Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MrConway

Flooding Rework

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG-EU]
[WG-EU]
WG Staff, Alpha Tester
2,701 posts
2,666 battles

Captains,

 

Please share your feedback regarding the changed flooding mechanics here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
55 posts
8,991 battles

Amidst all the recent drama, this flood rework is a blessing... It was long long overdue. I do not know if the new mechanic is the best for the game, but I do know it is much better for it than the current live one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PORT]
Modder
1,711 posts
12,211 battles

Basically fine, but in the end a nerf to CVs and DDs. Hope this will be compensated. :cat_paw:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
55 posts
8,991 battles
3 hours ago, Smeggo said:

Basically fine, but in the end a nerf to CVs and DDs. Hope this will be compensated. :cat_paw:

For IJN DDs it is a buff (,uch needed) as now people will not insta repair one flood. In general it is a small nerf to fire and specially to low HE damage but good fire starters: hybrid DDs. BEcause now people will be more free to repair fires not having to save it for that lethal flood. So, nerf for hybrid DDs, buff for IJN in the end... CVs are not part of the "buff or nerf" question because they have bigger things to worry about now with the CV re-rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PORT]
Modder
1,711 posts
12,211 battles
15 hours ago, Ungrim_Baraz said:

For IJN DDs it is a buff (,uch needed) as now people will not insta repair one flood. In general it is a small nerf to fire and specially to low HE damage but good fire starters: hybrid DDs. BEcause now people will be more free to repair fires not having to save it for that lethal flood. So, nerf for hybrid DDs, buff for IJN in the end... CVs are not part of the "buff or nerf" question because they have bigger things to worry about now with the CV re-rework.

Hm, ok, you may be right. Let's see how it works out on live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-RT-]
Players
727 posts
16,545 battles

Just for the record: It's obviously a garbage change nobody ever asked for but by this point it's too late anyways, WG will implement it as always. Pls make the game more foolproof, ty!

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
55 posts
8,991 battles

Actually no, flooding was known to be a broken mechanic for long time.... this change was indeed requested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TROLL]
Beta Tester
113 posts
4,772 battles
9 hours ago, Maaseru said:

Just for the record: It's obviously a garbage change nobody ever asked for but by this point it's too late anyways, WG will implement it as always. Pls make the game more foolproof, ty!

Just wait for the Auto DCP on BB`s :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,508 posts
11,466 battles
On 2/15/2019 at 12:11 AM, Ungrim_Baraz said:

For IJN DDs it is a buff (,uch needed) as now people will not insta repair one flood. In general it is a small nerf to fire and specially to low HE damage but good fire starters: hybrid DDs. BEcause now people will be more free to repair fires not having to save it for that lethal flood. So, nerf for hybrid DDs, buff for IJN in the end... CVs are not part of the "buff or nerf" question because they have bigger things to worry about now with the CV re-rework.

No. It's really, REALLY not a buff and you need to be very disconnected from reality to think otherwise.

At best it can get them slightly higher numbers - because you now can get a couple thousand damage from some inconsequential flooding here and there. And that's the point: inconsequential.

BEFORE the flooding rework there were two options:

a) the target had DCP ready; getting hit by an IJN torp usually meant flooding, which meant an insta-repair - so thanks to that torp, the target was now vulnerable to DoT (be it fire, that you could sometimes set yourself btw, or flooding). If the target was threatened by some sources of DoT, forcing his DCP was a big step towards getting rid of him, even if not rewarded appropriately with XP.

b) the target had DCP on cooldown; getting hit by an IJN torp meant A LOT of damage

 

AFTER the flooding you won't deal anywhere near as much damage if DCP is on cooldown and you can't even force DCP (especially painful for torp reload Kagero and Yugumo for which it wasn't that rare to force DCP and then benefit themselves).

 

The change is a buff but not to DDs. It buffs two classes:

 - BBs (the class that suffers from long DCP cooldowns, so is the most susceptible to perma floodings)

 - cruisers (because while some do have torps, they still suffer torpedo hits more often than they deal them and the flooding on cruisers basically ceases to deal damage compared to before - even getting double-flooded means less DPS than a single flooding previously did, and the duration is pretty short)

 

DDs simply lose a significant chunk of power. And saying that "it's a buff because now flooding is so inconsequential that it will be ignored" (that's basically your argument) is inane. It's not impossible that the flooding damage numbers for DDs will slightly go up with this change - but even if that happens, this will only be proof that flooding is so irrelevant that it's not worth the DCP charge anymore. And the ones to lose the most impact are actually the IJN DDs that have powerful torps with good flooding chance - but relatively easy to avoid. It's less common to see enemies helpless enough to actually suffer torpedo strikes on both bow and stern, so IJN DDs won't even really benefit from the "double flooding" option (it would've been a different thing with three flooding spots, one of them hidden behind torpedo bulge where most torps don't cause floodings but IJN ones do - but that's not how WG designed the new mechanic).

