You should add a poll to your post asking if people are for or against the change
4 Likes
Now 35 seconds.
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
3 Likes
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.
10 Likes
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.
4 Likes
HE spamming for deleting heavier ships is back?
3 Likes
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
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.
1 Like
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.
5 Likes
Consider Nelson, South Dakota, Iowa, etc. using ships with built-in armor. This may require special Settings to ensure that a shell exploding between the armor and the hull does not cause an uncontrolled flood of water.
So let me get this right you can destroy sections nowhere near the waterline the game will magically create unrepairable breaches below the waterline with these mechanics? What in the goofy
13 Likes
Please stop implementing the breaking mechanism in the game. Your game claims to emphasize historical vehicle performance, so how can you use such an ambiguous mechanism to determine a vehicle"s survival? A tens-of-thousands-ton battleship being declared completely destroyed after suffering a few artillery hits in specific areas? This isn"t amusing to players.
Additionally, the new flooding mechanics appear utterly absurd - battleships on the current test server sink at an alarming rate after just 2-3 artillery salvos. Historically, only ships whose captains deliberately ordered scuttling by opening seacocks would sink this rapidly. It"s ridiculous to see such nonsensical mechanics in a game that boasts realism. Please refrain from artificially accelerating naval combat pacing. Your game attracts players with its realism premise, yet the development team seems determined to transform naval battles into childish bathtub toy boat skirmishes like those in other arcade games. This approach is completely absurd and contradictory to your stated design philosophy.
21 Likes
Personally, I don’t really like the idea of getting soft killed because you slowly sink and can’t repair. It’s very annoying to watch your ship slowly sink and you can’t do anything about it, it’s effectively a prolonged death. This system seems like it will still work similar, but with even less health and even more arbitrary rules. Only needing to destroy two sections is pretty extreme, this seems like it’s just a less realistic implementation of unrepairable breaches also.
11 Likes
My bad that I forgot to mentioned the test was done at range of 10km. Tbh under the old system most of top tier battleships and many 6.7s can easily survive more than 6 salvos at such range, as long as the player don’t do something really stupid, but with the new system even Scharnhorst can’t survive for just a few minutes. I didn’t even count the secondary guns in. If any ship is to be engaged by both main calibre and secondary guns, like some players already pointed out, even the strongest battleship will be sunk in 2 or 3 minutes. At close range this can be even done in 2 or 3 salvos, i.e. one minute.
1 Like
Ah true, the fact that smaller (secondaries for larger ships, MGs for boats, etc) can trigger these mechanics definitely doesn’t really work.
1 Like
Ironically if every ship’s hull can be modelled like the one done for USS Nevada:
I would say it legitimates the idea of arbitrarily making the ship to take water and sink, because if one gets more than two hull parts like this to be destroyed, it simply implies that the ship’s main armour must have been penetrated for multiple times, which definitely should be punished.
4 Likes
Currently watching Rowan’s stream, and yeah, anything else aside, only two segments to sink is absolutely goofy. Definitely shouldn’t come to live anywhere close to how it currently is.
On a separate note, the HE kinetic pen change is amazing (especially for Japan).
6 Likes
Speaking of Rowan’s testing, I should correct that it does not currently appear to be possible to activate the new hullbreak by shooting into the helm. However, it is still possible to hullbreak with 7.7mms as far as I am aware.
Kommuna, Marat and russian 5.3 destroyers too.
I can’t understand why they don’t do while they can do.
This is, frankly, the worst change I’ve ever seen for naval.
We all know that this is an attempt to do 3 things:
- Fix the Scharnhorst
- Attract more new players to naval
- Make naval faster paced
This is going to accomplish none of those goals. Everyone agrees the Scharnhorst is broken even with the unrepairable breach mechanic. That mechanic was specifically added to fix the Scharnhorst and it just made it relatively stronger and punished other ships. The solution nearly everyone has advocated for is to decompress the BR range.
This will not attract more players. Making a game mode braindead simple might get a few more people to try it, but no one is going to stay when the matches consist of holding your cursor over a target and keeping the mouse button pressed. That’s not compelling gameplay.
Naval is not played as much for several reasons. A much more effective solution to getting new players would be a better tutorial for new players, introducing maps that promote more than sitting in a circle blasting away at each other, and adding ships that are more than copy paste. Lowering RP costs for modules and the coastal tree would also help.
Making naval faster paced is not what I have seen anyone ask for after 12 years of playing naval. Not in chat, not on forums, and not from any of the content creators. If people want a faster pace, they play ground or air. The best thing about naval is it promotes, with its slower pace, strategic as well as tactical thinking, and it allows for people to react to a threat and change their strategy without being immediately vaporized like in ground or air.
We’ve already had a terrible change with the 2 second fire control systems. Prior to that, a ship from 1916 and 1970 had vastly different times to acquire a targeting solution. This allowed some of the destroyers and light cruisers to dodge and throw off the FCS calculations giving them a fighting chance against battleships. Now that’s gone and dodging fire is much harder, just making the big ships even more meta.
Now we have a new damage mechanic that is just going to add a World of Warships hit point system except without visible numbers. It also negates smart play, angling, and makes fast firing ships even more meta than they already were.
On top of this we have the new aiming system that makes this game less complex than solitaire. Will necessarily making cheating easier, and takes every bit of skill from the game.
I don’t want to play realistic. I prefer the torpedo reloads, aim indicators for air without radar, higher speeds, and multiple other factors.
TLDR: No one has asked for the aiming or damage mechanic changes, and this will make the game simple to the point of absurdity.
24 Likes
I think if you are going to add this system, it would be better to nerf HE’s underwater bullets.
what do you think?