Shimakaze vs. Isokaze or how high tier DD's have issues

[Abraa]

I wanted to run this test to a 100 games in each ship but as you know, the wipe will be upon us tomorrow so i have to come to the conclusion now.

 

All games have been made 0.3.1 onwards and both ship had 50 game each at the exact same time (2 days before supertesters got the taiho).

 

 

 

The stats of the Isokaze, afer 50 games where: 51,15 k damage per game, 20 Battles survived.

 

The stats of the Shimakaze fter 50 game where: 74,22k damage, 12% Hit and 19 battles survived.

 

Than came the patch that nerfed the Manueverability of  large ships- so far so good i tought, but unfortunatly it was also the time where High tier JPN CV's where implemented and thats where it becomes really interesting.

 

 

Now after 78 games in the isokaze, its damage increased to 54,98k per battle and 31 battles survived.

 

 

 

 

That means the manueverability nerf to big ships accounted for an average damage of 61,81k damage per game thur the last 28 games.

 

This is what i expected after the Manueverability nerf.

 

The Shimakaze's story is completly different.

 

 

After 89 games in the shimakaze, the final stats read: 10 % hit rate, 64,24k average damage and 26 battles survived.

 

 

This result was the surprise, it means that even tho the manueverability was nerfed, the Shimakaze saw its survivability and overall performance drop into the abyss.

 

This overall result means that since the implementation of the JPN high tier CV's, the shimakaze's performance in 39 games was a lowly 51,45k damage per game- thats a drop of almost 24 k damage per game.

 

 

 

So the conclusion is:

 

Even tho the Shimakaze's main prey (High tier BB's) had their manueverability significantly decreased, it wasnt enough to make up for the influx of CV planes in the air.

 

The implementation of JPN high tier CV's increased the number of planes in the air by such a great margin, that its does not only dramatically decreased the Shimakazes survivability by beeing spotted very often, but also decreased the hit chance by 25%+ by spotting torpedos, which obviously directly results in a significant drop of damage. (75k versus 51,5k)

 

Since that implementation of high tier CV's, even the T4 Isokaze is able to easily outperfrom its TX successor and the shimakaze is by far and away the best JPN DD from T6 onwards.

 

Im glad i got that tested in CBT, wont be playing JPN DD's after T5 in OBT for now- giant waste of time and very frustrating.

 

 

 

[Takeda92]

I don't want to play Mutsuki in its current state. What does it take to tell devs that we are not enjoying Mutsuki.. when will we ever be heard!

[Madhax]

Excellent summary.

Thanks for the work and putting it together.

[_Ezio_]

I don't want to play Mutsuki in its current state. What does it take to tell devs that we are not enjoying Mutsuki.. when will we ever be heard!

 

I belive it's time to found the "BB's are fat and stupid OP ships" organization and try to overwhelm the "Torpedos OP!!!!111!1!!" movement.

[Aerroon]

Or people just got better at the game.

[Userext]

Or people just got better at the game.

 

no?

[Abraa]

If that was the case, the Isokaze would have seen its performance drop as well, instead it went up significantly.

 

 

[Aerroon]

If that was the case, the Isokaze would have seen its performance drop as well, instead it went up significantly.

 

 

 

Except the Isokaze is a tier 4 ship. Shimakaze is a tier 10 ship. Shimakaze will play against the same-ish people while the good ones at Isokaze level will move on and more noobs come to fill the places.

[Abraa]

 

Except the Isokaze is a tier 4 ship. Shimakaze is a tier 10 ship. Shimakaze will play against the same-ish people while the good ones at Isokaze level will move on and more noobs come to fill the places.

 

Yes, that was precisly the point of that test, a t4 ship challanging its TX successor in performance.

 

And if people got so much better at avoiding torps, than clearly you wouldnt average 175k damage in hakuryu, but again thats not the case so lets not pretend that it is.

