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

radical insane crazy idea. get rid of HE.

147 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,455 posts
8,392 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Actually, not all HE firing ships really need IFHE.  But there are a small number of ships where the need for IFHE is rather desperate and IMO should be cooked into those ship's HE from the start.

Agreed.

tbh, IFHE should just be removed, give the smaller caliber armed cruisers IFHE, and maybe even DDs.  Put something else in its place. 

i dont feel like writing a long post, but there are a lot of captain skill that could just be taken out, applied to most ships or to the specific ship(like AS for CVs), and something new take their place. 

 

 

I dont really like the state of HE vs AP.  There is never a wrong to fire HE, only better times to use AP no matter what ship you are in.   With AP, there are either times you never use it, or its the far better choice vs HE in a specific situation.   i dont feel like seeing cruisers let alone DDs being nerfed though with a blanket change while BBs are untouched.  if you redo the ammo types, or remove HE, then a lot of stuff needs to be redone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,990 posts
8,628 battles
54 minutes ago, yashma said:

I have to disagree, at least as far as game mechanics are concerned.  At its core the vast majority of game play features are not realistic.  For example....

The HP mechanic, arbitrary fire burn times, arbitrary flooding times, heals, the entire spotting mechanic, arbitrary HE pen values, arbitrary auto bounce values, arbitrary over match mechanics, dispersion and sigma values, radar/hydro mechanics, defensive fire and torpedo reload boosters, unhistorical match making, time traveling ships, paper ships, outright fantasy ships designed by WG, non historical armor values for bow, deck and upper belt plating, unhistorical and un realistic reload times for numerous ships, the cyclone mechanic, ship handling mechanics, lack of sea floor modeling, unhistorical collision mechanics, the captain skill tree system, CV mechanics, airplane mechanics, the entire game scale is altered and sped up....and I could go on.

This game is inspired by history, and there are many mechanics that even closely correlate to reality, such as tonnage correlating to HP pools, but even then, those are still arbitrary values chosen by WG.  World of Warships is with out a doubt 100% an arcade game.  Sure it's wrapped in a nice historical coating....but that does not change the fact at its core it's a pure arcade game.  There is nothing wrong with that and it does not detract from the game itself....but when ever someone tries to use realism as an argument in a game where almost nothing is realistic to begin with....eh...it just doesn't work.

Well fair enough but I did use the verb derived, which gives a ton of latitude. You can see that they are incorporating as much data as they can or it would really just lapse into arcade game shoot-em-ups. Hence all the reviews and YouTubes on individual ships--their armor, penetration, shell velocity, ROF and on and on. You chose the terms "inspired" but then still lapse into "arcade" because it aims to be a playable game? Semantics I suppose, but "arcade" brings to mind Asteroid, Tron, or even Pong, as in the shite you would find going into an actual arcade. You can play WoWs as an arcade game of course and ignore all the subtleties. I don't, and appreciate their efforts to make it reality-derived as opposed to a straight-up arcade game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
339 posts
5,488 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

Yes but should fire be a weapon?

Has fire ever not been a weapon in naval history? It's also very easy to heal in this particular game, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think a signicaint amount of gripes re: HE stem from players misusing DC and heals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,497
[SALVO]
Members
20,566 posts
20,417 battles
10 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

Agreed.

tbh, IFHE should just be removed, give the smaller caliber armed cruisers IFHE, and maybe even DDs.  Put something else in its place. 

i dont feel like writing a long post, but there are a lot of captain skill that could just be taken out, applied to most ships or to the specific ship(like AS for CVs), and something new take their place. 

 

 

I dont really like the state of HE vs AP.  There is never a wrong to fire HE, only better times to use AP no matter what ship you are in.   With AP, there are either times you never use it, or its the far better choice vs HE in a specific situation.   i dont feel like seeing cruisers let alone DDs being nerfed though with a blanket change while BBs are untouched.  if you redo the ammo types, or remove HE, then a lot of stuff needs to be redone. 

Actually, removing IFHE and perhaps "cooking it into" the ships that really need it, or perhaps just ships with guns smaller than 8" works for me. And yes, then put some better in its place.

Also, I don't like the AS CV skill at all.  Oh, sure it's nice to have another plane in a squadron, but the AS skill favors IJN carriers over USN carriers.  Why? Because it's one more plane per non-TB squadron, and IJN carriers have more squadrons, hence they add more planes.  A USN CV with a single FTR squadron only gets 1 more fighter, whereas an IJN CV with 2 FTR squadrons gets 2 more fighters in the air.  That's not really fair and balanced.

