AnotherDuck

Because shooting at destroyers really ramps up that damage, yo. https://xkcd.com/882/ And again, none of this is even relevant to my actual argument in the first place. My own performance isn't relevant to my argument, despite what people try to claim. This whole, "I play differently, so this is not an overall problem with the playerbase," isn't any substantial argument.

It was still a strong ship. Even without hydro, it's a decent ship.

WG should never have buffed Lo Yang's hydro range. It was already a powerful ship as it was.

One, that doesn't make it any less of an ad hominem because it doesn't actually address my argument, two, if you think that's the only thing he's said then you've not been reading the thread, three, I didn't call that one an insult, and four, as I mentioned, those stats aren't significant. Winrate is crap, but even with those numbers, it still only takes a dozen games to flip it. Ever had a win or lose streak of ten games? That's all it takes. If you want more accurate performance numbers, you look at individual stats that aren't affected by the other 23 players nearly as much, and in those stats I'm still above average. I can also add that the ship doesn't suit me at all. It's made of paper without the mobility to dodge the way I like to play. The radar is still a win button for me, as that allows me free damage in games no matter how crap I play.

Well, it started here: Accusations and allegations without substance, and overall taking an insulting tone. If you're trying to say, "you started it," then, well, you did. You're not the shining knight you pretend you are. High horse, I'll grant you.

You mean you can't. You mostly just lie about things and come with personal attacks. You're nothing but a troll. You whine about insults when you're the worst of them. You whine about me miscontructing others when you're doing the exact same thing. You whine about abuse when you're the abusing. And you think image macros constitute proper arguments. It's impossible to argue with you in any serious manner, because you don't know how that works. You don't know what logic is. You don't know what a proper argument is. All you do is attack me as a person, because that's the best you can do. All you can do is claim I don't understand facts just because I don't agree with you. You can't form a proper argument, so you go for the ad hominem. And you don't even know the first thing about how I play and what I'm good at, despite contiuously trying to claim I'm playing WoWs in a certain way. Why should I take you seriously when you can't give me a reason to?

I was talking about non-CV planes. A CV is completely removed from the normal play of risk vs reward. "Play better" can be applied to anything, so it says nothing about balance. If you have a Shimakaze with TRB and Kitakami numbers of torpedoes, that can still be countered if you "play better". Troll harder.

CVs have the best opportunity to influence win rate out of any ship. If there's any single ship that decides which team wins, it's usually the CV. If you think you get good results but a bad win rate, you're playing for your own gain at the expense of the team's.

Risk vs reward. It removes a reward-only situation. You risk nothing while still getting rewarded. It also makes planes less obsolete. And while planes also don't have any risks used that way, they have a few counters. Radar does not.

So the most you risk is your team's chances of winning.

Can I pull a Kitakami in my Shimakaze and replace the gun turrets with torpedo mounts and trade smoke for torpedo reload booster, then?

BBs are far more forgiving than anything else. Cruisers and destroyers can get killed very quickly, especially on high tiers. Carriers may be somewhat forgiving on your survivability, but not on the team's success.

The only bad part about WG changing repair costs to service costs is that they did an awful job actually communicating this change to the playerbase. That's the major reason it didn't actually have that much of an effect. During battles I've convinced a bunch of players to play more aggressively just by informing them about this mechanic. Maybe not that many, but I've not preached about it much either. Potential damage needs to be a more noticeable factor in rewards. From what I've seen, potential damage tends to not differ too much between ships if you actually take fire, no matter if you avoid it, bounce it, or soak it up.

Since I joined a clan my non-solo winrate started to decline... Probably been playing solo too much and forgotten how to behave when not everyone in the team is a noob...

Yeah, I like them too, for that reason. However, they still contribute to the less fun smoke meta, and balancing a class after a gimmick severely limits how you can rebalance them. If smoke is what needs fixing, I don't think a band-aid solution like radar works, since that affects open-sea stealth as well. To a large degree, even more so, and that's overshooting the intent if that's the case. That's pretty much my concern as well. I suppose you could cap citadel damage per shot, or give diminishing returns after a certain damage threshold, similar to damage saturation. And you can always tweak numbers to make things more balanced. The problem, like usual, boils down to how battleships have it too easy to punish others while being protected from being punished themselves, usually at the expense of other ships helping them. Which is kind of how it worked IRL, but it doesn't make for fun gameplay for everyone. It's like having an MMO class that specialises in both tanking and nuking.

