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

Give RN DDs Speed Boost

77 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,769
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,170 posts
4,435 battles

The lack of Speed on the upcoming RN DDs is being described as a crippling gameplay flaw, to the point where RN DDs cannot be used as DDs and instead are ultra light cruisers.  If WG wants RN DDs to take their very short ranged, long duration hydro just give them both speed boost and the hydo in separate slots.

Stop making the RN ships all stupid gimmick ships, in this case removing core DD functionality to force the use of a subpar consumable.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,009 posts
564 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

The lack of Speed on the upcoming RN DDs is being described as a crippling gameplay flaw, to the point where RN DDs cannot be used as DDs and instead are ultra light cruisers.  If WG wants RN DDs to take their very short ranged, long duration hydro just give them both speed boost and the hydo in separate slots.

Stop making the RN ships all stupid gimmick ships, in this case removing core DD functionality to force the use of a subpar consumable.

I have no issues with my FLetcher running AA Module as opposed to engine boost, so a lack of it on a DD is not "CRIPPLING" if you keep aware of your surroundings and stop firing to get concealed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,769
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,170 posts
4,435 battles
Just now, neptunes_wrath said:

I have no issues with my FLetcher running AA Module as opposed to engine boost, so a lack of it on a DD is not "CRIPPLING" if you keep aware of your surroundings and stop firing to get concealed....

RN DDs are the slowest DDs.  Couple that with the lack of Speed Boost, well, you get the picture.  Fletcher is faster, that makes speed boost less critical.

So sure, I guess they could just make the RN DDs faster instead.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[RM-I]
Members
430 posts
2,824 battles

The only thing WG needs to do to the RN DDs is make the wide spread a narrow spread.

If you give them speed boost then they will just dominate. The lack of speed is their flaw and if you take that away then they will just be too good. Even taking away hydro and giving them speed will remove their only flaw. 

Fun Fact: A boat can’t be good at everything, that is called overpowered

Edited by King_Zacarias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,009 posts
564 battles
Just now, Helstrem said:

RN DDs are the slowest DDs.  Couple that with the lack of Speed Boost, well, you get the picture.  Fletcher is faster, that makes speed boost less critical.

So sure, I guess they could just make the RN DDs faster instead.

so exactly how "SLOW" are they..... SLower than an Akizuki??? Rudder shift time???
Have not played them yet as have not most of us so having NOT PLAYED A SHIP and being so fast to rant about it... seems a little..... rediculus and , opinion biased// no??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts

maybe like their RN cruiser counterparts, they don't need the Propulsion Modification 2 module to initially accelerate well, meaning you get to take Damage Control System Modification 2 or Steering Gears Modification 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,014 posts
6,965 battles
15 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

RN DDs are the slowest DDs.

False, the slowest speed I read for the RN DDs (mid and high tier at least) was 36kts.

IJN DDs on the other hand, struggle to break 35kts(standard speed is 35-35.5kts). Some go slower, 34kts (Shiratsuyu) and 33kts (Akizuki), and only a handful go faster(Shimakaze-39, Minekaze-39, Mutsuki-37.5, Akatsuki-38, and Hatsuharu-36.5). Even the upcoming IJN DDs only go 36kts(Kitakaze) and 35.7kts(Harugumo), which are still slower than the slowest RN DD. And, actually looking at the T2, 3, and 4 IJN DDs, they don't really break 35kts either. Umikaze at 33kts, Wakatake at 35.5kts, and Isokaze at 34kts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,502
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,476 posts
13,838 battles
25 minutes ago, neptunes_wrath said:

so exactly how "SLOW" are they..... SLower than an Akizuki??? Rudder shift time???
Have not played them yet as have not most of us so having NOT PLAYED A SHIP and being so fast to rant about it... seems a little..... rediculus and , opinion biased// no??? 

Speed varies, the slowest is the Jutland at 34kt (excluding T2 Medea at 32kt). Rudder shift's are also varied, Jutland has 4.1, Daring 4.6 which is poor for a destroyer - the corresponding USN ships are 3 and 3.3s. Given that with no engine boost acceleration module is even more attractive I'd say rudder/acceleration is a tricky choice. They're not as bad as Akizuki's 5.6s, but they're pretty bad. Akizuki's a different ship.

Numerous WG CC's have put out videos on these, and you can infer things from the stats too. The OP seems to mostly be channeling this:

Spoiler

 

It is pretty sensible to give feedback, it's apparently partially why WG put these ships in the hands of CC's allowing them to generate content, and why WG have a Development Blog. It's even possible that they're listened to to some extent. The latest Dev Blog:

https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/?hc_ref=ARSpixlOWWtfVvvxEvnXjYNBTu5ObVoGxVQHTGN6GSyA1ZAwqs0stiejB5ft86WKFpM&fref=nf

Specifically makes reference to feedback given on the WIP Stalingrad.

If you don't take the opportunity to give feedback when offered, you can't really complain if you end up with something you don't like.

26 minutes ago, King_Zacarias said:

The only thing WG needs to do to the RN DDs is make the wide spread a narrow spread.

