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

Fires And How To Fix Them Possibly...

209 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

19
[GNOME]
Members
20 posts

We all know by now that fires in this game subtract HP from the ships entire hull no matter where on the ship they are burning, this to me at least doesn't make sense; We also know that the in game ship models use different areas with smaller HP pools than the ship's total HP right? And damage saturation exists for these areas which are not the citadel, now because I don't know the full complexity of the ship models I'm going to make you imagine that you are looking at a ship model split into 5 different boxes.

1. Bow
2. Stern
3. Midships
4. Superstructure
5. Citadel

Now each box has a separate HP pool from the next, the citadel holds 100% of the ships HP we know this, and for this example boxes 1 to 4 hold 25% of the ship's total HP each, and so when a fire is burning in box 1 (The bow) why are boxes 2, 3, and 4 also affected? Shouldn't it be that the fire damages box 1 and box 1 only?

Now in this example boxes 1 to 4 hold enough HP to match the ships total HP pool, so if all of these areas are damaged by fire to the point of saturation the ship will be lost, but that would require more than a single fire to deal damage to more than one area of the ship so if boxes 1 and 2 are burning by 2 separate fires and they burn to the point of saturation that is 50% of the ship's total HP lost however now these areas are saturated and so they can no longer be damaged but boxes 3 and 4 still have the remaining 50% of the ship's HP so 2 more fires 1 on the super structure and 1 on the midships deck if left to burn until those areas also become saturated should theoretically deal enough damage to destroy the ship.

However what we have in the game right now is setting 1 fire on the bow damages the whole ship, not just the bow and well with the rate of fire for smaller ships seemingly getting faster and faster every patch it can make BB's in this game scared to move up because they know once their repair party consumables are all gone that fire damage is going to stick... And that's what sucks. So why not encourage BB's to tank for us by giving them the assurance that it will take more than 1 fire to kill them? Because as it is right now if a BB gets caught under the rainbow from say a Worcester or Harugumo there's quite literally nothing it can do, it can't fire back at them because there's an island in the way, it can't move fast enough to stay out of range of these ships, and HE shells don't care about angling they just deal damage regardless and if they shatter well they can still always set a fire on the stern which will just burn the whole ship anyway... 

So after all of that dribble I am proposing that we take a look at fires and how they work and look to make it more challenging for religious HE spammers (Conqueror I am looking at you!) to kill us of course if this idea actually gains some traction the devs will have to adjust it for balance reasons but that's my example and well personally I think this change could be a good one.

(Some examples in this topic were exaggerated but I am hoping it gets my point across) 

 

  • Boring 2
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,615
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,779 posts
6,788 battles

1) Fires are fine as is.

2) BBs that complain need to learn how to use DCP and their minimap. 

3) IFHE is orthogonal to fires.

/thread

  • Cool 11
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
244 posts
1,273 battles

Ships that put two or three fires on opponents one salvo after another do seem a bit excessive. It's so luck based where a shell goes and whether it starts a fire, but then when it catches it is for sure 18% of your health gone per fire.

 

Should fires have a random duration as well to complete the dice roll gameplay? I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[PLPT]
Members
632 posts
6,810 battles
11 minutes ago, Meeso_Thorny said:

Should fires have a random duration as well to complete the dice roll gameplay? I think so.

No, adding randomness removes skill even more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
847
[SBS]
Members
2,467 posts
2,253 battles

Since WG is adding more and more HE spammers I'd say you better get used to fires burning on your ships.  Oh, and get ready for a nice dose of flooding to go along side you fires when the CV rework hits.  Too bad flooding doesn't put out your fires.:Smile_glasses:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles
2 minutes ago, n00bot said:

No, adding randomness removes skill even more

lol spamming HE requires no skill, it is the easy button in wows for the scrublords. Fandom fire duration would be awesome.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,412
[PNG]
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,664 posts
6,472 battles

You give up raw direct damage to be able to set fires. Skills like Fire Prevention already dramatically reduce the chance and prevalence of fires, and orienting your ship to not be broadside also reduces the ease of targeting all the individual fire hit boxes.

1v1, a battleship should never lose to a cruiser that is trying to fire spam him to death.

The idea that making damage “less scary” encourages battleships to move closer has already been massively disproved through several changes. The repair change, for example, showed that, even if you gain absolutely nothing from taking no damage, battleships will still choose to hang out in A10 and not take damage until 5 minutes are left in the game. The addition of increased accuracy for main guns at close quarters for battleships does not motivate them to get closer, either. Instead, some people who play battleships have opted to have secondary ranges extended because they’re terrified to be close enough to where secondaries work. You could probably make brawling in a battleship dispense doubloons and half the battleships would refuse to do it.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles
Just now, Compassghost said:

1v1, a battleship should never lose to a cruiser that is trying to fire spam him to death.

