[Feedback] Loss of unsinkability mechanics

[mathias486]

Not a fan of this system.

It’s another example of Gaijin “soft-killing” your ship, rewarding HE spammers and punishing you for staying alive.
Currently, i can avoid taking too much crew damage from HE by not exposing my hull too much and not repairing AA/secondaries. A smart enemy would then switch to SAP/AP and cause damage to internal modules

With this change, i can do whatever smart play i want, people can just turn off the brain, spam HE in every situation and be rewarded. Said problem is amplified by the (good) change of allowing HE to slightly penetrate the hull before exploding

I genuinely do not see the point of this mechanic except at the very top tier where it could finally get Sharnhorst players to die at least once during the duration of a game.
For every other br bracket (as in, anything that isn’t a full 7.0 vs 7.0 game), it will either be completely useless (coastal blows up very easily when hit by 5" SAP) or make things even worse for the underdog (cruiser vs battleships)

Also, i sincerly hope that pummeling the hull way above the waterline causing damage to the “floatability” of those sections is just a bug and will be fixed

[Morvran]

I was intrigued by this system as a means of better balancing top tier ships, but definetly seems like we’ve returned to RoF matters more than calibre and the ships that use to dominate with HE Spam will return to dominating. Kinda a shame

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

I really hope that, now that we are getting more and better ways to sink ships, they remove the artificial explodium shell room nerf.

Grounded and consistent ways of sinking ships is what we needed to reduce their survivability; not artificial and unrealistic nerfs!

[HK_Reporter]

Additional feedback: Hull durability is overall nerfed quite extensively compared to the live server. In test sail it took me about 3 salvos in Rodney to destroy Scharnhorst’s each hull section, which means it takes just 6 salvos to guarantee sink it. I think this is too extreme. I am normally with new mechanics but this time I strongly prefer the old system, unless some major adjustment to be made to the new system, either of this for example:

• Increase hull section HP
• Increase the number of sections required to cause “loss of unsinkability”
• Clip the destructible hull down to main deck level, so only shells penetrate armour can inflict damage to the hull

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

Oh, I agree, then.

For some reason, we tend to go from one extreme to the other every time; from unsinkable ships to comically weak ships… hopefully we will achieve the middle ground sweet spot before it goes live.

I think the key would be a mix of both systems; keeping unrepairable breaches for those that are too large to fix, and implement the current dev system, except toned down by implementing your suggestions.

[Cepeleon]

@HK Reporter

Small and medium boats can be destroyed by the destruction of any of the hull sections. If one section accumulates damage comparable to what is needed to destroy all the sections of the boat, this will cause enough destruction, not allowing it to maintain combat capability and structural integrity.

This both concerns me and on the other hand I also welcome. It is one of the most idiotic mechanics in coastal that you can slap a G5 with 40mm’s and strip them down to 20% hull but then have to hit the final section of the boat (which always manages to be just on the waterline) to kill them. Same with some US PT boats. hit them with 4 or 5 76mm deck guns from a Coastal boat and if it hits the already dead section, nothing, then die to auto-pew. The notion of having to break every hull section here has always been dumb imo and if the enemy just turn towards you, they basically have an invincibility shield. So on that front I welcome the change to smaller boats.

On the other hand, I am concerned that some boats will be just plain unplayable without some sort of protection.

I mean currently things like a PR206 simply make a fart noise and your dead in any small boat (they need to really nerf that gun), so with this new mechanic, perhaps they just need to look at you and its game over.

[굴러온]

Just kick out of this mechanism, plus the hull degeneration system we currently have.

This will help killing Scharnhorst easier? No, this will make other ships die more easier, and especially who will benefit from Scharnhorst. Seeing how Rodney suffered from last three month with flooding and saying ‘this mechanism will be future for battleships to counter Scharnhorst’ is lie/fraud/insult to players.

Until currently, every mechanism about nerfing ship’s survivability leads to Scharnhorst’s relative buff to the others capital ships. Scharnhorst is not strong because of no mechanism about it, but just it’s main armor is strong, and citadel is immune by historical layout of her armor. The only answer will be the implementation of proper battleship to counter, and proper BR decompression,

not by this kind of stupid mechanism!

[솔로몬_메리_고_라운드]

We already have hull break system so don’t add more. we just want to get expanded Naval BR

[MJPIA]

They say this won’t be the primary way of killing ships but then 20 seconds of firing and then the Moffet has prepared a CL for the ocean floor by hitting the deck

This is a massive buff to anything with RoF, IE US DD, US cruisers and most importantly Scharnhorst.
The things that already dominate and choke out other nations.
It also is killer to any bow tankers like the Rodney and Dunk as there’s multiple compartments behind the bow compartment which will usually get hit a lot.
This will be a nerf to anything with a low RoF which can’t just slam things over and over until two compartments are gone and bam, down they go.

It already could be done to a certain degree but stacked with the HE buff this lets people just rain down HE onto unarmored decks and then uncontrollably flood them because thats logical.

And it completely ignores how much compartmentalization these ships have.

This completely chucks any sort of logic or realism out the window, rewards just spamming things until dead rather than aiming for weak points while it effects every ship is most beneficial too the things that are already meta.

If given an option players will always shift torwards whatever is meta and cheese the crap out of it, thats what will happen with this mechanic.

We cannot get something like this without more complex compartmentalization that will prevent flooding from players shooting the hull above the waterline.

[BleedingUranium]

@HK Reporter

In test sail it took me about 3 salvos in Rodney to destroy Scharnhorst’s each hull section, which means it takes just 6 salvos to guarantee sink it.

