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

Fires suck (and so does flooding)

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SARMA]
Beta Tester
486 posts
2,428 battles

if you draw that yourself i give you an upvote

if not, you are a terrible person

Edited by Pivke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

if you draw that yourself i give you an upvote

if not, you are a terrible person

 

I drew it myself. That doesn't mean I'm not a terrible person (-_-)
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
503 posts
1,785 battles

Not really related to your post, but for the longest time I just glanced over your profile pic and went on believing that the red ball was supposed to be the head and the thing under was some sort of cape/kimono etc.

 

Anyway, an interesting proposal to make fire and flooding more reliable but I'm unsure about torps as it's already hard to land torps on decent players from the start and this might just make floodings even more rare. Guaranteed flooding for one torp wouldn't be they way to go either obviously.  

 

Another issue I see with this is that it could be really OP if you got a division going and focus fired to set several fires, moved on to the next ship and then came back to the first after he used DC etc. etc. If the health bars are balanced around making cruisers able to start fires on their own in a reasonable time it would be lethal for 3 cruisers to gang up. On the other hand, if there's only one cruiser and it's balanced for divisions focus-firing he won't get any fires.  

I guess you can still do that today, however, in this scenario they're working together but currently every hit is an individual damage roll. Having guaranteed fires would make focusfiring firespam divisions a pretty strong pick, I think.

 

It would of course depend on how it was approached it could work and it could also not work *shrug*

 

Nice drawings btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

Not really related to your post, but for the longest time I just glanced over your profile pic and went on believing that the red ball was supposed to be the head and the thing under was some sort of cape/kimono etc.

 

I'll probably change it soon anyways. ;p

Anyway, an interesting proposal to make fire and flooding more reliable but I'm unsure about torps as it's already hard to land torps on decent players from the start and this might just make floodings even more rare. Guaranteed flooding for one torp wouldn't be they way to go either obviously.

 

The IJN should probably get a flood for every torpedo against an equivalent battleship imo. The USN should probably have a similar arrangement. The KM and SN could probably make do with 2 on the same segment. Maybe torpedo belts could negate some incoming flood damage.

Another issue I see with this is that it could be really OP if you got a division going and focus fired to set several fires, moved on to the next ship and then came back to the first after he used DC etc. etc. If the health bars are balanced around making cruisers able to start fires on their own in a reasonable time it would be lethal for 3 cruisers to gang up. On the other hand, if there's only one cruiser and it's balanced for divisions focus-firing he won't get any fires.

 

Could be an issue. I personally try for mixed divisions, but balance will probably be hard to achieve. I'll probably come up with something tomorrow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
503 posts
1,785 battles

Could be an issue. I personally try for mixed divisions, but balance will probably be hard to achieve. I'll probably come up with something tomorrow.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting idea. I was just trying to give some constructive criticism. I don't think anyone likes randomness in games. :honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Weekend Tester
3,802 posts
5,468 battles

Awesome drawings dude!

 

Unfortunately, your suggestion will fall under deaf ears here on the EU forums. Your best chance is post it on Reddit and hope for Sub_Octavian to see it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I401]
Beta Tester
1,007 posts
8,072 battles

You got a like, cause the drawings are awesome but your new concept is worse than the current one. Randomness does benefit all players and most importantly it does benefit the whole game. A lot of classic games only survived because of the randomness, it keeps the people entretained for many many years. Age of empires 2 is still going strong, has international competitions and regular patches, thanks to the random map generation, which sometimes scews you over, but sometimes benefits you, it keeps the players interested.

Same with warships, every game, every salvo is a bit of dice throw, and i like it that way.

 

For example, whats gonna happen if you shoot a bow on Yamato with another Yamato? Misses, bounces? Some penetrations? Who knows?

shot-17.03.29_21.12.09-0555.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

ou got a like, cause the drawings are awesome but your new concept is worse than the current one.