 

As for the final paragraph, I seriously doubt that if they removed HE that that's all that would happen.  I think that you'd also see DD and cruiser AP get the RN CL AP treatment and become more effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,820
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,770 posts
10,986 battles
39 minutes ago, Flashtirade said:

Fire has been an instrument of destruction longer than humanity has existed

In the era the game covers fire was common but it was not the weapon. As it is now once a fire(s) starts you have two options, let it burn and put it out with your magic DC. Then after the also magical immunity period ends if another fire(s) starts you can only let it burn until your magical DC is off cool down. I would like to see how fire "feels" for lack of another term to the player that is burning. That would require changes to both how we fight the fires and to HE's fire chance combined with the smaller caliber HE's damage dealing ability, ie turn HE into a grinding wheel ammo much like the RN CL AP, lower damage but steadier damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,497
[SALVO]
Members
20,566 posts
20,417 battles
3 minutes ago, harikari25 said:

Has fire ever not been a weapon in naval history? It's also very easy to heal in this particular game, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think a significant amount of gripes re: HE stem from players misusing DC and heals. 

But fire isn't really a weapon in 20th century naval combat.  It's just a consequence of combat, not an actual weapon, like ancient galleys using catapults to hurl flaming balls like artillery or archers with flaming arrows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,820
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,770 posts
10,986 battles
7 minutes ago, harikari25 said:

Has fire ever not been a weapon in naval history? It's also very easy to heal in this particular game, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think a signicaint amount of gripes re: HE stem from players misusing DC and heals. 

It is more than just misusing DC. If for example you have 3 or 4 fires burning and use your DC you are only safe for a short period and then when the immunity period ends you get those very same 3 or 4 fires back there is nothing you can do until that DC is off cool down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,455 posts
8,392 battles
6 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Actually, removing IFHE and perhaps "cooking it into" the ships that really need it, or perhaps just ships with guns smaller than 8" works for me. And yes, then put some better in its place.

Also, I don't like the AS CV skill at all.  Oh, sure it's nice to have another plane in a squadron, but the AS skill favors IJN carriers over USN carriers.  Why? Because it's one more plane per non-TB squadron, and IJN carriers have more squadrons, hence they add more planes.  A USN CV with a single FTR squadron only gets 1 more fighter, whereas an IJN CV with 2 FTR squadrons gets 2 more fighters in the air.  That's not really fair and balanced.

 

As for the final paragraph, I seriously doubt that if they removed HE that that's all that would happen.  I think that you'd also see DD and cruiser AP get the RN CL AP treatment and become more effective.

i don't really like the state of CV balance in general.  they are a mess.

 

indeed, they would have to find some what to compensate for the loss of HE.   Fires are currently the equalizer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[WOLF4]
Members
1,533 posts
3,523 battles
6 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

It is more than just misusing DC. If for example you have 3 or 4 fires burning and use your DC you are only safe for a short period and then when the immunity period ends you get those very same 3 or 4 fires back there is nothing you can do until that DC is off cool down.

Yeah if they changed the cool down to 30 seconds with this current meta i could see that instead of HE changes. But you hit the nail on the head here. The immunity is so short.

Buffing DC for BB's would go a long way to reducing the stupid fire damage and chance HE has.

Either way something has to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
37 posts
4 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

i don't really like the state of CV balance in general.  they are a mess.

 

indeed, they would have to find some what to compensate for the loss of HE.   Fires are currently the equalizer.

 

I think that's the problem though. Fire shouldn't be an equalizer.

As of right now, fires are too stupidly powerful, when in reality, fires alone (especially fires on the deck, like in this game) shouldn't be able to damage, let alone sink, a steel warship.

As I've stated in my previous post, I truly believe that keeping HE as they are, but nerfing fires so that one fire does 100 damage per tick (and four doing 400 per tick), instead of percentage-based damage, would fix a lot of the problems plaguing this game, including all the "pansy" BBs at higher tiers, and restore the BB > CA/CL > DD > BB "affinity chart."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[ARRGG]
Members
4,863 posts
8,169 battles
4 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

There are better ways than how fire works. For one it should never be impossible to put a fire out. I have suggested that the oldest fire burning should have a small chance to go out with each tic reducing that helpless feeling that comes when you put several fires out and then as soon as the immunity period ends you get lit up again with several fires again.

