Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
ThinderChief

Radar: Reducing the number of radar ships to 2 per team/game.

131 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[D-O-G]
Players
1,048 posts
18,693 battles

 

I saw up to 5 radar ships in a game, i saw 3 vs 1 in a game, not only it changes the game in a negative way (contesting caps, camping, farming on DDs etc), but radar ships does not require as much skills to obtain a kill on a DD than radars simply equipped with hydro, or better, nothing.

 

There are too many of them, so limiting their number per team,/game seems a positive step in re-balancing teams and allowing DD to fulfill their role, in some games caps are just unplayable for DDs and there isn't any MM for radars.

 

 

shot-18.07.21_16.07.06-0316.jpg

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
[B0TS]
Players
152 posts
4,301 battles

Yes.
Personally i would limit them at 3. Including dds and bbs with radar.
At the same time i would also restrict dds to 3 per side, since having more than 3 dds defeats the purpose of the dd.
 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,624 posts
6,487 battles

No, I prefer a maximum of 12 possible radar ships per side. And not a single radar ship more!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,143 posts
9,348 battles

Yes, lets just magically erase all those ships that people queue in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONUS]
[BONUS]
Beta Tester
2,605 posts
6,673 battles

Where's Thanos when you need him?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Sailing Hamster
206 posts
8,430 battles

The worst I've seen thusfar was 7 radar ships versus 1. And my team didn't have the 7 -- this is even ignoring the hydro that some ships also had. So it was worse than 7.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D-O-G]
Players
1,048 posts
18,693 battles
2 hours ago, Kysmet said:

The worst I've seen thusfar was 7 radar ships versus 1. And my team didn't have the 7 -- this is even ignoring the hydro that some ships also had. So it was worse than 7.

 

 

I saw 5 i didn't think 7 was even possible. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Ouzo11 said:

Yes.
Personally i would limit them at 3. Including dds and bbs with radar.
At the same time i would also restrict dds to 3 per side, since having more than 3 dds defeats the purpose of the dd.
 

 

From my PoV, one radar per cap is one too much but i agree about the number of Dds, it should be simple for people to switch ship or tier if they find the queue too long.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
[B0TS]
Players
63 posts
6,899 battles
3 minutes ago, ThinderChief said:

 

I saw 5 i didn't think 7 was even possible. 

 

 

 

From my PoV, one radar per cap is one too much but i agree about the number of Dds, it should be simple for people to switch ship or tier if they find the queue too long.

 

 

Had a match 6 radars vs 7. Quite easy. Triple des moines division added with 2x missouri+some random chapayev/Edinburgh/cleveland. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FDUSH]
Players
1,044 posts
6,183 battles

NO! Radar for everybody (even for cvs!)

Seriously... Why dd players things the whole game centers around them? All what they want it's to sit down confortably on their smoke screen, without being able to be shooted back.
Sometimes I see COWARD dds hiding in smoke screen when I fly near them.

I'm starting to seriously consider playing dds again just to show that sitting in the smoke screen isn't the answer. I ALLWAYS go to the main battle, even when I play Cvs!!

PD: Seriously, CV players should also start opening lots of threads about limiting ships with defensive AA to only one or two per team since "Defensive aa it's killing cvs and nobody will want to play with them" and etc.  In that Match making the enemy one of the most powerful ships with AA.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,179 posts
13,947 battles
30 minutes ago, Sargento_YO said:

...Seriously, CV players should also start opening lots of threads about...

Where have you been? CVs have complained, complained, and complained more than an other ship type in the game since open beta.  I remember when they just hoped a single patch would come through that didn't have a nerf or WG screw up related to CVs.  Now they don't complain much because the WG balance train has ran them over so many times.. what is the point.  WG has finally broke the current CV and is throwing it.

 

There are people who will always complain about there toy... it isn't related to ship type.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,686 posts
6,353 battles

Reducing the number of radars with a hard cap is a band-aid solution at best. It doesn't address the problems with radar, just reduces the amount of them. Rarity is a very poor balancer.

 

32 minutes ago, Sargento_YO said:

All what they want it's to sit down confortably on their smoke screen, without being able to be shooted back.

Do you copy and paste that in all threads about radar? It's not even remotely true either. It's just the only strawman you know.

 

CVs are being reworked because they're broken (which includes ship AA), which any reasonably player agrees with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
471 posts
2,248 battles

Okay if BB is limited to 2 or 3 per team too. Then DD population automatically decrease meaning less need for radar

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,179 posts
13,947 battles
10 minutes ago, Yogibjoern said:

Okay if BB is limited to 2 or 3 per team too.

