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

Would the Community like to have less RNG in Fires and Floodings ?

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,829 posts
9,050 battles

I wondered on this for a While.

And Honestly said making a System that would Replace RNG on Fires and Floodings with a Clear and Skill Based System would not be that Hard actually.

 

Right now there is alot of cases where you yourself sit in a Battle.

And either on the Receiving end you sit there and notice that one single Shell landing somewhere instantly puts you on fire.

Or where you from behind your Gunbarrels watch as you keep Hitting that guy which DCed your First Fire instantly just Refuses to Catch a Second Fire despite you hitting him over and over for nearly 2 minutes straight.

Worse sometimes a Single Stray that on top Shatters doing no Damage will put on Fire while other times you sit there and despite firing right into the weakspots of your target he just wont Light up.

 

Of course these feelings sticking out are largely related to the fact that Humans have this bad habit of remember the unexpected results.

So even tough the actual chances of putting Fires and receiving them being set and mostly followed by the Game. We will often Ignore the Results where well. Everything just happened as expected. We got spammed with HE and catched Fire or we hit just one Shell and no Fire happened. Nothing special worth Remembering etc.

 

But nonetheless this also always leaves a sore taste in my throat. And I wonder if it would not be better to have a System in Place that instead of RNG has Clear conditions for setting someone on Fire or Flood someone.

 

 

 

One Example would be a Simple System like Dark Souls. Where each Hit with a Status Effect Infused Weapon will Fill a Bar towards that Status Effect.

Meaning that for example a Part of a Ship has 100 Points of Fire Resistance. And each HE Shell of the other Ship Deals 10 Fire Buildup. So you need 10 Shells to hit there before that Part catches Fire.

Which would also give clearer Conditions on Resistance and Shooting for different Parts. Because of course a Shell on the Side Armor of a Ship would have its Fire Buildup heavily Reduced as the Heavy Belt Armor has a High Fire Reduction etc.

Thus if you Hit the Belt Armor and each Shells Fire Buildup gets Reduced by 80% you would suddenly need 50 Shells instead of 10 to put a Fire.

This of course would mean that Ships would get alot less Lucky Fires from Opportunity Shots. But also would mean you would not get these Unlucky Salvos where despite Literally Pounding an Enemy Ship over and over you just dont get a Fire Started.

 

 

 

Now aside from the Question of Wargaming would ever Implement something like this. (Given just how much They Love their RNGesus Cult they Founded) the Bigger Question in my Head is actually if the Community would actually be in Favor of not having an RNG System here ?

I myself am somewhat Split on this. Because while I certainly could do without the many Cases where some Stray Shell instantly Puts me on Fire. I can also very well do without it that a Worcester or Harugumo having me in its Sides can Literally Guarantee to have me Permanently on Fire if it gets a Clear Line of Fire.

 

 

What do you guys Think ?

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Players
804 posts
2,665 battles

First of all, props to @Sunleader for explaining how 'less RNG' would work in practice; it is refreshing to read someone doing that.

 

I personally don't have a massive problem with how things are currently implemented. Maybe it's because my first experiences with wargaming (broadly defined) was through Warhammer and other tabletop wargames, where obviously the outcome of many, many actions is decided by rolling dice, but I've never minded RNG that much. What goes around comes around and it adds an element of the unexpected. Sorta like if irl the single direct hit lands in a cruiser's aviation division and sets the kerosene on fire...

 

So I don't actively want a new system, but something like the one described in the OP sounds relatively intuitive and I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as it were thoroughly tested in advance and the values set to ensure it did not become an effective nerf for CLs. It would bother me much less than suddenly conjuring up a lot of additional commander XP grind, to take one example.

 

Edit: in fact, like other blanket changes in the game, it could be approached as an opportunity to address the BB overpopulation

Edited by TeaAndTorps
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,829 posts
9,050 battles
8 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

The thing about RNG is that it evens out the win rates so it probably stays.

