AnotherDuck

Probably on a premium.

So why haven't you given valid arguments and backed up your claims, then? You keep whining about me not backing up my claims, but neither of you have done that yourselves. You've shown your opinion, which I've said I disagree with. You've not shown any valid arguments above what I've shown, and you're the ones demanding more, not me. Since you're the ones demanding a discussion with more substantial proofs, the burden of proof is on you. You don't get to be a hypocrite about it. The main reason I haven't backed up anything with data is because I'm not sure there is any data about how campy the game is, let alone what specific mechanics have to do with it. It's a vague notion to begin with, and not something that can be shown in any of the stats I'm aware of. What I can say is that camping has been on the increase since radar was introduced. I can also say camping is far more prevalent in higher tiers. Battleships exist in excess in all tiers. Radars exists in the tiers that have become the most campy. Also, I keep saying you're not reading what I write because you keep "responding" to arguments I don't make and make assumptions about my own playstyle. Those are factually wrong and completely irrelevant to my arguments. They're strawmen and ad hominems.

I don't have a problem dealing with radar personally. That's not the issue. That has never been the issue. Every time you bring that up you show that you're not reading what I write. So why should I bother reading what you write?

We both know you wrote that, so you're just talking about yourself. Bye.

There are many reasons for the increase in BBs. Claiming everything is because of one or two things is misunderstanding how different game mechanics interact with each other. And a claim isn't a proof, even if you claim so. This is what we call, "projecting". You assume I make my arguments the same way you do. And now that I know what's behind your arguments, I can safely ignore you.

And I'm literally saying that my experience is the other way around, despite all of the theories you have of what will or won't happen. But what if that increase in BBs is a result of radars? Radars make it harder for DDs, which means it easier for BBs, so radars are partially responsible for the BB meta. I've always argued that if you want to make cruiser play more enjoyable, you need to increase their survivability against battleships. If you increase their capability to sink destroyers, you decrease their survivability against battleships.

Of course it is. Just remove radars to lessen the camping meta so you'll have more DDs to help you. Problem solved. Haven't you been reading what I've said? Oh, wait... No one has shown anything. With a 15 s reload you can shoot three salvos in 30 s. One at 0 s, one at 15 s, and one at 30 s. As a DD player, I get more backup from non-radar ships than radar ships. As a CA or BB player, if I back up a DD that DD is more likely to help me out with spotting (and smoke) than if I sit behind islands or snipe from max distance. My experience in all ships (even if DDs are my most played ships, I also play a lot of CAs and BBs) is that it's more fun without radars. So with CVs, radar is redundant. Nice of you to agree.

Do you understand the concept of the word "more"? As in, "In games with no radar present, the gameplay is more often more dynamic." It does not mean "With radar everyone camps, and without radar no one camps." Baltimore has 15 s reload stock and 10 s reload with the upgraded guns, at least from the tech-tree view. And with a 35 s radar you can easily fire three salvos with the stock guns, and four salvos with the upgraded guns. See above about the concept of the word "more". I think you'll find it enlightening. Having DDs around you allows you to know there's a safe zone around you. DDs can also spot torpedoes, unlike radars. And they're active at all times. Although personally when I play DDs I prefer players like you. They're so much easier to torp because they think they're safe.

Can't say I agree with that observation. And to make it perfectly clear, telling me to plan an exit strategy only reveals that you're not actually reading what I write, because it has absolutely no bearing on the issue. Most players won't read it, much like you don't read what you respond to, so most players will continue camping more because of radars.

So that's why before radars were introduced the game was less passive instead of more as you suggest. In conclusion The point you made up is 100% invalid.

Since radar was introduced, the game has become more campy. DDs push less because their already harsh punishments for any mistake are even harsher. BBs push less because there are fewer DDs who spot for them. Cruisers hump islands because they think that's fun gameplay because they have radar, even if they can't shoot anything. And most of the time they don't need to; anyone can shoot at a spotted ship. You saying it's only bad players who play more passively is bullcrap. Most players are average, surprisingly enough. Most players tend to play more passively with radars in the game. So what you want is DDs who don't try to cap, CAs who place themselves outside any firing angles, and BBs who snipe. That's the result of what you want. More passive and stale gameplay.

