Runegrem

Yeah. Most don't care. But there are also a lot of players complaining about how awful the higher tiers are who get the advice to play at mid-tier instead since everything's so much better there. So yes, there are problems, but they're lesser than on high tiers. And if I'm allowed to say so, there are far lesser problems with balance in general in the game than what many complain about. I don't quite get it either. By higher tiers torpedoes goes more and more towards rarely used nukes. That is, they have a horrible reload time, rarely actually hits, but when they do they cause massive damage. That leads to a lot of boring time waiting for the reload and then you might get lucky with a strike, then wait again. I think one of the problems is that flooding is so powerful. If you get a permaflood on a ship, that ship is basically dead. I heard they were looking into that though. Probably because of the new CVs who seem to have an easier time to cause permafloods. It doesn't really become a gunboat/torpedo line until the Akizuki; before that they're all standard IJN torpedo boats, more or less. And the Shiratsuyu should swap lines with the Akatsuki. Not sure what they were thinking there. CVs are generally better balanced at mid-tiers. They don't have the same nuking potential of higher tiers, but they're more present. And taking from what was stated before, since CVs are so much more present and can actually fulfill their scouting role, radar has no business being there. Except for the other Gearings, Shimas, hydro and planes. AFT and CE are range skills, they have a slightly different type of balance where just a few hundred meters more can make all the difference. Same with IFHE, since that's about overcoming thresholds. BFT (considering its DD main gun reload buff) and TAE however, are just straight DPM buffs. Having them be better at higher tiers is an interesting, but I haven't much thought about how it would affect balance. Yeah, reducing pen would only help part of the Haru-issue. I think her job of preventing torp-boats from torping friendlies is fine though. She's just a little too powerful.

Is it from today's update? Or the last one? Since lately I've seen more of 1-3 tier 8 ships in tier 10 games. So, fewer tier 8 gets to play against tier 10, but the ones that do get to be (almost) alone in their struggle.

The option for a default container would also help when you forget or don't have time to choose your containers for the day. Since now it will pick one at random (correct me if I'm wrong about this. And it doesn't pick TYL) at the end of the day if you haven't picked yet.

Ah, so that's what you were talking about. It wasn't very clear exactly what you meant. No matter. Thing is, there's nothing that points to cruisers camping because of DDs and a lot that points to them camping because of BBs. Though I'd say BBs still camp more on average. No, it's not. CA vs DD is not in DDs favour at all. DDs, aside from Harugumo, aren't overbuffed against BBs. DDs don't kill BBs; BBs kill BBs. Harugumo, and the other ships with 100mm main guns are too powerful against heavy armour, yes. I think the 1/4 HE pen they have should be 1/5 pen instead. That will make it equal to standard 120mm guns, which have perfectly adequate penetration for a DD. I haven't done the research myself, but from what I gather it's not that useful to have IFHE with 127mm-130mm guns. And I've never heard it's in common use, so that's not a big concern. Low and mid-tiers are generally fine balance wise. I think. I don't actually play there much. But from what I've heard, it's fine. There's nothing that suggest that using cruisers as a baseline for balancing would nerf DDs. And WG doesn't have a great history of listening to DD players. There's been a few things lately that they've listened to, but in general, no. Don't even pretend that cruisers or radar have anything to do with that. And there hasn't been a torpedo problem since the old Shima 20km torps were actually good (or at least viable).

Balancing is usually best approached from both sides. That way you can do it with smaller changes. Also, anti-DD-DDs probably started with the Russian ones. Mostly considering they're the least DD-like DDs. They're more fair though, since they actually have a significant weakness in their concealment. The Harugumo also has, along with the other two similar DDs, just a little too much power against heavier ships with their 1/4 HE pen. 1/5 pen would probably have been better. You said yourself that BBs were the ones used as a balancing point. Wasn't that what you meant? Please clarify otherwise. Compared to torpedoes, yes. Why do you think they limit the amount of radar per match? They don't limit the amount of torpedoes. They're not even close in comparison. And then have the cruiser dodge them with nary an afterthought thanks to hydro.

