Start restricting numbers of Destroyers in Games

[WingedHussar_Adler]

 

You are right... you really need to limit your BS (bullsh*t).

 

lol--did you found yourself in song?? .....

[AgarwaenME]

It's a common trend that any player that is against limiting DD numbers is either someone who doesn't play T9-10 or someone who has 40% win ratio in any ship above tier 7.

 

That's about as right as you are on everything. Ie entirely wrong.

[Elenortirion]

Pool is here (05/02/16) ----> http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/43362-propose-to-put-a-limit-to-the-number-of-dd/

 

Battles like this are ridiculous.

 

 

sounds like either their hakuryu and essex failed their job miserably or yours [6 DDs] conquered the air before they could do said job properly.....

 

but if you really want restrict numbers of DDs I sugegst to put a hardcap of that sort on every class

so in randoms it'd be like 2-CV tops, 4 BB-tops 6CA tops 4 DD tops and yeah I know it adds up to higher number than match limits but it is made to avoid never ending ques if there are no 4 CV's etc.

 

PS. OMG TWO CV PER TEAM IN HIGH TIER BATTLE CANT BELIEVE IT

[they are still alive, they are not yet extinct - and I was afraid If I'll have oponents to play against while I'll get there ]

[Sancho89]

 

sounds like either their hakuryu and essex failed their job miserably or yours [6 DDs] conquered the air before they could do said job properly.....

 

but if you really want restrict numbers of DDs I sugegst to put a hardcap of that sort on every class

so in randoms it'd be like 2-CV tops, 4 BB-tops 6CA tops 4 DD tops and yeah I know it adds up to higher number than match limits but it is made to avoid never ending ques if there are no 4 CV's etc.

 

PS. OMG TWO CV PER TEAM IN HIGH TIER BATTLE CANT BELIEVE IT

[they are still alive, they are not yet extinct - and I was afraid If I'll have oponents to play against while I'll get there ]

 

+1

As u wish for other.

I play so bad with** shimi... so i don't say " ehm it's op bla bla bla " but 6-7 for team is too much.

 

edited*

Alcol and English aren't my strength

[Dampfboot]

Support some kind of soft limit on DDs, at least they should be evenly distributed between teams. However they should make CVs more attractive. CVs would also do a lot to deal with the DD torpfest.

[Capra76]

I own the Shimakaze, Gearing and Khabarovsk.

 

DDs should absolutely be limited to 3, max 4, per game. Any more and you're guaranteed to have an incredibly stale boring game unless you are playing a DD/CV.

 

It's very much needed for the overall health of the game.

 

 

Problem is that trying to shoehorn 40% of the high tier players into 25% (or 33%) of the game slots could have some seriously negative effects on matchmaking, either unacceptably long waits or DD always guaranteed to be top tier as MM struggles to find enough BB/CA from lower tiers.

 

 

If we also impose a limit on BB then the situation becomes even worse, because de-facto you need 40%-50% of the game slots to be filled by CA, which represents 25% of the players, and the only way you can do that is by dragging lower tier ships into high tier games.

 

 

The way I see it is that ship limits deal with the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause, rather than simply putting a cap on DD numbers why not address the more fundamental balance issues and make CA and USN DD more attractive to play.

[Pupu_prpr]

In the past 2 weeks there were more people doing battles with the Shimakaze (16929) than with all the US Ships combined. (Midway 1501 + Gearing 4574 + Des Moines 5217 + Montana 5578 = 16870).

 

One ship is played more than an entire nation with 4 different ship lines.

 

Wonder when people are going to wake up and admit there's a problem.

 

Source: http://i.imgur.com/tRRYWGy.png

[dazbull26]

the shima was my first tier 10, and i used to love playing it. Have not played it hardly any in the last 2 weeks because the numbers of them in games is stupid. even driving a shima is no fun in a game with 8 of them sailing around. something has to be done because at the moment tier 10 games are a joke.

[Tordenskrall]

It has been five years of World of Tanks. have they balanced the numbers of HTs, MTs and TDs on each team? No.

