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

Fire DoT needs to be cut in half.

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
259 posts

 Fire DoT simply needs to be cut in half. With how high the chances are to light fires, the DoT needs to be much much lower. Right now the game is all about HE. Whoever can spam the most WILL win. Unless anyone else has some better ideas? Other ways to balance out fire? Its a bit absurd now. Im not saying HE dmg needs to be changed by the way, im saying that the fires they light need to be adjusted. % chance of fire can remain the same if they simply cut the dmg it does by 50% or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,242
[NDA]
Beta Testers
5,251 posts
8,893 battles

or make it do less damage as your health decreases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,719 posts
4,106 battles

or make it do less damage as your health decreases. 

 

An idea but makes no sense a fire doesnt burn less as it goes through your house it burns at the same rate if not more, the most is maybe as time goes by your "crew" firefights it slowly putting it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,776 posts
1,592 battles

 Right now the game is all about HE. Whoever can spam the most WILL win.

 

All these devastating strikes imply otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,879
[-K--]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,172 posts
10,845 battles

Fire DoT simply needs to be cut in half

 

 

This thread again. No, it doesn't. Fire doesn't do all that much damage -- even for BBs it's accountable on average for about 12-14 percent of total damage taken, depending on tier. And mind you, fire damage is 100% repairable. Refer to stats: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/77311-is-cruiser-he-as-bad-as-it-seems/page__st__100__pid__1902208#entry1902208

 

 

P.S. BTW, every time this thread would pop up in the past and I'd post fire stats from WG, some tin foil activist would always say that WG doesn't provide fire damage taken in the after-game report because somehow this would expose their lies. Wonder where these people are now, he-he.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
212
[ECOM]
Beta Testers
838 posts
11,053 battles

Cutting it in half would be excessive. 

 

Maybe once it starts to stack (multiple fires) each stack shouldn't do as much as it does now because 3/4 fires is insane but one or two isn't that bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
53 posts
6,737 battles

Fire is fine, what needs to happen is flooding needs a nerf/mechanic change. Leaving out (the realism factor) that ships had multiple compartments and what not. Why can it not have the same mechanic as fires. Flooding in one spot or multiple spots like a battleship being on fire in 4 different places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,939
[ASHIP]
Members
5,454 posts
12,925 battles

Nothing wrong with fire, there is something wrong with how you handle it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,435
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,209 posts
15,770 battles

The problem with fire is the feeling of helplessness when you get fire after fire. The fire prevention skill is almost useless reducing the small percentage chances of fire by a minuscule amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,046 posts
2,264 battles

or make it do less damage as your health decreases. 

 

I'm more in favor of this option. I do feel like fires are way too powerful with the way some ships work- but this change would both make sense and also feel not as heavy handed as a straight up reduction to how much it does. It would also promote using HE to harassment/initiating a target and swapping to AP for more damage for later on rather than just spamming HE till it's dead. That's the real issue IMO- the ability to just continue lighting fires to burn someone to death, not the actual fire damage rate itself. This would fix the problems as I see them. Great idea Wo_9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[CHAOS]
Members
574 posts
2,491 battles

The problem with fire is the feeling of helplessness when you get fire after fire. The fire prevention skill is almost useless reducing the small percentage chances of fire by a minuscule amount.

 

learning when to let it burn and when to put it out is a key skill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
259 posts

 

I'm more in favor of this option. I do feel like fires are way too powerful with the way some ships work- but this change would both make sense and also feel not as heavy handed as a straight up reduction to how much it does. It would also promote using HE to harassment/initiating a target and swapping to AP for more damage for later on rather than just spamming HE till it's dead. That's the real issue IMO- the ability to just continue lighting fires to burn someone to death, not the actual fire damage rate itself. This would fix the problems as I see them. Great idea Wo_9.

 

Agreed, it would be a nice compromise. Still be able to light fires just as often, still able to do damage, but major hull damage would have to come form the players actually having to think about how and what to shoot at the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,072 posts
1,908 battles

rather than just spamming HE till it's dead. That's the real issue IMO- the ability to just continue lighting fires to burn someone to death, not the actual fire damage rate itself.

 

Really all of my problems with fire come from this statement right here. It's rather annoying when the enemy with the fast firing guns spams HE and keeps 4 or so fires going on me or my teammate at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
562 posts
1,852 battles

Fire alone is just annoyance but when combined with concealment it become a real problem.

 

Invisible spamming is not ok.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,422
[SOLOH]
[SOLOH]
Beta Testers
4,320 posts

*Hides Marblehead* Ships spaming fire? I fail to see the problem I am sure you'er just over thinking it Now if you will excuse me I have Marshmellows in need of roasting  

Edited by Triela50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,140
[MCWF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,026 posts
29,098 battles

Fire alone is just annoyance but when combined with concealment it become a real problem.

 

Invisible spamming is not ok.

Don't touch the Ibuki!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
562 posts
1,852 battles

Don't touch the Ibuki!

 

I'm quite fine with cruisers. their citadel still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
271 posts
8,188 battles

The way I see it is when you pop Damage Control and put out the fire, then you catch fire again after the immune and during cooldown time it should burn at a lesser rate cause your fire crews are actively fighting the fire. Once the cooltime time is over and the skill is ready to use again the fire will burn at normal rate until you use it again or just let it burn out. It would also work the same with flooding as well. Just my thoughts on this issue. 

Edited by Heavybarrel120mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,435
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,209 posts
15,770 battles

The problem with fire is the feeling of helplessness when you get fire after fire. The fire prevention skill is almost useless reducing the small percentage chances of fire by a minuscule amount.

 

 

learning when to let it burn and when to put it out is a key skill. 

 

Knowing that does little good when your decks are soaked in AvGas and the enemy is firing flares, those matches where you are almost constantly burning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×