 

 

[Staarfury]

Well, maybe if low tier DDs wouldn't spit out torpedoes like a Pez dispenser, higher tier DDs wouldn't feel like such a letdown.

 

Not saying there's no problem with high-tier DDs (haven't played them, checked the Minekaze's successors and saw no reason to ever "upgrade" - that alone should be proof enough that there's something wrong), but just pointing out that the balance problem may not be entirely located at the upper end of the destroyer line.

[Abraa]

No i dont think so, i do 63k average damage in the Kongo and to a lesser extend in the Phoenix and the hosho (very low amount of games in the latter onces tho), so the Isokazes performance is on par with some of my other low tier ships.

 

So i dont think the that the low tier DDs are overpeforming in any significant manner compared to the low tier ships of other classes, its just that they dont improve after that.

 

BB's improve, CV's improve and DD's dont. CA's are always a grey area since i played them as anti DD's and fleet protectors rather than premier BB hunters, so the average damage is accordingly to that.

 

 

[Takeda92]

Lol if WG read this (thank God they don't care about EU server) they would nerf Isokaze and low tier DD instead.

[Userext]

takeda is right you know

[Aerroon]

 

Yes, that was precisly the point of that test, a t4 ship challanging its TX successor in performance.

 

And if people got so much better at avoiding torps, than clearly you wouldnt average 175k damage in hakuryu, but again thats not the case so lets not pretend that it is.

 

 

 

They are functionally completely different. Stop comparing things by values which don't make sense.

 

People are way worse at tier 4 than tier 10 especially when it comes to avoiding torpedoes. On top of that, at tier 4 you don't have a million things which will instakill you unlike on tier 10. Battleships on tier 10 sit at 20+ km while on tier 4 they have to go close. You can actually rush a battleship and live at tier 4, which you usually can't do at tier 10 because the secondaries alone will make sure that if you manage to kill the battleship you're still dead.

 

You're attributing these issues to the wrong things. Doesn't your 73% winrate with the Isokaze vs your 43% winrate with the Shimakaze tell you a few things about how differently the game works at higher tiers?

 

You're essentially frustrated that seal clubbing stops working at tier 10 the way it works at tier 4. You do realize you need hundreds of games to get to tier 10 and only a handful to reach tier 4, right? We already know that DDs are stronger against noobs so I really fail to see what you were trying to show, other than the fact that you pulled your conclusions from thin air. Yes, there are more planes, but the maps are also larger, which gives you more room to hide in. You also have multiple times more range while your detection stays similar. The main difference in your damage output comes from enemies not sucking as much.

[m4inbrain]

He has a point though, there's no real progression through the DD trees. Ships don't get better. They get upgrades that let them stay basically on the same level, whereas on BBs for example you get moar gunz, higher caliber guns, speed etc (powercreep) - DDs get just marginal upgrades (if any, some of them are a quite considerable worse than their predecessors). 

 

You also have multiple times more range while your detection stays similar.

 

I'd like you to check again.

[Abraa]

You're hilarious.

 

So when i do 55k in the Isokaze its seal clubbing.

 

When you do 130k+ in your CV's, thats skill.

 

Again, my Isokaze's performance is on par with some of my other low tier ships, so its hardly seal clubbing when the performance can be dublicated by other classes.

 

I have yet to see any evidence provided by you to support your ridiculous opinions, my conclusions are based on performance prior and after the implementation of high tier JPN CVs, given that manueverability was nerved, its THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO GAMEPLAY that would lead to such a breakdown in performance.

 

I even included the results after 50 games with both ships, so thats the evidence that its NOT ABOUT T4 VS TX per se, but rather a change of performance directly related to more planes in the air.

 

So not only is it not out of thin air, its backed by evidence, if you want to argue with me about it PROVIDE EVIDENCE or shut up, your not contributing to the diiscussion other than talking out of your [edited].