Do you all believe in Santa Claus? Do you really think they will reduce the cap on DDs on each team in this game?

[Capra76]

In the past 2 weeks there were more people doing battles with the Shimakaze (16929) than with all the US Ships combined. (Midway 1501 + Gearing 4574 + Des Moines 5217 + Montana 5578 = 16870).

 

One ship is played more than an entire nation with 4 different ship lines.

 

Wonder when people are going to wake up and admit there's a problem.

 

Source: http://i.imgur.com/tRRYWGy.png

 

 

I don't think anyone disputes that there is a problem, we just can't agree what the problem and solution is.

 

 

The huge number of Shimakaze could be a result of it being OP, but it looks to me like it's more a consequence of imbalances elsewhere in the game leaving players with few alternatives, CA only work as invisifire snipers, USN CA are largely obsolete as AA ships given the small number of CV, USN/SN DD struggle to be effective against IJN DD and BB are OP against CA.

 

 

I wonder if another part of the problem is that there are a lot of dreadful ships at T6-8 whereas I don't think there are any really awful ships in the IJN DD line, could this be part of the problem?

 

 

Either way fixing the game balance looks a better option than imposing an arbitrary cap on DD numbers.

[MMKing93]

The problem is two pronged in my opinion.

 

1. There is no reason not to fire 15 torpedoes at a single target. If torpedoes was a limited resource, i would be less mad about seeing 15 torpedoes coming my way, as i would know it was a serious investment doing so. If i was sailing right next to 3 other ships, i would have only myself to blame.

 

2. The detect range is way to generous bellow 6KM, especially for the speeds the torpedoes come at. With the commander skill, the torpedoes travel at 72 knots. For the T8 light cruiser New Orleans, this is manageable. But for the heavy cruisers at T9 and T10, it's utterly impossible to dodge more than 10. Which means death, as the torpedoes do in excess of 20 000 damage. Even at 15km+, it's hard to dodge all 15, causing 30-40% of the total HP depending on where it hit you and which ship you're sailing. Part of the problem, is the fact that the task of hunting down the destroyers have been given to the US destroyers and the Russian destroyers. The US does a decent job of this, but with the Russians it's near impossible to sneak up on a Japanese with 3-4KM higher detect range, causing nearby enemies to shoot at you before you even get a chance to open fire.

 

I don't want torpedo Destroyers to stop doing real damage. But infinite torpedoes + 20k damage per torpedo + 15 torpedoes per salvo + 67/72 knots speed + 16/20KM range + less than 6KM detect is too much. It's an exercise in frustration, because even if by some mishap he [edited]up, he still has the smoke screen. Which in the vast majority of cases allows him to see you by the assistance of a nearby ally, but won't allow you to see him. Allowing him to completely bombard you with torpedoes which are too fast to dodge, and even if you maneuver skillfully you cannot dodge enough of them to survive AND kill him.

 

 

Solution:

Reduce torpedo speed by a few knots.

 

Implement a torpedo ammo pool. Not so brutal that you won't fire at a T8 Cruiser because it's a poor target, but not too high so that you fire 15 torpedoes at a single target early on in the game.

 

Increase the range of assured acquisition to 3.5-4.5KM. However, landmass reduce this by 50%. I believe smoke screen in this game is way to generous, actively encouraging cheap play such as standing still in smoke just a few KM away and allowing Destroyers to survive massive blunders which would kill the most skilled Yamato or Des Moines players. Firing torpedoes or the guns should also increase this by a KM or two.

[jonasnee]

 

 

I don't think anyone disputes that there is a problem, we just can't agree what the problem and solution is.

 

 

The huge number of Shimakaze could be a result of it being OP, but it looks to me like it's more a consequence of imbalances elsewhere in the game leaving players with few alternatives, CA only work as invisifire snipers, USN CA are largely obsolete as AA ships given the small number of CV, USN/SN DD struggle to be effective against IJN DD and BB are OP against CA.

 

 

I wonder if another part of the problem is that there are a lot of dreadful ships at T6-8 whereas I don't think there are any really awful ships in the IJN DD line, could this be part of the problem?

