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

Self destruct for torp users?

Self destruct for torp users?  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Would a self destruct button or range limiter on torps be beneficial for gameplay?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      18
  2. 2. Would such a feature reduce the amount of friendly fire incidents?

    • Yes
      13
    • No
      15
  3. 3. Would you utilize such a system?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      13
  4. 4. Would you like a similar system for secondary and primary battery fire?

    • Yes
      0
    • No
      28

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
19 posts
13,283 battles

This is a follow up to an earlier post concerning the TK penalty system.  As always, your participation and toughts are appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,262
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,724 posts
26,569 battles

I suggested similar before. Was shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,029 posts

It's an interesting idea.  I'm a little confused about the secondary and primary battery fire though.  Secondaries can be turned off and primaries have a short enough travel time, even at extreme ranges, that friendly fire shouldn't be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,212
[GLHF]
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
15,562 battles

Its more easy remove the tk damage for torpedos...

BUT

TK damage for torpedos is one changele chanllenge for not let dds send a random torps in battles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,999
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,205 posts

Personally - I prefer the ability to set my torp range, per launcher, on demand. If I'm in an open area, sure I want 15km (max range). If I'm anticipating some struggles over a cap, I might want a minimum range, say 2, 3 or 4km. No different than having a crew member spec out the torps before they launch them. 

 

I guess they didn't like either Idea ®

 

They prefer to shorten torpedo ranges, decrease armor and rework smoke. Should take care of things as the active number of DD players drop off. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

TK damage for torpedos is one changele chanllenge for not let dds send a random torps in battles. 

 

No one is throwing torps around at random, the problem comes when someone is deliberately throwing torps at an enemy while ignoring the friendly ship that might get in the way.

 

Since they don't notice, a self destruct for torps will be mostly useless, since that requires the user to....well...notice.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[SYN]
Members
8,292 posts
14,496 battles

Wow, surprised at the number of negatives in the poll.  A self destruct would be great, though setting the range seems like a hassle to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,080 posts
60,187 battles

I see no need for this.  Would just be easier to eliminate friendly fire damage altogether.  And we know WG doesn't want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,212
[GLHF]
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
15,562 battles

 

No one is throwing torps around at random, the problem comes when someone is deliberately throwing torps at an enemy while ignoring the friendly ship that might get in the way.

 

Since they don't notice, a self destruct for torps will be mostly useless, since that requires the user to....well...notice.

 

Yes, my point for keep TK damage was for people dont do that (deliberately throwing torps at an enemy while ignoring the friendly ships that might get in the way).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,561
[O_O]
Members
7,894 posts
22,076 battles

No.  Eliminating friendly damage and not providing alternate consequences will result in mindless torpedo spam.  This is a BAD idea!

 

I am okay with not having friendly torpedoes do any damage to the victim, but rather having the shooter sustain the damage.  Much drama avoided.  Much realism also lost...and we don't have a whole lot of that to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,999
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,205 posts

I am constantly amazed at how many people seem to regurgitate old sentences and syllables like three hour old pablum. The suggestion was made, shot down and clearly there is no desire by anyone (but me it seems) to set range as an option. So let it be as it is, we don't want anything to change. 

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.

×