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

Torpedo Hit Rate: Is it as bad as is often claimed?

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,635 posts
4,997 battles

The low reported hit rate of torpedoes as compared to shells is often cited as evidence that torpedoes and/or DDs are underpowered and need buffs.  Is this really an accurate and fair assessment?  I believe that it can be argued to be evidence for some improvements, but not remotely to the degree indicated by the raw hit number comparison. 

First, we need to understand the significant differences between shells and torpedoes.

  • All torpedo hits do damage whereas shell hits include all shatters, bounces and 0 damage penetrations.  This makes an individual torpedo hit much more valuable.
  • Guns have a much higher rate of fire, even BB guns, barring outliers like Smith.  This smooths over the peaks and valleys of each salvo's results giving guns much better consistency per match.
  • Torpedoes have much higher alpha damage than do guns, leading to many more cases of overkill where a ship is sunk by part of a salvo leave the rest to "miss" as it hits a wreck.
  • Shells hit at a single spot on the map and are only dangerous at that point.
  • The battlefield in WoWS is an interrupted 2D plane and torpedoes travel on that plane and anything they impact on the course of their run causes them to explode. Because of this torpedoes can be used to cover areas in which a ship might appear.  The vast majority of times these torpedoes all miss.

These things being the case, the oft claimed ~5% hit rate with torpedoes is artificially low.  It does't account for any of the performance differences or different uses between torpedoes and shells and instead tries to make an apples to apples comparison between their blunt hit rates in order to paint torpedoes as massively under performing and in need of major buffs.  Do aimed torpedoes hit as often as aimed shells?  Doubtful.  Do aimed torpedoes hit more often than 5%?  Certainly.

How do we count hits?  If a Shimakaze fires 15 torpedoes at an enemy Harugumo, and 10 miss,  2 hit and sink the Harugumo and 3 hit the wreck of the Harugumo, is that 2 hits out of 15?  2 hits out of 12? 5 hits out of 15?  Depending on how we look at it we will show a 13% hit rate or 17% hit rate or 33% hit rate?  By the book it would be a 13% hit rate.  It is true that overkill happens with shells as well, but due to the damage difference between shells and torpedoes it happens a higher percentage of the time with torpedoes than with shells.

Then there is the practice of firing torpedoes into channels into which a ship might enter even though the DD player has no data to specifically support that event at that given time/match.  Using torpedoes thus, on a guess, is a perfectly valid use, but it does lower their hit percentage because many launches will never come even close to an enemy ship.  Area denial use also has this effect.  Torpedoes used as area denial are intended to force the enemy to turn away or stay out of an area as their primary goal, any hits are happenstance.

Here is Flamu, a unicum or super unicum player, doing a "guess/area denial" torpedo drop.  There is no specific ship he is expecting to pop up in the channel.   All of those torpedoes count as misses.

 

Because shells only work at their point of impact nobody uses shells in this manner.  This drives torpedo hit rates comparatively down.

 

The claim that torpedo based ships are very prone to peaks and valleys in performance is accurate, but it is not due to torpedoes being ineffective, it is due to few chances being available per match.  If the chances are missed, or the target dodges, it hurts the overall outcome far more than a BB salvo that misses or is dodges because the BB will get many more attempts in a match.  On average a successful torpedo attack will do significantly more damage than a successful BB attack, but the penalty of failure is much higher.  I recently posted a very good battle I had in Colorado, but if you were to limit my results to my first 5 or 6 salvos it would have been a very bad match for me as those almost completely missed, or just did over penetrations.  5 or 6 salvos of torpedoes is all a Shimikaze can really hope to get off in most matches.  If they mostly miss you get a crap 30k match, but if they hit consistently you can get something like the 300k+ match that was recently posted.  

Of course cruisers and gunboat DDs attack even more often than do BBs and thus are even less subject to inconsistent results.  It is simply a matter of sample size.  The larger the sample size the less likely results are going to skew wildly off the mean.

