Jump to content
Planned Server Restart 23.06.2021 at 04:00 UTC (no downtime) Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
DFens_666

Reverse logic to balance HE/Fires/IFHE

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
111 posts
3 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Idealy this should be applied to rockets and HE bombs aswell, however while it could work with rockets, it would basicly mean HE bombs dont cause fires anymore

*smiling Ark Royal bombers*

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
123 posts
1,280 battles

so you basically want HE to do very small damage in any circumstance

 

why not remove it completely ?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
826 posts
2,312 battles

This is actually realistic, as the blast damage comes from the HE filling burning under containment until the pressure exceeds the burst strength of the container.

 

So, a shattered shell ignites and burns as no containment whereas a penetrating shell explodes due to containment.

 

cool, I like it.:cap_cool:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,708 posts
18,027 battles
9 minutes ago, EnacheV said:

so you basically want HE to do very small damage in any circumstance

Thats not what @DFens_666 proposed. You either get pens and direct damage or you get no pen damage and you have fire damage.

 

I like the idea. Actually makes aiming with HE somewhat important. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
123 posts
1,280 battles
4 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Thats not what @DFens_666 proposed. You either get pens and direct damage or you get no pen damage and you have fire damage.

 

I like the idea. Actually makes aiming with HE somewhat important. 

no

 

currently you can do good damage if you get pens and start fire

 

what he proposes is to remove completely the chance for good damage for an even more dumbed down bad damage in all situations

 

maybe you dont aim with HE but i think its good to aim with it, like with everyting

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,708 posts
18,027 battles
1 minute ago, EnacheV said:

no

 

currently you can do good damage if you get pens and start fire

And I can do just fine with a ship that can't pen but sets tons of fires.

Or with an IFHE gun that has no fire chance but great pen.

 

So nope.

1 minute ago, EnacheV said:

what he proposes is to remove completely the chance for good damage for an even more dumbed down bad damage in all situations

 

maybe you dont aim with HE but i think its good to aim with it, like with everyting

How is selecting where you aim dumbing down the game? 

You can either choose to go for pen OR you can choose to go for fire damage. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,664 posts
9,841 battles
49 minutes ago, EnacheV said:

so you basically want HE to do very small damage in any circumstance

 

why not remove it completely ?

 

There is no reason for me to talk to you, because you werent here the last 2+ years and dont know the changes WG has done regarding IFHE and platings.

You are a very new player, who thinks who knows everything after playing a decade of WoT - thats nice, but wows is not wot.

 

You dont even understand the proposal, because your entire knowledge of the game is lowtiers till T5...

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ACIER]
Players
278 posts
3,000 battles
Il y a 1 heure, DFens_666 a dit :

A lot of times, people have suggested, that HE should not start fires when it shatters. While they claim this would make sense, it doesnt make sense from a gameplay and balancing perspective. It would cause ships, that rely on fires, to get much less fires, while on the other hand, high-pen ships like Thunderer would still cause fires all the time.

 

So what makes more sense? The opposite!

Penetrating HE shells should not cause a fire, while non-pen HE on the other hand, should cause fires.

- Instant balance for HE slinging BBs, because they can still cause 10k HE salvos, but they wont cause a fire with every salvo. If they want to start a fire, then aim for the belt, but get less direct damage

- IFHE would balance itself, while it does not need any fire penalty at all anymore. You increase HE pen = you get less fires by default, unless you choose to shatter your shells deliberately. So the ultimate tradeoff: Direct damage OR fires - not this RNG-fiesta we have now, which needs heavy nerfing to not get out of hands (ofc this applies only to Cruisers, BBs like Thunderer are allowed to get everything). The whole IFHE rework could be reversed, as getting 32mm HE pen with Cruisers would already be a tradeoff.

- Much less RNG

- Aiming matters more

- DDs and Cruisers would receive less fires, not sure if that is breaking any balance, as DDs would basicly not burn at all anymore, since any HE shell can pen them.

