Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
kgh52

Fire, does it need a overhaul?

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,204
[TDRB]
Members
5,320 posts
13,743 battles

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread I created this thread to discuss positive changes to fire.

First, the disclaimer: Yes, I & many others have seen the stats on fire but stats alone, IMO, are not enough to base decisions on important game issues. Also, balance must be improved.

We also must keep in mind that some ships are dependent on fire damage.

BrushWolf offered this as an idea.

" What I would like to see is a revamp of weapon damage with HE being the lower but very steady damage dealer with both AP & HE causing fires but they would more of a nuisance than a danger. However, they could trigger critical hits every so many seconds like secondary/AA ready ammunition explodes causing one secondary/AA gun to be destroyed with the damage they would do being applied to the burning ship's HP ignoring armor or worse the fire could spread causing another fire. Instead of a set burning time there would be a chance that the fire could go out with each tic. That would stop fires from being a weapon but they would still be a danger if they get out of control. "

I would like to see all classes & all tiers, or at least T5 & above, have some sort of repair & less cool down on repair & damage control consumables.

What are your thoughts

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,080
[OIL-1]
Members
1,498 posts

You're asking for a revamp? Nah bruh.
Weegee's job is to slap things together as fast as possible to generate revenue quickly.

They just did a fire revamp, so don't expect another one for at least a year.
And you can tell they slapped it together, because they should have made special cases for
ships like Atlanta, Flint, etc. instead of just nerfing the Smolensk to appease the whiners.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,539
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,521 posts
6,405 battles
16 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

What I would like to see is a revamp of weapon damage with HE being the lower but very steady damage dealer with both AP & HE causing fires but they would more of a nuisance than a danger. However, they could trigger critical hits every so many seconds like secondary/AA ready ammunition explodes causing one secondary/AA gun to be destroyed with the damage they would do being applied to the burning ship's HP ignoring armor or worse the fire could spread causing another fire. Instead of a set burning time there would be a chance that the fire could go out with each tic. That would stop fires from being a weapon but they would still be a danger if they get out of control. "

Looks like too much RNG for my tastes.  Right now you know what being on fire does and can make an informed decision about it.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,728
[KIA-C]
Members
3,817 posts
16,745 battles

The day when HE + fire damage will be able to send a BB to port the same way BB AP does, I'll agree about changing HE and fire.

 

Right now, HE and fire are fine

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
39 minutes ago, AlcatrazNC said:

The day when HE + fire damage will be able to send a BB to port the same way BB AP does, I'll agree about changing HE and fire.

 

Right now, HE and fire are fine

+1 and also buff flooding

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,422
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,878 posts
22,441 battles

It's already RNG whether a fire gets started, why would you want to add more RNG on whether it crits or spontaneously goes out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,204
[TDRB]
Members
5,320 posts
13,743 battles

Another question, is it fine or are you afraid of WG making it worse?

There is a lot of anger in the player base directed towards WG, we see that in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,363
[WORX]
Members
13,291 posts
20,135 battles

Overhauling the only DMG (fire), ships can do to +2MM heavy armored ships... Few things

  • Repeal the flood nerfs
  • Repeal the DMG control cool down buufs.
  • Repeal the IFHE changes, they have made 160MM caliber guns and below useless against +2MM ships
  • Repeal hiding BB citadels below the waterline.

They're countless other changes to repeal that has directly or indirectly benefited the BB class.

Until then, we can talk about fire...

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[CDOH]
Members
908 posts
8,510 battles
1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

Overhauling the only DMG (fire), ships can do to +2MM heavy armored ships... Few things

  • Repeal the flood nerfs
  • Repeal the DMG control cool down buufs.
  • Repeal the IFHE changes, they have made 160MM caliber guns and below useless against +2MM ships
  • Repeal hiding BB citadels below the waterline.

They're countless other changes to repeal that has directly or indirectly benefited the BB class.

Until then, we can talk about fire...

I actually agree with these changes.  All BBs should have citadels that can be punished.  DD torp damage should hit harder either with direct damage or longer duration flood.  DDs no longer scare me as BB. 

Edited by Rothgar_57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[-ICE-]
Members
567 posts

Give up some of ur capt skills and add fire prev and all those things that help putting out fires and use a flag every time. it helps.  i hate fires but id rather take the things that curb fires with my captains and ship upgrades and give up things that everyone seems to think they are entitled to.  its one or the other not both  

Edited by CRZY_TRAIN
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[TF-64]
Members
565 posts
20,563 battles

I always liked the idea of fire and flooding causing the same damage per fire/flood on all ships but the size of the ship dictating how many fire/flood boxes a ship has.  

Ex. DDs maybe have 2 DOT boxes, cruisers maybe have 3-5 boxes depending on size, and BBs having 5-9 depending on size. 

But then maybe it's just the savage part of me that wants to see Kremlin with 6 fires and 4 floods just ticking away and hard to see due to all the smoke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
156 posts
3,492 battles
2 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

The day when HE + fire damage will be able to send a BB to port the same way BB AP does, I'll agree about changing HE and fire.

