ForlornSailor

Line of sight radar will make DD-gameplay much harder. That... would literally make radar useless. A DD sitting in smoke in the range and with direct LoF to a radar ship deserves to die Why dont you, instead of complain, rather use your energy to ask for advice how to play? Your views show, you dont know much about how to play a DD. Some guys from the community have already made very informative guides for DDs, how to play on high tiers. Playing a high tier DD right now is awesome. Broke my all time XP record with Fletcher this week. In something like the 3rd game in it, beeing completly stock.

Why you have to torture those poor souls with your superiour game knowldege cheats?

*edited*

Magic 8-ball tells me: your team lost!

For a long time, I only needed Fiji to be happy in this game. Now its Fiji & Fletcher. And the "WTF" moment of the day goes to Fiji aswell - courtesy of the Roma armor:

Yea I know that its not sarcasm, coming from you. And you totaly missed my position. Not that it matters for anything and nor do I care :) Absolutly not. I have a problem with people tho, that put words in my mouth, ignore arguments and nitpick about semantics for pages and pages.

You want constructive? ok here we go. You want to use Winrate as a meassurement to shut out players from high tiers. Alright. so we shut out everyone south of 45%. What do you think will happen to the players, that have had 46~48% up until then? They keep playing, lose more and will - big surprise - go below 45% WR over time. So np, we shut them out aswell. But then, the players, that used to have 50% WR, have dropped below 45%, because there are no bad players around anymore, compared to them. But its np - we just kick them too. Now we have pushed down the players, that have had originaly a WR of 51 to 53%, to the end of the foodchain, so they reach <45% WR. BANHAMMER !! Do I need to continue or do you understand how flawed your argumentation is from the start?

That is a reasonable, straight-forward and balanced suggestion. WG - please hire this guy to make wows great again. ty.

*sigh* a) WGs example is totaly not realistic. Its theory which cant even happen in praxis b) please read my post with a realistic example above c) use common sense and logic before going into "the world will end!!11"-mode Thank you.

Yes. Ill add my example: For example, British Conqueror BB gets flooding in the bow and stern because it's hit by torpedo and used DCP after 30 sec of flood: - Pre-rework flooding would cause ~16 600 damage - Two simultaneous new floodings cause ~24 900 damage The WG example is non-practical anyway. Hardly anyone is flooding for 90 sec. Lets not be overdramatic, rather be realistic. Please use common sense and think.

The 6 sec spotting delay on radar maybe? Well. you can cause two floodings now. That might even give you more damage as before, if you hit a BB.

How thick are you? I state Worcester is OP, you deny Kamikaze is OP. Yet im the one who is not beeing resonable. Also, for all other parts, you chose to ignore everything that is inconvenient to you, because if you´d react to that, you could only in a way, that would strengthen my position and weaken yours. So you stay silent about it. Its clear, you dont understand what balancing is, you only want to push your favourite toys. You claim "there are things to deal with DDs" yes TOTALY dismiss there are a million ways to deal with radar. #donewithyou Yea right. with a 4 km range. You are really trying hard to look foolish. Radar range on all russian Cruisers go up to 12 km. Radar time on Stalingrad goes up to 30 sec, as all other RU Cruisers get +5 sec radar duration. Radar range on all silver RN CLs gets buffed to 10 km.

