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

Shima needs top buff

122 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
537 posts
2,753 battles

The 12 kilometer Torpedoes are way too easy to see and you also see then from a great distance further than any other Nation as far as I know. Yet Japanese destroyers rely almost solely on their Torpedoes for damage so why do they have the worst Torpedoes in the game?

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,605
[ERN]
[ERN]
Modder, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
10,122 posts
4,270 battles

and let not forget, they also have the highest torpedo damage in the game

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,784
[SALVO]
Members
17,033 posts
17,629 battles
5 minutes ago, MajorRenegade said:

and let not forget, they also have the highest torpedo damage in the game

Torpedo damage doesn't mean squat if you can't get hits.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
719
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,175 battles

Data says, Shimakaze's fine. Bit of a one trick pony, but fine. Usually, the presence of a shima alone can make the entire enemy team skittish. So that's IJN DD's ultimate strength. I think, to boost that even further. IJN DD's at high tier should get a dmg buff to their torps by 20%, and slight increase in detection.

Edited by NeutralState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L0B0S]
Members
3 posts
8,827 battles

Wows debería equilibrar ciertas ramas .. en el caso del Shima ... el segundo módulo de torpedos no se puede hacer mucho con ellos x tantos radares de mucha duración que tienen los cruceros ... en el segundo modulo de torpedos sería  más alcance y velocidad de torpedos tiene más probabilidades de impacto ...

 

Edited by arimatea_centinela
Mal escrito
  • Bad 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,771 battles
18 minutes ago, arimatea_centinela said:

Wows debería equilibrar ciertas ramas .. en el caso del Shima ... el segundo módulo de torpedos no se puede hacer mucho con ellos x tantos radares de mucha duración que tienen los cruceros ... en el segundo modulo de torpedos sería  más alcance y velocidad de torpedos tiene más probabilidades de impacto ...

 

Not making sense to me. Needs translating to english. :cap_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[TGO]
Beta Testers
797 posts
4,163 battles
26 minutes ago, arimatea_centinela said:

Wows debería equilibrar ciertas ramas .. en el caso del Shima ... el segundo módulo de torpedos no se puede hacer mucho con ellos x tantos radares de mucha duración que tienen los cruceros ... en el segundo modulo de torpedos sería  más alcance y velocidad de torpedos tiene más probabilidades de impacto ...

 

Not really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,201 posts
8,185 battles
50 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Torpedo damage doesn't mean squat if you can't get hits.

It does get hits, though.

I mainly play DD's (over 2600 games in them) and my highest average damage is in the Shimakaze.  It sure isn't because of the ship's guns.

People complain all the time about the spotting distance on IJN torpedoes as if that were the only meaningful stat on them.  Having an entire 3rd quintuple launcher to cover an additional arc that a Fletcher/Gearing can't is huge.  Having torpedoes that often hit for 18 to 22k damage while German DD's often see hits for less than 10k is huge.

And then there's the fact that they are not that easy to dodge.  I get most of my Shimakaze torpedo hits by launching into smoke (at enemies that are either stationary or at low speed) or by launching them at high-tier battleships that have 18+ second rudder shift times.  That's exactly how I get most of my hits in my Fletcher, Gearing and Z-46 too.  Properly launched torpedoes of any type are very difficult to evade unless they are spotted at long range by a screening DD, an aircraft or Hydroaccoustic Search.

Shimakaze's average damage output is balanced.  Server stats consistently show it dealing about the same average damage as Gearing, Grozovoi and Z-52.  In fact, all four of them are within 2k average damage of each other over the last 2 weeks according to Warships Today.  (The Khabarovsk is higher but it's a completely different style of ship; whether it's classed as a DD or not it's clearly a CL.  The Yueyang is also higher but it's quite possibly still a new enough tier 10 to not have normalized in player base yet.)  So the argument that the Shimakaze needs a torpedo buff because it's too hard to deal damage in the ship seems unsupported by data, unless you have some justification as to why it should be outdamaging the Gearing, Grozovoi and Z-52.

Edited by Vaidency
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
815
[_ARP_]
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,741 posts
3,228 battles
17 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

It does get hits, though.

I mainly play DD's (over 2600 games in them) and my highest average damage is in the Shimakaze.  It sure isn't because of the ship's guns.

