Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Admiral_Thrawn_1

Deep Water Torpedoes?

74 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
35 posts
6,929 battles

   There are not too many BBs playing the game. There are just not enough players opting for Cruisers and Destroyers. 

    BBs already have enough crap to deal with 1) we burn at the drop of a match. 2) our dispersion sucks 3) we are deadly slow 4) reloading takes 30 seconds.  Why give BB players more headaches with Deep Water torpedoes?

   Why do I often play BBs?  Because of the HEAL!  I can stay in the game a bit longer with heal.  The issue for me is to give cruiser and DD player more incentive to play CCs and DDs. rather than giving BB players less incentive to play. Give Cruisers 3 heals, one more with Captains skill "Superintendent".  Give DDs 2 heals one more with Superintendent. I know I'd play Cruisers and Destroyers a lot more if I had some heal available.

   Lastly, I have played more than 2500 games. I kept track of my last 24 games playing in cruisers and Battle Ships.  Of those  Seventeen times I was sunk by torpedoes out of 24 games.

  We don't need deep water torpedoes.

Edited by AdmBilgeWater
grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
588 posts
4,261 battles

I'm getting the impression that P-A DDs will be able to switch between regular and deep water torps (listing both deep water and regular detection ranges). Not sure if that means they can only enter with one or the other (swappable modules like Enterprise bombers), or if they'll be loaded as different ammo types like HE/AP (what I expect), or if they'll be a simple toggle like switching between wide/narrow spread (unlikely IMO).

 

Part of the problem is that DDs are their own worst enemy. Games with large numbers of DDs don't impact BB play proportionately (ie: 6 DDs on each team isn't 3x worse than 2 DDs on each team) because the early game torpedo soup is the killer of probably 90% of DDs (either by the torps themselves or by being forced into a lethal shootout).

 

Deep water torps are a way to add another torp-centric DD without adding to the brutal attrition of early game DD play.

 

2 hours ago, AdmBilgeWater said:

 

Why do I often play BBs?  Because of the HEAL!  I can stay in the game a bit longer with heal.  The issue for me is to give cruiser and DD player more incentive to play CCs and DDs. rather than giving BB players less incentive to play. Give Cruisers 3 heals, one more with Captains skill "Superintendent".  Give DDs 2 heals one more with Superintendent. I know I'd play Cruisers and Destroyers a lot more if I had some heal available.

 

 

Giving DDs heals just like cruisers and battleships would probably be the easiest fix to DD play (and will probably happen eventually), but I think the devs are gun shy about making DD stealth torping as powerful as it once once was. Any kind of buff to the Shima probably gets scrutinized heavily (and rightly so).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
960 posts
4,500 battles
21 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

Non-Deep Water torpedoes like IJN DD torps can hit DDs.  DW torpedoes cannot.  Did you not get the memo?  Sure, the 0.8km detection range is great against Crusiers and Battleships but you are taking away your best weapon against another DD.  That is a massive trade-off.

welp 1.4 km regular torpedo conceal is still many times better than 1.8 km, WG logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
113 posts
9,297 battles

0.8 detection for US torps ..yeah right ...WG are u actually trying to cause mental damage to me, 68 knots with 0.8 detection and 14 km range... How bout u apply these mechanics to 20km torps of shima so

people can use them again in a way that doesnt teamkill any dd who sails thru a spread that was fired 2 minutes ago...instead u give options to a DD line that doesnt NEED any options because they already

excell at guns, smoke, have good conceal, speed and turning rates and pack some nice torps alongside. Also wth does a high tier carrier need buffed damage torps vs large targets, any cv with a brain does

delayed attacks and reks single BBs in one strike with fire and flooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,929
[5BS]
Members
5,316 posts

I'll put it like this, if these changes go live where deep water torpedoes can hit CA/CL's, DD's better *never* complain about radar again.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
Beta Testers
1,228 posts
5,542 battles

Great, just what CAs need.   Harder to detect torps that do even more damage than the standard model...  WGing thought camping was bad before, congrats now you made even CAs give it a second thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9,434 posts
11,601 battles
2 minutes ago, Bril01 said:

Great, just what CAs need.   Harder to detect torps that do even more damage than the standard model...  WGing thought camping was bad before, congrats now you made even CAs give it a second thought.

yup.     basically if you don't have extended hydro running, forget about being aggressive at all.  as soon as you are detected by unseen, you will be turning back  lol.

