts
9,499 battles

As long HE will have binary operation, IFHE will remain as go-to skill, as long as it will help pushing towards important tresholds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
164 posts
4,339 battles
1 hour ago, gopher31 said:

In the proposed IFHE and plating changes Wargaming floated the idea of halving fire chance of ships using IFHE.

I think this would be a positive change.

Only if they increase the Penetration values of RN dd’s To compensate, some need IHFE to pen even DD armour.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,838 posts
7,611 battles

Can only repeat what ive always been saying:

Best solution is, to remove IFHE completely and give every ship appropriate penetration, while balancing HE damage and firechance.

Obviously WG doesnt like it, so the only way to balance IFHE is, to nerf the DAMAGE (and probably a small firechance nerf). If you deal less damage overall, you might not need to skill IFHE, because you have to choose: More damage to DDs/lightly armored ships/BB superstructure, or penetrate certain BB plating with less damage to everything.

And its not like, we get more and more BB plating which can withstand small caliber Cruiser IFHE (german and russian BBs, midsection of hightier US/IJN BBs...) which basicly leaves us with most T6-7 BBs and French/UK BBs being vulnerable to IFHE and which is more important: certain CA plating, especially on TX.

 

But seeing how this game gets more upside-down with every ship they release, i dont think there is any hope, that they will get it right.

DDs outgunning CLs, CLs murdering CAs...

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
3,391 posts
18,837 battles

IMO yes an IFHE shell should essentially behave like a SAP shell (or what WG devs explained sap should be) hence to not be rude I would say - have IFHE increase HE pen 50% but cap the FC at 1% in return, this way you get to choose either splash/fire or pen damage but without fires

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
603 posts
7,558 battles

No, IFHE is fine as it is! Have you forgotten that you pay 4 commander points for this skill and it enables some cruisers especially the lower tier ones not to become damage pinatas?

Go play world of tanks and see how well your t6 tank will do against t8s or t8s vs t10s! Stop whining about IFHE!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
939 posts

I haven't seen any 'whining' yet.

 

I do not like 'must have' skills, in light cruisers that is exactly what IFHE is. I would like to see variety in builds.

 

My proposition is that people can make a choice between being a fire starter or  damage dealer with advantages and disadvantages to each build.

 

The skill could easily be moved to tier 3 as it's downsides become more pronounced and players will choose between that and demolition expert for their first 3 point skill. 

 

So could see a Cleveland that can deal lots of direct damage but has a 6% fire chance or one who damages only superstructure but has a 14% fire chance.

 

I expect most would still choose IFHE even if it is changed in this way.

 

It would also help give heavy cruisers their place back.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,732 posts
14,613 battles
27 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Can only repeat what ive always been saying:

Best solution is, to remove IFHE completely and give every ship appropriate penetration, while balancing HE damage and firechance.

Obviously WG doesnt like it, so the only way to balance IFHE is, to nerf the DAMAGE (and probably a small firechance nerf). If you deal less damage overall, you might not need to skill IFHE, because you have to choose: More damage to DDs/lightly armored ships/BB superstructure, or penetrate certain BB plating with less damage to everything.

And its not like, we get more and more BB plating which can withstand small caliber Cruiser IFHE (german and russian BBs, midsection of hightier US/IJN BBs...) which basicly leaves us with most T6-7 BBs and French/UK BBs being vulnerable to IFHE and which is more important: certain CA plating, especially on TX.

 

But seeing how this game gets more upside-down with every ship they release, i dont think there is any hope, that they will get it right.

DDs outgunning CLs, CLs murdering CAs...

Not sure about the proposed change but I agree that IFHE shells shouldn't have been introduced. It could've worked, but it's getting clearer and clearer that WG should take a few steps back and try simplify it, for balancing purposes. This goes for plenty of mechanics. The game is starting to become an unwieldy mess. I suppose that if there some sort of manipulation in MM or RNG implemented or planned, it would be easier to hide it in a very complex system compared to a simple one.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,838 posts
7,611 battles
10 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

WG should take a few steps back and try simplify it, for balancing purposes. This goes for plenty of mechanics. The game is starting to become an unwieldy mess.

