Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
31KnotBurke

[Italian Cruisers] We don't need/want SAP and crap smoke

83 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

94
[TORCH]
[TORCH]
Beta Testers
126 posts
8,788 battles

WG:

Seriously....can you just stop flipping your [edited] switch on?  Just dispense with the gimmicks already. After watching just about every video about the new Italian cruisers, they don't look fun. What is wrong with following the Duca model....fast, nimble ships with anemic but FAST HE and reasonable AP shells, slow but long-ranged torpedoes, and hydro/DFAA on the same platform?  Are the Duca and Abruzzi the strongest ships out there? No. Are they fun to play and reasonably balanced? I think so.

STOP trying to decide what is fun. You obviously can't figure that out. START listening to your players who PAY you for a change.

 

/31KtB

  • Cool 8
  • Confused 3
  • Boring 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles

I would like to see a complete overhaul of fire which should be started by all ammo and how we fight it. I would like to see fire have a chance to go out with each tick of damage to make players feel like the damage control teams are actually doing something instead of having coffee and tea on union mandated breaks. Fire and floods should have their chances adjusted as necessary for the changes but it would be a nice quality of life fix for the players to make fires a bit less frustrating.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,800 posts
4,933 battles

One thing. Italian heavies wouldn't have anemic HE. That is all.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,913
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,098 posts
19,199 battles
59 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

I would like to see fire have a chance to go out with each tick of damage to make players feel like the damage control teams are actually doing something instead of having coffee and tea on union mandated breaks

Not criticizing, asking; you would have fire controlled by RNG? Fire is VERY important to Cruisers and their balance against other ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
240
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,063 posts
37 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Fire is VERY important to Cruisers and their balance against other ships.

what about RN cruisers? :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,320
[SIM]
Members
4,929 posts
8,006 battles

Topics like this make me happy that 90% of the people on this forum will never lay their grubby mitts on a game design project.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,009
[ARGSY]
Members
20,100 posts
14,317 battles
4 hours ago, Ozium said:

what about RN cruisers? :Smile_teethhappy:

RN cruisers were originally a line of Belfasts. Flambass, I think, has a video in which he's testing a Neptune with HE ammunition and it's obscene. That's when they realised that they needed to restrict the smoke/HE thing to ONE ship in the British line-up, and now even that one's been pulled. The only reason Perth and Flint still have it is because they don't have radar to spot for themselves.

The Italian ships will be allowed to have it because their SAP won't set fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,913
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,098 posts
19,199 battles
10 hours ago, Ozium said:

what about RN cruisers? :Smile_teethhappy:

Well, RN cruisers have smoke; and where there's smoke …..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[USFF]
Members
434 posts
6,957 battles
13 hours ago, 31KnotBurke said:

WG:

Seriously....can you just stop flipping your [edited] switch on?  Just dispense with the gimmicks already. After watching just about every video about the new Italian cruisers, they don't look fun. What is wrong with following the Duca model....fast, nimble ships with anemic but FAST HE and reasonable AP shells, slow but long-ranged torpedoes, and hydro/DFAA on the same platform?  Are the Duca and Abruzzi the strongest ships out there? No. Are they fun to play and reasonably balanced? I think so.

STOP trying to decide what is fun. You obviously can't figure that out. START listening to your players who PAY you for a change.

 

/31KtB

“We”? Speak for yourself please.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
11 hours ago, Umikami said:

Not criticizing, asking; you would have fire controlled by RNG? Fire is VERY important to Cruisers and their balance against other ships.

Yes, because fire and flooding are not things you can quantify that they will always do X damage. I have proposed damage control checks every so often where the oldest  fire or flooding can end, continue, or even get worse. This is a common method to handle fires and flooding in naval combat games, computer, board game, and miniatures, and gets the needed results in a simple way that is actually historically accurate.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,992 posts
3,513 battles

Who's this 'we' you refer to? Why would anyone want really horrible HE like the Ducas use? I know of several destroyer guns with better fire starting than these.

