HE the problem or fire mechanics out of control?

[Boevebeest]

I really do like the HE buff.(most of it)

 

I think the balance is right alpha damage wise.

Shooting HE at targets isn't always the most effective way to do damage looking at direct damage.

 

I love the theoretical concept of HE v AP. Think when to use it most effective, switch between them for different targets.

 

The big difference in my opinion on using HE or AP should be in that grey zone, angled ships, over penetration and armor.

Here the average and less skilled players should be outclassed by the good and great players.

A good players switches ammo at the right time to be most effective, where the average/poor player keeps spamming his chosen ammo no matter what.

They do both damage but the smarter player more effective.

 

And this theory is already in the game and kind of working.

A penetrating AP hit does more damage than any HE hit(even non citadel),but lower tier ships can actually do damage to armored and higher tier ships.

Still it doesn't work like this in reality at the moment.

 

Then where does it all go to crap?

 

Two things.

1. RNG.

2. Fire.

 

1. AP is depending on RNG.

No matter how well you aim, volley go all over the place one time where another can do multiple citadel hits.

Yes, aim well and the chance on citadel hits increases but no way a certainty. With armor you even bounce often, no matter the range.

So RNG fights AP effectiveness a lot on all sides.

Even if you chose theoretically the right ammo in the right situation it still is just a gamble. High reward on a win, no reward on a loss. And now it is a loss most of the time.

He at least does every volley damage reliably.

(still a good/lucky volley will always outclass multiple HE volleys in pure direct damage. So one could claim there is even balance in the RNG).

 

2. Fire.

In my opinion, why as it is now, HE is for almost all ships the most viable/only option.

Although there is a chance to cause fire with AP, HE almost insures you set the enemy on fire.

Fire does sustained damage over time which makes HE even more effective than it is.

But worst of all, now a ship can be set on fire in three places. fire damage from different places is cumulative. One fire does X damage per second, two fires does 2x X damage per second and three fires 3x X damage, for as far as I know. Might even be X times X, not sure.

 

After extinguishing a fire your repair is on cooldown for a really long time.

In the cooldown not only you get set on fire again(multiple times), but also take the normal HE damage(and module loss).

Even if you get out of range of guns or by good play doge or bounce by angling, you still burn out and nothing you can do about it.

 

My conclusion.

The HE alpha damage buff is a good thing and pretty balanced.

HE always does damage but AP a lot of the time is more effective. A tactically HE/AP switching player always wins from a braindead HE spammer.

 

Fire system is ruining this balance now.

 

My possible solutions.(all/and/or)

1. Only one place for fire.

2. Greatly reduce time fire burns.

3. greatly reduce fire damage.

4. remove the cumulative factor of fire, multiple fires should be harder to extinguish.

5. decrease repair cooldown.

6. Reduce the chance of fire on HE.

 

This would be something I'd like to see tested, it is Beta test after all.

 

For balance I think repair should stay as it is. Damaged guns, steering, engines and so don't need to be repaired faster for now in my opinion.

 

Reduce the chance of fire with HE a bit, say 20%.

 

Keep the three places of fire but don't make the damage cumulative, but the time it burns gets increased with every fire.

One fire burns lets say 15 sec, two fires 30 sec and three fires 45 sec.

So one fire dies out after 15 seconds, get set on fire again both burn for 30 seconds even if it was 12 seconds for the first, they fuel each other and same for third, but DPM stays the same no matter how many fires, they only burn longer.

 

On top of this give AP RNG a slight buff to make it more viable(Keep citadel RNG the same).

Not against angling or armor but just to hit where you aim.

 

 

Sorry for the long story, I hope it makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Darod_Khaan]

You do have some good points here. As it is now with the fire mechanics HE is somewhat overpowered. Especially since it favours light rapid fire guns heavily over larger slower guns. A battleship with a few huge guns will only set things on fire occasionally, but a CA or even DD with a lot of small fast firing guns will pretty much ensure that the target is constantly burning.

One solution might be to classify fires based on the calibre of the HE shell that causes the fire. For example, the fires caused by a DD´s light guns firing on a BB should be considerably less dangerous than the fire caused by a BB´s monster guns firing on a CA or a DD.

 

 

[elmattador666]

Totally agree with you, and i also use HE on BB at long ranges because it does more damage then AP don´t know why, but HE can do in average 1900 with a Fuso/New Mexico , and AP do in average 1020, unless i get lucky and hit citadel, but at range of 12km +++ it´s giving me more damage in average from HE, also with the benefit of fire over time, and large guns have higher chance to ignite target!

