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

Torpedo flooding. What do you think?

What about flooding caused by torpedos? Is it balanced?  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Does unchecked flooding from torpedos last too long?

    • Torpedo flooding lasts too long and needs to be reduced by 50%
      14
    • Torpedo flooding lasts too long and needs to be reduced by 25%
      7
    • Torpedo flooding belongs to the baby bear, it's just right.
      29
    • Torpedo flooding does not last long enough and needs to be increased.
      6

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

495
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
1,030 posts
4,669 battles

I would like to find out how the community feels about unchecked flooding caused by torpedos.  I'm concerned that it is too powerful and I would like to get some opinions from the rest of you.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[ADPT2]
Beta Testers
587 posts
1,640 battles

I honestly don't have that big a problem with the duration although I wouldn't cry if it were reduced a bit.  The speed reduction is the thing I hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
869
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
4,506 posts
14,483 battles

Flooding, like fires is not unchecked! Both are slowly stopped and more quickly stopped by the damage control!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,629
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
18,053 posts
16,404 battles

Floods are fine.  If you are at a point where you're dying to a flood, you done f--ked up badly in your position and consumables management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
73
[LNWLF]
Members
140 posts

The only thing I would like to see is the amount of damage slowly being reduced as the fire or flood continues. 

 Just for the sake of round numbers... when the fire first starts it does lets say 100 damage per tick and then slowly reduces down to lets say 50 damage per tick as the timer counts down. 

There would be no reduction in duration. It is only a reduction in the damage over time. As time went on the damage scales down so it appears that your crew was either putting the fire out or fixing the flooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,519 posts

Flooding has already been adjusted from the CV rework, though it might not hit live at exactly the same time. Flooding is now broken up in four sections just like fire with the same DoT per section as fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,293
[SBS]
Members
3,466 posts
2,408 battles

FYI, flooding is lowest damage type in the game by a pretty good margin.  Its between 1%-2% of the total damage.  I don't see any need to change it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,607
[HINON]
Supertester
20,182 posts
13,636 battles

Unchecked flooding does last too long. That's why you always keep it in check with proper risk and consumable management, situational awareness, captain skill builds, equipment, flags and common sense.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,859
[SYN]
Members
7,209 posts
12,288 battles

Flooding is only really an issue when a player makes a mistake, usually mismanaging their DCP so it should be punishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,607
[HINON]
Supertester
20,182 posts
13,636 battles
37 minutes ago, Happy668 said:

perma flooding is b-s, should be shorter just like fire

Ok, if we can also stack more than one flooding at a time, just like fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[ADPT2]
Beta Testers
587 posts
1,640 battles
11 minutes ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

Flooding is only really an issue when a player makes a mistake, usually mismanaging their DCP so it should be punishing.

That's not entirely true.  I literally just had a game in my Arizona where it was coming down to the end and I was fighting a Fuso and New Mexico with help from a friendly Dunkerque.  I was down to about 50% hp and both of the enemy BBs were firing HE at me for some reason.  I got one fire, ignored it as I usually do in a BB.  Then a 2nd one started so I hit DCP.  Sunk the New Mexico and turned my attention to the Fuso.  About 30 seconds later, here comes an inbound squad of torpedo bombers.  I managed to spoil his initial approach by maneuvering but he just circled around and came back again, hit me with several torps and I'm now at about 10% health and both DCP and RP are on cooldown and I went down a few seconds later.  Now I suppose I could have let the fires continue to burn but at the time, facing 2 BBs that are both focusing me, I figured I needed to conserve hit points as much as possible.  I don't feel like I made a mistake there and I'd do it again in the same situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[WOLF1]
Members
2,355 posts
15 minutes ago, Lert said:

Ok, if we can also stack more than one flooding at a time, just like fire.

if flooding damage rate is like fire, i don't have problem with that, and that's more realistic since you can have multiple holes

the worst thing about current flooding design is, if your repair is on cooldown, then the hopeless feeling is bad and not a good game design

given the new CV rework we will get flooding much more frequently, it's time to change flooding mechanism

Edited by Happy668
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
752
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,820 posts
12,073 battles

Flood is ok, if you dont know how to use repair you deserve die.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,859
[SYN]
Members
7,209 posts
12,288 battles
44 minutes ago, _HatTrick_ said:

That's not entirely true.  I literally just had a game in my Arizona where it was coming down to the end and I was fighting a Fuso and New Mexico with help from a friendly Dunkerque.  I was down to about 50% hp and both of the enemy BBs were firing HE at me for some reason.  I got one fire, ignored it as I usually do in a BB.  Then a 2nd one started so I hit DCP.  Sunk the New Mexico and turned my attention to the Fuso.  About 30 seconds later, here comes an inbound squad of torpedo bombers.  I managed to spoil his initial approach by maneuvering but he just circled around and came back again, hit me with several torps and I'm now at about 10% health and both DCP and RP are on cooldown and I went down a few seconds later.  Now I suppose I could have let the fires continue to burn but at the time, facing 2 BBs that are both focusing me, I figured I needed to conserve hit points as much as possible.  I don't feel like I made a mistake there and I'd do it again in the same situation.

Well, you knew there was a DD and that torps had to been likely. Not saying I wouldn't have also used my DCP on the fires but still sounds like mismanagement. Either way, with only 10% health you would have died even if the flooding timer was significantly lower than it is now. Since even a drastic reduction of flood time wouldn't have changed the outcome for you, don't really think your example is relevant to this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
270 posts
2,432 battles

At the current game design, I haven't hoped on the test server to play with the carrier changes, flooding is fine. The chances for it to happen have quite a decent amount of time between them so by itself you should be able to easily handle it with damage control use. Fire is more of an issue because the time between potential procs is very close so it is ridiculously easy to overwhelm damage control and repair parties leaving you to just watch as your ship burns to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[BNKR]
Members
233 posts
1,936 battles
4 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Floods are fine.  If you are at a point where you're dying to a flood, you done f--ked up badly in your position and consumables management.

This - or, you were gang-tackled and / or multi-dropped by CVs.  

While I find it annoying, I also play a lot of DDs, so I think it is balanced out fairly well right now.  

Not sure how / if this changes with the controversial cv rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,584
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,332 posts
11,284 battles

I tend to think flooding's pretty irrelevant, you dev strike them with the torps or close to it, or you see the damage control get repaired.

I've seen colossal games with 10-15 torpedo hits and <1,000 flooding damage.

 

Flooding is poorly designed at the moment, 90s duration when premium BB damage control is 80s? Ok... You can reduce the duration from 90s to 52s, or from 60% to 34% of your HP - HP that you already lost to the torpedo?

With a 52s minimum duration you're still likely dead to it a lot of the time, and even if not with an 80s or less cooldown on your damage repair you're fairly likely to have repair up in less than 52s anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[1STBG]
Members
1,241 posts
5,220 battles

I think torps should either do huge direct damage and quick flooding, or low direct damage and long flooding.  

I can sometimes take 4 torps all at once and survive.  But a single torp while DCP is on cooldown can kill me. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×