Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
NoZoupForYou

The Over-Proliferation of HE - Discuss (Also, win a Belfast)

171 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,157
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,426 posts
4,726 battles

 

Today we talk about a topic on the minds of everyone right now, especially after the introduction of the RN BB line.  Is there too much HE?  Before that, be sure to get entered for a Belfast here:

 

https://gleam.io/competitions/WCFhk-hms-belfast-giveaway

 

So about that HE...  World of Warships awoke a sleeping dragon.  BBs using HE is not a new concept, and all BBs have a very high chance of starting fires.  I think the RN BBs just brought it to our attention because now everyone is using it.  Is this good?  Is it bad?  Personally I think the HE fire % chance on all BBs should be lowered. 

Let's discuss.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[CUTE]
Members
155 posts
12,372 battles

I agree the fire chance should be lowered.  A Conqueror firing HE on target is as effective as it is considering you land a volley and set two fires.  That target blows repair because it is two fires.  By the time Conqueror has reloaded the DCP is likely on cooldown, fires the next volley and sets two more fires.  This makes it highly effective in long range battleship fighting.  A zao can do this, yes, but it is far less likely and also has the danger of taking massive AP damage.  Zao also has to worry about shattered shells doing no damage where the Conqueror doesn't.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[-DTM-]
Members
147 posts
4,958 battles

I have said this in different thread about the same topic: BBs firing HE isn't the problem. The problem is the player base sees a BB and thinks it should only be firing one shell type and that of course is AP. The RN BBs HE is honestly where it should be. People need to learn to change their play style whether by WASDing, changing captain skills, ship modules, using premium consumables, and running the proper flags. 

 

All weekend I watch with amazement at the stupidity of players repairing one (yes ONE) fire on their ship and then get mutiple fires secs later and the complain about it. It's these kinds of players that are crying the loudest for a nerf to HE because they don't know how to deal with it. Of course these are also the players who refuse to accept any advice given and quick to respond with "f*** you, I know how to play my ship" and "xxx is just OP". 

 

People are going to quickly point out that the RN HE hits for to much damage. To those, what's the difference if you get hit for 10k every 30 secs or 5-8k every 8 secs from a cruiser? Just because you can delete a cruiser in a single salvo doesn't make it better. 

 

Another issue people are point out CQ stats right now. This line is new and the majority of people that are playing the CQ right now are very good players and people who had a lot of free exp laying around. From my playing experience, the CQ is fine. Sure I get a good amount of fires but I also get a lot salvos without fires in her. 

Edited by Unholy_Phoenix
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
448
[-AA-]
Members
1,728 posts
6,657 battles

I was already using HE with my Montana vs angled battleships and it works pretty well. Conqueror fire % should also be lowered to 30-40. Do the AP shells suck that much of that ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[PLPTE]
Members
493 posts
6,886 battles

I was playing my Nurnburg last week.  I'm not good in it, but I'm trying to figure it out.  In one game, a non RN BB shot at me with HE and hit my broadside, setting 2 fires.  I mentally thanked him for not deleting me.  Afterwards, I didn't have a lot of health left, so had no choice but to put out the fires.

Then a RN BB shot at me.  I knew it was coming, and was WASD hacking hard.  I had no health to take another hit.  I was sooo close to getting around the corner of an island and breaking LOS.

The RN BB missed.  I mean, if he'd hit me, I would have been dead.  But what he did do is:

- Set 2 fires

- Knocked out steering

- Knocked out engines

- Knocked out a turret

- Knocked out torpedoes (so what?..but still).

 

Until that point, I was kind of on the fence about RN BB's and their HE.  But I found that "miss" to be a bit ridiculous.

I was already turning hard to get behind an island, so with steering out and engine dead, I coasted into the safe embrace of the island.  And burned quickly afterwards.

The % chance to start a fire could maybe stay the same.  But the area of the HE blast should  maybe be toned down a bit?