Sounds like the conclusion of a Troll "BB guns are more powerful so we dont need Cruiser to have guns". Any normal, neutral person would conclude "So if hydro is more powerful, then we don't need to mind radar. Every ship can have one" So, since that was your answer to my quote, you arent really interested in dscussion the subject, just make a fuzz about if it was on page 42 or 43. Thats mature and really helpful. The question you asked doesnt make sense. For what reason would a team, that has lost one or two ships more then the enemys, automatically have less tools available? Might aswell be that red team lost 2 of their 2 radar ships, while green team hsnt lost any of their 2 radar ships, but instead 4 BBs. Then how does your "you want a team with less ships to have the same tools available" make sense in that context? It doesnt even make sense when you´d limit it to firepower, since a team with a ship down can still have more raw firepower. And then there are mapsize, islands, storms etc. that mix this all up and can even give a team with 3 ships more tools in the fight then the opponent team with 7 ships left. So you might want to rethink your question. It doesnt matter. Its still around all the time. You just try to dismiss the point, because you know exactly why Kamikaze is so strong: There is no counter play to it. And the fastest, stealthiest DDs on high tiers would literally become Kamikazes if you´d remove radar and there is no CV around in that game. But yea, its not like this is the ultimate goal of the DD-whining fraction. Its the same as BB-whiners wanting to remove fires, floodings and islands. So if you go down that road, I will call you out for it. Then you dont have balance in mind, but are fighting to create an ultimate, invicible damage farming class. I´d also like to highlight, that Kamikaze is your 5th most played ship. So I can understand why you react allergic, if someone suggest to bring radar to your tier. Although I have no respect for your rejection. If you truly, would fight for the balance of the game, you´d argue to nerf Kamikaze or would support my suggestions to bring a weaker version of radar to T5, since you know exactly, what is wrong with Kamikaze. Your answer to this will greatly decide your credibility in this discussion. Yes, the way the economy is desgined in the game (and the feedback the game is giving the players), will create "solo warriors" with nothing else in mind then damage farming. Ive disconnected myself from this way of thinking. It took some time and was a longer process, but in terms of winning games, it paied off. Nowadays, I can only smile when I see videos on youtube "320k damage in DM but lost the game" as its clear as daylight to me, why those people lose these games. Im fighting for a long time in other discussions, to give more XP for other things then dealing damage. If you look at the stats, tier per tier, and compare the classes, you find out, that DDs have the lowest avarage XP. Cruisers beeing slightly better usualy and if we take T10 as an example, BBs are always ~200 XP ahead of DDs. This shows a huge imbalance. In my book, on average, all classes should gain the same XP. WG has direct access to this data. It would be easy to adjust the XP given for things. Its infact much easier then to balance damage, hydro, radar or any other tool in the game. Yet they are not touching it. Which brings us to the conclusion: WG is happy or ignorant about the situations. I might just start a new thread and bring the attention of WG to the matter. Later today, when I find some time. Want to gather some more data and present it in a decent way.

If someone is / you are not willing to accept this role - DDs are not for you / them. You can get decent XP by not dealing damage. Only one example attached. All we´d need is a direct feedback which action nets you what reward (other games have no problem doing this - just let it pop up "+200 XP - objective captured" and the problem would solve itself, because some thickheadded DDs, that sit in their own shima smoke slow-dakkaing a Yamato would understand, they just made a staggering 23 XP in the last 90 sec.

Unless you play US DDs like I do (with def AA) and shoot down any spotter/fighter for the lolz. That beeing said: I do run def AA, because those planes are often annoying and I want them taken care of. Most annoying thing is: leftover planes from cruiser that are long dead. Actually, Hydro is a counter to DDs and RN CLs and very annoying at that. In my eyes and experiance: its way more dangerous then radar. Radar is short and the radar ship doesnt get much salvos off (lets not talk about Worcester, that abomination is complelty stupid). So I can dodge incoming stuff during radar and play some tricks against the enemys. Cant do that with Hydro since you want to put distance between you and the Hydroship ASAP. Also, Hydro is a much stronger offensive weapon as radar. With the long active time, you can push pretty safe in late game. Also, it spots torps, which radar doesnt. And on top of that: so many ships have Hydro these days, that you could deny a DD almost all damage - if people would be so intelligent to teamplay and communicate. The fact, that this isnt happening, is the reason, why we dont see more whine about Hydro. Still, from the potential, Hydro is a much stronger tool then Radar ever could be.