It's pretty clear that Wargaming are testing out SAP so that their new cruisers don't run around with truly horrible HE. SAP may have issues, but it's still generally better than the Duca HE. In fact, there's a bunch of people, myself included, that are clamoring to get SAP loaded onto Roma given how trash her HE is also.

As for the full speed smoke gimmick ... I'm on the fence, but that's just because the action type seems really short while the cooldown seems excessively long, especially when you consider the lack of other consumables. This is what testing is for. Let's hope the devs figure out a good balance here.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,009
[ARGSY]
Members
20,100 posts
14,317 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

I have proposed damage control checks every so often where the oldest  fire or flooding can end, continue, or even get worse.

So my DCP and heal are on cooldown and all of a sudden the fire that has ten seconds left to burn in one segment of my ship suddenly becomes two and kills me? In other gaming environments I can see it working, but not within the context of the damage control mechanics as they work here. We're well over to the arcade side of arcade/sim, and fire chance is too capricious a thing already.

If you think WG is having problems balancing carriers, just wait till you see what happens if they tried balancing damage as you propose. The torches and pitchforks would be out quickly, and I'm not completely sure I wouldn't join them this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
[EQRN]
Members
2,030 posts
17,447 battles
Just now, KnifeInUrNeck said:

That smokes is far more powerful then people realize. It’s this game’s version of a cloaking device.

Anyone else think there could be an uptick in hackusations because people take hits after engaging their cloaking device?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

So my DCP and heal are on cooldown and all of a sudden the fire that has ten seconds left to burn in one segment of my ship suddenly becomes two and kills me? In other gaming environments I can see it working, but not within the context of the damage control mechanics as they work here. We're well over to the arcade side of arcade/sim, and fire chance is too capricious a thing already.

If you think WG is having problems balancing carriers, just wait till you see what happens if they tried balancing damage as you propose. The torches and pitchforks would be out quickly, and I'm not completely sure I wouldn't join them this time.

Yeah but it might have gone out before it had burned for 10 seconds. I think that once people got used to a system like that they would prefer it as currently when you are low on health you use your DC to put it out but the next hit can start it right back up and there is no way to stop it this time. With my idea that second fire might go out, giving you a chance for one more shot or if you have repairs you might be able to fix yourself up enough to contribute to the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,009
[ARGSY]
Members
20,100 posts
14,317 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

Yeah but it might have gone out before it had burned for 10 seconds. I think that once people got used to a system like that they would prefer it as currently when you are low on health you use your DC to put it out but the next hit can start it right back up and there is no way to stop it this time. With my idea that second fire might go out, giving you a chance for one more shot or if you have repairs you might be able to fix yourself up enough to contribute to the match.

I can see where your system has merits, but honestly? We're seven months into a radical change to some aspects of gameplay (CV and AA), and we have had people metaphorically baying for Wargaming's blood even before the changes first went live. They have NO patience for major changes to the game that aren't delivered right the first time, often POOR comprehension (or at least a pretence of poor comprehension) of how altered mechanics are going to change things, and NO understanding of why getting it right the first time is sometimes impossible. Playing around with fire and flood in such a major way would cause a forum shipstorm that would make the reactions to Tier 6 Giulio and NTC Version 1 look like kittens and unicorns. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
4 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I can see where your system has merits, but honestly? We're seven months into a radical change to some aspects of gameplay (CV and AA), and we have had people metaphorically baying for Wargaming's blood even before the changes first went live. They have NO patience for major changes to the game that aren't delivered right the first time, often POOR comprehension (or at least a pretence of poor comprehension) of how altered mechanics are going to change things, and NO understanding of why getting it right the first time is sometimes impossible. Playing around with fire and flood in such a major way would cause a forum shipstorm that would make the reactions to Tier 6 Giulio and NTC Version 1 look like kittens and unicorns. 

What I really want is for fire to stop being a weapon and simply a side effect of naval combat. We will never see that because we have too many ships that live and die by starting fires.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,009
[ARGSY]
Members
20,100 posts
14,317 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

What I really want is for fire to stop being a weapon and simply a side effect of naval combat. We will never see that because we have too many ships that live and die by starting fires.

