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

Suggestion: 1/2/3 Level of Fire to Reduce HE Spam Intensity

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles

Introduction:  HE spam is a prevalent topic, especially with some of the recently release, high RoF ships that lob LOTS of SMALL munitions.  Constantly being on Fire is a nearly unavoidable thing, though nerfing the fire chance of the shells is equally infuriating to the owner of said high RoF ship.  Perhaps a middle-ground?

 

Objective:  Reduce overall impact of constant, full impact fires from high RoF ships, while keeping the impact of the larger shelled, HE-favoring vessels.

 

Concept: Introduce a tiered system for Fires.  Adjust for shell sizing to allow larger shells to have the ability to set larger, stronger fires from the initial hit.  Allow for smaller shells to start a smaller fire, then increase it's potency by continued shelling (though keeping the maximum duration from live server).

* Level 1 (small blaze): 0.1% ship HP/sec, burns for 1/3 standard fire timing (10 seconds for DD/CA, 20 seconds for BB/CV).  Can be set by small Destroyer caliber shells or small bombs

* Level 2 (medium blaze): 0.2% ship HP/sec, burns for 2/3 standard fire timing (20 seconds for DD/CA, 40 seconds for BB/CV).  Can be set by medium Cruiser caliber shells or medium bombs (Can be upgraded into from continued smaller caliber shelling)

* Level 3 (heavy blaze): 0.3% ship HP/sec, burns for full standard fire timing (30 seconds for DD/CA, 60 seconds for BB/CV).  Can be set by large Battleship caliber shells or heavy bombs (Can be upgraded into from continued smaller caliber shelling)

 

Mechanics of Upgrading Fires:  When a fire is set, the duration of the fire is begun at the Level it started.  That duration cannot be renewed, but it can be extended if the fire increases in size.

* Example A: A small-caliber shell starts a Level 1 fire on a Cruiser.  The fire begins to burn for 10 seconds.  If additional small shells land and increase the Level from 1 to 2, then +10 seconds of burn time would be added to the existing duration.  If the fire is not upgraded within the remaining duration, then after the 20 seconds of it's timer, the fire goes out.

* Example B: A small-caliber shell starts a Level 1 fire on a Battleship.  The fire begins to burn for 20 seconds.  A Cruiser firing HE triggers a fire and increases the Level from 1 to 3 (medium shells doing 2 levels of Fire per set).  40 seconds of burn duration are added to the existing time remaining.  Additional HE shells cannot increase the level beyond 3, and after the full duration of 60 seconds, the fire goes out.

Example C:  A large-caliber shell starts a fire on a Battleship.  The fire begins to burn for 60 seconds.  Additional HE shells cannot increase the level beyond 3, and after the full duration of 60 seconds, the fire goes out.

 

Actual Damage Concept:

1A) A Destroyer sets a Level 1 fire on a Battleship (0.1%/sec damage at 20 seconds duration)

1B) 12 seconds of constant shelling upgrade the Fire from Level 1 to Level 2. (0.2%/sec damage, +20 seconds to duration of current fire, 28 seconds remaining)

1C) 20 seconds more of constant shelling upgrade the Fire from Level 2 to Level 3) (0.3%/sec damage, +20 seconds to duration of current fire, 28 seconds remaining)

1D) Additional shelling occurs, but the Fire cannot grow in intensity, and burns out after the 28 seconds remaining.

Total Damage: 12x0.1 + 20x0.2 + 28x0.3 = 13.6% of ship health from Fire Damage

Current in Game Damage would be 60x0.3 = 18% of ship health from Fire Damage (Also, after initial fire set, the attacker could move to a different section trying to set another full value fire for additional burn damage)

 

2A) A cruiser sets a Level 2 fire on a Cruiser (0.2%/sec damage at 20 second duration)

2B) 20 seconds of constant shelling produces no additional fires, the fire burns out after 20 seconds from start.

