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

Should there be a cap on DDs in match?

DD deployment; is there such thing as too many DD's in a match?  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Should MM limit the number of destroyers in a match?

    • no
      24
    • 1 is enough
      0
    • 2 is enough
      1
    • 3 is enough
      17
    • 4 is enough
      8
    • 5 is enough
      3
    • 6 or more is fine if that is what is available
      3
  2. 2. Should the number of destroyers on each side always be equal?

    • yes
      36
    • no
      7
    • don't care
      13

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

26
[VENOM]
Members
28 posts
18,221 battles

Just measuring player opinion about number of DDs in a match. Been in many games where there are 5 on each side, and when there is only 1. Should there be a min or max imposed by Match Maker like with aircraft carriers? 

Should there be required equal number of DD on each side like CVs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,417
[-KIA-]
Clan Supertest Coordinator, Supertester, Privateers, Volunteer Moderator Coordinator
6,494 posts
8,111 battles

5v5 is never fun, 4 is pushing it and 3 should imo be the maximum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,769
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles

I don't think that there should be a cap on DDs.  Back when this PA DD patch dropped, there were a crapton of PA DDs on low tier teams, like on the order of 8 per side.  If there'd been a limit, the queue times would have gone through the roof, waiting for enough non-DDs to show up to form teams, while the DD's themselves would have been waiting even longer, perhaps.  

IMO, people should just learn to deal with it. Sometimes there are battles with a lot of BBs, sometimes very few.  Ditto for CAs and DDs.

The only changes I'd like to see on something like caps are, as I mentioned in a post yesterday:

1. Lower the max tier at which you can see 2 CVs per tier from tier 7 to tier 6.  The reason here is that there's a significant difference between tier 6 and 7 CVs in terms of hanger capacity.  Having a pair of tier 6 CV's per team isn't that huge a deal.  Having a pair of tier 7 CV's seems rather more dangerous.

2. I'd like to see the number of DDs per team equalized, particularly when you're in a domination or epicenter mode battle.  In Standard mode battles, an unequal number of DD's isn't so big a deal in my experience because you're not fighting over caps.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,633
[TBW]
Members
9,770 posts
16,559 battles

The mode is called Random so Random you get. What we need are more game modes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,704
[USCC2]
Members
5,795 posts

Whether you want to cap DDs, CAs, or BBs - if you cap one type, then you should cap every type.

I have no issues with more of one ship type - that's just the way it goes sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,222
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,248 posts
18,435 battles

 When Tirpitz came out there were 12 vs 12 BB games. When the Pan-Asian DD came out there were 12 vs 12 DD games. When everyone gets tired of the new shiny thing it will all go back to normal. Now go back to sleep and Daddy will make sure the nasty DD doesn't get you.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[PHUA]
Beta Testers
225 posts
3,902 battles

One thing I learned to do a long time ago was take a few days off right after a new line drops.  You get a little break from the salt and grind, and everyone else gets the urge to play something new out of their system.

That being said, five ships of any one class per team really isn't healthy for that round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[HSF14]
[HSF14]
Members
47 posts
14,813 battles

3 max per side 4 or more is just  ridiculous !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,574 posts
21,411 battles
45 minutes ago, VonMelon said:

3 max per side 4 or more is just  ridiculous !!!

 

But 5 BBs is just fine for a BB main...thx for the confirmation bias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,769
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
10 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

The mode is called Random so Random you get. What we need are more game modes.

It depends on what you mean by "game modes", Dawg.  By "game modes" do you mean random vs coop?  Or do you mean standard vs epicenter vs domination modes?  I think that more of the latter would be good. The trick is in coming up with game modes that the players like.  Heck, there are too many people, IMO, that still don't like Epicenter, even though I think that it is a perfectly acceptable game mode that just suffers from the abysmal map/mode combo known as Tears of the Desert-Epicenter.

I've proposed a different game mode in Pigeon's huge feedback thread that was a combo of standard and domination modes.  I'd also love to see a return of the old Encounter game mode, with a tweak to include domination points (to prevent draws). 

A port assault/defense mode might work or might not (thinking of the 2 port maps from Operations).  But maybe they could use those operations port maps for an Encounter like game mode, where the cap is in the inner harbor, and the two teams spawn as far as possible from each other, outside the harbor, with the goal being to capture the port (by grabbing the cap, or defeating the enemy fleet).