Because you have the ultimate anti-torpedo consumable? And after that you probably have some plane that could help. Best way of fixing Shima is to buff Shima. And Shima torps are so easy to detect it's a meme by now, so they aren't particularily effective. You call sending a few ineffective torps ever other minute to be bullying? You can cap in less time than it takes for a DD to reload her torps. Radar cooldown is about the same or lower than torpedo reload for comparison (Z-52 being the exception). They aren't in higher tiers, correct. But that's not because of DDs. It's because of BBs. And BBs fare far worse than cruisers when dealing with DDs. But at least we agree on that, cruisers should be the standard since they are the "average" type. So, I should talk about ships you aren't familiar with? That sounds awfully deceptive. I prefer to be honest.

Yeah. Old North which is current Northern Lights is the worst map in the game. Not only can so much be controlled by a single ship, but the tall chain of islands in the middle make players either huddle close to it or camp far away with little inbetween. It really becomes a contest of who camps the best since it's far too often decided just by who makes the first mistakes. Radar factors into it, but map design is easier to change without players feeling cheated.

I think it'd be good if the skill floor for DDs went down a little bit. Make it so that it's a little easier to not be a burden on your team in them. The problem is that it limits them from getting at the BB players. Maybe it's just me, but they need a culling. I find the most problems with radar balance is the range of the radar vs the size of the caps. And it's also a bit too powerful against smoke since it completely reverses the advantage of smoke. At range, no, it's not lethal, but it will get you more hurt. It's mostly only directly lethal if you're already in a kind of vulnerable position you need to get out of. I tend to damecon fairly quickly in DDs. But that's if I think I can live without it for the short cooldown it has on DDs, which is most of the time. I find it's best to wait until just before the next salvo hits to use it if you want to use it quickly, then you're immune for at least one full reload. Like I said, Hindi is more focused on killing bigger ships. But the general gist of it is that higher tiers are less forgiving for DDs (yes, for cruisers as well, but not because of DDs), regardless of what some of the ships' stats might indicate. Yeah, I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure. And your friend's comment was more serious. (I think he got it too though.)

Sure, brain always works, but it takes more brain to deal with radar if you also want to not camp. And radar doesn't help with DDs not dying early. Radar makes DDs die earlier, which makes radar more "necessary", which makes the role of radar self-fulfilling. Like I said, Hindi has bigger shells which cause more module damage. Module damage in a DD is nothing to scoff at. There's a reason almost everyone considers Last Stand to be an absolute necessity. And the Hindi in particular isn't specialised against DD, but against heavier ships with the high pen, low damage HE and, in theory, high damage AP. Also, in this case it was about the DD starting the fight. So concealment is less of little importance. I can't tell because Poe's Law and all that, but please tell me you understood that that was a joke. And yes, I'm aware that Poe's Law works both ways. This wasn't about a team fight. Of you lose four ships in the first 3 minutes, why do you think you deserve to win? If the problem is that DDs die too early, make them harder to kill, not easier. That seems to mean you had the better team. Or just outplayed him. Either way, such things should be rewarded, yes?

