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

Pan-Asian Ships = bringing out the worst

100 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
841 posts
4,880 battles

WG has said that it wants to change the ever growing passive meta/game-style. Yet the introduction of Deep Water Torpedos (DWT) will only make BBs hide further in the back than they already are (perhaps they can add shoulders to the map edge like we have shoulders on the roadways so BBs can get even farther away). Then in their dev video they actively promote that since you can swap smoke / radar, they encourage divisions to take one of each so that both ships can sit in smoke and invisifire (because everyone just loves MORE invisifiring). GIven the low detectability of a DD firing from smoke, getting close enough to them to make them stop will be nearly impossible. A DD won't be able to get close to fire torps into the smoke, because one ship in the smoke is using radar and will spot out that DDs approach well outside of torp range.

 

I'm sorry, but the two things this game needs are NOT:

1) more reason for BBs to avoid the moving up

2) more invisifiring ships

 

They should instead be looking of ways to get BBs (and some CAs) to move up, and end all invisible-firing. It won't be long until this game becomes nothing more than two large smoke clouds on opposite sides of the map, with no shells being exchanged because both sides are afraid to advance, neither can see the other at that range thru smoke, and no one moves into the no-man's land in between - instead they release a line whose 'flavor' is to make worse several of the game's current problems.

 

More radar, more smoke, and long range hard to see torpedos aren't the answers.

 

Ok, I put on my helmet, lowered the face-shield and put on my flame resistant jacket - let the flaming and personal insults begin... 

Edited by FleetAdmiral_Assassin
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
457 posts
12,122 battles

Part of the reason they introduced deepwater torps is they want fewer BBs in the game. The class is over-represented right now.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles
2 minutes ago, madmikey77 said:

Part of the reason they introduced deepwater torps is they want fewer BBs in the game. The class is over-represented right now.

But Deep Water Torps aren't they way to do it, it will just push the BBs farther back. Reducing the amount of money one makes in a passive gamestyle, will either move the BBs up or force them to start playing other ships. There are other solutions as well (like limiting how many BBs can be in each match - the longer wait times will cause some to play other ships), but DWT won't solve that problem.

Edited by FleetAdmiral_Assassin
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,037 posts
12,522 battles
4 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

But Deep Water Torps aren't they way to do it, it will just push the BBs farther back. Reducing the amount of money one makes in a passive gamestyle, will either move the BBs up or force them to start playing other ships. There are other solutions as well (like limiting how many BBs can be in each match - the logner wait times will cause some to play other ships), but DWT won't solve that problem.

They already tried economy, it didn't work. That was the whole "people will fight if we stop charging them for damage taken" bit.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[CAST]
Members
1,158 posts
7,174 battles

Deep water torps don't change much for BBs.  Any torp hits a BB and does damage.  BBs don't like that.  Deep water torps do a bit more damage and are harder to spot, but the trade off is that they can't hit DDs.  I actually kill a lot of DDs with my torps.  I would prefer to keep a regular torp to flush out smoke sitters, than to have torps just dedicated to BBs and heavy cruisers.

 

Basically, if a BB player is prone to sitting back, they are going to sit back.  The torp type isn't going to change that.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles
6 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

They already tried economy, it didn't work. That was the whole "people will fight if we stop charging them for damage taken" bit.

Again, because they went about it the wrong way. They made the problem worse. By increasing the cost of all higher tier ships, they increased the incentive to live longer (hide in back) so you have time to increase the damage you do (since damage = money), to get around the higher costs. What they should have done is made the rewards tied to objectives. For example: Damage caused to the enemy while you are physically in the flag radius = twice the money/xp as damaging them when not near an objective, or something along those lines. You could also greatly increase dispersion at long range (or make any other other many suggestions that have been posted), but simply increasing everyone's cost to enter the game made the problem worse. 

Edited by FleetAdmiral_Assassin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles
6 minutes ago, Murcc said:

Deep water torps don't change much for BBs.  Any torp hits a BB and does damage.  BBs don't like that.  Deep water torps do a bit more damage and are harder to spot, but the trade off is that they can't hit DDs.  I actually kill a lot of DDs with my torps.  I would prefer to keep a regular torp to flush out smoke sitters, than to have torps just dedicated to BBs and heavy cruisers.

 

Basically, if a BB player is prone to sitting back, they are going to sit back.  The torp type isn't going to change that.

