Jump to content


Bringing Kitakami back


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

Urandas #1 Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:21 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015

The Kitakami used to be the tier 8 japanese premium cruiser back in beta before being replaced by the Atago. She wasnt a very good ship back in beta but boasted the fact she had 40 torpedo launchers on board. However WG replaced her for reasons probably including she was too much of a one trick pony and really couldnt hold her own. However what if WG wanted to bring her back somehow into the game?

I would suggest a tier 6 version with a modified torpedo system. Kitakami had 5 quadruple launchers per side so we could imitate this by only allowing her to launcher 1 set of 4 at a time. However her torpedo reload would be 1/5 the usual reload time. This would allow her to have a lot of torps per minute but very few torpedoes per salvo in the water.



TTK_Aegis #2 Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:25 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,282
  • Member since:
    01-27-2016

Their last communication about KitKat was "We are looking for a way to award her to skilled players without angering the playerbase". 

 

They've flip flopped between "Yes someday" and "No never" a dozen times in the past year and change though, so who knows. 



awiggin #3 Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:30 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

  • 6,146
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

View PostUrandas, on 27 April 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

The Kitakami used to be the tier 8 japanese premium cruiser back in beta before being replaced by the Atago. She wasnt a very good ship back in beta but boasted the fact she had 40 torpedo launchers on board. However WG replaced her for reasons probably including she was too much of a one trick pony and really couldnt hold her own. However what if WG wanted to bring her back somehow into the game?

I would suggest a tier 6 version with a modified torpedo system. Kitakami had 5 quadruple launchers per side so we could imitate this by only allowing her to launcher 1 set of 4 at a time. However her torpedo reload would be 1/5 the usual reload time. This would allow her to have a lot of torps per minute but very few torpedoes per salvo in the water.

 

So, you want to nerf the heck out of an OP ship? You realize the reason players ask for this ship is because of it's absurd torp spamming capability...right?:amazed:

Did you even bother to search for discussions on this before you posted?


 

 


Unsinge #4 Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:57 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 97
  • Member since:
    01-31-2016
well, t8+ reduces the effectiveness of torp spamming, and now that radar is more common, the Kitakami wouldn't last long within 10km of enemy ships. I don't think I'd mind it if it was awarded to others and only had 10km torps. It would be persecuted faster and more harshly than a visible Minotaur.

ValkyrWarframe #5 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:01 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,133
  • Member since:
    07-04-2015

 *In top 50 players on the server 

USN: Clemson, Benson, St. Louis, Cleveland, Atlanta* (Guide Coming Soon!), New Orleans, New York, North Carolina, Strike Bogue, Strike Ranger, Strike Lexington

IJN/Fleet of Fog/Dragon: Shinonome, Hatsuharu, Kagero, ARP Ashigara/Haguro/Myoko/Nachi, Southern Dragon, Mogami, ARP Takao, Mikasa, ARP Haruna/Hiei/Kirishima/KongouNagamon, Amagi, Hiryu

Soviet Union/Russia/Royal Navy: Kiev, Ognevoi, Svietlana*, Kirov*(My Guide), Chapayev, Dmitri Donskoi, Moskva* (My Guide)Black Swan (kek), Fiji, Edinburgh, Neptune

Kriegsmarine/Marine NationaleT-22Konigsberg, Admiral Graf Spee, Yorck, Nassau, Gneisenau, Bismarck Friant, Émile Bertin (Guide Coming Soon!), La Galissonniére, Dunkerque (Gift from TenguBlade)


Umikami #6 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:11 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,568
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

the only thing more unnerving than seeing a Kitakami on the enemy team,

 

is seeing one on yours. (quote attributable to any one of a thousand player/victims of this ship)

 

this ship is a team-killing nightmare, especially for noob players who think they have absolutely no responsibility to look out for themselves

I honestly believe this ship may have killed more friendly ships than it did enemy ones

(wanna watch the BB crowd have a cow; give one to TenguBlade and one to UrPeacekeeper)

the ship itself is horribly unbalanced (designed that way, NOT WoW's fault);

a tier 4 cruiser done up to be a torp monster, crap armor AND performance AND detection

this ship should be enshrined in the WoW hall of fame as a living example of the principle that some ships do NOT belong in the game


 

 


Edited by Umikami, 27 April 2017 - 07:15 PM.