 

Yes, this, so much this.

But i guess WGs business model is constant powercreep to get people grinding new lines. Ofc the issue is, this might spin out of control at some point, because it gets weirder with every new ship line.

Like, what French "CLs" (aka DDs) can do to Cruisers is just bulls*** Speedboating with >50kts and reloadboosting everything to death. They have no issue citadelling Cruisers, which is kinda rediculous. If they actively dodge at 10km, you cant really hit them.

Kleber needs to get BB AP pens, like Harugumo and Khaba for balancing purposes.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,639 posts
3,186 battles
43 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Can only repeat what ive always been saying:

Best solution is, to remove IFHE completely and give every ship appropriate penetration, while balancing HE damage and firechance.

Obviously WG doesnt like it, so the only way to balance IFHE is, to nerf the DAMAGE (and probably a small firechance nerf). If you deal less damage overall, you might not need to skill IFHE, because you have to choose: More damage to DDs/lightly armored ships/BB superstructure, or penetrate certain BB plating with less damage to everything.

And its not like, we get more and more BB plating which can withstand small caliber Cruiser IFHE (german and russian BBs, midsection of hightier US/IJN BBs...) which basicly leaves us with most T6-7 BBs and French/UK BBs being vulnerable to IFHE and which is more important: certain CA plating, especially on TX.

 

But seeing how this game gets more upside-down with every ship they release, i dont think there is any hope, that they will get it right.

DDs outgunning CLs, CLs murdering CAs...

^THIS^

But you are asking WG to re-balance everything. Plus all those Premium and Freemium ships that rely on IFHE  in the eyes of their owners will be nerfed. It's like when WG reworked smoke and had to offer all Belfast owners a refund. They would have to do the same for a lot more boats. They simply can't afford to do that, or piss off the player's that love their HE spammers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,639 posts
3,186 battles
6 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Yes, this, so much this.

But i guess WGs business model is constant powercreep to get people grinding new lines. Ofc the issue is, this might spin out of control at some point, because it gets weirder with every new ship line.

Like, what French "CLs" (aka DDs) can do to Cruisers is just bulls*** Speedboating with >50kts and reloadboosting everything to death. They have no issue citadelling Cruisers, which is kinda rediculous. If they actively dodge at 10km, you cant really hit them.

Kleber needs to get BB AP pens, like Harugumo and Khaba for balancing purposes.

I don't mind the powercreep if WG were actually to follow up behind and give some love to the older lines which fall out of fashion to redress the balance, That might actually help keep things a bit more balanced and help the game meta to settle into something a bit more consistent.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
3,391 posts
18,837 battles
20 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Not sure about the proposed change but I agree that IFHE shells shouldn't have been introduced. It could've worked, but it's getting clearer and clearer that WG should take a few steps back and try simplify it, for balancing purposes. This goes for plenty of mechanics. The game is starting to become an unwieldy mess. I suppose that if there some sort of manipulation in MM or RNG implemented or planned, it would be easier to hide it in a very complex system compared to a simple one.

YES THIS

IE:

HE shell - 1/5 pen and base FC = roughly caliber in inches (ie 100 mm pens 20mm and has 4% FC)

IFHE shell - 1/3 pen and base FC cap at 1% (ie 100 mm pens 32 mm)
HE shell with DE - 1/5 pen and double the FC in inches (100 mm pens 20 mm has 8% FC) BUT cuts the HE pen damage in half of the one it has normally

AP can stay as it is...

SAP is basically still in developement anyway...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
603 posts
7,558 battles
55 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

I haven't seen any 'whining' yet.

 

I do not like 'must have' skills, in light cruisers that is exactly what IFHE is. I would like to see variety in builds.

 

My proposition is that people can make a choice between being a fire starter or  damage dealer with advantages and disadvantages to each build.

