Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fire'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 74 results

  1. The golden rule of ships with a repair party is to never ever repair a single fire (unless you're about to die from that one fire). Personally, I never repair a single fire in battleships unless I know that I'm going to die otherwise (although at that point, it's probably only a matter of time until I die). However, I do notice that sometimes, I just get constantly lit on fire only once (so I don't repair), and it occasionally causes me to die in situations where I might have otherwise managed to come out on top. For instance, a single fire might cause me to ultimately lose a bow-on fight with another battleship due to the health difference the fire caused. Is there ever a time when I should, apart from immediate threat of sinking, repair a single fire?
  2. Hey all, I've been working my way through the American BBs and I'm currently on the New Mexico. In general, I love it-as long as I sit between 10-16NM from the enemy fleet, take advantage of the pretty solid turning abilities of the class, and avoid DDs like the plague, I do pretty well for myself, especially given my skill level (I'm definitely never going to be posting YouTube how-to guides, but I'm also usually not bottom of the barrel either). However, this all changes when I get caught out by enemy cruisers with high DPS and a strong inclination to lob HE all over the place. I do try to stay with at least a few other ships (preferably at least one cruiser, one other BB, and whatever DDs there are that haven't gotten lit TF up yet), but when either my help all goes down, I get abandoned by the (much faster) fleet, or I over-extend myself, what's the best way to fend off high-DPS cruisers trying to Tommy-Gun me with HE?
  3. HE Fires

    I know this has been said before but I'm gonna say it again anyways... Every HE round that hits your ship shouldn't set your ship on fire! It doesn't matter what ship I play as, cruiser or battleship, after putting out a fire, the very next salvo sets the ship on fire again. I've been playing this game for a couple of years now and its really frustrating to get blown up from fires as the result of getting constantly hit by HE rounds. If the mechanics of the HE shell isn't going to be changed, I would hope that WG would maybe either drop the chance of fire % down for HE rounds, decrease the time it takes to put out a fire without the repair function, lessen the amount of HP decreased per sec by fire or give us another way to combat the fires from HE rounds. Of course its not going to make me stop playing the game because of this but I really think that WG needs to do something about this.
  4. Sometimes I Have To Wonder...

    ...If the AI gets some sort of RNG bonus when it comes to things like lighting fires. While I'm running Ultimate Frontier for the scenarios-based mission, I engage in a firefight with an enemy Farragut in my Myokou. His first two salvos set three fires, so I repair. Seconds after damage control party ends, he sets another four fires. At that point, even the repair base couldn't repair fast enough, and I die having been thoroughly screwed by RNG. Meanwhile, I repeatedly get 8-HE-pen-salvos on a Wyoming and set a grand total of 1 fire. To me, it seems the Whisky destroyers are especially bad: just about every other salvo sets about two fires, and you're pretty much dead if two of them focus you down.
  5. Suggestion

    Everybody agrees BBs keep bluelining and not pushing. Now I don't think it's torpedoes that are the reason, because while a plot of players will legitimately straight-line and eat torpedo soup and then complain, many others understand the magical ways of WASD. The real problem in my book is fires. Because BBs are large, lack agility, and have poor concealment they become instant focus targets for fire. That's okay, fire's a mechanic like any other. BBs have 120 second cooldowns on their damage control. Cruisers have 90. Destroyers have 60. BBs have the longest cooldown. That's cool too. But the fire lasts 60 seconds for BBs, which is double the others. So you get more fires, they last longer, and you can't address them all. It's become a routine for me to go into battle, play the objective, get HE spammed into four fires or to pop a damage control for flooding, and then whaddyaknow, 4 more fires I can't do anything about. The only way to offset the severe vulnerability of fire damage is to blueline. Setting fires is easy. Super easy when specc'd. I'm not saying we need to set less, but that we need to more easily deal with fires.
  6. Never fire AP. the Izumo forces you to snipe and at long range its AP loses tons of effectiveness. Always fire HE.
  7. KGV - Burning Down the Enemy Team

    So I had this kind of a game tonight. I think KGV is a pretty damn well strong BB when used correctly. My team realized that I needed help as I pushed against 6 enemy ships on the west side of the map by the "A" cap. Pushed them back and burned them to the waterline as they ran from me. I wonder if this is a really annoying gimmick or actually historically accurate (for British BBs)?
  8. Is it true that if your ship is on fire or is flooding that you can stop your ship or come to a halt so that the fire and flooding damage will also be slowed? It only makes sense, and I would like a confirmation to this if this is a fact in the game.
