Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Florendo19

USS Black, PA DDs and the proposed anti torp mod

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

136
[RNDM]
Members
371 posts
7,418 battles

So I understand that WG is doing an overhaul on the mods and personally I really like where they are going with them. There is however one glaring possible issue with the Torpedo protection system in slot #5 which they have also noticed and say so on the dev blog. For those who don't know the proposed mod works like this

Torpedo protection system (slot # 5):

  • Replaces the "Target Acquisition System Modification 1" and will give the following bonuses:
    • Allows for torpedoes to be detected at a fixed distance of 1.8 km, regardless of the torpedoes' detectability range ("Vigilance" skill will improve it).
    • Add +5% to ship's torpedo protection.

My question for the forum is how will this effect ships that rely on slow and low detect ability torpedoes? I personally am planning on buying the Black as soon as I get just a little bit more steel and I have YY and still enjoy her every now and then. If these changes go through what should be done to these types of ships to help make up for this? Should anything be done for these ships? Please post solutions and/or justifications below.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654
[FAE]
Members
2,616 posts
3,631 battles

YY would be utterly done. Completely and utterly. 

Its nice to give BBs a choice vs concealment but still..... Also, I think the concealment game is probably more interesting, even as someone who sympathizes with cruisers getting outspotted. Being in a BB and being rained on from 15-18km the whole way at T10 is a good way for me to not play the game at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles

If this mod gets introduced in the game, the previous nerf to flooding MUST be reverted. 

Either torpedoes on hit damage needs to be dangerous to BBs or the flooding that follows needs to be.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[T-CF]
Members
551 posts
3,117 battles
3 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

If this mod gets introduced in the game, the previous nerf to flooding MUST be reverted. 

Either torpedoes on hit damage needs to be dangerous to BBs or the flooding that follows needs to be.

Well they’re not reverting it because CVs and they don’t want people to hit DCP over a flood anyway. They want fires to be more dangerous than a flood. 

 

10 minutes ago, BlailBlerg said:

YY would be utterly done. Completely and utterly. 

Its nice to give BBs a choice vs concealment but still..... Also, I think the concealment game is probably more interesting, even as someone who sympathizes with cruisers getting outspotted. Being in a BB and being rained on from 15-18km the whole way at T10 is a good way for me to not play the game at all. 

 

15 minutes ago, Florendo19 said:

So I understand that WG is doing an overhaul on the mods and personally I really like where they are going with them. There is however one glaring possible issue with the Torpedo protection system in slot #5 which they have also noticed and say so on the dev blog. For those who don't know the proposed mod works like this

Torpedo protection system (slot # 5):

  • Replaces the "Target Acquisition System Modification 1" and will give the following bonuses:
    • Allows for torpedoes to be detected at a fixed distance of 1.8 km, regardless of the torpedoes' detectability range ("Vigilance" skill will improve it).
    • Add +5% to ship's torpedo protection.

My question for the forum is how will this effect ships that rely on slow and low detect ability torpedoes? I personally am planning on buying the Black as soon as I get just a little bit more steel and I have YY and still enjoy her every now and then. If these changes go through what should be done to these types of ships to help make up for this? Should anything be done for these ships? Please post solutions and/or justifications below.

Honestly I think concealment will still be the superior choice followed by steering. Nothing stops floods any better than not getting hit by a torpedo. Not even sure why they bother since they’re replacing one almost useless upgrade with another almost useless upgrade although not as useless.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
2 minutes ago, LiaoXanLan said:

Well they’re not reverting it because CVs and they don’t want people to hit DCP over a flood anyway. They want fires to be more dangerous than a flood. 

 

 

Honestly I think concealment will still be the superior choice followed by steering. Nothing stops floods any better than not getting hit by a torpedo. Not even sure why they bother since they’re replacing one almost useless upgrade with another almost useless upgrade although not as useless.