- Idealy this should be applied to rockets and HE bombs aswell, however while it could work with rockets, it would basicly mean HE bombs dont cause fires anymore, which then makes them inferior AP bombs. Alternatively we could finaly get rid of AP bombs, by giving some CVs high-pen HE bombs, which dont cause fires, and others low-pen HE bombs, which do cause fires... allright, im dreaming again :cap_book:

 

But apart from the CV stuff, everything makes sense.


l wish IFHE will be nice again, because playing and pray just putting fires is boring.... 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,109 posts
10,318 battles

I'd be fine with pens decreasing fire chance by 25% (or even halving it) and non pens to increase it by 25. Flat out removing them from pens would do more harm than good I think. Especially for cruisers that already rely on both raw damage and fires like zao.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,590 posts
18,662 battles
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

- Aiming matters more

 

I appreciate the thought that went into the idea. I am wondering tho, if aiming would really matter more. A player totally unaware of the armor layout would get rewarded for a badly aimed shot by getting fires, while a player who correctly aims for a part of the ship, he can pen - mind this takes skill at range - gets the direct damage but also gets punished by getting no fires. It wouldlargely even out the skill-gap introduced by the knowledge of armor layouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,774 posts
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

A lot of times, people have suggested, that HE should not start fires when it shatters. While they claim this would make sense, it doesnt make sense from a gameplay and balancing perspective. It would cause ships, that rely on fires, to get much less fires, while on the other hand, high-pen ships like Thunderer would still cause fires all the time.

 

So what makes more sense? The opposite!

Penetrating HE shells should not cause a fire, while non-pen HE on the other hand, should cause fires.

- Instant balance for HE slinging BBs, because they can still cause 10k HE salvos, but they wont cause a fire with every salvo. If they want to start a fire, then aim for the belt, but get less direct damage

- IFHE would balance itself, while it does not need any fire penalty at all anymore. You increase HE pen = you get less fires by default, unless you choose to shatter your shells deliberately. So the ultimate tradeoff: Direct damage OR fires - not this RNG-fiesta we have now, which needs heavy nerfing to not get out of hands (ofc this applies only to Cruisers, BBs like Thunderer are allowed to get everything). The whole IFHE rework could be reversed, as getting 32mm HE pen with Cruisers would already be a tradeoff.

- Much less RNG

- Aiming matters more

- DDs and Cruisers would receive less fires, not sure if that is breaking any balance, as DDs would basicly not burn at all anymore, since any HE shell can pen them.

- Idealy this should be applied to rockets and HE bombs aswell, however while it could work with rockets, it would basicly mean HE bombs dont cause fires anymore, which then makes them inferior AP bombs. Alternatively we could finaly get rid of AP bombs, by giving some CVs high-pen HE bombs, which dont cause fires, and others low-pen HE bombs, which do cause fires... allright, im dreaming again :cap_book:

 

But apart from the CV stuff, everything makes sense.

:cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
112 posts
3,543 battles
2 ore fa, DFens_666 ha scritto:

A lot of times, people have suggested, that HE should not start fires when it shatters. While they claim this would make sense, it doesnt make sense from a gameplay and balancing perspective. It would cause ships, that rely on fires, to get much less fires, while on the other hand, high-pen ships like Thunderer would still cause fires all the time.

 

So what makes more sense? The opposite!

Penetrating HE shells should not cause a fire, while non-pen HE on the other hand, should cause fires.

- Instant balance for HE slinging BBs, because they can still cause 10k HE salvos, but they wont cause a fire with every salvo. If they want to start a fire, then aim for the belt, but get less direct damage

- IFHE would balance itself, while it does not need any fire penalty at all anymore. You increase HE pen = you get less fires by default, unless you choose to shatter your shells deliberately. So the ultimate tradeoff: Direct damage OR fires - not this RNG-fiesta we have now, which needs heavy nerfing to not get out of hands (ofc this applies only to Cruisers, BBs like Thunderer are allowed to get everything). The whole IFHE rework could be reversed, as getting 32mm HE pen with Cruisers would already be a tradeoff.

- Much less RNG

- Aiming matters more

- DDs and Cruisers would receive less fires, not sure if that is breaking any balance, as DDs would basicly not burn at all anymore, since any HE shell can pen them.

- Idealy this should be applied to rockets and HE bombs aswell, however while it could work with rockets, it would basicly mean HE bombs dont cause fires anymore, which then makes them inferior AP bombs. Alternatively we could finaly get rid of AP bombs, by giving some CVs high-pen HE bombs, which dont cause fires, and others low-pen HE bombs, which do cause fires... allright, im dreaming again :cap_book:

 

But apart from the CV stuff, everything makes sense.

i like the idea, playing yamato in tier 10 is kinda hard. (fires and stuff)

 

but i gotta say what i think about it. so if a english cv like ark royal makes 20 non pens on a colorado, with your logic she would do like 4 fires? or 20?. also, HE bombs can still do quite a lot of damage when the target is not moving (at least midway can) even without fires. the amount of RNG needed for bombs to hit something is crazy. you can miss 6 bombs on a staitonary dd.  i like the idea, but this would completely change the CV meta. i mostly play carriers cuz i like them IRL, so the "usless low damage english carriere" would become main form of damage. especially ark royal and implacable.

