Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Guardian54

Floodings Need To Stack

74 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

177
[70]
Members
974 posts
3,846 battles

Four floodings (with 4 torpedo hits) apparently cannot drain the health of a Tirpitz faster than his repair party can keep him alive. I learnt this lack of stacking today the hard way in Minsk (shot his bridge a few times to finally kill him, but he proxy spotted me enough for his friends to finally get me, so I failed to carry match as a result of having one set of tubes busted early and not expecting under 40K damage with 4 torps, ugh).

This is insanity. Fires have always been VASTLY less effective at sinking steel ships than multiple uncontrolled floodings. Of course, we COULD attribute it to the last major Russian fleet action being Tsushima where they burnt a whole lot (with coal stacked on deck...) and didn't flood all that much in comparison, so Russian devs can't be bothered with it, but that's just another reason besides their bottom line.

I hate getting floodings. They are way too powerful. I would like flooding to be greatly nerfed. HOWEVER, if someone manages 4 floodings on me then I damn well deserved it and fully expect it to be over twice as effective per tick as one flooding is right now.

 

There is exactly one type of player for whom stacking floods is inconvenient, someone who does at least two of these three.

a) has no situational awareness when coming around an island and gets jumped by a DD--though this requires the DD to have lost tubes to not insta-slag him

b) cannot be bothered to WASD

c) does not know how to time his repair kit in the face of aerial attack.

Ah but of course these are common traits of the stereotypical WG bottom line playing with at most two fingers on a PC (i.e. not even one-handed, because yes I know WoT Blitz works with 2 fingers) in the slowest heaviest class available, if not altogether botting... so we conclude that this is yet another way for DDs and cruisers who manage multiple hits, often at great risk or with extreme skill disparity, to be shafted to the benefit of BB players.


The lack of flood stacking is about as cancerous as having a platoon of BBs (usually premiums who will howl at you in chat if you note their uselessness and who may or may not attempt to/succeed at TK in their rage) waffling around behind the cap for 10 minutes out of range of the enemy on some map (Hotspot or Haven among others have their caps are sufficiently in the corner that trolling around behind it tends to put you out of range) because there's one DD that's snuck past and is somewhere behind it (absolutely no threat to fast BBs because it takes over 2 minutes to cap, firing makes him visible, and there's more than enough time to hurry back and reset as needed. Sailing away and/or WASD means torpedoes are irrelevant too for at least a few minutes).

Stacking floodings should actually reduce the "wall of skill" problem of higher tiers, by making multiple hits potentially much more rewarding than single spray-and-pray hits, assuming the DD player carefully identifies his targets as BBs who have recently used damcon.

 

The lack of flooding stacks is a bad enough mechanic that it shocked me into taking a step back and looking at the game in general. The conclusion was that I would not be surprised if the balancing department for Warships was equal in competence to the WoT balance department (exhibit A: 268V4 and 430U). I am only surprised that I didn't notice it sooner with the Lyon being able to fill the circle enough that it ALWAYS vomits all over whatever it targets regardless of dodging proficiency as long as the Lyon's driver didn't completely fail gunnery leading. And let's not forget the recently infamous Republique citadel situation.

 

EDIT: The following changes are suggested to flooding and fires:

1. Change fires from 0.3% per tick to something perhaps like 0.2% + 10 + 5x(tier number). This would make fires less comically bad versus say DDs, while top BBs benefit only slightly (60 is two-thirds of the 0.1% per tick for a 90K HP ship). (AMEND IN EDIT 3: Perhaps 0.15% base + constant + tier scale instead?)

2. Change flooding from 0.667% per tick to something like 0.4% + 30 + 5x(tier number), and reduce base duration to something like 60 seconds on a BB (and perhaps less on DD/CA/CL), so that one flood only takes off about 30% of a Tier 10 BB's health but will hurt a DD/CA more. This is counterbalanced by making it stackable, since BBs are overwhelmingly more likely to have multiple floodings at a time. (AMEND IN EDIT 3: 0.3% base + constant + tier scale sounds fairer)

EDIT 2: Forgot a point

3. Flooding must be able to saturate the bow and stern (as is realistic). Amidships cannot saturate (but has flooding chance reduction due to TDS, and TDS also reduces flooding duration by certain % numbers that can be balanced).

