The New Damage Control Mechanic for Naval

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
65

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
66

Btw I know which ship will have the worst coefficient, just like with RoF and accuracy, naval devs “favorite”:

4 Likes
67

And we all know which one will conveniently be the best for it

1 Like
68

Good thing the community liked this change… They liked it, didn’t they?
image
Out of 250 people, 91+% are AGAINST it.
It’s amazing how well a snail hears feedback.

R I P

18 Likes
69

With Bismark close next.

70

But het, they listen to the community, at least it’s what they constantly say. LIES as usual!
they keep adding stuffs nobody ever asked for

2 Likes
71

Making it an option would defeat the purpose of implementing it

72

“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…

73

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

5 Likes
74

“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.

75

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

7 Likes
76

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.

16 Likes
77
  1. That’s not the same mechanic at all, in fact it’s the opposite.
  2. Repair/Re-crew don’t affect each other in tank battles.
  3. Tanks are at a large disadvantage when repairing, something ships don’t experience the same way

We’ve had this discussion already further up, comparing to tanks is apples and oranges.

78

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

79

Tbh I don’t care at all, with this I’m done once for all with ships.

80

Ships can literally explode instantly from certain repair aspects being neglected, unlike tanks, but now we have to wait 30 seconds for the automated process to deem we can prioritise that, for many ships thats way too long

3 Likes
81

Strawmanning what? Explain then.

82

Read my reply…
I agreed about the cooldown…

Also surely whether ships explode from neglect is less of an issue if players aren’t being encouraged by the mechanics to avoid repairing?

83

UncleCeiling is a Russian coastal main in naval arcade. Overall, a coastal-arcade main.

84

Will the same mechanic be implemented for ground RB?

You know, it’s a bad exploit that a person may decide not to repair their turret rotation mechanism but to drive away first, you know.

Also for air RB.

I think it’s an exploit that people can fire radar missiles, clearly designed for long range shots, at short range. I think you should force a switch between radar and heat seekers at 3 kilometer distance to the enemy.

17 Likes