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

Suggestion for HE/Fire Spam

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

159
[AWP]
Members
780 posts
2,950 battles

Intro:

This is something I have been thinking about for a while. Try to hear me out first before replying. I think I play all types pretty evenly (28% CA/CL, 32% DD, 34% BB) but I am playing CA/CL much more now and I am on the opposite side of what you usually see posted about fires burning too much please nerf and such. I have been playing the the Cleveland, Chapayev, and Edinburgh the past week or so and have been paying close attention to where my damage comes from. Obviously I can't include the Edinburgh in this because it does not fire HE so only the previous Chapayev, and current Cleveland will be discussed. 

I feel that the HE damage + fire damage is a bit much on BB's. The Chapayev is the one that really bothers me with the amount of raw damage + fires I set. I have had multiple salvos into BB superstructure do 4k+ damage and set 2 fires. I have only played 26 games in it and am almost to the Dmitri Donskoi so maybe it is a small sample but I still don't think this should have happened enough for me to notice it. The Cleveland will do the damage and set fires but I don't recall setting multiple fires with large damage numbers. 

Suggestion: 

As far as I know, any HE shell that touches a ship has the chance of setting a fire and maybe that is a bit much. I would suggest that we change it a little. I would assume in reality, a penetrating hit would have a higher chance of setting fires but we know this game is more about balancing than reality in terms of damages. I believe it would be better if penetrating HE shells had no chance to cause fires. This would mean that if you aim for sections you can pen and do pen most shots there will be less chance of fire. This will give ships that struggle to pen and rely on fire damage will continue to set fires as normal but ships that can pen with HE and set lots of fires will now set less fires unless they aim for an armored section. I get that this will impact certain ships more than others so some buffs might have to happen. This would impact CA's and BB's the most in damage taken but could also help lower tier ships that do not have heals. Currently, if you land 4 penetrations and 4 shatters you have 8 times your individual shell fire chance while with my proposition you would only have 4 times your individual shell fire chance. A side effect of this change would be the benefits of choosing the proper ammunition type and making players that only fire HE learn to change up every now and then (Looking mainly at UK BB's). Overall impact would be less and it might encourage BB's to push up more than currently if they are less likely to be chunked 3-4k+ as well as fires.

Examples:

I am in a Chapayev today going up against an Iowa from roughly 14km away. He fires and does 3k damage, I turn to get all 4 turrets on him between his salvos. First salvo does 3.5k. Second salvo does 4.2k and sets 2 fires, third salvo does 2k and 1 fire. He puts them out and I angle to dodge. He does like 4k to me and I start turning again. First salvo does 3k, second does 3.5k and 2 fires, third does another few thousand. I keep firing and set a 3rd fire. End of the game I had 48k damage from HE and 55k in fire damage. 

In the Nelson I will fire a salvo and set 2 fires plus a few thousand damage.

Conclusion:

I personally feel that I do too much damage and damage over time in one salvo and think a good way to correct this would be penetrations do not have a  chance to start a fire. This does not make massive changes and will most likely lower total fires set per game only on certain ships. I wish there was a way to get a dev's opinion on stuff like this but I don't think there is so I will settle for the responses on the forum. 

TL;DR: Change up fire chances with penetrations, reward accuracy, less punishing to BB's that push, reward shell type choice, would require some changes to ships as they currently sit.

Alternate:

 If this is too much of a change, fire chance per penetration could be halved instead of changed to zero. 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
412
[VW]
Members
1,832 posts
12,276 battles

Honestly fires are needed because cruisers can be one shot and bbs cant. When you factor in heals, they would be very hard to sink without the fires. Just think about any brit bb, especially nelson if fires were nerfed, op much?

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[LHG]
Members
1,190 posts
4,924 battles

So what, just universally gut 203mm heavy cruisers? I bet you'd love to play a Furutaka that can't set any fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,841 battles

No, not when one volley from a ship 18 K away, far outside my firing range, can remove 1/2 of my health. Just NO.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
383
[WOLFB]
Members
1,658 posts
8,045 battles

Oh so 4k damage + 2 fire is considered "too much"  ? And I suppose you have no issue with BB landing 2 citadel on your ship, removing 80% of your HP ?

