AnotherDuck

So the Japanese, German, and French cruisers are crap at T8+? That's just a stupid design choice that shouldn't have been in the game to begin with.

Honestly, I don't think they think that far.

If it's a number based on your own health, then it's far easier to get in low-health ships. By far the most damage you get in potential damage is damage you don't take.

And you're saying cruisers don't also get better with higher tiers, or better captains?

But not for Kamikaze and Shinonome. They really need it. They should be given that to compensate for the cruisers lack of ability to support them with AA.

Which makes the solution obvious.

Tanking capacity is not a function of the ship's health. To pick an easy example, a Khaba can easily get as much potential damage as a Currywurst, and they don't have even close to the same amount of health. A high-health ship have it easier to tank more damage, but it's not the only option. There are basically three ways: Absorb it, block it, and avoid it. In theory you could make three different achievements for those (well, the first one is Dreadnought). How much you can tank is more related to the damage output of the enemy. After all, that's the number that appears. And that's related to what tier you play (in general terms, since different ships have different damage outputs) There's absolutely such a thing as tanking. For the duration of a match, any given ship can only shoot a certain amount of shells. If you can make the enemy shoot one salvo at you, it means they will shoot one salvo less at the rest of the team. If you can mitigate that salvo, you've tanked without losing your own HP.

It depends entirely on what those new smoke time would be. It could be shorter, but not significantly shorter. It only has to be enough to counter for radar being removed. What makes high tier DDs so much better than lower tier DDs relative to all other ships that CAs need an additional tool to fight them?

The important part is that they're visible and appears often enough. My suggestions are naturally just what I believe would be appropriate, so they're certainly more tweakable. Tanking: 2M-2.5M potential damage. It's more achievable without having an amazing game, so you'll see it more often and it won't feel too much out of reach. Plane kills: 30-40 kills. 50 is a bit much. 30 tends to happen for at least one player if there are CVs, so that's probably a better number. Maybe 40 if that turns out to be a little too often. Decapping: 10-15 hits. Hard to say what's appropriate, since it's so situational. Usually you don't get anything, and then you get those games with some 20 hits. Spotting: Not sure about either ships or torpedoes. Don't keep track of those stats. I would have an achievement for spotting damage, though, similar to Confederate and High Caliber. Probably as common as anyone gets either of those two. An xp bonus would be something like a 5%-10% award or some 100-200 xp. Credits would be of a similar relative value, or could be put as a reduction of maintenance.

I don't think you need to rework the entire system. Just do a few additions.

Decent suggestions. I'd lower the requirements to make them a little more common and visible, to players easier see what good gameplay entails. That's the most important aspect. If they're not visible, they're less effective. I'd also make them available for all ships. Some DDs are great at tanking by avoidance. DDs also have the job of spotting torpedoes. Sometimes it's great for CAs and CLs to take on DD roles when they get the opportunity, and they have a few spotting tools. All ships can and should decap. I wouldn't have any special rewards. Maybe a small credit or xp bonus, but that's it. Something that makes sense for the achievement.

I've once sank an ally by ramming. I think he suicided into me because he had low health, and I played a big, clunky low-tier battleship, so I couldn't avoid.

I will name my dolphin Darwin.

I find that the optimal number of DDs in a team is two. Add one more for safety, since losing even one if you only have two hurts, but three doesn't really make them a lot stronger. More than that and you have some redundancy, since DDs don't work as a force multiplier with each other as well as any other type of ship.

My preferred team composition for randoms has always been: 1 CV, 3 BBs, 5 CAs/CLs, and 3 DDs. Give or take one.

Removing flooding would be a nerf to cruisers. Why? Because it would be a far greater buff to battleships. They will then be able to be a lot more aggressive, not worry as much about using damage control at the wrong time, and most of all, stay alive longer at closer range so they can delete more cruisers. Removing flooding is a great way to increase the threats against cruisers and promote even more camping.

I wouldn't remove smoke entirely. Rather, make is last a very short time, like 10 or 15 seconds or so. That allows for getting away, but not so much sitting there. That makes it a little more bearable for the larger destroyers. Well, I didn't suggest removing radars without any kind of compensation for those ships. The US ones could get better (or one at all) heals. SN could get better armour. Or vice versa. Or something like that. No, that's not the only reason. You're just using it because it's a convenient strawman. I think it's stupid from consideration within the game mechanics and how they interact. It has nothing to do with realism. It's a strawman that you try to present as a real argument because you can't comprehend there being a different reason. Sure, it might not be intentional and just a misunderstanding on your part, but it's still a strawman. I can't say whether OP feels the same, but that's not what's written. And frankly, the thread is way past that post by now. Your argument is about as strong as, "This guy, in this post, that everyone's forgotten about in the current argument, mentions something that might be interpreted my way." Again, this is just you thinking you can read my mind. No, I don't want radar gone because I'm a DD main. I want radar gone because I want to enjoy playing cruisers more. If you'd bothered to read what I've said previously, you'd known. Considering how wrong you are in your assumptions, you're either bad at reading English sentences, or "good faith" is the furthest from your approach as you can get. As for personal attacks, you're the worst in the thread. Sweep up in front of your own doorstep before you whine about dirt. I don't think most people have behaved the way you claim I believe. Again, that's just something you make up to suit your argument. It's almost like you don't have anything of value to contribute.