CV torpedoes and their specific flooding chance could EASILY be addressed without GLOBALLY nerfing flooding and therefore nerfing the already second lowest cause of damage server wide.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,120
[EQRN]
Members
2,131 posts
18,642 battles

I don’t think this mod will be used as much as DDs fear - BBs think HE spam is bad now, tossing the concealment mod, especially for those that don’t run CE, is going to make it worse.  Plus, while people running this mod will spot torps earlier, the loss of concealment is going to mean they’re getting torp’d more often, and while DDs might not appreciate it, all that dodging inevitably means exposed broadsides and citadels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[T-CF]
Members
551 posts
3,117 battles
49 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

CV torpedoes and their specific flooding chance could EASILY be addressed without GLOBALLY nerfing flooding and therefore nerfing the already second lowest cause of damage server wide.

 

Not just CV torpedoes but torpedoes globally are going to receive the same treatment. Torpedoes are fine as they are because while they are the lowest number of damage, they can still indirectly contribute to an excessive amount of fire damage after a flood has been DCPed. WG has found it to be a problem and they’ve adjusted it. There’s no other way around this.

Edited by LiaoXanLan
Wording correction
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
10 minutes ago, LiaoXanLan said:

Not just CV torpedoes but torpedoes globally are going to receive the same treatment. Torpedoes are fine as they are because while they are the lowest number of damage, they can still indirectly contribute to an excessive amount of fire damage. WG has found it to be a problem and they’ve adjusted it. There’s no other way around this.

There is no data to support "torpedoes are fine". Quite the opposite.

No damage type "indirectly" contributes to another type of damage. That is not how it works, nor is that how balance works.

Lastly, just because "WG found it to be a problem" does not mean it "was" a problem nor does it mean their justification is valid. The data and therefore the evidence completely contradicts their changes. WG does not dictate fact.

 

Edited by Varknyn12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,103
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,016 battles
10 minutes ago, LiaoXanLan said:

Torpedoes are fine as they are because while they are the lowest number of damage, they can still indirectly contribute to an excessive amount of fire damage.

Torpedoes? indirectly contribute to FIRE damage? This is just EXTRA stupid.

9 minutes ago, LiaoXanLan said:

WG has found it to be a problem and they’ve adjusted it.

More like battleship player whining has caused a problem and once again WG has catered to their favorite cash cow, at the expense of another ship type.

11 minutes ago, LiaoXanLan said:

There’s no other way around this.

This is yet another load of crap, as there are any number of ways around this which don't include castrating torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[T-CF]
Members
551 posts
3,117 battles
Just now, Umikami said:

Torpedoes? indirectly contribute to FIRE damage? This is just EXTRA stupid.

More like battleship player whining has caused a problem and once again WG has catered to their favorite cash cow, at the expense of another ship type.

This is yet another load of crap, as there are any number of ways around this which don't include castrating torps.

1. Good point poor wording on my part let me fix.

2. DDs whine just as much as BBs. I see it all the time so nothing new here.

3. We’re talking about WG here who make all the decisions and this is the decision they believe to be the best way of handling it. And they did handle it because flooding did indirectly contribute to more fire damage than they wanted it to and which would you rather have? Less chance to flood and still lose the same percentage of potentially even more or the same chance to flood and lose a guaranteed percentage of damage that is going to be significantly less. I think I would rather miss out the on guarantee rather than the potentially worse and call it a day. They did right on lowering the flood damage and funny enough they’re still effective at causing a DCP to be used. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,233
[WOLF3]
Members
28,257 posts
24,670 battles

To take that anti-torp upgrade, you have to give up CSM1.

 

Torpedoes already have low hit percentages already, even BEFORE the implementation of that upcoming upgrade.  Go ahead and look it up.  Even Unicum players in DDs known to be effective torpedo boats often have mere <10% torpedo hit %.

 

Meanwhile CSM1 helps towards better concealment and provides a small dispersion nerf to all gun attacks against you.

 

TASM1 right now already fulfills a similar role to the upcoming upgrade, early torpedo detection.  But no DD players flip out about TASM1 because very few actually take it.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,383
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,301 posts
12,202 battles

it basically kills the PA DD line, because their torps were pretty much the only thing that made them unique, the T8-10 basically just become their T8-10 counterparts from the US tech tree but with longer torpedo reloads

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,505
[ARGSY]
Members
21,704 posts
15,738 battles
2 hours ago, Florendo19 said:

My question for the forum is how will this effect ships that rely on slow and low detect ability torpedoes? 