 

The skill could easily be moved to tier 3 as it's downsides become more pronounced and players will choose between that and demolition expert for their first 3 point skill. 

 

So could see a Cleveland that can deal lots of direct damage but has a 6% fire chance or one who damages only superstructure but has a 14% fire chance.

 

I expect most would still choose IFHE even if it is changed in this way.

 

It would also help give heavy cruisers their place back.

Then we should remove Concealment Expert as well because that is a must have in about 90% of the ships in the game !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Beta Tester
1,483 posts
8,857 battles

ifhe is a 4 point skill so its not something you take that's cheap

if its massively changed then most wont bother taking it as its better to keep the high fire chance and just burn the enemy down and then you get another captain skill in the tree that's useless most of the time and lets remember its only good for low calibre guns anyway which by high tier has removed most of the ships from needing it

 

maybe it shouldn't have been added from the start and maybe stealth fire shouldn't have been removed or the cv change happening but we cant change any of that and we have to live with what we have got in game and punishing light gun cruisers and dds from taking a captain skill that allows them to become more effective seems harsh when you have bbs deleting cruisers and dds with 1 salvo

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,838 posts
7,611 battles
17 minutes ago, Animalul2012 said:

Then we should remove Concealment Expert as well because that is a must have in about 90% of the ships in the game !


Captain skills could need a rework anyway, because its pretty dumb right now:

Majority of BBs can just go with tankbuild which dont need any variation. A few BBs can take Secondary build, which again, leaves no room for options.

CLs need tons of skills, and they could easily use double the amount of points.

CAs on the other hand dont need anything really, and they could be played with 10 (Hindenburg would even need less, as every 3pt skill is not necessary).

BCs are a bit like BBs, because they profit from tanking builds.

DDs it really depend on the line, like hightier US DDs, but others not so much i guess.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
3,391 posts
18,837 battles

The point is - you dont really have a noticable tradeoffs with the captain skills and same goes for many of the modules they are bacically all pure buffs (and in past many skills had to be changed becouse if that) its a bad design and ripe for a rework IMHO, also we need skills that change stats on ALL ships not only on some and also have trade offs so you pay for taking them...

 

For instance:

Super Intendant - +2 consumables but cooldown increases 50%

Survivability expert - increase HP 20% but reduce max ship speed 20%

Preventivr maintenance - reduce chance of module damage to 1/3 but slow down turret rotation and rudder crap

Etc

 

Then there would be no "no brainer" skill builds like today

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PONYS]
Players
4,346 posts
16,248 battles
Vor 4 Stunden, gopher31 sagte:

In the proposed IFHE and plating changes Wargaming floated the idea of halving fire chance of ships using IFHE.

I think this would be a positive change.

No, it shouldn't.

I guess, that should be the trade when using IFHE. You have to decide between firechance or penetration. Having both would have been too much.

Some ships could use an even worse firechance after using IFHE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,838 posts
7,611 battles
2 hours ago, Yedwy said:

The point is - you dont really have a noticable tradeoffs with the captain skills and same goes for many of the modules they are bacically all pure buffs (and in past many skills had to be changed becouse if that) its a bad design and ripe for a rework IMHO, also we need skills that change stats on ALL ships not only on some and also have trade offs so you pay for taking them... 

 

I think that would be horrendously bad.

You can see that with MBM2 in 3rd slot. Its literally useless, because you get a nerf to reload. What does that mean for ASM1? Its almost always superior because of the dispersion buff. Even ships, that dont need better dispersion (Cruisers) are better off with ASM1, even if they would benefit from faster turret traverse, like IJN CAs. But IJN CAs also suffer from slow reload, so an addtional +5% on reload is just too much, since you just dont constantly turn your turrets anyway.

One could argue, if you would only gain faster turret traverse, it would be too good for BBs, but i dont agree with that either, because BBs profit the most from the dispersion buff. So even if people would take faster turret traverse, the tradeoff will be worse dispersion, which is ok.