Then which type of ship is the mos affected by the heavy BB meta? It's certainly neither CVs nor DDs. Is it other BBs? Well, it's true that the constant 5BB matches makes BBs camp more, but BBs aren't the ones getting deleted left, right and center by BBs if they aren't very careful. Unless the cruiser is a complete potato hydro quite effectively stops torpedoes from landing so cruisers can just bully the DD out of the caps. You don't have to kill all ships to win, you know. Also, as I said before, it's a team game. And spotting is the job of DDs. A type doesn't have to be able to counter every single strength another type has in order to be consider its counter. If I recall correctly, there are islands in the game, both hydro and planes see through them. In this case it's more about taking potshots at long range and not a longer engagement. The thing is that the Hindenburg is more likely to do serious damage and cause fires and engine failures than a Nurnberg. And those are very dangerous to a DD. And the only things that the Kebab doesn't get like the other DDs concealment and torpedo range. So what you're worried about is torpedoes. In a cruiser. The Shima line? Which is most often said to be the weakest tier 10 DD by far and is often considered more or less irrelevant in the current meta? That's what you consider good balance? Stat shaming? Really? Stop that bullcrap. And tell me, how accurate is WR after 20 games? You couldn't take a look at the other stats, which are far more accurate at those amounts of games. Of course not. Your interest lies in stat shaming, not accuracy. Also, like I said earlier, I wasn't talking about trying to take one down (unless it's very low on HP, but that's another matter), I was talking about taking pot shots, possibly risking one or three salvos of return fire.

Have you at all been following the meta lately? Cruisers are the ones most affected by the heavy BB meta. Though to be fair, they're not the ones playing the most passively; that'd be the BBs. But with fewer BBs it's easier to angle against the ones that are there, which helps both cruisers and BBs advance without getting crippled, especially since AP is the most common source of damage in the game. High tier is 8-10. There're lots of comments about tier 8 ships seeing mostly tier 10 battles. There were also some stats somewhere that said that tier 8 was the worst tier in terms of being uptiered. Tier 5 was the second worst and tier 7 was the best (tier 10 not counted). No, brain always works. (But if you're playing a BB it's a bit superfluous.) WoWs is not a 1vs1 game. It's a team game. And as such it should be balanced for team play. Cruisers have tools like hydro and spotter planes, which can spot both ships and torpedoes. Well, it's a good thing that DDs can't kill cruisers with impunity then. Well, the Dallas -> Wooster is an increase of some 120%, Aoba -> Zao is an increase of some 75% and Leander -> Minotaur is an increase of just over 200%, so there is a marked increase in firepower within the same caliber. That said, from personal experience with the German ones I can say that the Hinderburg is more dangerous to DDs than the Nurnberg. I'm more likely to open fire against a Nurnberg in my Podvoisky than I am to open fire against a Hindenburg in my Kebab. It's not just about salvo damage. It's also about the damage the shells do to the modules of the ships. A bigger caliber has a bigger splash radius and thus does more damage to things like AA and engines on average. On the extreme end you have the Conqueror's HE, which can utterly wreck a DD's ability to function if you don't have repair available. Bigger calibers also tend to cause more fires, which doesn't do a whole lot of damage to a DD but they increase detection markedly. There are far more stats that matter than thse you mentioned, but that's less important because the game isn't pure stats. The entire meta shifts at higher tiers. So to pick a few stats and claim they fairly represent the overall progression of a ship line is inaccurate at best. Ah, someone who actually treats this issue as a team thing. So essentially radar was meant to fill the space CVs couldn't because they are utterly broken? Which also means it's not that cruisers need radar, it's that the team needs something to counter DDs stealth that's more effective than caterpult planes and hydro and isn't other DDs. And cruisers were the natural ships to get it because they were the support ships with their AA and other consumables already. Besides, BBs were powerful enough as it was. Yeah. I was saying something like it earlier. Many maps are designed so that you can sit behind an island an spot an entire cap with radar. This is why I prefer the larger caps, like in Trap or the various versions of Islands of Ice (even if the new one has too many islands within the caps). I think larger caps (with the surrounding area scaled accordingly) would be a nice change to counter the excessive radar. Well, clearly the radar didn't kill you, the Stalingrad did.