Managing the repair is a bit of an art, Fire is such an big part of this game to rework it in a big way is just not going to happen,you can fly flags that help the consmible, you can also buy repair that reduces its downtime for $$$ so there’s many reasons it’s here to stay ... I don’t mind it, we’re all working under the same rules 

SOMETIMES YOUR THE CAT

SOMETIMES YOUR THE CANARY 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[WOLF4]
Members
1,533 posts
3,523 battles
1 minute ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Managing the repair is a bit of an art, Fire is such an big part of this game to rework it in a big way is just not going to happen,you can fly flags that help the consmible, you can also buy repair that reduces its downtime for $$$ so there’s many reasons it’s here to stay ... I don’t mind it, we’re all working under the same rules 

SOMETIMES YOUR THE CAT

SOMETIMES YOUR THE CANARY 

Just no. Things can change and usually do in games when enough people complain about something.

HE wasn't always this insane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[SUPRS]
Members
559 posts
2,877 battles
2 hours ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

I get tired of this "arcade game not a sim" line that is injected in here all the time on the forum. It's not an arcade game per se: this does a huge disservice to the painstaking effort put into ship modelling done here--its not a sim, fine, but it is reality-derived as much as possible.

And that means they bend things to make the game work better qua game. So HE and fire damage can be viewed in many ways--like injury and death inflicted to crew members and a reduction in the survivability of the ship (witness the Bismarck which finally scuttled itself with half of it's crew dead, and not sunk by AP shell fire or torps).  Disruption of ship systems, communications, command center decimation, various crew injury and deaths--much of this, say half, is registered under HE fires in the game as it should be.

End of topic as far as I am concerend.

 

Correct, it's more like World of Warcraft with ships instead of paladins and rogues. The HE mechanics don't necessarily correspond to any real aspect of a ship shooting another ship with a big gun. I and others like me do not care for this aspect of the wannabe sim arcade game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,820
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,770 posts
10,986 battles
1 minute ago, Admiral_Snoop_Dogg said:

 

I think that's the problem though. Fire shouldn't be an equalizer.

As of right now, fires are too stupidly powerful, when in reality, fires alone (especially fires on the deck, like in this game) shouldn't be able to damage, let alone sink, a steel warship.

As I've stated in my previous post, I truly believe that keeping HE as they are, but nerfing fires so that one fire does 100 damage per tick (and four doing 400 per tick), instead of percentage-based damage, would fix a lot of the problems plaguing this game, including all the "pansy" BBs at higher tiers, and restore the BB > CA/CL > DD > BB "affinity chart."

Something I have suggested in the past is a more sim like treatment of fire. Instead of the current system fire would cause very little damage but after a set period of time passes a roll is made to see what happens with the fire. it might go out or it might get bigger or secondary ammo explodes causing significant damage. This keeps going until a roll puts the fire out. This removes the percent of the burning ships damage that fire currently causes and also removes the helplessness that comes from using damage control and getting set on fire again no matter how many fires you put out. Something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,497
[SALVO]
Members
20,566 posts
20,417 battles
10 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Managing the repair is a bit of an art, Fire is such an big part of this game to rework it in a big way is just not going to happen,you can fly flags that help the consmible, you can also buy repair that reduces its downtime for $$$ so there’s many reasons it’s here to stay ... I don’t mind it, we’re all working under the same rules 

SOMETIMES YOUR THE CAT

SOMETIMES YOUR THE CANARY 

And sometimes one doesn't know how to spell "you're".  :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[ARRGG]
Members
4,863 posts
8,169 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

And sometimes one doesn't know how to spell "you're".  :Smile_teethhappy:

Yes I do .. Yer .. me tinks:Smile_sad::Smile_hiding: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[WOLF4]
Members
1,533 posts
3,523 battles
9 minutes ago, 44_percenter said:

Correct, it's more like World of Warcraft with ships instead of paladins and rogues. The HE mechanics don't necessarily correspond to any real aspect of a ship shooting another ship with a big gun. I and others like me do not care for this aspect of the wannabe sim arcade game.

