Zathras_Grimm

Yay, another camouflage thread! (and I actually mean that!). Dear WG please allow me to change my 'historic' Christmas and Halloween paint jobs to a more respectable grey. I know there is a mod but that does not address the damage my DDs do to my team mates' eyesight when my ship sails into view. The Kami-R is not so bad. I would 'Pay 2 Grey!'

Are we talking about the title 'World of DDs' or the top tiers again? I can assure you that the IJN guns are not as effective in dealing damage at the rate of other nations in the game in general. This does not mean they can't do damage and this should not be tied in with a problem with damage to say the RU guns (that is their problem, not the IJN lines). If we are talking about the Shim then again let's not exaggerate! Wreck guns with every volley, it was not that many posts ago that no one could see the bloody things now they're wrecking guns with every volley lol. Ok, so we create the ultimate DD hunter. It has better stealth, better survivability, better guns. Does it make cake and let you eat it as well? Lol. You've just managed to kill off most of the DD lines leaving this little monster as the only DD worth having. In fact you've just created the new Shima. I mean aren't you complaining that a stealth torpedo ship is too good at stealth torpedoeing??? Weapon limits: I agreed with you Every ship has an ammunition limit. As you state, DDs can only fire 3 volleys, CVs can only launch 3 times and CAs BBs can only fire 3 times (or whatever = the comparitive damage level) MudMonkey: The Shim is a torp DD. It can fire its torp loadout 8 times in a match. If anything I wish the fire rates were greater! Who wants to play a game with a fire and forget weapon that you have to wait 1/5 of the game time to fire (if we make reload longer)? Make the fire rates sub 2 mins, and half the damage or sub 2 mins and keep the damage but half the number (2×4); that could be worth considering?

Ouch! I don't like your make other ships have more stealth than the IJN. IJN have torps and stealth, their guns are half the effectiveness of any other nations, at least! Now give me comparable or better guns and you're on! If I'm to be seen more then the low AA value could be looked at too. But aren't we destroying the difference and making all DDs the same then? Not aware of the ship that can wipe out a CVs squadron, I actually hear the opposite of how, when X firing, you can't help but get hit. However, if you have seen this then fair enough. There is a limit to the torpedoes already, it's tied into the number and reload times. A Shim can fire it's full complement up to 8 times in a game; that's 120 torps. I truely believe it is your own frustration that makes comments along the lines of a Shim captain sitting there pressing fire every 2 mins without doing much else. Again the same could be said about BB captains, except they get to press and readjust their aim much more frequently! Your comment about not thinking is quite insulting to those captains. However, I would even consider a limit to the weapons a DD has, as long as the same ratio is used for every other ship. Just in case those other ship captains aren't thinking either! After all this is a game where 'class' difference doesn't indicate social standing. Every ship should be able to kill and win XP as much as any other, the class merely reflects how they go about doing it!

No apology needed, although this is the English speaking part of the forum it is still the EU server (welcome!). I can also guarantee your English is better than my Italian Again the balance is another area I believed needed to be looked at too. I went a little further and said the class should be looked at with DDs (DD gunboats and torpboats), although if a 3 cap came into play it wouldn't be so impactual. 6 torpboats vs 2 gunboats or vice versa would be a nightmare though. With all the above that is why I have never thought a cap was the solution to completely address the current situation. Edit: Although when it comes to a cap I believe those who are calling for it want it for the top tiers, not across all tiers.

Many thanks Ghostbuster. @159Hunter: As the Shimkaze seems to be the DD that can stay out of trouble and fire from afar it seems that is the choice of many. When you think about it you have BBs, big ships that fire long distances and Shimkaze's, DDs that fire torpedoes over long distances. A simplistic view, as of course there are other ships involved. It is a dynamic that leads to long distance set-ups with those in any other ship feeling the pain of dancing between artillery and torps. It must also be frustrating for the BBs that were the kings of the long range fire, with few able to match their distance, actually having a ship that can stay hidden and hit them up to 20km away. @Torumage: I believe CVs used to do quite a bit of damage which saw them restricted in numbers. I believe they also got a nerf which led to their numbers dwindling in higher tiers. As no DD ship does any more damage than another why would you look at capping them alone? As I said before: More BBs = BBs doing more damage ( and no one cares) More CAs = CAs doing more damage (and no one cares (ok maybe a few BB players complain about HE fires)) More DDs = DDs doing more damage (open the floodgate of complaints; DDs need to know there place! lol) However, if we look at ensuring every ship class has a cap 3/3/3/3 then why not, that sounds fair. Edit: If the cost of repairs was also reviewed this may also encourage people to venture forth, the cost issue has been one that has been an issue for some time.

