Fire saturation needs to be a thing...

[Rekkoff]

 So there is damage saturation in the game, but they need to do something about being light on fire over and over again. Fire saturation would be a nice step in the right direction. Light on fire enough times in one location renders that zone saturated, nothing left to burn. I barely even play anymore due to how over powered HE spam and fires have gotten. 

[Lampshade_M1A2]

Some sort of difference between internal fires and external fires would be nice. Some paint burning off shouldn't hurt *that* much.

[SireneRacker]

If there will also be a citadel saturation, sure. Because the ability of Battleships to practically ignore my angling is also very frustrating...

[Ulthwey]

28 minutes ago, Rekkoff said:

 So there is damage saturation in the game, but they need to do something about being light on fire over and over again. Fire saturation would be a nice step in the right direction. Light on fire enough times in one location renders that zone saturated, nothing left to burn. I barely even play anymore due to how over powered HE spam and fires have gotten. 

Not going to happen. You are basically asking for another BB buff, pure and simple. The longer the ship participates in the game the more resistant it would be to damage - that's something that will never happen. You can only have 4 fires on you (3 if you have fire prevention skill), and each fire is bound to a specific section of the ship (bow, anterior superstructure, posterior superstructure and stern). When one of these 4 zones is on fire, it can't be set in fire again which means that HE shells than land in this burning zone will not be causing any more fires unless the explosion radius spills into an adjacent zone of the ship.

• Example: If your bow is on fire, it can't be set on fire AGAIN. However if the enemy keeps hitting your bow with HE, some of the shells exploding will spill onto the anterior superstructure and result in a 2nd fire.

What you are doing, essentially, is complaining about players who have the SKILL to land consistent hits on specific parts of your ship and burn you down from front to back. This is NOT something that will ever be removed. Good players will land rounds all throughout the length of your ship to get as many fires going as possible.

[HazardDrake]

16 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

If there will also be a citadel saturation, sure. Because the ability of cruisers to practically ignore my angling is also very frustrating...

Fixed that for the UK CL drivers in the room. 

[legoboy0401]

1 minute ago, Ulthwey said:

You are complaining about something that is ALREADY in the game. You can only have 4 fires on you (3 if you have fire prevention skill), and each fire is bound to a specific section of the ship (bow, anterior superstructure, posterior superstructure and stern). When one of these 4 zones is on fire, it can't be set in fore again which means that HE shells than land in that zone will not be causing any more fires unless the explosion radius spills into an adjacent zone of the ship.

• Example: If your bow is on fire, it can't be set on fire AGAIN. However if the enemy keeps hitting your bow with HE, some of the shells exploding will spill onto the anterior superstructure and result in a 2nd fire.

What you are doing, essentially, is complaining about players who have the SKILL to land consistent hits on specific parts of your ship and burn you down from front to back. This is NOT something that will ever be removed. Good players will land rounds all throughout the length of your ship to get as many fires going as possible.

Actually he isn't. He wants it to be impossible to start another fire in the same place another fire has just gone out. This is annoying, but it factors into Cruiser/DD balance, so it can't be helped.

[Rekkoff]

2 minutes ago, Ulthwey said:

Not going to happen. You are complaining about something that is ALREADY in the game. You can only have 4 fires on you (3 if you have fire prevention skill), and each fire is bound to a specific section of the ship (bow, anterior superstructure, posterior superstructure and stern). When one of these 4 zones is on fire, it can't be set in fire again which means that HE shells than land in this burning zone will not be causing any more fires unless the explosion radius spills into an adjacent zone of the ship.

• Example: If your bow is on fire, it can't be set on fire AGAIN. However if the enemy keeps hitting your bow with HE, some of the shells exploding will spill onto the anterior superstructure and result in a 2nd fire.

What you are doing, essentially, is complaining about players who have the SKILL to land consistent hits on specific parts of your ship and burn you down from front to back. This is NOT something that will ever be removed. Good players will land rounds all throughout the length of your ship to get as many fires going as possible.

 Missed my point 100% bud. Im talking when a fire is light in the same zone, lets say three times. After that, that zone is saturated and then cannot be light on fire again. Or cannot be light on fire for x number of minutes.