If you give them speed boost then they will just dominate. The lack of speed is their flaw and if you take that away then they will just be too good. Even taking away hydro and giving them speed it will remove their only flaw. 

Fun Fact: A boat can’t be good at everything, that is what is called overpowered

RN DD lack a lot more than speed boost. Even without it they're pretty slow ships. Their other weaknesses include poor rudder shifts, poor torpedoes  - 8km at T8, the T10 is vastly inferior to T9 Fletcher or Chung Mu - the requirement to waste 4 points on IFHE on the T9/T10, lack of AA and terrible shell trajectories - even worse than the USN's for at least everything to T8.

In the current meta the requirement to smoke shoot to land hits without speed boost to reposition or run from radar, and best-case 10km torps is a serious disadvantage.

28 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

RN DDs are the slowest DDs.  Couple that with the lack of Speed Boost, well, you get the picture.  Fletcher is faster, that makes speed boost less critical.

So sure, I guess they could just make the RN DDs faster instead.

Ironically they're not even the slowest a lot of the time.

Acasta for instance is 'slow' at 35kt, but T-22 does just 34.5kt.  The difference is that with boost T-22 does 37.26kt. For some reason the historically faster Acasta ends up 2.26kt slower. Given the conniptions Shimakaze doing 39kt rather than 41kt causes I think there's grounds for complaint.

We probably shouldn't mention the 34kt Shiratsuyu either, which is 2kt slower than the British T7 Jervis which does 36kt... Akizuki does 33kt.

Lightning, the British T8 does 36kt (faster than Kagero and Yugumo), yet she's 'slow' and deserves no speed boost, while the otherwise less than remarkable 36kt Aigle is graced with a 20% speed boost giving her a highly artificial speed flavor.

The slow speed isn't even historically consistent save for Jutland and Daring being below average. It's incredibly forced.

Edited by mofton
SPAG
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,014 posts
6,965 battles
25 minutes ago, King_Zacarias said:

The only thing WG needs to do to the RN DDs is make the wide spread a narrow spread.

If you give them speed boost then they will just dominate. The lack of speed is their flaw and if you take that away then they will just be too good. Even taking away hydro and giving them speed will remove their only flaw. 

Fun Fact: A boat can’t be good at everything, that is called overpowered

So, you wouldn't consider their worse-than-USN-rainbow-ballistics a flaw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,769
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,170 posts
4,435 battles
35 minutes ago, King_Zacarias said:

Fun Fact: A boat can’t be good at everything, that is called overpowered

Bad ballistics.  Short ranged torpedoes.  Poor rudder shift times.  Below average base speed.

Nobody is asking for them to be good at everything, merely able to do a DD's role rather than playing like a bad RN CL.

 

And yes, I think Shimakaze should get its 41 knot speed.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,762
[SALVO]
Members
24,191 posts
24,546 battles
1 hour ago, neptunes_wrath said:

I have no issues with my FLetcher running AA Module as opposed to engine boost, so a lack of it on a DD is not "CRIPPLING" if you keep aware of your surroundings and stop firing to get concealed....

It is when your DD is already slow as … heck.  The Fletcher gets away with it because it has pretty good speed.  The Khab and Grozovoi could both get away with it if they had to, because they're also already fast.  The faster a DD is, the easier it is to get away with not having speed boost.  And if you're the slowest DDs out there, if you have no speed boost, you're really going to be hurting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,762
[SALVO]
Members
24,191 posts
24,546 battles
1 hour ago, neptunes_wrath said:

so exactly how "SLOW" are they..... SLower than an Akizuki??? Rudder shift time???
Have not played them yet as have not most of us so having NOT PLAYED A SHIP and being so fast to rant about it... seems a little..... rediculus and , opinion biased// no??? 

No, not ridiculous at all.  If people wait until the finished product is released it will be much harder to get WG to fix it.  OTOH, if the community makes their complaints about this issue now, I'd think that there's a better chance that the devs will listen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,009 posts
564 battles
6 minutes ago, Crucis said:

No, not ridiculous at all.  If people wait until the finished product is released it will be much harder to get WG to fix it.  OTOH, if the community makes their complaints about this issue now, I'd think that there's a better chance that the devs will listen.

 

but saying one thing without actually playing the ship to actually KNOW that it is a POS....
I mean,.,.. I agree with you about most of things, but confirmation bias is still CONFIRMATION BIAS

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,202 posts
3,461 battles

I have yet to be impressed with details I see coming out of the RN DD line. I've stated this much from their announcement until now. 

Slow and sluggish will not mesh well with where these DD will need to prowl, given their armament. You also need to pull up broadside to use your torps. It's almost like they are designing a meme/joke line to troll us at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts

"Bad ballistics" is rather subjective, as what is bad to one person maybe ok to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,769
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,170 posts
4,435 battles
10 minutes ago, Prothall said:

Give them speed boost, just increase their detected range by a km to compensate for it.

So go from excellent concealment to nearly worst in class concealment and still be among the slowest DDs?  That doesn't seem to be a workable formula.

What would they actually be good at?

