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

Unicum Kitakaze & How WoWS Meta is Devolving

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
272 posts
5,405 battles

Hello. In recent months I've come to some realizations about WoWS and its development. During this time I played quite a lot of Yugumo, Shimakaze, Akizuki, and Kitakaze. I finished Kitakaze's grind to Harugumo with: 69 battles, 63.77% WR, 84.4k Avg Dmg, 1971 WTR, and top 50 on wows-numbers leaderboard (and apparently the max XP game for it). I will be covering two main topics: (1) How I played Kitakaze, and (2) how Kitakaze fits into the current WoWS meta. Maybe I should have split this into two different posts, but in my mind they were related, since I view Kitakaze as a good representation of an issue in the second section.

 

(1) Kitakaze

Gameplay

Kitakaze is an extremely flexible destroyer with great concealment, good torpedoes, and outstanding guns. While an easy ship to play, the point of my playstyle is to not be content with good games but to strive for the best performance at all times.

 

Caps: Plagued with mediocre maneuverability and no hydro she cannot easily win caps other than gunning enemy DDs off of it, while not quite claiming it herself since it is usually unsafe to do so. People these days have improved their aim on destroyers, and thus early-game knife-fighting is more team-dependent rather than the skill of each DD player involved. Early-game is especially dangerous because the fight has not yet evolved, usually meaning more concentrated fire on DDs. At the same time, if you’re going to avoid cap then at least have an alternative purpose. Time spent doing nothing is time spent losing.

 

Enagaging - Knife-fighting: Outside of caps, however, the ship excels at engaging DDs. With 5.9km concealment and a little situational awareness, you can always (minus radar/CVs) choose your engagements. You will mostly spot other DDs beforehand, and the few DDs that have higher concealment will not have ample time to disengage. The key is situational awareness such that you are prepared and want to engage. A favorable exchange means you have dealt significantly more damage to them than them to you - equal or less damage is a poor exchange. This point is not universal, but Kitakaze is an excellent gunboat and therefore should excel at that. Do this by preparing all turrets on the side you expect to engage, by using AP as necessary, and by aiming well. I love knife-fighting, but these days you must be especially aware of who is behind the enemy DD. Again, the goal is a favorable exchange, so even if you're melting the poor DD, him and his teammates may be doing greater work upon you.

 

Engaging - General engagement: You want to make use of your guns on BBs and even CAs as necessary. DDs are natural counters to BBs which “anchor” down positions for their team. I smoke in a position such that: (1) (ideally) can use hard cover as necessary to escape in case of torps/radar, (2) (ideally) includes a teammate that needs it (emphasis on "need" since a full HP BB in smoke without shots is literally useless), (2) not one single puff of smoke that is very telling of your position, (3) someone other than yourself is spotting the ship(s) you want to engage, and (4) you can engage at least two enemies. It's fine to damage farm one ship but, as I've learned from CVs, to excel you want to set fires on multiple ships. Mitigate danger with several puffs of smoke, propulsion mod, and not sitting full broadside in it. CAs are much tougher to engage, again because the exchange likely won't be favorable. In general, if it's safe to do so, engage them over BBs. However, engaging CAs as a DD is very situational and ship dependent and ultimately it is up to you to learn and decide.

Don't spend all game gunboating from a distance. While it's certainly viable, save that for Harugumo. Kitakaze is too good in too many areas to not take advantage of. So, as necessary, do your part on the frontline with caps and knife-fighting.

 

Torpedos: Double (with reload booster) sextuple JP torps are not to be ignored. The one and only downside is the reload; at least the reload booster is ready by the time the torps are. With this slow reload, use them wisely.

