How is this abuse?
If a tank gets its breach taken out and runs to cover and then repairs instead of repairing in the middle of the field with a broken gun also “abuse”?
21 Likes
Which is why the priority system is there, so you can choose the rate at which they drain under sustained fire. Just re-imagine it as an armour degradation debuff if it’s irking your immersion, but WT is not as realistic as people pretend, so insisting that “it’s realistic to minimise crew loss”, but that “mobility” or “morale” kills shouldn’t be considered is odd to me.
Imagine if them refusing to repair meant you couldn’t kill them because their remaining crew were in an un-pennable part of the tank and you’re coming close to a good analogy. What you wrote isn’t it.
1 Like
I am sure the tank crew can operate the tank inside their un-pennable structure.
Also a tank with no gun and tracks is harmless.
yes you cant kill tanks by shooting the tracks or barrel repeatedly
I’m thinking grinding naval with ships I got from warbond shop…but now gonna wait and see how is this new mechanic will work out. And like how this mechanic will work out with small ships like DD and PT boats???
9 Likes
DD’s with lots of AA will probably get shafted pretty badly
3 Likes
It’s closer to a solution than anyone else has offered, but which modules do you apply it to? Just AA? What about funnels? What about spotting equipment? Radars? At some point, you’re just builing the exact same system, but more complex. This change is clearly (to me) targeted at changing the flow of engagements and preventing people from engaging in passive firefights at long range and encourage people to play objectives or die from attrition.
Sure, I’ll give it a whirl.
First, revert the repair control mechanics to how they were. The new multipliers can stay, there’s nothing wrong with them and having them vary from ship to ship makes sense.
Since Gaijin’s main issue seems to be “player rewards,” add the “severe damage” mechanic from air battles. Destroying the requisite number of hull sections or modules gives players credit for severely damaging a vessel beyond a crew’s ability to repair it.
Have damaged modules incur a “crew bleed” if they remain damaged for a certain period of time, indicated by a timer. When the timer elapses, a certain percentage of the crew is lost (this could represent crew loss to fires, flooding, et cetera). This timer will recur until the modules are repaired.
Now players have full control over their repairs, but also an incentive to repair their vessel, and to top it off are more reliably rewarded for damaging other players.
12 Likes
Exactly, but a ship with it’s bridge and AA is far more dangerous - the analogy is bad, drop it.
Land lubber here.
If I were to interpret this change as charitably as possible, is this an attempt to nerf heavily armored ships so that cruisers and destroyers can punch above their weight?
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.
13 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?
5 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
1 Like
It should be changed to an option rather than mandatory, otherwise it should be discarded
1 Like
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.
14 Likes