AnotherDuck

The angling mod doesn't give any information that isn't already readily available. You can clearly see the same on the minimap. I've used it, and most of the time I forgot I had it because it didn't offer anything I didn't already know. What mods WG considers fair or not doesn't say anything about the playerbase.

BBs and CAs have a lot more firepower than any DD. Sure, DDs may have torpedoes to even that out, but then you have one more sonar to pretty much eliminate that threat for a significant amount of time. Also, if you spot one ship, it doesn't get extra spotted if you have two DDs spotting that ship.

I'm not sure if you know this, but there are other ships in the game. Well, you don't seem to know the advantage of having an extra battleship or cruiser after twice the number of battles, so I'm not sure you're in any position to say anything.

I find that the X mod is more useful than the angle mod. I only really use the X mod because it's included in the minimap mod I use (mainly for the transparent circles, which I find to be easier to see with lots of circles active). Forgot if there's an option to turn it off, but since it's apparently legal and doesn't really affect me much anyway, it's just there. It is useful for determining range if you don't have any landmarks and the enemy isn't shooting. It's marginal, but it's an advantage. It's also in theory not any new information, since you do have the distance number at the aiming reticle and you can determine distances on the minimap by the circles you do have. That requires looking at two places on the screen as well as calculating the exact distance, though. The ship angle mod is roughly the same as the direction lines (clarifying heading) on the minimap, and there's little point in having both. The only other mods I use are those that move the interface around and a bit of information (shell and torpedo ranges) on the ship icons in the lists. My opinion is that the X marks the spot mod should be banned. Not sure of the name, but as I mentioned, it's included in one of the minimap mods.

Why would you exclude the fire damage from the calculation? And as I mentioned before, I would also include the DoT damage taken while the DCP is on cooldown, regardless of who started those fires. Or just any DoT damage taken for the duration of one fire. If you force an ally to use DCP, if that ally needs it before the cooldown is over, that's your fault.

I would argue you shouldn't have expected someone to pull in front of you, but you should also keep track enough that it doesn't happen. That's why you never sit in artillery mode more than a few seconds at a time unless you have cleared your surroundings. His mistake was that he pulled in front of someone shooting (which is always a bad idea and poor teamplay). Your mistake was that you didn't notice and fired anyway. That's always 100% on you, even if the other guy's an idiot. Mistakes always happens eventually, though, so nothing major. I've done the same (Farragut rammed my Myoko just as I fired). It was extremely hectic, so I don't think he even noticed until the result screen, if that. I sometimes aim, right click, and fire a while after. Or continuously. Been watching Flambass a bit, and he often right clicks to zoom out just before he fires his guns. People have different habits.

Well, it should count as a single attack. But to be completely fair, if you force a damage control on an ally by setting them on fire (or flooding), any damage that ally takes from DoT attacks until the damage control has reset so it can be used again should also be included in the damage you inflicted.

+1 to OP for being reasonable in the discussion. Far too many claims it's absolutely a cheat rather than ask about it (which is a fair question if you're not familiar with all game mechanics), and then turn indignant when told they're just being outplayed. Battleships aren't that hard to hit blind, especially compared to other ships. I didn't check the replay, but hitting a few shells isn't out of the ordinary. Most people don't try, but the ones who do usually know what they're doing. I've done it a few times (mostly in Yorck and Mogami that I can remember, for some reason), and a few times with torpedoes. Like others, I also wouldn't assume a cheat unless the accuracy is too high. But even then, after one or two salvos you can usually be more accurate. The X mod should be banned IMO, but as long as it isn't, I'll use it. Besides, it comes with the minimap mod I use (mostly for transparent circles rather than dotted lines; I find them easier to look at), so I've not even chosen it specifically.

That doesn't look that bad, honestly. The enemy team sits in a crossfire, so they're more likely to lose health than your team. What does look bad is that a team likely to do that is made out of potato and can't shoot themselves out of a wet shoebox, so it's not entirely likely they'll be able to capitalise from that advantage. You've also lost both your DDs, so you've put your team at a disadvantage.

