Destroyer Comparison!

[Exustio]

 

You should factor that Kagero and Shimakaze can equip a -15% reload modernization, which stacks multiplicatively with the captain skill, so their DPM is higher.

 

Still, it doesn't make for the tier difference nor the reload times.

 

 

That stats from the RU server published by WG agree too.

 

 

If WG nerf the lower tiers instead of buffing the higher ones I can just quit without any regret.

 

For the sake of comparing, adding skills/equipment on ships is pointless, as in the end it will be a flat % bonus. So simply looking at the statistical numbers will be good enough without having to whip our calculators out every single time some1 mentions a buff/nerf is needed because of DPM. This does not only apply to Torpedo DPM, but also to steering/concealment etc etc, which will make it a hell for comparing

 

Just for the sake of it, here's torpedo DPM by tier for the japanese DDs.

 

T2 68000

T3 60746

T4 112696

T5 112696

T6 52560

T7 62039

T8 93058

T9  67094

T10 106952

 

That is just seriously off.

 

 

Problem with torpedo's is that, yes the numbers are waaaaay off, but u dont expect to hit all of them. Usually u would hit around 50% of them, as the rest is avoided, and because of the long reload it will make speed, range and yield of the torpedo even that more important. Nevertheless, i agree with you that if u indeed had a 100% hit on every single torpedo according to the DPM u mentioned, the numbers are off and tweeking is required. 

 

 

 

By nerfing I really only meant by 2-4 knots and/or 500-1000 damage minus, which would not make that big of a difference, It would just make it more clear that USN DDs are not really mainly for torping stuff

But hey I'm all for not nerfing stuff

 

 

QUESTION TIME!!

What do you think is the ideal ROF of torpedoes on DDs?

I'm thinking that the tier 10s should not have a lower ROF than 0.6 and higher than 0.8 ( I'd love the 0.6 more though) while on lower tiers a maximum of 1.5 would be nice.

I'd thought it would be better if they'd buff the current values by nearly double at tier 9 and 10 and reduce the higher values on lower tiers by 0,3-1 depending on the ship. ( this is more for tier 2-4 with the really high ROF)

 

 

 

Now i agree with a lot of what u said, however, we should not jump ahead of ourselves when it comes to RoF on torpedo's. As i mentioned in the last quote, people should also consider the speed/range and yield of each torpedo. What u also need to keep in mind imo is the amount of turrets u are running around with. U have 15 torpedos in 3 turrets, now i think WG wanted players to use 1 turret on 50/50 situations. Meaning situations where if u hit, yay, and if u dont, well too bad next time better, and keep the other 2 turrets in reserve for when u actually need them. 

 

Now i dont agree with this kind of playstyle because just like most of you, i love the isokaze, and therefore love the minekaze and the 30-40sec reload feels like the sweetspot for torpedos. However, i think the problem we are facing with buffing the japanese is that the torpedos not only affect us as a class, but we need to keep in mind the healthpool of the people we are shooting at. Example, with a single salvo of the Shimakaze it can destroy a full health Yamato (100k), and we only need 5 to hit him........and we fire of 15 of them. Imagine being able to sink 1 Yamato every 200 sec, and therefore if we increase the RoF.......1 Yamato every x<200sec. Im not even sure if increasing the RoF is the way to go (not saying i dont want it) but it seems slightly OP. Possibly WG needs to look at increasing our torpedo speed and lowering our concealment. Saw some awesome comments about Japanese torpedos being spotted later then US, or where only scout planes would spot torpedos (which seems logical, as figher aircraft look at the sky, and bombers look at the horizon, meaning they wouldnt be looking straight down for torpedos) 

 

These changes seem less extreme then RoF and imo better for the current game. 

[Kawaiidesune]

Nice comparison mate!  In summary USA DDs are more like gunboats excell in dpm and gun range while Jap DDs are more like assasins with better camo and torps(range and dmg).I think i ll stick with the Japs,they seem more fun. 

[matsc]

I compared the T10 DDs and did some speculative math hammer ;)

 

Considering the different doctrines IJN and US has IJN should have less DPM with guns than US.

