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

Remove DD SOFT & HARD CAP

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
565 posts
168 battles
3 minutes ago, Vaffu said:

Sometimes one team would have more DDs than the other particularly if there are DDs divisioned up which still was not that big an issue. 

That is a complete outlier. Potentially even 1 in 500-1000 matches occurred server wide. Changes like that do not get made for outliers.

Edited by Sbane12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[TMS]
Members
1,735 posts
22,088 battles
1 hour ago, __Dave said:

That's not true.  I had a battle where I was in the Lion last night and there was only one DD in the battle per side.  Should have seen the mayhem it caused on our team....

Yep I see what 1or 2 dds a side does to teams at high tier 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
241 posts

let's just remove DD's period and keep this game about powerful warships not boats that need to be artificially inflated to be remotely effective.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[5D]
Members
1,245 posts
7,238 battles
47 minutes ago, Sensai_Lawrence said:

let's just remove DD's period and keep this game about powerful warships not boats that need to be artificially inflated to be remotely effective.  

 

See what happens when you gut CV's?

 

The complainers just move on to their next target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[LEGIT]
Members
448 posts
6,424 battles

I think soft cap and hard should apply to cruisers and BB as well. And i know that 70%of you guys wont agree on this idea, but Im tired of seeing giant amont of DDs, CA/CLs, BBs such as 6v6 or 7v7 cruisers ( and this still happens even with soft cap ( since soft cap only limits no more than 4 dds per team so it could be 2v2 oe 3v3 dds). The most ideal was is to have a 4 4 4 setup where there are 4 DDs 4 CA/CL and 4 BBs. This way the whole charade  will be balanced.

of course, due to the CV's will make this nearly impossible but its worth a shot to try this 1 out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
500 posts
5,594 battles

In theory having DDs to screen your fleet and spot is great...to bad 3/4 fuc*ing DIE in the first 5 minutes of a match...

Gonna be worse once people figure out BBs can't pen them...that is if the "no full pen" thing actually sticks around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
565 posts
168 battles
1 hour ago, Akashi_Nyan said:

I think soft cap and hard should apply to cruisers and BB as well. And i know that 70%of you guys wont agree on this idea, but Im tired of seeing giant amont of DDs, CA/CLs, BBs such as 6v6 or 7v7 cruisers ( and this still happens even with soft cap ( since soft cap only limits no more than 4 dds per team so it could be 2v2 oe 3v3 dds). The most ideal was is to have a 4 4 4 setup where there are 4 DDs 4 CA/CL and 4 BBs. This way the whole charade  will be balanced.

of course, due to the CV's will make this nearly impossible but its worth a shot to try this 1 out.

I think the perfect world is increase match limits to 13v13

1/4/4/4 hard MM limits.

The beauty of hard MM limits are that it also streamlines both the matches but the data resulting for balance purposes.

If you have a specific type that is catered too, or allowed to be overpowered in any way, the long term population metrics show it. This happens in every single multiplayer online game ever created. FoTM was and is typically a term derived for the constant flow of balance, simply because of path of least resistance. An archetype would be swung into OP territory from a balance patch, and a swath of players would switch to primarily playing that OP archetype until the next balance patch that would make another archetype OP and the previous one would be nerfed at the same time, so that same swath of players would switch again. Here we have FoTG or FoTYs.... Flavor of the Game? Flavor of the Years? Something like that.

With a hard limit equalized for all ship types, except CVs which are meant to be a jack of all trades outlier, even those archetypes which are unbalanced will not also further break the balance by having an unbalanced number per match as well. The additional benefit of this is eventually impatience will rise above desire for easy domination. Eventually the que times for the class that is unbalanced will be at a level where you will see players willing to succumb to more difficult play, by playing a less powerful type, just to have faster que times.
(It also gives WG less breathing room for excuses when leaving certain types OP)

hard MM limits are also pretty necessary for any Rock-Paper-Scissors.

In RPS, if Rocks population rises due to an imbalance, Papers population would still see a rise unless they are also uncompetitive or disadvantaged against Rock for some reason.  This is what we have seen. However, instead of nerfing Rock or buffing paper to be better against Rock..... WG saw fit to further nerf Paper over and over and a hard counter was even given to Scissors to better counter Paper. Scissors wasn't having poor population and performance due to Paper, Scissors wasn't hiding behind islands because of Paper, Scissors was never being Citadeled from 23km, from different angles and from hidden enemies, by paper.
 

Edited by Sbane12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[BOTES]
Members
1,919 posts
6,658 battles
7 hours ago, Sbane12 said:

On the contrary.

Whilst those symptoms were certainly an issue, this is just them refusing to fix the root cause.

There are too much internal power weight for DDs in internally countering. In other words, too many DDs that were **intentionally** made stronger against other DDs, and weaker against non-DDs. No other ship type suffers this. This is also one of the reasons the type has been the lowest performer since the game was playable.

Imagine if WG released a SINGLE BB that  auto-citadeled other BBs but did significantly reduced damage against non-BBs.

There would be rioting in the streets.

Name a DD that is strong against other DDs and isn't strong against everything else. I can name several DD that are strong against everything else but weak against other DDs, but not the inverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
565 posts
168 battles
16 minutes ago, awildseaking said:

Name a DD that is strong against other DDs and isn't strong against everything else. I can name several DD that are strong against everything else but weak against other DDs, but not the inverse.

Okay lets start with T-10 alone.  Z-52, Grozovoi, Daring, Gearing.  That's already 4 out of 8. so 50%.