Because at the moment there are few CVs and CAs get massacred by BBs. So leaving a choice of DDs and BBs many are choosing DDs. Can't hit what you can't see. So if they are choosing DDs why not choose the one that can do most damage when remaining stealthed? Sounds a simple equation to me but maybe you're right, maybe it's the ease and boring gameplay that have people running to it. I know Ghostbuster uses it so maybe we will get a reason why he chose that DD over others when it is boring and easy. I do not believe it is because he is a bad player! How will you balance the Shima then, if we aren't talking nerfs or caps?

So you would like to penalise a ship because although it does no more considerable damage than any other DD, you consider it too easy and boring to play? How should we penalise it and then what should we do with all those other ships that sit back and fire from afar? That sounds pretty easy and boring too. In fact some would say even bad players could do this(?). However, it is easy to say a ship is amazing and the only reason it's stats are no higher than other DDs is because bad players use it bringing down the results. Of course some may say every ship would come rushing out if the Shima disappeared, but we have already had an example where they kept exactly where they were.

Thank you for the tip, but I didn't do what you think I did (still appreciated nonetheless). Look, I merely pointed out the guy didn't have to be a moron because he didn't do what you thought he should. I mean you made an assumption/mistake when giving me your tip, I merely pointed out you could have made the same mistake in judging the individual. I also pointed out the fact he might have been wrong lol. You have added more information and somehow I think it will end up that he will indeed have been the idiot you judged him to be. Ok, I am not a fantastic player but in my scenario I was caught by 2 DDs on the side I am scouting. Whilst I am trying to evade the enemy Minekaze and the other nation DD think it was a Nic. The rest of my team bugs out. Their DDs also had support who, when the ships I was scouting for decided to go the other way, added their firepower to killing me. In a Minekaze against 2 DDs with a CL,CA and 2 BB support and my own side deciding it was a big fight and retreating, I also looked to retreat. However with 5 enemy ships hunting you down and knowing the rest of the team is withdrawing they caught me eventually. Yes I used smoke and yes I used boost during the chase. So did they (they also used aircraft). In the end I also had to fight in our cap area which got me killed. Now I actually delayed them for a while and our team eventually won pushing the other side and capping first; maybe because they wasted time , intent on hunting me down? But that still doesn't make me forget the point where I was left hanging in the wind. My original post was merely stating that someone may have had reasons for not doing what you thought was the sensible option. Now I am sure that I probably made mistakes at some point during my encounter above (I usually make at least some during a game). I am also happy to take your advice and others. However, I will still be hesitant and think twice about going scouting if all I am facing is gunboats, as it can end a game quickly. Especially if the support you would need when those gunboats appear isn't there. Maybe the guy you were talking about was following your own advice and merely not counting on support from his team to survive so was doing his own thing? In fact using your own advice and your last comment made in your post: Although it would have been nice ,'there was no excuse for you to expect his support in taking that 'supporting' position on the enemy side, was there? Never count on having support to survive.

Thank you. Correct he is acknowledging that the Shima CAN hurt you, but does not all the time. My point was then to say if we are saying that the Shim CAN hurt you BUT DOES NOT (anymore than any other DD) and their win rate is NO DIFFERENT to any other DD (EVEN WHEN WE ARE SAYING THERE ARE UP TO 6 Shimas on one side compared to other DD numbers) then for what reason are we saying the Shima should be capped? Because if all the things you have stated in your posts are true, then for that many Shimas, firing that many torpedoes , in that many games, over that many weeks, surely it would have better statistics somewhere! He then went on to quote "That they can hurt you: no problem, cause it is their job. But the ease at which they can accomplish it is ridiculous." You seem to have forgotten that bit in your post! That is when I made the comment about choosing to cap the Shima because of the ease that it can do damage. And come on Ghostbuster, what ship CAN'T hurt you!!! You swear, you threaten and I will not spend any more time on you; take that any way you wish. In fact, your constant foul language has worn me down and your threats of violence have scared me to such a degree I fear for my life. You win (wavy flags and stuff!).

