Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Bics93

Kronstadt and IFHE rework.

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FABER]
[FABER]
Players
617 posts
6,307 battles

So, according to new plating and IFHE mess... ehm... I mean... rework, heavy cruisers will now get a 27mm central box and these changes will improve, for example, Charles Martel or Ibuki, as they will get their 25mm plating improved to 27mm, but what about Kronstadt? 

It is a super-cruiser fully covered in 25mm, will he get upgraded to 27mm or will it follow some illogical WG exception? 

Has anyone some info about this aspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EUTF]
Players
329 posts
7,393 battles

"Logically" the 25mm will go to 27mm Central part as the table in news saying but cause its a super cruiser can get some love and changes to her armor and maybe other ships of that caliber also get something. But ofc we all know how deeply developers think sometimes their changes before implanted on us.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,147 posts
16,450 battles
6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Not yet.

But I prefer that the proposed changes do not get implemented.

Same, in my opinion those changes will cause more problems than they will solve.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FABER]
[FABER]
Players
617 posts
6,307 battles
8 minuti fa, ColonelPete ha scritto:

But I prefer that the proposed changes do not get implemented.

 

Mee too, as it will screw balance for many ships in my opinion: like 380mm armed BBs will have an hard time with 27mm plating being more common, at the same time, ships like Chapayev will suffer damage-wise, while Akizuki line will get the 32mm HE-pen gimmick nerfed.

 

Edit: and many more things, I just listed some changes that come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,968 posts
21,009 battles
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Not yet.

But I prefer that the proposed changes do not get implemented.

And i agree. 

 

These changes will screw US BBs and KM ships so hard, and i simply have no faith whatsoever in WG delievering something balanced at all. 

In my opinion, WG should stop frakking around with changes nobody asked for (except Maybe those incompetent poor BB Plebs) and put more Focus on balancing Things that are 'being monitored' for over a year now. 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,968 posts
21,009 battles
12 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

Yeah.

 

WGs balancing dept. is the equivalent of the son of the Major of a Village, a fullgrown Village idiot who just has to bang his head against the Detonator of a bomb on the town square, no matter how many bystanders tell him to not do it.  And as per usual, the Major will of Course tell everyone, who's left after the detonation, that it's fine and he will continue to 'monitor the situation'.  

 

Which, now that i think About it, Pretty accurately describes WGs Business Policy in every regard. 

  • Funny 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
460 posts
6,789 battles

It would be an indirect nerf if Kron wouldn't get the armor upgrade, and WG probably has to rework a lot of other premium cruisers anyway, so I have my fingers crossed that it will happen.

 

And dear devs, while you are at it: Look into her dispersion please. Now that German BBs got a buff, Kronshtadt probably has the most wonky guns in the game, together with Roma, which is a battleship. You can make them work, sure, I just don't see the reason for that decision in the first place.

 

If she has to keep the BB dispersion, at least give her the Russian BB model, where the guns get more accurate below 15 Km.

 

She would still be balanced, compared to Alaska and Azuma, in my opinion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
Players
1,260 posts
30,598 battles
10 minutes ago, Bics93 said:

 

Next patch probably, with only 1 round of PTS to test it, just like CV rework, WG will test massive gameplay changes on the live server.  

You sound surprised. Why?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
Players
394 posts
8,524 battles

At high tiers every BB with 380mm will get nerfed by this rework, including Bourgogne which already "suffered" from the low cal guns and which costs a fortune of steel.

I doubt WG will consider a fraction of steel compensation for this change for those who bought it.

As for Kronstad, I think it will get the 27mm, otherwise is just stupid.

I don't know why WG insists with this IFHE rework instead of simply nerf the IFHE fire chance skill by 50% to 75%, just my idea...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,968 posts
21,009 battles

TBH, i'm not sure if WG should balance premium ships immediately. 

Cause if this rework Fails and someone at WG has sense enough (not likely, but hey, miracles happen) and reverts to the old System or a different 'new' System, WG will have to nerf the premiums, which WG usually does not. 