[GreyKer]

Not sure I agree about fire favoring smaller guns. I do agree that fire seems a bit too powerful now, but it is not THAT bad. However, using HE on bigger guns is by no means less effective than smaller guns. Chance of fire on bigger guns is much greater than on smaller ones. For example Gearing has a 5% fire chance on its shells. Yamato has 37% chance for fire with a shell. Des Moines has 14%, while Zao has 18%. Actual chance of causing fire is not a problem regardless of the ship type. Fire duration could be a bit lower, or damage a bit lower, but not greatly in my opinion.

[R3use]

I'll agree that HE is a little to powerfull.

 

In most of my games, if I compare HE damage per shell and AP damage per shell they are about the same. But then I usually get fire damage in the range of 20%-30% of HE damage done. So to balance things I would suggest reducing alpha damge of HE by about 25%.

 

Fire damage itself is not really a big deal. I think the error most people make is using Damage Control and Repair to early.

 

I had a game in a Wyoming where I was set on fire twice. I was lucky because apart from the fire very little damage was done to me. So each time I let the fire burn for the whole duration not using damage control. After the fire burned out I used Repair, which almost completely repaired the fire damage. As a result, inspite of being set on fire twice for it's full duration, I ended the game with 90% of my hp.

 

I think most people overestimate the damage done by fire because of it's prominent visual effect. But in all of my games as a BB, the damage done to me by fire was much lower than damage done to me by shells.

[Darod_Khaan]

On a BB (and most CA´s) you have a point R3use. However, on a DD it becomes more challenging as a fire is often accompanied by a broken rudder and/or dead engines. And as we all know, a DD without power or the ability to dodge is a very dead DD. Often the first volley that hit´s me sets me on fire AND leaves me dead in the water. I repair it instantly to avoid dying, but I usually take another couple of hits while trying my best to disengage. This is not a problem in it self (unless my steering or engines goes bust again, then it´s bye bye cruel life). The problem is that that secound or third volley almost always leaves me with at least one or two more fires. Fires that I now cannot do anything about because I used my repair to get moving again.

Now I am not saying that DD´s should be more fireproof or less fragile. One of the things that make DD´s so exiting to play is that they are glass cannons. Huge damage potential and not very much protection. The point I am trying to make is that a fire on a DD (or a CL) is a much more serious problem than a fire on a BB.

Maybe a solution can be to make fires more rare, but potentially more dangerous. Perhaps with exponentially more damage as the number of fires goes up, or maybe a (small) chance of module damage over time? Fires should be a big concern, but now it seems like I am constantly on fire and that is getting a bit annoying.

[R3use]

Right, DDs and CLs is a completely different topic :-)

[Darod_Khaan]

Right, DDs and CLs is a completely different topic :-)

 

That´s the huge challenge WG is facing with this game: Balancing the game mechanics in such a manner that all classes remain fun to play and equally viable choices on the battlefield. :-)

[Gl0cK_17]

 

My possible solutions.(all/and/or)

1. Only one place for fire.

2. Greatly reduce time fire burns.

3. greatly reduce fire damage.

4. remove the cumulative factor of fire, multiple fires should be harder to extinguish.

5. decrease repair cooldown.

6. Reduce the chance of fire on HE.

 

This would be something I'd like to see tested, it is Beta test after all.

 

Sorry for the long story, I hope it makes sense.

Just expanding upon your list of options

 

I think reducing the fire chance wont do much im affraid since, for example most cruisers or destroyers (granted the DDs take pyromania) can simply put swarms of shells on a target. So they negate the whole fire chance.

For example a New Orleans: in one minute it can fire just over 4 salvos with 9 guns, that 36 shots @ 14% base chance is allready 5-6 fires. Bringing it down to 10% for example stil gives 3-4 fires a minute.

 

3B) A different approach would be to drasticly reduce the damage of fires all together and maybe even introduce a minus to your ships effectiveness when there is a fire on board. (making it more of a debuff as opposed to a DoT)

It would not be to far fetched to assume your combat capabilities suffer greatly when a large part of your ship is on fire. As most personel will be on damage control or some vital systems might be slowed or otherwise hampered by smoke and fire.

Or keep it simple and ad say a minus X% to overall effectiveness of your ship. For example 1 fire 5% less RoF, viewrange, speed, ruddershift, 3 fires 15 less, etc etc.

 

7) What they could consider is redoing the captain skills and upgrades so they also have a fire damage reduction  and maybe a even higher minus fire chance.

