But it at least confers an advantage, something not conferred by shooting ships in similar ways
yeah maybe you are right. this isn’t my fight to fight. I don’t play naval.
enjoy naval everyone.
1 Like
At the VERY least, there should be no coldown between damage control preset switching at all. Specially not a 30 whole second one.
Priorities can change and need to be addressed immediately, for example;
If you have a funnel fire and a torpedo breach, you would want to prioritise the breach over the fire.
However, if you have a magazine fire and a minor water leak, you would want to prioritise the fire.
Or: if you have damaged AA guns, these would not be a priority: but if your main guns are destroyed, then repairing these are.
In general, not every hit deals the same sort of damage to the same degree. That’s where micromanagement came in play; so you could chose and decide what exactly to repair at which exact moment.
All in all, this is taking away the whole micromanagement aspect of ship repairs, which was one of the most entertaining aspects of Naval.
To me, Naval was about commanding a warship’s inner workings, not shooting and nothing else.
But at the very least; sure, force permanent repairs if you really insist it’s vital for Naval. But at least let us change the repair type without penalty as there is on the Dev Server. Because with such cooldown, the fire detonates the magazine or the breach sinks the ship.
We need the most control over the ship possible, not less.
17 Likes
See, this is what I like to see!
The crew bleed is smart, allowing for controlled managment of your own damage while still punishing you if you let your ship fall apart.
You could also consider a mechanic that essentially stops a module from acting like spaced armour after it’s been overkilled by a certain amount.
These come with their own gameplay, control and implementation issues though, so for now I still think this a positive change.
Doesn’t mean they couldn’t still implement one of these systems and revert to more precise damage control in the future.
3 Likes
Agreed, a commander needs to be able to adjust their priorities rapidly. If somebody hits my shell room I need that fire put out quickly, it’s more important than the unwatering I might already be doing, I should be able to shift my repairs to react to that instead of… predicting that was going to happen, I guess?
7 Likes
Yeah, the cooldown is definitely an issue - I’d love to hear the logic on implementing that when we didn’t have a cooldown with the old system.
Is there someone I should ping about it or is that frowned upon?
2 Likes
Im still gonna play naval, but id bet you lose the vast majority of what playerbase remains
2 Likes
It should be changed to an option rather than mandatory, otherwise it should be discarded
2 Likes
There is nothing that could be said here which wasnt already said in this “feedback” thread
Unneeded, bad change, that coupled with insane AI ship buffs will reduce player survivability and make the gamemode require fewer brain cells while degrading the experience.
There was nothing unethical in using your brain and prioritizing when to repair what, and when not to.
Maybe fix your tutorials Gaijin ! Or the lack of meaningful tutorials.
20 Likes
Correct, it is a survivability “debuff” but not in the way you’re thinking.
Crew do not man AA guns on large ships as far as the game is concerned. I know it’s confusing and not explained anywhere, but destruction of the tertiary battery will not drain your crew on battleships. If you’re seeing crew loss from small guns being wrecked on a big ship, it’s probably the secondaries which do contain crew.
However, each individual AA gun has a chance to catch fire when taking damage which does not occur if they’re destroyed. Therefore, having to repair these guns means you have a greater overall chance of a superstructure fire when a shell hits that area.
3 Likes
Btw I know which ship will have the worst coefficient, just like with RoF and accuracy, naval devs “favorite”:
4 Likes
And we all know which one will conveniently be the best for it
1 Like
Good thing the community liked this change… They liked it, didn’t they?
Out of 250 people, 91+% are AGAINST it.
It’s amazing how well a snail hears feedback.
R I P
22 Likes
With Bismark close next.
Making it an option would defeat the purpose of implementing it
“Wisdom of the masses” is known to be ineffective when people are discussing things and influencing each other. Also, “No I don’t like it” is not exactly actionable feedback is it…
Then dont implement it at all, it literally takes away player damage control, what is the point of playing the game mode if you cant actually control half the stuff you should be able to
6 Likes
“We can’t cure cancer definitively, so don’t even bother trying”
“We’ll never find Fermat’s last theorem, so we should never try”
Also, hyperbole much? You can still control your damage control procedures, just less. Yes, the delay is a really weird decision, but fundementally, you still decide what the DC priority is.
Ok so lets make tank repairs fully automated in the same way then, whenever a tank takes damage it has to stop and repair no matter what
11 Likes
Blame players by calling feature that existed for like 5-6 years ‘exploit’
Claim that it’s all for players when said players doesn’t agree at all
Refuse to listen, go on anyway
Truly a game company of all time.
21 Likes