Edited by Kerrec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,311
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,356 posts
3,559 battles

I personally think that the best way of addressing this would be to tweak the tier resistant HE percentage value. 

 

I do not think a blanket HE tweak is needed, more a ship by ship basis. 

 

Example: 

 

RN BB's and CL's do not need HE resistance buff.  

 

IJN / USN / KM BB's could use some increased HE resistance. 

 

Solution: 

 

Increase the IJN / USN / KM Tier resistance percentage fire chance by 2.5 - 5 % . 

 

 If they are going to address HE and fires, they need to be very careful how they address it. I do not think a blanket change is needed in this case, but more of a case by case basis when it comes to individual ships and how they perform vs  HE and Fires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[-DTM-]
Members
147 posts
4,958 battles
1 minute ago, joris92 said:

I was already using HE with my Montana vs angled battleships and it works pretty well. Conqueror fire % should also be lowered to 30-40. Do the AP shells suck that much of that ship?

The problem with the AP is how it works. It has a short fuse and is best at close ranges and against less armored ships like DDs and Cruisers. 

 

No the fire chance doesn't need to be changed. As I said in my post above yours, players need to manage their DCP better and optimize their heals better. Having great HE was one of the characteristics of the RN in general. They used heavier and more explosive HE shells than any other navy used and that is what makes them different from the rest. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,283 posts
4,362 battles
7 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

I personally think that the best way of addressing this would be to tweak the tier resistant HE percentage value. 

 

I do not think a blanket HE tweak is needed, more a ship by ship basis. 

 

Example: 

 

RN BB's and CL's do not need HE resistance buff.  

 

IJN / USN / KM BB's could use some increased HE resistance. 

 

Solution: 

 

Increase the IJN / USN / KM Tier resistance percentage fire chance by 2.5 - 5 % . 

 

 If they are going to address HE and fires, they need to be very careful how they address it. I do not think a blanket change is needed in this case, but more of a case by case basis when it comes to individual ships and how they perform vs  HE and Fires. 

It certainly puts more emphasis on the Fire Prevention skill for a commander..  setting up a ship commander was getting pretty stale and standard..  -10% to fire chance now actually means something.

The answer is out there people.. but you may have to adapt to find the solution.

What's a little annoying, for me, from the introduction of HE as standard is that it means swithcing to HE on other nations BB's will not be as effective now if people are speccing for HE as a result of the UK BB's :)

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
Members
2,274 posts
7,331 battles

I dont think thay BB HE os a problem, although some could use a lower Fire chance.

 

The problem IMO is RN HE. One salvo deals like 10 k of damage, set two fires and break modules. You use DC and a few secs later another 10k salvo with more two fires and Lost modules.

Edited by Xlap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,283 posts
4,362 battles
6 minutes ago, Unholy_Phoenix said:

The problem with the AP is how it works. It has a short fuse and is best at close ranges and against less armored ships like DDs and Cruisers. 

 

No the fire chance doesn't need to be changed. As I said in my post above yours, players need to manage their DCP better and optimize their heals better. Having great HE was one of the characteristics of the RN in general. They used heavier and more explosive HE shells than any other navy used and that is what makes them different from the rest. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  agree totally.

watching BB players instantly hitting extinguish and heal when they have suffered 1k of damage and 1 fire so that in 30 seconds you can hit them with another couple of fires that will burn and burn NEVER gets old.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,037
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,164 posts
8,772 battles
33 minutes ago, Icecaptain said:

I agree the fire chance should be lowered.  A Conqueror firing HE on target is as effective as it is considering you land a volley and set two fires.  That target blows repair because it is two fires.  By the time Conqueror has reloaded the DCP is likely on cooldown, fires the next volley and sets two more fires.  This makes it highly effective in long range battleship fighting.  A zao can do this, yes, but it is far less likely and also has the danger of taking massive AP damage.  Zao also has to worry about shattered shells doing no damage where the Conqueror doesn't.  