Bottom line is that a successful torpedo attack is the most consistently lethal attack in the game. If the torpedoes hit they will do massive damage with no checks on bouncing, shattering, over penetrating or missing the citadel.  Torpedo damage counts as citadel damage.

 

Both torpedoes and shells have advantages and disadvantages, but to paint torpedoes as weak based on what is really an apples to oranges comparison is not accurate or reasonable.  If torpedo performance were boosted so as to have a similar hit rate to shells in spite of the factors that artificially lower their hit rate then torpedo armed DDs would be in such an overwhelmingly dominant position that there would be no reason to play anything other than a torpedo DD or a CV.  The game would not sustain torpedo hit rates similar to shell hit rates.  To ask for such a thing is to ask for the game to be destroyed.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9,159 posts
11,174 battles

I've noticed a good increase in torp hits with the addition of the new torp module. With it in the game, I feel torps are fine as they are. I'm not concerned with torp hit rate, I fire them constantly, what matters is making sure the hits you get matter. I kill a huge number of DDs with my DD torps, I feel I'm doing well.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[-FFS-]
Members
10 posts
5,606 battles

tbh i have never cared torp hit rate and i believe many feels the same.  If you get 10+ hits in a game then its considered a good torp game.

i myself consider torps as surprises, if i get any it feels good, if not then i just move on unless those close range ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,008
[RLGN]
Members
14,305 posts
25,241 battles

Boring vote, why?

In any case; a glance at my destroyers shows a range of 0%hr (Aigle,) to 29%hr (Leningrad,) with a mean average of 7%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
288
[SACH]
[SACH]
Members
990 posts

Well all ya gotta do is turn ........normally that lesson is learned by oh let's say round about tier 5 -6 ish. If not sooner . Cause later you'll just wind up being a potato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles

IMO, torpedoes and guns are too different to compare. They work in very different ways.

 

And IMO, overall, torpedoes are fine. They are unreliable weapons and so they should be, if torps become reliable they become OP. The only thing WG should change is torpedo dispersion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,319
[WOOK3]
Members
4,214 posts
3,235 battles

I don't see how torp hit rate is at all comparable to shells; they are used in different ways. For one thing torps are often used as area denial. I've used torps to turn ships so my team can blap them. Launched into smoke to see if you catch someone napping. This is all really low hit rate stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,089
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,030 posts
11,611 battles
2 hours ago, Helstrem said:

The claim that torpedo based ships are very prone to peaks and valleys in performance is accurate, but it is not due to torpedoes being ineffective, it is due to few chances being available per match.  If the chances are missed, or the target dodges, it hurts the overall outcome far more than a BB salvo that misses or is dodges because the BB will get many more attempts in a match.  On average a successful torpedo attack will do significantly more damage than a successful BB attack, but the penalty of failure is much higher.  I recently posted a very good battle I had in Colorado, but if you were to limit my results to my first 5 or 6 salvos it would have been a very bad match for me as those almost completely missed, or just did over penetrations.  5 or 6 salvos of torpedoes is all a Shimikaze can really hope to get off in most matches.  If they mostly miss you get a crap 30k match, but if they hit consistently you can get something like the 300k+ match that was recently posted. 

 

2 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Both torpedoes and shells have advantages and disadvantages, but to paint torpedoes as weak based on what is really an apples to oranges comparison is not accurate or reasonable.  If torpedo performance were boosted so as to have a similar hit rate to shells in spite of the factors that artificially lower their hit rate then torpedo armed DDs would be in such an overwhelmingly dominant position that there would be no reason to play anything other than a torpedo DD or a CV.  The game would not sustain torpedo hit rates similar to shell hit rates

Here's the thing - you are correct in that torpedoes should not have the same hit rate as main battery guns - 30-40% is way too high, it's why RTS CV's with manual drop were insanely OP.