So, your example of the cruiser progression is to compare the DPM a heavy DPM light cruiser (just 2% worse than the Dallas at tier 6) with a low DPM heavy cruiser and pretend that's a fair example of fire power. Heavy cruisers exchange high DPM for high alpha. The Des Moines is a bit of a special example, but that's compensated by the US rainbow arcs. Could you please explain what you mean in clearer terms. Brain.exe So, you're talking about a super hard counter. The kind that let's you kill with impunity. That's bad game design. Unless you're playing Rock, Paper, Scissors. WoWs is a little more complex than that. No, it wasn't. If it really was needed then all cruisers would get it. But for some reason even matches without radars on high tiers work out just fine. I do just fine in my Mogami for example. Me? Play passively? What are you smoking? I don't play passively even if it would help my winrate. That's boring. I don't do boring.

Yeah. It's been requested before, but I suspect WG think players will just "abuse" that.

I was actually gonna ask too. But then I remembered I actually did what you're implying once. When I had fewer ships. But now? Eh, I'd rather play another match in the Missouri than have to deal with WG's idea of a good UI for that amount of fiddling.

Getting more XP for spotting than for firing the pea-shooters at the BB. Good joke. Please don't do this. Everyone knows exactly who you mean since you're currently debating with him. If it's someone not involved in this thread, fine, but now it just makes you look a little silly. Relative strength going up or down with tiers isn't indicative of much of any tier being unbalanced. Things change and that's okay. And don't pretend that radar is the only thing that allows cruisers to counter DDs. And DDs do not directly counter cruisers. Cruisers don't NEED radar. It certainly helps them a lot, but they don't need it. After all, they didn't need it before radar was introduced. They really really want it though. Except for the UK ones; they generally choose not to use radar. And the reason for passivity is the constant 5BBs. Like what @DFens_666 said, get one of your five BBs and the odd cruiser to shoot the radar cruiser. DDs aren't supposed to deal with them directly. Though the Kebab is certainly good at dealing with the US ones.

Udaloi was strange back in the old line as well, but then due to having better concealment than the other ships. Weird how things work out.

Your argument posts are mostly reasonable and I have little to no problem with the parts of them that aren't, because that's what happens in debate. It's often caused by misunderstandings. Your wild accusations posts aren't reasonable. No. I said it's often quite hard to do that. I try to not use absolute statements unless I actually mean them. There's a reason for that, so don't say I did if I didn't. In this case it wasn't actually important that they were complaints. I could just as well have replaced the word "complaints" with "reports". And both those reports and complaints come from all sides. DD players complain that they get deleted easily, BB players complain about their DDs die too quickly and that they then have to camp harder and cruiser players complain that they need radar since their DD players die so quickly they have to have a hard counter against the enemy DDs. The point of my line there was to say that it happens a lot and everyone knows it. Whether the complaints were justified or not wasn't actually important, just that they signify that it happens. I don't think my argumentation is collapsing and I don't feel particularily defensive. I just feel a bit disappointed that you can't maintain a civil discussion like your friend. I also haven't denied that DDs get information with X-ray radar; I've just said it's less important than them actually being radared. Like I said earlier, there's a reason I don't like to use absolute statements. I could continue this, but at this point it's just a debate about degrees of danger and neither of us thinks radar becoming LoS is an optimal solution anyway. So how about just agree that we disagree about the details and agree about the solution? Yeah. That one does make sense. But making sense does not protect it from feeling suboptimal. Though it matters very little since CVs are so uncommon at those tiers anyway.

Okay, we both agree that both happens. The thing that didn't make sense was that it's more dangerous for a DD to not know if he's being radared than if he's actually radared. Both things are still a concern though, which is, amongst other things, why I'm not sure exactly how radar being LoS would affect fun for players involved and why I don't think that's the best solution. That depends on if you define a valid complaint as "this thing happened and I didn't like it", which is a valid definition of a valid complaint. But that's just semantics. Either way I don't think those particular complaints hold much weight though. Ideally you should balance a game around everyone. But since that's not realistic I think it's better to concentrate first on the, say, 45% WR and up players. And if that's not possible, then adjust the WR number up until it becomes possible because top players should always be considered since they can affect so much by themselves. Competitive play is also of some importance. Limiting the amount of times something is a problem has always felt like a suboptimal solution to me. It's better to limit the effect of the cause of the problems instead.