 

I know. As I said. WG actually doing something like this is a whole different thing anyways. I doubt we will see a non RNG System within at least the next 2-3 years and only reason I dont rule it out past that is because of well you never know what happens right ^^

 

But I still wonder if the Community would actually Like a non RNG System with its Pros and Cons. Hence my Question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,956 posts
15,141 battles

No.

 

If WG would do it, they would need to rebalance the game. For example increase the Alpha of HE damage, decrease some platings, decrease the point costs of anti-fire/flooding skills. Done correctly, the HE would have the same effect as now, just with less variance. This also means, you cannot get lucky.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,242 posts
10,755 battles
54 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

What do you guys Think ?

No.

 

While the system you described sounds interesting, it's exactly the reason why I stay away from game like e.g. Dark Souls. It's too much skill based for my taste.

 

The RNG part of Warships is sometimes annoying, yes. But on other times just sooooo rewarding (when it grants you fire after fire). Or simply just enemies that sail broadside out in front of your guns. Which brings me to the biggest RNG point: The MM itself. I like it. I like this gamble. So ... a no for me for anything that'd increase the skill relevance.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,359 posts
18,216 battles

Honestly? No. Luck or RNG was, demonstrably, a significant factor in naval warfare. Single hits could cripple a ship and seal it's fate -  Exeter's hit on Graf Spee's fuel system, Ark Royal's torpedoes which jammed Bismarck's rudder - or even cause total destruction - the loss of Hood, Queen Mary, Invincible. By the same token some ships could take a battering and be saved by chance. Given that we're talking about inaccurate weapons fired in difficult circumstances with inadequate technological guidance, I think that WG has got the right balance between skill and RNG not only in terms of gameplay, but also in terms of realism. 

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,804 posts
9,751 battles
11 minutes ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

would be funny to see that from the cruiser population 

 

More like the 40%ers who get a fire with every single shell they manage to hit :cap_fainting:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOWH]
Players
878 posts
6,026 battles

imo, he should have a bigger role in damaging modules than starting fires.

hitting the right spot on the superstructure with he allowing you to pause radar or knockout the range finders or jam guns etc.

flooding would be more interesting if it was treated as float-ability instead of hp, causing the ship to lose mobility and list, exposing the belt or deck more.

 

in general, yes. i would like to see whats getting hit linked to a thing going on fire or not.

at the very least, requiring a section to have already been damaged before it goes on fire would be an improvement imo.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,829 posts
9,050 battles

Oh ^^

This is actually alot more in Favor of RNG than I expected ^^

 

I actually tought there would be quite alot of People wanting to get Rid of RNG.

Thats quite the Interesting Result actually ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,804 posts
9,751 battles
4 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

I actually tought there would be quite alot of People wanting to get Rid of RNG. 

 

Well you can count on my vote, im sick and tired of burning nonstop. Just yesterday

- Georgia secondaries hit my Massa --> Insta fire.

Fire burns for 40 secs.

IMMEDIATELY the next secondary after fire ran out, i burn again.

 

- Yugumo open water gunboats my Alsace

First hit fire :Smile_sceptic:

 

But i can see why WG likes Fire "RNG". So noobs can enjoy some damage while doing nothing.

 

11 minutes ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

2 fires every 30 seconds or 3 fires every 8

you decide what is worse 

 

I wish my Smolensk would work like that...

Yesterday got ~3 fires per 100 hits :cap_old:

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
979 posts
3,431 battles
8 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Oh ^^

This is actually alot more in Favor of RNG than I expected ^^

 

I actually tought there would be quite alot of People wanting to get Rid of RNG.

Thats quite the Interesting Result actually ^^

let's see... as I seem to be on the receiving end of bad RNG, I am not surprised that others like RNG.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DUXTR]
Alpha Tester
1,012 posts

Well, I've always hated that RNG is +/-25% in all of WG games.

I want that reduced by 10% before any of the major overhauling of the game as u propose.

I can not count the amount of times I got killed or failed to kill a target cause RNG said no in the past 9 years, or the fact u hit something u clearly missed because RNG said so.

But reducing RNG means they need to invest. So I guess, no.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,771 posts

Well, it could be overhauled IMO. When it comes to HE and fires my thoughts always turn to what and where can actually catch fire. I'd imagine an external fire on the deck or superstructure to be far less lethal than a fire that manages to break inside the structure or the hull, let alone get near the magazines.