 

In short, yes, it's a definite nerf to IJN DDs. If you play them, your power to influence the battle is going down this patch, even if your damage numbers go up a tiny bit.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
55 posts
8,991 battles
6 hours ago, eliastion said:

...And saying that "it's a buff because now flooding is so inconsequential that it will be ignored" (that's basically your argument) is inane...

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said it is inconsequential

 

Also, learn to read: I said Iam not sure if it is the best possible mechanic, but that it is better than the current one.

 

Also, check the numbers: 1 flood on BBs is 0.5% hp/s which is still more htan a fire, hence your statement (see, I do read and I quote exact words) of:

6 hours ago, eliastion said:

...but even if that happens, this will only be proof that flooding is so irrelevant that it's not worth the DCP charge anymore...

Please, explain me how one flood of 40 secs and 0.5%/ sec is irrelevant compared to fires which last 60 sec and deal 0.3% hp/s. Higher DoT (hence DCP cooldown is more relevant vs flood than vs fire) and overal higher, slightly, total dmamge (20% vs 18%). That is the very defintion of comparable, not of irrelevant.

Moreover, with the proposed changes the flood DoT can reach up to 1% with a well placed torpedo strike (bow and stern) vs the previous 0.667%. Which would be much more dangerous to withstand while DCP is in cooldown.

 

You can debate all you want but, jsut remmeber Do not put words on others mouth, learn to read comments you critizise and check the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,508 posts
11,466 battles
2 hours ago, Ungrim_Baraz said:

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said it is inconsequential

You implied it, your argument is based on this premise. You said people won't be damage controlling it. And why wouldn't they? Because the consequences of letting it continue aren't worth it. Ergo - it's inconsequential enough to be ignored.

I didn't say you used these words. But this doesn't change the fact that that's the argument you're making - people won't find flooding important enough to damage con so it will be allowed to deal damage. But making it so weak that people have the freedom to ignore it is the very opposite of buffing.

 

2 hours ago, Ungrim_Baraz said:

Also, learn to read: I said Iam not sure if it is the best possible mechanic, but that it is better than the current one.

You also said it's a buff for IJN DDs, your exact words being "For IJN DDs it is a buff (,uch needed) as now people will not insta repair one flood."

You called it a buff when the change:

 - nerfs the acting time of flooding

 - nerfs the DPS of flooding

 - adds the option for double flooding that potentially deals more DPS to ONE class (with much shorter time) but requires you to land torps on both front and aft halves of the ship (something that rarely happens to IJN DDs that excel in dealing big damage per torp and almost always flood the target but rarely get to land many fish on different parts of the ship, because they are relatively visible, allowing evasive maneuvers that not only limit the number of torp hits but also tend to concentrate their damage on one end of the ship)

 

I never was a fan of all-or-nothing nature of DoT - this mostly applies to flooding but fires are too all-or-nothing as well, since a fire can't be started on a ship with DCP active and a fast-activated DCP doesn't allow you even one tick of damage. And the rework doesn't really address the main problems at all - it just conceals it a bit, making flooding less DCP-worthy so that the effect of bad all-or-nothing nature of DoT is going to, perhaps, be slightly less visible.

 

2 hours ago, Ungrim_Baraz said:

Please, explain me how one flood of 40 secs and 0.5%/ sec is irrelevant compared to fires which last 60 sec and deal 0.3% hp/s. Higher DoT (hence DCP cooldown is more relevant vs flood than vs fire) and overal higher, slightly, total dmamge (20% vs 18%). That is the very defintion of comparable, not of irrelevant.

If it's powerful enough to be worthy of DCP charge, then it will be insta-repaired and won't deal any damage, so your whole argument crumbles. You are arguing against yourself here.

 

But I guess it's mostly a misunderstanding on your part (apparently you actually have much more problems reading than you believe), since - for someone touchy about allegedly having words put in their mouth and trying to give an example of good discussion habits by quoting "exact words"... you end up actually putting some in my mouth in the very next sentence you write. And unlike in your case - the words you try to push on me were neither written nor even implied by me.

 

So, let me clarify: I didn't say it would be "irrelevant compared to fires". My words were "so irrelevant that it's not worth the DCP charge anymore". If I were to compare new floodings to fires, it would be more along the lines of "as irrelevant as fires". Fires, like the new flooding, are not worth a DCP charge on BBs that can get the hp back. They only become a problem to be addressed ASAP in specific situations (when you're very low hp, for example) or once you stack more of them. The old flooding used to have this power (being worthy of DCP) all on its own, because it was a much, much more pressing threat, dealing with which right away was extremely relevant to the ship's very survival.

