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

Remove Torps from DD gun botes.

112 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

455
[FGNE]
Members
641 posts
1,541 battles

There is no reason a machine gun should get a bazooka too.  If you want to have High DPM ships (which I Think is terrible game design and completely breaks this game), then remove their torps.  There is absolutely ZERO reason Kitakazies and Harugumo's should get Torps, No Citadel, and stupid high rate of fire combined with fire chance.  

I feel this CV rework took devs away from fixing broken botes in an effort to resurrect a class no one wants.  Old ships should have been updated, new ships should have been tested better.  Instead we get a CV rework no one gives a flying one about, except a small handful of people.  Most of the rework has been negative reviews, and this is the third iteration of CV's.  All of that dev time could have been used to fix your current botes and balance your game at some decent level.

Edited by JonnyFreedom
  • Cool 3
  • Funny 11
  • Boring 8
  • Bad 29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
358
[NGA]
Members
1,500 posts
8,693 battles

So should most BBs have their secondaries removed? (bats eyelashes)

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[OPGS]
Members
89 posts
14,302 battles

Dont forget the secondary/AA gun on the kiev.. Doesnt need that either.. But dont remove my CQE I got with her.. I'll be mad

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,590
[SIM]
Members
3,017 posts
4,807 battles

Haragumo and Kitakaze are unbalanced. Nerf a dozen other ships. Genius.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[ROMEO]
Beta Testers
466 posts
4,407 battles
21 minutes ago, JonnyFreedom said:

There is no reason a machine gun should get a bazooka too.  If you want to have High DPM ships (which I Think is terrible game design and completely breaks this game), then remove their torps.  There is absolutely ZERO reason Kitakazies and Harugumo's should get Torps, No Citadel, and stupid high rate of fire combined with fire chance.  

I feel this CV rework took devs away from fixing broken botes in an effort to resurrect a class no one wants.  Old ships should have been updated, new ships should have been tested better.  Instead we get a CV rework no one gives a flying one about, except a small handful of people.  Most of the rework has been negative reviews, and this is the third iteration of CV's.  All of that dev time could have been used to fix your current botes and balance you game at some decent level.

And, yet, the navies of the world decided to put not only guns and torps on DD, but also depth charges. Go figure. It's almost as if one type of weapon didn't suit every situation.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
984
[KP]
Beta Testers
2,482 posts
12,162 battles
15 minutes ago, JonnyFreedom said:

There is no reason a machine gun should get a bazooka too.  If you want to have High DPM ships (which I Think is terrible game design and completely breaks this game), then remove their torps.  There is absolutely ZERO reason Kitakazies and Harugumo's should get Torps, No Citadel, and stupid high rate of fire combined with fire chance.  

I feel this CV rework took devs away from fixing broken botes in an effort to resurrect a class no one wants.  Old ships should have been updated, new ships should have been tested better.  Instead we get a CV rework no one gives a flying one about, except a small handful of people.  Most of the rework has been negative reviews, and this is the third iteration of CV's.  All of that dev time could have been used to fix your current botes and balance you game at some decent level.

Ill give up the torps, when they remove radar and hydro, but really I love to dakka dakka BB players, and shooting its torps at CA's, the 2 DD mentioned have their drawbacks, but are so much fun to play, you should stop complaining, or better still burn baby burn.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[BNKR]
Members
431 posts
362 battles
2 minutes ago, Rickjoshi1765 said:

lets just remove everything and just sail around and trade food

Then you would have Naval Action OW

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,631
[_-_]
Members
1,576 posts
3 minutes ago, Rickjoshi1765 said:

lets just remove everything and just sail around and trade food

As long as it's bacon.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
783
[ZR]
WoWS Wiki Editor, Supertester
5,512 posts
5,345 battles
Just now, So_lt_Goes said:

As long as it's bacon.

And eggs. What blasphemous being doesn't have bacon with eggs?

Staying on-topic, that means Minotaur should have her torps removed too right? After all it's a "High DPM" ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SYN]
Members
629 posts
7,244 battles

Remove guns from IJN torp boats. If a Shimikaze can't dev strike with torps it shouldn't get another chance...

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,381 posts
47 battles
Just now, Ensign_Pulver_2016 said:

Remove guns from IJN torp boats. If a Shimikaze can't dev strike with torps it shouldn't get another chance...

LUL

Let those scrubs keep whining, I constantly use my guns in IJN DDs and do extremely well.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
455
[FGNE]
Members
641 posts
1,541 battles
19 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

So should most BBs have their secondaries removed? (bats eyelashes)

You mean the secondaries that are next to worthless, sure if it means DD Gun Botes don't get torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9 posts
5,639 battles
Just now, JonnyFreedom said:

You mean the secondaries that are next to worthless, sure if it means DD Gun Botes don't get torps.

Laughs in secondary build BBs farming CQC medals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
551
[KRAK]
Members
2,012 posts
14,685 battles
33 minutes ago, JonnyFreedom said:

There is no reason a machine gun should get a bazooka too.  If you want to have High DPM ships (which I Think is terrible game design and completely breaks this game), then remove their torps.  There is absolutely ZERO reason Kitakazies and Harugumo's should get Torps, No Citadel, and stupid high rate of fire combined with fire chance.  

I feel this CV rework took devs away from fixing broken botes in an effort to resurrect a class no one wants.  Old ships should have been updated, new ships should have been tested better.  Instead we get a CV rework no one gives a flying one about, except a small handful of people.  Most of the rework has been negative reviews, and this is the third iteration of CV's.  All of that dev time could have been used to fix your current botes and balance your game at some decent level.

You never fail to disappoint with your constant whining.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
455
[FGNE]
Members
641 posts
1,541 battles
1 minute ago, Vaffu said:

You never fail to disappoint with your constant whining.

Oh hey, the DD white knight showed up.  Shocker.  Try playing your low win rate and dps BBs lately?  I thought not.

Edited by JonnyFreedom
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,127 posts
5,955 battles
20 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Haragumo and Kitakaze are unbalanced. Nerf a dozen other ships. Genius.

The sad part is, to balance them, WG need only change the 100mm HE pen to 1/5th from the 1/4th it is now. They can still be excellent anti-DD gunships but won't break the all important 32mm and 27mm threshold that currently allows them to "melt" battleships and cruisers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
851 posts
5,257 battles
7 minutes ago, JonnyFreedom said:

Oh hey, the DD white knight showed up.  Shocker.  Try playing your low win rate and dps BBs lately?  I thought not.

I mainly play BB's and I totally disagree with you so and ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×