 

[Del_Mare]

 

So not only is it not out of thin air, its backed by evidence, if you want to argue with me about it PROVIDE EVIDENCE or shut up, your not contributing to the diiscussion other than talking out of your [edited].

 

 

with such a low n i would state that your error margin overshadows your evidence backed values. so while it indeed seems plausible that airplanes make the life of a top tier dd quite miserable, i would advise you to be a little more careful with the interpretation of your little... "experiment"

[m4inbrain]

 

with such a low n i would state that your error margin overshadows your evidence backed values. so while it indeed seems plausible that airplanes make the life of a top tier dd quite miserable, i would advise you to be a little more careful with the interpretation of your little... "experiment"

 

Sorry, that "n" is enough to show an indication. In politics, they ask 10k people what they think and they give pollpredictions on that. 10k out of millions.

 

It's not proof, but a clear indication.

[Abraa]

 

with such a low n i would state that your error margin overshadows your evidence backed values. so while it indeed seems plausible that airplanes make the life of a top tier dd quite miserable, i would advise you to be a little more careful with the interpretation of your little... "experiment"

 

Considreing that its a CBT with a limited amount of time, you're completly off on that.

 

The sample value is big enough to draw a conclusion given how little time i had to test after the CV patch, as it is the best i could possibly do.

75k average after 50 games before and 51,5k in 39 games AFTER CV's is a huge indicator.

 

I didnt suddenly get worse playing DDs, if so the stats of the Iso would have dropped too, instead they went up by 20%.

 

Players didnt suddenly get better at evading torps, if so TX CV's wouldnt do 150k-175k damage.

 

[Aerroon]

He has a point though, there's no real progression through the DD trees. Ships don't get better. They get upgrades that let them stay basically on the same level, whereas on BBs for example you get moar gunz, higher caliber guns, speed etc (powercreep) - DDs get just marginal upgrades (if any, some of them are a quite considerable worse than their predecessors). 

 

 

I'd like you to check again.

 

Shimakaze: 7.6km concealment range. However, your commander gets -10% concealment and you also get the concealment upgrade on the ship. End result: concealment range is 6.15 km. Isokaze has 6.1km concealment range.

Shimakaze torpedoes: 15 or 20km range. Isokaze torpedoes: 7 km range.

 

So, uh, what should I check again?

 

I do not disagree with what you're saying here at all. Yes, DDs are weak and need buffs. The problem I have is with his conclusions. All of his stuff seems to be "IJN CVs are at fault". Let's take IJN CVs out of the game. What happens? DDs still suck and still have terrible scores. Why? Because IJN CVs were not what caused this. And if you keep repeating that it's the IJN CVs' fault you're just misleading people. I would like Wargaming to actually fix destroyers and not do some kneejerk nerfs to other things that won't change a thing about destroyer performance.

 

So when i do 55k in the Isokaze its seal clubbing.

 

When you do 130k+ in your CV's, thats skill.

In the Isokaze you're fighting against completely new players who don't know how to deal with threats in the game. Of course you're going to have way stronger stats than you would have against experienced players. The 130k+ is done in end game tiered CVs, where enemies can play. Whether that takes skill or not is another matter. It's just that you're fighting against completely different playergroups and most people realize that destroyers are way stronger against noobs than against decent players.

 

Again, my Isokaze's performance is on par with some of my other low tier ships, so its hardly seal clubbing when the performance can be dublicated by other classes.

 

I have yet to see any evidence provided by you to support your ridiculous opinions, my conclusions are based on performance prior and after the implementation of high tier JPN CVs, given that manueverability was nerved, its THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO GAMEPLAY that would lead to such a breakdown in performance.

 

I even included the results after 50 games with both ships, so thats the evidence that its NOT ABOUT T4 VS TX per se, but rather a change of performance directly related to more planes in the air.

 

So not only is it not out of thin air, its backed by evidence, if you want to argue with me about it PROVIDE EVIDENCE or shut up, your not contributing to the diiscussion other than talking out of your [edited].