 

Well, at least I managed to make you happy somehow =P

Randomness does benefit all players and most importantly it does benefit the whole game. A lot of classic games only survived because of the randomness, it keeps the people entretained for many many years. Age of empires 2 is still going strong, has international competitions and regular patches, thanks to the random map generation, which sometimes scews you over, but sometimes benefits you, it keeps the players interested.

 

Whilst I do think that randomness can help with the variation of games, I disagree that it makes the game interesting in the long run. Whilst I am happy when things go my way, the high that I get then is followed by the slightly bitter sentiment that I bested the enemy not because of what I did but because of what the server decided to give me. I do like shell dispersion, it does keep even knifefights more exciting. That said, I disagree that randomness inherently makes things better. When I am less than 10 km away from a Yamato, I fully expect that the next salvo will be a citadel through the bow because I know that the Yamato's shells can inherently penetrate my ship's bow. I'm elated when the shells go off course, but I act under full comprehension of the potential consequences of my choices. Being under fire from an HE salvo is entirely different from that. There is nothing but probability governing the fires that are set from HE shells. It's like if the overmatch mechanics were tied to the random number generator, some shells will bounce clean off whilst others will cut clean through the bow and go straight into the citadel. Being able to know how much a ship can potentially hurt you is something that I find to be a big plus in the game, and I feel that the current system detracts from that. I could see a salvo as it comes flying towards me, and I can tell what the salvo would do to my ship five or six seconds before the shells land. Now admittedly this is not usually enough time for me to do something about it, but I do at least have a sense of what the shells could or could not do to me. I don't get that for the fire or floods. I understand completely that my opinion on this matter is contentious, but I believe that the game experience would be much improved if players aren't made to feel cheated or screwed by the server because a die rolls a certain way. Now you would no doubt argue that the shell dispersion is governed by the same unreliable system that I am arguing against and would like to know why what I'm proposing is so fundamentally different. I don't think I have an answer that would be to your satisfaction though, at least not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

Awesome drawings dude!

 

Unfortunately, your suggestion will fall under deaf ears here on the EU forums. Your best chance is post it on Reddit and hope for Sub_Octavian to see it.

 

It's alright, I don't actually expect any of my suggestions, even the ones that would self-evidently lead to a better game like the aircraft interface suggestion, to actually be implemented. Writing these ideas is a bit of a hobby for me. If you like my ideas though, I have absolutely no objections if you wanted to pass them onto some place where it could do some good.
Edited by dasCKD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertest Coordinator
217 posts
9,232 battles

I would wait a week before reposting, though. Posting anything radical around April 1st is bound to make people think you're pulling their leg.

 

Ps. love the artwork.

Edited by Kysmet
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Weekend Tester
3,802 posts
5,468 battles

 

It's alright, I don't actually expect any of my suggestions, even the ones that would self-evidently lead to a better game like the aircraft interface suggestion, to actually be implemented. Writing these ideas is a bit of a hobby for me. If you like my ideas though, I have absolutely no objections if you wanted to pass them onto some place where it could do some good.

 

I would, but even mine falls to deaf ears, including the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles

I'm baaaaack~

 

This is NOT a guide! DO NOT move it. (Unless you count guides to game design as a guide as well which you don't, so stop complaining). Oh, and just post something at the bottom. I'm far too lazy won't be awake to bump the thread myself.

62192590_p0_master1200.jpg

Artist page: http://www.pixiv.net/member.php?id=5192176

Extra battleship camping =P

 61467483_p0.png

Bonus image I didn't get a chance to post before. It's also a thread about fires, so of course I'll mock the battleships.

In most of the games in my Zao where I don't get instantly wiped because I managed to get my ship stuck in the middle of the ocean, I land somewhere around 150-250 shell hits. Mostly on battleships of course, but also on some cruisers and destroyers. The Zao, bar none (currently), is the cruiser with the highest fire chance on burst. A chance that is tied to RNGsus's will, a malevolent dark god who rules above all others of Chaos and will one day cast judgement upon the impudent imperial scum. Zao, being the cruiser with the highest fire chance, can be extremely dangerous to large targets with the way her guns work. I have often managed to land salvoes with two or three fires. Conversely however, I have managed to also sustain fire upon a single enemy ship for excessive periods of time with little to no result in terms of fire.