Depends on the cruiser, in the pre nerfed Hindenberg I would obliterate any battleship 1v1. It was such a lopsided easy fight. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,178 battles
37 minutes ago, vak_ said:

1) Fires are fine as is.

2) BBs that complain need to learn how to use DCP and their minimap. 

3) IFHE is orthogonal to fires.

/thread

Fires are too long as they are.  Period.  Jeffersonian Period.  The time should be cut by 3/4.  DDs and Cruisers should be mixing it up, not against battleships, save for the occasional suicidal torpedo run or ambush.  

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,178 battles
14 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

1v1, a battleship should never lose to a cruiser that is trying to fire spam him to death.

 

His point goes right over your head.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,615
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,779 posts
6,788 battles
14 minutes ago, comtedumas said:

Fires are too long as they are.

Okay let's make one fire last ten seconds, as it still does 18% of HP damage. Would that make you happier? No?

What you meant to say was "fire causes too much damage". This I cannot agree with. A full duration fire causes about the same amount of damage as one citadel, but over a long period of time. There are ways to significantly decrease that duration (BoS, module, flag). Furthermore, this damage is filly healable.

Fires are not a big problem, at least no more so than citadels ot torpedoes. Learn how to use your DCP properly (e.g. not blowing it for one fire as you're still being shot at), and to be mindful of its CD. Dont push your BB into a focused fire of 3-4 cruisers. Et cetera, et cetera.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,412
[PNG]
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,664 posts
6,472 battles
Just now, comtedumas said:

His point goes right over your head.  

What, that fires are unmanageable? I’m sure they’d be unmanageable if I were out of position, to be sure, but at the end of the day, I blame myself for things I am in control of.

Dying to fire sucks, but it’s part of the game, same as dying to a citadel. Why are people fine with instant deletions by citadel? “Oh, person made a mistake and is in the wrong place at the wrong time.” The same can be said for getting 4x fired. Wrong place, broadside to fire sources. The difference is, whereas the former is immediately dead, the latter can continue to fight, and potentially survive, with proper damage control and team support.

Every ship class in the game should have something they are afraid of. If there is no real threat to a ship you have a Call of Duty Juggernaut. DDs are naturally terrified of radar, cruisers are afraid of getting delete, and battleships are summarily afraid of tick damage overwhelming their HP pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,615
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,779 posts
6,788 battles
46 minutes ago, Meeso_Thorny said:

Should fires have a random duration as well to complete the dice roll gameplay? I think so.

The game is balanced with fires as they are. To keep things balanced, random fire durations would need to average 60 seconds (well, longer, actually, because of DCP CD, but let's forget about that for now). So if fire duration is random, you might get a fire that lasts 30 seconds, or you might get a fire that lasts 90 seconds. Would that make you happy?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[WAG]
Members
393 posts
7,510 battles
39 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

1v1, a battleship should never lose to a cruiser that is trying to fire spam him to death.

Shouldn't, but do all the time, that is where the skill of the cruiser player comes in. I play mostly Soviet and French cruisers, and love 1 vs. 1 engagements with battleships. I can often sink the battleship, often without taking any damage. Often, after missing 4 or salvos, the BB player gives up, and selects an alternate target for their last couple of salvos before I sink them.

ETA: not sure about Fire Spam; I kill them with IFHE pen damage, and fire is just an added bonus. I often do 50-75% of my damage with IFHE vs. fire over time.

Only got to play two games yesterday ;-)

Screenshot 2018-09-27 11.15.13.png

Edited by DustRhino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,077
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,310 posts
6,590 battles
50 minutes ago, Meeso_Thorny said:

but then when it catches it is for sure 18% of your health gone per fire.

Only when you didn‘t do any preemptive measures against it, and when you ignore the existance of the Repair Party.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[PLPT]
Members
632 posts
6,810 battles

Fires are fine.  I’m a DD main and when I got a T10 BB I was laughing at the easiness.  It’s a République which is supposed to be vulnerable to HE but I just make sure there’s either island cover or enough range to go dark, then wait out the fires and heal.

Fires should rarely kill you or pose much HP threat, but they DO force you to stop a push, take cover and wait for damcon to cooldown.  If you are dying to fires, you are probably either using damcon too aggressively, not planning your positioning/cover well enough, or simply expect your ship to be invulnerable.

BB’s can heal fires 100% so I rarely use damage control on them.  Even if it’s two fires I’ll wait it out if I would just get lit again. Usually I’m like “ok good, now I can make full use of my heal”

If you are scared of fires on a ship with 80k HP, fires that you can heal 100%, then try playing a boat with 20k and no heal.

Edited by n00bot
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[SPUDS]
[SPUDS]
Members
570 posts
3,350 battles

Battleships can become immune to DOT as soon as they can't citadel cruisers, and cruisers can become immune to BB citadels as soon as they lose radar.