Then again that would basicly force everyone with half a brain to pick those skills and upgrades as mandatory.

 

8) Simply make AP reliable again so the choice between AP and HE is more down to what you are trying to achieve.

[damo74]

Fire mechanics are definitely out of control, and are to me the biggest single problem with the game.

 

Last night I had a game in my Tier 4 Japanese destroyer, as I came round an island there was a Fuso battleship about 9km from me on more or less full health. I decided to approach for a torpedo attack, but started shooting HE at him with my forward turret as you do.

 

My 1st shot hit and set him on fire, he must have used his repair to put the fire out. My 5th or maybe 6th shot set him on fire again. I felt really bad for the guy.

 

This should NEVER happen. A destroyer should never be able to cripple a battleship with it's guns. It's ridiculous!

[dumbo11]

The problem seems to that the intention was for BBs to be hard to kill with AP, but be countered with torpedoes (DDs/TBs).

 

So, the IJN CA would be less effective against destroyers/aircraft, but more effective against BBs...  Whereas the USN CA would be more effective against DDs/aircraft and less effective against BBs.

 

With the HE buff, it seems that the USN CA is simply more effective against absolutely everything.  Top quality AAA, guns fast enough to hit DDs and yet able to spam HE fires on BBs like crazy.

[Grimmblut]

Yesterday, my (slightly damaged) Amagi was sunk by a Des Moines. We started to fire at each other at about 9 km distance and our battle ended at 3 km distance. He used HE, I used AP. With 4 salvos of AP ammo, I scored 2.4k to 4.5k damage per salvo, with about 3 to 6 shells hitting the Des Moines. The Des Moines HP dropped significally once it was in range of my (HE firing) secondary armament. So much about AP ammo on BBs against CAs.  

[harkain]

I would like to suggest instead that we remove fire damage in total and make fire affect skills like taking them down to 50%, that way its more of a debuff than 30k free noskill damage every game.

[mrak1979]

There is one important problem with fire. Shells itself cant cause a fire!!!! Fire arised by hitting ammo, torps, airplanes or fuel storage!!!!

[bladebane]

big problem with game is the spam there is not aiming really its just leading shots swing guns to guess lead it fire if loaded repeat spaming HE fastest big guns wins 

 

Way they could balance is add shot spread like they do with torps but of course different  Make HE shells better in focused spread hitting same area of a ship 

and wide spead for AP would be more effective making target swiss cheese knocking out mods like turrets and engine  

 

With this style you could ap target to either disable or cripple its ability to fight back and give yourself time to move get to the focused HE shots while its disabled or close in for the kill knowing you can out gun the almost defenceless ship 

 

I think this will balance the game better HE spammers will miss more on evading ships AP will hit more knock more mods but will be less effective longer ranges

 

HE spammers will able to chose the wider spread for ships like DD's which might be hard hit with focused HE but would be ineffective on other larger ships expect maybe just to de cap a base

 

AP would be ineffective in focused spread as it will be limited in amount of mods it could knock out and damage would limited to that mod area of the ship

 

This change would game more skill based as spamming shoot button would be pointless without changing ammo and spread of shot could also promote more sniper shots AP in perfect focus spread on citadel for example or focused HE on DD closing on your team mate's carrier 

 

Its very keeping to history Bismarck took so long to sink with a whole fleet ship shooting it was because they was spaming AP rounds at close range but it was ineffective lots turrets knocked out but very little did anything to sink the ship its rudder was already disabled when they closed on it they would been easy finish had they not been so angry at the loss of HMS HOOD they may thought more how to sink her rather than just shoot at it. its the German sailors on board which finished her off 

 

 

 

 

[silence5]

All well and good ... but I think we all know by now  that AP is notworking as supposed. 

The new meta of HE spam is only here because of people realising that they can do more consistant damage with HE. When AP gets its penetration back we can talk about balancing HE fire. As of now ... there is absolutley no point in using AP because its pure RNG instead of actually calculating the fact that you hit a ship flat on. Beta for a reason

[daki]

I don't think that the problem is with chance of fire as such.

My problem is with distribution. Too often there are long "winning" streaks where a lot of salvos cause fire. Of course these are also followed by streaks where no matter the number of salvos you just can't set an enemy on fire.

However, we all tend to remember the "winning" streaks no matter if we are on the dealing or receiving end  - leading to OP perception.

Hence HE is not OP (to my opinion ) and just needs a fire chance distribution fix.

