Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
mtm78

Deepwater torps, so battleships can have more fun because if you want to contest a cap, you can't hurt them

331 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
On 8-8-2017 at 5:34 PM, Boris_MNE said:

Source: https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/

 

<stuff>. After we test the Pan-Asians with normal loadout, we plan to test deep water torpedoes. Deep water torpedoes interact with draught of the target: they can easily pass underneath a light ship without any damage! As a trade-off, such torpedoes can boast improved concealment, so catching those BB by surprise would be easier. Will it work? Will these torpedoes make it to release and bring more variety to World of Warships? Time and tests will tell:)

We will keep you updated, captains, thanks for reading and fair seas!

 

A battleship hard counter mechanic?

giphy.gif

 

I think this requires it's own thread :Smile_trollface: 

 

edit: 

 

Maybe, someday soon™ I will have to update my signature :Smile_coin: 

 

 

edit: nothing to see here guys, totally useless gimmick intended to boost battleship numbers because destroyers will have to choose ammo before a game. 

 

  • Cool 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WJDE]
Beta Tester
520 posts
2,891 battles

I'm happy about the *idea* of deep-water torps, but I don't like the idea of that weapon being confined to Pan-Asian DDs.


Ah well.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles

Well let them test them on that platform, it's always possible to later implement them more widely right? Coming to think of it, how much 'fun' would it be if I were in a DD and I see incoming torps and I can't tell if they are shallow or deep draught. I hope they have recognisable 'signatures' like HE and AP have different colors.

 

Being able to switch between reloads which type you need would also be a must, it can't be like AP bombs on carriers, destroyers need to be flexible to do their job. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D_R_M]
Players
911 posts
18,521 battles

It is one thing that the torpedos may pass lighter ships, but will the lighter ships still be able to spot the torpedoes? To be really useful it should also be more difficult for the ships that they just pass to actually spot them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HABIT]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts

Maybe, once spotted, they will have less visible trails than normal torpedoes.

 

1 minute ago, steviln said:

It is one thing that the torpedos may pass lighter ships, but will the lighter ships still be able to spot the torpedoes? To be really useful it should also be more difficult for the ships that they just pass to actually spot them?

 

Isn't that what the lower detection range should do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
2 minutes ago, steviln said:

It is one thing that the torpedos may pass lighter ships, but will the lighter ships still be able to spot the torpedoes? To be really useful it should also be more difficult for the ships that they just pass to actually spot them?

 

Nah they should be spotted by light ships just only with much better concealment. If you make them invisible to anyone but the battleships themselves what is the point of screening? WG better not remove more incentives for teamplay. 

 

I do wonder how visible deep draught torps would be from the air?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TFD2]
Players
1,473 posts
3,285 battles

This idea is bad. Another gimmick given as a treatment to a disease named Battleships with Sonar...

 

Resolving balance issues caused by gimmicks with gimmicks is bad.

 

Buff ijn torps and remove sonar from KM BBs and the meta will stabilize.

  • Cool 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D_R_M]
Players
911 posts
18,521 battles
1 minute ago, Kazomir said:

Buff ijn torps and remove sonar from KM BBs and the meta will stabilize.

I agree with this. The IJN torpedoes should never have been nerfed in the first place. 

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
4 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

This idea is bad. Another gimmick given as a treatment to a disease named Battleships with Sonar...

 

Resolving balance issues caused by gimmicks with gimmicks is bad.

 

Buff ijn torps and remove sonar from KM BBs and the meta will stabilize.

 

Well I can see a few benefits if it's implemented unrestricted, mostly it will add more depth to torpedo gameplay. As long as the change reaches it's goal, creating torpedoes which actually WORK against certain targets, and it adds another level of skill requirement to DD's I am all for it.

 

Why would I argue for battleships to be forced to select HE to shoot at destroyers, and then not fully support the addition of a choice for destroyers to have to make a proper ammo selection?

 

The only reason I would not do that is if I knew 100% sure WG couldn't actually pull it off in a balanced way. And I think they can, as long as they have enough reason to do so ( big company, lots of resources as long as you can motivate the right people I guess :Smile_trollface: ). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,074 posts
11,087 battles

No matter what, torpedoes will still have the problem of needing a target that needs to go in a straight line at constant speed for 35-60 seconds.

And when you have a team of chickens in front of you going around in circles because they don't want to be the closest, thus be the one getting hit, hitting people is more a matter of luck than anything.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Alpha Tester
2,036 posts
9,708 battles

Well, arn't those what the japanese torpedoes should have been from the start? 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R_I_D]
[R_I_D]
Players
497 posts
4,263 battles

RN Cruisers got smoke, Frenchies got their super duper boooooost, RN BBs get thermite HE and now DDs with super duper torps that only kill BBs...

 

Yep it is official, WG have run out of ideas for WoWs :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TFD2]
Players
1,473 posts
3,285 battles
24 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

Well I can see a few benefits if it's implemented unrestricted, mostly it will add more depth to torpedo gameplay. As long as the change reaches it's goal, creating torpedoes which actually WORK against certain targets, and it adds another level of skill requirement to DD's I am all for it.

 

Why would I argue for battleships to be forced to select HE to shoot at destroyers, and then not fully support the addition of a choice for destroyers to have to make a proper ammo selection?

 

The only reason I would not do that is if I knew 100% sure WG couldn't actually pull it off in a balanced way. And I think they can, as long as they have enough reason to do so ( big company, lots of resources as long as you can motivate the right people I guess :Smile_trollface: ). 

 

No. Fighting gimmicks with gimmicks is stupid.

