AnotherDuck

Well, it's one way to learn "how to solo DD".

Oh, you're referring to when I called you an idiot because you used the same tired argument I had repeatedly shot down. Then I'd like to amend that. I apologise for calling you out on that. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Also, just because you don't agree with an argument doesn't mean you can just equate that with not making any sense at all. If it doesn't make any sense, then you should ask for clarification to what it means. I know English isn't everyone's primary language, but at least ask if you have trouble understanding something. I understand perfectly well what you mean. It still means radar is part of the problem, and removing radar would help the problem. It doesn't mean it's the only solution that would work for that particular ship, but it's the one I prefer, since that would also help with the meta in general.

That's an ad hominem, there. Whether I insult people has no bearing on your capacity of writing a post without insults. Yeah, I insult people on occasion. Mostly because those people seem incapable of writing posts without throwing insults. I thought about matching your level so I can maybe speak a language you understand, but it just seems like such a hassle to spew insults all the time. You accidentally hit caps lock there. Might want to look at your keyboard. Anyway, radar is part of the problem. You admit as much yourself, so why are you trying to argue?

Are you saying Belfast wouldn't be better balanced without radar? Are you capable of writing a post without trying to insult someone?

I was wondering why that rang a bell, and then I remembered I read the manga of it. It's one of those where an adaptation can be hit or miss, depending on how far the story goes and whether it tries to tie the plot up or leave it running despite ending. Takao is awesome. Just like Arpeggio Takao. Also has one of the best twin-tailed girls.

If you want to enforce some kind of balance between the ship types, I've always favoured three of BBs and DDs each, maybe one CV (assuming they get fixed), and the rest cruisers. On the whole, I don't find having 5 DDs per team in matches to be problematic. Most significantly, that makes them less effective at countering BBs, since with more enemy DDs it's harder to get to the BBs, and if there's one thing the game needs it's better counters against BBs.

That doesn't actually look too bad. Just this image lacks enough context to judge, though, since it's impossible to see what gave rise to the situation, and where it goes from there. The only real problem I have is what the DD north of A is doing.

Potential damage is on a different scale than dealt damage, but yes. It should probably be based on some statistics for how much of that potential damage results in real damage. Something like 2M potential damage might be equivalent of 100% real damage. I'm not sure what server averages and reasonable conversions are, but something like that. The way spotting currently works is that you benefit the most from smoking up your allies for the purpose of obscuring their vision. It doesn't matter if the enemy sees your allies or not; what matters is how many of your allies can spot the target they're shooting at. The fewer allies you have competing for spotting, the more XP you get out of it. Step 2 would only work if the XP system is actually fair in terms of contributions to winning the matches. However, there are many ways to ensure victory that doesn't result in any kind of XP rewards (win bonus aside). It's already one of the worst parts of Ranked, since it incentivises farming XP at the cost of winning the battles.

Because radar. Notice a pattern? CAs can get two or three volleys off at the same time a BB gets one off. So a CA doesn't need to get a 10k+ volley; it only needs half or a third of that. But if you're talking DDs, I'm not sure what your argument with that is. CAs do far more reliable damage against DDs, thanks to better accuracy and faster reload, but that holds true for all tiers. I don't disagree that mistakes of all kinds are punished harsher on higher tiers, but we don't need radar to exacerbate that. We need tools to mitigate that. Except for BBs, but I've mentioned that. Yes, it's viable for USN CAs to go for hydro. Their AA is already so good that most of the time you don't even need defensive AA on top of that. Smart CVs will avoid you, and dumb CVs you shouldn't have a problem with anyway. And if you play in a division with a CV, why do you have trouble with spotting anything at all? I agree that DDs with hydro isn't a particularly well thought out idea. The main reason it's less of a problem is that there are fewer of them.

Those players are easily countered by other DDs, who will invariably torp that smoke. That's one of the easiest counters in the game. Those players are not the issue, though. The issue is that fewer DDs are willing to cap in the first place, because if a radar cruiser shows up they will die or lose a ton of health. That's regardless of if they actually show up or not; the threat is enough to discourage people from playing the objectives.