 

The Build

Upgrades:

  • Main Armaments Mod 1 - pretty obvious, though to be honest I used to main Magazine Mod 1 and now own 900 det flags)
  • Propulsion Mod 1 - None of the options are a big deal, but even with LS having propulsion knocked out is annoying
  • Aiming System Mod 1 - you're a gunboat
  • Propulsion Mod 2 - Knocks off a lot of time on accelerating, which is important if you sit in smoke. For steering, just remember it's only about a second difference there.
  • Concealment System Mod 1 - I don't even know why there's other options since nobody in the game ever chooses anything else
  • Main Battery Mod 3 – Fractions of a second but noticeable, and think of it as increased DPM.

            Skills:

            I have no 19-pt captains and never plan for it (even Shoukaku only 18.5 pts with 385 games). Kitakaze I started with 15 pts (Yamamoto simply for spamming red tracers) and worked to the below 16 pts. With 19 I’d opt for another T3 skill, probably DE.

  • PT – situational awareness
  • LS – crappy engine is better than no engine
  • AR – more DPM
  • BFT – more DPM; highly debatable tier, but: SE looks nice, but is realistically only a few shots difference, SI I personally wouldn’t make use of as I use consumables conservatively (and run prem), DE I feel sheer quantity of shells will suffice instead
  • IFHE – feel the power of melting anything and everything
  • CE – so obvious that it’s one of the big reasons I think WoWS ship builds are boringly static

 

TLDR: Build and play towards her many strengths, always for better performance, not to try and mitigate weaknesses or personal shortcomings.

 

(2) WoWS Meta

Bluntly put, I believe this game is devolving as things become simpler (dumbed down). I finished Kitakaze's grind to Harugumo with: 69 battles, 63.77% WR, 84.4k Avg Dmg, 1971 WTR, and top 50 on wows-numbers leaderboard (and apparently the max XP game for it). Comparatively, I have Yugumo with: 126 battles, 63.49% WR, 65.4k Avg Dmg, and 2096 WTR. Playing Kitakaze and Yugumo, the difference between them is almost comical, and among other things brought me to question my enjoyment of this game.

(1)   Gunboat focus – It’s disappointing how easy and excellent Kitakaze is, versus my dear torpedo counterparts which are infinitely more fun yet difficult to play. The game has largely been reduced to either sheer shell spam, or fire spam, until the red bar melts to 0. It’s sad that torpedoes, as one of the two things I loved about WoWS over traditional shooters is relatively obsolete in the face of radar and sonar on so many ships now, compounded by spotter planes (insanely far in front of the source ship) and fighter planes (up for several mins), not to mention CV planes, torp distance detection, and ships changing course which should be the natural counters. While still nominally existent, they are not as very impactful on games as a whole. Try to play torp DDs and you’ll realize how team-dependent they are (towards winning). While Kitakaze can look at anything and begin melting it, Yugumo (especially Shimakaze) require patience and much more situational awareness, both into torpedo launching as well as positioning, due to them being more fragile (defenseless).

(2)   CVs – Truly the most tragic loss to me personally as a CV main, the second thing I loved about WoWS over traditional shooters. I think there’s enough discussion about the new style of gameplay that I need say no more. Regarding the rework itself, though, I am appalled that this is the solution. It makes me believe they simply, after several years of anticipation, decided to thrown in an immature, random, and drastic change simply for the sake of checking it off the list. It’s like it was labeled on the checklist as “fix CVs”, instead of what the class’s issues actually were. Another case of classic WG “solutions plagued with more problems.” I wonder if this rework’s true long-term goal was for people to lose interest in CVs, thus ending complaints about them, all while still being able to advertise them.

(3)   Static builds – clear choices such as everyone having concealment mod and skill, many basically useless skills, and class-only (CV) skills, all of which demote creative builds and dynamic gameplay. It’s pretty clear that certain skills were meant for select certain ships or classes. The skill tree needs a major rework with the end result being more dynamic gameplay, so rework it in a way such that there’s more than one viable build. The game is arcade-like as it is, so it’s fine to have ships being played slightly differently.