 

Issues with fire and flooding

The issue with RNG is the fact that randomness is something that can't really be accounted for in terms of strategy. A ship can sustain literally hundreds of hits without a single fire, but could be set on fire several times with just a few shells. Whilst the pure volume of fire from a ship that depends on fire for their effectiveness offsets this issue somewhat as the larger sample size will bring the result as defined by the true probability, the fact remains that the game is centered around the fact that many ships in the game possess play styles centered around the assumption that the roll of the dice will favor them. As long as a player has the skill to land a salvo, a good player could very well get a worse result than a mediocre one when the outcome is guided by the hand of the dark god RNGsus. The Zao performs relatively consistently thanks to how high her fire chance is, but the results are far worse for ships with a high rate of fire but a low fire chance such as the Akizuki who can output a sustained shell hit period numbering in the hundreds whilst still getting only the results of a Zao if she fired two or three salvos. Depending on fires when on a ship with such a gun setup causes more misery than gain.

 

The issue is also identical from the other side of the barrel. Battleships or larger cruisers could sustain salvo after salvo without being set on fire only to be set on fire twice, to damecon, and then to be set on fire three times right after the fires come off cooldown and to burn down to the waterline. The erratic performance of HE shells when it comes to setting fires makes it difficult to gauge how much a ship can take before they need to address the issue. If you are engaging on a one on one combat with a cruiser in a cruiser or a battleship in a battleship, you have a good idea of how much damage your ship can take. You can estimate how much damage you would take from a certain angle. You can look at your own health pool and have a good idea of how long you can keep on fighting. With HE, it's nearly impossible to do the same thing. You could charge a HE stream without sustaining even one fire, or you could be set on fire time after time in almost the identical situation.

 

Most other players probably have less of an issue with this last part, but as a carrier player I think it's necessary to explain this part as well. When you are in a high tiered carrier, you often have to depend on ticking damage when dealing with large targets because winning the damage battle with the enemy carrier often means that the alpha damage sources have to go to putting down the smaller and more strategically dangerous ships. It's therefore quite frustrating to bait a damecon with fires only to drop 4 perfect torpedoes that causes a grand total of 0 floods. With a destroyer it's hard to chain floods as the torpedo alpha of destroyers is often sufficient and a flood would always be repaired, but with a class with more user control like the carriers are at a massive detriment from the current system. The flooding chance of carrier torpedoes used to resemble those of destroyers, so it was something that carriers could depend on to cause more damage. Now it's probably not best to revert to the massive flood chances of old carriers. A more sophisticated and less RNG dependent system could be easily developed.

 

Damage over time is a very large part of the game, and many have come to depend on it in order to keep benefiting their team and bringing their allies victory. As things are however, the ability to effectively utilize these systems makes it difficult to build tactics around them. It's often impossible to know if a salvo or three would be necessary to set a target on fire or if the use of damecon right this moment would mean that your ship would need to burn for half your health from a fire you can't stop. Sometimes this makes me laugh in the way that makes my division members want to call the psychiatric care service on me, other times this makes me spasm out in a way that has often caused quite serious bodily harm to myself. I still need to buy some cleaning alcohol now that I think about it, the blood on my mouse seems oddly impervious to my efforts to use water to clean it. A mechanic that players depend on to this extend should not be left up to the roll of the dice. It would benefit everyone if ticking damage was managed in a way that doesn't depart too much from our current system, but still has the depth that players in the know can exploit in order to perform better in their games.

 

The concept

 62193920_p1_master1200.jpg

Figure 1. The proposal.