Modules/Captain skills dont need much tradeoffs, the tradeoff is picking one skill over another, especially if both give reasonably good buffs.

Currently, we have either superior Modules/captain skills, or must-have picks like IFHE/CE. 5th slot modules are basicly the worst of all: BBs cant take Rudder mod, for whatever reason. So picking Concealment is the only logical option, because TASM is utter garbage. So, rudder mod is basicly for Cruisers only, but majority of them is still better off with Concealment (imo). It shows you, how upside down the view from WG is: BBs should pick Concealment, because they lack options, but Cruisers should pick Rudder mod. Which means, BBs would outspot Cruisers all the time, like its not worse enough if both having Concealment build.

And 6th slot torpedo mod is just a slap in the face for DDs, nothing more to say to thats. Its rediculous.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
3,391 posts
18,837 battles

Yes some of the modules are poorly executed but in general from a gameplay POW having a straight up buff is a poor design you get the resources (modules, high point captains) and you are straight up in advantage over a guy that doesnt have them EVERY SINGLE TIME and IN EVERY ASPECT if you have the same ship ofc, you didnt "bulid" your ship to a specific role/playstyle you straight up BUFFED it... The fact we basically have few "no brainer" module and skill builds for ship classes is a proof in itself... As you said why would not pick CE or who woud take TASM over CSM and for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,870 posts
9,499 battles

Given WG pedigree when it comes to ignoring "user feedback", any suggestions or discussions are about as effective as trying to torp airplanes:cap_tea:

 

But heck, as I have nothing to do I might actually write some stuff.

 

1) armor changes

reduce "nothing" part of armor layout down to 13/16mm on all ships, so it can be overmatched by most stuff and it would take HE damage from basically all sources.

2) damage saturation change

recalculate hp per bow/stern/hull/superstructure, so it would saturate MUCH faster and it would be impossible to sink ships by HE (or AP pens) alone. Fires, torps, citadel hits would be needed to finish off such mauled ship.

3) HE nerf - overall reduction to HE damage, but not sure by how much. 20-25%?

4) IFHE change

Here I have two ideas

-increase HE damage (to pre nerf values?) but lose -50% fire chance

-swap HE into SAP.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
6,838 posts
7,611 battles
29 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Yes some of the modules are poorly executed but in general from a gameplay POW having a straight up buff is a poor design you get the resources (modules, high point captains) and you are straight up in advantage over a guy that doesnt have them EVERY SINGLE TIME and IN EVERY ASPECT if you have the same ship ofc, you didnt "bulid" your ship to a specific role/playstyle you straight up BUFFED it... The fact we basically have few "no brainer" module and skill builds for ship classes is a proof in itself... As you said why would not pick CE or who woud take TASM over CSM and for what? 

 

Well, people not slotting Modules are a detriment to their team. Maybe it should be mandatory to use them, because i know some, who basicly dont use any of them, because of credit shortness. I think, it would benefit the game if people couldnt play ships in Random/Ranked without modules, as they would be FORCED to use their credits their instead of rushing to TX. But thats a different story ofc.

 

And i guess we want the same thing, i just think having more options is better than to have an option which is nerfing my ship somewhere else, or would be straightup bad, like the one example you gave:

3 hours ago, Yedwy said:

Super Intendant - +2 consumables but cooldown increases 50% 

That would make SI basicly useless, because you would run into situations, where you cant use all your consumables anymore. Especially something like Repair party with a prolonged Cooldown could leave you dead more often than you would benefit of 2 extra heals.

So you would shift the focus away from SI, and people would pick BFT or Vigilance instead, because it would be straightup better than SI. The Benefits must be, so all options are somewhat equally viable, and are down to the playstyle. Like, if BBs could use Rudder mod instead of Concealment, i think that could be a reasonable option. While they would be less vulnerable to torps, they would be more vulnerable to other BBs/Cruisers, as they cant go undetected as easily = depends how you like to play.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×