Sorry you seem to have not been able to read the entry I was quoting; I have included it again as the first quote in this post. Please, again, what did he mean then? And yes, if it makes you feel better I will thank god I am not near you; especially if you hold yourself when posting!

What did he mean then, maybe it is you that can't read? Edit: You have serious anger issues!

You have failed miserably in explaining yourself and instead have just resorted to foul language. Both to me and others on this forum (if they don't agree with you that is), anyone can see that for themselves (even today on another thread!). Do you really think I am going to go on to a chat programme to listen to your swearing live. Wow you do have quite an intelligence there, and yes I can read, that is how I can cut and paste your own words to show you change direction more than someone dodging torps! Again, if you leave me alone I am happy to not engage with you further. Can't say more than that.

So your argument has changed from one that suggested the Shima does too much damage to one where it doesn't do too much damage but it is just easy to do the damage it does? I must admit I have not heard that argument before....a ship is too easy so cap it. But again, if it is too easy why does it not do more damage? Maybe a complete ban on all ships considered too easy, whether they cause lots of damage or not? How would we judge those ships though, if they don't win games more than other DDs and don't cause more damage than other ships!

My example did use up to 6 Shims, but as stated that was a simplistic example; although why shouldn't you expect to get hit by 2 torpedoes out of 30 fired? I would expect to get hit by many more artillery shots. If you read my previous posts you will see that although I don't support a 'cap only' solution I do not rule it out. Generally open minded and think that repair costs, lower CV numbers and the lack of the push forward mentality due to 'potential' damage is as big a factor in the high tiers. Who says so, well those in the high tiers, but it is a difficult situation to which many have different solutions. Edit: Also in that example I did not mention the role of the DDs in the team being attacked but took it as them being ineffective (as thay always are in certain people's examples).

Sorry but you have given that same example in one post. Maybe it is you that should check what you are saying, or at least stand by what you say. And when that doesn't work be rude or try and find a fault elsewhere. Only thing is the areas where you try to find fault rarely answer or find fault in what was actually posted. I see you are being as charming to others that don't agree with you on other threads too. Try and play nice. Now I wasn't even having a discussion with you when you directly insulted me in this thread, so if you can contain your enthusiasm I will not engage with you anymore.

Ok you took it personal which was not my intent so I will give you a personal example: My general playstyle is to go for a cap or scout ahead if several of my team mates are going in a particular direction. My choice. However, on several occassions I can still be left high and dry by those I am scouting for (and have been on a few occassions) and when a DD becomes the hunted he can use any support he can get . All I am saying is that if the Minekaze wasn't doing what YOU expected him to do, it may have been for a reason. Again it could also be because he was a bad player! That is why I stated your point was a valid one.

Sorry Ghostbuster, as you are one of the people who provided the information I used did I get something wrong? Happy to change any info if this is the case. If not why the hostility? I used a simple example and I'm happy to admit it may not paint the whole picture. However, let's get one thing clear, I have used only examples that you have stated in the past. Your hostility and insults shows up no one but yourself.

Apologies, what I meant is that you are right with something like WR stats - you can have as many in the winning team as in the losing team. However if they are the wrecking machines some people complain then, whether win or lose, the stats should be far superior? Otherwise how are they better if they don't win (or lose) any more than anyone else or do more damage than any other DD. I hear people say a DD can hold up a whole advance. Well if the spotter planes are doing their job and ships are working together to advance a DD can do nothing but run. You are 100% right with the word potential. What people seem to be doing is taking the word potential as a 'definate' with the Shima and fearing the ship when it hasn't even done anything, I mean think about it (the below information is provided by those who constantly complain about DDs (or should I say the shima)): The Shima is a torpedo machine; there can be up to 6 in one side, they corral a whole team into a corner, although there is supposedly no teamplay at top tiers ONE side manages to launch a co-ordinated carpet of torpedo attack and.........wait for it........the Shima still does not do considerably more damage than any other DD!!! Holy crap, those are terrible results when you look at it lol.