How big difference should it be for them to be specialized? 20%, 33% or?

 

How effective is Shimakazes gunfire compared to Gearings (with AP)?

Shimakaze aimtime vs Gearing 357% (25,7s vs 7,2s)

Shimakaze dpm vs Gearing 45% (127968 / 284400)

 

If we have a scenario where torpedoes are on cooldown and you need to harrass an enemy ship.

Since both are fast and agile there is no problem coming into gun range I'll ignore the difference in range.

There are some light to moderate manouvering needed to avoid fire.

 

Gearings aimtime is enough to keep up with moderate to high manouvering.

Shimakazes aimtime is only enough to keep up with light manouvering, it looses 20% of DPM.

Shimakazes effective DPM is 36% (127968 * 0,8 / 284400).

Is a difference of 64% a specialization or a handicap?

 

I really hope that the Shimakaze is fantastic with everything else compared to Gearing!

 

 

[matsc]

Shimakaze left and Gearing right.

#Torpedoes turrets/#torpedoes	3/15	2/10
Torpedo reload/Range	200sec/15km	150sec/16.5km
Torpedo dmg/Torpedo Speed	23767/67 knots	17900/66 knots

 

Easiest way to compare these are damage per second or DPS.

Shimakaze (15 * 23767 / 200 = 1782,5 ) / Gearing (10 * 17900 / 150 = 1193,3 ) = 149%

 

Shimakaze have a big advantage in torpedoes to make up for its abysmal guns but how big advantage is it really?

In a 10m fight you can your torpedoes 3 times but the last torpedoes don't have time to hit anything and that is if you fire as soon as they come off cooldown.

It has better spotting range and speed aswell but not as agile.

 

Just for lols I calculated the DPS of Gearings guns and it is 4740.

If Shimakazes torpedoes would have the same DPS as Gearings guns it would have 75s reload.

 

 

[DestoryerO_o]

My biggest problem would be that after high tier torpedo run in IJN DD i could freely sail away from action and play a quick match in some other game, before i can become useful again.

IJN DD guns are utterly useless - mainly because the turret traverse is.. well.. tedious, to say the least.

 

Last gun on highest tier IJN DDs should be 10cm Type 98 Naval Gun (dual purpose). With all the paper ships that the game will have, it should not be a big deal - One way, or another, IJN would re-fit their DDs with this weapon, if they had enough time. There was even better 10cm Gun being developed and tested, but it was never mounted on a ship.

 

[KurtVonSteiger]

In my humble opinion we need to maintain this sort of role specific imbalance to keep the unique identity of WoWS - WoT has been making the mistake of listening to far too many "omg - the X is OP please nerf" moans and as a result is slowly but surely moving towards the "everything the same only the skin is different" destination - as quite a few of the posters here have replied the two nations had specific tactical doctrines that shaped the design of their respective ship classes therefore you can not reasonably expect them to be evenly balanced.....I know I will now get the "but this is a game so balance" reply but for some of us it is overcoming the weakness and playing to the strengths that makes the game challenging.

 

 

 

 

WoT is all about high alpha - run around with a 122mm gun and you are usually golden - in WoWS a DD can rip the guts out of a BB 2 tiers higher so no one enters a battle going "OMG I am useless at this tier" but you HAVE to play to your strengths and minimise your weakness and this is what will make this game a great game.

[DestoryerO_o]

In my humble opinion we need to maintain this sort of role specific imbalance to keep the unique identity of WoWS - WoT has been making the mistake of listening to far too many "omg - the X is OP please nerf" moans and as a result is slowly but surely moving towards the "everything the same only the skin is different" destination - as quite a few of the posters here have replied the two nations had specific tactical doctrines that shaped the design of their respective ship classes therefore you can not reasonably expect them to be evenly balanced.....I know I will now get the "but this is a game so balance" reply but for some of us it is overcoming the weakness and playing to the strengths that makes the game challenging.

 

All ok, but if i got no guns, what am i supposed to do while waiting two and a half minutes for torpedo reload? go AFK?