  9. So, I got 200k+ again on a win finally! And it was a doozy! Other results in spoiler: So, I did 124k in fire, a double Witherer. Hehehehe. I really have to give credit to @RivertheRoyal for forcing out the damagecons of the enemy so I could light them on fire again. (She's gonna kill me for that, she was so mad I was getting all the fire damage.) Here is the replay: https://replayswows.com/replay/8187#stats In all seriousness, it was very satisfying to finally get a 200k+ game and win. It is the first time it has happened, and it will not be the last. Fair winds and following seas captains!
  10. What to you all think about using your fire extinguishing equipment to put out a fire on an Ally's ship? This would encourage team work.
  11. https://www.facebook.com/pg/wowsdevblog/posts/?ref=page_internal Fire time is down to 30 s on Supertest except for Graf Spee. Wonder if this is because of the backlash behind the Brit BBs. ONLY FOR DDs and CRUISERS
  12. After playing/grinding the new UK BB line for a couples of weeks, I have to say that the ships at mid tier (Orion and Iron Duke) seem to be very good. So good that I'm somewhat concerned that they might get rebalanced... Not that they have no flaws or are all around OP, but their ability to spit out consistent damage against a wide range of enemies and in a variety of situations seem to be unparalleled. The high explosive shells the British BBs have are in many ways superior than both the HE and AP shells BBs of other nations fire. In terms of damage done per hit, the British HE seems to be far more potent than any other nation's HE, they consistently roll high. Doing well over 10k hp in a single salvo is quite common. In terms of fires started, my Orion and Iron Duke can usually start an averaging 1 or 2 fires per salvo. So it's easy to keep an enemy burning non stop in a duel, and if multiple British BBs focus fire and work together, they can easily render the entire enemy team on fire or quickly annihilate any single enemy unit with multiple fires... In terms of module damage, the 13.5 inch HE shells on my Orion and Iron Duke can easily and permanently knock out modules such as AA guns and torpedo launchers. The propulsion and rudder of enemy DDs and CAs are very vulnerable to damage by my HE shells also. Before the British BBs came around, it wasn't all that common to see an enemy sailing in a circle and out of control or stopped dead in the water, but now it happens often. Apparently these HE shells are so good that I've been able to citadel light cruisers (Omaha, Konigsberg, Kuma, Phoenix...) with them, a couples of magazine detonations also resulted from these HE shells, and there were a couples of incidents in which enemy DDs were sunk when hit with a single salvo of HE shells. Overall it's been amazing, particularly considering my captain for the ships aren't all that good and they lack both the demolition expert skill and the IFHE skill. Traditionally, BBs rely on the high damage potential of AP penetrations, especially citadel penetrations to accumulate damage. But I think in practice, typical AP rounds ironically lack the versatility and consistency that British HE shells have. Angling and bow tanking can frustrate the damage potential of AP rounds and AP rounds seem to only exhibit their full potential when hitting a broadside enemy. When one is forced to shoot a lightly armored enemy like a DD or some CVs, AP usually overpen and do minimal damage... Ironically this situation can be remedied with not just British HE rounds' versatility, but it seems that the AP rounds on British battleships also perform better and more consistently than typical AP rounds in many situations. Due to their shorter/quicker fuses (and maybe lower penetration value?) they seem to result in more normal penetrations that would've been overpens otherwise. I've heard that British AP rounds said to not be able to produce as many citadel penetrations as the AP shells of other nations. But in practice this hasn't been the case for me. If anything alternating between shooting HE and AP salvos can lead to devastating results. In the 4th replay of my video. I soloed an enemy Konig (German tier 5) in my Iron Duke. I lost a quarter of my health in the end and the enemy ended up sunk, despite using his heals. In the end I did 60k worth of damage. I feel sorry for him cause my angling neutralized the damage potential of his AP rounds, while his HE rounds seem anemic in terms of both alpha strike and fire potential. At the same time my HE rounds ruined him despite his angling. It seems that the relative weaknesses of the British BBs (Orion and Iron Duke) include: their relatively poor AA, relatively vulnerability to torpedo hits, secondary guns that don't seem to do whole a lot, and slow main turret rotation speed. (you're in trouble if something with torpedos get in too close.) So have I just been getting lucky in my British BBs or they're actually really as good as I think they're? I'm actually about to reach the Queen Elizabeth at tier 6, I hope the line is as good as I hope it is. Feel free to respond to the poll, watch the video, subscribe, and share your thoughts.
