AnotherDuck

I thought the Bismarck flood ruined the fun of playing Bismarck. Before that, people had respect for the ship, and you could use your presence to bully people just by being there. After it, there were so many potatoes that people just saw you as am HP pool to be farmed. It does leave the opportunity to surprise them by being actually competent, but that's less fun. What's more, that's part of what led to the BB explosion, and the stale camper meta we have now. I did. If you said something general but meant something more specific, you were unclear. Regardless, I don't think there's a point to this anymore.

This is actually one of the main reasons I dislike radars. It makes gameplay less fun for cruisers. The game is more and more balanced for camping and sniping, and less for brawling, with the exception being some brawling battleships (which are the most fun to play).

The video shows desynch (your shells were off-target in the video, but registered as hits), so exact visuals are not to be expected. However, I don't think the desynch is enough to explain the weird torpedo behaviour. Considering where the DD was when the torps were firing (which you can see from the splashes), they'd have to be fired quite a long time before that to be outside arming distance. So for all appearances, it looks like a bug to me. It could still be a desych if the torpedoes were fired to the side, and didn't hit your ship until they armed, but that doesn't look likely.

Indeed. This is why I liked to play the IJN cruisers before, and to a degree, the German ones. Back then I don't think the Russians were in the game, and the USN ones never appealed to me. Let's see about the split. Right, so you explicitly referred to RU cruisers, but then you just generalised it to radar cruisers. Sure, I missed that you did mention RU cruisers, but then you went on an ignored that anyway. And that's still equating what I said to playing RU cruisers, rather than specifically those manoeuvres I mentioned. So yes, you're twisting my words or just misreading. Which is it?

I've tried the Des Moines, and I didn't like it. There's a reason I've not played the USN cruiser line. But if you're talking about in general, do you report everyone who falls on the lower half of the scoreboard? This came up before, so I took a few screenshots over a few days just to see what my actual in-game results were. I'm not claiming I'm great or anything, but so bad you have to report me for throwing matches? Hardly. And it's completely okay that people twist my words and pull them out of context? I don't deny I said what I said. I deny that I said what it's being twisted into. See below. Yes, I said that. I've always said I was the one who said that. However, you were the one who said that meant I was talking about playing radar cruisers in general. So you were the one who equated that with playing radar cruisers in general, not me. I said, "this specific thing is easy to do", and you said, "so you're saying everything in those ships is easy to do?" Those do not mean the same, no matter how much you try to twist it. I gave you one last chance to understand that. You failed. It took you that long to get over your own assumption to even think about that it didn't actually happen like you assumed it did?

It doesn't require a lot of skill. Setting up a good usage of radar isn't that hard. Also, Lo Yang is overpowered anyway. And it's a destroyer, so it's a different animal. Hindenburg I'm not sure. Not played it. Do you know the difference between "playing radar cruisers" and "plopping radar-spotted targets with railguns"? If you think there is no difference, which is the logical conclusion of your responses, then you think USN cruisers don't count. You think there is nothing more to radar cruiser gameplay than "plopping radar-spotted targets with railguns". I said that specifically because I wasn't talking about everything you can do in a radar cruiser. Is that so hard to understand? I'm giving you one last chance to comprehend that. So if it's completely possible that I did what I did, then stop trying to say it happened in a different way. Now I'm not even sure what you're on about. Marking words? What's the difference between finding one replay or finding three? Even more work? It's completely irrelevant, so if that's what you have to come with, you have nothing. Why bother showing you a replay if you don't even have an argument?

Reminds me of when I met a Yamato semi-broadside at about that distance. There was an island in the way, and I only had one gun available. One shell clipped the cliff wall, so only two left. Result? Two citadels. Disperson can troll you, just like in any other battleship. It just doesn't do it very often. I'm not sure there's any battleship I've played where I've never had a broadside cruiser at that distance only to do pitiful damage. I'm also not sure I've played any battleship where I've never deleted a ship at that distance...