According to the dev video I just watched, DWT will have longer ranges and be harder to detect. Meaning, it will be able to reach farther back and be harder for the BBs to detect them coming. That will push the BBs even farther behind the front lines to put them out of range of these longer ranged torpedos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[WOLF4]
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles
20 minutes ago, madmikey77 said:

Part of the reason they introduced deepwater torps is they want fewer BBs in the game. The class is over-represented right now.

 

This makes no sense. If what you say is true, then once the cure takes effect, an entire line of destroyers becomes effectively useless. Who's going to play PA destroyers if there are hardly any battleships in the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,696
[YORHA]
Members
3,248 posts
2 minutes ago, DingBat said:

 

This makes no sense. If what you say is true, then once the cure takes effect, an entire line of destroyers becomes effectively useless. Who's going to play PA destroyers if there are hardly any battleships in the game?

 

You got a problem with rats?  Simple.  Bring in some snakes to eat the rats.

 

Got a problem with snakes?  Simple.  Bring in some Mongooses to eat the snakes.

 

Up to your [edited] in Mongooses?  Simple.  Bring in a $10 bounty on Mongooses.

 

Got a problem with dead Mongooses all over the place?  Simple.  The rats will eat them all.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles

DWT have similarities to IJN torps back in the day pertaining to detection.

 

Everyone said that BBs were passive because of those torps, so WG changed them.

 

It didn't change BB passive play.

 

Matter of fact, every change that's been done to make BBs push up has failed.

 

Why are we now having the same argument?

 

Nothing is ever going to change BBs passive play style.

Edited by Wulfgarn
  • Cool 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,373
[-K-]
Members
5,075 posts
8,947 battles
6 minutes ago, DingBat said:

 

This makes no sense. If what you say is true, then once the cure takes effect, an entire line of destroyers becomes effectively useless. Who's going to play PA destroyers if there are hardly any battleships in the game?

There will always been plenty of battleships in this game.  If the day ever comes that there is not, the game would be on its last legs anyway.

 

31 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

2) more invisifiring ships

My main gripe with this new Pan-Asian DD line is not the fact that they have radar (even though I think DD's with radar is unhealthy for game balance), but the fact that they have almost an endless array of smoke charges to camp in for an entire match.  Introducing this gimmick to a line contradicts everything WG says about trying to eliminate smoke camping meta.  I simply don't understand the logic in it.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
93
[EQRN]
Members
302 posts
8,644 battles

When I first heard of a new line, a PA line of dds, I was completely whiskey-tango-foxtrot.  OK, whatever, not like I’m forced to play the line.  But then, as if WG got the sense this line wasn’t exciting the player base enough, they decide to appeal to power gamers and stat worriers by making them far more potent then they should be.  

 

And from a historical perspective, hand-me-down ships were the dregs of the donating fleet.  Murmansk better than Omaha or Marblehead?   Horsesh*t.

 

WG wants fewer BBs?  Easy Peasy, make it a *minimum* queue time of 5 minutes for BBs, they’ll drop like flies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,037 posts
12,522 battles
7 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

Again, because they went about it the wrong way. They made the problem worse. By increasing the cost of all higher tier ships, they increased the incentive to live longer (hide in back) so you have time to increase the damage you do (since damage = money), to get around the higher costs.

They didn't increase them. The cost of dying in a Tier X battleship went WAY down. The overall cost of T8-T10 went way down.

 

20 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

What they should have done is made the rewards tied to objectives.

I do agree with this in principle; however, it wouldn't fix the core reason economic incentives don't work: people don't know, understand, or give enough of crapto figure out how all that works. Incentives only incentivize if people mentally process them, and when we're talking about BB campers, they generally don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
830
[SBS]
Members
2,420 posts
2,253 battles
22 minutes ago, madmikey77 said:

Part of the reason they introduced deepwater torps is they want fewer BBs in the game. The class is over-represented right now.

Well, yes and no.  The problem isn't that there are too many BBs in the game per se.  The problem is the longer duration of the matches because of "too many" BBs.  Killing BBs faster, like with DW torps, will help solve the longer matches problem.  The same thing with radar and DDs.  The problem is players don't sit around thinking, you know what this game needs to make it better, kill me faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,881 posts
3,538 battles
16 minutes ago, DingBat said:

 

This makes no sense. If what you say is true, then once the cure takes effect, an entire line of destroyers becomes effectively useless. Who's going to play PA destroyers if there are hardly any battleships in the game?