 

 

For a while, I was torn between mainly spending my time on WoWS or WOT: ships is more balanced (less snowballing stomps) but relatively too simple and thus boring, while tanks is less balanced but more fun (shots instead of salvos and meaningful armor means more important bounces, instead of simply shooting a relatively predictable target until all HP is gone). For other personal reasons I now don’t play either (still might log on to keep my username :P). My brief run at War Thunder was much more enjoyable (though biased since that’s how a game always is when starting), though again for personal reasons I stopped that as well.

  • Cool 12
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,262
[WOLF7]
Members
10,768 posts

Worried about being elite while sailing across a ocean of spuds? :Smile_amazed:

The problem isn't the game or WG, it's people actually thinking this is a competitive game, when the vast majority of players have no idea how to compete, or interest in competing.....:Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,731
[RLGN]
Members
9,408 posts
18,821 battles

‘Change for its own sake...’ (to paraphrase...) pointless and ultimately meaningless.

What an appropriate way of putting it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,301 posts
7,663 battles

People always complained about the Hara being broken, but honestly this thing is even scarier.  It has better concealment, smaller target, and doesn't eat BB AP like Hara.  The only downsides are one less turret and less health. 

 

I played and finished grinding it back in the anniversary event in 30 matches.(so many xp boosters during that event)  Of those, i won 26 of those.  A few of them i played like a potato.  1 or 2 of them i think i could of won if i played better.  75k average damage, 2.5k xp per match, 1.37 ship kills a match.    I felt like i had massive carry potential in that ship.  You could eat anyone alive. Was easily my best tier 9 DD.  I felt a little dirty playing it.  the 1/4 pen was a little much for this DD line in general imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
587
[-SYN-]
Members
2,769 posts
8,922 battles

Yeah, HE spam has become overly abundant int he game as of late. Ever since RN BB's where introduced HE spam has reached critical mass. At least USN CL's are fairly easy to kill if caught out in the open. RN BB's lack that weakness, and emphasize probably the most brainless play available in the game. But my biggest problem with the He spam abundance isn't the damage or even the fighters, its the fact that HE spam prevalence neuters the hell out of AA and secondary builds. I think that is one aspect that needs to be addressed, they either need to remove permanent AA and secondary mount destruction, or make it so that they will be repaired every time you use repair party. Its frustrating as hell to see your Montana's AA build get reduced to T4 levels of AA just because a conqueror fired a single volley at you. And of course the fact that AA and secondary builds can get neutered so easily contributes to the campy playstyle.

 

Now as for gunboat focused DD's well hate to break it to you, but that was always going to happen, and this comes down to real world designs. Japan was the only nation that built torpedo centric DD's in large numbers. Most nations built their DD's to be gunboats first torpedo boat second. So in this regard, its historical accuracy that most DD's are gunboats. And the reason being is that even in real life, torpedo focused DD's weren't that successful, as DD's didn't make the best launching platforms for torpedoes. Unlike in game, real life DD's didn't have romulan cloaking devices to protect them, and they didn't go 90 knots the way they do ingame. Plus even with IJN Torpedo DD's they at most carried a single reload, and that was it. Plus they where a pretty significant explosive hazard, a single 5 inch shell hitting the torpedo tubes could mean the total destruction of the destroyer using them. And although overpenetration is a thing in real life, a Battleship AP shell hitting your ships boilers was going to give you a very bad day. Aircraft, Submarines, and even torpedo boats turned out to be far more effective torpedo launching platforms than surface ships. Simply put, most Nations built their DD's to counter smaller torpedo boats, submarines and other DD's, they did not design them to make torpedo runs against battleships, and doing so was usually only done as a last resort.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,401 posts
13,944 battles
55 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Worried about being elite while sailing across a ocean of spuds? :Smile_amazed:

The problem isn't the game or WG, it's people actually thinking this is a competitive game, when the vast majority of players have no idea how to compete, or interest in competing.....:Smile_teethhappy:

Back on your A game... I missed having you not be the first to respond. +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
878
[NG-NL]
Members
5,339 posts
8,963 battles

Only devolving because of players who are afraid of being destroyed before they can escape, methinks.

