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

Do DOTs need a rework?

87 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

99
[-S-R-]
[-S-R-]
Beta Testers
214 posts
1,458 battles

With the CV rework demo, alongside Worcester and Haragumo in recent patches and RN DDs pending, it seems clear fires and soon floods are becoming increasingly common and consistently applied in matches.  The fact that a single down tiered CV torp could cause the same DOT as a carefully executed torp run from a DD assuming huge risk on a high priority target is a problem.  The fact that a Harugamo can shatter a single 100mm shell and have luck cause the same DOT as an entire Zao or Conq HE volley is a problem.

To be clear, I think DOT mechanics provide a gameplay syste mechanic that is beneficial, but having everything be straight RNG and then scale off of target HP rather than more realistic damage saturation models based on a number of factors is going to continue to plague the game as power creep and new lines are introduced.

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
318
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
917 posts
2,119 battles

If dot is becoming more popular, I think the solution would be more skills and upgrades so spec against dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,049
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,192 posts
8,798 battles

I think that fire does need a rework for a less frustrating player experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[AWP]
Members
780 posts
2,964 battles

In all honesty I wouldn’t mind seeing some sort of “burn hit points.” They already have sectionalized hit points so why not add some for fire? Initial fires burn at x% of hp then after a certain point it is halved, etc... work on exact numbers for balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,031
[OPG]
Members
3,901 posts
5,503 battles

I think DOTs are currently fine, but depending on how successful the CV re-work it might reach its breaking point.  The devs have stated they want to make CVs more DOT focused, and further expressed their hope of allowing multiple CVs (in divisions) on the same team in high tiers.  

If there are going to be 2-3 CVs on each team every battle, and they are all primary DOT focused, that just might be too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,700 posts
3,468 battles

Might need adjusting after the CV rework, or CVs might need adjusted.

Not worried about RN DDs because the surge won't be permanent and they will initially just replace other DDs.

I will say that Captain Skills probably need another redo to make things more or less appealing through shuffling and out-right changes.

Things like CE could just be made baseline due to basically being required of every ship. And make it so there are clearer choices between Cruisers and Battleships outside of just needing IFHE and DE or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[TSFR]
Members
14 posts
6,044 battles

They already admitted fire was broken when they reduced the fire duration on DD and cruisers to 30 seconds.  Full fire prevent spec (aka i have every skill/ module that reduces fire time/ chance) on my MO w/ 19 pt capt and I will consistently get set on fire (often 2 in one volley) from some ships with their first salvo. That is a problem. Add to the fact that HE will nibble away at HPs as well as start the fires and its a double wammy, especially ships like the IJN cruisers or British BBs.

Then there is the flood problem, you lose 10-20k hps off a torp with a good chance to get a flood going.  That flood will chew down ~60% of your hps  on a full duration meaning extinguishing any fire(s) is very risky.  Torps become a "threat in being" so to speak that will allow fires to cause far more damage then they otherwise would.

HE and their fires are annoying, not fun and unbalanced in their current state.  Flooding is just downright stupid. 

Dester

Edited by OG_Dester
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[DAS]
Members
343 posts
4,196 battles

I think there should be some kind of minimum damage for setting a fire or flooding a ship. I really have when I get 10 floodings in a game for a grand total of 300 dmg, just because they hit repair party the second the torps hit them.

To compensate for this "extra" dmg, you could make the duration of the dots shorter or tick for less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
525 posts
168 battles
47 minutes ago, FlakKnight said:

With the CV rework demo, alongside Worcester and Haragumo in recent patches and RN DDs pending, it seems clear fires and soon floods are becoming increasingly common and consistently applied in matches.  The fact that a single down tiered CV torp could cause the same DOT as a carefully executed torp run from a DD assuming huge risk on a high priority target is a problem.  The fact that a Harugamo can shatter a single 100mm shell and have luck cause the same DOT as an entire Zao or Conq HE volley is a problem.

To be clear, I think DOT mechanics provide a gameplay syste mechanic that is beneficial, but having everything be straight RNG and then scale off of target HP rather than more realistic damage saturation models based on a number of factors is going to continue to plague the game as power creep and new lines are introduced.

 

 

Only thing that needs a "rework" is the anti truth and illogical balancing by the devs since 2015.

Newsflash. Max fires on a BB with ZERO anti fire upgrades, captain skills, nor flags is still not enough even running full duration to kill that BB. So that right there is a minimum of 60s and the BB still has 28% HP left.

A BB can 1-2 shot any cruiser in the game for their tier and then some, from ranges far longer then what the Cruisers are capable of, and can do it with STILL GOING DARK in between that burst damage (aka unspotted).