People complain all the time about the spotting distance on IJN torpedoes as if that were the only meaningful stat on them.  Having an entire 3rd quintuple launcher to cover an additional arc that a Fletcher/Gearing can't is huge.  Having torpedoes that often hit for 18 to 22k damage while German DD's often see hits for less than 10k is huge.

And then there's the fact that they are not that easy to dodge.  I get most of my Shimakaze torpedo hits by launching into smoke (at enemies that are either stationary or at low speed) or by launching them at high-tier battleships that have 18+ second rudder shift times.  That's exactly how I get most of my hits in my Fletcher, Gearing and Z-46 too.  Properly launched torpedoes of any type are very difficult to evade unless they are spotted at long range by a screening DD, an aircraft or Hydroaccoustic Search.

Shimakaze's average damage output is balanced.  Server stats consistently show it dealing about the same average damage as Gearing, Grozovoi and Z-52.  In fact, all four of them are within 2k average damage of each other over the last 2 weeks according to Warships Today.  (The Khabarovsk is higher but it's a completely different style of ship; whether it's classed as a DD or not it's clearly a CL.  The Yueyang is also higher but it's quite possibly still a new enough tier 10 to not have normalized in player base yet.)  So the argument that the Shimakaze needs a torpedo buff because it's too hard to deal damage in the ship seems unsupported by data, unless you have some justification as to why it should be outdamaging the Gearing, Grozovoi and Z-52.

WG is buffing Shimakaze though, because the problem with Shimakaze is that to make her work, you need loads of skill (Well, you need skill if you wanna play DDs anyway), according to WG, they want to make it easier for average players to have less "0 Torpedo Hit Games". Yes, this is a thing. I used Kagerou, so I cannot comment on my skill, but I believe myself to be a pretty good player in her with a 60% WR and 1300WTR. So torp hits aren't issue, for the most part because high tier BB players are more braindead than Tier V ones (I want to club in my Kamikaze, but the guys in TV dodge better than the guys in TX.)

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
634
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,827 posts
1,327 battles
29 minutes ago, Crusin_Custard said:

Not making sense to me. Needs translating to english. :cap_book:

Google says:

 

 

Wows should balance certain branches .. in the case of the Shima ... the second module of torpedoes can not do much with them x so many very long radars that have the cruisers ... in the second module of torpedoes would be more range and Torpedo speed is more likely to impact ...

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,771 battles
3 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

Google says:

 

 

Wows should balance certain branches .. in the case of the Shima ... the second module of torpedoes can not do much with them x so many very long radars that have the cruisers ... in the second module of torpedoes would be more range and Torpedo speed is more likely to impact ...

Cheers m8. Thankyou 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[USCC2]
Members
3,549 posts

Because WG do not wish DDs to have average damage on par with the other ship types - fact I'm afraid.

Take a look at any stats available NA or EU, tier V - X. Any DD that had good average scores has been removed, the rest are sitting at the bottom. This has been the case for over a year.

The most recent and promising DD, the T-61 has disappeared! Why? Because it achieved good damage in testing. Notser got around 70k in his review and some people cried too much! The Warspite got close to 130k and Arizona 120k......not a whisper of a nerf, as a big ship must do more damage! Yet all ships in this 'game' have the ability to do similar damage - it's down to the game mechanics and whether WG want them to.

Take tier VII, Nelson and Mahan look at the weapons and damage each are capable of achieving - thay are both very similar. Yet , excluding CVs, one is at the top for damage, one is at the bottom - one BB and one DD.

 

This is a game - not a sim. Pretty sure in WWII torpedo hit rate was 35 - 44% where the main guns was more around 4-12%. The exact opposite in game.

Nope I do not want a particular type ship to be better, as if a ship is better then you start to do away with the team work this game was based on. Remember, balance and team work?

Nope, I just want every ship to have an equal chance to achieve equal results - just the way you achieve the results will be different, due to the different type of ships and the way  you have to captain them. The only people I can see having a problem with a balanced approach, would be those that are enjoying an advantage (?)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
915
[LEGIO]
Members
2,986 posts
5,402 battles

2,000 ton ships shouldn't be expected to match the average damage of 35,000 ton ones anymore than a light tank should expect to match the average damage of their heavier counterparts.

Also IRL there weren't unlimited torpedoes so of course the miss rate is going to be higher when people are spamming them constantly and ships have no reason to stick to steady courses for the sake of fire control.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[USCC2]
Members
3,549 posts
2 hours ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

2,000 ton ships shouldn't be expected to match the average damage of 35,000 ton ones anymore than a light tank should expect to match the average damage of their heavier counterparts.