 

But maybe more than more of these game modes, what I think is needed is more maps in the random and coop rotations.  The devs could alleviate this desire somewhat by adding existing maps from other sources to the map rotation.  Maps from operations and from Ranked  battles.  The Riposte map seems like a perfect map to include in the rotation, with some tweaking to add regular game modes to it, etc.  Another thing that could be done would be to return Ocean to the regular rotation.  It's the best and most realistic damned map in the game, and it's barely ever seen.

But after using those existing maps, a good number of completely new and fresh maps need to be added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
344 posts
18,139 battles

Factually DD's were the most prolific ships in the war.  They could build one in 6 months!  I don't care how many are in the battle as long as the BB's can actually shoot at them and hit them.  The main gun dispersion is so bad that shoot at a DD is wasting a salvo.  30 sec to reload leaves the BB too vulnerable.  A DD should not be able to destroy a BB unless it uses torpedoes period!  And STOP THE INVISIBLE stuff!  Funny everything is scaled in the game EXCEPT the reload time of the main guns on BB's!  The fact is it took 30 secs to reload 1 barrel in the turret so normal fire was one barrel per turret.  3 turrets 3 barrels would fire one from each turret, normally the center barrel fired first, then the outer barrels in 3 gun turrets, 15 secs later the second barrel fired. and finally 15 sec after that the final barrel fired.  That way the crew could keep up.  The turrets were capable of firing at targets on both sides of the ship simultaneously.  Another type of volley fire was each turret fire all guns in succession but the second and third turrets fired after the rounds struck from the previous turret so a final aim adjustment could be made.   

Edited by jagdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,222
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,248 posts
18,435 battles
18 hours ago, jagdoc said:

The main gun dispersion is so bad that shoot at a DD is wasting a salvo.

And yet your dispersion is actually much, much better than it was in real life, where hit percentages rarely reached 5%.

18 hours ago, jagdoc said:

30 sec to reload leaves the BB too vulnerable.

And, again; this is much faster than it would be in real life.

18 hours ago, jagdoc said:

A DD should not be able to destroy a BB unless it uses torpedoes period! 

So battleships should be invulnerable to fire; no, pass on that.

18 hours ago, jagdoc said:

3 turrets 3 barrels would fire one from each turret, normally the center barrel fired first, then the outer barrels in 3 gun turrets, 15 secs later the second barrel fired. and finally 15 sec after that the final barrel fired.  That way the crew could keep up

Using this method, your main guns would fire every 45 seconds. (wait 15, first fire; wait 15, second fire; wait 15, third fire) You would actually increase your salvo time by 50%. Please, go with that, by all means. (OMG!! THINKING; OP, PLEASE NERF!!)

18 hours ago, jagdoc said:

The turrets were capable of firing at targets on both sides of the ship simultaneously. 

Any battleship which gets itself into a position where it NEEDS to fire in both directions has bigger issues that "My guns only fire one way!"

STAY WITH THE HERD; THE HERD IS LIFE!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
344 posts
18,139 battles
On 12/12/2017 at 8:01 AM, Umikami said:

And yet your dispersion is actually much, much better than it was in real life, where hit percentages rarely reached 5%.

And, again; this is much faster than it would be in real life.

So battleships should be invulnerable to fire; no, pass on that.

Using this method, your main guns would fire every 45 seconds. (wait 15, first fire; wait 15, second fire; wait 15, third fire) You would actually increase your salvo time by 50%. Please, go with that, by all means. (OMG!! THINKING; OP, PLEASE NERF!!)

Any battleship which gets itself into a position where it NEEDS to fire in both directions has bigger issues that "My guns only fire one way!"

STAY WITH THE HERD; THE HERD IS LIFE!!

  Obviously you are math challenged!  In real life it took 30 sec to reload 1 gun or 1 min 30 sec to reload all three guns in a 3 gun turret.   For sustained firing one gun per turret fired at a time.  That means 3 turrets 1 barrel each is 3 rounds down range every 15 sec  at 45 sec  the first gun in every turret is ready to shoot!  Giving a constant fire of 3 rounds every 15 sec.  Keep in mind one hit on the bow of a BB would blow the entire bow off the ship that actually happened.  The single gun per turret was to save the gun crews stamina.