 

Not to mention that those torps would be useless. Wanna force DD out of a smoke? Shuks. No BBs on your flank? Dang.. Need I continue?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
8 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

Not to mention that those torps would be useless.

 

Not if you can switch in battle, and each type is GOOD at what it's intended to do. 

 

8 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

No. Fighting gimmicks with gimmicks is stupid.

 

As long as switching is fast enough so that it doesn't limit your flexibility to much, I don't see adding another ammo choice is a 'gimmick'. 

 

edit: clarification -> I see this as a way of ensuring WG has no way to 'limit' either of the type in their 'effectiveness' in order to not impact other classes to much ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
375 posts
811 battles

my question is
would this new torp catch heavy cruisers and carriers off guard aswell

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TFD2]
Players
1,473 posts
3,285 battles
2 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

Not if you can switch in battle, and each type is GOOD at what it's intended to do. 

 

 

As long as switching is fast enough so that it doesn't limit your flexibility to much, I don't see adding another ammo choice is a 'gimmick'. 

 

But it is. The problem here is that this is a totally needless change that is coined only because a ship class of a single line has a consumable it should not have.

 

I stand by my point and insist on it. Wanna counter BB meta? Buff ijn torps and remove BBaby sonar. Give them improved TDS to compensate. Watch meta normalize.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
[TTTX]
Players
4,608 posts
8,081 battles
3 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

 

But it is. The problem here is that this is a totally needless change that is coined only because a ship class of a single line has a consumable it should not have.

 

I stand by my point and insist on it. Wanna counter BB meta? Buff ijn torps and remove BBaby sonar. Give them improved TDS to compensate. Watch meta normalize.

 

you know, that big ol' devil you like paining on the wall, the BBs with hydro? Those may very well be pretty much unaffected by this - seeing as Hydro detects all torps at exactly the same range...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QTAZ]
Players
480 posts
6 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

 

But it is. The problem here is that this is a totally needless change that is coined only because a ship class of a single line has a consumable it should not have.

 

I stand by my point and insist on it. Wanna counter BB meta? Buff ijn torps and remove BBaby sonar. Give them improved TDS to compensate. Watch meta normalize.

Wrong on so many levels, fam. We need a precise, surgical solution and Pan-Asia torpedoes are very much this. We don't need to to crack a nut with a sledgehammer.

 

Still I wouldn't mind taking off hydro from KM BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
5 minutes ago, Kazomir said:

 

But it is. The problem here is that this is a totally needless change that is coined only because a ship class of a single line has a consumable it should not have.

 

I stand by my point and insist on it. Wanna counter BB meta? Buff ijn torps and remove BBaby sonar. Give them improved TDS to compensate. Watch meta normalize.

 

Even IF I agreed, that is just not going to happen I fear. Ideally I wouldn't want battleships to have any cruiser consumables you know that, but WG doesn't agree.

 

So how about we go look for the 'next best thing' instead? And this could work both ways, bb's can't complain as it add's a skill requirement ( just as we DD players want them to have a higher skill requirement by loading HE to land those big salvo's on us ), but WG also can't hide behind: we can't make these torps to good at killing BB's because that also makes them to good at killing other classes. It FORCES them to make both choices viable. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,154 posts
18,633 battles

Edit in bold.

 

Looks like a reasonable, logical and not too difficult to implement (code-wise, that is) inclusion to the game: keys 1 and 2 for different shells, keys 3 and 4 for different torpedo depths (shallow as it is now and deep, respectively), two different spotting detectability (kudos to mtm78, I should have checked before and rephrase it better) ranges for torpedoes depending on the depth (a lot of tweaking would be needed but let's say current 100% for shallow and 60% for deep to begin with), a damage coefficient (0.5 for example, but also subject to fine adjusting) for deep torpedoes against shallow drafts and reduced to no anti-torpedo bulge reduction applied.

 

28 minutes ago, Zero_Strikez said:

my question is
would this new torp catch heavy cruisers and carriers off guard aswell

As I see it, CVs should be considered in principle deep draft (thus full damage from deep torpedoes) as all BBs, adjust cruisers on a case per case basis (Moskva or Hindenburg are definitely deep, while the blurry red line stands around tier 7 or 8, but that's just a first approach) and DDs are shallow.

 

Salute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles

Water depth ( in what we're talking about, differences in draft of capital and auxiliary ships ) should have negligible effect on range if any, just on speed and detectability. 

 

What's the point of short range anti BB torpedoes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Beta Tester
258 posts
20,072 battles

An interesting feature to be sure. I do wonder whether the ships will be given an option to equip none deep running as a trade off for less damage or greater detect-ability to help in those situations Pan-Asian DDs are the only dds on a team.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles

That mechanics like these are tested in conjunction with a new line doesn't restrict the mechanic itself being implemented wider later on :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TFD2]
Players
1,473 posts
3,285 battles
12 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

Even IF I agreed, that is just not going to happen I fear. Ideally I wouldn't want battleships to have any cruiser consumables you know that, but WG doesn't agree.

 

So how about we go look for the 'next best thing' instead? And this could work both ways, bb's can't complain as it add's a skill requirement ( just as we DD players want them to have a higher skill requirement by loading HE to land those big salvo's on us ), but WG also can't hide behind: we can't make these torps to good at killing BB's because that also makes them to good at killing other classes. It FORCES them to make both choices viable. 

 

I get your point I really do. You are excited about something new.

 

But how should I explain it....

 

Game development is like building a house. You should only add a new mechanic or floor if the current foundation (or game balance) is solid.

 

Keep adding mechanics haphazardly without solid balance and you get to collapse the building in the end.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×