What most of us are asking for with Kagero, Yugumo, and basically everything not Shimakaze - is to have the same fair chance to hit things with torps BECAUSE these ships are heavily reliant on torpedoes for damage, and by extension xp and credits. Kamikaze, T-22 (torp/gun hybrid), Asashio, Minekaze (while she was hit with the nerf hammer, her torpedoes still use the same speed/spotting setup as other nations) even some more gunboat types like Anshan -all of these have the same speed/spotting range combinations every other nation with a similar torp speed has except Asashio's DWT's. And I have 10% or higher hit rates with them. And I am fine with that. My issue is that other IJN DD's since they changed the spotting range to +.3 km are down to 5-7%, and I used to have the same 10%+ hit rates. That .3 km changes varies between 1.5-2 seconds baseline, keyword, baseline, adding Vig now increases that and in cases that's the differences between being 1/2 to 3/4 rudder in to a turn and all the way in to it. The 1.8 km of the TSM replacement is even more brutal, especially on USN DD's with sea mines. Keep in mind here that Kamikaze's 78 knot torps, fired from 5.4 km (the closest it can get without being spotted) is roughly 30 seconds, with a 7.6 second warning. Mutsuki (using the nerfed torps that should have a 1.3 km spotting range) take 32 seconds, with a 9.4 second warning. Kagero about the same. The new TSM replacement at 1.8 km makes that you have near 11 seconds to react assuming Vig doesn't make that further and keep in mind even at the closest unspotted ranges that's 30+ seconds to even hit you only 20 of which are unspotted. And then you have the outright nonsense of 2.5 km on Shimakaze's stock torps. Which even boosted to around 65 knots from the new upgrade, leave 14 seconds to react. Would you like to know the spotted time of Gearing's faster, 16.5 km torps that also reload faster - 7.8 seconds. And Gearing has a main battery it can fall back on far more than Shima's that is meant more to finish ships off. 

 

Anyone asking for MB hit rate level's is unreasonable. But what most of us are asking for, and it's really just IJN DD players - is to have the same 1.2/3/4 km spotting range on our torps that ever other nation has at sub 62/62-65/66+ knots respectively and that even if Shima stays nerfed, that it's maybe a tad more reasonable in that it's .2 km extra and that her 20 km torps have the same penalty and not the excessive 2.5 km nonsense that anyone with a pulse should be able to dodge launched at 5.4 km - let alone the 2 minute run time of a max range shot. Or at least lessen the penalty on not Shimakaze IJN DD's and non-Aki and up DD's to .1 km. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,238 battles

People have to play badly, or be utterly distracted. in order to be hit by IJN torps, because of the detection distance. The Ashasio is the exception, because it has low detection on its torps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,635 posts
4,997 battles
17 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

Here's the thing - you are correct in that torpedoes should not have the same hit rate as main battery guns - 30-40% is way too high, it's why RTS CV's with manual drop were insanely OP.

What most of us are asking for with Kagero, Yugumo, and basically everything not Shimakaze - is to have the same fair chance to hit things with torps BECAUSE these ships are heavily reliant on torpedoes for damage, and by extension xp and credits. Kamikaze, T-22 (torp/gun hybrid), Asashio, Minekaze (while she was hit with the nerf hammer, her torpedoes still use the same speed/spotting setup as other nations) even some more gunboat types like Anshan -all of these have the same speed/spotting range combinations every other nation with a similar torp speed has except Asashio's DWT's. And I have 10% or higher hit rates with them. And I am fine with that. My issue is that other IJN DD's since they changed the spotting range to +.3 km are down to 5-7%, and I used to have the same 10%+ hit rates. That .3 km changes varies between 1.5-2 seconds baseline, keyword, baseline, adding Vig now increases that and in cases that's the differences between being 1/2 to 3/4 rudder in to a turn and all the way in to it. The 1.8 km of the TSM replacement is even more brutal, especially on USN DD's with sea mines. Keep in mind here that Kamikaze's 78 knot torps, fired from 5.4 km (the closest it can get without being spotted) is roughly 30 seconds, with a 7.6 second warning. Mutsuki (using the nerfed torps that should have a 1.3 km spotting range) take 32 seconds, with a 9.4 second warning. Kagero about the same. The new TSM replacement at 1.8 km makes that you have near 11 seconds to react assuming Vig doesn't make that further and keep in mind even at the closest unspotted ranges that's 30+ seconds to even hit you only 20 of which are unspotted. And then you have the outright nonsense of 2.5 km on Shimakaze's stock torps. Which even boosted to around 65 knots from the new upgrade, leave 14 seconds to react. Would you like to know the spotted time of Gearing's faster, 16.5 km torps that also reload faster - 7.8 seconds. And Gearing has a main battery it can fall back on far more than Shima's that is meant more to finish ships off. 