You went way to far. BBs are currently over populated, these DWT are going to reduce the BB population enough to bring it back in line.

 

It's not going to make the PADD line extinct. That's a logical fallacy , because if no one played it, BBs would comeback...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[WOLF4]
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles
2 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

You went way to far. BBs are currently over populated, these DWT are going to reduce the BB population enough to bring it back in line.

 

It's not going to make the PADD line extinct. That's a logical fallacy , because if no one played it, BBs would comeback...

 

Stop being so literal. 

 

Most matches I've seen recently have about 5 bb's per side. If that drops to 2 or 3, is that a GOOD thing for people playing PA destroyers? I sure as hell wouldn't play them as much. 

 

One trick ponies kinda need to be able to exercise that one trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,119 posts
2,419 battles
56 minutes ago, madmikey77 said:

Part of the reason they introduced deepwater torps is they want fewer BBs in the game. The class is over-represented right now.

It's hard to tell interweeb sarcasm these days. Crippling a class of ships and making it easier to kill them specifically is perhaps the most fail way of controlling its representation.

Edited by Mulletproof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12 posts
380 battles

My problem isn't with the DWTs they are really good, fast, low detection and hit hard as hell. You'd think "ah! but they can't hit cruisers or DDs so that's the weakness!" but not from what footage is showing. The endless smoke + amazeball guns the pan-asain DDs are packing leaves them waaaay to OP. What is the entire point of the IJN line now? Super easy to see torpedoes that can hit any target in exchange for terrible guns?  This DD line will crap on what's left in the IJN line up

 

edit: whoops my bad, didn't realize PA deepwater torps CAN hit cruisers, just not DDs. wow.. thumbs up WG

Edited by Winters_night
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[-WS-]
Members
78 posts
4,907 battles
1 hour ago, madmikey77 said:

Part of the reason they introduced deepwater torps is they want fewer BBs in the game. The class is over-represented right now.

one can say that for DDS also......I can't tell you how many times there is a torpedo spAM FEST.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,696
[YORHA]
Members
3,248 posts
10 minutes ago, Mulletproof said:

It's hard to tell interweeb sarcasm these days. Crippling a class of ships and making it easier to kill them specifically is perhaps the most fail way of controlling its representation.

 

Welp.. speaking only for myself, if they do come up with some mechanic that takes away my enjoyment of playing BBs I won't be shifting to CA/CLs , DDs or CVs.  I will just quit playing (read: spending).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,294
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,747 posts
9,451 battles
1 hour ago, madmikey77 said:

Part of the reason they introduced deepwater torps is they want fewer BBs in the game. The class is over-represented right now.

The problem is that DWT won't do that. PA DDs will be feasted upon by other DDs who know that PA torpedoes can't hurt them. With no risk of getting blapped by torps at point blank range other DD drivers will be much more aggressive in pursuing them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[TOG]
Members
2,365 posts
14,610 battles
3 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

The problem is that DWT won't do that. PA DDs will be feasted upon by other DDs who know that PA torpedoes can't hurt them. With no risk of getting blapped by torps at point blank range other DD drivers will be much more aggressive in pursuing them.

if it were IJN DD clones, you'd be right. It's primarily UK, German,Sov and US ships represented. A disadvantage but not an overwhelming one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[TBW]
Members
6,337 posts
11,884 battles

In the dev video they were saying that they can cover the whole map with smoke for 5 minutes which I am sure was exaggeration but still, I thought they were trying to ease away from so much smoke.

Edited by Sovereigndawg
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[TOG]
Members
2,365 posts
14,610 battles
39 minutes ago, Mulletproof said:

It's hard to tell interweeb sarcasm these days. Crippling a class of ships and making it easier to kill them specifically is perhaps the most fail way of controlling its representation.

More like countervailing advantages to other classes.  WG has acknowledged that BB's are over represented. Which is weird, considering the amount of premiums they've been pushing., So to trim them down they push deep water torpedoes and AP bombs. It's like an arms dealer selling to both sides of a war. Sell weapons that are advertised to be war winners to one side and sell the weapon that counteracts those weapons to the otherside. Like selling ballistic missiles to one side and sell the ABM defense to the other side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,324 posts
11,439 battles

The WHOLE reason for deepwater torps is to keep battleships moving with the cruisers and destroyers. NOT sitting alone as fishfood in back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×