Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Fire_Spy

Anyone think Fire and flooding is.. a little too devastating?

82 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
120 posts
4,279 battles

Hi everyone, new here , nice to meet you all , I know that in the real world fire is a ships worst enemy. but I think in the context of a game, this game, it may be a little bit too much..  Right now I just use HE to absolutely rip through enemy ships.. set someone on fire.. and sit back and wait.. oh they repaired it.. hit em again. GG ..  same with flooding.  Using your repair is now a critical skill. use it at the wrong point.. GG. 

 

If you get hit and have to use it to repair steering or your engines and then you get hit and set on fire during the cooldown.. your toast.. I watched 30,000 HP melt away in the time it took for my repair ability to reset.. I had a couple of grand of health left when it did.. which was burnt away by the next hit.. 

 

Not saying they should get nerf the hell out of it, but right now , to me , it seems a very effective tactic.. HE your enemies and watch the world burn ;)

 

and what is up with people capping rather than fighting?

 

yeah i get it , you want the win.. but.. it isn't fun.. I don't care if my ship get s destroyed if I had a fun battle. but it seems more people are worried about win/loss ratio.. which is a shame

 

 

Edited by Fire_Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,083 posts
5,169 battles

 

yup, right now HE, fire damage and flooding are OP. my BB was hit by a torpedo with my damage control on cd and it manage to take away more than 50% of my hp.

 

HE are op specially if it uses by high ships with high rate of fire like Des moines, cleveland and mogami.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
120 posts
4,279 battles

yeah , that's been my experience as well, I copped a barrage from a cleveland and I couldn't escape at all. ended up a crispy critter.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
184 posts
2,083 battles

With the new upgrade HE became even more of a nightmare. HE even from very small guns causes fire with just a single shot sometimes. Couple this with commander skill of 5% extra chance to set on fire and use a cruiser with 10-15 guns and you just toast everyone.

HE chance of fire needs to a thorough check right now along with how much damage it does. You just need to keep spamming shells at enemies and accumulate damage. The skill is going from the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
120 posts
4,279 battles

at the moment it is..  just spam HE shells at your opponent and he'll burn up.. same with torps, cop a hit just after a repair and watch 30,000 HP disappear in a heart beat. and I also know th other side as a DD player as things stand right now.. you just want to get a torp hit after they have repaired..  I hope they can balance this stuff.. 

Edited by Fire_Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
184 posts
2,083 battles

At the moment while burning in your BB, you will have the CV's coming with 3 squadrons of torpedo bombers and then you're drowning while burning. So basically you're just trying to survive rather than being able to do damage. The armour change helps for AP shells but again WHY give HE such OP damage values. It should do minimal damage and let you use your skill to get AP shells on target, like aim for citadels.

 

Balance is required for HE, you should not be able to set a target on fire for a non-penetrating hit unless it was filled with napalm or ships are now hurling petrol bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

USN CV now suffer from the change of their Torpedo bomber with the increase of Torpedo spread and the usage of only 1 TB per flight (up to Lexington) so they more rely on their Dive Bomber to do Burn damage to enemy ship, not their direct damage because of how little the damage dealt to enemy deck, and the hit ratio which mostly only hit 0 to 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,007 posts
2,333 battles

Fire and sink is a slow painful death... and a little bit frustating :v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

It's fine as it is. I am guessing you get set on fire/Flood in a BB and used up your repair, I understand your frustration.

However, It is historical that they are devestating - Hell Flooding should even sink your ship after some while (Too much water in the ship). It's already quite forgiving.

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

It's fine as it is. I am guessing you get set on fire/Flood in a BB and used up your repair, I understand your frustration.

However, It is historical that they are devestating - Hell Flooding should even sink your ship after some while (Too much water in the ship). It's already quite forgiving.

 

Historical accuracy doesn't necessarily do the game good all the time though, balance is more important.

I suggest we change chance of fire to where it was last patch, but keep the increased HE damage from this patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
320 posts
29 battles

 

I suggest we change chance of fire to where it was last patch, but keep the increased HE damage from this patch.

 

Y U NO fix RNG ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
808 posts
1,399 battles

I don't use AP anymore because why?

 

I just lob HE at people and watch everybody BURN

 

because its so hilariously overpowered right now, especially with how bad the repair system is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,083 posts
5,169 battles

i still use ap against soft cruiser like ohama, kuma and the rest of IJN cruisers. but against BB with this new patch armor update  and the new mechanic where you can angle your ship to make ap bounce, HE became more effective specially if you have pyromaniac skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

Nerf the fire chance by shells, but keep the one by Bomber (you won't get burned every 3-30 seconds by bomber)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
808 posts
1,399 battles

I feel like such a bad person with the Pyromania skill, but then again i hope I am providing plenty of statistics being the biggest jerk in the game by lighting everybody on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
141 posts

Fire and flooding are both unbalanced right now because there's little you can do about it.