This odd looking contraption is my representation of the battleship Yamato and yes, she is rather fat. Don't worry about me saying that. 32 mm of bow armor might not stop my Yamato's shells, but the forth wall certainly does. In the current system, the ship segments have health bars that can be exhausted which leads to damage saturation. The health bar that are represented here aren't the health bars, they're fire and flood bars. The idea is relatively simple, a shell would have fire damage instead of fire percentage chance. When a HE shell hits a ship segment, the ship segment takes fire 'damage' to that segment's health bar. When the bar is entirely exhausted, that segment gets set on fire. Once the fire is put out, the fire health bar is reset to maximum. The health bar automatically slowly regenerates so that if a ship has sustained HE fire but has not been set on fire. This means that if a ship sustains fire for a while then disengages or kill the enemy and then goes on to engage a new target, they will be able to avoid being set on fire instantly the moment the first HE shell touches them. Flooding operates in a similar manner as fires.

 

The concept for fire and floods presented here is relatively simple, though not really very realistic to the way that fires would be set on an actual ship. Fires are a chemical reaction. The combusted product is chemically more stable than the fuel of the fire. The reaction releases heat, making the lower energy state of the burned material the more thermodynamically stable one. To start the reaction between the oxygen and the fuel however, a certain amount of energy is required. Once the fire starts, the heat from the fire provides the energy needed to keep the reaction going. In the game, this heat can be provided by the high explosive shell. The explosion heats up the ship material, slowly increasing the heat that would build up to a fire modeled in game as a health bar being exhausted. Once the prerequisite heat level is reached in a certain ship segment, the fire begins. If the ship isn't under sustained fire then the ship material slowly bleeds heat to the background, modeled in game as the fire health bar of the ship segment recovering. Floods are a bit of a different matter, but I believe that this system would also work better for floods. An aerial torpedo drop that clips a ship won't instantly flood a ship, but conversely a broadside of 8 torpedoes also WILL cause a flood. This means that the end result will be determined more by who can best exploit the game mechanics and less on who RNG chooses to bless. Whilst simplistic compared to reality and complicated compared to RNG, this system is, in my opinion, superior to the current system.

 

The Implementation

62193920_p2_master1200.jpg

Figure 2. Implementation in the game.

 This new system allows for many possibilities when it comes to balancing ship that were simply not available to the current RNG based system. One of the things that has to be taken into account is penetration. Whilst my evidence is purely anecdotal, I suspect that the chance of a shell setting fires is reduced when a shell does not penetrate. This system can be carried over to this new concept. The numbers in figure 2 are purely demonstrative and could be adjusted to better balance the game. This would mean that ships that have the prerequisite armor to negate the threat is at lower risk of runaway fires, but it also means that ships with lower penetration also won't be at the complete mercy of the RNG function of the servers. Another thing that could be implemented is complete armor nullification. HE penetration is currently set at 1/6 of most shell's caliber. A nullification system could be something similar to "if HE hit an armor of more than 3x the penetration power of the HE shell, no fire 'damage' is transferred" which would greatly benefit those with good aim and maneuvering abilities.

 

It would likely clutter up the interface too much for the health bar of all of the ship segments to be lit up for either side. It would probably more appropriate to implement the interface in such a way that the game would simply not show the players how exhausted a certain segment is. Players would have to use a sharp eye to gauge out the segment that has been sustaining the most HE fire in order to focus their attentions there. Judging by sight alone should be sufficient for a mechanic such as this one. A ship segment is blackened if the segment is exhausted. Something similar probably won't be needed for the fire especially as fire 'health' naturally recovers.

62193920_p3_master1200.jpg

Figure 3. Damage division.

Many ships could contribute towards the setting of fires on a single ship segment. In the current system, if a ship sets a fire then they get all of the damage that said fire causes. With this new system however, all of the ships that contributes towards the exhaustion of a fire 'health' bar can have the resources divided between them for how much 'fire damage' they have contributed towards a certain fire. Spotting already has a similar division system, fires can also probably be divided in a similar way.

