Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
ph3l0n

Unlimited Ammo Discussion - How it endorses brain dead game play.

129 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
167 posts
989 battles

If we limited amount of shells per battle per ship, we could make this game a bit more skill based.  Make you have to think about your shots, rather than just firing as soon as it timer is up.  It would make for more tactical and decided shooting.  It would move away from just holding down the fire button "Hur De Dur" game design.  Instead we have these machine gun Cruisers and DDs which are just absolutely stupid.  They can keep their finger on the trigger the whole match and never run out of ammo.   While I am not opposed to that type of play style, because it adds something different, there is absolutely no down side to it.  APM = DPS.  Wonder why the Haru is out performing just about everything atm?  It is because it has unlimited ammo and a 1 second firing rate.

So my question to my other players.  How do you feel about this HE fire spam meta?  Do you think it is a good thing? If so, why?  If you think it is trash can game design like I do, give me reasons why.  I want to see both sides of the story.  So tell me what YOU think!

 

Optionally:  Make every salvo increase repair costs.  Make people have to do a cost/benefit analysis.  This would also make people more cautious with their shots.

Edited by ph3l0n
  • Cool 5
  • Funny 4
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
182 posts
2,612 battles

It would require an entire top down rebalancing of every ship, penetration level, etc. in the entire game. 

I bet WG could do it but it is less important than new maps, modes, etc. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,521
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,703 posts
3,468 battles

Fire is largely a joke in my experience.

War Gaming's published data backs this up as well. Fire damage isn't a large chunk of damage in the average battle. Or better said, it isn't large in comparison to other major damage types.

It was actually surprising to that it was as low as it was considering how much flak it got prior to some nerfs it received.

It was broken down by Tier, I'll have to find it.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[WOLF2]
Members
124 posts
4,611 battles

that sure as heck would make the game more interesting and tense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
581
[OPRAH]
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
3,764 posts
12,459 battles

except for torpedoes all the ships represented carried enough ammo to support 20 minutes of non stop firing. CVs are limited to their plane numbers! These are not tanks with little space for stores!

@ph3l0n If there were no brain dead players here the number of players on the server count box would be 0 not that it would make a difference with no one on to see it!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[INTEL]
Members
583 posts
7,358 battles

My Worcester would be out of ammo in the first 5 minutes resulting in it hiding the rest of the game.  Games would take the full 20 minutes while BBs tried to hunt down everyone out of ammo.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[VIKES]
[VIKES]
Members
542 posts
11,894 battles

MY FEELINGS, EXPRESSED WITH A VISUAL

10469738_763907736964853_5962917237766117229_n.jpg

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,521
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,703 posts
3,468 battles

Unlimited ammo has never been a major issue in the game, so I vote no.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,199 posts
2,029 battles

The only problem is that running out of ammunition was not going to be a problem for most ships, not in 20 minutes. Most ships could fire all their guns at their highest rates for 20 minutes without running out of ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[NOBS]
Members
476 posts
5,485 battles

I can see those ramming flags all being used up

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,276 posts
19,097 battles
8 minutes ago, ph3l0n said:

If we limited amount of shells per battle per ship, we could make this game a bit more skill based.  Make you have to think about your shots, rather than just firing as soon as it timer is up.  It would make for more tactical and decided shooting.  It would move away from just holding down the fire button "Hur De Dur" game design.  Instead we have these machine gun Cruisers and DDs which are just absolutely stupid.  They can keep their finger on the trigger the whole match and never run out of ammo.   While I am not opposed to that type of play style, because it adds something different, there is absolutely no down side to it.  APM = DPS.  Wonder why the Haru is out performing just about everything atm?  It is because it has unlimited ammo and a 1 second firing rate.

So my question to my other players.  How do you feel about this HE fire spam meta?  Do you think it is a good thing? If so, why?  If you think it is trash can game design like I do, give me reasons why.  I want to see both sides of the story.  So tell me what YOU think!

I made this suggestion a long time ago and some historians here on the forum stated almost every ship in the game could have carried enough ammo for a 20 minute engagement. That said, that was pre-Minotaur/Akizuki days.

Torpedos are already unrealistic so I have no problem with unlimited shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[JUICE]
Members
814 posts
6,369 battles

The only thing that causes brain dead game play is brain dead players. Any one who knows the game will not just run around shooting at every enemy they see.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[WOLF5]
Members
1,497 posts
2,069 battles

Yeah, the Atlanta would be so much fun with limited ammo...

Also, magazine capacity on warships was humongous. Main battery shells, especially on BBs can't just be loaded anywhere, so they had to be stocked until they could get back to a major port. Yes, there are ammo ships, but I believe they carried mostly the AA shells, 5in and below. 16" AP isn't something that you just sling a couple of cases over and call it good.

I don't see how limited ammo would increase skill level. BBs would be fine, CAs would be OK, The CLs and DDs might be worse off depending on how WG did things. But, if your going to limit shells, you have to limit torpedoes. How many DDs captains would like to play with 1, maybe (really stretching) set of torps. And if you lose the launcher, too bad.

Also, the fastest thing that goes is AA ammo. That's not even modeled in game, so that's not going to work.

Basically, there's no reason to force a massive rebalancing of every ship in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[RUST]
Beta Testers
932 posts
10,354 battles

If you are suffering under firespam meta, limiting ammo count isn’t going to solve your problem because the root of your problem is that you are not as good at this game as you think you are.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,558
[HINON]
Supertester
18,966 posts
12,487 battles

Yes, punish ships for actually being aggressive and engaging the enemy.