This is the problem with HE and the fires it starts. You have two, three, or even four fires burning, use your damage control to put them out and they are back seconds after the immunity period is over and the fire fighting crews are on their union mandated break. I have said it many times that how fire feels to the player on the receiving end needs to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,112 posts
8,676 battles

Zoup thanks for the video, as far as the debate about HE I think I will have to set this one out.

The RN BBs I enjoy them and I use AP and HE is all I will say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,157
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,426 posts
4,726 battles
23 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

It certainly puts more emphasis on the Fire Prevention skill for a commander..  setting up a ship commander was getting pretty stale and standard..  -10% to fire chance now actually means something.

The answer is out there people.. but you may have to adapt to find the solution.

What's a little annoying, for me, from the introduction of HE as standard is that it means swithcing to HE on other nations BB's will not be as effective now if people are speccing for HE as a result of the UK BB's :)

M

This brings up another topic.  We have tools in place to mitigate the effects of HE.  Moving forward, BB CPTs will have to choose CPT Skills harder. Do I want to take the defensive/repair route, or go offensive knowing I might burn more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[WOLF5]
Members
1,140 posts
8,303 battles

I was listening to the Warships Podcast this morning on the very subject, and, although let me say that I love the show and the work they're doing, it drove me slightly crazy that the conversation drifted immediately from RN BBs to HE in general.

 

HE is an important weapon for destroyers and cruisers, particularly against battleships.  I don't find a whole lot of merit in any suggestion that CAs/CLs and DDs in general should be nerfed relative to BBs.  So blanket HE changes, saturation mechanic changes...no, not without compensatory mechanics.  Changes more specifically to BB HE, or of course to RN BB HE in particular?  Yes, as necessary.

 

As I see it, there are a few intertwined issues:

 

1) "New line syndrome": It is mostly experienced/skilled players who have access to the high-tier RN BBs now, and this may be showing in their results.  I can understand WG wanting to take a bit of time for this to even out.

2) The RN BBs themselves, obviously.  Prior to this line, plenty of BB players went through entire matches never switching from AP; sure the better ones might use HE for bow-on higher tier battleships, etc., but only if such situations arose.  I think the RN BBs were supposed to be high skill ships in part because they were supposed to encourage a lot more dynamic ammo switching.  But the HE may have (ahem) arrived a bit too good, such that now we have battleships playing entire games never switching to AP.  This high-skill aspect needs to be restored; RN BBs need to need to switch ammo types in any normal match.  Which may mean nerfing some of their HE values, or other aspects of the ship.  (None of this is surprising or tragic; it would be surprising if a new line, or specific ships, did not need adjusting.)

3) But I also think that the RN BBs were made to make other BBs respond to a more robust threat environment in which fire is more of an issue than ever before; part of WGs general campaign to bend down BB overpopulation.  And I think that a lot of BB drivers don't want to spec anti-fire, because they prefer other builds.  To the extent that RN BBs force other battleships to make hard choices, they are a good thing...it is just that they may be a bit overdone.

 

EDIT: Crossed with several posts above.

Edited by Lillehuntrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
89
[WFSDL]
Members
610 posts
8,290 battles

Can this recent influx of HE be frustrating? Yes, but like any other mechanic in the game, it can be adapted to and countered.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,112 posts
8,676 battles
2 minutes ago, injunmick said:

Can this recent influx of HE be frustrating? Yes, but like any other mechanic in the game, it can be adapted to and countered.

Yes +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,037
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,164 posts
8,772 battles
3 minutes ago, injunmick said:

Can this recent influx of HE be frustrating? Yes, but like any other mechanic in the game, it can be adapted to and countered.

Unfortunately the most effective counter is to not get hit and damage control is an all or nothing cure with a long cool down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
448
[-AA-]
Members
1,728 posts
6,657 battles
3 minutes ago, Unholy_Phoenix said:

The problem with the AP is how it works. It has a short fuse and is best at close ranges and against less armored ships like DDs and Cruisers. 