 

There's no strategy or tactics involved in setting fires or causing flooding.  Destroyers and carriers can play around with shelling someone with HE to make someone use up their damage control, then using their torpedoes to cause flooding - that kind of mechanic makes fires and flooding interesting.  For everyone else, they just do whatever they're doing normally and the fires keep starting.  It's just bonus damage.

 

Ideas to make it better:

 

Flooding - Traditionally, flooding is made worse by forcing seawater into the hole in your hull.  There's all kinds of stories in war about how a ship gets its hull breached and they end up having to go in reverse all the way home and similar hilarious-sounding stories which aren't so funny when its life or death.  Ideally, I'd love the game to keep track of where a hull breach is and show you on an overhead of your ship.  That's not a simple programming change for WG to make, so perhaps if you take a flooding hit, you can reduce the damage over time to nearly zero if you stop; the faster you're trying to go, the more damage you take; of course, stopping makes you a sitting duck to enemy fire; maneuver quickly and take more damage per second or slow down (and make yourself an easier target) take less.

 

Fires - When fires were raging out of control in a ship, often other ships would come to aid the stricken vessel to aid in damage control.  Particularly, if a ship had damage to its electrical system or water pumps, another ship could pull up alongside and act as a water main.  While in real-life this kind of stuff only happened once the battle was over, this might be an idea for the game.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect two (or more ships) to pull alongside each other and just stop mid-game; that'd be boring and on public servers it'd be next to impossible to coordinate anyway.  However, awarding some sort of bonus for having a friendly ship "close by" (close by probably being 2-3km; something that requires some effort and risk to do but isn't unreasonable) for a period of time would either subtract time until the fires are put out or would recharge your damage control ability faster.  This would not be 1:1.  Instead, if you're within range of a friendly ship for a full five seconds, then five seconds are subtracted from the fire burning duration (or until the DC recharges); if you only stay in range for 4 seconds, you don't get anything.  Likewise, if you stay in range for 10 seconds, then 10 seconds are removed (but if you move away after 9 seconds, you only get 5 seconds taken off).  Both players would see the timer.  Obviously weird (and even more unrealistic) situations would arise like two burning ships aiding each other, but this is a game not real life.  Aiding a ship like this would give you victory points.

Edited by nyankochan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[SMOKE]
Super Tester
274 posts

TBH, both should be removed from the game, and then the core gameplay focused on in terms of development first. Once the game can stand on its own without such special status effects, reintroduce them in ways that aren't able to kill a ship but does reduce its combat capability (in contrast to real-life, yes). Making repairs and doing damage control have some effect on capabilities too, while being more "available", not as a magic button with a cooldown. For example only, to illustrate my point, deal module damage only through fires and reduce maneuverability and speed if flooding. You could even make the effect more and more permanent the more you ignore it, to reflect uncontrolled fires or flooding, but these won't sink a ship by themselves (either would sink or permanently disable a ship in reality, but again for gameplay purposes). Damage control will require the ship to either become immobile or lose the use of primary armament for example. but would always be available. 

 

Something like that would give players a deeper decision to make than just pop repair and damage control when you think you won't get a new status again soon, while making sure status effects don't dominate core gameplay. Right now its two RNG-induced "poison" effects that have only one cure and are turning into core mechanics on their own with the devastating effect they have.

 

I should save my breath though. WG's only going to "listen" to their data, not that data in any way reflects the feelings or motivations of players directly without speculative analysis. They could just ask us, but the closest that's going to get are using surveys lacking context or only listening to community "yes-men".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,034 posts
1,520 battles

TBH, both should be removed from the game, and then the core gameplay focused on in terms of development first. Once the game can stand on its own without such special status effects, reintroduce them in ways that aren't able to kill a ship but does reduce its combat capability (in contrast to real-life, yes). Making repairs and doing damage control have some effect on capabilities too, while being more "available", not as a magic button with a cooldown. For example only, to illustrate my point, deal module damage only through fires and reduce maneuverability and speed if flooding. You could even make the effect more and more permanent the more you ignore it, to reflect uncontrolled fires or flooding, but these won't sink a ship by themselves (either would sink or permanently disable a ship in reality, but again for gameplay purposes). Damage control will require the ship to either become immobile or lose the use of primary armament for example. but would always be available. 