Also IRL there weren't unlimited torpedoes so of course the miss rate is going to be higher when people are spamming them constantly and ships have no reason to stick to steady courses for the sake of fire control.

Incorrect, this isn't real life it is a game, one that is supposed to be balanced. If you want real life then the game would be very boring with BBs hitting a quarter of what they do now.

 

So why are the survival stats for ship types are around the same? A 2000 ton ship shouldn't survive as long as a 35000 ton ship according to your logic. As for damage,  in my example in the above post, the Mahan has the armament to do every bit as much damage as the Nelson, why is this - because it is a game; a game where every player should have an equal chance to perform as well as any other player - no matter the type of ship they captain.

This is the basic principle of this game.

Not sure why I am stating the obvious though, as using your logic above, a smaller ship should do less damage and survive less because it's all about size not skill. I guess the I'm big so I should win mentality is king, with some. For me, if the ships are balanced and all it is, is the way you play them that counts - well that is balanced. :Smile_Default:

Edited by _WaveRider_
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,834 posts
10,762 battles
7 hours ago, MajorRenegade said:

and let not forget, they also have the highest torpedo damage in the game

So the future alt-line T10 will have nuke torp that doesn't hit anything! Ultra-Deep Water Nuke Torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[BOTES]
Members
1,919 posts
6,654 battles

The data has never said Shimakaze was/is fine. When you filter out all the terrible players, it's the worst T10 DD by a long shot. It hasn't been buffed even once since CBT/OBT, only slightly un-nerfed (still a net nerf). All Shimakaze can do is farm useless damage. It doesn't help anyone win and it's not even the best at farming damage.

Reasons why its damage doesn't matter:

  1. Takes longer to force DCP with focus fire because torpedoes have travel time while shells relatively don't.
  2. Comically easy to dodge. Reaction time is the only stat that matters for torpedoes. Shimakaze gives you an extra ~2 seconds to dodge all else held constant. No hydro, planes, vigilance, or screening. Slow rudder shift only matters if you're sailing broadside, which only idiots do.
  3. Doesn't have enough range to target relevant areas while Gearing and Yueyang have longer legs. They're also harder to dodge and hit just as hard.
  4. Dodging typically occurs by making oneself parallel to torpedoes. Unless you get good RNG and your third salvo hits the gaps perfectly, you won't get extra hits. Even then, you're only getting one extra hit. Most (bad) Shimakaze players waste their salvo on a single target. It is much more efficacious to aim at multiple targets. Saturation works when multiple ships are bunched up.

I really hope they go through reducing Shimakaze's concealment to 5.6km. It never made sense to be equal to Gearing and it makes even less sense to be inferior to Yueyang. Yueyang will still be OP because of radar, but at least Shimakaze will have one (1) advantage during radar downtime. Currently, it has none and is utterly useless.

Since Gearing is fine with 16.5km and Yueyang with 13.5km, I think all IJN ships should receive torpedo range buffs to deal with the radar meta. I would put Kagerou at 12km, Yuugumo and Shimakaze at 14km. F3 should have 10km with lower net reaction time than Type 93 Mod 3. Range increases would also serve as a nice buff to Mogami, Ibuki and Zao. Zao should be able to choose between Type 93 Mod 3 and F3 as well.

Edited by awildseaking
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
386
Members
2,368 posts
7,654 battles
4 hours ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Take a look at any stats available NA or EU, tier V - X. Any DD that had good average scores has been removed, the rest are sitting at the bottom. This has been the case for over a year.

Because BBs and DDs have completely different weapons. They also have different roles into the game. 

- Its hard to compare high calliber guns and lots of secundaries and armor with torps and few small calliber guns.

- Different roles. BBs play with brute force, deal and take massive damage. DDs play for objectives: scout/spot, gets caps, area denial. Ships with different roles will do different things and so have different results.

 

4 hours ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Nope, I just want every ship to have an equal chance to achieve equal results - just the way you achieve the results will be different, due to the different type of ships and the way  you have to captain them. The only people I can see having a problem with a balanced approach, would be those that are enjoying an advantage (?)

They have, a BB can deal 100k damage, so can a DD or cruiser. But just because you can it doesnt mean you need to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,641
[KNMSU]
Members
3,365 posts
3,938 battles

Ship that can flood a sea space with torpedoes while remaining totally undetected needs a buff.