 

Anyone asking for MB hit rate level's is unreasonable. But what most of us are asking for, and it's really just IJN DD players - is to have the same 1.2/3/4 km spotting range on our torps that ever other nation has at sub 62/62-65/66+ knots respectively and that even if Shima stays nerfed, that it's maybe a tad more reasonable in that it's .2 km extra and that her 20 km torps have the same penalty and not the excessive 2.5 km nonsense that anyone with a pulse should be able to dodge launched at 5.4 km - let alone the 2 minute run time of a max range shot. Or at least lessen the penalty on not Shimakaze IJN DD's and non-Aki and up DD's to .1 km. 

I am sure some adjustments could be made.  As a BB player I am not too concerned about the detection range of torpedoes as it doesn't really matter to me because if I wait to dodge until I detect them it is too late even for the ones that give the most time before impact.  I can see the increased chance of being detected by another ship on their way to a BB as an issue, but generally BBs need to dodge based on reading the situation rather than reacting once the situation develops to the point the BB sees the torpedoes.

My main point in my OP is to show that a simple hit rate comparison is not a valid argument for increasing torpedo's ease of use.  It is not an argument against changes to torpedoes.

I am just tired of seeing the "Torpedoes only hit 5% of the time, they are so weak and under powered and DDs need buffs and BBs are OP and big whining babies!" line of "reasoning".  By all means people, argue for buffs if you think it is needed, but use valid arguments.  The world is full of simple solutions to complex problems that are easy, obvious and wrong; buffing torpedoes to the point they have, despite their other uses, a matching hit rate to shells is one of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,639
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,664 posts
14,756 battles

I haven't seen a torpedo hit rate complaint in a while. It's not something I worry about too much except for general frustration when you have a couple of 'dry' torpedo boat games. 

Ironically if you increased torpedo hit rate for destroyers other destroyers would be among the biggest victims! 

 

Destroyers biggest problems in my view are carriers, being too good at killing each other and kiting. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[B-G-N]
Members
381 posts
539 battles
21 hours ago, Helstrem said:

The low reported hit rate of torpedoes as compared to shells is often cited as evidence that torpedoes and/or DDs are underpowered and need buffs.  Is this really an accurate and fair assessment?  I believe that it can be argued to be evidence for some improvements, but not remotely to the degree indicated by the raw hit number comparison. 

First, we need to understand the significant differences between shells and torpedoes.

  • All torpedo hits do damage whereas shell hits include all shatters, bounces and 0 damage penetrations.  This makes an individual torpedo hit much more valuable.
  • Guns have a much higher rate of fire, even BB guns, barring outliers like Smith.  This smooths over the peaks and valleys of each salvo's results giving guns much better consistency per match.
  • Torpedoes have much higher alpha damage than do guns, leading to many more cases of overkill where a ship is sunk by part of a salvo leave the rest to "miss" as it hits a wreck.
  • Shells hit at a single spot on the map and are only dangerous at that point.
  • The battlefield in WoWS is an interrupted 2D plane and torpedoes travel on that plane and anything they impact on the course of their run causes them to explode. Because of this torpedoes can be used to cover areas in which a ship might appear.  The vast majority of times these torpedoes all miss.

These things being the case, the oft claimed ~5% hit rate with torpedoes is artificially low.  It does't account for any of the performance differences or different uses between torpedoes and shells and instead tries to make an apples to apples comparison between their blunt hit rates in order to paint torpedoes as massively under performing and in need of major buffs.  Do aimed torpedoes hit as often as aimed shells?  Doubtful.  Do aimed torpedoes hit more often than 5%?  Certainly.