 

2 hours ago, Ungrim_Baraz said:

Moreover, with the proposed changes the flood DoT can reach up to 1% with a well placed torpedo strike (bow and stern) vs the previous 0.667%. Which would be much more dangerous to withstand while DCP is in cooldown.

Oh, but would it, really? You see, you can technically stack more DPS but it also lasts only 40 seconds. And that also means that anti-flooding modules (usually taken to deal with fires anyway) and signals (that can be taken without compromising the build), as well as the basics of survivability skill, actually have an impact. Before, their shortening of flooding time by 15, 20 and 15% respectively wasn't very useful. Now they will actually provide a significant survivability boost, cutting down the duration of a single flooding to mere 24 seconds. That's much shorter than you could expect from getting an "old" flooding even on a BB mid-DCP reload (even assuming premium DCP, of course) - and completely laughable compared to a battleship "nailed" with a follow-up torp just as the consumable goes on CD (something achievable surprisingly reliably by TRB Kageros and Yugumos). Oh, and we're only talking BBs and premium pseudo-cruisers as the target here, of course. On normal cruisers, DDs and carriers the new (single) flooding deals less DPS than a single fire - you can't possibly get to old single flooding DPS even by stacking two "new" floodings. Not that it matters for DD targets, obviously, as they don't exactly have a habit of living through two torps that don't strike the same section.

 

Also, as stated before, we're talking in the context of IJN DD torpers that will rarely get to flood both front and aft of a ship. Their torps hit hard but are easy to at least partially dodge, to they are usually taken only on the bow or only on the stern (and very often it's just one at once in the first place). If something eats more IJN torps, suffering hits on both ends, this usually means that you caught them completely broadside and in these cases the main reason to celebrate is the sheer amount of alpha damage you get out of this (often dev-striking your tier BBs unless they were basically full hp). Flooding is the most important for these cases where you DON'T get these lovely multiple-hit spreads but rather land just one, maybe two hits on the enemy bow - and the target either just so happens to not have DCP ready (lots of damage for you), or needs to use it right then and there, making themselves the primary target for every fire-spamming friendly ship around (lots of damage for your team, as long as you manage to call fire on the vulnerable target).

 

2 hours ago, Ungrim_Baraz said:

You can debate all you want but, jsut remmeber Do not put words on others mouth, learn to read comments you critizise and check the numbers.

Nice advice. Problem is: if you applied it to yourself, most of your last post wouldn't have been written. So... should I just reciprocate with a friendly advice to start with yourself before preaching to others, because you're not coming off as a very respectable person when you're accusing someone of alleged wrongdoings while in the same breath doing exactly what you accuse them of.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
390 posts
6,850 battles

Well, Ugrim plays BBs way more than DDs ...

To me it definitely seems like a nerf to flooding, from which BBs will benefit the most.

Nothing against BBs by the way, I like playing them, but there are too many of them already, making the life of cruisers pretty hard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
55 posts
8,991 battles
42 minutes ago, AmiralPotato said:

Well, Ugrim plays BBs way more than DDs ...

To me it definitely seems like a nerf to flooding, from which BBs will benefit the most.

Nothing against BBs by the way, I like playing them, but there are too many of them already, making the life of cruisers pretty hard.

 

True, I do not enjoy that much DDs, among them I prefer the Grozovoi though and the Z52

Lately I am grinding the BB Legendaries, if it wasnt´for that I´d say I play as much cruiser as BB, but lately I am focussed on the grind, before it I´d say I was playing at a steady 40/40/20. Also, a reasson for not playing too mcuh DD is that I really think the Radar mechanic is utter trash, and its porposed fix comming on this patch is, IMHO way too short of a radar nerf, so I do not enjoy that much the traditional DD gameplay.

eliastion, sorry, way too long, I am not gonna read it. In any case, I have no intention on becoming a post warrior, no time for posting thousands of posts. Did you put words in my mouth that I had not stated: yes. Had you read what I left on the very first post, being this just two short sentences in relation of me acknowledging this might not be the best possible solution?, no (or you decided to ignore it), hence my replay. And lastly, numbers do not lie. 18% is indeed similar to 20% (which btw as any weapon with similar dps but higehr alpha, having similar overal DoT but higher damage per tick is better, so 1 flooding is still more dangerous than one fire), I never said it was ridiculous or irrelevant, you said I said so, not being this true. No need to spend paragraph after paragraph. Do not put words on others´mouths. Otherwise prove me worng, that you had indeed quoted me, I doubt you can because I did never say it was irrelevant. Just read my comments before your original wall and tell me where I said that.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×