Total Damage: 20x0.2 = 4% of ship health

Current in Game Damage would be 30x0.3 = 6% of ship health from Fire Damage (Also, after initial fire set, the attacker could move to a different section trying to set another full value fire for additional burn damage)

 

Conclusions

* Smaller-caliber HE spam ships may still consistently set fires, but the burn damage will be reduced until the Level is increased through continued shelling. 

* Because of the maximum fire duration, it may take time to get the full DoT effect, but the Fire will go out after the normal duration has been reached.  This will reduce Fire damage by a significant degree from constant smaller shelling, while keeping cruiser-sized shelling relatively unaffected, and battleship HE use completely unchanged.

* Smaller caliber ships could have fire chances increased as they set less full-intensity fires.  Resulting in more responsive gameplay feel then having high RoF ships stuck with a 2-3% fire chance.

* Using Fire Duration reduction flags/modules/captain skills would assist in making the small fires more likely to stay small with decreased duration by not allowing the time for them to ramp up from smaller shelling, even if fire chances were increased.

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 8
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles

Graphic for player to see current level of fire added.  Smaller Flame/Medium Flame/Large Flame

 

FireLevel.png

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[NSC]
Members
1,744 posts
9 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

Reserving in case of need.

Personal opinion:

Any mechanics change that significantly increases complexity of the mechanics system will not be implemented.

This includes your proposal here.

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
8 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

Personal opinion:

Any mechanics change that significantly increases complexity of the mechanics system will not be implemented.

This includes your proposal here.

I realize designer/coder time is precious and expensive, but this uses current mechanisms that are coded in.

They would add two other types of Fire: FireA, FireB, FireC to reference to when "FireSet" is triggered.

They would have to add a HEStrength modifier of 1/2/3 to account for the strength of Fire Setting, but I don't think that would be as massive a task as you might imagine.  A Day or Few?  There are probably 200-300 artillery types in the game, which is a lot, but once the reference is added, it should be fairly copy/paste.

4 minutes ago, epojokke said:

Can we also lower AP damage then?

AP is based off Positional Gameplay.  If you're in the position to land shots/citadel, you get rewarded. 

HE is made for non-positional accessibility.  Regardless of angle, you can chuck HE.

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[NSC]
Members
1,744 posts
Just now, Ahskance said:

I realize designer/coder time is precious and expensive, but this uses current mechanisms that are coded in.

They would add two other types of Fire: FireA, FireB, FireC to reference to when "FireSet" is triggered.

They would have to add a HEStrength modifier of 1/2/3 to account for the strength of Fire Setting, but I don't think that would be as massive a task as you might imagine.  A Day or Two.

Thank you for addressing my concerns.

My take on WG's stance is they do not want to increase the perceived difficulty of learning the mechanics in WoWS (e.g. the learning curve) (and not developer burden, though that too is a consideration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[DAS]
Members
710 posts
6,215 battles
3 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

AP is based off Positional Gameplay.  If you're in the position to land shots/citadel, you get rewarded. 

HE is made for non-positional accessibility.  Regardless of angle, you can chuck HE.

Well yes, but it also sucks that you position your cruiser well on one side of the map and get citadeled by some battleship 25 km away that you couldn't see / angle against.

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
5 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

Thank you for addressing my concerns.

My take on WG's stance is they do not want to increase the perceived difficulty of learning the mechanics in WoWS (e.g. the learning curve) (and not developer burden, though that too is a consideration).

Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about the player-understanding.  Players understand "HE makes Fires"  The average person could easily understand "Small shells make small fires, and big shells make big fires".  It should feel intuitive.

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
Just now, epojokke said:

Well yes, but it also sucks that you position your cruiser well on one side of the map and get citadeled by some battleship 25 km away that you couldn't see / angle against.

