Gojuadorai

well i think youre quite abit unfair here, yes youre right the direct impact is small (in random), but the whole player base does profit from an healthy competetive meta through: - trickel down effects of avanced tactics into random battles - the higher level of publicity through esports, generaly benefits the healthyness of a player base. and if those changes are to harsh for RN cruisers you can alays tone down the cruiser spoting range ...

the buff is pretty nice, imho its the only one of the proposed changes i do like. also for no change to the sn fleet ships its probably an non buff for them and a way to have a fix point for comparison of data

looks like my proposal is on supertest server right now i like

i have 2x solo warrior but 0 clear skies nuff said ok i admit i dont play Cv's but still thats kinda ridicolus the achievement is used as an objective.....

well thing is WG agenda is to not only nerf smoke firing BB's that just their main argument (and imho a pretty bad one). thats why the wont adapt that solution and that is why i proposed a solution that (if needed) can be tuned to do more against smoke heavy meta because obviously thats what WG is looking for. imho they want to create a competetive meta that is not just full of smoke to maybe get some esports going, which doesnt need to be a bad thing, it just needs to be done right, and moste recent 2 proposals from WG are just horrible

this! WG failure log of the Belfast: 1.) didnt listen to testers that the belfast is too much 2.) they didnt pull it from the shop 3.) they were always defending the ship as within reason of balancing but now they want to nerf it so badly they are willing to screw up smoke mechanics and IFHE and sell em as general changes so they dont have to admit they screwed up and were wrong all along.....

i agree youre Don Quixote! (you should read the book)

LOL, the proposal has real substance since it is a proposal for a better system, but only an arrogant idiot would come up with definitive numbers in such a proposal. numbers i posted was a guesstimate what is probably a good starting point for balancing. (still they are just a posibility withoin the bounds of the idea) the whole point was: 1.) to pitch the idea to WG 2.) to come up with discussion that leads to a refined proposal of initial values for the idea (and or modifications) not to have some troll trying to disasembel the idea because he thinks he has made out some contradictions that arent there..... if someone has actualy something to contribute here i would be glad to discuss a actual implementation of the idea [btw] a word of advice: dont treat people as dumb if you dont understand them it might be the other way arround......

i think i indicated clearly that my proposal is only to show the idea how it could work, and that it was no detailed proposal which class should get what range, there is a multitude po possibilities how to make it work (and even more factoring in possible changes in duration due to changed ranges) oh there are! here is just one where i tried to kame it clear that there a re lots of posiblilities. btw i could not figure out what inconcistencies you were trying to make out.... [edit]my guess you got confused about: theres a difference between a complex mechanic that is intuetive and a complex mechanic that is hard to understand. a "complex mechanic" if you can clasify my proposal as such does not need to be hard to understand. i think players are pretty much abe to understand a complex mechanic if its inttuetive (even if that explanation used to make it intuetive might fail in reality)

2.) ships have diffrent sizes therefore diffrent radar signatures that is a reality and thats all a player needs to know to intuetivly grasp the mechanic which make him able to easily understand how it works how it actually works in reality is of no concern as seen with many other game mechanics, the only thing that matters is "is it easy to understand" not if it is actually so. 3.) yes it is but that does not mean there has to be a change for DD's you always could pic one of my other examples its a flexible proposal that can be asexplained in my OP be used to design various types of radars to give every line more uniqueness and even create new tools. if your too limited in your imagination to see the various posibilities what to do with the proposal i cant help you cause im certainly not willing to explain every possible combination of stats to you with its up and downsides. well as i said its less horrible as the previous one but imho it messes way too much with a whole bunch of ships and situations that are currently fine. my main critizism about it is though: its a hard removal of a team oriented mechanic (it requires no action or counterplay its just gone) while i would like an approach that requires action to counter it, because the posibility of a team benefitig mechanic beeing removed from this game is not good