 

No your suggestion is straight up garbage. Fire is not a problem in this game. The problem are BB over extending and using their consummable the wrong way. Fire are 100% repairable. FP reduce the chance of fire but also remove the ability to set 2 fire on the superstructure. Basic of survivability helps you with firefighting skill as well as modules. A BB can push under HE spam if he can reads map, I did it several time in my Yammy while supporting my team and fire didn't killed me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
940
Members
4,451 posts
6,152 battles
45 minutes ago, Belyy_Klyk said:

Intro:

This is something I have been thinking about for a while. Try to hear me out first before replying. I think I play all types pretty evenly (28% CA/CL, 32% DD, 34% BB) but I am playing CA/CL much more now and I am on the opposite side of what you usually see posted about fires burning too much please nerf and such. I have been playing the the Cleveland, Chapayev, and Edinburgh the past week or so and have been paying close attention to where my damage comes from. Obviously I can't include the Edinburgh in this because it does not fire HE so only the previous Chapayev, and current Cleveland will be discussed. 

I feel that the HE damage + fire damage is a bit much on BB's. The Chapayev is the one that really bothers me with the amount of raw damage + fires I set. I have had multiple salvos into BB superstructure do 4k+ damage and set 2 fires. I have only played 26 games in it and am almost to the Dmitri Donskoi so maybe it is a small sample but I still don't think this should have happened enough for me to notice it. The Cleveland will do the damage and set fires but I don't recall setting multiple fires with large damage numbers. 

Suggestion: 

As far as I know, any HE shell that touches a ship has the chance of setting a fire and maybe that is a bit much. I would suggest that we change it a little. I would assume in reality, a penetrating hit would have a higher chance of setting fires but we know this game is more about balancing than reality in terms of damages. I believe it would be better if penetrating HE shells had no chance to cause fires. This would mean that if you aim for sections you can pen and do pen most shots there will be less chance of fire. This will give ships that struggle to pen and rely on fire damage will continue to set fires as normal but ships that can pen with HE and set lots of fires will now set less fires unless they aim for an armored section. I get that this will impact certain ships more than others so some buffs might have to happen. This would impact CA's and BB's the most in damage taken but could also help lower tier ships that do not have heals. Currently, if you land 4 penetrations and 4 shatters you have 8 times your individual shell fire chance while with my proposition you would only have 4 times your individual shell fire chance. A side effect of this change would be the benefits of choosing the proper ammunition type and making players that only fire HE learn to change up every now and then (Looking mainly at UK BB's). Overall impact would be less and it might encourage BB's to push up more than currently if they are less likely to be chunked 3-4k+ as well as fires.

Examples:

I am in a Chapayev today going up against an Iowa from roughly 14km away. He fires and does 3k damage, I turn to get all 4 turrets on him between his salvos. First salvo does 3.5k. Second salvo does 4.2k and sets 2 fires, third salvo does 2k and 1 fire. He puts them out and I angle to dodge. He does like 4k to me and I start turning again. First salvo does 3k, second does 3.5k and 2 fires, third does another few thousand. I keep firing and set a 3rd fire. End of the game I had 48k damage from HE and 55k in fire damage. 

In the Nelson I will fire a salvo and set 2 fires plus a few thousand damage.

Conclusion:

I personally feel that I do too much damage and damage over time in one salvo and think a good way to correct this would be penetrations do not have a  chance to start a fire. This does not make massive changes and will most likely lower total fires set per game only on certain ships. I wish there was a way to get a dev's opinion on stuff like this but I don't think there is so I will settle for the responses on the forum. 

TL;DR: Change up fire chances with penetrations, reward accuracy, less punishing to BB's that push, reward shell type choice, would require some changes to ships as they currently sit.

Alternate:

 If this is too much of a change, fire chance per penetration could be halved instead of changed to zero. 

 

Huh?  Too complicated. Try simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[AWP]
Members
780 posts
2,950 battles

I’m amazed that everyone who has replied think all HE shells pen and that it would gut 203mm... next game pay attention to how many shatters you get. No fires are not an issue in the game, I agree with that. I am saying the issue is when you can deal 4k + multiple fires in one salvo. That is why I wrote everything out. Chance to set fires on non pen (aka when you hit armor) and that is it. Just my opinion. 

This is all because I was able to 1v1 a tier higher battleship in a Chapayev open water and win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[AWP]
Members
780 posts
2,950 battles
10 minutes ago, dmckay said:

Huh?  Too complicated. Try simple. 

You want an in depth suggestion to be simplified? 

If your HE shell pens it will not set fire. If your HE shell does not pen, it can set a fire.

The rest is all reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[CUTE]
Members
5,152 posts
3,430 battles

Is there an issue with BB survival? 

Didn't think so... fire is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
940
Members
4,451 posts
6,152 battles
30 minutes ago, Belyy_Klyk said:

You want an in depth suggestion to be simplified? 

If your HE shell pens it will not set fire. If your HE shell does not pen, it can set a fire.

The rest is all reasoning.

TKS.  Much better~! Conclusion....nice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,209 posts
4,051 battles
54 minutes ago, Canadatron said:

Is there an issue with BB survival? 