So the magical RNG of getting max fire stacks, somehow, and the BB never using DCP... and never equipping anything anti fire...... completely not ok but a Cruiser/DD dying in 1-30s is perfectly acceptable?  lol..

and how are floods becoming a norm?  Torpedoes have a single digit hit rate for the entire server...  this community I swear.

Edited by Sbane12
  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[WAIFU]
Members
1,108 posts
6,050 battles
7 minutes ago, Sbane12 said:

Only thing that needs a "rework" is the anti truth and illogical balancing by the devs since 2015.

Newsflash. Max fires on a BB with ZERO anti fire upgrades, captain skills, nor flags is still not enough even running full duration to kill that BB. So that right there is a minimum of 60s and the BB still has 28% HP left.

A BB can 1-2 shot any cruiser in the game for their tier and then some, from ranges far longer then what the Cruisers are capable of, and can do it with STILL GOING DARK in between that burst damage (aka unspotted).

So the magical RNG of getting max fire stacks, somehow, and the BB never using DCP... and never equipping anything anti fire...... completely not ok but a Cruiser/DD dying in 1-30s is perfectly acceptable?  lol..

and how are floods becoming a norm?  Torpedoes have a single digit hit rate for the entire server...  this community I swear.

I believe people are refering to the CV rework that was shown yesterday and how CV players seemed to be able to launch torps every few seconds with good accuracy (therefore good chance to hit and flood). This is what people are worried about, not the low torpedo hit rate from DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,049
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,192 posts
8,798 battles
1 minute ago, garfield001 said:

I believe people are refering to the CV rework that was shown yesterday and how CV players seemed to be able to launch torps every few seconds with good accuracy (therefore good chance to hit and flood). This is what people are worried about, not the low torpedo hit rate from DDs.

There is this but I feel that they could use a rework even now. Also, what we saw was extremely nerfed AA to show off the attack system so it won't be that kind of walkover when this is implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
830
[SBS]
Members
2,420 posts
2,253 battles
36 minutes ago, FlakKnight said:

To be clear, I think DOT mechanics provide a gameplay syste mechanic that is beneficial, but having everything be straight RNG and then scale off of target HP rather than more realistic damage saturation models based on a number of factors is going to continue to plague the game as power creep and new lines are introduced.

I tend to agree with you about DOT being a good concept but maybe getting excessive.  The problem is WG purposefully made the new ships to increased DOT to shorten matches.  This is something we the players will always be at odds with WG over.  We want fun and engaging matches no matter how long they take, WG wants them to be as short as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
525 posts
168 battles
4 minutes ago, garfield001 said:

I believe people are refering to the CV rework that was shown yesterday and how CV players seemed to be able to launch torps every few seconds with good accuracy (therefore good chance to hit and flood). This is what people are worried about, not the low torpedo hit rate from DDs.

Ahh I see. I only saw the DB part, not the torpedo part of the video.
However, even so. Flooding still takes a long time to kill and cannot stack. Nothing compared to dev striking a Cruiser or DD with a BB

Hopefully those torps do tickle damage per hit though or that is broken.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[-CIV-]
Members
185 posts
2,243 battles
9 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I tend to agree with you about DOT being a good concept but maybe getting excessive.  The problem is WG purposefully made the new ships to increased DOT to shorten matches.  This is something we the players will always be at odds with WG over.  We want fun and engaging matches no matter how long they take, WG wants them to be as short as possible.

Yeah - there's a really delicate balance when it comes to match duration. I know I really like how quickly WoWs matches load compared to most MMO arena games and that I can comfortably get into a new match every 20 minutes or so. Turnaround rate in WoWs is already way faster than WoT, and definitely faster than competition like War Thunder. I disagree with the "no matter how long they take" part of what you said, but I do agree there's a threshold where fast is no longer engaging. And for a slower-paced game like WoWs, it sounds like we might be starting to hit that with our playerbase.

Edited by yungpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,378 posts
7,971 battles
17 minutes ago, FlakKnight said:

With the CV rework demo, alongside Worcester and Haragumo in recent patches and RN DDs pending, it seems clear fires and soon floods are becoming increasingly common and consistently applied in matches.  The fact that a single down tiered CV torp could cause the same DOT as a carefully executed torp run from a DD assuming huge risk on a high priority target is a problem.  The fact that a Harugamo can shatter a single 100mm shell and have luck cause the same DOT as an entire Zao or Conq HE volley is a problem.

To be clear, I think DOT mechanics provide a gameplay syste mechanic that is beneficial, but having everything be straight RNG and then scale off of target HP rather than more realistic damage saturation models based on a number of factors is going to continue to plague the game as power creep and new lines are introduced.