BrushWolf #7 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:12 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester

  • 7,641
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
She is impossible to balance and will always be either extremely over powered or extremely under powered. Much like the Maginot Line being the perfect solution to WWI trench warfare it was the perfect solution for Japanese torpedo warfare in daytime battleship engagements, something that died on December 7, 1941.

Edited by BrushWolf, 27 April 2017 - 07:14 PM.

  

 

Ich lasse mir doch nicht mein Schiff unter dem Arsch wegschießen. Feuererlaubnis! (I'm not letting my ship get shot out from under my arse. Open fire!) Ernst Lindemann Captain KMS Bismarck

 


Submarine_Wahoo #8 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:13 PM

    Commander

  • Supertester
  • Beta Testers

  • 3,364
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postawiggin, on 27 April 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

 

So, you want to nerf the heck out of an OP ship? You realize the reason players ask for this ship is because of it's absurd torp spamming capability...right?:amazed:

Did you even bother to search for discussions on this before you posted?

 

If you bothered reading the discussions on Kitakami yourself, you would have known that the ship was nearly useless: not overpowered. WG tried to buff the ship by giving it a smokescreen.

 

"Shoot the Sunza B****es!" (... and the Wahoo did!)

 -- One of 52 American WWII submarines on Eternal Patrol --


WanderingGhost #9 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:23 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,494
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

Okay, let me phrase it this way - You want to give her a higher torp per minute at tier 6, or just bring her back at tier 8 as was. You want to bring this ship back with 40 tubes of torpedoes, when the game is PLAGUED, by people incapable of using 2 twin launchers without hitting a teammate, or forcing them on a course that gets them deleted by enemy fire. FORTY. That monstrosity wasn't just removed for it's broadside against the enemy, it was what it did to it's own team. If it weren't graphic I'd link gifs/clips from Braveheart or Game of Thrones when they have the archers firing into both sides killing their guys and the enemy. Because thats that wit was like having that thing in game.

To quote Mark Hamill's Joker - "And they call me crazy".



crzyhawk #10 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:37 PM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,811
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015
Just put the ship in game as a premium T4 Kuma, as built, and be done with it so people stop asking.


Unsinge #11 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:53 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 97
  • Member since:
    01-31-2016

View Postcrzyhawk, on 27 April 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

Just put the ship in game as a premium T4 Kuma, as built, and be done with it so people stop asking.

 

Yeah, if it was just a premium equivalent of the Derski - t3 or t4, with really short range and/or slow torps (5km?), then it wouldn't change anything.

SgtSullyC3 #12 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:58 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 981
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016
I'd like to see the Kitakami back, but it should be a one time thing like the original Kamikaze R event - not impossible to complete, but hard enough that average Joe's aren't gonna be spamming it en masse, like the ARP ships. Give it away once in a blue moon. That thing would be a terror in T10 matches, Yamatos and Kurrys would have no chance of dodging 20+ torpedoes.

Edited by SgtSullyC3, 27 April 2017 - 07:58 PM.

T1-3: Erie, Smith, Derski, G-101, Katori, St. Louis, Bogatyr, Friant, South Carolina

T4-6: Izyaslav, Clemson, Danae, Yūbari, Kaiser, Kamikaze, Königsberg, Omaha, Kongo, Bogue, Duca D'Aosta, Cleveland, Aoba, Perth, Ryujo

T7-9: Shiratsuyu, Sims, Mahan, Atlanta, Belfast (gift from YureiKuma), Ranger, Saipan, New Orleans, North Carolina, Alabama, Lexington, Iowa, Missouri

 

GoalsIJN: Hiryu, Mogami - USN: Benson, Baltimore, Essex - KMS: T-22, Gneisenau - HMS: Leander, Fiji - VMF: Podvoisky, Budyonny - MN: Duguay-Trouin, La Galissonnière


SergeantHop #13 Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:58 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,234
  • Member since:
    10-10-2012

View PostUnsinge, on 27 April 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

 

Yeah, if it was just a premium equivalent of the Derski - t3 or t4, with really short range and/or slow torps (5km?), then it wouldn't change anything.