Pushed aggressively before in my Richi and all, and died because the wimps did not push hard with me.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,401 posts
13,944 battles

Some ships in the game feel cheap, as in cheap to play. These two IJN dds fall in to that category for me. I've got a 19point captain rotting in the Gumo...same with the Daring...the game has gone overboard with these IFHE rapid fire dds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,422
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,052 posts
10,140 battles

As far as your build; a DD with no RPF is just a delicious snack as far as I’m concerned if I’m driving a DD with halfway decent guns.

IFHE 100mm IJN DDs are incredibly annoying in that they’re usually an impediment, not an asset. Constantly behind islands and smoke while the enemy DDs run roughshod over the team. You might make it work over a short number of games, but it’s incredibly team dependent. It’s much like the Minotaur; great and getting high damage numbers. Trash at winning games. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,220
Alpha Tester
5,501 posts
2,625 battles

While it looks like you certainly did your homework, there's one critical thing missing: If you believe that the meta is devolving, then what do you propose to fix it? The reason why I say this is because currently you are addressing a problem without proposing a solution, and there's a quote from Teddy Roosevelt that I keep handy for situations such as this that you may want to read.

85cd718b2af97d56e30b533d4e475ccc.thumb.jpg.00486d504f1b6add2f715d1b14173d30.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,638
[RKLES]
Members
8,340 posts
10,570 battles
2 hours ago, awiggin said:

Worried about being elite while sailing across a ocean of spuds? :Smile_amazed:

The problem isn't the game or WG, it's people actually thinking this is a competitive game, when the vast majority of players have no idea how to compete, or interest in competing.....:Smile_teethhappy:

Wargaming is not entirely off the hook since they still have some game bugs that need to be fixed. Once those are resolved and game runs smoothly each month then I can let them off the hook. Since let’s say they put 3 elite players on one team and 3 elite players on other team, then fill the rest of the spots with more average players and below average, but evenly distributed. Now game bugs disconnected  1-3 of the Elite players on one of the teams. Now is the playing field still level or has Wargaming created a problem?

And yes I have seen multiple disconnected players, you can have all 4 DDs disconnected or 5 or so of your BBs on your team, sadly have seen that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,638
[RKLES]
Members
8,340 posts
10,570 battles
8 minutes ago, lipiru said:

What is an unicum?

It’s the nickname given to the top players in the game, the players that have many thousands of battles and have Win rate Stats 60% or higher or maybe it’s 65% or higher?

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[PSV]
[PSV]
Members
266 posts
8,210 battles
Just now, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

It’s the nickname given to the top players in the game, the players that have many thousands of battles and have Stats 60% or higher or maybe it’s 65% or higher?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,346
[CUTER]
Members
3,824 posts
16,860 battles
3 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Win rate Stats

What is win rate stats and how do I buy one?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[PSV]
[PSV]
Members
266 posts
8,210 battles
9 minutes ago, Preteen said:

What is win rate stats and how do I buy one?

Walmart sells everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[TF-60]
Members
124 posts
8,325 battles
2 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

As far as your build; a DD with no RPF is just a delicious snack as far as I’m concerned if I’m driving a DD with halfway decent guns.

IFHE 100mm IJN DDs are incredibly annoying in that they’re usually an impediment, not an asset. Constantly behind islands and smoke while the enemy DDs run roughshod over the team. You might make it work over a short number of games, but it’s incredibly team dependent. It’s much like the Minotaur; great and getting high damage numbers. Trash at winning games. 

Do you run rpf on your groz, khab, or Tashkent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,253
[SALVO]
Members
18,309 posts
18,897 battles
3 hours ago, Shoukaku_Kai_Ni said:

 

(2) WoWS Meta

Bluntly put, I believe this game is devolving as things become simpler (dumbed down). I finished Kitakaze's grind to Harugumo with: 69 battles, 63.77% WR, 84.4k Avg Dmg, 1971 WTR, and top 50 on wows-numbers leaderboard (and apparently the max XP game for it). Comparatively, I have Yugumo with: 126 battles, 63.49% WR, 65.4k Avg Dmg, and 2096 WTR. Playing Kitakaze and Yugumo, the difference between them is almost comical, and among other things brought me to question my enjoyment of this game.