How about stronger against DDs than non-DDs, but still good against non-DDs?

Khaba, Haragumo. That brings it up to what? 6/8

Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[BOTES]
Members
1,919 posts
6,658 battles
1 minute ago, Sbane12 said:

Okay lets start with T-10 alone.  Z-52, Grozovoi, Daring, Gearing.  That's already 4 out of 8. so 50%.

How about stronger against DDs than non-DDs, but still good against non-DDs?

Khaba, Haragumo. That brings it up to what? 6/8

Anything else?

Objectively wrong. None of the DDs you listed are bad against anything, DD or not. Also Khab is objectively trash at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[FAE]
Members
2,161 posts
2,639 battles

Considering that players want no CV, only 4 DDs, what it really is is BB players who want only BBs and CAs as fodder. 

 

I say give them 7 DDs per team in a 12v12. =) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
462 posts
8,499 battles
17 hours ago, _Rumple_ said:

3 of the 4 die in the first few minutes mostly, so you're really dealing with 1 or 2 DD's five minutes into the game. Not sure what you're complaining about...

What he is saying is games that have an additional dd in them means it just increases the chance that he will have to deal with a DD.   Having to deal with a dd reduces the enjoyment of a match more often than it improves them.  Therefore this change has reduced the average enjoyment of the average game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[AAA]
Members
427 posts
5,463 battles
9 hours ago, Vaffu said:

When was this ever the case?

Before the RN dd drop 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
565 posts
168 battles
1 hour ago, awildseaking said:

Objectively wrong. None of the DDs you listed are bad against anything, DD or not. Also Khab is objectively trash at this point.

That is you using terminology you don't understand.

They are as I listed them.

The Khab was the most balanced DD when it was released, the torp nerf was unwarranted. The other DDs at the time were so underperforming that when the devs subjectively balanced as opposed to "objectively", the power difference between where other DDs were at and the mean (where Khab was at) was so large it can "appear" to be an imbalance to the untrained eye.

 

Quote
Quote

 

Edited by Sbane12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[KRAK]
Members
1,264 posts
13,689 battles
52 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

Before the RN dd drop 

Rarely ever see matches with just 2 DD and it has always been this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FBXGC]
Members
118 posts
1,567 battles
4 hours ago, Sbane12 said:

Okay lets start with T-10 alone.  Z-52, Grozovoi, Daring, Gearing.  That's already 4 out of 8. so 50%.

How about stronger against DDs than non-DDs, but still good against non-DDs?

Khaba, Haragumo. That brings it up to what? 6/8

Anything else?

 

Khaba and Haragumo's shred BBs easier than other DD's, Haragumos specifically prefer no DDs around so they can sit safe in smoke and rain fire on everything with no fear of torps. Z, Grozo, YY,  and gearing are equal opportunity predators. Shima hates DD being around. Realistically the Daring is the only one that particularly prefers fight other DD's over anything else and really that is debatable too. DD's -LOVE- out spotting their prey and that means BB's and non-radar cruisers(Or bad radar cruiser captains). 

 

Why would any DD want to have to fight off another DD if the other option is feasting on BB tears?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[BOTES]
Members
1,919 posts
6,658 battles
4 hours ago, Sbane12 said:

That is you using terminology you don't understand.

They are as I listed them.

The Khab was the most balanced DD when it was released, the torp nerf was unwarranted. The other DDs at the time were so underperforming that when the devs subjectively balanced as opposed to "objectively", the power difference between where other DDs were at and the mean (where Khab was at) was so large it can "appear" to be an imbalance to the untrained eye.

The fact that you have no idea how these ships are played based on their innate characteristics does not make my statement subjective. None of the 4 ships you listed objectively qualify as "a DD that is strong against other DDs and isn't strong against everything else." This isn't a matter of opinion, but fact. Either the ships have the latent capability to perform well against ships or they don't, hence why I said objective. You can't "subjectively" say that these features and mechanics don't exist just because you don't use them yourself.

  1. Z-52: highest torpedo DPM in the game, stealthiest torpedoes at T10 (excluding Khabarovsk's gimmicky short range electric torpedoes)
  2. Grozovoi: extremely high DPM, crosses 27mm pen threshold with IFHE. Powerful combination of range, DPM, torpedoes, speed, and effective health pool.
  3. Daring: similar to Grozovoi but with the benefit of single fire torpedoes and concealment in exchange for losing various utility features (DFAA, longer smokes, etc.)
  4. Gearing: longest torpedo range in the game for a viable torpedo, powerful combination of torpedoes, smoke, and DPM.

There isn't a single T10 DD that is strong against DD and nothing else. There are ships that are strong against everything and two exceptions to that rule at T10: Shimakaze, which is weak against everything, and Khabarovsk, which is weak against DD (not literally, but effectively) and strong against everything else.

Edited by awildseaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[SIDE]
Members
1,256 posts
8,868 battles
7 hours ago, WES_HoundDog said:

What he is saying is games that have an additional dd in them means it just increases the chance that he will have to deal with a DD.   Having to deal with a dd reduces the enjoyment of a match more often than it improves them.  Therefore this change has reduced the average enjoyment of the average game.

I understand what he's saying, however my comment still stands. DD's usually die fast, especially at the start of a match. Whether there is always 4 per side or in the old system, between say 2 and 6 makes little difference. They still die fast.

As for your input, you're just showing your prejudice against DD's because regardless you don't care for them in-game. That's fine, I get it, I don't like carriers. However I am not going to say carriers ruin my gaming experience. You just have to adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×