 

Shima is still powerful because the torps do so much damage per hit.   the problem is the fact that it is feast or famine nature of the ship.    that is the issue IJN DDs in general..   they could easily adjust so that they do less alpha damage but compensate by  making them tougher to detect.      The game would be healthier if alpha damage is actually lowered,and WG's been doing that via lowering of cits and such.    if you want people to be more aggressive, you do that by allowing you to be rewarded by taking risks. current system with high alpha preclude that for vast majority of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
960 posts
4,500 battles
12 minutes ago, Bril01 said:

Great, just what CAs need.   Harder to detect torps that do even more damage than the standard model...  WGing thought camping was bad before, congrats now you made even CAs give it a second thought.

Camping did not reduce when WG nerfed IJN torpedoes into ground, stealth torpedoes actually prevent camping, because any stationary target for a concealed dd is an easy damage, they cannot turn fast enough to avoid torps.

20 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I'll put it like this, if these changes go live where deep water torpedoes can hit CA/CL's, DD's better *never* complain about radar again.

Stealth torping CAs does not do anything against through land radar, so DDs will and should still complain about through land radar. LOS radar, though, is fine and is entirely avoidable.

Right now, it is almost impossible to hit CAs with torpedoes, they turn too fast and easily comb spreads, the only time you strike them is when they are distracted or from ambush.

I am not happy about this whole new DD line that just makes IJN dds even more obsolete. :etc_swear: WG

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[LLMF]
Alpha Tester
1,554 posts

They need to add duds, etc, make them work like BB shells.  Not all torpedoes go straight (cough cough USS Tang)  So how about some deviance?  Right now, if the aim is as good as a BB's then the torpedoes will take out a BB in one salvo, tier for tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
Beta Testers
1,228 posts
5,542 battles
2 hours ago, Vaitmana said:

Camping did not reduce when WG nerfed IJN torpedoes into ground, stealth torpedoes actually prevent camping, because any stationary target for a concealed dd is an easy damage, they cannot turn fast enough to avoid torps.

 

Camping by BBs didn't decrease, DW torps will increase the likelihood that CAs will less aggressive.  Right now we have enough warning to mostly evade torps but that has been almost cut in half and the damn things hit harder?!?  CAs will get wrecked which means they will be far more likely to wait for their own DDs to spot enemy DDs or only advance when they have Hydro up, which also means BBs will have to live without DF.   

 

And camping doesn't mean you sit stationary, it means you play at your max range to give yourself more distance between the enemy ships and yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,378 posts
27,195 battles
3 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

I'll put it like this, if these changes go live where deep water torpedoes can hit CA/CL's, DD's better *never* complain about radar again.

You know they still will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,137
Members
20,137 posts
5,479 battles

Just curious, do the devs say anywhere what they hope to accomplish with these new torps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
640 posts
3,917 battles
On 9/14/2017 at 10:45 PM, vonluckner said:

Any kind of buff to the Shima probably gets scrutinized heavily (and rightly so).

Shimakaze needs a buff.

It's the worst DD at her tier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,205
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,934 posts
15,583 battles
1 hour ago, Bril01 said:

 

Camping by BBs didn't decrease, DW torps will increase the likelihood that CAs will less aggressive.  Right now we have enough warning to mostly evade torps but that has been almost cut in half and the damn things hit harder?!?  CAs will get wrecked which means they will be far more likely to wait for their own DDs to spot enemy DDs or only advance when they have Hydro up, which also means BBs will have to live without DF.   

 

And camping doesn't mean you sit stationary, it means you play at your max range to give yourself more distance between the enemy ships and yourself.

 

Aggressive CAs are an easy route to an early death already, even before deep water torpedo official release.

 

You want to back up the DDs as they move to a cap?  Bad move, you'll get spotted first by the enemy DDs and all the BBs, Cruisers across the map will shoot at your piddly Cruiser.  Then the DD gets made because you wouldn't go in the cap with them.

 

You want to push against and kill that DD?  Bad move, the DD will kite and go back into concealment, outspotting you so that his BB, Cruiser friends will shoot at your piddly Cruiser.

 

Cruisers are the worst ships to aggressively play with. 

You do not have DD stealth.

Unlike a DD, you have a citadel, and some have YOOGE citadels.

Unlike a BB, you do not have a large HP pool.

Unlike a BB, you do not have armor to withstand focus fire.

Unlike a BB, most Cruisers don't even have access to Repair Party.

Unlike a BB, you do not have good TDS to withstand torpedo damage.

 

Aggressive play in a Cruiser will only get you rekt.  If you want aggressive play with a surface fighting ship, you do DDs or BBs.

