Is fire damage OP?

[Boris_MNE]

NERF [edited]FIRES!
NERF CARRIERS!
NERF CL/CAs! Please WG, please.

[AgarwaenME]

3 hours ago, ShinGetsu said:

If you die because of fire, you're not using your DCP properly, or you overextend, or you don't use a properly skilled captain.

In any case you deserves to sink.

 

Fire is the least of the issues for a battleship. At most it's annoying.

 

Just exited a battle in tirp with 45k hp left and two repairs unused, with a fireproof achievement after taking 7 fires from a collection of t9 and t10 CAs (zao, saint louis etc).

 

If that had been similar BBs firing at me, I'd have been sunk halfway through it.

 

"but fires op".. what more can you answer that with than "lol"? 

[AgarwaenME]

2 hours ago, T0byJug said:

r Research is flawed mate.. Yes very few warships are actually sunk by fires but very many were sunk by explosion due to fire.. (these an idea if a ship is on fire it has a small chance of a detonation) 

Others there sinking was at least partily attributed to the water being used to control the fires(another idea ships on fire. If you use damage control party you start taking flooding damage) 

 

Also of note, as in the example of the Blücher, having rampant fires tend to affect electrical equipment, including pumps.

[AgarwaenME]

6 minutes ago, Quallo_Musto said:

I think you misunderstood my post. 

 

So.. if you met them face to face.. you'd agressively whine at them?

[Quallo_Musto]

5 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

So.. if you met them face to face.. you'd agressively whine at them?

I honestly dont think you understood my post. 

[AgarwaenME]

Just now, Quallo_Musto said:

I honestly dont think you understood my post. 

 

Then feel free to explain in a better fashion.

[SinkTheOthersNotMe]

Fires OP? No

Most BB drivers are noobs? Yes

Is the ability of a noob DD to magically RNG citadel your cruiserOP? No

Does my BB sink due to fire often? Not at all

 

If fires are nerfed? OK and then cruisers don't have citadels anymore + of course no more HE shells for BB...

[Quallo_Musto]

6 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Then feel free to explain in a better fashion.

Sorry, I dont see the need to clarify. I think it's quite understandable as is - last post from me on this 

[AgarwaenME]

16 minutes ago, Quallo_Musto said:

Sorry, I dont see the need to clarify. I think it's quite understandable as is - last post from me on this 

 

So your defensive is .. you have none.

[gekkehenkie50]

Guys I think we can stop now, OP hasnt replied for a while, hopefully he is off watching some vids on YT or reading some guides on how to play BBs and cope with fire.

[Hero_of_Tython]

To be honest I'd like to see the fire damage per tick decreased perhaps even down as low as 25% of what it currently does. But then make fire more of a debuff, it could slow your reload (loading crews need to be more careful handling live shells around fire), make your gunfire less accurate (smoke from fire makes it harder for the gunnery crews to aim), increase your ships detection range (big orange fireball and black smoke very easy to spot), make AA and secondaries less effective (same reason as main gun accuracy). And to compensate the cruisers who rely on fire to rack up their damage totals have any damage caused to ship while it is on fire count as assistance damage to the ship that started the fire.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

18 hours ago, Hero_of_Tython said:

To be honest I'd like to see the fire damage per tick decreased perhaps even down as low as 25% of what it currently does. But then make fire more of a debuff, it could slow your reload (loading crews need to be more careful handling live shells around fire), make your gunfire less accurate (smoke from fire makes it harder for the gunnery crews to aim), increase your ships detection range (big orange fireball and black smoke very easy to spot), make AA and secondaries less effective (same reason as main gun accuracy). And to compensate the cruisers who rely on fire to rack up their damage totals have any damage caused to ship while it is on fire count as assistance damage to the ship that started the fire.

Why copy OP idiotic sugestion?

 

Oh anothe potato player.....nothing to see

 

18 hours ago, gekkehenkie50 said:

Guys I think we can stop now, OP hasnt replied for a while, hopefully he is off watching some vids on YT or reading some guides on how to play BBs and cope with fire.