I do not disagree with your data, I disagree with your conclusions, because you're leaving out huge parts that changed the landscape of the game.

 

I- you know what? Nevermind, keep dreaming your delusions.

 

Just one thing: you're comparing DD torpedoes to CV torpedoes in how they are evaded. Just think about that for a bit.

[Abraa]

None of your statements explain why i did 75k damage in Shima before the CV patch and 51,5k afterwards, so again you're just talking out of your [edited].

 

Imperical evidence implies that without JPN CV's i did almost 50% more damage on TX DD than afterwards and that is WITH the benefit of the Manueverability nerf.

 

 

 

Just one thing: you're comparing DD torpedoes to CV torpedoes in how they are evaded. Just think about that for a bit.

 

 

Certainly if players mysteriously learned how to ninja evade TX DD torps in the span on one patch, than certainly these ninjas would also be able to angle themself against TB's, so no, people didnt just get better- if you claim that, show me the evidence.

 

 

[Sharana]

I have only 1 question - when have you played your exptra games? Becuase the high tier IJN CVs were played actively by ~10-15 testers for 3 weeks before WG added them to all just 6 days ago. Those 10-15 players screwed your stats as you were up against them every single batte?

 

Not to mention that DDs suffered more in pre 0.3.1, because the torps were easier to spot from air (2x the surface detection range) + all CVs had fighters and used them to stalk DDs all the time. The current strike IJN CVs just fly their airgroups (stacked as 1 or 2) to attack target and go back. I just don't see how can they ruin your game if they don't spread all 7-8 air groups just to search for DDs and torps in the water and I have yet to see someone doing it instead of stacking them and attacking BBs.

 

Also I don't say thet the high tier IJN DDs are fire or that they don't need fixing tier 6 up. But comparing your Izokadze and other ships is wrong, because you assume they are supposed to have the same avarage damage and don't want to accept that tier 2-5 IJN DDs are sealclubbers and I was exactly seaclubbing at tier 2 (preparing captain for the IJN CVs pre 0.3.1) against noobs with fast spamming torps on close ranges. That's easy mode and on tier X you don;t have the same noobs who turn in order to catch the torps instead of dodging them and you don't release them every 30-60 sec on 3-4 km ranges. I can't play DDs without this easy mode, so I don't play them or don't go in higher tiers. My experiment with 75K avarage damage on tier 5 CVs (both) was also sealclubing in combination with ridiculous auto drop that was nerfed in 0.4.0 to it's old stage. And those 75K are more avg damage then my Des Moines on tier X (not that I can really shoot with it).

[Userext]

He has a point though, there's no real progression through the DD trees. Ships don't get better. They get upgrades that let them stay basically on the same level, whereas on BBs for example you get moar gunz, higher caliber guns, speed etc (powercreep) - DDs get just marginal upgrades (if any, some of them are a quite considerable worse than their predecessors). 

 

 

I'd like you to check again.

 

i have to agree with you there. Out of this whole statement all i can understand that tier 4 and tier 10 destoryers do close damage. Not an insult to a player or anything but that kinda is the plan of WG. For god sake IJNDDs dont even change their look. yes DDs get upgrade from 533 to 610mm but they dont change much which is kind of boring. For example USDDs general look is that they have good guns bad torpedoes and bad consealment. BUT that changes and creates a a frankeinstein monster named gearing. That has good torpedoes good guns good consealment good maneuverability only bad parts are just minor not so noticable drawbacks.... Compared to what we have at IJNDD line 

 

 

Also there is no need to start a flame war between two guys having the same idea.... destroyers need a buff. There can be many reasons or just one. We should unite under one idea.

[Abraa]

I have only 1 question - when have you played your exptra games? Becuase the high tier IJN CVs were played actively by ~10-15 testers for 3 weeks before WG added them to all just 6 days ago. Those 10-15 players screwed your stats as you were up against them every single batte?

