Firespam

[Uncle64]

This fire spam needs serius Nerfing. The higher Tier you play the worse it gets.

I gladly take cits or torps because I did turn wrong, but this fire.....................

 

Worst part is that there is missions connected to it, I know that fires was issue on warships, but that was early in WWII and it was not all ships that did suffer from it.

As it is now in the game you face players that only fires HE in BB:s Serius?

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Uncl64 said:

As it is now in the game you face players that only fires HE in BB:s Serius?

When other BB player decide to be less effective, it is only to your advantage.

[Miscommunication_dept]

Fire spam is one of the most frustrating things in the game.

 

Of course, we need to ensure small ships can hurt big ships and fire spam seems to be the way WG allows that to happen.

We'd need to balance this in another way. Maybe reduce battleship healing? or give destroyers better dpm?

 

Completely agree with the battleship firing HE issue.

Conq and Thunderer would be fine with half the fire chance.

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 1 Stunde, Uncl64 sagte:

This fire spam needs serius Nerfing. The higher Tier you play the worse it gets.

Then why do you play higher tiers? Low tiers are fine, except for WG's idea of balanced CV gameplay.

[Bear__Necessities]

6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

When other BB player decide to be less effective, it is only to your advantage.

You say that. But I lost a game purley because a conq out damaged me in a Moskva due to it's absurd combination of HE spam and idiot proof heal. It did 87k to me in combined HE and fire damage. I did 137k to it, even punishing it with AP broadside cits. And it lived on 3k while I was burnt to a crisp. Some ships need to be looked at in terms of HE v AP choice selection. Rewarding lazy and bad play has become more and more common in this game. 

[ColonelPete]

It is a BB, you are a cruiser. It counters you.

[Uncle64]

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

It is a BB, you are a cruiser. It counters you.

Your point?

We talk about Fire spam. Dont spam my tread whit your nonsens.

[Uncle64]

32 minutes ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Then why do you play higher tiers? Low tiers are fine, except for WG's idea of balanced CV gameplay.

I like to play my higher tier ships. Simple as that.

But as you suggest, the issue is not at tier 4-8. It do come hard on you on Tier9-10.

Dunno why WG thinks it is good.

[ColonelPete]

6 minutes ago, Uncl64 said:

Your point?

We talk about Fire spam. Dont spam my tread whit your nonsens.

That ships that should be using AP, become less effective by using HE is not nonsense.

That cruisers get countered by BB and therefore have trouble winning an 1v1 is not nonsense.

[Camperdown]

2 hours ago, Uncl64 said:

This fire spam needs serius Nerfing. The higher Tier you play the worse it gets.

I gladly take cits or torps because I did turn wrong, but this fire.....................

 

Worst part is that there is missions connected to it, I know that fires was issue on warships, but that was early in WWII and it was not all ships that did suffer from it.

As it is now in the game you face players that only fires HE in BB:s Serius?

WG decided that higher tier ships should have thicker plating that cannot be penetrated by he. Which is bollocks. Ships were constructed with 15-20 mm steel, which was sufficient for strength. Base fused HE could penetrate any ordinary plating. 

Having created one rediculous mechanism they came up with another one to allow smaller ships to do some damage to larger ships. And then they decided to give some BBs a rediculous fire chance.

I regret all these silly arcade type damage mechanisms. Stick to something close to reality, it makes the game more interesting imo. Abolish thick side plating outside the armour areas and reduce fire chance. Make HE work against normal plating. 

But WG won't do it. The overmatch mechanics is one way to herd players to high tiers and expensive premiums.

[FukushuNL]

The thing that makes fires so frustrating is the damage it deals. We used to have flooding that took more than half of your healthbar away, but then they nerfed that damage when there were so many sources that could flood you. Now fire does the same thing and there are so many sources that use fires as a damage dealer. With the ease of setting fires compared to torping ships, I don't understand WG not already having lowered the damage per tick. If we are on fire most of the time, why not make the damage we receive per tick less. I mean, HE and fires is the most brainless way to defeat the enemy. It even feels dirty sitting behind an island or in smoke and see the other ship just burn to death without the ability to counter it. I completely understand BBs camping in the back.

