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

Flooding change ideas

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

91
[FLTF2]
Members
122 posts
3,826 battles

Right now flooding has a base duration of 40 seconds and a full duration flood without captain skill or upgrade nerfs does about 20k damage. Usually more in the 10-15k region thanks to the specs.

If they increased the base duration to 60 seconds, therefore the base damage to around 30k, it would make Liquidators and Witherers based off of flooding more feasible again whilst not having flooding be insanely OP like it was before. (90 second base duration)

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,528
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,212 posts
10,893 battles
6 minutes ago, WizardFerret said:

Right now flooding has a base duration of 40 seconds and a full duration flood without captain skill or upgrade nerfs does about 20k damage. Usually more in the 10-15k region thanks to the specs.

If they increased the base duration to 60 seconds, therefore the base damage to around 30k, it would make Liquidators and Witherers based off of flooding more feasible again whilst not having flooding be insanely OP like it was before. (90 second base duration)

People are still automatically stopping floods immediately when much of the time they can let them go and repair the damage. This makes them vulnerable to additional flooding and fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[M_S]
Members
247 posts
3,002 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

People are still automatically stopping floods immediately when much of the time they can let them go and repair the damage. This makes them vulnerable to additional flooding and fires.

But more like fires, which comes from most ships. Of course, PUT OUT A FLOOD IN A DD OR A CA JUST LIKE ONE PUTS OUT FIRES!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,528
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,212 posts
10,893 battles
Just now, tyinnow said:

But more like fires, which comes from most ships. Of course, PUT OUT A FLOOD IN A DD OR A CA JUST LIKE ONE PUTS OUT FIRES!

 

Right but much of the time I see people stopping floods that they should let go with the new flooding mechanics. If you can get another flood or fire on them they will pay dearly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,117
[WORX]
Members
3,263 posts
14,695 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

This makes them vulnerable to additional flooding and fires.

Wolfy, flood DMG is down, upto %70... Even the chance of flooding was nerfed with patched 0.8.0.1 to 0.8.0.3

It use to be

  • 1 flood per 2 torp, it was like old faithful for a long time
  • Now it takes 3 torp hits per 1 flood.

Whatever WOWS intent for above changes, its not meeting to your statement wolfy... Its one of the aggravation/frustration by some with the current state of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,763 posts
7 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

Wolfy, flood DMG is down, upto %70... Even the chance of flooding was nerfed with patched 0.8.0.1 to 0.8.0.3

It use to be

  • 1 flood per 2 torp, it was like old faithful for a long time
  • Now it takes 3 torp hits per 1 flood.

Whatever WOWS intent for above changes, its not meeting to your statement wolfy... Its one of the aggravation/frustration by some with the current state of the game.

Correct, but not surprising with a 10% or less hit rate. You can have the best guns in the fleet, but if your sights are off - you won't hit anything; same with how the in game mechanics work.

 

However, I believe that this is what WG intended - you may ask why when flooding tends to hamper the bigger ships more prone to taking a torp AND they have the best survival anyway - it makes no sense. Unless....the change that was brought in around the same time as the re-introduction of the CVs indicated that WG believed BBs would take torpedo flood damage from CVs more. And there you have the reason for the change. Nerf CV capability/nerf DD capability to protect a ship that already has the best survival anyway. So as strange as it sounds that is what WG intended.

Edit: Remember the pens with no damage - got the BBs annoyed (and we know it wasn't because they were not doing damage to other BBs, but rather the other 'smaller pesky ships'). And even though they have the best damage of all 3 artillery ships WG still did a test on it! The funny thing is, it ended up causing more damage to BBs because of things WG brought in to protect them like torpedo armour belts.

So it was not changed - my worry was, if the BBs had not been shown to take additional damage and only the smaller ships did, would WG have changed the mechanics giving BBs even more damage potential? :cap_yes:Oh dear!

Edited by _WaveRider_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[FLTF2]
Members
122 posts
3,826 battles
8 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

People are still automatically stopping floods immediately when much of the time they can let them go and repair the damage. This makes them vulnerable to additional flooding and fires.

Yes it's odd how a perma fire and a perma flood basically do the same now, but they still always DCP floods immediately. Probably because taking flooding slows down the ship by 30%, maybe remove the speed reduction? 
Anyway I think that boosting the damage of flooding would make perma floods a lot more rewarding for DDs and CVs, and getting two permafloods (Or just one in some cases) on a ship they destroy would be enough for a Liquidator. And flooding based CVs that don't have a lot of fire output (The Japanese ones) can have a reliable DoT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,503
[KNMSU]
Members
5,287 posts
5,531 battles

BUFF ME BUFF ME BUFF ME BUFF ME BUFF ME BUFF ME BUFF ME.

NO.

Just because carriers are OP doesn't mean that destroyers need yet more improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×