  13. In this game the larger the HE shell the higher the chance for a fire, which is the current meta of the game. My idea is to have different types of fires, large (like we have now), medium, and small. It just makes sense that a small 5" shell would make a much smaller fire than a 16" shell. A small fire started by a 5" gun would do less burn damage over time, but if not put out by a damage control party it can grow into a larger fire. Lets say a small fire after burning for 20 seconds would turn into a medium fire, and then into a large fire after another 15 seconds. Medium caliber guns would start medium fires while large caliber guns found on battleships would start large fires. Of course multiple hits that start fires in the area where there is already a small or medium fire would advance the fire size and promote more burn damage. There should also be a much higher fire chance when hitting an area with HE currently on fire(maybe 20% on top of the shells base chance to start a fire) versus the current percentage of a normal HE hit that just starts a fire. For this to happed the graphics for ship fires would have to be modified to reflect the fire sizes of small, medium, and large so players would know where to aim their HE shells against a target. Of course this would be a slight nerf to ships with small guns like destroyers, and some cruisers, but would also nerf the battleship's secondary guns. The question is "Would this new fire mechanic prove to be balanced"? It will definitely change the way destroyers play as they will have to develop more skill to farm fire damage. It will also force battleship players to more wisely manage their damage control consumable. Discuss....
  14. First, I gave someone, I don't recall whom, grief over complaining about task 4 of the RN BB mission a couple of days ago. To that person, I apologize, because you were 100% correct. It's absurdly hard to pull it off, even in co-op. I've been trying all day, the best I've managed is the 30k, while finishing 4th, once by 1 measly point, twice. I've finished 3rd or higher a number of times, but without the required fire damage. All this with an abundance of BB's most of the time to fire at. The sheer number of players trying to do this task, abetted by RNG not letting me start the fires in the first place, is making the task all but undoable. More, teams are barely pulling off wins in co-op, because we're getting smashed by bots firing AP at us, while we're tasked with firing HE in return. I get it, the RN BB's have great HE. Wonderful. Smashing. I would respectfully suggest that this mission, like many, wasn't well thought out by WG, though I'm sure they'll inform us, as usual, that they considered it long and hard. In addition, today has proven to me that the constant BB main whining about fires is absurd. Fires simply aren't started as much as you seem to think they are. I had a group earlier, in KM and USN BB's with a 34% fire chance or higher, unable to keep a bot BB burning, in spite of its poor use of its DC. It's far harder to get fires going and stacked than you guys wanting pristine ships appear to think. RNG is a harsh taskmaster. Granted, that is one ship, in one battle, but it was 5 BB's doing the HE firing at it, and we couldn't keep it lit. Your fire arguments simply aren't valid, in my opinion. WG, a better way to do this mission would have been to separate the two things, get the damage, and THEN finish third or higher in a round. As it stands now, it's a no holds barred, every man for his or her self, "oh wait we have to cap something?!", "why is everyone sinking when the bots aren't?!"craziness that's causing the game to be exactly zero fun. When things are zero fun, we stop playing. WG, you appear to still not have learned this. The chat in my matches today has been fairly toxic, almost all of it aimed at the mission. That's not good, this level of frustration shouldn't be present. My two cents, I'm sure there will be disagreement. Tis the spice of life, and all that. Peace out folks.
  15. Hey everyone. I finished the Yamato grind a few weeks back. I have been playing Yamato every day, and some Enterprise from time to time. I have two primary questions. Forgive me for adding a new topic just for these two questions but I did feel like I would like some fresh Yamato brain food. So, Concealment. Is there an amount of time that concealment requires to be effective? I watched several Yamato recommendation youtube play videos and reviews and they all seem to recommend that I go for max concealment on the Yamato. Now. If I were to max out my concealment on the Yamato I am sure I would be a bit of a heavier asset to my team. However, to use the concealment modification instead of the acquisition and spotting modification I feel like I am losing my mid to long range buff. I designed my Yamato to be a mid to long range terror, mostly mid range I suppose between 8-15 KM since my shells nearly 1 volley kill everything at that range. Now with concealment captain skill I am losing my fire risk reduction (at least until I get quite a few more captains points). Fires do burn the Yamato down quite a bit, however I suppose the concealment is rather important for the Yamato in that with a high concealment the Yamato does not require the same amount of friendly team support. In urpeacekeeper's Yamato video/review he states the Yamato is best played with a sum of friendly support ships nearby. My other question about the Yamato is the rate of fire / traverse speed modification. So. The modification for increased turret traverse raises the loading time. Now as I have seen there is no other means of increasing the turret traverse. (I have the traverse captain skill). The loading time increases with the traverse speed increase. I have seen that the traverse speed, without the modification is so slow that I am infinitely crippled without the + turret traverse modification. So I must sacrifice my reloading time to increase the traverse. I find that with the +traverse speed modifications I am able to deal massive damage to enemy ship after enemy ship, even rotating targets with my rear turret. Without the +traverse modification I find that with the reload time being very short I can deal massive damage to one ship at a time, however much of the time that ship gets concealment buffed or "despotted" and I am left with nothing to fire at and a long wait time to endure to traverse and switch targets. So I believe that the Yamato, to be effective mid to long range, must have an average 25 second reload time and a fully buffed turret traverse in order to require the least amount of friendly ship support and be a more stand alone BB. Any other idea's/suggestions?