EDIT 3: Obviously getting 5 floods from getting torped in the same place in the bow is insane.

4. Maximum one flooding in bow and one in stern, max one amidships in destroyers and two in cruisers, and maximum three or four (unsure) amidships for battleships. This is because BBs just have more compartment areas that can flood, compared to cruisers, and unless you're sailing broadside-on to torpedoes, in which case it's user error, this and the greatly reduced flood DoT is a HUGE buff to aggressive BBs.

5. Allow torpedoes to autobounce: Sideswiping a WWII-era torpedo in real life is not all that likely to trigger the detonator. Sure, adding IRL unreliability is too much, but an autobounce angle of something like 5 degrees (with a commander skill reducing it to say 2 degrees) should make dodging less painfully annoying. There's a reason broadside hits are textbook perfect, and oblique or bow-on shots were considered bad...

6. Fire Prevention should reduce duration of fires. This is a no-brainer just going off the name, which... uh, I should probably stop pursuing this line of thought before some mod thinks I'm being rude to the developers.

EDIT 4:

7. Fire Prevention should be improved to at least -20% chance of fire, as it is multiplicative. It should also deal with flooding.

8. Battleship agility could potentially be improved to IRL levels if it turns out to still be too much for them to handle.

Edited by Guardian54
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

C can be a pretty tough spot though. I mean, if I set 3 fires with my dive bombers, are you just going to let that burn? Because if I set 3 fires, the only reason my torpedo bombers would come in before they're out is for a kill shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles

I suspect that the reason for this is that it would flood the forums with BB-tears. Cruisers and Battleships can be affected by the same number of simultaneous fires. But since Cruisers are more maneuverable, it is more likely that a BB will be affected by multiple floods more than a CL/CA would (since the BB is more likely to have been hit by multiple torps). Putting a mechanic into the game that negatively affects BBs more than anyone else, would result in a riot.

Personally, I think flooding SHOULD stack just like fires do.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
471
[MAHAN]
Beta Testers
1,391 posts
5,093 battles

I'm not against that idea. I mean, it is ultimately pointless since getting a flood while repair is on cool down is a death sentence anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[70]
Members
974 posts
3,846 battles
7 minutes ago, AdmiralPiett said:

I'm not against that idea. I mean, it is ultimately pointless since getting a flood while repair is on cool down is a death sentence anyway.

Which is of course a horrible mechanic.

The % per tick of fire damage needs to be dialled down, with a flat number (and perhaps a third number scaling with tier) added. This would make fires hurt BBs less and be less comically pointless when you set DDs on fire (except in increasing detectability).

The % per tick of flooding could be similarly dialled down with a flat number added (and perhaps the same third number scaling with tier as above). This would make a single flooding less absurdly lethal while allowing multiple floodings to kill you quickly if you cannot be bothered to dodge well enough..

Edited by Guardian54
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BSS-]
Members
484 posts
2,927 battles
11 minutes ago, AdmiralPiett said:

I'm not against that idea. I mean, it is ultimately pointless since getting a flood while repair is on cool down is a death sentence anyway.

Not really, it has happened to me several times

2-3 fires

Damcon

Torpedoes

Flooding

Survives to do damage (not the battle though)

I don’t think they should stack, despite my heart telling me, “if I get 3 torps to land on target and flood, I should be rewarded.” This wouldn’t punish camping BBs, but rather the ones that pushed in to help the team. If there was something that hurt campers and not the pushers, that would be fine, otherwise, sorry.

Edited by GabeTheDespot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,729 posts
7,712 battles

1 flooding does .667% of a ships HP pool for 90 seconds according to the wiki compared to .3% of a ships HP pool for a single fire. In addition flooding also reduces the top speed of ships by 15-20%. 