Look one post below....Edited :)

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks. 

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

4 hours ago, Yankmyplank said:

Thats exactly my point HE would be better served to reduce a ships fighting ability player that caused the fire could get experience for damage that ship takes while under the effects of fire

I got to stop you right there OP - I'm sorry.

Clear your mind of any thoughts regarding making WoWS more realistic or complicated as it will never change from the way it is now.

Wargaming has made this game with very low skill players in mind thus any mechanic that would add to the game's complexity will hurt Wargaming's preferred playerbase as that will not be able to exploit, defend against or even understand such mechanics, if the HE mechanic were to change to where damage to optics, radars, AA/secondary guns and killing command crew were that type of shell's primary meta.

Wargaming wants this game to be as simplistic in mechanics and meta as possible in order to keep their preferred customers, the low skill 'I play for fun and I don't bother to learn neither game mechanics nor meta!' horde, interested in the game because those will lose interest if they have to actually learn or spend time and effort to learn anything other than which requires the push of the left mouse button.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

One thing OP and his clone obviously dosent know is that HE all ready does that things. HE kills AAA, HE kills secondaries so they dlactualy do reduce ships fighting power. 

 

But OP doesn not care about that. He just cries because he does not know how to handle fire or ships in global. 

 

Arty is wot shows how ussles is dmg reduction to some "non dmg" debuf to vehicle. 

 

Also I see how camping would just increase by "I have debuf I need to retreat" mentality. 

 

 

But if OP relly wants some kind of "fear" efect we could give it to new CV which has Stuka as divebomber and they had Jeriho horn to fear enemie. 

[Arrive_Alive]

Well, around 3 of 4 battleships instantly repair the first fire set on them...(german ones maybe even 5/6 as german bbs are usually the worst players on EU server). 

[Armorin]

47 minutes ago, atomskytten said:

I got to stop you right there OP - I'm sorry.

Clear your mind of any thoughts regarding making WoWS more realistic or complicated as it will never change from the way it is now.

Wargaming has made this game with very low skill players in mind thus any mechanic that would add to the game's complexity will hurt Wargaming's preferred playerbase as that will not be able to exploit, defend against or even understand such mechanics, if the HE mechanic were to change to where damage to optics, radars, AA/secondary guns and killing command crew were that type of shell's primary meta.

Wargaming wants this game to be as simplistic in mechanics and meta as possible in order to keep their preferred customers, the low skill 'I play for fun and I don't bother to learn neither game mechanics nor meta!' horde, interested in the game because those will lose interest if they have to actually learn or spend time and effort to learn anything other than which requires the push of the left mouse button.

 

In the end its the simple to control and [maybe never] learn gameplay tactics is what makes WG's WoT and WoWS a successful, fun and engaging [and infuriating] game. If it was a complete simulator where you had to calculate your gun elevation for each ranged shot it would probably not be a lot of fun. A lot of flight fans want a more fully fledged simulator, where even shooting pretty much only requires learning how much to lead the target before firing. So perhaps the formulae didn't work so well with WoWP on a PC.

Sure, some of the game balance mechanics and map design makes me question what the hell are they thinking, but I think they have got the basic idea right for what they are trying to achieve and who they are trying to target in the market place.

[KaraMon]

Whatever we do and whatever ideas we have we can be sure one thing , that WG will do something about those OP fires . They will nerf cariers and jap DD as they always do

[Hero_of_Tython]

1 hour ago, 15JG52Adler said:

Why copy OP idiotic sugestion?

 

Oh anothe potato player.....nothing to see

Nothing idiotic about it, you just don't like it. Feel free to disagree and tell us why you don't like it but if that is too intellectually challenging for you just keep slinging insults about like a petulant 10 year old.

And for the record I don't have a problem dealing with fires I just think the OPs suggestion is they way I'd have done fire if I had been planning the game, and I am not alone, several of the people I play with agree.

