Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[HaachamaShipping]

Quote

It also includes a sheet detailing a hypothetical move to 1/5th pen values, based on information on the Bayard having 1/5th pen.

I would consider this bit highly relevant, because let's be honest, if IFHE gets reworked, not even WG would be dumb enough to stay at 1/6, where it's a flat out nerf, At 1/5, you can actually start talking about "options".

[fumtu]

1 hour ago, B0Tato said:

152 / 6 * 1,25 = 31,6¯

Which is rounded to 32 and means 32 mm penetration, according to the source.

 

27 minutes ago, B0Tato said:

Now:

32 means 31 mm of penetration

Then:

32 means 32 mm of penetration

 

So probably 31,6¯ also means 32 mm of penetration.

 

31.something will mean you pen 31mm. Under new system there won't be rounding. Good thing is that 152mm will be able to pen 25mm by default, bad thing is that with 31.6mm pen with 25% IFHE you can pen 31mm but not 32mm.

[Panocek]

10 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

I would consider this bit highly relevant, because let's be honest, if IFHE gets reworked, not even WG would be dumb enough to stay at 1/6, where it's a flat out nerf, At 1/5, you can actually start talking about "options".

You're forgetting about one thing about WG and sound, logical decisions:

 

Besides, CL guns and 1/5 HE pen already defeats "CL won't touch CA by default" idea. Unless DD/CL will stay at 1/6, CA at 1/5 and BB at 1/4 because reasons

 

Although I like idea of 

1 hour ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

203/5x1.25=50.75 

while IFHEnri would remain as Yamato/Russian counter due to 240/5*1.25=60. Large cruisers would get 61mm HE pen without need of the skill Stalin bias

[HaachamaShipping]

36 minutes ago, Panocek said:

You're forgetting about one thing about WG and sound, logical decisions:

 

Besides, CL guns and 1/5 HE pen already defeats "CL won't touch CA by default" idea. Unless DD/CL will stay at 1/6, CA at 1/5 and BB at 1/4 because reasons

I mean, either way, it seems silly. The current cruiser meta is balanced around IFHE. Flat nerf to IFHE nerfs a good amount of ships that weren't overperforming. armour changes don't offset that, the armour change offsets itself by letting CAs overmatch CLs. Not to mention, this is a massive BB buff, like pretty much every change. Just wait till we see Conkek get this CL pen nerf ontop of the buffs currently in the testing.

44 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Although I like idea of 

while IFHEnri would remain as Yamato/Russian counter due to 240/5*1.25=60. Large cruisers would get 61mm HE pen without need of the skill Stalin bias

Hindenburg, provided it retains 1/4 pen, would combine a similarly lowish dpm with actual fire chance. It might actually recover a place in the meta. Still as an HE slinging crap can opener, but still...

[Culiacan_Mexico]

1 hour ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

...not even WG would be dumb enough to...

 'O ye, of little faith'

[WeGreedy]

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

31.something will mean you pen 31mm.

How do you know this for sure?

[fumtu]

3 minutes ago, B0Tato said:

How do you know this for sure?

 

Quote

The leaked, potential rework proposal that was shared by u/notafakeaccounnt would see the IFHE buff changed to a boost of 25% to penetration at the cost of reducing fire chance by half. Simultaneous changes would also remove the rounding from the basic penetration calculation.

 

[WeGreedy]

26 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Simultaneous changes would also remove the rounding from the basic penetration calculation.

I'd say this statement is referring to the current "21.6¯ means 21 means 20 mm of penetration".

[fumtu]

27 minutes ago, B0Tato said:

I'd say this statement is referring to the current "21.6¯ means 21 means 20 mm of penetration".

 

From everything I saw on the other places, rounding to higher value is removed and that 152mm with IFHE can't pen 32mm of armour. I could be wrong but if that is a case than IFHE change would not affect CLs at all. And I doubt that is a case.

[WeGreedy]

2 minutes ago, fumtu said:

From everything I saw on the other places, rounding to higher value is removed. I could be wrong but if that is a case than IFHE change would not affect ships at all. And I doubt in that is a case.

It would at least change fire chance. But yeah, it's all just speculations right now. The only thing that is quite sure (at least for me) is that some change will come. But what and when... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[22cm]

9 minutes ago, B0Tato said:

The only thing that is quite sure (at least for me) is that some change will come. But what and when... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Considering the last changes have been idiotical... 

[WolfGewehr]

Currently the shatter threshold for IFHE shell is calculated as following:

 

Quote

round(shell diameter / X) * 1.3 , (with X being 4 or 6, but that's not important here)

So currently the rounding is done only once, during the "basic phase". Even now, the value which is acquired after IFHE multiplier is applied, is not rounded. (Thus 127 mm USN gun with IFHE penetrates 27 mm, as its shatter threshold is 27.3 mm with IFHE)

 

 

What I have seen from the leaks, mainly the Google Docs sheet, it seems they will remove rounding completely. IF this would be true, then 152 mm guns with IFHE couldn't penetrate 32 mm, as 31.7 mm of pen wouldn't be enough.

 

Anyways, it's just a leak as of now, so I personally won't speculate more.

[Stormhawk_V]

I'd really like to know what train of thought led to the proposed armor plating and IFHE changes.

