Thank you for collecting the feedback, passing it on to the devs, and responding with a change/option that we can all agree with.
2 Likes
This is a reasonable decision, thank you.
1 Like
In my opinion, keeping two separate systems makes proper balance impossible. It would inevitably give an advantage to the group of players using the more effective system. What about bugs or future changes that could affect one system more than the other?
I still don’t understand why you don’t want to simply combine both systems.
For example, you could keep the old damage control system in battles (press 6 for fire extinguishing, 7 for repairs, 8 for flood control, or set them to automatic), but allow players to set their own action priorities outside of battle - just like in the new system.
Let’s say someone sets their priorities to Fire (action multiplier 1.0) -› Flooding (second action multiplier 1.45) -› Repairs (third action multiplier 1.95). That would mean during the battle:
- If someone uses the fire extinguisher only, it applies the 1.0 multiplier.
- If someone performs repairs only, it applies the 1.0 multiplier.
- If someone fights fire and repairs at the same time, fire uses the 1.0 multiplier and repairs use the 1.45 multiplier (second action multiplier).
- If someone fights fire, flooding, and repairs all at once, fire uses 1.0, flooding 1.45, and repairs 1.95 multipliers.
- If someone still has 10 seconds of repairs remaining and activates fire fighting, the repair multiplier changes from 1.0 to 1.45 (because its priority is lower than fire fighting), so the remaining time increases to 14.5 seconds.
- If someone still has 10 seconds of repairs remaining, but the fire just got extinguished, the repair multiplier changes from 1.45 to 1.0, so the remaining time drops to about 7 seconds.
It would be a very simple system, easy to understand and control, and very similar to how it works now - just more forgiving for players who run several damage control actions at the same time. This kind of system would be an improvement for all Naval players, but it would especially help new players, who often leave everything on automatic (which is completely ineffective in the old system). And most importantly - we wouldn’t need two separate systems.
PS. Multipliers should also depend on the crew’s damage control skill, and cancelling a damage control action should require about 1.5 seconds of holding the key (from what I remember, it’s currently about 3 seconds, which is way too long).
1 Like
Lo and behold, my message was removed because I was right and there was nothing inappropriate about it.
1 Like
At least it gives possibility to test compare and balance without deadlines backlashes nor forcing players to use (temporary) worse system.
Every change should be done in this Half Step manner.
3 Likes
The big question is: can you even see this as a half-step, or will it just be a final implementation? I have a strong feeling they’ll just add it and then never touch this code again (apart from fixing some obvious bugs).
I still remember when they added the severe damage mechanic for planes, which removed most critical hits that used to give additional scores and rewards in air game modes:
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/critical-hits-are-broken-as-of-15th-of-february-or-nearby/78480
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/critical-hits-in-air-rb-broken-hard-to-get/81051
Now, 1.5 years later, the only thing the devs have done is remove the special tasks that required critical hits. Meanwhile, the scores are still lower and the rewards are still reduced. It doesn’t matter that the severe damage mechanic broke critical hits - they just don’t care about this issue and have never even tried to fix it.
Assuming that both damage control systems will be balanced and bug-free, and that the devs won’t have to work on them anymore, is naive. I’m quite sure it will be a balance mess, and in specific situations using one system will put you at a huge disadvantage.
Instead of simplifying things, this will probably make them even more complicated than before - especially since there’s a high chance the devs will tweak something (like multipliers) to make the new system more attractive than the old one. So it could end up like this: you can use the old manual system, which is much less effective, or the new automatic one, which is much more effective (but doesn’t allow you to stop automatic repairs). And they’ll probably just leave it that way and never touch it again.
The old damage control system has only one real problem - you can’t prioritize damage control actions in any other way than simply turning them on or off. If you turn all three options on at the same time, the old system will just sink you or make you explode from fire, and repairs will still take ages. That’s why combining both systems makes the most sense - keeping the old one, but adding the ability to set priorities when multiple damage control actions are active at the same time.
1 Like
Magazine2, I cannot stress this enough, that a simple solution would be to make fire and flooding the new mechanic and leave mechanical repair as separate.