I'm not saying that IJN DD is bad, it's just that one specific mechanic (torp tube reload on high tier) is incredibly boring.

And thus i would like to at least have some pie-shooter gun just to entertain myself while waiting for torp reload,

as opposed to something that we have now, where we can grow mushrooms on our heads while waiting for it to turn.

 

Super slow turning turret's like this are ok for bigger ships - but utterly useless for a rapid maneuvering DD where gun aim is never even close to where it should be.

 

As far as i'm concerned they can freely delete all destroyers after MInekaze, and replace them with..... Minekaze! - that would make me 100% happy.

That way i could at least entertain myself with firing Torpedoes.

[Takeda92]

It doesn't have to be better guns. One thing they can do, which is related to IJN DD's excellent stealth, is the ability to shoot while remain invisible, or at least get detected for a very short time then go invisible again. Atm, when you shoot, it takes a while for you to go invisible again. I think it can be a special feature for the IJN ships (cruisers too) since your slow turret traverse and rate of fire will make sure that this ability won't get abused or overpowered.

 

edit:

I don't know why people complain about turret turn speed for ships after Minekaze, it's not like Minekaze turn them so fast anyway. In fact, all of them except Kagerou seems to have better turret traverse than Minekaze.

[Compobob]

What i have also noticed is how Slow the DDs are from both Nations at tier 9, 35 knots is not what i call fast. They Should be faster at least 38 knots. Also turret turn times on IJN is a joke. When you have sailed the minekaze you Think WOW im in Heaven, After that its hell

 

[DestoryerO_o]

I don't know why people complain about turret turn speed for ships after Minekaze, it's not like Minekaze turn them so fast anyway. In fact, all of them except Kagerou seems to have better turret traverse than Minekaze.

 

It's not that Minakaze's Turret traverse is better, In her case, well, you know what makes her a good ship - torpedo tube reload time.

[CherryWood]

 

It's not that Minakaze's Turret traverse is better, In her case, well, you know what makes her a good ship - torpedo tube reload time.

 

I would gladly keep long reload time if I get her manevuerability, stealth and speed at higher tiers dd

[Orlunu]

Please everyone stop saying that they should just completely change the ships from history.  I want to play IJN DDs, not some random WG designs given the Hinomaru.

[matsc]

I think everyone wants US and IJN DDs to play differently.

But both needs to be playable and fun to use at higher tiers.

 

US has good guns and usable torpedoes at tier 9+.

IJN has abysmal guns and good torpedoes at tier 9+.

I don't see a problem with this if the torpedoes are actually usable.

 

I don't know how long the average match time is in WoWs but lets say 12 minutes, a little less than double WoT match time.

IF the DD is a perfect position to fire torpedoes each time torpedoes is off cooldown then Kagero can fire 4 times and Shimakaze can fire 3 times.

If they dont have a good position every time it comes off CD then maybe Kagero can fire 3 times and Shimakaze 2 times.

 

They need to increase the rate of fire on torpedoes for them to actually be usable.

For torpedoes to usable a the reload should be max 2m in my opinion. (No experience at high tier DDs so I could be wrong)

 

I saw the tier 9 torpedoes and calculated the DPS for them. Kagero has 1118,2 compared to Fletchers 1586,1?!?

What is the point of Kagero? Much much worse guns and worse torpedoes *sigh*. 

[Broevaharo]

Please everyone stop saying that they should just completely change the ships from history.  I want to play IJN DDs, not some random WG designs given the Hinomaru.

 

Yes I do as well and I don't mind them being different from the US DD's but the fact is that they nerfed the torpedos (spotting range AND distance on the long lances) which, at this moment in the game, is favoring the US DD's bigtime.

Any long range launch gets spotted long before they reach their targets which nullifies the only advantage IJN has over US.

[Orlunu]

Yes I do as well and I don't mind them being different from the US DD's but the fact is that they nerfed the torpedos (spotting range AND distance on the long lances) which, at this moment in the game, is favoring the US DD's bigtime.

Any long range launch gets spotted long before they reach their targets which nullifies the only advantage IJN has over US.