  16. World of Warships on Fire Isnt it nice to here how DDS and CAs brag how they can set u on fire with one shot and even 1 shell Why not make the following changes.. A single shell cannot initiate a fire. 3 or more shells from the same salvo hit will initiate a fire. The more shells that hit from the same salvo the more likelihood of a fire. Its absolutely annoying to put a fire out and then watch a single blind shell hit your deck and start a fire. Fire duration is way to long. Reduce fire duration to 30 seconds. In place of the usual 45 second fire add reduce gunnery accuracy for those 30 seconds since the smoke could obstruct the view from the range finder and please don't give any [edited] about regaining all your HP from a fire..that is simply NOT true! Finally we need incoming shell sound effects
  17. Operations are interesting to say the least. little better payout than CO-OP not as good as PVP wich is a nice balance IMO, the battles are fun with some interesting odds tossed in the mix number and tier of ships can create some oh crapmoments. I was however unaware that each round fired by the A.I. ships was simply a glob of ignited napalm. I have NEVER EVER EVER....EVER been set on fire MORE in my ENTIRE experience in WOWs from beta to now than during the first week i have played in Operations. The operations run in a binary mode. You are A) in smoke B) On fire I have broken it down to a simple formula if you find yourself out of smoke, Distance traveled/length of your ship = number of times you will be set on fire in a match, with one stipulation, The last round to hit you before you get behind cover or go into smoke has a 100% chance of setting you on fire for HE rounds and 25% if you get hit by an AP round. The amazing accuracy the AI have at Extreme ranges inst terrible until you realize that all it is goiing to take is 4 rounds from that Yubari that is Aceing you at 12.5km, 2 before the extinguisher that start the first 3 fires, and the 2 after that start two more fires, To take half your tier 6 cruisers health not to mention his six buddies. currently the only saving grace is that they can only start 3 to 4 fires at a time.
  18. I wanna get serious with yall for a second * takes off sunglasses* Why am I no longer able to remove these stupid arp ships from my shipyard? 1. they are ugly. 2. they are taking up too much space 3. I cant sell them. 4. I dont want them. 5. they are eye cancer, 6. filtering them is still annoying, I WANT THEM GONE. why is it that you used to only be able to see them with the asian port, and now they are infesting all of our regular ports. Im fuming.
  19. I read something about Team Fire members getting an achievement and a special camouflage. Just curious, what do they look like? Any screenies? Thanks.
