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

Reduce number of possible fires to two

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,042 posts
24,752 battles

Reducing the number of fires possible to two would alleviate a lot of the He spammer issue people complain about. 

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
324
[FORM]
Members
341 posts
2,428 battles
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. :-/

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
409 posts
26 battles

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 by SoothingWhaleSongEU
  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,042 posts
24,752 battles

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
Members
409 posts
26 battles
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.

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,516
[WORX]
Members
16,388 posts
21,903 battles

Not going to happen...

 

People would rather be sunk by

  1. AP
  2. fires
  3. HE

Least form to be sunk by

  1. Flooding/torps
  2. Planes...

Its not going to change anytime soon.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,077
[SALVO]
Members
12,985 posts
8,614 battles

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.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
568
[WOLF9]
Members
2,067 posts
31,448 battles
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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[SNGNS]
Members
611 posts
7,126 battles
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
8,077
[SALVO]
Members
12,985 posts
8,614 battles
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
5,323
[KWF]
Members
6,767 posts
7,444 battles

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 by warheart1992
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,077
[SALVO]
Members
12,985 posts
8,614 battles
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
15,555
[WOLF5]
Members
35,404 posts
29,117 battles
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 by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
677
[VORTX]
Members
814 posts
11,079 battles
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
Members
416 posts
5,650 battles

  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
1,232
[-VT-]
Members
2,064 posts
34,902 battles

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
4,486
[ARS]
Beta Testers
7,790 posts
8,479 battles
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
1,737
[KIA]
Members
3,839 posts
17,833 battles

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
7,036
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles
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?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×