Because everyone would ask for refunds.

 

This is, of Course, highly unlikely, seeing how WG is pushing their dumbest ideas (like the afore mentioned Village idiot) regardless of what people think and how much flak they get for it.

Best example is of Course the NTC, which was cancelled, reworked and re-introduced in bite sized chuncks, as it makes it easier for People to swallow. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
460 posts
6,789 battles
5 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

TBH, i'm not sure if WG should balance premium ships immediately. 

Cause if this rework Fails and someone at WG has sense enough (not likely, but hey, miracles happen) and reverts to the old System or a different 'new' System, WG will have to nerf the premiums, which WG usually does not. 

Because everyone would ask for refunds.

Very good point. I didn't even think of that, but it makes perfect sense.

 

At first I was: "Yeah, but it will just be a rollback to the previous stats, so players should manage." - But I totally forgot about the people who will buy those ships after the rework hits. That's definitly an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P7S]
Players
309 posts

Slightly off-topic: how will be the halving (50%) of fire chance calculated (rounded) for odd numbers? For example, if it is now 5%. After patch it will be:

1. 5/2 = 3%

2. 5/2 = 2%

3. 5/2 = 2.5% (and used by the game engine as 2.5%, but displayed in the client as either 2% or 3%)

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
460 posts
6,789 battles
10 minutes ago, Vbeest said:

Slightly off-topic: how will be the halved (50%) of fire chance calculated (rounded) for odd numbers? For example, if it is now 5%. After patch it will be:

1. 5/2 = 3%

2. 5/2 = 2%

3. 5/2 = 2.5% (and displayed in the client as either 2% or 3%)

 

?

Turning that integer variable into a float will probably cause issues for months to come (hehe), but it's really the only way, if you ask me.

 

Explanations along the lines of: "Yeah well, you just see 2 % in the client, but it's actually 2.5 %", are pretty hard to bring across in one or two lines of tooltip-text, so I think showing the precise value is the best solution here.

 

I know, we have a similar issue with the various ranges in game, but 0.5 % fire chance more or less has a lot more impact than ... I don't know - 0.075 Kilometers of spotting distance, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P7S]
Players
309 posts
2 minutes ago, genosse said:

Turning that integer variable to a float will probably cause issues for months to come (hehe), but it's really the only way, if you ask me.

 

Explainations along the lines of: "Yeah well, you just see 2 % in the client, but it's actually 2.5 %", are pretty hard to bring across in one or two lines of tooltip-text, so I think showing the precise value is the best solution here.

 

I know, we have a similar issue with the various ranges in game, but 0.5 % firechance more or less have a lot more impact than ... I don't know - 0.275 Kilometers of spotting distance.

 

True, we already have flags that add non-integer values to the fire-chance (e.g. Victor Lima +0.5% fc), so it is already calculated without rounding (I guess...).

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CRM5]
Beta Tester
218 posts
13,682 battles

As it exists already a flag that gives 0.5% fire chance, they will probably just halve odds numbers normally and display it as the closer integer. So n°3 in your example (displayed as 3%)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
460 posts
6,789 battles

I forgot about that flag (a bit thick in the head today, it seems). Now that I think about it, I wonder why I never asked myself how this is handled right nowI'm usually pretty interested little things like that.

 

Thanks for the reminder, guys! :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
8,750 posts
44,622 battles
1 hour ago, VanD4rk said:

don't know why WG insists with this IFHE rework instead of simply nerf the IFHE fire chance skill by 50% to 75%, just my idea...

Yup this would solve the problem. Now they create even bigger one that can't be balanced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
8,750 posts
44,622 battles
1 hour ago, Bics93 said:

 

Next patch probably, with only 1 round of PTS to test it, just like CV rework, WG will test massive gameplay changes on the live server.  

The bright side is they didn't do that with subs. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,968 posts
21,009 battles
1 minute ago, MacArthur92 said:

The bright side is they didn't do that with subs. 

Yet. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

×