It sounds like you chose the wrong destroyer line, OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,784
[SALVO]
Members
17,033 posts
17,629 battles
4 hours ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Because WG do not wish DDs to have average damage on par with the other ship types - fact I'm afraid.

Take a look at any stats available NA or EU, tier V - X. Any DD that had good average scores has been removed, the rest are sitting at the bottom. This has been the case for over a year.

The most recent and promising DD, the T-61 has disappeared! Why? Because it achieved good damage in testing. Notser got around 70k in his review and some people cried too much! The Warspite got close to 130k and Arizona 120k......not a whisper of a nerf, as a big ship must do more damage! Yet all ships in this 'game' have the ability to do similar damage - it's down to the game mechanics and whether WG want them to.

Take tier VII, Nelson and Mahan look at the weapons and damage each are capable of achieving - thay are both very similar. Yet , excluding CVs, one is at the top for damage, one is at the bottom - one BB and one DD.

 

This is a game - not a sim. Pretty sure in WWII torpedo hit rate was 35 - 44% where the main guns was more around 4-12%. The exact opposite in game.

Nope I do not want a particular type ship to be better, as if a ship is better then you start to do away with the team work this game was based on. Remember, balance and team work?

Nope, I just want every ship to have an equal chance to achieve equal results - just the way you achieve the results will be different, due to the different type of ships and the way  you have to captain them. The only people I can see having a problem with a balanced approach, would be those that are enjoying an advantage (?)

Wave, let's assume those numbers are true.  There's a big difference between the way that guns and torps were used in WW2.  I don't know if those torp hit rates include submarine torps.  If they did, remember that most sub attacks were from surprise in non-combat situations where the enemy wasn't expecting to be attacked.  Also, I don't know at what range the IJN fired off their long lance torps, but if they were able to fire them from surprise, and not have their DD noticed before the torps had a chance to hit, again ... the target ship may not have been aware that it was even under attack.

 

On the idea of all types doing equivalent damage, I don't see any reason they have to do so.  Some DDs can have a profound impact on any battle without doing BB levels of damage just by capping, spotting, and engaging other DDs.  What's more important?  Doing BB levels of damage in a DD or impacting battles in a positive way that helps teams win?  I'd say  that latter.  Now, some DDs are more geared towards damage production than others.  IJN DDs tend to be bigger damage producers when they have decent games, just  because a few torp hits rack up damage quickly.  And VMF DDs can do significant damage when they're pew-pew-pewing enemy ships mercilessly, though they're a smidge RNG dependent for getting a fair number of fires started to farm greater damage.  But in the end, a DD can have a pretty good game without doing massive damage, if he's stealthy and keeping the enemy spotted, and if capable, engaging enemy DDs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[USCC2]
Members
3,549 posts
5 minutes ago, Xlap said:

Because BBs and DDs have completely different weapons. They also have different roles into the game. 

- Its hard to compare high calliber guns and lots of secundaries and armor with torps and few small calliber guns.

- Different roles. BBs play with brute force, deal and take massive damage. DDs play for objectives: scout/spot, gets caps, area denial. Ships with different roles will do different things and so have different results.

 

They have, a BB can deal 100k damage, so can a DD or cruiser. But just because you can it doesnt mean you need to. 

Your first sentence 'Because they have different weapons'  - why the because, what statement are you trying to make there?

I know they have different weapons, I also know those weapons can be made to do similar damage, for instance the entire firepower of a Mahan's torps alone could cause around 1,830,348 damage, more than enough to see it do as well as the Nelson who sits at the top for damage. I'm not sure what your different weapon statement is actually trying to say, sorry.

 

They also have different roles in game - again, what does a different role have to do with the balance in the game? Please tell me how being able to damage other ships equally well will stop me scouting or attempting to capture a cap? Are you saying because I am better suited to capturing a cap, I'm not allowed to do comparable damage. That's like saying because a BB can hit things at long distance and they can't be hit back by many due to range, a BB shouldn't be able to do the amount of damage it does. Hell, we took away OWSF because of that exact scenario - someone being able to hit someone else without the person getting hit having a chance to hit back. Did we not?

 

Hard to compare - no it isn't, just look at the stats. WG already do it to a certain extent, where your big guns can't fire as fast as smaller guns. So you kill quickly with one volley where a smaller ship kills over a period of time. It's all about the skill of the captain, NOT the size of the ship.