 

 

Either way fixing the game balance looks a better option than imposing an arbitrary cap on DD numbers.

 

there are lot of bad ships in IJN line, mutsuki is really bad and hatsuharu is also pretty bad, only having 2 sets of torps is simply bad at the ranges you have to engage targets, hitting someone is more down to how AFK they are rather than skill.

[Seronimos]

It has been five years of World of Tanks. have they balanced the numbers of HTs, MTs and TDs on each team? No.

Do you all believe in Santa Claus? Do you really think they will reduce the cap on DDs on each team in this game?

 

you can not compare wot to WoWs. In wot its not bad if enemy has more HT then the enemy because the HP differerence is not this big as in wows.

 

theproblem is not nly the numbers of dds but as well the matching for tier and class..

its totaly unfair if one team for examle ahs 2 yamatos and the other has instead 2 t10 crusiers. The HP difference is just huge.

 

in Wot it rarely matter if one team has 2 t10 HT and the ohter has instead 2 mediums as the game is fastwer paced and the HP difference doesnt rly matter

[Capra76]

 

there are lot of bad ships in IJN line, mutsuki is really bad and hatsuharu is also pretty bad, only having 2 sets of torps is simply bad at the ranges you have to engage targets, hitting someone is more down to how AFK they are rather than skill.

 

 

The stock Mutsuki is clearly a downgrade from the Minekaze but with the upgraded torpedoes it can still fulfil its role as a stealth DD, Hatty's much the same as the Mutsuki with better guns. 

 

 

T5 seems to be a sweet spot where the ships are mostly pretty good, beyond that it seems like there are a lot of utter dogs that are an absolute misery to play, compared to some the IJN DD aren't too bad.

 

 

Whether this is part of a cunning plan to encourage us to grind from T5 to T10 is not for me to say.

[psge]

They should limit number of DDs in a battle to 3 per team.  Problem with Shima is that there are only 3 T10 DDs.  Only 2 of them when the game came out of beta so many players went for the Shima.  Until there is more choice players will still go for the Shima especially when you get people posting how OP it is - which it isn't.  It might ruin game play when there are so many in a battle but not really OP.  Limit DDs to 3 per team in higher tiers and introduce more DD lines and less people will play Shimas.  Job done  

[MMKing93]

They should limit number of DDs in a battle to 3 per team.  Problem with Shima is that there are only 3 T10 DDs.  Only 2 of them when the game came out of beta so many players went for the Shima.  Until there is more choice players will still go for the Shima especially when you get people posting how OP it is - which it isn't.  It might ruin game play when there are so many in a battle but not really OP.  Limit DDs to 3 per team in higher tiers and introduce more DD lines and less people will play Shimas.  Job done  

But there are 13 ships on each team.

 

13-1 carrier = 12 / 3 = 4. So in an ideal world we have 4 of each class, but we know there are not that many carriers so more often than not we have 13 BB, Cruiser and DD per team. In which case, 5 Destroyers is not broken or poor matchmaking. It's actually matchmaking working as intended, distributing a balanced amount of ship classes. 4-5 DD is not an unusual amount, yet the forums have exploded lately because what is in fact the correct number of Destroyers, has turned out to be a nightmare for other players.

 

The reason is not the amount of Destroyers. But the sheer amount of frustration a DD captain is encouraged to inflict upon the enemy. The height of skilled DD play, the entire point of a DD is to be a submarine. Something the developer refuses to release, yet they have constructed and balanced a ship class in such a way. They not only made it possible for a DD to be one, but they encourage it as well.

 

Practically invisible to other ship classes? Check

Attack from stealth? Check

Dive? No, but you can use a smoke making you completely invisible up to 2KM. This has a cool down and a limited use, but it's possible to cause massive damage in the allotted time you stay invisible.

 

However, a Submarine is limited by 2-6 tubes on the front. Plus another 0-2 tubes on the back. Yet a DD has as many as 15, while the ''gunboats'' have 10.

A submarine has a very limited number of torpedoes. Few models have more  than 20, in addition to the ones loaded. yet Destroyers have infinite.