Also the I like how you judge my "skills" in the game, hacked WG portal have you so you can see my stats even though it is set to private or are you just using the tired old logic of "if someone doesn't agree with me they must suck". Quite honestly players who wave their stats in peoples faces and just compensating fro "short comings" in other departments.

 

[mtm78]

Hidden profile asking to nerf fires and change damage over time potential of cruisers in a 'debuff' ....... and 'enjoy' the thrill of getting a 'bonus' from the damage OTHERS have to inflict for you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

8 minutes ago, Hero_of_Tython said:

Nothing idiotic about it, you just don't like it. Feel free to disagree and tell us why you don't like it but if that is too intellectually challenging for you just keep slinging insults about like a petulant 10 year old.

And for the record I don't have a problem dealing with fires I just think the OPs suggestion is they way I'd have done fire if I had been planning the game, and I am not alone, several of the people I play with agree.

Also the I like how you judge my "skills" in the game, hacked WG portal have you so you can see my stats even though it is set to private. Quite honestly players who wave their stats in peoples faces and just compensating fro "short comings" in other departments.

 

We discused about stated so many time. Potatoes who has below average stats aka YOU just have to low understanding of game to give any meaningful suggestions. Also your visible stats shows you are potato so you hide it. Still potato or worst.

 

And it is ITIOTIC to ask for nerf of dmg to cruisers (class that now suffers the most) and ask to reduction of dmg getting by class that dies hardest....and you would know all that if you are not potato just clicking around without any reason. 

 

 

[mtm78]

His recents look average enough, since it's an old snapshot I guess he might be decent now.

 

Sadly, no way to check for bias or just incompetence. 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

2 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

His recents look average enough, since it's an old snapshot I guess he might be decent now.

 

Sadly, no way to check for bias or just incompetence. 

Nah. He is not. 99.99% hide stats after getting busted on forum or in game. And not improve much. Believe me if they were decent he would turn them on Insta. And he all ways can turn them on :)

 

But when I see "nerf fire" I know his stats are good as his "opinion"

[mtm78]

I know some decent players who hide them just to piss me off. I even know some GOOD players with hidden profiles  

 

Though the combination of hidden profile + his 'argument'.. it's not giving me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. 

 

edit:

15 minutes ago, 15JG52Adler said:

But when I see "nerf fire" I know his stats are good as his "opinion"

 

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978  this would apply I guess, but yeah can't be 100% sure. 

[RNGsama]

I think citadels should also be nerfed, because I don't like losing all my HP when giving full broadside.

[Hero_of_Tython]

36 minutes ago, 15JG52Adler said:

We discused about stated so many time. Potatoes who has below average stats aka YOU just have to low understanding of game to give any meaningful suggestions. Also your visible stats shows you are potato so you hide it. Still potato or worst.

 

And it is ITIOTIC to ask for nerf of dmg to cruisers (class that now suffers the most) and ask to reduction of dmg getting by class that dies hardest....and you would know all that if you are not potato just clicking around without any reason. 

 

 

That's a pretty ancient set of stats you have there, I sold the Tenryu a very long time ago.

30 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

His recents look average enough, since it's an old snapshot I guess he might be decent now.

 

Sadly, no way to check for bias or just incompetence. 

Never said I was Lord Horatio Nelson, I don't suck and I am not the WoWs equivalent of a Unicum either. I just think that changest to the fire mechanic might be worth at least trying out on a test server as they might improve the flow of the game, if they don't work then don't implement them, but dismissing something without testing it seems a little shortsighted

29 minutes ago, 15JG52Adler said:

Nah. He is not. 99.99% hide stats after getting busted on forum or in game. And not improve much. Believe me if they were decent he would turn them on Insta. And he all ways can turn them on :)

 

But when I see "nerf fire" I know his stats are good as his "opinion"

and the other 0.01% hide our stats because we hate what XVM did to WoT. Stats are one of the biggest sources of toxicity in on-line games so on principle I want nothing to do with them, I don't care what your stats are and I don't think you should see mine. If we ever meet in battle feel free to judge my performance then, but not before and I'll reserve my judgment on your abilities until I see you playing as well, I think that is fair don't you.