You have a point, but I don't think we'll ever get away from that without the sort of top-to-tail redesign the game will probably never get. They'd have to finalise the content before they got around to such a thing, because then it would ALL have to be completely rebalanced.

As things stand, fire is the only way some cruisers have a hope of dealing with battleships. IRL the IJN Hiei was taken out by surface gunfire before US aviation finished her off, but that was at suicidally close SURPRISE MOTHER-TRUCKER ranges at night where the cruiser and destroyer guns had a chance. Cruisers can trash battleship fire control postions (and radar where fitted), but there's not much they can generally do about deep citadel hits that will cut down a BB's speed and leave her vulnerable, or cause the sort of eventually-fatal straw-on-camel's-back gunfire-related flooding damage that HMS Invincible caused to SMS Lutzow before the British ship got detonated. Consider that - Invincible arguably got the first "It's a Flesh Wound" award in IRL naval history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,095
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles

The lack of HE on these things concerns me greatly, too. I don't like ships that lack options against entire types simply for the sake of "national flavor."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,583
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,003 posts
4,598 battles
15 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

What I really want is for fire to stop being a weapon and simply a side effect of naval combat. We will never see that because we have too many ships that live and die by starting fires.

It was a side effect yes, but it was the biggest threat to any warship bar none. 

USN Handbook on Damage control has a very interesting section about fire fighting and fire prevention, fires start very easily on ships and once again... The USN identified fire as the biggest threat to a ship bar none. 

They also stated that fires started incredibly easily on ships, and could start from almost any type of weapon being used.

image.png.9d6e02b675fc4bcc5da62158a1b2601d.png

 

 

So in reality, we should probably not only be seing fires from HE shells... but also torpedo hits, AP hits, Splinters from near misses. Maybe we can reduce the "damage effect" of fire, however as stated in the fire prevention section...

 

image.png.335c41f8a6c4dda35793f5f18fd6ca52.png

 

It seems that only the smallest fires cause minimal damage, and that anything outside of this definition of a "smallest" of fires would result in heavy damage to any ship afflicted.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
4 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

It was a side effect yes, but it was the biggest threat to any warship bar none. 

USN Handbook on Damage control has a very interesting section about fire fighting and fire prevention, fires start very easily on ships and once again... The USN identified fire as the biggest threat to a ship bar none. 

They also stated that fires started incredibly easily on ships, and could start from almost any type of weapon being used.

image.png.9d6e02b675fc4bcc5da62158a1b2601d.png

 

 

So in reality, we should probably not only be seing fires from HE shells... but also torpedo hits, AP hits, Splinters from near misses. Maybe we can reduce the "damage effect" of fire, however as stated in the fire prevention section...

 

image.png.335c41f8a6c4dda35793f5f18fd6ca52.png

 

It seems that only the smallest fires cause minimal damage, and that anything outside of this definition of a "smallest" of fires would result in heavy damage to any ship afflicted.  

 

Correct but in the game it is a weapon. No captain in the era the game covers ever said "Use HE, I want to start fires.". Fire chance should be very low but every shell type should be able to start fires.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[FGNE]
Members
960 posts
4,568 battles

I don’t mind SAP shells, and the Ducas rely heavily on IFHE, which is about to being changed.

And as to the fire as a weapon, I can remember reading of a USN cruiser that ran out of shells and with nothing else to shoot they loaded starshells and fired them against an IJN DD, sure the DD didn’t sink but was rendered combat ineffective simply by ... nullifying the crew. :Smile_ohmy:

Edited by CO_Valle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,583
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,003 posts
4,598 battles
12 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Correct but in the game it is a weapon. No captain in the era the game covers ever said "Use HE, I want to start fires.". Fire chance should be very low but every shell type should be able to start fires.

Maybe cutting the fire chance of HE considerably and add a value to all other weapon systems in the game?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
188
[BBMOD]
Members
348 posts
5,767 battles
6 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

Maybe cutting the fire chance of HE considerably and add a value to all other weapon systems in the game?

In game terms, what would HE be useful for then and why would any ship ever use HE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
14 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

Maybe cutting the fire chance of HE considerably and add a value to all other weapon systems in the game?

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×