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
763 posts
4,036 battles
19 minutes ago, ph3l0n said:

If we limited amount of shells per battle per ship, we could make this game a bit more skill based.  Make you have to think about your shots, rather than just firing as soon as it timer is up.  It would make for more tactical and decided shooting.  It would move away from just holding down the fire button "Hur De Dur" game design.  Instead we have these machine gun Cruisers and DDs which are just absolutely stupid.  They can keep their finger on the trigger the whole match and never run out of ammo.   While I am not opposed to that type of play style, because it adds something different, there is absolutely no down side to it.  APM = DPS.  Wonder why the Haru is out performing just about everything atm?  It is because it has unlimited ammo and a 1 second firing rate.

So my question to my other players.  How do you feel about this HE fire spam meta?  Do you think it is a good thing? If so, why?  If you think it is trash can game design like I do, give me reasons why.  I want to see both sides of the story.  So tell me what YOU think!

> absolutely no downside

Every ship that has rapid fire has a mile high citadel, low HP, poor maneuverability, and/or poor concealment.

HE spam may be problematic but if you want to get deleted with large caliber AP instead, go play the snail dev game. I'm sure the flak 88 tier 1 will seem totally fair and balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,381
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,972 posts
6,460 battles

even if we had the historical ammo amounts for ships, within a 20 minute battle, only the very rapid fire ships might run out of ammo, but the BBs never would, iirc, BB carried around 100 rounds or more per gun barrel, so the only way they'd come close to running out is if they constantly fired the very second the guns came off reload, cruisers would probably not run out, but the rapid fire ones, Worcester,Mino,DM, might come close, DDs would most likely run out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
763 posts
4,036 battles
Just now, Lert said:

Yes, punish ships for actually being aggressive and engaging the enemy.

Specifically punish ships because OP doesn't understand positioning or that a broken torp tube isn't when you burn DCP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,027 posts
3,845 battles
3 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Yeah, the Atlanta would be so much fun with limited ammo...

Also, magazine capacity on warships was humongous. Main battery shells, especially on BBs can't just be loaded anywhere, so they had to be stocked until they could get back to a major port. Yes, there are ammo ships, but I believe they carried mostly the AA shells, 5in and below. 16" AP isn't something that you just sling a couple of cases over and call it good.

I don't see how limited ammo would increase skill level. BBs would be fine, CAs would be OK, The CLs and DDs might be worse off depending on how WG did things. But, if your going to limit shells, you have to limit torpedoes. How many DDs captains would like to play with 1, maybe (really stretching) set of torps. And if you lose the launcher, too bad.

Also, the fastest thing that goes is AA ammo. That's not even modeled in game, so that's not going to work.

Basically, there's no reason to force a massive rebalancing of every ship in the game.

Aside from the fact that every ship carried more than enough ammunition for sustained firing >20 min, why do people think they need to rebalance  ships? Take Iowa: 1220 16" shells. Once you expend that, guns no longer go boom. No reason or need to rebalance that I can see. Secondaries might be interesting, but even in the 80s, down to 12x5", we still carried some serious rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[WOLFC]
[WOLFC]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
615 posts
7,709 battles

Some people do just leave the guns on HE, but many others switch where appropriate (or at least try to see if there's a better result).

That's one of the things I like about Warships, everyone gets the same types of ammunition, just varies on size of guns, reload, etc.  If it was limited, would we need to allocate X amount of shells as HE and Y amount as AP? You wouldn't know what you would need until the battle starts, and even then it changes as the battle plays out.

I also do not want to go down the HEAT, APCR, whatever else gold ammo they have now in Tanks road.  Especially if they were to charge different prices and we get a premium ammo situation going... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[ARGSY]
Members
42 posts
2,843 battles

Um, I resisted this game forever because I felt that it was pretty hokey and not realistic at all. Until I tried it and found out it was pretty hokey and not realistic at all- and a hell of a lot of fun. There are a hundred things you can do  to make it more realistic but come on now. It is just a fun shooter with ships. Ever hear of a US DD reloading torpedoes while in combat? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
469
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles

Imagine a world where going into battle:

  • with a Destroyer with only 2 torpedoes, 40 HE, 51 AP, 200 AA
  • with a Cruiser with only 1 HE, 150 AP, 100 AA
  • with a Battleship with only 2 AP, 0 HE, but 200 Secondary AP, 0 AA
  • with a Aircraft Carrier with only 2 TBs, 1 DB, 0 Fighters, 1 Air Torpedo, 0 Bombs, 100 Fighter AA, 300 HE Secondary, 1000 AA

Now add in gold ammo

This ain't WoT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,058
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,219 posts
8,804 battles
15 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Fire is largely a joke in my experience.

War Gaming's published data backs this up as well. Fire damage isn't a large chunk of damage in the average battle. Or better said, it isn't large in comparison to other major damage types.

It was actually surprising to that it was as low as it was considering how much flak it got prior to some nerfs it received.

It was broken down by Tier, I'll have to find it.

Please find that. The real problem with fire is that it is frustrating to deal with when it feels like you are constantly burning.

14 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

except for torpedoes all the ships represented carried enough ammo to support 20 minutes of non stop firing. CVs are limited to their plane numbers! These are not tanks with little space for stores!

This and there are very few tanks that have to watch their ammo use in WoT.

I would rather see bow tanking removed by reducing damage taken on the broadside and increase damage taken from the bow or stern.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
763 posts
4,036 battles
1 minute ago, handybilly said:

Um, I resisted this game forever because I felt that it was pretty hokey and not realistic at all. Until I tried it and found out it was pretty hokey and not realistic at all- and a hell of a lot of fun. There are a hundred things you can do  to make it more realistic but come on now. It is just a fun shooter with ships. Ever hear of a US DD reloading torpedoes while in combat? 

Or worse, when your torps get hit with ANYTHING, they instantly det and do requisite damage to your ship based on the number in the tubes hit.

Also perm engine/rudder destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×