 

but i do like the idea, it has more positive things then negative

 

edit: it would also terribly nerf the indomitable, premium tier 8 that relies on fires

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,622 posts
4,358 battles

I like the concept. But the question is: Do you want to regulate HE damage or fires with this ?

 

The main problem is: After this would go live, fires are STILL RNG based. So the aiming argument is valid only for the HE damage part and that is no different to what we have today. So in the end, fires would still be as random as they are today but additionally you'd need to know where to hit to get a lottery ticket to start with.

 

Also it would have implications based on shell velocity and range. With some combinations, you cannot really aim for a better armored part of a ship to start fires because your shell arcs always hit the deck that you can pen (f.e. IFHE Worcester at range).

 

I think the best solution would start by LOWERING the absurd fire chance BB HE has. There should not be HE shells with fire chance higher than 20% at all ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,664 posts
9,841 battles
1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

I appreciate the thought that went into the idea. I am wondering tho, if aiming would really matter more. A player totally unaware of the armor layout would get rewarded for a badly aimed shot by getting fires, while a player who correctly aims for a part of the ship, he can pen - mind this takes skill at range - gets the direct damage but also gets punished by getting no fires. It wouldlargely even out the skill-gap introduced by the knowledge of armor layouts.

 

Atleast in theory, it should. The idea is ofc, that IFHE becomes relevant while still being a tradeoff, and not something which nerfs my firechance all the time, while not necessarily yielding me any benefits depending on the ships i have to face. F.e. you know a target used DCP, so you would rather want to start a new fire, and would sacrifice direct damage for it. If you spec IFHE, you have the same option: Do i deal damage, or do i want to get fires. Ofc adjusting the firechance might be necessary, especially for DDs/Cruisers with a lower firechance.

If you dont take IFHE, you can spray the ship top to bottom and start fires as before - nothing changes. But it does have an impact for BBs, who are getting everything while not even thinking about where to aim. Its just hit the ship for damage + fires.

IFHE would even become an option for all other Cruisers except CLs. 203mm HE can pen 38mm with IFHE - which works against US BBs. Tradeoff? Only for US BBs. You can pen their armor, but you dont start any fires unless you shoot the belt or the turrets. For all other ships, nothing changes, and that sounds really nice to me. Thats also part of the "aiming matters" idea. If you know where to aim, you get the result you want. If you dont know where to aim, just aim at the superstructure as basicly everyone does already.

 

1 hour ago, marcopieroni16 said:

i like the idea, playing yamato in tier 10 is kinda hard. (fires and stuff)

 

but i gotta say what i think about it. so if a english cv like ark royal makes 20 non pens on a colorado, with your logic she would do like 4 fires? or 20?. also, HE bombs can still do quite a lot of damage when the target is not moving (at least midway can) even without fires. the amount of RNG needed for bombs to hit something is crazy. you can miss 6 bombs on a staitonary dd.  i like the idea, but this would completely change the CV meta. i mostly play carriers cuz i like them IRL, so the "usless low damage english carriere" would become main form of damage. especially ark royal and implacable. 

 

but i do like the idea, it has more positive things then negative

 

edit: it would also terribly nerf the indomitable, premium tier 8 that relies on fires

 

Ofc the amount of fires you can start on a ship shouldnt change. Whether the firechance needs to be increased mostly depends on the ship in question id say. I have no idea about Ark Royal, but with so many ships in the game, any global change would leave some ships in need of adjustments (Flint/Atlanta f.e.).

But thats why i also wrote the CV stuff, because they dont really have the option to shatter their bombs. They get often pens and fires - basicly like a Thunderer. For some CVs *cough FDR* this balancing change would be very good, while for others, it might not be.

Ofc it would also be an option to get rid of rockets once and for all (kek, as if thats ever gonna happen) and give the CV the option between 2 bombers: High pen direct damage - low pen fires.

 

56 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

I like the concept. But the question is: Do you want to regulate HE damage or fires with this ? 