 

 

USN CV's were always more DoT, much as people complained too much back when AA wasn't overbuffed cause they couldn't figure that out. And DD's and light cruisers have ALWAYS been HE throwers reliant on fire, heavy cruisers and BB's only against DD's and angled BB's. Literally the only change is ships with 1/4 pen HE and IFHE skill, that messed the balance up some because now shells that shattered pen for damage. On the front that fire needs a bit of a change, yes, the max damage needs to be toned down to at least 15%, personally I'd prefer 12%, max HP, with CV's getting a similar treatment. Simply to account for the increased alpha. 

 

More importantly " everything be straight RNG and then scale off of target HP rather than more realistic damage saturation models based on a number of factors" - for starters this is an ARCADE game. It has a historical basis, yes, they try to stick to history and reality where they can. I could write a pages long paper on everything wrong with the airplanes in this game alone, but only some do I actually bring up because some things are just balance and simplification. They have damage saturation, which normally comes into play in 3 main areas of the ship - Bow, Superstructure, and stern. I think the main body is the one area exempt from this. They basically without doing it (again, simplicity) have a model for the bow/stern getting blown off and the superstructure being reduced to molten scrap where you take no damage, other than DoT from fire (not sure on flooding). And even then that simplifies things, and avoids the frustration of a bow on ship being invincible. Someone even has a gif of this at work where several torps hit a saturated area on a DD point blank and it lives. You take x hp, these upgrades, skills, etc reduce that to this much, your repair adds back this much - it's easier on peoples brains, more so then the actual mechanics of how to start a fire.

Also - " The fact that a single down tiered CV torp could cause the same DOT as a carefully executed torp run from a DD assuming huge risk on a high priority target is a problem.  The fact that a Harugamo can shatter a single 100mm shell and have luck cause the same DOT as an entire Zao or Conq HE volley is a problem." This almost contradicts your later statement of wanting a more realistic damage models. A torpedo hit is a torpedo hit, a fire is a fire - what delivers it or starts it is irrelevant. Battle of Samar 127 mm guns were causing fires on ships same as gunfire from larger ships shooting back. Theres also the more important fact that if that shell shatters, which is likely a non IFHE captain then, that's 0 damage, but a fire, and part of why fire is the way it is. That Zao and Conq will do 1100 and 2300 (for the 419 mm guns) damage per hit, unless they find the odd spots they can shatter, PLUS the fire. So there is still a pretty drastic difference between shell size and actual damage your doing. Other than a fire, is a fire, is a fire.

 

Maybe a slight knock down on flood HP too, unless we lower the alpha on torps (which I'm fine with), especially with this stupidity of a rework that, as a CV player, was everything I was afraid it'd be from the various rumors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,824
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

Isn't DOT the dept of transportation? I has been for years from where I am from.

Anagrams are for LAZY typers. IMHO LOL NR ROFLMAO

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,587
[SALVO]
Members
16,627 posts
17,300 battles
7 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Isn't DOT the dept of transportation? I has been for years from where I am from.

Anagrams are for LAZY typers. IMHO LOL NR ROFLMAO

Those aren't anagrams.  They're acronyms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,530 posts
681 battles
7 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Isn't DOT the dept of transportation? I has been for years from where I am from.

 

That DOT typically needs a rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,824
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
10 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Those aren't anagrams.  They're acronyms.

My Bad You are correct Sir.

Be sure to add a Downvote to my Post ,I am collecting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,824
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
11 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

That DOT typically needs a rework.

Amen Brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
369
[S-N-D]
Members
1,593 posts
5,541 battles
52 minutes ago, garfield001 said:

I believe people are refering to the CV rework that was shown yesterday and how CV players seemed to be able to launch torps every few seconds with good accuracy (therefore good chance to hit and flood). This is what people are worried about, not the low torpedo hit rate from DDs.

You should worry. Not having to worry is why the changes are coming to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,072
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,685 posts
10,025 battles

I don't understand why people are concerned about the DOT stacking shown by the 4x3 carrier TB attack, while it can in theory flood you four times as it stands a Midway can attack you with 2x6 TB's then 2x7 DB's for the same 4 DOT-stacking opportunities.

Maybe you have to worry less about DOT if you've just eaten 12 TB's and up to 14 AP DB's in one wave and died rather than a slower attack by a TB squadron?

 

Damage over time is not a huge problem IMO, it's mitigated by consumable use and commander skills. Fire damage is 100% repairable on battleships and usually low-threat to cruisers given 30s burn times and the fact that enough HE to really set you ablaze will just kill you.