(1)   Gunboat focus – It’s disappointing how easy and excellent Kitakaze is, versus my dear torpedo counterparts which are infinitely more fun yet difficult to play. The game has largely been reduced to either sheer shell spam, or fire spam, until the red bar melts to 0. It’s sad that torpedoes, as one of the two things I loved about WoWS over traditional shooters is relatively obsolete in the face of radar and sonar on so many ships now, compounded by spotter planes (insanely far in front of the source ship) and fighter planes (up for several mins), not to mention CV planes, torp distance detection, and ships changing course which should be the natural counters. While still nominally existent, they are not as very impactful on games as a whole. Try to play torp DDs and you’ll realize how team-dependent they are (towards winning). While Kitakaze can look at anything and begin melting it, Yugumo (especially Shimakaze) require patience and much more situational awareness, both into torpedo launching as well as positioning, due to them being more fragile (defenseless).

(2)   CVs – Truly the most tragic loss to me personally as a CV main, the second thing I loved about WoWS over traditional shooters. I think there’s enough discussion about the new style of gameplay that I need say no more. Regarding the rework itself, though, I am appalled that this is the solution. It makes me believe they simply, after several years of anticipation, decided to thrown in an immature, random, and drastic change simply for the sake of checking it off the list. It’s like it was labeled on the checklist as “fix CVs”, instead of what the class’s issues actually were. Another case of classic WG “solutions plagued with more problems.” I wonder if this rework’s true long-term goal was for people to lose interest in CVs, thus ending complaints about them, all while still being able to advertise them.

(3)   Static builds – clear choices such as everyone having concealment mod and skill, many basically useless skills, and class-only (CV) skills, all of which demote creative builds and dynamic gameplay. It’s pretty clear that certain skills were meant for select certain ships or classes. The skill tree needs a major rework with the end result being more dynamic gameplay, so rework it in a way such that there’s more than one viable build. The game is arcade-like as it is, so it’s fine to have ships being played slightly differently.

 

 

For a while, I was torn between mainly spending my time on WoWS or WOT: ships is more balanced (less snowballing stomps) but relatively too simple and thus boring, while tanks is less balanced but more fun (shots instead of salvos and meaningful armor means more important bounces, instead of simply shooting a relatively predictable target until all HP is gone). For other personal reasons I now don’t play either (still might log on to keep my username :P). My brief run at War Thunder was much more enjoyable (though biased since that’s how a game always is when starting), though again for personal reasons I stopped that as well.

Skipping the Kitakaze stuff, for the mostd part to focus in the second part of this post.

BTW, a BIG thumbs up for truly excellent formatting.  Too bad more people didn't put this much effort into making their longish posts better formatted and thus more readable. :cap_like:

 

1. Gunboat focus.  I agree.  I think that there's too much gunboat focus.  That said, there are some nations' DDs that simply seemed to have been designed to be gunboats.  I'm thinking about the French and Italians.  I think that part of the problem is that WG keeps insisting on creating different flavors for different nations' DD lines, when in reality, many DDs may have just been very similar to other nations' DDs.  Think about it.  How different are the RN DDs, in the mid tiers in particular, from the USN DDs?  They're both hybrids.  And what the heck is a "defensive DD", for crying out loud?  That seems like a flavor that was created when it wasn't necessary to do so.  I wish that they'd just given the RN DDs speed boost same as every other nations' DDs, as well as a little more range on the torps, and stopped trying to shoehorn in a bogus flavor into the mix.  Even with speed boost and slightly longer ranged torps,  the RN's "flavor" would have been very nimble, if a little slow on the top speed, hybrid DDs, and that would have been fine.  Of course, the T9-10 RN DDs transition over to being a bit more gun-boaty with their smaller caliber but higher RoF guns.  But frankly, they could have reduced the RoF a bit along with giving them back their speed boost and a bit more torp range, and they'd have also been solid hybrid DDs.  But nooo, gotta go for those gunboats!!!  

