Culiacan_Mexico

That would be an issue. You obviously could not reduce US radar to the same activation time as Russian radar, but they could do a compromise... somewhere in between. Note: I don't believe they are going to make any changes... near term, if at all. US CL are just out and they will need to collect data, which in the case of radar is fairly difficult. WG has stated radar has no impact on win rates, so why change it? WG says...

I think, based on no facts, changing radar to not see through land mass would take some coding, that is significant enough, that WG either won't or can't do it. Now to be clear, I am not saying they should, but... probably the easiest nerf WG could do to radar is now long it is active. That would seem to be a fairly minor code change.

I believe radar restricted to line of sight in the current meta would be a significant nerf. Besides, WG has already stated that cruisers players (or just radar user in general) are too stupid to understand line of sight mechanics, thus it will not be changed. As with many WG statements

Are you saying you are just trolling?

Why does the ships type which deals the least amount of damage on average and has the lowest survival need nerfs? What is the justification?

AA is broken. Even WG recognizes that, which should be a pretty good indication of how bad it has got. Hopefully, with the CV rework that will no longer be an issue. Just to note: This comment "As for CV getting nerfs every patch... how is that possible? I thought WG already broke them." was intended as sarcasm with regards to how badly WG has handled CVs.

Really, CV players don't post on the forum? As for CV getting nerfs every patch... how is that possible? I thought WG already broke them.

What is this 'carries' who never post?

I don't disagree, although I do think that certain things make it worse. For example long term smoke and long range torpedoes.

1. The Shima meta was a passive meta that was base on area denial; that most felt was an 'unfun' play style. The hope was that by WG making adjustment this play style would be nerfed, and while i think it is better... there are still problems. 2. It was passive before radar and remains that way. I believe I have said in this very thread players have to learn to deal with radar. You still don't have to like the meta. 3. You ever have a game in which you either had 1 or zero DDs on the opposing team, or one in which the opposing teams DD are either sunk or elsewhere on the map? Early game a cruiser, with or without radar, going in current BB meta going into a cap in a cruiser is risky regardless of tier. What rage? I don't like a passive meta, but I recognize what I like is completely unimportant to WG. I hope we are just trying to discuss things.

I don't believe I have brought your stats... is this the direction you wish to go?

apologies I forget to put in the not

What? I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't think you are actually reading my posts. A change in the Shima meta wasn't achieved by one action nor would one in the current one. If radar was removed today, (and its not going to be removed), it still would not fix the issue of long range torpedoes (which can act as area denial) or long term smoke. The passive meta has many causes, including the BB vs CA balance.

Discuss what? DFens_666 has now stated that the position in his post did not represent my real argument. He also indicated it was just an error nothing intentional. All is good I think. Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Regardless of ship type, there are those people. I would like to re-quote a post from the past: "Not to mention that for you to get caught by that, you'll have likely made severe positioning mistakes and/or lapses of map awareness. So hell yes you should be punished for that!" The problem with the no longer available Kamikaze and sisters were not properly balance, and while new players or just bad players got little out of them, in the hands of good players the were OP. Risk reward was not balanced.

Do you understand the term?

Strawman

Caveat... I believe a passive meta is the wrong direction for this game. Radar has no redeeming features... not even one. Quotes un-attribute at the end of the The Shima Meta over two years ago. April 2016 "They said multiple times about Long Range play in DD being boring and not skilled way to play these ships and that if you are really skilled with DD you will appreciate what they are doing with these changes. Making dynamic aggressive play more rewarding and and making taking risks with dd more satisfying with faster torps at short range. While they give you more options in terms of torps even." "...a DD that manages to sneak into a point-blank torpedo launch, which is only possible using islands. Period. Smoke doesn't work, because you will see that if you've got eyes. And the ~6km spotting range of your average DD is hardly close enough to make the torps hard to avoid. So, the DD has to find an island that's in just the right position between him and the target, and has no other enemy ships around it either. That's hard as heck and succeeds even more rarely. So hell yes it should be rewarded! Not to mention that for you to get caught by that, you'll have likely made severe positioning mistakes and/or lapses of map awareness. So hell yes you should be punished for that! That by the way goes not only for those "unavoidable" (like hell, unless the DD plays perfectly and holds his nerve to the very very last second even fat BBs can still avoid at the very least the majority of a close-range drop if they do it right - again, reward for good play available for both sides!) " ------------------------------ Look at what the 'good' DD players are saying with regards to Radar? Is radar in anyway helping achieve this? Flamu sometime ago shock SO when he told him F3 were not good any more and he had moved onto the 12K torpedo. Cruiser player, especially in this BB heavy meta state the obvious that they can not get at DDs, but radar simply give incentives for DDs players to move farther away and use long range torpedoes, which is the exact opposite of what is needed. The incentives need to be for DD plays to move closer to cruiser to succeed not further away. Risk Reward. Radar is bad, has always been bad, and will remain that way, because its rewards the wrong type of behavior... a more passive long range play style. "Making dynamic aggressive play more rewarding and and making taking risks with dd more satisfying with faster torps at short range torps at short range."

But you did insult, "For the boring, mundane, don't want to adapt Dinosaurs, then they will never be satisfied and the game will become as boring as watching socks dry." It quite clear that was your intent.

Not at all ---For the boring, mundane, don't want to adapt Dinosaurs--- Adding more radar adds passivity to an already passive high tier game play. Passivity is boring. Radar has as many redeeming qualities as the Shima Meta had.

I find park ships hiding behind island while DD launch long range torpedoes boring. It just depends on your perspective.

Yes, bot on your team act like human players in that regard.

It might have been in open beta or just after. A nerf on the face of it, but really a buff.

My first pass through the old, old Minekaze (10Km Torpedoes) I achieved a 44% winrate... maybe over 30 games. There was not that much difference between this ships at the time. Stats (virtually the same time period...solo) Battles WR Dmg XP K/D Sh☠ Srv MBH TH WTR Kamikaze R 418 59.81% 51,374 1,120 5.0 1.7 65% 46% 11% 1,387 Minekaze 251 64.14% 48,010 1,086 4.9 1.6 68% 46% 10% 1,719

Very true. Stats need context and overall win rate has none; nor does divisions. Individual performance in a single ships needs many game to average out, so... Comparing stats is fraught with issues.