If they're too powerful if you only reduce it slightly, then you reduce it a little more. Problem with radar is that there's an all-or-nothing "skillfactor". If there's no radar, you don't need any skill for that. If there is any radar, you can't do it at all. And, the average player being the average player, they deal with it by camping. How do you spot and/or shoot a ship behind an island? I've stolen a lot of caps by going more or less solo to a cap. Capping wins games. Besides, it's also a likely situation in the late game, when there are far fewer ships alive. So, I meet two DDs, we spot each other. If they shoot, I can smoke up, which means they're still spotted by my CA, and we can shoot them down. If they smoke up, my CA can just pop radar and we can shoot them down. If it's an enemy German DD, I keep my distance, so if he wants to use hydro, he has to get close, which means the CA can easily shoot him down even if I'm not shooting. If I have the spotting advantage, I don't even need to smoke. If they have the spotting advantage, they still need to reveal themselves by shooting. Or one smoke and the other spots, which means I can just smoke anyway. One way or another it's going to end up with a shooting match between those four ships. And one CA and one DD can shoot down two DDs. Yes, you can spot in a different part of the map if you have more DDs. Can you support that part of the map? If your team splits up to cover that part, and the enemy team doesn't, who do you think will win if the battle where the enemy is?

It's kinda like a few of those building games, like Fallout 4, where when you build new stuff you have the option of building old, dilapidated junk, or something of the rough quality of a child's tree-house, made from junkyard scrap and without adult supervision.

No, I understand that. The point was to nerf them. I think making their smoke a little weaker is better than having it be very powerful most of the time and completely useless if radar. That's the all-or-nothing approach WG seems to like that doesn't work too well for game balance. I find it makes it more similar to WoT in ways it doesn't need to, kind of like their old artillery. The RN CLs usually sit a little bit farther away, so they're not as affected to begin with. Some of the Russian ones are a bit special, and not very destroyerlike. They're also not affected by radar to nearly the same extent. So, which of those did I start?

So don't bring that up as an argument. There's no reason CVs should be more powerful than any other ship. That just makes it unbalanced. Just do like you advice DDs to do with radar: Just deal with it. Go elsewhere. By "depends on enemy gameplay", you really mean just a specific case where you can apply your argument and nothing else fits, just because that's how you define it? That's not really a convincing argument. If the enemy shoots at my guns, I lose shooting capability. But all you're doing is showing how CVs are broken. Either they can strike, and the enemy is doomed, or they can't, and they're useless. All or nothing. Game needs less of that. So if you, in a DD, head off to a different cap from the rest of the team to see if you can steal that cap, you'd rather have the backup of another DD than from a CA if you meet two DDs? Pretty sure I wasn't the one starting those. I've not even started two threads total. If that's your memory, why should I trust anything you say about how the game used to be? Can work like that, sure. Does it usually do that? Not really. It mostly locks caps no one wants to go nearby, since there's a radar cruiser hiding behind an island. Creating no-go zones creates camping behaviour. Besides, you can use just about any tool for the same purpose, so being able to use radar like that isn't exactly a convincing argument. All it does is show that radar isn't completely useless.

Realism is suddenly an argument that fits? Or do you also want battleships to follow the same reasoning? You're saying it doesn't matter what the enemy does; my torpedoes are going to hit anyway? Learned something new there. I played the game before radar. It was less campy. It was more enjoyable. Pull another fairytale out of your arse. If I already have three DDs? Yes. Can you count how many such threads I've started? Why are you describing yourself? I mean, if you're talking about understanding you're clearly not talking about me. I understand perfectly what you say. I just think it's bullcrap. Is that somehow hard for you to understand?

On one hand, winning the game makes it more of a lottery (which can probably be balanced by slightly lower requirements for the mission to begin with), but on the other, it does promote playing to win the game rather than to complete some random objective at the cost of winning. Staying alive for the duration of the game is sometimes not optimal, as that excludes some forms of aggressive but effective gameplay. And lots of players, when told to stay alive, will do so at any cost, which means camping, and trying to complete the mission from base camp.