IIRC they've indicated that they're aware of the potential problem and they'll be watching the performance very carefully in testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
914
[WOLFC]
Members
2,029 posts
10,520 battles

In order to gain that permanent 1.8 km ring of hydro around you, you have to become easier to hit with guns.

Not many people are going to do this.

 

As an Asashio & PA driver, I don't expect much change at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,648
[GGWP]
Members
7,141 posts
16,411 battles

Players that are clueless enough to have to take this proposed mod over concealment are the same clueless players that straight-line and take torps that were spotted by the dd 5 km in front of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,296 posts
6,949 battles
56 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

it basically kills the PA DD line, because their torps were pretty much the only thing that made them unique, the T8-10 basically just become their T8-10 counterparts from the US tech tree but with longer torpedo reloads

Only in the context of ships that actually want to take this upgrade. So for instance cruisers will still be vulnerable to PA DD torpedo, though I guess they have hydro which is way better than this. I can seettle RU and IJN battleships taking this mod, USN/MN are definitely going to stick with CSM, KM has hydro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
1 hour ago, LiaoXanLan said:

1. Good point poor wording on my part let me fix.

2. DDs whine just as much as BBs. I see it all the time so nothing new here.

3. We’re talking about WG here who make all the decisions and this is the decision they believe to be the best way of handling it. And they did handle it because flooding did indirectly contribute to more fire damage than they wanted it to and which would you rather have? Less chance to flood and still lose the same percentage of potentially even more or the same chance to flood and lose a guaranteed percentage of damage that is going to be significantly less. I think I would rather miss out the on guarantee rather than the potentially worse and call it a day. They did right on lowering the flood damage and funny enough they’re still effective at causing a DCP to be used. 

(2).  All that matters is what the evidence shows. It shows top tier BBs as generally overpowered with some by a very large margin, and top tier DDs as generally underpowered and some by a very large margin as well. It doesn't matter who whined about what in regards to what is factual and justified. The trends continue to show WG making changes contradictory to all evidence and logical analysis, this mainly includes buffing BBs and nerfing ANYTHING that hinders BB dominance.

(3). It doesn't matter if they make all the decisions. WG can "make a decision" that "red" in their game is called "blue" or that "1+1=4". Just because WG made the decision or statement or action, doesn't make it any less incorrect. 
X damage type cannot contribute to Y damage type. Not directly, Not indirectly. If you have a fire on your ship and then get hit with a flood, the damage from the flooding does NOT suddenly make the fire do MORE damage. If you have a flood on your ship it doesn't suddenly cause you to have a higher chance at receiving a fire... so on and so forth.

The data is extremely clear on this matter. Torpedoes and Flooding are underpowered nearly unviable as a weapon (and damage) type in comparison to ALL other primary forms of damage, and that is what the data was showing even BEFORE the flooding nerf and still does.

Edited by Varknyn12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[-66-]
Members
34 posts
12,399 battles

On the other hand, the upgrade states, "Allows for torpedoes to be detected at a fixed distance of 1.8 km, regardless of the torpedoes' detectability range."

So this means that Shimakaze's 2.5km detection torpedoes would be detected at 1.8km instead. Not that many people would take the 20km torpedoes over the 12km or 8km torpedoes, and it only affects one ship, but at least its something favorable for the Shimakaze XD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
24 minutes ago, Craterkhan_1 said:

On the other hand, the upgrade states, "Allows for torpedoes to be detected at a fixed distance of 1.8 km, regardless of the torpedoes' detectability range."

So this means that Shimakaze's 2.5km detection torpedoes would be detected at 1.8km instead. Not that many people would take the 20km torpedoes over the 12km or 8km torpedoes, and it only affects one ship, but at least its something favorable for the Shimakaze XD.

When can we expect a DD only concealment upgrade that only allows DDs to be detected at a fixed distance of 6km, regardless of Bloom, Radar, and Hydro?