I gotta agree that there's a real challenge to playing the stealthy hunter in a torpedo boat  DD.

 

2. Carriers:  I really dislike carriers in this game.  I won't lie about that.  I'd be happy if they'd never been in the game or  were removed.  Having said that, part of me wishes that they'd taken a less radical first attempt to fix CVs.

If I was going to attempt a less radical fix, what I'd have done is the following.

a. Remove all manual attacks.  Make all plane attacks automatic.  Having played a bit with my Bogue recently, automatic isn't as completely braindead as some might think, at least for torp bombers.  You can change your angle of attack with automatic TBs.  Would this mean that you couldn't (manually) drop torps into smoke clouds?  It would, but arguably, perhaps there'd be a workaround that could be developed.  But even if there was no work around, I'd be OK with that.

b. Make all carriers have the same squadron sizes. One of the complaints that the devs say that this rework addresses is the difficulty of multitasking.  Ok.  Well, from my perspective, having played both IJN and USN CVs, those smaller, but more numerous IJN squadrons greatly contribute to multitasking overload, because they have so damned many squadrons.  Having so many squadrons to manage increases this overload.  So if squadrons were made larger but less numerous, this should arguably help to somewhat decrease overload.  Furthermore, having to manage manual attacks also increases multitasking overload, so removing them should also help in this  regard.

c. (optional, as in, maybe perhaps an interesting idea)  Maybe drop fighters entirely and replace them with rocket armed fighter-bombers like in this CV rework.  First, without having to manage fighter combat, carriers wouldn't even have to worry about each other.  They'd go about making their attacks on ships.    And replacing fighters with rocket-armed fighter-bombers would give carrier players a new toy to play with.  Also, without fighters in the mix, this would seem to increase the overall survivability of a carrier's total air group.  

d. Maybe limit the number of squadrons on a carrier to 3.  One fighter-bomber (rockets), one torpedo bomber, and one dive bomber squadron.  And but with the same hanger sizes, it'd seem hard to lose all your planes in such a hurry if you could only put up 3 squadrons at a time with the same hanger capacities (see point 'e').

e. Hanger capacities:  Hangers could be left as is.  Or CVs could have limitless hanger capacities, similar to the rework.  But greatly increase the "reload" time for squadrons when you have to replace lost planes.  Make it hurt a little to push home attacks and losing entire squadrons.

f.  Oh, and keep the RTS system.

Anyways, these are just some ideas that I've thrown together that would have seemed like a less radical reworking of carriers.

 

3. Static Builds and the Skill Tree:  I agree entirely.  The real problem is that there are just certain skills that are absolute must haves most of the time.  And must have skills just eat up your total number of available skill points, which in turn makes for far less variety in captain builds.  Last Stand is such a skill for DDs and a handful of cruisers that happen to have extremely vulnerable engines or rudders.  Concealment Expert is such a skill for nearly all ships.  Only a few players will skip CE on some BBs, largely because they want to use the 4 points for something else, like a secondary build GK.

Personally, I think that Concealment Expert should be replaced with Camouflage Expert, which would increase the dispersion of any gunfire directed at your ship.  This would be a nice skill, but NOT a total must have skill.  (And it might not even be worthy of being a 4 point skill.)  Side note:  I'd do the same thing for the Concealment Upgrade module, replacing it with a Camouflage upgrade module that has the same effect of increasing dispersion vs incoming gun fire.  The thing is that concealment is a total all or nothing effect.  If you're concealed, you're nearly invulnerable, unless someone gets close enough to spot you or uses some sort of technology to spot you.  But with a Camo skill (and upgrade module), enhanced dispersion for your ship doesn't make your ship invulnerable.  You can still be hit.  It just gets a little more difficult.