How do we count hits?  If a Shimakaze fires 15 torpedoes at an enemy Harugumo, and 10 miss,  2 hit and sink the Harugumo and 3 hit the wreck of the Harugumo, is that 2 hits out of 15?  2 hits out of 12? 5 hits out of 15?  Depending on how we look at it we will show a 13% hit rate or 17% hit rate or 33% hit rate?  By the book it would be a 13% hit rate.  It is true that overkill happens with shells as well, but due to the damage difference between shells and torpedoes it happens a higher percentage of the time with torpedoes than with shells.

Then there is the practice of firing torpedoes into channels into which a ship might enter even though the DD player has no data to specifically support that event at that given time/match.  Using torpedoes thus, on a guess, is a perfectly valid use, but it does lower their hit percentage because many launches will never come even close to an enemy ship.  Area denial use also has this effect.  Torpedoes used as area denial are intended to force the enemy to turn away or stay out of an area as their primary goal, any hits are happenstance.

Here is Flamu, a unicum or super unicum player, doing a "guess/area denial" torpedo drop.  There is no specific ship he is expecting to pop up in the channel.   All of those torpedoes count as misses.

 

Because shells only work at their point of impact nobody uses shells in this manner.  This drives torpedo hit rates comparatively down.

 

The claim that torpedo based ships are very prone to peaks and valleys in performance is accurate, but it is not due to torpedoes being ineffective, it is due to few chances being available per match.  If the chances are missed, or the target dodges, it hurts the overall outcome far more than a BB salvo that misses or is dodges because the BB will get many more attempts in a match.  On average a successful torpedo attack will do significantly more damage than a successful BB attack, but the penalty of failure is much higher.  I recently posted a very good battle I had in Colorado, but if you were to limit my results to my first 5 or 6 salvos it would have been a very bad match for me as those almost completely missed, or just did over penetrations.  5 or 6 salvos of torpedoes is all a Shimikaze can really hope to get off in most matches.  If they mostly miss you get a crap 30k match, but if they hit consistently you can get something like the 300k+ match that was recently posted.  

Of course cruisers and gunboat DDs attack even more often than do BBs and thus are even less subject to inconsistent results.  It is simply a matter of sample size.  The larger the sample size the less likely results are going to skew wildly off the mean.

Bottom line is that a successful torpedo attack is the most consistently lethal attack in the game. If the torpedoes hit they will do massive damage with no checks on bouncing, shattering, over penetrating or missing the citadel.  Torpedo damage counts as citadel damage.

 

Both torpedoes and shells have advantages and disadvantages, but to paint torpedoes as weak based on what is really an apples to oranges comparison is not accurate or reasonable.  If torpedo performance were boosted so as to have a similar hit rate to shells in spite of the factors that artificially lower their hit rate then torpedo armed DDs would be in such an overwhelmingly dominant position that there would be no reason to play anything other than a torpedo DD or a CV.  The game would not sustain torpedo hit rates similar to shell hit rates.  To ask for such a thing is to ask for the game to be destroyed.

 

 

"We just dinged them!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
837
[BOTES]
Members
2,192 posts
8,057 battles

If we're thinking about torpedo effectiveness, average damage is more important than hit rate. Of course ships with weaker torps need to hit more, but if torps are actually hitting consistently enough to be considered good, then torp boats should have similar damage figures to gunboats.

Check the server averages. Bar some unnerfed goodies like the Kami/KamiR/Fujin, torp boats are dead last in average damage irrespective of tier. Even when you filter for the highest levels of skill, this trend remains the same. Some of the best torp boats are blatant underperformers compared to guns, like Benham.

If we're just looking at how easy it is to torp someone (it isn't), gameplay experience alone suffices. Ships have a lot of advanced warning. It's common to have a feast or famine result, regardless of how good you are. The #1 problem with torpedoes right now remains CVs and radars. DDs just can't take good positions to torp from anymore. They're throwing torps from further out straight at enemy ships because nobody can afford to flank.