As a battleship with just the India-Yankee -20% duration signal a fire will burn for 14.4% of your HP in 48s. With Fire Prevention making the center of a ship one big fire zone it's difficult to get the second or third fire. A repair with the +20% signal will restore 16.8% of your HP on an 80s cooldown.

 

The problem with the new IJN and USN splits is that they discourage pushing too strongly. They both want to dig in behind islands or smoke and hold territory but not advance, same with the RN DD line from the look of it. The best way to not be set on fire in this game is to be at moderate range and use concealment between shots or to fade out if you are getting focused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,378 posts
7,971 battles
26 minutes ago, Sbane12 said:

Newsflash. Max fires on a BB with ZERO anti fire upgrades, captain skills, nor flags is still not enough even running full duration to kill that BB. So that right there is a minimum of 60s and the BB still has 28% HP left.

The issue isn't fires alone, much as some are deluded into thinking it is, and those trying to defend the current state of fires want to think, it's the combination of that plus alpha which, for CV's usually isn't an issue given their current atrocious HE accuracy, other than GZ which has super accurate "IFHE" bombs, that take a huge chunk of HP out, but for DD's, cruisers in particular, and some BB's is a major issue. And yes, if they can get a solid citadel hit on the cruiser, or more accurately - 3 hits on a same tier cruisers citadel, or a combination of 2 and some other hits - yes. But that usually has to be a broadside ship at a range the round won't over pen (because yes you can over pen the citadel for the same standard over pen damage). That also means the cruiser has to be spotted way outside of it's firing range, with a BB being unspotted, as per your examples wording. That also means that unlike some of the worst offenders, USN cruisers, they have to be out in the open, not hiding behind a rock they can send volleys over with no return fire. And that still leaves over all agility, especially if the BB is firing from a range outside a cruisers gunnery range, plenty of time to dodge. Your scenario is either the unluckiest or dumbest cruiser player ever. It's the 4 fires and the 2k+ damage per salvo that's the issue. Which the only way to stop the damage is to have enough armour, and only 50% of that is repairable and at best, repair party normally heals 1.5 fires, or more likely, 1 fire and all the IFHE hits you took that started 1/4. 

38 minutes ago, Sbane12 said:

So the magical RNG of getting max fire stacks, somehow, and the BB never using DCP... and never equipping anything anti fire...... completely not ok but a Cruiser/DD dying in 1-30s is perfectly acceptable?  lol..

Ships with high enough RoF or worse yet, 2 ships, which happens a lot when you have a giant slow moving target - yeah. Especially say, NY, which can have a new captain, in game and behind the screen, cant equip that one to reduce the fire/flood time, likely doesn't have the BoS skill, and may not have any of the flags, against an Atlanta. Yeah that happens. I've used DCP to put out 3 fires started by a Worcester behind a rock, only for him and a DD to start 3 more soon as the DCP was up. Plenty of times I've exploited a torp hit that starts flooding to set fires, both in and not in CV's. And as a USN AS player, my money was in making them wait or targeting ships that burned DCP for maximum damage. Least until AA was overbuffed when they tried to stop manual drops being an issue and failed hard.  As far as DD's and CA/L getting one shot "in 1-30 seconds" referring I assume to BB's doing it - only DD's I've ever seen killed in one BB salvo were ones that were detonated back when full health detonations were a thing, and as I said above on cruisers, very unlucky or very stupid. 

Which, to answer that last part - no, it's not alright. Much as I say we need to tone down he HP taken from BB's and CV's by fires, especially as they did for DD ad CA/L, I'm also the guy that wants BB AP to take a damage nerf. I want AA on BB's brought back down so even Iowa has to find a cruiser buddy to be completely immune to air attacks, to which I want a proper fix to CV's not this garbage rework they have planned, so we have more of them going after BB's. I want to give IJN DD's, the BB's natural predator, their teeth back by giving them the same 1.3/4 km detection range on torps that other ships, with the same speed range, travel range, etc, have. And the same 1.1/1.2 on the slower torps. Bring back the good ol' days when the last thing a BB wanted to come across was a match with any IJN DD's and little if any cruiser and DD gun support. Much as I actually average 8-10% in some of my DD's, and more in my cruisers/BB's, I actually want some of the mobility buffs of BB's dialed back a little. Namely on the mid-long range BB's, at least a brawler like German BB's would need that mobility as it's supposed to be more in the fight. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,049
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,192 posts
8,798 battles
10 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Fires & Floods are fine.  You can repair back 100% of Fire & Flood damage.

This is fine in a vacuum assuming you have a ship with repair party but how often do you get a fire or flood and not have the enemy shooting at you? It is the combination of normal damage and the DOT that makes the DOT's so frustrating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×