If we use that logic then their stats should include a superior damage result or the like; win or lose? If their stats are not massively different to other DDs then we have a ship that is designed to do one thing (torp), that does not do that very well (damage stats), but is getting blamed because some players can't play how they like (their choice). A bit like complaining about getting hit by artillery a lot. However, if the stats show otherwise and they are killing machines that rightfully cause whole fleets to turn tail and run, I stand corrected! I really haven't seen recent stats to tell.

More BBs in a game = BBs destroy more (accepted) More CAs in a game = CAs destroy more (accepted) More DDs in a game = DDs destroy more (%£#¥%#!) DDs obviously need to know their place, screening and capping only. Anything else calls for a cap; this is not a game where every player readily accepts every class should be able to kill as much as any other. It is the playing style that changes, it should not be the ability to kill. If accepted start with a 3 cap for all and then start rebalancing, can it be any worse than now?

If people are crying out for fairness then a cap of 3 for every ship should be called for. We don't want too many CAs or BBs in the game any more than too many DDs surely?

What's not to say that the Minekaze didn't go to the front line in his previous games and got squat support? Why should he do it again, in the hope this time the team will support as they should. Some ships are built to perform certain roles well in a game; it does not mean this is the only task they should consider. This is not to argue the valid point Esa made but rather point out that unless there is someone leading a team with the consent of the others in the team, most people go off their own experience, as we can see above that experience isn't always good.

Can I just confirm this is another DD thread? Cap all ships at all levels and ensure that one type of ship can only be matched against a ship that is identical. This would be the only way to be fair if that is what people are really after. May have to wait a fortnight for a game but hey at least we can move onto the next complaint; let me guess ship Captains not doing as they should?

That is why I think the lack of CVs is a big element as both DDs and torps can be spotted by them. Repair bills also; who wants to chance damage if every game you end up losing money for your efforts. Proper balance with DDs would also help. None of the above being a direct cap solution or nerf to a ship. Only suggestions; hopefully WG will look at something, as although there may be different views on a solution, most seem to agree there is a problem!

Actually the Tirpitz reply was to Hunter, but I don't mind in the slightest that you replied to it. I was stating that certain ships are chosen above others, thats all. Rant away. Again your reply in the first sentance states that damage doesn't matter, but then it is one of the things that does matter as it is too much! In the same sentence dude, and you're having a go at me! Seriously you change direction to suit your arguement, it's confusing. When you make bold statements like there is no teamplay, of course you are going to be questioned when you then give an example of enemy teamplay working against you. If you give an example of teamplay you can hardly scream there isn't any. I have also stated that I would prefer less DDs as the more DDs the more chance I get spotted. You agreed and then state you want a cap! Then it moves onto the torpedoes! Carpets of torpedoes, is this your issue? As although more DDs = more torpedoes, we all know that torpedoes are used by other ships and not every DD is torpedo dependant (say like the Shima). So is it the Shima? But you have said the Shima is not OP. So please do not rant when you change direction more times than someone dodging torpedoes and someone calls you on it. The problem is if you stuck with the cap decision only then you wouldn't have much of a comeback. It is when you fail to understand or accept that someone may think differently and you question their thoughts on the matter with examples that, as shown above, contradict themselves. Before you blow a fuse I will exit this thread for now and leave you to argue your cap solution. Hopefully no one will be annoying and question you. Hunter: Hmmm nerf the Shima(?). Ok I can see that approach to the issue. Just like I can see a cap solution being supported. My main concern is will that address the problem of the meta issue: lack of CVs, lack of teamplay, lack of DD balance (torp/gunboat). Yes it could be part of the solution though (even though many state the ship itself is not OP but rather the obvious choice of ship with the current state of play at high tiers). Thank you.