Do you really think that is likely?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5 posts
8,114 battles

Radar should work like spotting mechanic. With line of sight, and that would be ok. As it works it is destroying game. All other things require some skill and radar not. So close to quit... so close

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,179 posts
13,947 battles
9 minutes ago, VDSLight said:

Radar should work like spotting mechanic. With line of sight, and that would be ok. As it works it is destroying game. All other things require some skill and radar not. So close to quit... so close

WG stated that players are to stupid to understand radar, if it was line of sight.

 

Radar does require skill.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TS1]
Players
467 posts
7,152 battles
16 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

Radar does require skill.

It doesn't actually. It helps, since you get more out of radar with actual consistency if you use it with more skill, but it's not required to use it successfully.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,026 posts

How exactly do you think this limit of radars per team could be achieved? There are some complications.

1. Just because a ship can and usually does carry radar, is it a radar ship? Most can carry a spotter plane instead.

2. Just because a ship can, but often doesn't carry radar (RN cruisers, PA DD's) because it has to give up smoke, is it a radar ship?

3. Chapayev only gets radar with the B hull, is it a radar ship?

4. At higher tiers many cruisers have access to radar with a hard cap what would the effect be on queue times?

5. If queue times are badly changed do you really want to see even less cruisers played than current low numbers?

 

Those are just the immediate issues that leap to mind without any intensive thought.

Maybe your proposal (apart from being yet more of the anti radar spam threads) hasn't really been thought through.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D-O-G]
Players
1,048 posts
18,693 battles
5 hours ago, Sargento_YO said:

NO! Radar for everybody (even for cvs!)

Seriously... Why dd players things the whole game centers around them? All what they want it's to sit down confortably on their smoke screen, without being able to be shooted back.
Sometimes I see COWARD dds hiding in smoke screen when I fly near them.

I'm starting to seriously consider playing dds again just to show that sitting in the smoke screen isn't the answer. I ALLWAYS go to the main battle, even when I play Cvs!!

PD: Seriously, CV players should also start opening lots of threads about limiting ships with defensive AA to only one or two per team since "Defensive aa it's killing cvs and nobody will want to play with them" and etc.  In that Match making the enemy one of the most powerful ships with AA.

 

Sorry? Say again? Do you play DD often? 2 things: Smoke screens are torps magnets, if you want to get killed fast, then do it, second, my job is to spot, i will ALWAYS start on cap without the smoke to spot for the team, you can't spot zilth from a smoke bubble, not even incoming rushing gunboats or torps.

 

"Cowards", right... That's what i think of campers who spend their time scoring citadels from 25km + with BBs then complain getting torpedoed by Destroyers, or Missouri-pay-to-win who spend their time farming XP on DDs... Way too easy, again how much skills does it take again to hit the radar key? Flamu once said "DDs are a good source of XP", well he should have bitten his tong the day he thought of saying that one, especially when you see a Yamato with a DD for only kill at the end of the game...

 

How many time did i see a radar ship at the same spot from start to finish? Some of the games i played recently were lost because the guy in his Des Moines was not able to handle his ship without decking himself on rocks while a BB was trying to win the game 1 vs 3, together, they could have won it, that's what you get when you spend you time hugging islands.

 

Players always look for the unfair advantage since it's a rat race for specs, personally since i couldn't give a rat fart about it, i play the ships i have fun with, meaning not campers ships preferably and apart for the Missouri which can tank a little, all other radar ships are campers, that's how bad the increase in number of radar ships affected this game, sorry, we might just as well ask W.G to let us play from bunkers.

 

As for Cvs, not only they complain enough, but they also shouldn't say they are victimised, since they're the one with the most chance of surviving the game, playing at the end of the map and that most players, including myself will always feel protective of them. Enuff said.

 

4 hours ago, Yogibjoern said:

Okay if BB is limited to 2 or 3 per team too. Then DD population automatically decrease meaning less need for radar

 

Agreed, a more balanced formation including CV would result on better games all the time, mm needs to be un-FUBARed.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,179 posts
13,947 battles
6 hours ago, Runegrem said:

It doesn't actually. It helps, since you get more out of radar with actual consistency if you use it with more skill, but it's not required to use it successfully.

The skill level is very low, but it is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D-O-G]
Players
1,048 posts
18,693 battles
13 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

The skill level is very low, but it is there.