[Ulthwey]

3 minutes ago, legoboy0401 said:

Actually he isn't. He wants it to be impossible to start another fire in the same place another fire has just gone out. This is annoying, but it factors into Cruiser/DD balance, so it can't be helped.

Two things:

• That is NEVER going to happen. This would be a ridiculous BB buff, where a ship becomes more and more resistant to damage as the game progresses.
• Introducing additional internal fires would make the game far too complicated. You'd have to keep track of internal/external fires, which would make the UI more convoluted than it needs to be.

Also, if fire saturation was to be introduced (which it will NEVER be, I promise you) - then the ship that's saturated would probably be penalized with armor penalties and take 3x-4x more HE/AP damage directly because that would mean HE shells are tearing through the burned down, damaged armor and exploding inside the ship for more damage. You wouldn't be burning, but you would be taking 3x-4x more direct damage to your HP. This would make the game far more complicated with additional calculations and would result in HUGE lag spikes.

[More_Witches]

1 minute ago, Rekkoff said:

 Missed my point 100% bud. Im talking when a fire is light in the same zone, lets say three times. After that, that zone is saturated and then cannot be light on fire again. Or cannot be light on fire for x number of minutes.

ehhh, that's still a massive BB buff

They'd need a serious small caliber HE damage/penetration buff in order to properly compensate for it

 

[legoboy0401]

2 minutes ago, Rekkoff said:

 Missed my point 100% bud. Im talking when a fire is light in the same zone, lets say three times. After that, that zone is saturated and then cannot be light on fire again. Or cannot be light on fire for x number of minutes.

Well, at least I got your point down. Still, I can't say I agree with it. BBs are already strong enough. YES, I DO play BBs more than DDs and CVs, but that's because I either don't like or do poorly in most DDs, and I JUST got back in CVs.

 

I'm a Cruiser main. Don't mess with fire balance, OR ELSE.

[Edselman]

I play something like 90% battleships and 10% cruisers but to be fair, if cruisers couldn't reliably set battleships on fire they wouldn't stand a chance.

[Kingfishercritic]

12 minutes ago, Edselman said:

I play something like 90% battleships and 10% cruisers but to be fair, if cruisers couldn't reliably set battleships on fire they wouldn't stand a chance.

They would if cruiser AP were a bit more consistent

 

[Abo89]

Ok, You won't be needing repair party anymore then.

[Deviathan]

Hypothetically if you did do this, then said fire damage should no longer be 100% repairable to compensate.  That being said, I enjoy my battleships but I'm fine with the system as is. They're strong enough.

[FayFay731]

20 minutes ago, Kingfishercritic said:

They would if cruiser AP were a bit more consistent

 

Maybe change the autobounce angles for cruiser AP shells?

[Reymu]

If being on fire a lot is bothersome, take the full anti-DoT build and play more warily. Cruisers are less likely to focus you with HE when you're in a group, after all.

 

It's your making the game mechanic an issue that holds you back, nothing more. And coding in these changes will bring in no revenue to justify WG's project.

 

So here we have nothing of substance, just someone annoyed about getting flamed up (pun intended).

[Abo89]

Just now, Mortarian said:

Hypothetically if you did do this, then said fire damage should no longer be 100% repairable to compensate.  That being said, I enjoy my battleships but I'm fine with the system as is. They're strong enough.

There should be 0 repair, imo. The premises with fires now is mitigation and recovery because it's an infinite damage source. Though you can indefinitely be damaged by fires, any BB can get fireproof easily as long as they are not deathly out of position where they are focused by 3 or more cruisers. 

I'd be ok with each section having a 25% health pool drain cap from fires as long as there isn't any recovery. This way if you are bow in and the first two section get burnt down you'll lose 50% of your health. An unskilled player won't know to shoot at the back sections.  Skilled player though, well good luck against them. Oh and pray you don't take any fire damage after eating a flooding torp.

[StoneRhino]

49 minutes ago, Reymu said:

If being on fire a lot is bothersome, take the full anti-DoT build and play more warily. Cruisers are less likely to focus you with HE when you're in a group, after all.

 

It's your making the game mechanic an issue that holds you back, nothing more. And coding in these changes will bring in no revenue to justify WG's project.

 

So here we have nothing of substance, just someone annoyed about getting flamed up (pun intended).