A submarine is limited to 1-2 deck guns, only uses on merchant ships as the hull cannot withstand a single hit from a warship and still be able to dive. Yet a Destroyer have as many as 6 guns.

 

In addition to practically being a Submarine, in the eyes of a BB or a Cruiser captain. They also have Destroyer capabilities, such as very fast speed and very high maneuverability.

 

 

 

The Destroyer problem is not one of balance or capability. But of sheer frustration. You don't lose to a DD after a thrilling and exciting gunfight, angling your hull, adjusting your heading, your turrets and your speed. You die because 10-15 torpedoes popped in out of nowhere, or because a cloud of smoke hit you with 50-100 times without you doing noteworthy damage in return.

[Mayv]

But there are 13 ships on each team.

 

13-1 carrier = 12 / 3 = 4. So in an ideal world we have 4 of each class, but we know there are not that many carriers so more often than not we have 13 BB, Cruiser and DD per team. In which case, 5 Destroyers

 

Not sure how long you have been playing but there are 12 ships on each team normally, where you are getting 13 from I have no idea.

WG also said that they want a 10-25-40-25 CV-BB-CA-DD split among the classes.

[Spithas]

It has been five years of World of Tanks. have they balanced the numbers of HTs, MTs and TDs on each team? No.

Do you all believe in Santa Claus? Do you really think they will reduce the cap on DDs on each team in this game?

 

They balance on weight not numbers per class.

 

All except the Light Tanks (closest related class to DDs) which they capped to 3 per side and mirror their numbers for each team. So it's 0-3 for both teams. It works fine.

[gR3iF]

Restricting DDs to a limited number per side is just the wrong way to go...

Players should adapt a Playstyle where dds and torps shouldnt bother them to much. Maybe Radar can do something about it, but in the end as long as yamatos stand still driving backwards at some point something is wrong there.

 

You need to drive at least 1m predicatble to catch a full torp swarm, so maybe there is the problem?

[Spithas]

Restricting DDs to a limited number per side is just the wrong way to go...

Players should adapt a Playstyle where dds and torps shouldnt bother them to much. Maybe Radar can do something about it, but in the end as long as yamatos stand still driving backwards at some point something is wrong there.

 

You need to drive at least 1m predicatble to catch a full torp swarm, so maybe there is the problem?

 

Ah the typical "Don't drive in straight lines" response from someone who has not played enough T9-10 games.

 

And why is restricting the number of DDs wrong? What problem does it cause? Do you have any reasoning or explanation or are you just rambling?

 

Restricting the ammount of DD involves no nerf to any class. Everyone benefits, even the DDs themselves.

[MMKing93]

 

Not sure how long you have been playing but there are 12 ships on each team normally, where you are getting 13 from I have no idea.

WG also said that they want a 10-25-40-25 CV-BB-CA-DD split among the classes.

 

I have no idea where i got 13 from, it was late :S

 

But who gives a damn if WG said they want 10-25-40-25? It's not the players job to balance the game. if the players want to play exclusively Destroyers, it's wargamings responsibility to enforce or discourage other behavior.

[SV_Kompresor]

 

If you think shimakaze is a "noob" ship then you never played it.

Instead of mimimi maybe l2p?

 

The game at high tier is now getting completely screwed by every man and his dog playing noobShimakaze.  At times it just feels like World of Torpedoes.  WG you need to start thinking of restricting them as they are gimping the playstyle of Cruisers and Battleships.

 

Either nerf the crapout of shimakaze by adjusting its concealment or increase the reload time on their torpedoes

 

I agree with both of you....there should be a limit of let's say 4 DDs per side, but calling a tier 10 a noob ship?

[gR3iF]

 

Ah the typical "Don't drive in straight lines" response from someone who has not played enough T9-10 games.

 

And why is restricting the number of DDs wrong? What problem does it cause? Do you have any reasoning or explanation or are you just rambling?

 

Restricting the ammount of DD involves no nerf to any class. Everyone benefits, even the DDs themselves.