Edited by Varknyn12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,311
[A-I-M]
Members
3,555 posts
23,328 battles
3 hours ago, Florendo19 said:

So I understand that WG is doing an overhaul on the mods and personally I really like where they are going with them. There is however one glaring possible issue with the Torpedo protection system in slot #5 which they have also noticed and say so on the dev blog. For those who don't know the proposed mod works like this

Torpedo protection system (slot # 5):

  • Replaces the "Target Acquisition System Modification 1" and will give the following bonuses:
    • Allows for torpedoes to be detected at a fixed distance of 1.8 km, regardless of the torpedoes' detectability range ("Vigilance" skill will improve it).
    • Add +5% to ship's torpedo protection.

My question for the forum is how will this effect ships that rely on slow and low detect ability torpedoes? I personally am planning on buying the Black as soon as I get just a little bit more steel and I have YY and still enjoy her every now and then. If these changes go through what should be done to these types of ships to help make up for this? Should anything be done for these ships? Please post solutions and/or justifications below.

 

3 hours ago, BlailBlerg said:

YY would be utterly done. Completely and utterly. 

Its nice to give BBs a choice vs concealment but still..... Also, I think the concealment game is probably more interesting, even as someone who sympathizes with cruisers getting outspotted. Being in a BB and being rained on from 15-18km the whole way at T10 is a good way for me to not play the game at all. 

I dont think many people would choose the mod over the alternatives, but it is broken anyway against ships with deepwater torpedoes.

This is a mod for folks who want to play their wagon with one hand and eat Cheetos with the other, occasionally touching Q, E, W, S with the mouse hand. 

Edited by Pugilistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,152
[SBS]
Members
6,111 posts
4 hours ago, LiaoXanLan said:

Honestly I think concealment will still be the superior choice followed by steering. Nothing stops floods any better than not getting hit by a torpedo. Not even sure why they bother since they’re replacing one almost useless upgrade with another almost useless upgrade although not as useless.

3 hours ago, FrodoFraggin said:

I don’t think this mod will be used as much as DDs fear - BBs think HE spam is bad now, tossing the concealment mod, especially for those that don’t run CE, is going to make it worse.  Plus, while people running this mod will spot torps earlier, the loss of concealment is going to mean they’re getting torp’d more often, and while DDs might not appreciate it, all that dodging inevitably means exposed broadsides and citadels.

With the logic we apply to the game currently I agree, concealment is almost always going to be the better choice.  However, I can see some potential changes that could shake things up.  We know subs are coming and there will be BB players that will want more torpedo warning.  The other thing I think could be looming are the odd tier "utility" CVs.  I think WG needs CVs to help counter subs, and the current CV population isn't going to cut it, especially at high tiers.  I think WG will make another push to get the CV population much higher.  If they succeed concealment will take a big hit.  So more torps in the water from subs, and less value for concealment because of CVs keeping you lit, and this new mod starts to look better.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,103
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,016 battles
4 hours ago, LiaoXanLan said:

DDs whine just as much as BBs. I see it all the time so nothing new here.

DD players do whine as much as BB players, but they aren't catered to as much by WG. You can count the number of battleship nerfs that have happened in this game on one hand, DD nerfs, however, seem to happen every quarter, and we're going to get some new ones soon.

4 hours ago, LiaoXanLan said:

We’re talking about WG here who make all the decisions and this is the decision they believe to be the best way of handling it. And they did handle it because flooding did indirectly contribute to more fire damage than they wanted it to

This is complete and utter nonsense.

4 hours ago, LiaoXanLan said:

which would you rather have? Less chance to flood and still lose the same percentage of potentially even more or the same chance to flood and lose a guaranteed percentage of damage that is going to be significantly less. I think I would rather miss out the on guarantee rather than the potentially worse and call it a day.

and this doesn't even make any sense at all.

4 hours ago, LiaoXanLan said:

They did right on lowering the flood damage and funny enough they’re still effective at causing a DCP to be used.

They did right by BB and Cruiser players, they're killing DD players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,210
[PEED2]
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
15,095 battles
5 hours ago, Varknyn12 said:

If this mod gets introduced in the game, the previous nerf to flooding MUST be reverted. 

Either torpedoes on hit damage needs to be dangerous to BBs or the flooding that follows needs to be.

Commarade why you say something absurd like that? We all know this is world of battleships ja?

How dare you think dds should kill the bbybies with torpedos? Absurd! To gulag!

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.

×