 

"Hey, after the CV rework DDs are in such a formidable shape, let's royally screw a bunch of gunboats by taking away the majority of advantages given to them by IFHE."

[Gojuadorai]

if they really reowrk the pen  WHICH THEY SHOULD NOT 

then they should  make it dependant on caliber X mass  and not caliber alone....

[ColonelPete]

A rework would result in a rebalance of all ships.

 

It would be better to look at individual ships, that are seen as problematic, instead of such a drastic global change with unforeseen consequences.

[thiextar]

4 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

A rework would result in a rebalance of all ships.

 

It would be better to look at individual ships, that are seen as problematic, instead of such a drastic global change with unforeseen consequences.

Also, however you change it globally, there will always be armor thresholds that are more valuable than others, and if a ship passes enough of them with ifhe, its always gonna be a no brainer to get it.

 

A global change wont change the nature of ifhe "get or dont get", all it will achieve is to shuffle the deck, which will just make it annoying to memorise everything again.

[Panocek]

5 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Also, however you change it globally, there will always be armor thresholds that are more valuable than others, and if a ship passes enough of them with ifhe, its always gonna be a no brainer to get it.

 

A global change wont change the nature of ifhe "get or dont get", all it will achieve is to shuffle the deck, which will just make it annoying to memorise everything again.

What you don't see are all the doubloon sales to respec captains

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

What you don't see are all the doubloon sales to respec captains

If Wargaming make changes to game mechanics which are so fundamental that players need to rethink their captain skills to cater for a changed meta........then they have a moral obligation IMHO to offer free respecs for the affected captains.

[Panocek]

22 minutes ago, Admiral_H_Nelson said:

If Wargaming make changes to game mechanics which are so fundamental that players need to rethink their captain skills to cater for a changed meta........then they have a moral obligation IMHO to offer free respecs for the affected captains.

They did that with carriers. But considering change is about single skill regardless if it makes do or die entire sub line of ships

[HaachamaShipping]

9 hours ago, Panocek said:

They did that with carriers. But considering change is about single skill regardless if it makes do or die entire sub line of ships

They gave us a free respec when they changed the RPF skill for CVs. I'm at least going to trust them to give a respec for IFHE that is crucial to so many builds.

[Panocek]

3 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

They gave us a free respec when they changed the RPF skill for CVs. I'm at least going to trust them to give a respec for IFHE that is crucial to so many builds.

Umm, 2nd respec with 0.8.2 was announced well in advance, together with first respec "so players can adjust builds once meta settles"

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, Panocek said:

Umm, 2nd respec with 0.8.2 was announced well in advance, together with first respec "so players can adjust builds once meta settles"

 

Shouldnt we get another respecc when CB season is over anyway? assuming, you played CBs ofc.

Basicly you could even say, the respecc with 0.8.2 was more or less coming anyway, as CBs started at the same time...

[Aotearas]

1 hour ago, WolfGewehr said:

 

TLDR: Georgia is a coal ship

 

 

And just like that the little remaining interest I had in the ship evaporated completely. No way in hell I'd spent whatever inflated amount of coal WG thinks to charge for (given the N-DD Steel price jump I'm expecting the same thing to happen for coal ships!) on a gimmick paperboat like the Georgia which WG apparently doesn't have the slightest idea on how to balance to make up for the anemic 3x2 gun configuration ... especially so if there's other ships that are MUCH more interested to get for coal like the Yoshino and undubitably others to follow given the deluge of newly teased hightier premiums.

 

 

If the Georgia had been free XP I would've gotten it, simply because I have so much I can gleefully throw it around, but coal ... nope. Hard pass!

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, Aotearas said:

And just like that the little remaining interest I had in the ship evaporated completely. No way in hell I'd spent whatever inflated amount of coal WG thinks to charge for (given the N-DD Steel price jump I'm expecting the same thing to happen for coal ships!) on a gimmick paperboat like the Georgia which WG apparently doesn't have the slightest idea on how to balance to make up for the anemic 3x2 gun configuration ... especially so if there's other ships that are MUCH more interested to get for coal like the Yoshino and undubitably others to follow given the deluge of newly teased hightier premiums. 

 

Ontop of being yet ANOTHER T9 premium BB id like to add...

How many do we need anyway? Will get we a German T9 Premium BB for steel at some point? Clealy we need another one Might be nice to look at them tho

[Aragathor]

2 hours ago, Aotearas said:

 

 

And just like that the little remaining interest I had in the ship evaporated completely. No way in hell I'd spent whatever inflated amount of coal WG thinks to charge for (given the N-DD Steel price jump I'm expecting the same thing to happen for coal ships!) on a gimmick paperboat like the Georgia which WG apparently doesn't have the slightest idea on how to balance to make up for the anemic 3x2 gun configuration ... especially so if there's other ships that are MUCH more interested to get for coal like the Yoshino and undubitably others to follow given the deluge of newly teased hightier premiums.

 

 

If the Georgia had been free XP I would've gotten it, simply because I have so much I can gleefully throw it around, but coal ... nope. Hard pass!

I agree. This is getting out of hand. New steel and coal ships, while opportunities to earn both resources remain limited. Sure, some people will spend cash, but at least for me spending 60€ for a single pixel ships is a tall order.

I would have loved the Georgia as a fXP ship, it would have given me a reason to actively grind it. Instead it will be just a curiosity.