EU Questions & Answers

Szalona, on 08 June 2012 - 02:14 PM, said: Overlord - in your addition in your blog about E-75/E-50 transmission nerf you made logical mistake.
You call it small unimportant nerf and calculating it to be ~1,25% of chance of setting fire. But setting fire is not only issue here.
Using your math:
Assuming that transmission is about 25% of the vertical projection of E-50/75 (I bet this is overestimation), internal module has 33% chance of being damaged.
(0.25*0.33)*100%=8,25% of chance of damaging engine wihout setting the fire.
So now we have something like:
8,25% of damaging the transmission (engine) without setting fire - still - huge issue for tank on field being under enemy fire. big loss of movment ablility.
So by simplyfing it we have (very simplified math of below):
8,25% of chance for damaging engine + 1,25% chance of chance of setting fire = 9,5% of doing harm to engine from front. Maybe + is not really what we should have it, but it is probably ~9% chance).
This means: ~1 per 10 shoot penetrating from front shoot will do additional harm to tank other then hp loss! It is basically possible to have this done in every battle - maybe every second battle - be it fire or engine damage!
It is not 1,25% nerf - it is ~9-10% nerf!!!!! (at least, since most poeple aim lower plate)
It is not "minor" nerf. It is "major" nerf to a perfectly balanced tank and it seems you know it by now, just you are (I mean devs) too much focused on trying to proof your point of view that you cant see it.
(so basically your comment here http://overlord-wot....731667120860938 is incorrect).
Also question to this sentence in your blog-post:
So now you are trying to make up some more reasons. But - shouldn't it be ready list of reasons why you move the transmission? It looks like you first make decision, base on "feelings" and now you are trying find any excuse for that. And now as pointed above even your math is "biased" by your need of proving your point of view.