 

Right now, HE and fire are fine

This right here. Lets not forget that a lot of ships rely on fire damage as their "gimmick". Some examples are: Atlanta, Khaba/Tashkent, Colbert, Smolensk, where their HE is strong and is their main damage source against BB's. With a revamp as suggested, it is kind of an indirect nerf to many of these ships. With many of them being premium, I doubt Wargaming would even consider something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,204
[TDRB]
Members
5,320 posts
13,743 battles
12 minutes ago, MuricanClassBattleship said:

This right here. Lets not forget that a lot of ships rely on fire damage as their "gimmick". Some examples are: Atlanta, Khaba/Tashkent, Colbert, Smolensk, where their HE is strong and is their main damage source against BB's. With a revamp as suggested, it is kind of an indirect nerf to many of these ships. With many of them being premium, I doubt Wargaming would even consider something like this.

In my post opening this thread I specifically stated balance must be improved.

Many believe the IFHE change was a serious nerf to the Atlanta & other fire breathing ships.

2 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

Overhauling the only DMG (fire), ships can do to +2MM heavy armored ships... Few things

  • Repeal the flood nerfs
  • Repeal the DMG control cool down buufs.
  • Repeal the IFHE changes, they have made 160MM caliber guns and below useless against +2MM ships
  • Repeal hiding BB citadels below the waterline.

They're countless other changes to repeal that has directly or indirectly benefited the BB class.

Until then, we can talk about fire...

This thread is focusing on fire damage, not BB's. If you wish to rant about BB's, please start your own thread.

FYI: it is cruisers I am concerned about. Most cruisers do not have the ability to mitigate fire damage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,363
[WORX]
Members
13,291 posts
20,135 battles
7 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

In my post opening this thread I specifically stated balance must be improved.

Many believe the IFHE change was a serious nerf to the Atlanta & other fire breathing ships.

This thread is focusing on fire damage, not BB's. If you wish to rant about BB's, please start your own thread.

FYI: it is cruisers I am concerned about. Most cruisers do not have the ability to mitigate fire damage.  

Its not only BBs you're right... You can add heavy cruisers with 200MM+ gun calibers to the list as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[-ICE-]
Members
567 posts
11 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

Many believe the IFHE change was a serious nerf to the Atlanta & other fire breathing ships.

This is why i posted what I did about using capt skills and upgrades..  because the IFHE nerf killed my Helena.. I hardly take it out anymore.  All because the ones who dont like to be lite up on fire dont take the correct skills, Ya they want 12k secondarys and to have concealment expert so they can destroy everyone but not be touched.. TAKE the fire prevention and reduced time for control party and drop some gravy upgrades and take the 15% less fire damage time and use a flag... Dont totally nerf the hell out of my Helena for no reason...   Mind u I hate fires but i use the correct choices to curb them on the ships i dont want to burn down and I give up the gravy of secondarys and concealment ect ect

Edited by CRZY_TRAIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,009
[TIMT]
Members
1,736 posts
5,623 battles

A couple of months ago everyone was talking about nerfing HE spammer and that they ruin the game. It was done.

Now people start complaining that fires are not strong enough and HE spammers need to be able to melt BBs regardless of armor? please no!

Yes, mid-tier CLs got the short stick of the HE rework but overall I liked the idea. It might be needing a bit more balance, but as for most cruisers the decision between IFHE and no IFHE is still not a decision (fire chances too low for that). My guess, taking SAP away from Italian ships and making IFHE effectively SAP would probably have the desired effect of making IFHE a choice, but I digress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[-ICE-]
Members
567 posts

Certain ships needed a nerf the ones with machine gun speed rate of fireing not the entire game. And not to pen to the point ur shells don't pen hardly nothing in the case of Helena.  Take IFHE off and it's HE pen is 25mm...  25 in t7 is a joke and in t8 and t9 u might as well leave the match. No Helena and others didn't need a nerf at all 

 

Edited by CRZY_TRAIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,009
[TIMT]
Members
1,736 posts
5,623 battles
14 hours ago, CRZY_TRAIN said:

Certain ships needed a nerf the ones with machine gun speed rate of fireing not the entire game. 

Yeah. HE spam was mostly a T8+ problem as the volume of fire from certain CLs was just increasing exponentially. Just compare the USS CLs and Smolensk:

EDIT: Apparently the values below are out of date. I will try to remember to update them as soon as I find a reliable source.

Dallas:       155k  (25mm, 12%)
Helena:      233k (25mm, 12%)
Atlanta:    302k (21mm, 5%)
Cleveland: 244k (25mm, 12%)
Seattle:    244k (25mm, 12%) can equip MBM3 277k
Worcester: 344k (25mm,12%) can equip MBM3 391k
Smolensk:  384k (22m, 8%) can equip MBM3 for 426k

There is a 100k increase from T9 to T10 in raw DPM, which is pretty high considering they practically get almost the same MM. The fire chances per full salvo (assuming all hits) are actually around 58% for Atlanta and 75%  for Worcester (both no IFHE). Factor in things like AR, BFT, DE and it gets really scary at T10.