 

If people see a Cruiser aggressively play, only one thing goes through their mind:  $$$MONEY$$$

 

The credits they get when they 1 shot your ill-advised, aggressive Cruiser play.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,929
[5BS]
Members
5,316 posts
4 hours ago, Vaitmana said:

Stealth torping CAs does not do anything against through land radar, so DDs will and should still complain about through land radar. LOS radar, though, is fine and is entirely avoidable.

 

CA's are supposed to counter DD's, so them having an ability that 100% neutralizes them is *how* it's supposed to work. DD's having an ability that counters CA/CL's is *not* how it's supposed to work. So to reiterate, if this change goes live, DD's better *never* complain about Radar or, frankly, BB's getting anti-DD abilities, because DD's will now be 'bucking' balance. I'm glad that Radar pisses off DD players so much. It's supposed to piss you off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
469
[BOTES]
Members
1,962 posts
6,740 battles
10 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

CA's are supposed to counter DD's, so them having an ability that 100% neutralizes them is *how* it's supposed to work. DD's having an ability that counters CA/CL's is *not* how it's supposed to work. So to reiterate, if this change goes live, DD's better *never* complain about Radar or, frankly, BB's getting anti-DD abilities, because DD's will now be 'bucking' balance. I'm glad that Radar pisses off DD players so much. It's supposed to piss you off.

I don't think WG has ever intended for RPS balancing to mean 100% counters. With that said, deep water will have little to no effect on CA because hydro and planes will increase their detection range, making them equivalent to regular torpedoes without hydro or planes. Radar will still be overpowered and BBs have always had anti-DD abilities.

You should not be glad that a game mechanic is so destructive that one of the core classes has been reduced to less than 20% of the player population. You're reducing variety and punishing players for investing into trees, which encourages them to quit.

I'm really not liking this trend of players identifying with a certain class and liking/hating others for the sake of buffs and nerfs. It's like identity politics are spilling over into game balance.

Edited by awildseaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,929
[5BS]
Members
5,316 posts
59 minutes ago, awildseaking said:

You should not be glad that a game mechanic is so destructive that one of the core classes has been reduced to less than 20% of the player population

Funny, I don't see DD players saying CA/CL's should have their Citadels removed so they can stop being 1-shotted (near 1 shotted) by BB's. It's the same argument. A CA's natural counter is the BB so it gets to 1 shot us with our big juicy Citadels, and CA's get to counter their natural prey, DD's, with something that effectively forces them to available to be shot at and neutralizes their science fiction stealth field generator. It's annoying that CA's are often left hanging while BB's get buffs, and DD's get buff's (and still cry all the time), and CA's are much more left twisting.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
[RKLES]
Members
7,941 posts
10,064 battles
On 9/14/2017 at 11:46 AM, SparvieroVV said:

Gimmicks for Italy?

 

giphy.gif

Lol I seem to remember there being a song about Let it Go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
[RKLES]
Members
7,941 posts
10,064 battles
1 hour ago, awildseaking said:

I don't think WG has ever intended for RPS balancing to mean 100% counters. With that said, deep water will have little to no effect on CA because hydro and planes will increase their detection range, making them equivalent to regular torpedoes without hydro or planes. Radar will still be overpowered and BBs have always had anti-DD abilities.

You should not be glad that a game mechanic is so destructive that one of the core classes has been reduced to less than 20% of the player population. You're reducing variety and punishing players for investing into trees, which encourages them to quit.

I'm really not liking this trend of players identifying with a certain class and liking/hating others for the sake of buffs and nerfs. It's like identity politics are spilling over into game balance.

Yeah I am not even sure how I would classify myself if I had to, I do usually favor having some armor so probably BBs and Heavy Cruisers for me as well as mainly doing IJN and German, but then again I enjoy using other classes of ships and am picking up some USN lines.

But have seen some players even in game chat stating they only do BBs or only 1 nation is good and everything else is trash and I usually am thinking to each their own when it comes to selecting what to use in a game. If a player likes using 1 Class, or 1 nation, or even just using 1 ship then it's ok with me as long as they are polite about it and try their best,

 

Being die hard one category in a game is nothing new to me since in national level chess tournaments often players will favor opening moves that are divided into a handful of major categories that greatly effect what strategies will be used and how the game goes and each is so vast that most players specialize in 1, but some are well versed in all of the main categories, but perhaps just not quite as deeply as somebody who only favors 1.

 

Guess it's just human nature to have things divided up, but I think you are right about the crazy political climate in real world feeding the hate into the ones that stick to only 1 side and show hate towards the other sides of things in WOWs.