And I see DDs not behind islands in caps all the time. I find that it happens more often than them sitting behind islands. So you've seen what you say happen on YT and Twitch? And you've never seen DDs gotten radared in the open from a cruiser not in the open? So where do all the complaints that surprise radars often kill DDs come from then? Are you actually using that as an argument? Honestly? I thought you were above such silly things. If you're adding words like "always", "COMPLETELY", "all", perfectly", "impossible", "totaly[sic]", "everyone" and "0.0001 sec" and have them applied to my posts while your posts surely are just sooo reasonable, then you're just exaggerating to pretend it's an actual argument. Stop. that. bullcrap. And you know damn well that's not a summary. That's just the strawman you want to argue against. Why you do this? We had a fairly fair argument up until now. Then you just have to bring in the lies and exaggerations. I don't think your side of the argument was going so badly for you to have to resort to that, so why you do this? It's not conducive to productive discussion.

The Udaloi is a bit special. Before the line split it was the odd one with actually useable concealment between the unstealthy Tashkent and Kebab. Now it's the odd one with questionable concealment between the competitively stealthy Ognevoi and Grozovoi. She also has an interesting torpedo layout with two side mounted tubes and one center mounted tube. This gives her very good forward angles good for knife fights and yoloing. And if you actually use all of them you have 15 torpedoes. However, I haven't actually played her in a long while so I'm not sure how the current meta favors the different playstyles she offers.

Often, DDs don't sit behind islands. It's the cruiser who does. One of the more important jobs for the DD is to spot, and you can't do that from behind islands. So being radared from behind an island most often mean you aren't in cover to start with. I've said earlier in this thread that I don't think that making radar LoS is the best solution. It's a change that might or might not have a good effect. The main thing about it here is that I think that some of the arguments against it make no sense. The bigger problem are the ranges involved. Which means: either change the radar range or the layout and size of maps. You don't actually need that much of a change, just 1-2km, since a lot of the time the US radar just barely covers the entire caps from behind islands (RU radar can cover even the bigger caps like on Trap). It'd be better if they don't cover the entire caps so that they'll either have to move forward a bit out of cover or rely on other means of spotting if they want to be absolutely sure that no DD can be in the cap. Bigger caps also allow for DDs to contest caps more easily, which leads to more dynamic DD play.

Kinda hilarious to see you objecting to me opening my post with "No" because it's telling someone they're wrong when you opened the post just before that with "Wrong". And I disagree about that being rude. Saying just "no" or "wrong" and then following that with an explanation of why isn't rude; that's just how discussions work most of the time. Being dismissive of someone's understanding just because he disagrees is rude. What's your point about that pic? That the Cleveland can't shoot at you? The island doesn't look that high in the middle. Looks like the Missouri just 12.7km away can shoot you over it, though probably not if you move forward and to the left a little bit. So you found a good island to hide behind. Those exist; that's not in dispute.

Yes, you get more information if radar isn't LoS, but so does the enemy. They get your exact position and can lock on to you and shoot at you. In what world isn't that a clear and direct danger? Also, if the radar ship isn't spotted you still don't know what cover you shouldn't move away from. That last sentence is just rude. Don't assume I don't understand just because I don't agree. And you don't get to tell me what there is from me.

No. If you're sitting there not knowing, you're not currently spotted and no one can shoot at you. If you're sitting there radared, there's a high chance someone somewhere can shoot at you. One situation is clearly more dangerous than the other.

Still sounds like case two would make case one happen less often, which would mean fewer dead DDs. Also, the whole argument that not knowing when it's safe to leave cover is more dangerous than actually being radared is just wrong. Real danger is more dangerous than potential danger, not the other way around.