 

No the fire chance doesn't need to be changed. As I said in my post above yours, players need to manage their DCP better and optimize their heals better. Having great HE was one of the characteristics of the RN in general. They used heavier and more explosive HE shells than any other navy used and that is what makes them different from the rest. 

 

Though currently RN BBs can set everything on fire and have also the power to heal from it. AP shells should just be more interesting to use for battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[-DTM-]
Members
147 posts
4,958 battles
30 minutes ago, Xlap said:

I dont think thay BB HE os a problem, although some could use a lower Fire chance.

 

The problem IMO is RN HE. One salvo deals like 10 k of damage, set two fires and break modules. You use DC and a few secs later another 10k salvo with more two fires and Lost modules.

Ok but your argument about RN HE is moot. Any ships does the same thing. A Zao shoots your for 6K starts 2 fires and breaks some modules. You damage con and the next salvo comes in 15 secs later another 6K possible more broken modules but your DCP is still active. 15 secs later another salvo, another 6K, two more fires and broken modules. So in 45 secs you have taken 18k damage and 4 fires compared to 10k in and 2 fires in the same time from an RN BB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,157
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,426 posts
4,726 battles
2 minutes ago, Unholy_Phoenix said:

Ok but your argument about RN HE is moot. Any ships does the same thing. A Zao shoots your for 6K starts 2 fires and breaks some modules. You damage con and the next salvo comes in 15 secs later another 6K possible more broken modules but your DCP is still active. 15 secs later another salvo, another 6K, two more fires and broken modules. So in 45 secs you have taken 18k damage and 4 fires compared to 10k in and 2 fires in the same time from an RN BB. 

Indeed.  Look at a Kutuzov running IFHE...

1 minute ago, BrentD15 said:

It's very clear that Fire Prevention is a Captain Skill that should be more used than it is.

And maybe that's what needs a buff as opposed to nerfing an integral and neccesary part of the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,037
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,164 posts
8,772 battles
Just now, Unholy_Phoenix said:

Ok but your argument about RN HE is moot. Any ships does the same thing. A Zao shoots your for 6K starts 2 fires and breaks some modules. You damage con and the next salvo comes in 15 secs later another 6K possible more broken modules but your DCP is still active. 15 secs later another salvo, another 6K, two more fires and broken modules. So in 45 secs you have taken 18k damage and 4 fires compared to 10k in and 2 fires in the same time from an RN BB. 

Which makes your manage damage control better a joke. It is an all or nothing tool with a long cool down.

2 minutes ago, BrentD15 said:

It's very clear that Fire Prevention is a Captain Skill that should be more used than it is.

It helps but three fires are nearly as dangerous to your ships as four fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,037
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,164 posts
8,772 battles
3 minutes ago, BrentD15 said:

It's very clear that Fire Prevention is a Captain Skill that should be more used than it is.

 

1 minute ago, NoZoupForYou said:

Indeed.  Look at a Kutuzov running IFHE...

And maybe that's what needs a buff as opposed to nerfing an integral and neccesary part of the game.

This is why I keep saying that how fighting fire feels to the player needs to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
616 posts
3,326 battles
1 minute ago, NoZoupForYou said:

And maybe that's what needs a buff as opposed to nerfing an integral and neccesary part of the game.

Perhaps this is the simplest solution to this issue, and it makes the skill more valuable.

1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

It helps but three fires are nearly as dangerous to your ships as four fires.

You know what I say to that?

Too bad.

Make better use of your Damage Control modules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[PLPTE]
Members
493 posts
6,886 battles
3 minutes ago, BrentD15 said:

It's very clear that Fire Prevention is a Captain Skill that should be more used than it is.

I ran my captain + flags to be full fire prevention for my New Mexico in last season of ranked.  In matches where Clevelands could lob shells over islands because they had good spotting, I did not feel like my captain build did all that much.  I maybe kept tanking for an extra minute or so.

If I had to go back and redo it, I would not spec my captain that way again.  I did not feel like it made enough of a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×