 

So, IMO, RNG isn't the worst aspect of the system currently, it's more down to what can burn, how easily, how serious a threat it can pose and how effective are the counter measures. I don't like how my fire fighters take constant tea breaks. That should remain the privilege of the captain! :cap_tea:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
4,271 posts
11,680 battles
35 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

More like the 40%ers who get a fire with every single shell they manage to hit :cap_fainting:

Looks like those 40% who get these fires with every single shell still have a 40% WR. It appears as if that magic doesn't help them much. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,829 posts
9,050 battles
17 minutes ago, SirAmra said:

Well, I've always hated that RNG is +/-25% in all of WG games.

I want that reduced by 10% before any of the major overhauling of the game as u propose.

I can not count the amount of times I got killed or failed to kill a target cause RNG said no in the past 9 years, or the fact u hit something u clearly missed because RNG said so.

But reducing RNG means they need to invest. So I guess, no.

 

 

 

So a System like Darksouls where you have a Definite Threshold for Fires would not be to your Liking.

 

However a System that is not as much RNG would be agreeable with you ?

 

For example where a Ships Fire Resistance becomes a Threshold to enable Fires instead of Reducing the Chance of Fires on all Shells.

Meaning a Ship with Fire Resistance of 30% would first need to be Hit by 3 Shells with Fire Chance of 10% before its Fire Resistance is Depleted. However after that the 4th and any Shells following it would have the Full 10% Fire Chance instead of 7%

 

Something like that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
670 posts
2,024 battles

War IS random. This is one of the bits of WoWs that is resonably accurate in simulation.....

 

Also don't let WG try fixing what ain't broke.....

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,771 posts
5 minutes ago, Molly_Delaney said:

War IS random. This is one of the bits of WoWs that is resonably accurate in simulation.....

 

Also don't let WG try fixing what ain't broke.....

 

Random, but it does not suspend the laws of physics as WG random seems to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
749 posts
3,685 battles

I think the essence of addiction to WG title is in fact RNG. It just feels damn good when you are about to dominate. And you are eager to get that rush. Then you have bad games and want to have it again. Also game design wise it is one of the best manipulative elements to control a player. It really can be absolutely random, but it could be also actively used against players, regulating the amount of fun they are allowed to have depending on certain criteria. I am not saying this is the case, but it is possible and would be a clever business decision. Since WG researches on this topic in certain fields (check out the WG patent discussion), they sure know their ways to explore the limits.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,771 posts
3 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

I think the essence of addiction to WG title is in fact RNG. It just feels damn good when you are about to dominate. And you are eager to get that rush. Then you have bad games and want to have it again. Also game design wise it is one of the best manipulative elements to control a player. I really can be absolutely random, but it could be also actively used against players, regulating the amount of fun they are allowed to have depending on certain criteria. I am not saying this is the case, but it is possible and would be a clever business decision. Since WG researches on this topic in certain fields (check out the WG patent discussion), they sure know their ways to explore the limits.

 

You think in devious ways, Von.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,359 posts
18,216 battles
1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Well you can count on my vote, im sick and tired of burning nonstop. Just yesterday

- Georgia secondaries hit my Massa --> Insta fire.

Fire burns for 40 secs.

IMMEDIATELY the next secondary after fire ran out, i burn again.

Well... this has more to do with WG's recent discovery of secondary BBs as a marketable commodity - something I'm not especially keen on because it is wholly RNG based. A destroyer hosing a BB superstructure in the hope of getting a fire still has to display some player skill/knowledge and take some significant risk. A secondary based BB just has to drive into range and let RNG do the rest. 

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

But i can see why WG likes Fire "RNG". So noobs can enjoy some damage while doing nothing.

Fires and other DoTs are the HE-weapon equivalent of a Critical hit, which is a fixture of the damage system in every RPG/MMO I've ever played. But in WoWs they're fairer, as the defending player can build to mitigate their impact with Captain skills, consumables etc. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×