  20. Suggestion: Fire Control Party

    From time to time, people* make angry posts complaining about how strong fires are; that their metal floating city appears to be covered in petrol and burns to the waterline at the drop of the smallest match; it is totally implausible in the "real world" that such gnats of an enemy could seriously hurt, let alone regularly kill, such kings of the high seas. Chief amongst these complaints is that - unlike AP - there is nothing they can do (angling, etc) that can stop these fires from sprining up all over the hull. My personal view is that fires are an important balance mechanism in this arcade game. It is essential that cruisers (and cruiser-destroyers, like the Russian DD line) have a means of engaging such a common type of ship because, otherwise, no one would drive cruisers - which means destroyers would run amok and battleship drivers would cry about the sea full of torpedoes from enemies they cannot see. And battleships wouldnt have anything they could 1 shot and watch the large damage numbers roll up on their screens. So, everyone loses. Why? I am concerned that WG's stoicism in front of the complaints is not sustainable. To pre-empt WG going over the top by gimping fire chance, fire damage (or anything similar) in their typically heavy handed/over the top way, it might be beneficial to consider practical alternatives that might mitigate the complaints but retain the core mechanism. Thus, I propose: The Fire Control Party Just as the Damage Control Party magically puts out all fires and flooding immediately ("realism"), and prevents new ones from starting within a certain timeframe ("realism"), but is subject to a cooldown, I suggest a new mechanic to help mitigate fires. Throughout, I am suggesting numbers to start a discussion - obviously, I would only support numbers that were reasonably balanced by in-game testing. What happens if the fire brigade was just across the street before a house fire? Would the damage be so bad? In this naval context, imagine a fire surpression team that, if they were on site when a fire just starts, they have a chance to put the fire out before it takes hold. How this could be represented in game: All ships come with a Fire Control Party. Divide the ship up into four separate sections, each matching the same places the fires can start (bow, forward superstructure, aft superstructure, quarterdeck). For those using the Tier 4 Captain Skill 'Fire Prevention', I propose that your ship would still be four sections, but the Fire Control Party would be considered located in both superstructure sections. If a Fire Control Party is present in the section where a fire has just started, a 20 per cent chance to extinguish the fire after 5 seconds. The player controls which section the Fire Control Party is present in (eg, pressing Shift+W to move them forward, and Shift+S to send them aft, similar to how engine throttle works). It takes time for the Fire Control Party to move from section to section (outlined in the table below). If a Fire Control Team is travelling, it is not in effect (ie, unlike the Duke of York's men, it is neither here nor there). Potential for a national flavour variable - certain nations have excellent/garbage Fire Control Parties with buffed/nerfed abilities. Travel Time - reflecting the idea that bigger (longer) ships take more time for people to run from bow to stern (and back). Class Time (s) Destroyer 2.5 Crusier 5.0 Battleship 7.5 Carrier 10.0 (Ie, given they are already in place, it would take 3x 2.5 = 7.5 seconds for a DD to go from bow to stern, or 3x 10 = 30 seconds for a CV). Pros and Cons Pro Pro: Deals with fire-crying without going over the top. It also has some logical basis. Pro: Importantly, provides some degree of player control to the chance of mitigating fire. This means that good players who can anticipate the likely place a fire will start can, in advance, redistribute their resources to help reduce the damage. Terribad players will continue to be terribad. Pro: Importantly, the player who started the fire will still do some damage (though only, eg, 5 seconds). This means fires still start, and fires on ultra-low HP ships will still be fatal. Pro: Fire damage could actually increase, if people wait 6 seconds to see if the fire goes out from this mechanic before they hit Damage Control Party. Pro: There is still strong incentives for survivability builds to reduce overall damage from fires (and flooding), thereby not junking people's existing builds. Pro: Potential for national flavour that can be a proxy for seamanship/experience/readiness (eg, high for Royal Navy, low for Soviet Navy). Con Con: It gives into the crying about fires. Perhaps WG was just going to ignore the pleas forever? Con: More complicated than doing nothing at all. Con: Crap players will continue to be crap and will continue to complain about fires. At least, now we'll be able to put some blame back onto the player in question. Con: Still RNG/chance based in a game with lots of RNG rolls. Praise be to RNGeesus. Others? I would be grateful for your views, particularly to improve the idea so that it isnt rubbish. Discuss. *Battleship drivers. Yes, I used the term loosely. To assist you in calling me, derisively, just a BB main complaining about fires, here is a link to my Warships Today page.
  21. I can be in my DD, have fires start regularly and easily survive the battle, But in my huge BB with all the health and all the men able and trained to put on fires, I easily sink from fires. And yes know and do all the things to fight fires in this game. Fire damage needs to be reduced in BB's!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have heard all the fanboy stuff about fires and the plague of ships, blah, blah. So I won't respond or read about all the same old support for fire in this game Fire damage is not currently accurate in this game
  22. We don't usually set things on fire, but...

    When we do, we want to burn ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. #TeamFire Unleash your fury!
  23. Want to show some support for your team in the Clash of the Elements? Here are some team signatures and avatar designs. Team Water Signature: Avatar - Water Border and Overlay: Team Fire Signature: Avatar - Fire Border and Overlay: If you're interested in a signature or having your avatar done up (or both), just comment below. I can also do custom usernames and team tags. Enjoy!
  24. For those still riding the fence, I'll just leave this here. Also, you don't want to invoke the wrath of Mesrith, the fearless leader of Kraken [-K-].
×