This made my head hurt. I play WoW but i see no way to compare the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[SUPRS]
Members
559 posts
2,877 battles

Fire is cancer, mk. They burn way too long. Or maybe fires can be "started" while already burning and the burn time gets refreshed? Whatever. I've tried dousing the first fire, soon as 20 seconds is up, ship is on fire for the rest of the game, approximately 2 minutes. I've tried waiting until the fire does the maximum damage that can be repaired at once, then dousing the fire and repairing, soon as the 20 seconds is up, ship is on fire for the rest of the game, approximately 2 minutes. There is no counterplay to fires, and a lot of the time, dousing a fire means you flood immediately after, within 2 minutes, and the flooding also lasts long enough to do well over half your ships hit points before DC is off cd. The flag helps but not much. Sure all the damage can be repaired eventually, but good luck getting away from a cruiser in time to use repair party twice, let alone repair all the fire damage from a minute of burning. They're faster, and they can zig zag twice in the time it takes your shells to reach them. You also can't close the distance because they'll run and as I mentioned, are faster. Like the captain 2 posts above says, why does fire even do damage to a steel battleship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[SUPRS]
Members
559 posts
2,877 battles
6 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

This made my head hurt. I play WoW but i see no way to compare the two.

This is exactly WoW if classes in WoW had 3-5 abilities. Reality as an argument also doesn't apply to WoW when a rogue can stand a yard in front of you and be invisible, and a paladin can heal from the brink of death to full health in one global. Reality as a standard doesn't apply to WoWs, because balance and garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,455 posts
8,392 battles
4 minutes ago, Admiral_Snoop_Dogg said:

 

I think that's the problem though. Fire shouldn't be an equalizer.

As of right now, fires are too stupidly powerful, when in reality, fires alone (especially fires on the deck, like in this game) shouldn't be able to damage, let alone sink, a steel warship.

As I've stated in my previous post, I truly believe that keeping HE as they are, but nerfing fires so that one fire does 100 damage per tick (and four doing 400 per tick), instead of percentage-based damage, would fix a lot of the problems plaguing this game, including all the "pansy" BBs at higher tiers, and restore the BB > CA/CL > DD > BB "affinity chart."

That makes high tier BBs basically immune to fires.  What is that, 6k damage for one fire lasting a min.   3.6k if you have an anti fire build.   With all the heals and very large HP pools, fire might as well not be in the game.   With that change, fires would do more damage of your total health the lower total HP you have.  100 damage to a 10k health ship is a larger % to them than 100 damage to a  ship with 100k total health.    and its the larger ships that tend to have the heals, so they would be even more immune to this change.  That would be a big fat buff to BBs.

 

Bbs are already better than CAs and CLs.   Most cruisers are not much of a threat unless played by a good player.   and even then, one good shell and you wreck them.  BBs can out spot or be spotted around the same time they spot some cruisers.   You are pretty much making BBs impossible to kill for cruisers.  This is a game, not real life.  It takes a very long time to burn down a BB in a 1v1 fight and that generally only happens if the BB is misusing its DC, doesn't have the best captain skills,  low or out of heals, and/or has really poor RNG.   

 

neither of your posts addressed the balance issues that the change you proposed would cause.  Of the 3 types of ships, BBs, cruisers, and DDs.  cruisers are the weakest of the 3 outside a few exceptions. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[WOLF4]
Members
1,533 posts
3,523 battles
1 minute ago, 44_percenter said:

This is exactly WoW if classes in WoW had 3-5 abilities. Reality as an argument also doesn't apply to WoW when a rogue can stand a yard in front of you and be invisible, and a paladin can heal from the brink of death to full health in one global. Reality as a standard doesn't apply to WoWs, because balance and garbage.

Ah i see what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[WOLF4]
Members
1,533 posts
3,523 battles
21 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

That makes high tier BBs basically immune to fires.  What is that, 6k damage for one fire lasting a min.   3.6k if you have an anti fire build.   With all the heals and very large HP pools, fire might as well not be in the game.   With that change, fires would do more damage of your total health the lower total HP you have.  100 damage to a 10k health ship is a larger % to them than 100 damage to a  ship with 100k total health.    and its the larger ships that tend to have the heals, so they would be even more immune to this change.  That would be a big fat buff to BBs.

 

Bbs are already better than CAs and CLs.   Most cruisers are not much of a threat unless played by a good player.   and even then, one good shell and you wreck them.  BBs can out spot or be spotted around the same time they spot some cruisers.   You are pretty much making BBs impossible to kill for cruisers.  This is a game, not real life.  It takes a very long time to burn down a BB in a 1v1 fight and that generally only happens if the BB is misusing its DC, doesn't have the best captain skills,  low or out of heals, and/or has really poor RNG.   

 

neither of your posts addressed the balance issues that the change you proposed would cause.  Of the 3 types of ships, BBs, cruisers, and DDs.  cruisers are the weakest of the 3 outside a few exceptions. 