I don't like that the RN CLs are balanced around smoke in the first place, so the obvious solution, if you actually think about it for a second, is to give them better survivability in other areas. Lowering or outright removing citadel damage is one of the more obvious ones. Give them a dispersion buff for shots against them. You could, although for obvious reasons I don't like it, also improve the heal, especially for citadel damage.

That would be a workable solution. There could be something like 4/3 detectability (like @rvfharrier mentioned). That would also allow for a longer duration. A benefit to that is that it wouldn't completely nullify ship stealth rating, so stealthier ships would still be stealthier. I don't agree with smoke either. That's something else that contributes to campier gameplay. Then again, what I'd really see smoke like would be as a high-quantity consumable or unlimited (like damage control) but the smoke duration is much shorter, like Perth. The action time would also be lower, so the smoke is more for disengaging and temporary relief than for sitting in and shooting undetected. People complain about how they nerfed smoke; I think they didn't nerf it enough. Didn't they have that early on but decided it was too complicated? While it's one thing to deny caps, creating a binary zone for people to avoid doesn't help gameplay. Considering there's a lot more to lose than to gain in that zone, you're only creating passive gameplay. More fuzzy zones help, since that gives people the ability to push with increasing risk, rather than having no risk up to a point, and then a sudden spike. I don't think the only solution is to remove radar; I think that's the best solution, regardless of what some people lie about (then again, people who think image macros and e-peen contests are good discussion tools aren't worth listening to). Making it not go through islands would help. Reverting to the old cooldown would help, as that makes it more of a strike tool than an area denial tool. Making it only show you on the map but not on the main view would help (and then the duration could be turned up).

One per second is still fairly frequently, and easy to shoot at. And no, I don't think people would think radar were less scary with that change. If anything, the longer duration would only make them keep away longer. We've already seen how much more passive gameplay has become since radar was introduced, no need to make it even worse. If you want to improve cruisers, the best thing would be to make them less easy to be deleted by battleships. That's the biggest problem when it comes to trying to hunt down destroyers. If you can't find them with other tools or help from your destroyers, then the lack of ability is in your hands, not in the lack of radar.

Who's arguing that Saipan is balanced relative to Ranger? But you're adding conditions. With radar, there is no condition. Just better. That question is about optimal team configuration. It's not about acceptable MM. People don't think uneven radars is acceptable. That's not imbalanced. So that's why you're whining so much and can't stand the thought of playing without radars. You're afraid of DDs in a cruiser. Now I know you're the one wanting it to be as easy as possible for yourself, rather than wanting something that's better for the game as a whole. Good to know where you stand.

But it's already inherently more risky to play destroyers. Just look at how often they're the first ones to die. Just look at how often battleships are the last to die. Why is it okay to put all the risk on destroyers and remove it from other ships? You're still saying that cruisers with radars are inherently more valuable than cruisers without radars. That's not equal or balanced. That's crap game design.

Fair enough; I misunderstood. Not sure what you meant, then. With all those, I still think removing radar is the best option. Having smoke and radar is still overpowered, even without the concealment module. Which it shouldn't have anyway, so that can be removed as well. If you must keep radar, the smoke XOR radar choice of the high tier RN CLs works okay. If BBs are more accurate, they need a nerf to compensate, especially against cruisers. Not necessarily against other battleships, though. Maybe make citadels on cruisers do less damage. Lowering citadels is one of the worst things WG has done in the past year. It's not like that was what they really needed: even more survivability.

Are you saying a cruiser and a destroyer won't win against a lone destroyer? It sure sounds like you're saying the cruiser wouldn't win. And why would the second destroyer throw up another smokescreen? Is the first one outside his own and spotting? Are we assuming they would make the worst decisions possible? So do detonations, and everyone loves those. Remove both => Better game.

Well, one of us has to do it.

I'd like to like playing cruisers more, but the current meta makes it less fun at high tiers. Too little threat against BBs, so too many BBs, so too few CAs and too much focus fire on the few CAs that are there. Removing radar would increase the threat against BBs, which means fewer and/or less dangerous BBs and more fun for cruisers. And BBs would, for once, have to learn how to play the game rather than have every solution spoon-fed to them.

If you want less hostility on the forums, be less hostile on the forums. I hear that helps.