Exactly. That's what I said. I did not say "playing radar cruisers require no skill". I said doing those specific things require little skill. Do you comprehend the difference? That's exactly and explicitly what he claims. He directly told me what I was describing. I was describing my own, persona experience. So yes, it was about the specific situation I was in. If that is not the case then one, he's misreading what I write, and two, he's misreading what he writes himself. And no, I'm not going to show a replay. That would require effort to find the right replay among hundreds. Proving you wrong is not worth that effort. And that entitlement includes being allowed to play a ship in a way I think is less boring than what I think it technically more effective. Saying my stats when I play a ship one way is reflective of how easy it is to play the ship in another way is nonsense. So why should I listen to nonsense?

So according to you, there's absolutely nothing more to playing a radar cruiser than plopping radar and shooting ships with your railguns. Apparently you don't think the USN ships count as radar ships, because they don't have railguns. Apparently you don't think the Russian ships can do anything other than shooting what they spot with radar. Because that is what you equate with playing a radar cruiser. If that is not what you think is playing a radar cruiser, then you've not quoted me saying playing radar cruisers takes no skill. What you described is not the situation I was in. You claim the situation I was personally in happened the way you claim it did, not the way I claim it did. Now, how the hell do you think you know what happens in my matches better than I do? Can you answer that? It is when they're used to discredit someone for something that isn't actually relevant. To take a comparison, you can easily have a very high average damage in battleships if all you do is sit back and snipe. That's how you pad that, after all. It's very easy. Does that mean it's a fun way to play? No. Does that mean everyone who says it's easy to play like that have to play it like that? No. That is why stats don't reflect arguments. I don't play in a certain way because it's not fun for me. It might be more effective purely by stats, which you seem to value above all else, but it makes the game worse for me.

That was about someone else saying there's one thing you cannot do, which I argued against. That's not about my skills (which is ad hominem), but about what actually happened. I know it's a difficult concept, but please don't try to use concepts you're not familiar with. This is not my claim, so if that's all you've got to say, you're not even arguing against what I say. So obviously you do not know what you're talking about. Go tell your fairy tales to someone else.

Not really, no. Radar punishes DD players who play the objectives and play for the team. I can easily isolate myself from the team with just as little risk as before. That's not what radar prevents. You know the kind of Asashio player who sails around on second or third line, sniping with torps? That's what radar encourages and rewards. Camping and sniping. Since you obviously don't know what you're talking about, which is particularly obvious when you still claim you know more about what happens in specific situations I'm in than what I know myself, and you resort to ad hominems to make a "point", there's no point in responding anymore.

Not currently, no. I've played it for a fair amount of games, though. You're trying to tell me what happened in the situation I was in, because apparently you know enough of what happened that you can correct me on my own experience. Since I'm pretty sure you weren't present at the time, you're only speculating in what could've happened, and you put that speculation above my direct experience. "This is what happens" is completely and utterly irrelevant in the face of what actually happened. Okay, let's make a change. If someone uses a radar, any ships detected by the radar is only detected by the ship using the radar. Because if you have to ask who can shoot you, then you wouldn't see any practical difference with that change. No counter, except skill and knowledge. But we can't have that. And teammates, which you always seem to forget when it's convenient for your argument. Or you you want cruiser to be able to spot destroyers at the same range they're spotted? Then let's give destroyers the same tankiness and firepower as cruisers. DD players have adopted. They're campier now. Which is apparently what you want. BB players haven't adopted. They get things handed to them to replace that. It's a good thought, but no. Adding radar doesn't mean cruisers suddenly need support.

Who says I'm ignored? And why bring up a Lexington? What does that have to do with anything? I see no fairness in sitting completely safe behind an island and pressing a button to automatically detect anyone within 12 km with no possible counter. So I can only conclude that your sense of fairness isn't anything I put any value in. You do not seem to have an argument, nor any post that show you do. What you're trying to do is mind reading. That is not possible. Please try again.

I'm saying any ship that a radar ship spots with radar should spot them as well. You know, the reverse of what smoke does: hides both ships from each other. Or if you want it fair the other way around: If you use smoke, you can still spot everything, but others can't spot you. Or do you just want fairness in one direction? So since WG "fixed" Shima torp walls, they should also "fix" radar, to be consistent, right? Something like every time you pop radar, there's a loud klaxon going off for all ships in radar range that gives you some fifteen seconds heads up before it actually starts detecting ships. I should believe you that the outcome you stated is different from what I've actually done? I've rushed caps in all three Russian CAs with radar, killed a DD or two, and gotten away with it. I've also done the same many times with hydro in Ashigara. That takes skill, unlike plopping radar and shooting what shows up with your railguns. Missouri takes even less skill, since you're a tanky battleship and can just rush most things with little risk.