Last Stand: Some have suggested that perhaps this should be baked into all DDs (or maybe even all ships).  Part of me wants to say that I agree.  But OTOH, Last Stand seems almost too powerful.  That is, the benefit of LS seems too good, and I'm wondering if perhaps if LS was going to be  baked into all ships, perhaps the benefit shouldn't be quite as good.  The ship's max speed with a damaged engine and LS maybe shouldn't be quite as high, and the rudder shift perhaps should be somewhat less responsive, in exchange for not having to spend 2 points on a skill and having it for free.  One interesting thought might be that if your ship has had its engine or rudder damaged but is still operating under the baked in LS, and you take another hit to that damaged rudder or engine, perhaps the rudder THEN becomes jammed or the engine THEN becomes knocked out.  In essence, the first hit to a healthy rudder or engine wouldn't be completely crippling, but a second hit to it would be, if it hasn't been repaired yet.

IFHE:  This is a must have for some ships, and a don't bother for others.  (Oddly, it's become a useful skill for the Henri in CBs as a counter to Stalingrads.)  I think that a BIG part of the problem here is that there's no RNG in penetration for hits on enemy ships.  If you hit X amount of armor with a Y caliber gun, you will ALWAYS get a penetration.  And because of this, players game their use of IFHE based on whether an individual ship has any real need for it based on the enemy ships it's likely to face.  Maybe if there was a little bit of RNG in penetration, say, +/-10% either way, this might change how players looked at IFHE.  OTOH, maybe it wouldn't.

Expert Loader:  I have MASSIVE realism reasons for hating this skill, but I'll skip those for now.  My in-game reason for disliking this skill is that it only works when all guns are loaded.  But what happens if only half of your guns are loaded and the other half are reloading?  Then the skill is useless.  It'd be faster to just go straight for the full reload to the other ammo at times.  So much for the expertise of your loader.  Personally, I'd rather that an Expert Loader just improve the reload rate of your main guns and left it at that.

Anyways, there's so much that they could do to improve the skill tree.  And focus on trying to create skills in such a way that it's as hard as possible to overly min-max commander builds, or at least make it so that it's a lot harder to claim that there's any single optimal commander build for any given ship.

 

That's all I have for now.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,253
[SALVO]
Members
18,309 posts
18,897 battles
2 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

As far as your build; a DD with no RPF is just a delicious snack as far as I’m concerned if I’m driving a DD with halfway decent guns.

IFHE 100mm IJN DDs are incredibly annoying in that they’re usually an impediment, not an asset. Constantly behind islands and smoke while the enemy DDs run roughshod over the team. You might make it work over a short number of games, but it’s incredibly team dependent. It’s much like the Minotaur; great and getting high damage numbers. Trash at winning games. 

The problem with the Akizuki and Harugumo is that to make the most out of their strengths, you need to be hiding (whether in smoke or behind islands) so that you can spam at will, because otherwise, you're just too big and easy a target.  And too clumsy to avoid torps much of the time.  The kitakaze is a bit more maneuverable, but it's still pretty similar to its cousins.

I've tried playing a Harugumo in CBs, but it's just so difficult to be effective because its strength is its guns.  But you can't just fire openly, at least not unless you're with a number of team mates and they're firing too, and perhaps drawing fire.  Sure, you could pair up with something like a Shimmy,  and let him spot for you while you're blazing away with your guns.  But at that point, one wonders if you might be better off in something like a Minotaur, which could do the exact same thing (as you yourself point out), i.e. smoke yourself up and blaze away with your guns.  At least the Minotaur has a lot more torpedoes.

In CBs, it just doesn't seem like the Haru can be an effective DD operating alone, because its not making the most of its real strengths.  And you'd probably be more effective playing that role in some other DD, like a Gearing, or a Z-52, or Grozovoi. Or even a Shimmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
587
[-SYN-]
Members
2,769 posts
8,922 battles
36 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Skipping the Kitakaze stuff, for the mostd part to focus in the second part of this post.