[Pandafaust]

41 minutes ago, FukushuNL said:

The thing that makes fires so frustrating is the damage it deals. We used to have flooding that took more than half of your healthbar away, but then they nerfed that damage when there were so many sources that could flood you. Now fire does the same thing and there are so many sources that use fires as a damage dealer. 

Fire gets nowhere near to doing 50% of a healthbar, though. Even in a worst case scenario where a player is in a BB, hasn't specced their commander for survivability, hasn't installed fire-dampening modules, isn't running fire reduction flags and doesn't use/have the dcp available then a fire only burns off about 18% of their HP (which is fully recoverable, and basically takes a single heal).  As soon as the mitigations start getting added in, fire becomes a minor concern unless hopelessly overextended.

[Wulf_Ace]

3 hours ago, Bear__Necessities said:

You say that. But I lost a game purley because a conq out damaged me in a Moskva due to it's absurd combination of HE spam and idiot proof heal. It did 87k to me in combined HE and fire damage. I did 137k to it, even punishing it with AP broadside cits. And it lived on 3k while I was burnt to a crisp. Some ships need to be looked at in terms of HE v AP choice selection. Rewarding lazy and bad play has become more and more common in this game. 

hahahahha

yap this is wargaming playeebase and logic,and i wonder why this game is still alive, its beacouse of this thinking, or should I say, not thinking.

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 hours ago, Bear__Necessities said:

You say that. But I lost a game purley because a conq out damaged me in a Moskva due to it's absurd combination of HE spam and idiot proof heal. It did 87k to me in combined HE and fire damage. I did 137k to it, even punishing it with AP broadside cits. And it lived on 3k while I was burnt to a crisp. Some ships need to be looked at in terms of HE v AP choice selection. Rewarding lazy and bad play has become more and more common in this game. 

Yeah Conq, I'm loving it....  guess why I use it in Clan Battles. 

But actually the AP isn't bad either. Every game I do some blapping. 

 

Main problem with fires is, "it is reversed". 

For instance, a T7 BB has a HIGHER chance to catch fire than a T10 BB (not even considering captain skills).

And what does that lead to --> the T10 BB also has a higher chance to SET SMTH on fire. 

 

They had better done it the other way around. 

 

[Ubertron_X]

4 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

When other BB player decide to be less effective, it is only to your advantage.

The question being, are they really less effective? Obviously if you are broadside in your BB with AP loading and the enemy also broadside BB uses HE throughout, congratulations. However combined volume of fire using HE can easily overwhelm the DCP as well as the Repair party of any enemy BB and can be very effective even if the HE is not comming from ships like Thunderer or Conqueror. The obvious lack of HE shells became very obvious to me while grinding the Italian BB line and - considering an enemy that is not commiting any major mistakes - I often was not able to contribute to the pressure on enemy cooldowns created by friendly cruisers or destroyers. HE and its associated fire mechanics do enjoy an intrinsic force multiplier and I often find myself using HE in BBs, especially if paired with a good fire starting cruiser or destroyer in the first place.

[ColonelPete]

4 minutes ago, Ubertron_X said:

The question being, are they really less effective? Obviously if you are broadside in your BB with AP loading and the enemy also broadside BB uses HE throughout, congratulations. However combined volume of fire using HE can easily overwhelm the DCP as well as the Repair party of any enemy BB and can be very effective even if the HE is not comming from ships like Thunderer or Conqueror. The obvious lack of HE shells became very obvious to me while grinding the Italian BB line and - considering an enemy that is not commiting any major mistakes - I often was not able to contribute to the pressure on enemy cooldowns created by friendly cruisers or destroyers. HE and its associated fire mechanics do enjoy an intrinsic force multiplier.

Against broadside targets, AP will give better results, even when teammates shoot HE.

Against angled targets, where AP barely works, you are supposed to use HE. But even then the target lives longer than showing broadside and getting shot at with AP.

[Pukovnik7]

4 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

When other BB player decide to be less effective, it is only to your advantage.