Both radar and smoke I'd probably change so they work by the same mechanic. Radar increases detectability of all enemy ships and itself by some percentage, and smoke reduces detectability for all ships where the smoke crosses line of sight. I'd rather have a short-range radar with longer duration than a long-range radar with shorter duration. I've already mentioned islands (and lots others have). I'd also put radar in the same slot as smoke for all ships with both. No exceptions. BB players: "Nerf citadel damage on battleships!"" WG: "Okay, done." I'm also not primarily speaking as a DD player when I argue about radar, contrary to what others like to claim.

Yeah, I was counting the low/mid tier ships that get to that map.

The A cap is mostly fine. It's more spacious than C, and I think lowering the islands east of A would mostly make it a pain for cruisers trying to support capping DDs than anything else. The B cap is sort of like B on Trap or New Dawn, in that it's an area easy to shoot into with only a small island in the middle to hide behind (well, on Trap). However, both those maps have tighter cover around the cap which provides a little more cover. I find the C cap to be somewhat similar to the old D cap on North, which is the worst map in the game. However, Fault Line isn't quite as large, so you're not so completely out of position for so long time. It's still a zone BBs shouldn't enter, excluding Kongo, although supporting from above or below is still mostly fine if you intend to turn inwards after the battle there is done. The main problem I find is that there's usually one battle for the side caps, and that's it. After that there's very rarely any relevance to those parts of the map. They're too isolated and too easily protected to re-cap unless you're in a DD with most of the enemy team gone. I'm not sure I agree with east side flanking in Standard Battles. For me that tends to work out well when I'm in a cruiser, and I've had many spectacular games like that (Leander kill record, to pick one). What I find more often is that the slow BBs go to the west side, slug it out over there, and are usually too late to do anything else if one side should get to the cap. On the whole, the map is very awkward for slow battleships. The sides are isolated, and the middle can be very difficult to approach other than sailing outside the edges and shooting in.

It's not about realism. It's about what makes sense. That's not the same thing, despite you trying to interpret it like that. You think something unstoppable and uninterruptable is good for the game. I don't. Well, that's not entirely true. You want to be able to use one consumable against the user without penalty, without being under the same risk yourself. Pure selfishness. Are you somehow assuming I wouldn't prefer if those were also blocked by islands? It's just more obvious with radar because it's so prevalent. The rest of your post is not worth responding to. It adds nothing of value. My question is why BB players never have to learn to deal with anything. If they have a problem with something, they get a buff to compensate.

So now sonar has the same range as radar. Good to know. Yes, no, yes, no. Unless you count some 4-5 games in the T9s. Oh, so now you know for certain that my only knowledge comes from YouTube. Maybe you should watch Jingles to learn how to differentiate a proper argument from an Aoba. So why bring it up as if it was the only thing that mattered? I have plenty of high tier games under my belt. You certainly like to spout nonsense about me not being allowed to have an opinion about radars without playing them. Or is it just hot air? Without radar it takes most of that. Radar removes most of that, and condenses it to a button press. You're not outplaying anyone. You're pressing a button. It requires as much skill as sealclubbing. No, I expect radar to not work through islands so they actually have to show themselves to use it. You know, not wallhacking. That's how people tell me to play. Go hug that island. Deny that cap. Camp over there. It's not how I actually play. But the main reason is that it's too easy to fight DDs. You show up, and that's basically job done. Don't even need to kill them. Just be there, and they can't get there. Radar also spots out of smoke. Did you perhaps forget that little detail? More cautious = more camping. You're arguing that cruisers that rely on smoke weren't in enough danger before, so they need a little more of that. To put it simply, there's one type of ship that needs more danger in their lives before anything else: Battleships. Radar makes their lives easier. There are other things, but that's one of the bigger ones. And if you were not using a strawman argument?