Edited by awildseaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,635 posts
4,997 battles
6 minutes ago, mofton said:

I haven't seen a torpedo hit rate complaint in a while. It's not something I worry about too much except for general frustration when you have a couple of 'dry' torpedo boat games. 

Ironically if you increased torpedo hit rate for destroyers other destroyers would be among the biggest victims! 

 

Destroyers biggest problems in my view are carriers, being too good at killing each other and kiting. 

NavalPride posted one yesterday.  It is what prompted me to write the OP.  There are a couple of other DD players that also regularly go off on it as proof that DDs are underperforming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,635 posts
4,997 battles
1 minute ago, awildseaking said:

If we're thinking about torpedo effectiveness, average damage is more important than hit rate. Of course ships with weaker torps need to hit more, but if torps are actually hitting consistently enough to be considered good, then torp boats should have similar damage figures to gunboats.

Check the server averages. Bar some unnerfed goodies like the Kami/KamiR/Fujin, torp boats are dead last in average damage irrespective of tier. Even when you filter for the highest levels of skill, this trend remains the same. Some of the best torp boats are blatant underperformers compared to guns, like Benham.

That is a more reasonable method of going about it.  There are still other factors that need to be looked at, and personally I find Win Rate to be the best overall indicator of actual combat performance.

One problem with counting damage is that different kinds of damage can be healed back at different rates.  Fires and floods are healed at 100%, penetrations (in most cases) at 50% and citadel hits at (in most cases) 10%.  Since torpedo damage counts as citadel damage it is higher quality damage than HE shells that make up most of a gunboat DD's damage.  Obviously not all ships have a heal and all damage is equal to those without the heal.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CAST]
[CAST]
Members
2,609 posts
10,459 battles

Torps don't need buffs to increase their hit rate.  They are powerful, even with the low hit rate, although not OP by any means.  The low hit rate is because they are easily avoided by smart players, which is also ok.  DDs do need a buff, but not to their torp damage, nor do they need nerfs to the damage of their torps.  Most of the average damage a DD does is due to guns.  If a DD could stay alive longer, they would rack up more damage, just like CVs do.  That is where DDs need a buff.  They need a way to stay alive, and not be so easily blapped by everything in the game, especially the fly by rocket drop.  If a DD player does something dumb and gets jumped by a better player, then that's on them, but getting spotted and hammered by everything on the map just because they exist and have no way to get away or avoid it is just not fair to them.

Torp hit rate is fine.  A good player knows where to torp and uses torps for area denial as much as for actually targeting ships.  Those torps often miss, and are counted towards the percentage that miss, thus reducing the percentage of overall hits per torps fired.  Players don't just fire into denial areas using guns, so you don't get the same reduction in hit percentage on those guns.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,635 posts
4,997 battles
13 minutes ago, Murcc said:

Torps don't need buffs to increase their hit rate.  They are powerful, even with the low hit rate, although not OP by any means.  The low hit rate is because they are easily avoided by smart players, which is also ok.  DDs do need a buff, but not to their torp damage, nor do they need nerfs to the damage of their torps.  Most of the average damage a DD does is due to guns.  If a DD could stay alive longer, they would rack up more damage, just like CVs do.  That is where DDs need a buff.  They need a way to stay alive, and not be so easily blapped by everything in the game, especially the fly by rocket drop.  If a DD player does something dumb and gets jumped by a better player, then that's on them, but getting spotted and hammered by everything on the map just because they exist and have no way to get away or avoid it is just not fair to them.

Torp hit rate is fine.  A good player knows where to torp and uses torps for area denial as much as for actually targeting ships.  Those torps often miss, and are counted towards the percentage that miss, thus reducing the percentage of overall hits per torps fired.  Players don't just fire into denial areas using guns, so you don't get the same reduction in hit percentage on those guns.  

I agree that torps seem fine as they are.  The DD staying alive thing is more...problematic.  DDs are, directly or indirectly by spotting, the #1 killer of other DDs and DDs die early because many players are over aggressive.  They get hammered by everything because they put themselves way out in front and because DDs are such a threat that you need to eliminate them whenever you get a chance. In skilled hands DDs are very powerful and making them significantly harder to kill will turn them into sheer monsters in the hands of skilled players.