That's a Armor/Overmatch Mechanics conversation.  HE cares about armor, but Fires do not.  Hence the topic at hand.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[DAS]
Members
710 posts
6,215 battles
1 minute ago, Ahskance said:

That's a Armor/Overmatch Mechanics conversation.  HE cares about armor, but Fires do not.  Hence the topic at hand.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about things doing too much damage, but maybe we are only talking about the things that hurt you...

  • Funny 1
  • Angry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
715
[90TH]
Members
1,724 posts
10,757 battles

Do you think smaller ships, which do the least damage and have the worst survival rates are too effective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[NSC]
Members
1,744 posts
3 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about the player-understanding.  Players understand "HE makes Fires"  The average person could easily understand "Small shells make small fires, and big shells make big fires".  This isn't to portray it as a stupid thing, just to say it's a concept players on average should be able to grasp without much thought.  It should feel intuitive.

Here are some other things to consider:

1. How will you explain this system to a new player?

2. How will you indicate to the player what type of fire they set?

3. How will you indicate to the player what type of fire they can set? What fire they "upgraded" to?

4. How will you indicate to the player what type of fire(s) they are on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
Just now, epojokke said:

Sorry, I thought we were talking about things doing too much damage, but maybe we are only talking about the things that hurt you...

Just heard a lot of people complaining about the HE spam ships that came out recently.  Smolensk/Colbert.  Both have small guns that fire very quickly, which is fine.  The shells that hit weak sections of armor do damage, but the constant Fires is oppressive.  This idea could allow smaller guns to be able to more normally set fires, but reduce the fire damage output.  Currently, you can only reduce Fire Chance, and it gets pretty frustrating to have a ship with 2-3% shells, but it's equally awful to be HE spammed.

 

3 minutes ago, Pytheas said:

Do you think smaller ships, which do the least damage and have the worst survival rates are too effective?

This isn't a comment on smaller ships, really.  If you allow for smaller Fires, you can increase Fire chance on smaller ships to allow more low-level fires to occur.  Perhaps you could alter the fire-upgrade mechanic to make Level 2 the maximum for small-shells, but increase the Fire chance in the first place?  It's always good to have levers to use for balancing purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,574
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,488 posts
3,895 battles

So what are you offering the smaller ships that you're massively nerfing with this proposed change?

Or is the massive nerf the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
738
[EQRN]
Members
1,608 posts
13,443 battles

I’d like to see fires start only after a given amount of HE damage is done, it would probably have to scale with ship type and tier.  And sections of the ship can only be set on fire a given number of times, for instance, once on bow and stern and twice in the middle sections, something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
15 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

Here are some other things to consider:

1. How will you explain this system to a new player?

2. How will you indicate to the player what type of fire they set?

3. How will you indicate to the player what type of fire they can set? What fire they "upgraded" to?

4. How will you indicate to the player what type of fire(s) they are on?

The in-game client shows Fires on the player's ship.  Showing a smaller fire, medium-sized fire, and a big fire should be intuitive enough to the player of the ship that is burning.

As to graphical elements for the attacker, I think that would be resource intensive for art reasons.  Just a basic fire animation should work, even though it wouldn't indicate current fire level.

 

 

FireLevel.png

Edited by Ahskance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
1 minute ago, KiyoSenkan said:

So what are you offering the smaller ships that you're massively nerfing with this proposed change?

Or is the massive nerf the point?

This would give the Devs more control over fire damage in general, so they could increase the base Fire chance on smaller shells as appropriate. 

Setting more smaller fires is more fun that spamming and growling about setting no fires due to aggressively low fire chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
7 minutes ago, FrodoFraggin said:

I’d like to see fires start only after a given amount of HE damage is done, it would probably have to scale with ship type and tier.  And sections of the ship can only be set on fire a given number of times, for instance, once on bow and stern and twice in the middle sections, something like that.

That kind of change to Fires seems much more complicated and ranging than this.  This takes the basic "small = small, big = big" concept that is intuitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[NSC]
Members
1,744 posts
8 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

The in-game client shows Fires on the player's ship.  Showing a smaller fire, medium-sized fire, and a big fire should be intuitive enough to the player of the ship that is burning.

