I think it might be a case of waiting to see how it’s actually implemented rather than going by the description. The way it’s described seems to cater for a lot of different scenarios where the player still has a lot of control over the damage control process… but the description can also be interpreted differently by different readers, or how it ends up being implemented.
Is there a particular scenario (i.e. order of damage events) where you think this change will be detrimental?
They have officially stated you can opt out of the new system. CBA to go looking for the quote though
I wish they reworked naval in the process (but one can only dream)
What kind of “opt out” are we taking here, choice of the patterns, or choice to not auto enabled damage control and use it separately for all kinds as before, cause new damage control icons that they showed us doesn’t seem like that is option, as for me?
No, pretty sure all they said if you don’t select one of the damage control buttons you’ll get the default multiplier values, meaning you don’t have to set up the presets or use them in game if you can’t be bothered, I think.
The “old damage system” will be gone, as setting one type of damage to auto or cancelling repairs will be impossible.
Im still waiting for them to add the ability to repair just the important stuff.
I dont want to have all of my aa repaired and crewed just so i can repair my main batteries.
Yep that what was asked, but looks like we get this instead, what was not a problem in first place at all. Besides other proposals that were accepted, about changes to survivability model of the ships that we have in game including “crew” behavior and damage control.
Unless there’s been further info, here’s what I asked:
gotta say, kinda surprised
Looks like you cannot in fact opt out of the new system.
Give a feedback there
Now you can vote how do you like new damage control.
Not quite sure what they’re trying to do here, but it does seem like they’re trying to shoehorn TTK changes under the guise of a new damage control system.
The idea of priorities and modifiers is neat, and in fact, it technically speeds up damage control when you have multiple processes happening, but it could’ve been integrated into the existing system without ruining how it currently works.
It could’ve been done by applying no penalty to the first damage control process started, showing that on its respective icon, and putting penalties on damage control processes started after. Say you start firefighting and then breach repair. Firefighting gets the priority and has no penalty, breach repair gets whatever penalty they were aiming for. If you start them in the opposite order, then breach repair gets prioritized and firefighting gets the penalty.
It’s kind of baffling that they talked about the ~3 seconds needed to cancel a process being a problem, and then added a 30s cooldown for switching between the damage control modes.
Also, I’m seeing a lot of people talk about how repairing forces crew into the AA guns which will be lost to HE spam. That’s not a thing anymore, it hasn’t been for quite a while (I’m unsure when that was changed). Most large ships (BB/BC, Cruisers, many destroyers) don’t have any crew assigned to their small AA guns, so HE spamming is kinda useless except for taking out secondaries.
But yes, it’s unfortunate that they want to remove even more player agency out of the game. I was hoping we’d get more damage control options, like separating breach repair from water pumping, counterflooding, etc… not less!
There’s the suggestion of repairing individual modules that has been brought up multiple times. I do get what people want from this, because it can be frustrating being forced to repair modules you don’t need, but I think that some ships out there will become genuinely broken and stupidly hard to crew kill if that were to be implemented in the current state of the game. I’d rather save that for when we get better damage models and such.
Speaking of, the damage models are still a mess. Ships survivability in terms of crew is very arbitrary and up to Gaijin’s whims. The system is still confusing to the point that a very large part of the naval playerbase believes that “more crew = better survivability”, which is not the case. Crew count doesn’t matter, distribution does, and distribution is arbitrary and done by Gaijin.
Lots of people also believe that repairing modules pulls crew away from compartments, which is not a thing. I’m not blaming people for thinking that, these are reasonable assumptions, but that’s not how the system works, and it’s never been made clear for the players.
Naval is also the only gamemode where losing crew doesn’t affect functionality. You can be at 10% crew and operate every single system on the ship at as you would at 100% crew, but lose 2% more crew and the nothing works anymore. Of course, ship damage models is a complicated topic, one where we don’t have much to reference, and lots of abstractions have to be made, but it’s still absurd.
And FCS, visors and torpedo tubes and all other modules that not under armor but have crew.
That a big flaw of current system(or either just bug in it, that was never fixed), cause it doubles the crew when your modules destroyed and repaired but compartments not damaged. Which lead to big crew drops when shell actually reaches the crew compartment.
I have a solution proposed to devs how we can fix it a bit to be more realistic in terms of cause of death for the ships and their survivability.
I guess so. As far as I can tell, it quite literally spawns “crew members” out of thin air like magic! But also I think there are some ships that can still be alive with all their compartments destroyed, so there’d be nowhere to take crew from.
I do have my own thoughts on how crew count could be made to matter, and why some people may like it while others do not, but I’d rather put that in another thread and keep this one focused on the new damage control system.
I made a thread, a mod LOCKED IT saying the thread already exist but I can not find any threads dated post update about “OPTIONAL” Damage Control and Ganjins statements.
So I will paste my thread here in an old thread since they are censoring me.
Here are some quotes straight from Ganjin.
Soo allllllll that said, it is now unfair optional?
Reward reduction optional?
Antiethical gameplay optional?
Unintended game mechanic optional?
WTF are they saying?
Blockquote
This is no longer possible with the new system. The ability to do this was a consequence of the old system, but not an intended one. This “tactic” was not intentional as the advantage it gave was antithetical to gameplay and the intentions of the mechanic.
Blockquote
Fundamentally, the key issue with deliberately not repairing certain areas of the ship was that it was unfair to the player shooting at it
If a player does everything “right”, besting the defenses of an enemy ship, they should be rewarded for successfully carrying out that action. The unintended ability to lessen the reward for the player landing their shots harms gameplay overall.
We understand that DC may be seen as taking away agency, but this decision is in favour of fairer gameplay across the board, and rewarding the active player in the engagement. You penetrated an enemy ship in a critical spot? Excellent, you’ll be rewarded for that. You got hit by an enemy in a critical spot? Then they deserve the reward for that. This old system let a player reduce the reward gained by another player arbitrarily
Tldr this punished players that don’t understand the concept of saturation.
Example: the boilers are destroyed, there’s effectively no crew left in boilers until repairs (7 key if kbm) start. Effectively; if the enemy keeps shooting you in the specific boilers, you’ll be functionally invincible.
And since repairing floods (8 key) doesn’t cause crew to be lost despite the are breach being repaired by crew, you get what’s going on.
What this means is Gaijin, in their ‘infinite wisdom’ thinks making the game like bad WoWS, instead of focusing on the mode’s strengths, is the better solution.
What the mode needs is better tutorials, map design and model fixes and model fixes should be top priority right behind the maps at the moment.
Most of the top tier maps are open water brawl maps which are genuinely unfun to play since sub 14km spawns with no cover for more vulnerable ships or ships whose incorrect models make the ship borderline unplayable (Example: Yamato) or repurposed mid tier maps that put spawns within LoS of each other.
Conversely, the other maps heavily favor one side and once that side has control of the map, the other team automatically loses.
Like, Palau Islands is probably the best map in mid to high tier naval and it still has direct LoS on spawns. It’s so close to being perfect.
so another moron idea by a person overly qualified to have them
After using the new mode now for a few days, I can honestly say I’m not a fan. Reverted back to manual control.
Sure you can.