I agree that DDs do die faster and more frequently than is desirable, but I also know how potent a DD that doesn't die like that is.  I am a mediocre DD player, but when I get one of my good games I really feel the power it has and I don't know how to significantly boost their survivability without making them too powerful and too influential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CAST]
[CAST]
Members
2,609 posts
10,459 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

I agree that torps seem fine as they are.  The DD staying alive thing is more...problematic.  DDs are, directly or indirectly by spotting, the #1 killer of other DDs and DDs die early because many players are over aggressive.  They get hammered by everything because they put themselves way out in front and because DDs are such a threat that you need to eliminate them whenever you get a chance. In skilled hands DDs are very powerful and making them significantly harder to kill will turn them into sheer monsters in the hands of skilled players.

I agree that DDs do die faster and more frequently than is desirable, but I also know how potent a DD that doesn't die like that is.  I am a mediocre DD player, but when I get one of my good games I really feel the power it has and I don't know how to significantly boost their survivability without making them too powerful and too influential.

The longer a DD stays alive, the more potent it becomes in the game.  As the number of threats diminishes, there are more open areas where a DD can travel without being detected.  That is where skilled players do well, they know how to stay alive until they become a significant threat.

The problem right now with survivabililty in DDs is that WG has changed a ship (CVs) to a style that a lot of players are using and it directly impacts the ability of the DD to stay alive by being able to destroy it outright and by spotting it so that others can destroy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,892
[SYN]
Members
15,861 posts
12,803 battles

WG never really bothered fixing Fletcher vs. Yugumo

Fletcher loses out on 1.5km torp range, but has more torp DPM, far superior torp alpha and far stealthier torps.

Further, Fletcher is faster, more maneuverable, has better smoke, AA

In turn, Yugumo has 300m better stealth and a high risk, low reward TRB gimmick that it has to trade smoke for.

 

There is only a 1knot difference in torp speed and gun performance is about par.

Edited by MrDeaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,635 posts
4,997 battles
8 minutes ago, Murcc said:

The longer a DD stays alive, the more potent it becomes in the game.  As the number of threats diminishes, there are more open areas where a DD can travel without being detected.  That is where skilled players do well, they know how to stay alive until they become a significant threat.

The problem right now with survivabililty in DDs is that WG has changed a ship (CVs) to a style that a lot of players are using and it directly impacts the ability of the DD to stay alive by being able to destroy it outright and by spotting it so that others can destroy it.

Yes, CVs have had an impact for sure, but more on the DDs that rush into caps right at the start, the ones already prone to dying quickly.  I think the AP rocket idea is WG reaching to make rockets do less damage to DDs, but at some point I think it would be better, and more intuitive, to just give all DDs a 1.5-2x hit point multiplier rather than a bunch of custom rules to artificially make them tougher, if that is the route they want to go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,870
[USCC2]
Members
6,060 posts
22 hours ago, Helstrem said:

The low reported hit rate of torpedoes as compared to shells is often cited as evidence that torpedoes and/or DDs are underpowered and need buffs.  Is this really an accurate and fair assessment?  I believe that it can be argued to be evidence for some improvements, but not remotely to the degree indicated by the raw hit number comparison. 

Just going to say I'm sure the last post I replied to that was one of your threads was another DD one? (I remember, it was the size comparison one!).

 

'Cited as evidence', I don't believe so. I believe the low hit rate is reported because compared to guns, they are a lower hit rate (for obvious reasons). I believe this has very likely been linked to the low damage that DDs do on avg compared to the other ships (I can also understand this comparison).

I will give some examples below, but the fact is torpedo hit rates are what they are - it is subjective whether they are high or low. Why? Because WG has an idea of what they want the torpedo/ship firing the torpedoes to do. WG may think the 8-10% hit rate is too high - who knows? However, the damage that DDs do on avg is lower - compared to the other ships; this is born out of the stats available to all - However, again if this is exactly what WG want - then in effect they aren't low (they are exactly where they should be).