 

Yes, I'm just saying to fix it by measures such as fiddling with reload times and making Long Lances harder to detect, rather than giving Shimakaze Akizuki's primary battery or straight up changing how fast the ships are, and things like that which are being proposed.

[Exustio]

 

Yes, I'm just saying to fix it by measures such as fiddling with reload times and making Long Lances harder to detect, rather than giving Shimakaze Akizuki's primary battery or straight up changing how fast the ships are, and things like that which are being proposed.

 

Although i do agree that they should stick as close to the original design as they possibly can, this in and of itself is a dilemma. If WG were to follow exactly the specifications of every single ship, this game would be imbalanced beyond proportions. 

 

As i said, i agree with what u said that WG should start tweaking certain aspacts of certain ships, imo movement speed is not that big of a deal so long it doesnt change by too much (1-3 knots should do). Adding an extra turret to either main armament or torpedo is rediculous and i agree that WG should not change the look of each ship (if in real live they have 15 torpedo tubes, then keep it like that) otherwise we are stepping over the edge into the land of imagination and suddenly ships would appear that werent even written down on paper. 

 

Increasing torpedo speed, lowering their detection range changing reload times are up till now very good ways of balancing the IJN destoyers around what they are meant to do.

 

WG has tried to make a difference between USN and IJN destroyer playstyle, and i think with the USN line, they succeeded in what they were aiming at (Destroyer hunter/support). The IJN is underwhelming, thus requires tweeking for WG to reach their idea of playstyle (WG tried to reach IJN playstyle by increasing the torpedo range, which by now i hope they noticed is not working all that well, granted long range is nice, but more needs to be added to make it feel "balanced")

[Orlunu]

Although i do agree that they should stick as close to the original design as they possibly can, this in and of itself is a dilemma. If WG were to follow exactly the specifications of every single ship, this game would be imbalanced beyond proportions. 

 

As i said, i agree with what u said that WG should start tweaking certain aspacts of certain ships, imo movement speed is not that big of a deal so long it doesnt change by too much (1-3 knots should do).

 

Increasing torpedo speed, lowering their detection range changing reload times are up till now very good ways of balancing the IJN destoyers around what they are meant to do.

The thing is, there's a difference between "soft" stats, which are gameplay abstractions and have quite a bit of room for adjustment, and "hard" stats, which are just how things were IRL, and which don't have that room.

 

Soft stats are things like view mechanics, accuracy, hit points, RoF to a degree (rate of supply was often the limiting factor).

Hard stats are things like how big a ship was, how many guns it had and what type, how fast it was, and so on.  These were hard numerical facts, not abstractions or rough averages.

 

3 knots is an enormous difference for ships.

[Exustio]

In my humble opinion we need to maintain this sort of role specific imbalance to keep the unique identity of WoWS - WoT has been making the mistake of listening to far too many "omg - the X is OP please nerf" moans and as a result is slowly but surely moving towards the "everything the same only the skin is different" destination - as quite a few of the posters here have replied the two nations had specific tactical doctrines that shaped the design of their respective ship classes therefore you can not reasonably expect them to be evenly balanced.....I know I will now get the "but this is a game so balance" reply but for some of us it is overcoming the weakness and playing to the strengths that makes the game challenging.

 

 

 

 

 

WoT is all about high alpha - run around with a 122mm gun and you are usually golden - in WoWS a DD can rip the guts out of a BB 2 tiers higher so no one enters a battle going "OMG I am useless at this tier" but you HAVE to play to your strengths and minimise your weakness and this is what will make this game a great game.

 

Yes, agree with that the 2 different playstyles should be played to their strengths, which would mean that WG should try and adjust stats to that certain playstyle, otherwise indeed u will have 2 ships that kinda play the same but are a reskin of eachother. However, that is exactly what started this whole discussion. At certain tiers, people are prone to playing 1 nation, regardless of its playstyle, as that nation at that tier can be played both ways, which makes people think, well, the USN has the same kind of torpedos as the IJN (albeitt, there are differences), thus the IJN should have similar guns as the USN. 