It is not about effectiveness, it is about fun. HE spam + CV = fun police. HE does not care about angling, not so much about armour thickness, and loses far less of its effectiveness with range compared to the AP. It is literally shells for idiots... and idiots also stay at long range, which results in boring games for everyone.

 

And it is not always less effective. As I tend to repeat, AP is situational - you have to watch for the enemies making a mistake. HE is not - you only need to hit. Hell, I play German battleships first and foremost, and I find myself using HE quite a lot because there are so many situations where AP is simply useless.

[ColonelPete]

2 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

It is not about effectiveness, it is about fun. HE spam + CV = fun police. HE does not care about angling, not so much about armour thickness, and loses far less of its effectiveness with range compared to the AP. It is literally shells for idiots... and idiots also stay at long range, which results in boring games for everyone.

 

And it is not always less effective. As I tend to repeat, AP is situational - you have to watch for the enemies making a mistake. HE is not - you only need to hit. Hell, I play German battleships first and foremost, and I find myself using HE quite a lot because there are so many situations where AP is simply useless.

I have no problem with HE. I enjoy keeping my ships longer afloat.

 

And as I explained often enough, angling works. Feel free to test it out with a bow on Kremlin getting shot at by Haragumo and the Kremlin showing broadside to the Haragumo. And yes, armor thickness matters. That is why the difference in thickness of deck plating affects the survivability of ships.

 

As stated multiple times, you are supposed to use HE vs angled ships instead of AP. But when you feel that HE is too much for you, feel free to show broadside and get shot at by AP

[Ubertron_X]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

As stated multiple times, you are supposed to use HE vs angled ships instead of AP. But when you feel that HE is too much for you, feel free to show broadside and get shot at by AP

Apart from those times when HE is arguably better even against broadside targets. Looking at you, light cruisers...

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, Ubertron_X said:

Apart from those times when HE is arguably better even against broadside targets. Looking at you, light cruisers...

That depends on the shooting ship, its gun size and the range. But yes, when your AP does not work, you use HE. That is the way it is designed.

[The_Finnster]

37 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

It is not about effectiveness, it is about fun.

Since when was WG game products about fun?

 

This a gambling mechanic graphically designed as a game exploiting low impulse control, sunken cost fallacy and rewarding addicts with small dopamine hits in-game. 

[Ubertron_X]

15 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That depends on the shooting ship, its gun size and the range. But yes, when your AP does not work, you use HE. That is the way it is designed.

Totally agree, however this issue being the question of what BB players consider as their 'standard' ammuntion. BB reload takes 30 seconds without any special skill, so you usually shoot what you have. HE is very effective versus destroyers, often effective versus cruisers (most of the time AP is better) and still effective versus BB, regardless of angle. AP is not especially effective versus destroyers, very effective versus cruisers and moderately (depending on angle) effective against battleships. Which means that I can imagine that many BB players will start having HE loaded as it is the ammunition type that is 'always' yielding results, especially when initial distances are high and the enemy is very likely still angled (aka start of the battle). And if you start using HE and potentially already got some fires going and/or DCP spent you really have to consider continuing using HE for continuous damage versus the chance of a potentially lethal damage spike using AP. And it seems not many players are experienced or bold enough to take that risk.

[ColonelPete]

Loading HE from the start is a gamble.

Yes, you have the right ammunition vs DD that might get spotted early, but your damage vs BB and CA is pitiful, especially when you consider that many ships try to position themselves in the beginning and often show a lot of broadside early on.

 

Therefore, unless I expect an enemy DD to get spotted soon, I load AP, as this is the superior choice. Even when my target angles, I can still select another target that shows broadside and after that I can change to HE and go back to the orginal target, if that is a focus target. Otherwise I continue shooting AP at broadsides.

[Bratoev]

HE spam is not the problem. Not paying attention the minimap is.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, The_Finnster said:

Since when was WG game products about fun?

 

This a gambling mechanic graphically designed as a game exploiting low impulse control, sunken cost fallacy and rewarding addicts with small dopamine hits in-game. 

I lub you