With three to four fires raging on a deck it does not take long for a CA to burn down a BB. I've seen BB's go one on one with CA's in tier 8/10 and if that BB is alone most times he's dead from fire. He has 30 second reload and most CA's have 6 second or less reload. By pure DPM they win the fight while they shuck and jive the BB's shots. I've seen this happen.

BB's are so afraid of CA's and DD's right now that most won't get involved in capping and you are saying how weak CA's and DD's are? That's bull crap and we both know it. Right now with island spam and the crazy way ships catch fire CA's are far from weak. Once a CA has started in on a BB with HE the only chance any BB has is either taking out said CA which is impossible when its behind an island or run and BB's can't run away unless they are french and fast.

And saying DD's are weak when they are infact probably the most powerful game changing type of ship next to CV's. Specially when played well. They are the first reason most BB's won't cap next to CA fire from islands near caps. Torp soup is the other terror of the sea.

You guys can't have it both ways with BB's. If this meta continues expect more sniping BB's. HE and torp soup need to ease up for BB's to play that tank role of running into a cap. That seems to be what everyone wants. Well if you want that you have to give some of this insanity up.

Edited by xalmgrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,714 posts
3,833 battles
5 hours ago, TL_Warlord_Roff said:

Naw really just get rid of HE entirely.

 Every thing that comes out of a gun barrel is AP.. AP has a fire starting chance dependent upon the size of the shells bursting charge and where it hits.  taking a round in the paint locker can be a very very bad thing, or the torpedo fuel, or aviation gas supply for your aircraft.   Make fires dependent on "Where The Shell Hits"

High explosive rounds is for causing concussive shock to equipment and personal, ie: killing soft targets out in the real world.    The only reason real world war ships ever shot HE rounds at another ship is because they were out of AP.   

It really a peculiarity of this game I have never ever liked.

In historical context He rounds were used more often than AP rounds. Combining them into one won't be happening anytime soon. I get what your saying about fires being based on where the shells land. If anything I have learned after making a lot of proposals myself on here and world of tanks it's going to be this anything that takes away from the simplicity of the mechanics will not go through. Core mechanics were set in stone for the ammo types after we left the Beta stage behind. However, this leaves the door open to changes on where HE shells land on a ship. I would love to see you make a post about a less radical idea. This is why a sandbox server should be opened up to test ideas like this and see if they hold value. This idea does have some value a refined idea holds even more value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[ARRGG]
Members
4,863 posts
8,169 battles
32 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

Just no. Things can change and usually do in games when enough people complain about something.

HE wasn't always this insane.

 

Not here it doesn’t .. complain all you want the fact is things change here for one reason only and that is “Data shows” every shot, every turn, speed, angle, hits, misses is recorded .. Data.. this is used to balance this is why Wows is always tweaking this or that.. the last big Nerf was for Cruisers here in 2015... why.. it is told that because the waters were rising from B.B. tears , but no...it was because Wows data showed that Cruisers with guns bigger than 139 mm given the ability to fire 20% further we’re doing to much damage from fires ..sooo they Took that ability away, it’s one big balancing act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[ARRGG]
Members
4,863 posts
8,169 battles
12 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

With three to four fires raging on a deck it does not take long for a CA to burn down a BB. I've seen BB's go one on one with CA's in tier 8/10 and if that BB is alone most times he's dead from fire. He has 30 second reload and most CA's have 6 second or less reload. By pure DPM they win the fight while they shuck and jive the BB's shots. I've seen this happen.

BB's are so afraid of CA's and DD's right now that most won't get involved in capping and you are saying how weak CA's and DD's are? That's bull crap and we both know it. Right now with island spam and the crazy way ships catch fire CA's are far from weak. Once a CA has started in on a BB with HE the only chance any BB has is either taking out said CA which is impossible when its behind an island or run and BB's can't run away unless they are french and fast.

And saying DD's are weak when they are infact probably the most powerful game changing type of ship next to CV's. Specially when played well. They are the first reason most BB's won't cap next to CA fire from islands near caps. Torp soup is the other terror of the sea.

You guys can't have it both ways with BB's. If this meta continues expect more sniping BB's. HE and torp soup need to ease up for BB's to play that tank role of running into a cap. That seems to be what everyone wants. Well if you want that you have to give some of this insanity up.

I just love sniping camping BBS in my anti camper Zao with spotter plane at 21+k

 

  • Boring 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×