 

No, he said as built. So, just a clone of Kuma.

#1 in the world for max base XP in Tirpitz

 

Check out my premium camo thread here!


Apewar #14 Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:00 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 144
  • Member since:
    07-04-2015
doesnt that many torps really kill fps when they are in the water? having 3 ships each side would freeze many toons

Urandas #15 Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:17 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 140
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015

View PostApewar, on 27 April 2017 - 08:00 PM, said:

doesnt that many torps really kill fps when they are in the water? having 3 ships each side would freeze many toons

 

It was pretty stable back in CBT with that many torps.

Carrier_Lexington #16 Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:28 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,044
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostWanderingGhost, on 27 April 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

To quote Mark Hamill's Joker - "And they call me crazy".

Jack Nicholson was better.


"Heresy!"


TenguBlade #17 Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:02 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,058
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostApewar, on 27 April 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

doesnt that many torps really kill fps when they are in the water? having 3 ships each side would freeze many toons

My relatively-bleh laptop handled a triple Kitakami division's worth of 120 torpedoes pretty well (was back when I ran into AlsoRobots and a couple of his buddies testing them).  Granted, it was because the torps were spotted on launch (thus 4 at a time) and not all suddenly rendering at once, but apparently handling that many on the screen isn't an issue.  What always slows my machine down is getting them to render in the first place.  I'd imagine it's not a very-different story for most people since I'm running no mods related to torpedoes.


Edited by TenguBlade, 27 April 2017 - 11:03 PM.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


JJDOU3D #18 Posted 30 April 2017 - 04:00 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 439
  • Member since:
    01-17-2016
A lot of players would like to buy it by the way. Profits time WG? :P

SgtSullyC3 #19 Posted 30 April 2017 - 04:07 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 981
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View PostJJDOU3D, on 30 April 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

A lot of players would like to buy it by the way. Profits time WG? :P

 

This is the reason I'm undecided about it coming back. If the Kitakami were sold, there would be a Kitapocalypse even greater than the Great Tirpocalypse. Imagine. A twelve cruiser game, six per team, and ten of those are Kitakamis. 400 torpedoes. Plus destroyer torpedoes. That would be gamebreaking.

T1-3: Erie, Smith, Derski, G-101, Katori, St. Louis, Bogatyr, Friant, South Carolina

T4-6: Izyaslav, Clemson, Danae, Yūbari, Kaiser, Kamikaze, Königsberg, Omaha, Kongo, Bogue, Duca D'Aosta, Cleveland, Aoba, Perth, Ryujo

T7-9: Shiratsuyu, Sims, Mahan, Atlanta, Belfast (gift from YureiKuma), Ranger, Saipan, New Orleans, North Carolina, Alabama, Lexington, Iowa, Missouri

 

GoalsIJN: Hiryu, Mogami - USN: Benson, Baltimore, Essex - KMS: T-22, Gneisenau - HMS: Leander, Fiji - VMF: Podvoisky, Budyonny - MN: Duguay-Trouin, La Galissonnière


212thAttackBattalion #20 Posted 30 April 2017 - 04:21 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,025
  • Member since:
    10-10-2012

View PostSgtSullyC3, on 01 May 2017 - 02:07 AM, said:

 

This is the reason I'm undecided about it coming back. If the Kitakami were sold, there would be a Kitapocalypse even greater than the Great Tirpocalypse. Imagine. A twelve cruiser game, six per team, and ten of those are Kitakamis. 400 torpedoes. Plus destroyer torpedoes. That would be gamebreaking.

 

I would want it back just for this.... over 400 torps in the water, imagine the torpedo beats.

I really am just your average, every-man World of Warships player. My play style according to Warships today:

  • Mostly plays cruisers, especially medium-tier and is very good in them
  • Deals an above average amount of damage
  • Extremely rarely uses torpedoes
  • Key vehicle - Fiji




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users