I think the idea here is in the right place, and can be a good change, it just needs that adjustment.
I’m glad you guys are listening to feedback. Fair seas sailor.
1 Like
The problem is even if you’re on point with a catastrophic flood, you’re effectively dead in the water until you can start bailing out the water.
Which the average person capitalize on by firing SAP or HE at the flooded ship since they usually can’t fire back 9 times out of 10 since that flooding also came from a shell room explosion (example ship: Mutsu, which can suffer multiple explosions and survive). And that also comes with multiple fires.
Granted, this is an extreme scenario but it’s a fairly common one.
The automated system - in this case - could theoretically help but if anything, would just cause crew to needlessly die as they repair the ammo elevator, turret and anything else damaged by the incoming shell fire as you try to keep from sinking from flooding.
This is good. Why dont you keep that momentum and also hear and act on what so many people have been saying about the bots in naval mode? They are now the main protagonists of every match. They are too precise, for both sides, and they are too much. The disruption get to the point that it is now common to have matches with 6 players and 26 bots. This need to be addressed. Just capping the number of bots would help a lot.
2 Likes
Your described scenario is possible, but overly fatalistic.
I am treating this as Optional Live Testing. All game changing features should be introduced/verified this way. Sure it is up to devs to collect/react to the feedback, or abandon the idea. At least we are not sentenced to the change, since there is a fallback possibility.
G’day, ohh goodie an optional system, I’ll not be somber next update…
Although this raises a question I’ve had for a few weeks about the removal of propulsion components of the transmission of ships, if it was to be removed for the new style yet will it remain for the old style.
Sidenote why dumb down what can be destroyed? Originally it was separate engine blocks years ago, than it was iirc transmissions more recently, now it’s completely removed.
1 Like
THANK YOU!
The crew bleed issue aside the new system lacks the flexibility to properly prioritize damage control in a lot of situations given that we can only access 3 out of 6 priorities in game.
While I think the new system dose have potential the highly dismissive tone of the the original post had towards players concerns was a real slap in the face.
Personally I would like to see the new system implemented for “critical systems”- Fire, flooding and engine room, steering repairs, (basically below deck repairs) then be able to direct “non-critical” repairs" through the Multi-function menu, Repair primary guns, repair secondary guns, repair AA, repair fire control detectors etc.
But the old system is preferable to the forced crew bleed of the current new system.
I recently unlocked Yamato and that thing already melts like butter due to the hull segments mechanic… when it doesn’t just explode due to its horrid armour and shell room layout. It dosn’t need its crew melted away by HE salvos into into its clusters of AA as well (1 283mm HE from Scharnhorst can easily destroy 2 or 3 of Yamatos’ AA turrets).
1 Like
Thank you for responding to feedback from the players as well as how you quickly clarified the details as well.
I love War Thunder Naval and want it to continue to grow and become more popular. I am in favor of changes that can help the mode.
Please, in the future, communicate these changes as a possibility and survey the community on ways to improve the game mode instead of announcing complete changes to the system that could potentially disadvantage players.
There are many players willing to have productive conversation on how to improve the game mode that we love! Just talk to us first!
3 Likes
this. i feel like its a shame that a lot of work went into the development of a system that rightfully was not very well received by the people that tested it on the dev and the people on the forum here, while the devs clearly had a vision in mind what that change should lead to. Its just a shame that that wasnt communicated first and tested with the players, because as you said it feels like there are a lot of naval players that want the mode to improve and that would help with how these changes could/should or will work out in the end. But instead it came out as a complete shock if it is announced as completed facts like: this is how it will be with the update, deal with it.
While i bet theres tons of people that would be willing to test these beforehand, give feedback to the devs, whats good, what needs change, is it worth implementing only parts of it (for example repair moodifiers for more modern ships sounds very interesting), what maybe could be other ways of achieving the vision the devs have in mind, then it could be refined and then announced as a test on the dev (or somehow similar) and then you’d see how people would react to it. Like, you could test it in the form of a 1 week event? not as a definite change in the live version where a lot of players feel they get completely overwhelmed by a change that no one asked for? It would be 100s of people giving unpaid and honest feedback about it, is that not a win-win for both sides in the end?
