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

How it Works: Fires

84 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

14
[D-S-T]
Members
55 posts

I've just seen the How it Works video about Fires.  I did find it informative, as I do all of those videos, and I do appreciate WG making them.

Now as anyone who reads what is posted in in-game comments by the players, I think its fair to say that there is  a fair amount of "That's [edited]"  going on with various aspects of the game.  While many might say that's a matter of opinion, I for one happen to think that the mechanics of Fires falls into that category nicely.

The video explains how fires deal damage given all the factors that can be involved in the calculation. But the one thing that appears to be missing is notation of the fact that a single fire will deal the same amount of damage, regardless of how the fire was ignited in the first place.  In other words, a single fire will deal x amount of damage per second, on a given ship, regardless if the fire was ignited by a large gun or a small gun.  While a small caliber round may have a lower probably of starting a fire than a large caliber round, that fact that the smaller caliber has such a higher rate of fire, gives it a better probability of starting a fire.  

As a consequence of this condition, we have the situation where a small DD can dog a BB and literally burn it to death, with its near incessant  barrage of little fireballs.  That a DD can sink a BB in this manner is just plain [edited].  In RL, no DD would ever survive a close encounter with a BB.  Get close enough to drop its torps and run is the best it could hope for.  Most times, it would get shot to pieces for its trouble.  But to hang around and exchange gunfire, is just absurd.

There is a lot of [edited] in this game, but this one just happens to be more annoying than the others.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
[HINON]
Members
9,017 posts
7 minutes ago, robLove said:

As a consequence of this condition, we have the situation where a small DD can dog a BB and literally burn it to death, with its near incessant  barrage of little fireballs.  That a DD can sink a BB in this manner is just plain [edited].  In RL, no DD would ever survive a close encounter with a BB.  Get close enough to drop its torps and run is the best it could hope for.  Most times, it would get shot to pieces for its trouble.  But to hang around and exchange gunfire, is just absurd.

Lol IRL no DD would be dueling a BB one on one, the BB would be facing a squadron of DDs launching many torpedoes etc etc. This is game balance.

Edited by RipNuN2
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,855
[NGA]
Alpha Tester
9,659 posts
3,924 battles

There's also captain skills that specifically increase fire chance. It's only 2% but that'll get even better with BFT on top of that with a 10% faster reload for said small guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
150
[B2P]
Members
511 posts
13,621 battles

Yeah, and IRL a DD would only have 1 set of torps (except for many of the IJN DDs, which would have 1 reload) and CVs would probably be deadlier than they already are.  It's a game, and the fire mechanics they put into it are designed to provide a balance.  It is a way for a smaller ship to still have a way of countering a larger ship.

Go play some WoT's and let me know how much you like running up against an enemy tank that you can't pen from any angle.  Then let me know how much fun you had.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
181
[CAST]
Members
1,201 posts
7,371 battles

 

14 minutes ago, J30_Reinhardt said:

There's also captain skills that specifically increase fire chance. It's only 2% but that'll get even better with BFT on top of that with a 10% faster reload for said small guns.

There is a captain skill(Basics of Survivability) that specifically reduces the time of a fire by 15%.  That is 15% less damage by fire. Then there is another (fire prevention) that reduces the fire damage by 10%.    And, there is also an upgrade on most BBs (Damage Control System Modification 2) that reduces the fire damage by a further 15%.  That is a lot of fire reduction damage for those that are afraid of burning and choose to use them.

Edited by Murcc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
98 posts
3,432 battles
34 minutes ago, Murcc said:

Then there is another (fire prevention) that reduces the fire damage by 10%. 

IIRC, FP is simply 'Reduce chance of fires by 10%' and doesn't actually affect burn time at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[RESP]
Beta Testers
889 posts
7,147 battles

"I BIG Boat, lil boat should not be able to kill me!"

Is that the about right?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
181
[CAST]
Members
1,201 posts
7,371 battles
1 minute ago, _Pixi_ said:

IIRC, FP is simply 'Reduce chance of fires by 10%' and doesn't actually affect burn time at all

Oops. yeah.  I knew it didn't reduce burn time.  I just wrote it wrong.  Brain is not connected to my fingers tonight. :Smile_facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
98 posts
3,432 battles
Just now, Murcc said:

Oops. yeah.  I knew it didn't reduce burn time.  I just wrote it wrong.  Brain is not connected to my fingers tonight.

Haha I feel ya, I only have it "Burned" into my head from when I was calculating FP builds with the Montana legendary module.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,350
[SWFSH]
[SWFSH]
Beta Testers
2,453 posts
5,612 battles

Fire is the most counterable type of damage in the game. There is no problem with it, and people who think there's an issue are really bad at damage management, or refuse to take measures to minimize the damage fire can do to them.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[D-S-T]
Members
55 posts
1 hour ago, RipNuN2 said:

Lol IRL no DD would be dueling a BB one on one, the BB would be facing a squadron of DDs launching many torpedoes etc etc. This is game balance.