1.) people are more able than youre willing to give them credit for. also the mechanic scaling with player skill is intentional and a good thing. 2.) its in the bounds of explainable as other "realism" in this game its not about did it actualy work this way but to find a reason in reality to make the mechanic intuetive for the player! 3.)as i repeatedly explained there does not have to be any change to how radar and DD's work its just a posibility that also could be done with the concept.

if they do that i want my demo expert also reset!

i completely agree that they are not open about all their goals, but i dont think anyone ever thought that when its so plain to see. ofc they want to rebalance competetive meta and IMHO its a good thing. thats why i also like my idea because i think it would work in that meta if properly balanced, without affecting random too much. as for side goal i think they want to tone down the infamous 3 (belf flint kutu) which makes matters unecesarily complicated. thats why S_O said (reply on reddit) they thinking about attaching a modifier onto IFHE.

do you care to share your thoughts what would be a (significant) negative impact on the game? i think you havnt gotten the idea of the proposal, and the intention is not nerfing radar vs DD's, if you have read carefully numbers are only there to show the idea, there is no need to make radar vs DD's worse, it can just be made part of the equation if theres a need for it. there nothing that prohibits just makeing for example 10kmDD 10kmCA 15kmBB well there are several reasons pro (some of which i mentioned) another would be that this game need more "SIMPLE COMPLEXITY" what do i mean by that? with more ships/shiplines coming its already plain to see WG struggles making new lines unique without creating a mess of cross over consumeables. why not swat two flyes with one stroke? chaninging a existing mechanic so it allows for more "simple complexity" while figing an issue. an aditional argument would be that my solution would be a skildependant mechanic, which is a good thing because it would work better in high skill environment and have less impact on random battles (as you can see the higher the skill level the more the useage of team smokes so the counter should work in the same fashion) your proposal should work too but if WG wanted to do it that way they would have. imho it lacs the pros my suggestion has. (although i think its stil better than both of WGs proposals)

its not so much the range as the exsistance of such a mechanic that will screw a lot of things... like say a american DD siting in smoke doing its thing now can be rushed which wa spreviously nearly impossible. i was only talking about that there will be lots of shifts in balancing and not only good ones its only ~0.5km more spotting i get when i rush a dd camping in smoke when in a BB but hell yeah i take it! yes the the smoke camping cruisers with IFHE are a bit too strong but which ships are their main prey? BB's! im usualy on the BB side of the debate but target nerfing something that is the biggest BB counter currently in the game... i dont know if thats so good...

yep there are a lot of questions... well i really see the only problem with smokefiring atm in the highly competetive sector. which is a problem for the game as no esports scene can deveop from that, so i see why it needs to be fixed. but in favor of diminishing what little teamplay happens in random games... i dont know if thats healthy for the game either. IMHO i think the solution whatever is chosen should not harm the ship that is deploying the smoke. there are to many ships involved that are currently balanced just fine, to screw with their main survivability mechanic. imho they shouls not apply any changes to guns below 203mm, above the proposed change is probably just right [edit] also proposed changes mean they yould easily justifyto give a new BB line smokes which woud be horrible

well i dont really like that solution either, its better than before but imho it will completely mess up the balancing of ships.

now counting the 3rd time the vid is posted gee dont people flollow the forums they post in?

they only had 15x tirp codes the beast they probably refere to some historic nicname

me too but it was already posted som pages back

FLAMU vid link on conq. cause im to stupid to insert embedet vid need to share this cause its super hilarious

as for now no fighter/spoter repair nerf seems sto be only 10% heavy/citadel dmg repairable not 30%

did it got it legit

i was using the term dragon flags as a term for all the "Dragon flags" like hydra oruboros etc.... because they are all themed around dragon heraldics

serously do the devs have some kind of Dissociative identity disorder ???? they want to fix an "issue" with regular pens on DD's stating that "reg pen dmg on DD's from BB's is too high" then they are like: "lets do super short fuses on RN BB's AP, that sounds like a good idea" i mean WTF