 

 

Yeah and this is the tipicall you arent experienced enough answer. Doesnt make your post more valuable...

 

 

but to answer your question: Restrcting DDs to a certian number, lets call it 3 for this example leads you to the point of dicision which ones:

3 Shimas, 3 Gearing, 3 Khaba? You know the numbers and you may agree that the point of a gearing is a different attackstyle and gameplay then a shimakaze or Khaba.

All ideas (limited torpedos, limited dds) leads to the point of passively buffing another class. Mostly BBs, because Cas arent a counter to BB, if you only have 3 dds then this leads to a MM composition like this: 1 cv, 3 dd= 4 of 15 spots gone, means 6 BB and 5 Ca per round?

This would defnitly lead to matches that are passive, not moving or in other words boring.

 

In other words: every class and potential ship should have a counter and one thats played. For the most part this is done effectively, the only ship that stands out is the shimakaze: got lowest concelmeant, highest speed (-->faster then gearing) and torpedos with the highest dmg, which nearly no hip can risk getting hit.

 

What maybe helps is radar, the counter would be Cv but no one is playing cv. Although cvs are really good (stat and anything else like) but only a tenth of all players of wows are playing cvs...

 

And this leads to the situation where the easiest to play T10 ships looks overpowered.

 

 

Sorry for wall of text :p

 

 

 

 

 

[Capra76]

 

 

And why is restricting the number of DDs wrong? What problem does it cause? Do you have any reasoning or explanation or are you just rambling?

 

 

Firstly, and most importantly, it seriously complicates MM, assuming 3 DD per team and also 3 BB:

1. you need to fit 40% of the players into 25% of the game;
2. assuming 5-6 CA per match you need to find 40-50% of the game from 25% of the players;
3. you need to do the above without introducing unacceptable delays in MM;

as far as I can see you can only really do the above by making DD top tier in every game and by dragging in lots of lower tier CA to make up the numbers.

 

 

The problem with the above is that it is an absolute paradise for BB (lots of CA to shoot at, anything that can hurt them largely absent) and an absolute nightmare for CA who'll be nothing more than harmless little bugs for their BB overlords to stomp on.

 

 

The logical consequence of the above is that fewer and fewer people will play CA and you end up in a vicious spiral where the declining number of CA players means that more and more lower tier CA players are drawn into higher tier matches making CA play even more unpleasant until MM breaks down entirely.

 

 

 

 

The second reason why restricting DD numbers is wrong is they're a symptom of the problem not the problem itself.  There are obviously serious balance issues in the game, limiting DD does nothing to address this, so rather than complaining about the numbers of DD why not complain about the fact that BB are massively OP against CA, which seems to be where the most fundamental problem is.

 

[Spithas]

 

but to answer your question: Restrcting DDs to a certian number, lets call it 3 for this example leads you to the point of dicision which ones:

3 Shimas, 3 Gearing, 3 Khaba? You know the numbers and you may agree that the point of a gearing is a different attackstyle and gameplay then a shimakaze or Khaba.

All ideas (limited torpedos, limited dds) leads to the point of passively buffing another class. Mostly BBs, because Cas arent a counter to BB, if you only have 3 dds then this leads to a MM composition like this: 1 cv, 3 dd= 4 of 15 spots gone, means 6 BB and 5 Ca per round?

This would defnitly lead to matches that are passive, not moving or in other words boring.

 

 

1) Nobody said anything about MM selecting specific DDs. Just limit their numbers to a number which makes the game enjoyable for all classes.

 

2) How is limited DDs buffing BBs? Or are you telling me that the only way a BB can be countered is on a 2:1 ratio DD to BB?

 

3) If you actually had enough experience in Tiers 9 and 10 you would know that the cruisers in those tiers are a very lethal danger to Battleships.

 

4) Again if you had enough experience you would know that the majority of passive matches in T9-10 is when the DD numbers in the match are high.

 

5) I don't know how you have missed this after so many games but the ships per side are 12. Not 15. This is how the break down would be 3 DDs, 4-7 CA, 2-5 BB 0-2 CV. Pretty simple... it's not rocket science or anything.