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

Flooding question

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[TCNF]
[TCNF]
Beta Tester
24 posts
5,160 battles

Not really a rant (although it could be xD ) but can someone explain why flooding is so much more detrimental and damaging than any other form of damage? It almost seems (dare i say) OP xD 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
2,437 posts
24,624 battles
2 minutes ago, DerpyMcDoom said:

Not really a rant (although it could be xD ) but can someone explain why flooding is so much more detrimental and damaging than any other form of damage? It almost seems (dare i say) OP xD 

They are working on something regarding this. Stay tuned

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,348 posts
11,323 battles

Because you can have only one flooding.

But WG is thinking about changing that. Reducing the damage and increase the amount of floods you can have.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TCNF]
[TCNF]
Beta Tester
24 posts
5,160 battles
1 minute ago, hgbn_dk said:

They are working on something regarding this. Stay tuned

Any clues on how? Are they going to use some sort of compartmentalisation system or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
2,437 posts
24,624 battles

As the system is now you can only have one flooding so adding compartments would not help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,576 posts
5,698 battles
4 minutes ago, DerpyMcDoom said:

Not really a rant (although it could be xD ) but can someone explain why flooding is so much more detrimental and damaging than any other form of damage? It almost seems (dare i say) OP xD 

Flooding at most removes 60% of your hp. For many ships there are ways to lose more hp way faster.

 

Most simple example, you might ask, why should I lose 60% of my hp for running into a single torp that caused a flood? Well, if your DD eats a single Shimakaze torp, you potentially are dead.

 

So, I doubt it is OP. Especially as it is 100% recoverable (If you ever want to farm Unsinkable awards, Conqueror is likely your best bet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Weekend Tester
133 posts
3,092 battles

Compartmentalisation would a good mechanical to introduce, but I'd like flooding to represent what happened to battleships when the water got in.

 

Reduced maneuverability, sitting lower in the water, and, best of all - listing!

 

Think of all the fun to be had when you're leaning 10 degrees to one side. 

 

Of course, then they'd need to have a capsizing mechanic too - 10 degrees list to port and you sling a full starboard turn you're gonna turn turtle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,576 posts
5,698 battles
11 minutes ago, _Dunc_ said:

Compartmentalisation would a good mechanical to introduce, but I'd like flooding to represent what happened to battleships when the water got in.

 

Reduced maneuverability, sitting lower in the water, and, best of all - listing!

 

Think of all the fun to be had when you're leaning 10 degrees to one side. 

 

Of course, then they'd need to have a capsizing mechanic too - 10 degrees list to port and you sling a full starboard turn you're gonna turn turtle. 

For one, we already get reduced maneuverability when flooding, as the ship slows down and becomes sluggish.

 

As for listing, it'd be mostly a feature for armour interaction, as I have no clue whether guns have a maximum depression. After all, they go lower already if you just zoom out.

 

And if you could capsize, I'd prefer counter-flooding to be an option. I'd frankly rather flood for a bit more than die outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
5,034 posts
11,210 battles
4 hours ago, DerpyMcDoom said:

Not really a rant (although it could be xD ) but can someone explain why flooding is so much more detrimental and damaging than any other form of damage? It almost seems (dare i say) OP xD 

 

Considering seawater inside a ships hull might be the most dangerous thing to the ship itself, I wouldn't say it's op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,737 posts
7,935 battles
10 hours ago, DerpyMcDoom said:

Any clues on how? Are they going to use some sort of compartmentalisation system or something?

Wild guess might lead to what used to be in alfa/early beta, when ships had two "hp bars" - one normal hp bar for eating damage and 2nd, "buoyancy", affected by flooding, giving predictable consequences - ship losing and maneuverability  speed as it takes water. And if it takes enough water, even reasonably intact ship goes down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
427 posts
881 battles
13 hours ago, Riselotte said:

 

As for listing, it'd be mostly a feature for armour interaction, as I have no clue whether guns have a maximum depression. After all, they go lower already if you just zoom out.

there is still appears for maximum depression for guns, if a low sitting ship goes right up against a ship that sits higher in the water, the higher sitting ship will actually have issues trying to shoot the other. so I say listing can have an impact on how certain ship can aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-CC-]
Players
198 posts
12,308 battles

You usually notice that when battleships get very close, such as when one tries to ram the other, it becomes impossible to aim at the waterline or even the side armor.

 

Listing would have interesting effects on aiming. On one side you would lose gun elevation and range, and gain both on the other. I remember allied battleships deliberately flooding part of the ship to increase their elevation so they could provide fire support farther inland at Normandy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
427 posts
881 battles
22 hours ago, Rosletyne said:

You usually notice that when battleships get very close, such as when one tries to ram the other, it becomes impossible to aim at the waterline or even the side armor.

 

Listing would have interesting effects on aiming. On one side you would lose gun elevation and range, and gain both on the other. I remember allied battleships deliberately flooding part of the ship to increase their elevation so they could provide fire support farther inland at Normandy.

you mean uss Texas? heard that it lacked the range to do fire support at one point, so the captain ordered to flood the torp bulge on one side, which gave the guns more elevation so more range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-CC-]
Players
198 posts
12,308 battles
1 hour ago, howardxu_23 said:

You mean USS Texas? Heard that it lacked the range to do fire support at one point, so the captain ordered to flood the torp bulge on one side, which gave the guns more elevation so more range.

Yeah, that was it. I had read about it, but could not remember the name of the ship.

  • Cool 1

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.

×