Edited by Helstrem
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,526 posts
10,950 battles

It's called balance. The ship is too good in nearly every other aspect. That concealment is crazy good, even OP. Remove your advantage over especially IJN boats in that category(as an example), and only then could I see adding speed boost to this line. Right now, as is, just adding speed boost would make IJN torp boats obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
909
[TSF_1]
Members
3,298 posts
7,484 battles

They're fine as is. I think the fire chance might prove to be a little too strong on the live servers, but that's easily adjusted. What people are having a hard time with is adapting to a new playstyle. WG doesn't want to rehash the same old DD play, because they're hit most of the interesting variations already, with torpedo power, reload, AP, speed, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,243 posts
4,969 battles

I think the issue with these ships, other than everyone watching Notser's video and taking his opinion as their own (I love the guy but one should never really rely on only one perspective), is that people are expecting them to perform the same roles as most other DD lines. From watching the videos and reading the dev blog I would surmise that the RN DDs have their own unique role that isn't simply a gimmick.

RN DDs aren't meant to cap, harass or hunt. They're meant to play king of the hill. It seems to me they're meant to move into a cap after it's been secured and hold it against enemy ships trying to take it back. That way your faster DDs that are designed to cap, harass and hunt can move on to do their thing.

High shell arcs and dpm to fire over cover and punish radar cruisers. Single launch torpedoes to catch DDs who tend to slip through narrow spread unless they're unlucky. Hydro to spot incoming torpedoes in advance. Every strength of these ships have speak to holding an area.

Personally I think this is a pretty awesome and unique idea that offers a different play style that allows your team to 'dig in' so to speak without having to dedicate a portion of your team. The only thing about them that I find questionable is that IFHE is a requirement, but even that might be a snarky attempt at balance on an otherwise pretty strong ship. If you couldn't slot IFHE, what would you take instead and how might that effect the balance of the ship.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,762
[SALVO]
Members
24,191 posts
24,546 battles
32 minutes ago, neptunes_wrath said:

but saying one thing without actually playing the ship to actually KNOW that it is a POS....
I mean,.,.. I agree with you about most of things, but confirmation bias is still CONFIRMATION BIAS

I don't think that one has to play a slow RN gunboat DD to know that it will be weak.  Try playing the Akizuki and you'll have a damned good idea where the RN DD line is heading, if only in a general sense.  Playing the Akizuki will tell you just how difficult it is to play a gunboat DD that's slow.

Honestly, I can deal with the fact that it's shells will likely be floaty.  Some nations' DDs have floaty shells, some have flatter arced shells.  I have no problem with that.  What I do have a problem with are slow gunboat DDs.  IMO, 35 knots and below is just too slow for a gunboat DD.  And if you have a slow gunboat DD like that Akizuki that's armed about as well as one could imagine, I just don't see what they can do to make a slow gunboat DD better if you don't do something about the speed and agility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,762
[SALVO]
Members
24,191 posts
24,546 battles
Just now, KingCakeBaby said:

I think the issue with these ships, other than everyone watching @Notser video and taking his opinion as their own (I love the guy but one should never really one only one perspective), is that people are expecting them to perform the same roles as most other DD lines. From watching the videos and reading the dev blog I would surmise that the RN DDs have their own unique role that isn't simply a gimmick.

RN DDs aren't meant to cap, harass or hunt. They're meant to play king of the hill. It seems to me they're meant to move into a cap after it's been secured and hold it against enemy ships trying to take it back. That way your faster DDs that are designed to cap, harass and hunt can move on to do their thing.

High shell arcs and dpm to fire over cover and punish radar cruisers. Single launch torpedoes to catch DDs who tend to slip through narrow spread unless they're unlucky. Hydro to spot incoming torpedoes in advance. Every strength of these ships have speak to holding an area.

Personally I think this is a pretty awesome and unique idea that offers a different play style that allows your team to 'dig in' so to speak without having to dedicate a portion of your team. The only thing about them that I find questionable is that IFHE is a requirement, but even that might be a snarky attempt at balance on an otherwise pretty strong ship. If you couldn't slot IFHE, what would you take instead and how might that effect the balance of the ship.

Honestly, I think that it's a pretty crappy idea.  I believe that all DDs, Russian DDs included, should be capable of capping and counter DD work.  People complain all the time about DDs not being willing to cap.  Well, it seems to me that the solution to that is make every DD capable of contending for caps, even if they have some minor differences in capability.  But the RN DDs seem to be the DD equivalent of the RN CLs.  Hide and shoot, whether in smoke or behind islands.  I think that this is a horrible idea.

 

I do agree about IFHE.  I don't like the idea that IFHE is necessary on any ship.  It's one thing for CE to feel like it's necessary, but that's because everyone takes CE on nearly every captain for nearly every ship.  (Not all, but the vast majority.)  It's to the point that for nearly all captain/ships you can write off 4 points for CE and move on from there.  But IFHE is a much more narrow requirement, because it's only a small handful of ships that "need" to have IFHE on their captains.  Frankly, it's to the point where I kind of think that maybe IFHE should be cooked into all guns smaller than 8", regardless of nation, and then remove the skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×