So at higher tiers, they suddenly get immune to everything except radar? DDs also take more damage quicker compared to at lower tiers. Radar only adds to it. As you've already detailed, the risks of being detected are less significant at lower tiers. Yes, not as many of them has as long range torpedoes compared to their detection, but they're also not going to be deleted as quickly if they're seen. Why do they need to be more easily punished when they're already punished worse for mistakes? Mainly playing DDs doesn't mean only playing DDs. When I play cruisers and battleships, I see more passive DDs at high tiers compared to low and mid tiers. I compared hydro range with radar range, since you said cruisers deserved better consumables. No, radar doesn't spot torps, but cruisers can still slot hydro along with radar. All DDs are affected by radar, so more than some DDs should have twice the torpedo range. That said, my opinion about torpedoes is that gunboats shouldn't have as good torpedoes as torpedoboats, despite that being more or less the case currently No, I don't consider radar a gamebreaker as such. I consider it a consumable that makes the game worse by how it functions, and more importantly, how it affects the meta. If you really wanted to crack down on the smoke meta, radar isn't the solution. Nerfing smoke is. So I agree. DDs don't really need as good smokes as they currently have. That's a much better solution. If they remove radar, I'm perfectly fine with nerfing smoke. Donskoi's concealment is only barely shorter than the radar range, if you spec for it (which you should). Forgot the number, but around 13 km, with 12 km radar? There are a few ships with longer radar range than detectability range, such as Chapayev.

Mainly range, but hydro isn't entirely non-problematic either, especially when you get to such overpowered ships like Lo Yang that has stealth, hydro, smoke, and firepower. Cruisers have to get a lot closer than if they're using radar, so it's not as much of an issue. - If mistakes aren't punished as badly on lower tiers, why do we need yet another tool to punish mistakes at higher tiers? - High tier maps are larger, so longer range doesn't necessarily mean better map coverage. I'm also used to playing ships like Kongou and Fuso at mid tiers, which do have great range and enough accuracy to hit cruisers at max range. - Again, how does radar improve the game when it makes it more likely to die early when it's more costly? - More torps, but longer reloads. Torps are faster, but so are ships, and distances are longer. - DDs at low and mid tiers aren't selfish bastards? - Radar adds complexity to DDs, while WG has consistently removed complexity for BBs, which were already easier to play than anything else. Radar also removes complexity for cruisers. Why is it okay to always add more skill requirements for DDs but remove it for everything else? DDs are more cautious in higher tiers. Certainly not everyone, but in general. They don't always play the same as they do on lower tiers. Hydro compared to radar is 5-6 km to 10-12 km, so twice the range. Do DDs get that much better concealment? Hydro is also comparable to DD concealment; radar is not. Should all DDs therefore get twice the torpedo range?Cruisers can also slot the concealment mod, and their concealment doesn't change much either. So if DDs don't get any additional stealth advantage, what consumables do they get that's better? The only one I can think of is defensive AA for a select few DDs, at the cost of speed boost.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/announcement/3-world-of-warships-forum-rules/

*edited* *This post has been edited by the moderation team due to disrespectful comments.

Well, CVs are broken. They're not a good comparison for anything that isn't broken. How many times do I have to say that I can play around radars in high tier destroyers? That was never the issue. That issue is just a lazy strawman for idiots who don't have any arguments. It doesn't apply. I don't. Many people always do whatever regardless of anything else. But many people do follow whatever meta is currently in fashion. That's the point. It's not about everyone playing in a certain way; it's about radar contributing to the passive meta in high tiers so many people complain about. It's not the sole factor, nor is it a definitive factor that's true for everyone. It's a trending factor that increases the likelihood of certain behaviours.

But you can only make sure your team has one of them, and that limits your choices to that exact class, so that's not a viable option for balance. And you can get those 2 RU DDs and 4 radar ships regardless of what you choose yourself. No, that point isn't valid.

Radar is a threat to DDs which makes it much safer for BBs (and benefits them more than the cruisers carrying them), which is one cause of the BB overpopulation. If radar is supposed to make it easier for cruisers, it's shooting itself in the foot. Because this is a radar thread, not a CV thread. I've said many times that CVs are just broken. Way too often the winning team is decided by which CV wins the CV battle with little else other ships can do about it. CVs have a disproportional impact on the game.