Didn't think so... fire is fine.

There is a problem with sniping BBs and stagnant game play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[CUTE]
Members
5,152 posts
3,430 battles
47 minutes ago, StoneRhino said:

There is a problem with sniping BBs and stagnant game play. 

You can't patch anything in that will reel those guys closer. The 'sniping BB' has already survived many attempts on its life and will continue to do so.

Combat aversion is real.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,841 battles
2 hours ago, Belyy_Klyk said:

I’m amazed that everyone who has replied think all HE shells pen and that it would gut 203mm... next game pay attention to how many shatters you get.

I'm amazed you think Cruisers need a nerf; next game pay attention to the fact that you can heal fire damage and most cruisers don't have the ability to heal any kind of damage. NO means NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,348
[SWFSH]
[SWFSH]
Beta Testers
2,442 posts
5,522 battles

Fire, a damage that can be 100% healed using the repair consumable, is a problem?

A damage type with so many built in counters in the game, including modules, captain perks, and flags, is a problem?

Dude, pick on something else if you're going to poke the forums and try and convince us that somehow fire is an issue that needs solving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,841 battles
2 hours ago, Belyy_Klyk said:

This is all because I was able to 1v1 a tier higher battleship in a Chapayev open water and win. 

I've done the same thing in a Pensacola against a Nelson; doesn't mean that fire is a problem, means the Nelson driver doesn't know what to do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
566
[HRDP]
Members
2,684 posts
8,115 battles

Honestly, I think the only place where Fire and HE spam has become excessive is coming from the newest BB lines. Specifically, royal Navy BB HE spam. One of the dumbest gimmicks Wargaming introduced, though RN CL AP spam is a close second. I feel that the only area where HE and fire chance really needs to be toned down is with the RN BB's, and to a lesser degree the french BB's, though they aren't anywhere near as bad as RN BB's.

Cruisers, eh not really. I do think that the IJN cruiser line ought to be tweaked, IE tone done their HE, but in return, make them more historically accurate by giving them 12 k torpedoes starting with Myoko, as well as quality of life buffs elsewhere. Especially considering that in real life, IJN HE wasn't that good, and IJN CA's definitively favored the use of AP over HE. In particular I think Zao and Ibuki need attention. Zao ought to get her HP restored and the upcoming torpedo buff, but in returned, toned down HE, while Ibuki ought to get Zao's guns and an HP buff. Overall I don't particularity care for the flavor that IJN cruisers have, and i wish they where more true to history. Btu overall IJN HE spam doesn't hold a candle to the ridiculousness that is RN BB HE spam.

 

Maybe make AA mounts on all ships a little less fragile, as excessive HE spam does tend to make AA builds worthless. But that's the only big issue I have with HE spam in general.

Edited by ryuukei8569
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[PVE]
Members
497 posts
4,086 battles
2 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

Honestly fires are needed because cruisers can be one shot and bbs cant. When you factor in heals, they would be very hard to sink without the fires.

This. BBs can one shot cruisers if they get a but lucky. Cruisers being able to light multiple fires on BBs if they get a bit lucky is okay with me. The DPM is also okay since BBs have much more health.

I get annoyed when cruisers put multiple fires on my BBs, but I am even more annoyed when a lucky shot from a BB hits my citidel for half of my health in a cruiser. I think its okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[AWP]
Members
780 posts
2,950 battles
20 minutes ago, Umikami said:

I'm amazed you think Cruisers need a nerf; next game pay attention to the fact that you can heal fire damage and most cruisers don't have the ability to heal any kind of damage. NO means NO.

 

17 minutes ago, Cruiser_StLouis said:

Fire, a damage that can be 100% healed using the repair consumable, is a problem?

A damage type with so many built in counters in the game, including modules, captain perks, and flags, is a problem?

Dude, pick on something else if you're going to poke the forums and try and convince us that somehow fire is an issue that needs solving.

Way to take this and run down a hole with it. Yes it will nerf some cruisers and as I noted, some ships will have to be bugged to account for this. The nerf is simply to the ability to do large chunk damage as well as fires at the same time. If a cruiser is firing HE at distance, there are plenty of shatters that could still start fires but if you are penning all your HE shells, that should be it. In my opinion it should be the same as why a citadel doesn’t also count as a pen. Ever noticed you can have 149 pens and still get the 150 needed because of a citadel? I think fires and pens should be separate as well. If you don’t understand why, then I don’t see any reason to bother keeping this going. It is a suggestion and you’ve said you disagree. This is the reasoning I have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[AWP]
Members
780 posts
2,950 battles
2 minutes ago, MasterDiggs said:

This. BBs can one shot cruisers if they get a but lucky. Cruisers being able to light multiple fires on BBs if they get a bit lucky is okay with me. The DPM is also okay since BBs have much more health.