BTW, a BIG thumbs up for truly excellent formatting.  Too bad more people didn't put this much effort into making their longish posts better formatted and thus more readable. :cap_like:

 

1. Gunboat focus.  I agree.  I think that there's too much gunboat focus.  That said, there are some nations' DDs that simply seemed to have been designed to be gunboats.  I'm thinking about the French and Italians.  I think that part of the problem is that WG keeps insisting on creating different flavors for different nations' DD lines, when in reality, many DDs may have just been very similar to other nations' DDs.  Think about it.  How different are the RN DDs, in the mid tiers in particular, from the USN DDs?  They're both hybrids.  And what the heck is a "defensive DD", for crying out loud?  That seems like a flavor that was created when it wasn't necessary to do so.  I wish that they'd just given the RN DDs speed boost same as every other nations' DDs, as well as a little more range on the torps, and stopped trying to shoehorn in a bogus flavor into the mix.  Even with speed boost and slightly longer ranged torps,  the RN's "flavor" would have been very nimble, if a little slow on the top speed, hybrid DDs, and that would have been fine.  Of course, the T9-10 RN DDs transition over to being a bit more gun-boaty with their smaller caliber but higher RoF guns.  But frankly, they could have reduced the RoF a bit along with giving them back their speed boost and a bit more torp range, and they'd have also been solid hybrid DDs.  But nooo, gotta go for those gunboats!!!  

I gotta agree that there's a real challenge to playing the stealthy hunter in a torpedo boat  DD. 

 

All nations except for Japan made their DD's gunboat focused, so whether you like it or not, DD gunboats are the norm, not the exception. Japan was the only nation to make a significant number of torpedo focused DD's. That's because real life DD's where not meant to make stealthy ninja torpedo attacks on battleships, their role was to escort battleships cruisers and aircraft carriers to screen against torpedo boat, aircraft, and submarine attacks and fight other DD's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[TF-62]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,415 posts
4,038 battles
7 hours ago, Shoukaku_Kai_Ni said:

Time spent doing nothing is time spent losing.

I'm totally stealing this. Great writeup that I agree with on most points, specifically:

7 hours ago, Shoukaku_Kai_Ni said:

The game has largely been reduced to either sheer shell spam, or fire spam, until the red bar melts to 0.

I've said for a while now that high tier is entirely dependent on volume of fire over caliber. It became even more apparent to see once the 419mm guns won the popular user vote over the 457s on Conqueror. The fact that every other new high tier ship added into the game seems to prioritize rate of fire over anything else just corroborates my thinking. High tier used to be a kind of chess, where forethought and good aim would net you great numbers and more often than not, wins. Now its just holding down M1 on everyone and watching those numbers tick up slowly but surely while the old hats like me still think we are playing chess instead of Call of Duty on water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,562 posts
4,254 battles
6 hours ago, Reymu said:

Only devolving because of players who are afraid of being destroyed before they can escape, methinks.

Pushed aggressively before in my Richi and all, and died because the wimps did not push hard with me.

+1 but has been like this for awhile. I just stopped caring. The "Wimps" bail I just keep pushing at the cost of the win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[DPG]
Members
1,110 posts
5,402 battles
6 hours ago, Reymu said:

Only devolving because of players who are afraid of being destroyed before they can escape, methinks.

Pushed aggressively before in my Richi and all, and died because the wimps did not push hard with me.

Isn't that how you win though?  Pushing with an escape route?  Otherwise it's called yoloing.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
878
[NG-NL]
Members
5,339 posts
8,963 battles
18 hours ago, Amenhir said:

Isn't that how you win though?  Pushing with an escape route?  Otherwise it's called yoloing.

Was a 1-way trip last time, 2 BBs and 2 CRs were nearby and the BBs seemed to be pushing. Afterwards I was totally committed.

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.

×