2,086 [USRUS] Cit_the_bed [USRUS] Members 1,453 posts 20,660 battles Report post #1 Posted February 8 Reducing the number of fires possible to two would alleviate a lot of the He spammer issue people complain about. 7 1 1 3 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
653 [-VT-] vikingno2 Members 1,183 posts 28,825 battles Report post #2 Posted February 8 very true Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
246 [FORM] Arctander2 Members 310 posts 2,194 battles Report post #3 Posted February 8 13 minutes ago, Cit_the_bed said: Reducing the number of fires possible to two would alleviate a lot of the He spammer issue people complain about. I'd love to see it be twice as hard to get that second fire, and then twice as hard to get the third, etc. When a single salvo lights 2 or 3 fires, and you put them out and then the next salvo lights another 2 or 3... it really is a kick in the nuts, and that's even with fire prevention. :-/ 9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
178 SoothingWhaleSongEU Members 400 posts 26 battles Report post #4 Posted February 8 (edited) As a BB main, I would of course greatly benefit from this. Or perhaps having fire contributing and suffering to the damage saturation mechanic. I likewise agree the fire mechanics don't feel quite right. However fires do level the playing field for cruisers and some DDs vs BBs and that (along with torps) has always been a selling point for me when compared to Lights vs Heavys in World of Tanks. If I can one shot them with a single salvo then they should have an answer to that and fires suit that niche. Honestly I think my problem is that there have been high tier light cruisers introduced that just kinda broke the fires/minute mechanics that earlier cruisers seemed built around. I might be inclined to blame the US Light Cruiser split, but there may have been more before that. I didn't play that much high tier play back in the day before I took a break from January 2017 to May 2019 And as a Thunderer player; nerf the damn HE damage and fire chance, it's AP is plenty good enough as it is. Edited February 9 by SoothingWhaleSongEU 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12,258 [WOLF3] HazeGrayUnderway [WOLF3] Members 29,885 posts 25,782 battles Report post #5 Posted February 8 Of course guys that play the best damage dealing class with the best survivability demand to be even stronger. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,086 [USRUS] Cit_the_bed [USRUS] Members 1,453 posts 20,660 battles Report post #6 Posted February 8 Lowering the number of possible fires solves part of the Thunderer problem without needing to nerf Thunderer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
178 SoothingWhaleSongEU Members 400 posts 26 battles Report post #7 Posted February 8 1 minute ago, Cit_the_bed said: Lowering the number of possible fires solves part of the Thunderer problem without needing to nerf Thunderer Or WG could just nerf Thunderer. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
7,068 [WORX] Navalpride33 Members 12,640 posts 19,907 battles Report post #8 Posted February 8 Not going to happen... People would rather be sunk by AP fires HE Least form to be sunk by Flooding/torps Planes... Its not going to change anytime soon. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,461 [SALVO] ArIskandir Members 7,059 posts 5,529 battles Report post #9 Posted February 8 Throw in a general ship performance debuff when on fire and increased risk of random Detonation per every tick of fire damage and I'll call it a fair deal. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
271 [WOLF9] kyesac Members 1,138 posts 23,124 battles Report post #10 Posted February 8 12 minutes ago, Arctander2 said: I'd love to see it be twice as hard to get that second fire, and then twice as hard to get the third, etc. When a single salvo lights 2 or 3 fires, and you put them out and then the next salvo lights another 2 or 3... it really is a kick in the nuts, and that's even with fire prevention. :-/ This. In Coop, I can get one fire, but I might as well switch to AP because I can never get a second fire. On the flip side, hiding in smoke, I get hit for fire after fire. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