A blob of ships that cooperates can often steamroll the opponents, which is also why lemmingtrains sometimes work. Random groups of cruisers don't tend to be as coordinated as random groups of destroyers, though. Oh this again, maybe you should actually read what you respond to. The problem isn't "OP". The problem is "boring".

That at least has a bit of excuse in that you can assume the planes are flying high enough that it's realistically possible, especially considering the weird scaling of ships versus islands and buildings.

If you want to talk about boring, how about the kind of gameplay radar encourages? Max range torpedo sniping and island humping. Why would I be surprised that you argue for selfish benefits? You assume that of others, so the normal conclusion is that it applies to yourself as well.

I've lost count on how many people mistakenly think that's an actual argument.

Citing those numbers makes me question whether you own a Baltimore at all, let alone know how to play one. I'm also not quite sure what you're arguing. First you say that the entire line would be completely useless without radar, and then you say the radar is practically useless anyway.

Like normal spotting works now?

I don't think they listen to the players as much as they claim. Most complaints about it is that it doesn't make sense that it goes through islands and that they're caught off guard by something as stupid as that. I mean, if it was called X-Ray or Wallhack, then I could understand, but... And I've seen too many complaints about one-sided games just because one team had more ships with radars.

But others can. It's stupid, and it should be fixed. Preferably by removing radar entirely. Would make for a better game.

Come on, try to think outside the box here. It's back to the drawing board to get the ball rolling again and come up with a new game plan to level the playing field. It should really be a no-brainer, but we need to be on the same page here.

Killstealing is only ever a problem when it comes to how WG rewards it with the Kraken achievement and how they design missions. The solution is then naturally not to change how the game counts kills, but how WG consistently designs missions that make gameplay horrible for as long as the missions run.

Russian DD playing the stealth capping/scouting role? Screw that. I've played Fiji and Edinburgh in that role, and a few times Aoba, Ashigara and Takao. All depends on the situation. Back on topic, the thing about smoke is that it works both ways. If you say anyone in smoke shouldn't be able to target anyone outside the smoke, then no one outside the smoke should be able to target someone inside the smoke. And under the same mechanic, no one should be able to target anyone they're not spotting themselves, whether there's an island between or if the target is outside its detectibility range but spotted by a closer ship. All of those things work on the exactly same mechanic: A ship gets spotted by an enemy, and everyone in the enemy team within spotting range (a.k.a. render range) can target that ship, and everyone can see it on the minimap. Smoke is just one of many things that limit visibility, in this case by lowering detectability (a.k.a. stealth rating).

You should already have LS. The only time you should even consider dropping it is if you plan to stay undetected at all times. If you plan to do any gunboating at all, LS is pretty much obligatory. Most skills give you a small upgrade on some system. LS gives you the ability to survive where you would sink otherwise. It's a bit situational, yes, but in that situation it's a life-or-death difference. Eh, I've outshot cruisers in Shira. The guns aren't that bad, and if you plan on using them frequently, EM isn't a bad choice. I'd still go for LS + AR for the T2 skills, though. Those two are solid choices for any and all DDs. The problem with that is the crap speed. It's a bit hard to chase something down that's significantly faster than you. I wouldn't recommend TA for Shira. One, you get a small advantage (torp speed, 8%) for a significant disadvantage (torp range, 20%), and two, you have to spend captain points on it. That's something that should be included as a torpedo choice (like the F3s), not something you have to spend valuable captain points on. In this case, the standard torp range allows you to hit targets behind the front line, or hit radar ships without going deep into the radar. Shira is a slow ship, so you often can't afford getting too deep into enemy territory. That said, you should absolutely go as deep as you safely can. Just because you can torp at 12 km to hit an advancing target doesn't mean you should. Optimal firing distance is about 500 m outside detectability range. Closer if you have the option to immediately increase the distance without getting caught by anything. However, the benefit of the extra range is that you have more options. You don't always need to get that close, which means you can fire your torpedoes more often, which significantly outweighs a small increase in the hit chance given by higher speed. I think TA is only useful for torpedoes that have far longer than necessary range, like 16.5 km or 20 km, or for CVs. 12 km is arguable (but if you have access to the F3s, those don't require skill points and probably fit the niche you're looking for).

I imagine that being less bad than giving an OP ship to players who've proven themselves competent at the game.

And you think it will be better if only competent players who know how to abuse the specific mechanics of the ship are able to get it? That's almost as stupid as giving a ship like Black only to players who can abuse that already stupid ship to the max.