 

The Implications

 With this new system, each ship segment has its own health bar. This has many benefits over the current system. If you are the ship that is attempting to utilize fires to your advantage, then you could fire at the enemy ship's segment specifically in order to set fires more quickly. This would both encourage players to close into shorter ranges where they can hit an enemy ship segment with more reliability and allow players with exceptionally good aim to improve their performance by hosing down a very specific part of an enemy ship and excel that way. Players can also have a good idea of how much damage a certain amount of effort they would have to put in for a certain amount of gain, expanding the scope of tactics that a player can use to their benefit. A Zao player can know that they have to hit a certain ship segment with X amounts of penetrative HE or Y amounts of non-penetrative HE in order to get a fire and the like. This allows for the player to be more of a player with a tactical oversight to succeed instead of a pawn in the server's game.

 

Targets of fire ships will also benefit from this system. If a ship is a long way away from the enemy ships, then shell hits will more likely be distributed between ship segments instead of focused on one, making it more difficult for a long ranged fire spamming ship to melt a battleship or large cruiser at any range with a negligible changes in success. It also means that it makes a ship's captain far more certain of how much they can tank. Those with full mastery of their ship could turn different segments of their ships to catch the incoming shells to diminish the effect of damage over time and prolong the amount of time they could sustain fire for before they need to worry about fires. It also means that ships that have just used damage control probably won't be instantly set on fire, letting them burn away. To the players who have no idea how to control damage, the game probably won't change much. For players who mastered the mechanics, this new system will provide a far wider set of tactics for them to utilize to their advantage.

 

I believe that the current system is frustrating. Randomness benefits no one, and being able to reduce it for such a large segment of the gameplay would, in the end, benefit everyone. At least in my opinion.

 

Good points. And yes Yamoto is fat but her bum is not as fat as the Alabama's.:trollface:
Edited by atomskytten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

 

Good points. And yes Yamoto is fat but her bum is not as fat as the Alabama's.:trollface:

 

Is that so? It seems I will have to review the sterns of more ships :hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Beta Tester
1,910 posts
3,824 battles

You got a like, cause the drawings are awesome but your new concept is worse than the current one. Randomness does benefit all players and most importantly it does benefit the whole game. A lot of classic games only survived because of the randomness, it keeps the people entretained for many many years. Age of empires 2 is still going strong, has international competitions and regular patches, thanks to the random map generation, which sometimes scews you over, but sometimes benefits you, it keeps the players interested.

Same with warships, every game, every salvo is a bit of dice throw, and i like it that way.

 

That is a rather bad comparrison imho.

Starcraft 1 is still highly popular and still has a competitive scene and has no randomness at all. Randomness is not required nor necessarily a good part. Random maps are interesting because they make you change your playstyle during a match. RNG in damage, pen, fire chance, etc does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOAST]
Players
1,994 posts
25,653 battles

Fantastic drawings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

Fantastic drawings.

Drawings =  :honoring:

Proposals = :honoring:

 

Much obliged :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOAST]
Players
1,994 posts
25,653 battles

I want moar cartoons XD

 

I agree. You should start a weekly comic strip. I, for 1 would enjoy this and I dare say so would a lot of the community.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

 

I agree. You should start a weekly comic strip. I, for 1 would enjoy this and I dare say so would a lot of the community.

 

I'll think about it ;)
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOAST]
Players
1,994 posts
25,653 battles

I'll think about it ;)

 

The EU community are in need of something to cheer us up.

You could base it on the weekly drama that WG brings us. :popcorn:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

The EU community are in need of something to cheer us up.

You could base it on the weekly drama that WG brings us. :popcorn:

 

Not sure if it's the best format for it. I'm pretty sure I can write a political treatise weekly for the screwups that WG comes up with. :teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

I'm not getting much response for this thread compared to the ones I had before. I'm kind of annoyed actually :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×