 

To add, I find AP shells as valuable still. A bit limited in use compared to before (closer quarters, broadside enemy...), but  effective for all who know when to choose which shells, and care enough to bother with shell management

 

[kwk75l48]

He was over buffed and ap was dramatically nerfed. a combination of buffing a shell type that seems to ignore armour He (by silly hp per hit levels yes my yubari also does 927 dmg on almost every single he hit) and reducing damage, remove kinetic damage and increasing over pen range on ammo that bounces simples.

 

hm bladebane interesting but im not sure it will work in practice and dosent really address the one shell hit inbalance at the moment.

[anonym_hqO9wrVAEQYQ]

I think they need to tone down the chance of fire by a fair bit and also perhaps make it so that an undamaged or barely damaged ship has a lot less chance to catch fire. So that the idea would be to open up with AP to knock holes in stuff then switch to HE once there is a fair bit of damage. One a ship is heavily damaged then the risk of fire will increase to simulate the fact that the ship is wrecked.

But a CV should have a very good chance of catching fire. Due to all the fuel and ordinance on board. Even more so on the Yank stuff with their un armoured decks.

But the current mechanic is very broken.

 

[m4inbrain]

Kinda have to agree, started playing IJN CAs now, my last game in a Furutaka, 80 hits and 12 fires started. That's pretty much one per salvo. And that's simply too much, considering how much damage a triple fire does. 

[Battledragon]

Yeah, the biggest problem is it favours ships with lots of small guns. so ships like Cleveland are now more powerful than most tier 7 ships just because at tier 7 the cruisers have 203mm guns instead of 155mm. Kind of broken when 155mm guns do more damage than 203mm guns, against battleships.  The entire point of the switch to 203mm guns was to make them more effective verses larger ships.

[GreyKer]

To repeat again, HE does not favor ships with smaller guns. Or at least it should not and I am certain that it will be balanced in the end. And Cleveland is not a very good example right now, simply because it may be in the wrong tier right now. More to the point, the actual fire does not cause that much damage even if not put out quickly. Especially on BBs. If you look at the post game stats, damage caused by fire is about 20-25% at most compared to the damage done by HE shells.

 

And 203mm guns ARE more effective against larger ships simply because they do more base damage.

 

I do admit that currently AP is probably not working properly, but it is still very powerful if used at the right moment. Used on long ranges when shells fall at a steep angle it can score lucky shots that do a lot of damage. But where it shines is when you use it at shorter ranges (up to 5km) and when the enemy's broadside is facing you. I have blasted a Pensacola to bit with a single salvo from Izumo, and then proceeded to bring down the 2nd Pensacola with the next one down to maybe 20% health. And that was firing with 2 turrets only. It is a bit hard at the moment to switch ammo types on BBs and that makes it hard to utilize AP properly. Using it on cruisers is much simpler, as you have a much shorter reload time.

 

Simply put until we know much more about how the actual game mechanics work, we are simply speaking theoretically, and that is that.

 

 

[deathrow222]

i say HE is OP at this moment, not only do you do more dmg than AP (unless you score a citadel hit) it destroys your modules and put you in fire.

its so much fun to play a BB get shot on fire with first salvo, you put it out but now you have 2 min cool down and there comes next salvo and it puts you on fire again, next salvo gives you another fire and so on.

does that sound like alot of fun? burning to destruction in the first 5 min? 3 fires and you loose like 1000 hp per second lol.

no wonder everybody spammes HE and plays ships like the des moines.

so much fun getting raped in your yamato or montana by fast shooting HE spammers and just burn up.

they gave ships more armor, but than they give you something like those HE noob shells, that can do masive dmg per salvo, put you on fire destroying your modules without the need to aim.

you just have no change in a BB against something like that, and i know it cuz i have been on both sides, getting raped in my yamato or montana by HE spamming des moines or spamming HE myself in my des moines and raping a yamato or a montana without him having the change to do anything about it.

i realy hope they change it cuz otherwise this patch (3.1) is usseles and you just can go back to how it was before that.

[Boevebeest]

If you look at the post game stats, damage caused by fire is about 20-25% at most compared to the damage done by HE shells.

 

Yep, fire is not your main damage, but don't forget it comes on top of the damage done by your HE.

 

[damo74]

To repeat again, HE does not favor ships with smaller guns. 

 

Of course it does. A T2 destroyer with peashooters can spam HE at a T6 battleship and cause fire after fire. A destroyers guns should barely scratch the paint on any battleship. That's what torpedoes are for.

 

The smaller the guns the more OP HE becomes.