It's not about being overpowered or underpowered (which is also what I say about radar, despite your constant attempts at misunderstanding it so your arguments make sense). They're broken because they have a far too great of an impact on the game. Not only does the huge difference between CV players play a role, but that effect is also amplified by how much carry potential a CV has, compared to the fail potential. That's way too much power put onto a single player, and it makes the game less interesting for other players since they have less impact. You could try to reach at least a little further into your arse when you pull that crap out. I mean, one of my main goals is for the average game to have more cruisers and fewer battleships. How's that making it more easy for DDs? Not in my experience, no. Four DDs is too much in most situations. It depends a little on what DDs you have, but generally you're better off with some other ships instead. DDs are more self-regulating than other ships. The more of them they are, the more they diminish each other's effectiveness and reduce the risk of the enemy's equally inflated numbers to other allied ships. CAs generally spread their health and fire potential around as you'd expect, BBs are much more of a threat to CAs than to each other, and CVs just multiply their power with each other. Since you failed to read plain English, let me spell it out for you: A common complaint is that radar cruisers need to be included in the MM logic because having too many is too powerful and too few is too weak. That's not my own argument. It's the argument a lot of other people use, and most of them fail to realise what that argument actually means.

The difference between DDs are radar cruisers is that DDs balance themselves, and don't get better the more of them you get. MM for radar cruisers is just "more = better", while for DDs you have an optimal number (which is 2-3). It's also a game that designed for three types of ships, and somewhere CVs are supposed to fit in (but they kind of don't). It's not a game designed for radar ships versus ships without radars that are just worse. I mean, if all your cruisers are radar cruisers, you're not bad off. If all your ships are destroyers, you're probably going to lose, since you lack the power of all other ships. So your comparison fails. CVs are broken. Your argument is invalid. Then it would benefit you to start using actual logic rather than personal attacks. I mean, if all you can do is resort to an ad hominem, why should I listen to you in the first place? You're not showing any kind of reason to reason with. So you're saying radar cruisers are stronger than non-radar cruisers. That's you literally saying radar cruisers are better than non-radar cruisers, and I don't even need to twist your words to claim so. If you think it's balanced when some ships are objectively more powerful and useful to the team than other ships of the same tier and type, then you don't understand what game balance is. So if you remove radar you turn down BBs' survivability. I'm glad you agree with my solution.

If they need special MM, they're not balanced. That means they're in a special category, above all other cruisers. That's the opposite of balanced.

There are more people than me who want that. "We" is completely correct. And pointing out that word choice is at best pedantic. Yes it is, but I've not done that. Interpreting what I said as linking everything to radar is just ridiculous. What don't you understand in the sentence, "I think it's stupid and should git gone from the game"? Besides, if "x is part of the current balance" is a valid argument, then you can apply that to any suggestion or complaint about anything that exists in the game, regardless of how stupid it is. If that's the argument you want to use, you should be opposed to any and all changes and additions to the game. If you're not, you're using an argument you don't actually believe in, which is hypocritic.

When you have nothing intelligent to say and just want to insult someone, just spam emoticons and pretend that's clever in any way whatsoever.

That's my line of thinking as well. The idea of radar giving cruisers a weapon isn't bad in theory, but it ends up shooting themselves in the foot, since what it's the most effective against at is reducing the threat BBs face. They already have tools like that. We do want that. The problems cruisers have is that battleships can sail as they want, in large part because of radars. The main balance problem of the game is first CVs, because they're broken any way you cut it, and the second balance problem is too many battleships. They already have it too easy, and they don't need it easier.

You seem to suffer from confirmation bias. If you don't even try to understand what I'm saying, why are you responding? Are you not understanding that you're not understanding, perhaps? Are you still saying those cruisers don't get better at higher tiers? That they just remain at the same strength they were before?

Are you saying the game is perfectly designed with no flaws whatsoever? Realistic doesn't matter. It's still stupid.

Giving T8 CAs a heal is fine. If it's in the same slot as the radar.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I accidentally an 's' there. However, you could argue that the same is true when you kill someone without being spotted.