 

Imo, having a slower turret traverse has somewhat become a trademark of the IJN, which is not a bad thing. Yes they turn slowly, but i want to stay hidden for as long as i possibly can, as IJN use those torpedoes, i noticed that when i play the IJN i hardly shoot at all, unless i know im spotted, or an enemy ship is on low health. Reason being, a enemy ship that does not know that im there, will not turn in time for when my torpedos get detected by him (players start to understand that when a destroyer is spotted and nearby, they change course immediatly). So i rather keep my concealment then fire off on a few ships and as a result miss almost all of my torpedoes. This is especially true from T6 and up where your concealment range is far smaller then your torpedo range, which allows u to stay undetected when firing torpedos. (which in turn, is the playstyle of the IJN)

 

It doesn't have to be better guns. One thing they can do, which is related to IJN DD's excellent stealth, is the ability to shoot while remain invisible, or at least get detected for a very short time then go invisible again. Atm, when you shoot, it takes a while for you to go invisible again. I think it can be a special feature for the IJN ships (cruisers too) since your slow turret traverse and rate of fire will make sure that this ability won't get abused or overpowered.

 

edit:

I don't know why people complain about turret turn speed for ships after Minekaze, it's not like Minekaze turn them so fast anyway. In fact, all of them except Kagerou seems to have better turret traverse than Minekaze.

 

Now having the ability to shoot and remain invisible is imo too overpowerd. Yes IJN turrets turn slowly, yes IJN guns reload slower, but why would u want to shoot in a IJN destroyer? That is the trait of the USN, and if we change it only for the IJN, he will be able to launch torps without being detected, and shoot! Detected less might be an option, but this goes back to the different playstyles of the 2 nations, why would u want to? In the end, for the IJN its about the torpedos, which should result in a match like.....20 main armament hits, and 8 torpedo hits (just an example) and if u get a score like that, i think as a IJN destroyer u have done your job. USN destroyers should have a lot of main armament hits and less torpedo hits then the IJN. 

 

[Thjan]

The thing is, there's a difference between "soft" stats, which are gameplay abstractions and have quite a bit of room for adjustment, and "hard" stats, which are just how things were IRL, and which don't have that room.

 

Soft stats are things like view mechanics, accuracy, hit points, RoF to a degree (rate of supply was often the limiting factor).

Hard stats are things like how big a ship was, how many guns it had and what type, how fast it was, and so on.  These were hard numerical facts, not abstractions or rough averages.

 

3 knots is an enormous difference for ships.

 

You are aware that there were already quite a few hard stats changed for game balance? Like running distance of long lance torpedoes, ships speeds etc.

By the way, the limiting factor for the Rate of Fire was the endurance of the loaders more than the ammo supply.

 

I agree with you that they should give the ships their historical guns and torpedoes (which is not the case with some ships in game btw) and work from there.

[Orlunu]

 

 

All stuff I already know or is semi correct, but none of it really has an influence on the argument.

[Exustio]

Soft stats are things like view mechanics, accuracy, hit points, RoF to a degree (rate of supply was often the limiting factor).

Hard stats are things like how big a ship was, how many guns it had and what type, how fast it was, and so on.  These were hard numerical facts, not abstractions or rough averages.

 

 You are aware that there were already quite a few hard stats changed for game balance? Like running distance of long lance torpedoes, ships speeds etc.

 

 All stuff I already know or is semi correct, but none of it really has an influence on the argument.

 

I fail to see how that has no influence on the argument? 

 

So increasing speed should not be done as in real life they couldnt reach those speeds, but u know these speeds might be buffed beyond realistic proportions, but u dont want to increase speed to promote game balance?

 

Im confused 

[Orlunu]

I fail to see how that has no influence on the argument? 

 

So increasing speed should not be done as in real life they couldnt reach those speeds, but u know these speeds might be buffed beyond realistic proportions, but u dont want to increase speed to promote game balance?

 

Im confused 

 

"Screwing with hard stats is bad."

"They've screwed with some hard stats before."

"That doesn't influence what I said."

 

"Murder is bad."

"Lots of people have murdered before."

"That doesn't influence what I said."