How come, even flamuu couldnt stop a Kamimaze ~last week? The guy was 2vs6, at some point alone, and killed em all. Obviously a good player. Someone said before, there is a need for radar on low tiers, in a weaker form. I support that. A) it prepares not so good people for what they will be meeting starting slowly on T5 anyway B) its a counter to sealclubbers. Have you checked? there are MANY players, that have Kamikaze-clones as their most played ship. Usualy a 60%+ WR, while they suck on high tier DDs with <50% WR. Why? You think they dont know how to DD all of a sudden? Why do they keep playing Kamikaze? Then you didnt check right or this thread got spammed so hard that its already three pages down. but yea, who cares at this point. after 2 posts of me, saying i said it, 2 posts of you, saying, i didnt, lets bump the counter to 5 useless posts, quoting myself for they x-time, saying it: Do I need to quote this on page 47 of this thread again? Your question is wrong. You are asking "should a team with less remaining ships have the same amount of radar available as the team with more ships?" Dont think thats the question you want to ask?

I think you are right, I came to the same conclusion. Im not sure how and if I will play my DDs after the rework. Going straight for the cap in a CV game? Madness. You will be spotted & attacked. The best thing is, to go behind your Cruisers & BBs and let them get the aggro. Ofc, this situation doesnt change during the game so... how im suppose to play for the objective, I cant tell. If the red CV is somewhat competent - you will never cap an objetictive. The new CVs are faster in cycling through squads then you need time to cap. So best is, you can hope to get some stupid CV, that goes around the mapborder to snipe the enemy CV, os somehow manages to lose that many planes so quick, that he will run into the respawn limiting.

Thanks for the heads up

Why is it hard to say if radar has an impact on WR? Stats are you friend. https://wows-numbers.com/de/ship/4181636560,Tschapaew/ https://wows-numbers.com/de/ship/4180587984,Dmitri-Donskoi/ https://wows-numbers.com/de/ship/4179539408,Moskwa/ Old New Orleans, Salem and Buffalo have the worst WR on T8-T9-T10. All Radar ships.

Funny. You where there? Just a hint: you are completly wrong about that. Please close wows-wiki and stop citing theory. Look whats happening in the reality. You are wrong about that too. On the last page I explained why there is a need for radar. You seem to have missed it. Wont get into details again, we are turning in circles here. So the team that is already weakend should have less tools to defend themself. Thats a good approach to balance.

No. Dont you pay attention what happens on the server? Do you see my screen? On the last 2 pages, 2 people claim 2 things: - A DD has no chance against a radar cruiser 1vs1 - A DD with shorter range torpedos has no chance against a cruiser. Tell me, how my screenshot is possible then. I said it before: we can all look at wikipedia and say "oh yea, thats 100% impossible because this and that" but it does not reflect the reality whats happening on the servers! And thats the only thing that counts.

@Runegrem Capra - as usual - wrote a lot of BS. He doesnt understand huge part of the game and it shows. He is just a biased DDaisy, but for some reason, those group of people are not getting called out enough. You see one remark of a BBaby and everyone is all over them, rightfully, for their stupidity. About DDs vs Radar ships: They sure have the capability to track me on the map and follow me around, like I shows in my recent example. 3 DDs, all of them do nothing else then activly follow me around the map. So if they can understand where im going they could easily avoid me. Which they chosed not to. Its lack of knowledge how to play the game and there is no excuse for it. Btw: about flamuu. Sure, he is recommending radarships because that is his personal view. I will always try to bring a ship with radar myself or atleast have one on my division bring one. You think, because radar is so strong? Not exactly. Because you can not rely on the glue-army that is called your team. I dont play many games, have like what, 20 the last week? I can show you a Worcester getting killed my Khabarovks torps and a Moskva too stupid to radar a Shima eventho I told them both, there is a DD in front of them only from the last days again. We have too many stupid people around and we need to stop building arguments around that, ultimatly excusing dumb behavoir! We can not dumb down the game more - those people need to learn to play!

or... they will just stop playing the day 0.8.0 hits the server. Then what you gonna do

Why? Why? Why? Why? Given what we see on the servers: 50/50. Saw a lone Yugumo die to a lone Izumo today. Nothing within 20 km. When you see this happen, you realize, all the talk here in the forums, "who-beats-what" and "which-class-has-no-chance" is utter non-sense.

Yes. Its a little bit confusing, since the Stalingrad-class would have had the same names, granted. Here are the links to the three different classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronshtadt-class_battlecruiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad-class_battlecruiser https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/66.htm