I get annoyed when cruisers put multiple fires on my BBs, but I am even more annoyed when a lucky shot from a BB hits my citidel for half of my health in a cruiser. I think its okay.

While I agree with this, it is annoying to get deleted I also will say citadels are not counted as pens so why would it be illogical that fire causing shots and pens were separated? I just do not think I should be able to cause so much damage AND fires in one salvo. Make it so that if you want to start a fire you actually need to aim to start a fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[MWM]
Supertest Coordinator
276 posts
4,430 battles

Fire is fine as is ( I am a BB main) radar is fine ( cruiser second) smoke and torp reload is fine ( I do play DD's). Just learn to deal with the different things going on in the battle space, pay attention to the strong points of what you run and learn what you can do to counter or lessen your weak point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,841 battles
24 minutes ago, Belyy_Klyk said:

Way to take this and run down a hole with it. Yes it will nerf some cruisers and as I noted, some ships will have to be bugged to account for this. The nerf is simply to the ability to do large chunk damage as well as fires at the same time. If a cruiser is firing HE at distance, there are plenty of shatters that could still start fires but if you are penning all your HE shells, that should be it. In my opinion it should be the same as why a citadel doesn’t also count as a pen. Ever noticed you can have 149 pens and still get the 150 needed because of a citadel? I think fires and pens should be separate as well. If you don’t understand why, then I don’t see any reason to bother keeping this going. It is a suggestion and you’ve said you disagree. This is the reasoning I have. 

You asked for opinions, got them, and then criticize the players who gave you their opinions because they don't agree with you. Thank you for taking the time to consider all sides of an argument. BBs are the easiest, and the most forgiving, ships in the game, as well as the most powerful. And you want them buffed, yet wonder why players who play the ships they'll see in combat say no. It's because they are powerful enough already.

I've seen many posts about radar lately, as well as many about CVs. Many players want radar nerfed, and many player want CVs nerfed. Whenever one of these threads pops up, other players invariably tell those players complaining that they need to adapt and learn how to play against radar and CVs. Well, you need to learn how to play against fire, as many BB players do every game, quite successfully. You know, GIT GUD. Fire does not need ANY sort of nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,015
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles

Why should I feel sympathy for battleships when they can citadel me from any angle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[AWP]
Members
780 posts
2,950 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

You asked for opinions, got them, and then criticize the players who gave you their opinions because they don't agree with you. Thank you for taking the time to consider all sides of an argument. BBs are the easiest, and the most forgiving, ships in the game, as well as the most powerful. And you want them buffed, yet wonder why players who play the ships they'll see in combat say no. It's because they are powerful enough already.

I've seen many posts about radar lately, as well as many about CVs. Many players want radar nerfed, and many player want CVs nerfed. Whenever one of these threads pops up, other players invariably tell those players complaining that they need to adapt and learn how to play against radar and CVs. Well, you need to learn how to play against fire, as many BB players do every game, quite successfully. You know, GIT GUD. Fire does not need ANY sort of nerf.

Haha the funny thing is youre accusing me of wanting BB’s to get a buff because I can’t play a BB. That isn’t even the point of this. I could care less if I burn as a BB. I just think it’s ridiculous I can go into a game in a cruiser and set fire after fire while consistently doing 3-4K damage to him. It’s just like anything else. If they don’t want to change it they won’t. I just never had agreed with the way fire worked. Yes there needs to be a counter to a bow tanking BB, I just don’t like the way it currently sits. 

1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

Why should I feel sympathy for battleships when they can citadel me from any angle?

I’m not saying feel sympath for them. I’m saying change the way it works. As a bottom tier Chapayev, should I be able to easily do 125k damage in the first 8 minutes of the game? If I was a Des Moines I would understand but as a Chapayev I don’t think I should die halfway through a game and at the end see 50k HE 55k  fire or anything like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,209 posts
4,051 battles
2 hours ago, Umikami said:

I'm amazed you think Cruisers need a nerf; next game pay attention to the fact that you can heal fire damage and most cruisers don't have the ability to heal any kind of damage. NO means NO.

Which is why cruisers suffer from he spam more than BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,209 posts
4,051 battles
3 hours ago, Canadatron said:

You can't patch anything in that will reel those guys closer. The 'sniping BB' has already survived many attempts on its life and will continue to do so.

Combat aversion is real.

True but you force aggressive players back with he spam. 

He ignores the armor of the easiest to hit target while doing a greater amount of damage because of a % based dot attached to it.

I think fires are largely fine. It's the rapid fire armor ignoring he that can be skillessly spammed that's more of an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×