5 Likes
thank you hope next time we take in consideration us how to improve the naval next change i wish is for hull incrase the hp of bb and reder much unic becouse an a bb dont sink really fast by dd lg or hv and lower the hp of hull of dd and hv ruiser lg cruiser for have an a really different and more realistic and try to incrase the numbers of compartment flooded for ship an a bb bc hv cruiser light cruiser cant sink with 3 compartment is too unrealistic you need increase with fair of class
Making it an optional feature can be seen as a compromise. However, I still believe the developers should seriously consider the point mentioned in the main text: if a player does not perform repairs, they will effectively be in an almost invincible state, meaning other players gain no positive feedback or rewards when attacking them. This is one of the reasons why naval battles currently feel slow-paced. Personally, I would prefer if this system were mandatory in naval arcade mode, similar to how they previously implemented the new aiming system. As for the realistic mode, having the new repair system as an optional feature would be a reasonable solution. Arcade mode should be fast-paced, but currently, there is almost no difference between naval arcade and realistic modes, aside from the aiming mechanics. I hope the developers will carefully consider this proposal.
1 Like
You basically totally ignored every single technological advancement that I named, including the actual ship’s design itself, such as elimination of transverse bulkheads for more efficient compartmentalization, flash tight bulkheads, multi-layer torpedo defense, damage control centers with modern communications allowing damage control parties to be more coordinated and plentiful through the ship, more internal hose hookups, pumps, and foam deploying equipment. There are literally so much more advancements, which includes preventions for fires and explosions from starting to BEGIN WITH. More fire retardant building materials, more smoke ventilation, and less flammable building materials. This is literally undeniable. WWI dreadnoughts and pre-war ships alike should not be as survivable as they are, I have seen these ships in game that don’t even have torpedo bulges survive 15+ torpedoes in a single match, and survive several dozen fires.
These ships currently have EQUIVALENT damage control capabilities as every other ship in the game, that is what you’re currently arguing against. History shows ships of this design light up like literal kindling, even into WWII there are countless examples of pre-war ships hardly even putting up a fraction of the fight they would in game, with IJN Fuso having a magazine detonation due to fires spreading from torpedo impacts almost an hour before the explosion. Anyone want to talk about HMS Barham? Three torpedoes, fire spread to powder magazine, catastrophic explosion… WITH a modern torpedo bulge. And yet, we have ships in game with ZERO torpedo bulge, coal dust bunkers (which were actually more of a hazard for flooding than they were of any assistance), poor fire prevention and smoke ventilation, taking 15+ torpedoes. UNACCEPTABLE. Are the people so adamantly opposing the change to make damage control on WWI and pre-war dreadnoughts much less efficient just rage baiting because they enjoy seal clubbing cruisers while being totally immune to cruiser caliber return fire? A modern cruiser with a fast fire rate, could and should totally obliterate a dreadnought with no unified or radar fire control, dogshit range finding equipment and optics, and extremely primitive damage control, and lackluster fire and flooding prevention/mitigation.
I believe that keeping this new mechanism as an optional feature is still not the optimal solution. The new system could retain forced repair and drainage, while firefighting should not be included in the scope of the automatic maintenance system. The trigger condition for the new system should be when a warship’s flooding percentage exceeds a certain threshold, automatically activating the new repair system. The same logic applies to repairs—when the percentage of the player’s above-water modules falls below a certain level, the new repair system should automatically trigger. Players should be able to freely adjust the priority order of these actions, as described in the text. This would be a relatively reasonable way to address the issue of players exploiting the non-repair mechanism to create invincible ships. It would also better align with the operational logic of a warship in combat, as in real battles, crew members would not remain solely in the core compartments. When vacancies occur, they would naturally need to be filled to maintain combat readiness.