 

Mostly regulate BBs shooting HE. I think its really making the game worse overall:

- It gives bad feedback for the player, who deal 100k damage sitting in the back while losing the game. For all he cares, the team is at fault for losing the game, which is ofc not true

- Getting 10-15k damage salvos + 1-2-3 fires on other BBs makes BBs camp in the back. If you would get the damage, but no fires, atleast you can manage your DCP and wont burn to death so easily.

 

I basicly hope for a win-win-win situation:

- IFHE becomes relevant, without being OP. Which is good for all DDs and Cruisers - heck even for secondary BBs.

- BB players can plan a push without getting burned to death from a Thunderer humping the border

- Cruisers and DDs receive less fires (which is also good), they already get enough direct fire damage. As i wrote above, maybe firechance needs to be increased for some ships.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

So in the end, fires would still be as random as they are today but additionally you'd need to know where to hit to get a lottery ticket to start with. 

 

Ofc its still RNG, but i think its less RNG. Like that one secondary shell hitting your superstructuce = fire. wouldnt happen, because the shell pens the superstructure and cant start a fire. Ofc the shell can hit the belt and start a fire, but we have that right now aswell, thus a little bit less RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,312 posts
11,668 battles
1 hour ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

I think the best solution would start by LOWERING the absurd fire chance BB HE has. There should not be HE shells with fire chance higher than 20% at all ... 

 

That would indeed be a good alternative. But we all know, WG in their infinite wisdom will never do this. I also dont see a reason, why BBs need to have a higher fire chance then, say the large caliber cruisers? For stuff like Yoshino or so, setting fires is their bread and butter. But no, ofc Thunderer (+ pretty much all BBs) need to have a better chance per salvo. There is, logically, no reason for that. There SHOULD be clear reasons for a BB when to use HE, it should be an intelligent choice. For example, when something is bow tanking you. Or you pay attention and saw, a Battleship has used DCP. This is what cruiser players already have to do ever since. But no, Thunderer can just go HE all day long and gets all the benefits. Overload DCP-control, spam fires, get massive direct damage AND be save from incoming fire with the long range spam. Bad game design.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
112 posts
3,543 battles
15 minuti fa, DFens_666 ha scritto:

 

Atleast in theory, it should. The idea is ofc, that IFHE becomes relevant while still being a tradeoff, and not something which nerfs my firechance all the time, while not necessarily yielding me any benefits depending on the ships i have to face. F.e. you know a target used DCP, so you would rather want to start a new fire, and would sacrifice direct damage for it. If you spec IFHE, you have the same option: Do i deal damage, or do i want to get fires. Ofc adjusting the firechance might be necessary, especially for DDs/Cruisers with a lower firechance.

If you dont take IFHE, you can spray the ship top to bottom and start fires as before - nothing changes. But it does have an impact for BBs, who are getting everything while not even thinking about where to aim. Its just hit the ship for damage + fires.

IFHE would even become an option for all other Cruisers except CLs. 203mm HE can pen 38mm with IFHE - which works against US BBs. Tradeoff? Only for US BBs. You can pen their armor, but you dont start any fires unless you shoot the belt or the turrets. For all other ships, nothing changes, and that sounds really nice to me. Thats also part of the "aiming matters" idea. If you know where to aim, you get the result you want. If you dont know where to aim, just aim at the superstructure as basicly everyone does already.

 

 

Ofc the amount of fires you can start on a ship shouldnt change. Whether the firechance needs to be increased mostly depends on the ship in question id say. I have no idea about Ark Royal, but with so many ships in the game, any global change would leave some ships in need of adjustments (Flint/Atlanta f.e.).

But thats why i also wrote the CV stuff, because they dont really have the option to shatter their bombs. They get often pens and fires - basicly like a Thunderer. For some CVs *cough FDR* this balancing change would be very good, while for others, it might not be.

Ofc it would also be an option to get rid of rockets once and for all (kek, as if thats ever gonna happen) and give the CV the option between 2 bombers: High pen direct damage - low pen fires.

 

 

Mostly regulate BBs shooting HE. I think its really making the game worse overall:

- It gives bad feedback for the player, who deal 100k damage sitting in the back while losing the game. For all he cares, the team is at fault for losing the game, which is ofc not true

- Getting 10-15k damage salvos + 1-2-3 fires on other BBs makes BBs camp in the back. If you would get the damage, but no fires, atleast you can manage your DCP and wont burn to death so easily.

 

I basicly hope for a win-win-win situation:

- IFHE becomes relevant, without being OP. Which is good for all DDs and Cruisers - heck even for secondary BBs.