As to graphical elements for the attacker, I think that would be resource intensive for art reasons.  Just a basic fire animation should work, even though it wouldn't indicate current fire level.

FireLevel.png

Nice drawing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
Just now, henrychenhenry said:

Nice drawing!

Why thank you~  Took me a while to remember how to crop images.  I don't use Paint that often :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[DAS]
Members
710 posts
6,215 battles
13 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

Just heard a lot of people complaining about the HE spam ships that came out recently.  Smolensk/Colbert.  Both have small guns that fire very quickly, which is fine.  The shells that hit weak sections of armor do damage, but the constant Fires is oppressive.  This idea could allow smaller guns to be able to more normally set fires, but reduce the fire damage output.  Currently, you can only reduce Fire Chance, and it gets pretty frustrating to have a ship with 2-3% shells, but it's equally awful to be HE spammed.

I only have the Smolensk and it is true that you can pump out a ton of shells and set many fires, but depending on the target, you get a ton of shatters, meaning that you do little direct damage sometimes. The fires make up for that. The same goes for some DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
163 posts
2,157 battles
36 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

I realize designer/coder time is precious and expensive, but this uses current mechanisms that are coded in.

They would add two other types of Fire: FireA, FireB, FireC to reference to when "FireSet" is triggered.

They would have to add a HEStrength modifier of 1/2/3 to account for the strength of Fire Setting, but I don't think that would be as massive a task as you might imagine.  A Day or Few?  There are probably 200-300 artillery types in the game, which is a lot, but once the reference is added, it should be fairly copy/paste.

AP is based off Positional Gameplay.  If you're in the position to land shots/citadel, you get rewarded. 

HE is made for non-positional accessibility.  Regardless of angle, you can chuck HE.

to be fair AP citadels are just as idiotic as  fire breather or torpedo walls, they are cheap mechanics that heavily affect gameplay and make players want to be as far away as posible from the fight

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
1 minute ago, epojokke said:

I only have the Smolensk and it is true that you can pump out a ton of shells and set many fires, but depending on the target, you get a ton of shatters, meaning that you do little direct damage sometimes. The fires make up for that. The same goes for some DDs.

I realize that, and I think that's why there's so much outrage over the high RoF HE Spam.  It's not about your accuracy, or where you're hitting the ship.  It's just about hitting the ship at all until you get a Fire.  In a way, that makes armor less relevant, even though it should be.

This game is designed to be about positioning, but HE spam hurts that... because you just burn everything to the ground.

I'm not arguing that it makes for a bad game.  I like WoWs.  I just think adding levels to the fire would make things more proportional and in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[DAS]
Members
710 posts
6,215 battles
8 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

I realize that, and I think that's why there's so much outrage over the high RoF HE Spam.  It's not about your accuracy, or where you're hitting the ship.  It's just about hitting the ship at all until you get a Fire.  In a way, that makes armor less relevant, even though it should be.

This game is designed to be about positioning, but HE spam hurts that... because you just burn everything to the ground.

I'm not arguing that it makes for a bad game.  I like WoWs.  I just think adding levels to the fire would make things more proportional and in perspective.

I'm also not against lowering fire damage (HE spam), but then you need to buff something else for the ships that depend on setting fires, or they will be almost unplayable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-TXT-]
Members
309 posts
5,259 battles
5 minutes ago, epojokke said:

I'm also not against lowering fire damage (HE spam), but then you need to buff something else for the ships that depend on setting fires, or they will be almost unplayable.

The Buff could be doubling or tripling fire chances on smaller shells.  If smaller shells are limited to smaller fires/ramping damage, then you could make their ability to set them be more reliable to aid with balancing damage output.

Right now some HE Shells are at 3% fire chance because a standard, single fire can be so powerful.

Edited by Ahskance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×