To entertain the idea of devil’s advocate, six salvos with a fully maxed/Aced crew (40 second reload) means the absolutely minimum TTK here is four full minutes. Actually longer, as shell flight time has to be added as well, so over five minutes.

Five whole minutes to get one single kill, assuming maxed crew, no misses, perfect aim, and not doing anything else at all, in a twenty-minute match… is a rather long time.

[Tallguy48-psn]

Four minutes for the ship with possibly the worst combined primary/secondary shell output at top tier. Based off the numbers for a 150mm HK gave earlier it wouldn’t take a Cleveland much more than a minute. It needs significant adjustment, they said as much in the changelog, no need for a devil’s advocate here.

[SaratogaCV60]

I think the current situation is stupid. The judging area should be strictly limited to the waterline and below the water line. It would be foolish to sink a ship by shooting at the deck.

[jspene]

You should add a poll to your post asking if people are for or against the change

[Morvran]

@BleedingUranium

(40 second reload)

Now 35 seconds.

@BleedingUranium

To entertain the idea of devil’s advocate, six salvos with a fully maxed/Aced crew (40 second reload) means the absolutely minimum TTK here is four full minutes. Actually longer, as shell flight time has to be added as well, so over five minutes.

Five whole minutes to get one single kill, assuming maxed crew, no misses, perfect aim, and not doing anything else at all, in a twenty-minute match… is a rather long time.

Or… multiple ships firing on one target. If we assume it takes 1 ship about 3 minutes to get off 6x Salvos. Then just imagine this with 2 or 3 ships firing on one.

Also some ships have more like 20 second reloads. Something with a long reload like a US ship with 40 seconds vs something like Amagi or Scharnhorst with 20/25 seconds is just a matter of who can hit 6 salvos first and armour becomes almost irrelevant.

You are right in a 1v1 with 2 ships with the same fire rate. Its not that bad, but I can see that being the exception not the default

Also remember, this mechanic isnt just BBs, I think it include cruisers. Helena or Atlantas are going to shred

[wolftale]

Thank you for creating a feedback thread. Naval game mechanics are my hype area so I’ll write best I can.

Bluewater Hull Flooding

Currently, we have a system for flooding which simulates percentage of buoyancy lost, in which each compartment is assigned a total percentage of buoyancy. When fully flooded, if the value of any combination of these compartments adds up to 100%, you sink. In my opinion, all that needed to be done was to standardize these percentage values to be consistent across classes or types of ships, and display the values in the hangar.

If you’d like to remove the unrepairable breach mechanic and replace it with this new system, then why not have each destroyed compartment remove a percentage of the ships buoyancy rather than require a flat number of compartments to sink?

Finally, I’ve noticed that there was a reduction in the total HP of hull sections. Every bluewater ship as far as I can tell, now has almost exactly 20% weaker hull sections. As stated by others, I fear that this will create an environment in which rate of fire is lauded even more than it already is - which is saying a lot! The good old 5"/38 would have a field day, and the SKR would once again reclaim the throne. That thing is already great at destroying hull sections in the current system.

Coastal Cumulative Hullbreak

This is obviously designed to prevent bow-tanking which has been both a blessing and an annoyance since the start of naval forces, depending on the vessel. To use an extreme example, it’s currently possible on the live server for a G-5 torpedo boat to survive several 76mm or even 88mm hits to the bow, since each of these shells aren’t large enough to trigger a hullbreak individually. I agree this is ridiculous for a vessel of this size and construction.

However, having no limit as to what caliber weapons can cause a cumulative hullbreak is very dangerous. Just as with the new bluewater flooding mechanics, this greatly incentivizes extremely fast guns and sometimes eliminates the strategic need to flank the enemy. Craft with CIWS or L70 Bofors already dominate, and this would make them even more powerful - especially when you consider the Pr.206 and Saetta aren’t affected by the new hullbreak yet. Given that the bridge is considered one of the modules which can trigger this new mechanic, it’s theoretically possible to break the keel of any boat by firing enough 7.7mm rounds into the helm!

Finally, I would like to point out that it is currently applied to coastal vessels unevenly on the dev server. For example, a reserve torpedo boat can sink from cumulative hullbreak, but larger vessels - even those heavy boats using the simplified damage model - cannot be broken. LCS, Asheville, MPK122 - these are all immune. If the mechanic is to stay, there needs to be a standard.

[viRRUUSS]

In general, I support the new system- but with one caveat, if the compartments are limited by the height of the armored belt and the main armored deck, something like it was done on the USS Nevada. Also, on ships with an all-or-nothing reservation system, the destruction of the extremities should not trigger these mechanics, and not just one compartment along the edges. As it is presented on DEV, it is unacceptable to introduce this.

[UrMumSaysHi]

HE spamming for deleting heavier ships is back?

[efetenekeci]

If Koln and Lubeck are not shredding compartments again, there is no need to panic. There will be still more effective destroying methods and this will become a torpedo friendly one

[BLUE-EYES]

The current hull durability on the dev server is too low and I would like to test it on a version with improved durability.
I am also concerned that when we get to the final version of Loss of unsinkability, the torpedo effect will be too weak as a result of prioritizing the balancing of shell and hull endurance values.
It is unnatural for an oxygen torpedo to hit but not leave an unrepairable breach, so the effect should be such that one to three sections of the hull are definitely destroyed.

[HK_Reporter]

@BLUE-EYES

I am also concerned that when we get to the final version of Loss of unsinkability, the torpedo effect will be too weak as a result of prioritizing the balancing of shell and hull endurance values.

I think there’s a very simple solution to this: like some comments already mentioned above, clip the destructible hull down to main deck/waterline level so only shells penetrate armour deal damage to the hull. Torpedoes on the other hand, will not be affected by this as they normally run below armour.