That's my point.  One on One it would never happen.  What you call balance, I call fantasy.  If we got rid of some of the fantasy, the game my become more tactical, requiring honest skill, rather than exploitation of some obtuse mechanic in the game code.

but, that's just my take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
[HINON]
Members
9,017 posts
Just now, robLove said:

That's my point.  One on One it would never happen.  What you call balance, I call fantasy.  If we got rid of some of the fantasy, the game my become more tactical, requiring honest skill, rather than exploitation of some obtuse mechanic in the game code.

but, that's just my take on it.

If you want a sim go play a sim. Being a multiplayer game ships have to be balanced so each player no matter what ship type, can contribute to the match. I mean we have BBs with magical healing potions etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[KNTAI]
Beta Testers
1,273 posts
9,462 battles
4 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

If you want a sim go play a sim. Being a multiplayer game ships have to be balanced so each player no matter what ship type, can contribute to the match. I mean we have BBs with magical healing potions etc.

Heavy Weapons Guy has Sandvich, I have All-American Beef Burg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
495
[LOU1]
Members
3,027 posts
8,125 battles
25 minutes ago, robLove said:

That's my point.  One on One it would never happen.  What you call balance, I call fantasy.  If we got rid of some of the fantasy, the game my become more tactical, requiring honest skill, rather than exploitation of some obtuse mechanic in the game code.

but, that's just my take on it.

The balance point is that there would be a squadron of DDs, not one.  I figure that WG gives multiple torps, etc to a DD to simulate a squadron of DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[D-S-T]
Members
55 posts
1 hour ago, torpsRus said:
Clutch Move In Before The Lock GIF - ClutchMove InBeforeTheLock GIFs
 

LOL Thats too funny.  Expecting a flame war ?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles
Just now, robLove said:

LOL Thats too funny.  Expecting a flame war ?   

I guess you could say that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,548
[PSP]
Members
6,241 posts
8,880 battles
1 hour ago, robLove said:

a small DD can dog a BB and literally burn it to death, with its near incessant  barrage of little fireballs. 

A Finnish farmer, armed with nothing more than a gasoline-filled bottle with a rag tie around its neck, a match, and a lot of bravery, could take out a Russian tank.

 

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[KNTAI]
Beta Testers
1,273 posts
9,462 battles
7 minutes ago, ExploratorOne said:

The balance point is that there would be a squadron of DDs, not one.  I figure that WG gives multiple torps, etc to a DD to simulate a squadron of DDs.

I've often considered that perhaps a historical (not entirely crazy I guess) way of balancing Cruisers and Destroyers is to give them 'respawns'. Though this also has the psychological effect that not each ship has the same worth as another, so your mileage may vary, it has pros and cons.

Edited by Battleship_lowa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,548
[PSP]
Members
6,241 posts
8,880 battles
Quote

the 2,700-ton Johnston, still zig-zagging at maximum speed, started firing on the 13,500-ton heavy cruiser Kumano. As she slowly closed the gap, Johnston fired over 200 shells and managed to hit Kumano 45 times, setting many fires in her superstructure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[LTNY]
Members
335 posts
4,079 battles

The problem with fire chance is that even if you reduce it to 11%, that way to high.

You are in the Fuso, you wait for the 2 or 3 fire to start before putting them out. Next round that lands starts a fire, you are now screwed, even if you are lucky to disengage you now have 1,2 or 3 fires burning full duration.

Balance.thumb.jpg.8be5333d7f37e206a15b21ba63802645.jpg

11% shells, one after the other, and the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[D-S-T]
Members
55 posts
1 hour ago, DreadRaybo said:

Yeah, and IRL a DD would only have 1 set of torps (except for many of the IJN DDs, which would have 1 reload) and CVs would probably be deadlier than they already are.  It's a game, and the fire mechanics they put into it are designed to provide a balance.  It is a way for a smaller ship to still have a way of countering a larger ship.

Go play some WoT's and let me know how much you like running up against an enemy tank that you can't pen from any angle.  Then let me know how much fun you had.

I know, I hear what you are saying, that's just  the way it is.  Nobody would play a DD if you were always relegated to performing a suicide run on a larger ship. I get it.  But sometimes, it just seems so out of wack.

 

I use to play WoT.  I was there from the beginning, and I really like it back in the day, it just got too stupid.  I find War Thunder to be a much better tank sim.  True, it's still a game, but much better than WoT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[D-S-T]
Members
55 posts
41 minutes ago, ExploratorOne said:

The balance point is that there would be a squadron of DDs, not one.  I figure that WG gives multiple torps, etc to a DD to simulate a squadron of DDs.

Yeah, I see what you are saying.  Kind of like the way the battle is scaled down in 25mm or 15mm miniatures, but i didn't think that was the intention of the designers, at least, I haven't read anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
[HINON]
Members
9,017 posts
46 minutes ago, Jumarka said:

11% shells, one after the other, and the other.

 

You do realize the 11% is before the ship tier modifiers which reduce that value greatly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×