 

Something like that would give players a deeper decision to make than just pop repair and damage control when you think you won't get a new status again soon, while making sure status effects don't dominate core gameplay. Right now its two RNG-induced "poison" effects that have only one cure and are turning into core mechanics on their own with the devastating effect they have.

 

I should save my breath though. WG's only going to "listen" to their data, not that data in any way reflects the feelings or motivations of players directly without speculative analysis. They could just ask us, but the closest that's going to get are using surveys lacking context or only listening to community "yes-men".

 

The problem with this is, what would happen if a USN cruiser is stuck being the only one on his team against a BB on the enemy cap? He CANNOT kill the BB with status as well as cap, since the BB is camping on it, so what can he do? One lucky shot is all the BB needs to kill the cruiser while it isn't the other way round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[SMOKE]
Super Tester
274 posts

 

The problem with this is, what would happen if a USN cruiser is stuck being the only one on his team against a BB on the enemy cap? He CANNOT kill the BB with status as well as cap, since the BB is camping on it, so what can he do? One lucky shot is all the BB needs to kill the cruiser while it isn't the other way round.

 

This is actually part of my point. If the game as is is not playable without the status effects it highlights that its making up for deficiencies in the core gameplay. At the same time, even if a special feature is meant to deal with specific uncommon scenarios, such as a cruiser vs BB last men standing, what is the worth of it if that feature is most felt in all the common scenarios across the game? BBs versus BBs or BBs versus CAs or mixed versus mixed. It has an effect in all.

 

Its what happens when you feature stack then let those extra features go out of control. They dominate your core gameplay and the point of the original game is lost.

 

And here you have also used an example where it should be a forgone conclusion who should win. A cruiser without torpedoes should have no real means of taking on a BB alone. It goes against the historical basis of the game, but more importantly goes against the supposedly simple rock-paper-scissors relation in the game that the gameplay designers seem to have an inordinate amount of trouble keeping to.

Edited by DLRevan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,034 posts
1,520 battles

 

This is actually part of my point. If the game as is is not playable without the status effects it highlights that its making up for deficiencies in the core gameplay. At the same time, even if a special feature is meant to deal with specific uncommon scenarios, such as a cruiser vs BB last men standing, what is the worth of it if that feature is most felt in all the common scenarios across the game? BBs versus BBs or BBs versus CAs or mixed versus mixed. It has an effect in all.

 

Its what happens when you feature stack then let those extra features go out of control. They dominate your core gameplay and the point of the original game is lost.

 

And here you have also used an example where it should be a forgone conclusion who should win. A cruiser without torpedoes should have no real means of taking on a BB alone. It goes against the historical basis of the game, but more importantly goes against the supposedly simple rock-paper-scissors relation in the game that the gameplay designers seem to have an inordinate amount of trouble keeping to.

 

So you just want the cruiser to lose? The other objective is camped by the BB and the cruiser cannot get that. Yes, I know that a cruiser cannot beat a BB but in the sense of this game, not being able to will change the whole game for both players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

 

So you just want the cruiser to lose? The other objective is camped by the BB and the cruiser cannot get that. Yes, I know that a cruiser cannot beat a BB but in the sense of this game, not being able to will change the whole game for both players.

 

well basically it's like using T25/2 against IS, or T-34 vs Churchill from the front

Must use a lot of tactics to win the most impossible

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,034 posts
1,520 battles

 

well basically it's like using T25/2 against IS, or T-34 vs Churchill from the front

Must use a lot of tactics to win the most impossible

 

 

 

Not when the idea is to remove fire and flooding damage but instead reduce movement and things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[SMOKE]
Super Tester
274 posts

 

So you just want the cruiser to lose? The other objective is camped by the BB and the cruiser cannot get that. Yes, I know that a cruiser cannot beat a BB but in the sense of this game, not being able to will change the whole game for both players.

 

Yes? I do want the cruiser to lose. In the majority of cases. But that is besides the point.

 

The point here is if the developers want the cruiser to be able win, why is a RNG-heavy mechanic that is affecting all ships the solution for it? Why isn't there anything in the core mechanic - aiming well and shooting ships to deal raw damage or module damage - that facilitates that? Maybe you don't get what I mean. If I'm playing an FPS for example, if just shooting the enemy isn't fun, then you have a problem already. You don't add "special features" like homing bullets to make it fun...unless you're making a game called "Homing Blaster" and thats the whole point of it. Otherwise a homing gun should be a good alternative weapon that is either for fun, or useful in a small proportion of cases.

 

Now if you're telling me the point of WoWs is to be World of Flaming Ships, then you have me there. But I suspect that is not supposed to be an alternative name for the game.

Edited by DLRevan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×