While true this boils down to "Build a zombie and don't push". Which happens to be my complaint about tier 8+ games and the fire mechanics.  

 

Don't get me wrong because I don't think fire needs to be changed. Players just need to recognize that buffing cruiser's evasiveness and or HE just adds to why BBs don't push. 

[Bril01]

This would be a huge buff to BBs and a pretty serious nerf to CAs and gun boat DDs.   They would need to rebalance all three ship lines and I just don't see that happening any time soon.

[GhostSwordsman]

1 hour ago, FayFay731 said:

Maybe change the autobounce angles for cruiser AP shells?

If you do that, then you'd have to change it so much that you'd break the realistic pretense presented in the game.

As it stands right now, the game feels realistic, to a degree. Changing cruiser AP auto-bounce angles so they can more reliably penetrate BB armor when angled would break that. It wouldn't feel right.

It's similar to how WG compressed time and distance, but didn't compress the ballistic characteristics of shells. If WG were to make the ballistic characteristics of shells more in line with the time and distance compression, then the whole game would feel off.

[Rekkoff]

1 hour ago, GhostSwordsman said:

If you do that, then you'd have to change it so much that you'd break the realistic pretense presented in the game.

As it stands right now, the game feels realistic, to a degree. Changing cruiser AP auto-bounce angles so they can more reliably penetrate BB armor when angled would break that. It wouldn't feel right.

It's similar to how WG compressed time and distance, but didn't compress the ballistic characteristics of shells. If WG were to make the ballistic characteristics of shells more in line with the time and distance compression, then the whole game would feel off.

Realistic? Ok, go sink the USS Wisconsin with 127 MM HE shell spam. Good luck with that. Or the torps that always detonate, run strait 100% of the time and dont have to worry about hitting at extreme angles. And while we are at it, is it realistic that DD's have no citadels? This game is pure fantasy, only realistic thing in it is the model of the ship.

[GhostSwordsman]

3 minutes ago, Rekkoff said:

Realistic? Ok, go sink the USS Wisconsin with 127 MM HE shell spam. Good luck with that. Or the torps that always detonate, run strait 100% of the time and dont have to worry about hitting at extreme angles. And while we are at it, is it realistic that DD's have no citadels? This game is pure fantasy, only realistic thing in it is the model of the ship.

 

1 hour ago, GhostSwordsman said:

If you do that, then you'd have to change it so much that you'd break the realistic pretense presented in the game.

As it stands right now, the game feels realistic, to a degree. Changing cruiser AP auto-bounce angles so they can more reliably penetrate BB armor when angled would break that. It wouldn't feel right.

It's similar to how WG compressed time and distance, but didn't compress the ballistic characteristics of shells. If WG were to make the ballistic characteristics of shells more in line with the time and distance compression, then the whole game would feel off.

Pretense:

an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pretense

 

You completely ignored the second word there. I'm saying that WG makes it look real, not that it is real. If the game didn't look and feel real, then people probably wouldn't play it, or WG would have to advertise it differently than they currently do.

[Stampz]

4 hours ago, StoneRhino said:

While true this boils down to "Build a zombie and don't push". Which happens to be my complaint about tier 8+ games and the fire mechanics.  

 

Don't get me wrong because I don't think fire needs to be changed. Players just need to recognize that buffing cruiser's evasiveness and or HE just adds to why BBs don't push. 

 

BBs don't push cause no one wants to eat BB AP shells to the broadside.  Some HE Dmg/Fire, and you can still turn around and heal/repair.  Take an instant 30-40k from another BB and it's a completely different story.

[VGLance]

OP plays BB 46% of the time.  Yeah there's no bias.

 

BBs already are the average damage leaders and you want to lower cruiser average damage without offering any way to offset the nerf?  Or are you really doing the mental math to completion and still arriving at the same conclusion that this would not be a nerf to cruisers?

[Stampz]

1 minute ago, VGLance said:

OP plays BB 46% of the time.  Yeah there's no bias.

 

BBs already are the average damage leaders and you want to lower cruiser average damage without offering any way to offset the nerf?  Or are you really doing the mental math to completion and still arriving at the same conclusion that this would not be a nerf to cruisers/Khab?

Cause let's face it, the Khab is the best cruiser in the game.