For example, in the current game, the Iowa-class battleship can completely submerge its ammunition storage by adjusting the ammunition count to below 370 rounds. When its flooding reaches around 70% and its superstructure’s 127mm turrets are completely destroyed, hitting its above-water modules will cause no damage. As long as the player does not perform repairs, the ship remains invincible. Even top-tier battleships like the Yamato and Sovetsky Soyuz cannot inflict any damage on it.
Therefore, I hope the developers will consider my suggestion. After all, the game is not reality, and we should prioritize gameplay when addressing issues in naval battles. As an aside, I also wonder if the shell velocity in Arcade Battles should be increased. The damage and penetration attributes of the shells would remain unchanged, with only their flight speed being boosted. With the introduction of larger maps in the game, shell travel times of 30-60 seconds negatively impact the player experience. Since Arcade mode is meant to be more casual and entertaining, this change would align with its purpose. :D
i get what you mean and i guess it is fair that there are players in naval that prefer a more fast paced gameplay and quick action. But i think there might be an inherent problem with how naval combat for the big ships basically works. engagement distances are up to 20 km or more. But the ships go 50kph, some 60. A lot of times on the open sea.So even going straight towards each other at full flank speed it takes them 15 minutes to cover that distance. and they are designed to fight at that range. and are well protected. lots of these engagements took days and it took single ships hours to sink. So in reality you could say usually it was “slow paced” with days of following, flanking or trying to cut of enemy ships even before the engagement due to the insane distances and the ships speed.
While ofc thats also not suitable for this multiplayer game, i at least play the big massive ships also because it feels like youre in such an engagement, slugging it out with another tough opponent that is very hard to crack. if you dumb that down to a maximum 2 minute engagement it feels a bit ridicolous. who would put 1000s of souls on such a massive and expensive ship that takes years to build if every one of them sinks in two minutes? It takes two minutes to turn 180 degrees and almost a minute to come to a full stop, but if two cruisers decide to target a giant battleship all its crew is dead in under a minute? Hell nah man, im out… it just doesnt feel right for me. They are built and a lot of them did, survive insane punishment and crazy amounts of torpedo, bomb and shell hits. Im playing these to feel like im commanding one of them (well to be fair one of my top tier and favorite is the yamato so thats a bit contradicctory to my statement but she feels a bit wrong too, ngl :-D) but i hope you get my point a bit…
Also its not like theres already completely ridicolous matches in naval RB on some maps (if i remember correctly on japanese port, or maybe new zealand cape, cant check in game atm…) the one where one team can immediately reverse at spawn to sit behind a peninsula while all the bots drive out as bait while the other team spawns 12 km in front of that peninsula in the open. I played matches on that map where not a single enemy, no player or bot, made it further than 1 km out of spawn. they all sank there and it was a giant maze of half sunken ships hulls. Absolutely ridicolous and i bet a lot of fun for the enemy team. (and not slow paced, those 20-30 enemy ships sank incredibly fast even with the current damage control system ;-) though ofc you could argue that that is more of a game and map design problem than the damage, but with these maps and the new damage control system all of them would sink even quicker so…who tf would enjoy that? 5 ppl sitting behind an island decimating the whole enemy team in their spawn, just because its the best thing to do and easiest way to win the match, you can’t even blame them…
EDIT: i checked in game the map is Norway, notorious for insanely dumb matches, strong contender on the throne of worst match quality in naval with african cape and japanese port (sit stacked on the edge of some island because the one who pushes to the caps just dies, well unless its a sojuz ofc…)
Why are you not implementing the new coefficients for repair speed based on ship generation? This was literally the most logical thing in this entire proposal! Are you going to continue to let low tier battleships curb stomp cruiser lobbies and remain invincible to anything below an 11 inch caliber??? What is this nonsense, there is no reason why the damage control coefficients cannot apply even with the old repair system. Sovetsky Soyuz will remain the most overpowered ship in the game and have the same repair speed as Yamato despite having HALF of the crew count, and WWI dreadnoughts with primitive damage control will continue to have the same repair efficiency as a 1945 Iowa. Got it.
1 Like