Rewarding contributions doesn't help when it's so lopsided as it is. Damage is rewarded far above anything else, and the best way to farm damage is to camp and survive long, while having minimal impact on the game. As it is, the only actual consistent measure of how well you contribute to a match is if you win or not. However, winrate has a very low signal-to-noise ratio, and you need many hundreds of games, if not thousands, for a reliable number. As such, any single game doesn't really work that well. It could work if it was based on your overall winrate, but then you'd have to only count non-divisioned games due to how they can easily boost winrate.

A ship is not comparable to a consumable. BBs, CAs, and DDs are good and bad at various things. They are not, on their own, more or less valuable. Radar is something you have, or you don't. There's no case where you'd rather pick no radar over having radar. There's no downside to all your cruisers having radar. There is a downside to all your ships being destroyers.

Personal examples are specific instances. Personal experience generally covers a large number of games.

If it's more useful because it has radar then it's not balanced. If two consumables are less useful than a single one, then you have an imbalance. If you need to sort matchmaking after consumables, you have an imbalance you need to compensate for. The button pressing is the easy part about those ships. Chapayev doesn't work well for me at all, but that has to do with how squishy it is. Sitting behind an island works well enough, if I find the right spot. Now, this isn't really an argument, but I remember one match where I basically camped around a single, tiny island the entire game close enough to a cap. I didn't get the best results (about average, I think), but I got three DD kills and thanks to that we won by points. Radar kills DDs; we win. Donskoi, having actual armour, works far better for me. But that's got nothing to do with the radar.

No. You're not going to convince me of anything unless you come with a proper argument that actually matches what generally happens in games. Specific counter-strategies aren't part of that. Personal examples aren't part of that. Insults aren't part of that. Are you capable of providing a proper argument without relying on irrelevant details and crap methods? Not on their own; that was never the argument. But in games without radar, you have more aggressive destroyers. That's not just low tier; that's also in those rare high tier games without radar. With the destroyers being more aggressive, the cruisers become more aggressive as well. Playing aggressively isn't something that only happens for the brief time you have radar active. When that runs out, what do you do? Retreat back, or stay behind the island you've always camped at. It doesn't make the game less campy.

Yes, there was passive gameplay before radar, but it was less campy. The campy smoke meta actually became worse with radars, since people found out they could combine the two. Yes, scared, unskilled, or inexperienced players are always going to be a major cause for passive gameplay. They also stand for a lot of overly aggressive gameplay. What I'm saying is that radar is contributing to the passive gameplay due to encouraging more destroyers to play passively, which encourages the rest of the team to follow suit. I definitely agree that changing radar would also help; I just think removing it would be better. What would've been better than radar to promote a more dynamic gameplay would've been to give them the kind of upgrades they gave the battleships: More protection against mistakes. Cruisers would benefit far more from those lowered citadels for less risk of being deleted the moment they make one mistake. Battleships just increase their already impressive survivability. Good day, and thanks for not being an idiot.

Okay, you count sitting behind an island "pushing". Gotcha. I can tell you how the f.ck high tier games are campier. They have radar. Low and mid tier games have no radar. They're less campy. So no, what you say isn't what happens. Besides, it's not like you don't have tools to hunt DDs in when you're in something like an IJN CA. You have fighters and sonar. Use them. Oh, wow, I get to get away with just that much, and the opponent loses one use of a consumable. No, that's not worth it in most cases. As you say, staying alive is the most important thing. You don't stay alive by trading away your health. You're also going to give away your location, so you have a lot less chance to successfully strike someone. You can get away with stealing a cap if you time it very well, which is probably the most you can get from it. But most of the time it's better to stay undetected, so the opponents don't know where you are, so you can strike from an unexpected angle. That's how you play stealth. And I often do that against radar ships. But as I said, and you continuously fail to comprehend, this is not about me. This is about how gameplay with radar is campier than without. So you have to risk something to gain something. What does a radar ship sitting behind an island and pressing a button risk?

I learned to hunt DDs in IJN CAs. Sonar and fighters work well for that purpose. They've always had the tools for hunting DDs. They just required you to do more than push a button.