As a DD player, as much as I hate radar, and think that it needs some changes (mostly LOS checks), I understand its reason to exist.
What I don't understand is how much BBs whine about fires, flooding, and torpedoes, when all three are extremely easy to mitigate, compared to cruisers taking citadels (often through the nose/deck), and destroyers being focused down by radar (often without any warning that a radar ship is in range to radar them)

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles
3 minutes ago, JackBinary said:

Battleships can become immune to DOT as soon as they can't citadel cruisers, and cruisers can become immune to BB citadels as soon as they lose radar.

As a DD player, as much as I hate radar, and think that it needs some changes (mostly LOS checks), I understand its reason to exist.
What I don't understand is how much BBs whine about fires, flooding, and torpedoes, when all three are extremely easy to mitigate, compared to cruisers taking citadels (often through the nose/deck), and destroyers being focused down by radar (often without any warning that a radar ship is in range to radar them)

I never see BB players whining about flooding and what I think people object to is that a DD and CL with tiny guns can do so much damage. Battleships were the death stars of their day. The most complex machines ever assembled, nations went bankrupt trying to build them. They were the ultimate symbol of a nations power and prestige. While this game is not a sim, it is supposed to represent historical naval combat. Battleships as represented in this game are a joke, no nation would have bothered building them if they were so pathetically weak. Than pivot to destroyers, they were expendable ships, versatile yes but they were the weakest of the major surface combatants. In this game they are the most important ships, a team can not win without good DD players period. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[PLPT]
Members
632 posts
6,810 battles
1 hour ago, Theokolese said:

lol spamming HE requires no skill, it is the easy button in wows for the scrublords. Fandom fire duration would be awesome.

B.S.! Anything spamming HE (except for Conq) is vulnerable to your OP AP, so they either need to fire from behind cover, requiring clever positioning, map awareness, and teamplay, or they need to fire from long range, reducing their effectiveness and again requiring good positioning and judgment.  If any of these are off, then you blap them.  I’m sure you hate the Worcester but if it peeks out, one blap sends it running if it’s not already dead.  A Hindy was raining fire on me from long range but just one citadel later he thought better of it, went dark, and ran. Make sure you’re targeting cruisers and not trying to farm damage off other BB’s. HE cruisers are a big treat, yes, but your BB is well-equipped to counter them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[PLPT]
Members
632 posts
6,810 battles
7 minutes ago, Theokolese said:

I never see BB players whining about flooding and what I think people object to is that a DD and CL with tiny guns can do so much damage. Battleships were the death stars of their day. The most complex machines ever assembled, nations went bankrupt trying to build them. They were the ultimate symbol of a nations power and prestige. While this game is not a sim, it is supposed to represent historical naval combat. Battleships as represented in this game are a joke, no nation would have bothered building them if they were so pathetically weak. Than pivot to destroyers, they were expendable ships, versatile yes but they were the weakest of the major surface combatants. In this game they are the most important ships, a team can not win without good DD players period. 

Keyword: game

If you want BB’s to be historically OP, then they should also bankrupt you, not in terms of p2w, but in terms of: For every 100 games you play as a destroyer, you get to play one game in a battleship.  That would sortof reflect the relative costs of construction. Is that what you mean by historical? No? You just want to play the Death Star and make everyone else your target?

Edited by n00bot
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,206
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,615 posts
9,014 battles
1 hour ago, Meeso_Thorny said:

Ships that put two or three fires on opponents one salvo after another do seem a bit excessive. It's so luck based where a shell goes and whether it starts a fire, but then when it catches it is for sure 18% of your health gone per fire.

 

Should fires have a random duration as well to complete the dice roll gameplay? I think so.

 

1 hour ago, n00bot said:

No, adding randomness removes skill even more

 

1 hour ago, Theokolese said:

lol spamming HE requires no skill, it is the easy button in wows for the scrublords. Fandom fire duration would be awesome.

Fires are RNG already and the only skill is in aiming your shots. The problem with HE is for too many ships WG has made it the go too ammo, cough cough RN BB's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[PLPT]
Members
632 posts
6,810 battles
1 hour ago, Meeso_Thorny said:

it is for sure 18% of your health gone per fire.

I view it as 0 HP and one heal per fire I can’t damage control. With five heals and “infinite” damage control, I more or less ignore fires and make sure to utilize all my heals to their maximum.

Edited by n00bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,510
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,096 posts
12,657 battles

This thread got tangled up pretty quickly.

OP: The main reason fire damage draws directly from the health pool and not the local section is to punish excessive bow camping. If fires were local, you'd exhaust the HP on a camper's bow and superstructure sections, then they'd be invincible. Too angled to AP, and the only HE-pennable sections are already saturated.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×