[Exustio]

 

"Screwing with hard stats is bad."

"They've screwed with some hard stats before."

"That doesn't influence what I said."

 

"Murder is bad."

"Lots of people have murdered before."

"That doesn't influence what I said."

 

Ok, so screwing with hard stats is bad, but u are not willing to change them to promote game balance. 

and thus following your train of thought:

murder is bad, but u are not willing to change the amount of people getting murdered for the safety of society?

 

I do have to say, the example u picked is kind of wrong, as murder always has to be low, as it is a moral issue, might have been better if u picked something like maximum carspeed..... as both lowering/increasing maximum speed can benefit safety on the roads whilst maintaining a constant flow of traffic. 

 

U do know i would agree with u if the current speeds are realistic, and buffing them would make them unrealistic. All im saying is, yes, WG should try and stick as close as possible to realistic statistics, however, if a major imbalance shows itself that cant be fixed by changing the soft stats, hard stats have to be changed. 

 

Back on topic: I dont really mind the speeds, think they are okish where they are. Plus the speed of a ship is hardly ever an issue in WoWs. (ofcourse situations occur when it does matter, but that will never change, at any speed) So changing ship speeds is not on the list of needed fixes

[Orlunu]

Ok, so screwing with hard stats is bad, but u are not willing to change them to promote game balance. 

and thus following your train of thought:

murder is bad, but u are not willing to change the amount of people getting murdered for the safety of society?

 

I do have to say, the example u picked is kind of wrong, as murder always has to be low, as it is a moral issue, might have been better if u picked something like maximum carspeed..... as both lowering/increasing maximum speed can benefit safety on the roads whilst maintaining a constant flow of traffic. 

 

U do know i would agree with u if the current speeds are realistic, and buffing them would make them unrealistic. All im saying is, yes, WG should try and stick as close as possible to realistic statistics, however, if a major imbalance shows itself that cant be fixed by changing the soft stats, hard stats have to be changed. 

I did not say "screwing with the number of murders is bad", I said "murder is bad".

Screwing with hard stats is bad, ergo I am against screwing with hard stats for game balance.

Murder is bad, ergo I am against murdering people for the economy.

Verstanden?

 

Murder always has to be low.  The number of ahistorical (screwed with) hard stats always has to be low.  Just so.

 

If an imbalance is so large that it cannot reasonably be fixed by manipulating those soft stats, then something is simply at the wrong tier.

[Takeda92]

 

Now having the ability to shoot and remain invisible is imo too overpowerd. Yes IJN turrets turn slowly, yes IJN guns reload slower, but why would u want to shoot in a IJN destroyer? That is the trait of the USN, and if we change it only for the IJN, he will be able to launch torps without being detected, and shoot! Detected less might be an option, but this goes back to the different playstyles of the 2 nations, why would u want to? In the end, for the IJN its about the torpedos, which should result in a match like.....20 main armament hits, and 8 torpedo hits (just an example) and if u get a score like that, i think as a IJN destroyer u have done your job. USN destroyers should have a lot of main armament hits and less torpedo hits then the IJN. 

 

 

You're assuming that USN DDs are not scoring torpedo hits at all. Tell me, why should USN DDs be very good at guns and good at torpedoes (high tiers and close range torpedoing which they are better than IJN in this regard due to faster znd more torpedoes and shorter reloads) while IJN DDs have to be only good at torpedoes? Offense-wise, the only offense IJN DDs have is the greater range (although Shimakaze loses to in that) but you always get fewer torps (except Shimakaze) sometimes even slower or not that faster (like in tier 7) and much longer reloads. This makes the playstyle very passive, and makes you feel useless until you reload your torpedoes again. Not to mention this style makes you effective mainly against battleships and carriers, while USN destroyers are effective against battleships,carriers, other destroyers, and they can harass cruisers to if needed. Much more flexible playstyle.

I'm not saying make IJN equal in guns to the USN. (The shooting invisible is barely overpowered due to how poor DPM and gun range are, but it will at least give you something to do) But they need real advantage over not only US but the other nations as well (imo detection range for type 93)