 

So a Tirpitz who heals at .5% of the HP pool per second with its Repair Party consumable A) wouldnt be able to out heal a flood and B) flooding is already more damaging than 2 fires. 

If you want flooding to stack it would probably need to be adjusted in the magnitude of the effect of a single flooding. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[70]
Members
974 posts
3,846 battles
4 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

So a Tirpitz who heals at .5% of the HP pool per second with its Repair Party consumable A) wouldnt be able to out heal a flood and B) flooding is already more damaging than 2 fires. 

If you want flooding to stack it would probably need to be adjusted in the magnitude of the effect of a single flooding. 

Well SOMEHOW he was going up in HP more than down with a DoT effect. And he didn't use damcon either, or my teammates would have to have set fire to his rear end where I couldn't see (there were no teammates able to do such a thing and no greasy black smoke coming off his rear) while I was busy shooting his superstructure from the front...

Conclusion: Aliens.

 

I have no problems with nerfing DoT effects to compensate. Relatively rare are the WWII capital ships killed by a single torpedo.

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BSS-]
Members
484 posts
2,927 battles
1 minute ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

If you want flooding to stack it would probably need to be adjusted in the magnitude of the effect of a single flooding. 

Probably, the lethality of flooding is fine if they don’t stack, it isn’t fair to anybody to have 2 floods and die from full health after one used damage control. TK flooding does happen (I have dealt it, in a T5 CV, the fail was real), and for one to die from 2 torps to the bow would be absurd.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BSS-]
Members
484 posts
2,927 battles

I just thought, what if flooding lasted for 40 seconds on BBs and CVs and 20 on CAs and DDs. But did 1 percent a second and could stack with a max of 3 stock, change fire prevention to fire and flooding prevention and lower that maximum to 2, just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
13 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

1 flooding does .667% of a ships HP pool for 90 seconds according to the wiki compared to .3% of a ships HP pool for a single fire. In addition flooding also reduces the top speed of ships by 15-20%. 

 

So a Tirpitz who heals at .5% of the HP pool per second with its Repair Party consumable A) wouldnt be able to out heal a flood and B) flooding is already more damaging than 2 fires. 

If you want flooding to stack it would probably need to be adjusted in the magnitude of the effect of a single flooding. 

I thought they adjusted the flooding a while back on a tier by tier basis.  Looks like it was 0.6.1

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/update-notes-061/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,729 posts
7,712 battles
7 minutes ago, Guardian54 said:

Well SOMEHOW he was going up in HP more than down with a DoT effect. And he didn't use damcon either, or my teammates would have to have set fire to his rear end where I couldn't see (there were no teammates able to do such a thing and no greasy black smoke coming off his rear) while I was busy shooting his superstructure from the front...

Conclusion: Aliens.

 

I have no problems with nerfing DoT effects to compensate. Relatively rare are the WWII capital ships killed by a single torpedo.

You have not posted a replay so I cant say for sure but a ship can appear to be going up in hp on each uptick when it alternates between up and down. However a heal only lasts a maximum of 28 seconds so in a short time the ship is dead if they dont repair either way. 

 

The only ships that can out heal a flooding are RN BBs with the super heal. 

1 minute ago, cometguy said:

I thought they adjusted the flooding a while back on a tier by tier basis.  Looks like it was 0.6.1

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/update-notes-061/

Check the numbers I posted vs your link:

Flooding duration was reduced by 25% -- from 120s to 90s -- and the maximum amount of HP that can be lost during flooding was modified. It will decrease for low and mid-tier ships, and increase for high tier ships, by making the parameter of "damage per second for flooding" parameter unified across all tiers at 0.067% HP per second. 

I posted the correct values according to your patch notes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[70]
Members
974 posts
3,846 battles
2 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

You have not posted a replay so I cant say for sure but a ship can appear to be going up in hp on each uptick when it alternates between up and down. However a heal only lasts a maximum of 28 seconds so in a short time the ship is dead if they dont repair either way.