Different roles - Incorrect, or you are playing the game wrong IMO. It is everyone's role to play the objective! I rarely see a DD obtain an objective early in game without the support of the 'Team'. Or, more likely, anyone on the team (hell I've seen CVs do it) secure a cap towards the later stage of a game. Why, because the 'Team' have fought to get the advantage and win the cap - so you are wrong. Objectives are for the whole team to achieve - the BBs by bringing the big firepower and tankiness, the CAs bringing the medium fire power, faster guns and damage over time, and the DDs getting forward scouting BUT still being able to do as much damage as other ships! See, no difference accept the players having a balanced opportunity to do damage - not 'I'm big so I only have to sit back and kill; everyone else do the objectives and die'. :Smile_teethhappy: Can you see how bad that sounds.

 

Your last sentence is one you can learn from - you have been saying 'others' should do the objectives and not a BB. Well I repeat what you said 'just because you can it doesn't mean you need to' - so why don't you stop thinking a player should have less chane to do damage because they choose to play a smaller ship. Instead why don't you say 'Hey, all players should have equal chance to do damage, just the ship they choose will dictate how they achieve that damage - BBs big volleys, CAs smaller and more frequent (DOT) and DDs even longer reloads but by torps.' Oh and don't forget, 'and objectives are for everyone!'. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,784
[SALVO]
Members
17,033 posts
17,629 battles
34 minutes ago, Xlap said:

Because BBs and DDs have completely different weapons. They also have different roles into the game. 

- Its hard to compare high calliber guns and lots of secundaries and armor with torps and few small calliber guns.

- Different roles. BBs play with brute force, deal and take massive damage. DDs play for objectives: scout/spot, gets caps, area denial. Ships with different roles will do different things and so have different results.

 

They have, a BB can deal 100k damage, so can a DD or cruiser. But just because you can it doesnt mean you need to. 

I'll never accept that it's a BBs role to TAKE damage.  Aside from dealing maximum damage, I think a better way to put it is that BBs have to accept that taking enemy FIRE (i.e. incoming shells, not actual flames) is part of their job description.  But a well played BB can use its armor to mitigate considerable amounts of damage taken.

As for DDs, I dislike this "area denial" term.  It's too esoteric.  When I fire torps, I'm trying to get hits,  same as any BB firing its guns.  Are BBs engaged in "area denial"?  No.  They're engaged in trying to produce damage and sink ships.  And it's the same when a DD fires its torps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[USCC2]
Members
3,549 posts
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Wave, let's assume those numbers are true.  There's a big difference between the way that guns and torps were used in WW2.  I don't know if those torp hit rates include submarine torps.  If they did, remember that most sub attacks were from surprise in non-combat situations where the enemy wasn't expecting to be attacked.  Also, I don't know at what range the IJN fired off their long lance torps, but if they were able to fire them from surprise, and not have their DD noticed before the torps had a chance to hit, again ... the target ship may not have been aware that it was even under attack.

 

On the idea of all types doing equivalent damage, I don't see any reason they have to do so.  Some DDs can have a profound impact on any battle without doing BB levels of damage just by capping, spotting, and engaging other DDs.  What's more important?  Doing BB levels of damage in a DD or impacting battles in a positive way that helps teams win?  I'd say  that latter.  Now, some DDs are more geared towards damage production than others.  IJN DDs tend to be bigger damage producers when they have decent games, just  because a few torp hits rack up damage quickly.  And VMF DDs can do significant damage when they're pew-pew-pewing enemy ships mercilessly, though they're a smidge RNG dependent for getting a fair number of fires started to farm greater damage.  But in the end, a DD can have a pretty good game without doing massive damage, if he's stealthy and keeping the enemy spotted, and if capable, engaging enemy DDs.

 

Let's suppose they are true and the torp hits were from surprise attacks.....what do you think the majority of DDs do when they fire their torps; they do it concealed. It is merely the number of spotters, fighters, CV planes, Radar and RPF to know where torps are coming from and hydro for warning, along with any screening ships that doesn't make them a surprise lol.

I don't see any reason they shouldn't - why do you have a problem with another player being able to damage you as efficiently as you can damage them?