 

Not to mention that DDs suffered more in pre 0.3.1, because the torps were easier to spot from air (2x the surface detection range) + all CVs had fighters and used them to stalk DDs all the time. The current strike IJN CVs just fly their airgroups (stacked as 1 or 2) to attack target and go back. I just don't see how can they ruin your game if they don't spread all 7-8 air groups just to search for DDs and torps in the water and I have yet to see someone doing it instead of stacking them and attacking BBs.

 

Also I don't say thet the high tier IJN DDs are fire or that they don't need fixing tier 6 up. But comparing your Izokadze and other ships is wrong, because you assume they are supposed to have the same avarage damage and don't want to accept that tier 2-5 IJN DDs are sealclubbers and I was exactly seaclubbing at tier 2 (preparing captain for the IJN CVs pre 0.3.1) against noobs with fast spamming torps on close ranges. That's easy mode and on tier X you don;t have the same noobs who turn in order to catch the torps instead of dodging them and you don't release them every 30-60 sec on 3-4 km ranges. I can't play DDs without this easy mode, so I don't play them or don't go in higher tiers. My experiment with 75K avarage damage on tier 5 CVs (both) was also sealclubing in combination with ridiculous auto drop that was nerfed in 0.4.0 to it's old stage.

 

1) Since i play in the evening, i had the majority of games against supertesters. You, Aerron and Pape, i think i even posted screenshots about that in a topic you started.

 

2) i didnt play DD's prior to 0.3.1, as i stated in my original post.

 

3) You are beeing spotted far more often and even worse, these returning squads spot torps that are in the water. As a DD, especially in domination i am to be found near cap circles, one of your advancing or returning squads is likely to spot me or my torps if you fly to a BB behind me which im "protecting".

 

Beeing spotted dramatically increases with an influx of planes in the air, i dont think that is debatable.

 

Again, my comparison isnt solely based on T4 vs TX, it is based on T4 & TX performance prior to JPN high tier CV's and compared to the performance afterwards.

 

Given the Manuever nerf, you'd expect the Shima to do better, not worse, in high tier games. Thats why i posted my findings, the manuever nerf cannot compensate for more planes in the air given that with a realod time of 2 minutes, even one spotted torps volley make all the difference between 75k and 51k.

 

So no, im not beeign spotted "all the time" and my torps arent either, but 1 spot of CV planes in the right time makes an entire 2 minute volley miss, when it didnt miss before- this new macro gaming influenze is what destroys the Shima's perfomance because there isnt a balance adjustement made to compensate for it- the manuever nerf didnt really help DD's, i think it helped strike  CVs more.

[Sharana]

My point about more planes is that no one is going to split them. it doesn't matter if you stack 2 TBs (USN) or 4-5(IJN), they fly like 1 group. There will always be strike formations going to strike ships or return to the CV. You don't suggest removing the CVs, are you? So the old Essex would stack 2 groups of 2 TBs and 3 DBs while the japanese airport will stack 1 group of 4 TBs and 1 group of 4 DB. The difference for the ship below the planes ... zero. How can something change in that matter, unless the old battles were without CVs, because prior to the japanese airports there were less CVs overall, I was playing other classes during that time because of that. You say you haven't played DDs pre 0.3.1. Well this patch added the IJN CVs 4-8 tier and everyone was grinding them. So you either had games without CVs (logical when everyone is in lwoer tiers grinding the new CVs) or games against Shokaku (tier 8) which is pretty much the same, only 1 squadron less then Taiho and as I explained it doesn't matter, because of the stacking.

 

I also played ~300 battles in those 3 weeks (when the 10-15 testers in question had them), 200 of them in the airport itself. I met Pape 2 times, Aerroon once and probably max 10 other times someone else with it - so let's say 15/300 battles were against them. It's impossible to play against them every time when they are 5 players at the same time with a pool of 5-6K online...