The problem was that that timeframe was decisive in that match, ugh.

And there's no replay function for Warships as far as I can tell? It certainly doesn't show up on Settings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,729 posts
7,712 battles
1 minute ago, Guardian54 said:

The problem was that that timeframe was decisive in that match, ugh.

And there's no replay function for Warships as far as I can tell? It certainly doesn't show up on Settings...

For whatever reason WG does not want replays to be easily accessible but they did give us this: https://na.wargaming.net/support/en/products/wows/articles/128/

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
11 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Check the numbers I posted vs your link:

Flooding duration was reduced by 25% -- from 120s to 90s -- and the maximum amount of HP that can be lost during flooding was modified. It will decrease for low and mid-tier ships, and increase for high tier ships, by making the parameter of "damage per second for flooding" parameter unified across all tiers at 0.067% HP per second. 

I posted the correct values according to your patch notes. 

 

Yep, I screwed up the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
Beta Testers
178 posts
3,663 battles

Hmm flooding is already the worse case scenario if you cant repair, 2 flooding instances would pretty much kill anything.

With the amount of fire spammers we already have and the introduction of deep water torpedoes ([edited] btw) stacking flooding would pretty much stale everything even more.

People complain that the BB stay in the back trying to snipe instead of pushing, this is the kind of smart idea to make sure they will stay back for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
781
[NG-NL]
Members
5,020 posts
8,259 battles

Flood DoT would have to be nerfed if it can be stacked.

 

Plus getting hits with ship torpedoes outside of suicide runs is very difficult.

 

Can you imagine how many would rage, if a CV's TB scored multi-flood hits? Especially when Taiho/Haku/Midway get plenty of non-AA prey?

 

Altogether it's a realistic suggestion, but for gameplay purposes, too demoralizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
350 posts
5 battles

Ew god no, flooding alone can erase 75% of a ship's health if allowed to tick for it's full duration(this is ontop of the damage induced by the lone torp that hit) (on ships that generally had compartmentalization to prevent such a disasterous flooding, hmmmm). You want it to stack? split the damage into 4 sections like fire has and allow flooding saturation to be a thing (hard to flood a bow that's already flooded fully)

Edited by TheNargacuga
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[-V-]
Members
217 posts
808 battles

You forgot to add

1) AP SHELLS FROM BATTLESHIPS SHOULD CAUSE FLOODS.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,434 posts
3,875 battles

It would negatively affect battleships, the only ships likely to survive multiple torpedo hits.

 

So, unlikely.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BSS-]
Members
484 posts
2,927 battles
30 minutes ago, Ricky_Racer said:

You forgot to add

1) AP SHELLS FROM BATTLESHIPS SHOULD CAUSE FLOODS.

 

AND AP BOMBS!!!!!!!!!

AND MY INDIANAPOLIS SHELZZZZZ!!!!!

:Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[70]
Members
974 posts
3,846 battles
47 minutes ago, TheNargacuga said:

You want it to stack? split the damage into 4 sections like fire has and allow flooding saturation to be a thing (hard to flood a bow that's already flooded fully)

Good point! Added to recommendations.

40 minutes ago, Ricky_Racer said:

You forgot to add

1) AP SHELLS FROM BATTLESHIPS SHOULD CAUSE FLOODS.

The damage from the shell is already enough, no need for flooding from that IMHO... despite it being realistic that would make ships WAY too fragile.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BSS-]
Members
484 posts
2,927 battles
59 minutes ago, Guardian54 said:

Good point! Added to recommendations.

The damage from the shell is already enough, no need for flooding from that IMHO... despite it being realistic that would make ships WAY too fragile.

Nice that we can have a good debate and not scream insults st each other, keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
350 posts
5 battles
1 hour ago, Ricky_Racer said:

You forgot to add

1) AP SHELLS FROM BATTLESHIPS SHOULD CAUSE FLOODS.

 

Was tested in alpha, was removed due to it being a bit much. Atleast if what I remember from my time stalking about in the forums is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×