Like everyone else here. No one has backed up anything. Why am I the only one who has to? According to your definition of "argument", no one has argued against me. They're all "opinions". If you're not interested in reading the thread, why are you here? For one I'd have less smoke. I don't think passive gameplay sitting still in WoWs is good for the game, so it should be reduced significantly. Smoke should primarily be for escaping, not sitting and shooting. But mostly I'd wait and see what would be needed. Radar was introduced to make cruisers stronger, but their main problem was, and still is, survivability against battleships. That's one of the reasons why there are too many battleships in games. If removing radar makes more people choose to play cruisers instead of battleships, then that would work as a counter against destroyers. Forgot if there were more from you specifically. True. But that doesn't explain why we had far less campiness before radars were introduced. And if you're going to say that the battleships increased, well, as RAMJB explained, radar primarily benefits battleships. Which means it only makes sense to remove radars to nerf battleships.

The suggestions I'd make are, more or less: Make the "Captured" ribbons appear for the team with names, like kills do. Ribbon for ships killed while you're the only ship spotting them. Achievement for ~200% capture points. Lame name suggestion: Raider, Subjugator, or Mine, mine, mine! (I'd suggest the last one for killing a ship doing less than 5% damage on that ship, but that'd encourage such behaviour.) Achievement for ~100%-200% base defence points. Lame name suggestion: Denier. (Could also yoink Defender from WoT.) Achievement for ~2 000 000 potential damage. Lame name suggestion: Steel Rain. Achievement for spotting damage. Not sure how it should be calculated, but similar in difficulty to Confederate and High Caliber. Lame name suggestion: I Point; You Shoot. Achievement for being the first to spot ~7 ships. Lame name suggestion: Spotter or Team Scout. Achievement for playing a tier 1-4 game with at least 2000 games played and ~55% win rate. Name: Sealclubber. Have an option to show damage, spotting damage, and potential damage in battle. All of them might be a bit much for some players, but it would be interesting to many. You could also conflate damage and spotting damage. There's a difference between capability and reliability, though. Destroyers have a huge potential damage output. They also have a low average damage output.

No one is. Well, not seriously. You bringing that up is just a strawman. No, it's not. There are games without radars. Those don't look the way you claim they look. So don't make that crap up. Well, with things like that, you certainly demonstrate your lack of understanding written text, since you ignore everything anyone says that goes against your personal belief. What you wrote was a love letter to radar and how it doesn't bother you in DDs. You wrote about all the ways you benefit from radar. So yes, it benefits you personally, so you don't want it gone. If we take what you wrote now into consideration, that's an excellent reason for removing radar, and one I've argued before. BBs don't need radar to make their easy playtime even easier. Whoever says the opposite just want to play godmode in their massively armoured and armed ship of doom, and sorry, while that can be fun for him, it's not for others, and this game should be fun for every class. Just to use a language you understand.

I prefer both, depending on the situation. The main difference is that you don't have the concealment advantage of previous tiers, but you do have better speed. Use that speed to get into better angles, and to get out of situations you previously could remain unspotted in. Bait people into shooting you, and then run away. If you're good at kiting you can sometimes even deal a good amount of gun damage as well; the guns aren't crap. You don't need to launch all torpedoes at once. Five torpedoes do a lot, so you can often spread them out (but not with widespread) to get permanent flooding, or strike more targets. That also keeps them guessing more. Only use all three launchers when you absolutely have to saturate the waters in a wide arc. But what I wonder is, if you've played this far thinking long torpedo reload is boring and there's nothing else to do, what have you done in the previous tiers?

No, it means you're an average player. And your description of how to do it is basically, "outplay a decent portion of the enemy team". You follow that up with saying that "aiming and positioning yourself not like a total idiot" in a BB is harder than that. No. Anyway, I definitely agree with the overall notion that non-damage-centric tasks should be more rewarded. Giving rewards for attempting to cap would be one of those. Showing the rest of the tram who caps would also help. Tanking rewards for potential damage should've been implemented the moment they started showing that stat. Spotting damage should be displayed like normal damage.

I've paid for my stealth and torpedo reloads by paying as much for my DDs as you do for your BBs, so shut up about realism. The argument about ship visibility is particularly interesting, since that shows you have no idea what you're talking about. If 15 km is the average visibility for a DD, then the game's actually accurate. The game compresses distances, roughly by 2 to 3 times most of the time, but it varies depending on whatever's convenient for the game balance. And then if you're talking about single-launch torpedoes that at best take half an hour to reload, then you're also talking about torpedoes that are almost completely invisible and will sink or permanently incapacitate a ship with a single hit, as well as battles that takes hours or days to complete. If you're even going to use that argument, use it properly. That's not the argument here, though. It's whether it makes sense, from a gameplay perspective. That's factually false. Whenever there are games without radars, I notice an overall more aggressive gameplay. I haven't once seen everyone camping behind islands because there are no radars. You're only speaking out of your arse. As for the rest, you benefit from radar personally, so you don't want it gone. Selfish wants as usual. And before you accuse me of the same (well, too late for that), radar has made me want to play ships other than DDs less. If I'm in a DD, I can play around radar. If I'm not in a DD, I have to rely on my allied DDs to play around radar. So no, it's not about me wanting to play around in godmode. If I wanted that, I'd play BBs a lot more.

I prefer having to rebuy the ship and all upgrades if it sinks, and if your team loses, also retrain a new captain.

The sad part about the toxicity in this community is that for a competitive PvP game, it's actually fairly mild.