331 [SNGNS] TobTorp Members 601 posts 6,991 battles Report post #11 Posted February 8 4 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: Throw in a general ship performance debuff when on fire and increased risk of random Detonation per every tick of fire damage and I'll call it a fair deal. or make fires do like floods and give them a general debuff. your guns cant fire and train as fast if your crew needs to stop the barbecue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,461 [SALVO] ArIskandir Members 7,059 posts 5,529 battles Report post #12 Posted February 8 4 minutes ago, TobTorp said: do like floods and give them a general debuff. floods currently give a debuff? or am I misunderstanding? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,216 [KWF] warheart1992 Members 5,805 posts 7,013 battles Report post #13 Posted February 8 (edited) Getting all 4 fires is notoriously difficult and requires very good knowledge of being able to "walk" your HE on an opponent's ship. 3 fires are far more common and a skill already exists for it, leading to effectively 2 fires. 7 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: floods currently give a debuff? or am I misunderstanding? An active flood reduces your speed by a certain percentage. Edited February 8 by warheart1992 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12,258 [WOLF3] HazeGrayUnderway [WOLF3] Members 29,885 posts 25,782 battles Report post #14 Posted February 8 7 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: floods currently give a debuff? or am I misunderstanding? Loss of speed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,461 [SALVO] ArIskandir Members 7,059 posts 5,529 battles Report post #15 Posted February 8 5 minutes ago, warheart1992 said: An active flood reduces your speed by a certain percentage. 5 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said: Loss of speed. ha, I learnt something new today Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12,258 [WOLF3] HazeGrayUnderway [WOLF3] Members 29,885 posts 25,782 battles Report post #16 Posted February 8 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: ha, I learnt something new today Flood Damage used to be fatal if you didn't have DCP ready. Something BBs had to worry about. Not Cruisers or DDs because a few torps was fatal. But the CV Rebork brought Flood Nerfs with it. Now BBs tank floods like they do a single fire. Edited February 8 by HazeGrayUnderway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
178 SoothingWhaleSongEU Members 400 posts 26 battles Report post #17 Posted February 8 2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said: ha, I learnt something new today It esp. makes it very painful to change speed. Quote In addition, ships that are flooding have their top speed reduced by 30% at full speed forward, and 60% at reverse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
450 [VORTX] Pirate_Named_Sue Members 586 posts 7,709 battles Report post #18 Posted February 8 53 minutes ago, Arctander2 said: I'd love to see it be twice as hard to get that second fire, and then twice as hard to get the third, etc. When a single salvo lights 2 or 3 fires, and you put them out and then the next salvo lights another 2 or 3... it really is a kick in the nuts, and that's even with fire prevention. :-/ This or a concept similar would actually be interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
71 [JHF] wooserloop [JHF] Members 298 posts 5,078 battles Report post #19 Posted February 8 Well, that would not do any good. You'd still be on fire constantly with two fires. If won't make anyone use less HE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12,258 [WOLF3] HazeGrayUnderway [WOLF3] Members 29,885 posts 25,782 battles Report post #20 Posted February 8 Heaven forbid Battleships take damage! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
653 [-VT-] vikingno2 Members 1,183 posts 28,825 battles Report post #21 Posted February 8 I would be all for bring the longer floods back as well as reducing the fire chance Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,067 [ARS] Helstrem Beta Testers 5,780 posts 6,023 battles Report post #22 Posted February 8 37 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said: Heaven forbid Battleships take damage! Do you want BBs to be more aggressive in positioning or not? BBs cannot dodge incoming fire to a significant factor unless at extreme range, so they simply have to tank it. If they cannot tank it, because if they can tank it "Heaven forbid Battleships take damage!", then they will stay in the back where they wont get hit as much. You cannot simultaneously expect BBs to push up closer and want them to be more vulnerable to incoming fire. They are incompatible positions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,564 [KIA-C] AlcatrazNC Members 3,686 posts 16,246 battles Report post #23 Posted February 8 I wouldn't mind reducing the number of fire to 2, if a single fire now removes 0.6% of a BB HP every seconds (without any modifier). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6,398 [WOLFG] Skpstr Members 32,333 posts 10,021 battles Report post #24 Posted February 9 1 hour ago, Cit_the_bed said: Lowering the number of possible fires solves part of the Thunderer problem without needing to nerf Thunderer It solves part of the problem for one ship, at one tier, while creating one for ships of two types, at all tiers. How about just bake in FP, and allow all ships to only have 3 fires? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
73 [VAST_] CapnCazuul Members 164 posts 5,350 battles Report post #25 Posted February 9 I think fire damage rate just needs to be halved. Easy. lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