 

Other stuff:

I also believe hit rates of torpedoes (I believe your original topic) has nothing to do with WR either (post 16)? I could get killed in the first 3 mins but still be on the winning team; I could hit with multiple torps and still be on the losing team. Honestly, I have always sited torpedo hit rates as 8-10%; if you look at the avg stats I believe the lowest hit rates are around 5-6% and a few reach around 15% (avg).

Now you can talk about what those hit rates equate to, but that isn't staying on the subject of hit rates themselves. The hit rates are an avg of around 8-10%, if they hit they have to contend with differing degrees of torpedo armour belts taking away damage, then if they flood we need to consider the recent flood nerf. Yet one torpedo can hit and decimate a ship (if lucky), another DD can hit with 7 torps and the enemy ship is still in the game.

Is this bad/wrong? The simple fact is, not if that is where WG intends the game to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,801
[WORX]
Members
10,663 posts
18,555 battles
3 hours ago, Helstrem said:

NavalPride posted one yesterday.  It is what prompted me to write the OP.  There are a couple of other DD players that also regularly go off on it as proof that DDs are underperforming.

They are under performing... I will point out why AGAIN...

Torp hit rate is to as I stated in my other post... On avg for say potato and regular torp DD players is %5-%7 mid tiers 4-6...

Torp hit rate for tiers 7-10 is about half of the avg of tiers 4-7 as noted above...

The population moves away from ships under performing (torp ships) to move to gun DD ships (%15 to %30 gun hit rate).

With gun ships Opportunities to sink are consistent all tiers... Torp DDs, sinking ships opportunities decreases after tier 6 and above...

With DDs that are so reliant on torps as their primary DMG dealer, why would you even bother playing a niche heavily nerfed, hard to be consistent ordnance in the game?

When you can play guns and be consistent, productive, and actually contribute to the match...

This argument of "well, Torps are fine right now." Of course I disagree with... In all the competitive game modes (sorry  CO-OP).. You see a shima against gun DDs, you know you're more then likely going to lose... A torp DD vs CV match (ala tier 4 or any tier for that matter), you know DDs are going to be sunk first (regardless of its Gun DD or not).

At least a gun DD has %15 to %30 better chance at DMG something  VS a torp DDs %5 chance (%10 for the very few) before the CV sinks him in 7 min or less.

WIth an avg. torp reload of 1 min and 45 sec or higher for some torp DDs at  high tiers... He is practically useless because he is look for opportunity to (again say it with me)

HIT something...

So torps DD vs Gun DDs debate I point out the 2 flaws...

  • Lack of opportunity to hit ships
    • Over 1min and 45 + avg in torp reload compared to 3 sec gun reload.
      • Torp DDs have 3 min to get somewhere and pray for opportunities to hit something in say (16min/2min reload = 8) 8 chances or less per match.
    • BBs are nimble as cruisers (high tiers)
    • Torp detect ability is aiding why torp hit stats are low.
  • Lack of survivability of DDs regardless ordnance

No worries Hel, WOWS is a BB/guns/rocket objective for 2020... It is what it is, adapt or move on... Doesn't mean for those of us who want variety in our matches, have to like the current direction of WOWS.

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,870
[USCC2]
Members
6,060 posts
6 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

They are under performing... I will point out why AGAIN...

But are they? As I stated in my post above - a player can feel DDs are over or underperforming, but that is only their opinion.

WG are the only ones that know how they intend the different ships in game to perform - they may feel every DD is in fact over performing.

Not meant as a troll, just trying to say it could be the case, who knows? :Smile_honoring:

Edited by _WaveRider_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,801
[WORX]
Members
10,663 posts
18,555 battles
1 minute ago, _WaveRider_ said:

But are they? As I stated in my post above - a player can feel DDs are over or underperforming, but that is only their opinion. 

WG is like the US Gov. (not trying to be political just stating the obvious). They will only use information that will fit their current narratives.

CV rework,

  • Bring AP rocket planes...

The game dont need anymore planes... (its my opinion but oh well its happening regardless...)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×