- BB players can plan a push without getting burned to death from a Thunderer humping the border

- Cruisers and DDs receive less fires (which is also good), they already get enough direct fire damage. As i wrote above, maybe firechance needs to be increased for some ships.

 

 

Ofc its still RNG, but i think its less RNG. Like that one secondary shell hitting your superstructuce = fire. wouldnt happen, because the shell pens the superstructure and cant start a fire. Ofc the shell can hit the belt and start a fire, but we have that right now aswell, thus a little bit less RNG.

if the game remove rockets, i am the happiest player on earth, so there is more room for other flights and 1 more reason not to waste whole match hunting them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
112 posts
3,543 battles
14 minuti fa, ForlornSailor ha scritto:

 

That would indeed be a good alternative. But we all know, WG in their infinite wisdom will never do this. I also dont see a reason, why BBs need to have a higher fire chance then, say the large caliber cruisers? For stuff like Yoshino or so, setting fires is their bread and butter. But no, ofc Thunderer (+ pretty much all BBs) need to have a better chance per salvo. There is, logically, no reason for that. There SHOULD be clear reasons for a BB when to use HE, it should be an intelligent choice. For example, when something is bow tanking you. Or you pay attention and saw, a Battleship has used DCP. This is what cruiser players already have to do ever since. But no, Thunderer can just go HE all day long and gets all the benefits. Overload DCP-control, spam fires, get massive direct damage AND be save from incoming fire with the long range spam. Bad game design.

lets not forget the DEFAA that makes her also unconfortable to strike  ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,972 posts
5,228 battles
4 hours ago, EnacheV said:

maybe you dont aim with HE but i think its good to aim with it, like with everyting

Your experience with this game is 300 rounds of killing bots. The people you're mocking are top 0.1% of the playerbase.
This is like your grandma walking up to Ronaldo and laughing at his very unimpressive football career.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LBN]
Players
61 posts
7,869 battles
4 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

There is no reason for me to talk to you, because you werent here the last 2+ years and dont know the changes WG has done regarding IFHE and platings.

You are a very new player, who thinks who knows everything after playing a decade of WoT - thats nice, but wows is not wot.

 

You dont even understand the proposal, because your entire knowledge of the game is lowtiers till T5...

For someone with a lot of battles you don't seem to know yourself. You know this is a team game, less fires from your team = less fires and floodings from yourself, due to repair party.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,664 posts
9,841 battles
8 minutes ago, Bybernd said:

For someone with a lot of battles you don't seem to know yourself. You know this is a team game, less fires from your team = less fires and floodings from yourself, due to repair party.

 

So if we increase the firechance, everyone would be happy? I kinda doubt that one :cap_yes:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,708 posts
18,027 battles
6 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

There is no reason for me to talk to you

Unless if it's a reroll ofc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VIBES]
Players
921 posts
20,263 battles
9 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

- Aiming matters more

Why, though?

 

If you pen, you would do damage; if you shatter, you would have a chance to cause fires. So wherever you aim you'd be good, more or less.

 

Right now, you have the fire chance anyway (unless that part of the target is on fire already), but aiming well allows you to do direct damage, too. The way I see it, your proposal would make aiming matter *less*, leveling off pens and shatters. Am I missing something?


Personally I just think the fire chance skills need a rework:

- IFHE on BBs should only affect the secondaries, because on most BBs you still need to shoot HE with your main guns every now and then

- the fire chance skill should give slightly better benefits to cruisers and BBs

- IFHE in general shouldn't cut the fire chance in half, it's just a downgrade most of the times

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,664 posts
9,841 battles
2 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

Why, though?

 

If you pen, you would do damage; if you shatter, you would have a chance to cause fires. So wherever you aim you'd be good, more or less.

 

Right now, you have the fire chance anyway (unless that part of the target is on fire already), but aiming well allows you to do direct damage, too. The way I see it, your proposal would make aiming matter *less*. Am I missing something?

 

I guess its a matter of how you wanna see it.

For me, shooting HE can just be "hit the ship where-ever and you can start a fire", especially BBs shooting HE it doesnt really matter where you aim, you always get damage and fires.

If you can get either or, it does matter what you want to hit. F.e. the target DCPs, and you can only get a fire if you hit a certain area, than hitting that area means you have to aim properly (or know where to aim). Otherwise you can shoot the superstructure indefinetely and not start a fire again.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×