AnotherDuck

Arguments don't work by dismissing anything that goes against what you want to think. If it works consistently you can't just dismiss the enemies as potatoes. You balance a game for the majority, not the top 5% who aren't potatoes.

Missouri is one of my best DD hunters. You can just load HE (one of the best BBs to have Expert Loader on for faster shell type switching, especially with a unique captain), go in, radar, and delete a DD. With BB health and armour, you're not nearly as vulnerable as a cruiser, so a lot of the time you can more or less clear out an entire cap, which gives your team a huge advantage. I think it's a good example of why radar on BBs is even worse than on cruisers.

And when you're zoomed out, look around for the next target. It takes time to reload, and time to turn your guns. Try to predict where ships will be in 20-30 seconds, what angles they will show, and aim where you think the best target is going to be. Sometimes it's better to take a large damage salvo on a good opportunity, and sometimes it's better to just focus on one target, even if the damage isn't going to be as good. Ships have full offensive capacity even with 1% health left, so finish them off if you can, even if it feels like a wasted salvo damage-wise.

Supposedly that's not possibly anymore, with detonations not triggering if you're above a certain HP %. But you never know with WG and their 1337 programming skillz. I once sank a full health Bismarck with two torpedoes. And no detonation. Also not possible anymore, with the reduced flooding damage.

Yeah, I'd never use doubloons for captains. In the old days, we used some premium ship to train and retrain captains. Now we can just use EC XP. From the moment you get a 19 pt captain, put him on a decent ship, use some appropriate flags, and try to earn some EC XP every day you play. That way you never have to use even Free XP for captains if you don't splurge too much. For me it makes more sense with either a fixed value for any transaction, or a value that makes higher skill points more valuable, since it takes far more XP to get them. This has been suggested many times. I generally agree with it since very few players are ready for a tier they haven't reached with silver ships. However, WG wants to suck out as much money as they can, business being business before it's a balanced game. If they could get away with it, premiums would be even more overpowered just so they could sell more.

The overarching camping meta started to happen around when the German BBs were introduced. That led to a flood of BBs, and a constant overpopulation of BBs that never really went away. This meant that cruisers became much more vulnerable, and pretty much had to stay at range, in smoke, or behind cover. BBs also noticed they took a lot of damage from other BBs, so they also started camping. Camping had always existed, but that's when it became really bad, and it's never recovered other than during some events that caused a sudden influx of different ships. BB players tend to claim fear of torpedoes, but that's never been the case at all. Back when DDs were more aggressive and torps weren't as nerfed as they are now, BBs were still more aggressive.

Smolenks is just cancer. Regardless of whether it's OP or just "strong", it just makes the game worse. I can't even compare it to Hitler, because he had at least some good ideas, despite being a genocidal idiot. True, but Smolenks doesn't exactly help.

I think the best way to make radar would be to give it a long range, but within that it only increases the base concealment of enemy ships in line of sight by a percentage, not instantly detects them. So for instance if it increases by 50%, a DD with 6 km concealment would be detected at 9 km, while a cruiser with 10 km concealment would be detected at 15 km. As affects base concealment, it's not affected by smoke or gun bloom.

Was that one supposed to have a large-ship-only radar (like deep water torps), or was that just some other rumour?

When you say, "they are just bad players," then I'm justified in that assumption. If you want me to assume something more nuanced coming from you, don't oversimplify the people you're arguing about. Also, something that's simplified isn't necessarily false, unless you're going with "anything that isn't 100% accurate is false" interpretation, in which case 100% of what you say is false by your own definition. This is not an assumption. This is my experience. Therefore it's neither a fallacy nor untrue, unlike your claims. 12 km radar, great concealment, super fast shell velocity, high health pools. Take that as you want, but in my opinion they're broken. I don't insinuate what you have an idea about. You interpret it. And you do it in a way so you can insult what I write. Don't whine about my tone when yours is worse. Almost everything you say is hypocritical.

This is coming from someone who said, "Bite me." Lacking a bit of self-awareness, are we? Of course, anyone who doesn't like radar have to be crap at dealing with them. Otherwise your narrative doesn't work. But since you're wrong, it doesn't. Anyway, you've obviously not read my posts, so unless you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I'm probably just going to ignore you.

That was true before radars were introduced, and with radar you don't need to be nearly as good of a cruiser player. Difference being when cruiser players whined (although honestly probably mostly BBabies), they got radar. When DD players whined, they got told to git gud. That's the hypocrisy. Well, considering your behaviour... Still not worse than what radar is to the game. I've mentioned it in other posts. I don't personally have a problem dealing with radar when playing DDs, though. When radars were introduced I got better results in DDs.

Basically what's needed is that AA ships should be capable of being AA ships again. They shouldn't be good targets.

Not if you're good enough in a cruiser. Git gud, like people tell DD players. But then, cruisers get the help DDs don't. Hypocrisy as usual. Stat shaming is so crass. It's among the lowest of the low of arguments. Complaining about players hiding their stats is one of the few things that are lower.

