Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
philjd

Consumables - damage?

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,661 posts
5,455 battles

Here's a thought to ponder - should it be possible to damage consumables?

 

Examples:-

1) Spotter plane/fighter - the catapult could be damaged and hence prevent launching (no effect if already up)

2) Radar - dishes, aerials etc can be damaged

3) Hydro - (less likely) but the receivers/control rooms etc could be damaged

4) DefAA - HAFC could suffer damage (high angle fire control)

5) engine boost - turbines, boilers, piping etc

6) smoke - similar to engine boost.

 

Damage could repair over time and/or the player could use the damage con.

 

Would it be worth it, too much benefit for HE spammers, although engine/hydro/smoke should need penetrating hits, would it add to the game?

 

I don't consider repair party as a consumable in the strictest sense. It's just that we can damage modules, and consumables are 'value adds' to modules, so.....?

 

(edit typo)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,363 posts
6,236 battles

I feel that lately already too much stuff is breaking. What is fun about that?

Yesterday i received 0 dmg in my minotaur, but got hit by one shell from enemy Minotaur... destroyed one of my torp tubes permanently. And i run main armaments mod 1. +20% survivability my [edited]:cap_fainting:when one of the worst AP shells on T10 gets one hit and destroys it...

If anything, modules should break less often and not entirely instantly. Would be better, if youd lose single torp launchers at a time, f.e. your launcher has 4 torps, and one gets destroyed so you still have 3 instead of none.

 

Lets not even talk about secondaries, they shouldnt incapacitate any major stuff (Rudder/Engine/Guns/Torps) imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,882 posts
12,596 battles

You forgot your firing radar (drop in accuracy), the bridge (no more control over anything) the comms arrays (only ships you spot will be visible to you)…

 

But no, let's stick to what we have no. No need for more frustrating sorta realism mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,661 posts
5,455 battles

Yup, there's all sorts of stuff that could be added to the list, it would be a pain, but degradation of capabilities is a potential direction for the game.. no more 1 hp fully functional ships.. but less fun aka more frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,910 posts
7,772 battles

You sound like my project manager... he always thinks about how to complicate things :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CU]
Players
312 posts
3,469 battles

No, please, no. It will just cause more frustration for new players who already have problems understanding the current game mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,661 posts
5,455 battles
6 minutes ago, nambr9 said:

You sound like my project manager... he always thinks about how to complicate things :)

Maybe because I have done that sort of ;stuff'... 'keep it simple but make it right' ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,313 posts
5,395 battles
1 hour ago, philjd said:

4) DefAA - HAFC could suffer damage (high angle fire control)

A ship already loses most of the bite behind defAA, if it loses AA mounts, which are very easy to lose. At 0 AA mounts, defAA basically stops working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,145 posts
2,329 battles

Kudos for brainstorming, OP! Never hesitate to toss ideas around!

 

But on the issue at hand, I think I must agree with what seems to be the general consensus: I doubt that the possibility of damage to consumables would benefit the game. Which consumables we choose to mount, and when we choose to use them, are important tactical elements. Getting one of them shot out from under you at an awkward moment, could - and would - mess with your ability to control your game. To some extent, random happenings are beneficial to the game experience, in that they prevent it from becoming too static. But there is a limit where the chaos factor would simply be too much and ruin the fun. I could think of better ways to start a capping contest in my Ernst Gaede, for example, than having my Hydroacoustic Search unit suddenly shot off.

 

Having said this, I feel compelled to add that I rather like the way module damage currently works in WoWs. It brings just the right amount of nuance to the damage system, with a touch of realism for added taste.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
399 posts
859 battles

If it is something like a shootable permanent radar module that gives a permanent radar effect, then it can be thought about. Currently DFAA consumable can technically be disabled if you blow out all of the aa guns.

 

hydro is technically sonar, so it’s internal based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
1,041 posts
3,371 battles

Don't we have enough annoyance factors in this game already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×