  The last time I looked WG programmed the actual dispersion of the real ships.  Except for the firing rate of the secondaries.

  My argument is and I still stand by it is the game mechanics as programmed encourage DD's to go after BB's.  That is about all they do after they cap and run.  The team that has DD's around the longest normally wins the battle.  DD are still firing invisible even when not in smoke.  My understanding is that was stopped.  Just recently a DD was not visible until it got within 4 km of my starboard side.  He launched all his torps point blank my secondaries should have ripped him apart but the [edited] erratic firing rate was ineffective.  I just hit CTL ESC and left the battle.

  The point you completely missed is the secondaries should be able to dispense with a DD with ease!  

Edited by jagdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,222
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,248 posts
18,435 battles
2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

The last time I looked WG programmed the actual dispersion of the real ships.

The hit percentage of capital ships during the second world war varied between 3 and 5 percent. So ... wrong.

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

My argument is and I still stand by it is the game mechanics as programmed encourage DD's to go after BB's.

Of course they do; it's what they're supposed to do.

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

The team that has DD's around the longest normally wins the battle.

And that has very little to do with the DD and a whole helluva lot to do with the Captain driving her.

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

DD are still firing invisible even when not in smoke.

Nonsense, a word I used because the right word would get censored.

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

Just recently a DD was not visible until it got within 4 km of my starboard side.

More nonsense; get out of binocular mode and look around once in a while. 

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

He launched all his torps point blank my secondaries should have ripped him apart but the [edited] erratic firing rate was ineffective.

FINALLY we get to your real complaint; your secondaries didn't take out a DD at 4K.

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

I just hit CTL ESC and left the battle.

So running away from your problems is your go-to solution?

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

The point you completely missed is the secondaries should be able to dispense with a DD with ease!  

And the point YOU missed is spelled B A L A N C E.

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

Obviously you are math challenged!

You don't ever want to challenge me at math.

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

In real life it took 30 sec to reload 1 gun or 1 min 30 sec to reload all three guns in a 3 gun turret. 

You are totally screwing up the math here Einstein; it takes 30 seconds to reload all 3 guns in the turret, as they are all being reloaded at once, by different crews, one working each gun.

2 hours ago, jagdoc said:

Keep in mind one hit on the bow of a BB would blow the entire bow off the ship that actually happened.

Keep in mind that during the battle of Savo Island a USN DD took a 14" shell from an IJN BB and it passed completely through her without detonating; that also actually happened, and with proper punctuation at that!

3 hours ago, jagdoc said:

The single gun per turret was to save the gun crews stamina.

Where do you get this nonsense?

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,933 posts
8,914 battles
25 minutes ago, Psycodiver said:

Sounds like the OP was touched in a bad place by a destroyer, should we call Law and Order: SVU for you?

Oh hush, you're just a seal clubber. Average tier 6, you spend a lot of time picking on people in the kiddie pool to pad that WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,747 posts
3,622 battles
20 minutes ago, Gen_Saris said:

Oh hush, you're just a seal clubber. Average tier 6, you spend a lot of time picking on people in the kiddie pool to pad that WR.

Careful with stat shaming because will less than 400 games you have no business in high tier. Hah I didn't know mid tier was seal clubbing either

 

If you want to get into it though, I play for fun and I've found T8 the perfect cut off point for fun for me, considering that means not allot of T9 to offset the average tier played. I sometimes only get enough time to play maybe 1 game a night thanks to work, wife, kids, ect. That's why I don't get involved in clan stuff nor do I mess with Rank

 

Should I call SVU also cause by your post it looks like you were touched in a bad place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,933 posts
8,914 battles
6 minutes ago, Psycodiver said:

Careful with stat shaming because will less than 400 games you have no business in high tier.

 

For the record I don't play PvP very much at all. After more than 10,000 battles in WoT I'm tired of WG's particular style of PvP. Most of my time is spent in co-op... and as much as I'd like to play higher tiers there the number of co-op players drops off dramatically above tier 7, so unless I want 4-6 bots on my team I have to play where other players are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[LAME]
Members
7 posts
15,584 battles

This is a problem at nearly every tier with both dd's and cv's, best solution I have found is play at a different time of day (with more people on) or a on weekends (when there are more people and the players are so bad that more people would rather fight bots).

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.

×