 

Right... Just as much skills as it take a Bhabarovsk player to win a gunshot vs a Shimakaze... It certainly is flattering but given the same ship i might win more often than not.

 

The thing is, any geezer now can get his hands on one of these and since everyone runs the rat race for how good their stats looks they will use radars for as long as they perceive they gain an advantage, regardless of the fact they they might not improve (stronger ships always make a difference) or that they like the ship or not.

 

Unbalance is not good for the game, people doesn't necessarily want to play for winning but fun, and some chose a ship because she is fun to play or look good, not necessarily because it will give them more wins, otherwise no one would play the Shimakaze  or Harugumo

 

7 hours ago, VDSLight said:

Radar should work like spotting mechanic. With line of sight, and that would be ok. As it works it is destroying game. All other things require some skill and radar not. So close to quit... so close

 

That's how it works in real life, unless you use trans-horizon technology and it's so huge it doesn't fit a ship.

 

If W.G could come up with the proper algorithm to simulate true reflection, Ships could hide behind relief, radar waves bounces on anything hard like rock and if one is behind it, you wouldn't detect it with a real radar.

 

Actually it would make the use of radar more collaborative and tactical than it is today, they would have to triangulate radar emission to cover an area where there is relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,179 posts
13,947 battles
9 minutes ago, ThinderChief said:

 

Right... Just as much skills as it take...

The level of skill is a different question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
[B0TS]
Players
152 posts
4,301 battles
4 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

How exactly do you think this limit of radars per team could be achieved? There are some complications.

1. Just because a ship can and usually does carry radar, is it a radar ship? Most can carry a spotter plane instead.

2. Just because a ship can, but often doesn't carry radar (RN cruisers, PA DD's) because it has to give up smoke, is it a radar ship?

3. Chapayev only gets radar with the B hull, is it a radar ship?

4. At higher tiers many cruisers have access to radar with a hard cap what would the effect be on queue times?

5. If queue times are badly changed do you really want to see even less cruisers played than current low numbers?

 

Those are just the immediate issues that leap to mind without any intensive thought.

Maybe your proposal (apart from being yet more of the anti radar spam threads) hasn't really been thought through.

1)If it has the radar consumable equiped, yes it is a radar ship.
2)Same as 1
3)When it buys the B hull yes.
4)Thats WGs issue. They should have thought things better instead of throwing radars everywhere.
5)No.The current number of cruisers is far from low btw!

The request is a valid one.Either that or los radar or less range and duration on radars.
The rest problems that come from trying to hard-cap radars per match is not our concern.
Wg has been shitting on dds for a long time now and that crap has to stop at some point.

 
 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
2,783 posts
11,545 battles
4 minutes ago, Ouzo11 said:

The request is a valid one.Either that or los radar or less range and duration on radars.
The rest problems that come from trying to hard-cap radars per match is not our concern.
Wg has been shitting on dds for a long time now and that crap has to stop at some point.

Capping the number of radar ships just isn't a good idea imo.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,686 posts
6,353 battles
5 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

4. At higher tiers many cruisers have access to radar with a hard cap what would the effect be on queue times?

5. If queue times are badly changed do you really want to see even less cruisers played than current low numbers?

Actually, one benefit is that it would make it far more viable to play other setups of the radar ships, since that could allow you to get into games faster, and people won't immediately report you for not carrying radar.

 

3 hours ago, ThinderChief said:

"Cowards", right... That's what i think of campers who spend their time scoring citadels from 25km + with BBs then complain getting torpedoed by Destroyers, or Missouri-pay-to-win who spend their time farming XP on DDs... Way too easy, again how much skills does it take again to hit the radar key? Flamu once said "DDs are a good source of XP", well he should have bitten his tong the day he thought of saying that one, especially when you see a Yamato with a DD for only kill at the end of the game...

Missouri isn't P2W, and they spend most of their time farming money. XP is just an added bonus. Not that it actually needs radar to be effective.

 

DDs are a good source of XP, and lying or hiding information when you're trying to get the playerbase to play better is bad, mkay?

 

I don't score that many kills in Yamato, and number of kills is largely irrelevant. Considering the damage potential, it's often better to let other players finish ships off rather than to snipe that last 2k-4k HP.

 

3 hours ago, ThinderChief said:

As for Cvs

All that needs to be said is that they're broken and are being reworked.

 

10 minutes ago, Ouzo11 said:

Either that or los radar or less range and duration on radars.

One important detail is that radar shouldn't have a set range, but rather increase the range of the detectability of all ships in spotting range and LoS to the radar ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×