Lol  players that play a balanced mix of ships do not need to hate ships because they will have an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each class of ship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[SYN]
Members
464 posts
9,058 battles
6 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

I'll put it like this, if these changes go live where deep water torpedoes can hit CA/CL's, DD's better *never* complain about radar again.

The only radar I bi*ch about as a DD/CL is the Russian radar, esp at T7. 11.7km is ^**%$*%&^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
960 posts
4,500 battles
5 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

CA's are supposed to counter DD's, so them having an ability that 100% neutralizes them is *how* it's supposed to work. DD's having an ability that counters CA/CL's is *not* how it's supposed to work. So to reiterate, if this change goes live, DD's better *never* complain about Radar or, frankly, BB's getting anti-DD abilities, because DD's will now be 'bucking' balance. I'm glad that Radar pisses off DD players so much. It's supposed to piss you off.

You didn't read what I wrote, or failed at reading comprehension. Having a Wall Hack in any competitive game is very bad. I hate being killed in 5 seconds by some random radar activation from behind an island by a never been spotted ship.

Line of sight radar is fine.

Also, dds are suppose to counter BBs, so how come BBs AP damage against DDs were buffed, BBs got sonars, BBs got double planes, BBs got good secondaries at high tiers, one BB even got radar, while torpedoes were getting nerfed patch after patch. Now you need BB potatoes to go positive at the end of a match when you play IJN dds at high tiers, not a good balance.

I also hate that every ship in high tiers is so accurate - that is also one of the reasons why CAs die so fast in high tiers, 1 salvo from a BB lands 3-4 good hits and its over. I am for reducing sigma of all guns T8-10, that would make CAs live longer too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
588 posts
4,261 battles
22 hours ago, BrentD15 said:

Shimakaze needs a buff.

It's the worst DD at her tier.

 

Leaving Shima as worst DD is better than bringing back torp soup- which is just anti-fun for everyone else.

 

She might get buffed but I wouldn't expect her to ever get profound torp buffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
469
[BOTES]
Members
1,962 posts
6,740 battles
On 9/20/2017 at 6:51 PM, _RC1138 said:

Funny, I don't see DD players saying CA/CL's should have their Citadels removed so they can stop being 1-shotted (near 1 shotted) by BB's. It's the same argument. A CA's natural counter is the BB so it gets to 1 shot us with our big juicy Citadels, and CA's get to counter their natural prey, DD's, with something that effectively forces them to available to be shot at and neutralizes their science fiction stealth field generator. It's annoying that CA's are often left hanging while BB's get buffs, and DD's get buff's (and still cry all the time), and CA's are much more left twisting.

CA/CL get deleted because WG made a fundamentally flawed assumption about increasing difficulty with tier. As lower tiers, ships are tiny and nimble, so they spend less time during a turn at an exposed angle that results in deletion. Naturally, as you increase in tier and ship size, maneuverability goes out the window. The problem is that as maneuverability of CA/CL decreases, shell velocity and damage increases. In other words, BBs become easier to hit targets with while CA/CL become harder to dodge with. The end result is more deletions. You can't sacrifice CSM1 and turn radii are large enough to cause problems even with SGM3.

Whether or not certain trees receive buffs is not a measure of whether or not that tree is balanced or not. Quite the contrary.

On 9/21/2017 at 3:35 PM, vonluckner said:

Leaving Shima as worst DD is better than bringing back torp soup- which is just anti-fun for everyone else.

She might get buffed but I wouldn't expect her to ever get profound torp buffs.

The only reason torpedo soup existed is because there were only 2 DD at the tier instead of 5. You could reduce the T93M3 down to 1KM concealment and you still won't cause a migration from other trees because Shimakaze cannot compete in any capacity other than torpedoes.

Torpedoes are fundamentally broken as an anti-idiot measure. You either play against morons and get 10+ hits or you play against average opponents and do 30-40k gun damage.

Everyone talks about Shimakaze because she is the epitome of everything wrong with WoWS high tier right now. Anyone who plays her knows that torpedoes are useless in a bow on meta unless they're icing on the cake for gunboats, concealment is too important, high tier CV are overpowered, DDs were not compensated for loss of stealth fire, gun bloom is too high and WG should reconsider stealth fire for DD, gun bloom lasts too long for DD, smoke is becoming less relevant even without planned nerfs, Khabarovsk hasn't been nerfed in any significant manner, premium consumables encourage spam, DDs are too fragile, and BBs are overpopulating the server.

Edited by awildseaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×