Profound impact is what people say when they don't want balance, capping leads to a team win. I'm all for that, the team wins the victory is equally shared. So why not the damage? And as I stated in my previous post, why does doing comparable damage stop me trying to cap - that is crazy talk, because it doesn't. A DD can continue to do all the things you have stated AND still have an equal chance when it comes to damage - that's called balance.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[USCC2]
Members
3,549 posts
7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I'll never accept that it's a BBs role to TAKE damage.  Aside from dealing maximum damage, I think a better way to put it is that BBs have to accept that taking enemy FIRE (i.e. incoming shells, not actual flames) is part of their job description.  But a well played BB can use its armor to mitigate considerable amounts of damage taken.

As for DDs, I dislike this "area denial" term.  It's too esoteric.  When I fire torps, I'm trying to get hits,  same as any BB firing its guns.  Are BBs engaged in "area denial"?  No.  They're engaged in trying to produce damage and sink ships.  And it's the same when a DD fires its torps.

 

Wrong - you have misinterpreted what I have said. I merely said a BB has tankiness, meaning it can take more damage. Never said that is what they should do!

 

Remember, it is not me trying to state some ships should only do/or be able to do some things - that's you, remember! :Smile_honoring:

 

I agree that every ship should be firing to kill the enemy - that is why I believe they should all have an equal chance to do so.

Edited by _WaveRider_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
658
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,824 posts
11,180 battles

Just throw 20 km ones on, spray and pray, I'd say.

I'm a poet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,724 posts
7,682 battles
1 hour ago, awildseaking said:

The data has never said Shimakaze was/is fine. When you filter out all the terrible players, it's the worst T10 DD by a long shot. It hasn't been buffed even once since CBT/OBT, only slightly un-nerfed (still a net nerf). All Shimakaze can do is farm useless damage. It doesn't help anyone win and it's not even the best at farming damage.

Reasons why its damage doesn't matter:

  1. Takes longer to force DCP with focus fire because torpedoes have travel time while shells relatively don't.
  2. Comically easy to dodge. Reaction time is the only stat that matters for torpedoes. Shimakaze gives you an extra ~2 seconds to dodge all else held constant. No hydro, planes, vigilance, or screening. Slow rudder shift only matters if you're sailing broadside, which only idiots do.
  3. Doesn't have enough range to target relevant areas while Gearing and Yueyang have longer legs. They're also harder to dodge and hit just as hard.
  4. Dodging typically occurs by making oneself parallel to torpedoes. Unless you get good RNG and your third salvo hits the gaps perfectly, you won't get extra hits. Even then, you're only getting one extra hit. Most (bad) Shimakaze players waste their salvo on a single target. It is much more efficacious to aim at multiple targets. Saturation works when multiple ships are bunched up.

I really hope they go through reducing Shimakaze's concealment to 5.6km. It never made sense to be equal to Gearing and it makes even less sense to be inferior to Yueyang. Yueyang will still be OP because of radar, but at least Shimakaze will have one (1) advantage during radar downtime. Currently, it has none and is utterly useless.

Since Gearing is fine with 16.5km and Yueyang with 13.5km, I think all IJN ships should receive torpedo range buffs to deal with the radar meta. I would put Kagerou at 12km, Yuugumo and Shimakaze at 14km. F3 should have 10km with lower net reaction time than Type 93 Mod 3. Range increases would also serve as a nice buff to Mogami, Ibuki and Zao. Zao should be able to choose between Type 93 Mod 3 and F3 as well.

It has been buffed though, the detection on the 12 km torps was dropped from 1.9 km to 1.7 km. 

26 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Let's suppose they are true and the torp hits were from surprise attacks.....what do you think the majority of DDs do when they fire their torps; they do it concealed. It is merely the number of spotters, fighters, CV planes, Radar and RPF to know where torps are coming from and hydro for warning, along with any screening ships that doesn't make them a surprise lol.

I don't see any reason they shouldn't - why do you have a problem with another player being able to damage you as efficiently as you can damage them?

Profound impact is what people say when they don't want balance, capping leads to a team win. I'm all for that, the team wins the victory is equally shared. So why not the damage? And as I stated in my previous post, why does doing comparable damage stop me trying to cap - that is crazy talk, because it doesn't. A DD can continue to do all the things you have stated AND still have an equal chance when it comes to damage - that's called balance.

 

This does not sound balanced at all, you are asking for DDs to be the most powerful class in the game. Why play anything else when you can do just as much damage just as easily in a DD and on top of that win the objectives as well? 

 

I notice as well that you compare DDs to BBs but I dont see anyone talking about cruiser damages and they are not equal to BB damages. Are BBs and DDs the more equal citizens of your ideal game?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×