True, raw values don't translate well into actual occurrences in game but it gives a good indication why the HE spam was broken at high tiers. I mean just look at those values compared to Cleveland or Helena.

Edited by shinytrashcan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,728
[KIA-C]
Members
3,817 posts
16,745 battles
1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

In my post opening this thread I specifically stated balance must be improved.

Many believe the IFHE change was a serious nerf to the Atlanta & other fire breathing ships.

 

It is more like, IFHE nerf wasn't really the changes people expected.

 

The whole concept of IFHE was to increases HE penetration (more raw damage) at the cost of less fire chance. The old -3% fire chance wasn't really a huge penalty at all, in fact my Worcester without IFHE right now start maybe 1 or 2 more fire on average than the old IFHE Worcester. And because not only the -3% fire chance was totally irrelevant, IFHE CL would effectively outDPM CA making them almost irrelevant.

 

IFHE nerf was needed however WG decided it was a good time to also change the hull armour and HE penetration, and this is where the mess started.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
0 posts

image.png.659e89608db13e4ce216d9ee8a4bc8eb.png

Probably not, but tell us how your inability to deal with it warrants a comprehensive change anyway.

The biggest problem with HE and fire in this game is that people don't understand how to manage their consumables. For those who know how to deal with it, fire is simply a non-issue.

Of course, it doesn't help that some rather popular CCs, for some inexplicable reason, advise their viewers -who evidently don't know better- to DCP a single fire.

Don't push into HE spamming ships out in the open and don't DCP single fires. There, I just solved all your HE issues.

You're welcome.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,204
[TDRB]
Members
5,320 posts
13,743 battles
32 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Haven't fire and flooding already been toned done over time? 

 

Most relying have made the false assumption a overhaul would nerf fire damage. That is not so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
1 minute ago, kgh52 said:

Most relying have made the false assumption a overhaul would nerf fire damage. That is not so.

I wasn't assuming anything about your overhaul ideas, I'm just asking to establish context for the discussion... and watching a lot of people react in anger instead of analysis. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
0 posts
5 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

... and watching a lot of people react in anger instead of analysis.

Analysis?

Here's an analysis for you; HE/fire damage has been more or less the same since the beginning of this game. Yet unlike CVs, where people voice their frustration relatively proportionally across the player base, those who complain about HE/fire have historically been those who are on the lower end of the scale competency-wise.

Why do you never read or hear someone with a proven record of competency bring up this "issue"?

Because it is not an issue for them.

This suggests that the real problem isn't the mechanic itself, but the players' lack of knowledge, experience and skill.

I remember myself posting a number of HE/fire threads 3-4 years ago under the guise of trying to find a "solution" to this "issue" after getting my [edited]handed to me by constant HE spam, and needed a place to vent frustration.

Having learned how to deal with it eventually though, fire and HE spam have ceased becoming a source of frustration for me, as it has done for countless current blunicum, unicum and superunicum players. Heck, I don't even remember the last time when I was actually bothered by fire. Must have been at least 2-3 years ago.

There are some legitimate issues with this game that needs discussing and generating ideas over. This fire "issue" however, is a player-borne one and is relatively easy to fix simply by educating yourself and striving to be better.

You can't blame everything on the mechanics and expect the developers to fix it for you. The game has lost every time they tried to do that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
3 minutes ago, KosmicRavioli said:

Analysis?

Here's an analysis for you; HE/fire damage has been more or less the same since the beginning of this game. Yet unlike CVs, where people voice their frustration relatively proportionally across the player base, those who complain about HE/fire have historically been those who are on the lower end of the scale competency-wise.

Why do you never read or hear someone with a proven record of competency bring up this "issue"?

Because it is not an issue for them.

This suggests that the real problem isn't the mechanic itself, but the players' lack of knowledge, experience and skill.

I remember myself posting a number of HE/fire threads 3-4 years ago under the guise of trying to find a "solution" to this "issue" after getting my [edited]handed to me by constant HE spam, and needed a place to vent frustration.

Having learned how to deal with it eventually though, fire and HE spam have ceased becoming a source of frustration for me, as it has done for countless current blunicum, unicum and superunicum players. Heck, I don't even remember the last time when I was actually bothered by fire. Must have been at least 2-3 years ago.

There are some legitimate issues with this game that needs discussing and generating ideas over. This fire "issue" however, is a player-borne one and is relatively easy to fix simply by educating yourself and striving to be better.

You can't blame everything on the mechanics and expect the developers to fix it for you. The game has lost every time they tried to do that.

OK.  

Why does that comes across as a finger pointed directly at me... ?

I tend to agree that a lot of the reaction to fire is overblown, and that fire isn't quite the threat that people make it out to be, especially if the player combines some basic build choices with smart use of consumables. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×