If you go around the island he's no longer behind it. Logic fail. You're assuming only bad DD players want radar gone. When radar got introduced, I got better results in my DDs, because I know how to handle them. But it made the game more stale and thus less enjoyable. So, radar is bad for the game as it is. Wait until the new ships come. Everything I've seen about them so far is about as broken as Smolenks. If spamming F3 is a solution, you can do that to fight DDs too, so radar is superfluous. CVs are plain broken according to the vast majority of players, so relying on CVs as a solution doesn't work in an argument. But if you really want to use them as an argument, CVs are far more effective as a DD counter. So again, radar isn't necessary, because you already have a reliable tool against them. The presence of radar is one of the main things that causes DDs to abandon a flank. There's simply not enough for them to do there. So as I've always said, radar causes stale gameplay. And if teamwork doesn't work, you can say the same about your above suggestions to counter radar. Radar area denial isn't the same as DD area denial, nor as BB area denial. Radar has a fixed limit, and that's pretty much a no-go zone unless you want to sacrifice a good portion of your life, if not all of it. A BB taking a hit from a torpedo doesn't do nearly as much damage if you're even remotely competent enough to not show a broadside, and that's if you don't avoid it completely. After that you have a minute or two of no torps, where you can push. Cruisers have it even easier to push against DDs. BB area denial is a matter of if you can bounce nose-in or not, or if you can burn them from a distance. They're usually not hidden behind islands nearly as much or effectively as cruisers (especially US and UK). Either way, those types are soft area denial, where there's increasingly more threat the closer you are. Radar being a consumable just makes it less predictable, but from my own experience, most of the time you can just sit there and be a threat without doing anything at all. I can take my Moskva and run up to a Yamato and citadel him from close range. I mean, if you make up situations, so can I. You counter guns by avoiding the shells or bouncing them. There are counters, but I never said any and all ships are counters. You can bait smoke or torps too, so you don't need radar, by that logic. But largely, I find radar baiting to be ineffective. You often sacrifice some health for no real benefit. You only gain a short amount of time where you don't have time to do much, it doesn't work against multiple radars, it's pointless if there are other things you need to deal with as well, and to get a permanent benefit, you need to bait all radars, which takes a long time and a lot of health. Most of the time, you're more effective going somewhere else. Which is not good for the health of the game, because then we have people like you whining about DDs abandoning their flanks. So you're admitting that you're wrong then, because you were the one comparing radar to torps in terms of area denial. Good that we agree on that, at least. And that's exactly what DDs face with radar. Risk of outright deletion. DDs are worse tanks than cruisers, and they generally have far worse range, so they're completely ineffective at safer ranges, whereas cruisers can still shoot from there. A DD will die faster than a BB if you yolo. But you strawman "pushing" into "yolo pushing", which isn't the same. You can easily push a BB into torp range without "yolo pushing". If you enter radar range as a DD and stay there, you're pretty much in yolo territory already, on the other hand. There's less forgiveness for DDs, and more you absolutely have to keep track of not to die. Torps are, generally speaking, vastly less of a threat than BB AP, for just about any type of ship. Not entirely sure about DDs, but HE from any source wrecks them faster and more frequently anyway.

Someone suggested giving Shima TRB. I didn't say it comes equipped with it currently. And it's still easier to dodge those torps than to kill a cruiser hiding behind an island as long as he doesn't screw up more than your current argument. @Bunny_Lover_Kallen: I might get back to you later when I have time, but short answer, I don't think you have a good answer.

You can dodge torpedoes by a Shimakaze with unlimited torpedo reload boosters, so that's totally balanced and completely healthy to the game. That's roughly where your argument is heading.

You can easily beat a torp threat with hydro or scouting DDs. Although you're less likely with the latter because of radar, so you're shooting yourself in the foot there. Which is really the main issue here. Radar discourages DDs from scouting, which is one of their main jobs. How does torps discourage BBs from shooting at their vastly longer ranges? Or cruisers from behind islands, in smoke, or at longer ranges where they can dodge? You can easily enter "denied areas" held by guns or torps, since those threats are easily countered. The counter to radar is to not be there, which isn't actually a counter. It's avoiding conflict. Which is counterproductive to a game focused on conflict. A radar threat is not "similar". It's not like you can push in and force a conflict, because then you will die. It's like if you have a consumable that makes BBs unable to fire their guns for a couple of reloads. It just outright removes their main advantage without any counter. That's more similar. No, it's not even close to the same thing. Why are they the same? Do they have the same range, speed, damage, targets, counters, strategies? You're pretty much saying all weapons are the same, which is blatantly false. Making lousy arguments like that means you don't have anything better to say, so I suppose you just don't have a good argument. Say hello to all of the new Russian stealth radars. But no, the bad part isn't that it's hard avoiding them; it's that avoiding them makes the game stale. Radar has made me dislike playing cruisers more to a far greater extent than DDs. DD players have always had to think more than other players. You have so little health that one mistake will easily kill you. But no one told other players to think about where the DDs are when they're not spotted. So they got a tool for that so they don't have to think. Hypocrisy as usual. And you can't kill a radar cruiser behind an island.

It would be more healthy for the game than CVs and so-called non-premiums like Smolenks.

Step one: Remove CVs. Step two: Remove Smolenks and other technically not premium ships. Step three: Profit! No need to for an unknown step! WG, it's not that hard. You just suck at it.

I like how when players had a problem with DDs, they got radar to deal with them because they couldn't git gud. When DDs have a problem with radar they're instead told to git gud. Such hypocrisy. The game never needed radar. Players just needed to git gud. Sure, you can deal with radar. It just makes the game less enjoyable. It makes the game more stale. More radars means more passive play means more camping. And everyone loves camping, right? Well, that's what radar encourages. It's not the best way to deal with radar, but it's the easiest, so that's what players are going to do. Appeal to worse problems. Doesn't mean radar isn't bad. But yes, CVs should die in a fire. Make the game worse for all ships, not just DDs.

Well, at least a crap CV line is better than a good CV line. The less they can ruin the game the better.

Very much agreed. Always enjoyed Ocean regardless of which ship I've been in. Sadly I've only seen it once in two years, or something like that. Also agree that the North/Northern Lights maps are more or less the worst in the game. Any fun to be had on those maps is in spite of them, not thanks to them. #MoreOcean

Haru and Wooster at least have their weaknesses. Smolensk is just straight out OP and cancer. Kremlin is stupid.

Somewhere around 1M-1.5M FXP is a decent price, depending on the ship.