Fair enough. I've been playing for at least as long, but I never found the smoke meta to be particularly strong. The strongest I've seen it was between radar was introduced and smoke was nerfed, so it's not like radar had any positive effect on that. It only allowed ships to fire from smoke even more easily. I said using radar requires little skill, not that playing a cruiser requires little skill. And no, I don't play it like that, because it's boring. Why would I play ships in a way I find boring? I was commenting on how most people play them. You can take just about any map, point to exactly which island there will be a radar cruiser camping behind, and you'd be right most of the time. It's just that stale. This is a bullcrap argument, partially because of the above, partially because it falsely assumes you cannot know anything about something you've not played, and partially because it assumes T10 is the only thing that matters. It also assumes I've never actually played them. This would for one thing imply that most players are not allowed to say anything about CVs, as most haven't played them enough. If it is the best counter, why did smoke camping increase after radar was introduced? Because it facilitates smoke camping. Good counter you've got there. If the average player being bad leads to camping, then that's a problem that needs fixing, not an excuse for a bad mechanic. The game needs to work for the average player. Sure, BBs have been sitting in the back since long ago, but there are more of them now. They learn that it's safe, so they do it. They have no threats there, because no one can reach them. You say it's a good thing that players camp more. Well, then, now I know what you want out of the game, so I'm not surprised why you think radar is a good idea. I don't want that. I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Smoke has existed since the beginning. Radar hasn't. If your argument holds up, before radar was introduced the game was nothing but ships hiding in smoke and much campier than it is now. Considering reality is the opposite way around, your argument is worth less than the paper it's written on. Nothing made the game less campy when radar was introduced. It only made it campier, because now BBs can sit completely uncontested at range and just snipe all day long. That also makes games less fun for cruisers, so it's not like they win with radar being introduced. Ships hiding in smoke was pretty much solved with the change in smoke mechanics, not with radar. You already had hydro to deal with smoke. Didn't need yet another tool. I know how to counter radar ships. I pick a BB and blap them, just like everyone else. No worries about anything other than other BBs, because DDs can't get to me. Playing a radar cruiser is also boring. I've done that; it doesn't add any fun at all. Well, it might if you like to blap DDs with little skill, because if there's one thing that is brainless about cruisers it's radar. My favourite DD-hunting cruisers are the Japanese ones. They're more fun. Then again, playing cruisers have been much less fun when you face a full complement of BBs every match. Which are unthreatened by anything other than each other. But hey, that's the game you like. You know what is fun for the usual five BBs? Not having to worry about any DDs getting close enough to torp them. What's so fun about removing one of the few dangers BBs face? What's so fun about allowing them to go rampant so cruisers How heart racing, sitting behind an island and pressing a button once in a while. How heart racing, sitting at range sniping all day long. Yeah, great and exciting trends that evolve because of radars.

Radar isn't that hard to deal with, but most of it doesn't make for particularly rewarding gameplay. You can choose to camp, which is boring for all around, but it's safe, much like how BBs and cruisers are encouraged to play. You can choose to avoid radar and flank around it, which leads to camping by your teammates who don't have a DD in front of them. You can choose to bait radar, which will most likely cost you some (maybe a lot) health, time, and you gain the loss of one single use of a consumable for an enemy. You can choose to hide behind an island like everyone else if one is available. You can choose to ignore radar, which will get you killed. On the whole, radar just makes the game campier and less fun to play. The easiest way to deal with it is the first two, just be aware of what radar ships there are, and just avoid them. Don't even bother. Very rarely worth the cost and effort.

Had a decent Ranked game. Well, had several, but one stood out. Everything started out well enough. Then it turned sour because a few ships didn't want to stay alive. And then I got what's essentially a triple strike. That was hilarious, since it turned a defeat straight into a certain (lol) win. Replay. This is why my winrate in Chappy looks like it does. That ship seriously attracts all kinds of potato teams.

Ranked is fun, right? Completely balanced and all, with WG rewarding playing for the objectives. Sure, let's go with that. If I lose a game, it often looks like this: Note how there's always a damage farmer on top. This is despite me doing decent damage and capping 2-3 caps solo. Capping doesn't give crap. For the games where I cap that much but don't manage to do decent damage, well, it's in the bottom part of the score list. On the other hand, wins far more often looks like this: Conclusion: If I want to win anything, I better carry hard.

Short answer, tier restriction + nation restriction = very few available ships to play, several of which are premium. Lots of players don't have more than one or two of those, and they may not be something they want to play in operations anyway. With those restrictions, there should maybe be an option to lease ships, like for clan battles.